Good morning. I'm pleased to welcome all of you. As you know, this meeting is possible because of the strong partnership among our federal agencies. You heard from each department's representatives last night. But the meeting is also the product of strong corporate sponsorship. So I thank our corporate sponsors: Exxon-Mobil, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, Dupont, McGraw-Hill, and Bayer for their commitment to education. They understand that future economic and scientific success depends on dramatically improving teaching in the sciences and mathematics.

I'd also like to thank Susan Sclafani and her staff for organizing this meeting. It takes a lot of hard work to get everyone together. Many thanks.

Astronomer John Gribbin recently wrote, "Science is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind." It would be hard to argue with that assessment. We live in a world that is the product of scientific creativity and discovery. And mathematics is the language of science, the way science is revealed to us, through numbers, data, and statistics. The scientist and the mathematician engage in some of the most exciting work available, and all of us benefit from the progress of science.

No work could be more important. That is why it is vital to examine the way we produce our scientists and mathematicians. Their lifelong efforts will shape and determine our future. So we must give special attention to their training. And when we do, we see that there is much to be done.

This country has been blessed with some of the world's greatest teachers of science and mathematics. Some of those educators have inspired generations of students to enter the field, serving as a catalyst for great achievements. But some teachers are less than prepared for this task, creating a shocking lack of consistency in elementary and secondary education. At a time when the No Child Left Behind Act requires a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, we confront the shocking fact that not all science and mathematics teachers are well-trained. Some studies indicate that the number of unprepared educators is substantial. What do I mean by "unprepared"? Studies show that some are not competently familiar with their subject; some haven't even taken all of the appropriate courses. Some are not well-read in their subjects. Some have been drafted into teaching science or mathematics after preparing for teaching in other areas. Some have no hands-on experience. And many potential teachers, those with considerable experience and background, do not enter the field because of certification barriers. The bottom line is that some of our science and mathematics teachers are not knowledgeable, and some of those who are knowledgeable find the doors to teaching shut.

And we see the results. Too many of our students are not well-educated in these subjects. American students lag behind students in other developed countries. And many of our minority and disadvantaged students receive an appallingly poor education in these areas. This is one reason why there is a serious shortfall of all students, and especially minority students, entering college in the hard sciences or applying to graduate school. It is a major reason for the low numbers of minority students entering engineering or medicine. And this problem represents a serious underutilization of the vast talent available, of the promising contributions that could be made by these students. And that's why we must address this problem with candor, urgency, and vision.

What can we do? Well, we must work in partnership to improve the preparation of teachers. For one thing, universities must graduate better-prepared educators. College education programs must emphasize the best teaching techniques. We know that many education programs have made philosophical or historical commitments to methods of teaching that have been surpassed or replaced. There has been a tendency to ignore data-driven improvements that emphasize what works in the classroom. And, in some education departments, there has been little follow-up to see if graduates are well-prepared.

There also has to be more attention paid to background preparation and acquisition of subject matter. In 1999, the American Council on Education (ACE) released a report titled To Touch the Future: Transforming the Way Teachers are Taught. In that report, the ACE said this: "Virtually all who have examined the education of prospective teachers have stressed that more attention must be given to the education provided by subject-matter faculty." Why? Well, a teacher must have command of the subject. More importantly, student achievement is directly linked to subject matter understanding of teachers. This is especially true in the hard sciences and mathematics. Again and again, study after study illustrates this telling relationship. The single best action we can take to improve America's scientific and mathematical education is to better educate the teachers of these subjects.

So we need to make every effort to better prepare potential teachers. And that is the role that only you can play. Your leadership in bringing this issue to the top of your university's agenda is critical to the nation's future. Without teachers who are well-prepared in mathematics and science in our elementary and middle schools, you will have fewer and fewer students entering high school prepared for higher-level mathematics and science courses. And that translates into even fewer American students coming to your universities to major in mathematics, science, engineering or technology. Our nation cannot remain the leader in innovation and productivity by depending on foreign students who may return to their home countries. Our national defense cannot stay strong without American scientists and engineers taking the places of our Sputnik-era leaders who are looking at retirement in the next five years.

This is the dialogue that we ask you to have today: to figure out what we can do to ensure a cadre of new teachers who are prepared to lead our students into all career areas, especially mathematics, science, engineering and technology.

Of course, my Department has a role to play. For example, the Bush Administration has committed $288 million in new funding for the elementary and secondary education program share of the Jobs for the 21st Century Initiative. This is an effort to help ensure that all students are prepared to succeed in postsecondary education and in the workforce.

There are many programs that are part of this initiative. For example, the president has set $120 million in fiscal year 2005 for a new Secondary Education Mathematics Initiative under our Mathematics and Science Partnership Program. This will enable over 100 competitive grants to ensure that secondary school students who start out behind their peers have the opportunity through intensive interventions to catch up and move forward into higher-level mathematics courses in high school.

Another effort would provide alternative certification for those who already have subject-matter background and experience. The president has $40 million in the fiscal year 2005 budget to create an Adjunct Teaching Corps that would draw on the skills of well-qualified individuals outside the public education system. A special emphasis is being given to adjuncts in the mathematics and sciences.

A third program, Transition to Teaching, will receive $45 million in fiscal year 2005 to support alternatives to traditional teacher certification. It would allow recruiting, training, and placement of mid-career professionals and recent college graduates.

Of course, elementary and secondary schools have a role, too. They can work more closely with institutions of higher learning to better outline their teaching needs. And hiring practices could be improved considerably, with fewer last-minute hires and more hires early in the process. Many highly qualified individuals are lost when hiring is postponed until right before the school year begins.

And certification must be re-examined. Alternative methods of certification are needed to attract and obtain teachers with experience. This can be a powerful action to address quality issues. For example, a new report prepared by the Texas State Board for Education Certification discovered that more than half of new teachers hired in 2003 entered the profession through an alternative certification program or by taking teacher education courses at the postbaccalaureate level. In fact, alternative certification is changing hiring practices in Texas. In the year 2000, more than 70 percent of new teachers graduated from a traditional preparation program. In 2003, that number dropped to 45 percent, thanks to alternative certification.

Earlier, I mentioned the 1999 report by the American Council on Education. In that report, the council asked for a vigorous response from institutions of higher learning. Well, some universities stepped up. We can be thankful for those who made adjustments and curriculum changes, and worked more closely with elementary and secondary school systems. Many of these institutions also integrated some other recommendations, such as involving the arts and sciences faculty, demonstrating strong central administrative advocacy, coupling teaching theory with practice, and crafting a community of teachers to support new graduates. This was very helpful.

But many institutions did less, said less, and changed less. Some did nothing at all. The real shame is that six years later, we are still confronting the same problems and talking about some of the same actions.

It is my hope that six years from now, we will look back on gatherings like this one as a spark for change. Given the enthusiasm and commitment of those here today, I believe we can look forward to positive action, powerful partnerships, and additional excellence in education.

Thank you again for coming. Good luck in your deliberations today.

####