On behalf of the Computer and Information Science Department and the Center for Pre-College Programs, I would like to welcome all of you to NJIT, the host of the First Conference on Computer Science Education in the Secondary Schools.

            The number of applicants overwhelmed us. We tried to accommodate as many people as we could. We hoped for a smaller number of attendees, maybe 25 people, to be able to talk and have a discussion on computer science education. However, the response and interest in this conference led us to this audience: 120 teachers and administrators from three states, which we are very happy about. We intend to repeat this conference again in the coming spring and hopefully beyond that.

            The main reason for having you here is to start a discussion with you about your needs at the high school level, our needs at the college level, and the students' needs, which are right now your concerns and will soon become ours. Many of us have heard about the seamless K-16 schooling structure and as we all know most of school districts are K-12 systems and we, colleges and universities, are the remaining 4 years. However, this has been just talk. There have not been any true discussions between the providers of the last 4 years and the providers of the first 13 years.

            Recently, the last 4 years in your schools, the high school period, and the 4 years in our schools have been moving apart from each other. Today, we are going to discuss the reasons why this is happening, we're going to discuss how we can bring them back in order to allow for a smooth transition between the high school and the college, which is currently not as easy. We will give you some examples as to what happens when we don't talk and, indeed, we have not been talking and it's hindering the students' ability to succeed in making that transition which is the last academic transition they have to make before they go into the workplace.

            We will also talk about the current state of computer science education in the high schools. There have been some efforts at producing curricula recommendation, mainly by ACM (Association of Computing Machinery), but not all schools are aware of it or conform to these recent recommendations. Today, we are going to have a panel that will specifically address these recommendations. Also, one of the conference participants has been involved in formulating these guidelines and recommendations and we will hear from him later in the day. We will also ask you to consider forming an organization for you as computer science teachers. The CIS department at NJIT will be happy to assist you in forming such an organization. Most teachers attending the conference are certified in Science and Math. Some are certified in English and are teaching computer science. There is not any organization that is linking those of us teaching computer science. Such an organization is much needed.

            The goals of a computer science curriculum in the secondary schools must be defined. We can begin by building on the recommendations of the ACM task force, already in place. The schools recognize the need for technology education programs and there are already such programs in most of the schools we are familiar with. Our experience and relationship with these schools indicate that these programs are excellent. However, they are often unorganized and based on one's experiences, the local needs, and the perception of what may be happening elsewhere. There is a need to share ideas and consider new ones to come up with a definition of what a computer science education curriculum should look like. High school students should go through a well defined and carefully planned program that will enable them to be successful in their careers. It is apparent that the technology has become an important aspect of everyone's life, whether in the workplace, in the schools or just for entertainment, and so on. We must make sure that students are able to deal with changes in our society that will have an impact on their life, especially an economic impact, affecting the kind of jobs they may qualify for and get. Their ability to function in such a highly technological society is going to depend, for the most part, on the education they receive, whether in the schools or elsewhere. High schools are one structured place where we can make sure that the students begin to meet the needs of college and the expectation of the workplace.

            Students' college preparation is another issue we must address. It is apparent that what colleges expect in terms of students' preparation in the areas of science, math and computer science, is not always what the students bring with them to college. Our experience shows, and you probably know, that many of our students and students elsewhere other than at NJIT come in without adequate academic background. As a result the students are faced with the decision to spend a semester, in some cases longer, to make up the knowledge missing in order to be placed in first-year courses. There are many things happening in high schools in the area of computer science. From a personal experience, when I ask students in my first computer science course whether they had computer science courses in high school, almost everyone answers "yes." But the type of courses taken varies and there is no commonality in length, content or even course titles. This makes it harder on us to design and implement the first computer science course. Often, students are required to take prerequisite courses to make up missing components. This is also the case with other subjects. We hope to close this gap as quickly as possible.

            Where do we go from here? How can we enhance computer science education in the secondary schools? What are our needs? In most schools, computer science remains an elective subject. There are many schools that have computer science programs but not all students choose to take it. The ACM recommendations are calling for computer science courses to become an integral part of the high school curriculum that everyone takes, for obvious reasons. It will help students become better problem solvers; will enable them to take advantage of technology to learn other subjects, and better function in their daily lives. Others have made similar recommendations. The report, "A Nation at Risk," issued in 1983 by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, approximately ten years later prior to the ACM recommendations, suggested that there should be a full-year of computer science requirement in every high school curriculum.

            How did the schools respond? What types of programs do the schools currently offer? There are two different views: (1) applications, ranging from basic to complex and (2) programming, covering many languages. Most schools offer courses where students learn keyboarding and word processing. Many schools offer courses on basic software applications, such as spreadsheets and databases. Some schools offer advanced topics like computer-aided design, computer-assisted manufacturing, simulation and modeling, and robotics. All schools offer computer literacy courses. All of these programs are called computer science, from keyboarding to robotics; may be offered by different departments; and are often labeled inconsistently. The programming type courses are as varied as the application courses. Many schools offer programming courses. In some schools, it is required, in most others it is an elective. The languages used vary. Some schools offer one, while others offer three. In any case, the language itself is the least concern; the programming methodology is an important issue. Generally, duration of programming courses range from a half a year to two years. Some schools offer three years of programming courses, in three or more different languages. We need to talk about the language, the methodology, and the duration.

            The primary goals of this conference are to present the current state of computer science education, to discuss existing guidelines and recommendations, and to plan our next step. To that effect, I will devote the remaining part of this morning to carefully explain the ACM Model High School Computer Science Curriculum produced by the Task Force of the Pre-College Committee of ACM. Questions and answers will follow this.

            The recommendations call for a full-year course in computer science. This course would normally be taken at a tenth-grade level and would meet the minimum requirements for high school graduation. Of course, in some schools this may be the case currently and not so in others. This course would also serve as a prerequisite for advanced courses. The course must focus on fundamental concepts and survey the computing field from many viewpoints: the programming viewpoint, the applications viewpoint and additional advanced topics. The scope and depth would be comparable to other science courses in terms of lecture hours and laboratory. It should require first-year algebra as a corequisite (taken at the same time).

            What should be taught in that course? Where do these topics come from? Well-defined computer science subject areas have already been outlined. During the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, joint curriculum committees for ACM and IEEE-CS (Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers - Computer Society) introduced a series of curriculum recommendations at the college level. A subset of these subject areas is used for the high school curriculum. They are:

            (1) Algorithms - Step-by-step instructions representing a solution to problem is an algorithm. Various methodologies to design and represent algorithms must be discussed. The process of problem solving and basic concepts and techniques, such as divide and conquer, should also be discussed. Students should learn to explore and devise their own understanding and representation of problem solving heuristics and techniques. Some may prefer to use graphical representations or others may use verbalization techniques.

            (2) Programming languages - The translation of the solution into its final stages requires that a program be written. Thus, programming is a required topic. It is an important topic and must be part of any high school computer science curriculum. In fact, the ACM/IEEE-CS college level recommendation considers programming a prerequisite topic for college students majoring in computer science, implying that students are expected to take programming in high school. The course must include adequate coverage of basic control structures, data structures, and modularization.

            (3) Operating systems and user support - A collection of programs written in software and firmware form the machine's operating system. Its primary role is resource manager. Students must understand the role of the operating system from user's view and design view. The role of the graphical user interface and the command line in creating a buffer between the user and the hardware, as well as disk and file management functions must be discussed. The role of the operating system as a resource manager in processor scheduling, device management, and networking should be considered.

            (4) Computer architecture - All computers, regardless of their size, cost, or intended mode of use consist of a collection of hardware devices. The typical organization of a computer includes a processor, main memory, secondary memory, and input/output devices. Students must understand the role of each of these devices and become familiar with information storage and processing concepts.

            (5) Social, ethical and professional context - The need to ensure that all of us, especially our students, learn to appreciate the impact of technology on our society is essential. What have computers done for and to us should be examined for multiple viewpoints. Students also must understand the potential for technology abuse and be able to assess what can be done and what cannot be done, both ethically and legally.

            (6) Applications - The applications, basic as well as advanced, should be considered. Word processing, spreadsheets and database systems, presentation and multimedia systems, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing systems and other similar applications are some possibilities. At least one topic from this area should be part of the computer science curriculum.

            (7) Additional topics - Additional topics can be selected from theoretical and applied areas computer science. Advanced students should be able to study such topics as software engineering, artificial intelligence, simulation and virtual reality, and theory of computing.

            These courses can be presented in a variety of approaches. The six possible models that can be used to implement a computer science curriculum are:

• Applications-based
• Breadth approach using applications and programming modules
• Breadth approach interweaving applications, computer science topics, and programming
• Project development approach using programming language
• Apprenticeship
• Advanced placement (AP) computer science

            Three of these models focus on computer systems and three focus on applications. But all must have programming as one of the topics.

            The set of curricular recommendations, produced by the ACM committee on Pre-college Computer Science Education, can serve as initial guideline that should evolve into content standards. These recommendations assume a computer science program that begins with applications, programming, problem solving, and moves on to project development and other advanced topics. This constitutes a two-year course sequence that begins in the tenth grade, or earlier, and meets the requirements for high school graduation. These are not necessarily the only courses; they serve as solid prerequisites for further learning. We might view these computing courses as comparable to the typical sequence of science courses, in terms of depth and scope, offered at most high schools.

Q: Some time ago I had an opportunity to discuss computer science with a friend of mine and talked about curriculum requirements. He informed me that in the state of New Jersey there is no core course requirement. I contacted them to find out more, but found that there are core course requirements in math and science and that as you pointed out that there is no course requirement for computer science. It occurred to me that there are a certain number of teachers in the state who must have an interest in this. So I sent out letters in the guise of an inter-high school competition, to the high schools in Essex County and I got 5 responses.

            It was my hope to meet with some other teachers to determine what we are teaching to help the state develop this publication. But now that I'm attending this seminar, an interesting perspective comes to mind. The colleges are in a unique situation where they have contacts with other institutions and contacts with industry and that tells them what the world outside of academia expects their people to be able to do and that is going to be a constantly evolving area of improvement. You are in the unique situation of being able to determine what you need to train the students to be able to do, what they need to do by the time they get to you. I am in a vocational school and there are certain similarities between the vocational school and academic schools in the sense that some of our students go on to college and some go out to get jobs. Those who go out to get jobs are the end users; they use CAD/CAM, spreadsheets, etc. Those who go on to higher education are going to be called upon to use their imaginations in strange new ways and to conceive of ways for solving problems. To that degree, you are stipulating to us what you expect our kids to do. And we have to be able to define and change those standards.

FD: You have a two-part comment/question. The first is related to non-existing state standards and guidelines. The answer to this is that we cannot wait for the state to come up with recommendations, and therefore we are here today to lead this effort. This is also what the ACM curriculum committee hoped to accomplish. Teachers' interests, both at the high school and college level, and students' needs will drive this effort. We all agree on the need to include computing technology education in our schools.

            The second part of your question, I believe, refers to how we can help define and shape such curriculum recommendations. The ACM recommendations are a good start. However, they have had very limited effect and have not reached every school or every teacher. They also are not written in stone and we do not expect that everyone will adopt them as is. We are going to use this forum to talk about what works and what does not, what is currently being done and how can we be more successful if we do it differently. We can then compile and share the results and plan future activities (this gives us one of the reasons why we want to start the teachers' association). We are in the classroom; it is up to us to come back and say this is what we feel is needed; this what we think our students need; this is the reality in our schools; and this is what we should implement.

Q: I was wondering, when you mentioned levels of computer languages and different methods of developing algorithms, would it matter to you as a college professor that the students may not have done the same method of algorithms, for example? I personally teach from a design form, where some people may use a flow chart. So, you may get students with several different understandings.

FD: Very good question. The answer is no, it wouldn't matter to us. We are not going to force one methodology over the other. We are not going to say that this is the way it must be done. We are concerned with one factor, that the students are able to solve problems. Whose methodology they are going to use is really not important. We have preferences; we use a specific methodology but it's not the only one. We are now faced with a new design paradigm: object-oriented. How many of you have heard of this methodology? Prior to that, it was structured methodology. Do we emphasize one over the other? Do we present different paradigms and different problem solving techniques? These are some of the questions we must answer. But we cannot do everything. We must focus on some and highlight the others. Every piece of knowledge that the students have is valuable. Let them experience different ways and choose what works for them better. We don't really have any preference and we don't want to enforce anyone's viewpoint.

Q: I went to a conference two weeks ago at Fort Monmouth and attended sessions talking about technology and computer science and two of them were covering the same topic.

FD: There must be a distinction between the technology and the computer science curriculum. In our opinion, computer science is a subject matter; technology is a tool that cuts across all subjects. We use technology in mathematics, in science, in social science, in English, and other disciplines. Of course, we use technology in computer science; the computer is our primary tool. Therefore, as far as we are concerned computer science, in the context of today's discussions, is a subject matter as opposed to a tool. The computer is the tool and computer science is a subject that uses it, among other tools.

Q: At another conference I attended, covering the same issues, we learned that the state is coming out with a technology curriculum including the same topics we are discussing here.

FD: There certainly is some overlap. Take for instance, the word processing and presentation software that students should learn and be able to use. This is the applications aspect of technology that everyone can use. The study of algorithms and data structures is a specific subject. Problem solving methodology is a general subject. Computer scientists use it to solve problems in the same way mathematicians and scientists do. But the study of algorithms and programming, on the other hand, is computer science. One of the issues that we can resolve is some understanding on course labels, designations and meanings.

Q: I happen to agree very much with you, but what's happening, I think, in some of the high schools, is that the technology program is replacing the computer science curriculum. So, I think the trend is going the other way.

FD: You might be right. I'm often involved with school districts, helping them in developing and implementing technology initiatives and I see computer science being merged in there, making a little room for it and loosing grounds to the tool. If this conference and subsequent activities can begin the awareness process, then our goals will eventually be met.

Q: The technology departments are actually what used to be called Industrial Arts departments and many of the Industrial Arts have renamed themselves as technology and that's where this is coming from. Another reason is that all of us come to computer science with a different expertise. You all come from different backgrounds. About 87 percent of us are math teachers. Others come from some other subject, like maybe English or science or whatever certification. I know one computer science teacher at the college level who was going to teach in a high school and had to have a degree in chemistry in order to teach computer science, which I thought was absurd, but that's the way it is in this state.

Q: I wanted to add one statement to what was said about the difference between technology and computer science. I think one reason why so many schools are focusing on the technology is because we as faculty need to be trained as well. And because efforts in schools are geared toward training faculty to incorporate technology in their own curriculum and that's all carrying over to students. We're trying to train an entire community. Unfortunately, because I agree with the distinction that computer science is its own field and needs to be treated as such, it's being shrugged aside in favor of the broader good in terms of people trying to focus on technology throughout the curriculum.

FD: You are right. And we cannot blame the school districts for the technology emphasis because there is a need to get as many faculty as possible trained in technology. As I said earlier, technology cuts across all subjects and if that's where the training emphasis is, everybody is benefiting. Putting such an emphasis and efforts into computer science may not have the same type of return on the investment because that is a more fragmented population both in terms teachers and students electing to take the courses.

Q: We do have a lot of required courses of our students already and just to get this as a required course would be a big battle. Do you think it's realistic to think that we can teach all of these topics in, let's say, a one period course per day in a high school setting and do it justice?

FD: Let somebody else who is really in the trenches out there in a high school answer that and then I'll comment. It wouldn't be fair for me to say yes. You have a valid question. Can this be done in one period? That depends on what topics we decide to teach, what depth, and in what grades.

Teacher's comment: The students have so much to do already in the curriculum. And when we try to squeeze in another subject area, we have to have really solid reasons. And it seems to me that word processing and database have more; you can more easily explain why this must be done rather than programming. So I think. They want to do applications rather than programming. As to the other question, I only have two hours a week. It is not possible to do all these topics.

Teacher's comment: I agree with you. I teach in a dual language school where students take 11 subjects, a real curriculum problem. In the school, we teach computer science for two periods a week and the topics are just spreadsheets, database, and word processing, and it is awful. One of the problems is faculty. The teacher doesn't know how to teach the course correctly and doesn't know programming well enough. The other problem is the students. They all go to college, but they are not interested in doing programming, algorithms, or problem solving; they are interested in spreadsheets, database, and word processing. I know it would be better if the class met for five days per week. We can get it done, maybe not at great depth, like in operating systems to discuss compilers. I teach in New York. We have nothing to tell us what we must do. I wish it were standardized more.

Teacher's comment: I'm from Bloomfield Tech High School out of the Essex County Vocational Technical High School system. I've heard mentioned a few times that there is not a certification in computer science. In 1989, I received a certification in Computer Science Technology. So, there is a certification. I also teach programming in the high school. BASIC, COBOL, C, Pascal, as well as the applications, the database, the spreadsheet, and word processing. However, we do have, since it is a shop, a computer science shop, three periods per day. The students start, if they're going to college, in their freshman year and by the fourth year, they have completed at least four languages, all of the applications and some computer electronics. I don't know the difference between computer science and computer science technology but I'm authorized to teach the subject, whether it's business applications or programming.

FD: There is some confusion and we have done the research. I take your word for it that you have a certification to teach computer science technology. But, that is a certification designed for vocational schools, such as the one you teach at. No other teacher in this room has, or can earn, such a certification for employment at academic high schools. We have talked to the institutions that have the education programs leading to the various state certifications as well as the state education department.

Teacher's comment: I also have a computer science technology certification and it was given to the vocational areas when they implemented the double and triple periods for computer science. It would be good if the high schools got some documentation from the colleges saying that we need the students to have certain curriculum covered. I've been in computer science since the early 1980s and one thing that was said to me is that the colleges don't want computer science anymore. They want spreadsheets and that kind of thing. So, we need that because we are starting to phase out what we have out there.

FD: Your comment clearly points to the need for discussions such as what is happening at this conference. We do not want to get into what should be covered and not covered during this session, but I do want to say that without programming there would be a very important thread missing from the curriculum and students are less likely to succeed, not only in computer science, but in other areas as well. Applications are important as well. The next step would certainly be to discuss those details.

            Last year, when we began this conference, many of you who participated will recall that one of the objectives of this meeting is to provide a forum for us as educators to share our experiences in computer science education; to exchange our thoughts and our needs for educating the younger generation in computing technology. I hope that by the end of the day we will have a better understanding of the present state of computer science education and a consensus on our needs for preparing our students in meeting the vastly changing information age. As a group, we hope to produce an initial set of recommendations for a computer science curriculum in the secondary schools.

            On behalf of the university, I take great pleasure in welcoming you here this morning for what will be our second conference on computer science education and I look forward to a very exciting day. This conference will become a yearly event. We are already planning the program for next year and we will be asking for your input.

            I would like to briefly inform you about NJIT as part of the New Jersey system of higher education. Just this past Friday, we graduated 1400 students from NJIT, including 39 Ph.D.s; of those, approximately 10 were in computer science. Yet, I would say in every one of the remaining 29, computer science was an integral part of what they were doing. This September, the freshman class will be one of our largest and certainly one of our brightest. The Albert Dorman Honors College enrolled about 90 students who, based on their ability and performance, could go anywhere without cost to them or their parents. The enrollment in the areas of computing (computer engineers in the Newark College of Engineering, computer scientists in the College of Science and Liberal Arts, and management information systems students enrolling in the School of Industrial Management) will be approximately over one-third of those students choosing NJIT. I think our disciplines and our enrollment and our graduating Ph.D.s that I just mentioned are affirmed when you look at this Sunday's New York Times "Help Wanted" section. My boss President Saul Fenster is in the back of the room and I want to be clear as to why I am looking in the "Help Wanted" section. It was merely research knowing that I was going to talk about computer science and trying to find some ties between what goes on here at NJIT and what goes on in the secondary schools and to talk about NJIT as an applied and practical public research university. Of the 28 pages of jobs in this edition, approximately 10 pages were for people in computer science: programmers, systems analysts, computer engineers, over a third of the entire New York Times "Help Wanted" section. This affirms why we are here today, why you are doing what you are doing in the high schools, and why we are doing what we are doing here at NJIT.

            The growth in our enrollment quantity and quality is paralleled by the campus growth. We have just completed a building program of over $100 million, and just as we thought we had the last light bulb screwed in, the president informed us of another building program of over $50 million. We now do attract students from just about every state in the Union. We do so because of our computer science program and those related disciplines. I would maintain that our computer science department is about the largest and, in my opinion, some of the best quality in the tri-state region. We are working hard to keep NJIT as one of the top-ranked technological and scientific universities in the country. I also know, having been in education for over 20 years, that you folks are working hard, too. I think what some of the agenda speaks to today is that we do join forces and continue the hard work and put together and advocate for computer science education at least in our grade 17 through 18 curriculum.

            Senator Donald DiFrancesco, here at the conference today, has just been reelected and is serving an unprecedented third term as the President of the New Jersey Senate. One of the reasons we asked him to speak here is because, for a long time, he's spoken about the need for computer science education in both our public and private schools and in our universities as well as our elementary schools. The senator has had a very accomplished legislative agenda for a long period. Things that I could relate to, from having been in the Department of Education, is that one of the bills that he has sponsored--that the state mandates a program of education that makes college entry level and the state must pay for it. So that is one of his achievements, he's also one of the sponsors of the idea of increased infrastructure and mobility in the state, of the $250 million school facilities construction financing. The senator has consistently been a strong friend and supporter of New Jersey education and of the people who work in the New Jersey schools. He has also sponsored the Family Leave Act and been the person behind the Economic Recovery Fund, much of which goes back to the jobs and the infrastructure needed here in the State of New Jersey.

            Next, we are going to hear from two speakers whose message is important for your work today. They both represent the State: Senator Donald DiFrancesco, the President of the New Jersey Senate and Dr. Deborah Cook from the New Jersey Department of Education.

            I just want to mention that when you've been in this game for 21 years, you should sponsor a number of bills that become law. I'm pleased to be here. It's an unusual situation for me. I'm not able to speak in many classrooms of this nature. I've been out of school a long time. I got a tour of the campus from Dr. Fenster. He reminded me that I had made one of the stupidest remarks in 1995 to a reporter that we ought to change the name of Rutgers to University of New Jersey and he made a big story out of it. And you find out how many reporters and editorial writers went to Rutgers and I get hate mail from all over the country from alumni of Rutgers telling me that I would destroy their degree because it would then be the University of New Jersey. So I thought about that and it probably would have been a better idea to give you the resources for you to have a football team here at NJIT than to change the name of Rutgers. And I was reminded sitting here, of when I was at Penn State. Those were the four years out of my whole life that I was out of Scotch Plains. We went to a lot of classrooms like this, the first couple years, and lots of TV classrooms, pretty boring, and huge classes, 300 or 400 students. I was in liberal arts initially and we had a geology professor at Penn State, I can't remember his name. But I was one of the few New Jersey kids who went to Penn State, and of course it was dominated by kids from these little towns all over Pennsylvania, and this guy had these kids convinced that the Atlantic Ocean was gong to cover New Jersey eventually and Philadelphia was going to be on the coast. And he had more New Jersey jokes than anybody that I've ever heard. This reminded me of that because this is the kind of classroom we were in.

            I thank you all for being here and for the next few minutes listening to a politician talking about something that I know is important to everybody. I can't think of a more timely discussion to have in New Jersey than one that focuses on the need for computer education and on the need to truly understand the potentials and the pitfalls of current thinking on educational technology. Obviously one of the things happening right now in education is the critical question of how we will address the issue of funding education. As most of you know, especially those of you in New Jersey, the Governor just released her plan for providing fair and equitable plan for funding public education in New Jersey. And I might add that for all of my 21 years in the Legislature, we have been in courts over what is a fair and equitable plan for funding our New Jersey school systems. My first year in the Legislature, 1976, the Governor and the Legislature thought that they had resolved the issue because they had passed what was called the "Thorough and Efficient Law" and they had funded it by the income tax that was supposed to provide all the necessary funding. The tax was 2.5 percent and people presumed that that would relieve the burden of the property tax. The formula was such that the need for funding under the formula far outgrew our revenues from the income tax. So as time went on, we came to rely more on the real estate tax, but although we spent tremendous amounts of money on 29 special needs districts, the results don't seem to be any better. The outcomes don't seem to be any better, based on what people tell me, than they were in my first year in the Legislature, regardless of how many tens of millions more are spent in the district. So it continues to be an argument and a debate that I'm sure will continue as a result of this law, which will probably then go to court as to whether or not it's constitutional.

            The funding debate taking place in New Jersey provides what we think is an appropriate backdrop for today's conference. Funding, as you know, the use of education technology has often been tied directly to the State's funding priorities. If I can be political for just one moment, I would like to say that this Legislature and what I mean by that is, the last four years, as I was fortunate enough to be Senate President for that period, as well as this Governor, Governor Whitman, we did far more to make the use of computers in our schools a priority than previous administrations. And I'll quickly add that we have a long way to go before we can boast that technology is being used to its fullest potential in the New Jersey schools.

            I'm convinced that computers can be powerful educational tools. People have convinced me of that. Over the years, I've been witness to a number of innovative programs already being conducted in different counties in the state that make excellent use of education technology as we know it today. I've seen students in suburban schools and inner city schools work together via computer. I've seen students at vo-tech schools access advanced placement courses being taught at neighboring towns in exchange for their offerings of traditional shop classes. I've seen children at the elementary school level surf the Internet for information with the ease of Bill Gates. We know that the future will demand computer skills, in fact, the immediate future, if you consider that 97 percent of all work will require technology skills by the year 2000. I'm a lawyer by education. I'm associated with a law firm, although I don't practice law very much, as you would expect, but even in the legal profession, technology skills are essential. And of course, the legal profession probably resists change more than any other does. So, it's clear that today's students will need an education that includes training in and use of computer technology. Of course, there are obstacles standing in the way. There is the limited availability of computer equipment.

            For the past two years the State has offered education technology grants to school districts willing to develop electronic classrooms and the response, we find, has been tremendous. Educators in New Jersey have innovative, positive uses for computers in their classrooms. And it is my intention to continue to invest in computer technology. I know the Governor shares this interest and she has proposed increasing the investment in education technology to $50 million in her just-unveiled funding plan. Our investment in education technology, however, can't be limited to equipment alone. Recent Newsweek article entitled "The Silicon Classroom" spelled out the real problem facing the use of computer technology in our schools. The article subhead reads "School Districts Are Rushing to Spend Billions on Computers-But It's Not Clear that They Know What to Do with Them." The article points to the fact that spending on technology has risen dramatically with some $4 billion spent in K-12 public schools in this academic year alone, twice the amount spent on textbooks. According to a 1995 Federal study, however, states invest only 15 percent of their education technology budgets on staff development. The study recommends that that be at least doubled.

            It's clear, with or without the supporting statistics, that the computer revolution won't happen in American classrooms unless the teachers are trained to make the revolution a reality. The training is not yet happening in our schools of education. In fact, a recent survey of graduates of teacher education schools found that only 3 percent of the graduates described themselves as very well prepared for using information technology in the classroom. The State must then be prepared to make training and technology use and application part of the State's investment.

            Last week I introduced legislation that I