[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10610-H10622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL SCIENCE EDUCATION ACT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 4271) to establish and expand programs relating to
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education, and for
other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4271
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Science Education
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) As concluded in the report of the Committee on Science
of the House of Representatives, ``Unlocking Our Future
Toward a New National Science Policy'', which was adopted by
the House of Representatives, the United States must maintain
and improve its preeminent position in science and technology
in order to advance human understanding of the universe and
all it contains, and to improve the lives, health, and
freedoms of all people.
(2) It is estimated that more than half of the economic
growth of the United States today results directly from
research and development in science and technology. The most
fundamental research is responsible for investigating our
perceived universe, to extend our observations to the outer
limits of what our minds and methods can achieve,
[[Page H10611]]
and to seek answers to questions that have never been asked
before. Applied research continues the process by applying
the answers from basic science to the problems faced by
individuals, organizations, and governments in the everyday
activities that make our lives more livable. The scientific-
technological sector of our economy, which has driven our
recent economic boom and led the United States to the longest
period of prosperity in history, is fueled by the work and
discoveries of the scientific community.
(3) The effectiveness of the United States in maintaining
this economic growth will be largely determined by the
intellectual capital of the United States. Education is
critical to developing this resource.
(4) The education program of the United States needs to
provide for 3 different kinds of intellectual capital. First,
it needs scientists, mathematicians, and engineers to
continue the research and development that are central to the
economic growth of the United States. Second, it needs
technologically proficient workers who are comfortable and
capable dealing with the demands of a science-based, high-
technology workplace. Last, it needs scientifically literate
voters and consumers to make intelligent decisions about
public policy.
(5) Student performance on the recent Third International
Mathematics and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of
current K-12 science and mathematics education in the United
States, particularly when compared to other countries. We
must expect more from our Nation's educators and students if
we are to build on the accomplishments of previous
generations. New methods of teaching science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology are required, as well as better
curricula and improved training of teachers.
(6) Science is more than a collection of facts, theories,
and results. It is a process of inquiry built upon
observations and data that leads to a way of knowing and
explaining in logically derived concepts and theories.
Mathematics is more than procedures to be memorized. It is a
field that requires reasoning, understanding, and making
connections in order to solve problems. Engineering is more
than just designing and building. It is the process of making
compromises to optimize design and assessing risks so that
designs and products best solve a given problem. Technology
is more than using computer applications, the Internet, and
programming. Technology is the innovation, change, or
modification of the natural environment, based on scientific,
mathematical, and engineering principles.
(7) Students should learn science primarily by doing
science. Science education ought to reflect the scientific
process and be object-oriented, experiment-centered, and
concept-based. Students should learn mathematics with
understanding that numeric systems have intrinsic properties
that can represent objects and systems in real life, and can
be applied in solving problems. Engineering education should
reflect the realities of real world design, and should
involve hands-on projects and require students to make trade-
offs based upon evidence. Students should learn technology as
both a tool to solve other problems and as a process by which
people adapt the natural world to suit their own purposes.
Computers represent a particularly useful form of technology,
enabling students and teachers to acquire data, model
systems, visualize phenomena, communicate and organize
information, and collaborate with others in powerful new
ways. A background in the basics of information technology is
essential for success in the modern workplace and the modern
world.
(8) Children are naturally curious and inquisitive. To
successfully tap into these innate qualities, education in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology must begin
at an early age and continue throughout the entire school
experience.
(9) Teachers provide the essential connection between
students and the content they are learning. Prospective
teachers need to be identified and recruited by presenting to
them a career that is respected by their peers, is
financially and intellectually rewarding, contains sufficient
opportunities for advancement, and has continuing access to
professional development.
(10) Teachers need to have incentives to remain in the
classroom and improve their practice, and training of
teachers is essential if the results are to be good. Teachers
need to be knowledgeable of their content area, of their
curriculum, of up-to-date research in teaching and learning,
and of techniques that can be used to connect that
information to their students in their classroom.
SEC. 3. ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED LOCAL CONTROL.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any
department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States
to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or
personnel of any educational institution or school system.
SEC. 4. MASTER TEACHER GRANT PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National
Science Foundation shall conduct a grant program to make
grants to a State or local educational agency, a private
elementary or middle school, or a consortium of any
combination of those entities, for the purpose of hiring a
master teacher described in subsection (b).
(b) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible to receive a
grant under this subsection, a State or local educational
agency, private elementary or middle school, or consortium
described in subsection (a) shall submit to the Director a
description of the relationship the master teacher will have
vis-a-vis other administrative and managerial staff and the
State and local educational agency, the ratio of master
teachers to other teachers, and the requirements for a master
teacher of the State or local educational agency or school,
including certification requirements and job responsibilities
of the master teacher. Job responsibilities must include a
discussion of any responsibility the master teacher will have
for--
(1) development or implementation of science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology curricula;
(2) in-classroom assistance;
(3) authority over hands-on inquiry materials, equipment,
and supplies;
(4) mentoring other teachers or fulfilling any leadership
role; and
(5) professional development, including training other
master teachers or other teachers, or developing or
implementing professional development programs.
(c) Assessment of Effectiveness.--The Director shall assess
the effectiveness of activities carried out under this
section.
(d) Funds.--
(1) Source.--Grants shall be made under this section out of
funds available for the National Science Foundation for
education and human resources activities.
(2) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to the National Science Foundation to carry out this section
$50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2003.
SEC. 5. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.
(a) General Authority.--
(1) In general.--
(A) Grant program.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall, subject to appropriations, carry out a
demonstration project under which the Director awards grants
in accordance with this section to eligible local educational
agencies.
(B) Uses of funds.--A local educational agency that
receives a grant under this section may use such grant funds
to develop a program that builds or expands mathematics,
science, and information technology curricula, to purchase
equipment necessary to establish such program, and to provide
professional development in such fields.
(2) Program requirements.--The program described in
paragraph (1) shall--
(A) provide professional development specifically in
information technology, mathematics, and science; and
(B) provide students with specialized training in
mathematics, science, and information technology.
(b) Eligible Local Educational Agencies.--For purposes of
this section, a local educational agency or consortium of
local educational agencies is eligible to receive a grant
under this section if the agency or consortium--
(1) provides assurances that it has executed conditional
agreements with representatives of the private sector to
provide services and funds described in subsection (c); and
(2) agrees to enter into an agreement with the Director to
comply with the requirements of this section.
(c) Private Sector Participation.--The conditional
agreements referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall describe
participation by the private sector, including--
(1) the donation of computer hardware and software;
(2) the establishment of internship and mentoring
opportunities for students who participate in the information
technology program; and
(3) the donation of higher education scholarship funds for
eligible students who have participated in the information
technology program.
(d) Application.--
(1) In general.--To apply for a grant under this section,
each eligible local educational agency or consortium of local
educational agencies shall submit an application to the
Director in accordance with guidelines established by the
Director pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) Guidelines.--
(A) Requirements.--The guidelines referred to in paragraph
(1) shall require, at a minimum, that the application
include--
(i) a description of proposed activities consistent with
the uses of funds and program requirements under subsection
(a)(1)(B) and (a)(2);
(ii) a description of the higher education scholarship
program, including criteria for selection, duration of
scholarship, number of scholarships to be awarded each year,
and funding levels for scholarships; and
(iii) evidence of private sector participation and
financial support to establish an internship, mentoring, and
scholarship program.
(B) Guideline publication.--The Director shall issue and
publish such guidelines not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(3) Selection.--The Director shall select a local
educational agency to receive an award under this section in
accordance with subsection (e) and on the basis of merit to
be determined after conducting a comprehensive review.
(e) Priority.--The Director shall give special priority in
awarding grants under this
[[Page H10612]]
section to eligible local educational agencies that--
(1) demonstrate the greatest ability to obtain commitments
from representatives of the private sector to provide
services and funds described under subsection (c); and
(2) demonstrate the greatest economic need.
(f) Assessment.--The Director shall assess the
effectiveness of activities carried out under this section.
(g) Study and Report.--The Director--
(1) shall initiate an evaluative study of eligible students
selected for scholarships pursuant to this section in order
to measure the effectiveness of the demonstration program;
and
(2) shall report the findings of the study to Congress not
later than 4 years after the award of the first scholarship.
Such report shall include the number of students graduating
from an institution of higher education with a major in
mathematics, science, or information technology and the
number of students who find employment in such fields.
(h) Definition.--Except as otherwise provided, for purposes
of this section, the term ``eligible student'' means a
student enrolled in the 12th grade who--
(1) has participated in an information technology program
established pursuant to this section;
(2) has demonstrated a commitment to pursue a career in
information technology, mathematics, science, or engineering;
and
(3) has attained high academic standing and maintains a
grade point average of not less than 3.0 on a 4.0 scale for
the last two years of secondary school (11th and 12th
grades).
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section, $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
(j) Maximum Grant Award.--An award made to an eligible
local educational agency under this section may not exceed
$300,000.
SEC. 6. DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION ON REQUIRED COURSE OF
STUDY FOR CAREERS IN SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS,
ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall, jointly with the Secretary of Education,
compile and disseminate information (including through
outreach, school counselor education, and visiting speakers)
regarding--
(1) typical standard prerequisites for middle school and
high school students who seek to enter a course of study at
an institution of higher education in science, mathematics,
engineering, or technology education for purposes of teaching
in an elementary or secondary school; and
(2) the licensing requirements in each State for science,
mathematics, engineering, or technology elementary or
secondary school teachers.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
SEC. 7. REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT STUDY EVALUATION.
(a) Study Required.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National
Academies of Sciences and Engineering under which the
Academies shall review existing studies on the effectiveness
of technology in the classroom on learning and student
performance, using various measures of learning and teaching
outcome including standardized tests of student achievement,
and explore the feasibility of one or more methodological
frameworks to be used in evaluations of technologies that
have different purposes and are used by schools and school
systems with diverse educational goals. The study evaluation
shall include, to the extent available, information on the
type of technology used in each classroom, the reason that
such technology works, and the teacher training that is
conducted in conjunction with the technology.
(b) Deadline for Completion.--The study evaluation required
by subsection (a) shall be completed not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Definition of Technology.--In this section, the term
``technology'' has the meaning given that term in section
3113(11) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 6813(11)).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation for the
purpose of conducting the study evaluation required by
subsection (a), $600,000.
SEC. 8. TEACHER TECHNOLOGY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall establish a grant program under which grants
may be made to a State or local educational agency, a private
elementary or middle school, or a consortium consisting of
any combination of those entities for instruction of teachers
for grades kindergarten through the 12th grade on the use of
information technology in the classroom. Grants awarded under
this section shall be used for training teachers to use--
(1) classroom technology, including hardware, software,
communications technologies, and laboratory equipment; or
(2) specific technology for science, mathematics,
engineering or technology instruction, including data
acquisition, modeling, visualization, simulation, and
numerical analysis.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
SEC. 9. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS EDUCATION CONFERENCE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of the National
Science Foundation shall convene the first of an annual 3- to
5-day conference for kindergarten through the 12th grade
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education
stakeholders, including--
(1) representatives from Federal, State, and local
governments, private industries, private businesses, and
professional organizations;
(2) educators;
(3) science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
educational resource providers;
(4) students; and
(5) any other stakeholders the Director determines would
provide useful participation in the conference.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the conference convened
under subsection (a) shall be to--
(1) identify and gather information on existing science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education programs
and resource providers, including information on
distribution, partners, cost assessment, and derivation;
(2) determine the extent of any existing coordination
between providers of curricular activities, initiatives, and
units; and
(3) identify the common goals and differences among the
participants at the conference.
(c) Report and Publication.--At the conclusion of the
conference the Director of the National Science Foundation
shall--
(1) transmit to the Committee on Science of the House of
Representatives and to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate a report on the outcome and
conclusions of the conference, including an inventory of
curricular activities, initiatives, and units, the content of
the conference, and strategies developed that will support
partnerships and leverage resources; and
(2) ensure that a similar report is published and
distributed as widely as possible to stakeholders in science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section--
(1) $300,000 for fiscal year 2001; and
(2) $200,000 for each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
SEC. 10. GRANTS FOR DISTANCE LEARNING.
(a) In General.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation may make competitive, merit-based awards to
develop partnerships for distance learning of science,
mathematics, engineering, and technology education to a State
or local educational agency or to a private elementary,
middle, or secondary school, under any grant program
administered by the Director using funds appropriated to the
National Science Foundation for activities in which distance
learning is integrated into the education process in grades
kindergarten through the 12th grade.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
SEC. 11. SCHOLARSHIPS TO PARTICIPATE IN CERTAIN RESEARCH
ACTIVITIES.
(a) In General.--The President, acting through the National
Science Foundation, shall provide scholarships to teachers at
public and private schools in grades kindergarten through the
12th grade in order that such teachers may participate in
research programs conducted at private entities or Federal or
State government agencies. The purpose of such scholarships
shall be to provide teachers with an opportunity to expand
their knowledge of science, mathematics, engineering,
technology, and research techniques.
(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible to receive a
scholarship under this section, a teacher described in
subsection (a) shall be required to develop, in conjunction
with the private entity or government agency at which the
teacher will be participating in a research program, a
proposal to be submitted to the President describing the
types of research activities involved.
(c) Period of Program.--Participation in a research program
in accordance with this section may be for a period of one
academic year or two sequential summers.
(d) Use of Funds.--The Director may only use funds for
purposes of this section for salaries of scholarship
recipients, administrative expenses (including information
dissemination, direct mailing, advertising, and direct staff
costs for coordination and accounting services), expenses for
conducting an orientation program, relocation expenses, and
the expenses of conducting final selection interviews.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
[[Page H10613]]
SEC. 12. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY UTILIZATION EXTENSION
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to improve the
utilization of educational technologies in elementary and
secondary education by creating an educational technology
extension service based at undergraduate institutions of
higher education.
(b) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) Extension services such as the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership and the Agricultural Extension Service have
proven to be effective public/private partnerships to
integrate new technologies and to improve utilization of
existing technologies by small to medium sized manufacturers
and the United States agricultural community.
(2) Undergraduate institutions of higher education working
with nonprofit organizations and State and Federal agencies
can tailor educational technology extension programs to meet
specific local and regional requirements.
(3) Undergraduate institutions of higher education, often
with the assistance of the National Science Foundation, have
for the past 20 years been integrating educational
technologies into their curricula, and as such they can draw
upon their own experiences to advise elementary and secondary
school educators on ways to integrate a variety of
educational technologies into the educational process.
(4) Many elementary and secondary school systems,
particularly in rural and traditionally underserved areas,
lack general information on the most effective methods to
integrate their existing technology infrastructure, as well
as new educational technology, into the educational process
and curriculum.
(5) Most Federal and State educational technology programs
have focused on acquiring educational technologies with less
emphasis on the utilization of those technologies in the
classroom and the training and infrastructural requirements
needed to efficiently support those types of technologies. As
a result, in many instances, the full potential of
educational technology has not been realized.
(6) Our global economy is increasingly reliant on a
workforce not only comfortable with technology, but also able
to integrate rapid technological changes into the production
process. As such, in order to remain competitive in a global
economy, it is imperative that we maintain a work-ready labor
force.
(7) According to ``Teacher Quality: A Report on the
Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers'',
prepared by the Department of Education, only one in five
teachers felt they were well prepared to work in a modern
classroom.
(8) The most common form of professional development for
teachers continues to be workshops that typically last no
more than one day and have little relevance to teachers' work
in the classroom.
(9) A 1998 national survey completed by the Department of
Education found that only 19 percent of teachers had been
formally mentored by another teacher, and that 70 percent of
these teachers felt that this collaboration was very helpful
to their teaching.
(c) Program Authorized.--
(1) General authority.--The Director of the National
Science Foundation, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Education and the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, is authorized to provide assistance
for the creation and support of regional centers for the
utilization of educational technologies (hereinafter in this
section referred to as ``ETU Centers'').
(2) Functions of centers.--
(A) Establishment.--ETU Centers may be established at any
institution of higher education, but such centers may include
the participation of nonprofit entities, organizations, or
groups thereof.
(B) Objectives of centers.--The objective of the ETU
Centers is to enhance the utilization of educational
technologies in elementary and secondary education through--
(i) advising elementary and secondary school
administrators, school boards, and teachers on the adoption
and utilization of new educational technologies and the
utility of local schools' existing educational technology
assets and infrastructure;
(ii) participation of individuals from the private sector,
universities, State and local governments, and other Federal
agencies;
(iii) active dissemination of technical and management
information about the use of educational technologies; and
(iv) utilization, where appropriate, of the expertise and
capabilities that exist in Federal laboratories and Federal
agencies.
(C) Activities of centers.--The activities of the ETU
Centers shall include the following:
(i) The active transfer and dissemination of research
findings and ETU Center expertise to local school
authorities, including school administrators, school boards,
and teachers.
(ii) The training of teachers in the integration of local
schools existing educational technology infrastructure into
their instructional design.
(iii) The training and advising of teachers,
administrators, and school board members in the acquisition,
utilization, and support of educational technologies.
(iv) Support services to teachers, administrators, and
school board members as agreed upon by ETU Center
representatives and local school authorities.
(v) The advising of teachers, administrators, and school
board members on current skill set standards employed by
private industry.
(3) Program administration.--
(A) Proposed rules.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, after consultation with the Secretary of
Education and the Director of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, shall publish in the Federal
Register, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of
this section, proposed rules for the program for establishing
ETU Centers, including--
(i) a description of the program;
(ii) the procedures to be followed by applicants;
(iii) the criteria for determining qualified applicants;
and
(iv) the criteria, including those listed in this section,
for choosing recipients of financial assistance under this
section from among qualified applicants.
(B) Final rules.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall publish final rules for the program under
this section after the expiration of a 30-day comment period
on such proposed rules.
(4) Eligibility and selection.--
(A) Applications required.--Any undergraduate institution
of higher education, consortium of such institutions,
nonprofit organizations, or groups thereof may submit an
application for financial support under this section in
accordance with the procedures established under this
section. In order to receive assistance under this section,
an applicant shall provide adequate assurances that the
applicant will contribute 50 percent or more of the proposed
Center's capital and annual operating and maintenance costs.
(B) Selection.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation, in conjunction with the Secretary of Education
and the Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, shall subject each application to competitive,
merit review. In making a decision whether to approve such
application and provide financial support under this section,
the Director of the National Science Foundation shall
consider at a minimum--
(i) the merits of the application, particularly those
portions of the application regarding the adaption of
training and educational technologies to the needs of
particular regions;
(ii) the quality of service to be provided;
(iii) the geographical diversity and extent of service
area, with particular emphasis on rural and traditionally
underdeveloped areas; and
(iv) the percentage of funding and amount of in-kind
commitment from other sources.
(C) Evaluation.--Each ETU Center which receives financial
assistance under this section shall be evaluated during its
3d year of operation by an evaluation panel appointed by the
Director of the National Science Foundation. Each evaluation
panel shall measure the involved Center's performance against
the objectives specified in this section. Funding for an ETU
Center shall not be renewed unless the evaluation is
positive.
SEC. 13. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
PROGRAMS.
(a) Interagency Coordination Committee.--
(1) Establishment.--The Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall establish an interagency
committee to coordinate Federal programs in support of
science and mathematics education at the elementary and
secondary level.
(2) Membership.--The membership of the committee shall
consist of the heads, or designees, of the National Science
Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of
Education, and other Federal departments and agencies that
have programs directed toward support of elementary and
secondary science and mathematics education.
(3) Functions.--The committee shall--
(A) prepare a catalog of Federal research, development,
demonstration and other programs designed to improve
elementary and secondary science or mathematics education,
including for each program a summary of its goals and the
kinds of activities supported, a summary of accomplishments
(including evidence of effectiveness in improving student
learning), the funding level, and, for grant programs, the
eligibility requirements and the selection process for
awards;
(B) review the programs identified under subparagraph (A)
in order to--
(i) determine the relative funding levels among support
for--
(I) teacher professional development;
(II) curricular materials;
(III) improved classroom teaching practices;
(IV) applications of computers and related information
technologies; and
(V) other major categories of activities;
(ii) assess whether the balance among kinds of activities
as determined under clause (i) is appropriate and whether
unnecessary duplication or overlap among programs exists;
(iii) assess the degree to which the programs assist the
efforts of State and local school systems to implement
standards-based reform of science and mathematics education,
and group the programs in the categories of high, moderate,
and low relevance for assisting standards-based reform;
[[Page H10614]]
(iv) for grant programs, identify ways to simplify the
application procedures and requirements and to achieve
greater conformity among the procedures and requirements of
the agencies; and
(v) evaluate the adequacy of the assessment procedures used
by the departments and agencies to determine whether the
goals and objectives of programs are being achieved, and
identify the best practices identified from the evaluation
for assessment of program effectiveness; and
(C) monitor the implementation of the plan developed under
subsection (c) and provide to the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy its findings and
recommendations for modifications to that plan.
(b) External Review.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation shall enter into an agreement with the National
Research Council to conduct an independent review of programs
as described in subsection (a)(3)(B) and to develop findings
and recommendations. The findings and recommendations from
the National Research Council review of programs shall be
reported to the Director of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and to the Congress.
(c) Education Plan.--
(1) Plan contents.--On the basis of the findings of the
review carried out in accordance with subsection (a)(3)(B)
and taking into consideration the findings and
recommendations of the National Research Council in
accordance with subsection (b), the Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy shall prepare a plan for
Federal elementary and secondary science and mathematics
education programs which shall include--
(A) a strategy to increase the effectiveness of Federal
programs to assist the efforts of State and local school
systems to implement standards-based reform of elementary and
secondary science and mathematics education;
(B) a coordinated approach for identifying best practices
for the use of computers and related information technologies
in classroom instruction;
(C) the recommended balance for Federal resource allocation
among the major types of activities supported, including
projected funding allocations for each major activity broken
out by department and agency;
(D) identification of effective Federal programs that have
made measurable contributions to achieving standards-based
science and mathematics education reform;
(E) recommendations to the departments and agencies for
actions needed to increase uniformity across the Federal
Government for application procedures and requirements for
grant awards for support of elementary and secondary science
and mathematics education; and
(F) dissemination procedures for replicating results from
effective programs, particularly best practices for classroom
instruction.
(2) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with
academic, State, industry, and other appropriate entities
engaged in efforts to reform science and mathematics
education as necessary and appropriate for preparing the plan
under paragraph (1).
(d) Reports.--
(1) Initial report.--The Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall submit to the Congress, not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, a
report which--
(A) includes the plan described in subsection (c)(1);
(B) in accordance with subsection (c)(1)(C), describes, for
each department and agency represented on the committee
established under subsection (a)(1), appropriate levels of
Federal funding;
(C) includes the catalog prepared under subsection
(a)(3)(A);
(D) includes the findings from the review required under
subsection (a)(3)(B)(iii);
(E) includes the findings and recommendations of the
National Research Council developed under subsection (b); and
(F) describes the procedures used by each department and
agency represented on the committee to assess the
effectiveness of its education programs.
(2) Annual updates.--The Director of the Office of Science
and Technology Policy shall submit to the Congress an annual
update, at the time of the President's annual budget request,
of the report submitted under paragraph (1), which shall
include, for each department and agency represented on the
committee, appropriate levels of Federal funding for the
fiscal year during which the report is submitted and the
levels proposed for the fiscal year with respect to which the
budget submission applies.
SEC. 14. SCIENCE, MATHEMATICS, AND ENGINEERING SCHOLARSHIP
PROGRAM.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National
Science Foundation is authorized to establish a scholarship
program to assist graduates of baccalaureate degree programs
in science, mathematics or engineering, or individuals
pursuing degrees in those fields, to fulfill the academic
requirements necessary to become certified as elementary or
secondary school teachers.
(b) Scholarship Amount and Duration.--Each scholarship
provided under subsection (a) shall be in the amount of
$5,000 and shall cover a period of 1 year.
(c) Requirements.--
(1) Eligibility.--Undergraduate students majoring in
science, mathematics, or engineering who are within one
academic year of completion of degree requirements, and
individuals who have received degrees in such fields, are
eligible to receive scholarships under the program
established by subsection (a).
(2) Guidelines, procedures, and criteria.--The Director
shall establish and publish application and selection
guidelines, procedures, and criteria for the scholarship
program.
(3) Requirements for applications.--Each application for a
scholarship shall include a plan specifying the course of
study that will allow the applicant to fulfill the academic
requirements for obtaining a teaching certificate during the
scholarship period.
(4) Work requirement.--As a condition of acceptance of a
scholarship under this section, a recipient shall agree to
work as an elementary or secondary school teacher for a
minimum of two years following certification as such a
teacher or to repay the amount of the scholarship to the
National Science Foundation.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001, 2002, and 2003.
SEC. 15. GO GIRL GRANTS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Getting Our Girls Ready for the 21st Century Act (Go Girl
Act)''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Women have historically been underrepresented in
mathematics, science, and technology occupations.
(2) Female students take fewer high-level mathematics and
science courses in high school than male students.
(3) Female students take far fewer advanced computer
classes and tend to take only the basic data entry and word
processing classes compared to courses that male students
take.
(4) Female students earn fewer bachelors, masters, and
doctoral degrees in mathematics, science, and technology than
male students.
(5) Early career exploration is key to choosing a career.
(6) Teachers' attitudes, methods of teaching, and classroom
atmosphere affect females' interest in nontraditional fields.
(7) Stereotypes about appropriate careers for females, a
lack of female role models, and a lack of basic career
information significantly deters girls' interest in
mathematics, science, and technology careers.
(8) Females consistently rate themselves significantly
lower than males in computer ability.
(9) By the year 2000, 65 percent of all jobs will require
technological skills.
(10) Limited access is a hurdle faced by females seeking
jobs in mathematics, science, and technology.
(11) Common recruitment and hiring practices make extensive
use of traditional networks that often overlook females.
(c) Program Authority.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Science
Foundation is authorized to provide grants to and enter into
contracts or cooperative agreements with local educational
agencies and institutions of higher education to encourage
the ongoing interest of girls in science, mathematics, and
technology and to prepare girls to pursue undergraduate and
graduate degrees and careers in science, mathematics, or
technology.
(2) Application.--
(A) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local educational agency or institution of
higher education shall submit an application to the Director
at such time, in such form, and containing such information
as the Director may reasonably require.
(B) Contents.--The application referred to in subparagraph
(A) shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(i) A specific program description, including the content
of the program and the research and models used to design the
program.
(ii) A description of how an eligible entity will provide
for collaboration between elementary and secondary school
programs to fulfill goals of the grant program.
(iii) An explanation regarding the recruitment and
selection of participants.
(iv) A description of the instructional and motivational
activities planned to be used.
(v) An evaluation plan.
(d) Uses of Funds for Elementary School Program.--Under
grants awarded pursuant to subsection (c), funds may be used
for the following:
(1) Encouraging girls in grades 4 and higher to enjoy and
pursue studies in science, mathematics, and technology.
(2) Acquainting girls in grades 4 and higher with careers
in science, mathematics, and technology.
(3) Educating the parents of girls in grades 4 and higher
about the difficulties faced by girls to maintain an interest
and desire to achieve in science, mathematics, and technology
and enlisting the help of the parents in overcoming these
difficulties.
(4) Tutoring in reading, science, mathematics, and
technology.
(5) Mentoring relationships, both in-person and through the
Internet.
(6) Paying the costs of attending events and academic
programs in science, mathematics, and technology.
(7) After-school activities designed to encourage the
interest of girls in grades 4 and
[[Page H10615]]
higher in science, mathematics, and technology.
(8) Summer programs designed to encourage interest in and
develop skills in science, mathematics, and technology.
(9) Purchasing software designed for girls, or designed to
encourage girls' interest in science, mathematics, and
technology.
(10) Field trips to locations that educate and encourage
girls' interest in science, mathematics, and technology.
(11) Field trips to locations that acquaint girls with
careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
(12) Purchasing and disseminating information to parents of
girls in grades 4 and higher that will help parents to
encourage their daughters' interest in science, mathematics,
and technology.
(e) Uses of Funds for Secondary School Program.--Under
grants awarded pursuant to subsection (c), funds may be used
for the following:
(1) Encouraging girls in grades 9 and higher to major in
science, mathematics, and technology in a postsecondary
institution.
(2) Providing academic advice and assistance in high school
course selection.
(3) Encouraging girls in grades 9 and higher to plan for
careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
(4) Educating the parents of girls in grades 9 and higher
about the difficulties faced by girls to maintain an interest
and desire to achieve in science, mathematics, and technology
and enlist the help of the parents in overcoming these
difficulties.
(5) Tutoring in science, mathematics, and technology.
(6) Mentoring relationships, both in-person and through the
Internet.
(7) Paying the costs of attending events and academic
programs in science, mathematics, and technology.
(8) Paying 50 percent of the cost of an internship in
science, mathematics, or technology.
(9) After-school activities designed to encourage the
interest of girls in grades 9 and higher in science,
mathematics, and technology, including the cost of that
portion of a staff salary to supervise these activities.
(10) Summer programs designed to encourage interest in and
develop skills in science, mathematics, and technology.
(11) Purchasing software designed for girls, or designed to
encourage girls' interest in science, mathematics, and
technology.
(12) Field trips to locations that educate and encourage
girls' interest in science, mathematics, and technology.
(13) Field trips to locations that acquaint girls with
careers in science, mathematics, and technology.
(14) Visits to institutions of higher education to acquaint
girls with college-level programs in science, mathematics, or
technology, and to meet with educators and female college
students who will encourage them to pursue degrees in
science, mathematics, and technology.
(f) Definition.--In this section the term ``local
educational agency'' has the same meaning given such term in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801), except that in the case of Hawaii,
the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the term ``local educational agency'' shall be deemed
to mean the State educational agency.
SEC. 16. GRANT FOR LEARNING COMMUNITY CONSORTIUM FOR
ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN, MINORITIES, AND PERSONS
WITH DISABILITIES IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND
TECHNOLOGY.
The Director of the National Science Foundation may,
through a competitive, merit-based process, provide to a
consortium composed of community colleges a grant in an
amount not more than $11,000,000 for the purpose of carrying
out a pilot project to provide support to encourage women,
minorities, and persons with disabilities to enter and
complete programs in science, engineering, and technology.
SEC. 17. USE OF FUNDS FOR PROVIDING RELEASE TIME AND OTHER
INCENTIVES.
A recipient of a grant under section 4 or 8 may use funds
received through such grant for expenses related to leave
from work (consistent with State law and contractual
obligations), and other incentives, to permit and encourage
full-time teachers to participate in--
(1) professional development activities relating to the use
of technology in education; and
(2) the development, demonstration, and evaluation of
applications of technology in elementary and secondary
education.
SEC. 18. SCIENCE TEACHER EDUCATION.
(a) Program Authorized.--The Director of the National
Science Foundation may establish a program to improve the
undergraduate education and in-service professional
development of science and mathematics teachers in elementary
and secondary schools. Under the program, competitive awards
shall be made on the basis of merit to institutions of higher
education that offer baccalaureate degrees in education,
science and mathematics.
(b) Purpose of Awards.--Awards made under subsection (a)
shall be for developing--
(1) courses and curricular materials for--
(A) the preparation of undergraduate students pursuing
education degrees who intend to serve in elementary or
secondary schools as science or mathematics teachers; or
(B) the professional development of science and mathematics
teachers serving in elementary and secondary schools; and
(2) educational materials and instructional techniques
incorporating innovative uses of information technology.
(c) Requirements.--The Director shall establish and publish
application and selection guidelines, procedures, and
criteria for the program established by subsection (a).
Proposals for awards under the program shall involve
collaborations of education, mathematics, and science faculty
and include a plan for a continued collaboration beyond the
period of the award. In making awards under this section, the
Director shall consider--
(1) the degree to which courses and materials proposed to
be developed in accordance with subsection (b) combine
content knowledge and pedagogical techniques that are
consistent with hands-on, inquiry-based teaching, are aligned
with established national science or mathematics standards,
and are based on validated education research findings; and
(2) evidence of a strong commitment by the administrative
heads of the schools and departments, whose faculty are
involved in preparing a proposal to the program, to provide
appropriate rewards and incentives to encourage continued
faculty participation in the collaborative activity.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years
2001 through 2003.
SEC. 19. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The terms ``local educational agency'' and ``State
educational agency'' have the meanings given such terms in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(2) The term ``institution of higher education'' has the
meaning given that term by section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on H.R. 4271.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4271 is the product of a 2-year effort by the
Committee to examine the disappointing state of K-12 math and science
education in the United States.
As we are all aware, too many American students are entering the
workforce with an inadequate foundation in math and science. This bill
is an effective start toward implementing math and science education so
that we may break the cycle of low achievement in these important
disciplines.
H.R. 4271, introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers),
vice chairman of the Committee on Science, addresses the problem by
focusing on teachers. The bill would authorize several creative
programs to provide teachers with the tools they need to excel in the
classroom.
For example, the bill provides for technology training specifically
for teachers. Unfortunately, it is currently the case that many
teachers lack sufficient training in the use of technology in the
classroom. Additionally, these teachers often lose when administrators
are forced to choose to dedicate funds between teacher training and
hardware and software for students.
The bill authorizes the program just for teachers so that they will
have the opportunity to secure this training. In addition, the bill
incorporates the input of many Members on both sides of the aisle.
I am pleased that the House is considering the bill today that brings
together so many positive ideas that will help America's students.
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for all his
hard work in producing a bill that deserves strong bipartisan support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4271, the
National Science Education Act. This is a bipartisan bill that
incorporate ideas from
[[Page H10616]]
Members on both sides of the aisle. It has widespread support from
science educators and support from the industry.
H.R. 4271 is focused on a problem of great importance to the future
of the Nation, that is, improvement of science, math, and technology
education in elementary and secondary schools.
The important role of science education to our future well-being is
widely understood. An informed citizenry and a full pipeline of future
scientists and engineers will depend on the quality of science and math
education.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) for his efforts to move the bill forward for floor
consideration today. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the vice chairman of the Committee, and the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking
Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for all of
their hard work on conducting the series of committee hearings that
have provided the basis for this bill and on development of this
legislation.
The programs established by H.R. 4271 will address serious
deficiencies in preparation and professional development of K-12
science and math teachers. The bill will provide new partnerships
between schools and businesses to encourage greater student interest in
science and in technology. And the bill will help to develop more
effective curricular materials, including the exploration of ways to
deploy education technologies more effectively.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the programs authorized by the National
Science Foundation by H.R. 4271 will go a long way to improve K-12
science education in all of our schools. There is no more important
goal to ensure the Nation's future prosperity and well-being.
I commend the measure to the House and urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the author of this bill.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, we have a major national problem. We have a booming
economy which arose out of developments in science and technology, and
we are all enjoying the fruits of that economic boom. At the same time,
we do not have the workforce to manage the boom and to keep it going.
There are several evidences of that. Number one, compared to other
developed countries, we are at the bottom or near to the bottom in
terms of the mathematics and science education student achievements of
our high school graduates.
The second point: if my colleagues would visit the graduate schools
of science and engineering in this Nation, they will find that over
half of the graduate students are from other countries, because our
students cannot compete with those students from other countries.
Another factor is that every year the science and technology industry
comes to us and says, will you please allow more immigrants into our
Nation with the scientific and technological capability to fill the
need that we have. And just 2 weeks ago we approved a bill to allow
another 200,000 immigrants into this Nation to fill that need.
We have 365,000 open scientific and technical jobs in the United
States, and we do not have people qualified to fill those jobs.
We must either allow those from other countries in, or employers will
move the jobs offshore to take advantage of the people there.
We have to address this problem. If we want to continue to enjoy the
fruits of this economic boom, we have to produce students and adults
who are educated in science and math. And I am not talking just about
scientists and engineers. Today they need to know high school physics
and algebra in order to get a job as a mechanic in a major auto service
shop. And this applies to most jobs in society today. We must have
better training in science and technology for our students.
This bill is an attempt to do that. The need for this was
demonstrated in the Science Policy Statement that I developed with the
help of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) 2 years ago
and which was adopted by the Committee on Science and by the full
House. We have conducted further hearings during the past 2 years to
examine this educational need, consider solutions, and arrive at a bill
that would actually meet and solve the problem.
In addition to that, the Glenn Commission, which was appointed by the
Secretary of Education, has been meeting for 2 years, and just a few
weeks ago released its report. Its recommendations parallel almost
exactly what we are trying to do in this bill and some companion bills
that have been introduced.
We must have a knowledgeable and well-prepared teacher in every
classroom. That is the effort of this bill, to provide training for
those teachers already in the classroom who have not received adequate
math and science training in their college or university work, and bill
will provide opportunities to educate them.
Let me make it clear, I am not faulting the teachers for the problem.
In every classroom I visited, and I have been in many in my lifetime,
teachers are eager to teach math and science properly; but they have
not been given the proper training or background, and they desperately
want it. Through this bill, we have provided ways for them to have that
training.
{time} 1415
In addition, this bill provides for a master teacher program, under
which grants would be given to schools. These schools could use those
funds to hire teachers who would have, in addition to their teaching
responsibilities which are assigned by the school, other
responsibilities to deal with equipment maintenance, instruction of
teachers, in-service training of teachers, maintenance of equipment,
outlining curricula, perhaps developing curricula and acquainting the
teachers with all of the ramifications of it.
This master teacher program is a key part of the bill. It has been
the most widely applauded portion of the bill.
In addition to that, the bill contains a teacher scholarship program
so that teachers will be able to go elsewhere and benefit from work
experience or scientific research in laboratories, in businesses or in
other ways. They are professionals, and they need the opportunity to
follow their professional programs and ideals.
We have also included some other bills that were introduced and
referred to the Committee on Science. For example, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had introduced an excellent bill,
which provides a pilot program to encourage private sector
contributions and involvement in information technology programs in the
neediest high schools. It is an excellent bill, and I was pleased to
incorporate that bill in this one.
In addition, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia) introduced a
bill which authorizes an educational technology extension service based
in intermediate school districts, which will allow the schools to
benefit from the expertise of the centralized agencies and personnel.
This bill was reported out of the Committee on Science with a
unanimous vote and has received bipartisan support from the beginning.
I am pleased that we have received support from members of the
Committee on Science, from the members of the Committee on
Appropriations, Committee on Education and the Workforce and from
Members of leadership. There are currently 118 cosponsors for this
bill. It has widespread support in this Congress. Eighteen of those
cosponsors are from the committee on education; 36 from the Committee
on Science.
Teachers will be positively affected by this bill. Our Nation's
teachers and students will be one step closer to receiving the support
they so deserve with this effort.
I want to close this by thanking the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for the tremendous support he has given me in the effort
on this bill, and also the help the House leadership has provided. I
urge the House to approve this bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
[[Page H10617]]
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on
H.R. 4271 and want to express my appreciation for the leadership to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall) and the efforts of other committee members.
After a comprehensive effort and a set of hearings of the Committee
on Science organized by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), which
examined all aspects of K-12 science and math education, we finally did
come to an agreement on a comprehensive bill, a bill that incorporates
a range of proposals from several Members on both sides of the aisle
and addresses ways to improve teacher training, develops more effective
educational materials and teaching practices to improve student
learning and establishes programs to attract more women and minorities
to careers in science and technology.
I am concerned, however, about a provision that allows grants to
private elementary and middle schools. I support the provisions of
4271, but I have a concern about the constitutionality of this
provision. I am simply disappointed that the majority party would allow
an unconstitutional provision in section 4 of H.R. 4271 to authorize a
grant program at the National Science Foundation for competitive awards
to public and private elementary and middle schools to hire master
science teachers.
I fully realize that every school needs these teachers, but we simply
cannot spend public dollars on private schools in elementary and
secondary levels for these schools to hire master teachers. We know
that in these private schools, they have smaller classes, they are
easier students to teach; and so consequently we feel that the master
teachers probably would gravitate to these private schools. Who would
blame them?
Despite the efforts to try to remove this provision, it is still
here; and we need a clean bill because we need the provisions otherwise
of this bill. This section and only this section is the cause of much
of my concern to the once highly supported bill by both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. Speaker, section 4 is clearly unconstitutional on the basis of a
Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman. In that case, the Court
disallowed a State program for providing salary supplements to teachers
in private schools.
Mr. Speaker, what we have today is simply an effort to get public
dollars funneled into private schools. We simply must not do that in
this body. The precedent set by this case is what we should follow
today. The Court knew then, just as we know today, that implementation
of a provision like this would serve to endanger this entire bill.
As stated before, it was highly supported by both sides of the aisle.
H.R. 4271 incorporated the Mathematics and Science Proficiency
Partnership Act, a bill that I introduced last year. My legislation is
a targeted measure. It seeks to bring schools with large populations of
economically disadvantaged students together in partnership with
businesses to improve science and math education and to recruit and
support students in undergraduate education in science and technology
fields.
Before realizing the intentions of Section 4, I was also pleased that
the bill included a provision I offered in Committee to establish a
formal coordination and planning mechanism for federal K-12 science
education programs.
Mr. Speaker, the nation must take advantage of the human resource
potential of all our citizens if we are to succeed in the international
economic competition of the 21st century. Just as other members, I
would like to see the good provisions of H.R. 4271 implemented, but I
can not justify to the 30th district of Texas and to the American
people support of such legislation that risks being struck down because
of the unconstitutional provision. The American people can only benefit
if we pass a bill that is constitutional and speaks to the welfare of
all Americans. This can only be done without the inclusion of Section
4. We need reform efforts in science and math education that will
engage and cultivate the interest of all children, not efforts that
will put the grant application to hire master science teachers at risk
by providing funding to private schools--yielding unconstitutional
results.
Indeed, H.R. 4271 addresses many aspects of K-12 science and math
education that plague our schools. At the same time, H.R. 4271
unconstitutionally serves to deny public schools the opportunities to
become technologically savvy in this increasingly technological world.
Due to the unconstitutional section of this legislation, I urge my
colleagues to correct this provision so that we can get the other
provisions of the bill going. It is long overdue.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
engage the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) in a colloquy to be
sure that we can correct this provision in this bill before it goes
into final print. If this can happen, I wholeheartedly support this
bill.
Could the gentleman assure me that the language that provides grants
to private schools that are publicly supported could be corrected
before the final language of the bill?
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, let me clarify this issue. First of all,
this is typical language that we have incorporated in this bill. We are
not breaking new ground. The National Science Foundation at present
does give grants to private schools. Let me also clarify that private
schools does not mean rich preparatory schools, as many people think,
and does not necessarily mean religious schools. In my city in Grand
Rapids, we have a private school that serves students in the inner
city, and survives through my extensive fund-raising. It operates on a
poverty shoestring. Most of its students are from minority groups. So
private schools can include many different types.
Be that as it may, note that the letter that has been circulated
saying that this program may raise a constitutional question, is based
on a 1971 Supreme Court decision which has been superseded by several
other decisions, and I think this issue deserves considerable study
before one could conclude that there is a constitutional problem.
Secondly, if we read the bill carefully we note the grants provide
for development or implementation of science, mathematics, engineering
or technical curricula in classroom assistance; authority over hands-on
inquiry materials, equipment and supplies; mentoring other teachers or
fulfilling any leadership role and professional development, including
training other master teachers or other teachers or developing or
implementing professional development programs. Nowhere in here does it
say that they will be teaching children.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) very much for his response. I guess the
commitment that I want is that if it is determined to be
unconstitutional, could the language be made so that if it is
determined to be unconstitutional then we can remove this provision?
Because we need the rest of this bill, and we need it rapidly. I have
been pleading for this for over 2 years to move forward, but what I do
not want to do is dilute public dollars further in supporting private
schools when we so desperately need special areas, especially students
in areas where it is difficult to attract master teachers, it is
difficult to have smaller classes, it is even difficult to have the
classes wired as they should be for today's education. I need that
assurance.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with the assertions that have
been made that the section in question is unconstitutional. The
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) cites a 1971 U.S.
Supreme Court case. There have been two more recent cases, Agostini v.
Felton in 1997 and Mitchell v. Helms earlier this year that clarified
the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. Basically, it said that a statute similar
to what is being proposed here is constitutional if it does not result
in religious indoctrination, it does not define its recipients by
reference to religion and it does not create excessive entanglement
between government and religion. In each of these three instances, the
statute does not do so.
There has been a Presidential award program that has been on the
books since 1983 where each year the National Science Foundation
recommends to the President 107 math teachers and 107 science teachers
from around the country to receive an award which is a $7,500 grant to
the school where the
[[Page H10618]]
teacher teaches. That is open to both public schools and private
schools.
I have a list of recent awardees, and I would like to read some of
them to show that the President has directed money from the NSF to
private schools. One of the awardees is Ms. Barbara Day Bass of St.
Catherine's School in Richmond, Virginia. Another is sister Elizabeth
C. Graham of Christ the King High School in Middle Village, New York;
Sister Ellen Callaghan of Mount Carmel High School in Essex, Maryland;
Ms. Claire Anne Baker of Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School of
Indianapolis, Indiana; Ms. Carole Bennett of the Jesuit High School in
Tampa, Florida; and even Mr. David Stuart Wood of the Sidwell Friends
School of Washington, D.C., which I believe is attended by the son of
Vice President Gore.
Now, this program has been working very well on the executive level
for 17 years, and no one has raised the question that these types of
awards violate the establishment clause of the United States
Constitution. As a matter of fact, during all of the hearings that the
Committee on Science had on this bill and during the markup, no one
raised the issue as well. It was only a couple of nights ago that
somebody started calling around saying that this provision was
unconstitutional.
Well, first of all, the Congress does not make constitutional
determinations. That can only be made by the Court and usually by the
Supreme Court of the United States. I think that there is a sufficient
question on the constitutionality that we should not pull this
provision out of the bill, particularly because it would set such a
precedent that the existing award program that had been going on by the
NSF would be called into question as well. But also it is a standard
rule of statutory construction that sections that are declared
unconstitutional are severable if they can be severed from the rest of
the bill. So I think that the concern of the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) is really unfounded.
Constitutional and precedential questions aside, what we should be
saying here is that it should not make any difference whether a teacher
teaches at a public school or a private school in terms of the benefits
of getting better math and science education in the classroom, because
it is the students in those classrooms that are going to benefit from
better teachers and more motivated teachers. I do not think we should
leave the children who happen to go to private schools behind with
these kinds of grants, just as the President has not left children who
are taught by teachers in private schools behind in making the awards
pursuant to the 1983 law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, good grief. Here we go again. Members from
both sides of the aisle joined together to craft a good bipartisan
bill, the National Science Education Act, a bill that addresses an
important national need which is improving science education.
{time} 1430
A bill that includes many innovative programs, such as my ``Go Girl''
initiative, which encourages girls to study and pursue careers in math,
science, engineering and technology.
The Democrats on the Committee on Science and the Committee on
Education and the Workforce had to fight really hard to convince the
Republicans on the Committee on Education and the Workforce to let ``Go
Girl'' stay in the bill, and we prevailed, and the bill is better
because of that.
But H.R. 4271 still includes a poison pill, a poison pill that no
Member who cares about public education in America wants to vote for.
In section 4, H.R. 4271 will give Federal funds directly to private and
religious schools to hire teachers. This appears to violate our
Constitution, and it absolutely takes precious dollars away from public
schools.
It would be easy to change this provision. In fact, our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle were asked to do just that before the bill
came before us today on the floor, but they have refused.
So with regret for the students and the public schools that could
benefit from the good programs in this bill, I cannot support H.R.
4271, unless the section 4 language regarding private schools is
corrected.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, did the gentlewoman vote for a bill
as a Member of the Committee on Science?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would further yield, did the
gentlewoman propose an amendment during Committee on Science
consideration to remove the section that she objects to now?
Ms. WOOLSEY. I did not, until it came to my attention more clearly.
You know how fast we shoved that through the committee, because each of
us that had things, like my ``Go Girl'' bill, and I was very, very
seriously concentrating on that.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentlewoman would yield for one further
question, does the gentlewoman feel that President Clinton made a
mistake in awarding the 7,500 grants in the PAEMST program to
representatives and teachers of private schools that I mentioned?
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to say
that this gentlewoman supports public education. I am not against
private schools, I have no problem with religious schools; but our
public schools are underfunded, and to take anything away from the
funding of public schools at this time is a huge, grave mistake. If we
vote on this later today, on H.R. 4271, I urge my colleagues who care
about public education in America to do the same and vote against this
bill.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me time.
I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), for his work on this important issue, improving math and
science education in this country. We know that our economic
competitiveness as a Nation depends on our ability to compete in the
area of education.
Unfortunately, in Virginia there are tens of thousands of jobs going
vacant because we cannot find the qualified workers in the area of
technology. Businesses cannot therefore expand until they find the
qualified workers, and localities trying to recruit businesses cannot
recruit those businesses because of the shortage of technologically
qualified workers.
So, Mr. Speaker, while I think this bill goes in the right direction
because it improves science, math and technological education in our
schools, I, too, am concerned about section 4 in the bill involving
master teachers. That section directs the National Science Foundation
to give direct grants to entities, including private schools, to hire
master teachers. This provision is not only constitutionally suspect,
but also provides for a dangerous precedent for Federal education
programs.
Under current law, private schools can now participate in
professional development activities and may participate in consortia or
partnerships that receive Federal grants. But we have never given them
direct grants to hire teachers. Direct grants are even more
constitutionally suspect than vouchers, because this bill allows direct
funding to private religious schools.
Now, some of the voucher programs pretend to have the benefit going
to the student, not to the school; but there is not that fiction in
this bill. This money goes directly to private religious schools.
It should be noted that private religious schools would be able to
discriminate on the basis of religion when they hire teachers with
Federal funds, and that is particularly absurd on a science bill, to
think that a private school could fire a master teacher, hired with
Federal funds, because that master teacher it was found believed in
evolution, if teaching evolution is inconsistent with the teaching and
tenets of the private religious school.
[[Page H10619]]
Now, although we do not make the constitutional determinations as
Members of Congress, I would remind our Members when we were sworn in,
we did swear to uphold the Constitution.
Even more of a concern is the precedence this provision sets for
other Federal education programs. Should we give money to private
schools to hire teachers to reduce their class size, to modernize their
schools or to run after-school programs, when those initiatives are
woefully underfunded in the public area?
Mr. Speaker, public funds should benefit public schools, where more
than 90 percent of our students go; and, therefore, I urge the defeat
of this legislation.
I would also in response to the constitutional arguments include for
the Record a memorandum dated October 24, 2000, from the Congressional
Research Service.
Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress,
Washington, DC, October 24, 2000.
memorandum
To: House Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Attention: Alex Nock
From: David M. Ackerman, Legislative Attorney, American Law
Division
Subject: Establishment Clause Issues Raised by Master Teacher
Grant Program in H.R. 4271
This is in response to your request regarding the
constitutional implications of the ``Master Teacher Grant
Program'' that would be authorized by H.R. 4271. More
specifically, you asked for a brief analysis of the program's
implications under the establishment of religion clause of
the First Amendment. Time limitations prevent an exhaustive
analysis, but it is hoped the following may be helpful.
H.R. 4271 would, inter alia, authorize $50 million for each
of the next three fiscal years for a master teacher program
conducted by the National Science Foundation. Under that
program the NSF could make grants to state or local
educational agencies, a private elementary or middle school,
or a consortium of any combination of those entities for the
purpose of hiring a master teacher whose responsibilities
could include (1) development or implementation of science,
math, engineering, or technology curricula; (2) providing in-
classroom assistance; (3) managing materials, equipment, and
supplies; (4) mentoring other teachers; and (5) developing
and implementing professional development programs for
teachers, including other master teachers. Thus, a private
sectarian elementary or middle school could receive a grant
to hire a master teacher.
The program may raise a constitutional question under the
establishment of religion clause. Several Supreme Court
decisions have addressed the constitutionality of public
subsidies of teachers in sectarian elementary and secondary
schools. Most pertinent, perhaps, is Lemon v. Kurtzman. In
that case the Court held unconstitutional, 7-1, two state
programs subsidizing teachers of secular subjects in
sectarian elementary and secondary schools. One program
provided a salary supplement of up to 15 percent of the
salary of teachers of secular subjects in private elementary
schools. The other program reimbursed private elementary and
secondary schools for the salaries of teachers of math,
modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical
education. The Court analyzed the programs'
constitutionality under what is now known as the Lemon
test:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that
neither advances nor inhibits religion . . .; finally, the
statute must not foster ``an excessive entanglement with
religion.''
The Court found the programs to have legitimate secular
purposes but, without deciding the primary effect question,
held them to foster an ``excessive entanglement between
government and religion'' and thus to be unconstitutional
under the establishment clause. It stressed that the schools
that benefited from the subsidies had a ``significant
religious mission and that a substantial portion of their
activities is religiously oriented.'' The schools were all
located near parish churches, all displayed numerous
religious symbols, all were administered by religious
authorities, and two-thirds of the teachers were nuns of
various religious orders. As a consequence, the Court said,
there was a substantial risk that the subsidized teachers
would engage in religious indoctrination:
We need not and do not assume that teachers in parochial
schools will be guilty of bad faith or any conscious design
to evade the limitations imposed by the statute and the First
Amendment. We simply recognize that a dedicated religious
person, teaching in a school affiliated with his or her faith
and operated to include its tenets, will inevitably
experience great difficulty in remaining religiously neutral.
. . . With the best of intentions such a teacher would find
it hard to make a total separation between secular teaching
and religious doctrine.
Because of the ``potential for impermissible fostering of
religion,'' the Court held that the states would have to
engage in an intrusive monitoring of the teachers'
performance:
The . . . Legislature has not, and could not, provide state
aid on the basis of a mere assumption that secular teachers
under religious discipline can avoid conflicts. The State
must be certain, given the Religion Clauses, that subsidized
teachers do not inculcate religion. . . . A comprehensive,
discriminating, and continuing state surveillance will
inevitably be required to ensure that [this] restriction [is]
obeyed and the First Amendment otherwise respected. . . .
These prophylactic contacts will involve excessive and
enduring entanglement between state and church.
The Court saw an added danger in the program reimbursing
private sectarian schools for the salaries of teachers of
specified secular subjects:
The Pennsylvania statute . . . has the further defect of
providing state financial aid directly to the church-related
school. . . . The history of government grants of a
continuing cash subsidy indicates that such programs have
almost always been accompanied by varying measures of control
and surveillance. The government cash grants before us now
provide no basis for predicting that comprehensive measures
of surveillance and control will not follow. In particular,
the government's post-audit power to inspect and evaluate a
church-related school's financial records and to determine
which expenditures are religious and which are secular
creates an intimate and continuing relationship between
church and state.
Lemon concerned the public subsidy of sectarian school
teachers. In 1975 in Meek v. Pittenger the Court extended its
reasoning to a program in which public school teachers
provided ``auxiliary services'' to sectarian school students
on the premises of the sectarian schools they attended. The
Court again stressed the religion-pervasive nature of
sectarian elementary and secondary schools and found that
even public school teachers might engage in the fostering of
religion in such an atmosphere. It said:
``To be sure, auxiliary services personnel, because not
employed by the nonpublic schools, are not directly subject
to the discipline of a religious authority. But they are
performing important educational services in schools in which
education is an integral part of the dominant sectarian
mission and in which an atmosphere dedicated to the
advancement of religious belief is constantly maintained. The
potential for impermissible fostering of religion under these
circumstances, although somewhat reduced, is nonetheless
present. To be certain that auxiliary teachers remain
religiously neutral, as the Constitution demands, the State
would have to impose limitations on the activities of
auxiliary personnel and then engage in some form of
continuing surveillance to ensure that those restrictions
were being followed.
Thus, by a margin of 6-3, the Court held the program to
violate the establishment clause.
A decade later the Court reaffirmed these views. In Aguilar
v. Felton the Court held unconstitutional, 5-4, New York
City's implementation of Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. Under the program public school
teachers provided remedial and enrichment educational
services to eligible children in private elementary and
secondary schools on the premises of those schools. The City
had set up a system to monitor the teachers' performance to
ensure that they did not engage in religious teaching. But
the Court, again stressing the religion-pervasive nature of
the schools, found that the monitoring system itself to
create excessive entanglement between the City and the
religious schools:
. . . [T]he supervisory system established by the City of
New York inevitably results in the excessive entanglement of
church and state. . . .
In the related case of City of Grand Rapids v. Ball the
Court also struck down two teacher-subsidy programs operated
in Grand Rapids. In the Shared Time program public school
teachers provided remedial and enrichment instruction to
children in sectarian elementary schools on the premises of
those schools, while in the Community Education program
teachers who were otherwise employed by the parochial schools
were hired on a part-time basis to provide after-school
extracurricular courses to the students attending
those schools. The Court held both programs to satisfy the
secular purpose aspect of the Lemon test but to violate
its primary effect prong, but margins of 5-4 and 7-2,
respectively. The Court said the programs
``impermissibly'' advanced religion in three ways:
First, the teachers participating in the programs may
become involved in intentionally or inadvertently inculcating
particular religious tenets or beliefs. Second, the programs
may provide a crucial symbolic link between government and
religion, thereby enlisting--at least in the eyes of
impressionable youngsters--the powers of government to the
support of the religious denomination operating the school.
Third, the programs may have the effect of directly promoting
religion by impermissibly providing a subsidy to the primary
religious mission of the institutions attended.
Thus, after Ball the Court viewed programs subsidizing
teachers of secular subjects on the premises of sectarian
schools to violate both the primary effect and excessive
entanglement prongs of the Lemon test.
More recently, however, the Court has begun to retreat from
these rulings. In Agostini v. Felron in 1997 the Court
specifically rejected the conclusions and reasoning
[[Page H10620]]
of Aguilar, Ball, and Meek with respect to programs in which
public school teachers provide remedial and enrichment
services to eligible children in sectarian elementary and
secondary schools on the premises of those schools. Agostini
again involved New York City's implementation on the Title I
program, but this time the Court held on-premises instruction
by public school personnel to be constitutional, 5-4. The
Court said the assumptions on which Aguilar, Ball, and Meek
were based had been ``undermined'' by its more recent church-
state jurisprudence. Specifically, the Court said it had
``abandoned the presumption . . . That the placement of
public employees on parochial school grounds inevitably
results in the impermissible effect of state-sponsored
indoctrination or constitutes a symbolic union between
government and religion.'' the Court further said it had
``departed from the rule . . . That all government aid that
directly assists the educational function of religious
schools is invalid.'' Finally, the Court states that because
it no longer adhered to the view that ``property instructed
public employees will fail to discharge their duties
faithfully'' and be tempted to inculcate religion while on
parochial school grounds, it also ``discard[ed] the
assumption that pervasive monitoring of Title I teachers is
required. There is no suggestion in the record before us that
unannounced monthly visits of public supervisors are
insufficient to detect inculcation of religion by public
employees. Moreover, we have not found excessive entanglement
in cases in which States imposed far more onerous burdens on
religious institutions than the monitoring system at issue
here.''
Most recently, the court further revised its jurisprudence
concerning public aid to sectarian elementary and secondary
schools, although the case did not involve teacher subsidies.
In Mitchell v. Helms the Court upheld, 6-3, a program
providing instructional materials and equipment to public
and private schools alike and in so doing overturned parts
of its prior opinions in Meek v. Pittenger, supra, and
Wolman v. Walter. The Court could agree on no majority
opinion. A plurality opinion by Justice Thomas, joined by
Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Kennedy,
stated that programs providing aid directly to sectarian
schools are constitutional so long as the aid is also made
available on a neutral basis to public schools and is
secular in nature. The opinion by Justice O'Connor, joined
by Justice Breyer, averred that the aid also had to be
limited to secular use by the schools after it was
received. But she eschewed the notion that an intrusive
monitoring system was constitutionally necessary to ensure
that such a restriction was honored. She stated:
``. . . Agostini and the cases on which it relied have
undermined the assumptions underlying Meek and Wolman. To be
sure, Agostini only addressed the specific presumption that
public-school employees teaching on the premises of religious
schools would inevitably inculcate religion. Nevertheless, I
believe that our definitive rejection of that presumption
also stood for--or at least strongly pointed to--the broader
proposition that such presumptions of religious
indoctrination are normally inappropriate when evaluating
neutral school-aid programs under the Establishment Clause. .
. . [T]he Court's willingness to assume that religious-school
instructors will inculcate religion has not caused us to
presume also that such instructors will be unable to follow
secular use restrictions on the use of textbooks. I would
similarly reject any such presumption regarding the use of
instructional materials and equipment.''
But Justice O'Connor also took pains to re-emphasize her
position in Ball that ``the religious-school teacher who
works throughout the day to advance the school's religious
mission would also do so, at least to some extent, during the
supplemental classes provided at the end of the day.''
Thus, it seems clear that the Court's church-state
jurisprudence is evolving. More specifically, the Court has
abandoned the assumptions that aid to sectarian schools
inevitably has a primary effect of advancing the schools'
religious mission and that public school teachers will
inevitably be tempted to inculcate religion when they offer
instructional services on the premises of such schools. But
it has not yet abandoned the presumption that was key to its
decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, that the teachers hired
by the sectarian schools themselves would inevitably engage
in such instruction and that a constitutionally entangling
surveillance of such teachers would be essential if they were
publicly subsidized. Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, in other
words, appears still to be good law. Moreover, it may also be
material to note that all of the Justices in their various
opinions in Mitchell v. Helms, supra, emphasized the
constitutional dangers that were inherent in direct grants of
money to sectarian schools. As a consequence, the Master
Teacher program that would be authorized by H.R. 4271 appears
to raise a constitutional question.
I hope the foregoing is responsive to your request. If we
may be of additional assistance, please call on us.
I would just read part of it. Lemon v. Kurtzman was mentioned. CRS
suggests that that still appears to be good law. Moreover, it may be
material to note that all of the justices in their various opinions in
Mitchell v. Helms emphasized the constitutional dangers that were
inherent in direct grants of money to sectarian schools. As a
consequence, the master teacher program that would be authorized by
H.R. 4271 appears to raise constitutional questions.
I think they should be considered and that provision should be taken
out of the bill, so other good portions could go forward.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think this precedent has already been set, and I would
like to read from the National Science Foundation fact sheet that
outlines the awards that the President of the United States offers
every year. It says, the presidential award for excellence in
mathematics and science teaching is the Nation's highest commendation
for K-12 math and science teachers. It recognizes the combination of
sustained and exemplary work, both in and outside of the classroom.
Each award includes a grant of $7,500 from the NSF to the recipient
school. Winners use the money at their discretion to promote math and
science education.
Frequently asked questions: What are the PAEMST selection criteria?
Answer: The program is open to practicing public, private and
parochial school teachers with a minimum of 5 years experience.
Then there is a press release attached to this that says President
Clinton has recognized 214 mathematics and science teachers for their
innovative and outstanding contributions to their professions under the
presidential awards for excellence in mathematics and science teaching
programs.
Now, if the gentleman from Virginia's argument is valid, then all of
the awards that President Clinton has passed out in the last 8 years to
private and parochial school teachers, because they have done a good
job in the classroom, never should have been paid and are
unconstitutional.
What is being proposed in this bill is patterned after what the
President has done since 1983. The issue of the constitutionality is
simple, and that is whether the funds are used to promote
indoctrination of religion, in this bill they are not; whether there is
a preference on religious instruction, in this bill they are not; and
whether there is excessive entanglement between the government and
religion, and in this bill there is not, just like in the PAEMST awards
that have been given by the President of the United States.
So I think that the argument that has been advanced at the 11th hour
and 59th minute is really a red herring. We need to improve math and
science education in our elementary and secondary schools. The best way
to do that is to have really motivated teachers that turn the kids on.
It should not make any difference whether those teachers teach in the
public school or in a nonpublic school, because we should not leave the
children in the nonpublic schools behind in order to get better math
and science education.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that sailed through the committee
with input from both sides. It is a good bill. It is a bill that is
endangered now because some things have been detected in it, and it is
not unlikely that could happen to any committee or any member of the
committee.
But we have a problem with it, and we would have worked it out. I
think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson), and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Scott) and others would have worked it out at the committee level.
But that did not happen.
I am very hopeful that in colloquy between the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Ehlers), they are both highly skilled in the art of compromise, maybe
something can be worked out with this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is no question
about any provision in this bill,
[[Page H10621]]
except that provision that allows for the payment of teachers for
private schools. There is a real difference between a $7,500 award and
paying the full salary of a teacher for a private school. That remains
a problem in this bill.
Clearly, this bill needed to move. We have been holding it up for
over 2 years, trying to hear everyone all over the country, many
educators, and we know the urgency of the provisions of this bill. But
we do not want to risk the outcome of this bill because of this
provision.
That is where my concern is, and that is what I would like. If the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) could assure us that this
provision would not jeopardize this bill and it could be corrected
before it is signed into law or vetoed or whatever, then I have no
problem with the bill.
We need the other provisions of this bill to be in law so that we can
get the benefit as quickly as possible.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, there is a host of questions that have been
raised here at the last minute, and a considerable surprise to me,
because on this bill we have held hearings for over a year, and the
bill has been out for almost 2 years.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Not on this provision, but the
last one.
Mr. EHLERS. Let me just try to respond. This provision is, first of
all, a grant to the school, not to the teacher, so it is not even as
far along as the list that the chairman gave a moment ago. It is a
grant to the school and not to the teacher.
Secondly, you have to recognize teachers move from one school to
another. Just yesterday I spoke in a school, and there was a teacher in
the public school who had previously taught in a religious school in my
community. If you educate or train a teacher, are you going to say once
we have trained them with Federal money, they cannot teach in a private
school anymore, even if they were trained with Federal money while they
were in the public school?
{time} 1445
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker,
let me just say that we want the provisions of this bill to go forward.
We do not want public dollars to flow to private schools when we have
such need in public schools.
I need that assurance. This bill is on suspension. I need to assure a
number of people in this body that this will happen if this bill is to
pass today.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I am one who wants the parents to make the decision
as to what type of education their children have.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important bill to get America's children the
type of technologically adept teachers that they need to bring
themselves into the 21st century. It should not be held up because we
have had 2 years of study on this, direct hearings and having the bill
open for amendment during the markup at the Committee on Science.
At no point prior to 48 hours ago have the objections, such as those
raised by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) been brought up.
This bill has widespread support, and I would like to read off a list
of the organizations that have supported it: the American Association
for Engineering Education, the American Association of Engineering
Societies, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American
Astronomical Society, the American Chemical Society, the American
Physical Society, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Business Round Table, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers,
International Society for Optical Engineering, International Technology
Education Association, Jobs for the Future, National Academy Of
Sciences, National Alliance of Business, National Council of Teachers
of Mathematics, National Science Teachers Association, National Society
of Professional Engineers, Optical Society of America, SAE
International and Triangle Coalition for Mathematics and Science
Education.
Mr. Speaker, I would implore the House of Representatives to do the
right thing, to give our kids the tools to advance into the 21st
century and be able to compete in a globalized economy. Mr. Speaker, I
urge passage of the bill.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises today in support of H.R.
4271, the National Science Education Act, of which he is a cosponsor.
Through grants to public and private schools, the National Science
Education Act provides math and science teachers with the assistance
they need in professional development and support for the use of hands-
on science materials, and with development in technology use and
integration. It also creates a national scholarship to reward teacher
participation in science, math, engineering or technology research.
In June of this year, this Member was visited by Mr. Robert Curtright
and his wife from Lincoln, Nebraska. Mr. Curtright, a science teacher
at Lincoln Northeast High School, was honored as one of the winners of
the Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science
Teaching Program that is administered by the National Science
Foundation. The award enables Mr. Curtright to serve as a role model
for his peers in Nebraska and encourage high quality teachers to enter
and remain in the education field. However, Mr. Curtright cannot do it
alone. Nebraska is currently facing a great deal of difficulty in
recruiting and retaining good quality teachers. This Member believes
that through H.R. 4271, more teachers will benefit from the additional
resources, enhanced professional development as well as professional
mentors to recruit and maintain quality math and science teachers.
Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to support the
National Science Education Act. Mr. Curtright deserves all of the help
he can get in assisting others in his profession provide the best math
and science education that children in Nebraska and throughout the
country deserve.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4271,
the National Science Education Act, an important bill that recognizes
the need to educate for the future.
I do have some concerns about one part of the bill that would permit
allocation of federal funds to private schools. I would have preferred
for that to have been omitted. However, the rest of the bill deserves
enactment. So, I will support sending the bill to the Senate, in hopes
that it will be further improved to the point that it can be supported
without reservation by anyone.
I'd like to talk specifically about the merits of one provision,
added by an amendment that I offered, that is designed to encourage
would-be science and math teachers. My amendment authorizes a program
of one-year, $5000 scholarships to those with bachelors degrees in
science or engineering, or those nearing completion of such degrees, to
enable them to take the courses they need to become certified as K-12
science or math teachers.
Over the last year, the Science Committee held a series of hearings
about the state of math and science education in this country. From
these hearings and from talking to constituents, students, and
educators at home, it has become crystal clear to me that we have much
work to do to prepare our students to succeed in the 21st century
workplace.
In particular, we've been hearing that poor student performance in
science and math has much to do with the fact that teachers often have
little or no training in the disciplines they are teaching. While the
importance of teacher expertise in determining student achievement is
widely acknowledged, it is also the case that significant numbers of K-
12 students are being taught science and math by unqualified teachers.
The bill includes a number of important provisions to assist
teachers, and deserves to pass. Not only do we need to ensure a high
quality of science and math education for our students, but we also
need to ensure there is sufficient quantity of trained teachers
available to teach them. My amendment provides an incentive for
individuals with the content knowledge to try teaching as a career.
Most students emerge from college with a heavy debt load--and studies
have shown that average debt has tended upward, sine college tuition
costs have been increasing faster than inflation. So scholarships would
be particularly beneficial for those considering entering the teaching
field where starting salaries are relatively low.
Mr. Speaker, this bill takes some critical steps to help ensure that
we can sustain our
[[Page H10622]]
current economic growth and that our future workforce will be prepared
to succeed in our increasingly technologically based world.
I urge support for this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4271, as amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________