<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27978.wais]
BUILDING AMERICA'S COMPETITIVENESS:
EXAMINING WHAT IS NEEDED TO
COMPETE IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
April 6, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-34
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-978 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, California, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin, Vice George Miller, California,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Sam Johnson, Texas Major R. Owens, New York
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Judy Biggert, Illinois Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Ric Keller, Florida John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Jon C. Porter, Nevada David Wu, Oregon
John Kline, Minnesota Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Susan A. Davis, California
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Cathy McMorris, Washington Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Kenny Marchant, Texas Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Tom Price, Georgia Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico Tim Ryan, Ohio
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana [Vacancy]
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
York
[Vacancy]
Vic Klatt, Staff Director
Mark Zuckerman, Minority Staff Director, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 6, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Chairman, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, Ranking Minority Member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Norwood, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Georgia, prepared statement of.................... 73
Statement of Witnesses:
Chao, Hon. Elaine L., Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of
Labor...................................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Jarrett, James, Vice President, Worldwide Government Affairs,
Intel Corp................................................. 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 48
Jurey, Wes, President and CEO, Arlington, TX, Chamber of
Commerce................................................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Simons, James H., President, Renaissance Technologies Corp... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Spellings, Hon. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education,
U.S. Department of Education............................... 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Responses to questions posed at the hearing.............. 79
Additional Materials Supplied:
McCollum, Hon. Betty, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, various articles:
``MNSCU Puts Priority on Math and Science,'' from the St.
Paul Pioneer Press, March 9, 2006...................... 73
``A Conversation; On Education in Minnesota; Competing
With the World,'' from the Minneapolis ``Star-
Tribune,'' March 6, 2006............................... 74
``While We Are Sleeping,'' presentation to National
Association of Independent College and University State
Executives [NAICUSE], February 6, 2006................. 77
BUILDING AMERICA'S COMPETITIVENESS:
EXAMINING WHAT IS NEEDED TO
COMPETE IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
----------
Thursday, April 6, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard McKeon
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McKeon, Petri, Castle, Norwood,
Platts, Tiberi, Keller, Osborne, Wilson, Porter, Kline, Inglis,
McMorris, Fortuno, Foxx, Drake, Kuhl, Miller, Kildee, Owens,
Andrews, Scott, Woolsey, Hinojosa, McCarthy, Tierney, Kind,
Kucinich, Wu, Holt, Davis of California, McCollum, Davis of
Illinois, Van Hollen, Ryan, and Bishop.
Staff present: James Bergeron, Counsel to the Chairman;
Robert Borden, General Counsel; Steve Forde, Director of Media
Relations; Ray Grangoff, Legislative Assistant; Richard Hoar,
Professional Staff Member; Kimberly Ketchel, Communications
Staff Assistant; Vic Klatt, Staff Director; Jim Paretti,
Workforce Policy Counsel; Krisann Pearce, Deputy Director of
Education and Human Resources Policy; Molly McLaughlin Salmi,
Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Deborah L. Emerson
Samantar, Committee Clerk/Intern Coordinator; Rich Stombres,
Assistant Director of Education and Human Resources Policy;
Toyin Alli, Staff Assistant; Ellynne Bannon, Legislative
Associate/Education; Alice Cain, Legislative Associate/
Education; Jody Calemine, Counsel, Employer and Employee
Relations; Ruth Friedman, Legislative Associate/Education;
Lauren Gibbs, Legislative Associate/Education; Lloyd Horwich,
Legislative Associate/Education; Tom Kiley, Communications
Director; Ricardo Martinez, Legislative Associate/Education;
Joe Novotny, Legislative Assistant/Education; Marsha Renwanz,
Legislative Associate/Labor; Michele Varnhagen, Labor Counsel/
Coordinator; and Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director/General
Counsel.
Chairman Mckeon [presiding]. A quorum being present, the
Committee on Education and the Workforce will come to order.
We are holding this hearing today to hear testimony on
building America's competitiveness, examining what is needed to
compete in a global economy.
Under committee rule 12(b), opening statements are limited
to the chairman and the ranking minority member of the
committee. Therefore, if other members have statements, they
will be included in the hearing record.
With that, I ask unanimous consent for the hearing record
to remain open 14 days to allow members' statements and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us at this
hearing, which will focus on what our nation can do to improve
our ability to compete in the rapidly changing global economy.
I am pleased to welcome both of our panels today and extend
a warm welcome back to Secretary of Labor Chao and Secretary of
Education Spellings. Both of these Cabinet officials work
closely with the Education and Workforce Committee, and it is
always a pleasure to have them with us, particularly when we
discuss a topic as important as today's.
This marks my first full committee hearing as chairman of
this panel, and I am especially pleased that building American
competitiveness is our theme for the day. That is because I
truly believe that building American competitiveness is a
fundamental focus for our committee.
The issues we deal with here each impact our nation's
ability to compete in meaningful ways. We work to improve
America's labor laws, expand access to quality health care,
protect worker pensions, and strengthen our education and
training systems from early childhood education to higher
education, to workforce training programs. In short, we have a
unique opportunity and responsibility to enhance U.S.
competitiveness.
As our country embarks on its third century, we are faced
with the challenge of new realities. These realities include a
global economy in which Americans are not only competing with
each other for jobs but with workers in nations around the
world. And these realities include an economy that requires
technology, innovation and new ideas as engines of growth. In
many ways, we have left the age of muscle and the machine and
have definitively entered the age of the mind. And this
committee is at the forefront in deciding what steps we must
take next.
Just a week ago today, the House took one of those steps by
approving the College Access and Opportunity Act, which will
enhance American competitiveness by expanding college access
and by strengthening math, science and critical foreign
language education at the college level.
For example, within the existing Byrd Honors Scholarship
Program, the bill offers a comprehensive approach to
strengthening American competitiveness in math and science. It
provides honors scholarships to students pursuing an
undergraduate, masters or doctoral degree in science, math or
engineering. It allows for up to $5,000 in student loan
interest to be paid on behalf of individuals with degrees in
science or math who serve as teachers or other professionals in
those fields. And it establishes a framework to help states
better coordinate and implement reforms that improve math and
science education, as well as teacher recruitment and training.
I would like to commend my committee colleagues, Mr. Ehlers
and Mr. Holt, for their work to include these vital provisions
in the bill.
While we considered this bill on the floor last week,
another committee colleague, Representative McMorris,
introduced an amendment to make this bill even stronger in its
aims to enhance American competitiveness.
Incorporating key components of President Bush's American
Competitiveness Initiative, which I am sure we will hear about
today from Secretaries Chao and Spellings, the McMorris
amendment will increase the number of teachers in advanced
placement math, science and critical foreign language courses,
particularly for low-income students.
It also will aid our efforts to recruit well-qualified
Americans to serve as adjunct teachers--similar to President
Bush's proposed Adjunct Teacher Corps--in high school math,
science and critical foreign language classes. And it will
establish comprehensive teacher preparation programs to
encourage students to advance from elementary school through
college while achieving proficiency in critical foreign
languages.
This multi-pronged, fiscally responsible approach to
strengthening American competitiveness is reflective of our
committee's consistent commitment on this issue. We have done
good work in the past, but our ultimate success in impacting
American competitiveness will be determined by what we do next
in the months and years to come. And that is why we are here
today, to lay the groundwork for those next steps.
I look forward to our discussion, and I am eager to hear
thoughts from both of our panels.
With that, I yield to my friend, Mr. Miller, for any
opening statement he may have.
[The prepared statement of Chairman McKeon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Chairman,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Good morning, and thank you all for joining us at this hearing,
which will focus on what our nation can do to improve our ability to
compete in the rapidly-changing global economy. I'm pleased to welcome
both of our panels today and extend a warm welcome back to Secretary of
Labor Chao and Secretary of Education Spellings. Both of these Cabinet
officials work closely with the Education & the Workforce Committee,
and it is always a pleasure to have them with us, particularly when we
discuss a topic as important as today's.
This marks my first full committee hearing as Chairman of this
panel, and I am especially pleased that ``building American
competitiveness'' is our theme for the day. That's because I truly
believe that building American competitiveness is a fundamental focus
for our Committee. The issues we deal with here each impact our
nation's ability to compete in meaningful ways. We work to improve
America's labor laws, expand access to quality health care, protect
worker pensions, and strengthen our education and training systems,
from early childhood education to higher education to workforce
training programs. In short, we have a unique opportunity--and
responsibility--to enhance U.S. competitiveness.
As our country embarks on its third century, we are faced with the
challenge of new realities. These realities include a global economy in
which Americans are not only competing with each other for jobs, but
with workers in nations around the world. And these realities include
an economy that requires technology, innovation, and new ideas as
engines of growth. In many ways, we have left the age of muscle and the
machine and have definitively entered the age of the mind. And this
Committee is at the forefront in deciding what steps we must take next.
Just a week ago today, the House took one of those steps by
approving the College Access & Opportunity Act, which will enhance
American competitiveness by expanding college access and by
strengthening math, science, and critical foreign language education at
the college level.
For example, within the existing Byrd Honors Scholarship Program,
the bill offers a comprehensive approach to strengthening American
competitiveness in math and science. It provides Honors Scholarships to
students pursuing an undergraduate, masters, or doctoral degree in
science, math, or engineering. It allows for up to $5,000 in student
loan interest to be paid on behalf of individuals with degrees in
science or math who serve as teachers or other professionals in those
fields. And it establishes a framework to help states better coordinate
and implement reforms that improve math and science education, as well
as teacher recruitment and training. I'd like to commend my Committee
colleagues, Mr. Ehlers and Mr. Holt, for their work to include these
vital provisions in the bill.
While we considered this bill on the floor last week, another
Committee colleague, Representative McMorris, introduced an amendment
to make this bill even stronger in its aims to enhance American
competitiveness.
Incorporating key components of President Bush's American
Competitiveness Initiative--which I am sure we will hear about today
from Secretaries Chao and Spellings--the McMorris amendment will
increase the number of teachers in advanced placement math, science,
and critical foreign language courses, particularly for low-income
students.
It also will aid our efforts to recruit well-qualified Americans to
serve as adjunct teachers--similar to President Bush's proposed Adjunct
Teacher Corps--in high school math, science, and critical foreign
language classes. And it will establish comprehensive teacher
preparation programs to encourage students to advance from elementary
school through college while achieving proficiency in critical foreign
languages.
This multi-pronged, fiscally-responsible approach to strengthening
American competitiveness is reflective of our Committee's consistent
commitment on this issue. We've done good work in the past, but our
ultimate success in impacting American competitiveness will be
determined by what we do next--in the months and years to come. And
that is why we are here today: to lay the groundwork for those next
steps.
I look forward to our discussion, and I am eager to hear thoughts
from both of our panels. And with that, I yield to my friend Mr. Miller
for any opening statement he may have.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, congratulations
on your chairmanship of this committee, and I and my members
look forward to working with you on the agenda of the
committee.
And I welcome Secretary Chao and Secretary Spellings to the
committee.
And you are quite right, it is a good beginning to have
this forum on America's competitiveness.
Many of us in Congress now have been warned by so many from
across the American economy and the American intellectual
community of the deficits that we now have when we look at our
position, vis-a-vis other nations of the world, whether it is
the number of graduate students in engineering, math and
sciences in China and Korea, in India and elsewhere in the
world or the fact that we now rank 16th, down from 11th, in
broadband penetration in this country, that our 12th-graders
still languish at the bottom in math and science by
international comparisons.
I think what we have heard, and hopefully we will act on,
is the fact that America really has no choice but to address
this challenge to our number-one position in the world in
innovation, in technology, in invention, in patents, in
intellectual articles published on a yearly basis.
The Democrats in September of last year proposed an
innovation agenda as a challenge to the Congress and to the
administration to make innovation science and technology once
again America's top priority in economic growth and job
creation.
In order to retain our number-one position in global
innovation and leadership, we believe that it was essential to
graduate 100,000 new scientists, engineers and mathematicians
over the next 4 years, doubling the funding for overall basis
research and development in the Federal Government, making the
miracle of broadband Internet technology affordable and
accessible to all Americans within 5 years and to achieve real
energy independence within 10 years and to support
entrepreneurial small businesses.
We believe only by making this renewed and, more important,
a sustained commitment to innovation will our nation be able to
maintain its global economic leadership, protect our national
security and enjoy prosperity at home with good American jobs.
But we must put this hearing today in context, because
within the hour we will start debating the budget resolution
for the House of Representatives that will be presented in the
floor. And within that budget resolution, while we are here
talking about improving the teaching profession, attracting new
people in math and science to teach in our schools, that budget
resolution will contain $45 billion in cuts in education over
the next 5 years just to maintain the current purchasing power
of the education dollars we have today.
That budget will go backward on education to the disabled;
it will be a $2.2 billion cut below 2006, which is the second
year in a row in which we have those cuts.
And the fact of the matter is that most of the changes that
have been made have been made by eliminating one program for
the sake of others, even in the case of where those programs
are vital in case of vocational education where career
academies and others are attracting young people to stay in
school, to give them an idea of the world of the work and
changing their ideas about dropping out, programs like UROP and
TRIO, which expose young people to the opportunities of higher
education, and of course the basic fundamental failure to
invest in No Child Left Behind so that we can meet those
mandates.
When we did our innovation agenda, we met with CEOs of the
high-tech companies, the biotech companies, with some of the
leading venture capitalists in the world, and we met with them
in Silicon Valley, we met with them in Austin, Texas, North
Carolina, in El Paso, in Seattle.
And in each and every case they reminded us that in the
early 1960's when President Kennedy talked about sending a
person to the moon and bringing that person back safely that
not only was it about a moon shot, it was about creating the
greatest public-private partnership in the history of the world
where the Federal Government joined up with the private sector,
with the academic centers in this country and created the
legacy that we have been living off that led to the high-tech
revolutions, to the biotech revolutions that this country has
been the leader in.
And they made it very clear that they were the inheritors
of that when they started their companies in their garages or
their small startups, that they were the inheritors to that
infrastructure that had been built. And they also made it very
clear that they wanted that public-private partnership renewed,
and they felt that the public sector was flagging in keeping up
with what the private sector needed if we were in fact going to
continue to lead in innovation and technology in this country
in the rest of the world.
And so that is the challenge of this morning's hearing, is
understanding that we are going to have multitask. We can't
just concentrate on teachers, we can't just concentrate on
research and development, we can't just concentrate on the
deployment of broadband, we can't now double the physical
sciences at the expenses of the life sciences, as we did when
we doubled the life sciences over the last decade we basically
took them from the physical sciences.
What we have to do today is to multitask to maintain
America as the number-one leader in the world, both in economic
growth and in prosperity and in security and in, most
importantly, what drives all of those things, in innovation,
the hallmark of the American century.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, congratulations on your
chairmanship of this committee, and Committee Democrats and I look
forward to working with you on the agenda of the committee.
And I welcome Secretary Chao and Secretary Spellings to the
committee. And you are quite right, it is a good beginning to have this
forum on America's competitiveness.
Many of us in Congress now have been warned by so many from across
the American economy and the American intellectual community of the
deficits that we now have when we look at our position, vis-a-vis other
nations of the world, whether it is the number of graduate students in
engineering, math and sciences in China, Korea, India and elsewhere in
the world or the fact that we now rank 16th, down from 11th, in
broadband penetration in this country, and that our 12th-graders still
languish at the bottom in math and science by international
comparisons.
I think what we have heard, and hopefully we will act on, is the
fact that America really has no choice but to address this challenge to
our number-one position in the world in innovation, in technology, in
invention, in patents, in intellectual articles published on a yearly
basis.
In September of last year, Democrats proposed an innovation agenda
as a challenge to the Congress and to the administration to make
innovation science and technology once again America's top priority in
economic growth and job creation. In order to retain our number-one
position in global innovation and leadership, we believe that it was
essential to graduate
100,000 new scientists, engineers and mathematicians over the next
4 years, doubling the funding for overall basis research and
development in the Federal Government, making the miracle of broadband
Internet technology affordable and accessible to all Americans within 5
years and to achieve real energy independence within 10 years and to
support entrepreneurial small businesses.
We believe that only by making this renewed and, more important, a
sustained commitment to innovation that our nation will be able to
maintain its global economic leadership, protect our national security
and enjoy prosperity at home with good American jobs.
But we must put this hearing today in context, because within the
hour we will start debating the budget resolution for the House of
Representatives that will be presented in the floor. And within that
budget resolution, while we are here talking about improving the
teaching profession, attracting new people in math and science to teach
in our schools, that budget resolution will contain $45 billion in cuts
in education over the next 5 years just to maintain the current
purchasing power of the education dollars we have today.
That budget will go backward on education to the disabled; it will
be a $2.2 billion cut below 2006, which is the second year in a row in
which we have those cuts.
And the fact of the matter is that most of the changes that have
been made have been made by eliminating one program for the sake of
others, even in the case of where those programs are vital in case of
vocational education where career academies and others are attracting
young people to stay in school, to give them an idea of the world of
the work and changing their ideas about dropping out. Programs like
UROP and TRIO, which expose young people to the opportunities of higher
education, and of course the basic fundamental failure to invest in No
Child Left Behind so that we can meet those mandates.
When we did our innovation agenda, we met with CEOs of the high-
tech companies, the biotech companies, with some of the leading venture
capitalists in the world, and we met with them in Silicon Valley. We
met with them in Austin, Texas, North Carolina, in El Paso, in Seattle.
And in each and every case they reminded us that in the early 1960's
when President Kennedy talked about sending a person to the moon and
bringing that person back safely that not only was it about a moon
shot, but it was also about creating the greatest public-private
partnership in the history of the world where the Federal Government
joined up with the private sector, with the academic centers in this
country and created the legacy that we have been living off that led to
the high-tech revolutions, to the biotech revolutions that this country
has been the leader in.
And they made it very clear that when they started their companies
in their garages or their small startups, that they became the
inheritors to that infrastructure that had been built.
And they also made it very clear that they wanted that public-
private partnership renewed, and they felt that the public sector was
flagging in keeping up with what the private sector needed if we were
in fact going to continue to lead in innovation and technology in this
country in the rest of the world.
And so that is the challenge of this morning's hearing:
understanding that we are going to have to multitask. We can't just
concentrate on teachers, we can't just concentrate on research and
development, we can't just concentrate on the deployment of broadband,
we can't now double the physical sciences at the expenses of the life
sciences, as we did when we doubled the life sciences over the last
decade when we basically took them from the physical sciences.
What we have to do today is to multitask to maintain America as the
number-one leader in the world, both in economic growth and in
prosperity and in security. And, most importantly, in what drives all
of those things, in innovation, the hallmark of the American century.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from
the witnesses.
______
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
We have two distinguished panels of witnesses today, and I
would like to begin by welcoming Secretaries Chao and
Spellings.
The Honorable Elaine Chao was confirmed by the U.S. Senate
on January 29, 2001, as the nation's 24th secretary of labor.
Over the past 5 years, the main goal of the secretary has been
to keep America's workforce competitive for the 21st century.
Prior to her service as secretary, she was president and
chief executive officer of United Way of America, director of
the Peace Corps, deputy secretary at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission,
deputy maritime administrator in the U.S. Department of
Transportation and a White House fellow. She started very
young.
Her private-sector experience includes serving as vice
president of syndications at Bank America, Capital Markets
Group and as a banker with Citicorp.
The Honorable Margaret Spellings was confirmed as our
nation's eighth secretary of education on January 20, 2005.
During President George W. Bush's first term, she served as the
Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy where she helped
craft education policies, including the No Child Left Behind
Act.
Prior to arriving in Washington, D.C., Secretary Spellings
worked for 6 years as Governor George W. Bush's senior advisor
with responsibility for developing and implementing the
Governor's education policy. She also served as the associate
executive director of the Texas Association of School Boards.
We are honored to have both of you with us here today, and
I look forward to hearing your testimony and the question and
answer period.
We will begin with Secretary Chao.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE L. CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Secretary Chao. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
congratulations on assuming the responsibility and leadership
of this committee.
Chairman McKeon, Congressman Miller and members of the
committee, I am pleased today to be here to talk about the
President's competitiveness initiative. I am also pleased to be
here with my colleague, Secretary Margaret Spellings.
I want to especially commend the chairman for his vision in
holding hearings on the very important issue of workforce
competitiveness. The Department of Labor has a three-pronged
strategy to addressing workforce competitiveness, which focuses
on creating, No. 1, a demand-driven, flexible and efficient and
effective publicly funded workforce system; second, by
empowering workers by expanding individual choice and control
over skills and job training; and, three, leveraging all
existing public resources to foster a dynamic and skilled
workforce.
Our nation's economy is strong and growing stronger. More
than 5 million net new jobs have been created in the last 2.5
years, more than the number of jobs created by Europe and
Japan, combined. The majority of the new jobs being created are
in occupations that require higher skills, more education and
thus, by definition, pay above average wages.
As our country transitions to a knowledge-based economy,
there is a growing mismatch, a skills gap, between the new jobs
being created and the skills of our workforce. Demand is
especially acute in the sciences. Over the next 10 years, for
example, there will be more than 6 million new and replacement
job openings in engineering, science, computers, health care
and technical occupations that require strong math and science
skills.
The department has launched several initiatives to help
close the skills gap. In 2002 and 2003, the department launched
the President's High Growth Job Training and Community-Based
Job Training Initiatives.
The first initiative, the High Growth Job Training
Initiative, identifies sectors of the economy that are growing
rapidly and helps workers get the relevant skills that they
need so that they can access these opportunities.
The second initiative, the Community-Based Job Training
Initiative, expands the capacity of community colleges to
provide job training for skills in demand and invites them into
the workforce investment system as partners.
Over the course of the last 3 years, the department has
awarded over $375 million and more than 200 grants under these
two programs.
Earlier this year, the department also announced the
Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development Program,
known as WIRED. This program basically brings all the
stakeholders in a community, including education providers,
employers, community-based organizations, labor organizations,
workforce investment systems and others in a collaborative
partnership to help revitalize ailing economies, and 13 grants
have already been awarded under the WIRED initiative.
In addition, the President's fiscal year 2007 budget
proposes that innovative new initiatives to expand access to
job training and they are called the Career Advancement
Accounts. This proposal will build on the reforms that we have
proposed in the workforce investment system.
The Career Advancement Accounts would help the states
achieve greater flexibility and empower local communities to
address their specific workforce training needs, and our
reforms have that as a goal as well.
Under your leadership, Mr. Chairman, last year, this
committee and the House passed legislation to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act, and the administration supports H.R.
27 because it contains many vital reforms, and we have urged
the Senate to take action on this important bill.
Now, Career Advancement Accounts would complement these
reforms. They are modeled after the Pell grants. They would
enable eligible workers to enroll in any eligible training or
education program. They would provide eligible workers with up
to $3,000 annually for up to 2 years to purchase or register in
a skills course of their choice. Accounts will be available to
the following: adults and out-of-school youth entering or
reentering the workforce or transitioning between jobs and
incumbent workers in need of new skills to remain employed or
to move up the career ladder.
Let me make it clear that our nation's 3,500 one-stop
career centers would have a very important role to play in
providing counseling, referrals and all other kinds of
assistance that would help workers who need help in a very
vulnerable period in their lifetime and also to know about the
Career Advancement Accounts so that they can choose for
themselves the kind of training courses that they would prefer.
This administration looks forward to a continuing dialog
with the committee, Congress, leaders in the workforce
investment system, employers, community colleges and all
stakeholders in this very important proposal. We believe that
the Career Advancement Accounts are a way for the workforce
investment system to expand access to relevant training
providers.
Now, each of the initiatives, the High Growth Job Training
Initiative, the Community-Based Job Training Program, WIRED and
Career Advancement Accounts, are designed to nurture the
critical driver of a knowledge-based economy, which is human
talent.
We hope that we can work with the committee and the
Congress on a bipartisan basis to help America's workers
successfully meet the competitive challenges of the 21st
century.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Chao follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Elaine L. Chao, Secretary of Labor, U.S.
Department of Labor
Introduction
Good morning Chairman McKeon, Ranking Member Miller and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
to present the U.S. Department of Labor's efforts in advancing the
goals of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative.
In his January 31st State of the Union Address, the President said
that America is strong and getting stronger. The growth in U.S.
productivity since 2000 has been approximately 3.4 percent annually,
far above the historical average, and exceeds the productivity growth
of other major industrialized countries. The President's Fiscal Year
2007 Budget recognizes the importance of innovation for our economic
future--fostering and encouraging all the components that make our
economic engine the envy of the world. These components include a low
tax and regulatory burden, openness to international commerce and
investment an environment where entrepreneurial risk-taking and
investment is rewarded and finally, flexible and competitive labor,
financial and product markets. When workers have the necessary skills,
they become flexible enough to move relatively freely from job to job
and place to place following the rhythms of the marketplace, businesses
have workers they need to do the job and workers have opportunities for
career advancement. I am here to talk about those programs that the
Department of Labor is pursuing that will increase the skills of
Americans, build workforce development capacity and enable American
workers and businesses to contribute to, and benefit from, increased
innovation. In partnership with the private sector, state and local
governments, and colleges and universities, the American
Competitiveness Initiative will promote new levels of educational
achievement and economic productivity. With the right policies, we will
continue to increase productivity, create more jobs, improve the
quality of life and standard of living for generations to come, and
maintain American's competitive edge in the global economy.
As part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the Department
of Labor is developing more streamlined and efficient ways for workers
to access training and increase their skills. Aligning the workforce
investment system with new economic realities facing the United States
is among the critical factors in the success of the American
Competitiveness Initiative. As part of this initiative, the President's
2007 Budget calls for Career Advancement Accounts that American workers
can use to obtain the education and training they need to compete in
the 21st century economy. This initiative builds on our continued
commitment to championing the transformation of the workforce
investment system by making it demand-driven through the President's
High Growth Job Training Initiative, Community-Based Job Training
Grants, and the Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development
(WIRED) hitiative, which is designed to transform and revitalize
regional economies through a focus on talent development.
America's Workforce in the 21st Century Economy
Today, our country finds itself in a situation unlike any we have
experienced in our history. The world continues to become dramatically
interconnected and competitive. The advances we have made in
communications and technology allow for instant access to information
from all parts of the globe and have effectively-diminished national
borders as barriers to global commerce.
One way to maintain our competitive advantage is by increasing the
skill levels of American workers. The needs of the 21st century economy
are very different than those we have encountered in the past.
Industries such as manufacturing and retail now need workers who
understand computers, robotics and supply chain management. Fields such
as health care and construction need more technical and skilled labor
than ever before. New industries utilizing new technologies, like
biotechnology, geospatial technology and nanotechnology have emerged,
and others on the horizon are just a gleam in the eye of an
entrepreneur today.
Many of the fastest growing jobs of the future will need to be
filled by ``knowledge workers'' who have specialized skills and
training. These are the jobs that will drive innovation in the world
economy and increase living standards.
The growing demand for highly skilled workers in such fields as
health care, information technology, and advanced manufacturing, comes
at a time when the labor pool as a whole is growing much more slowly as
a result of the aging and retirement of the baby boom generation in
combination with other demographic changes. As a result, the need for
well-designed systems that can ensure a steady flow of trained workers
to meet employer needs is greater than ever before.
Educational achievement in high school and beyond is a key
predictor of economic success. But it no longer stops there. Whether it
is an 18-year old student entering a four-year university or a 50-year
old displaced worker entering a community college to learn new skills,
our citizens need access to the education and skills development that
the global economy demands. Workers today must commit themselves to
lifelong learning and to continually upgrading their skills.
America finds itself at a crossroads. To maintain our productivity
growth and to continue to grow our economy, we need a skilled workforce
that has access to life-long training and development opportunities. To
balance our shifting workforce demographics, we need a system that
reaches out to every segment of the workforce and leaves no potential
worker behind. Addressing these needs requires innovative new
strategies and services to upgrade workers skills and connect workers
with employment opportunities.
One important aspect of the President's ambitious strategy to
encourage American innovation and strengthen our ability to benefit
from the growth in the global economy requires us to reform our
workforce investment system. The legislation to reauthorize the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) that was passed by this Committee and
the House last year (H.R. 27, the Job Training Improvement Act of 2005)
incorporates many important reforms. The Administration also would like
for the Senate to move on WIA reform and for reauthorization of WIA,
with meaningful reform, to be enacted into law this year.
The workforce investment system should recognize and strengthen
workers' ownership of their careers, and provide more flexible
resources and services designed to meet their changing needs. Studies
have shown that workers make sound decisions about tapping resources to
advance their careers when they
have good information on available options. Workers need to be
provided as many choices as possible to gain the right skills and
secure the best career opportunities, and high quality workforce
information needs to be available to enable them to make educated
choices. This will help ensure flexible labor markets, a key element to
a pro-growth economy that is capable of exploiting innovations and
innovative opportunities.
High Growth Job Training Initiative
An important part of supporting the American Competitiveness
Initiative is developing the current workforce investment system into
one that is relevant in the 21?? century economy. Over the past four
years, the Department of Labor has been implementing the President's
High Growth Job Training Initiative. This initiative is the cornerstone
of the Department's efforts to create a workforce system that is
demand-driven and balance the skills of America's workers with the
demands of employers.
Through the President's High Growth Job Training Initiative, we
have invested over $250 million in 130 projects nationwide to model
partnerships among employers, education programs, and the public
workforce system? Each project targets the skill and talent needs of
high growth, high workforce demand industries in our nation's economy
and provides the resources necessary to develop the capacity to train
workers in the skills demanded by the 21st Century economy. To date,
ETA has worked with 14 of these industries and industry sectors:
Advanced Manufacturing, Automotive Services; Aerospace; Biotechnology;
Construction; Energy; Financial Services; Geospatial Technologies;
Health Care; Homeland Security; Hospitality; Information Technology;
Retail; and Transportation.
Through the partnerships and project activities developed under the
High Growth Job Training Initiative, communities are ensuring that the
skills individuals acquire are in demand. By training workers with the
skills employer want we expect that more workers will obtain quality
jobs that pay higher wages7 while enabling employers to address their
skill shortages and better compete in today's changing economy.
We are already seeing tremendous successes under this model. As an
example, let me share with you the exciting work going on in the
automotive industry in Michigan. On June 30, 2004, ETA awarded a
$5,000,000 grant to the Downniver Community Conference (DCC) for a
proposal to develop innovative and responsive automotive manufacturing
training models at the Auto Alliance International (AAI) plant in Flat
Rock, Michigan This facility, a joint venture of Ford and Mazda, is the
first in the world with the capacity to produce front and rear-wheel
drive vehicles with four, six, or eight cylinder power trains, and
automatic or manual transmissions on the same assembly line.
The DCC project is a partnership-based model for helping automotive
workers quickly and efficiently transition to new production processes.
The grant provides advanced manufacturing training, education, and
skills upgrades for new employees who are working to produce the Ford
Mustang and Mazda 6. DCC uses the grant to track, analyze, and map
transferable manufacturing skill sets and competencies required for the
new positions. DCC and its business, training, educationaL and
community partners then deploy industry-driven, competency-based
training to all AAI employees. This training is continuously upgraded,
and re-delivered as technology and skills requirements evolve. All
training modules culminate in industry-recognized certifications. As a
result of this High Growth grant approximately 2,500 participants have
obtained job placements to date. The hourly wage received by these
participants ranged between $18.75 and $26.00, and 94% of placed
individuals have retained their jobs for nine months.
Cotmrnmity-Based Job Training Grants
Our work under the High Growth Job Training Initiative revealed a
critical shortcoming in the economic development capacity of many
regions: many communities are not positioned to meet the training
demands of our high growth industries because of limited training
capacity and outdated curricula and training delivery systems.
To address this need for expanded affordable, flexible education
and training capacity in local communities across the country,
President Bush established the Community College Initiative. The
Initiative provides Community-Based Job Training Grants to help
communities to better train workers for jobs in high growth sectors by
utilizing the expertise of America's community colleges. Due to their
close connection to local labor markets, community colleges are well
positioned to understand the intricacies of local economies and better
prepare workers for high demand occupations. As we begin to increase
the skill level of America's workers and develop the talent needed to
benefit from the growth in the global economy, community colleges will
become an even more critical provider of training for workers wanting
to develop, retool, refine, and broaden their skills. In the fall of
2005, we announced the first installment of this initiative by
investing $125 million in grants to 70 community colleges around the
country. We expect to solicit grant applications for our second $124
million investment in the summer of 2006.
The WIRED Initiative
The Department of Labor is answering the call for competitiveness
by fostering innovation through regional economic development.
Though global competition is often seen as a national challenge, it
is actually at the regional level where solutions must be developed and
the challenges met. It is in regional economies where companies,
workers, researchers, entrepreneurs and government come together to
create competitive advantage and where new ideas and new knowledge are
transformed into advanced, high-quality products or services--
facilitating the growth of a regional economy requires attention to
three critical elements. The first is infrastructure. This includes not
only the traditional factors such as highways, bridges, and buildings,
but also 21st century factors like access to broadband and wireless
networks. The second critical element is investment of capital,
including the availability of risk capital and the conditions that
encourage entrepreneurial risk-taking. And the third element is a
flexible, talented labor force. A region may possess a strong
infrastructure and the investment resources for success, but without
the talented men and women to use those elements for economic growth,
they are meaningless.
This recognition of the importance of talent development is key to
President Bush's Competitiveness Agenda and our Workforce Innovation in
Regional Economic Development Initiative which is designed to transform
and revitalize regional economies through a focus on talent
development. Thirteen regions were awarded grants in February as a
result of a competitive process. Through WIRED, we provide the
financial and expert assistance needed for regions to make the leap to
an innovation economy.
The WIRED Initiative is focusing on labor market areas that are
comprised of multiple jurisdictions within a state or across state
borders. It seeks to help regions transform their workforce investment
economic development and education systems to support overall regional
economic growth and development by fostering collaborative partnerships
among universities, businesses, government and workforce and economic
development organizations. The regions selected have been affected by
global trade, are dependent on a single industry, affected by BRAC
closings, or are recovering from natural disasters.
Ultimately, the WIRED Initiative supports innovative approaches to
workforce and economic development that go beyond traditional
strategies preparing workers to compete and succeed. Through WIRED
projects, we intend to catalyze the creation of high-skill and high-
wage opportunities for American workers within the context of regional
economies.
Career Advancement Accounts
The High-Growth Job Training Initiative, the Community College
Initiative and WIRED are all efforts to utilize the Department's
discretionary dollars to fund cutting-edge state and local programs.
These investments will serve as models for the entire public workforce
system. Meanwhile, the Department's FY 2007 Budget is centered on a
bold proposal designed to move the entire system in a direction that
will better support our nation's competitiveness. The Career
Advancement Accounts (CAAs) proposal is designed to give states and
local communities more flexibility to design streamlined workforce
systems that best fit the unique needs of their states and that better
serve the needs of American workers and employers by making more money
directly available for training. Under the proposal the four separate
funding streams that are currently allotted for the WIA Adult
Dislocated Worker, and Youth formula programs and the Wagner-Peyser Act
program, respectively, would be streamlined into a single funding
stream to be allotted to the States to carry out the Career Advancement
Accounts proposal.
The Career Advancement Accounts proposal continues the themes
articulated by President Bush in his proposals for job training reform.
These themes are:
<bullet> Integrating programs to reduce duplication and overlap;
<bullet> Reducing administrative overhead costs to direct more
funds to training;
<bullet> Providing workers with skills demanded by employers for
high growth jobs and careers; and
<bullet> Giving workers greater personal ownership of their job
training and education investments.
Career Advancement Accounts are sell-managed accounts that enable
current and future workers to gain the skills needed to successfully
enter, navigate and advance in the 21st century labor market. Accounts
would be available to both adults and out-of-school youth entering or
re-entering the workforce or transitioning between jobs, or incumbent
workers in need of new skills to remain employed or to move up the
career ladder. Additional eligibility criteria and service priorities
would be established by states. States must determine priority of
service consistent with the veterans' priority of service requirement
under the Jobs for Veterans Act (PL 107-288).
The maximum amount of an account would be $3,000 for one year. This
is sufficient to finance approximately one year's study at a community
college. The accounts may be renewed for one additional year, for a
total two-year account of up to $6,000 per worker.
Individuals would be able to apply for an account at a One-Stop
Career Center or through other processes developed by individual
states. Ideally, states would also establish an on-line application
system. The account funds can be used for occupational skills training,
to help the individual gain foundational workforce and academic skills,
and for work-based experience through on-the-job training. CAAs can
also be used by individuals to pay for books and fees associated with
education and training.
With lower administrative costs and the vast majority of funding
used to finance the actual accounts, this proposal means that more
individuals will be able to participate in job training and attain new
and higher level job skills. In fact the number of individuals
receiving Career Advancement Accounts will be more than triple the
number of people completing job training in the workforce investment
system today. It is projected that about 800,000 accounts would be
available each year.
The Department of Labor would be the Federal agency responsible for
administering the Career Advancement Accounts program. Its
responsibilities would include Federal oversight; providing technical
assistance to states; providing states, employers, and job seekers with
the best information on economic and employment trends, growth
industries and their job skill requirements; supporting innovative
workforce demonstration initiatives; research and evaluation; and
national leadership.
States would serve as the ``fund administrators'' for Career
Advancement Accounts. States would have discretion to determine how
individuals are approved for accounts and how to administer the
accounts.
Funding would be distributed to states under a single formula that
reflects the factors used in allocating funds for the programs being
replaced, such as unemployment and civilian labor force data. The
intention is that under this new formula, states would receive
approximately the combined amount of allocations under the funding
streams being replaced.
To receive funding for Career Advancement Accounts, states would be
required to submit a State Plan, which covers a five-year period and is
updated every two years. The State Plan would outline how the state
administers Career Advancement Accounts and provides core employment
services at One-Stop Career Centers.
States will report on performance for three primary outcome
measures: (1) entered employment; (2) retention in employment; and (3)
earnings. Attainment of a degree or certificate, placement in
education, and literacy/numeracy gains would also be tracked as
secondary outcomes on the individual record.
Instead of the prescriptive federal requirements for determining
the eligibility of training providers under current law, States would
describe in the State Plan their approach to ensuring the credibility
and accountability of training and service providers receiving Federal
funds (i.e., Career Advancement Accounts). States would also outline
how they would ensure that account recipients have sufficient consumer
information on the quality and outcomes of the education, training and
other services provided by institutions and organizations where the
accounts are used.
As indicated above, One-Stop Career Centers would be retained to
deliver core employment services such as job search assistance and
labor market information, among other related activities, and provide
access to Career Advancement Accounts. However, the One-Stop Career
Center system, and the governance structure that supports that system,
would be streamlined and strengthened by eliminating a ``one-size-fits-
all'' approach to the local delivery of services.
Requirements related to the number and location of One-Stop Career
Centers and the membership of workforce investment boards would be
relaxed, allowing states and local areas to design a delivery system
that best meets the needs of regional economies and labor markets.
In addition to providing access to CAAs, the One Stop Centers will
continue to provide workers and job seekers with basic employment
services to assist their career development and ensure they have enough
relevant information to make informed decisions about their future. At
One-Stop Career Centers, job seekers would be able to receive core
employment services, such as career and skills assessment job placement
assistance, and basic career counseling. Additional services, such as
diagnostic testing and short-term prevocational service, would be
authorized. Services to employers would include postings of job
openings and assistance in finding trained workers. Access to
information and services of One-Stop partner programs also would be
available at the One-Stop Career Centers. Supportive services, such as
child care and transportation, would be made available and paid for
through arrangements made by the state with other Federal, state and
local supportive service programs, and states would be encouraged to
provide information and access to these services at the One-Stop Career
Centers.
Career Advancement Accounts will complement the more than $80
billion in Federal student aid that will be made available in 2007,
which includes $12.7 billion in new funding for Federal Pell Grants.
Since Career Advancement Accounts are targeted toward workers seeking
to upgrade their skills, there is more flexibility in how these funds
can be used. For instance, unlike Pell Grants and other Federal student
aid, Career Advancement Accounts would be available to individuals
pursuing short-term training, in courses that last 10 weeks or less.
Career Advancement Accounts would be available to individuals enrolled
in specific courses to upgrade their skills, but are not planning to
complete a degree or certificate program. The Department of Labor is
committed to working closely with the Department of Education to ensure
that these accounts are well coordinated with the existing federal
student aid programs.
Conclusion
The Career Advancement Accounts proposal is part of the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative, and the other initiatives I have
discussed, the High Growth Job Training Initiative, the Community
College Initiative, and WIRED, complement the ACI. These initiatives
are meant to demonstrate how talent development can increase
productivity and drive economic growth. They will help American workers
benefit from the growth in the global economy.
We believe that the American Competitiveness Initiative will
provide our nation with the tools to better educate our children, to
train our workforce, and to push the boundaries of our scientific and
technological capabilities now and in the future.
Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my remarks. I
am happy to answer any of your questions. Thank you.
______
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
Secretary Spellings?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET SPELLINGS, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Secretary Spellings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Miller and members of the committee. I very much appreciate the
opportunity----
Chairman Mckeon. Is your mike on?
Secretary Spellings. Oh, I am sorry. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
I appreciate this opportunity to join my friend and
colleague, Secretary Chao, in discussing the President's
competitiveness agenda with you.
I am especially honored to be here for the first full
committee hearing led by you, Chairman McKeon. Under your
leadership, this committee has already done important work to
ensure America remains the world leader in innovation.
Last week, as you noted, the full House of Representatives
approved the College Access and Opportunity Act, which
strengthens math, science and critical foreign language
instruction for hundreds of thousands of students. In today's
knowledge economy, these reforms are absolutely critical. You
can't pick up a newspaper or magazine these days without
reading about global competitiveness, especially in math and
science. While we are asleep tonight, accountants in India will
do our taxes, radiologists in Australia will read our CAT scans
and technicians in China will build our computers.
As other nations race to catch up, there is mounting
evidence that American students are falling behind. I know you
know the numbers, but they bear repeating. Currently, our 15-
year-olds rank 24th out of 29 developed nations in math,
literacy and problem solving. Half of our 17-year-olds don't
have the necessary math skills to work as a production
associate in a modern auto plant.
We saw this coming in the early 1980's when the National
Commission on Educational Excellence released the Nation at
Risk report. It warned that our educational system was being
eroded by a tide of mediocrity and called for 3 years of math
and science in every American high school. Today, more than 20
years later, we are not even close to meeting that goal, and we
have run out of time to wait.
We know, as Secretary Chao said, that 90 percent of the
fastest growing jobs require post-secondary education, and yet
fewer than half of our students graduate from high school ready
for college-level math and science. Every year, about a million
students drop out of high school, nearly five out of 10
African-American and Hispanic 9th-graders will not graduate
from high school on time, and the Title I report we submitted
to you all yesterday shows that graduation rate calculations
vary widely across our country.
When the state and Federal numbers don't match up, we must
take a closer look at whether our high schools are graduating
students on time and ready for the workforce or college.
Wherever I go, like you, I hear from Governors, business
people, educators and parents that our students are not
prepared. I have heard the same from you.
Last week, I testified before the House Science Committee
and while that appearance was a little departure from my normal
routine, it underscored the fact that innovation,
competitiveness and education go hand in hand.
If we are going to move in a new, positive direction, we
must make our high schools more rigorous. We must encourage
more students to take more advanced math and science classes.
Employers today need workers with pocket protector skills,
creative, problem solvers with strong math and science
backgrounds.
As Congressman Ehlers has said, ``If you aren't a geek
yourself, you will probably end up working for one.''
Congressman, you were country before country was cool, as
we say in Texas, in math and science education, and I
appreciate your work to champion reform.
With No Child Left Behind, we have laid a solid foundation
on student achievement. Scores are at an all-time high for
African-American and Hispanic students, especially in the early
grades where we have focused. Over the last 5 years, more
reading progress has been made among 9-year-olds than in the
previous 28 years combined. We are on the right track.
I see it at Harlan Elementary in Wilmington, just one of
the schools that has put Congressman Castle's home state of
Delaware on track to have every child reading on grade level by
2014, as required by No Child Left Behind.
And I am sure that you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller
and all of you from California are proud of districts like
Garden Grove where 75 percent of the students do not speak
English, 60 percent are poor and all but two of their 67
schools met or exceeded the goals of No Child Left Behind. This
law is working. It is raising achievement nationwide by shining
a bright light on schools and districts and on a lot of great
stories.
It is also shining a light on schools and districts that
aren't doing right by the children and parents they serve. For
example, the Title I report we released yesterday shows that
1.4 million students were eligible for free tutoring that the
law provides but only 17 percent of them got these services.
More than half of school districts don't even tell parents that
their children are eligible for these options until after the
school year has already started, making it virtually impossible
for students to transfer schools without disrupting their
education. And that is unacceptable.
We at the Department of Education will take necessary steps
to ensure states comply with these provisions of the law.
Without No Child Left Behind, we wouldn't which schools are
falling short of standards, we wouldn't necessarily know which
children need extra help, and we wouldn't be able to hold
ourselves accountable when we don't deliver that help. In other
words, this law is forcing all of us to live up to our
responsibilities and its increasing options for families. Now,
we must work together to increase academic rigor across the
board.
The President's American Competitiveness Initiative would
devote $380 million to strengthen K-12 math and science
education. Overall, the Department of Education will increase
funding for our programs in these critical areas by 51 percent.
The President has called for the formation of a National Math
Panel, a group of experts to help us identify the best research
on proven strategies to teach math, just as we did in reading.
And his budget also includes $250 million for a new Math Now
Initiative that will give elementary and middle school students
that academic foundation necessary to succeed in rigorous math
classes in high school, such as advanced placement.
Our challenge today is that nearly 40 percent of our high
schools offer no AP classes, and that must change, especially
when we know that just taking one or two AP courses increases a
student's chance of graduating from college on time. The
President has called for $122 million to prepare 70,000
teachers to lead AP and International Baccalaureate classes in
math, science and critical foreign languages.
And to ease the shortage of teachers with strong subject
matter knowledge, the President's budget includes $25 million
to help recruit 30,000 math and science professionals to become
adjunct teachers in these critical subject areas.
With the College Access and Opportunity Act, we have
started the process of taking our education system to the next
level.
And I would like to offer a special thanks to you,
Representative McMorris, and everyone who worked with you on
the amendment to move that agenda forward.
This is urgent work, and we only have time to do what
works. As policymakers, we must focus on results. We have
looked at data to see what policies are most effective for
students and use taxpayers' most effectively. We must operate
more efficiently by eliminating or consolidating programs that
aren't getting results for students.
According to the GAO, 13 different government agencies
spend about $2.8 billion on 207 different programs for math and
science education. Almost half of them receive $1 million or
less. These programs are in their own silos with little or no
coordination between them and no linkage with No Child Left
Behind goals of raising student achievement for all students.
It is 1,000 flowers blooming and maybe even a few weeds
throughout our government.
Particularly during these tight budget times, we must ask
ourselves whether we are spending each and every dollar wisely
and well on our most pressing needs. Are we focusing our
efforts on teachers who already possess a strong science or
math knowledge base? For example, one program I heard about at
the Science Committee hearing I mentioned spent Federal dollars
on sending teachers to Antarctica. Is that the best way to get
the most out of our money or should we reach out to the
teachers who need more training and make sure they are teaching
in the schools who need them most.
Our curriculum products, developed by many, many agencies
with Federal dollars, align to state standards and assessments,
as required by No Child Left Behind. Do we want these programs
to produce an educated workforce, more Nobel Prize winners or
both? And at the end of the day, are we raising student
achievement? Are we helping schools and states meet the goals
of No Child Left Behind?
Congress recently created the American Competitiveness
Council, which I chair, to ensure that we align our efforts
around shared, strategic goals. At the beginning of March, the
President and I led the first meeting to begin the process of
evaluating how well these math and science programs are working
at improved coordination between them. And I have to tell you,
we have much work to do.
So I am asking all of you to join Chairman McKeon in
reaching out to the different congressional committees that
govern these programs. We must build consensus around common
goals, like providing high-quality programs that are accessible
to every child, not just the lucky ones. And we must align our
efforts with the principles of No Child Left Behind by
continuing to hold schools accountable for getting all students
to grade level in reading and math by 2014 and to give local
policymakers and educators resources, authority and the
research base to do what is best for students.
As leaders, as policymakers and as parents, it is our job
to look down the road and make sure our kids are prepared for
the future. As the President said in the State of the Union
address, ``If we ensure that America's children succeed in
life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Spellings follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education,
U.S. Department of Education
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Miller and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me today. I appreciate this opportunity to join
my colleague, Secretary Chao, in discussing the President's
Competitiveness agenda with you, and I'm especially honored to be here
for the first full Committee hearing led by Chairman McKeon. Under your
leadership, this committee has already done important work to ensure
America remains the world's leader in innovation.
The Challenge: To Innovate Education
America has long been innovation's home. When faced with a
challenge, we invent the answer: from the first telephone to global
satellite communications; from the first computer to the World Wide
Web; from the Wright Brothers to Neil Armstrong. To Americans,
innovation means much more than the latest gadget. It means creating a
more productive, prosperous, mobile and healthy society. Innovation
fuels our way of life and improves our quality of life. And its
wellspring is education.
Throughout his Administration, President Bush has made innovation
and education top priorities. The President worked with you and your
colleagues in the Senate, to pass the most far-reaching education
reform in decades, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB has
brought high standards and accountability to public schools and sparked
a mathematics and reading revival in the early grades.
While the United States is leading the world in science and
technology and making strong reforms to its education system, the rest
of the world is not standing still. America no longer holds the sole
patent on innovation. Inspired by our example, countries such as China,
India and South Korea have invested heavily in education, technology,
and research and development. America now has billions of competitors
throughout the world, challenging us to set our sights even higher.
Our educational leadership has been challenged as well, with many
developed nations' students outperforming ours in international tests,
particularly in math and science, an ominous sign for many American
schools. These test scores are linked to a lack of challenging
coursework. According to some estimates, America's share of the world's
science and engineering doctorates is predicted to fall to15 percent by
2010.
This global challenge requires bold action and leadership. America
has done it before. Following the Soviet Union's 1957 launch of
Sputnik, the world's first satellite, Congress passed and President
Eisenhower signed into law the National Defense Education Act of 1958
(NDEA). NDEA encouraged more college and university students to pursue
degrees in engineering and it brought the public and private sectors
together as partners to capture the interest, imagination and
dedication of American students. And it worked. Within a decade, the
number of science and engineering doctorates awarded in the United
States annually had tripled, accounting for more than half the world's
total by 1970.
Today, America faces challenges more difficult and complex than a
single satellite. The spread of freedom is spurring technological
innovation and global competition at a pace never before seen. This
trend makes it increasingly important that our economy be more flexible
and responsive, to make sure that we continue to lead in innovation and
technological development and to make sure we have a workforce that has
the skill sets necessary to do so.
Education is the gateway to opportunity and the foundation of a
knowledge-based, innovation-driven economy. Employers are increasingly
looking for workers who have analytical, technical and problem-solving
skills.
We have to run to keep up. A high school diploma, once desirable,
is now essential, and, increasingly, insufficient. About 90 percent of
the fastest-growing occupations of the future will generally require
some post-secondary education. It is therefore unacceptable that among
all ninth-graders in public schools, about three in ten do not graduate
on time; or that for black and Hispanic students the figure is about
five in ten. If current trends continue, by 2012, over 40 percent of
factory jobs will require post-secondary education, according to the
National Association of Manufacturers. And yet, almost half of our 17-
year-olds do not have the basic understanding of math needed to qualify
for a production associate's job at a modern auto plant.
Improving education is critical not only to America's economic
security, but also to our national security. Today, not one but 3,000
satellites circle the earth. U.S. soldiers use the latest
communications and surveillance technology to fight the global war on
terrorism. Advanced math skills are used to identify and undermine
terrorist networks. Government and the private sector engineer new ways
to protect lives and infrastructure from harm. And the effort to spread
freedom to other nations and cultures demands speakers fluent in
languages such as Arabic, Farsi, Chinese, and Russian. Addressing these
challenges will advance opportunity and entrepreneurship at home and
promote democracy and understanding abroad.
Rigorous instruction, high standards and accountability are helping
to raise achievement levels among American students, particularly in
the early grades. As all students work to achieve proficiency in math
and reading by 2014, an innovative education reform effort is needed.
America's civic, political and business leaders agree: To sustain
our quality and way of life, we must act now. And President Bush is
leading the charge by proposing investments and reforms through a
number of key initiatives that I would like to outline today.
The Answer: President Bush's Education Agenda
President Bush's answer to America's challenge begins with the
American Competitiveness Initiative. This multi-agency Initiative will
commit $5.9 billion in FY 2007, and more than $137 billion over the
next 10 years, to strengthen education, promote research and
development and encourage entrepreneurship. In the research arena, it
will increase our investment in physical science and engineering
research, the results of which will fuel technological innovation for
decades to come. In the education arena, the initiative will bring
together leaders from the public sector, private sector and education
community to better prepare our students for the 21st century. The
initiative will place a greater emphasis on math instruction from the
earliest grade levels. It will ensure that high schools offer more
rigorous coursework, including Advanced Placement and International
Baccalaureate courses in math, science and critical-need foreign
languages. It will inform teachers of the most effective, research-
based approaches to teaching math. It will encourage professionals in
those fields to become teachers themselves, and it will evaluate all
federally funded math and science education programs to ensure the most
effective use of the taxpayers' dollars.
The President's High School Reform initiative will help ensure that
a diploma becomes a ticket to success for all graduates, whether they
enter the workforce or go on to higher education. It will bring high
standards and accountability to high schools by aligning their academic
goals and performance with the No Child Left Behind Act. Through
assessments and targeted interventions, it will help educators raise
achievement levels and close the achievement gap. It will also help
alleviate the dropout problem by focusing more attention on at-risk
students struggling to reach grade level in reading or math.
Finally, the President's National Security Language Initiative,
announced on Jan. 5, 2006, will help more American students master
critical-need foreign languages to advance global competitiveness and
national security. This joint project, in collaboration with the
Department of State, Department of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence, will train teachers and aid students in those fields.
The Challenge: Knowledge of Math and Science
In this changed world, knowledge of math and science is paramount.
In the words of BusinessWeek, ``It's a magnificent time to know math.''
``Math entrepreneurs'' are translating the world into numbers-which
translates into big salaries. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, new and replacement job openings requiring science,
engineering or technical training will increase by more than 24
percent, to 6.3 million, between 2004 and 2014.
Of all of the recommendations contained in the National Academies'
report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, the highest priority is to
vastly improve K-12 math and science education. Schools must help
students develop the skills they will need to compete and succeed in
higher education and the workforce, which are increasingly connected in
this changed world. All Americans must be technically adept and
numerically literate--regardless of their chosen occupation--so that
they can make informed decisions and enjoy advancement in their
careers. And this technically and numerically literate population must
also yield additional practitioners of math, science, and engineering
to meet the needs of academia and industry well into the future.
Industry must do its part to ensure that career opportunities provided
to those with training in math, science and engineering are as stable
and financially rewarding as other jobs, such as medicine, law and
finance.
We clearly have a long way to go. High school test scores in math
have barely budged since the early 1970s. And less than half of high
school graduates in 2005 were ready for college-level math and science
coursework, according to ACT.
In 1983, the landmark A Nation at Risk report recommended that high
school students be required to take a minimum of three years of math
and three years of science to graduate. Yet today, only 22 states and
the District of Columbia require at least this amount to graduate in
the class of 2006. Even fewer require high school exit exams (which are
often administered in 10th or 11th grade, leading many employers and
universities to discount the results). Just one state-Alabama-calls for
current students to take four years of both science and math to
graduate.
A major part of the answer is teacher training. When we compare the
U.S. education system with that of the top performing countries, we
find several significant differences, most notably that a much lower
proportion of U.S. math and science teachers actually have a degree in
the area in which they are teaching. Because our elementary schools
employ generalist teachers who are required to teach all academic
subjects, most have degrees in education and have completed little or
no coursework in math or science. Three out of four fourth-grade math
and science teachers in the U.S. do not have a specialization in those
subjects. And students from low-income communities are far less likely
than their more affluent peers to have teachers certified in the
subject they teach. With two-thirds of our math and science teachers
expected to retire by 2010, we have a challenge to produce new teachers
to fill that gap, but we also have an opportunity to change the way in
which new teachers are trained so that future teachers will have
greater content knowledge in math and science.
Strengthening math and science standards is an economic imperative,
for the nation and for individual citizens. According to Department
statistics, students who take advanced math courses in high school
(such as trigonometry, precalculus and calculus) are far more likely to
earn a bachelor's degree. Additionally, students from low-income
families who acquire strong math skills by the eighth grade are 10
times more likely to finish college than peers of the same
socioeconomic background who do not.
Still, old attitudes about math die hard. A recent survey
commissioned by the Raytheon Company found that 84 percent of middle
school students would rather clean their rooms, take out the garbage or
go to the dentist than do their math homework. According to the
Business Roundtable, just 5 percent of parents say they would ``try to
persuade their child toward careers in science, technology, mathematics
or engineering.'' Many people still view math and science as ``nerdy''
subjects with little relevance to the ``real world.'' Like it or not,
that world has changed forever.
The Answer: American Competitiveness Initiative
President Bush's American Competitiveness Initiative seeks to
improve learning and instruction in mathematics and science.
The Department of Education's proposals within this Initiative are
as follows:
<bullet> National Math Panel: Based on the influential National
Reading Panel, the National Math Panel would convene experts to
evaluate empirically the effectiveness of various approaches to
teaching math, creating a research base to improve instructional
methods for teachers. It would lay the groundwork for the Math Now
program for grades K-7 to prepare every student to take and pass
algebra;
<bullet> Math Now for Elementary School Students: Like the
successful and popular Reading First program, Math Now for Elementary
School Students would promote promising, research-based practices in
mathematics instruction and prepare students for more rigorous math
coursework in middle and high school;
<bullet> Math Now for Middle School Students: Similar to the
current Striving Readers Initiative, Math Now for Middle School
Students would diagnose students' deficiencies in math proficiency and
provide intensive and systematic instruction to enable them to take and
pass algebra;
<bullet> Advanced Placement-International Baccalaureate (AP-IB)
Incentive Program: The AP-IB Incentive Program would train 70,000
additional teachers to lead AP-IB math and science courses. It would
increase the number of students taking AP-IB tests to 1.5 million over
the next five years with the goal of tripling the number of passing
test-takers to approximately 700,000;
<bullet> Adjunct Teacher Corps: The Adjunct Teacher Corps would
provide funding to match contributions from States and the private
sector to train 30,000 qualified math and science professionals to
become adjunct high school teachers by 2015; and
<bullet> Including Science Assessments in NCLB: NCLB requires every
State to develop and administer science assessments once in each of
three grade spans by the 2007-08 school year, and including these
assessments in the accountability system will ensure students are
learning the necessary content and skills to be successful in the 21st
century workforce.
Other Math and Science Initiatives
<bullet> Academic Competitiveness Grants and SMART Grant Program:
This higher education grant program was a key component of the Higher
Education Reconciliation Act.
<bullet> This program will build on the success of the Pell Grant
program and benefit more than 500,000 students in need.
<bullet> Academic Competitiveness grants will provide increased
funds for low-income students who take a rigorous academic curriculum
in high school. Grants in the amount of $750 will be awarded to
qualified first-year college students who completed a rigorous high
school program; grants in the amount of $1,300 will be awarded to
second-year students who completed a rigorous program and who maintain
a 3.0 average in college.
<bullet> SMART grants will go to college juniors and seniors
studying math, science or critical-need foreign languages who also
maintain a 3.0 GPA. This will encourage more students to go into fields
that improve America's security and competitiveness.
<bullet> Mathematics and Science Partnerships: This program
supports the American Competitiveness Initiative by providing state
formula grants to help improve students' academic achievement in
rigorous math and science courses. It also assists teachers by
integrating proven, research-based teaching methods into the curricula.
<bullet> Expanded Teacher Loan Forgiveness: This popular program
offers up to $17,500 (up from $5,000) in loan forgiveness for highly
qualified math, science and special education teachers serving
challenging, low-income schools and communities.
Academic Competitiveness Council
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, signed into law by the President
on February 8, 2006, created an Academic Competitiveness Council (ACC)
chaired by the Secretary of Education, and consisting of Federal
Government agencies with education programs in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Its mission under law is to
identify all Federal education programs with a math or science focus,
determine the effectiveness of each program, identify areas of overlap,
and recommend ways to efficiently integrate and coordinate in the
future. The Council will also ensure that these programs, which focus
on elementary and secondary education and teacher training, are aligned
with the principles of No Child Left Behind, as appropriate.
The first ACC meeting took place on March 6, 2006, at the White
House with the President and the respective Secretaries and directors
of the agencies with STEM education programs. The Department of
Education is now working with the Office of Management and Budget to
form a working group with the appropriate senior staff from each of
these agencies to begin taking inventory of their various STEM
education programs. A report to Congress is due February 2007.
The Challenge: Accelerating Our Schools' Progress
Innovating and improving America's schools will not occur
overnight. It took time for eight other developed nations to surpass
America's high school graduation rate among adults aged 25 to 34; and
it will take time for the United States to regain its leadership. We
must start by accelerating our progress.
A comprehensive problem demands a comprehensive solution, extending
from kindergarten through high school graduation. The good news is that
educators and policymakers are learning more and more about what works.
A half-century ago, the United States turned the threat of Soviet
competition into proof of our ability to improve our schools and
quality of life. Just four years ago, the United States turned a
growing achievement gap into the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act.
The law set a course for proficiency for all students in the core
subjects of reading and math by the year 2014. Students in grades 3
through 8 are now learning under high standards. Teachers are using
proven instructional methods in reading. Schools are being held
accountable for results. Parents have more information and choices. And
states have more flexibility to spend federal K-12 education resources,
which have increased by 41 percent since 2001.
The early results are in. Across the country, academic achievement
has risen significantly in the earliest grades, with math scores at
all-time highs, including among African American and Hispanic students.
In the last two years, the number of fourth-graders who learned their
fundamental math skills increased by 127,000 according to Department
data. Long-term trends show that more reading progress was made among
9-year-olds between 1999-2004 than in the previous 28 years combined.
Meanwhile, according to the Nation's Report Card, the achievement gaps
in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds
and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at all-time lows.
Educators use terms like ``amazing,'' ``stunning'' and ``remarkable''
to describe the progress on long-term NAEP.
No Child Left Behind has set the goal of every child achieving, but
the states and schools themselves have done the heavy lifting to
implement curriculum standards and assessment protocols that they will
use to meet these standards. For the first time, all 50 states have
unique accountability plans in place, with real consequences attached.
The results can be seen in schools like Maryland's North Glen
Elementary. In 2003, just 57 percent of North Glen's students were
proficient in reading, while 46 percent were proficient in math. Those
numbers have skyrocketed to 82 percent and 84 percent, respectively.
Another example is Charles L. Gideons Elementary School in Atlanta.
The number of its students meeting Georgia's standards in reading has
increased by 23 percentage points since 2003. For math the news is even
better: a 34 percentage-point improvement during the same period. The
National Math Panel will examine schools like this one that have made
significant progress to determine ``what worked'' in improving
mathematics education and performance. If we better understand what
worked at these model schools, we can then use programs like the new
Math Now program to disseminate these principles and practices to
teachers across the country.
A districtwide success occurred in Garden Grove, California. Three-
fourths of the Garden Grove Unified School District's students do not
speak English. Nearly 60 percent are from low-income families.
Nevertheless, all but two of the district's 67 schools met or exceeded
their Adequate Yearly Progress goals under the law.
The No Child Left Behind Act was designed to improve achievement.
But it has also shown us what is achievable as a nation. Educators,
administrators and public officials are working together, united behind
a worthy goal. Now it's time to apply the Act's successful principles
to our nation's high schools.
There is not a moment to waste. Governors and business leaders are
united in calling for urgent reform. Every year approximately one
million students drop out of high school, costing the nation more than
$260 billion dollars in lost wages, taxes and productivity over the
students' lifetimes. A high school graduate can expect to earn about
$275,000 more over the course of his or her lifetime than a student who
doesn't finish high school; a college graduate with a bachelor's degree
can expect to earn about $1 million more. Dropouts are also three-and-
a-half times more likely to be arrested, according to reports. A key
goal of the President's High School Reform Initiative is to address the
academic needs of at-risk students so that they stay in school,
improving their quality of life and that of their fellow Americans.
The Answer: The President's High School Reform Initiative
The President's High School Reform Initiative would hold high
schools accountable for providing high-quality education to all
students. And it would help educators implement strategies to meet the
needs of at-risk high school students. The proposed program would make
formula grants to states to support:
<bullet> The development, implementation and evaluation of targeted
interventions designed to improve the academic performance of students
most at risk of failing to meet state academic standards; and
<bullet> Expanded high school assessments that would assist
educators in increasing accountability and meeting the needs of at-risk
students.
Interventions would be designed to increase the achievement of high
school students; eliminate achievement gaps between students from
different ethnic and racial groups and income levels; and help ensure
that students graduate with the education, skills and knowledge
necessary to succeed in post-secondary education and in the technology-
based global economy.
A key strategy would be the development of individual performance
plans for students entering high school, using eighth-grade assessment
data in consultation with parents, teachers and counselors. Specific
interventions could include programs that combine rigorous academic
courses with vocational and technical training, research-based dropout
prevention activities, and the use of technology-based assessment
systems to closely monitor student progress. In addition, programs that
identify at-risk middle school students for assistance would help
prepare them to succeed in high school and enter postsecondary
education. This includes college preparation and awareness activities
for students from low-income families.
The President's proposal also would require states to develop and
implement reading and mathematics assessments in two additional grade
levels in high school, building on the current NCLB requirement for
testing once in grades 10-12. The new assessments would inform
strategies to strengthen school accountability and meet the needs of
at-risk students.
Additional Support
<bullet> Striving Readers: First funded in 2005, this program would
be expanded significantly to reach more secondary students reading
below grade level, which puts them at risk of dropping out. Students
would benefit from research-based interventions coupled with rigorous
evaluations. Schools would benefit from activities and programs
designed to improve the overall quality of literacy instruction across
the entire curriculum.
The Challenge: Promoting Freedom and Understanding
America faces a severe shortage of people who speak languages that
are critical to its national security and global competitiveness:
<bullet> According to the Center for Applied Linguistics, less than
one-fourth of public elementary schools report teaching foreign
languages, even though a child's early years are the best years in
which to learn a new language.
<bullet> Less than 1 percent of American high school students study
Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Japanese, Korean, Russian or Urdu-combined.
<bullet> Less than 8 percent of undergraduates in American
universities take foreign language courses, and less than 2 percent
study abroad in any given year.
While only 44 percent of U.S. high school students were studying a
foreign language in 2002, learning a second or even a third foreign
language is compulsory for students in the European Union, China,
Thailand and elsewhere.
More than 200 million children in China study English. By
comparison, only about 24,000 elementary and secondary school children
in the United States study Chinese. Many students in other nations
begin learning another language before they're even 10 years old. They
will have an edge over monolingual Americans and others in developing
new relationships and business connections in countries other than
their own.
The Answer: The President's National Security Language Initiative
Critical-need foreign language skills are necessary to advance the
twin goals of national security and global competitiveness. Together
with the Department of State, Department of Defense and the Director of
National Intelligence, the Department of Education proposes to offer
grants and training for teachers under President Bush's National
Security Language Initiative.
The Initiative would increase the number of Americans who speak and
teach foreign languages, with an emphasis on critical-need languages.
It will strengthen and refocus the Foreign Language Assistance Program,
and will initially enable 24 school districts across the country to
create partnerships with colleges and universities to develop critical-
need language programs. Among the critical-need languages targeted
under the initiative are Arabic, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and
Russian, as well as languages in the Indic, Iranian and Turkic
families.
The National Security Language Initiative will also provide funding
to create a Language Teacher Corps, with the goal of having 1,000 new
critical foreign language teachers in U.S. schools by the end of the
decade. And it will enable the creation of an ``e-Learning Language
Clearinghouse'' and expanded Teacher-to-Teacher seminars to assist
foreign language teachers anytime, anywhere.
Conclusion
Finally, I want to thank this Committee for your work on the
College Access and Opportunity Act approved by the House approved last
week, which will strengthen math, science and critical foreign language
instruction for hundreds of thousands of students. I especially want
acknowledge the work of Congresswoman Cathy McMorris for her amendment
to the legislation. Her American Competitiveness Amendment makes
progress on key elements on the President's proposals on Advanced
Placement, Adjunct Teacher Corps and critical foreign languages. I look
forward to working with you and the Members of the Senate to move this
important bill forward.
Our schools helped make the 20th century the ``American Century.''
The 21st century remains to be claimed. But Americans have never backed
down from a challenge. This changing world offers another opportunity
for Americans to shine, and the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative and the rest of his education agenda will help set the
course.
America's schools have made great progress in improving academic
achievement in the early grades. But like athletes or musicians,
children of all ages must work hard each and every day if they wish to
compete, perform and succeed, and their schools must show them the way.
The President's education agenda will help prepare the students of
today to become the successful leaders-the pioneers, discoverers and
Nobel Prize winners-of the next American Century.
I look forward to working with Congress on implementing these bold
initiatives.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. I am happy
to answer any questions you have.
______
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
I would like to remind the members that we will have the 5-
minute limit on all questions.
I would also like to remind the members of the committee
that the topic of today's hearing is building America's
competitiveness and in recognition of the secretaries' limited
time with us, encourage members to keep their questions focused
on the competitiveness issue.
Secretary Chao, as you know, there are a number of
legislative proposals that have been introduced in both the
House and Senate that address American competitiveness.
Other than the President's American Competitive Initiative
and keeping in mind our current budgetary restrictions, what
are one or two things that Congress should do to help ensure we
maintain our competitive edge in the 21st century? Instead of
using a shotgun approach, one or two items that we could really
focus on and get something done.
Secretary Chao. First of all, I want to thank the House for
having passed the WIA Reform Program. The Workforce Development
System is a wonderful system. It is a publicly funded workforce
training system, career system that helps people who are going
through a very vulnerable period in their lifetime.
Currently, there are 17 different funding streams that go
through these 3,500 one-stop career centers. Now, some of them
are not full service, but, generally speaking. The silo effect
that Secretary Spellings mentioned in education exists as well
in the workforce development system. It is extremely hard for a
person who is out of work to understand the various government
programs that are available to them, because each of these 17
different funding streams are in silos of their own.
So one almost needs an advanced degree to be able to access
the various programs. And these various programs have very
strict criteria, so sometimes the very people that these
programs purport to help are not able to access these programs
because of overly restrictive and confusing and sometimes
contradictory eligibility criteria.
So the House has certainly gone the first step in
reauthorizing the Workforce Investment Act to consolidate four
of the funding streams. That will be very important in allowing
Governors, not the Federal Government, the Governors and people
within the state much greater flexibility in helping
communities and districts and municipalities to ensure that
workers who need them will be able to get the money.
Second of all, the President has introduced the Career
Advancement Accounts. There is a tremendous amount of money
that we spend on the workforce development system. We spend
billions of dollars every year. A lot of that goes to the brick
and mortars of this publicly funded workforce development
system. The professionals who work in the system are doing a
great job, but they too feel frustrated that there are not more
available to help workers.
Right now, the workforce development system refers about
200,000 people to training opportunities. We must do better
with the billions and billions of dollars that we spend on this
program. So the new goal is to help unemployed workers,
dislocated workers access more programs and to increase the
number of workers who can access training to about 800,000.
And we believe that the President's Career Advancement
Accounts would empower individual workers to enable them to
choose what they would like to learn, to retrain and reskill
themselves so that the President's proposal basically empowers
workers, and it will be a more effective way to help workers,
again, access the training that they want and give them better
control and a more effective way for them to access training.
Thank you.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
Secretary Spellings, in your testimony, you noted--and last
month when you convened the Academic Competitive Council you
also talked about--the vast number of programs and so many of
them funded at such a low level.
Do you have suggestions, ideas on combining these programs
to make them more effective and be able to focus, again, with
the rifle shots instead of the shotgun approach to try to
really focus in on moving competitiveness forward?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir. The Academic Competitiveness
Council, the assignment I have given them is to first inventory
their programs: Who is their client, who are they serving, what
are the measurements of effectiveness and the like?
And we have given them a quick timeline to bring forward
some of that information to the full group by the early part of
May. So I am hopeful that as we work together that I will be
able to provide some of this information to you.
I think these programs have grown up over time, and I don't
think that we have had a clear understanding of our strategy of
what is the problem we are trying to solve. Are we most worried
about kids who are going to be Ph.D.s, engineers and scientists
or are we most worried about the people who need to be in these
jobs that are going to require more skills, both, and what is
the spectrum between those two things?
And so we don't know enough yet, and I hope to bring that
to you.
I do think what I have observed, at least initially, is
that there are a lot of programs. You talked about the $1
million or less, kind of, threshold that are basically pilot
programs. And I think our charge is because of the vast order
of magnitude of the problem is that we need to get some
scalable models that can work fast and effectively. That is why
the President has called for expanding advanced placement and
intentional baccalaureate programs.
Those programs work, they are already embraced in many of
your states, but when I talk about the rationing of
opportunity, the example in my own local community, at Fairfax
County, Langley High School in McLean has 22, 24 AP classes;
inner city, Ballou High School, three or four classes.
And I think those are the sorts of things that we need to
bring to you so we can figure out, first, what are we trying to
solve, and then what are the most strategic investments we can
make around the problem.
Chairman Mckeon. I want to work very closely with you on
that. I have asked our staff to put together a list of all the
programs under our jurisdiction on the committee, and my goal
is by the time I am no longer chairman of the committee we have
been able to decrease the number of programs, make the programs
that we have more effective. So it sounds like we are working
on the same objectives, and we can work closely on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you both for your testimony.
Secretary Spellings, you mentioned on page five of your
statement including science assessments in No Child Left
Behind, and there has been some discussion of that in the
educational press.
Can you tell us what you envision happening here, and will
the students be ready for the assessments, I guess, will be the
question, whether or not there is comfort that the states will
have a curriculum that is in place for those assessments?
I noticed that in one of the discussions about people's
wish lists for the No Child Left Behind, one of the top ideas
was that people wanted to expand into science and social
studies, they wanted to put an emphasis there. Are they going
to be in a position to do this in 2007?
Secretary Spellings. Mr. Chairman, as you know, No Child
Left Behind requires that states develop science assessments
once at each grade span, once in elementary, middle and high
school, by 2007-2008, and states are on course to do that. Many
states have already adopted those standards and those
assessments into their accountability system.
As you know, I am a firm believer in the ``what gets
measured gets done'' kind of notion, and I think when we put
that focus and we put those measurements in the accountability
system, that builds an appetite for focus, for change and for
reform.
And so I think if we care about it--and this is actually a
conversation that Representative Holt and I had earlier in this
committee--is that if it is important to us, we ought to
measure it, we ought to hold states and localities accountable
for it, and we ought to move the ball forward on behalf of
kids.
Now, are kids ready to meet those standards? I think that
remains to be seen. We have focused, as you know and
understand, and rightly, on math and reading, and we can't
study science effectively or social studies without getting
some of these baseline reading and ciphering skills. And so I
think now 5 years or so into No Child Left Behind, with the
phase-in, with the 2007-2008 deadline before us, we are ready
to take those next steps.
Mr. Miller. What is your sense of the--I am trying to ask
this diplomatically--what is your sense of the rigor of the
assessments that the states have put in place?
I mean, they now know they are going to be measured by
this, and, as we know, states are concerned that they have set
the bar too high or should set it lower so that they come out
OK in these comparisons.
What is your sense of the states that have this in place,
the rigor of the assessments?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I think they vary widely, as
state standards tend to. As you know, one of the, I think, very
genius parts of No Child Left Behind is having the NAEP
yardstick, kind of, check the quality of state systems in a way
that shines the spotlight on that issue. So I think that
remains to be seen.
States have not developed those science standards
necessarily with an eye toward inclusion in the accountability
system. It isn't required yet as part of No Child Left Behind.
But I think, just like No Child Left Behind, we had to
recognize and start where we are, and the only way to lift the
tide is for us to begin and start to ratchet up and raise
standards and raise focus over time.
Mr. Miller. One follow-on: There is a discussion--never
mind, never mind. We will go there some other time.
I am just trying to think, you know, we sit here with a
sense of urgency, all of us, about what is going to be
necessary for this coming generation of students to compete out
there in the world, and I just worry about as we start into a
new standard the rigor of that standard to make sure that they
will have the tools they need to go out and have knowledge of
science that is necessary. But we can discuss that later.
Secretary Spellings. I would like to quickly add that that
is another compelling thing about advanced placement in
International Baccalaureate programs. They are high standards.
They do represent a contribution toward the college
affordability. They help us with articulation between high
schools and higher ed institutions. And they are rigorous,
accountable sorts of programs. They are doable, school people
understand how to implement those, and I think that is a model
that we know can work and meets the objectives, particularly
the rigor, the standards.
And I have been to lots of classrooms, I know you have too,
where we see so-called at-risk kids thriving and being
successful in more challenging, more interesting and more
relevant coursework.
Mr. Miller. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Mr. Castle?
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you both for being here today.
I would like to hopefully get a question in to both of you,
and let me start with you, Secretary Spellings. You mentioned
in your opening testimony that you and I were at Harlan
Elementary School in Wilmington. I think we are both rather
impressed with the school. I have been there before, and,
clearly, they have made a lot of changes that I thought were
very positive.
And I can't remember the exact details, so you can probably
correct me on about three things I am going to say here, but as
I recall, I think it was a 6th-grade class who went into it
with a math instructor. That math instructor was just that, he
was a math instructor. I think he came in alternatively to
teaching. He came from industry and was teaching these kids how
to measure the area of a circle. We sat there and watched him
for 10 minutes. I thought it was an amazing 10 minutes. Either
they rehearsed that for about 2 months or he is really good. My
impression is, he is really good at what he was doing.
And then we went over to a science class and watched kids
deal with rocks and those kinds of issues as well, and, again,
it was very impressive.
But my question relates to the age aspect of that. I mean,
these were elementary school students, and they were being
exposed to, I thought, really good teaching, because you had
dedicated people. They didn't have just a classroom teacher
teaching that, they had a dedicated math teacher, a dedicated
science teacher in that particular school starting at an early
age.
I am of a strong belief that we are never going to have
mathematicians and scientists if we don't get to these kids
early. And, boy, this is hard to handle. There is so much
coming at us right now from the President and all these
programs, it is hard for me to assimilate all that we are
doing.
But one thing that keeps standing out to me is if we don't
get to these kids early, to me, math and science need to be
grasped at a relatively early age, and if we don't succeed in
that, my suspicion is that we are going to have a lot of
trouble converting kids in 10th or 11th grade or whatever it
may be.
Do you agree with that? And if so, are we thinking
programmatically about how to make absolutely sure that we are
starting at an age proper to get these kids interested in it
rather than waiting until they are in college or graduate
school or whatever it may be?
Secretary Spellings. I completely agree with you, and I
think we need to do both of these things. That is why the
President has called for this Math Now effort that is around
elementary and middle school.
This is somewhat of a generalization, but, as you know, our
curriculum in this country is a mile wide and an inch deep. We
tend to do a lot of arithmetic, kids do, in the early
elementary, kind of, K-4, sort of, range of, kind of,
repetitive calculation type curriculum.
We are not feeding enough higher order thinking--fractions,
decimals--the kinds of things that we saw in the school that we
visited, Mr. Castle, and so kids fall off a cliff when you get
to high school, because they have not had the embedding of this
higher order of thinking, these more, kind of, pre-algebra type
skills, the number line and so forth that really set the table,
not only for interest but for success.
I don't know about you but I like to do things I am good
at, and I think that is true of kids as well.
We saw, obviously, a very challenging curriculum and a very
able and content-oriented teacher, and I think those are the
two things that we must do in our elementary and middle
schools.
Unlike reading, where we lack an understanding, educators
lack an understanding about what are the core principles of
effectiveness. In reading, we know there is the alphabetic
principle, there is phonemic awareness, their vocabulary, their
comprehension, all of those things. We don't necessarily have
that understanding in mathematics. And I think part of our
responsibility at the Federal level is to help states and
school districts understand what those most effective
strategies can be.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, Secretary.
Secretary Chao, this question is going to be really
general. I apologize in advance for that. But we have a panel
right after this, and we haven't heard them, obviously, but I
have had a chance to pre-read their testimony, which I think is
really quite excellent and they are doing some wonderful
things.
But I worry a great deal about--and I have worried about
this for 21-some years in this business--I don't want to say
inability, but the diverse programs that the business community
brings to the table, be it a Chamber of Commerce or various
businesses or whatever. And they are sometimes very scattered,
and sometimes, frankly, I don't think they are that effective
because of that.
And I worry that we are not getting the attention of the
kids or the best focus or the money that these companies are
willing to put into to really help in terms of what we are
doing, the coordination aspect of it, if you will. I don't mean
to be critical, because they really mean well and some of these
programs are excellent, but sometimes I don't think they are
quite as productive as they might be.
In terms of our competitiveness structure, are we going to
try to coordinate all that better, awaken what we are doing and
perhaps have a unified effort in terms of the education of our
young people?
Secretary Chao. Congressman, you make an excellent point.
It used to be that the workforce investment system did not
include anybody from the employer community. This seemed to us
to be a severe and serious flaw. Employers, after all,
understand what jobs they are probably likely to have open in
the coming year, and so they know what skill sets they will
need as they plan their human resource needs. And to exclude
them from the workforce investment boards, for example, or from
any community collaborative effort to determine what skills are
needed within the community seems to be very shortsighted.
So under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and also in
the reauthorization, we have had to try to address that issue
and also encourage the workforce investment system to include
more employers as they plan what the human resource and
training needs are within the community.
Mr. Castle. Thank you, both.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spellings, I appreciate really the very practical
and sensitive flexibility you have given within No Child Left
Behind. I think that it has been received well, and it keeps
the spirit and the law of No Child Left Behind but a nice
sensitivity.
But I am disappointed in looking at the budget this year
the freeze in Title I. In Genesee County, Michigan, which is
the largest county in my district, where Flint is located,
where Delphi is located, and they are closing all their plants
in Flint, we look at the MEAP scores, the Michigan Education
Assessment Program, look at their scores, and you find in
almost all the school districts a direct relationship between
the socioeconomic culture of the school district and their MEAP
scores, with some exceptions.
You will find some who have a very high socioeconomic
standard and not doing well in the MEAP tests and a few who are
rather lower socioeconomic and are doing very well. One is the
Kearsley School District, adjacent to the school district where
I used to teach. And I was out there looking at the schools and
I asked the superintendent, Jeffrey Morgan, why they were doing
well, and this has been documented that they are really way up.
He said, ``One reason: Title I dollars, Title I.''
And maybe they are using their Title I dollars better than
others. Maybe we should send someone out there to see how it--
because they really have done an outstanding job there.
But, as I said, I am disappointed that we are not
increasing the money for Title I, because it really does work,
most places, some better than others, as I mentioned.
Now, while I do commend you, and I have commended you
before, both privately and publicly, on what you have done with
No Child Left Behind, I urge you that within the
administration, in the budget process, that you will try to
move the bean counters to really try to do more with Title I.
And I think that is one of the roles of the secretary,
whether it be Labor or Education, is to be the number-one
advocate within the administration.
I have been in Congress for 30 years now, and I can recall
when Dave Stockman was head of OMB, budget director, and Cap
Weinberg would slap him around, saying, ``Listen, don't tell me
how much to ask for. This is how much we need.'' Of course, Cap
was very aggressive and he went to his reward just recently,
but he was very successful in being a great advocate.
And I think, not just you, but I think every secretary
should become an even stronger advocate. I am not saying they
are not an advocate but an even a stronger advocate with the
OMB to try to get more for those programs that are working like
Title I.
How do you deal with OMB? Do you tell them what you need or
listen to what they tell you?
Secretary Spellings. Well, yes, sir. Obviously, the budget
development process begins actually at this time of year. We
are already starting to look at the 2008 budget and what is
needed going forward next year, what is most effective. We work
with them on a process that they have developed called, PART,
which is basically a performance-based, kind of, scoring system
that talks about the effectiveness of programs.
I personally think, and that is what the Competitiveness
Council is about, we need to go beyond that and look more
deeply in the effectiveness of some programs. Obviously, we
champion for additional resources. It is obviously done in a
framework of lots of competing sources and competing agencies
and departments, priorities of the President and the like, and
at the end of the day, the bottom line is the bottom line.
I believe in this budget that to the extent that we have
additional resources that we have focused them on our most
strategic needs: On competitiveness and on, in Title I's case,
an additional $200 million for school improvement. As No Child
Left Behind has matured, we see the need for more intensive,
kind of, state intervention, restructuring-type initiatives.
And so I pledge to you I will advocate for resources with
OMB. I think if you called Josh Bolten, you would find that I
do. And I think to the extent that we are in a challenging time
with limited resources, we need to make sure that they are
spent very effectively and very strategically.
Mr. Kildee. I appreciate that.
Within Genesee County, the Buick factory where my dad
worked is now literally a Brownfield. I was called by the vice
president of Delphi Thursday morning, at 9 o'clock to tell me
that all the Delphi plants in my district are closing. So in
this competitiveness, we really need a good educated and
trained workforce.
Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Mr. Ehlers?
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I very much appreciate the testimony. The two of you have
the responsibility for solving one of our major problems in
this country, and that is remaining competitive in the future.
I want to also add that I deeply appreciate the President's
competitiveness initiative. It was badly needed, and I am just
delighted he has instituted that, and I am working very hard to
make certain that it is fully funded in this congressional
circle.
We have the two proper people here, Mr. Chairman, because
as far as I can see the issues are having a properly trained
workforce and having the new ideas, the research, the approach
you need so that we can get product development and
intellectual property rights protected.
But to me the key factor in all of this is getting teachers
the proper training they need. And that boils down both pre-
service and post-service. People are constantly criticizing the
teachers. I have never done that. I don't knock them, because I
have worked with them in the classroom, and the teachers I have
worked with earnestly want to teach math and science properly.
They have never learned it themselves. And, furthermore, they
have never been taught how to teach it properly.
And so I have spent hours in the classroom, in my classroom
and in theirs, trying to convey this. But it is a national
problem, and we really have to address it because that is the
core.
A couple of questions for you, Madam Secretary Spellings.
Just getting at this question, first of all, you are promoting
the Math Now approach of the Math Panel, both of which I think
are very good ideas. As you know, under No Child Left Behind,
next year we are supposed to start doing the science.
Are you going to propose, or have you begun working on a
Science Now program and a Science Panel to match what you are
doing in the mathematics?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir. We intend, after Math Now,
to do science next and to convene the same sort of expertise
around the field of science. You have raised some of the issues
about the sequencing of science and how we teach it and some of
the things that are, I think, vexing to school people out there
as well.
One of the things we know, as a math and science guy
yourself, is that math undergirds science so strongly that it
did make sense to start with math and then move quickly into
science, but we do intend to do that.
Mr. Ehlers. The side benefit, of course, of incorporating
that is the science helps students understand the math.
Furthermore, there is interesting research that students taught
science, even beginning in preschool, the simple classification
skills and so forth, learn to read much more rapidly. So,
actually, math, science and reading all come together if you do
it right.
Another question about the math-science partnership
programs. At the Science Committee hearing, both you and Dr.
Bernent from NSF said the two math and science partnership
programs complemented each other, and they go hand-in-glove.
But yet the funding is going to your program and not to his. I
think both are essential. They are different but complementary.
What do you propose we could do to help solve this problem,
to keep the research effort going in his shop and keep the
implementation effort going in your shop?
Secretary Spellings. Well, as I said, NSF largely deals in,
sort of, the pilot program arena, and I think what we need to
do is gain from them a better understanding of what are the
most likely effective and most scalable of those pilot programs
that they operate. And so they will continue to do those sorts
of things.
The reason the President has called for resources for my
department is to bring that scalability, if you will. You know,
you have heard me talk about the numbers. Half of our students,
our minority students, do not get out of high school on time.
Even kids who graduate are not prepared for college-level math
or science and they lack the skills to be effective in the
workplace.
So it seems to me that the raging fire is the necessary
scalability of effective programs that can be brought up and
stood up very quickly, as opposed to these, kind of, one-at-a-
time-type programs that we are doing a lot of in the government
already.
Mr. Ehlers. I just want to point out the importance of
keeping their program going as well. And we will talk about
that further, but it is absolutely essential.
One last quick point, and I hate to correct witnesses, but
since you quoted me, I should say the correct statement is,
``If you are not a nerd, you will end up working for a nerd.''
[Laughter.]
Secretary Spellings. Pardon me. I stand corrected.
Mr. Ehlers. Most people don't understand the difference
between nerds and geeks.
[Laughter.]
But I consider myself a nerd and not a geek.
Secretary Spellings. All right.
Mr. Ehlers. So I wear the plastic pocket protector, but I
don't carry 13 different colored pens.
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Ms. McMorris--excuse me, I am looking at Ms. McCollum?
Excuse me.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
congratulations on your first meeting.
This is on competitiveness and we have been talking about
Leave No Child Behind quite a bit, because the correlation is a
good foundation to move up on. I represent Minnesota, and our
business community, our college system, our political leaders,
our non-profits, they have been engaged in trying to bring all
children up to their best capability for years and moving
forward on standards.
I am going to quote one of three articles I am going to
submit for the record, Mr. Chair. Our competition isn't North
Dakota and South Dakota, yet the way that we are measuring
success in Leave No Child Behind, we are not measuring American
children in their totality. And I appreciate the fact that
term, ``silo,'' was used quite a bit. We have 50 silos for
Leave No Child Behind, because we have 50 different standards.
So we don't know how all America's children are really
doing because there is not one standard to which American
children and their parents know that they are being held
accountable to. There isn't one standard for the business
community, there isn't one standard for the colleges when they
look at Leave No Child Behind school measurements.
So I think we get a failing grade in our accountability, in
our responsibility of making sure that we know the direction we
are moving forward in a country for accountability and
standards for our children.
With 50 different measurements out there, to compare
Minnesota, Arkansas, Florida and California and really know how
the children from just those states are doing, we don't have a
measurement.
Yes, there is a national measurement as an instrument that
some states use, some states don't use. Private schools, quite
often, use a different measurement.
So I think we collectively, if we are really going to have
accountability, we need to get to one measurement, especially
in a society that is so mobile.
I appreciate also about advanced placement opportunities
for students--marvelous. I know many young adults who have been
able to take advantage of that. But my school districts right
now are cutting those very programs because of lack of funding
for special education and because of all the underfunding and
the testing requirements of Leave No Child Behind.
So what are we on the road for from this department to get
to a measurement in which we really know how our nation's
children are doing? There is room for improvement in Minnesota.
We said that long before Leave No Child Behind, but what are we
doing as a nation to truly measure this?
And then, Secretary Chao, I got a mixed message from you,
and so I want to give you a chance to clear it up. I heard in
your earlier testimony how excited you were that there was all
this wonderful individuality and I can choose what I want to
take my training dollars and move forward on.
Then when answering a question earlier, you said--one
statement which I would like to clarify for the record: In
Minnesota, we do have our business community as part of our
workforce development; they are at the table. But you also said
that we need to focus our workforce in those job areas where we
know that there are jobs and get people plugged into there.
So how do you take the individual, ``I am going to take my
dollars and do what feels good for me this week for training,''
and put that square with what you also said we needed to do and
that is make sure that we are training people for the good
paying, livable wage jobs that are out there in the community?
Secretary Chao. Margaret, should I answer that first?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, go ahead.
Secretary Chao. I don't find those two statements in
contradiction at all. After all, we live in a democracy. People
have a right to decide what they want to study, what they want
to work in. What we are saying is that there are these areas in
which there is a dearth of workers, so we hope, but we can't
compel nor force, people to get training in a job that they
don't want to get. This is America; it is a pure democracy.
What we want is to allow greater control by individual
workers. Right now, we are like an HMO system. First of all,
let me make it very clear: The workforce development system
doesn't train anybody. The workforce development system is more
like a referral system, career counseling. They contract out in
some communities with skills providers. So a lot of times it
is, again, like an HMO system. The person coming in looking for
training is referred to a set and preexisting contract that may
or may not have direct links into the employer community.
Your community, I am glad to hear, has links with the
employer community. I think more and more workforce investment
systems are going in that direction, but we need to include
employers, because they, after all, provide the jobs and know
the skill sets that they require. So, again, there is no
conflict at all.
And there is also a very important role for the workforce,
one-stop centers, because there will be people who will come in
who don't know what they want, will need career counseling and
resume writing or some assistance in knowing how to search the
Net and get on some of the job sites, like Monster.Com or
America's Job Bank or Career Planners. So there is a referral
assistance program that the one-stop provides, which is very
important. So those aren't really in conflict at all.
Secretary Spellings. Representative McCollum, first, let me
say that No Child Left Behind does require each and every state
to participate in the National Education Report Card. That was
new with that law, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress. So we do have a better understanding nationally about
the quality of standards.
One of the things, as you know, in education, we, at the
Federal level, of course, are a minority investor and always
have been and always will be. And so with states and localities
paying for 90 percent of the cost of education, we believe that
it is certainly right and righteous for states to set standards
and curriculum for local control so we would not prescribe here
to classroom teachers or to state school boards or anyone else
about curriculum matters, which are within local jurisdiction.
I do think that if you are a fan of standardization and
understanding or clearness of the quality of our education
system, programs like advanced placement and International
Baccalaureate that are acceptable, understood--everybody knows
that a 3 on an AP calculus class means X--an understanding of
this body of knowledge and so forth. People in the higher ed
community understand that, parents understand that, and the
school system understands that.
And so I think it is the right balance between local
control and state prerogatives and state understandings on
curriculums and as well ratcheting up the skills around
excellence, standards and measurement through advanced
placement and programs like that.
Ms. McCollum of Minnesota. To share a point of personal
privilege with you, please, for a second, I think this
committee needs to find out how our states and our schools are
measuring up to the standard to which the secretary just
mentioned, because right now schools are measured within a
state for meeting adequate yearly progress, and I believe that
this committee should find out how our schools are meeting
adequate yearly progress at the national evaluation instrument
that is available to us. And I would respectfully request you
entertain perhaps having a hearing on that.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Mr. Norwood?
Mr. Norwood. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We certainly welcome both of you. It is an honor that you
can spend so much time with our committee, and I personally
thank you for the work both of you are trying to do.
Let me start by telling you that your statements I have
read carefully and thought about a lot. And you will have to
forgive me for being a little cynical. I haven't been here
quite as long as my learned friend that teaches Latin over
there, but I have heard these statements for 12 years, just
change the names of the programs. Same statements, same thing,
every year.
No thinking person, in my opinion, could disagree with what
either one of you said in your statement. Clearly, our goals,
as you set them out, are right. Clearly, our problems, as you
set them out, are right. And, clearly, we are not getting it
done.
So allow me a little cynicism here, because I really would
like for us to get it done, just as I know you would too.
The programs that we have obviously have failed our
children, though every year we have some other new program
that, oh, gosh, we have just got to fund that this year. If we
will just do that, we will get better in math and science. So
we get another program.
How many programs do you have in the Labor Department and
in the Department of Education that are attempting to do what
we are trying to do through these new initiatives? Do you have
any idea how many? Each of you, please.
Secretary Chao. The Department of Labor has a budget of
about $60 billion, the majority of which is devoted to
fulfilling the needs of unemployed workers. So about $9.5
billion of that is for training.
Mr. Norwood. And could you tell me numbers of different
programs? You speak of these little million-dollar programs all
over the place, which is nothing but passing money around. All
of us know that. It doesn't get the job done. If it got the job
done, you wouldn't be here having this initiative.
So, Secretary Spellings, how about you?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir. We spend $221 million. Our
programs, through the math-science partnership, largely, are,
like Title I, formula-driven programs, and they go on a per
capita basis or to states. So they are not competitive grant
programs. They flow, like Title I, as a matter of formula. We
do have some other bits and pieces of programs.
That compares to $998 million spent at NIH, $997 million
spent at NSF, NASA spends about $10 million more than we do,
and then within each one of those there are either specific
programs, like the million-dollar ones we talked about, or more
competitive or block grant programs. We, at the Department of
Education, largely through the math-science partnership, have a
block grant type style of program distributed on a formula.
Mr. Norwood. So, basically, you are saying that you are
here because those programs aren't working, and you want
different programs, you want different initiatives, you want
reform, and you want more money, and if we will just do that,
then we are going to solve this problem?
Secretary Spellings. I am here saying that we need to
figure out what problem we are trying to solve. We need to hold
ourselves accountable for some results. Four years ago, through
No Child Left Behind, we said we wanted every child reading and
doing math on grade level. The President has called to include
science as those measurements.
And I am simply suggesting, and this is certainly what is
at issue in the Academic Competitiveness Council, that we take
a careful and thoughtful look at those programs and see, are
they aligned to what we have said we are going to do as a
country? Do we have measurement systems that suggest that?
Those things are complementary, and I don't think we know that,
I don't think we have done an analysis of it.
The chairman talked about programs that were in this
jurisdiction, and, certainly, Secretary Chao's and my are, but
many programs exist that are not in the jurisdiction of this
committee.
Mr. Norwood. Well, madam, should we do that first before we
spend this gigantic amount of money that is going to solve the
problem?
Secretary Spellings. Well, sir, I think we can do both of
those things, because I think we do know some scalable----
Mr. Norwood. We haven't done it in the 12 years I have been
here.
Secretary Spellings. When we support scalable models that
are already accepted in schools and districts, like advanced
placement, where we have high standards, accountability and
measurement, and when we take those to a greater scale, I think
we can do those things now, kind of, what Oprah says, ``What we
know for sure,'' we can do that.
But you are right, we need to take a look at what we are
already doing and figure out what works and what doesn't.
Mr. Norwood. Can you get rid of them as the secretary or
does it take an act of Congress to get rid of wasteful programs
that obviously don't help in math and science but spend
millions and billions?
Secretary Spellings. There are 207 programs, 13 different
agencies. Obviously, I would think there would be some
latitude, I would think minimal latitude within the
jurisdiction of those agencies. But I would suspect that it
takes an act of Congress to get a handle on these.
Mr. Norwood. That is scary.
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir. No comment.
Mr. Norwood. The act of Congress has not done very well in
getting rid of programs.
Ms. Chao, you wanted to respond?
Secretary Chao. I just wanted to clarify one thing. The
workforce investment system is very devolved, it is a very
decentralized system as well. So, basically, as Secretary
Spellings mentioned, it is on a formula basis as well.
Basically, Washington, D.C. keeps less than 5 percent, on
average, with all of these different programs, and then it goes
to the state. The Governor keeps about 15 to 35. It varies
according to the different programs. And the majority of the
funds goes down to the communities. So it is a very
decentralized, a very devolved system.
Mr. Norwood. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me just say about my nerd friend that left, I wish he
was still here, who pointed out we need to keep all those
programs. That is a fast way for this not to get funded. I
suggest you get in there and get rid of these wasteful programs
that don't work. And people like me are going to take the
assumption you are right about what you are doing and your
efforts are correct and we will want to fund it. But you are
going to have to get rid of the waste in there before you are
going to, I think, get the act of Congress you need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Spellings. Congressman, we have four of the 207
programs at the Department of Education. You asked for a
specific number; it is four.
Mr. Norwood. Thank you for that.
Chairman Mckeon. That is one of the problems we looked at
years ago, that the vast majority of the education programs
come under 39 other bureaucracies, not the Department of
Education. So while we talk about education like it is all
within the scope of this committee, most of the programs are
outside the scope, and that really makes it tough. But we can
focus on the ones we have and make them better, and that is
what we are going to do.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and let me congratulate you on having the responsibility for
helping move America toward solutions to some of what I
consider to be its most serious and severe challenges.
Let me thank both of you for coming.
And, Secretary Spellings, it was good to see you in Chicago
a couple of weeks ago. I want to personally thank you for all
that you have done to assist the Chicago public schools and
especially with our efforts to improve reading. And so we thank
you so much.
As I was listening to the testimony, and as I have listened
to the questions, I am concerned that there still exists a
tremendous amount of disparity between different population
groups relative to the ability to help become a part of the
competitiveness that we need to have. And especially am I
concerned about the fact that African-American males are
seriously behind many other population groups relative to
preparation in math and science, relative to achieving high
education.
Is there anything in the initiative that would specifically
seek to help address that issue?
Secretary Spellings. Well, I agree with you completely, and
I think that that data, the underperformance of that population
is being unmasked because of No Child Left Behind all around
the country. And so I think the first priority is to get out of
denial about the fact that that exists.
You heard me talk about the rationing of opportunity that
we see in many of our high schools. The 40 percent of the high
schools that don't offer advanced placement, I bet you could
probably predict what high schools in Chicago those are.
And so I think that is the first place we go as we start to
get teachers, existing teachers who are, in many cases, not at
their preference or election, teaching out of field. They are a
biology teacher teaching math or vice versa, or a social
studies teacher teaching math. And we need to upgrade those
skills strategically in the places that need to have those core
competencies most.
I think as part of the Highly Qualified Teacher Initiative,
the first place I am going to look in my discussions with
states about enforcing that provision is, do you have your most
effective people in your most challenging environments or vice
versa? As you know, it frequently works just the opposite. And
so I think there are some policy tools that we have at No Child
Left Behind, and I intend to use them around that issue.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Let me just appreciate that and also
say that I am absolutely convinced that one of the reasons that
we see such high dropout rates among minority males is that
many of them, during the early stages of their development,
don't see or come into contact with a single individual that
they consider to be the same as they; that is, they don't see
any male teachers in early childhood education who are African-
Americans or in many instances Latino. And so by the time they
get to 3rd or 4th grade, I think many of them have already
decided that education is not really for them, that it is a
female, girl kind of thing.
And I would especially like for us to take a look and put
some focus in that area to see whether or not there may be some
weight to change that situation.
And, Secretary Chao, one population group that I am
concerned about is the 700,000 or so people who return home
from jails and prisons each year. I think there is a lot of
talent in that group. Are there any specific things that we are
doing or can do that can help make use of some of all this
talent that oftentimes is going wasted?
Secretary Chao. This is an issue that we have been
concerned about; we share your concern about that. We have been
addressing this issue through the Faith-Based and Community
Organizations Initiative. We were among the very first of any
other departments to understand that for former incarcerated
individuals, when they return to the community, they recidivism
rate is much lower if the community adopted a holistic
approach.
And so we partnered through Ready for Work Initiative with
other community organizations that can provide the support and
that formed a partnership with the training infrastructure
within a community to ensure that, again, the focus of the
programs is on the individual and that the individual doesn't
have to go to so many different agencies and try to find out
what programs are available.
But that the individual remains a focus. The services are
arrayed around the individual and that there are also social
support systems including important community institutions,
like the church, in some instances, to help the individual.
That is a program that holds, we think, at this point, good
promise. We are still in the process of assessing the
performance measurements, but we are very concerned about that
as well.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you.
Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is for Secretary Chao about the Career
Advancement Accounts. I agree with so much of what you said,
this is America, and it is great to have the flexibility of
people to use the $3,000 to be trained in what they want to do.
That only makes sense. You are going to be better at something
you want to do as well.
I like the idea that states have some flexibility too.
I have two caveats and concerns that I want to share with
you, and that is, one, I think part of that $3,000 should be
held back as an incentive to give to whatever vendor does the
training to place the person into a job that they stay. The
other caveat is I think there needs to be a need demonstrated
for those particular jobs.
This is one of those rare instances where I actually have a
little experience in this issue. Twenty years ago, my first job
out of college before I went to law school was working for a
vendor that trained people to be photocopier technicians just
outside New York City. And you remember the old Job Training
Partnership Act. And the way it worked in this particular
company is we would train someone in a 6-week program to be a
photocopier technician, and then we would place them with a
company like IBM or Canon or Xerox, and we would get $1,500 for
training the person but we wouldn't get the remaining $1,500
until they were placed in a job for 30 days.
And that was my job, to make sure they were placed. And it
was a powerful incentive to make sure all those people were
placed. So we had a training program in New York City. I could
get all 20 kids in my class placed right away. I supervise one
in a small town of Kentucky called, Elizabethtown where they
had pretty high unemployment, but much to my chagrin after all
these 20 people were graduated, only two people could be hired
in Elizabethtown because there just wasn't a need.
So because they have that incentive of $1,500 getting
placed, I called every single company in Lexington and
Louisville and got all those people jobs. If we didn't have
that financial inventive, I don't know that those calls would
have been. And so I think it is worthwhile making sure that
there is a placement incentive and that there is a need in
terms of the flexibility that you give to folks.
And I just want to hear your thoughts about those concepts,
as you develop your criteria for who gets the $3,000 and how it
could be spent.
Secretary Chao. Well, the $3,000 will be available to
eligible workers. That would include dislocated, unemployed and
potential incumbent workers as well. This initiative now will
not have that financial incentive at the end, but it will be
extendable for 2 years.
We want to let the worker have just a greater choice and
greater control over their own training, because what we have
found is in an HMO system we are dictating what courses are
available, and sometimes the workers may not appreciate that.
Mr. Keller. I appreciate your frank answer. So there won't
be a financial incentive for placement. If you don't have that,
the next best thing is to make whoever is providing the
training give you some sort of evidence that those jobs are
actually needed.
For example, if you were to have a program in Orlando,
Florida training people to be photocopier technicians, we could
place them all pretty easily. It is a rapidly growing area, it
is a service industry. If, however, some creative vendor
developed a program to train people how to repair snow skis, I
guarantee you we wouldn't be able to place any. And so I think
there needs to be some sort of common sense criteria that a job
is needed, wouldn't you agree?
Secretary Chao. Yes. And we do have performance
evaluations, but your words are another reminder to us that we
really need to measure performance.
Mr. Keller. Right.
Secretary Chao. But we do measure on placement, on
retention and on income.
Mr. Keller. OK.
Secretary Chao. So your words are, again, a good reminder
to us all.
Mr. Keller. Well, thank you, Secretary Chao.
Secretary Spellings, I just want to ask you about the SMART
Grant Program that we have now authorized and funded. My
question is about the criteria. Can you give us a sense--and I
know you are still working on it--for example, roughly, what a
high school student would need? Would you need 3 years of math?
Would you need to pass an AP calculus class? What is it looking
like in terms of the eligibility?
Secretary Spellings. We are looking at exploring all those
things. As you know, that passed fairly recently. We are
putting the finishing touches on our discussions about that
internally, because, obviously, we want to make sure that
students have access to this aid.
As you are well aware, only about half of the states have
designated what they consider to be a college-ready, rigorous
type curriculum, and only 14 states participate in the State
Scholars Program that is 4 years of math, 4 years of science, 2
years of foreign language and the like.
And so we have a disconnect between the need for financial
aid and what is currently being offered in our schools.
Coursework, obviously, will be one of them, but we are looking
at advanced placement scores and other indicators that might be
available for students as well as not just students in public
school systems but students who are in private schools or home
schooled, who don't particularly have access to a state-
prescribed type curriculum. Those students are currently
eligible for Pell aid, and we want to keep it that way.
Mr. Keller. Would you expect the students this fall would
have the criteria by then to be able to get some of the money?
Secretary Spellings. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. Keller. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much.
Mrs. McCarthy?
Mrs. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, again, it is a
pleasure to be working with you as the new chairman of our
committee.
Thank you, Secretary Chao and Secretary Spellings. It has
been, actually, really, I think, a good hearing for all of us.
I guess where I want to go is obviously the achievement
gap. From Kindergarten through college, we know that we are
seeing with our young people that too many of our young people
are beginning life with a disadvantage and they are. We have
made progress, and I have seen that in my own schools, and I am
happy to report on that.
But research and our progress so far show that people can
and must achieve at a higher level. So I support a lot of the
things that we have been doing.
You know, we talk about global economy and we talk about
how global economy is shipping jobs offshore. Well, the
chairman and I went to China and what we saw there through the
educational system, where China, I believe, has 1.3 billion
people, so they can take the best of the best and make sure
they are educated, but they are also now going into the
outskirts to making sure that those children even in the
outskirts are getting the best education.
So from reports that we have looked at, by the year 2020,
if we don't keep up with the global educational system, 14
million jobs are going to go unwanted here in this country
because we are not going to have skilled workers.
In New York, last November, we knew the critical shortages
that we were going to be facing, so, basically, they pulled
together a Board of Regions and had an educational summit. And
just by a little bit of research we saw that going back about
16 years ago President Bush I had an educational summit, and it
actually ended up being a great success. The only thing is that
back then it included Governors, educators. In New York, we
brought the business community in, which I think is extremely
important.
And when you talk about the Academic Competitiveness
Council, which I think is a terrific idea, I notice that those
that are taking part in it there are no business people in it.
And if we are going to be competitive, the business people have
to be part of the whole program.
So I guess, basically, on the background of the New York
summit, they concluded that they had to focus on three areas:
Early childhood education, redesigning high school model and
higher education, obviously. And I think it is something that
we should talk about, and I didn't know whether I would get a
chance to get ask you the question, but would you be interested
in trying to pull together--and I happen to think Department of
Labor and Education have to work together on trying to bring
this up to the President that we should be looking at education
as a global fight that we are going to have to have for our
young people, certainly.
And I also think when looking at remodeling our high
schools and how we teach, to keep our young people in school is
more important. Schools, basically--basically--have not changed
since I went to school. Yes, you have got some computers in
there, but as far as the teaching methods and everything else,
that hasn't changed a lot.
And I think when we see our young people on computers, from
my 5-year-old granddaughter who is a whiz at it, we need to
look at that and how we can incorporate that.
So I am actually hoping that you might be looking to see if
we could have an academic summit. But, again, the business
people have to be in on it, because we have found in Long
Island that if we don't bring the business people in when we
are looking at changing courses, the jobs our young people are
being trained for, there weren't any jobs. So we have to look
at that.
With that, I will say one more thing: health care. We still
have a tremendous shortage of people in the health care world.
We have done a better job bringing nurses but now we are seeing
a real shortage of professors to be able to teach young people
that want to go into nursing or those that are looking at
career changes to go into nursing. So we need to really look
into that very seriously, because now we actually have more
applicants going into nursing and other health care fields and
not enough professors.
So with that, I will leave it, and listen to your answer.
Secretary Chao. Congresswoman, thank you so much for your
words.
You are absolutely right about health care. Health care is
one of the high-growth sectors, and it is a focus of the High-
Growth Job Training Initiative. We need about 3.4 million
health care workers in the next 8 years, and we need about a
million nurses in the next 8 years. I know that you were
involved in the Nurses Reinvestment Act. We continue to be very
focused on that.
We have been working with institutions to ensure that there
are innovative and creative ways to increase the supply of
nurses and the capacity constraint, the bottleneck, in teaching
facilities. It is one that we are trying to adjust through
community colleges, which is why the second initiative, the
Community College Training Initiative, is important, because we
are trying to increase the capacity of community colleges to
help and be part of the workforce development system for
training because community colleges do a great job.
The third point about including employers, we realize that
shortfall in our system, and we are trying to make a more
demand-driven system so that the training that we are advising
people to get will be more reflective of the skills that are
needed in the community.
Thank you.
Secretary Spellings. Congresswoman, let me just add quickly
that the Academic Competitiveness Council was created by statue
as part of the Deficit Reduction Act with the sole charge of
inventorying Federal programs and describing the nature of
them, the effectiveness of them.
Having said that, of course I completely agree with you,
the ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report that included
Norm Augustine, Craig Barrett, the National Governors
Association last year made this the focus of their meeting,
Bill Gates, I participated. And so where I go around the
country the places that are on the move in education reform and
closing the achievement gap are the places that have very
strategically involved their business communities.
And we can and should do more of that at the Federal level,
but I evangelize about that all the time in states as well,
because they the consumers and they are the drivers of smart
policy and good reform.
Mrs. McCarthy. I thank you, and I hope that you would look
into having a summit, because I think it is something that can
be done, and I think you see an awful lot of people out there
would want to be involved in it, because it is basically the
business community that is going to suffer in the end.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. We have been called to vote,
and I think we have about 8 minutes left.
I would like to ask Mr. Osborne to take his questions now,
and I know the secretaries need to leave at noon and we do have
two votes. So what we will do after Mr. Osborne's questions, we
will thank the first panel and secretaries and then we will
adjourn until the end of the second vote.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you both for being here today. It is a pleasure to
listen to you. There has been quite a bit of reaction to the
comments regarding silos, areas within the department that
sometimes are not very adequately funded, maybe some
duplication, and I just want to call attention to the fact that
we did pass a bill in the House called, the Federal Youth
Coordination Act, and it currently has not been able to move in
the Senate to this point.
What we have done is we have identified 150, 200 programs,
much as you said, spread over 13 agencies, and the problem we
are running into is that each agency says, ``Well, we are doing
a good job,'' but the problem is that there is no across-agency
communication.
And so what this legislation does it requires members of
each of the 13 agencies to have one or two representatives to
meet on a Youth Coordinating Council, meet four times a year
and do three things: No. 1, to make sure that each program is
accomplishing its mission; in other words, there is something
called mission creep where there is authorizing legislation and
oftentimes the program is strayed far afield from what it was
intended to do.
No. 2, is there duplication? Is the program in Labor or
Justice replicating and duplicating something in Education?
And then, No. 3, are there measurable, quantifiable goals?
Because what we find so often in government programs is there
is really no way of assessing whether this really is working or
not. And so we think this is really a good piece of legislation
and this involves billions of dollars.
And it is not just a matter of saving money, it is a matter
of more effectively reaching young people. And some of these
are programs that have to do with mentoring, some have to do
with education, some have to do with foster care. And this is
endorsed by almost every youth-serving agency in the country
have endorsed this legislation.
But we are having a little bit of trouble getting push from
the administration, because every department is saying, ``We
are doing a good job,'' but we need coordination across
departments.
That is more of a speech than a question, but I would
appreciate any reaction that you might have, whether you think
something like this would be workable. Because we think unless
we have an overarching coordinating committee that we are not
going to really get the results that we need.
Secretary Spellings. Let me just quickly add that I think
those three things that you named are certainly laudable goals.
One thing that seems to me that is missing is I don't think we
have a clear understanding, because these programs have grown
up over time, of what is the problem we are trying to solve.
Let's just use this competitiveness in education thing. Are
we more concerned about the half of the minority students who
don't get out of high school and don't have the necessary
skills to be either employed or successful in college or are we
more concerned about those Ph.D. fellows in nanotechnology who
may or may not flee this country, go back home, whatever?
And I think those are all worthy programs and goals, but
among the things, have we set our resources around our
priorities or have we described them to each other as to what
is most critical?
Mr. Osborne. That is a good point.
Secretary Chao, do you have any comment or reflection?
Secretary Chao. It is always a challenge to ensure that
there is no duplicative services within the Federal Government,
but it is certainly something that we try to keep in mind and a
goal that we try to achieve.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. The only reason I bring it up is
you both have authority and you have influence, and anything
you can do within the administration to maybe give this a push,
I think many youth-serving organizations would really
appreciate it, and I think it would be a good model that would
be workable.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you. We just have a couple minutes
left on the vote, so I am going to thank the secretaries for
being here; really appreciate it. It is just this is a thing we
live with. And we will recess until 12:30, so the next panel,
you have time to grab a sandwich or something because it will
probably be a long afternoon.
But thank you very much. And Mr. Holt does want to ask you
a question and then he will submit it for the record.
We will now stand in recess till 12:30.
[Recess.]
Mr. Kline [presiding]. We invite our next panel of
witnesses to take their seats. And I would like now to
introduce our distinguished panel.
First is Mr. James W. Jarrett, vice president of Legal and
Government Affairs and director of Worldwide Government Affairs
for the Intel Corporation. Prior to his current position, Mr.
Jarrett was president of Intel China. He joined Intel in 1979
as the company's first manage of Corporate Communications and
was named a vice president in 1987. Prior to Intel, he worked
for two New York-based communications counseling firms and
served with the U.S. Army at the U.S. Military Academy.
Mr. Wes Jurey was appointed president and CEO of the
Arlington Chamber of Commerce, October 1, 2001, having
previously served as president and CEO of the Greater El Paso
Chamber of Commerce since 1990. He is active in the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, serving as chairman of the Board of the
Center for Workforce Preparation and serves on the U.S.
Chambers Education, Employment and Training Committee.
His career in non-profit management began in 1968 and
includes the Methodist Church, the Oklahoma Department of
Institutions, the YMCA, the Boy Scouts of America and Chambers
of Commerce.
And I think you wanted to--I would like to yield now to Mr.
Bishop to introduce the third member of our panel.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am honored to introduce one of my constituents, one of
the brightest minds in this country and one of the most
enlightened and committed and generous members of our
community, Dr. James Simons. Dr. Simons is the president of
Renaissance Technology, which is a highly successful investment
firm.
And prior to founding that firm, Dr. Simons served as the
chairman of the mathematics department at Stony Brook
University and taught math at both Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and at Harvard University. He is the founder and
chairman of Math for America, a non-profit organization that
seeks to improve math education in American schools. And Dr.
Simons also manages the Simons Foundation, a charity devoted to
promoting scientific research.
And if I may just point out one example of Dr. Simons'
commitment to scientific research. We have in our district a
Federal Department of Energy Lab, Brookhaven National
Laboratory, which has a cutting-edge piece of analytical
equipment called, the RHIC, the Relativistic Heavy Ion
Collider. The fiscal 2006 budget for the lab did not provide
funds for it to operate. This is approximately a billion dollar
piece of apparatus that would have lie dormant for a year
because we didn't have operational funds for it.
And Jim and several of his business associates donated and
raised the $13 million necessary for it to operate this year.
So that very important scientific research will go forward
thanks to the generosity of Dr. Simons.
So I am pleased to introduce him, and I am looking forward
to his testimony.
Mr. Kline. I thank the gentleman for his introduction and
for all of our witnesses today for their presence.
Before we begin with your talks, I would like to say that
any of your prepared remarks will, without objection, be
entered into the record. Feel free to summarize as you see fit.
We would like to, if you can, try to limit your remarks to
around 5 minutes or so, and then when my colleagues and I begin
questions, we will adhere to the 5-minute clock.
And with that, I guess, Mr. Jarrett, are you first up? You
have the floor, sir.
STATEMENT OF JAMES JARRETT, VICE PRESIDENT, WORLDWIDE
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, INTEL CORP.
Mr. Jarrett. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
The issue you are addressing is a multifaceted one. It
deals with a lot of different policy areas, but what I want to
focus on is two topics: education and immigration.
And starting with education, if we are looking at education
reform, it really has to begin with one basic thing and that is
to improve the math and science foundation for our students in
the United States. Math and science are really the
indispensable building blocks for having a competitive society
in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, as I think you are all very aware, when we
compare ourselves to other developed nations, the results are
not real good. U.S. secondary school students ranked 19th in
math achievement and 18th in science achievement, according to
one poll. And there are other statistics that are just as
disturbing.
If you look at it just from a quantitative standpoint, in
the year 2000, just 11 percent of American bachelor's degrees
were in physical sciences or engineering, and that simply
really isn't competitive when you compare it with the world
average, which is 23 percent, and if you look at China, it is
50 percent.
So it shouldn't be a surprise that about half of the
advanced engineering degrees granted in the United States are
going to foreign nationals because they are there and can fill
those slots.
So there is really no way to remedy this situation without
seriously rethinking and dramatically improving our math and
science education. And we have to do this from the earliest
grades up.
We think we need to be pretty bold in our prescriptions. We
are going to need much better training for math and science
teachers and that has to be an immediate program and long-term
commitment. And we will need to pay teachers competitive
salaries to attract the most gifted educators.
We need to get rid of the bureaucratic and other
impediments that keep qualified people who want to teach as a
second career out of education.
In that regard, we are excited about the proposals from the
administration on adjunct teachers and the Math Now Programs.
These two programs will really help to get more qualified math
teachers in the classroom, both in the short term and the long
term.
Most important, we think we need to stop tolerating
mediocrity. We have schools that have consistently demonstrated
how to raise math and science standards, and we ought to learn
from them and then figure out how to replicate that across the
country.
In addition, there are some initiatives that are
demonstrating success with both teacher content and student
achievement. For example, the Vermont Mathematics Initiative
focuses on building the mathematical content knowledge of
elementary and middle school teachers throughout the state of
Vermont.
Intel is funding the development of an 80-hour curriculum
for teacher professional development that builds on the VMI
experience. It is our intent to make this curriculum available
to teachers throughout the United States.
None of what we are looking at doing is going to be easy.
It requires reexamining a lot of entrenched notions about
public education. Unless we start restructuring public
education around better math and science, we think America's
competitiveness is going to falter.
Immigration policy is the second issue I want to raise with
you. Border security and illegal immigration rightly concern
all Americans and it has been very much headline news these
last few weeks.
There is another side to the problem that has gotten lost
in the current debate. We really desperately need more
immigrants, more legal immigrants or talented students from
other countries. We need them to fill our graduate schools of
engineering and then to keep those students here to work and
build after they graduate.
But our immigration policies really do nothing to encourage
the best talent to come and stay. We have far too few H1B
visas; 65,000 cap just isn't sufficient on an annual basis. At
Intel, for example, we have had to place qualified foreign
nationals abroad. Just recently, Intel hired a key systems
engineer for a position in the United States, and since there
were no visas available, we had to place that person in an
offshore laboratory that is owned by Intel.
So, Mr. Chairman, polices such as these just don't make
sense. Why should we encourage U.S. companies to send jobs
overseas?
In the meantime, we have an enormous backlog of those
seeking permanent resident status. That backlog constitutes a
real deterrent to foreign graduates considering whether to
remain here, particularly now that they have a lot of really
superb opportunities at home. No country that wants to be the
greatest competitor in the world can afford to close its doors
to the world's most promising talent, yet that is precisely
what we are doing. It makes no sense to invite foreign students
to study at our universities, subsidize their education and
then tell them to go home.
There are, of course, a lot of other drivers in
competitiveness. There is investing in technology and
infrastructure, tax policies that encourage research and
manufacturing, a rational patent system, but I want to urge you
not to lose sight of the centrality of improving math and
science education and reforming our immigration system.
These are urgent needs, and I am pleased, Mr. Chairman,
that you and your committee have recognized their vital
contribution to American competitiveness. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarrett follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Jarrett, Vice President, Worldwide
Government Affairs, Intel Corp.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me
to testify today. My name is Jim Jarrett and I am Vice President for
Worldwide Government Affairs at Intel Corp.
As all of you know, the issues surrounding U.S. competitiveness are
not entirely new. But today we see them in a remarkable context. In the
past 15 years, half the world's population--about 3 billion people from
China, India, Russia and Eastern Europe--has entered the world
marketplace. This is a change in the global economic landscape without
precedent. It represents immense opportunities for American companies.
New markets like this simply don't open every day.
But it is also clear that these new markets represent a threat--a
threat to our country's economic and technological leadership. While it
is true that American companies have faced foreign competition in the
past, we are now seeing the rise of ambitious, innovative, and
extremely competitive businesses, especially in Asia. And they have
these huge, increasingly prosperous populations right on their
doorstep.
So how can the United States respond? That is the fundamental
question at the heart of these hearings, Mr. Chairman. It was also the
question posed to the Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of
the 21st Century, the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy
of Engineering panel on which our chairman, Craig Barrett, served. The
Committee offered a number of provocative proposals in its report,
``Rising Above The Gathering Storm.'' Today I will focus on what I
believe are the two most urgent needs the report identifies: education
and immigration reform.
Education
Let's start with education. It's a huge topic, and I'm sure you
will be consulting with many experts. But when it comes to
competitiveness, education reform has to begin with one thing: a
massive improvement in the math and science foundation we give American
students.
Math and science are the indispensable building blocks in a world
that increasingly depends on innovation, discovery, engineering
technology, communication, and ideas. That is why every developed
country is vigorously pursuing math and science education.
Unfortunately, when compared to other developed countries, U.S.
secondary school students ranked 19th in math achievement and 18th in
science achievement.
Other statistics are even more disturbing: In 2000, just 11 percent
of American bachelor's degrees were in physical science or engineering.
That simply isn't competitive. In fact, it is far below the world
average of 23 percent or China's 50 percent. And consider that
approximately half of advanced engineering degrees granted in the U.S.
go to foreign nationals.
There is no way to remedy this situation without seriously
rethinking and dramatically improving our math and science education.
We have to do this from the earliest grades on up.
I'm not saying anything you haven't heard before. This has been a
long-standing concern of many of the members of this Committee and
everyone who has been engaged in promoting greater American
competitiveness. But the transformation in the global economy has made
this more pressing than ever.
We need to be bold in our prescriptions. Math and science teachers
will need far better training than they receive now. This has to be
both an immediate program and long-term commitment. We will need to pay
teachers competitive salaries that attract the most gifted educators.
We need to get rid of bureaucratic and other barriers to qualified
people who want to teach as a ``second career.'' In that regard, we are
excited about the proposals from the Administration on adjunct teachers
and the Math Now. These two programs will help to get more qualified
math teachers in the classroom both in the short term and long term.
Most important, we will need to stop tolerating mediocrity. We
have, in this country, schools that have consistently demonstrated how
to raise math and science standards. We ought to learn from them--and
then figure out how to replicate their success across the country.
These schools have some very clear identifiable characteristics like
dedicated qualified teachers, consistent school leadership and high
expectation for all students. In addition, there are also some
initiatives that are demonstrating success with both teacher content
and student achievement such as that of the Education Development
Center (EDC) as well as the Vermont Mathematics Initiative (VMI). EDC's
national program provides professional development for teachers and
school leadership in math for enhancing content and pedagogical
knowledge. VMI's program focuses on building the mathematical content
knowledge of elementary and middle school teachers throughout the State
of Vermont. Intel is funding the development of an 80-hour curriculum
for teacher professional development building on the VMI experience. It
is our intent to make this curriculum available to teachers throughout
the US--giving them a solid grounding in mathematics themselves, which
current data demonstrate translates into greater confidence, enthusiasm
and learning for their students.
None of this is easy. It requires re-examining a lot of entrenched
notions about public education. But unless we start restructuring
public education around better math and science, America's
competitiveness is going to falter.
Immigration
Unfortunately, our problems with competitiveness in education are
aggravated by our immigration policies--the second issue I want to
raise with you. Border security and illegal immigration rightly concern
all Americans. But there is another side to the problem that has gotten
lost in the current debate.: we desperately need more immigrants * * *
immigrants who are talented students from other countries. We need them
to fill our graduate schools of engineering--and then to keep those
students here to work and build after they graduate.
Yet our immigration policies do nothing to encourage the best
talent to come and to stay. To begin with, we offer far too few H1B
visas to meet our needs. The current cap of 65,000 foreign engineers
and scientists who may enter and work in the U.S. each year is hardly
sufficient. In fact, it undermines our competitiveness.
In the meantime, we have an enormous backlog of those seeking
permanent resident alien status. That backlog constitutes a real
deterrent to foreign graduates considering whether to remain here--
particularly now that superb opportunities await them back home.
No country that wants to be the greatest competitor in the world
can afford to close its doors to the world's most promising talent. Yet
that is precisely what we are doing. Intel's Chairman, Craig Barrett
has often said--only half in jest--that we should staple a green card
to the diploma of every foreign student who graduates from an advanced
technical degree program. It makes no sense to invite foreign students
to study at our universities, to subsidize their educations, and then
tell them to take the jobs we have trained them to create--and go home.
There are, of course, other drivers of competitiveness: investing
in technology and infrastructure; tax policies that encourage research
and manufacturing; and a more rational, well-financed patent system.
But I want to urge you not to lose sight of the centrality of improving
math and science education and reforming our immigration system. These
are urgent needs and I'm pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you have
recognized their vital contribution to American competitiveness.
Thank you.
______
Mr. Kline. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Jurey?
STATEMENT OF WES JUREY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ARLINGTON, TX,
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Jurey. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and my
distinguished panel, thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the committee on this important issue. I am Wes Jurey,
president and CEO of the Arlington, Texas Chamber of Commerce,
here representing the U.S. Chamber in my capacity as chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Center for Workforce
Preparation.
At the outset, we want to recognize the importance of a
skilled workforce, the demand for knowledge workers, the
expectation of lifelong learning and certainly echo the
thoughts that math and science are critical, leading to the
engineering and technology backgrounds that we are going to
need. It is one of the reasons we have supported tapping
America's potential to double science, engineering, math and
technology graduates by 2015.
It is also why we generally support America's
Competitiveness Initiative because we recognize the shortage of
workers, the aging baby boomers and the declining demographics
demand that we think very creatively and innovatively. And that
is why we have entered into a partnership with the AARP to
focus more on how we retain our aging but knowledgeable
workers.
We do support the premise the Department of Labor has taken
that we really do need and employer-responsive, employer-led,
demand-driven, publicly funded system, and that comes from a
partnership between business, education, the publicly funded
system.
I am currently personally engaged with the Department of
Education and the Department of Labor as they role out their
new institute in which they are engaged in communities across
America in supporting the creation of those kinds of strategic
partnerships, and I think that program has merit.
I think we have got to recognize that we won the cold war
and in the process and in the process created 3 billion new
competitors for the world's resources and markets, and that is
not been true in my lifetime until recently. In a document
embracing the global demographic transformation, the late
George Kozmetsky made note of the fact that 12 percent of the
world's population controls and lives on 88 percent of the
world's wealth, and those are all people in countries with
projected declining populations through 2050.
That also means that 88 percent of the world's people are
subsisting on 12 percent of the world's wealth, and they are
all in those countries that we are now competing with, and they
are all projected to have significant population increases
through 2050.
If we recognize that most of the world's natural resources
are abroad and most of the world's people are abroad, we still
have the technology and capital and have to focus on how that
market niche can be improved. Because in coming decades, and it
is already nearly here, the majority of the consumer population
will live somewhere else, and our challenge will be a workforce
that can become both trading partners and friendly competitors
to those other countries.
What are we doing about it? Well, the Center for Workforce
Preparation is deeply engaged in looking at those kinds of
models that can lead to systemic change based on strategic
partnerships, while the Business Education Network is involving
the corporate philanthropy community in ways in which they can
directly and individually impact student performance.
Our experience to date underscores the need for knowledge
workers who can think strategically, solve problems, be
innovative and at the leading edge of the commercialization of
technology discoveries, and that demands a focus on our
education and workforce systems, inclusive of public education,
higher education and the public funded system.
Let me quickly bring it to the local level. We recognize in
Arlington, Texas that our University Workforce Board, community
college and ISD collectively spend $1 billion a year training
our future workforce. That is $1 billion in one community in
America.
And we quickly became focused around working with those
organizations and industry clusters that were relevant to that
region, and our goal was very simplistic: That as a partner to
those institutions, we could help shape the way those dollars
were spent in ways that would be impactful, both to the worker
population and to the community.
But I would remind you again that demands strategic
partnerships, and I applaud the Department of Labor for
recently incentivizing that. When they announced $250 million
that would go to community colleges, they also stipulated that
to apply those colleges had to demonstrate they were part of a
partnership that engaged business in a meaningful way as well
as other higher education partners. And as you begin to frame
the public policy debate around this set of initiatives, I
would encourage you to think about the things you can do at the
Federal level that really engender the business community's
engagement at many levels.
If you think about the system we have created, there is an
organizational presence for everybody but the business
community. They are the only people we recruit one business at
a time, and we have not thought deeply about the organizations
that represent them and the role they can play in bringing the
business community to the table to form those partnerships.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering any questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jurey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wes Jurey, President and CEO, Arlington, TX,
Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today before the Committee on the
subject of ``Building America's Competitiveness'' and its importance to
our global economy. I am Wes Jurey, President and CEO of the Arlington,
Texas, Chamber of Commerce. I was previously President and CEO of the
Greater El Paso Chamber of Commerce.
I am here today to testify on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the world's largest business federation, representing more
than 3 million businesses and organizations of every size, sector and
region. The Chamber represents 2,800 state and local chambers of
commerce and trade associations with membership in all 50 states.
More than 96 percent of the Chamber's members are small businesses
with 100 or fewer employees, 71 percent of which have 10 or fewer
employees. And, virtually all of the nation's largest companies are
also active members.
I currently serve as Chairman of the Board of the Center for
Workforce Preparation, a 501(c)(3) affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. I am also chair of Workforce Development for the U.S.
Chamber's Chamber of Commerce Committee of 100 and serve on the U.S.
Chamber's Education, Employment and Training Policy Committee.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has long recognized the important role
of quality education and workforce investment in keeping business
successful and the American economy competitive. We need to ensure that
all students have a strong academic foundation to meet the workforce
needs being demanded by employers today and in the future. We must not
be complacent when all the indicators clearly tell us that our
education system is not producing enough individuals with the skills
needed to succeed in the workforce.
Unless we face our economic competitors and respond dramatically to
the statistics that say China is graduating more than eight times as
many engineers as the United States, or that only 51% of our high
school graduates are ready to handle the reading requirements of a
typical first-year college course,\1\ then we will be failing our
students and our workforce now and in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American College Testing, ``Reading Between the Lines'', March
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With 80 percent of the fastest-growing occupations of the future
generally requiring some post-secondary education, the Chamber believes
our nation's goal must be to prepare our high school graduates to be
``college ready and workforce ready.'' Many new jobs will require more
technical skills and a greater understanding of math and science--
subjects in which American students fail to show a suitable level of
competence or even interest. Several months ago, in response to this
challenge, the U.S. Chamber, along with other business organizations,
began an initiative called Tapping America's Potential, which calls for
the doubling of America's science, technology, engineering and math
graduates by 2015.
The Chamber shares a strong commitment to fostering human talent
and creativity in the U.S. and commends the administration for
introduction of the American Competitiveness Initiative in the State of
the Union Address. As we invest in current programs, we must also
invest in the future by providing greater opportunities for math and
science education and promising programs that enhance the productivity,
effectiveness and efficiency of teachers and principals that will
contribute to the academic achievement of our students. It is crucial
that our government provide pro-growth and pro-opportunity policies to
ensure that we maintain our competitive edge.
At the same time, our economy is facing an ever-increasing shortage
of workers as the baby boom generation begins to retire. The American
workforce is aging with no new growth of workers between the ages of 25
and 54 expected to replace them between now and 2020. In order to defy
this compelling math of America's changing demographics, we must work
harder to overcome the stereotypes that older workers face, finding
ways to retain these valued employees, and providing educational
opportunities to help them adapt to changing technologies and skill
demands. Older workers can benefit, in particular, from non-traditional
post-secondary educational opportunities offered by proprietary higher
education schools. These schools are one of the most effective ways for
working adults to pursue lifelong learning, improve their skills, and
continue to be valuable contributors to economic growth. According to a
recent analysis by BusinessWeek, the increased productivity of older
Americans and higher labor-force participation could add 9% to our
gross domestic product by 2045. This 9% increase in gross domestic
product would add more than $3 trillion a year, in today's dollar, to
our economic output.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ BusinessWeek, June 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber is already committed to educating employers on
ways to hire and retain workers age 50 and older. Through its Center
for Workforce Preparation and in partnership with AARP, it will conduct
four regional, one-day employer training workshops, to be held at metro
and regional chambers across the country to provide solutions to assist
employers in this endeavor.
In the knowledge-based, global economy of the 21st century, the
U.S. Chamber believes that, working together, educators, business, and
government at all levels can do better. The U.S. Chamber's 2006
education and workforce agenda is built around creating a more
competitive American economy. It begins with recognition that America's
place in the world is not a birthright. It was earned through the hard
work, sacrifice, risk taking and innovation of our people and our
businesses. Only by fully tapping these great American qualities and
through policies that expand the workforce and restore excellence in
education and science will our global competitiveness continue in the
21st century and beyond.
The U.S. Chamber is currently involved in a number of specific
education and workforce-related efforts to ensure that businesses have
access to a highly skilled and qualified labor pool. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation (CWP)-in partnerships
with local chambers, businesses, government, other workforce
development organizations-has been instrumental in defining and
demonstrating the unique role of local chambers in workforce
development and education. CWP's goals include building replicable and
sustainable workforce development models; conducting and supporting
research to develop more diverse and productive workplaces; and,
developing and showcasing effective workforce and education
initiatives.
The U.S. Chamber also is using its resources to spur local action.
We organized the Business Education Network (BEN) whose goal is to
build business and education partnerships that improve competitiveness
and academic achievement. Through BEN, the latest developments in the
areas of math and science and other curriculum content, educator
development and partnership effectiveness and accountability are shared
with the business and education community.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's network of state and local chambers
and our corporate members can be the vehicle through which community
solutions to the education and workforce challenge may be developed and
shared. We will attempt to bridge the needs of local employers with
educational institutions, including community colleges, schools using
the latest in on-line technology, and various state and federal
government-funded workforce programs. Our efforts will take place in
many arenas and will utilize many techniques in order to create the
momentum to make education reform and workforce readiness a national
priority. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's federation of state and local
chambers and associations along with our member companies can be the
``voice of business'' through which solutions to the education and
workforce challenge can be implemented and shared.
A Local Solution--The Arlington, TX, Chamber Workforce Model
Now, I'd like to highlight how Arlington, TX, through the
leadership of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce, is positioning our
community to be globally competitive through 4-5 general areas in which
we have been active. While interrelated, I'd like to discuss these
separately.
For the past 60 years, the Arlington Chamber has represented the
interests of local businesses, including the more than 1,300 current
members who employ 60,000 individuals in Arlington. The chamber serves
as the primary catalyst for Arlington's economic development, fostering
a positive business environment through the enhancement and
diversification of the community's economic base, representing business
on public policy and community issues that impact the ability of
Arlington citizens and businesses to reach their full economic
potential.
For the Arlington Chamber, the acquisition, development and
retention of a quality workforce remains the number one issue for our
local businesses. Education and workforce development provides the
infrastructure for all of our efforts to serve the business community
with its human capital issues. Other examples of the Arlington Chamber
working in partnership with the community are worth noting. For
example:
<bullet> We created the Education & Workforce Development Council.
The mission of the Council is to ``Build a quality employer's workforce
by linking together resources that meet workforce acquisition,
development and retention requirements.''
<bullet> We created Team Arlington(tm) which is a Chamber-led
coalition that advocates for resources in support of our economic
issues. Partners include the City of Arlington, University of Texas at
Arlington, Tarrant County, Tarrant County Community College Southeast,
Arlington Independent School District, Tarrant County Workforce
Development Board, and the Arlington Chamber of Commerce; and, City of
Arlington, and local businesses.
<bullet> We established the Arlington Technology Incubator, the
Center for Continuing Education and Workforce Development, the adoption
of Triple Freeport tax exemption, and the Central Arlington Housing
Development Corporation.
As the Arlington Chamber has demonstrated, the business community
cannot make the changes alone and therefore communities must focus on
the need to develop and sustain public-private partnerships.
Relationships must be built at all levels-from the CEO to the frontline
workers. There must be integration of employers with the K--12
education, higher education, adult education, publicly-funded
workforce, and technical education systems to develop systemic change.
A local chamber of commerce is uniquely positioned to bring
together workforce development, economic development, and education
organizations. By working together communities can create new jobs in
emerging industries while simultaneously tapping into a local workforce
that is prepared to fill these jobs-ultimately positioning the
community to compete in the knowledge economy.
The Arlington Chamber of Commerce was also selected by the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce's Center for Workforce Preparation for
participation in the Workforce Innovation Networks (WINs) demonstration
project. Funding for this project came from the U.S. Department of
Labor. Workforce Innovation Networks (WINs) is a national multi-year
initiative that helps chambers of commerce make their local public
workforce development systems more market-driven and responsive to the
needs of both employers and workers. The purpose was to demonstrate the
value of a local chamber of commerce as an effective business
intermediary for workforce and education services. Employer
organizations provide a structured, organized framework for employer
engagement and involvement. Our communities, states and the nation are
far more competitive when we include business as a full-fledged partner
in the education, training, and workforce development systems.
Research by the Arlington (Texas) Chamber of Commerce in 2001
revealed that approximately $1 billion in public funds is spent each
year on programs to create, mold, and shape the local workforce. In
developing a four-year strategic plan, the chamber's employer members
agreed that influencing how this money would be used was their top
priority for workforce development. In a community where the
unemployment rate is historically lower than the national average,
employers indicated a clear interest in influencing the programs that
could ultimately help them access qualified workers.
Representing area employers, the chamber wanted to determine its
role in developing the local workforce and expanding the area's
intellectual capital using already-funded programs. The key, the
chamber decided, was to act as a broker of services by developing
strategic partnerships with the public workforce system. The impact of
this work has been considerable, from implementation of an industry
cluster strategy to addressing the needs of critical-need industries,
to the creation of the Center for Continuing Education and Workforce
Development (CCEWD), a collaborative that allows businesses to access a
range of workforce development services in a single location.
An Industry Cluster Approach
Fostering the development of industry clusters as a means of
increasing the region's competitive advantage is a key component of the
chamber's approach. The industry cluster concept was popularized by
Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter. Simply put, it refers
to a concentration of industries that benefit from co-location. The
chamber works to align a range of factors that support a cluster's
development including infrastructure, access to capital and technology,
public policy, and the local workforce. The WINs grant provided the
chamber with an opportunity to develop a critical-need industry cluster
that aligned the needs of the workforce system, the educational system,
and the business community within a sustainable and replicable model.
Like many cities, one critical-need industry in Arlington is health
care. Some estimates indicate RN vacancy rates in the region are above
10 percent. Under the WINs grant, the Arlington Chamber leveraged their
membership to form the Health Care Industry Cluster which consists of
health care provider CEOs, health care deans of nearby colleges, local
school district officials, and the Workforce Development Board. WINs
funded a series of studies to assess the nursing shortage in Tarrant
County and increase the capacity of educational programs needed to
train a future health care workforce.
The Health Care Industry Cluster agreed on a three-pronged approach
to address the nursing shortage. First, they focused on increasing
nurses at the instructional level. Audit data revealed that
instructional nursing staff are in highest demand, and the top
contributing factor is lack of funds to pay Master's level nurses to
become instructors. The cluster engaged students from the University of
Texas at Arlington (UTA) Graduate Business School to develop a business
plan highlighting the need and the benefit of having the private sector
fund additional instructors. Over a dozen hospitals were involved with
the development of the plan. Work in this area has highlighted the need
for specific legislative change in how nursing instructors' pay is
allocated--an issue the chamber is currently working to address.
The second area of focus for the cluster was to establish
articulation agreements among educational institutions to better enable
the nursing educational system to promote workforce development. One
innovative effort has focused on a pre-RN track at the high school
level. Backed by support from the mayors of Arlington and Fort Worth,
the presidents of the Fort Worth and Arlington chambers, three hospital
CEOs, and the Superintendent of the Arlington Independent School
District (AISD), the cluster submitted a proposal to Tarrant County
College (TCC) and the AISD. Officials agreed to develop a Licensed
Vocational Nursing (LVN) program that would allow Arlington's high
school juniors and seniors, who are ready to pursue college level
curricula, to earn dual credit LVN coursework in high school, sit for
the LVN state exam at the end of their senior year, and then transition
into the TCC Registered Nursing program. The program is scheduled to
begin in the fall of 2006.
The third aspect of the Health Care Industry Cluster's strategy is
a nursing mentoring program focused on increasing the retention rate of
nursing students. Graduate students at the UTA Social Work Department
interviewed deans from nearby colleges and universities and conducted
student focus-groups to identify the issues associated with the dropout
rates. From this, a proactive counseling program was created for
students to discuss their issues and challenges and to intervene before
the student drops out of a nursing program.
Strategic Partnerships to Benefit Business
The chamber realized that the local Workforce Investment Board
(WIB), known as Workforce Solutions, had access to resources that could
make Arlington's workforce (and therefore, its businesses) more
competitive. They also knew that local businesses were in the best
position to effectively shape Workforce Solutions' strategies in
support of economic growth. However, they faced a challenge in that
local employers weren't using the publicly-funded system. Employers
don't care about the public policy of a system they don't use.
We decided that the best way to engage employers was to act as a
liaison between chamber members and Workforce Solutions. They had to
create buy-in among employers and sell the idea of Workforce Solutions'
services. With funding from WINs, the two organizations developed a
strategic partnership under which the chamber would implement employer
outreach and help make the WIB demand driven. We needed to first focus
on demand so that the supply side had a place to go.
Under the terms of the partnership agreement, Workforce Solutions
committed to provide all necessary information about the resources the
workforce system has available, as well as staff support to the
chamber. The WIB also strengthened its participation in chamber
activities by volunteering for chamber board and committee
appointments. For its part, the chamber was able to leverage its
marketing channels (e.g., newsletters, Web site, media relations) and
credibility to facilitate buy-in among employers.
Center for Continuing Education and Workforce Development
A Singular Resource for Employers
An important outgrowth of the chamber-Workforce Solutions
partnership was the development of the Center for Continuing Education
and Workforce Development (CCEWD). The center is a collaborative
partnership housing fifteen workforce service providers--including the
office of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce's Workforce Development
staff--that now operate as a single unit focused on meeting employer
and employee needs.
The chamber's Education and Workforce Development Council
spearheaded development of the Center for Continuing Education and
Workforce Development, working in partnership with Workforce Solutions
and the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). Built on the UTA
campus, the facility integrates higher education, the publicly funded
system, and employers into an integrated model. The chamber's Education
and Workforce Development Council employer members meet on a monthly
basis to provide center administration with feedback and information
related to the needs of the employer community. A valuable by-product
of this approach is that by increasing awareness of workforce
development issues and resources, council members have become effective
advocates of the ``employer-driven'' workforce development system for
the employer community. The combined impact of these efforts should not
go unnoticed: Between September 2004 and September 2005, the center's
market share nearly doubled (from 6.96% to 13.5%).
Because of its success in engaging employer users, the Arlington
Chamber received a grant from Workforce Solutions to serve businesses
by using WorkInTexas.com, a Web-based job matching service, and local
one-stop career centers. The grant enables the chamber to offer the
resources of a streamlined workforce system to its employer members.
The chamber's work will also include a special emphasis on small and
medium-sized businesses.
Through the agreement, the chamber aims to register 600 employers
with WorkInTexas.com. The program focuses directly on integrating
employers with the Center for Continuing Education and Workforce
Development while keeping the specific workforce needs of the employer
in mind. Employers were asked to register with WorkInTexas.com and post
one job opening and provide feedback on their experience. From there,
staff registered employers and provided information on the resources
and services offered at the center.
The chamber's efforts have been met with great success.
Replicating Success
The Arlington Chamber of Commerce is confident that other chambers
can respond to members' workforce development needs and position
themselves as powerful intermediaries for workforce and education
systems. Following are a few keys to success:
Leverage Credibility: As an effective intermediary, the Arlington
Chamber's focus is on brokering the services and resources provided by
the public workforce system. The chamber, with its existing business
relationships and access to information, is in an excellent overall
position to broker the services and resources on behalf of the public
workforce development system. Employer members have already developed a
level of trust with the chamber and are therefore more likely to get
involved with a system the chamber recommends.
Focus on Local Needs: In Arlington, the data clearly showed that
health care was an immediate and pressing need. Thus, it became the
first area of focus in the industry cluster approach and a range of
solutions are being implemented. Importantly, it also provided a
replicable model for additional industry clusters formed around
advanced manufacturing, hospitality and tourism, and emerging
technologies.
Be Demand Driven: The Arlington Chamber believes that any effective
``employer-driven'' workforce delivery system must fully engage local
business representatives and capitalize on their leadership and
expertise. For example, to engage businesses to use WorkInTexas.com, an
introductory letter signed by the presidents of the Arlington and Fort
Worth Chambers was sent to over 3,500 employer members asking them to
participate in the pilot program.
Keep the Lines of Communication Open: Staff from the Arlington
Chamber regularly provide feedback to representatives from the public
workforce system. In addition to the chamber's Education and Workforce
Development Council monthly meetings, bi-weekly meetings between
chamber and Center for Continuing Education and Workforce Development
staff members present an opportunity to discuss workforce issues and
review the needs of new employers registered with WorkInTexas.com.
Create Opportunities for Employers to Access the Workforce System:
Chambers have unparalleled access to employers and systems in place to
create networking and informational opportunities. The Arlington
Chamber workforce staff host monthly ``Jobs Now'' forums that give
chamber members an opportunity to present their employment needs to
Center for Continuing Education and Workforce Development partner
organizations.
Conclusion
Through the media and other sources the business community hears
the mantra-train U.S. workers; invest in the domestic workforce. We at
the Arlington Chamber and my fellow members at the U.S. Chamber do just
this and more. For example in Arlington, you'll find training centers
at our manufacturing facilities-designed to improve technical
manufacturing skills to meet our employees' personal needs. We
collaborate with community colleges and vocational technical schools to
provide certificate and college degree programs. We offer tuition
reimbursement programs for employees pursuing bachelor's and advanced
degrees. We provide corporate on-site training programs and encourage
cultural exchanges from facilities abroad to enhance diversity and
awareness.
American business and the U.S. economy have faced challenges before
and always overcome them. Innovation has been the key to our success in
the past and can be again. We are encouraged that the Committee is
exploring the competitive issues in a global economy and I hope that
constructive solutions can be identified.
As you consider the Committee's program of work for 2006 and begin
to address the many educational and workforce problems of this country
and the American competitiveness agenda, we would like to take this
opportunity to offer you the assistance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and that of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you again for allowing me to testify. I look forward to
answering any questions that you might have.
______
Mr. Kline. Thank you, sir.
Dr. Simons, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. SIMONS, PRESIDENT, RENAISSANCE
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Mr. Simons. Like everyone else, I thank you all for
inviting me, and I am happy to be here.
The problem that has been raised over and over again and
the problem that we are particularly concerned with is that we
need our kids in America to learn math and science and they are
not doing it very well. So that is a problem that has been
increasing. And at the same time, the economy into which they
will enter is more and more dependent. So we have two things
going in opposite directions: An economy that is depending more
and more on people who are technologically based and an
educational system which is turning out fewer and fewer such
people.
Sounds like a contradiction but it isn't. Why would that be
happening? How come these two trends are going in opposite
directions? We need more, they give us less? What is going on?
Well, what is going on is extremely simple. At the heart of
the education system are teachers, and teachers have to know
the subject that they are teaching. If they don't know the
subject that they are teaching, they are not going to impart
that subject very well, in some cases, not at all.
So what is happening? How come our teachers don't know
these subjects anymore? Why not? Because they are being pulled
into this very economy that is stimulating the demand for more
and more technically oriented people.
You know, when I was a kid we had some pretty good math and
science teachers. The market for people who knew, let's say,
mathematics outside the classroom was there, you could become
an engineer or one thing or another, but it was a modest part
of the economy. There were no computers, no demand for computer
programmers. There was no high-tech biology. It was a different
world.
And so young men who had a predilection for, let's say,
mathematics might well become a teacher. For women, it was even
more so, because for a women who knew mathematics, let's say,
she couldn't even become an engineer, they wouldn't let her. So
if she wanted to work, school teaching was a perfectly good
job. So the economy wasn't pulling these folks out, and to some
extent it was actually keeping them out in the case of women.
So there was a reasonable supply of people, and I went
through public school and was appropriately stimulated to learn
math and science. I had some very good teachers, and I went on.
Now, I graduated high school in 1955, so it is 50 years later
and a lot has changed.
So now we have an economy that really needs these kind of
folks, and teaching is not an especially attractive profession,
at least it is not as attractive as it might be.
So we need teachers of math and science who know the
subject. It is indisputable and undebatable, but we are not
getting them.
Now, in any other organization, in any other part of our
economy, if you have jobs that are going begging, if you have a
need for a certain type of person and you are not getting them,
you have to look and say, ``What can I do to make this job more
attractive so that I will get the kind of people coming into
the field that I need?'' You can change the working hours, you
can raise the salaries. You do what you need to do in order to
attract these folks and to keep them there.
You don't bribe them. You don't say, ``Oh, I will give you
$10,000 if you come work for me right off the bat.'' Well, that
maybe will run someone to the door, but he or she is not going
to stay very long, because it is the job, it is not some
impetus. You can give a kid a scholarship and say, ``You have
got a nice 4-year scholarship and then you will agree to teach
for the next 5 years.'' Well, maybe they will and maybe they
won't. But if a teaching job is really not very attractive,
they are going to leave as fast as they can.
And we need to do the obvious thing: We need to make
teaching math and science and particularly at the high school
level but it is an even more difficult challenge at the
elementary base, we need to make those jobs attractive enough
to bring in people who know the subject. And there is no
question that today we are not getting them.
So what do you do? Well, when I was younger, we discovered
that we had a big lack of college professors of science and
engineering. Sputnik had just gone up. Everyone was worried. I
got my Ph.D. in 1961. I was one of 300 mathematics Ph.D.s in
the United States. Ten years later, there were 1,500.
So the government created a program called, National
Defense Education Act to address this challenge. By a fluke, I
was the first person in America to get his degree under this
act, I was the first Ph.D. under the National Defense Education
Act. I got a letter from Abe Ribicoff, the secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare at that time congratulating me.
But that program stimulated a lot of kids besides me. It
worked, and we filled those jobs. At the same time, the jobs
got better. When I graduated from Berkeley with a Ph.D., I was
offered a teaching job at MIT. They wrote me a letter, they
said, ``We are going to pay you $7,500 per academic year.''
That seemed fine to me compared to what I was getting. Before I
got there, a month later, they wrote and said, ``No, you know
what? We are going to pay you $9,000.'' I was even happier.
But that escalation in academic salaries was extremely
strong in the next 10 years. So not only was the government
giving a push but the colleges were giving a pull. And an awful
lot of people were attracted into the field and stayed there.
Now, sort of inspired by that experience, I had always
wanted--well, not always but over the last several years wanted
to see something similar done for, let's say, high school math
and science teachers where now we have the biggest need.
And as an experiment, and hopefully to do a service for the
city of New York and also to act as a pilot, we started
something called, Math for America and we built a fellowship
program in New York City, and the scholarship program had two
components. One component was attracting young fellows and
girls and the other, rewarding existing teachers who know the
subject.
It has been an enormous success. We screen kids, we take in
40 to 45 kids a year. We screen them, we give them a test. If
they pass the test, they go through an interview. One of our
young fellows is here today, Alan Chang, who is sitting right
there, a graduate of Dartmouth and MIT. They come in, they are
plunged into 1 year of intensive pedagogy, because none of
these kids have had any pedagogy, and then they go and teach
for 4 years. They get stipends all along. So by the end of the
4 years they are getting $20,000 a year on top of their teacher
salary.
That has attracted an incredibly good quality of kid, and
as an investment, it is a good one. And what we hoped--I know I
am running over my time--what we hoped, and do hope, is to use
this pilot program to demonstrate that a national program can
make sense.
And there is a bill now that has dropped called the MSTC
Corps, Math Science Training Corps, which mimics, it copies, to
a large extent, what we have done in math in New York City to
do nationally. It creates a corps of people, a corps of
trained, enthusiastic and well-paid people to educate our kids.
If one in five high school teachers was well-qualified in
terms of subject knowledge and in this corps, it would make a
revolutionary difference in the education in the United States
and stimulate others to come into the field, stimulate school
districts to pay more, and the extra pay that these folks would
get, according to this bill, which would be $20,000 a year, is
accepted by the NEA.
We met with the NEA. They are going to write a letter in
support of this bill. They understand, everyone understands
that we have to do something to make math and science teaching
a more attractive profession or we are not going to solve the
problem that we are all here to discuss.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simons follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Simons, President,
Renaissance Technologies Corp.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I am a private citizen who is
deeply concerned about our nation's ability to maintain its leadership
in an increasingly competitive world--a world in which technical
knowledge largely determines the chances of success for individuals,
companies and nations.
Having spent fifteen years as an academic mathematical researcher I
am now the President of Renaissance Technologies, a private investment
firm that uses exclusively mathematical methods to manage roughly $12
billion. My philanthropic interests, expressed through our family
foundation, are primarily devoted to supporting scientific research,
with a recent focus on the causes of (and possible cures for) autism.
Three years ago, alarmed by the growing shortage of knowledgeable
mathematics teachers in our public schools, we founded Math for
America, a nonprofit organization that operates a program in New York
City to attract, train and retain outstanding math teachers in public
secondary schools. In doing so we hoped not only to benefit the City of
New York but to create a program that could serve as a model for a
federally funded effort of national scope.
In 1961 I was the first person in the United States to receive his
PhD under the auspices of the National Defense Education Act. Shaken by
the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik, and concerned by a shortage of
scientists and mathematicians teaching at our universities, Congress
responded by enacting this program. It was an outstanding success. I
may have been the first, but a great many followed, and in less than a
decade, whatever shortage may have existed was surely eliminated. Based
on that foundation, our military preparedness went from strength to
strength, culminating in the complete eclipse of the Soviet Union as a
military threat. The challenge we face today is just as real and
perhaps even more urgent--to see that our nation is properly equipped
to economically compete in the twenty first century.
Our competitors are not standing still. China, India and other
countries are investing in economic infrastructure, particularly
education and technology. They believe that these investments are the
roadmap to prosperity because they are the very pillars on which our
own economy was built over the last fifty years. To effectively compete
we must respond, and a vigorous and imaginative federal policy must be
a key part of this response. The House Democratic Innovation Agenda,
championed by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Miller, outlines such a policy. Though
the Agenda calls for policy changes in five areas, I will focus on
three in which I have personal interest and experience: Research and
Development, Alternative Energy, and Education. I will speak briefly to
the first two and at greater length on the third, the most fundamental.
Research and Development
I don't need to convince this panel that Research and Development
has and will continue to contribute significantly to our nation's
economy and to our quality of life through scientific advances,
technological discoveries and the development of new industries. As a
former professor and chairman of the Stony Brook University Mathematics
Department, I have been deeply involved in scientific discovery
directly, through my own work, and indirectly, through the work of my
colleagues, students, and, in recent years, through the work of the
various research universities and institutions on whose board I sit and
whose work our foundation supports. These include MIT, Rockefeller
University, The Institute for Advanced Study, and Brookhaven National
Laboratory. Institutions like these are at the pinnacle of our nation's
(and our world's) research infrastructure, and their continued vibrancy
is crucial if the United States is to maintain its leading position.
All are highly dependent on federal research funding, most notably from
the Department of Energy, the NSF and the NIH. A short anecdote
illustrates the precarious position in which we may find ourselves
unless our government is rededicated to world scientific leadership:
Brookhaven National Laboratory is our nation's leading research
center in nuclear physics. Although budgets had been steadily shaved
over the past ten years, spirits at the Lab remained reasonably high
because the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collidor (RHIC) had been running for
the past two years and had produced spectacular results. RHIC is the
world's most energetic accelerator, cost well over $1 billion, and had
been many years in the planning and construction. In particular, its
recent results included the discovery that the state of matter in the
initial moments after the ``big bang'' was what is known as a perfect
fluid, and not the plasma that had theretofore been conjectured. This
created shock waves throughout the world's physics community and was
generally considered the best result of (at least) the decade in
experimental physics. Groups from all over the country and the world
had participated in the planning of these experiments and celebrated
the outcome. The plan for the current year was to run experiments in an
attempt to finally understand the mysterious cause of proton spin, a
key aspect of the fundamental structure of matter. These studies were
to be made in conjunction with groups in Europe and Japan, who had
spent more than $60 million over the past several years in preparing
for the effort. Then something amazing happened. Due to a budgetary
shortfall the DOE was unable to provide the $13 million necessary to
actually run RHIC this year. This billion dollar machine, the hottest
property in the experimental physics constellation, was to be shut down
for twelve months, many of its personnel let go, and, while it would in
theory be restarted the following year, the research on proton spin,
not being part of the following year's schedule, would never be done.
The political efforts to get the federal government to change its
mind were heroic but fruitless. The DOE science budget was simply too
tight, and try as one might the money could not be loosened up. This
was not the fault of those running DOE, whom I greatly respect, but
stemmed from an overarching setting of priorities at the highest levels
of government. These must change if we are to move forward.
I must say that the story actually has a happy ending. My company,
Renaissance, stepped in at the last minute and put up the money. This
brought joy to the Lab and to our friends overseas, both of which
groups had felt left in the lurch. Moreover, DOE has promised more
generous treatment of Brookhaven and other National Laboratories in FY
07. This promise must be kept if we are to remain the richest and most
powerful nation in the world.
Clean and Independent Energy
There is little I can add to the welter of discussion on the issues
of clean energy and energy independence except to stress its importance
and to express some personal views. These should be regarded with some
skepticism as I am not an expert, although I have a strong interest in
the subject and have consulted with those who are. Several points seem
important:
1. Global warming is clearly under way, and, whether or not it is
primarily caused by CO2 emissions, such emissions certainly don't do us
any good and may well do us great harm.
2. Nuclear energy has the dual virtue of causing no emissions and
being a source not dependent on foreign sources of oil. Moreover, a
standardization of plant design (as the French have done) can make this
source of energy cheaper and even safer than it is today. Whether the
public can ever be persuaded to see it that way is an open question.
3. Coal is cheap and readily available world wide. Coal fired
plants will be the obvious choice of much of the world's future
electrical generation. These plants can be engineered to sequester the
emitted CO2, which would then be compressed and stored underground.
Unlike nuclear material, the inadvertent escape of stored CO2 would be
a modest nuisance rather than a potential catastrophe. Such
engineering, as I understand it, would add somewhere between ten and
thirty percent to the cost of the plant. This should be able to be
brought down fairly quickly. Government sponsored research and
development in this area is an absolute must, as will be an incentive
program to ultimately get old domestic plants converted and new ones
designed to incorporate the technology.
4. In the long run, the only viable, clean, and essentially
limitless source of energy is solar, and the obvious and potentially
ubiquitous application is electrical generation. The problem is cost.
While much work, both government sponsored and private, has been done
on cost reduction, a great deal more is necessary. Again, government
sponsored research in this area is a must. An example is the Helios
Project at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
5. The majority of petroleum consumed in this country and around
the world is for transportation, primarily cars and trucks. Given the
economic growth rates in Asia, the numbers of these will grow rapidly.
The obvious alternative is electric powered vehicles, and the only
impediment to their wide spread deployment is inadequate rechargeable
battery systems. Much work has been done in this area, and reasonable
progress has been made. I myself have made significant private
investments in the field. Nothing else has a near term chance to
substantially reduce the world's need for petroleum. In my opinion
government R&D support for rechargeable batteries should be at the top
of the list of energy priorities.
Education
Even more important than either of the above is a technologically-
prepared workforce. At my own company, for example, fewer than half of
our more than 60 PhD's were born in America, and the vast majority of
technologically based companies are in the same boat. The leading edge
of our economy is increasingly based on importing scientifically
trained people and exporting scientifically based projects. This avenue
is not available to our nation's military and intelligence services,
whose present and future need for workers with degrees in math and
science can only be filled with home grown product. It is absurd, and
ultimately contradictory, that a country which aspires to maintain
world economic leadership be so grossly deficient in producing the very
workers who can make this possible.
At the heart of the issue is the dwindling supply of well-prepared
high school students prepared and inspired to go on to receive
university training in these demanding fields. And that in turn is
primarily due to the dwindling supply of public school teachers who are
knowledgeable in math and science.
The bleak story about math and science achievement among American
students is well known, and a fact sheet outlining these issues is
attached. Moreover, I am sure you are each acutely aware of the math
and science teacher shortages and the consequent number of out-of-field
teachers in our classrooms. The sad truth is we are not educating our
children for the 21st century.
It goes without saying that to teach a subject one must know it,
and those who know math and science are increasingly lured away from
possibly teaching in the class room by more lucrative positions in the
very economy whose future we are hoping to ensure. The answer is
simple--we need more and better teachers of math and science and to get
them and keep them we will have to pay them more. Regrettably, teacher
pay is not tied to market forces, therefore incentives from the federal
government, first to attract more qualified individuals into math and
science teaching, and then to keep them there seems the only
practicable option.
As a first step in this direction we created Math for America and
the privately funded Newton Fellowship program, restricted to
mathematics, which we hoped would serve as a pilot for a future federal
program covering both math and science. Our goals were to improve
student achievement in the short term and build life-long appreciation
for the subject. We assumed, and research showed, that teacher content
knowledge is essential, and that became the gating criterion for
selection to our program. We use standardized testing to ensure that
all of our Fellows have a deep understanding of math. Of course, we
recognize that deep content knowledge, while necessary, is
insufficient, so a second key component of the program is pedagogical
training, mentoring and professional development to help our teachers
grow as professionals. Through a cohort model, they receive support
from each other and the program.
With a prestigious Fellowship program and appropriate marketing we
were certain that we could attract top candidates to teach math in New
York City. In fact, sitting behind me here is Alan Cheng, one of our
Newton Fellows. Alan has an engineering degree from Dartmouth and a
master's in technology and policy from MIT. He has the content
knowledge to teach math, knows how to relate math and science to ``the
real world'' and is truly interested in shaping children's lives. He is
a motivated, smart, talented young man. In New York City he could go to
a financial, engineering or consulting firm and earn at least twice the
salary of a public school teacher. People like Alan--the best and
brightest--follow their hearts and go into teaching, but typically
don't stay. The statistics are dramatic. Smart, talented math and
science teachers leave the profession at nearly twice the rate of their
peers. When asked why, they most often cite low salaries. We hope that
Alan will stay and we have provided, as the third key component of our
program, a financial incentive. A full scholarship to earn a master's
degree in education and, over the succeeding four years of teaching,
annual stipends, starting at $11,000 and ending at $20,000 are provided
as a supplement to their regular salaries.
I am confident that the MfA program in New York City will be a
success, but one philanthropic effort in one city is clearly not
enough. The approach we have taken in New York, seeking out individuals
with high level skills, training them and paying them well to work in
our schools, must become national policy for us to have any hope of
long term success in the technology race of this new century.
Before stepping down I would like to point out that there is now a
bill before this House, and before the Senate as well, which is
designed to affect the program we have in mind. It is called The Math
Science Teaching Corps Act (MSTC), and was introduced in the House by
my good new friend Jim Saxton and in the Senate by my good old friend
Chuck Schumer. It is also co-sponsored by my latest friend, Ruben
Hinojosa, a member of this Committee, whom I am pleased to hereby
thank. MSTC also has the verbal support of the NEA and AFT, both of
whom recognize the need and acknowledge the appropriateness and the
timeliness of such a program.
Conclusion
Science and technology are the drivers for the world's economic
prosperity, and America must not only keep up but take the lead. To
make this happen, our federal government, and particularly the
Congress, has a vital role to play and the House Democratic Innovation
Agenda offers a strong model to follow. Almost fifty years ago the NDEA
and other congressionally sponsored programs provided a magnificent
response to the Soviet challenge. This time the challenge is even
bigger, and I am confident Congress will come through once more.
Thank you.
______
Chairman Mckeon [presiding]. Thank you. I apologize for
being late.
Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jurey, we met with Mr. Barrett when we were putting
together our innovation agenda for the Democrats and we took
his suggestion of stapling the green card to the diploma. We
think it makes an awful lot of sense in terms of keeping
talented people here. And, hopefully, at some point, in this
larger debate, we will make a decision that we want an
expedited means for these students to stay here when they get
their degree.
Mr. Simons, thank you very much for your testimony. There
has been a lot of fits and starts about how we get highly
qualified teachers into the classrooms, and there is obviously
a lot of energy thinking about that. I have a very
comprehensive bill that came out of Lou Gerstner's teaching
commission proposal that has a long sustainable effort to try
to improve the profession.
I was interested when I met Alan this morning in the office
that he plans a career in teaching. He is not suggesting that
he is going to successfully complete your program and then
maybe do this for 5 years and then go off and be an engineer or
use his talents elsewhere. He didn't make that lifetime blood
pledge but he said that was his intention.
It is interesting to me that he thinks that the market will
be able to offer him that opportunity to make this a career in
education. What about the other candidates that you have talked
with in this program?
Mr. Simons. Well, you know, they are all very young, and so
they are enthusiastic and I think most of them assume they are
going to make a career in teaching. But after they have been at
it a while, we will see. It is one thing to get folks like Alan
in and to keep them in for 4 or 5 years through the various
inducements.
The bill that we are proposing has a second component where
experienced teachers can also come into the corps if they
demonstrate sufficient knowledge of subject and other good
qualities and will also get stipends on top to reward them and
to keep them in the classroom. And a boy like Alan, if he were
an entry member of this MSTC Corps, after 5 years he could
reapply. He would apply as an experienced teacher and if he was
good enough, as I expect he would be, he would become a member
for another 5 years. So there is a follow-on, at least we
imagine a follow-on.
But things can change and maybe the rest of the folks will
wake up to understand that these folks need more pay and better
conditions. And maybe by the time Alan's 5 years have gone by
everyone will know that and the problem will be solved. I tend
to doubt it, but it is possible.
Mr. Miller. Well, I find it encouraging because it is a
piece of evidence that suggests that if you really change the
profession and you make it more professional, if you will, if
you give teachers greater control, if they have a sense that
they are going to have some say and some participation in
creating a different workplace, that they see this as a longer-
term commitment. If they are going into a system where they are
going to be regimented and not have those opportunities, it
seems to lower their horizon about staying there. So it
suggests that we have other changes that need to be made in
that environment.
Mr. Simons. Yes, and the better people we can attract into
the job, the more likely those changes will be made, because
you will have stronger voices arguing for those changes.
Mr. Miller. Well, that is the critical mass that you were
talking about, if you could get one in five people in this
situation.
Again, in the hearings we are now able to really look at
the value added by highly qualified teachers and obviously a
student that is able to spend 3 years in a row with a highly
qualified teacher has a much different outcome than the
student----
Mr. Simons. No question.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. That doesn't get that opportunity.
Mr. Simons. There is no question.
Mr. Miller. So that is very encouraging what your program
is doing.
I would just also make a comment that there is a joining
here. I didn't know you all were going to be on the panel, but
in our discussions with Mr. Barrett, the CEO of Intel, we were
looking for the pull. If people were going to become--if we
could create new innovators and they wanted to participate in
that part of the economy and be out there, what was the pull?
And he recommended, as you do, that we really have got to
look and make a major investment in alternative energy
resources, that that would be the next generation of drivers
within the high-tech field if we really put our minds to it as
a nation, that he saw that as a real opportunity to give people
a place to land, if you will, after they acquired this set of
skills, that that would be an expanding base for American
employment.
Mr. Simons. Well, given Mr. Jarrett's comment about the
paucity of H1 visas and how dependent they are on H1 visas, one
would think there are a few places to land for American boys
and girls right now if they are qualified. Half the people we
hire aren't H1 visas. We are a little smaller than Intel, I
have to confess. But, nonetheless----
Mr. Miller. About as profitable, though.
Mr. Simons. Well, we are pretty profitable, I have to say
that. But half of our technical employees come in with H1
visas, at least half. So it is very hard to find well-qualified
people. So there are jobs now that are going to--well, in any
event.
Mr. Miller. Well, I think what is clear from this panel of
testimony, Mr. Chairman, that obviously we have to address a
whole range of bottleneck within our education system, within
our economy, within our immigration system, within our R&D
policy to make this work and certainly to make it work in a
timely fashion that many of you who are the experts in this
area tell us we need to do. This isn't one where we can just do
it at our own convenience and our own timeline, because there
are other timelines out there that are very, very competitive
with our standing in the world.
Thank you so much for you testimony.
And, Mr. Chairman, I think you said that their statements
could be put in the record in their entirety. Thank you.
Chairman Mckeon. No objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bishop?
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me start with a question for Mr. Jarrett. My background
is higher education. I was a college administrator for almost
30 years, and we had an uneven experience with adjunct faculty.
Some were outstanding, others were just, sort of, phoning it
in.
And I guess my question is, do you see the push toward more
adjunct faculty in high schools? Do you see that as, sort of, a
temporary strategy while we develop, hopefully, a larger and
better qualified cadre of full-time teachers or do you see this
as part of a permanent solution?
Mr. Jarrett. I think the experience will probably continue
to be uneven. This is a new area, and people are going to have
to feel their way along and see what works and what doesn't
work. And we will see how big the market really is of people
who really want to go into teaching as a second career, either
for a period of time or permanently.
But as you know, there are a lot of bureaucratic barriers,
a lot of professional barriers that are there to prevent them
currently from making this kind of step. I think that is what
really needs to be addressed first.
But how successful this will be long term, I think we are
going to have to work our way through it to see how it--it
seems like a good idea now.
Mr. Simons. We have a little bit of evidence on this,
because we advertise widely to get applicants for the MSA
Program, and we had hoped that we would get a reasonable number
of these folks as career changers. But I think it is less
than--maybe it is of the order of 5 percent.
The great, great majority of people who apply to come in to
this program are people right out of college. We do get a few
career changers. We had a gal from Morgan Stanley, I think,
who, there for 20 years, got bored, and she has been terrific.
But they are few and far between.
Now, it is a New York City experiment. It may not be
applicable, necessarily, around the country.
Mr. Bishop. Let me ask Dr. Simons a question. No Child Left
Behind is, sort of, the central effort on the part of the
Federal Government to improve K through 12 education, and it
requires that there be a highly qualified teacher in every
classroom, although I think all of us would agree that we
haven't gone as far as we could to make that possible.
We are going to be reauthorizing No Child Left Behind in
the next year or so. It has a significant emphasis on testing,
lots of tutoring. And picking up on your comment that the
central element in education, obviously, is outstanding
teaching, would you be encouraging us as we reauthorize No
Child Left Behind to swing the emphasis away from testing and
away from measuring the performance of subgroups and invest
more Federal resources in seeing to it that school districts
can hire more qualified teachers?
Mr. Simons. Well, I am not a good person to answer that
question, because I haven't studied the value of some of these
parts of the No Child Left Behind, in particular the
measurements and the testing. I generally think that
measurements are pretty good. If you are going to have a
program, it is pretty nice to be able to measure how far you
are getting.
It is clear we need money to improve the knowledge ability
of teachers in math and science. That is clear. Whether that
money should come out of some other area, I can't really
comment on. Sorry.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Mckeon. Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I thank the witnesses. I would like to make a couple of
comments to elicit your reactions, but then I have a more
directed but still general question for Mr. Jarrett.
I would follow on what Mr. Miller has said as well as what
Mr. Bishop has said and say that one of the things that has
concerned me, as a product myself of the National Defense
Education Act, is that we run the risk of repeating a
fundamental mistake that we made then, which was to develop a
generation of scientists and engineers, the likes of which the
world has never seen, and left behind 80 percent of the
population. I think it is critically important that we adopt
the approach of science for all students, science for all
Americans, and I think that can be done without compromising
excellence.
Furthermore, I think that we need not--and, of course, that
is one of the reasons that I think that in No Child Left Behind
science should be part of the assessment and should be part of
determining adequate yearly progress. Otherwise, science
becomes only for the future scientists, and I think that is
dangerous for our society in this day and age.
Furthermore, again, as a product myself of the NDEA, I
think what we need is not just a new NDEA but we really need a
national commitment to science. And part of that includes the
kinds of things that followed the launch of Sputnik in addition
to NDEA so that students did feel that they had an avenue to
follow, that there was a reason to study science. And the best
candidate for that these days is not a space race but an energy
program, which, defined broadly, would include such things as
smart transportation and so forth, I believe.
The effort so far from the administration are, in many
ways--the rhetoric is good, but I am a little concerned about
the adjunct teacher program, as Mr. Bishop is. I have been a
highly qualified scientist. I have also been a teacher. One
does not imply the other. And I hope we are not heading in the
direction of just plopping down scientists in the classroom and
saying, ``Now you are highly qualified,'' because it won't work
that way.
I hope we recognize that these scientists that we bring in
are in many cases novices in the classroom. They probably
should be regarded as provisional, in some sense. And a great
effort should be made to integrate them into the teaching
profession. And although I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of the
recent legislation, which allows for movement in this
direction, I think what we did was just a drop in the bucket.
Which leads me to my final point, and this is really a
question for Mr. Jarrett. I have served with Craig Barrett on
the Glenn commission. I commend him for his public service,
which I think is also probably a real service to his
stockholders. But you, speaking perhaps with him or for him,
say that we need to be bold in our prescriptions, we need to
stop tolerating mediocrity, we need to, yes, staple green cards
to the Ph.D. diplomas.
But what do you mean by being bold? I just hear lip service
from all over this town to--there is a lot of talk about
competitiveness, even in the State of the Union Address, but I
don't see it in the numbers, in the budget that follows. I see
no movement in the recommendations of the, ``Rising Above the
Gathering Storm,'' again, which Craig Barrett assisted in,
beyond lip service.
So I am looking for these bold prescriptions with bold
action to follow. Any comments on any of those things. I see my
time is expired and I have rambled enough. Thank you.
Mr. Jarrett. I guess if I can just respond a bit. One of
the tendencies in government is, ``Let's go study it again,''
right. And the point that Craig Barrett has made several time
is, this problem of teaching math and science effectively
doesn't require yet another commission. There are a lot of good
models out there, inside the United States and outside the
United States, about how to do this effectively. We need to get
on with it and not waste additional time studying, studying,
studying before we go off and try some things. So that is one--
if that is bold, we will call it bold, but that is one of the
things we need.
I think we also need to make sure that in the area of
measurement, that faced with the problem of kids who aren't
measuring up, there has been a tendency out there to, ``OK,
let's dumb the tests down or let's push out some time before we
start measuring people so that more kids get a chance to pass
that test.'' That is not going to solve our problem. I mean, we
need to get on with it and learn what that measurement tell us
and then deal with it and not dumb down the tests or push out
the time before we start testing.
Mr. Holt. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would just insert a
thanks to Dr. Simons for his effort to help the Relativistic
Heavy Ion Collider move along.
Mr. Jarrett. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to excuse
myself.
Chairman Mckeon. Thank you very much for being here. Drive
carefully, and I hope you get your flight.
You know, I think we have all--I missed most of your
testimony and I apologize for that. The competitive issue I
know I have been hearing about for years. People have been
telling me, ``You have got to go to China, you have got to go
to India, you have got to do this and that.'' And we went to
China last year and I think it was a very productive, we
learned a lot, and we have all looked at China, Inc. and the
world is flat and all of the stories.
But I want to get your response to an article that was
published in The Washington Post by Robert Samuelson entitled,
``The Phone Science Gap.'' I just want to hear what your
response is to this.
He talked about the fact that American colleges and
universities were graduating more students in computer science
than ever before. He pointed out that graduate science and
engineering enrollments were at an all-time high. He noted that
per million in the United States graduate slightly more
engineers with 4-year degrees than China and three times as
many as India. And then the other figures where we talk about
we graduate 40,000 engineers and they graduate 4 million, he
says that is not apples to apples; it is different kinds of
engineers.
Just to play devil's advocate on this, because I have been
pushing this hard, but what is your response to something like
this? Is it real?
Mr. Simons. Are you asking me?
Chairman Mckeon. Both of you.
Mr. Simons. Well, I didn't read Samuelson's article, so I
can't comment on it. But I think the difficulty in hiring
Americans to do the jobs that are at the leading edge of the
economy is evidence enough that there is some kind of shortage.
There is certainly a shortage of Americans. If we just say we
are going to hire, as we did yesterday, ``OK, we are going to
hire five more researchers. They are all going to have Ph.D.s,
they are all going to be physicists or mathematicians or
astronomers, the kind of guys we hire.'' Now, I know damn well
if two of those are U.S. kids, it will be a surprise. So there
we are.
Now, so far we are saved by people immigrating. The H1
Program could be expanded, that is great, but they are leaving
countries which are growing at a great rate. I built a building
in China on the campus of Chingwa University. I agreed to do
that 5 years ago. I went over there, spent some time with their
Institute for Theoretical Physics, a new institute. Chingwa is
in Beijing. It is a very good university. A friend of mine, a
Nobel prize winning scientist, is the head of that, Frank Yang.
I like Frank, I like what he was trying to do there, and I
said, ``Well, what do you need?'' He said, ``Well, what we
would really like is we can't get visitors, we can't get
visitors, we don't have accommodations for them. We can't put
them at the fancy hotels for a semester.'' This is visiting
professors and so on. It is too expensive to put them in a
fancy hotel, and, frankly, the typical Chinese accommodations
aren't satisfactory. It is too crude.
So I said, ``Well, we will build some apartments.'' Oh,
that is really what they wanted. OK. So we build a small
apartment building. Half of it is done; it will have 15
apartments. They came out beautiful. They opened it in October,
and so I was there for the dedication. Now, 4 years have gone
by and what I said was, I said, ``Well, this is great, but I
will tell you, in 10 years I am going to come and ask you guys
to build us an apartment so that we can get more Chinese
visitors to America.'' Because they are making such progress
that after awhile this flow of Chinese kids or Indian kids to
America is going to slow down, because there will be plenty for
them to do there. Those wages are going up.
And so it may be that for the moment we are OK with
imported kids and we are OK with exported jobs, because an
awful lot of technical projects are now going, let's say, to
India, software projects. They do a darn good job, they charge
a fraction of the amount. So that is OK for now, but it is not
going to last. Their wages are going to go up, their kids are
going to stay home, and we will be left without that edge. So
that is how I would respond to Mr. Samuelson.
Mr. Jurey. Well, I would give you this take. I think the
broader issue is that we are facing unprecedented global
competition that we didn't anticipate 20 years ago. We really
did create 3 billion new competitors for the world's markets
and resources when we won the cold war.
And if you begin to look at what is really happening, we
can argue all we want about how many scientists who produced or
how many engineers who produced, but the reality is that 20
years ago we didn't have countries like India and China
literally competing with us. We really were the primary
economic engine for the world. And that has changed, that
paradigm has shifted.
And it means we are going to have to think, as you put the
policy framework in place, about what that total paradigm shift
really means to America's competitiveness beyond making sure
that we have kids well-grounded in math and science. Because I
do believe our primary competitive niche today is our ability
to be innovative, to be bold, to be able to be at the leading
edge of commercialization of technology.
Now, the industrial revolution was literally built around
the fact that we invented technologies that created the
assembly process. And then the Internet has accelerated where
we are going today. And yet we haven't thought a whole lot
about what that means in the broader sense. And so we can
create 60,000 engineers or 600,000 engineers, but they are
still facing a very different level of global competition.
When I was in El Paso, I was confronted with the fact that
shortly after I took that chamber opening, I was going to lose
11 percent of my entire jobs, because the garment industry was
absolutely moving offshore. And I had picketers outside the
chamber wanting to know what we were going to do about it in an
era of NAFTA, and I finally invited them in and said, ``I don't
know what to tell you when a company trying to remain
competitive in a global economy can sew the same number of
garments per hour and pay 50 cents to get them sewn and they
can no longer afford to pay $12 an hour to sew them here.''
And is the challenge is for you not to try to cling to that
job but for you to try to retrain for a higher, better-paying
job. And that was my first real thoughts, frankly, about how we
are going to have to think globally, because the jobs are going
to change that our grade school children are going to compete
for by the time they become educated. And a lot of those jobs
haven't been invented yet, but I am reasonably sure they are
still going to be based on kids who need to be highly educated
in math and science. And that starts very early.
Educators predict whether a kid will make it by the 3rd or
4th grade; they don't wait until high school. And when I got an
education degree, they told me that at age 10 a kid had 90
percent of what he was going to take into adulthood already
firmly formed. And so when you start thinking about how to
structure and incentivize, I think we have to take into account
that we are going to be for a long time in a very different
kind of global competition. Because China is using energy at an
unprecedented rate.
We have talked a little bit in this hearing about how the
Science and Technology Initiative, going to the moon energized
America. Energy is going to be critical. We are going to be
competing for scarce global resources and energy, and it may be
that that is one of the directions that we have to take. We
need to become the world's leader in energy innovation. We need
to become the world's leader in finding the new technologies,
the new ways. Israel tried to solve a water problem and became
one of the great exporters of water technology.
There is no reason we can't try to solve an energy problem
and reenergize America around science and math and the skills
it takes. And you begin to attack air pollution, which is a
health hazard, which adds to the cost of health care, which
begins to spill in a lot of different ways.
And I guess I am trying to get you to think a lot more
broadly about America's competitiveness than simply whether we
will incentivize more math and science teachers. I don't mean
to minimalize that, I don't mean to take away from it; I only
mean to attempt to really broaden the debate, to think about
the global environment we are going to be competing in for a
very long time and the real shifts that are taking place that
aren't going to shift back.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Mckeon. Yes?
Mr. Miller. Just if I might, it is interesting, with all of
the people that we discussed our innovation agenda with, and I
read the article in response to all of this, that there was
just no evidence from companies, as Mr. Simons said, people
were not able to find people sufficient in-country to do this
work. We just met with Bill Gates the other night and he went
all through this again.
And I know there are people who say, ``Well, there are all
these engineers that are unemployed and the rest of that and
somehow you don't really need to make this effort.'' But, boy,
you sure don't hear it within the community of those who are
employing and looking for leading-edge people in these various
fields.
So I think we are on the right track, but the trend lines
at the schools of engineering and the rest of it are all in the
wrong direction at the moment for American students.
Chairman Mckeon. You know, I have the same experiences, but
I did talk to a couple of companies the last time I was home
that said they were able to get people. So that is why I
wanted--sometimes you feel like we are inundated with
information here, and when it comes from different sources and
it says different things, it is like we want to go in this
direction but then we wonder is that really the right
direction. That is why I wanted your response, and I appreciate
Mr. Miller's response.
I feel like we have been moving in the right direction, but
I wanted to take advantage of your expertise while we have you
here.
I think that we still need to relook at all the different
programs we have and try to gauge their effectiveness.
Fortunately, throughout the country, people aren't waiting for
us, because I agree with Mr. Holt, a lot of times in this town
there is lots of talk. But as I go around visiting schools, I
see lots of exciting things happening, and people are moving to
try to solve these problems.
They are not waiting for us to pass some major piece of
legislation and then try to get it through the regulators and
try to get it down to the end of the row and then have them try
to interpret it and then all of a sudden they say, ``Oh, gee,
now we can do something.'' They are not doing that. They are
out trying to educate and train people. Some, however, are more
creative and are moving quicker than others.
We had a young man sitting right here a few years ago in
one of our hearings, talking about just because you graduate
with a teaching degree does not necessarily mean you are
qualified to be a teacher, just as having a great science
degree does not mean you are qualified to be a teacher.
And he was a young black man that was teaching in this
area, and he said they hired him, put him in the classroom so
he could teach these 2nd and 3rd graders to read. After 2
years, he was ready to quit, because he was not successful, he
was not able to teach. Hopefully, some bright principal got
hold of him, got him into the right teaching. Now he is really
enjoying his vocation and he is successful teaching these kids
how to read.
I see teachers that are doing a fantastic job. I see some
that are not doing so well. One of the reasons they are not is
they haven't been taught. Another reason they are not is they
are burned out or they are protected. There is no way they can
lose their job and they are just tired of it.
Now, this young man here, I hope--he is the one you were
talking about that is going into teaching--I hope that he finds
that he likes it. One of the concerns I have about training
teachers is we run them through 3.5 years of university and
then we put them in student teaching. Sometimes they find they
don't like kids.
[Laughter.]
They have already invested 3.5 years, so they have to
become teachers. Why don't we have them maybe visit a classroom
when they are a freshman and they see what they are going to
have to put up with and see if they want to do it.
I am glad you said the NEA supports this proposal of
adjunct, because when I was on the school board we tried a
mentor teaching program and we were going to give a $2,000
stipend to some of the better teachers to help mentor some of
the other teachers. The union fought us on that, and we finally
got it in, but it took a long time.
And there is this trying to keep everybody at the same
level, and why should just because he took his 4 years in
science and I took my 4 years in English, why should that
person be paid more to teach than I am? So there is a lot of
this kind of stuff that we need to deal with.
Mr. Simons. They seem to have gotten that at the NEA. I was
quite surprised, as I went into this meeting with their
executive director and the staff----
Chairman Mckeon. I am very hopeful that they have----
Mr. Simons [continuing]. And they warmed to it, and we are
about to get a letter from them supporting what we are doing
and so on.
Chairman Mckeon. I was talking to Mr. Miller earlier--and
this is not a hearing, now we have kind of evolved to a
fireside chat, which is good--but I was talking to Mr. Miller
earlier about some new union leadership that has also expressed
these same kind of things. And I think everybody realizes, or
not everybody, but people are coming to realize things are
different, and we need to react differently.
And it is not really going to affect you, but our children
and our grandchildren are going to--if we don't wake up and if
we don't meet the challenge, they are going to have a different
lifestyle than we have been able to enjoy.
Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are two, I think,
important comments I would like to make.
One, as a co-sponsor of the amendment that is leading to
these adjunct teachers, and someone who has had extensive
discussions with established teachers as well as teachers
organizations, I wouldn't say that they wholeheartedly embrace
the idea of the adjunct teachers. What they embrace is the idea
of bringing content expertise into the schools as long as we do
it in a way that recognizes the need for training in pedagogy
and recognizes the need to integrate these people into the
teaching profession.
Mr. Simons. I would just point out that our program in New
York, the first thing the kids do is spend 1 year--and that is
what Alan is doing now--in a pedagogy program----
Mr. Holt. That is right. And it certainly can be done that
way.
Mr. Simons. Pardon me?
Mr. Holt. It certainly can be done that way.
Mr. Simons. It can. It can be done, yes. And then they go
out and they know the math, they get the pedagogy and the
reinforcement and they practice teaching and all the rest, and
then they go out and they do great.
Mr. Holt. The other comment I would very much like to make
as sort of a coda to today's discussion and particularly since
we have a representative of the Chamber of Commerce here, is we
mustn't forget that in China, for example, 50 percent of the
imports that come from China are not Chinese companies that are
competing against us. They are from foreign-owned companies
using the means of production in China to produce things and
send them back to us. And so we have to understand that this is
the result of conscious decisions by American companies to ship
production to China.
And we dare not let this discussion of the need to improve
our science and math education and increase our competitiveness
turn into an excuse for corporations not to invest in America,
not to invest in American workers, to take the short-term,
cheap approach of exporting jobs and means of production. That
certainly has been the case, and it is all too easy to allow
hand-wringing about our inability to find qualified workers
here in the United States as an excuse not to invest in the
United States. And we dare not let that happen.
Mr. Simons. Can I comment on that?
Mr. Holt. Absolutely. I was saying it, in part, for your
benefit, so I would welcome a comment. Yes, Thank you.
Mr. Jurey. Because I think that puts in context some of my
earlier remarks. Not only are U.S. firms setting up production,
distribution and sales in other countries, but foreign-owned
firms are setting up production, distribution and marketing
here in the United States. It really is a global market.
And I will go back to my comment that most of the world's
consumers in the future won't live in the United States. How
will U.S. firms remain competitive if most of the people that
are buying don't live here, if they aren't in those countries
with production facilities, marketing facilities, distribution
facilities? And how do we respond accordingly when an extremely
confident corporate citizen, like Siemens, they are a European-
owned company, is also here in the United States manufacturing
equipment for the U.S. Postal Service, as an example? It is
working both ways.
And it is why I said I don't think the debate should solely
be around how many engineers we graduated versus how many
engineers another country graduated. This whole debate needs to
be taken in the context of what is happening in the global
marketplace, and those shifts are permanent and they are going
to continue, and it is not going to come back to the way it
was.
And so we really do have to think about how do we become
both collaborators and competitors with those countries and
those marketplaces? And it is going to take a lot of thoughtful
discussion between the business community and those of you who
are policymakers and those in the educational side of the
business.
Chairman Mckeon. And we could probably sit here all
afternoon in thoughtful discussion. But I want to thank you for
being here, and this will be an ongoing dialog, and I hope you
will continue to participate with us.
With no objection, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charlie Norwood, a Representative in
Congress From the State of Georgia
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for hosting today's hearing to explore
the important issues facing the competitive nature of the American
economy, and to examine the Administration's ``American Competitiveness
Initiative.''
The Administration's proposal responds to significant developments
in the international economic arena that impact American families of
all walks of life. After all, it is no secret that the United States'
no longer enjoys preeminence in the field of innovation, and our
competitors abroad are making great strides.
India, China and other emerging powers to our east are surging
ahead in high technology fields that are producing the jobs of the
future. India alone produces over 350,000 engineers every year. China
produces over 600,000.
These folks can't compete with an MIT rocket scientist. However,
they are young, hungry and filling jobs that American companies send
abroad.
In some cases American firms outsource to meet bottom line numbers
and compete with international foes. In others they outsource to take
advantage of the ready pool of available talent trained with basic
knowledge of math, science and technical skills that are necessary for
success in the field of information technology.
At the same time, American youngsters are falling behind the rest
of the developed world in learning and retaining these basic skills.
15-year-old American students currently rank 24 out of the 29
internationally recognized developed nations in math literacy and
problem solving while their peers in Europe and Asia are surging ahead.
Mr. Chairman, it is imperative for Congress and the Administration
to respond to this challenge and help our children reverse the trend.
This hearing is a good start, and I look forward to our witnesses'
testimony on both panels to help shed light on the issue, detail reform
proposals and walk Members' through the details.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
______
[Various articles submitted by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota
follow:]
[Article from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, March 9, 2006]
MNSCU Puts Priority on Math and Science
By James H. McCormick
The call for students to take more science and math classes has
been sounded far and wide.
A National Academy of Science panel documented trends that show
this country losing its edge in scientific innovation. A Time magazine
cover story, ``Is America flunking science?'', detailed how other
countries surpass us in training scientists, research spending and
scholarly journal articles. President Bush and leading Democrats
promised new initiatives to reverse these trends.
But now, a disturbing new poll suggests parents don't see the need.
About 70 percent of high school parents in the poll conducted by Public
Agenda, a national research group that tracks education trends, say
their child gets the right amount of science and math.
The evidence in Minnesota is clear, however, that high school
students need a firmer grounding in these subjects. Mathematics made up
more than half of the catch-up courses taken by students in the state's
public higher education institutions, according to the latest college
readiness study by the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities and
the University of Minnesota. This weak showing in math among entering
Minnesota college freshmen also means too few students major in math,
science and engineering.
Out of nearly 66,000 graduates from all Minnesota institutions of
higher learning in 2003, only 2,500 majored in engineering, math and
physical science. Evidence of that low number showed up in a recent
report card by the Corporation for Enterprise Development, which ranked
Minnesota 26th in the number of science and engineering graduate
students.
Competitiveness correlation. You may ask why science and math are
so important. Let me be clear. We still need college graduates in
communications, social sciences and, yes, the fine arts. A rich,
vibrant and strong state demands citizens with those degrees, too.
But put simply, mastery of math, science and engineering will in
large part determine whether this state can compete. As the National
Science Foundation leadership recently noted, ``Civilization is on the
brink of a new industrial order. The big winners in the increasingly
fierce global scramble for supremacy will not be those who simply make
commodities faster and cheaper than the competition. They will be those
who develop talent, techniques and tools so advanced that there is no
competition.''
Without an abundance of well-trained engineers and scientists,
Minnesota cannot maintain a fertile environment for its businesses to
become the 3Ms, Honeywells and Medtronics of the future. In short,
what's at risk is our ability to maintain a high quality of life for
the next generation.
To produce more science, engineering and math majors, we must act
now. In the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, we are
addressing this challenge in three ways:
<bullet> Upgrading outdated science labs.
<bullet> Ramping up recruitment of students and teachers into
science and math programs.
<bullet> Increasing access for students--largely low-income and
minorities--who traditionally have not been part of the higher
education system in large numbers.
Upgrading science labs. Since 1998, the Legislature has approved
our requests to invest $296 million in updating science labs. If the
2006 Legislature approves the $84 million we seek for more science lab
upgrades, we will have made substantial progress at many of our 53
campuses. To draw more students into science and math, we have
established two Centers of Excellence focusing on engineering and
manufacturing. By strengthening ties with K-12 educators, we aim to
excite students about these challenging fields. In fact, the main
mission of these centers, which involve 17 of our state universities
and colleges, will be to produce a pool of talented and highly skilled
engineers and manufacturing workers who think creatively and adapt
rapidly.
We also believe that Minnesota will not be able to meet this
challenge without bringing substantially more citizens into the ranks
of the college educated. Too many citizens still do not pursue formal
education beyond high school. In 2004, only 26 percent of Minnesota's
young adult students of color were enrolled in higher education. That's
a lot of lost talent. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities
offer the best value and a logical steppingstone to pursuing
baccalaureate or advanced degrees.
So, the question that sits squarely before lawmakers, policymakers
and the public is: How can we produce more engineers and scientists?
The answer seems clear: By making a solid investment in public higher
education, we can secure a bright future so our children and
grandchildren stay in Minnesota and prosper.
McCormick is chancellor of the Minnesota State Colleges and
Universities System.
______
[Article from the Minneapolis ``Star-Tribune,'' March 6, 2006]
A Conversation; On Education in Minnesota; Competing With the World
By Lori Sturdevant, Staff Writer
Forget that Minnesota sends a bigger share of its high school grads
to college than all but two other states. Don't get excited about
Minnesota's college-bound high school students topping the nation in
ACT entrance exam scores. Stop boasting about being seventh in the
nation in high school graduation rates. Don't compare Minnesota to the
rest of the nation, say a growing number of the state's educators and
CEOs, because American education isn't keeping pace with the world's
leaders. If Minnesota is going to prosper in the global economy of 2025
and 2050, it has to keep up with Norway, Singapore and China. And there
is reason to worry that it is not. Among those who are worried are
David Laird, president of the Minnesota Private College Council, Steven
Rosenstone, dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of
Minnesota, and Mark Chronister, partner at the Minneapolis office of
the business accounting and consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.
They met recently with editorial writer Lori Sturdevant to share
their concern about the educational competition and their ideas for
staying in the race. Here are themes and excerpts from their
conversation:
The leading indicators on educational competitiveness are in, and
for America, they're not good.
Rosenstone: The numbers that we frequently cite are lagging
indicators. That we are a very educated population is a lagging
indicator, not a leading indicator of our future. The leading
indicators are 8th- and 12th-graders--how many are prepared to go on to
college and graduate school, and how many are being left behind. That's
where the alarm bells should be going off very loudly.
Look at what's been happening to the number of science teachers we
have, the preparation that schools are providing in K-12, the way in
which the resources we've invested as a society in K-12 have dwindled,
the way class sizes have grown.
The preparation of students in math in this country and other
countries is dramatically different, and for us, it's going in exactly
the wrong direction. A couple of facts: Twenty-nine percent of the U.S.
elementary grade students who took an international test in mathematics
performed at a proficient level. American 12th-graders in 1999 were
last among 20 nations who took a mathematics test. In 2003, U.S. 15-
year-olds ranked 24th among students in 29 nations tested in
mathematics.
This is about as real as it gets. But there isn't a Sputnik. There
isn't a Pearl Harbor. There isn't a 9/11. It is the frog sitting in the
water, and the water is getting warmer and warmer.
Laird: Minnesota may be leading the nation in ACT scores and the
share of people going to college. But that's leading a group that's
going downhill. It's not recognizing who our real competition is.
Laird (continued): Nations around the world are investing huge sums
of money to ensure that they will have the most prepared students, in
every field. Twenty or so nations have made huge strategic investments
in higher education in the last 20 years, and that does not count what
India and China are planning for the next 20. China is going to build
800 new universities in the next 10 years. Eight hundred! They will
each serve somewhere between 20,000 and 35,000 students.
The education gap is about to become more evident.
Chronister: Here's something that will exacerbate this problem.
Business is looking at the biggest retirement cohort that it has ever
seen. Where are the knowledge workers going to come from when the baby
boomers retire?
Laird: The cohort in our population now with the highest
educational attainment is the one that is stepping into retirement.
Nothing behind them so far is comparable. As it stands, we cannot
replace those who are retiring.
For Minnesota, education matters more than in some other states.
Rosenstone: A fundamental difference in Minnesota now, compared
with a century ago, is that the key industries in our state are not
tied to natural resources, except for human capital. Taconite and
agriculture are not the lifeblood of our economy the way they once
were. The financial services industry can locate anywhere in the world.
Cargill can go anywhere. General Mills is not tied to the river. 3M is
not tied to St. Paul.
Why do they want to be in Minnesota? It's the human capital--the
educated workforce. That's why, in education, we can't just be hanging
on. We have to be leading.
Minnesota's white/nonwhite achievement gap has got to go.
Rosenstone: The segment of the Minnesota population that's growing
most rapidly has the lowest probability now of going on to college, and
therefore the lowest probability of being prepared to fill the jobs
that Minnesota needs if it is going to prosper in the future. Minnesota
can't afford to leave so many kids behind.
Chronister: We in business think that in this global environment,
you have to have a diverse workforce, and you have to have an
environment in which diverse people are comfortable. The more diverse
our workforce is in Minnesota, the more successful our businesses will
be.
The people we're leaving behind now in this state are primarily
minorities. By 2050, the U.S. Census Bureau says this country will be
53 percent white, 47 percent minority. If we can't figure out how to
educate the students we're leaving behind now, then by 2050, we could
become a cold New Orleans.
Minnesota has the wherewithal to change this picture. Here's how:
Laird: Look at the experiences of Singapore and Norway. Both of
those nations are close to our size. Both have been through the process
of determining their strategic goals, and they have people working in
yoke to get there. They are outperforming us at every level of
education. The kids in Singapore typically study five languages, and
take calculus in the 10th grade. There's no reason we can't do it, too.
We need an ongoing assessment of our competition. Our competition
isn't South Dakota and North Dakota. It's offshore. We are flying blind
in that regard.
Rosenstone: Imagine what would happen if college students, as part
of their education, would engage with K-12 students as mentors.
Businesses have hundreds of partnerships with K-12 now, but they are
not coordinated in a way that's pulling together. Imagine if they were.
Imagine if we could develop our own Teacher Corps of recent college
graduates and retirees, reaching into K-12 in a way that keeps kids on
track.
Imagine if every college ensured the kind of access that we are
trying to offer at the University of Minnesota, so that the message is
crystal-clear to every fifth-grader in this state: If you are prepared
for college or university, there will be a place for you. You will have
access.
Those are all things that are in our reach. We can make this a
state project, if we have the will. This can be our moon shot.
Chronister: Here's an analogy. Look at what happened when we
started to say that we don't have enough women in college. Now we have
student bodies that are 55 or 60 percent female. Why can't we do
something similar here?
Needed: A statewide summit meeting on increasing educational
attainment. Soon.
Chronsiter: We have a window of opportunity to address this. We
need to move before the baby boomers retire.
Rosenstone: The punch line here is a cry for a state summit on
education. We need a statewide conversation that engages the leadership
of every sector--business, education, government, philanthropy,
everyone who has a stake in improving education. Together, we've got to
take this on. This is the issue that will determine the future of this
state.
Call to Invest in the Future
Excerpt from a March 9 letter from two Minnesota CEOs, Cargill's
Warren Staley and Medtronic's Arthur Collins, to Gov. Tim Pawlenty:
``The best opportunity our home state has of filling the shortfall
of available college students lies among students who would be the
first in their families to attend college. We hope you will act this
session to increase need-based financial aid for students who will not
be able to afford higher education without a direct investment in their
futures.
``Over the history of our companies, through our corporate
philanthropy, we have given many millions of dollars for both the
improvement of academic excellence at public and private colleges and
universities, and the improvement of access to these institutions. We
make these commitments of dollars both in appreciation of what we have
received and as an investment in our companies' own futures. We hope
the State of Minnesota will also make an investment in our state's
future educated workforce.''
While We Are Sleeping
In 1991, the United States ranked second in college participation.
In 2001, it was 15th. In 1975, the United States conferred 59 percent
of the world's doctoral degrees. At the end of 2001, the share was 41
percent and declining. The United States ranks 17th in the world in
high school graduation rate, at 74 percent. In tests assessing basic
knowledge and skills, U.S. students ranked 15th in reading, 19th in
science, 24th in mathematics and 24th in problem solving.
Source: Minnesota Private College Council.
______
[Presentation to National Association of Independent College and
University State Executives, February 6, 2006]
While We Are Sleeping
By David B. Laird, Jr., President, Minnesota Private College Council
It is easy to be complacent about U.S. competitiveness and pre-
eminence in science and technology. We have led the world for decades,
and we continue to do so in many research fields today. But the world
is changing rapidly, and our advantages are no longer unique. Without a
renewed effort to bolster the foundations of our competitiveness, we
can expect to lose our privileged position. For the first time in
generations, the nation's children could face poorer prospects than
their parents and grandparents did. We owe our current prosperity,
security, and good health to the investments of past generations, and
we are obliged to renew those commitments in education, research, and
innovation policies to ensure that the American people continue to
benefit from the remarkable opportunities provided by the rapid
development of the global economy and its not inconsiderable
underpinning in science and technology.
Public Opinion on America's Innovation Future
We're regularly reporting on studies that bemoan the state of
America's innovation infrastructure, and call for major new investments
in science, technology, and innovation. Most of these reports are
produced by expert panels of scientists, researchers, and industry
leaders, but these concerns are not limited to elite opinion-makers. A
new poll shows that average Americans are also greatly concerned about
the U.S.'s future competitive positions. The poll and a series of focus
groups, let by Peter D. Hart Associates and the Winston Group, asked
participants (opinion leaders and voters) to provide their views on
America's ability to sustain its scientific and technological
superiority through this decade and beyond. When asked to identify the
world's economic leader in 20-30 years, 45 percent of voters identified
China. Thirty-two percent selected the U.S. Interestingly, the survey
saw a split in the intensity of concern about these competitive
challenges. Thirty-three percent of opinion leaders cited improving
innovation capacity as America's Number One future challenge. Only 18
percent of voters shared this view. However, there was consensus around
the critical importance of improving education. A majority of all
groups believe this is the key to enhancing American competitiveness.
To view the results of the Business Roundtable's survey on
``Innovation and Competitiveness: Addressing the Talent Gap,'' visit
http://www.businessroundtable.org/pdf/20060112Two-pager.pdf
<bullet> Nations with major higher education initiatives in past
decade: Finland, South Korea, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Belgium,
China, India, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Great Britain, Germany,
Ireland, Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia.
<bullet> Nations with organized programs to attract talented
foreign students: Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Hong
Kong, South Korea.
<bullet> Nations with organized programs to attract established
scientists and scholars: European Union, Singapore, South Korea, China,
India, Australia, New Zealand.
<bullet> In 1975 the U.S. ranked third in the world in production
of degrees in natural science or engineering--in 2005 the U.S. ranked
20th. In 2004 both China and India produced ten times more than in the
U.S.
Recent Facts to Consider
High School Graduation Rates
The U.S. ranks 17th in the world in high school graduation rates
(74 percent) compared to over 90 percent in Hungary, Japan, Germany,
Poland, Slovak Republic. In recent PISA (International Student
Assessment) tests assessing basic knowledge and skills,
U.S. students ranked:
<bullet> 24th in mathematics
<bullet> 24th in problem solving skills
<bullet> 15th in reading proficiency
<bullet> 19th in science proficiency
R & D
Japan and Korea spend a larger portion of GDP than the U.S. From
1995-2001 R & D spending in China, Korea and Taiwan increased four
times more than the U.S. China plans to double its investment in the
next decade.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
In 1975, the U.S. conferred 59 percent of the world's total
doctoral degrees--at the end of 2001 our share was 41 percent and
declining.
International Student Applications
In the past three years international applications to U.S. graduate
programs fell 28 percent, international applications for engineering
study dropped 36 percent, and international enrollments in U. S.
graduate programs have dropped the last two years--the first declines
in three decades.
Focus on China
<bullet> China now has the largest higher education system in the
world.
<bullet> In the past six years, China has doubled participation in
higher education and has plans to double again in the next two years.
<bullet> There are now more people in China who speak English than
citizens in the U.S.
<bullet> As China collects income from U.S. debt, it will have a
steady resource to invest in education as well as R & D.
Another look at the U.S. future:
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
In 1983, in the Nation at Risk, the authors concluded:
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in
commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being
overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned
with only one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it
is one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We
report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride
in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and
contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation
and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to
occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.
Our neighbors and elected leaders are still asleep. It is time to
wake them up. The rest of the organized world is not waiting for us to
assess our challenges and opportunities. Our nation is not prepared for
the future.
In addition to cited and public sources, this presentation borrows
from a speech to the American Association of University Women entitled,
``Education and America in the 21st Century'' by Steven J. Rosenstone,
Dean, College of Liberal Arts, University of Minnesota, November 21,
2005.
Source: Rising Above the Gathering Storm, National Academy of
Sciences 2005
______
Responses From Secretary Spellings to Questions Posed at the Hearing
From Representative Danny Davis:
Q: I was pleased to learn that you share my concern that there are
too few black male teachers involved in early childhood education. What
specific remedies do you envision that could address this often
overlooked problem that could be pursued by the Department of
Education? Do you have any advice for legislators?
Secretary Spellings: I believe this issue is best addressed by
increasing overall educational opportunities for African-American
students. No Child Left Behind has as one of its primary goals
increasing the academic achievement of students who in the past were
too often left behind by our education system, and African-American
males have suffered perhaps more than any other group from what the
President calls ``the soft bigotry of low expectations.'' If we are
successful in closing achievement gaps through NCLB, more poor and
minority students, including black males, will graduate from high
school prepared for postsecondary education and a wide range of
careers, including teaching at all levels.
In addition, opening the pipeline to the teaching profession
through initiatives such as our Transition to Teaching program,
President Bush's proposed Adjunct Teacher Corps, and innovative
programs such as Teach For America will help encourage more African-
American males to pursue teaching careers. Few things arc more
inspiring to students than a great teacher, and we are working hard to
put more great teachers in all classrooms.
From Representative Susan Davis:
Q: This question deals with the breakdown in funding within the
American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). It seems that one advantage
the U.S. has over India, China, and other nations is the vast network
of research universities throughout the United States. Certainly, the
State of California has invested in its universities. Can you explain
how the ACI proposal invests in our public research institutions, such
as the research facility I just described?
Secretary Spellings: Over the next 10 years, the ACI would double
investments in key physical science and engineering research agencies:
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Office of Science, and the Department of Commerce's National Institute
of Standards and Technology labs. NSF and DOE supports university-based
research in a variety of ways. For example, the increased funding
proposed for NSF alone in fiscal year 2007 is expected to support as
many as 500 more research grants and provide opportunities for 6,400
additional scientists, students, post-doctoral fellows, and
technicians. Over 10 years, this expanded support will have made a
substantial contribution to maintaining the leadership of our public
research institutions.
Q: Additionally, how would this proposal build upon and expand on
the advantages the U.S. already holds over other nations, such as our
research university networks?
Secretary Spellings: In addition to the doubling of research
investment that I just described, which would provide substantial
support to those university networks, the ACI would encourage
additional private-sector investment by making permanent the Research
and Experimentation tax credit; strengthening K-12 math and science
education to expand the pipeline of future science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (S1EM) graduates; and supporting
immigration reform to help attract and retain the best and brightest
researchers from around the world.
Q: Along these lines, much of the funding outlined in the proposal
would go toward R&D tax incentives rather than direct federal funding
for research--$1.3 billion for research compared to $4.6 billion for
R&D tax incentives. Can you explain how this is a healthy balance of
tax incentives and direct funding for research and what brought you to
these numbers? Why is more directed toward tax incentives?
Secretary Spellings: Private-sector research and development
investment totals more than $200 billion annually, or about two-thirds
of all U.S. research and development investment. We think that gives
our $4.6 billion Research and Experimentation tax-credit proposal
tremendous leverage in stimulating future research.
From Representative Hinojosa:
Q: I am concerned that our federal policy and our budget have
overlooked a large, important population. The base of my congressional
district is South Texas--I-Iidalgo and Cameron Counties. In this area,
half of the adults over the age of 25 do not have a high school
credential. Many in my community are struggling to learn English, and
there are long wait lists for English as a second language classes. It
should come as no surprise that these two counties have the lowest
wages in the nation.
The President's budget does not propose to increase investments in
this population--neither on the labor side nor on the education side.
In fact, last year, the President proposed to slash adult education
programs by two-thirds. The minimum wage has not been increased since
1997. How can we be competitive if we write off such a large part of
our adult populations?
Secretary Spellings: I would begin by saying that we arc not
proposing a cut in the FY 2007 budget for Adult Education. The
President's 2007 request would continue funding for the program at the
current level. In addition, the Department of Education, in partnership
with the Department of Labor, helps address the needs of job seekers
through One-Stop Career Centers, established through the Workforce
Investment Act. These centers offer training referrals, career
counseling, job listings, and other employment-related services. The
Department of Labor also has implemented two initiatives designed to
improve workers' education and training opportunities. One is the
President's High-Growth Job Training Initiative, which has awarded more
than $250 million to bring State and local workforce-development
agencies together with industry and education entities to focus on
training employees to work in high-growth fields, such as health care,
biotechnology, and energy. The second is the Community-Based Job
Training Initiative, which provides grants to community colleges to
train workers for employment in high-growth industries. In addition, as
part of the competitiveness initiative, the President has proposed
enhancing the workforce investment system by providing Career
Advancement Accounts that workers could use to obtain the education and
training they need to succeed in the global economy. Career,
Advancement Accounts are self-managed accounts that would provide up to
$3,000 per year to enable current and future workers to gain the skills
needed to successfully enter, navigate, and advance in the 21st century
labor market, In sum, we are not in any sense writing off the
population of adults who can benefit from adult education and job
training programs.
Q: What is your agency proposing to do differently to develop the
talent and potential of this group of adults?
Secretary Spellings: In addition to the Adult Education programs
and the two Department of Labor initiatives I just described, we are
working to establish strong performance accountability requirements for
State and local programs that measure achievement on the basis of
academic achievement and employment-related outcomes. These
requirements have led to increases in measures of adult education
success, including high school completion and entrance into and
retention of employment, which reflect improved delivery of services at
the State and local level. At the same time, funding for K-l2 programs
focusing on teaching the basics of reading and mathematics, as well as
programs specifically for the children of immigrants who are often
limited English proficient, help ensure that a new generation of adults
will not need remedial education after it has left the traditional
school environment.
Q: I applaud the administration's interest in improving high
schools although I think that dismantling the programs that are
working, such as GEAR UP, Upward Bound, Talent Search, and career and
technical education is counter productive to your stated goals.
In the Hispanic community, the low high school graduation rate has
been a chronic problem and has held our community back from reaching
its full potential. America will not be competitive with only half of
our Hispanic students graduating from high school and only 20 percent
of them ready for college. That is why I introduced the Graduation for
All Act with a focus on adolescent literacy and making sure at-risk
students have a real academic plan for graduation. I am looking forward
to what we will learn from the Striving Readers program.
Last week, I introduced the Partnerships for access to Laboratory
Science Act--H.R. 5106. This legislation will partner high need school
districts with colleges and universities, and the private sector to
improve the teaching of science through the integration of hands-on
learning into science education programs at high school laboratories as
part of a comprehensive plan to improve the quality of science
instruction and student learning outcomes. Would the Administration be
supportive of this type of proposal?
Secretary Spellings: We certainly support these kinds of efforts in
general, I do want to point out that of the eight grants totaling $30
million awarded this past year to support the implementation of
Striving Readers Programs across the country, four were awarded to
Hispanic-serving school districts, or school districts with at least 25
percent Hispanic student enrollment (Chicago Public Schools, Newark
Public Schools, San Diego Unified School District, and Springfield and
Chicopee Public Schools). However, at a time when Federal dollars are
scarce because of the need to focus on deficit reduction, we have to be
careful about new initiatives that we may not be able to afford. At the
same time, I believe that certain aspects of your proposal, with some
modification, could be funded under the President's High School Reform
proposal.
Q: What are some other steps that we can take to improve math and
science instruction in high school beyond the AP and lB programs?
Secretary Spellings: In addition to the expansion of AP and lB
offerings in our high schools, the President's American Competitiveness
Initiative would fund an Adjunct Teacher Corps that would create
opportunities for qualified professionals from outside the K-12
educational system to teach secondary-school courses in the core
academic subjects, with an emphasis on mathematics and the sciences.
Also, we have already begun the work of the Academic Competitiveness
Council (ACC) created by the Deficit Reduction Act that President Bush
signed into law on February 8, 2006. The Council, which held its first
meeting on March 6, is charged with identifying all federal programs
that focus on math or science education, as well as the target
populations served by those programs; assessing the effectiveness of
these programs; and recommending ways to integrate and coordinate
overlapping or duplicative activities. The ACI would support the work
of the ACC by providing $5 million for the Evaluation of Mathematics
and Science Programs designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Federal
elementary and secondary mathematics and science programs.
In addition, the President's High School Reform proposal would give
States and school districts new tools and resources for improving the
overall quality of high school education, including math and science
education.
Finally, the recently signed Higher Education Reconciliation Act
included a longstanding Administration proposal to permanently increase
the amount of loan forgiveness available from $5,000 to $17,500 for
highly qualified math, science, or special education teachers working
in eligible low-income schools. This provision should create a strong
financial incentive for teachers to teach in high-need schools, which
often face the largest shortages of highly qualified teachers in these
important subject areas.
From Representative Hoff:
Q: The U.S. must pay more attention to math and science education,
as well as critical foreign languages, and their impact on global
competitiveness. That's one of the main reasons I cosponsored the
McMorris amendment to create an adjunct teacher corps to help focus
more on these areas in our nation's schools. But I want to ensure that
amendment does not create the unintended consequences of undercutting
NCLB's requirement that a highly qualified teacher be in every
classroom. What elements do you think need to be present in a final
proposal to remedy that conflict?'
Secretary Spellings: We do not believe that there is a conflict. To
help meet the need for teachers with a solid background in the subject
matter they are teaching, the President's budget includes $25 million
for the Adjunct Teacher Corns. The program will provide competitive
grants to partnerships of school districts and States to encourage up
to 30,000 math and science professionals over eight years to serve as
adjunct high school teachers.
The Adjunct Teacher Corps initiative would complement other teacher
programs in the Department, focusing on areas of need not addressed by
those programs. The proposed program would invite professionals from
outside of secondary education to teach in schools generally on a part-
time or temporary basis, bringing a wealth of knowledge and experience
to provide real-world applications for some of the abstract concepts
taught in classrooms, especially in mathematics and science. Other
Department programs, including Transition-to-Teaching and Troops-to-
Teachers, help recruit and train a highly qualified, certified,
permanent teaching force. In sum, while we fully support the highly
qualified teacher requirements of NCLB, we believe that bringing
scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and other STEM professionals
into the classroom on an adjunct basis will enhance, not detract from,
the national effort to ensure that all students arc taught by skilled
and knowledgeable teachers.
Q: How will the Department of Education implement the President's
National Security Language Initiative?
Secretary Spellings: Under the direction of the President, the
Departments of Education, Defense, and State and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence will undertake a comprehensive
national plan to expand foreign-language education beginning in early
childhood and continuing throughout formal schooling and into the
workforce. The National Security Language Initiative is designed to
increase dramatically the number of Americans learning critical-need
foreign languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Farsi through
new and expanded programs. The NSLI is built around three broad goals:
(1) to address weaknesses in our teaching and learning of foreign
languages, especially critical-need languages; (2) to expand the number
of Americans mastering critical need languages, starting at a younger
age; and (3) to increase the number of advanced-level speakers of
foreign languages, with an emphasis on critical-need languages. Our
2007 request includes $57 million for a combination of new and existing
activities targeted to these goals.
Q: The President's National Security Language Initiative addresses
the long-standing problem of creating an articulated K -16 foreign
language program pipeline, but finding highly qualified teachers for
these programs remain, f-low will the Department of Education
strengthen recruitment and retention programs for foreign language
teachers? Are there any plans within the teacher training objectives of
NSLI to add or make available training for immersion teachers at the
elementary level?
Secretary Spellings: The President's request for the NSLI would
help recruit new foreign language teachers by providing $5 million for
a Language Teacher Corps proposal designed to train college graduates
with skills in critical foreign languages to enter the teaching force.
The NSLI also includes a $3 million request for a Teacher-to-Teacher
initiative that would support retention by providing intensive summer
training sessions and online professional development for foreign
language teachers.
In addition, State and local entities may use funds they receive
under a number of Department programs, including the Improving Teacher
Quality State Grants program, the Transition to Teaching program, and
the Teacher Incentive Fund, for recruitment and retention activities.
For 2007, the Administration has requested $2.9 billion for the
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, which would allow
States to use their State-level funds for a variety of activities,
including teacher recruitment and retention programs.
Q: Since mathematics, science, and technology are at the root of
innovation and NCLB has been testing only math and reading, how or will
the 2007 science assessment be incorporated in AYP? Do you plan to seek
changes during reauthorization of NCLB and if so how will it be
weighted in AYP school assessment?
Secretary Spelling: We believe that student results on science
assessments should be included in AYP determinations. However, we are
just beginning to discuss NCLB reauthorization within the Department
and, thus, have not yet developed detailed proposals on that issue.
Q: What steps are you taking to fully fund the ``No Child Left
Behind'' Act, currently at a shortfall of approximately 55 billion
dollars?
Secretary Spellings: We have never agreed with the argument that
massive funding increases are required to ``fully fund'' NCLB. The
President and the Congress have provided very substantial overall
increases for NCLB programs over the past five years, and we believe
current funding levels are sufficient to leverage the changes the law
was designed to encourage at the State and local levels.
Q: Further, what actions are you taking to ensure that teachers are
not ``teaching to the test,'' but rather teaching for sustained
learning and critical thinking.
Secretary Spellings: We don't necessarily see a conflict between an
appropriate level of test preparation and sustained learning and
critical thinking, so long as assessments are aligned with State
standards and curricula, which is required under NCLB. In other words,
``teaching to the test'' is often providing instruction designed to
ensure that students master the material that is covered by State
content standards, which is what is covered in State assessments. We
believe that that type of instruction is entirely appropriate.
Q: The recently passed budget reconciliation increased the interest
rate on student loans and cut $14 billion from student loans over 5
years, while the cost of higher education has steadily increased and
will continue to increase. What are you doing through action, advocacy,
and in collaboration with other agencies to help make higher education
affordable or to assist students and families in paying for higher
education or continuing education without sinking deeper into debt'?
Secretary Spellings: In today's highly competitive global economy,
it is vital that no American student be denied access to high-quality
postsecondary education due to high costs. For this reason, in
September 2005 1 created the Commission on the Future of Higher
Education to examine how we as a nation can keep higher education
affordable and accessible. The Commission, made up of experienced
leaders from education, business, and government, is holding a series
of meetings around the country and gathering data from respected
experts on higher education. A final report with the commission's
findings is expected by this August.
In addition, the Higher Education Reconciliation Act (HERA) created
Academic Competitiveness Grants, a new need-based program supported
with mandatory funding that will award annual grants of up to $1,300 to
high-achieving first- and second-year students who have completed a
rigorous high school curriculum. The hERA also created National Science
and Mathematics Access to Retain Ialent Grants, or SMART Grants, that
provide up to $4,000 for third- and fourth-year students majoring in
mathematics, science, technology, engineering, or critical foreign
languages. We estimate these programs will provide more than $4.5
billion in grant assistance over the next five years.
Q: To remain competitive globally, our education system needs work.
No Child Left Behind is a start to improvement, but more work needs to
be done. For example, we expect students to learn the content of 40
chapters of a science textbook in 180 six or seven-hour days, along
with every other subject. This makes it difficult to truly understand
the subject and not just memorize it. Are there any discussions in the
Department of Education and with other agencies concerning extending
the school day, extending the school year, re-aligning the curriculum
and assessment to examine higher order thinking skills and
interdisciplinary collaborations, or other such adaptations to the
structure of the system to help students succeed?
Secretary Spellings: The standards and assessment requirements of
No Child Left Behind are, in fact, designed and intended to encourage
mastery of challenging material and higher-order thinking skills. For
example, the Department's regulations governing the State assessments
required by NCLB specifically state that these assessments must include
``measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding
of challenging content.'' However, decisions about how to structure the
school day or year. as well as about the precise kind of teaching and
learning required to meet challenging State standards, fall squarely
within the realm of State and local control over education. We do give
States, school districts, and schools considerable flexibility in the
use of Federal formula grant funds to support the kinds of adaptations
you describe, but we leave it up to State and local authorities to
decide what adaptations are appropriate for their unique circumstances.
Q: What will you do to ensure that the education pipeline is
producing the quality and quantity of science and technology workers
for the next 10-20 years, including extended education and skills
training for science, technology, engineering and mathematics
professionals?
Secretary Spellings: This is precisely the focus of the President's
American Competitiveness Initiative. In particular, the Math Now
proposals for elementary and middle school students are critical for
building the STEM pipeline over the coming decades. In my view,
identifying and introducing stimulating math and science curricula and
instruction in the early grades is the best way to encourage greater
numbers of students to pursue advanced study and careers in STEM
fields.
Q: What role does the NSF play in your interagency plans to keep
America competitive? There is concern that STEM education is being
removed from the NSF, which can be challenging since the NSE has the
researched based approaches to teaching science and mathematics whereas
the Department of Education has the dissemination aspect of math and
science education and the Department of Labor has workforce
development.
Secretary Spellings: To begin with, the ACI would double finding
for NSF over the next 10 years, so we think that's a pretty strong
signal of support for NSF. In addition, NSF will play a key role in our
efforts to identify and evaluate effective math and science education
programs through the Academic Competitiveness Council.
From Representative McCarthy:
Q: The achievement gap from kindergarten through college and beyond
is now well known. Too many children begin life disadvantaged. We have
made progress in closing the gap, but not enough. Both research and our
progress so far show that people can and must achieve at much higher
levels. Global competition, while in the news, is not well understood.
It is not just an issue of global out-sourcing to countries that will
do the job cheaply. Other nations compete not only with lower costs but
also higher quality. I saw this first hand when I visited China last
year, along with Chairman McKeon. China has 1 .3 billion people. They
could get it wrong most of the time and still have more people ready
for the high skilled jobs of tomorrow than we will. We need to educate
more people through high school and beyond. At current rates, experts
estimate that by 2020 there won't be enough qualified American to fill
14 million of the most skilled, highest paying jobs.
Already, New York faces critical shortages in the major
professions, including those that provide vital health and safety
services, like nurses. If present trends continue, too few people will
have the knowledge and skills our nation needs. This is unacceptable.
If we act together, we can correct this problem now.
In November 2005, the New York Board of Regents held an Education
Summit, called ``A Call to Action.'' The summit was widely attended by
650 leaders of education, business and community groups. The Summit's
purpose was to help New York to develop strategies to compete globally.
The last time the U.S government did such a summit was 16 years ago
under the first President Bush. It included governors, and educators,
but not businesses from what I understand.
What do you think about holding a national Education Summit to
address global competitiveness? The Summit would include educators,
governors, businesses, labor and community groups.
Secretary Spellings: The Department and the Administration have
sponsored several education-related ``summits'' over the years-the
First lady's 2002 summit on early childhood development and former
Secretary Paige's 2003 summit on math education are two examples-but at
this point we are not planning one for competitiveness. One reason is
that typically we hold summits to draw attention to issues that are
``under the radar'' of most people and otherwise might go unnoticed. I
don't think that is the case with the competitiveness issue. The
President, other Cabinet members, and I have been talking about it
continuously for the past two years, and Congress helped move things
along by commissioning the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report
released last year by the National Academies. This year, the
combination of the President's American Competitiveness Initiative and
numerous Congressional hearings has really focused the public's
attention on competitiveness. I think we are past the ``summit'' stage
on competitiveness and now are moving quickly toward taking concrete
action on the issue.
Q: The New York Summit concluded that they must focus on three
areas: early childhood education, redesigning the high school model,
and higher education. Specifically, one of the recommendations that
came out of the New York Summit was that the compulsory age to start
school should be lowered from age 6 to age 5. Data revealed that
getting kids started even just one year earlier made a difference. New
York believes it will help to meet one of the other goals that came out
of the summit, which is that every child will read by the second grade.
What do you think of lowering the school age from 6 to 5?
Secretary Spellings: I'm a firm believer in the value of early
childhood education, and President Bush took the lead on reading in the
early years with his Reading First and Early Reading First initiatives,
which focus on reading well by the third grade. At the same time,
resources are limited at all levels of government. so we have to be
careful about new initiatives like lowering the age for compulsory
education. For example, you said that the New York Summit also
considered reforms at the high school and higher education levels. It
would be great, of course, if New York could pursue initiatives in all
three areas, but that may require some tough resource-allocation
decisions. In the end, of course, it would be a State decision.
Q: How about redesigning high school models?
Secretary Spellings: The Department has already sponsored a series
of summits on high school reform, beginning in 2003. The Congress
should appropriate funds for the President's High School Reform
initiative, which would give States and school districts new tools and
resources to identify and address the needs of students at risk of
dropping out of high school. This $1.5 billion proposal, which we have
been promoting for the past two years, would make formula grants to
States for intensive interventions to help struggling students.
Grantees would use test scores of incoming high school students to
identify those most at risk of not meeting State standards and dropping
out, develop individualized performance plans to meet student needs,
and implement specific interventions and strategies for improving
student achievement in high school. Also, the proposal would require
all States to develop and implement reading and mathematics assessments
at two additional grades in high school so that data are more
frequently available to track students' progress and to help shape
strategies to meet students' particular needs.
Q: A lot of times students do not know what opportunities arc out
there for them as far as what they can do after high school. Although
guidance counselors do a good job in providing students with
information on that issue, I think students would benefit from more
comprehensive instruction in the area. Do you think it would be a good
idea to require instruction on career opportunities and awareness as
part of the required curriculum in school?
Secretary Spellings: Under the Administration's $1.5 billion High
School Reform Initiative, local educational agencies will be able to
include student counseling services as part of the comprehensive
strategies they adopt to raise high school achievement and eliminate
gaps in achievement among subgroups of students. While I do agree that
counseling on career opportunities is important, the Department does
not have authority to exercise any direction, supervision, or control
over the curriculum, program of instruction, or administration of any
school or school system.
Q: Since No Child Left Behind is a major driving force behind
whether the U.S. will be globally competitive, it seems to me to he
important to get input from a broad spectrum of people on the issue. We
only reauthorize once every 6 years, so we have to make sure and get it
right which means listening to all sorts of views, even if we don't
think we agree with them. I have found often when you sit and talk to
someone you think you don't agree with, you find out you have more in
common than you originally thought. What interest groups, businesses,
think tanks have you, or do you plan to meet with to discuss
reauthorization of NCLB?
Secretary Spellings: As I mentioned earlier, we are just beginning
to discuss NCLB reauthorization within the Department, and have not
developed any concrete plans at this point in time. However, we have
been very active since the very beginning of NCLB implementation in
working with the widest range of public- and private-sector partners to
achieve common goals. We receive input on NCLB all the time in a
variety of ways, and I'm sure we will continue to do so as we consider
possible changes during the reauthorization process.
Q: There has been a lot of focus on the shortage of math and
science teachers, and we are all trying to figure out how to increase
the supply of such teachers. I am concerned that the undersupply of
highly qualified teachers appears to be a problem that K- 12 is
expected to address on its own, when we know that higher education and
teacher prep programs have a big role to play in recruiting and
preparing teachers to fill critical shortage needs. I want to know
whether we have enough information to determine where the current
supply of teachers is coming from, and whether we know which teacher
preparation programs are producing the most math and science teachers
and which ones are not. If we don't begin to collect this data, how
will we know which programs are responding to the critical shortage
needs and which ones arc not?
Secretary Spellings: The Department does collect a lot of data on
teachers and teacher preparation, including the reports that schools of
education must submit under Title II of the Higher Education Act, and
there is considerable research on this subject in the university sector
as well. One thing we know is that shortages tend to he local or
regional in nature, and not national. That's why our recent efforts
have focused on creating incentives to attract qualified teachers to
hard-to-fill positions. For example, the new Teacher Incentive Fund is
designed to give States and school districts new tools to recruit
qualified individuals to work in high-need areas.
Q: What do you recommend we do to make sure that we focus not just
on creating new programs, but to make sure we focus on evaluating
results?
Secretary Spellings: We work very hard to focus on results in
everything we do, and this approach is built in to both NCLB and our
entire, government-wide budgeting process. For example, the
Administration has gone forward with a wide range of evaluation
efforts, and, through efforts like the What Works Clearinghouse and the
Promising Practices Initiative that I recently announced, has sought to
provide more and better information to education practitioners on
programs and approaches that are effective in teaching our children. As
I mentioned earlier, the newly created Academic Competitiveness Council
already is working to identify all federal programs that focus on math
or science education, assess the effectiveness of these programs, and
recommend ways to integrate and coordinate overlapping or duplicative
activities. This work would be supported by a $5 million proposal in
our 2007 budget for a government-wide Evaluation of Mathematics and
Science Programs that would evaluate the effectiveness of Federal
elementary and secondary mathematics and science programs.
In addition, the Administration has developed and implemented the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a mechanism that provides a
common framework for measuring the effectiveness of programs
government-wide, and has begun to incorporate the results of PART
reviews in budget decisions. In sum, I completely agree with you that
we need to evaluate the impact of the programs that we already have,
not just focus on creating new programs. I would urge the Congress to
consider thoroughly the PART findings and the evaluation results, and
to provide sufficient funding for needed evaluations.
Q: The President's American Competitiveness Initiative would commit
$5.9 billion in FY2007, and more than $136 billion over IC years to
increase investments in research and development, strengthen education,
and encourage entrepreneurship and innovation. While this investment
may be welcomed by many, I am concerned that Federal Programs like
Title I and IDEA continue to he under funded. Given the President's
proposed budget for FY2007, I want to be assured that these vital
programs would not he further short-changed. How will you ensure that
Title I and IDEA will not be adversely impacted given the Presidents
proposal to reduce funding for education?
Secretary Spellings: I think we need to keep in mind that both
Title I and IDEA were never intended to supplant State and local
financial support for education, but to leverage improvement for key
populations. And our States and local communities remain strongly
committed to education. Total national expenditures for elementary and
secondary education are up $112 billion, or 25 percent, over the past
five years, from $443 billion in 2001-2002 to $555 billion in 2005-
2006. Federal support has more than kept pace over the same period.
Under the President's Budget, Title I funding would be up 45 percent
since 2001, Special Education Grants to States up 69 percent, and
overall NCLB funding up 40 percent.
Q: No Child Left Behind has not been funded to the level of its
actual expense. Thus, our districts are spending tremendous money for
example, for substitutes needed to administer, train for and score the
tests. I-low can we help districts meet such expenses?
Secretary Spellings: We believe that funding provided by Congress
and the President for NCLB programs is more than adequate to achieve
the goals of those programs. As for the specific example you cited
regarding test administration, States have received more than $1.9
billion in formula grants for assessment development and administration
over the past five years. Based on data from GAO and other resources,
we believe that this amount fully covers States' expenses in meeting
NCLB-related assessment requirements.
Q: One goal of No Child Left Behind is to improve academic
standards for our most needy students. Yet, many of our support
teachers have lost valuable instructional time with their students in
order to administer and score tests, the results of which will not be
known until September. How can we address the problem of lost
instructional time?
Secretary Spellings: Administering tests has always been part of
teaching. As for scoring tests, my understanding is that, under State
assessment systems, this function is handled by private firms under
contract, not by classroom teachers. But the bottom line is that we
cannot determine if instruction is meeting students' needs without
testing for results. I believe it is highly unlikely that the time used
for test administration in most jurisdictions has subtracted
significantly from the amount of instructional time available during a
full school year.
<all>