Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285790873
label
OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790873
contentType
document
title
OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06834-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Charles E. M. Kolb Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285790873
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
ca3efed3a7a800c2
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Kolb, Charles E. M., Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
06834
Folder ID Number:
06834-004
Folder Title:
OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
17
28
1
2
CK,
OSTP
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 8/14/90
TO: Ree/Down
FROM:
CHARLES E. M. KOLB
Action
Draft Response
FYI
Let's Talk
COMMENTS:
Please reased and send Tan any suggestime
you may have. Marks!
DRAFT: DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
[August 13, 1990]
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
Associate Director for Policy and International Affairs
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Department of Defense
Science and Technology Apprentice Program
George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
August 17, 1990
COB
cowedning
1
It is a great pleasure to be here.
Usually August is a pretty slow month in Washington, with half of the people
out of town and the other half, like me, trying to catch up on work from the rest of
the year. But as you well know from the news, this August has been anything but
quiet at the White House.
The events of the last couple of weeks illustrate a point that the President
made in a speech in Colorado earlier this month. We shall continue to need a
military capability to respond to threats that arise, as the President put it, "suddenly,
unpredictably, and from unexpected quarters." Many people have been calling for
large cutbacks in defense forces, and there is little doubt that our armed forces are
going to grow smaller. But we shall need a defense structure that preserves our
security and supports the legitimate needs for self-defense of ourselves and of our
friends and allies for a very long time.
To achieve this end, we are no doubt going to have to restructure our defense
forces as their size declines. We don't have to worry as much about a surprise Soviet
invasion of Western Europe. Much more likely are regional conflicts, such as Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait, that pose threats both to the citizens and interests of countries
outside the region and to the force of international law. These conflicts require a
different kind of military capability. They require that the United States have a
forward presence in key areas, that we be able to respond quickly and effectively to
crises, and that we retain the national capacity to rebuild our forces as necessary.
2
There is another important factor in future defense capabilities which is often
overlooked technology. In many future local or regional conflicts, America and its
allies cannot hope to match the ground forces of an aggressor. So what are we to
do? One answer is sophisticated technology - in the form of advanced aircraft and
radar, "smart" weapons with state-of-the-art guidance systems, and communications
systems that assure coordination of our responses. History has shown that even small
groups outfitted with the very best in weapons technologies can overcome much larger
forces.
This, too, was a point that the President made in his speech earlier this month.
He said, "Time and again, we have seen technology revolutionize the battlefield. The
U.S. has always relied upon its technological edge to offset the need to match
potential adversaries' strength in numbers." The President also pointed out the long
time horizons involved in defense R&D. Most weapons systems take at least 10 years
to move from the drawing board to the battlefield. So it is essential that this country
take a very long view of our defense requirements, because the decisions we make
today will determine what kind of military capability we have in the 21st century.
You have been working in Defense Department laboratories for the last eight
weeks, so you've had some exposure to the kinds of technologies I'm talking about.
You've probably noticed something else about those technologies - that they have
potential applications that range far beyond military purposes. Here in Washington
we tend to talk about defense R&D and nondefense R&D as if they were completely
separate categories. But in fact it is very difficult to think of a technology that does
not have both defense and nondefense applications. Many of the United States' most
3
important commercial products such as computers and jet aircraft - grew directly
out of defense research and development in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. The same
may very well be true of the technologies that you have been working on this summer.
Support for Defense R&D
I want to focus for a few moments on funding for research and development,
and our tendency to separate it into defense and civilian categories. For instance, the
President's fiscal year 1991 budget proposes that the federal government spend $38.7
billion on defense R&D during the fiscal year starting this coming October and $32.5
billion on civilian R&D a total of $71.2 billion.
That's a lot of money. There's a famous story up on Capitol Hill about
Everett Dirksen, a Senator from Illinois, who was once discussing defense spending
and said, "A billion [dollars] here, a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you're
talking about real money." There's another story about David Bell, who was John F.
Kennedy's budget director. One time before the Senate Appropriations Committee he
gave an estimate for a particular set of outlays totalling $366 billion. But a week
later the committee called him back and said that his estimate was in error and that
it should have been $350 billion. Bell replied, "Well, give or take $10 or $15 billion,
the estimate was substantially correct."
It's interesting to compare these R&D levels to some other quantities. If you
look at the entire federal government, about one in every 20 dollars that the
4
government spends goes to research and development. For the Department of
Defense, about one in every eight dollars supports research and development.
There is going to be a lot of pressure to reduce defense R&D spending as our
total defense expenditures decline. But my boss, Allan Bromley, and a number of
other people in the Administration are arguing that this is one part of the defense
budget that should be examined very carefully. They point out that in a time of
declining tensions we must continue to develop the basic knowledge and technologies
that may be needed in the future, because it is very likely that any potential
adversaries are doing so as well. In fact, a time of declining tensions may be the best
time to lengthen the horizons of research, devoting more resources to basic and
applied research that will have its practical payoff a decade or more into the future.
We can't afford to be blindshed by technology in the hands - and in the laboratories -
of our adversaries.
Future Employment for Scientists and Engineers
Of course, we in OSTP are not the only ones worrying about the level of
defense R&D. The scientists and engineers who are engaged in defense activities also
have reason to be concerned; you probably heard some of that this summer. A
decline in defense R&D would undoubtedly mean fewer jobs in those areas, which is
something that no one likes to see. But we don't yet know if or by how much defense
5
R&D will be cut. As I've said, many people would like to see it rise, at least on the
research end of the spectrum.
Also, it's very likely that civilian R&D is going to continue to rise, as it has in
real terms, for the past seven years. The President's 1991 budget before the Congress
calls for an increase of 12 percent in nondefense federal R&D, and, if the current
budget problems can be overcome, I believe you will see further increases in the
future.
Finally, the concern among observers of science and research these days is not
so much about a glut of scientists and engineers as about an impending shortage.
You might already know this, but right now the number of people your age in the
United States is as low as it has been for over 25 years. In other words, yours are
the smallest high school classes to come through the educational system since the
early 1960s.
Many people believe that this demographic trend is going to have a dramatic
effect on the numbers of scientists and engineers in the United States during the next
several decades. The National Science Foundation has estimated that the country is
going to face shortfalls of hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers over the
next 15 years. Other people contend that the shortfalls won't be that bad, because
more people will be attracted into science and technology as the demand grows. But,
in general, we should look for undersupplies rather than oversupplies of scientists and
engineers.
Of course, that news is not necessarily bad for you. Your timing -- over which
I recognize you had remarkably little control -- is excellent. If you go on to become a
6
scientist or engineer, you will be in great demand. And great demand in our economy
usually translates into higher salaries.
But at the same time, it is considerably more fun to be working in fields that
are thriving, fields that are full of new people and new ideas. You, too, will
experience the pain of personnel shortages, and the country will not be well served if
there are not enough scientists and engineers to meet the demand for highly skilled
and trained technical personnel.
A Focus on Education
These are some of the considerations that have led the Bush Administration to
place a high premium on making changes in the precollege educational system in the
United States. We need many more people who are attracted to careers in science
and engineering, particularly among women and minorities, who have traditionally
been underrepresented in science and engineering. We also need to teach more
science and engineering to people who do not go on to become scientists or engineers,
so they can perform the jobs that need to be done in an increasingly high-tech
economy.
You have been going through the American educational system during a very
interesting period. Since the early 1980s, there have been a large number of calls for
reform of American education. American students were performing much more poorly
on standardized tests than students from other countries. And it was clear that
7
people were coming out of high school without the skills that they both needed and
deserved.
During the 1980s, a number of these reforms were instituted. Class size was
reduced. Teacher salaries were increased. New graduation requirements were
imposed. The schools are a different place now than they were 10 years ago.
In the last few years, as you might expect, people have started to look for the
results of these reforms. The United States spends $44 billion more on elementary
and secondary education now than we did ten years ago. What are we getting for this
investment?
Unfortunately, the results have been very slow in coming. We still graduate a
relatively small group of very capable, highly skilled students, including those of you
in this room. But test scores overall have remained more or less flat. About a
quarter of the people who enter high school drop out before graduating, a percentage
that has been roughly constant for the past 30 years. And teachers, who have in the
past been the focus of the reforms, often report that they do not feel any more
productive now than they did 10 years ago.
President Bush was well aware of this problem when he came into office, and
he has developed three broad approaches to deal with it. First, he has sought to
raise the visibility of education by emphasizing it in speeches and meetings, by
visiting schools, and by convening last September's Education Summit with the
nation's governors. He wants to get not only teachers involved but parents,
businesses, and government at all levels, each of which must contribute if meaningful
reforms are to be made.
8
Second, he has sought to interject new ideas into long-standing debates in
education. These include giving schools more autonomy while making them
accountable for results, removing restrictions on the use of federal funds in education,
and making it possible for students to choose where they will go to school. This last
idea is one of the most interesting. Say you were able to go to any school you wanted
within your city or region, rather than just the school to which you are assigned
because of where you live. How many of you would choose to go someplace else? In
a recent experiment in Fall River, Massachusetts, nearly 40 percent of students went
someplace other than the school where they would normally have gone, and because of
the competition and independence this generated among the schools involved, the test
results of Fall River students went up markedly.
The third approach the President has taken, working together with the nation's
governors, has been to establish six national goals in education. One of these goals is
making American students first in the world in mathematics and science by the year
2000. This is perhaps the most ambitious of the six some have referred to it as
the "moonshot" of the education goals. But just as we managed to reach the moon
just eight years after President Kennedy announced that goal, we have the national
capacity to achieve this goal by the end of the decade.
I think the people in this room are a perfect example of what I mean. Clearly
the American educational system has the ability to produce students that are second
to none in mathematics and science. The strength of this country's science and
technology enterprise attests to that. Now we need to extend the knowledge and skills
you have achieved to a much larger group not just so we will continue to have
9
enough scientists and engineers, but so that our country can compete internationally
in the 21st century.
Probably the most important factor in your success and by implication the
most important factor in achieving the national goals -- is motivation. The only way
for American students to be first in the world in science and mathematics education
is for them to want to be first. We need to figure out the way to extend the
motivation so apparent in your success to your classmates. Please let us have your
thoughts on this.
There are a number of other things we need to do. We need to get businesses
involved, so that students who come through the educational system are more
responsive to the needs of the economy. We need to involve all parents in the
education of their children, because no one can be as effective an advocate for a
student as a parent. And we need to make sure that all levels of government are
working together - local, state, and federal each filling its appropriate role in a
coordinated fashion.
The federal government also needs to be internally coordinated, since it has a
number of agencies that are often doing very different things. One of the ways the
Bush Administration has begun to provide this coordination is through the
interagency Committee on Education and Human Resources, which is chaired by
Admiral Watkins, the Secretary of Energy, with strong leadership from the
Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well. This
interagency committee coordinates the activities of all of the different federal agencies
-- and there are something like 16 altogether - that are involved in mathematics and
10
science education. The committee is in the process of preparing a comprehensive,
interagency approach to mathematics and science education, which will accompany the
next budget that the President sends to Congress.
Conclusion
In considering the role of the agencies, I want to single out the Department of
Defense for its accomplishments in education. The Defense Department recently did
an analysis indicating that it spends about $340 million a year on science and
engineering education. The program you've been participating in is an excellent
example of this forward-looking policy of the Department. This initiative and the
commitment of Department leaders can make a huge difference, because it gives
students an early exposure to the kinds of technologies and research that will later
occupy a major portion of their careers, whether they stay in the military field or not.
So I commend the DOD for sponsoring this program, and I hope they will continue
to do so.
Meanwhile, you probably have only about two or three weeks of summer left
and a lot to do. I've probably taken more of your time already than I should. So
thanks for having me over today, and I wish you luck as you head back to school.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date:
7-26-90
FOR:
Charlie Kalb
FROM:
ROGER B. PORTER
Action
Draft Response
FYI
Let's Talk
COMMENTS: d assume you are
planning on attending this for
us.
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
OSTP
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 24, 1990
Dear Roger:
I cordially invite you to join the Members of the PCAST and myself during our
meetings on Thursday and Friday, July 26 and 27, for which I am enclosing the
agenda. We look forward to your presence at any point in the schedule, and I would
appreciate your office letting us know whether you will be able to join us.
I appreciate your continuing participation with the PCAST in addressing our national
priorities in science and technology.
Sincerely yours,
Allan
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
Attachment
Draft Agenda
The Honorable Roger B. Porter
Assistant to the President
for Economic and Domestic Policy
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JULY 26-27, 1990
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
OPEN SESSION, 8:50 - 11:15 a.m.
CONFERENCE ROOM, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N.W.
8:30-8:50
ARRIVAL -- COFFEE AND PASTRIES
8:50-9:00
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:00-9:45
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
HON. MICHAEL DELAND
TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT
OF CEQ
9:45-11:00
GLOBAL CHANGE - CEES UPDATE
DR. DALLAS PECK
INFORMATION BRIEFING
DR. ROBERT CORELL
AND DISCUSSION
11:00-11:15
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990 continued
CLOSED SESSION, 12:00 Noon - 5:00 p.m.
ROOM 208, CORDELL HULL CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00-2:15
PCAST UPDATE DURING
DR. BROMLEY
WORKING LUNCH
DR. RATCHFORD
DR. WONG
DR. PHILLIPS
2:15-3:00
INITIATIVES IN EASTERN EUROPE
DR. ROBERT W. HUTCHINGS
DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN POLITICAL AFFAIRS
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
3:00-3:30
THE VICE PRESIDENT
3:30-3:45
BREAK
3:45-4:45
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
PANEL DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
DR. LIKINS
AND DIRECTION
DR. RATCHFORD
4:45-5:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1990
CLOSED SESSION, 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 NOON
ROOSEVELT ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE
8:30-9:00
BRIEFING ON PLANS FOR
DR. GUYFORD STEVER
U.S. FUSION PROGRAM
9:00-10:00
THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND
DR. MICHAEL BOSKIN
TECHNOLOGY IN U.S. ECONOMIC
POLICY
10:00-10:30
DISCUSSION
10:30-11:30
RECRUITMENT FOR FEDERAL
DR. MARY GOOD
SERVICE --
CHAIRMAN
INFORMATION BRIEFING
NATIONAL
AND DISCUSSION
SCIENCE BOARD
11:30-11:45
OTHER PCAST ISSUES
11:45-12:00
THE NEXT MEETING
AND CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
OSTP
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 4, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ToM RATCHFORD 8r
OSTP LETTER REPORT TO SENATOR MIKULSKI
Attached are copies of the OSTP letter report submitted to Senators Mikulski and
Garn on January 3, 1991. They outline the progress of efforts so far to address
mathematics and science education for FY 1992. As you know, the formal, complete
report, being prepared by the FCCSET Committee on Education and Human
Resources, will be submitted with the President's FY 1992 budget.
I want to thank you personally for your especially fine work in developing and
reviewing this report. It is a much better document because of your efforts.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 3, 1991
Dear Madam Chair:
I am pleased to send you this progress report describing efforts underway by the
interagency Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology
(FCCSET) to address issues of mathematics and science education. These efforts to
develop a strategic plan for the Federal program on mathematics and science
education for FY 1992 are in support of the National Education Goals related to
these fields. Three of the six Goals address, directly or indirectly, science and
mathematics education. They are:
By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve
having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including
English, mathematics, science, history, and geography
[Goal 3]
By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and
mathematics achievement. [Goal 4]
By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the
rights and responsibilities of citizenship. [Goal 5]
The President noted the importance of the interagency process recently when he
signed Public Law 101-589, the "Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Engineering
Education Act of 1990." The President stated:
"In developing the FY 1991 budget immediately following the Education
Summit, the Administration took important steps to strengthen programs
of Federal agencies and to increase funding for science and mathematics
education. We intend to further develop that initiative through the work
of a new interagency committee which is developing a strategic plan and
priorities for the Administration's program in science and mathematics
education."
Senate Request
This progress report is submitted in response to the Senate Appropriation
Committee's request, as set forth in its Report No. 101-474 to accompany H.R. 5158.
The formal, complete report requested by the Committee will be submitted with the
President's FY 1992 budget. This progress report incorporates the multilevel priority-
setting framework, also called for in the Committee report.
2
FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resources
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), through the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, established
the Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEHR). This Committee is
charged with addressing issues critical to:
Improving science, mathematics, and engineering education, and
technical training;
Ensuring an adequate supply of well-educated and trained
scientific and technical personnel;
Enabling the Nation to retain world leadership in science and
technology; and,
Ensuring a well-informed, scientifically literate citizenry.
To accomplish this, the Committee plays a central role in coordinating activities of
the Federal agencies related to science, mathematics, engineering, and technological
education and training.
The CEHR is chaired by Secretary of Energy James Watkins, with the Deputy
Secretary and Acting Secretary of Education, Ted Sanders, and the Assistant Director
for Education and Human Resources of the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Luther Williams, serving as vice chairmen. The Committee includes senior policy-
level officials from all Federal agencies with significant responsibilities in the area of
science, mathematics, engineering, and technological education, including those with
jurisdiction over the education of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, as well as
those with responsibilities for technician training and science literacy for the general
public. The Committee also includes those agencies that are major users of scientific
and engineering personnel.
The Committee established a Working Group on the FY 1992 Federal Program Plan
for Education and Human Resources (EHR) to develop the first comprehensive
inventory of Federal EHR programs and to begin the process of developing options
for an FY 1992 multi-agency program for EHR activities. The members of the
Working Group include representatives from the:
Department of Energy
Department of Education
National Science Foundation
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Defense
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
3
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
The focus of the Committee's effort is to develop recommendations for moving the
Nation toward achieving the three National Education Goals related to mathematics
and science education. Since the Goals relate primarily to precollege education, the
CEHR focused on those programs relating predominantly to grades K-12. The
Committee did, however, take into consideration all components of the educational
system, including both "formal" (in-the-classroom) and "informal" (out-of-classroom or
experiential) programs. The scope of activities includes (in descending order of
priority):
Precollege, formal
Precollege, informal
Undergraduate, formal
Undergraduate, informal
Graduate.
U.S. graduate education programs are in a clear and undisputed position of world
leadership. The priority placement of graduate education reflects an emphasis by the
CEHR on those elements of our educational system most in need of attention.
Priority Framework
The Committee developed a National Mathematics and Science Education Priority
Framework which lists both strategic objectives and implementation priorities. The
implementation priorities vary, depending on the particular educational level.
Strategic Objectives
The CEHR program's four strategic objectives, listed in descending order of priority,
reflect the National Education Goals. These objectives relate to:
Improved student performance in science and mathematics;
Better prepared precollege teacher workforce;
4
Provision of an adequate workforce supply to all fields of science
and technology, including increased participation of
underrepresented groups; and,
Improved public science literacy.
Implementation Priorities
The CEHR implementation priorities specify program areas that require emphasis to
accomplish the strategic objectives. Each implementation priority is dependent, to
some degree, on the others, and the mix of programs will be important to enhancing
the overall Federal effort. Emphasis in one area will necessarily influence the level of
accomplishment of the others. Likewise, neglect of an area associated with a
particular priority may affect overall success in meeting the Nation's education goals.
In descending order of importance, the implementation priorities recommended for
use in establishing the programmatic content of the Federal effort are:
Teacher preparation and retraining;
Curriculum reform, research and development in teaching and
learning, dissemination, and technical assistance;
Organizational and operational reform of the education delivery system;
Student incentives (support) and opportunities; and,
Scientific literacy activities directed toward the general public.
FY 1990 and FY 1991 EHR Baseline
The Working Group developed a comprehensive inventory of Federal mathematics and
science education programs. As a tool for planning, while at the same time
recognizing differences in the character of EHR program activity across agencies, the
Federal inventory was divided into three categories to reflect the source of funding
and agency administrative control over EHR activities:
Category 1 programs are those whose budgets are directly appropriated
for mathematics, science, and technology education, or are funded from
research (or other) accounts and expressly managed as education
programs.
Category 2 programs are funded under research or other accounts that
do not fall under Category 1 (e.g., graduate research assistantships).
5
Category 3 programs are those whose purpose is general education (not
specifically mathematics and science education) but under which science
and technology education activities are supported (e.g., formula-driven
programs of which mathematics and science are an integral part).
In its initial work, the Working Group concentrated on Category 1 programs. The FY
1991 EHR Category 1 budget, which serves as the baseline for subsequent fiscal years,
is $1.72 billion, a 16% increase over FY 1990. Although graduate programs account
for the majority of the budget, precollege programs received by far the largest
absolute and percentage increases.
Although graduate education received the lowest priority, this ranking is not, in any
way, meant to diminish its importance or downplay the critical role played by the
Federal government in this area. Support of U.S. graduate education is essential to
maintaining the quality of U.S. scientific research and economic competitiveness. In
that graduate education also ensures adequate numbers of quality faculty to teach
future generations of college students, it has a long-term impact on both the
undergraduate and precollege education levels. The Federal government spends the
largest share of its Category 1 mathematics and science resources on graduate
education.
FEDERAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
CATEGORY 1
FY 1990
FY 1991
% Increase
Precollege
$333 million
$526 million
58%
Undergraduate
$412 million
$422 million
3%
Graduate
$741 million
$769 million
4%
TOTAL
$1.49 billion
$1.72 billion
16%
NOTE: Percentage increases are based on unrounded figures.
The above figures are those appropriated for FY 1990 and FY 1991. Although the
agencies have their appropriations at this time, minor modifications within budget
amounts can be expected as agencies complete their current plans. The figures in the
formal report may, therefore, vary slightly from those above.
Different agencies dominate program activities at each education level. For five
agencies, mathematics and science education programs comprise relatively small
6
portions of the budget yet fill important programmatic roles related to their missions.
Many of these activities support training of specialists; expand and support
traditional curricula; provide informal teacher enhancement programs; and make
students aware of important issues such as energy conservation, nutrition, health
education, aeronautics and space, and the environment. The list below includes only
those agencies that contribute significant percentages of the total Federal expenditure
by educational level.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
PATTERN OF AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
FY 1991 CATEGORY 1 BUDGET
A. By educational level
Total $
Agency (% of total Federal support)
K-12
$526 million
ED (46%); NSF (40%)
Undergraduate
$422 million
DOD (42%); NSF (25%); HHS (14%)
Graduate
$769 million
HHS (52%); DOD (30%)
B. Formal and Informal
Precollege formal
ED (57%); NSF (39%)
Precollege informal
NSF (41%); DOI (22%); DOE (20%)
Undergraduate formal
NSF (37%); DOD (34%); HHS (19%)
Undergraduate informal
DOD (57%); NASA (15%); DOE (12%)
FCCSET/CEHR Activities in the Year Ahead
With the CEHR program inventory and priority framework in place, the FCCSET
Committee on Education and Human Resources shortly will begin a more intensive
review of the effectiveness of current Federal programs. This review will look at
evaluations and other information on program outcomes, and will analyze program
designs to determine which strategies are most likely to be successful. The results of
this review will guide development of a coordinated strategy for reallocating resources,
as appropriate, to programs that will be the most effective in addressing priority
needs.
7
The Future
The FY 1992 Budget which the President sends to Congress will be developed with the
FCCSET recommendations in mind and will be consistent with the overall
requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508)
OSTP is committed to working with all elements of our society and all parts of
Federal, State, and local governments to achieve our National Education Goals. As
you are well aware, a coordinated, national effort is necessary to make American
students first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The
Administration, the Congress, the States, local governments, teachers and other
educators, as well as parents, will all have to work together to attain the National
Education Goals. With your help and cooperation, we are convinced that these Goals
can be met.
Sincerely,
Alla
D. Allan Bromley
Director
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Chair
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 3, 1991
Dear Senator Garn:
I am pleased to send you this progress report describing efforts underway by the
interagency Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology
(FCCSET) to address issues of mathematics and science education. These efforts to
develop a strategic plan for the Federal program on mathematics and science
education for FY 1992 are in support of the National Education Goals related to
these fields. Three of the six Goals address, directly or indirectly, science and
mathematics education. They are:
By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve
having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including
English, mathematics, science, history, and geography ... [Goal 3]
By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and
mathematics achievement. [Goal 4]
By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the
rights and responsibilities of citizenship. [Goal 5]
The President noted the importance of the interagency process recently when he
signed Public Law 101-589, the "Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Engineering
Education Act of 1990." The President stated:
"In developing the FY 1991 budget immediately following the Education
Summit, the Administration took important steps to strengthen programs
of Federal agencies and to increase funding for science and mathematics
education. We intend to further develop that initiative through the work
of a new interagency committee which is developing a strategic plan and
priorities for the Administration's program in science and mathematics
education."
Senate Request
This progress report is submitted in response to the Senate Appropriation
Committee's request, as set forth in its Report No. 101-474 to accompany H.R. 5158.
The formal, complete report requested by the Committee will be submitted with the
President's FY 1992 budget. This progress report incorporates the multilevel priority-
setting framework, also called for in the Committee report.
2
FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resources
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), through the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, established
the Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEHR). This Committee is
charged with addressing issues critical to:
Improving science, mathematics, and engineering education, and
technical training;
Ensuring an adequate supply of well-educated and trained
scientific and technical personnel;
Enabling the Nation to retain world leadership in science and
technology; and,
Ensuring a well-informed, scientifically literate citizenry.
To accomplish this, the Committee plays a central role in coordinating activities of
the Federal agencies related to science, mathematics, engineering, and technological
education and training.
The CEHR is chaired by Secretary of Energy James Watkins, with the Deputy
Secretary and Acting Secretary of Education, Ted Sanders, and the Assistant Director
for Education and Human Resources of the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Luther Williams, serving as vice chairmen. The Committee includes senior policy-
level officials from all Federal agencies with significant responsibilities in the area of
science, mathematics, engineering, and technological education, including those with
jurisdiction over the education of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, as well as
those with responsibilities for technician training and science literacy for the general
public. The Committee also includes those agencies that are major users of scientific
and engineering personnel.
The Committee established a Working Group on the FY 1992 Federal Program Plan
for Education and Human Resources (EHR) to develop the first comprehensive
inventory of Federal EHR programs and to begin the process of developing options
for an FY 1992 multi-agency program for EHR activities. The members of the
Working Group include representatives from the:
Department of Energy
Department of Education
National Science Foundation
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Defense
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
3
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
The focus of the Committee's effort is to develop recommendations for moving the
Nation toward achieving the three National Education Goals related to mathematics
and science education. Since the Goals relate primarily to precollege education, the
CEHR focused on those programs relating predominantly to grades K-12. The
Committee did, however, take into consideration all components of the educational
system, including both "formal" (in-the-classroom) and "informal" (out-of-classroom or
experiential) programs. The scope of activities includes (in descending order of
priority):
Precollege, formal
Precollege, informal
Undergraduate, formal
Undergraduate, informal
Graduate.
U.S. graduate education programs are in a clear and undisputed position of world
leadership. The priority placement of graduate education reflects an emphasis by the
CEHR on those elements of our educational system most in need of attention.
Priority Framework
The Committee developed a National Mathematics and Science Education Priority
Framework which lists both strategic objectives and implementation priorities. The
implementation priorities vary, depending on the particular educational level.
Strategic Objectives
The CEHR program's four strategic objectives, listed in descending order of priority,
reflect the National Education Goals. These objectives relate to:
Improved student performance in science and mathematics;
Better prepared precollege teacher workforce;
4
Provision of an adequate workforce supply to all fields of science
and technology, including increased participation of
underrepresented groups; and,
Improved public science literacy.
Implementation Priorities
The CEHR implementation priorities specify program areas that require emphasis to
accomplish the strategic objectives. Each implementation priority is dependent, to
some degree, on the others, and the mix of programs will be important to enhancing
the overall Federal effort. Emphasis in one area will necessarily influence the level of
accomplishment of the others. Likewise, neglect of an area associated with a
particular priority may affect overall success in meeting the Nation's education goals.
In descending order of importance, the implementation priorities recommended for
use in establishing the programmatic content of the Federal effort are:
Teacher preparation and retraining;
Curriculum reform, research and development in teaching and
learning, dissemination, and technical assistance;
Organizational and operational reform of the education delivery system;
Student incentives (support) and opportunities; and,
Scientific literacy activities directed toward the general public.
FY 1990 and FY 1991 EHR Baseline
The Working Group developed a comprehensive inventory of Federal mathematics and
science education programs. As a tool for planning, while at the same time
recognizing differences in the character of EHR program activity across agencies, the
Federal inventory was divided into three categories to reflect the source of funding
and agency administrative control over EHR activities:
Category 1 programs are those whose budgets are directly appropriated
for mathematics, science, and technology education, or are funded from
research (or other) accounts and expressly managed as education
programs.
Category 2 programs are funded under research or other accounts that
do not fall under Category 1 (e.g., graduate research assistantships).
5
Category 3 programs are those whose purpose is general education (not
specifically mathematics and science education) but under which science
and technology education activities are supported (e.g., formula-driven
programs of which mathematics and science are an integral part).
In its initial work, the Working Group concentrated on Category 1 programs. The FY
1991 EHR Category 1 budget, which serves as the baseline for subsequent fiscal years,
is $1.72 billion, a 16% increase over FY 1990. Although graduate programs account
for the majority of the budget, precollege programs received by far the largest
absolute and percentage increases.
Although graduate education received the lowest priority, this ranking is not, in any
way, meant to diminish its importance or downplay the critical role played by the
Federal government in this area. Support of U.S. graduate education is essential to
maintaining the quality of U.S. scientific research and economic competitiveness. In
that graduate education also ensures adequate numbers of quality faculty to teach
future generations of college students, it has a long-term impact on both the
undergraduate and precollege education levels. The Federal government spends the
largest share of its Category 1 mathematics and science resources on graduate
education.
FEDERAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
CATEGORY 1
FY 1990
FY 1991
% Increase
Precollege
$333 million
$526 million
58%
Undergraduate
$412 million
$422 million
3%
Graduate
$741 million
$769 million
4%
TOTAL
$1.49 billion
$1.72 billion
16%
NOTE: Percentage increases are based on unrounded figures.
The above figures are those appropriated for FY 1990 and FY 1991. Although the
agencies have their appropriations at this time, minor modifications within budget
amounts can be expected as agencies complete their current plans. The figures in the
formal report may, therefore, vary slightly from those above.
Different agencies dominate program activities at each education level. For five
agencies, mathematics and science education programs comprise relatively small
6
portions of the budget yet fill important programmatic roles related to their missions.
Many of these activities support training of specialists; expand and support
traditional curricula; provide informal teacher enhancement programs; and make
students aware of important issues such as energy conservation, nutrition, health
education, aeronautics and space, and the environment. The list below includes only
those agencies that contribute significant percentages of the total Federal expenditure
by educational level.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
PATTERN OF AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
FY 1991 CATEGORY 1 BUDGET
A. By educational level
Total $
Agency (% of total Federal support)
K-12
$526 million
ED (46%); NSF (40%)
Undergraduate
$422 million
DOD (42%); NSF (25%); HHS (14%)
Graduate
$769 million
HHS (52%); DOD (30%)
B. Formal and Informal
Precollege formal
ED (57%); NSF (39%)
Precollege informal
NSF (41%); DOI (22%); DOE (20%)
Undergraduate formal
NSF (37%); DOD (34%); HHS (19%)
Undergraduate informal
DOD (57%); NASA (15%); DOE (12%)
FCCSET/CEHR Activities in the Year Ahead
With the CEHR program inventory and priority framework in place, the FCCSET
Committee on Education and Human Resources shortly will begin a more intensive
review of the effectiveness of current Federal programs. This review will look at
evaluations and other information on program outcomes, and will analyze program
designs to determine which strategies are most likely to be successful. The results of
this review will guide development of a coordinated strategy for reallocating resources,
as appropriate, to programs that will be the most effective in addressing priority
needs.
7
The Future
The FY 1992 Budget which the President sends to Congress will be developed with the
FCCSET recommendations in mind and will be consistent with the overall
requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508)
OSTP is committed to working with all elements of our society and all parts of
Federal, State, and local governments to achieve our National Education Goals. As
you are well aware, a coordinated, national effort is necessary to make American
students first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The
Administration, the Congress, the States, local governments, teachers and other
educators, as well as parents, will all have to work together to attain the National
Education Goals. With your help and cooperation, we are convinced that these Goals
can be met.
Sincerely,
Anan
D. Allan Bromley
Director
The Honorable Jake Garn
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
65TP
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date: 8/14/90
TO: Ree/Down
FROM: CHARLES E.M. KOLB
Action
Draft Response
FYI
Let's Talk
COMMENTS:
Please reased and send Tan any suggestime
you may have. Marks!
DRAFT: DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
[August 13, 1990]
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
Associate Director for Policy and International Affairs
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Department of Defense
Science and Technology Apprentice Program
George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
August 17, 1990
COB
1
It is a great pleasure to be here.
Usually August is a pretty slow month in Washington, with half of the people
out of town and the other half, like me, trying to catch up on work from the rest of
the year. But as you well know from the news, this August has been anything but
quiet at the White House.
The events of the last couple of weeks illustrate a point that the President
made in a speech in Colorado earlier this month. We shall continue to need a
military capability to respond to threats that arise, as the President put it, "suddenly,
unpredictably, and from unexpected quarters." Many people have been calling for
large cutbacks in defense forces, and there is little doubt that our armed forces are
going to grow smaller. But we shall need a defense structure that preserves our
security and supports the legitimate needs for self-defense of ourselves and of our
friends and allies for a very long time.
To achieve this end, we are no doubt going to have to restructure our defense
forces as their size declines. We don't have to worry as much about a surprise Soviet
invasion of Western Europe. Much more likely are regional conflicts, such as Iraq's
invasion of Kuwait, that pose threats both to the citizens and interests of countries
outside the region and to the force of international law. These conflicts require a
different kind of military capability. They require that the United States have a
forward presence in key areas, that we be able to respond quickly and effectively to
crises, and that we retain the national capacity to rebuild our forces as necessary.
2
There is another important factor in future defense capabilities which is often
overlooked -- technology. In many future local or regional conflicts, America and its
allies cannot hope to match the ground forces of an aggressor. So what are we to
do? One answer is sophisticated technology -- in the form of advanced aircraft and
radar, "smart" weapons with state-of-the-art guidance systems, and communications
systems that assure coordination of our responses. History has shown that even small
groups outfitted with the very best in weapons technologies can overcome much larger
forces.
This, too, was a point that the President made in his speech earlier this month.
He said, "Time and again, we have seen technology revolutionize the battlefield. The
U.S. has always relied upon its technological edge to offset the need to match
potential adversaries' strength in numbers." The President also pointed out the long
time horizons involved in defense R&D. Most weapons systems take at least 10 years
to move from the drawing board to the battlefield. So it is essential that this country
take a very long view of our defense requirements, because the decisions we make
today will determine what kind of military capability we have in the 21st century.
You have been working in Defense Department laboratories for the last eight
weeks, so you've had some exposure to the kinds of technologies I'm talking about.
You've probably noticed something else about those technologies -- that they have
potential applications that range far beyond military purposes. Here in Washington
we tend to talk about defense R&D and nondefense R&D as if they were completely
separate categories. But in fact it is very difficult to think of a technology that does
not have both defense and nondefense applications. Many of the United States' most
3
important commercial products - such as computers and jet aircraft grew directly
out of defense research and development in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. The same
may very well be true of the technologies that you have been working on this summer.
Support for Defense R&D
I want to focus for a few moments on funding for research and development,
and our tendency to separate it into defense and civilian categories. For instance, the
President's fiscal year 1991 budget proposes that the federal government spend $38.7
billion on defense R&D during the fiscal year starting this coming October and $32.5
billion on civilian R&D - a total of $71.2 billion.
That's a lot of money. There's a famous story up on Capitol Hill about
Everett Dirksen, a Senator from Illinois, who was once discussing defense spending
and said, "A billion [dollars] here, a billion dollars there, and pretty soon you're
talking about real money." There's another story about David Bell, who was John F.
Kennedy's budget director. One time before the Senate Appropriations Committee he
gave an estimate for a particular set of outlays totalling $366 billion. But a week
later the committee called him back and said that his estimate was in error and that
it should have been $350 billion. Bell replied, "Well, give or take $10 or $15 billion,
the estimate was substantially correct."
It's interesting to compare these R&D levels to some other quantities. If you
look at the entire federal government, about one in every 20 dollars that the
4
government spends goes to research and development. For the Department of
Defense, about one in every eight dollars supports research and development.
There is going to be a lot of pressure to reduce defense R&D spending as our
total defense expenditures decline. But my boss, Allan Bromley, and a number of
other people in the Administration are arguing that this is one part of the defense
budget that should be examined very carefully. They point out that in a time of
declining tensions we must continue to develop the basic knowledge and technologies
that may be needed in the future, because it is very likely that any potential
adversaries are doing so as well. In fact, a time of declining tensions may be the best
time to lengthen the horizons of research, devoting more resources to basic and
applied research that will have its practical payoff a decade or more into the future.
We can't afford to be blindshed by technology in the hands - and in the laboratories -
of our adversaries.
Future Employment for Scientists and Engineers
Of course, we in OSTP are not the only ones worrying about the level of
defense R&D. The scientists and engineers who are engaged in defense activities also
have reason to be concerned; you probably heard some of that this summer. A
decline in defense R&D would undoubtedly mean fewer jobs in those areas, which is
something that no one likes to see. But we don't yet know if or by how much defense
5
R&D will be cut. As I've said, many people would like to see it rise, at least on the
research end of the spectrum.
Also, it's very likely that civilian R&D is going to continue to rise, as it has in
real terms, for the past seven years. The President's 1991 budget before the Congress
calls for an increase of 12 percent in nondefense federal R&D, and, if the current
budget problems can be overcome, I believe you will see further increases in the
future.
Finally, the concern among observers of science and research these days is not
so much about a glut of scientists and engineers as about an impending shortage.
You might already know this, but right now the number of people your age in the
United States is as low as it has been for over 25 years. In other words, yours are
the smallest high school classes to come through the educational system since the
early 1960s.
Many people believe that this demographic trend is going to have a dramatic
effect on the numbers of scientists and engineers in the United States during the next
several decades. The National Science Foundation has estimated that the country is
going to face shortfalls of hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers over the
next 15 years. Other people contend that the shortfalls won't be that bad, because
more people will be attracted into science and technology as the demand grows. But,
in general, we should look for undersupplies rather than oversupplies of scientists and
engineers.
Of course, that news is not necessarily bad for you. Your timing -- over which
I recognize you had remarkably little control -- is excellent. If you go on to become a
6
scientist or engineer, you will be in great demand. And great demand in our economy
usually translates into higher salaries.
But at the same time, it is considerably more fun to be working in fields that
are thriving, fields that are full of new people and new ideas. You, too, will
experience the pain of personnel shortages, and the country will not be well served if
there are not enough scientists and engineers to meet the demand for highly skilled
and trained technical personnel.
A Focus on Education
These are some of the considerations that have led the Bush Administration to
place a high premium on making changes in the precollege educational system in the
United States. We need many more people who are attracted to careers in science
and engineering, particularly among women and minorities, who have traditionally
been underrepresented in science and engineering. We also need to teach more
science and engineering to people who do not go on to become scientists or engineers,
so they can perform the jobs that need to be done in an increasingly high-tech
economy.
You have been going through the American educational system during a very
interesting period. Since the early 1980s, there have been a large number of calls for
reform of American education. American students were performing much more poorly
on standardized tests than students from other countries. And it was clear that
7
people were coming out of high school without the skills that they both needed and
deserved.
During the 1980s, a number of these reforms were instituted. Class size was
reduced. Teacher salaries were increased. New graduation requirements were
imposed. The schools are a different place now than they were 10 years ago.
In the last few years, as you might expect, people have started to look for the
results of these reforms. The United States spends $44 billion more on elementary
and secondary education now than we did ten years ago. What are we getting for this
investment?
Unfortunately, the results have been very slow in coming. We still graduate a
relatively small group of very capable, highly skilled students, including those of you
in this room. But test scores overall have remained more or less flat. About a
quarter of the people who enter high school drop out before graduating, a percentage
that has been roughly constant for the past 30 years. And teachers, who have in the
past been the focus of the reforms, often report that they do not feel any more
productive now than they did 10 years ago.
President Bush was well aware of this problem when he came into office, and
he has developed three broad approaches to deal with it. First, he has sought to
raise the visibility of education by emphasizing it in speeches and meetings, by
visiting schools, and by convening last September's Education Summit with the
nation's governors. He wants to get not only teachers involved but parents,
businesses, and government at all levels, each of which must contribute if meaningful
reforms are to be made.
8
Second, he has sought to interject new ideas into long-standing debates in
education. These include giving schools more autonomy while making them
accountable for results, removing restrictions on the use of federal funds in education,
and making it possible for students to choose where they will go to school. This last
idea is one of the most interesting. Say you were able to go to any school you wanted
within your city or region, rather than just the school to which you are assigned
because of where you live. How many of you would choose to go someplace else? In
a recent experiment in Fall River, Massachusetts, nearly 40 percent of students went
someplace other than the school where they would normally have gone, and because of
the competition and independence this generated among the schools involved, the test
results of Fall River students went up markedly.
The third approach the President has taken, working together with the nation's
governors, has been to establish six national goals in education. One of these goals is
making American students first in the world in mathematics and science by the year
2000. This is perhaps the most ambitious of the six -- some have referred to it as
the "moonshot" of the education goals. But just as we managed to reach the moon
just eight years after President Kennedy announced that goal, we have the national
capacity to achieve this goal by the end of the decade.
I think the people in this room are a perfect example of what I mean. Clearly
the American educational system has the ability to produce students that are second
to none in mathematics and science. The strength of this country's science and
technology enterprise attests to that. Now we need to extend the knowledge and skills
you have achieved to a much larger group not just so we will continue to have
9
enough scientists and engineers, but so that our country can compete internationally
in the 21st century.
Probably the most important factor in your success and by implication the
most important factor in achieving the national goals - is motivation. The only way
for American students to be first in the world in science and mathematics education
is for them to want to be first. We need to figure out the way to extend the
motivation so apparent in your success to your classmates. Please let us have your
thoughts on this.
There are a number of other things we need to do. We need to get businesses
involved, so that students who come through the educational system are more
responsive to the needs of the economy. We need to involve all parents in the
education of their children, because no one can be as effective an advocate for a
student as a parent. And we need to make sure that all levels of government are
working together local, state, and federal -- each filling its appropriate role in a
coordinated fashion.
The federal government also needs to be internally coordinated, since it has a
number of agencies that are often doing very different things. One of the ways the
Bush Administration has begun to provide this coordination is through the
interagency Committee on Education and Human Resources, which is chaired by
Admiral Watkins, the Secretary of Energy, with strong leadership from the
Department of Education and the National Science Foundation as well. This
interagency committee coordinates the activities of all of the different federal agencies
-- and there are something like 16 altogether -- that are involved in mathematics and
10
science education. The committee is in the process of preparing a comprehensive,
interagency approach to mathematics and science education, which will accompany the
next budget that the President sends to Congress.
Conclusion
In considering the role of the agencies, I want to single out the Department of
Defense for its accomplishments in education. The Defense Department recently did
an analysis indicating that it spends about $340 million a year on science and
engineering education. The program you've been participating in is an excellent
example of this forward-looking policy of the Department. This initiative and the
commitment of Department leaders can make a huge difference, because it gives
students an early exposure to the kinds of technologies and research that will later
occupy a major portion of their careers, whether they stay in the military field or not.
So I commend the DOD for sponsoring this program, and I hope they will continue
to do so.
Meanwhile, you probably have only about two or three weeks of summer left
and a lot to do. I've probably taken more of your time already than I should. So
thanks for having me over today, and I wish you luck as you head back to school.