While Dr. Perkins will talk to you in detail

about emerging engineering manpower demands, I would

like to call attention briefly to a particular aspect of engineering manpower demand that, in my view, we cannot ignore. The decade ahead will witness a second

industrial revolution growing out of developments in high technology. To survive, many mid-level and smaller industries will increasingly require the services of competent and highly skilled engineers. These

prospective manpower demands have never been adequately factored into projections of future need for engineers.

I believe that the government has a

responsibility to monitor the supply and demand of scientific and technical personnel, both in terms of quantity and quality, and to supplement the free market role when it is in the national interest. Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Chairman of the Academy's Assembly of

Engineering, in testimony before your Committee earlier this year, pointed out this need when he stated that, "The match between some of the educational product, that is, the graduates of the universities, and the needs of

area in which the government, as representative of the public interest, must be watchful. For example, we now observe that the supply of engineers is beginning to catch up with demand, and some studies show that by the end of the decade, supply and demand should be in

balance, except perhaps in a few specialties.

However,

this does not address the question of near and intermediate term needs, of gaps, nor of quality. As I said earlier, state of the art equipment to train these engineers is lacking. Further, the burgeoning numbers of engineering students on our campuses have overcrowded the classroom at a time of a shortage of qualified teachers. It is questionable if graduating engineers are receiving quality education in the faster growing disciplines such as computer engineering, robotics, electronics, genetic engineering, and the several fields of energy engineering. Whether our universities can keep apace of the accelerating advances of modern technology in these new fields is another vexina

question. Without strong external support from government and industry, innovative campus research and instruction will fall seriously behind, further widening the gap in quality between academic training and

industrial needs. In my view, the government is laaqing

in its support as witnessed by the severe selective

reductions in certain areas of the budget, especially funds for instrumentation and scientific education.

This is to he regretted for it could impede the
Administration's goal of building the nation's

industrial strength.

These are short-term and, I think, manageable problems, but there are other longer-term conditions

that could limit our ability to stay in the forefront as the world's technological leader.

These, Mr. Chairman,

are the ones which you and your Committee may find appropriate to address in your further deliberations. Last sprina my predecessor, Dr. Philip Handler, called vour attention to a report of the National Research Council entitled "The State of School Science." It is a review supported by the National Science Foundation of the teaching of mathematics, science and social studies in American schools.

The survey data,

first-hand observations, and other evidence from this and additional studies commissioned by the National Science Foundation, describe a troubled American school system. Student performance shows a striking decline.

Teacher qualifications and effectiveness in the
classroom have dropped. The use of laboratory
instruction and the inquiry approach seem to be
diminishina. A heavy emphasis, system-wide, on
multiple-choice testing has elevated simpler and less
meaningful instructional objectives and reduced the
importance attached to the learning of concepts and
relationships. Even more alarming is the educational
environment of our schools. The nature of this
condition is so discouraging that, for your benefit, I
should like to auote directly several paragraphs of the
report, "The State of School Science," to underscore
these circumstances.

"Science and the development of
critical thinking skills in social
studies and mathematics have assumed a
low priority in the thinking of school
administrators. An increased emphasis on
the 'basic' learning skills, such as
reading, arithmetic, and spelling, is
preempting time previously available for
the study of science, social studies, and
mathematical concepts, especially in
elementary schools. The NSF case studies
observers found that in most schools

natural sciences, mathematics other than

basic arithmetic, and social science inouiry were seen as having a rather limited value for the student body at larae, and that providing a strong pre-college education program in science for those students who will become the nation's future scientists was not a high priority in most school systems.

The NSF case studies observers also found much apathy among students. In some schools, a lack of academic motivation was revealed by low attendance rates and the refusal of many students to attend school on a regular basis. Other students displayed their apathy towards school through passive non-involvement in classroom activities. After budget problems, the problem most frequently cited by public school teachers was student apathy, lack of motivation, and absenteeism.

The NSF case studies described many of the schools as not being

intellectually stimulating places in which to work. Few principals have a good academic background in science or mathematics; this makes it difficult for them to help teachers to develop effective science and mathematics instructional programs. School