PAGENO="0001" RICHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 HEARINGS BEFORE THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETIETH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R0 6232 and ILR. 6265 BILLS TO AMEND THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958, THE NATIONAL VOCATIONAL STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE ACT OF 1965, AND THE HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 PART1 (~i ~) HEARINGS HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 17, 18, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28; MAY 2, 1967 Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor CARL D. PERKINS, UIUIir7lIGR 0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE S0-165 WASHINGTON 1967 PAGENO="0002" COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR CARL D. PERKINS, Kentucky, Chairman EDITH GREEN, Oregon FRANK `THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JOHN H. DENT, Pennsylvania ROMAN C. PUCINSKI, Illinois DOMINICK V. DANIELS, New Jersey JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana JAMES G. O'HARA, Michigan HUGH L. CAREY, New York AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS, California SAM GIBBONS, Florida WILLIAM D. FORD, Michigan WILLIAM D. HAiTHAWAY, Maine PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York LLOYD MEEDS, Washington PHILLIP BURTON, California CARL ALBERT, Oklahoma WILLIAM H. A:YRES, Ohio ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota CHARLES E. GOODELL, New York JOHN M. ASHBROOK, Ohio AI~PHONZO BELL, California OGDEN R. REID, New York EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. ERLENBORN, Illinois WILLIAM J. SCHERLE, Iowa JOHN DELLENBACK, Oregon MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan EDWIN D. ESHLEMAN, Pennsylvania JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina WILLIAM A. STEIGER, Wisconsin SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION EDITH GREEN, JOHN BRADEMAS, Indiana SAM GIBBONS, Florida HUGH L. CAREY, New York WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine PHILLIP BURTON, California FRANK THOMPSON, JR., New Jersey ELMER J. HOLLAND, Pennsylvania JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York Oregon, Chairman ALBERT H. QUIE, Minnesota OGDEN .R. REID, New York EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida JOHN N. E'RLENBORN, Illinois MARVIN L. ESCH, Michigan JAMES C. GARDNER, North Carolina 11 PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Hearings held in Washington, D.C.: Page April 17, 1967 I April 18, 1967 April 19, 1967 April 20, 1967 155 April 26, 1967 201 April 27, 1967 245 April 28, 1967 281 May 2, 1967 31T Text of H.R. 6232 1 Statement of- Carr, Frank, president, John Nuveen & Co., Chicago, Ill., and Noble L. Buddinger, accompanied by Alvin V. Shoemaker 237 Davis, Walter G., director, Department of Health, AFL-CIO, accompanied by Dr. John Sessions 214 Dix, Dr. William S., librarian, Princeton University, and Donald F. Cameron, director, Association of Research Libraries 174 Frost, Dr. Richard, OEO, Upward Bound program, accompanied by Dr. Billings, deputy director, Upward Bound program, Washington State College, Bellingham, Wash 322 Gardner, Hon. John W., Secretary, HEW, accompanied by Ralph K. Huitt, Harold Howe III, Peter P. Muirhead, and Samuel Halperin 26 Goerke, Dr. Glenn A., State director of continuing education, Florida State Board of Regents, OCE; State University System of Florida, accompanied by Robert J. Pitchell, executive director, National University Extension Association 338 Gross, Mason W., president, State University, Rutgers, and John F. Morse, on behalf of the American Council on Education 116 Howe, Hon. Harold, II, U.S. Commissioner of Education, accompanied by Peter P. Muirhead, Nolan Estes, Grant Venn, and Albert L. Alford Krettek, Miss Germaine, American Library Association, accompanied by Morris Gelfand, librarian, Queens College, City University of New York, and Mrs. Sara Srygley, associate professor, Library School, Florida State University 155 Lumley, Dr. John, director, Division of Federal Relations, National Education Association; Dr. Ronald Uhi, supervisor, Audiovisual Education, Prince Georges County, Md.; Dr. Howard S. Decker, executive secretary, American Industrial Arts Association; Mrs. Mary Gereau, staff member; and Richard Carrigan, staff member 181 Marckwardt, Dr. Albert H., president, National Council of Teachers of English, on behalf of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Dr. Walter J. Mars, Dr. Evan R. Collins, Dr. Edwin T. Adkins, Dr. Jerome Sachs, Dr. Arthur Pearl, Dr. Matthew J. Trippe, and Dr. James Kelly 281, 292 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii 317 Moore, Dr. Gilbert D., chairman, Federal Relations Committee of the American Personnel & Guidance Association; Dr. H. Carroll Parish, and Dr. Willis E. Dugan 228 Mumford, Hon. L. Quincy, Librarian of Congress 107 Purdy, Allan W., chairman, National Student Financial Aid Council, and John D. Jones 271 Rohlffs, Dr. C. D., president, UBSA, and president, Nettleton Com- mercial College, and associates 245 Ross, Dr. Arthur ~\I., Commissioner of Labor Statistics, accompanied by Sol Swerdloff, Bureau of Labor Statistics 201 Torrence, Dr. Lois, director, Office of Institutional Study, American University, accompanied by Mrs. Allison Bell, legislative associate, AAWW, and Dr. Dolan 262 Walker, Dr. Charles E., executive vice president, ABA; John O'Neill, Stanley Brytzuk, and John Smith 137 III PAGENO="0004" IV CONTENTS Statements, letters, supplemental material, etc.: Adkins, Dr. Edwin P., director of research and academic development, Page Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa., testimony of - 3~O Association of University Evening Colleges, statement of 381 Binnion, Dr. John E., professor of business education, Texas Tech- nological College, Lubbock, Tex., testimony of 259 Brayfield, Arthur H., executive officer, American Psychological Asso. ciation, letter to Chairman Green, enclosing a memorandum 373 Breidenstine, A. G., deputy superintendent, Pennsylvania Depart- ment of Public Instruction, telegram to Congressman Quie 74 Calkins, Hugh, member, Cleveland Board of Education, statement oL. - 374 Carr, Frank, president, John Nuveen & Co., Chicago, Ill.: Prepared statement of 238 Statement by the Investment Bankers Association of America~ 239 Percentage distribution of the dollar volume of municipal bonds issued for higher education by relative borrowing cost and bond quality-1965 (charts) 244 Cohen, Mrs. Audrey C., executive director, Women's Talent Corps, Inc., New York, N.Y., paper entitled "A New Outlook in Higher Education-A Need for a College of Community Service" 376 Collins, Evan R., president, State University of New York at Albany, testimony in behalf of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 315 Davis, Walter G., director, Department of Education, AFL-CIO, letter to Chairman Green, dated June 9, 1967 218 Decker, Dr. Howard S., executive secretary, American Industrial Arts Association, National Education Association, testimony presented by 197 Dodson, John H., director, Student Financial Aids, the University of Texas, memorandum to Dr. Norman Hackerman, subject "Com- ments on H.R. 6232" 368 Dugan, Dr. Willis E., executive director, American Personnel & Guid- ance Association, prepared statement of 229 Frost, Dr. Richard, Office of Economic Opportunity, Upward Bound program, prepared statement of 323 Gaston, Mrs. M. L., director, Booker T. Washington Business College: Letter from C. E. Deakins, chief, Insured Loan Branch, Division of Student Financial Aid, Office of Education, I-JEW, dated February 14, 1q67 256 Letter from Rudolph Davidson, director, Divison of Research, Planning, and Information, State of Alabama Department of Education, dated March 23, 1967 255 Letter to C. E. Deakins, chief, Insured Loan Branch, Division of Education, HEW, dated February 27, 1967 256 Letter to Rudolph Davidson, director, Division of Research Planning, and Information, State of Alabama Department of Education, dated March 21, 1967 255 Letter to Richard A. Fulton, executive director, United Business Schools Association, dated April 17, 1967 254 Gelfand, Morris, librarian, Queens College: Examples of some of the comments from libraries made regarding the use of title II grants 159 Uses of the grants (table) 159 Goerke, Dr. Glenn A., State director, Continuing Education, Florida State Board of Regents, Office of Continuing Education, State Uni- versity of Florida, National University Extension Association, membership roster 338 *Griffiths, Daniel E., dean, New York University School of Education, letter to Chairman Green, dated April 18, 1967, enclosing report~ 369 Gross, Mason W., president, Rutgers, the State University, New Jersey, supplementary statement by American Association of Junior Colleges 134 ilarlow, Neal, dean, Rutgers, the State University, New Brunswick, N.J., letter to Chairman Green, dated May 11, 1967 S90 lElaskew, Dr. L. D., comments by 362 PAGENO="0005" CONTENTS V Statements, letters, supplemental material-Continued Howe, Hon. Harold, II, Commissioner of Education, HEW: Consolidation under the Education Professions Development Act Page and current- levels of support 76 Criteria for determination of eligibility as a developing institution (title III, Higher Education Act) 100 Developing institutions-title III, the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-329) 102 Examples of title THEA projects 96 Higher education amendments of 1967-Administration's version (table) 89 Statement by Jones, Dr. Thomas F., president, University of South Carolina, statement of 363 Exhibit 1. Estimated 1964-65 baccalaureate degrees conferred by State and NDEA fellowship awards, 1966-67, 1967-68 (table) 365 Exhibit 2. Baccalaureate degrees conferred as percent of Nation, and NDEA fellowship as percent of Nation, 1966-67, 1967-68 (table) 366 Exhibit 3. Distribution of awards for institutions receiving 95 awards for 1966-67 (table) 367 Exhibit 4. NDEA-Title IV, proposed corrective legislation - - - 367 Lumley, John M., director of the Division of Federal Relations of the National Education Association, testimony presented by 182 Marshall, Allen D., president and chief executive officer, United Student Aid Funds, statement by 378 Mathews, B.C., assistant vice president, Burmingham Trust National Bank: Letter to Mrs. Collier, dated April 12, 1967W 255 Letter to Miss Lewis, dated April 12, 1967 254 Matsunaga, Hon. Spark M., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii, statement of 360 McCrocklin, James H., president, Southwest Texas State College, San Marcos, Tex., letter to Congressman J. J. Pickle, dated April 19, 1967 368 Minear, Leon P., superintendent of public instruction, State Depart- ment of Education, State of Oregon, letter to Chairman Green dated March21, 1967 374 Mink, Hon. Patsy T., a Representative in Congress from the State of Hawaii, organizations and individuals in support of H.R. 3372~ 320 Moore, Dr. Gilbert D., chairman, Federal Relations Committee of the American Personnel & Guidance Association, prepared state- ment of 230 Morse, John F., American Council on Education, letter to Chairman Green, dated May 2, 1967 130 Moy, Richard H., M.D., director, University Health Services, Uni- versity of Chicago, letter to Hon. Barratt O'Hara, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, dated April 14, 1967 394 National Council of Teachers of English, statement submitted by__~ 281 Neumaier, Dr. John J., president, Moorhead State College, Moor- head, Minn., statement by 375 Pearl, Arthur, professor of education. University of Oregon, testimony presented in behalf of American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. 301 Parish, Dr. H. Carroll, chairman, Commission on Financial Aid of the American College Personnel Association, prepared statement of 233 Purdy, Allan W., chairman, National Student Financial Aid Council; chairman, Financial Aid Commission of the Council of Student Personnel Associations; and director, Student Financial Aids, University of Missouri, statement of 272 Rohlffs, Dr. C. D., president, United Business Schools Association, statement of 246 PAGENO="0006" VI CONTENTS Statements, letters, supplemental material-Continued Ryan, Mrs. Edward F., chairman, NationaPiCongress of Parents & Page Teachers Committee on Legislation, statement by 388 Stanford, E. B., director of libraries, University of Minnesota: Letter to MI. A. Mood, Assistant Commissioner for Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, dated April 12, 1967_ 166 Letter to Congressman Quie, dated April 12, 1967 165 Letter to Frank L. Schick, Coordinator of Library Statistics, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, dated April 27, 1966 166 Tenzer, Hon. Herbert, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York: Latimer, John F., executive secretary, American Classical League, Oxford, Ohio, letter to Congressman Tenzer, dated April 17, 1967 plus two enclosures 358 Statement of 357 Uhl, Ronald M., statement on behalf of the Department of Audio- visual Instruction of the National Education Association 195 Zablocki, Hon. Clement J., a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin: Testimony of 390 Appropriations, obligations, and expenditures under title III of the National Defense Education Act, fiscal years 1959-66 (table) 391 H.R. 8203, a bill to amend the National Defense Education Act of 1958 to make equipment purchased under title III available to all children attending public and private nonprofit elementary schools 393 PAGENO="0007" IHGIIER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 MONDAY, APRIL 17, 1967 HoUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Brademas, Gibbons, Carey, Hath- away, Burton, Thompson, Holland, Scheuer, Quie, Reid, Erlenborn, Scherle, and Esch. Mrs. GREEN. The meeting will come to order. While we are expecting members of the minority side here, I think we will not delay the Secretary any longer. This subcommittee is meet- ing for the purpose of considering H.R. 6232 and H.IR. 6265, the 1967 Higher Education Amendments. A copy of the agenda for the week with a list of witnesses is avail- able on the table at the side of the room. This morning we are pleased to have Secretary Gardner and Coimnissioner Howe, and accompany- ing them, Dr. Ralph K. Huitt, Dr. Peter Muirhead and Dr. Sam ilalperin. (Text of H. R. 6232 follows:) [HR. 6232, 90th Cong., first sess.1 A BILL To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States if America in Congress assembled, That this Act, with the following table of con- tents, may be cited as the "Higher Education Amendments of 196T". TABLE OF COI~TEN'TS TITLE I-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS) Sec. 101. Extension of grant program. Sec. 102. Extension of 75 per .centum Federal share through fiscal year 1969. Sec. 103. Authorization of experimental or pilot projects. TITLE 11-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (COLLEGE LIBRARIES, ETC.) PART A-COLLEGE LIBRARY RESOURCES Sec. 2:01. Extension of program. Sec. 202. Revision of maintenance-of-effort requirement for special purpose grants. PART B-LIBRARY TRAINING AND RESEARCH, AND LIBRARY SCHOOL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Sec. 221. Extension of program. Sec. 2g2. Authorizing planning and development grants for library schools. Sec. 22.3. ClarifyIng authority of institutions to use training institutes. PAGENO="0008" 2 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 PART C-STRENGTHENING COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARY RESOURCES THROUGH LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Sec. 231. Extension of program. Sec. 232. ClarIfying authority to purchase copies; Increasing authority to prepare catalog and bibliographic materials; authorizing librarian to act as acquisitions agent 1TITLE Ill-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 19~l5 (STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS) Sec. 301. Extension of program. TITLE PT-STUDENT ASSISTANCE PART A-AMENDMENTS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM Sec. 401. ExtensIon of program. Sec. 402. Counting work-study assistance to student in computing maximum allowable educational opportunity grant. Sec. 403. Authorizing grants (as well as contracts) for talent search. PART B-AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS ax STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE PROGRAMS Sec. 421. Authorizing deferment of repayment of State or privately Insured loan during during attendance of student borrower at Institution of higher education, or during military, Peace Corps, or VISTA service; requiring deferral of such repayment of federally insured loan under National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act during VISTA service: and authorizing Federal payment of till interest accruing during any such attendance or service. Sec. 422. Coordination between non-Federal and Federal programs with respect to maxi- mum amounts of Individual loans insured and minimum amounts of repay-~ ment Installments on such loans. Sec. 423. Extension of Federal loan insurance program. Sec. 424. Technical corrections. PART C-AMENDMENTS TO COLLEGE WORK-STUDY PROGRAM Sec. 43L. Extension of program. Sec. 432. 80 per centum Federal matching. Sec. 433. Authorizing work-study employment of forty hours a week for students enrolled~ In classes during vacation periods. Sec. 434. Revising maintenance-of-effort requirement to take into account additionaL cforms of institutional student aid. Sec. 435. Authorizing proprietary, Institutions to conduct work-study programs for off- campus work of their students for public or private nonprofit organizations.. Sec. 436. Providing for Institutional expenses of administration of cooperative-education demonstration programs. Sec. 437. Work-study program reconstituted as part C of title IV, Higher Education Act of 1965. PART D-AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL DEFENSE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM Sec. 451. Extension of program. Sec. 452. Making 10 per ceatum loan cancellation applicable to teacher service for certain' special programs conducted by nonprofit institutions. Sec. 453. Encouraging availability of non-Federal capital for aational defense student loans by establishing a revolving fund from which institutions may obtain loans to capitalize student loan funds,, and providiag for allotment of Federal. capital contributions to such funds. PART E-AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Sec. 471. Extension of program. Sec. 472. Increasing maximum length of fellowship from three to four years In special circumstances, and requiring institutional effort to encourage recipients to enter or continue teaching. Sec. 473. RequIring stipends to be set in an amount `consistent with those awarded for' comparable fellowships. PART F-ADVISORY COUNCIL ON STUDENT AID Sec. 481. Establishment of advisory council on all financial aid to students; absorption of advisory councils on insured loans. TITLE V-EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965)\ Sec. 501. `Statement of purpose. Sec. 502. Amendments to part A (general provisions) of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. . Sec. 503. Extending teacher fellowship program to include graduate education for pre- school. and adult and vocational education personnel. Sec. 504. New parts added to title V of Higher Education Act of 1965. Sec. 505. Limitation. Sec. 506. `Short title of title V of Higher Education Act of 1965. Sec. 507. Effective date. PAGENO="0009" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 3 TITLE VI_INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS PART A-1~QUIPMENT AND MATERIALS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AMENDMENTS TO HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965) Sec. 601. Extension of program. Sec. 602. Elimination of subject limitation; extension of assistance to graduate instruction. PART B-EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT) Sec. 621. Extension of program. Sec. 622. Elimination of subject limitations; and merger with section 12 of National Foundation on Arts and Humanities Act. Sec. 623. Provision for within-State equalization in State-imposed requirements for finan- cmi participation of project applicants. Sec. 624. Payment of State administrative expenses out of project funds in lieu of separate funding. Sec. 625. Private schools: Authorizing less than maximum set-aside for loans; repealing loan allotment formula; and authorizing loans to American-sponsored schools serving American children abroad. TITLE Vu-GUIDANCE, COUNSELING, AND TESTING (AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF TITLE V OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958) Sec. 701. ExtensIon of program. TITLE YIII-LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS TO TSTLE VI OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958) Sec. SQL Extension of program. TITLE IX-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VIII (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1935 AND TO TITLE X (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT Sec. 901. Establishment of Advisory Council on Graduate Education; abolitioa of Higher Education Facilities Act Advisory Committee. Sec. 902. Conforming definition of institution of higher education in Higher Education Act to other definitions used in the Act and National Defense Education Act. Sec. 903. Provision in National Defense Education Act for the Trust Territory of the [Pacific Islands, for schools of Department of the Interior for Indian children, Sind for overseas dependents schools of Department of Defense. TITLE X-AMENDMENT5 TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 Sec. 1001. Adjustment of interest rate on loans. See. 1002. Extending authorization for higher education facilities construction assistance in major disaster areas. TITLE I-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE I OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (COMMUNITY SERVICE AND CONTINUING EDUCATION PROGRAMS) EXTENSION OF GRANT PROGRAM SEC. 101. Section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "and" before "$50,000,000", (2) by inserting after "succeeding fiscal year" the following: ", and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years", and (3) by striking out the last sentence of such section. EXTENSION OF 75 PER CENTUM FEDERAL SHARE THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 1969 SEC. 102. (a) Section 106(a) of such Act is amended by striking out "75 per ~entum of such costs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and 50 per centum of such costs for each of the three succeeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "and for each of the three succeeding fiscal years, and 50 per centum of such costs for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, and for each of the three sue- ~eeding fiscal years". (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) of this section shall be effective with respect to grants awarded after the enactment of this Act. AUTHORIZATION OF EXPERIMENTAL OR PILOT PROJECTS SEC. 103. (a) Sections 107, 108, 109, 110, and 111 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and references thereto, are redesignated as sections lOS, 109, 110, 111, and 112, respectively, and there is inserted after 106 a new section as follows: PAGENO="0010" 4 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "EXPERIMENTAL PROJECTS "Ssc. 107. From the sums reserved therefor pursuant to paragraph (2) of see- tion 103 for any fiscal year, the Commissioner is authorized to make grants to or contracts with institutions of higher education to pay all or part of the cost of experimental or pilot projects in the fields of community service or continuing education, with emphasis on innovative approaches and on the promotion of com- prehensiveness and coordination in these fields. The Commissioner may also, from such sums, make grants to other public or private nonprofit agencies or organiza- tions, or contracts with public or private organizations, including grants to or contracts with professional or scholarly associations, when such grants or con- tracts will make an especially significant contribution to attaining the objec- tives of this section." (b) (1) Subsection (a) of section 103 of such Act is amended by inserting "(1)" immediately after "(a)", and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "(2) Not to exceed 10 per centum of the sums appropriated pursuant to section 101 shall be reserved by the Commissioner for grants and contracts pursuant to section 107." (2) Subsection (a) of section 103 of such Act is further amended by inserting after "each fiscal year," the following: "reduced by the sums reserved pursuant to paragraph (2) ," and by inserting after "remainder of such sums" the follow- ing: "(as reduced by the sums reserved pursuant to paragraph (2) ) ". (3) The heading of such section 103 is amended by adding at the end thereof "-SET-ASIDE FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS". (c) The amendments made by this section shall be effective with respect to ap- propriations pursuant to section 101 of such Act for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967, except so much of any such appropriation as has been allotted prior to the enactment of this Act. TITLE IT-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE II OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 (COLLEGE LIBRARIES, ETC.) PART A-COLLEGE LIBRARY RESOURCES EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 201. (a) Section 201 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "$50,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "$50,000,000 each for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1966, 1967, and 1968, respectively, and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years". (b) Such section 201 is further amended by striking out the last sentence of such section. REVISION OF MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE GRANTS SEC. 202. (a) Clause (2) of section 204(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after "June 30, 1965", the following: ", or during the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the grant is requested, whichever is less". (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall be effective with respect to applications for grants payable on or after the effective date of the enactment of this Act. PART B-LIBRARY TRAINING AND RESEARCH, AND LIBRARY SCHOOL PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 221. Section 221 of such Act is amended by Striking out the second sen-~ tence thereof and by inserting "and such sums as may be necessary for each of the ~iext five years," after "$15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the two succeeding fiscal years,". AUTHORIZING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS FOR LIBRARY SCHOOLS SEC. 222. (a) (1) Subsection (a) of section 224 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (1) by inserting "(1)" after "organizations,"; (2) by insert- PAGENO="0011" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ing after "such activities ;" the following: "and, (2) for the planning or develop- ment of programs for the opening of library or information science schools, or of programs intended to lead to the accreditation of such existhig schools ;" and (3) by striking out "no such grant" and by inserting in lieu thereof "no grant under this section". (2) The heading of such section is amended by adding ", AND GRANTS FOR LIBRARY SCHOOL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT" at the end thereof. (b) The amendments made by paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section shall be effective with respect to grants payable from appropriations for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967. CLARIFYING AUTHORITY OF INSTITUTIONS TO USE TRAINING INSTITUTES SEC. 223. Subsection (a) of section 223 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after "the cost of courses of training or study" the following: "(including short-term or regular session institutes) ". PART 0-STRENGTHENING COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARY RESOURCES THROUGH LIBRARY OF CONGRESS EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 231. (a) Section 231 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "and" before "$7,770,000", and ly inserting after "June 30, 1968,~' the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for the next two fiscal years,". (b) Such section is further amended by striking out the last sentence. CLARIFYING AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE COPIES; INCREASING AUTHORITY TO PREPARE CATALOG AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC MATERIALS; AUTHORIZING LIBRARIAN TO ACT AS ACQUISITIONS AGENT SEC. 232. Section 231 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by section 231 of this Act, is further amended: (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting "copies of" before "all"; (2) in paragraph (2), by striking out "providing catalog information for these materials promptly after receipt, and distributing bibliographic in- formation by" and inserting in lieu thereof "providing catalog information promptly and distributing this and other bibliographic information about library materials by"; and (3) by adding after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph: "(3) enabling the Librarian of Congress to pay administrative costs of cooperative arrangements for acquiring library, materials published outside of the United States, its territories, and its possessions, and not readily obtainable outside of the country of origin, for institutions of higher educa- tion or combinations thereof for library purposes, or for other public or private nonprofit research libraries." TITLE Ill-STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTITUTIONS EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEc. 301. Paragraph (1) of section 301(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "and the sum of $55,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "the sum of $55,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years". TITLE IV-STtIDENT ASSISTANCE PART A-AMENDMENTS TO EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 401. (a) The first sentence of subsection (b) of section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after "two succeeding fiscal years," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years,". (b) (1) Such subsection (b) is further amended by striking out the second sentence thereof. (2) Sections 405(b), 406(b), and 407(b) (2) of such Act are each amended by striking out "third sentence" and inserting in lieu thereof "second sentence". PAGENO="0012" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 COUNTING WORK-STUDY ASSISTANCE TO STUDENT IN COMPUTING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY GRANT SEc. 402. (a) Section 402(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out ", but excluding assistance from~ work-study programs". (b) The amendments to such Act made by the preceding subsection Shall be effective with respect to educational opportunity grants awarded by an institu- tion on or after September 1, 1967, or the date of the enactment of this Act, whichever date is later. AUTHORIZING GRANTS (AS WELL AS CONTRACTS) FOR TALENT SEARCH SEC. 403. Section 408 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out ", to enter into contracts, not to exceed $100,000 per year, with State and local educational agencies and other public or nonprofit organizations and institutions" and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "to make grants to State or local educational agencies or other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, or organizations, or make contracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations, not to exceed (in the case of any contract or grant) $100,000 per year,". PALT B-AMENDMENTS TO PRoviSIONS ON STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE PROGRAMS AUTHORIZING DEFERMENT OF REPAYMENT OF STATE OR PRIVATELY INSURED LOAN DURING ATTENDNCE OF STUDENT BORROWER AT INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION, OR DURING MILITARY, PEACE CORPS, OR VISTA SERVICE; REQUIRING DEFERRAL OF SUCH REPAYMENT OF FEDERALLY INSURED LOAN UNDER NATIONAL VOCATIONAL STUDENT LOAN INSURANCE ACT DURING VISTA SERVICE; AND AUTHORIZING FEDERAL PAYMENT OF ALL INTEREST ACCRUING DURING ANY SUCH ATTENDANCE OR SERVICE SEC. 421. (a) (1) Section 428 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and section 9 of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 are amended by adding at the end of each such section the following new subsection: "(c) The Commissioner shall encourage the inclusion, in any State student loan program or any State or nonprofit private student loan insurance program meeting the requirements of subsection (a) (1) (B) or (C), of provisions authoriz- ing or requiring that in the case of student loans covered by such program periodic installments of principal need not be paid, but interest shall accrue and be paid, during any period (i) during which the borrower is pursuing a full-time course of study at an institution of higher education (or at a comparable institution outside the States approved for this purpose by the Commissioner), (ii) not in excess of three years during which the borrower is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, (iii) not in excess of three years during which the borrower is in sevice as a volunteer under the Peace Corps Act, or (iv) not in excess of three years during which the borrower is in service as a volunteer under title VIII of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. In the case of any such State or nonprofit private program containing such a provision any such period shall be excluded in determining the period specified in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C), or the maximum period for repayment specified in subparagraph (D), of subsection (b)(1) of this section." (2) (A) Subparagraph (C) (ii) of paragraph (1) of section 428(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and subparagraph (C) (ii) of paragraph (1) of section 9(b) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1905 are each amended by inserting after "(ii)" the following: "except as provided in sub- section (c) of this section,". (B) Skbparagraph (D) of each such paragraph is amended by inserting after "subject to subparagraph (C)" the following: "of this paragraph and except as provided by subsection (c) of this section". (b) Subparagraph (C) of section 8(a) (2) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "or" before "(iii)", and (2) by inserting after "Peace Corps Act," the following: "or (iv) not in excess of three years during which the borrower is in service as a volunteer under title VIII of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,". (c) The first sentence of paragraph (2) of section 428(a) of the Higher Educa- tion Act of 1965, and the first sentence of paragraph (2) of section 9(a) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, are each amended by PAGENO="0013" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 inserting after "repayment pet~iod of the loan," the following: "or which accrues during a period in which principial need not be paid (whether or not such principal is in fact paid) by reason of a provision described in subsection (c) of this section or in subsection (a) (2) (0) of the preceding section,". (d) Deferment of repayment of principal, as provided in the amendments made by subsection (a) of this section, may be authorized (but not required) with respect to loans meeting the requirements of subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 428(a) (`1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or of subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 9(a) (1) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, which are outstanding on the date of enactment of this Act, but only with respect to periods of attendance or service occurring on or after such date, or after June 30, 1967, whichever is later. The amendments made by subsection (b) shall be effective with respect to loans made by the Commissioner and, with the consent of the lender, loans insured by the Commissioner, which are outstanding on such date of enactment, but only with respect to periods of attendance or service occurring on or after such date or after June 30, 1967, whichever is later. The amendments made by subsection (c) shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act or on July 1, 1967, whichever is later. iJOORDINATION BETWEEN NON-FEDERAL AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS WITH RESPECT TO MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF INDIVIDUAL LOANS INSURED AND MINIMUM AMOUNTS OF REPAYMENT INSTALLMENTS ON SUCH LOANS Annual M'aximum of $1,500, Aggregate Maximum of $7,500 for Higher Education SEc. 422. (a) (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 428(b) (1) of the Higher Edu- cation Act of 1965 is amended by inserting the following before the semicolon at the end of such subparagraph: ", which limit shall not be deemed exceeded by line of credit under which actual payments by the lender to the borrower will not be made in any such year in excess of such annual limit; and provides that the aggregate insured unpaid principal amount of all such insured loans made to any student shall not at any time exceed $7,500 ;". (2) Paragraph (1) of section 425 (a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "in the case of a graduate or professional student (as defined in regulations of the Commissioner), or $1,000 in the case of any other student" in the first sentence, and (2) by striking out "in the case of any graduate or professional student (as defined in regulations of the Commissioner, `and including any such insured loans made to such person `before he became a graduate or professional student), or $5,000 in the case of any other student" in the second sentence. Annual Maximum of $1,500, Aggregate Maximum of $3,000, for Vocational Education (b) (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 9(b) (1) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended to read as follows: "(A) provides that the program will insure loans made to any individual student in any academic year or its equivalent (as determined under regu- lations of the Commissioner) of up to but not in excess of $1,500, which limit shall not be deemed exceeded by a line `of credit under which actual pay- ments by the lender to the borrower will not be made in any such year in excess of such annual limit; and provides that the aggregate insured unpaid principal amount of all insured `loans under the program made to any student shall not at any time exceed $3,000 ;". (2) Subsection (a) of `section 6 of the National Vocational `Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "$1,000" in the first sentence and inserting "$1,500,' in lieu thereof, and (2) by striking out "$2,000" in the second sentence and inserting "$3,000" in lieu thereof. Minimum Annual Repayments for Higher and Vocation Education (c) Paragraph (1) of section 428(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and paragraph (1) of section 9(b) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 are each `amended (1) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (J) and inserting a semicolon in lieu thereof, and (2) by adidng at `the end of subparagraph (J) the following: PAGENO="0014" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "(K) provides that the total of the payments by a borrower during any s-ear of any repayment period with respect to the aggregate amount of all loans to the borrower which are insured under the program shall not be less than $360 or the balance of all such loans (together with interest there- on), whichever amount is less." (d) (1) The amendments made by this section shall apply to loans made on or after the sixtieth day after the date of enactment of this Act. In computing the maximum amounts which may be borrowed by a student, and the minimum amounts of repayment allowable with respect to sums borrowed by a student, ~after such sixtieth day there shall be included all loans, whenever made, insured pursuant to the insurance program under which the computation is :made. (2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply so as to require violation of any commitment for insurance made to an eligible lender, or of any line of credit granted to a student prior to such sixtieth day or, except with the consent of the State or nonprofit private agency concerned, impair the obligation of any agreement made pursuant to section 428(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 or section 9(b) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965. EXTENSION OF FEDERAL LOAN IN5tinANO~ ?nOGnAM SEC. 423. (a) Subsection (a) of section 424 of the Higher Edilcation Act of 1965 is amended (1) in the first sentence by striking out "and $1,400,000000 In the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "and such limita- tion in the six succeeding fiscal years as may be specified in appropriations Acts, except that in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, such amount shall not exceed the lesser of any such limitation specified for that year and $1,400,000,000"; and (2) in the second sentence by striking out "1972" and inserting in lieu thereof "1977". (b) Subsection (a) of section 5 of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 is amended (1) in the first sentence by striking out "and in each of the two suceeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "and such limitations as may be specified in appropriations Act for each of the seven succeeding fiscal years, except that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, such amount shall not exceed the lesser of such limitation and $75,000,000"; and (2) in the second sentence by striking out "1972" and inserting in lieu thereof "1977". TECHNICAL CORRECTION5 SEC. 424. (a) (1) Section 2(a) of the National Vocational Student Loan Insur- ance Act of 1965 is amended by striking "9 (a) (1) (A)" and inserting in lieu thereof "9(a) (1) (C)". (2) Section 5 of such Act is amended (A) by inserting "FEDERAL" before "LOAN INSURANCE" in the caption, and (B) by inserting, in subsection (a), "Fed- eral" before "insurance" in the first sentence and "Federal" before "insurance pursuant to this part" in the second sentence. (3) Section 6 of such Act is amended (A) by inserting "UNDER FEDERAL IN- SURANCE PROGRAM" in the caption after "LIMITATIONS". (B) by inserting "Fed- eral" before "insurance" in the first sentence of subsection (a), and (C) by inserting "federally" before "insured" in the first sentence of subsection (b). (4) Section 8 of such Act is amended (A) by inserting "UNDER FEDERAL IN- SURANCE PROGRAM" after "LOANS" in the caption, and (B) by inserting "by the Commissioner" after "insurable" in the introductory phrase of subsection (a). (5) Clause (A) of the first sentence of section (a) (1) of such Act is amended by inserting "by the Commissioner" after the word "insured". (b) The second sentence of 435(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by the International Education Act of 1966 to make students in comparable institutions abroad eligible under the reduced-interest loan insurance program, is further amended by inserting ", with respect to students who are nationals of the United States," after "Such term includes". PART C-AMENDMENTS TO COLLEGE WORK-STUDY PROGRAM EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 431. The first sentence of Section 442 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "and" before "$200,000,000", and (2) by inserting PAGENO="0015" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 9 after "June 30, 1068," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years,". EIGHTY PER CENTUM FEDERAL MATCHING SEC. 432. (a) Paragraph (f) of section 124 of the Economic Opportunity Act ~of 1064 is amended by striking out "75 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "SO per centum". (b) The amendment made by the preceding subsection shall be effective with respect to work performed by a student on or after August 21, 1067, or on or after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever date is later. AUTHORIZING WORK-STUDY EMPLOYMENT OF FORTY HOURS A WEEK FOR STUDENTS ENROLLED IN CLASSES DURING VACATION PERIODS SEC. 433. (a) Paragraph (d) of section 124 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1064 is amended to read as follows: "(d) provide that no student shall be employed under such work-study program for more than fifteen hours in any week in which classes in which he is enrolled are in Session, except that, to the extent and in accordance with criteria established `by or pursuant to regulations of the Commissioner, such maximum work week shall be forty hours with respect to classes con- ducted in vacation or comparable periods of additional or nonregiilar en- rollment (a.s respects the particular student) ;". (b) The amendment made by the preceding subsection shall be effective with respect to work performed on or after the date of enactment of this Act. REVISING MAINTENANCE-OF-EFFORT REQUIREMENT TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ADDITIONAL FORMS OF INSTITUTIONAL STUDENT AID SEC. 434. (a) Paragraph (e) of section 124 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1064 is amended to read as follows: (e) provide assurance that in each fiscal year during which the agreement remains in effect th'e institution will expend in its own `programs of student assist- ance (including student assistance through employment of i'ts students, whether ~r not in employment eligible for assistance under this part), exclusive of any component of ,such expenditures representing payment to the institution of Fed- ~eral financial assis'tance as determined in accordance with i~egula'tions of the Commissioner, an amount that is not `less than its average annual expenditure for such purposes during the `three fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the agreement is entered `into ;". (b) The amendment made by the pi~eceding subsection shall be effective with respect to grants made under any agreement on or after `the eff'ective date of the enactment of this Act, or after June 30, 1068, whichever is later. AUTHORIZING PROPRIETARY INSTITUTIONS TO CONDUCT WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS FOR OFF-CAMPUS WORK OF THEIR STUDENTS FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGA- NIZATIONS SEC. 435. (a) Paragraph (a) of section 124 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 is amended by inserting after "work for the institution itself" the fo].- owing: "but only in the case of a public or other nonprofit institution,". (b) Paragraph (1) of section 123(b) of such Act is amended (1) by striking out "(D) is a public or other non-profit institution," in the first sentence there- ~f; (2) by striking out "(D) ," in the `second sentence of such paragraph; and (3) by striking out "(E)" wherever it appears in such paragraph and inserting ~` (D)" in lieu thereof. (c) Paragraph (1) of section 122(b) is amended by striking out all of that paragraph following the words "full-time `basis" the first time these words occur, and inserting in lieu thereof `the following: "in public or other nonprofit institu- tions of higher education in such State bears to the total number of persons enrolled on a full-time basis in such institutions in all the States,". (d) The amendments made by thi,s section shall be effective only with respect to work performed on or after the date of enactment of this Act, or after June ~30, 1067, whichever Is later. PAGENO="0016" 10 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 PROVIDING FOR INSTITUTIONAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION OF COOPERATIVE-. EDUCATION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS SEC. 436. (a) Sections 125 and 126 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are redesignated as sections 126 and 127, respectively, and the following new Section is inserted immediately following section 124: "USE OF WORK-STUDY FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OF COOPERATIVE- EDUCATION PROGRAMS "SEC. 125. (a) An agreement entered into pursuant to section 124 may also include provisions authorizing the institution, to the extent and under terms and conditions prescribed by the Commissioner by or pursuant to regulation, to use, out of the sums granted to it under section 123, a portion for its admin- istrative expenses (which for this purpose may, among other expenses, include expenses of counseling and guidance, placement, and consulting services) in developing or carrying out a program, described in such agreement, to demon- strate or explore the feasibility or value of methods of cooperative education involving alternative periods of full-time academic study at the institution and periods of full-time public or private employment (whether or not afforded by an organization described in section 124 (a)) approved or arranged for by the institution under such program. The Commissioner may, if in his judgment it would promote efficiency and economy to do so, prescribe regulations applicable both to administrative expenses for which an institution may use work-study funds under this section and to administrative expenses for which it may use such funds under section 124 (b) and to the determination of the amounts allow- able for such expenses from such funds, and such regulations shall, to the extent (if any) provided therein, supersede with respect to administrative expenses referred to in section 124(b) the limitations specified therein. "(b) The question of the authority of the institution to use funds obtained under section 123 to pay for particular work performed by a student under a cooperative-education program covered under this section by an agreement with the Commissioner shall be determined solely by reference to the provisions included in the agreement pursuant to section 124." (b) Section 124(b) of such Act is amended by inserting "except as otherwise provided under section 125," before "provide". WORK-STUDY PROGRAM RECONSTITUTED AS PART 0 OF TITLE Iv, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 SEC. 437. (a) The purpose of this section is to reconstitute part C of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (as amended by the foregoing sections of this Act) as part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, without substantive change. (b) (1) So much of part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (including the heading of such part) as precedes section 442 thereof is deleted (but without thereby affecting the amendments heretofore made by that part to parts C and D of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964); (2) such section 442 (as amended by this Act) and references thereto, are redesignated as section 448; (3) part C of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (as amended by the foregoing sections of this Act) is deleted from that Act (but without repeal thereof) and is inserted (as captioned) as part C in title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 immediately before the section of such title redesignated as section 448; and (4) the sections so transferred (which are numbered 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127), and internal cross-references therein to any such section, are redesignated as sections 441, 442, 443, 444. 445, 446, and 447, respectively. (c) Wherever in any law, rule, regulation, order, or agreement of the United States (including the first sentence of the section redesignated by paragraph (1) as section 448 of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965), reference is made, however styled, to part C of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, or to any section thereof, such reference is amended so as to make comparable refer ence to part C of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, or to such section of that part as redesignated herein, respectively. (d) Subject to the provisions of subsection (c), any order, rule, regulation, right, agreement, or application in effect under C of title I of the Economic Op- PAGENO="0017" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 portunity Act of 1964 immediately prior to the enactment of this Act, shall continue in effect to the same extent as if this section had not been enacted. (e) (1) The section of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 redesig- nated by this section as section 448 of that title, as amended by this Act, is fur- ther amended by deleting all that follows the first sentence of that section but without thereby affecting the effect of such deleted matter. (2) Appropriations made for carrying out part 0 of title I of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which is reconstituted by this section as part 0 of title IV of `the Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be deemed made for carrying out such part 0 of such title IV. PALT D-AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL DEFENSE STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 451. (a) Section 201 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended (1) by striking out "and" before "$225,000,000", (2) by inserting after "June 30, 1968," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for such of the five succeeding fiscal years ;" and (3) by striking out "and such sums for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969" and inserting in lieu thereof "and there are further authorized to be appropriated such sums for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974". (b) Section 202 of such Act is amended by striking out "1968" in subsections (a) and (b) and inserting in lieu thereof "1973". (c) Section 206 of such Act is amended by striking out "1972" each time it appears in subsections (a), (b), and (c) of such section, and inserting in lieu thereof "1977". MAKING 10 PER CENTUM LOAN CANCELLATION APPLICABLE TO TEACHER SERVICE FOR CERTAIN SPECIAL PROGRAMS CONDUCTED BY NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS SEC. 452. (a) So much of paragraph (3) of section 205(b) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 as precedes clause (A) thereof is amended by inserting the following immediately before "at the rate of 10 per centum": "or for comparable service as a full-time teacher in a program of special (including preschool) education or training designed to combat disadvantage, poverty, or unemployment which is conducted by such a school or institution or by another public or nonprofit agency, institution, or organization in a State,". (b) The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to teaching service performed during academic years beginning on or after the date of enactment of this Act, whether the loan was made on, before, or after such date. ENCOURAGING AVAILABILITY OF NON-FEDERAL CAPITAL FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE STUDENT LOANS BY ESTABLISHING A REVOLVING FUND FROM WHICH INSTITUTIONS MAY OBTAIN LOAN5 To CAPITALIZE STUDENT LOAN FUNDS, AND PROVIDING FOR ALLOTMENT OF FEDERAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUCH FUNDS SEc. 453. (a) (1) Section 207 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (relating to loans to institutions to help finance their student loan funds) is. amended to read as follows: "LOANS TO INSTITUTIONS; REVOLVING FUND "Loans to Institutions "SEC. 207. (a) (1) During the period of six fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, the Commissioner may make loans, from the National Defense Education Loan Fund estiblished by subsection (d), to insti- tutions of higher education to provide all or part of the capital needed by them ~or making loans to students (other than capital needed to finance the institu- tional contribution to a student loan fund established with the aid of Federal capital contributions pursuant to an agreement under section 204). Loans to stu- dents from such borrowed sums shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and limitations set forth in section 205. The requirement in section 204(2) (B) with respect to institutional contributions to student loan funds established under that section shall not apply to loans made to institutions under this section_ 80-155-67-Pt. 1-2 PAGENO="0018" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "(2) Loans to institutions under this section may be made upon such terms and conditions, consistent with applicable provisions of section 204, as the Commissioner deems appropriate, including a requirement that the proceeds of such loan be deposited by the institution in a separate student loan fund estab- lished and maintained, in accordance with regulations, solely for operations on connection therewith (or, in accordance with such regulations, in a segregated account so established and maintained within a student loan fund established pursuant to an agreement under section 204, in which event such account shall be treated as a separate fund for the purposes of this title). If the Commissioner deems it to be necessary to assure that the purposes of this section will be achieved, these terms and conditions may also include provisions making the in- stitution's obligation to the Commissioner on such a loan payable solely from such revenues or other assets or security (including collections on loans to students) as the Commissioner may approve. Such a loan shall bear interest at a rate which the Commissioner determines to be adequate to cover (A) the cost of the funds to the Treasury as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average yields of outstanding marketable obligations of the United States having maturities comparable to the maturities of loans made by the Commissioner under this section,. (B) the estimated cost of administering this section, and (C) probable losses. "PAYMENTS TO INSTITUTIONS TO COVER CERTAIN COSTS INCURRED IN MAKING STUDENT LOANS FROM DORROWED FUNDS "(b) If an institution of higher education borrows from the Commissioner from the national defense education loan fund established under subsection (ci), the Commissioner shall agree to pay to the institution (1) an amount equal to t~0 per centum of the loss to the institution from defaults on student loans made from the student loan fund (or account) established pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (a), (2) the amount by which the interest payable by the institution on the Commissioner's loan exceeds the interest received by it on student loans made from such student loan fund (or account), (3) an amount equal to so much of the expenses of the institution arising out of its operation of such student loan fund (or account) as would be allowable under paragraphs (3) (C) and (D) of section 204 if such fund (or account) were established under that section, and (4) the amount of principal which is canceled persuant to section 205(b) (3) with respect to student loans made from such student loan fund (or account). There are authorized to be appropriated without fiscal- year limitations such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this subsection. "LIMITATION ON LOANS FROM REVOLVING FUND "(c) The total of the loans made in any fiscal year from the national defense education loan fund established by subsection (ci) shall not exceed such limita- tions as may be Specified for such year in Appropriation Acts. "REVOLVING FUND "(ci) (1) There is hereby created within the Treasury a national defense education loan fund (hereafter in this section called the fund) which shall be available to the Commissioner without fiscal-year limitation as a revolving fund for the purposes of this section. A business-type budget for the fund shall be prepared, transmitted to the Congress, considered and enacted in the manner prescribed by law (sections 102, 103, and 104 of the Government Corporation control Act, 31 U.S.C. 847-849) for wholly owned Government corporations. "(2) The fund shall consist of appropriations paid into the fund pursuant to section 201, all amounts received by the Commissioner as interest payments or repayments of principal on loans, and any other moneys, property, or assets derived by him from his operations in connection with this section (other than subsection (b)), including any moneys derived directly or indirectly from the sale of assets, or beneficial interests or participations in assets, of the fund. "(3) All loans, expenses (other than normal administrative expenses), and payments pursuant to operations of the Commissioner under this section (other than subsection (b)) shall be paid from the fund, including (but not limited to) expenses and payments of the Commissioner in connection with the sale, under section 302 (c) of the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, of PAGENO="0019" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 13 participations in obligations acquired under this section. From time to time, and at least at the close of each fiscal year, the Commissioner shall pay from the fund into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts interest on the cumulative amount of appropriations paid into the fund as capital for loans under this section less than average undisbursed cash balance in the fund during the year. The rate of such interest shall be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the average market yield during the month preceding each fiscal year on outstanding Treasury obligations of maturity comparable to the average maturity of loans made from the fund. Interest payments may be deferred with approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, but any interest pay- tuents so deferred shall themselves bear interest. The Commissioner also from time to time (not less often than annually) transfer from the fund, to the credit of the appropriation (current at the time of such transfer) for salaries and ex- penses of the Office of Education, an amount that in his judgment constitutes a reasonable estimate of the normal administrative expenses of the Office incurred, or to be incurred, in connection with operations of the Commissioner under this section during the period covered by the transfer. If at any time the Commissioner determines that moneys in the funds exceed the present and any reasonably prospective future requirements of the fund, such excess may be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury." (2) Section 201 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended by striking out the last sentence and substituting therefor the following: "Sums appropriated under this section shall be available (1) in accordance with agree- ments between the Commissioner and institutions of higher education, for pay- ment of Federal capital contributions which, together with contributions from the institutions, shall be used for establishment and maintenance of student loan funds in accordance with agreements pursuant to section 204, and (2) to the extent determined by the Commissioner not to be required for the foregoing purpose, for payments into the loan fund established by section 207 (d) ." (3) Section 208 of such Act is amended by substituting "title" for "sub- section" in the parenthetical phrase. (b) (1) Section 202 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 (relating to allotments of appropriations among States), as amended by section 451 of this Act, is further amended by inserting "(for payment as Federal capital con- tributions or as loans to institutions under section 207)" after "the Commis- sioner shall lot to each State" in the first sentence of subsection (a), and by `redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c) and inserting after subsection (a) the following new subsection: "(b) Funds available in any fiscal year for payments to institutions under this title (whether as Federal capital contributions or as loans to institutions under section 207) which are in excess of the amount appropriated pursuant to section 201 for that year shall be allotted among the States in such manner as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purpose of this Act." (2) Section 203 of such Act (relating to the payment of Federal capital con- tributions to institutions), including the heading thereof, is amended to read as follows: "DIsTRIBuTIoN AMONG INSTITUTIONS OF FEDERAL CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND INSTITUTIONAL LOAN S "SEC. 203. (a) The Commissioner shall from time to time set dates by which institutions of higher education in a state must file applications for Federal capital contributions, and for loans pursuant to section 207, from the allotment of such State under section 202 ( a). In the event the total requested in `such applications (which meet the requirements established in regulations of the Commissioner) exceeds the amount of such allotment of such State available for such purpose, the total of the Federal capital contributions and loan's from such allotment to each such institution shall bear the same ratio to the amount requested in its application as the amount of such allotment available for such purpose bears to the total requested in all such applications. In the event the total requested in `such `applications which are made by institutions in a State is less than the amount of the allotment of such State available for such purpose, the Commissioner may reallot the remaining amount from time to time, on `such date or dates as the Commissioner may fix, to other States in proportion to the original allotments to such States under section 202 for such year. PAGENO="0020" 14 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "(b) Sums allotted among States pursuant to section 202(b) shall be allocatecU among institutions within States in such manner as the Commissioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this Act. "(c) The Federal capital contribution to an institution shall be paid to it' from time to time in such installments as the Commissioner determines will not result in unnecessary accumulations in the student loan fund established under its agreement under section 204 of this title." (c) (1) So much of section 206(a) of such Act as precedes paragraph (1) is amended by striking out "this title" and inserting in lieu thereof "an agreement pursuant to section 204". (2) Paragraph (1) of such section 206(a) is amended by striking out "the balance" and inserting in lieu thereof "such balance"; (3) Such section 206 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following subsection: "(d) Subsections (a) and (c) shall not apply to a separate student loan fund or account established by an institution pursuant to section 207(a) (2) of such Act with the proceeds of a loan to the institution from the national defense education loan fund, and subsection (b) shall not apply to amounts of principal or interest on student loans made from such separate student loan fund or~ account." (d) (1) The amendments made by this section shall be effective in the case of payments to student loan funds made on or after June 30, 1967, or on or after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever date is later, except that such amendments shall not be effective with respect to payments pursuant to commit- ments (made prior to en'actment of this Act) to make loans under section 207 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 as in effect prior to the enactment of this Act. (2) The Commissioner of Education is authorized, at the request of any insti- tution, to take such steps as are necessary to convert a Federal capital contribu- tion to a student loan fund of such institution, made pursuant to title II of the National Defense Education Act from funds appropriated pursuant to section 201 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, to a loan under section 201 as: amended by this Act. PART E-AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEc. 471. (a) Section 402(a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958: is amended by striking out "two Succeeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "seven succeeding fiscal years". (b) Section 403 (a) of such Act is amended by striking out "three succeeding' fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "eight succeeding fiscal years". INCREASING MAXIMUM LENGTH OF FELLOWSHIP FROM 3 TO 4 YEARS IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, AN]) REQUIRING INSTITTJTIONAR EFFORT TO ET~COURAGE RECIPIENTS. TO ENTER OR CONTINUE TEACHING SEC. 472. (a) Subsection (a) of section 402 of the National Defense Education Act Øf 1958 is amended by inserting "(1)" after "except" in the second sentence thereof, and by inserting immediately before the period at the end of such sentence the following: ", and (2) that the Commissioner may provide by regulation for thern granting of such fellowships for a period of study not to exceed one academic year (or one calendar year in the case of fellowships to which clause (1) applies) in addition to the maximum period otherwise applicable, under special circum- stances in which the purposes of this title would most effectively be served thereby". (b) The Commissioner may in his discretion increase, in `accordance with the amendment made by subsection (a), the maximum periods of fellowships awarded prior to the enactment of this Act. (c) The Second sentence of section 403(a) is amended by striking out the period at the end of clause (2) of such sentence and inserting ", and" in lieu thereof; and by adding the `following new clause: "(3) that the application contains satisfactory assurance that the insti- tution will make reasonable continuing efforts to encourage recipients of fellowships under this title, enrolled in such program, to teach or continue- to teach in institutions of higher education." PAGENO="0021" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 15 (4) The amendment made by subsection (c) of this section shall be effective `with respect to fellowships awarded on or after June 30, 1967, or on or after the date of enactment of this Act, whichever date is later. `aEQUIRING STIPENDS TO BE SET IN AN AMOUNT CONSISTENT WITH THOSE AWARDED FOR COMPABABLE FELLOWSHIPS SEc. 473. (a) Section 404(a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 404. (a) The Commissioner shall pay to persons awarded fellowships ~under this title such stipends (including such allowances for subsistence and other expenses for such persons and their dependents) as he may determine to `be consistent with prevailing practices under comparable federally supported ;programs." (b) The amount of any stipend payable with respect to a fellowship awarded `prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall not, during the period for which * such fellowship was awarded, be less wi'th respect to any year of study than the amount that would in the absence of the amendment made by subsection (a) of "this section be payable with respect to such year. P~.nT F-ADvISORY COUNCIL ON STtTDENT AID ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON ALL FINANCIAL AID TO STUDENTS; ABSORPTION OF ADVISORY COUNCILS ON INSURED LOANS SEC. 481. (a) Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by ;adding after part D the following new part: "PART E-ADvIS0RY COUNCIL ON FINANCIAL Am TO STUDENTS "SEc. 481. (a) There is established in the Office of Education an Advisory Council on Financial Aid to Students (hereafter in this section referred to as :the `Council'), consisting of the Commissioner, who shall be Chairman, and of members appointed ~y the Commissioner without regard to the civil service or classification laws. Such appointed members shall include leading authorities in the field of education, persons representing State and private nonprofit loan insur- ance programs, financial and credit institutions, and institutions of higher edu- ~cation and other eligible institutions as those terms may be variously defined in this Act, in the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, or in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. "(b) The Council shall advise the Commissioner on matters of general policy arising in the administration by the Commissioner of programs relating to finan- cial assistance to students and on evaluation of the effectiveness of these ~programs. "(c) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-time employ of `the United States shall, while attending meetings or conferences of the Council *~or otherwise engaged in the business of the Council, be entitled to receive coin- pensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100' per diem (or, if higher, the rate specified at the time of such service for grade GS-18 in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code), including traveltime, and while so serving on the business of the Council away from their homes or regular places of business `they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service. "(d) The Commissioner is authorized 1~o furnish to the Council such technical `assistance, and to make available to it such secretarial, clerical, and other assist- ance and such pertinent data available to him, as the Council may require to carry out its functions." (b) (1) Section 433 of such Act, providing for establishment of an Advisory Council on Insured Loans to Students is repealed, and sections 434 and 435 are `redesignated as sections 433 and 434, respectively. (2) Section 15 of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, `providing for establishment of an Advisory Council * on Insured Loans to Voca- tional Students is repealed, and sections 16 and 17 of such Act are redesignated as sections 15 arid 16, respectively. PAGENO="0022" 16 HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TITLE V-EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT (AMENDMENTS TO TITLE V OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1905) STATEMENT OF PURPOSE SEc. 501. It is the purpose of this title to coordinate, broaden, and strengthen programs for the training and improvement of the qualifications of teachers and other educational personnel for all levels of the American educational system so as to provide a better foundation for meeting the critical needs of the Nation for personnel in these areas. AMENDMENTS TO PART A (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF TITLE V OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1955 SEC. 502. Title V of the Higher Education t~ct of 1905 is amended by- (a) striking out "TEACHER PROGRAMS" in the heading of such title and inserting in lieu thereof "EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOP- MENT"; (~) redesignating section 502 as section 508; and (c) striking out section 501 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: sections: "STATEMENT OF PURPO5R "Ssc. 501. The purpose of this title is to improve the quality of teaching and: to help meet critical shortages of adequately trained educational personnel by (1) developing information on the actual needs for educational personnel, both present and long range, (2) providing a broad range of high quality training and retraining opportunities, responsive to changing manpower needs; (3) attracting a greater number of qualified persons into the teaching profession; (4) attract- ing persons who can stimulate creativity in the arts and other skills to under- take short-term or long-term assignments in education; and (5) helping to make educational personnel training programs more responsive to the needs of the schools and colleges. "NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT "SEC. 502. (a) There is hereby established in the Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development (hereafter in this section referred to as the `Council'), consisting of members appointed )~y the President without regard to the civil service and classification laws and, in addition, the Commissioner and one representative each from the National Science Foundation and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. The appointed members, one of whom shall be designated by the President as Chairman, shall include persons broadly representative of the fields of education, the arts, the sciences, and the humanities, and of the general public, and a majority of them shall be engaged in teaching or in the education of teachers. "()) The Council shall, in addition to performing the functions set forth in subsection (c), advise the Secretary and the Commissioner with respect to policy matters arising in the administration of this title and any other matters, relating to the purposes of this title, on which their advice may be requested. "(c) The Council shall from time to time review the operation of this title and of all other Federal programs for the training and development of educa~ tional personnel and shall evaluate their effectiveness in meeting needs for addi- tional educational personnel, and in achieving improved quality in training pro- grams as evidenced in the competency of the persons receiving such training when entering positions in the field of education. The Council shall make annual reports of its findings and recommendations (including recommendations for changes in this title and other Federal laws relating to educational personnel training) to the Secretary for transmittal to the President, who shall transmit such reports to the Congress together with his comments and recommendations. "(d) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-time employ of the United States shall, while serving on the business of the Council, be entitled to receive compensation at rates fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per day (or, if higher, the rate specified at the time of such service for grade GS-1S in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code), including traveltime, and, while so serving away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed PAGENO="0023" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 travel expenses, including per' diem in. lieu of subsistence, as authorized by' section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently. "(e) The Secretary shall make available to the Council such technical, secre- tarial, clerical, and other assistance and such pertinent data prepared by the' Department of Health, Education, and Welfare as it may require to carry out its functions. The Secretary may also assist the Council by utilizing for that purpose the services and facilities of any other agency of the Federal Government, in accordance with agreements (on a reimbursable basis `or otherwise) between him and the head of such agency. "APPRAISING EDUCATION PERSONNEL NEEDS "SEC. 503. (a) The Commissioner shall from time to time appraise the Nation's existing and future personnel needs in the field of education, including preschool programs, elementary and secondary education, vocational and technical educa- tion, adult education, and higher education, and the adequacy of the Nation's efforts to meet `these needs. In developing information relating to educational per- sonnel needs, the Commissioner shall consult with the Department of Labor, the' National Science Foundation, the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, and other appropriate public and private agencies. "(b) The Commissioner shall prepare and publish annually a .report on the education professions, in which he shall present in detail his views on the state of the education professions and the trends which he discerns with respect to the future complexion of programs of education throughout the Nation and the needs for well-educated personnel to staff such programs. The report shall indicate the Commissioner's plans concerning the allocation of Federal assistance under- this title in relation to the plans and programs of other Federal agencies. "ATTRACTING QUALIFIED PERSONS TO THE FIELD OF EDUCATION "SEC. 504. The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to, or contracts with~ State or local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, or other public `or nonprofit agencies, organizations, or institutions, or to enter into con- tracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations, for the purpose of- "(a) identifying capable youth in secondary schools who may be interested. in careers in education and encouraging them to pursue postsecondary educa- tion in preparation for such careers; "(b) publicizing available opportunities for careers in the field of educa- tion; "(c) encouraging qualified persons to enter or reenter the field of educa- tion; or "(d) encouraging artists, craftsmen, artisans, scientists, and persons from other `professions and vocations, and homemakers to undertake teaching or: related assignments on a part-time basis or for temporary periods. "CONSULTATION "EEC. 505. In the development and review of grant and contract programs under' this title the Commissioner shall consult with the National Science Foundation and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities to promote coordi- nated planning of programs to train educational personnel. "TRANSFER OF FUNDS "SEc. 506. In addition to the authority for utilization of other agencies conferred by section 803(b) of this Act, funds available to the Commissioner for grants or contracts under this title shall, with the approval of the Secretary, be available for transfer to any other Federal agency for use (in accordance with an inter- agency agreement) by such agency (alone or in combination with funds of that agency) for purposes for which such transferred funds could be otherwise expended by the Commissioner under the provisions of this title, and the Corn- missioner is likewise authorized to accept and expend funds of any other Federal agency for use under this title. PAGENO="0024" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS "SEc. 507. The Commissioner may employe experts and consultants, as author- ized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, to advise him with respect to the making of grants and contracts and the approving of programs under this title. Experts and consultants employed pursuant to this section may be compensated while so employed at rates not in excess of $100 per day (or, if higher, the rate specified at the time of such service for grade GS-48 in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code), including travel-time, and, while so serving away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, in- cluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the Government service employed intermittently." EXTENDING TEACHER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM TO INCLUDE GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR PRESCHOOL AND ADULT AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION PERSONNEL SEC. 503. (a) The heading of part C of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting "AND RELATED EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL" after "FEL- LOWSHIPS FOR TEACHERS". (b) (1) The first sentence of section 521 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (A) by striking out "elementary and secondary schools" and inserting in lieu thereof "schools", and (B) by inserting "or postsecondary vocational edu- cation" after "career in elementary or secondary education". (2) The second sentence of such section is amended by striking out "teacher education programs" and inserting in lieu thereof "programs for `the education of teachers and related educational personnel". (3) (A) So much of the third sentence of such section as precedes the first comma therein is amended to read as follows: "For the purposes of this part the term `elementary and secondary education' includes preschool and adult and vocational education, and the term `career in elementary and secondary educa- tion or postsecondary vocational education' means a career of teaching in ele- mentary or secondary schools (including teaching in preschool and adult and vocational education programs) or in postsecondary vocational schools"; (B) the words "elementary or secondray schools", the second time these words occur in such third sentence, are changed to read "such schools"; and (C) the following is inserted in such sentence before the comma after "educational media": "(in- cluding educational and instructional television and radio), child development". (c) Section 522 of such Act is amended to read as follows: "FELLOWSHIPS AUTHORIZED "SEe. 522. The Commissioner is authorized to award fellowships in accordance with the provisions of this part for graduate study leading to an advanced degree for persons who are pursuing or plan to pursue a career in elementary and secondary education or postsecondary vocational education." (d) (1) Paragraph (1) of section 523 of such Act is amended by striking out "Advisory Council on' Quality Teacher Preparation" and inserting in lieu thereof "National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development". (2) Paragraph (2) of such section is amended by inserting "or postsecondary vocational schools" after "elmentary or secondary schools"; inserting "or post- secondary vocational education" after "elementary or secondary education"; and amending the term "career in elementary and secondary education", each time such term occurs, to read "career :in elementary and secondary education or post- secondary vocational education". (e) Section 524 of such Act is amended by striking out"; GRANTS" fR the head- ing therof, by striking out the subsection designation "(a)", and by repealing subsections (b) and (c). (For substantially equivalent provisions, see `sections 531(b) and 507, respectively, of such Act as inserted therein by section 504 and 502 of this Act.) (f) Subsection (b) of section 525 is amended to read as follows: `(b) Unless in the judgment of the Commissioner a program development grant under section 531 of this title adequately covers the institution's cost of education for persons awarded fellowships in a graduate program approved under section 524, the Commissioner shall (in addition to the stipends paid to persons under subsection (a)) pay to the institution of higher education at which PAGENO="0025" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 19 such person is pursuing his course of study such amount as the Commissioner may determine to be appropriate, not to exceed the equivalent of $2,500 per academic year, but any amount charged such person for tuition and nonrefundable feea and deposits shall be deducted from the amount payable to the institution of higher education under this subsection." (g) Section 528 of such Act is amended to read as follows: "APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED "SEC. 528. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out the purposes of this part for each fiscal year ending prior to ,July 1, 1973." NEW PARTS ADDED TO TITLE V OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 SEC. 504. Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is further amended by adding the following new parts at the end thereof: "PART P-IMPROVING TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES FOil PERSONNEL SERVING IN PROGRAMS OF EDUCATION OTHER THAN HIGHER EDUCATION "PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT GRANTS "SEC. 531. (a) The Commissioner is authorized, in accordance with the provi-- sions of this section, to make grants to, or contracts with, institutions of higher education to pay all or part of the cost of projects for developing or strengthening undergraduate or graduate programs (or other programs of advanced study) which the Commissioner finds will afford substantially improved training op- portunities for persons who are pursuing or plan to pursue a career in elementary and secondary education or postsecondary vocational education (as defined in. section 521). "(b) Projects for developing or strengthening graduate programs may be ap- proved by the Commissioner under this section, either individually or in conjunc- tion with graduate programs approved for purposes of awarding fellowships under part C of this title, for such purposes as- "(1) encouraging imaginative and innovative approaches to teacher edu- cation, -including new patterns of education and new curriculums "(2) obtaining an appropriate geographical distribution of high-quality graduate programs which meet or, as a result of assistance received under this section, will be enabled to meet the requirements for approved fellow- ship programs under part C of this title; "(3) establishing and supporting for a reasonable period of time projects- for the development, of new or expanded graduate programs which provide opportunities to prepare persons to serve in school systems in nonteachiiig professional fields; or "(4) meeting other critical needs -for advanced study in the area of critical personnel training. - "(c) Projects for developing or strengthening undergraduate programs may be approved by the Commissioner under this section for such purposes as im- proving the curriculums desigiied to prepare persons- for teaching and related fields, and establishing or expanding programs for the training of teacher aids and other nonprofessional educational personnel. "PilE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING "SEC. 532. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to, or con- tracts with, institutions of higher education, State or local educational agencies, or other public or nonprofit agencies, institutions, or organizations, and to enter -into contracts with public or private agencies, institutions, or organizations (in- cluding in either case professional or scholarly associations), for carrying out programs or projects to improve the qualifications of persons who are serving or preparing to serve in education programs in elementary and secondary schools (including preschool and adult and vocational education programs) or post- secondary vocational schools or in educational or other related agencies, or in the fields of educational or instructional television or radio, or to supervise or train persons so serving. - PAGENO="0026" 20 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 "(b) Programs or projects under this section may include, among others- "(1) programs or projects to train or retrain teachers, or supervisors or trainers of teachers, in any subject generally taught in the schools, in- cluding such subjects as history, geography, economics, civics, industrial schools, including such subjects as English, reading, history, geography, economics, civics, science, mathematics, industrial arts, modern foreign languages, health, physical education, international affairs, and the arts and the humanities; "(2) programs or projects to train or retrain other educational personnel in such fields as guidance and counseling (including occupational counsel- ing), school social work, child psychology, remedial speech and reading, child development, and educational media (including educational or in- structional television or radio) "(3) programs or projects to train teacher aids and other nonprofessional educational personnel; "(4) programs or projects to provide training and preparation for per- sons participating in educational programs for children of preschool age; "(5) programs or projects to prepare teachers and other educational per- sonnel to meet the special needs of the socially, culturally, and economically disadvantaged; "(6) programs or projects to train or retrain persons engaging in pro- grams of special education for the handicapped; "(7) programs or projects to provide inservice and other training and preparation for school administrators, school board members, State educa- tional agency personnel, and persons responsible for or involved in planning or administering educational programs; and "(8) programs or projects to prepare artists, craftsmen, scientists, or persons from other professions or vocations to teach or otherwise assist in programs or projects of education on a long-term, short-term, or part- time basis. "(c) Grants or contracts under this section may provide for use of funds re- ~eived thereunder to pay the cost of- "(1) short-term or regular-session institutes or refresher courses; "(2) seminars, symposia, workshops, or conferences; or "(3) other preservice and inservice training programs or projects de- signed to improve the qualifications of persons entering or reentering the field of elementary and secondary education or postsecondary vocational education. "(d) The Commissioner may include in the terms of any grant or contract under this section provisions authorizing the payment, to persons participating in training programs supported under this section, of such stipends (including allowances for subsistence and other expenses for such persons and their de- pendents) as he may determine, which shall be consistent with prevailing prac- tices under comparable federally supported programs. "APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED "SEC. 533. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces- sary to carry out the purposes of this part for each fiscal year ending prior to ~Tu1y 1, 1973. ~`PART E-TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION PERSONNEL "PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS "SEC. 541. (a) The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to, or contracts with, institutions of higher education to pay all or part of the cost of projects for developing or improving programs which the Commissioner finds will sub- stantially improve educational opportunities for persons who have, or are pre- paring to undertake, teaching, administrative, or other educational specialist responsibilities in institutions of higher education, or in educational or other related agencies, including- "(1) projects to establish new, or improve existing, programs of ad- vanced education for prospective college teachers, with emphasis upon de- veloping the cabilities of such persons for teaching; PAGENO="0027" HIGHEE EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 21 "(2) projects for. planning changes in the curriculums of advanced-degree programs in order to meet the specific needs of particular subject-matter areas for increased numbers of qualified teachers; "(3) projects to develop or establish programs or courses designed to im- prove the administration of institutions of higher education; or "(4) preservice or inservice programs, including arrangements for short- term or regular-session institutes, refresher courses, seminars, symposia, workshops, or conferences. (b) The Commissioner is authorized to make arrangements with institutions of higher education for providing fellowships, traineeships, or internships to persons undergoing advanced education in a program assisted under this section. "STIPENDS "SEc. 542. The Commissioner may include in the terms of any arrangement with an institution of higher education under this part provisions authorizing the payment, to persons participating in training programs supported under this part, of such stipends (including allowances for subsistence and other expenses br such persons and their dependents) as he may determine, which shall be consistent with prevailing practices under comparable federally supported programs. "APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED "SEC. 543. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be nec- essary to carry out the purposes of this part for each fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1973." LIMITATION SEC. 505. The Higher Education Act of 1965 is further amended by inserting before the period at the end of section 508 (as redesignated by section 502(b) of this Act) the following words: "or training for a religious vocation or to teach theological subjects". SHORT TITLE OF TITLE v OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 SEC. 506. Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended by this Act, is further amended by adding at the end of part A thereof the following new section: "SHORT TITLE "SEC. 509. This title may be cited as the `Education Professions Development Act'." EFFECTIVE DATES SEC. 507. (a) The amendments to title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 made by the foregoing sections of this title shall be effective with respect to fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1968, except that the following amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act: (1) The redesignation of section numbers made by section 502 of this Act. (2) The repeal (by section 502(c) of this Act) of section 501 of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (which provides for an Advisory Coun- cil on Quality Teacher Preparation) and the enactment, in lieu thereof, of section 501 (Statement of Purpose) and section 502 (National Advisory Council of Education Professions Development) of such title; and the con- forming amendment of section 523(1) of such title V made by section 503(d) (1) of this Act. (3) The enactment (by section 502(c) of this Act) of section 507 of title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (relating to experts and consultants), :and the concomitant repeal (by section 503(e) of this Act) of subsection (c) of section 524 of such title V. (4) The amendments made by sections 505 and 506 of this Act. (b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude advance planning nnd dissemination of information by the Commissioner of Education with respect to amendments the effective date of which is deferred by this section. PAGENO="0028" 22 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TITLE ITI-INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS PART A-EQUIPMENT AND MArmtIALS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AMENDMENTS TO HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 601. (a) Subsection (b) of section 601 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended (1) by striking out "and" before "$60,000,000", and (2) by in- serting after "June 30, 1968," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for each of the five succeeding fiscal years,". (b) Subsection (c) of section 001 of such Act is amended by inserting after "the succeeding fiscal year," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years". (c) Section 601 of such Act is further amended by striking out subsection (d). ELIMINATION OF SUBJECT LIMITATIONS; EXTENSION OF ASSISTANCE TO GRADUATE INSTRUCTION SEc. 602. (a) Subsection (a) of section 601 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by striking out "in selected subject areas". (b) (1) Clause (A) of paragraph (2) of the second sentence of section 60~ is amended by striking out "other than" before "supplies consumed in use" and inserting in lieu thereof "except (i) laboratory or other special equipment for education in the natural or physical `sciences at the graduate level; (ii) athletic or recreational equipment; and (`iii)"; and such clause is further amended by striking out "in science, mathematics, foreign languages, history, geography,. government, English, other humanities, the arts, or education at the under- graduate level". (2) Subc,lause (i) of clause (B) of such paragraph (2) is amended by striking out "in such fields". (c) The caption of title VI of such Act is amended by striking out "IJNDER- GRADUATE". PART B-EQUIPMENT AND MATRRIAI, FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (AMENDMENTS TO TITLE III OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 621. Section 301 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended `by striking out "and" before "$110,000,000" and by inserting after "June 30, 1968," the following: and such sums as may be necessary for the next five years,". ELIMINATION OF SUBJECT LIMITATIONS; AND MERGER WITH SECTION 12 OF NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON ARTS AND HUMANITIES ACT SEC. 622. (a) (1) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 303 of the Na- tional Defense `Education Act of 1958 is amended (A) by striking out `in science, mathematics, history, civics, geography, economics, industrial `arts, modern for- eign languages, English, or reading"; (B) by inserting bef'ore "supplies con- `sumed in use" the following: "(i) athletic or recreational equipment, and (ii)", and (0) by striking out "and such equipment may, if there exists a critical need therefor in the judgment of local school authorities, `be used when available and suitable in providing education in other subject matter,". (2) Paragraph (`5) of such subsection is amended by `striking out "in the fields of science, mathematics, history, civics, geography, economics, industrial arts, modern foreign languages, English, and reading" and inserting in lieu thereof "in the subjeet~matter area's for which equipment and materials acquired under the State plan are used"; (3) The heading of title III of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended to read "FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR STRENGTHENING INSTRUOTION IN AOAD'EMIO SUBJECTS". (4) There `is a'd'ded at the end of title III of such Act the following new section: "LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS UNDER THI5 TITLE "SEC. 306. No grant or loan may be made under this title for equipment or mate- rials to `be used for `sectarian instruction or religious worship." PAGENO="0029" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 23 (b) Section 12 of the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 is repealed, and sections 1 and 14 of such Act are redesignated as sections 12 and 13, respectively. (c) The amendments made by this section shall be applicable with respect to appropriations for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967. PROVISION FOB WITHIN-STATE EQUALIZATION IN STATE-IMPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION OF PROJECT APPLICANTS SEc. 623. Subsection (a) of section 303 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is further amended by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and by inserting at the end of such subsection the following new paragraph: "(6) sets forth any requirements imposed upon applicants for financial participation in projects assisted under this title, including any provision for taking Into account, in such requirements, the resources available to any applicant for such participation relative to the resources for participation available to all other applicants ;". PAYMENT OF STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES OUT OF PROJECT FENDS IN LIEU OF SEPARATE FUNDING SEC. 624. Effective with respect to fiscal years beginning after June 30, 19d8, title III of such Act is further amended as follows: (a) Paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of section 303 (as amended by section 622 of this Act) is further amended by striking out "and" before "(B)" and by inserting `the following before the semicolon at the end thereof: ", and (C) administration of the State plan, except that the amount used for administra- tion of the State plan for any year shall not exceed an amount equal to 3 per centum of `the amount paid to the State under this title for that year, or $50,000, whichever is greater". (b) (1) Paragraph (5) of such section 303(a), the second sentence of section 301, `subsection (b) of `section 302, `and subsection (b) of section 304 are repealed. (2) Section 302 is amended by striking out "the first sentence of" in subsection (a) (1) ; striking out "or (b)" in the first sentence of subsection (c) ; striking out "subsection (a) and (b)" in the same sentence of such subsection and in- serting in lieu thereof "subsection (a)"; striking out "or (b)" in the second sentence of such subsection; and redesignating such subsection (c) as subsection (b), and references elsewhere to such subsection (c) are redesignated accord- ingly. (3) Subsection (a) of section 304, and references thereto, are redesignated a,s section 304; and there is deleted from section 304 the obsolete phrase "as provided in paragraph (4) of section 302(a) of this title". (4) Section 304 is further amended (A) by striking out "for projects for acquisition of equipment and minor remodeling referred to in paragraph (1) of section 303(a) which are carried out", and (B) by inserting the following after "except that": "(1) such payments with respect to expenditures for admin- istration of the State plan shall not exceed the limitation established by para- graph (1) (C) of section 303 and (2)". (5) Paragraph (6) of section 303(a), as added by section 623 of this Act, is redesignated as paragraph (5). PRIVATE SCHOOLS: AUTHORIZING LESS THAN MAXIMUM SET-ASIDE FOR LOAN; REPEAL- ING LOAN ALLOTMENT FORMULA; AND' AUTHORIZING LOANS TO AMERICAN-SPONSORED SCHOOLS SERVING AMERICAN CHILDREN ABROAD SEC. 625. (a) Paragraph (1) of section 302(a) of the National Defense Edu- cation Act of 1958 is amended by inserting "not in exce~s of" before "12 per centum". (b) (1) Section 305 of such Act of 1958 is amended (1) `by striking out sub- section (a) (including the section designation preceding it), (2) by striking out so much of subsection (b) (including the subsection designation) as precedes clause (1) of the second sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "SEc. 305. From the sums reserved for each fiscal year for the purposes of this section under the provisions of section 302(a), the Commissioner is author- ized to make loans to private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools in any PAGENO="0030" 24 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 State, and to private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools outside of the United States that the Commissioner determine to be founded or sponsored by citizens of the United States and serving primarily children of American citizens. Any such loan shall be made only for the purposes for which payments to State educational agencies are authorized under the first sentence of section 301, and-". (2) Clause (3) of such second sentence is amended by striking out "the current average yield on all outstanding marketable obligations of the United States" and inserting in lieu thereof "the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with redemption periods to maturity comparable to the average maturities of such loans". (c) The amendments made by this section shall be effective with respect to fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967. TITLE VII-GUIDANCE, COUNSELING, AND TESTING (AMENDMENTS TO PART A OF TITLE V OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. `701. (a) Section 501 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended by striking out "and" before "$30,000,000" and by inserting after "two succeeding fiscal years," the following: "and such sums as may be necessary for the next five fiscal years,". (b) (1) Subsection (a) of section 504 of such Act is amended by striking out' "eight succeeding fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "thirteen succeeding fiscal years". (2) Subsection (b) of such section is amended by striking out "nine succeeding~ fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "fourteen succeeding fiscal years". TITLE Vill-LANGUAGE DEVELOpMENT (AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VI; OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958) EXTENSION OF PROGRAM SEC. 801. (a) Subsections (a) and (b) of section 601 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 are each amended by striking out "1968" and inserting in lieu thereof "1969". (b) Section 603 of such Act is amended by striking out "and" before "$18,000,- 000" and by inserting after "1968," the following: "and such sum,s as may be necessary for the next succeeding fiscal year". TITLE IX-AMENDMENTS TO TITLE VIII (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF HIGHER EDUOATION ACT OF 1958 AND TO TITLE X (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GRADUATE EDUCATION; ABOLITION OF" HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEC. 901. (a) The Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by adding after' Section 804 the following new section: "ADVISORY COUNCIL ON GRADUATE EDUCATION "SEC. 805. (a) There is hereby established in the Office of Education an Advisory~ Council on Graduate Education (hereafter in thi,s section referred to as the `Council'), consisting of the Commissioner, who shall be Chairman, of one repre- ~entative each from the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office~ of the President, the National Sience Foundation, and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, and of members appointed by the Commissioner without regard to civil service or classification laws. Such appointed members shall be selected from among leading authorities in the field of education. "(`b) The `Council `shall advise the Commissioner on matters of general policy arising in the administration by the Commissioner of progran~s relating to grad- uate education. "(c) Members of the Council who are not in the regular full-time employ of the United States shall, while attending meetings or conferences of the Council PAGENO="0031" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 25 or otherwise engaged in the business of the Council, be entitled to receive com- pensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but not exceeding $100 per diem (or, if higher, the rate specified at the time of such service for grade GS-18 in section 5332 of title 5, United States Code), including travel time, and while so serving on the business of the Council away from their homes or regular places of busi- ness, they may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsist- ence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons employed intermittently in the Government service. "(d) The Commissioner is authorized to furnish to the Council such technical assistance, and to make available to it such secretarial, clerical, and other as- sistance and such pertinent data available to him, as the Council may require to carry out its functions." (b) (1) Section 203 of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 is repealed. (2) Paragaph (1) of section 202(c) of such Act is amended to read as follows: "(1) The Commissioner shall not approve any application for a grant under this title until he has obtained the advice and recommendations of a panel of specialists who are not employees of the Federal Government and who are competent to evaluate such applications." (c) This section shall become effective on July 1, 1968. CONFORMING DEFINITION OF INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN HIGHER EDUCA- TION ACT TO OTHER DEFINITIONS USED IN THE ACT AND NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCA- TION ACT SEC. 902. (a) Paragraph (a) of section 801 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is amended by inserting after "if not so aceredited," the following: "(A) is an institution with respect to which the Commissioner has determined that there is satisfactory assurance, considering the resources available to the institution, the period of time, if any, during which it has operated, the effort it is making to meet accreditation standards, and the purpose for which this determination is being made, that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time, or (B) ". (b) The second sentence of such paragraph (a) is amended by striking out "Such term also includes any business school or technical institution" and in- serting in lieu thereof "Such term also includes any school which provides not less than a one-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and". PROVISION IN NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT FOR THE TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS, FOR SCHOOLS OF DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR FOR INDIAN CHILDREN, AND FOR OVERSEAS DEPENDENTS SCHOOLS OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SEC. 903. (a) Section 1008 of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended to read as follows: "SEC. 1008. The amounts reserved by the Commissioner under sections 302 and 502 shall be allotted among- "(A) Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands according to their respective needs for the type of assistance furnished under the part or title in which the section appears, and "(B) (i) the Secretary of the Interior according to the need for such assistance in order to effectuate the purposes of such part or title in schools operated for Indian children by the Department of the Interior, and (ii) the Secretary of Defense according to the need for Such assistance in order to effectuate the purposes of such part or title in the overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense. The terms upon which payments for such purpose shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Defense shall be determined pursuant to such criteria as the Commis- sioner determines will best carry out the purposes of this title." (b) Section 302 (a) (1), 302(b), and 502 (a) are amended by striking out "2 per centum" and inserting in lieu thereof "3 per centum". (c) The amendments made by this section shall be effective with respect to fiscal years ending after June 30, 1967. PAGENO="0032" 26 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 `TITLE X-AMENDMENTS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT OF 1963 ADJUSTMENT OF INTEREST RATE ON LOANS SEc. 1001. (a) Subsection (b) of section 303 of such Act is amended to read ~as follows: "(b) A loan pursuant to this title shall be secured in such manner, and shall be repaid within such period not exceeding 50 years, as may be determined by the Commissioner; and shall bear interest at a per annum rate that is not less than (1) a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury taki'ng into consideration ~the current average market yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with redemption periods to maturity comparable to the average maturities of such loans, adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum, less (2) not to exceed a rate of 1 per centum per annum as determined by the Commissioner." (b) This section shall apply to all loans approved, or for which a commit- ment is made, on or after the date of enactment of this Act. EXTENDING AUTHORIZATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE IN MAJOR DISASTER AREAS SEC. 1002. Subsection (a) of section 408 of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, as added by section 7 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1966, is amended `by striking out "July 1, 1967," and inserting in lieu thereof "July 1, 1972,". Mrs. GREEN. We have asked the Commissioner and Dr. Peter Muir- head to return tomorrow for further questioning. There will not be any meeting of the subcommittee this afternoon or tomorrow after- noon. The hearings will continue for 4 days, and on Friday the sub- committee is going to New York for the purpose of getting some firsthand information about matters that are covered in the Higher Education Act and also visiting some of the schools that are in seminar with one of the colleges there. So this morning without any further delay, Mr. Secretary, may I ex- press on `behalf of the subcommittee our appreciation for your com- ing to the committee this morning and giving us the benefit of your counsel and comments on the legislation `before us. Also, the same to all of the gentlemen who are with you. We will call on ~ou first, Mr. Secretary, and then the Commissioner. STATEMENT OF HON. 3~OHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY, U.S. D~E- PARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOM- PANIED BY RALPH K. HUITT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION; HAROLD HOWE II, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCA- `TION; PETER P. MUIRREAD, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; AND `SAMUEL HALPERIN, DEPUTY ASSIST- ANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION Secretary GARDNER. Madam Chairman and members of the `subcom- mittee, the record of the Congress in dealing with higher education is a distinguished one, beginning with the first Morrill Act of 1862. In recent years `this subcommittee ha's added luster to that legislative tradition. In that the 1967 Higher Education Amendments propose `to renew and refine several successful elements of existing legislation, `they carry on the `tradition. In that they seek to provide a broader and more flexible base for the training of educational personnel, they may PAGENO="0033" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 27 represent the beginning of a new era of Federal assistance for our colleges and universities. The legislation under consideration (IELR. 6232 and 11.11. 6265) would extend three important laws: the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Voca- tional Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965. It would also create a new and comprehensive authority for the training of all types of educa- tional personnel-the Education Professions Act. THE NEED TO CONSOLIDATE The Federal Government has historically viewed higher education as an instrument of national policy. Most of the resulting legislation has been designed to meet national needs at one point in time and, thus, is highly specific in nature. This legislation has served its pur- poses well and has allowed a large number of our colleges and uni- versities to do things that they wanted to do at the same time that they were carrying out critical national objectives. But this approach to Federal support is no longer sufficient. The conditions of our time demand that we move toward a new conception of our purposes. Higher education is no longer important only for specific categories of people or only for specific national purposes. More than in any other place or at any other time in history our citizens and our society depend upon the general vitality of our institutions of higher learn- ing. We are not recommending general aid to higher education. We be- lieve that Congress and the executive branch have a valid role in identifying areas of emphasis that accord~ in the broadest sense, with the interests of the society as a whole. But many of our present higher education programs contain legis- lated categories which are too narrowly defined to allow colleges and universities to derive maximum benefit from them. Moreover, the specific nature of some Federal aid categories often operates subtly to redirect and reorient the programs of a college or university in directions which are inconsistent with the institution's purposes. A possible solution to these problems is to coordinate and consoli- date the Federal resources available to colleges and universities and make the availabilit~r of those resources more timely and dependable. We need to seek solutions which, while consistent with national in- terest.s, simultaneously restructure existing programs to allow local institutions more decisionmaking autonomy. We believe that the leg- islation under consideration here today is a first step toward that restructuring. The essence of the proposed amendments can be summarized in three words: "co-ordination," "consolidation," and "flexibility." The proposed law would coordinate similar Federal assistance programs; consolidate programs having related intentions; and add flexibility to existing program authority. I do not say that our bill goes as far as some might wish; but it is a worthwhile addition. It is a worthwhile direction in which to move. Let inc give you a few examples of what I mean: We propose to eliminate the subject matter limitations on school and college equip- 80-155-07-pt. 1-3 PAGENO="0034" 28 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ment programs. This will give institutions greater freedom in meeting their equipment needs. We are proposing a more flexible and coordinated approach to the training of educational personnel under the Education Professions Act. We are propo'sing amendments to the insured loan programs for college and vocational students in order to provide greater coordiiia- tion and more effective administration. We are proposing a more rational system of advisory committees to assist the Office of Education in carrying out its mission. WTe believe that reducing the number of overlapping advisory groups and broad- ening the authority of the remaining ones will considerably strengthen the voice of institutions of higher education in the development of Federal higher education policy. We are not requesting that certain educational statutes be extended when newer and broader authorities will do the job as well. For example, the educational media research authority under NDEA need not be extended. `We believe that these activities are more logi- cally funded under the broad authority of the Co-operative Research Act. There is an additional facet of the pending legislation which de- serves highlighting: the early extension of expiring legislation. The subcommittee is familiar with the difficulties our colleges and uni- versities have in coordinating institutional planning schedules with the authorization and appropriations timetables of the Federal Gov- ernment. All too often, programs are not enacted or funds are not made available until well after necessary plans for the coming school year have been completed. By extending legislation in the fiscal year prior to its expiration, administrators in colleges and universities and in the Office of Education would have more time for effective planning. It is our intention to propose early extension for all legislative pro- grams in the Department where such a policy would be in the interest of better State and local planning. It is our hope not only to make Federal resources available, but also to make them more dependable and timely. I would now like to discuss the Education Professions Act-the amendments contained in title V of the Higher Education Act. The Federal Government has an admirable record of being responsive to the manpower needs of education. But the recent increases in school en- rollments and the expansion of Federal educational programs have demonstrated that existing Federal training authorities are inadequate. Present training programs are not capable of encouraging either the numbers, kinds, or quality of people needed to staff this Nation's educational programs. Increased understanding of the educational process has led to new categories of educational personnel. For example, the role of the class- room teacher is undergoing revision and an emphasis is now being placed upon new categories of support staff; teacher aides, teaching assistants, and so on. In addition, new curriculums are being developed which give in- creased emphasis to the social and behavioral sciences. This has re- sulted in the need for increased numbers of teachers trained in these PAGENO="0035" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 29 disciplines. Also, we have come to understand better the vital edu- cational role played by school administrators and school board mem- bers and now realize that we must. pay more attention to their training and orientation. However, not only have educational personnel needs changed, but also there is every indication that they will change even more in the future. What passes for adequate training today may well prove obsolete within 5 years or a decade. The Education Professions Act calls for a more systematic approach to meeting the staffing needs of our schools and colleges. To accomplish this will require a degree of flexibility not now available. It will re- quire that categorical legislation specifying types of courses, levels of instruction or target groups give way to broader and more flexible authority that can be immediately responsible to emerging needs. The act would direct the Commissioner to conduct both long- and short-range forecasts of manpower needs for all categories of educa- tional personnel. He would subsequently have the authority to plan and establish appropriate training programs. The Commissioner's training plans would be subject to annual review by Congress and the guidance of a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development. Also, the Commissioner would be expected to consult regularly with the Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, and the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities. With this broader legislation- We could move quickly to meet heavy new demands such as the current need for preschool, adult education, and junior college personnel; We could assure better prepared teachers with more relevant training to attack the problems of vocational education; We could develop a more ample supply of faculty in fields out- side of presently authorized categories; for example, business education and sociology; We could build an expertise into the backgrounds of school board members and school and college administrators in order to enable them to discharge their complex responsibilities more competently; MTe could strengthen the auxiliary staffs of schools: librarians, nurses, school psychologists, et cetera; We could experiment with new~ ways of structurlng teaching tasks, relieving teachers of extraneous duties which diminish their professional roles; We would be able to retrain teachers in surplus subject matter fi&ds to teach in shortage areas. I believe this legislation is essential if we are to reinforce the base of talented educational personnel. Technological developments may come to play a significant role in the education process, but they will not replace human intellectual and social resources. Finally, I would like to reemphasize the significance of the Teachers Corps as a part of the Nation's arsenal in the war against illiteracy and educational deprivation. Let me comment on one or two charac- teristics that are essential to its effectiveness as an instrument for attracting talented volunteers into teaching. PAGENO="0036" 30 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 One of those characteristics is national recruitment. There cannot be any serious question that it has been possible through nationwide recruitment to attract young men and women who would never have been reached through local recruitment efforts. However, since there has been some tendency to suppose that na- tional recruitment means wholly centralized recruitment, let me describe the process by which the selection of Teachers Corps members will actually be carried out. There is a small staff in the Office of Edu- cation which services the Teachers Corps and acts as a clearing house for initial processing of applications, but the primary selection job is not done in Washington. During the coming year, the Teachers Corps will use the present teacher interns to recruit and interview the next group of volunteers. In the final analysis, selection of the most promising of the applicants is made by the institutions of higher education providing the training and the educational agencies in the States and localities where the corpsmen will serve. Another unique characteristic of the Teachers Corps is the espirt which it appears to engender. The "team" spirit which pervades the Teachers Corps is a strong source of encouragement and support to these young college graduates as `they go about the difficult tasks for which they volunteered. Moreover, this spirit appears to be contagious and to infect the other teachers with whom corpsmen conic in contact. This spirit is a priceless commodity. It cannot be purchased; it should not be allowed to wither. In summary, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967 are signifi- cant additions to and refinements of existing legislation. The pro- grams contained in this legislation do not call for dramatic new levels of funding, but they do promise more effective use of existing authori- zations. They do not in every instance possess the glamour of inno- vation, but they do promise the benefits of consolidation. They are most worthy of your consideration, and I urge their approval by this sub- committee and the Congress. I apreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning, and I will be very happy to try to answer your questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. In order to save your time, if the Commissioner agrees, I think we will wait and hear from you after the questions have been asked of the Secretary so as to perhaps let him go to other demands on his time. Congressman Gibbons, any questions? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I have been worried about some aspects of the work-study program that originally came about on the poverty program and was transferred over to you a couple of years ago. It seems to me we failed to give adequate consideration to the change when we made it a couple of years ago. When the program was first instituted, it was designed almost exclu- sively for those who were in a poverty category to enable them to stay in school. I now notice Congress made certain changes in transferring the program exclusively over to your control. I notice institutions of higher education are using this as just almost a fellowship program for all types of students who happen just to walk in and say, "1 am in need." PAGENO="0037" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1067 31 Now, I am not sure that you are familiar with what I am talking about. Perhaps some of the people who are here with you would like to comment on it, but what has been the change in emphasis or what has been the result in this change in emphasis in the program ? Have we really changed it to a fellowship program with little Federal direction? Secretary GARDNER. May I make a general comment and then ask Harold Howe to comment on the development that yoti describe. I think there has been some movement in that direction, and Mr. Howe can comment on it extensively. I would like to say that I believe the work-study principle is valid for all students at all income levels and ought eventually to be extended considerably beyond the poverty levels, but it seems to me that it has a valid educational coiisequence quite aside from any consequences with respect to the student's eco- nomic circumstances. Harold, would youlike to comment? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Gibbons, there still remains in the administration of the college work-study program a needs tests. It is not quite as sharp as when the program was originally conceived as strictly a. poverty program. It is administered in the same way that NDEA loans are administered and, as you are aware, I am sure, the colleges typically use their eligibility for NDEA loans for students who are in need. The very high proportion of students eligible for NDEA loans falls below the $6,000 family income level. So that. it is going primarily to students, in fact almost entirely to students who have a need to pa.y for their higher education, and the way the colleges administer it, it becomes a part of a full package. A student who receives an NDEA loan will, in all likelihood, fill out a portion of his financial needs to pay for college expenses with a piece of work-study funding. A student who comes from an extremely poor family will add to that an oppo~tunity grant under the opportunity grant leg1slation, with which you are familiar also, I am sure. Mr. GIBBONS. It seems to me, and I am not sure this is bad, in some of the programs I have run into, these people are actually sort of being used as student assistants or repaying some of the professors' salaries out of the work-study program. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. HOWE. I don't think we are paying for professors' salaries out of the work-tudy program. We are allowing colleges and universities to employ undergraduates, for example. Mr. GIBBONS. And graduates? Mr. HOWE. Yes, and graduates, to do things that are important to the institution and for which the institution would have to pay in order to get services performed. Mr. GIBBONS. Carrying on instruction in classrooms; isn't that right? Mr. Munrn~&D. Yes, it is quite possible, Mr. Gibbons, that graduate students might be working . as lab assistants, giving some assistance to staff members and in carrying out instructions, but again I think it was clearly the intent of the program that it would provide work- study opportunities that were valuable both to the students and to the institution. There is a whole.. wide range of work-study opportunities in the program, both on campus and off campus. Mr. GIBBONS. I don't want to take any more of the Secretary's time on this question, so I will yield the rest of my time, Madam Chairman, PAGENO="0038" 32 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 but when we get into that, as IL say, I am not necessarily opposed to what we are doing bult trying to understand how far we are going in this direction under the work-study program. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. I would like to say we will operate under a 10-minute time limit, not the usual 5 minutes, to see how we come out. Congressman Quie. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Secretary, do we need `to subsidize the guaranteed- loan program to such a high income as $15,000? Wouldn't it be pos- sible to run that program without even subsidizing the interest? Secretary GARDNER. Well, this tends to vary with the year and economic conditions at the time. During this past year it has not been very easy for students. Thus, I think it was useful to subsidize them. I would like to hear Harold Howe's comment on that. Mr. QUIE. I thought the intention of the guarantee program was to phase out the NDEA loans. I think we have passed that crossroad. You realize the interest of Congress to retain that loan program. I was wondering, then, why higher income people needed the guarantee. Mr. HowE. Mr. Quie, I think we have all come to recognize there needs to be in places a comprehensive package of student aids ranging from scholarship grants to various types of loans to work-study enter- prises. I think the guaranteed-loan program performs the particular function of addressing itself to the problem of the middle-income family confronting high college expenses. This is a real problem. As tuitions have moved up, particularly in private institutions, the person in the $8,000 or $10,000 or $12,000 income bracket confront- ing education costs of, say, $2,500 when you put tuition beside residen- tial cost in a college, has an unmanageable situation to handle. So it seems to me there is some rationale for a relatively high limit for the benefit of middle-income people. It seems to me we could argue about exactly where that line ought to be drawn, but I think it needs to be a reasonably high line to handle a very real problem. Mr. QrnE. I guess, well, we won't argue this any more. I can under- stand the reason for helping with a loan and guaranteeing the loan so he can secure it, but it still bothers me why we have to have the sub- sidization of the interest, because it is pretty big subsidization now. Mr. HowE. It is ~ percent. Mr. Qum. Right; the way the level of interest rates are at the pres- ent time. You mentioned on page 7, "The act would direct the Commissioner to conduct `both long- and short-range forecasts of manpower needs * * **~~ Why `does the Commissioner need direction from Con- gress to do that? Secretary GARDNER. I don't think he does. Mr. QUIE. Why has it not been done already? Secretary GARDNER. In the last 10 years we have seen a series of man- power needs but we have tended to do it in piecemeal fashion. The whole movement of the Education Professions Act is to examine all educational manpower in its totality. The purpose of putting it in the act was simply to make it a matter of record and make it a requirement that we place these appraisals before you. It seems to us that as we move toward broader categories we should he more punctilious in our reporting to you as to what we think the requirements are. PAGENO="0039" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 19.67 33 Mr. QrnE. Well, it seemed to me the Office of Education should have had, or they have always had the responsibility of securing this kind of information for the educational community. I am glad you are going to do it. It seemed peculiar you had to place it in the act in order to get it done. I mean Commissioner Howe, I think, would desire to do it without the Congress directing him to. It seems to me kind of peculiar you have to tell the Congress to direct him to do something he had authority to do all along himself. Couldn't you have sent out a memo? Secretary GARDNER. Well, we will do it anyway, but placing it in the act makes it a more formal matter of doing it at your request and makes it our responsibility to report to you. Now, our whole sophistication about manpower needs and the anal- ysis of manpower needs has been growing every year. This is just a part of what we are going through in health and in every other profes- sional field. In every professional field, you can look back a few years and find a considerable neglect of this kind of analysis. Mrs. GREEN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. As I recall in the bill you also provided coordination with the three agencies-the Department of Labor, National Science Foundation, and National Foundation of Arts and Humanities. In order to have a more orderly procedure, wouldn't it be desirable to have legislation for this purpose, as the Congressman says, to communicate between the two of you, but the congressional act might also facilitate coordination among the four agencies? Secretary GARDNER. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. This seems to me desirable if we are going to have it coordinated. Mr. QIJIE. I imagine since they are all appointed by the same ad- ministration, they should be working close together. Let me ask another question which I have here. You say in the coming year the Teachers Corps will use the present teacher interns to recruit and interview the next group of volunteers. What are they going to do-go out on their recruitment trips, and will they come to Washington and interview all of those? Secretary GARDNER. I should have said that they will assist in re- cruiting and interviewing, and that we will use them to the extent feasible. Mr. QUIE. How will they go out and recruit? Will you have a recruit- ment office or something? Secretary GARDNER. Well, I don't know the details of how they will be used. Obviously they would only be used within the area in which they are located. Mr. HOWE. Perhaps I could help on this, Mr. Quie. We plan to pro- vide a brief training opportunity for selected members of the Teachers Corps to get them ready to conduct recruiting. Then when we have some indications from the Congress that this is a program that will continue, they will visit college and university campuses and make themselves available. Mr. QtTIE. Who is going to visit all of the school systems around the country? Is Dick Graham going to? PAGENO="0040" 34 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HOWE. They will be brought together in regional groupings for training purposes to get them ready to do this recruiting work. They will be `trained for recruiting work and making brief visits to college and university campuses where they will set U~ a desk and have the forms for application; that way, they will be able to explain the kinds of experiences and opportunities that are involved in the Teachers Corps. We think that some of the best people to acquaint the students at colleges and universities about the Teachers Corps are those actually in it; they will be the consultants and guidance People who tell the stu- dents about the opportunities. Mr. QtTIE. Will they be given a~l,eave of absence from their school and training programs in order to do this? Mr. HOWE. For a brief period. Mr. QUIE. How long a period will they spend in training and in recruiting? Mr. How~. I will have to ask Mr. Graham. Mr. GRAHAM. The plan is this: The school systems and the universi- ties have now designated the people they want to represent them to go out to local campuses `to recruit. The intent is that a person who has had some experience in recruiting on college campuses will meet with these people over a weekend on a Saturday or Sunday as s'oon as we have the go-ahead. They will go out and people have volunteered on most of these to do this work. Then these people who have been des- ignated and trained not just `by the Teachers Corps but by their local school systems to look for the kind of people they want in that school system and by the local universities for the kind's of person they want for admittance to graduate programs and they will then go to colleges and universities in that immediate area. Mr. HowE. How long will they spend in the recruitment? Mr. GRAHAM. They do it in many cases on weekends and some in afternoon w'ork and some in evening work in major cities, primarily being that, `and if there is a schoolday that they may be absent, then they will take that, too. This will be at the option of the local school system and universities. If they feel important enough to release these people for a day to recruit the kind of persons they want then they will give them that time. It is entirely at their option. Mr. HOWE. Will you pay their travel and per diem to do it? Mr. GRAHAM. What we would like to do, where they must go 20 or 30 miles away, is to pay them without actual compensation basis, that is to say, to pay their travel expense and any other cost. So far we have not been able to give them assurances. We said you are going to do it at your own expense until we can tell you otherwise. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Hathaway. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I was late and missed your statement. I wonder what recommendations you are making with respect to the guaranteed loan program? Secretary GARDNER. Most of our recommendations are technical, Mr. Hathaway. I would be glad to have Peter Muirhead describe them in detail if you would like. Mr. HATHAWAY. No, I am not concerned with the technical aspects of the program at this time but with its adequacy at least in my own PAGENO="0041" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 35 State. In Maine, we passed an emergency appropriation of $50,000 and are now considering an appropriation of $500,000 for the coming fall, to meet the increased demand in student loans. Have you considered an additional authorization to meet the in- creased demand? Secretary GARDNER. No, sir; we have not, not this year. Mr. HATHAWAY. Is it your belief that although the program is inadequately funded, the States should provide for the difference be- tween the Federal funding and the student demands? Secretary GARDNER. Well, this is the kind of decision we had to make in all of our budget categories and it was a series of judgments as to how much money we could allocate each of the things we are try- ing to do. We did not seek additional authorization. Mr. HATHAWAY. Do you have figures, national figures, on how much the demand exceeded the supply of guaranteed loan money? Mr. MUIRHEAD. We do. The guaranteed loan program as you, of course, know, Congressman Hathaway, has gotten off to a rather halting start for a great many reasons. Nevertheless, it has, and will have, by the end of the year, provided loans in the neighborhood of $400 million to about 460,000 students, and for a program which started when the interest rates were as dif- ficult as it was, it is a rather good achievement. We do not have figures to indicate how many students have been turned down. We do have projected figures for the program level next year. It is our hope it will reach the level next year, reaching 750,000 student.s as compared with 460,000 this year. To return to your question as to the advance funds for the States, as you know, we did provide during the first 2 years of the program, and it has been enacted for 2 years but in operation 1 year, a total of $17.5 million which was intended to get the States started. There are a number of States, the State of Maine being one, in which they used up the guaranteed funds and some way must be found to either broaden that guarantee fund or to put into operation the provision in the act which the Congress passed which says that in the event that a State program cannot provide it, there will be a Federal guarantee program. We are considering that now, as to whether or not we will have to do that. It has been our thought that we would only put the Federal program into operation as a very last resort. Mr. 1-TATTIAWAY. Thank you, sir. Now, a question about the work-study program, I noticed you recom- mend that instead of the Federal share being decreased to 75 percent that it be decreased to 80 percent. At the present time, it is 90 percent. In the field hearings we were informed by many of the colleges that if it went below 90 percent they would have to curtail work-study programs considerably. Did you consider maintaining the 90 percent? Mr. MITIRHEAD. A good deal of thought went into maintaining it at 90 percent when scheduled under the law to change it to 75 as of August, I think. We finally have a compromise position, as you see before you, rather than having a 75 percent, 75-25 percent matching, it is 80-20, and we are hoping it is helpful. PAGENO="0042" 36 HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HATHAWAY. I would think that 85 percent would be consider- ably more helpful; 80 percent is pretty close to 75 percent which the colleges consider extremely detrimental to them. One more question: I have a suggestion as to teacher recruitment, and I would like the Secretary to comment on it at this time, and to submit a report after he studied it. The suggestion is that we have a pilot program to recruit various people who have the requisite to teach but are engaged in some other business, such as lawyers, doctors, or businessmen who could probably give a day or half a day a week to teach in the secondary grades. Per- haps this suggestion has already been made, but I would appreciate your comments on an idea. Secretary GARDNER. This is the kind of thing that has been discus- sed for a number of years and is being tried in a number of parts of the country by specific school districts. We will be able to support this kind of program under the new Education Professions Act, and it is a perfectly valid and useful additional ingredient in our whole effort to get more teachers. Mr. HATHAWAY. There is no real need of our legislating a pilot program for this? You can already do it? Secretary GARDNER. Yes, sir. Under the new Education Profes- sions Act. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Scherle. Mr. SCHERLE. With your permission, I would like to yield my time to Mr. Quie. Mr. Qu~. Mr. Secretary, I would like to find out about the National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development. I don't see anything on how large it will be. How large do you expect the Advisory Council to be? Secretary GARDNER. I don't know whether we even have thought it through. Will you choose a figure? Mr. HOWE. I would assume about the same size as most of the advisory groups we have, which tends to range from 10 to 18. This kind of a group certainly is not a large representative group of 50 people. It is a working group to give policy advice in major policy areas. Mr. Qur~. How often will they be meeting? Mr. HOWE. I would assume this would be the kind of group that would meet three to four times a year, as many of our major advisory groups do. I guess in the first year when implementing the new legis- lation more frequent meetings would be necessary or perhaps the meetings would go 2 or 3 days. Mr. QUTE. Usually when they get going, they only meet four times a year, amounting to a total of only 2 or 3 days a year? Will these four meetings be 1-day sessions? Mr. HOWE. Most of them will be full daily meetings and some take a 2-day period. The advisory group on research, research advisory council met last weekend for 2 days. The laboratory advisory group recently met for 2 days. A good many will meet a single day. Good staff work makes it possible to do the job in a day's time. PAGENO="0043" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 37 Mr. Quin. Which means that the staff has done the work and the council approves what the staff has done? Mr. HowE. No, sir. But what the staff does is to redefine the issues so they can be handled efficiently. This is the normal way that any board of trustees operates. Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Quie, I think this council would have a heavier assignment than most of our advisory councils. The fact that it is replacing about five existing councils and the newness of this kind of total appraisal of educational manpower, I think, will require longer rather than shorter meetings. Mr. QUIE. If it was a working council which developed the thoughts and the programs themselves I think it would have greater merit. I feel about many councils they are pretty much rubberstamp on the thinking beforehand. Secretary GARDNER. My experience has been they cover the whole spectrum. Mr. QUIE. That might be my criticism of the councils. Secretary GARDNER. Some are rubberstamps and some really are initiators of policy; it depends on the council, its chairman, and staff, how the agency uses them, and so forth. Mr. QuiE. I want to say, though, and this is no criticism of the council, of you or Commissioner Howe, that I have observed coun- cils in the Department of Agriculture for sometime. I will yield to the chairman, if they want. Mrs. GREEN. As I understand it, the Advisory Council on Teacher Quality Preparation has not been appointed. Is it your intention to phase that out with the establishment of the new advisory council? Secretary GARDNER. That is one that would be phased out. Mrs. GREEN. Are there others that are going to be phased out? Secretary GARDNER~ Yes. We have four others, I believeS Mrs. GREEN. We can get that. There are three new advisory committees for which this bill alone provides with a commissioner to act as chairman, I believe, on two. Would you have any recommendation to the committee on taking leg- islative action to decrease the number of advisory committees across the spectrum in other bills and would the Commissioner like to be relieved of the burden. How many advisory committees do you serve as chairman of? Mr. HOWE. I think I am chairman of 12 or 13. We have about 20 or 25 in the Office of Education. The legislation, by consolidating a number of these, will be very helpful. I should say actually some of our thinking on this matter grew out of informal conversations. Actually, your staff is a. part of the committee's study of the Office of Education. Those informal conversations had us looking at the whole picture. I think it affected our thinking in consolidating the group sug- gested in this legislation. Perhaps we could go further with this. Some of these committees or councils are not congressionally sponsored, some are administratively sponsored. There we have freedom to act and our own initiative. Secretary GARDNER. I would say that advisory councils can be im-~ menselly helpful if properly used, and properly chosen. I would say, Mr. Quie, that our councils do reflect a certain amount of uneveness in PAGENO="0044" 38 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 their functioning. As I see it, some are very well used and very effective and others are much less well used. I think perhaps on the whole we overdo the number of advisory councils. Mr. QUIE. The chairman used the words "phased out." `Would "elimi- nate" be better? Mr. HOWE. Yes, "eliminate." Mr. QUIE. Let me also ask you about the councils, you say these are to include persons broadly representative of the fields of education arts, sciences, humanities, and general public. The worrying concern would be, who are you going to pick from education, the other ones not having quite the controversy involved. What kind of mix do you expect to have for people representing education? Here, I am thinking of the institutions of higher learniug where you have universities, teacher colleges, junior colleges, large schools, small schools, and so on. Secretary GARDNER. As you know from the bill, the majority of them have to be teachers. I would assume that we would attempt to get the kind of mix that we normally do when we are trying to get representa- tive councils. Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Howe? Mr. HOWE. I think we would certainly want to include some of the most appropriate people engaged in planning for the education of teachers; I am certain there would be someone on the council who had had the responsibility of a deanship in a school of education or broad responsibility for planning the education of teachers in a State. This background is important for such councils. `V~Te, of course, have consideration of geography and other matters that get into creating a balanced group. Mr. QUIE. What about the school themselves? Would you have a mix of the larger school systems and the smaller ones? Mr. HOWE. Well, there are limitations in numbers but the act itself provides that there must be teachers involved. `We would want to get representative people. `We might seek teachers who had had a broad experience through teacher organizations and groups which have beeD concerned professionally about teacher education. But we would have classroom teachers on the council. Mr. QtTIE. What about administrators? Mr. HOWE. I would think, depending on how the balance of the thing worked out, it might be that a dean of a school of education would also represent this category, but we want people who had a major responsibility for in-service activities in a school system and this in school administrators. Mr. QUIE. How about State departments of education? Mr. HOWE. `Well, the danger here is you are going to create so many categories, that the size of the counsel is going to grow, so it just seems to me we have to realize that one individual may bring in his own background several of the kinds of categories you are talking about. Mr. QUIE. Do you think it would be possible that you would leave out State departments of education? Mr. I-lowE. No; I don't think so. I would think we would want to have that experience. Whether he is serving would not be a matter of PAGENO="0045" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 39 issue but a person who had the experience it seems to me would be important. Mr. QUIE. Now, another subject, student assistance. Why wouldn't it be wise to provide the same kind of student assistance for anyone who goes on to school beyond high school, whether it be to a college, university, or a school of vocational education? Secretary GARDNER. Well, it seems to me this would be perfectly legitimate if you can define the kinds of institutions. You are speaking of what, technical institutes? Mr. QUIR. Technical institutes or strictly what you would say are 1-year terminal programs of vocational education. Secretary GARDNER. These are included in present programs, yes. Mr. HOWE. There is, Mr. Quie, the vocational student loan program, of which you are aware. The students in community colleges are eligi- ble for opportunity grants. Is this correct, Mr. Muirhead? Mr. MUIRHEAD. That is right. Mr. HOWE. The work-study arrangements may operate in commu- nity colleges. I think the useful category to think about is the post- secondary category, and sometimes we use the phrase "higher educa- tion," you think of 4-year colleges and universities, and we are really addressing ourselves in these student-aid programs to postsecondary study. Mr. QtTIE. lAThether it is in an institution of higher learning or not, because there is a great expansion of vocational education types of in- stitutions? Mr. HOWE. This is where the vocational student loan program has opened up a new field and we have had an interesting experience work- ing our way through all of the proprietary institutions administrative- ly which offer vocation training and deciding how they should be properly included and what arrangements for accreditation there might be for such institutions. Mr. QUIE. Can you make the direct loan to that institution? Mr. Hown. These loans are not to proprietary institutions at all, but students in the institution and the entire relationship is to the student in the institution. We would not make a loan to such an in- sitution. Mrs. GREEN. The time of Mr. Scherle has expired. Let me take my 10 minutes. The Senate by a rather substantial vote has approved a tax credit plan. What would be the recommendation, and I am sure you thought about it, if this should become law, on the other student assistance programs? Secretary GARDNER. I don't think we have thought through a posi- tion on that, Mrs. Green. I think we have been hoping it would not become the law. As you know, we are opposed to tax credit plans. In my view, if a tax credit plan passes there would remain a consider- able need for the other student programs. I would like to get the Com- missioner's view. Mrs. GREEN. Let me say, before when you presented the guarauteed student loan program to the committee, I think you never gave us an estimate of the cost. Do you have an estimate of the cost of the guar- anteed loan program? Secretary GARDNEE. We can provide it. PAGENO="0046" 40 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HOWE. We can provide it. It will have to depend in turn on our estimate of the number of students who will take advantage of it. WTe have some estimates and will base our costs on those. Mrs. GREEN. Can you give us a guess this morning? Do you have any recollection of what the cost might be? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, the cost, Madam Chairman, for the guaran- teed loan program, the cost is the payment of the interest subsidy and ~sve have `in our materials the amount that is estimated for the interest subsidy next year. We can make projections for subsequent years as the program grows. Mrs. GREEN. What is the cost for next year, `the estimate? Mr. MmRHEAD. I don't have that figure at hand. I can readily get it ror you. Mrs. GREEN. I think `some of the `other members of this committee are taking a `second look at this tax credit proposal in relation to the success or lack of success of the guaranteed loan program. There was an article in yesterday's paper in terms of the contributions for edu- cation which are tax deductible, although not a tax credit. It amounts to 17 percent of the total or $2.3 billion for last year. That is where `businesses, corporations, `and individuals who want to contribute to a scholarship fund can deduct, of course, up to the ceil- ing. What is the justification then for the fact that I, as a parent, can- not deduct anything for the education of my own `children, although I can contribute to any number of scholarship funds for other `chil- dren and deduct the full amount of the contribution? What is the jus- tifica'ti'on for this, in terms of cost, if we allow corporations `and busi- nesses, and individuals to `contribute to `education up to $2.3 billion, but then the Treasury opposes this amount in terms of a tax credit for grown children? Mr. MuIRHEAD. Well, the educational and charitable deductions have a long, long history in fact `and law, and `they are based upon the principle of philanthropy, unless the act is a philanthropic `act in which interest i's presumably not involved, he does not fall under that category. I think most tax specialists just would n'ot compare `them. They are just two `different `kinds of questions. But I am not a tax expert. I can tell you why we don't favor the tax credit. We don"t favor it for the re'ason it does not reach the youngsters who are most in need and to those it does reach it will have soon `been countered, we `believe, by rising tuitions; that i's, it will be a form of institutional subsidy in effect f'or private institutions and this ha~s run through all `of the conversations about the tax credit, that private institutions will raise their tuition when the tax credit is available so people can pay more. So, in effect, it will not be aid to the `students, nor will it be aid to the paren'ts, it will be `subsidies `to institutions. Mr. HOWE. Could I add, Mr. Secretary, that it will create a })reS- sure on public institutions which have been endeavoring t'o hold down t'heir tuition rates `and `some of them whi'ch have been endeavoring to maintain free an'd open public education to abandon `that policy be- cause it creates `an additional source of possible support f'or them. It seems to me that the guaranteed loan program with the change in interest rates, gives us an opportunity of really `opening up widely PAGENO="0047" HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 41 benefit to middle-income people, that we have a much better solution to that particular problem than in the tax credit because of the in- stitutional implications. Mrs. GREEN. TJnder the work-study, the NDEA loans and the eco- nomic opportunity grants, the administration certainly had designed a program that would enable a needy student to go to college. It would be my judgment there would be no student who could really say be- cause of need he was forced to abandon any higher education. The guaranteed loan program was designed primarily for those students who come from middle-income families. The guaranteed loan program, I think, for a variety of reasons has not met with the success that either the administration or Congress hoped it would have. If that were successful I certainly would favor that or I would favor .a liberalization of the NDEA program. In the absence of these two, what kind of a program would you recommend for the students who come from these middle-income families who, I think, are having the greatest trouble in sending their youngsters on to college because they cannot apply under NDEA .and they cannot apply or don't ordinarily have the opportunity grant *or the work study. Secretary GARDNER. Well, there are a variety of possible solutions. I think we are all still banking more than you are on the guaranteed loan. It is perfectly clear that there are different patterns of institu- tional arrangements that put less of a financial burden on students. For example; the urban institution and janior colleges, colleges where the student can live at home. As I said, I rather favor the program which worries Mr. Gibbons, a more liberal college work-study program which could reach a broader group of students. I do hope we can be a bit more patient about the guaranteed. loan program. Mr. QUIE. I would like t.o make one comment. I recall 2 years ago an estimate was made that tuition costs would increase 50 percent over the next decade. This is without the tax credit bill going through. It seems to me that you are giving, or will be giving blame to the tax credit proposal for what is going to happen anyway, tuition costs are going to go up. Secretary GARDNER. I think that most of the people who have exam- med this plan believe that if .the tax credit goes through, there will be a further rise, perhaps not to the total extent of t.he tax credit, I think the general estimate is around 75 percent, that about 75 percent of the funds would be recouped by the educational institutions in the ~forrn of tuition. Mr. QUIR. Last year, or 2 years ago the. same argument was used about the educational opportunity grants; that is, if the Federal Gov- ernment provided scholarships or such for undergraduate work, this would push the rate up, and that tuition was held down because of the low-income people attending, not the higher income people. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Reid. Mr. Rnin. Thank you. I wanted to ask one question on the point you were raising, and I very warmly welcome you-I am sorry I was not here when you started to testify. In pursuance of the questions of the chairman~ as I recall, the Office of Education initially expressed the PAGENO="0048" 42 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 hope that some 750,000 to 1 million students would, in due course, an- nually, participate in the guaranteed loan program. I believe the testimony before our committee, at least on the west coast, tended to indicate that the projections were perhaps a t.hird to a half less than that. I think that is true as well in the State of New York. I have just one ciuestion in two parts: One, what are the figures that you presently have percentagewise or otherwise, on whether the guaranteed loan program is in fact work- ing to the extent it was projected; and, second, is it not possible to visualize a mix between a guaranteed loan program and some tax re- lief, particularly for the middle-income family that is trying to finance two or three members of that family going to college at the same time? I had in mind those in the $10,000 and 20,000 income level. It would seem to me they would be caught in this squeeze, because I don't believe the guaranteed loan program is entirely meaningful, and wouldn't it be worth taking a look at that area that does not seem to be fully met. Secretary GARDNER. Mr. Muirhead has the figures and will give them to you. Let me first answer your last question. I would heartily agree we need to give more attention to this income, and we will do so. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. MtIRHEAD. Yes, on the guaranteed loan program, I think we should, of course, point out that the guaranteed loan program has got off to a halting start, but, nevertheless, this year, the first year under the operation, we have had rather good cooperation from the banks, there are in operation now 50 State agencies to operate the program, and despite the difficulties, and there could not have been a more inop- portune time to start such a program; but despite those difficulties, by the end of this college year there will have been made loans to 460,000 students amounting to $400 million. Now, to put that into the proper perspective, I think you have to compare it with NDEA loan program, which all of us support and support strongly. The guaranteed loan program, in its first halting year, is now at a higher level than the NDEA loan program which has been in operation for 9 years. The projection for next year for the guaranteed loan program is, it will reach 750,000 students. Mr. REID. Might I ask one technical question? Will this be the case if we revert to high interest rates throughout the economy? In other words, is this program dependent on low interest rates essentially? Mr. MIIIRHEAD. Well, Congressman Reid, the achievement of the program, the achievement this first year was during a period of high interest rates. There is every indication that the interest rates will not be as high next year. We are making the assumption they will not be as high next year. The program is expected to rise to 750,000 students with somewhere in the neighborhood of $650 million next year. So it is a significant program. The law which the Congress passed does provide for the sup- port of the program ultimately at the level of $1.4 billion in terms of a Federal guarantee. So it really is a significant program. I am inclined to believe it is going to move rather rapidly next year. Mr. REID. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. Let me make one other statement. I wish the Depart- ment would look at it in terms of the tax credit and what recommen- dations you should make on the other programs. PAGENO="0049" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 43 Secondly, I hope the Treasury Department will look at the $2.2 bil- lion in 1966 that went to the tax investment credit and their recom- mendations if there should be a tax credit for higher education. It would be only $600 million for the first year and $1.2 billion the second year. In terms of national priorities, it seems to me that the results for higher education would `bear the same responsibility of the tax invest- ment credit. Congressman Burton? Mr. BURTON. Are there any portions `of `any of these acts where the junior accredited colleges in our `State are not falsely precluded from participation? `Secretary GARDNER. No, sir. Mr. BTJRTON. Are there any portions of these acts where either the trust t.erritorities, Puerto Ri'co, or the Virgin Islands, are not treated as if they were a part of the `continental United States? Mr. HOWE. I think not. Secretary GARDNER. Mr. H'alperin `says there is not, they are in all of them. Mr. BURTON. What would your reaction be to permitting the col- leges to contribute in kind to make up their portion of the matching? Mr. HOWE. Under work-study? Mr. BURTON. Yes. Mr. HOWE. I `believe they `do now and I think one of the technical amendments we have in here is to suggest that work-study funds may be used for flexibility in building `a package of student aid with the opportunity grants, so I think we are reaching for flexibility in this area. Mr. BURTON. Finally, there `are a number `of instances where you have, at a later point, in the period for which you are `seeking authori- zation, dropped do'wn to a lower Federal percentage than was contern- pl'ated being proposed for the coming year. Would you concur with the general notion that if we decide 75 or 80 or 90 percent should be the supported `percentage level of the Federal Government, we should not indulge in predicting 1971 fiscal year's percentage, when in `all likelihood we will `be `bac'k in, scrapping the lower percentage and put- ting it back to the level we had `been operating in the previous fiscal years? secretary GARDNER. I woul'd like the Commissioner to try that one. Mr. HOWE. I think your comment is `a pretty good comment on hum'an nature. There is also the pressure to, once you set up a matching level `at a certain point, there is always a pressure to maintain it at th'at point. Therefore, a change becomes difficult. At the same time, it seems to me there is some point in trying to make those changes and to think of a period `of launching as a difficult time for institutions and t'hat the period of planning to assume the obligation after it h'as gone `over a year or `so might make it possible for t'hem to make `a slightly larger contribution. WTe have not suggested major shifts in `institutional contributions, only minor shifts. Mrs. GREEN. In line with Congressman Burton~s suggestion, has a study ever been made of the fairness of the allocation to Puerto Rico SO-155--67-pt. i-4 PAGENO="0050" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 and Virgin Islands? Sometimes it is under the formula and sometimes there is a 3 percent limit. If not yet available, could it be done? It seems to me this is a legitimate concern. Mr. HowE. We would be happy to examine it. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Reid. Mr. REID. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I have one question on the new proposals in con- nection with NDEA: what are the precise funds that are going into the revolving loan fund of NDEA? Is there any reduction in funds from the present authorization of $225 million, as I understand it, for fiscal 1968 ? Secretary GARDNER. A very substantial increase, I believe. What is the actual figure, Mr. Muirhead? Mr. MDIRHEAD. Under NDEA loan program, the authorization is $225 million but the appropriation for that has been requested at $190 million. If I might pursue the balance of the Congressman's question, and that is, "Will the lending level for the NDEA loan program be able to go above $190 million as a result of the direct loan amend- ment that is being suggested." The answer is "Yes," that it will be possible to generate additional funds for the NDEA loan program through the participation sales route. It is presently thought that that may go to the level of $240 million. That figure is arrived at because fortunately, at this particular moment, we have the applications from the institutions for next year and their applications have been reviewed and $240 million would cover the total of the request from the institutions. Mr. REID. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you stated very clearly I think in your testimony the need for additional higher educational personnel. What do you esti- mate to be the need, the priorities that we should accord to this whole area? Secretary GARDNER. The whole area of personnel? Mr. REiu. Well, as I understand your testimony, there increasingly appear to be shortages, in some cases serious ones. The whole spectrum of professional levels is involved and what would be the shortage in universities and in junior colleges? How much additional trained per- sonnel do we need-professors, instructional staff and the like? Secretary GARDNER. I don't have the figures on that. I don't think any of us here have the figures. This is a high priority wit.h us. I don't think that we are nearly in the trouble in the educational field at any point that we are in the medical field, but in all of the fields in my Department, manpower is a very high priority. Mr. REID. Do you feel we are coming anywhere near to training enough personnel to meet the needs? I think we are making headway on the classrooms and bricks and mortar, but have we really focused on the shortage of personnel, not alone in the medical field but broadly speaking in universities as well? We are talking about doubling higher educational facilities by 1970 and tripling perhaps by 1985, and are we going to have the good teachers and trained teachers to meet this increase? Secretary GARDNER. I think it is a constant struggle. I think the whole record of the past 20 years has been one of a moving target and an effort to catch up with our own aspirations in the educational field. PAGENO="0051" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 45 Ti think we have done remarkably well in higher education in the last few years. I thmk we can't afford to let up a minute considering the growth ahead. I think we have to press as hard as we can. This is greatly corn- plicated by the fact that all of these fields compete with one another ~for the same person. Mr. REID. Would you care to comment, finally, Mr. Secretary, on the fact there has been some comment about the categoric educational aid situation compared to the block grant concept. I notice in your testimony this morning you talk about consolidation in some areas. What is your view-on the elementary or higher levels-as to how pre- cisely should the Congress and the executive define grants and what latitude in your judgment is best left to the educational institutions ~ Secretary GARDNER. Well, I believe that we cannot define it pre- cisely. I believe we have to reach for a more rational pattern than we have now. We began reaching last year as it became apparent to us that the narrow categorical grants had run wild in some field. Last year we proposed and the Congress passed the Comprehensive Health Planning Act which combined 15 narrow categorical aid pro- grams. The Education Professions Act is another step in that direc- tion, which combines seven different categorical programs. In other words, we are moving toward broader categories, toward more flexible authorization, and we do not yet know the point at which we will reach an optimum arrangement. It seems perfectly clear that we will always have categorical aid in one form or another. We put in the Comprehensive Health Planning Act last year which consolidated 15 categories and with very strong pressure this year for a categorical aid program and population planning. There will always be people who are pressing, often legitimate pur- poses, for a categorical program to highlight those purposes. But, in general, movement toward breadth and flexibility seems to *be extremely good public policy. Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Thompson, we will be delighted to have you come up and join the rest of us. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, I am comfortable here. I am sorry I didn't hear you read your statement, Mr. Secretary. I have had opportunity to look over the act and to read it and also Commissioner Howe's statement. It could lead to almost innumerable questions. I notice in one section, section 435, that there are several instances in which Commissions are to open up programs for propri- etary institutions. I am thinking particularly of the work-study sec- tion, which I favor because so many of the other programs, such as GI bill and War Orphan's Act and others provide financial payments and assistance to students in accredited proprietary schools. In line with the more recent developments and other enlargements proposed in your amendments, do you see any objections to the Con- gress expanding the NDEA student loan program to include needy students in proprietary institutions? Secretary GARDNER. I would like to have the Commissioner express his views on that. Mr. 1-lowu. Well, just as an initial observation, Mr. Thompson, I would certainly not want to do this without the opportunity to plan PAGENO="0052" 46 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 for it on the budget side, because then you would have an effect which would pull from existent institutions and students who had come to depend on it. But I would also raise the question of whether our voca- tional loan does not, to a degree, meet this need? Isn't it really a pro- gram in being which gets at it and if it were just brought into operation? Mr. THOMPSON. \Vell, in a sense, it meets some of the needs, but these people in training at these institutions are unable to have available to them precisely what students in other type institutions have. These institutions perform most useful functions. They educate thousands of students in constructive and badly needed skills. I have some pro- prietary institutions, not only in my district but in New Jersey, and in looking into them I am convinced that the students would be helped if we could get the NDEA loans provided moneys were available and students currently relying on those loans would not be deprived of them. Mr. HOWE. I could see the argument. Mr. Muirhead would like to comment. Mr. MmRHEAD. I would like to pursue it a bit, Congressman Thomp- son, and I think we are getting wiser in dealing with proprietary insti- tutions and there is a large policy decision involved here and that is whcther or not the Federal resources should be used to strengthen a profitmaking institution. You make the distinction and a very valid distinction the program should be directed toward helping the students rather than the institu- tion. You note in the legislation which is before you we are making some rather halting steps in that direction. In the work-study program, for example, we are making it possible for students attending proprie- tary institutions to participate in that program if they are working at jobs off campus. Mr. Tno~rPsoN. Yes. In addition, the Secretary's statement indicates a movement toward developing more faculty in fields outside of the presently authorized categories, in business education, and so on, and I recognize the problem of profit making. The students are not making profit, however, and they should be helped. Many of them go on to become teachers. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. With regard to the loan opportunities available to students attending such schools. The vocational loan program, of course, has that particular objective and there is also in the vocational loan program a provision which would say that if some students are not able to get loans at the .bank under the quarantee loan program there would be a direct loan program available to them. So by and large, loan opportunities are made available to students attending these institutions, though perhaps under NDEA. Mr. TI-IOMPSON. I understand that, which is why I think the time has come to bring them under the NDEA. The youngster in proprietary institutions in many instances applied and failed to get admission in a charitable institution or nonprofit institution and, therefore, goes in that direction. To a large extent they are fulfilling a very vital need. I see no reason why the student himself should not benefit. If you have a further exposition or definition of your position, I would ask unanimous consent that von be allowed to rovicle us with it. PAGENO="0053" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 47 Mr. HowE. We would like to look at this, Mr. Thompson, in relation to several features of NDEA, the loan forgiveness feature, and what gets involved here? We would be happy to try to think through the whole matter in more detail. Mr. THOMPSON. I am particularly pleased with the suggestion relat- ing to title II with reference to the Library facilities. There is an excit- ing prospect for some years in the future with respect to international cataloging which the Library of Congress is interested in and which I understand is to he done by a private enterprise, but for the fact, well, it is to be the largest cataloging undertaking in history probably and will be very useful but some years in coining. I serve on the Joint Committee on the Library. With respect to title III of the Higher Education Act in developing institutions, do you feel that your request could not be enlarged to gain greater support for them, for the developing institutions? It seems to me, it is a very modest effort, a sound but modest effort on their behalf. Secretary GARDNER. It is modest. This, as I said in response to an earlier question, is a kind of decision we had to make in the context of a great many other decisions, as to how we were to allocate our resources. It would be very hard to go back and trace the kinds of tradeoffs that led us to this exact figure, but we felt this was an appro- priate sum in view of the constraints under which we operated. Mr. THOMPSON. I have no further questions except I have a comment. In looking over your statements, which I think are splendidly prepared and your proposed revisions of the act, which I think also you are on the right track, but it is just too bad we don't have infinitely more money to put into the whole program. I yield back the balance of my time. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch. Mr. ESCH. Thank you. I regret I did not hear the testimony but have been perusing it. I would like to discuss vocational education in relationship to the need for teachers in this area. I think part (d) of title V suggests the emphasis might be in a new section in terms of improving teachers in vocational education. There has recently been great discussion about a teacher corps and the need to fill a given area with a unique program. I wondered what thoughts you had in terms of the needs for providing for vocational education personnel such as teachers and to what degree is that a sig- nificant problem generally? Secretary GARDNER. This vocational educational personnel would be included under the Education Professions Act. In my own view, it would have a very high priority. I believe that there are few things in education today that need more urgent attention and a new burst of effort, than this vocational education. It is going to have to be accom- panied by a lot of effective recruitment and training of new personnel. Would you like to comment, Mr. Howe? Mr. HOWE. Just to put some numbers to what the Secretary said, there are about 2 million youngsters leaving high school every year. Of those about 1 million graduate and another 1 million leave some- where before graduation. Of that number of 2 million, about 500,000- and these are rough figures-have some program of vocational train- ing which suits them for entry into jobs and indeed they get those jobs. PAGENO="0054" 48 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 So you have 1½ million who are going not to higher education and who need further services from vocational education. Reflected in this is the need for additional programs, the need for bringing programs into the comprehensive high schools, and the need for teacher training directed to those programs, which is your point, so that it seems to me there is great effort necessary here. Mr. ESOH. With this in mind, what kind of funding do we have or what kind of funding do you propose for this particular program? Secretary GARDNER. The Education Professions Act would begin in 1969. There is no budget for the current year. Mr. Escii. Then you have no iroposal for this whatsoever? Secretary GARDNER. Not this year. Mr. Escn. Just so we know, what kind of proposals do we have for the Teachers Corps this year? Secretary GARDNER. 36 million. Mr. Escii. So you are suggesting that this does not have the same priority as the Teachers Corps, that you would prefer to wait on the proposal of properly training vocational education people and work just in the Teachers Corps area for the next 2 years? Secretary GARDNER. Well, we are trying, in the Education Profes- sions Act. Also, we hope to do a fair amount of t.his with some of our other new bills, that is to have a year of putting together the kinds of plans that we hope to put into effect. Mr. ESCH. But it does suggest, does it not, that there is a higher priority in such concepts as Teachers Corps rather than vocational training, that you have not tried to move ahead in terms of providing appropriate personnel for vocational training as in the Teachers Corps? Mr. HOWE. Could I respond and say we have in this year's budget and in this year's legislative authorizations a totally new program in vocational education having an amount of $30 million for a new program to help vocational education to seek better ways to serve.~ This will involve not only the in-service training of teachers but explorations of new ways to use teachers. We have also in being a program of vocational research and train- ing. There is a set-aside from the vocational education appropriation. I believe it is 10 percent, if I recall correctly, somewhat reduced by the last Congress, and that gives us a regular program for training in this area, so we are attentive to exactly the need you are focusing on. However, the period of planning which is necessary to bring into effective operation a totally new concept and the responsibility of the Federal Government for training all of the personnel in education is enough so I think we would have made a mistake to fund a particu- lar piece of it this year. I think we are going to launch in fiscal 1969 with an enlarged eflort.. Mr. ESCH. Might I ask you to what degree are we attempting to consolidate these diverse programs in the field of vocational education and training? Secretary GARDNER. Would you want to comment on that? Mr. Ho~rE. Well, I think in the context of the Educational Profes- sions Development Act here, what we have is a vastly more flexible authority to address ourselves to that or any other field. We can do PAGENO="0055" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 49~ things about the training of personnel, administrators for example, in vocational education, that we could not do before. We have new categories `of grantees which I think will be particu- larly useful to vocational education. The aspect of this which `allows us to use training funds in connection with profitmaking industry will `be, I think, very useful, to vocational education, so that we have tried to think about the needs of vocational education in setting forth' these proposal's. Mr. E5CH. Just one other question in that general line, if I might quote your testimony, Mr. Secretary, when talking about the Teachers Corps, you say, "The spirit appears to be contagious and to infect the other teachers in the Corps who come in contact. This spirit is a priceless commodity and canno't be purchased and should not be allowed to wither." I wonder what attempt has been made to capture this same type of spirit in vocational educational training? If you think the concept is valid in the Teachers Corps area, why has it not been applied in such areas as vocational education and training personnel? Secretary GARDNER. Well, this spirit is valuable wherever you can get it or produce it. But it is not, it is something of a mystery as to how you produce it. If we could produce it everywhere, we would do it tomorrow. It seems to develop around these Corps, these volunteer Corps, and why they generate such enthusiasm, I don't know, but they do. You can see it when you talk to them. I don't fully understand the conditions surrounding it. What I meant to say in my testimony is that where it appears, we should preserve it. If I knew how to' produce it in all other areas that concern me, I would certainly do so. Mr. QuiE. Will you yield? Mr. Escn. Yes. Mr. QUIE. Are you saying it would not appear if you tried it with a vocational corps? Secretary GARDNER. No. Would you like us to pursue that? Mr. QmE. If it is valid, I would expect we ought to. I mean if I am wrong and you are right about the idea of having a Corps, and the only way you can get the e.sprit de corps and get it in the degree you ought to, I think we ough't to move into vocational education training and guidance counselors corps, and so on. Secretary GARDNER. I am a great believer in the Corps and would be in favor of having a variety of them. I can't think of anything better than to have an array of possibilities for young people who want to spend a couple of years of their lives in dedicated difficult service. I can't think of anything better. Mr. QtTIE. When you call them "talented volunteers," they are not any different in volimteering'from the people who already volunteered for vocational institutions? Everybody who is in teaching volun- teered, didn't they? Secretary GARDNER. Well, there is a difference. 1\{r. QUIE. What is the difference? They didn't have their master's' degree paid for. You can say probably the.y were more dedicated volunteers. PAGENO="0056" 50 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1067 Secretary GARDNER. The normal process of moving into a field is that when young people begin a course of study they are not too sure of what they want to do. They move into a program, some of them do it conscientiously and eagerly and others just feel "We have to do some- thing" and the process of decision is a gradual one. Characteristically, the youngsters that go into the Peace Corps or Teacher Corps make a very conscious, highly motivated decision, not just to find something to do next year, but to commit themselves to something they think is terribly important. Mr. TITo~rPsoN. Will you yield? It might be a good idea to try such a Corps for vocational education and give it some time to work, as I hope we a.re going to do with the Teachers Corps and we can have all sorts of Corps. We can number them or name them. Mr. QUJE. If the gentleman will yield it won't be good to limit the Corps just to those who had Federal assistance to get into the Corps? Mr. TI-IoMPsoN. *We are not drafting it now but I just like the idea. Mr. QUIE. So we could have teachers for anybody who goes into training whether they had Federal help to do it or not, and as long as they met the standards, they should be part of the Corps. Mr. THOMPSON. I would think so because these youngsters are going to go in all sorts of directions from the place where they are first start- ed in school and many of them are going to end up in vocational education program. Mr. QUIE. I think this is the answer to what we are looking for. Secretary GARDNER. I confess when I first observed the Peace Corps the thing that struck me most about it was its potential for producing a flow of young people who are introduced early to service overseas is a situation of dedication and commitment. That seemed to me the most interesting feature of the Peace Corps. That is why I was equally pleased about the Teachers Corps, because it means that a flow of youngsters will come into the field whose first introduction to it was an act of commitment. Mrs. GREEN. Will you yield? Mr. ESOH. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Before we get too corps-happy here, is there anything that prevents the Teachers Corps from teaching vocational education? Secretary GARDNER. Nothing at all. Mr. HOWE. Many of them will be `moving in this direction as the enterprise grows. Mrs. GREEN. Being equally happy with the fellowship program, this is the part I must say I find difficult; $275 million authorized for 1968 and a request of only 12 percent for the fellowship program, $34.5 million. I judge the administration has decided that the fellowship program, which according to the law is designed for exactly the same thing as the Teachers Corps-advanced training for elementary and secondary teachers-should have only a small request for funds here, cut by $240 million from the amount authorized. At the same time we expand the Teacher Corps. I hope we will get at least as happy about the fellow- ship program a.s we do about the Teacher Corps program. Mr. HOWE. Could I interpret the cut. It is not really a cut and we moved the funding up from $30 million in fiscal 1967 to $35 million PAGENO="0057" HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 in fiscal 1968 and the other personnel elements of total authorization budget have been the elements which have made progress in a difficult budget year. We are endeavoring to reach in the direction you are suggesting. We have not probably reached far enough to meet all of the require- ments but we are getting there. Mr. Escii. I have one more question, Madam Chairman. I am vitally concerned as everyone at this table is, I think, in the need to properly support those interested in pursuing higher education. We heard one suggestion as to why you may not support the tax credit concept as a means of supplying valuable aid. I would like to hear other discussion as to why you would reject the tax credit concept as one that is not valid. Secretary GARDNER. I really can only go over the same ground with a little addition, or few additions. The very large sums involved will purchase very little in the way of additional help to parents, additional help to youngsters, and it will end up as help to private institutions. If we want to go that route, it would seem to me we might decide what forms of help we want to give to private institutions and do it directly. Mr. Escn. Mr. Secretary, what you are suggesting is you don't care to give a great deal of assistance to private institutions, at least non- categorical aid to private institutions? Secretary GARDNER. No; my last sentence was if we wished to do it we should address ourselves directly to the fact, to the possibility, and decide what kinds of aids we want to give, how categorical or general, and do it. Mr. Esoll. I am asking now for your opinion on this matter, do you look at the giving of noncategorical aid to private institutions as a valuable asset to increasing efficiency among higher education in the United States? Secretary GARDNER. Do you mean simply general aid? Mr. ESCH. Well, we have reached the point where our discussion at- tacks created grants. At least your assumption is it would be a form of noncategorical aid to private institutions. This is what it filters down to, and do you look upon it as a valuable asset? Secretary GARDNER. I think we have to look at it in the context of general aid to higher education as a whole. I think it presents quite a few problems. I would want to examine it. I would want to examine it by the front door and not the back door of a tax credit. I have been very favorable to aid to private institutions and we have done a great deal of it, as you know. Mr. QUIE. May I ask a question? Mrs. GREEN. Your time is gone, Mr. Quie, but, go ahead. Mr. Quiu. First, Mr. Secretary, I want to commend you on the ex- cellent statement you have made about shifting to noncategorical programs as fast as we can and I am glad you are committed to doing this in additional programs as time goes on, I hope that your first big attempt in the Education Professions Act will meet with favor here in the committee so we can at least get moving in that direction. I have received some letters from teachers of English quite' concerned that we are going to lose title XI of NDEA, and also the equipment in title III, which I don't believe has any relevance with the Education Pro- PAGENO="0058" 52 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 fessions Act. What is your answer to the criticism we will be receiving from other groups as well who will miss this language in the act? Secretary GARDNER. I think the teachers of English are mentioned in the act. As for the others, I think Commissioner Howe is prepared to pledge that this will not be used as a device for cutting back groups that have been served up to now. I refer you to page 60, line 1 of the act. Mr. QU~. I think it would be good to have that statement for the record. Secretary GARDNER. He will take care of it in his testimony. Mrs. GREEN. There are many more questions but they can be re- served for tomorrow. Again, Mr. Secretary, on behalf of the commit- tee our thanks and I join Congressman Quie and others I am sure in expressing my pleasure at your recommendations especially the exten- sion and revision of legislation 1 year prior to the expiration date. May I say that the members of last year's subcommittee will meet tomorrow afternoon at 3 o'clock for consideration of a statement which is a part of the study of the Office of Education and for the first draft of legislation to accomplish that purpose as far as the Congress is concerned. We will continue the hearings then tomorrow at 10 o'clock in this room. We are recessed. (Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 18, 1967.) PAGENO="0059" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TUESDAY, APRIL 18, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order for the further consideration of the Higher Education Act of 1967, and the amend- ments. We are grateful to the Commissioner and Dr. Muirhead for their taking the time this morning to appear before us. Mr. Howe, will you proceed as you would like. We have your testi- inony; if you want to read it, that is fine, and if you want to summarize, whatever you wish. STATEMENT OP HAROLD HOWE II, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCA- TION, ACCOMPANIED BY PETER P. MUIRHEAD, ASSOCIATE COM- MISSIONER FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; NOLAN ESTES, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCA- TION; GRANT VENN, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR ADULT AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION; AND ALBERT L. ALFORD, ASSIST- ANT COMMISSIONER FOR LEGISLATION Mr. HOWE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have* also here Mr. Estes, the head of the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education, responsible for some of the programs we will be discussing; and also with us is Mr. Graham, in case there are questions about the Teachers Corps, and Mr. Pagano, who is in charge of title I aspects of the higher education program. I think if it is all right with you and members of the committee, what I would like to do is not to read my rather prolonged testimony but to ask your permission to enter it in the record. It is some 33 pages. I am not sure I can read that long. Mrs. GREEN. Without any objection, the entire testimony will be put in the record at this point and then you summarize it. (The prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD HOWE II, 15.5. COMMIsSIONER OF EDUCATION Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am happy to appear today before a Committee which has bad a major impact on Federal assistance programs for higher education, and, indeed, a major impart on American higher ~education in general. 53 PAGENO="0060" 54 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Today I am appearing in support of H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Amend- ments of 1967. Briefly, these amendments have two purposes: to extend and amend the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act; and to strengthen and expand the teacher training authority delegated to the Office of Education in what we have called the Education Professions Development Act-Title V of the Amendments under consideration today. ExTENsION OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1058 The National Defense Education Act was pased to strengthen teaching and learning in science, mathematics, and foreign languages. When the Act was passed, President Johnson, then one of its authors in the Senate, commented that "History may well record that we saved liberty and saved freedom when we undertook a crash program in the field of education." The experience of the past 9 years goes far to bear out this glowing prophecy; the NDEA has had in- creasing effect on the quality and availability of American education. It has been amended from time to time-most recently by the Higher Education Amendments of 1966-to extend its coverage to virtually all areas of education. Its original purpose-to augment the supply of highly trained manpower in fields relating to national security-has been broadened until students from kindergarten through graduate school now benefit from its provisions. Enacted originally for a 4-year period, the NDEA was extended in 1962 and again in 1964. Although the current authorization does not expire under the end of Fiscal Year 1968, we are recommending that several titles of the Act be extended at this time. As I am sure this Committee is `aware from the testimony of the many institutional witnesses who have appeared `before it in the past, our Nation's schools and colleges have often been handicapped in their program planning by the Federal Government's timetable for ~oth authorization and appropriation measures. Extension of NDEA one year before it "runs out" would provide a Federal commitment to the continuation of its programs, and would allow schools and colleges more ample leadtime for educational, fiscal, and man- power planning. Title Il-the National Defense Student Loan Program-is probably the Act's best known and most successful portion. As originally enacted, the title provided for loans to be made to full-time students in institutions of higher education, With preference to be given those majoring in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. Forgiveness of a percentage of the loan amount and interest was afforded to students who su~sequent1y taught in public elementary and secondary schools. All these restrictions have been substantially broadened in the past 9 years. Part-time students are now eligible to borrow; forgiveness has been extended to teachers in nonprofit private elementary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher education and to teachers of handicapped children; preference is now given to students with superior records in any field. Student borrowers totaled 1,053,211 at the end of Fiscal Year 1966, as compared with 833,476 at the close of Fiscal Year 1965 and 639,732 at the close of Fiscal Year 1964. Advances made to students since enactment of Title II totaled $823,937,851 at the end of Fiscal Year 1966, an 85 percent increase over the amount loaned through Fiscal Year 1964. The average loan amount has also increased; it was $470 in Fiscal Year 1964, $520 in Fiscal Year 1965, and reached an estimated $624 in Fiscal Year 1966. We are asking that the National Defense Student Loan Program be extended 5 years, through Fiscal Year 1973. In keeping with the philosophy that loan forgiveness may attract students into career areas of greatest benefit to our Nation and its goals, loan cancellation benefits would be extended to teachers. in programs of special education or training designed to combat disadvantage, poverty, or unemployment, even though they may not be working in the regular schools. Finally, in order to encourage non-Federal capital for National Defense Stu- dent Loans, a revolving fund would be established from which institutions might obtain loans to capitalize fully additional student loans. A `flow chart illustrating the operation of this fund is attached. Members of this Su~bcommittee will recog- nize this proposal as similar to the one advanced a year ago. The current funding pattern of National Defense Student Loans-whereby the institution receives contributions of Federal capital and must match with its own funds one-ninth of PAGENO="0061" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 55 the Federal amount-would be maintained. In addition, institutions wishing to increase the amount of loan funds available to their students could borrow funds from this revolving fund. Such funds would constitute 100 percent of the loan capital; no institutional matching would be required. This latter procedure would be especially beneficial to smaller and less affluent institutions, which may find the matching requirements of the current loan program burdensome if not impossible to meet with institutional funds. In addition, more funds would be available to students to finance their undergraduate and graduate educations. Title III of NDEA is designed to strengthen instruction in critical subjects; science, mathematics, modern foreign languages, history, civics, geography, economics, English, reading, and industrial arts. The title authorizes acquisition of equipment necessary for instruction in these areas, and minor remodeling incident to the effective use of such equipment. Grants are made to public elementary and secondary schools, and loans are made to nonprofit private elementary and secondary schools. Federal grant funds are matched by States and localities on a 50-50 basis, thereby assuring a greater expenditure for critically needed equipment. In Fiscal Year 1966, a preliminary survey of 46 States and 3 Territories showed that $156 million was spent for acquisition of equipment and $3 million for concomitant minor remodeling by States and local education agencies. A random sample of approved projects showed that 42.9 percent of the funds were to be spent on science equipment, 14.6 percent for reading materials and equipment, and 7.77 percent to strengthen instruction in modern foreign languages. In Fiscal Year 1966, approximately 58 percent of the funds were used for equipment and 4~ percent for instructional materials; audiovisual equipment and materials accounted for 38 percent of the acquisition projects. Private elementary and secondary schools are eligible for loans to strengthen their instructional capabilities. During Fiscal Year 1966, 37 loans were made to 35 schools in 20 States, schools which served nearly 18,000 students. The availability of funds for loans has taken on increased importance during the past year because of the unavailability of commercial credit. The bill under consideration by this Subcommittee provides for the extension of Title III for 5 years, through Fiscal Year 1973. Subject matter limitations would be eliminated, providing a broader base of support for elementary and secondary school instructional programs. In addition, Section 12 of the Na- tional Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act would be merged with Title III. In instances where States impose matching requirements for financial participation of Title III project applicants, within-State equalization would be encouraged. Many States now allow local educational agencies to match Federal funds on a sliding scale based on ability to pay. This amenthnent would encourage such modifications of the matching requirements and would make a description of such equalization procedures part of the State plan submitted to the Commissjpner for approval. Another amendment would provide that State administrative expenses would be paid out of project funds, thereby enabling the amounts available for State administration to bear a more direct relationship to the amounts expended for equipment and materials. Since private schools seeking loans under Title III are not distributed geo- graphically across the country, the loan allotment formula would be repealed, and all applications would receive equal consideration. American-sponsored schools which provide services to American children abroad currently are ineligible to benefit from Title III's provisions. Under the amendments, they would be made eligible to apply for loans. Title IV of ND~A, the Graduate Fellowship Program, has a dual purpose: to increase the number of well-qualified college and university teachers and to develop and expand the capacity of doctoral study facilities throughout the country. The need for additional college and university faculty is well docu- mented. Enrollments in institutions of higher education are expected to expand from the estimated 6 million students enrolled in college this year to nearly 9 million in 1975. It is estimated that approximately 610,000 new full-time-equiv- alent professional staff members will be needed to meet these demands, but projections indicate that only 230,000 doctorates will be produced by 1975, and no more than half of these can be expected to go into college teaching. Although only 1,000 fellowships were initially authorized under Title IV, the program has experienced rapid growth. Of the 23,500 fellowships which have PAGENO="0062" 56 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 been allocated since Fiscal Year 1959, 63.8 percent were allocated for use in the three academic years beginning with the academic year 1965-66. Beginning with. the 1967-68 academic year, more than 90 percent (or 193), of all institutions au- thorized to award the doctorate will have active Title IV fellowship programs.. The 193 participating institutions represent all 50 States, the District of Colum- Ma, and Puerto Rico. An analysis of the academic areas approved for fellowship support shows that between the academic years of 1959-60 and 1965-66, inclusive,, 51 percent of the programs approved and 59 percent of the fellowships allocated were in nonscientific areas; 27 percent of the fellowships and 23 percent of the programs were in the social sciences, while 24 percent of the fellowships and 21 percent of the programs were for study in the humanities. HR. 6232 would extend Title IV for 5 years, through Fiscal Year 1973. To add flexibility to the program, it is proposed that the Commissioner be given discretion to grant 4-year fellowships in special circumstances. In addition,. stipends awarded the graduate fellows, instead of being fixed in amount, would be set by the Commissioner consistent with prevailing practices under com- parable Federally supported programs, thus ensuring a greater degree of uni- formity among roughly equivalent programs. Title V of NDEA is divided into two parts. Part A supports programs in guid- ance, counseling, and testing, identification, and encouragement of able students.~. Its purpose is to assist in establishing and maintaining programs of guidance. counseling, and testing in elementary and secondary schools, junior colleges and technical institutes. During the past year, the 54 States and territories partic- ipating in the program gave more than 9 million aptitude and achievement tests. to public school students and 370,000 tests to students in nonpublic schools. Under Office of Education contracts, testing agencies administered 210,300 tests: to more than 179,500 nonpublic school students in 37 States. the District of: Columbia, and Guam. Professional guidance staff members in State educational agencies rose to 340, a striking increase over the 99 such professionals w-hen the program began in Fiscal Year 1959. Part B of Title V authorizes institutes for persons who are w-orking or plan- ning to work in counseling and guidance. Since 1959, w-hen the program started, more than 21,000 counselors have participated in guidance and counseling in-* stitutes. Another 1,200 will be enrolled in 42 institutes conducted by 40 colleges and universities during this summer and the 1967-68 school year. Most of the institutes will be short-term sessions to be held during the summer, but 13 will be conducted full-time during the academic year. The bill under consideration would extend Title V-A for 5 years. through Fiscal Year 1973. Title V-B, which expires at the end of Fiscal Year 1968, is not re- quested to be extended, however, as it would be incorporated into Title V of the Higher Education Amendments of 1967-the Education Professions Develop- meat Act. Title VI authorizes the establishment of language and area centers-centers for the teaching of any modern foreign language-and fellowships for aclvanced~ study in modern foreign languages. Since the program's inception in Fiscal Year 1959, Title VI has supported 476 centers located at 300 institutions. These centers have concentrated on a variety of modern foreign languages, ~special1y those of Asian and East European nations. In Fiscal Year 1966, 98 Language and Area Centers were established at 61 institutions; they focused on 79 different modern foreign languages rarely `taught in the United States. Modern foreign language specialists are critically needed, and although 7,000 have received fellowships under Title VI, the need is still great. Next summer and during the 1967-68 school year, 1,600 additional graduate students will re- ceive intensive training in 92 foreign languages and related areas, such as. geography, history, and anthropology. An additional 550 stipends will be awarded. to qualified undergraduate students, who will be enrolled in 22 NDIiIA-supported Language and Area Studies programs during the summer of 1967. H.R. 6232 recommends extension of Title VI for 1 year, through Fiscal Year* 1969. This extension would make its authorization consonant with that of the In- ternational Education Act of 1966. The research program authorized by Title VII provides the means for adapting such communication media as television, motion pictures, radio, and programmed: self-instruction to the improvement of education in elementary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher education. Since Fiscal Year 1959, more than $33 million has been obligated for research and dissemination activities,, PAGENO="0063" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 57 Part A of the title provides support for research and experimentation and evaluation of projects involving television, motion pictures, radio, printed and published materials, and related communication media. Since 1959, approxi- mately 375 projects have received support, 215 of which have been completed. Part B of the title provides support for project activities involving dissemina- tion of information about new educational media and their utilization. Since 1959, 253 projects have been initiated under Part B; 195 have been completed. 1~\Te are not requesting extension of the authorization for Title VII. Its activities may be funded under the authorization for the Cooperative Research Program. Titles VIII and IX are not involved in the proposed Higher Education Amend- ments of 1907. Title VIII authorized area vocational education programs, anu was enacted as Title III of the George-Barden Act of 1946. Its technical education provisions were made permanent by the Vocational Education Act of 1903. Title IX establishes a Science Information Service to coordinate and improve methods of disseminating information in the sciences. This activity is carried out by the National Science Foundation. Title X provides grants to State education agencies to improve the adequacy and reliability of educational statistics and the methods for collecting, processing, and disseminating such data. The extension of this section of the title is not being sought, as its function has been superseded by Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Technical amendments to the title provide for participation of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, for schools of the Department of the Interior for Indian children, and for overseas dependents schools of the Department of Defense in the programs authorized under NDEA. Title XI-Training Institutes-was added in 1964. As enacted, it authorized institutes in modern foreign languages and English taught as a second languages, but the program was expanded to include a selected range of fields-English, reading, history, geography, disadvantaged youth, and educational media special- ists. Amendments contained in the Higher Education Act of 1965 added economics, civics, and industrial arts to the list of permissible institute subjects. By amend- ment to the International Education Act of 1966, institutes were added in the field of international affairs. Title XI expires at the end of Fiscal Year 1968. Its extension is not being requested, as it will be incorporated in Title V of the Higher Education Amend- ments of 1907-Education Professions Development-which I will discuss at length later in this testimony. EXTENSION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 This year we are similarly seeking the expansion and extension of the various programs of the HLgher Education Act of 1965. Over the past year and a half, students and colleges, citizens and their communities have felt the impact of increased Federal assistance to higher education. Projects have ranged from Community Service to the minor remodeling of college facilities. The authorized programs of the Higher Education Act, coupled with the construction projects under the Higher Education Facilities Act, have become part of an essential package of assistance to institutions of higher learning. In this age which calls for a total commitment and involvement of all the Nation's resources in bringing about the full development of the country's potential, the Higher Education Act stands as one of the vital bases for such a commitment. Some of the actual projects carried out last year illustrate the manner in which the Higher Education Act is rapidly increasing the number of persons affected by higher education. Title I of the Act provided funds to help solve community problems and to meet the continuing education needs of those whose formal education has been terminated or interrupted. In 1966, 85 percent of the projects funded dealt with urban and suburban problems. Participants in these projects included subprofessional workers being trained in recreation therapy for the elderly, civic officials interested in studying the various means for upgrading substandard housing, and the staff of a university transportation and research institute on flexible, light-weight transit system in urban areas. Projects em- phasized problems of municipal recreation, building code interpretation, usage of nonprofessional volunteer personnel, and rehabilitation of prison emigrants. In California, San Diego ~Tunior College received a $37,000 grant for a project dealing with problems of senior citizens; in Florida, the University of South Florida received received a $3,000 grant for a pilot program in consumer educa- PAGENO="0064" 58 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 tion; in Missouri, Washington University received a grant for $22,377 to retain an urban housing specialist as a consultant for the St. Louis area. Across the Nation, a total of $3 million is being used for programs concerned with problems of Government; over $1 million for programs concerned with problems of pov- erty; and over $1 million for programs concerned with problems of health. Of the 539 programs being conducted through such funding, over 450 deal specifically with the problems of the population centers of the country. Because of such em- phasis, Title I is the program on which rests the challenge of utilizing all avail- able means to overcome the physical and educational needs of a growing and increasingly urban population. In Fiscal Year 1967, $10 million was appropriated to continue the work initiated under the program. In the Higher Education Amendments of 1967, the Administration is proposing that Title I be extended 5 years through Fiscal Year 1973. The present rate of 75 percent Federal and 25 percent non-Federal shares would be continued through Fiscal Year 1969. The Administration proposals provide that present matching requirements be maintained, because this will allow the Community Service and Continuing Education program to attain the size and scope necessary to fulfill the intent of Congress. During the first 2 years of the program, $25 million (or `A of the $75 million authorized) was appropriated, curtailing the initiation of new projects and limiting the size of the projects established. Since the cost of establishing new projects and expanding existing ones is more expensive than maintaiiiing an already established project, a larger Federal share of the cost is necessary. Administration proposals further provide that 10 percent of the sums appro- priated for Title I be set aside for experimental or pilot projects. The set aside has been requested because, last year, administrators of the program thought that, given the resources available, the Title I projects incorporated into a State plan should be aimed toward existing problems peculiar to the particular State. However, State and Federal officials received many innovative proposals which they judged worthy of funding but found impossible to justify as part of a State plan, due to the national or regional scope or the proposal. The set aside would allow State officials to forward for consideration those proposals which would be of benefit in developing community service and continuing education pro- grams of value to the entire Nation. Such a provision would also allow admin- istrators more flexibility in determining which projects should be funded. For Fiscal Year 1968, $16.5 million is being requested to be appropriated for this program. Title II of the Higher Education Act is a program designed to strengthen the heart of our Nation's colleges and universities-the library. In Fiscal Year 1966, Part A of Title II provided nearly $9 million to 1,830 institutions in every State. This money provides for basic grants of up to $5,000 to aid colleges and universities and their branch campuses in buying books, periodicals, documents, tapes, recordings, audio-visuals, and other library materials. Through the assist- ance provided under this title, it is estimated that the increase in library resources will reach 1.5 million volumes. Part B of the title supported 139 fellow- ships in library and information science in 24 colleges and universities (Turing fiscal year 1966. Of the fellowships awarded, at a cost of $900,000, 52 were doctoral, 25 postmaster, and 62 master's. Part C of the title transferred 8300,000 to the Librarian of Congress, for the acquisition of all library materials cur- rently published throughout the world which are valuable to scholarship, and for the cataloging of such~ materials. This provision has brought about major international breakthroughs for research libraries in the United States. Previ- ously, the libraries could not acquire catalog cards for the major portion of the foreign books they purchased. This led to competition for existing scarce catalog- ers. Through Title II, the Library of Congress has now been able to accept the cataloging responsibility on behalf of the research community of the Nation. A system known as the Shared Cataloging Program has been established to adapt descriptive entries in foreign national bibliographies for Library of Con- gress cards. In time, the program may even lead to international standardization. But, at present the Library of C'ongress is utilizing the results of cataloging practices in other countries through seven offices on three continents. Because of these efforts, all the cards adapted by the Library of Congr.ess will become available to research libraries and the catalogs will become, increasingly, an international guide to materials of value to scholarship published around the globe. PAGENO="0065" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 59 For Fiscal Year 1967, a total of $31.75 million was appropriated to carry on the work of these major programs started under Title II. The Administration proposed amendments to Title II would extend Parts A and B for 5 years through Fiscal Year 1973. Part C would be extended through fiscal year 1969. At this time the program would be reviewed and the results of an on-going study to be completed in 1969 of the relationship of the Library of Congress to the Congress and the Executive Branch would be considered. Some perfecting amendments to Title IT-C have also been suggested to make the pro- gram even more responsive to the total library needs of higher education in this country. A single copy of many publications, especially those from areas where small editions are published and books cannot be readily obtained from dealers, is not enough for the Library of Congress' use in meeting the national needs of higher education. The copy obtained for centralized cataloging purposes is usually required in Washington for Congressional and other Government pur- poses. A second copy for loan purposes is therefore highly desirable. Such a copy could be deposited by the Library of Congress in a centrally located depository, such as the Center for Research Libraries in Chicago, under a cooperative agreement `that the Center would loan it to research libraries for faculty and student use. The cost of such second copies would be moderate. It is therefore proposed that Sec. 231(1) be amended to read: `acquiring, so far as possible, copies of all library materials currently pub- lisheci throughout the world which are of value to scholarship." The addition of the word "copies" would permit the Library of Congress to acquire a second copy for the purpose explained. If experience demonstrates a need, and appropriations for the purpose can be justified, the wording would also permit the Library to acquire additional copies for deposit in a few other re- gional centers, but this is not contemplated in the near future. Nor is it contem- plated that LC would acquire second copies of books that other libraries can easily obtain through regular trade channels. It is proposed to amend Sec. 231 (2) to read: "providing catalog information promptly and distributing this and other bibliographic information about library materials by printing catalog cards and by other means, and enabling the Library of Congress to use for exchange and other purposes such of these material not needed for its own collections." This would make it quite clear that bibliographic information-bibliographies, indexes, guides, union lists, and the like-describing not only current but other important materials could be prepared and distributed by the Library of Con- gress under this title of the Higher Education Act. This information is vitally needed by our colleges and universities, for such bibliographic tools are essential to the efficient and effective operation of any large research institution. A new subsection is proposed, as follows: "(3) enabling the Librarian of Con- gress to pay administrative costs of cooperative arrangements for acquiring library materials published outside of the United States, its territories, and its possessions, and not readily obtainable outside of the country of origin, for in- stitutions of higher education or combinations thereof for library purposes, or for other public or private nonprofit research libraries." Because in some areas of the world it is virtually impossible to obtain books unless there is a person on the spot to collect them, it is necessary for the Lib- rary of Congress to establish procurement centers, as previously noted, in order to insure that one copy of every significant publication from that area is ob- tained and is cataloged promptly. Other research libraries are trying to obtain books from these areas but they cannot each afford to send an agent to acquire them. Usually, however, it would be possible for the LC center to obtain addi- tional copies for other institutions. The research institutions would, of course, be expected to pay for the publications themselves. The proposed amendment, which is advocated by the research libraries, would authorize the Librarian of Congress to utilize Title IT-C personnel at these centers to obtain extra copies as ordered by individual libraries for their collections. It is expected that this would add little to the total cost of the program but would be a great service to college and university libraries. One of the most unique programs to be incorporated into legislation affecting higher education in the United States is the Title III program to strengthen Eleveloping institutions. In Fiscal Year 1966, Title III support was in the form of $4.3 million for cooperative arrangements and $.7 million for national 80-155-61-pt. 1-5 PAGENO="0066" 60 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 teaching fellowships. The cooperative arangements are significant in that they allow stronger colleges and universities and industry to "adopt" or "spon- sor" the development of those institutions in the United States which are struggl- ing for survival and are isolated from the main currents of academic life. Last year, 84 cooperative arrangements were funded involving 115 developing institutions, 66 cooperating or strong institutions, and nine business entities. Included in the cooperative arrangements were student and faculty exchanges, faculty improvement program to release members for further higher education, curriculum improvement programs in remedial reading, English, and mathe- matics, student services for cultural exchanges and visiting scholars programs. The funding of these arrangements allowed projects to be established in Oregon for intensive faculty work sessions to improve instruction in psychology, art, Spanish, sociology, history, and English; in Indiana, a program to strengthen business administration and economics; and in Florida, an inter-institutional five-college program for Asian studies. The other important facet of Title III is the National Teaching Fellow-ships Program. In 1966, 263 fellowships were awarded. This figure however, did not even begin to meet the application demands of the colleges because judging from the requests almost all the developing institutions have an overwhelming need for additional faculty. Nearly 1,000 fellowships were requested either in conjunction with a cooperative arrangements or separately. For Fiscal Year 1967, $30 million has been appropriated for these two aspects of the Title III program. Requests for these funds, due to the need for support and the success of the program, are expected to exceed appropriations. Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes the first comprehensive pack- age of student financial assistance opportunities. Educational opportunity grants, combined with low-interest insured loans and college work-study programs, have had a major impact in helping more young people cope with the financial burden of attending college. During Fiscal Year 1966, $58 million was appro- priated for educational opportunity grants for qualified youths of exceptional financial need. Prom this amount, over 100,000 students in 1,420 institutions were able to receive grants averaging approximately $432. In Fiscal Year 1987, the $112 million appropriation is expected to assist over a quarter of a million students. The complementary programs of Title TV-college work-study and the insured loans-may be used to round out the support needed by a low-income student or to supplement the sometimes burdensome financing of a student from a middle-income family. The insured loans program-Part B-is well on its way to being a success after a slow start due to a tight money market. During Fscal Year 1966, interim agreements were signed with 12 State guarantee agencies; 8 State agencies commenced operations under permanent agreements; the United Student Aid Fund had begun to participate in the program under permanent agreement in 18 States, and the District of Columbia had been authorized to establish a guarantee agency. This program was so popular that from November 1965 through the end of October 1966, the volume of loans exceeded $223 million, and the estimated number of borrowers exceeded 174,000. The college work-study program-Part C which was transferred from the Office of Economic Opportunity to the Office of Education-allowed over 190,000 stu- dents to work part-time and to receive earnings at over 1,500 institutions. In addition to this tn-pronged student financial assistance package at the college level, Title IV contains the authority for a program to advance Presi- dent Johnson's promise of equal educational opportunities for all at the second- ary school level. The Educational Talent Search is a program to: -identify qualified youths of exceptional financial need in secondary school and to encourage them to enter postsecondary educational training; and, -to encourage secondary school or college dropouts of demonstrated aptitude to reenter educational programs, including postsecondary school programs. During Fiscal Year 1966, 133 proposals were received and 42 contracts were ultimately funded to carry out the purposes of this program. The contracts, funded at an .average amount of $47,000, were awarded to members of the educa- tional community in 31 States, where youngsters with a great deal of potential but little family or financial backing are being encouraged to stick it out and seek the benefits of a higher education. Often, ~uch youths are promised an educational opportunity grant as part of the incentive to continue their education. For Fiscal Year 1967, a total of $291.6 million was appropriated for these student assistance programs. PAGENO="0067" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We are proposing that Title IV also be extended 5 years through 1973. We are also proposing an amendment that would allow work-study assistance to be counted as institutional contributions in satisfying matching resuirements for educational opportunity grants. Such an amendment will permit colleges to be more flexible in constructing student assistance packages. It will also allow the student to earn part of his way rather than having to take out loans for the rest of his college expenses. Repayment of insured loans would be authorized to be deferred under the State or nonprofit private student loan insurance programs while a student is attending an institution of higher education or is in the military, Peace Corps, or VISTA. service as is currently the practice under the National Defense Student Loan Program. The Federal Government would pay all interest during this period of deferment. The maximum annual auothorized loan, both under the federally insured program and the State or privately in- sured programs would be set at $1,500. A student would be permitted to enroll in summer classes if employed full `time under the work-study program. Maintenance of effort provisions in the work-study program would be liberalized, and pro- prietary institutions would be eligible `to participate. In addition, the Federal matching share in the work-study program, whch s scheduled to drop from 90 to 75 percent, would be held at 80 percent. To stimulate and encourage college-level programs of cooperative education--alternate periods of work and study-admin- istrative expenses incurred in the operation of such programs would be eligible for payment from work-study funds. For Fiscal year 1968, $339.5 million is being requested to be appropriated. The teacher training programs authorized by Title V of the Higher Education Act would be combined with other Federal programs for teacher preparation and expanded in the Education Professions Development Act. The prospective teacher and the experienced teacher felowship programs awarded 2,534 fellowships to institution's throughout the United States i'll Fiscal Year 1966. Institutional assistance grants, designed to strengthen curriculum in teacher education, were awarded to 123 institutions in 46 States and Puerto Rico. The National Teacher Corps, the unique program for teacher-trainees in slum schools' across the country, has already been reviewed by the Full Committee, but I would be happy to answer any questions that this Committee might want to raise. In 1967, the sum total of the appropriations `for this title was $27.5 million with $25 million going to the tea'cher training programs. Finally, Title VI of the Higher Education Act is directed toward improvement of undergraduate instruction. Last year, $15 million was appropriated of which $1.5 `million was available for the acquisition of television equipment and for minor remodeling of `college facilities, and $13.4 million for laboratory and other special equipment, including `audiovisual materials and equipment for audiovisual centers, printed and published materials, and any minor remodeling necessary for the installation of equipment. For Fi'scal Year 1966, a total of 1,125 applica- tions for assistance in the `purchase of instructional equipment was received by State commissions, and grant agreements were executed for 896 projects. In Fiscal Year 1967, $17 `million was appropriated for acquisition of equipment and for media institutes. Most titles of the Higher Education Act expire at the end of Fiscal Year 1968. However, in the past our Nation's schools and colleges have often been `handi- capped in their program planning by the Federal Government's timetable for both authorization and appropriations measures. Early extension of the Act would allow the schools and colleges of the United States more ample lead-time for educational, fiscal, and manpower planning. EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT Federal `programs `have `made a tremendous impact in meeting educational man- power needs in terms of both attracting new persons into the teaching profession and updating the skills of those already in the profession. -Over 60,000 persons have attended 1,500 institutes authorized `by Title XI of the NDEA. Of these 13,000 have received `special training in English 10,000 in `history, and 9,000 in Modern Foreign Language studies. -In the `critical area of guidance, over 600 institutes authorized under Title ~`-B have helped train nearly 21,000 school counselors. -Although the fellowship program under Title VI(c~ of the Higher Educa- tion Act has been in operation for only a few years, over 4,000 teachers have or are receiving graduate training because of its provisions. PAGENO="0068" 62 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 -~Since 1965, the Office of Education has supported the training of over 18,000 teachers in the field of vocational education. The critical need `for teacher.s continues and, according `to a nationwide study, i's more acute this `school year than it was a year ago. Total enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools reached a new peak of 43 million last fall. To meet the demand for teachers, to reduce `class `size, to replace teachers leaving their positions, and `to eliminate the number of tea'c'hers not having adequate training, thousand's of additional tea'chers are needed., `Today, more than `5 per- cent o'f our schools' teaching `force--approximately 90,500 full-time teachers-do not meet their State's certification standard's. Properly qualified teachers must be employed if our country's children are to achieve their full educational development. This need was accentuated with the funding of massive Federal aid programs. Much testimony has already been given that the largest problem encountered by the States and local school districts in administering Title I of the ESEA was the finding of enough qualified people to make the programs work. As our quest of quality in these programs increases and the de-emphasis on hardware con- tinues, this problem will become greater. Current programs are handicapped in meeting the changing manpower require- ments of our schools and colleges. Legislative authority is fragmented over many laws, each enacted to meet a specific need and each administered in accordance with separate legislative intent. Applications must be fashioned to meet the differences in law instead of educational needs. Current inflexibility is apparent. 1. Title XI of NDEA even after liberalization amendments cannot provide training at less than the graduate level, which precludes institutes for sub- professionals. 2. Institutional development grants are given only in conjunction with Title V (c) HEA fellowships. Yet, an institution of higher education may need such a grant to prepare for good fellowship programs, or it may find its educational needs would be better met if such a development grant were made in conjunction with an institute program. 3. The teacher fellowship under Title V (c) program does not support the training of junior and community college teachers. Yet, these institutions are growing rapidly and are experiencing the same staffing problems as schools at the elementary and secondary education level. Although NDEA fellowships can be used to train junior and community college teachers, there is no flexibility to support programs for them at less than the Ph. D. level. 4. Institute authority includes many subjects. Other important ones, how- ever, are not supported, including health education, anthropology, sociology, psychology, business education, and physical education. 5. Present programs do not really permit a continuum of teacher educa- tion from the undergraduate level through the special programs of continuing education for master teachers. A university's master plan for such a con- tinuum can now be supported only on a piecemeal basis, as each application is submitted and reviewed as a separate entity. 6. Education programs for specific educational groups or problems may not readily fit into any specific subject area-for example, the problems of teach- ing at the preschool level. Obviously, such a patchwork of programs is ill equipped to solve some of the severe educational manpower needs and hardly lends itself toward sound educa- tional planning at any level. EXPLANATION OF THE AMENDMENT The Education Professions Development Act would begin to bring order out of our current patchwork of laws and would continue our efforts to strengthen and broaden teacher educat!on programs at all levels. Specifically, the proposal provides for (1) a review of educational needs, (2) the recruitment of qualified persons in the field of education, (3) expansion of the current Title V (c) fellow- ship program to include preschool and adult and vocational education personnel, (4) separate program development grants, (5) new preservice and inservice training, (6) broad programs for the education of persons in higher education. A National Advisory Committee on Education Professions Development will he established to assist in the development of policy matters arising from this law and to review all Federal programs supporting the training of educational personnel. PAGENO="0069" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 63 Basic to any coordinated attempt to solve our education manpower needs is detailed knowledge of specific areas of need both in terms of geographic location and types of persons or training on a nationwide basis. The Commissioner will, therefore, be required tO appraise these needs and the adequacy of national efforts. In addition, he must publish an annual report on the state of the profession which will include the Office of Education's plans for allocation of assistance under this program. Part of the problem of having an adequate well-trained educational staff is the attraàting of qualified persons into the profession. Under the amendments, grants may be made to State departments of education, , local school districts, colleges or other public or nonprofit agencies to identify capable youth interested in the pi~ofession, to encourage them to pursue an education career, to publicize availability of opportunities in education, encourage qualified persons to enter the profession and to encourage others to undertake teachers' assignments on a part-time or temporary basis. ` Part C of Title V will, be exj~anded to incJude fellowship support in the critical fields of preschool and adult and vocational education. A new Part D to Title V has been added. Under this part, institutions of higher education can receiVe program development grants to strengthen their graduate and undergraduate programs. Such grants could be used to improve current cur- ricula and to encourage imaginative programs in teacher ~ducation. These grants need not be tied to any fellowship or institute program. The Office of Education may also under this part make grants to: 1. colleges and universities, 2. State departments of education, 3. local school districts, or 4. other public or nonprofit agencies to train or retrain teachers. All subject areas would be eligible for assistance, and there would be no limitation with respect to the length of a grant. Grants could support conferences, workshops, synposia, seminars, short-term or regular session `institutes. The new Part E would au'thorize similar institutes, seminars, workshops, etc. f or the training of higher educational personnel. This propo'sal also establishes a National Advisory Council on Education Pro- fessions Development. This council consists of representatives of the National Science Foundation and the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities, persons broadly representative o'f th~ fields of education, the arts, the sciences, `the'humanities, and representatives of the general public. It will advise the De- partment of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Office of Education with re- spect `to policy measures arising out of the administration of this title aild will from time to time review `this title and all other Federal programs for the teach- ing of educational personnel. HIGHER EDUCATION FACILITIES ACT The Higher Education Facilities Act would be amended by extending the pro- vision for assistance in case of a major di~aster `and by fixing interest rates for loans at the current average market yield of comparable United States obligation less a reduction of not more than one percentage point to be set by the Commis- sioner of Education. The philosophy of our credit policy is twO-fold: 1. Government-financed credit programs should, in principle, supplement or stimulate private lending, rather than substitute for it. They should not be established or continued unless they are clearly needed. Unless the urgency of other goals makes private participations infeasible, the metl1ods used should facilitate private financing, and thus encourage long-run' achievement of program objectives with a minimum of Government aid. 2. When both public and private funds are involved, it is especially im- portant that the terms and conditions prevailing in competitive private markets should, as far as consistent with program objectives, determine the basis on which the Government funds are advanced. If borrowers can ob- tain adequate funds at reasonable interest rates from private lenders (with or without guarantees), they should not be given special incentives in the form of substantially lower costs to borrow from the Government agencies. The interest rate currently in the law does not reflect this policy. We are, there- fore, recommending that the interest rate applicable to loans made under title PAGENO="0070" 64 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 III of the Higher Education Facilities Act, which are now set at three percent (3%), be adjusted to a level approximately equivalent to interest levels prevail- ing in the capital market for obligations of public educational institutions. We believe the enactment of this amendment would offer the following benefits: a. It would ease the heavy demand on Federal loan moneys and, there- fore, would assist the Office of Education in achieving a greater distribution of title III funds to private and less creditworthy public borrowers, least able to otherwise secure capital loan funds at a reasonable rate of interest. b. It would encourage direct non-Federal participation in the develop- ment of academic facilities and the creation of outlets for private capital, and thereby would strengthen the compatibility of effort between Federal and non-Federal sources of assistance to the higher education community. c. It would provide a degree of flexibility in determining a rate of interest applicable to title III loans, which could be maintained at a level consistent with interest rates prevailing in the capital market. Thank you for your attention. With the aid of my staff members accompany- Ing me today, I will be most happy to try to answer any questions you may care to raise. HEW STUDENT LOAN FUND (Proposed) MAKING LOANS CONGRESS n (j) Appropriation -- Capita]. Advance UNIVERSITY HEW FNMA Mr. HOWE. I would say that we have endeavored in this rather long statement to do as complete a job as we could on many of the details of this series of legislative suggestions and to give you also a rather complete information on how the programs have been working during the past year. So that I am glad that we will have the entire testi- mony in the record. Let me just summarize certain aspects of it, not trying to be com- plete at all but calling attention to a number of items, and then I will be happy to answer your questions. I would like to address myself first of all to the Higher Education Act of 1965, which, as the Secretary said yesterday, we are bringing up for reenactment along with the National Defense Education Act. We are asking for the reenactment of both of these pieces of legislation Flo~v of Money ~-"!Flow of Notes PAGENO="0071" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 65 a year ahead of time in order to serve better the educational institutions involved with them. This would be of help, particularly, for the plan- ning of those institutions. In connection with the Higher Edu'cation Act, I will run quickly through the titles and make one or two observations about the various sections of the act. Title I provides funds for involving universities in community problems and continuing education programs; we are asking for 5-year extension, and we are bringing a new feature, that is, the request for a 10-percent set-aside for pilot projects in connec- tion with this legislation. We are also asking that the 75-25 matching arrangements be con- tinued. I believe the original legislation provided for a 50-50 match- ing, and we are asking continuation of the 75-25 arrangements. In title II, which is concerned with college and university libraries, we are here asking for a 5-year extension and extending part C, which has to do with the support of the programs of the Library of Congress, for only 1 year, pending a major study which is taking place regarding the support of the Library of Congress and its relationship to the var- ions agencies of the Government. There is only one major change in title II. That is a request for planning and development grants to library schools. We have au- thority for certain kinds of research activities but not for planning and development grants to library schools and are asking for that authority under title II. Mrs. GREEN. Would you mind, since there are just two of us, if we interrupt for particular questions? Mr. HOWE. Fine. Mrs. GREEN. I notice in some of these, there is a contraction of funds but an expansion of programs. In the one related to the Library of Congress, I think in your testimony you suggested that there is going to be a thorough review and study on the relationship of the Library of Congress to the legislative and executive branches. Yet, if I under- stand it correctly, you are asking for an expansion in terms of the acquisition of books in other libraries, making them available; is that correct? 1~'1r. HowE. Our funding request goes from $3 million in the current year to $4 million in fiscal 1968 under this program; I am not sure I caught the rest of it. Mrs. GREEN. I am referring to the part in regard to the Library of Congress, providing that it should `have the money for acquisition of books to place in various centers or to place in one center, I believe it is Chicago. Mr. HOWE. Yes, we are asking they have the use of these funds for getting duplicate copies to place in various centers around the coun- try to make them more available. Mrs. GREEN. My question is: Since you refer to the review that is going to occur in 1969 and since there is a shortage of funds this year, isn't that one of the programs that might be deferred until 1969 when the study of the Library of Congress comes up? Mr. HOWE. Well, this is certainly a possibility. I believe that the Library of Congress itself hopes to have this authorization for the corning yea.r and fully supports it so that we are to some degree in PAGENO="0072" 66 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 handling this legislation, a vehicle for the needs of the Library of Con- gress and would give way, I think, to their feelings in this matter. Perhaps we ought to explore this question you raised, with Mr. Mumford. Mrs. GREEN. I think he is going to testify. The other part, as you Irnow, was added to the Higher Education Act out of necessity. The Library of Congress is not really under the jurisdiction of this committee and for us to impose further things might possibly raise questions on the floor. Mr. HOWE. I never felt it was under my jurisdiction. Going ahead to `title III, there are no major legislative changes at all for this program. It will continue at the same level of $30 million a year. We are asking for a 5-year extension. Title IV contains a large package of student financial assistance under various programs-opportunity grants, guaranteed loans, work- study arrangements, and funding for talent-search activities to help identify youngsters who ought to go to college who might not find the chance or get adequate information. We are asking for a 5-year exten- sion of these broad. authorities. There are quite a number of detailed changes in connection with them. I won't try to run through all of these changes. I would say we are hoping to get authority to expand in some degree our giving of grants to institutions of higher education for purposes of planning cooperative education endeavors. These are patterns of education in which young people spend part of the time at school and part of the time on the job. Northeastern Uni- versity and Boston are well known for their pattern of cooperative education and Antioch College in the Midwest is well known also. There are many colleges in the United States operating patterns of cooperative education and this will make it possible to encourage that particular pattern of education by picking up some of the adminis- trative expenses of institutions which wish to offer that type of organi- zation. Mr. QmE. Why do you want to encourage. it? Have you developed your rationale? Mr. Hown. It seems to us this is a pattern of education which has had considerable success and which lends itself particularly to the needs of young people who may be working their way through school. This is an organizational arrangement which helps them to do that. It is really just another way of organizing work-study, if you will, by organizing the school's progra.m to fit alternate periods of study and work. I think that the number of institutions which are involved in it have been successful. We are not trying to suggest that anybody must pick it up at all but offer to pick up just the administrative expenses if somebody wants to. This is a small encouragemen.t. That is what it amounts to. Mr. QUIE. Is there a problem now of schools who are interested in moving in that direction, securing the administrative help to bring it about? Mr. HOWE. I have met with the officers of the association of the cooperative education institutions, and they have requested some small PAGENO="0073" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 67 support for encouraging that pattern. It seems to us an interesting segment of the higher education enterprise which is having success. Mr. QUIE. These are the people who are already running coopera- tive programs? Mr. HOWE. This is right. Mr. QUIE. What about these others; I mean your money would not be used to help them? They have it already. Mr. HoWE. It might help them to expand their activities. Primarily it would go to help people who wish to move into this pattern. I be- lieve with the members of this organization that it is a very useful kind of organization for higher education. Mr. QUIE. Thank you. Mr. HowE. Other changes under title IV to which I might call at- tention is the extension of the work-study programs to proprietary schools. We had some discussion of this, I think, in our testimony yes- terday with the Secretary. I am suggesting that students in proprie- tary schools be eligible for the work-study program although they may not work for those schools in service of those schools to benefit the proprietary school directly. I won't mention other technical amendments here but there are a number of them in the complete testimony. Mr. QUIE. May I ask a question? Are you proposing any changes in the educational opportunity grants? Mr. HOWE. I don't believe so; no. Mr. QUIE. The last time when we had this come up. Mr. HOWE. Well, there is a minor change that relates to educational opportunity grants. That is, we are suggesting that colleges may use their work-study funds for the matching of an opportunity grant in building a package of student aid for an individual student. This has not been possible up to now. We think that colleges ought to have that flexibility. Mr. QuIE. There was substantial testimony in favor of that when this subcommittee studied the Office of Education and held hearings across the country. My concern, as you know, for some time has been over the forgive- ness feature of the NDEA loans and the possibility of that being ex- panded to other occupations and to the guarantee loan program. Some people suggested this a couple of years ago. How would you look on the change of dropping the forgiveness feature and utilizing it in- stead for a grant, either an expansion of the work-study program or expansion of the educational opportunity grants? Mr. Ho~vE. Well, I am personally lukewarm on the forgiveness feature, although I have to say also that we haven't got a really clear assessment of the impact of the forgiveness feature, a really clear an- swer to the question of whether the forgiveness feature does result in what the Congress intended, which, as I understand, is the idea of en- couraging more people to go into teaching. Mr. Qun~. Hasn't it been in operation long enough? Mr. HOWE. Perhaps Mr. Muirhead can comment on this. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, we do not have an assessment as to whether or not the forgiveness feature has attracted young people to go into teaching. We have a good deal of evidence to indicate a number of PAGENO="0074" 68 HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 young people are taking advantage of the teacher forgiveness fea- ture and consequently a number of student loan borrowers are becom- ing teachers. Whether or not there was more if there was no forgiveness, we can't answer. Mr. Qun~. The testimony we receive indicates that the percentage of college graduates going into the teaching profession has not in- creased. And the testimony of people from the higher education com- munity indicates quite a substantial shift to the point of view I have had for a long time-that is, we should drop the teacher forgiveness program. If it was successful it would have accomplished its purpose by now, and if it has not accomplished its purpose, then we should try something else. Mr. MUIRHEAD. There is no proof one way or the other. Mr. QnIE. We have had it from 1958 and we ought to make up our minds if it is good or not. Mrs. GREEN. If you recall your comments on the conference reports last year, you sent a memorandum to this subcommittee. The memn- orandumn was briefly that there is no evidence to indicate the forgive- ness feature does attract the teachers, in other words accomplishes the congressional intent. But in your recommendations this year, you, in effect, expand the forgiveness feature on page 3 of your testimony. Mr. HOWE. Yes, we do; not by moving it into other programs but within NDEA loans, suggesting that if it is going to be in existence, *then it ought to apply to all people who use NDEA loans to go into. teaching and making the forgiveness feature available to them when they go into such programs as Headstart or other programs not directly in this scope. That seems a reasonable position to take. It is a matter of fairness if we `are going to have the forgiveness feature' for `teachers it `ought to apply to teachers broadly and `NDEA pro- grams and other kinds of programs in the regular schools. I would surely support that aspect of the forgiveness feature. It seems to me we don't have evidence that the forgiveness feature is improving `the supply of teachers, but we don't have evidence tha't it is not, It is a hard matter to get a clear picture. Mrs. GREEN. I have a question here; on page 3 you state the philosophy of the original congressional and original administrative intent in recommending this. Then you expand on it; however, you do not propose that the forgiveness `be extended to the guaranteed loan. If the philosophy is correct, that forgiveness may attract students into teaching, and if that is the basis of the forgiveness feature, why should it not be extended to the guaranteed loan? Mr. Howu. If it were absolutely clear it is having this effect, we would assess accurately some expected effect from the guaranteed loan program. I think we ought to look `at the possibility `of introducing forgiveness into the loan program. Mrs. GREEN. Wouldn't it be more logical to drop it from everything or put in everything in terms of fairness to the students? This is the breaking point-if you come from a family under $6,000, you get your loan forgiven and with an income over that, you go to guaranteed loan and no forgiveness. PAGENO="0075" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 69 Mr. HowE. I think there is rationale in having the forgiveness fea- ture related to the people from the lowest income group. Mrs. GREEN. Shouldn't we change the basic philosophy of forgive- ness? Is it for the people who come from lowest income groups going into teaching? Mr. HowE. That seems a supporting argument for it. The guaran- teed-loan program is going to focus mainly on people above the $6,000 level which you suggest and it seems to me that argument would not operate as much for them. Mr. QUIR. Why is it necessary to encourage people from the low- income families to go into teaching and not encourage people from higher income or middle income? Do the low-income people make better teachers? Mr. HowE. I don't think that is necessarily true. I think actually this argument about the income level being related to the forgiveness feature is a minor matter compared to what was really the intent of Congress in putting this feature in, as I understand it, actually encour- aging the supply of teachers. I will tell you, as I did a moment ago, we are puzzled somewhat about the effects of this program on the manpower thing. It is a diffi- cult thing to find out about. There are so many different elements that enter into the individual's decision, to go into teaching or not to go into teaching, that to isolate the effect of a feature of this kind is really a complex exercise if it is possible at all. I think we ought to try to get more definite information for you than we have on it. As of now, we are operating on what is not a bad assumption, the assumption originally put in: it must have some effect on people entering into the teaching profession. Rationally, you would think this would happen. Mrs. GREEN. What would your reaction be if this committee dropped the forgiveness feature from NDEA loans? Mr. HOWE. Well, I would like to review entirely what we can find out about it before I give you a definitive answer on that. We will be happy to review our experience, look at the problems that we see in a low-paid profession, perhaps developing a higher percentage than it should of defaulting of loans. I think there is a practical problem relating to the loan default picture if you were to make this change now that teachers have come to expect this to be part of the picture and you might encounter a problem of default. Mr. Qrnu. You know we are encountering a problem of default now where many students feel if they wait long enough, they will have the loan forgiven. They feel that the Congress will change the law, and the constant change of the law seems to be bringing this about. Maybe there will be less problem if their loans were not forgiven. Mr. HowE. I should say I think the problem of a person again in a very low-paid profession in repaying the loan is a special problem. It seems to me that in `all likelihood, particularly against the background that they have been forgiven up to now, such a change might run into difficulties. There is, as you say, clearly a percentage problem of loan default. Mr. Muirhead can probably tells us something about the history of it if you wish to go into it. We are working constantly however on it PAGENO="0076" 70 HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 and the way you get at it is developing a relationship with individual institutions, higher educational institutions, and helping them to do a better ~ob with their procedures for followup of students. Mrs. Gmnn~. Would you yield there? Mr. QuIE. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. I have one question on this. Has any thought been given to allowing the institutions to write off the uncollected loans so they don't have to report them year after year? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, `considerable thought has been given to that and to have them extend as far as they care `to whatever legal channels they wish to take in the collection of the loan and then determine when the loan is uncollectable. Our thinking on that has `been to establish some criteria as to when a loan really is delinquent `and the college then would write it off of their books and turn it over to some other agency to collect, either a State agency or perhaps the Federal Government. I think it would clearly have to be a procedure, however, that it would be clearly known when the college t'ook this decision there would continue to be efforts `to collect the loan. I think it would be unfortu- nate to have the impression given if you just wait long enough you won't have to pay it. Mrs. GREEN. You have the authority to do this now, as far as the institutions are concerned? It does not require legislative action? Mr. MUn~HEAD. That is right; it does not require legislative action. Mr. HOWE. Perhaps going ahead with some of the other titles of the Higher Education Act, we are suggesting that title V of that act move into the new Educational Professions Development Act and the new legislation you have is set up that way. Title VI for minor remodeling and for equipment for undergradu- ate instruction, a 5-year extension, and here we are requesting that the limitation on subjects be dropped in line with the Secretary's state- ment of yesterday in which we' are seeking more flexibility for insti- tutions and seeking really broad categorical authorities rather than narrow authorities. I think these are the main points in connection with the Higher Education Act. I would like to go to the National Defense Education Act, which, again, we are bringing up a year early. We have just been discussing titJe II of that act, the title for student loans, and as you observed, one of the changes that we are suggesting there is the can- cellation of obligations for teachers not in the regular schools. In addition, we are asking to put in place this revolving fund ar- rangement which will in effect expand the funding available in the individual institutions for NDEA purposes; the total amount involved in fiscal 1968 will be approximately an additional $50 million of loans available to students over and above the $190 million amount which we will be asking for as a direct appropriation. These, I think, are the things-well, let me make another observa- tion on the revolving' fund: It should be beneficial to the individual college because it allows the individual college to cease making its 10- percent contribution under the direct capital grant arrangement we have, had in being and which will continue in being; the college pays 10 percent, or pays 10 percent of the total amount involved in the loan program. PAGENO="0077" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 71 Under the revolving fund arrangement, the college no longer ha~s the obligation. Mrs. GREEN. If I may interrupt, isn't there a provision that if the colleges have difficulty getting that 10 percent, they can borrow from the Government? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes; there is such a provision in the law now. Mrs. GREEN. So this would not help them; if they can borrow it any- how, they would still get 100 percent. Federal funds. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes; but they would not have to borrow their own 10 percent. They could borrow the total amount of money. You are quite right, the original provision now would permit them to borrow the money. Mrs. GREEN. Have you ever figured up the comparable cost if you take, we will say, 500,000 or 1 million students, borrowing at the maxi- mum amountfor a 4-year period, what it would cost the Federal Gov- ernment under the NDEA proposal as it is now operating and under the Fannie Mae proposal which you suggest? Mr. HowE. In order to do it, Mrs. Green, we would have to make some assumption about the distribution within NDEA of those stu- dents among the capital grant program and the new loan program and if we make the assumption that it was, let us say, half-and-half, we will have this situation. Mrs. GREEN. I am thinking of one under the NDEA as it exists and the other then completely under the new loan program. Mr. HOWE. We could do that. Mrs. GREEN. So you wouldn't be dividing it. The only assumption you have to make really is the interest cost. Mr. HowE. Yes; if you did it with the NDEA as it exists. We can do that and it would probably be most useful to use a number of students which is typical of the number we would have in, say, this year or the next. Mr. QuiE. Could I ask a question? On the revolving fund the school will not have to put up its 10 percent? Mr. HowE. That is correct. M~. Qun~. What about loans that are not repaid; who bears the responsibility for them? Mr. MUIRHEAD. The loans are guaranteed and the Government would pay 90 percent of the loans. Mr. QuIE. They still have to share in 10 percent of the losses? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes; they have to share in 10 percent of the loss, that is correct. Mr. HOWE. Going ahead to title III of NDEA, which is the equip- ment and minor remodeling funding for elementary and secondary institutions, analogous to the program just mentioned under the Higher Education Act, here we are asking for a 5-year extension and a number of minor changes. One of them is again analogous to what we have done with the Higher Education Act, the removal of the categories and the suggestion that the program operate without strictly listed catègories-and that therefore the schools be eligible to decide where these funds can best be used by them. This subject matter limitation has existed, I believe, throughout the period of the act and we are suggesting it be dropped. PAGENO="0078" 72 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We are putting language in which encourages the development of State plans which will allow some equalization within the State. By that, we mean that a State might arrange 50-50 matching at different levels for different communities in the State so that a community which was less able to match on a 50-50 basis would be given a preferential rate and a community more able to match within the State would be given slightly less than 50-50 rate of matching, thereby allowing the State to bring an equalization feature into the administration of that. Now, this has been possible, as I understand, under previous leg- islation but we are simply calling attention in this legisli~tion to that possibility, hoping to encourage use of the equalization possibility by State. Mrs. GREEN. Does this become mandatory? Mr. HOWE. No, it is not in any sense. They must indicate it in their State plan if they wish to do this kind of thing, but it is up to the ;State. Mrs. GREEN. But the acceptance of the State plan is not dependent upon including this feature in it? Mr. HowE. No. Mrs. GREEN. Do you propose how they bring about equalization in the State? Mr. HowE. This is a State matter. There are a number of other amendments to this title. We would like to repeal the State allotments for the funds for which private schools are eligible. These are loan funds and since private schools are not really distributed by States in any equal way, we think that it is better to make this a single, overall arrangement for borrowing by private schools and not have a deffnite allotment to each State. Mr. Quii~. What percentage of the funds allotted to private schools in the past have been actually utilized? l~'1r. HOWE. It has been a relatively low-use program. I can't give you the percentage. But it has not been used a great deal. You will find in my testimony some figures on this I think. Mr. ESTES. Of the $7 million available, we have used $1 million; roughly 15 to 18 percent of the amount is used by private schools. Mr. Howi~. Yes; we are suggesting the eligibility under this program be extended to American schools abroad and that they have the right to borrow funds the way private schools within the country do. Mr. Quii~. In title II of the Elementary and Secondary School Act, you have a program where textbooks and library books are made available to both public and private schools. Instead of providing loans in title Il-that is, the loan of money directly to the private schools- you permit the loan of the textbooks and library material to the private school, and there is some indication on the textbook material or library material that it really belongs to the public school. Why couldn't that similar arrangement he made in any mobile equipment available under title III? Why couldn't we really put those two programs together, consolidate title III NDEA and title II of ESEA similar to the way you have consolidated the teaching profession programs under title V of this bill? Mr. HowE. Well, there are some differences. Of course, this bill is a 50-50 matching bill, whereas the programs you have just mentioned PAGENO="0079" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 73 are full Federal funding. I think the minor remodeling aspects of this bill would be difficult to handle on a direct-grant basis rather than on a loan basis. If you got into a direct-grant basis for remodel- ing, permanently building things into private schools, we would have this situation. Mr. QUIE. No; I don't mean that. I mean limited to the mobile type of equipment. Mr. HOWE. I think that actually the movable equipment kind of teaching and learning apparatus and so on might be a possibility here. It does seem to me that the loan arrangement, as an added option for the private school that really wants to control materials and count on them and not have them owned by a public authority as would be necessary under the other legislation, is a useful option to have in being. It has not been used a great deal. It has been used some. It may be used more. So I think I would prefer simply to keep the flexibility that we have here by having different options available to those schools through a couple of different programs. Mr. Quiu~. Well, they don't have different options now. Mr. HowE. They have a loan program in which they can, by taking on a loan, eventually come to own materials that are theirs. That is one kind of option. Under the Elementary and Secondary Act, private schools may not come to own materials that are theirs. They get the temporary use of materials of certain kinds. Mr. Quu~. But they are different materials, and that is what I am driving at. They. don't have the option with the same materials. Mr. HOWE. Well, there are certain items of equipment If imagine they would get under both programs; wouldn't that be true? Mr. Es~ri~s. Not equivalent but library, books and teaching materials. Mr. HOWE. Some of the books. Mr. Es~s. That is right. Mr. QuIE. You mean library books are now available as grants under title III of ESEA to public schools? Mr. Esa~s. Title II. Mr. QuIB. I mean title II. Mr. Esi~s. That is right; library books. Mr. QUIE. So title II of ESEA really was not necessary, then, for public schools? You could have done the same thing for them with a grant in title III of NDEA? Mr. HOWE. On the contrary, with a 50-50 matching program and without-well, the whole spirit of NDEA when it was started, was a focus on some limited subject areas, a focus more on the gifted student and programs for him than on any other group of students and NDEA has continued, by and large, to have that focus and to influence the opportunities of that group of students. That is the whole spirt of the law. Mr. Quit. But we have shifted away from it now. When you look at all of the equipment the schools have acquired under title III of NDEA, it can't be limited to the gifted children `because they must have only gifted children in school. They have projectors coming out of their ears. PAGENO="0080" 74 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HOWE. They are not limited to gifteds, but the whole thrust of NDEA has been to pay more attention to, let us say, the top half than the bottom half of the classes in the schools. I think what we have gained by ESEA is a major thrust which addresses itself to the stu- dents who were neglected by NDEA, the whole curriculum side of NDEA as it operated in its early years being pointed toward the op- portunity of college-bound more than to the non-college-bound and potential dropouts. I think we have complementary pieces of legisla- tion, speaking in the broad sense. Mrs. GREEN. Wouldn't it be better from an administrative stand- point if title III of NDEA was transferred to elementary and second- ary since it is desig-ned for the same purposes? Mr. HowE. From the administrative standpoint, it makes no differ- ence. We administer this as part of our elementary and secondary activities, so, from our point of view, continuing this legislation serves the purpose. Mrs. GREEN. Are the ground rules different? Mr. HOWE. There are different ground rules necessarily in a State- planned matching program versus a State-planned nonmatching pro- gram. Mrs. GREEN. I mean for equipment and books. Why wouldn't it be well to coordinate it since it applies entirely to elementary and second- ary students. Mr. HOWE. Well, they are operated by the same people in the Office of Education, same branch under Mr. Estes. I think we have good coordination among them. Mrs. GREEN. But a school in making application has to have differ- ent ground rules applied, doesn't it? Mr. HOWE. They are both State-planned operations and the States do submit separate plans, that is true. Mrs. GREEN. Well, if X school wanted equipment and books and only had one bill to go through and one set of ground rules, wouldn't it be easier? Mr. HowE. Perhaps it might. I think that really we are in a histori- cal situation in a way in having a 50-50 grant program on the one hand and a full-funding program on the other. There is language in title II of ESCA which asks that the State plan direct itself to providing edu- cational opportunity to youngsters who have the greatest need and you don't have quite this thrust in title III. It seems to me we have a couple of youthful programs in being that are being operated by us on a very complementary and closely coordi- nated basis. Mr. QUIE. May I ask another question about title III, if I may. I just received a telegram this morning from Mr. Breidenstine, deputy superintendent of Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction. (The telegram referred to follows:) [Telegram] HARRISBURG, PA., April17, 1967. Hon. ALBERT H. QUIE, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your immediateattention is drawn to proposed legislation now before Congress involving a 41 percent. reduction of title Ill-A, NDEA funds for fiscal year 1968. An additional reduction is proposed for administrative and supervisory money PAGENO="0081" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 75 at the State level and the elimination of title 111-B supervisory and related pro- grams for NDEA. These important programs are under consideration for transfer to title V of ESEA. If this legislation is enacted, the State departments of educa- tion may need to reduce drastically their advisory personnel which could result in internal confusion and possible elimination of expanding worthy, and success- ful programs. It is apparent that these legislative proposals were not discussed with State department of education administrative personnel. Accordingly, we urge that this problem be brought to the attention of the Members of Congress and urge them to support the existing program and is full appropriation for the 1968 fiscal year and consider these suggested amendments in 1969 with a phasing- out period. A. G. BREIDENSTINE, Deputy Superintendent, Pennsylvania Department of Public Instruction. Mr. QuIE. Are you familiar with this objection? Mr. HOWE. Yes. Mr. QUIE. What would the answer be? Mr. HOWE. Let me say a word and let Mr. Estes comment further on it. First of all, we have reduced-and i was not aware it was 41 per- cent but that is approximately correct, I am sure-the request in 1968 budget for equipment funds under title III. It goes along with the general policy ~n 1968 budget of investing more heavily in persona.] services, additional teachers, and additional, or direct opportunities for schools outside of the equipment and building routes. They are being cut in both of those items in the 1968 budget. We would continue to support the budget arrangement we have set up as really of more direct and immediate assistance to the schools and. the expansion of our budget; the total budget in 1968 reflects this philosophy. In regard to the transfer of the supervisory positions to title IT, it seemed to us that was very directly an effort to do exactly what title V is about-to build the strength of State departments of education in a particular regard; and although in doing so we do drop the matching feature and the required matching feature, it seems to us that these departments which have been in the habit of matching these funds will continue to match them as they have them under title V if they are interested in having the service. So it seems to us a useful consolidation. Perhaps Mr. Estes would like to comment on it further. Mr. Es~n~s. I have two points. As you know, about 21 percent of our title I funds this last year went for equipment and facilities. This year it appears as though about 16 percent will go into equipment and facil- ities. Therefore, the total impact of this is not as great as it would appear in the telegram. Local school districts will have available to them through the various programs we administer funds for equipment and facilities. Secondly, we have talked with the State department of education people and we have talked to them in Harrisburg and in title V of the Elementary and Secondary Act we are spending throughout the States about 20 percent of our money to assist them in strengthening their leadership ability in these various areas. This same kind of service is available under title III of NDEA. We think it makes more sense to give the States a control of these funds and let them assess their needs and assign priorities accordingly so they can coordinate the use of these funds rather than segment and fragment in one. 80-155-67-pt. 1-6 PAGENO="0082" 76 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 For instance, if I might give an example, we have a staff at the State department of education leveJ that is responsible for curriculum and instruction and report to one assistant superintendent. They are paid * out of State funds, out of title V funds. We have another staff for cur- riculum and instruction for supervision, for strengthening instruction in that State, that is paid out of NDEA III funds and reports to an- other assistant superint.endent. This simply gives the State department of education more flexibility to assess and assign priorities. It does not necessarily mean they will receive less money next year from Federal sources. Mr. Quia. Could I also ask you, then, a question I asked Secretary Gardner and you said you would answer, Mr. Howe? In regard to the concern that teachers of English have on a transfer of title XI NDEA to title V of the Higher Education Act, will it in some way endanger the training of teachers of English. I understood from Secretary Gardner that you would make assur- ances for the record that there would not be any reduction in the effort of training these teachers of English. Mr. HowE. We don't foresee the reduction in any of the categories that have typically been listed in this legislation. What we see in the years ahead with this legislation is an expansion of the funds we will be putting into it. Certainly a continuance that the levels to which we are now accustomed will be held for training programs for categories that are listed in the legislation. Yet with the addition of funds we will have the opportunity to focus new investments in those areas of great- est shortage resulting from the studies that the legislation requires us to make. What I have just said is a brief summary of a longer statement that we might enter for the record. I don't know if Mr. Alford has made it available. Mr. ALFORD. I can. Mr. Howi~. We have a statement on this point if the chairman would like it. Mr. QuVE. I would like it as part of the record. Mrs. GREEN. It will be made a part of the record, without objection. (The statement referred to follows:) CONSOLIDATION UNDER THE EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT ACT AND CURRENT LEVELS OF SUPPORT Some persons and groups have expressed fears that the consolidation of programs under the Education Professions Development Act will result in re- duced Federal support of a number of critical areas specifically mentioned in our current patchwork of laws. May I say this is not the purpose of the proposed legislation. On the contrary, we expect increased support in future years in a program larger than the composite of current programs. Furthermore basic sub- ject areas such as English, history, etc., will undoubtedly receive greater assist- ance than they now enjoy. Take for example institutes for study of early child- hood education or elementary education. These institutes not currently eligible for assistance could be funded and basic subject areas will be included because teachers at this level teach all or nearly all subjects. As indicated in my testimony, basic to any attempt to solve our education man- power needs is detailed knowledge of specific areas of need. The law will require an appraisal of these needs and an annual report on the state of the profession. If warranted by these studies and reports, shifts in emphasis will occur, but this would not be in the immediate future. As the needs for various types of educa- tional personnel vary, the flexibility of this new training authority would allow us to meet these needs on an orderly planned basis. PAGENO="0083" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 77 Mr. BRADEMAS. Will you yield? I apologize first of all for having been late, but I just got off of an airplane from Indiana. MY colleague from Minnesota, Mr. Quie, and I worked together very hard in 1963 to try to diminish some of the very rigid categories in the Vocational Education Act, which, in effect, made it difficult to respond to the needs of the changing, more urbanized economy. Is it fair to suggest that what you are observing right now is an- alogous to that problem? You are not asking us to decrease or do away with the support you give to English or mathematics or other cate- gories, just as in 1963 we were not trying to do in farm occupations or farm-related occupations, but rather to open the door to important flew subjects? That is a rhetorical question, but I asked it in order to try to understand what you are proposing. Mr. HowE. I think this is a fair statement of our purposes. I think the same line of thought runs through a number of suggestions we are making here. In the equipment and remodeling titles of both NDEA and Higher Education Act we are suggesting that categories be removed. Mr. BRADEMAS. If my colleague will yield for a further question which is not related to the particular matter under discussion but to a general concept that runs through both NIDEA categories and voca- tional education. It also touches upon your proposed Educational Professions Development Act. As I understand it, you want to do away with patchwork, to use your word, of existing authority in the field of teacher training, just as you want to do away with the patchwork in the NDEA categories. But I am not quite so persuaded in the field of teacher training as I am by your argument on vocational education. I am open minded, but I will make a rhetorical attack and ask you to respond. Would it be unfair to argue that what you are really doing is sending up a kind of smokescreen here for the fact that you have not put up much money for existing teacher education programs? I think you now have $15 million for the experienced and prospective teacher fellowship pro- grams. I am not sure of what you are recommending for the coming year, but if we are concerned about teacher education programs and bringing more people into teaching, shouldn't more funds be the first order of priority? Then we can talk about resolving the patchwork problem. Mr. HowE. Let me say a couple of things about amounts of money. First of all, for all training authority in the Office of Education, and there is quite a mix or patchwork of authorities, we had in fiscal 1967, in appropriations, a total of $323 million. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am addressing myself to authority that is aimed at providing training for people planning to pursue careers in elemen- tary and secondary education. Mr. HOWE. Well, I can't pick that out from these figures as they are. Mrs. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield. On those authorized funds, $275 million for 1968, if my figures are correct you are asking for only 12 percent, or $35 million, and the additional $240 million available in authorized funds you are not requesting. Mr. HOWE. Yes, we have slowly built this program up: We started at a lower level than the authorization by a good deal, as you suggest, PAGENO="0084" 78 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 and we are asking for $5 million more in fiscal 1968 than we had in. fiscal 1967. I fully expect that we will ask for a substantial increase of training funds in fiscal 1969. Unless we do so, we won't have the opportunity we ought to have under the new act that we are suggesting here, the Educational Pro- fessions Development Act. In order to make that act really effective in bringing in such categories as teacher aids, administrators, training of jirnior college teachers and other categories which we don't have authority at present to train, it seems to me we almost necessarily have to bring added funding to the support of this kind of activity in. fiscal 1969. But I believe that enough of these categories, new categories are offered in the new legislation so that we need the time between now or when this act is enacted and fiscal 1969 to do good planning both for our administration of it and for the involvement of institutions of. higher education in the program. It seems to me, Mr. Brademas, that we are not setting up a smoke- screen here in this act, but really seeking a broadening of authority which makes it possible to train groups of people that the Federal Government is not now expressing an interest who will serve education. Mr. BRADEMAS. I hear what you are saying but I would be much more persuaded by your argument if I saw the dollars. Mr. HowE. Yes. Mr. BRADEMAS. I am looking at page 7 of Dr. Gardner's statement yesterday in which he talks about your proposed Educational Pro- fessions Development Act. `We could move quickly to meet heavy new demands for personnel and develop more faculty," and so on. You could come up with all three of your suggestions, but instead of saying, "with this broader legislation," you could substitute the words,. "with a great deal more money." Now, you know as well as I do that you have been bombarded by colleges and universities with .requests for teacher education programs. I would be interested in knowing what or how many institutions have~ applied for teacher fellowship programs and how many you have~ funded. That would, I think, be relevant. Mrs. GREEN. Will you yield? Mr. BRADEMAS. Of course. Mrs. GREEN. It does seem to me, Commissioner, it ought to be stated'. that the Office of Education requests about $83 million for this pro- gram. We have that little agency downtown called the Bureau of the Budget that has intervened between the Commissioner's request and. the time he appeared before this committee. Mr. BRADEMAS. I think the Commissioner is on the Lord's side, but I just wanted to make my point. Mr. Quin. Could I ask one more question on this and then I will have to leave. Yesterday it kind of bothered me, Commissioner Howe,. your answer to my question as to who would serve on the National Advisory Council on Educational Professions Development when State depart.ments of education were mentioned. I felt for some timeS that State departments of education ought. to be involved more in interest and concern about training of teachers, not just elementary' and secondary schools, and in t.he institutions of higher learning. Butt PAGENO="0085" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 79 in answers to two questions, one, when I said, "How about the State departments of education ?" you said there is a danger I would be creating so many categories you would have to increase the size of the Council, and when I asked if it is possible you would need all State departments of education, you said you wouldn't think so; you would need further experience. But serving as Commissioner of State depart- ments of education at the time it didn't seem to be a matter of issue hut that you would have this experience. Does this mean you are contemplating the possibility you wouldn't want a person who actually was serving at the present time on the State department of education? Mr. HOWE. Not at all. Of course we have on the Advisory Council at the present time a number of chief State school officers. I recall a chief State school officer on the Title III Committee and one or more on the Title V Committee. Sprinkled throughout the Advisory Council structure you will find chief State school officers or their assistants. We want to include people working in the State departments of edu- cation on these kinds of committees. Really my interest is to maintain a flexibility here and not build a record which then means we have a whole lot of categories that have been named as a promise to get on a committee and we find ourselves so structured that we would have a real problem in developing the committee. But I have a great interest in having State people on advisory committees, and we continually get them. Mr. QmE. I will leave but will try to be back. Mr. HOWE. Now, Madam Chairman, we were discussing title III. Then we jumped into a discussion of some other matters. I ought to *go back to reviewing the titles of NDEA and go to title IV of the fellowship graduate program; here again we are asking for a 5-year extension. We do so against a background of a growing proportion of the higher education institutions which offer the Ph. D. degree partici- pating in this graduate fellowship program, and as of 1967 and 1968 we foresee 90 percent of the institutions offering the Ph. D.'s will be involved in the graduate fellowship program. We are suggesting one or two things, again reaching toward flexibil- ity in this legislation. One is the discretion of the Commissioner in extending grants to 4-year periods of study. I believe the present limitation is a 3-year period of study. Another change suggested is that instead of stipulating the exact stipend in the legislation that we make the stipends adjustable so we may keep them in line with fellow- ship stipends offered by other agencies of the Government. You ought to know there has been some study of this matter of stipends offered by different agencies of the Government through the Federal Interagency Committee on Education. I think that Com- inittee will have a useful influence in bringing these stipends into line so that we don't get into competitive kind of shopping for fellowships, but really have a more coordinated arrangement for setting stipends. I think these are the major suggestions we have for title IV of NDEA. Now, going to title V, which provides for guidance counseling and testing services and provides institutes for counseling and testing, we :are suggesting that part (b) of title V which provides for counseling in institutes be transferred into the Education Professions Develop- PAGENO="0086" 80 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ment Act; that that training aspect no longer be continued as part of title V; part (a), would remain in title V. Mrs. GREEN. Is there a coordination between HEW and the OEO Upward Bound program? Mr. HOWE. Talent search. Mrs. GREEN. Yes, is there a coordination between that and title V of NDEA, or are they totally unrelated? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Madam Chairman, there is coordination between the two, there should be, of course, title V(b) being directed toward un- proving secondary school guidance counseling and the other being directed to identifying young people early enough who have college promise and do it many ways in guidance counseling and I think in colleges and schools closer together. A number of the proposals supported under the talent search pro- posal do involve secondary guidance counselors or State depart;-. ments of education that are giving attention to the guidance counsel-~ ing in the schools and in the Office of Education itself there is- coordination to the extent that we work back and forth with the- guidance counseling people in the office. Mrs. GREEN. I was referring to the part on testing primarily. Mr. HowE. Well, yes; well, insofar as the testing program under title V (a), which, of course, does support testing programs in the schools and their use by guidance counselors, then there is coordination.. Mrs. GREEN. But you don't target in on this program to try to find the early identifications of the talent? Mr. HOWE. We don't in every instance, that is right, but there are a number of instances in which work is going on with secondary schools that are receiving support under the testing program or title V( a) where the information for the testing program is an important part of the talent search. Going ahead to title VI, the language program in area centers for modern foreign language, this program includes fellowship awards and we are asking for a 1-year extension here, so that this program may be dovetailed with the International Education Act. You are aware that the administrative arrangement in HEW for the Interna- tional Education Act has set up a new center for educational coop- eration under the assistant secretary for education. We have within the last 3 months or so actually transferred from the Office of Edu- cation the portion of the staff, or delegated, I guess you would say, the portion of the staff which is responsible for title VT, to Secreta.ry Miller's office. They are now working directly for him in operation of his program. We are asking for the 1-year extension to dovetail it with the International Education Act. Title VII, which is media research program of NDEA, we are not. asking for extension. We have adequate authority under the Coopera- tive Research Act and this means to us a useful consolidation. Title X really, the same kind of action is being suggested. It involves grants to States for statistical services and no extension is sought here. These kinds of activities can operate under title V of ESEA through grants made available there and continuing this general broad posture we are trying to consolidate as we can. PAGENO="0087" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 81. Title XI, the training institute, again extension is not being re- quested because this authority goes into the new Education Professions Development Act. I think these are the major items of NDEA that we are bringing before you although there are some detailed matters I have not mentioned. Now, going to Education Professions Development Act itself, we had some discussion of this with the Secretary yesterday. I would. call your attention to pages 24 and 2~5 of my testimony and perhaps it would be a good idea at this point for me to read that particular section because it calls attention to a number of reasons why we are suggesting this new legislation. I call your particular attention to the items listed in subheading on page 24 and page 25, which point out particular needs that we can't meet under existing legislation. It reads: "1. Title XI of NDEA even after liberalization amendments cannot provide training at less than the graduate level, which precludes institutes for sub~ professionals. 2. Institutional development grants are given only in conjunction with title V(c) HEA fellowships. Yet, an institution of higher education may need such a grant to prepare for good fellowship programs, or it may find its educational needs would be better met if such a development grant were made in conjunction with an institute program. 3. The teacher fellowship under title V(c) program does not support the train- ing of junior and community college teachers. Yet, these institutions are grow- ing rapidly and are experiencing the same staffing problems as schools at the elementary secondary education level. Although NDEA fellowships can be used. to train junior and community college teachers, there is no flexibility to support programs for them at less. than the Ph. P. level. 4. Institute authority includes many subjects. Other important ones, however, are not supported, including health education, anthropology, sociology, psychology business education, and physical education. 5. Present programs do not really permit a continuum of teacher education from the undergraduate level through the special programs of continuing edu- cation for master teachers. A university's master plan for such a continuuni can now be supported only on a piecemeal basis, as each application is submitted and reviewed as a separate entity. 6. Education programs for specific educational groups or problems may not readily fit into any specific subject area-for example, the problems of teaching at the preschool level. I would add to the listing an area that seems significant, that is, we have not had general authority to invest Federal funds in the train- ing of the leadership aspects of education either at elementary-second- ary or higher education levels. It seem.s to me there should be support from the Congress for leadership training for school superintendents and supervisors of all categories, and for the specialized people who are in greater and greater demand in the administrative side of both higher education and elementary-secondary education. Here is a need the new legislation will help to meet. On the other end of the spectrum, schools are beginning to use more and more nonprofessional people, a variety of different kihds of people who may be really highly specialized but who don't fall into the pro- fessional category. We should have opportunity to address ourselves to this side of the manpower problem of education. Finally, it seems to me that we should have the opportunity to pro- vide programs not formal training, programs-that is the wi~ong PAGENO="0088" .82 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 phrase to use, but certainly opportunity for stimulation of the element of education which provides its leadership and trustees of colleges and universities. Members of school boards, could under this legislation, gain the benefit of conferences or workshops which would be very helpful. So these are our major reasons for suggesting this rather comprehen- sive piece of legislation. In addition to including these various cate- gories I have been discussing within the total number of people who could receive opportunities for training, it broadens the eligibility for grants or contracts under this program. Thus, instead of dealing pri- marily with institutions of higher education, for training purposes we could deal with State departments of education, with local school dis- tricts for significant inservice training programs with groups of States who had associated themselves for some form of inservice training pro- gram for a particular group of teachers for the summer. The act really reflects the element of flexibility and comprehensiveness to which the Secretary addressed himself in testimony yesterday. Now, we have one other section of legislation we are bringing before you. That has to do with the Higher Education Facilities Act. We are making a proposal that the interest rates be adjusted in this act. I would like to ask Mr. Muirhead t.o speak to the details of that and let me mention first just one other item; that is, the development of two new advisory groups: one to serve the Educational Professions Development Act broadly replacing a number of groups we have and the other a new advisory group related to graduate education. The advisory group on graduate education will combine the endeavors of two existing advisory groups related to graduate education; a group concerned with facilities on the one hand and a group concerned with fellowships on the other. I wonder if Mr. Muirhead would cover the higher education facil- ities interest range? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, it is under title III of the Higher Education Service Act, the construction loan title, and the proposal is to change the interest rates from its present level of 3 percent to a rate of in- terest comparable to the amount that it cost the Government for obligations of comparable material, also to provide the Commissioner of Education with authority to reduce that interest rate up to 1 per- cent and to reduce it presumably to a level approximately of the in- terest rate of public institutions with a high credit rating obtaining by borrowing money in the private market. Now, the rationale for this particular change is somewhat as fol- lows: During the past 2 years when the interest rate had been at 3 per- cent the program had been participated in rather vigorously by public institutions as contrasted with the situation in the first year of the operation of the program when the interest rate was higher when the public institutions did not participate very vigorously in the program. For example, in 1965, about 5 percent of the applications for the loan program were public institution applications. When the interest rate changed to 3 percent in the subsequent year of 1966, 32 percent of the public institutions, or 30 percent of the applications were from public institutions and this year when the interest rate is 3 percent; that percentage has risen to about 49 percent. PAGENO="0089" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 83 The change in the interest rate presumably will have this effect; that it will make the funds available at the level of $200 million in this next year to private institutions more readily and to public in- stitutions whose credit rating is not high enough to enable them to get a lower rate of interest in the private market. Thus, the outcome of it would be that there would be more loan funds available, both through the Federal resources and though the use of the private market, to build the needed facilities in colleges and universities. Mrs. GREEN. May I turn to the Education Professions Development Act? How many teacher-training programs are not included? Mr. HowE. The program for the handicapped is not included. This is, in itself, a comprehensive program, embracing a variety of different kinds of specialists in a rather broad program. We thought it was such a comprehensive program that it was wise to leave it in place. The same thing is true of the training program for all categories of people who serve libraries and that program remains in place. I believe with those two exceptions, most of our training programs are included. I should say the graduate fellowships have been kept in place as a particular program addressed to graduate education to serve higher education and again a very broad program. What we have attempted to do here is to pull together those programs which had the kind of piecemeal aspect which seemed to be narrow in scope and put them into a single broad piece of legislation. Did I miss any, Mr. Alford? Mr. ALFORD. There are a few others. The National Teachers Corps, if you consider it as a training program is, of course, still separate. Foreign language training, title VI, is being transferred to the Depart- ment, and captive films and desegregation training grants and adult basic and vocational education training grants. There are a number still not included. Mrs. GREEN. Foreign language, captioned films? Mr. ALFORD. Adult basic, a new program of training there. One of the logical situations was in the case of the adult basic, for example; it is a new program and we have yet to see what it will do. Vocational education, Teachers Corps, captive films, and of course the ones the Commissioner mentioned. Mr. HowE. The Education Development Act does allow for training of vocational teachers and I believe they are specifically mentioned in the act. Mr. ALFORD. Right, We can cover under flexible arrangements a number of these things. It is understood when you have existing au- thorities already in operation you won't cover it under the flexible arrangement. Mr. BRADEMAS. If the chairman will yield, in your proposed legis- lation, are you contemplating trust administrators could pursue a Ph. D. as well as an Mr. HOWE. Mr. Brademas, we have not made any final settlement of the kinds of programs we would support for administrators. There are a number of needs. One is an initial training enterprise for adminis- trators. I would assume if we got into that we would get into the pos- sibility of doctorate of education type programs. PAGENO="0090" ~84 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 But equally important, if not as important, is the inservice aspect. Whether we go into doctoral degree training on an inservice basis, I am not clear, and my inclination is to say we would not likely. The kind of service we want for inservice administrators would more likely be .a full year at a university or a full year in another kind of school sys- tem than an administrator had been in, or the combination of such a year, then perhaps shorter more intensive periods of training offered to inservice people. Mr. BRADEMAS. On the question of the training you anticipate for lay leaders in education-trustees, school board members and so on, which I happen to think is a very sensible idea-do you have in mind summer institutes, or other programs? Mr. HowE. I would think the whole spectrum of activity from a very short almost a meeting or conference kind of activity to the possibility of summer institutes. Perhaps they would include people representing the leadership in organizations of lay educators like the National As- sociation of School Board Members. It might be wise to explore the possibility of extending training oppor~unities for leadership in such organizations as that, or perhaps for the staff members of organiza- tions such as that. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Was the National School Board Association consulted on this? What is their reaction toward the Office of Education propos- ing training institutes for them? Mr. HOWE. I am trying to remember. We have consulted many and I am not sure we consulted them. Mr. ALFORD. We talked with relation to this. Mr. HOWE. Mr. Estes has been in touch. Mr. ESTES. Mr. Webb, the executive secretary, we talked with, as well as other programs that would assist them in their leadership responsibilities. Their general reaction is favorable at the present time to a local school district under title III, to be able to provide for ex- tended conferences to let the school boards look at their new role in education to come up with suggestion as to how they might improve their effectiveness. Mr. HOWE. We have received requests from State organizations board members for grant.s for training purposes. We received a request from the California Association of School Board Members for a major branch. They requested this for research funds. 1~Te didn't make that grant~ pretty much on grounds the research funds were really not train- ing funds. We ought to have the possibility of making grants for that for training purposes. Mrs. GREEN. You left out the fellowship programs under title IV, NDEA, is that not under the Professions Act? Mr. HOWE. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. What is the language of the bill, page 62, that reads: Projects to Establish New or Improve Existing Programs of Advanced Educa- tion for Prospective College Teachers with Emphasis Upon Developing the Capabilities of Such Persons for Teaching. Mr. HowE. Well, I think this broadly inclusive language is to raise the possibility that nondegree programs may provide a certain pro- portion of college teachers. You are aware, I am sure, that a number PAGENO="0091" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 85 of higher education institutions are exploring the possibility of kind of an in-between degree, somewhere between M.A. and Ph. D. not re- quiring the intensive research on a focus project of Ph. D. but bringing a very broad background in a subject field to train a person for teach- in~. Yale University has mounted such a program in the last year or two. It seems to me we ought to have the possibility of supporting en- deavors of that kind. The fellowship program does address itself to Ph. D.'s. I think, also, within that language, you will find our interest in specialized training programs, perhaps not even for a degree but for people in special categories that might serve community colleges, technical institutes, and a variety of enterprises in postsecondary edu- cation. Mrs. GREEN. Are there any other training programs in ihe Educa- tion Professions Development Act at the college level? Mr. HOWE. Well, for administrators. Mrs. GREEN. College administrators? Mr. HOWE. This possibility is included within the langugage of the act. Also, there would be college or university trustees. There are a number of privately supported programs now for college adminis- trators-fellowships offered to people who take internships in college or university administration by serving temporarily on the staffs of major universities and then being appointed to major administrative assignments after such internship service. We would be interested in that kind of thing. Mrs. GREEN. Why would it not make more sense to transfer this part, if it is needed, subparagraph 1, `over to title IV of NDEA or else transfer all of title IV of NDEA to the Education Professions De- veloprnent Act? Mr. HOWE. I think title IV of NDEA really recognizes a very major stable long-range element in the preparation of college faculty mem- bers and that is the Ph. D. degree and general esteem with which it is regarded by departments in colleges and universities. It seems to us this was a large program, a flexible program in the sense that it ad- justs itself to every subject field and that it was an effectively operat- ing program. We saw no need to move something of that size and scope; it justified itself in its own terms. I can see that you could take the position you suggested. Mr. Alford would like to make a comment. Mr. ALFORD. I would comment that we did consider this possibility and the matter of placing the new type of training authority for less than the Ph. D. in particular. We generally came to the conclusion it would be better to leave the present Ph. D. program alone rather than to take this newer approach under the umbrella of the Education Professions Act. It is a well operating program and it is on a pretty firm foundation. Mrs. G~EN. Mr. Scheuer. Mr. ScunuEn. I am very much interested and very much impressed with the innovative thinking just bubbling all over the place and the design of new training programs-presumably new career definitions. You have mostly described professional training programs this morn- ing, of course, and there is a burst of activities in fields of nonprofes- PAGENO="0092" 86 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 sional and subprofessional or semiprofessional, or whatever phras you wish to use, which are also dealt with in the higher education bill title V. Is there any way, in the design of these new~ educational careers, ii which they are being related to each other to provide a ladder, a verti cal ladder, so you can go from nonprofessional status to B.A.'s to M.A.'s, to less than Ph. D.'s, to your Ph. D., and also to provide a lateral ability from one vertical here to another related vertical, so you would fill in the interstices both vertically and laterally and close up the rungs of the ladder somewhat so a person can, by application and work and on-the-job training, work up all the way to the top of the professional ladder and cross over and get on another professional ladder, if he chooses to do so? How are these programs, in effect, being related to each other? Mr. HOWE. I think we would regard very sympathetically new pro- grams suggested to us by higher education that would have the kind of effect you are suggesting here. The programs which would allow for the experience in the subprofessional category give some recogni- tion for the experience and not necessarily require the person who is attempting to move from the subprofessional to the professional cate- gory to take a good many steps backward to pick up a lot of require- ments for which his experience might substitute. What is involved in accomplishing this is not only institutional but also adjustment by professions which set their own standards and acceptance by them of more flexible arrangements for entering the pro- fession. Typically, professions have not behaved that way. They have tended to seek more rigidities in defining their professions than to seek flexibility. We don't want to suggest any major crash program to change the profession. We want to back interesting experiments that will lead toward the flexibility you are talking about. Mr. SCHEUER. Would it help-and, as I see it, a lot of these new careers and new degrees, degree designs, are sort of growing topsy- if somewhere in the Office of Education, there were a separate bureau or division of career development that would relate both laterally and vertically these new careers you are describing on a professional as well as subprofessional level to the full ladder vertically and horizon- tally? Is there not some need of coordination, some central agency that could relate all of these new careers to the whole world of subprofes- sional or professional group programs-a Bureau of Career Develop- ment to give an overall design and overall purpose, interrelationship to these new careers? Mr. HowE. We are considering some possibility of this kind. We are looking at the prdblem of administrative organization in the Office of Education related to the new act we are suggesting here. As we bring in wider authority for training and as we look toward what we hope will be increased funding for training purposes in 1969 and 1910,, it is clear to me we have to make some administrative adjustments. Exactly what they ought to be we are not zeroed in on, but I know- we will be making some to get at the purpose you are talking about, whether in the form of a new bureau or some other arrangement, I am not sure. PAGENO="0093" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 87 Mr. BRADEMAS. If you will yield, I would like to mention to the ommissioner the article I wrote for the last issue of "Grade Teacher ~iagazine" in which I proposed the establishment of a Bureau of Edu- ational Manpower, so if we have such a bureau, let us call it the ;cheuer-Brademas proposal. Mr. HowE. I will read that with interest and I would appreciate it f your suggestions would remain in the form of articles and not in the orm of legislation. Mr. BRADEMAS. Well, Commissioner, I am carried away by your new ound concern to do away with patchwork and to stimulate oordination. Mr. SCHEUER. May I ask one more question. On the matter of involving the professional institutions, the nurses' Lssociation, the doctors' association, the Association of Elementary chool Principals, the teachers and whatnot, what plans have you teveloped for involving them in redesign of the professional job de- ;criptions and the creation of other than professional job descriptions? ~Iow are you going to energize them to make a positive contribution Lnd avoid the problems that are so often roadblocks in the paths of )rogress? Mr. HOWE. I think the process is certainly an informal rather than formal one. We are regularly in communication with a number of )rganizations particularly in health professions, and attempting through these informal dealings to reach toward flexibility. We have een brought into contact with a variety of new organizations as a esult of legislation such as the National Vocational Student Loan [nsurance Act, which confronted us with a whole new spectrum of echnical training activities for which we had not had responsibility )efore. We are just establishing contaët with organizations in that realm. I think through.the kind of informal contacts I mentioned, through he inclusion of forward-looking people from these organizations in ur advisory committee structures, and such measures, we can bring ~bout the accommodation of which you are speaking. Mr. SCHEUER. Would it help if you had legislative authority to give ~rants for research or demonstration projects that would be carried on y these private institutions representing the various professions so ;hey would be involved in a scholarly, thoughtful, process of scrutiniz- ng, for example, the functions of a doctor, finding out that 50 or 60 )ercent of his time was spent in nonprofessional functions, redesign- ng the doctors' function, and creating a variety of other than profes- ;ional career jobs which would fortify the doctors? You can carry it :o the librarian, teacher, welfare official, correction official, the whole gamut of the professions. In other words, would it help if you had iuthorization and funds to give substantial grants to various profes- ;ional groups so they would become deeply involved in ongoing cholarly demonstration programs to enhance the capability of the rofessional by making it unnecessary for him to fritter away time on ~ionprofessional functions and in designing the nonprofessional career obs to aid and augment them? Mr. Howm First of all, let me say I think we have, in the Education Professions Development Act, authority to give grants to professional PAGENO="0094" 88 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 associations so that if this act is passed we will have a broad authority we have not previously had. I have some question about how far the Office of Education ought to go down this road into all professions; that is, as you get into engi- neering and architecture and a variety of others. Mr. SCHEUER. I was speaking exclusively of the public service pro- fessions. Mr. HOWE. It seems to me we ought to start with the education re- lated professions and in such areas as counseling and psychology, social work, all aspects of teaching and administration, these kinds of pro- fessional interests would be the most appropriate places for us to seek the sort of study and change you are suggesting. I would guess that as you get into other professional areas, and you mentioned doctors, that probably we should have a collaborative arrangement with the Public Health Service in working on problems of that kind and that where the concerns are strictly educational, we might appropriately invest funds under this act. We are already in- vesting our research funds in the improvement of medical education~ and doing some interesting things. We don't, however, use Office of Education funds for the scientific aspects, let us say, of medical education. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Commissioner, do you have the amount of money for the years for which you are asking extensions? Is that available yet? Mr. ALFORD. Not at this time. Mr. HOWE. Under all of these titles, the only amount of money we would have where there are specific authorizations, obligational authorities requested, as part of the title. But we can't make commit- ments at this point, let's say, the 1969 budget. Mrs. GREEN. Will you be able to furnish for the committee the amounts which you estimate will be needed for the years for which you ask the extension? Mr. HowE. Yes, we can make estimates. Mrs. GREEN. I ask that this material be placed at this point in the record. (The material referred to follows:) PAGENO="0095" L.LtfJI~UI ~ ~~-`J~-''-' \- .--. `- -------- - - -- -, - - - - $75, 000, 000 $100, 000, OOL 75, 000, 000 21, 000, 000 ii, 100, 000 53, 000, 000 223, 000, 000 5,000, 000 173, 500, 000 19, 000, 000 230,000,000 129,400,000 (116, 800, 000) (246,200,000) 138,000, 000 251,000,000 26, 000, 000 255, 000, 000 131,500,000 (111,000, 000) (242,100, 000) 155, 000, 000 5, 000, 000 205, 000, 000 210, 000, 000 110, 000, 000 45, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 ~ 25, 000, 000 ~ - ~8j, ~000, 000 262,000, 000 6,000,000 ~ 328, 000, 00() iTh 32,000,000 R 280, 000, 000 ,-~ 0 122,200,000 ~ (115, 000, 000) (237,200, 000) ~ 164, 0(10, 000 ~ 8(1 5, 000, 030 240, 000, 000 245, 000, 000 130,000,000 58, 000, 000 HI (12 0 ~.~1 ci -1 40, 000 000 80, 000, 000 185, 000, 000 95, 000, 000 1970 1971 1972 $125, 000, 000 1968 1969 New obligational authority: Title I-Amendments to title I, Higher Education Act, community service and continuing education programs $60,000,000 Title 11-Amendments to title II, Higher Education Act, library development: Part A. College library reosurces 50, 000, 000 100, 000, 000 Part B. Library training and research, and library school program development 19, 000, 000 23, 000, 000 Part C. Strengthening college and research library resources through Library of Congress I $1, 730, 000 11, 100, 000 Title 111-Extension of title III, Higher Education Act, strengthening developing institutions 40, 000, 000 68, 000, 000 Title IV-Student assistance: Part A. Amendments to educational opportunity grants program: Educational opportunity grants 208,200,000 243,000,000 Grants and contracts for talent search 4,800,000 5,500,000 Part B. Amendments to student loan insurance program: Interest payments on insured loans: Ifligher Education Act 103,500,000 National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act 10,500,000 Part C. Amendments to college work-study program 200,000,000 Pard D. Amendments to national defense student loan program: Appropriation 24,200,000 161,000,000 (Participation sales) (~~) (95,000,000) (TOtal program level) (197,600,000) (256,000,000) Part E. Amendments to national defense fellowship program 126,000,000 Title V--Education professions development (amendments to title V, Higher Education Act): Grants arid contracts for attracting qualified persons to the field of education 2, 500, 000 5, 000, 000 Preschool, elementary, secondary, adult, and vocational education personnel: Graduate fellowships 135, 000, 000 170, 000, 000 Program development grants 140, 000, 000 171, 000, 000 Preservice and inservice training 70, 000, 000 90, 000, 000 Triining and development programs for higher education personnel -- 21, 500, 000 36, 000, 000 Title VI-Instructional equipment and materials: Part A. Equipment and materials for higher education (amendments to title VI, Higher Education Act): Television equipment 30, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 40, 000, 000 Other equipiaent 70, 000, 000 80, 000, 000 80, 000, 000 Part B. Equipment and materials for elementary and secondary education (amend- ments to title III of National Defense Education Act) 110, 000, 000 140, 000, 000 165, 000, 000 Title Vu-Guidance, counseling, and testing (amendments to title V-A, National Defense Education Act) 54, 000, 000 66, 000, 000 77, 000, 000 Title Vill-Language development (amendments to title VI, National Defense Education Act) 30,900,000 Total, new obligational authority 5, 930, 000 1, 658, 000, 000 I Excludes $7,770,000 under current authorization, represent the administration's position on future prograni or budgetary requiienieiits. 2 Excludes $193,400,001) under current authorization. Personnel reqimirenients will 1)6 dependent OIl pruglair) (levelOI)1516n15 111(1 budget 3 The projectiong contained in this table represent departmental esthnates and (10 not factors which at thuis tulle caniiot be frilly 1)I'educle(l. 1, 955, 000, 000 2, 295, 000, 000 2, 603,200, 000 PAGENO="0096" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Muirhead, will you explain Talent Search; one, how much money you have for it, and two, the procedures and exactly what you do? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. The Talent Search program is supported with an appropriation of $4 million which we are asking for next year, a somewhat higher level than this year, and the procedure is somewhat as follows: That proj- ects are invited from universities, from associations, nonprofit organi- zat.ions, from secondary schools, from State education departments, with the express design of seeking out and identifying young people, primarily young people in disadvantaged areas. There is considerable emphasis on seeking out young people in schools that are not ordinarily on the recruiting circuit of colleges and to support the proposals that would devise ways of identifying these young people and providing programs during the balance of the secondary school career that would help them meet the college administration standards. Perhaps the most effective way to explain the program would be to share with you a couple of the proposals that are now being supported. For example, at Bemidji State College in Minnesota we have what is called a northern Minnesota development project and the proposal is intended to seek talented youths in economically depressed portions of ~2 Minnesota counties and four major Indian reservations and inform these people of sectional educational opportunities. The activities supported include visiting the schools and homes of business leaders, publishing brochures on financial aid, holding col- lege and career conferences, and cooperating with secondary schools through their secondary school guidance counsels in early recognition and continuous encouragement of needy district students. In addition, a special study is being made of high school dropouts in those same counties. Mrs. GREEN. Is that University of Minnesota? Mr. Hown. Bemidji State College in Minnesota. This is possibly typical of a type of proposal that is supported. In some instances a group of universities may gather together or a group of colleges may band together to provide this type of program, as in the case in Michi- gan where, through the Michigan State University, they have been in touch with the community colleges in Michigan and opening up the line of communication between the community colleges and secondary schools, particularly in the disadvantaged areas, and there is a very heavy concentration in Detroit. The program, it seems to me, has a great deal of promise. We are not ready to evaluate it. It has just started. We worked rather closely, as you would expect to, with the Upward Bound program in the Office of Education opportunity, hopefully leading to a sort of a continuous program of assistance to those young people and first of all their iden- tification and encouragement and then, through the Upward Bound program, providing them with some sort of remedial program if such a program is needed so they can cross the threshold of college entrance. Mr. QmE. I just wanted to ask a question what he meant by a con- tinuous program. Does this mean that Moorehead State College, say, can be assured of having a program for some time, or does it me~rn you relate somewhat with Upward Bound so that a person who might PAGENO="0097" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 91 be engaged in both of them? Or does it mean you have a progra~n that follows them from the time you start them in secondary school all the way through their 4-year college? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, under ideal circumstances we would mean the latter, in that you do identify the young people if they need some assistaflce and remedial instruction, then the Upward Bound program would be available. Then the students that are participating in the Upward Bound program, those students, or the names of those students are made available to colleges who in turn will give very special con- sideration to them in awarding and perhaps study program and the NDEA loan program. There is a good deal of slippage along the way but we look at it as sort of a continuous program of assistance, the various pieces are in place to see to it that a youngster from a disadvantaged area who comes from a poor f.amily and has academic ability and not had a good secondary school preparation can be helped all the way through college. Mr. QUIE. Any next question will wait. Mrs. GREEN. What can Upward Bound do that you cannot do and what can you do that Upward Bound cannot or does not do? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. The principal difference between the Talent Search program and the Upward Bound program, and I think those are the two we are seeking to compare, would be that the Talent Search program is really not designed to provide instructions or provide addi- tional remedial instruction to people not having a good program. The Upward Bound program on the other hand can take a group of youngsters and provide them with a working program during the summer or during the weekend, in the junior or senior year or in some arrangement with the college to see to it whatever deficiency, they have in the secondary preparation or elementary preparation, can in some way be remedied through such a program instruction. Mrs. GREEN. The program you outlined .a moment ago in Minnesota, what does that college do for the youngsters you identified as having this special talent? Mr. MUIRHEAD. They will bring to them, first of all, work with the schools in devising programs and better testing procedures for identi- fying talent which is latent, and having done that, then they will pro- vide information to the schools and to the students concerning ways in which they can have the possibility of looking forward to assistance when they enter college. It is, as the name implies, a program to identify talent and to encour- age them and provide them with the information that. will let them perhaps have continued hope for getting a college education. Presumably, it will also sharpen up and improve the guidance~ coun- seling program in the schools, but it is not directed at providing instruc- tional programs for special students. Mrs. GREEN. I thought in your outline a moment ago you talked about a summer program that this college had. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. Well, this college had a summer program which would bring together guidance counselors in those areas and provide them with additional information so that they in turn can share it with the students in the schools. " 80-155-07-pt. i-7 PAGENO="0098" 92 HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Let me ask you, under the law, do you have the author- ity to do everything that is being done under the Upward Bound program? Mr. MUIRHEAD. We do not. Mrs. GREEN. What do you not have the `authority to do? Mr. MtITRHEAD. We do not have the authority, for example, to run a summer institute program to help a group of young people who have not had mathematics instruction in secondary schools; whereas, the Upward Bound program can do just that. Mrs. GREEN. Why shouldn't we follow through on the Education Professions Development Act by bringing some coordination at this level. Mr. MUIRHEAD. It seems to me that that is a very logical step for us to take and I am of the opinion that Upward Bound has done a fine job where it is and has started the `ferment that is needed in such a situation as that but we do work very closely with them. I should think ultimately, that the four, or rather the three particular programs I am suggesting, Talent Search program, the Upward Bound program, and financial aid program, should be together some place. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Mrs. Green, you might be interested in this pamphlet on Talent Search program which lists the projects which were actually mounted in fiscal 1966. There are quite a variety of programs. I notice one in Indiana and Oregon which will be interesting to you members of the cormnittee and others. Mrs. GREEN. Did the Upward Bound participate in the work study? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, the Upward Bound students who then enter college `are eligible, of course, for work study. In fact, the work study program is designed rather specifically to help that hind of student. Interestingly enough, a number of the colleges that are carrying on work study programs use the work study program to support work dealing with Upward Bound students, graduate students, and Eome~- times undergraduate students working in Upward Bound programs and they are participants in the college study program. Mrs. GREEN. Now, Upward Bound does what you just said you do in the Talent Search program? Mr. Mun~m~D. No. Upward Bound is concentrated, as you might ex- pect, in the upper grades of the secondary schools, and the purpose being to do what they can to remove what academic deficiencies the student might have so they are concentrated for the most part in grades 11 and 12. If the Talent Search program is really to serve its purpose, then it should zero in at the early grades of the secondary schools so there is that distinction. Mrs. GREEN. Who identifies the youngster? Do you do it or Upward Bound do it for Upward Bound? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, I am sure there is not the one-to-one `correlation we would all hope for between the two programs. In many instances the youngsters that have been identified through this program do then become candidates for participation in the' Upward Bound programs, instances where the Upward Bound program seeks out the youngster or seeks out the student without the benefit of this type of program. Mr. QUIE. Will you yield? PAGENO="0099" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 93 Does Moorehead State Cdllege have an Upward Bound program? Mr MiJIRHEAD I don't think so I could check that for you Mr. Quri~. This means they would have to send them to another institution of higher learning for their Upward Bound experience. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, the Upward Bound program, as I must re- emphasize, it is concentrated on precollege students. Mr. QuIE. So is Talent Search. Mr. MU1RHEAD. Yes. Whether there is an Upward Bound program there, I don't know. Mr. QurE. Aren't most of the Upward Bound programs conducted on the campus of an institution of higher learning? Mr. MUIRHEAD. That is the typical plan of operation, although there are instances where it is conducted in secondary schools with the cooperation of the colleges and universities. Mr. BRADEMAS. I wonder if I might ask one question not on this sub- ject but which I understand was under discussion yesterday? The ques- tion is for the Commissioner and has to do with the proposed tax credit and the guaranteed loan program. I understand the classical criticisms of the tax credit proposal to be that it is extremely expensive, that the help goes to the parents and not to the student or institution, and that it helps those who can best afford a college education without Federal assistance. Isn't it fair to say that the guaranteed loan program was an effort to respond to the problems of middle- and upper-income families in sending their children to college? I notice in your statement you say with apparent satisfaction, that "This program is so popular that from November 1965 through the end of October 1966, the estimated number of borrowers exceeded 174,000." There are over 1 million students getting NDEA title II undergradu- ate loans, and I am just wondering if you could give me a comment on the future prospect for the guaranteed loan program in light of the criticisms that have been addressed to the tax credit proposal? That is to say, don't you think you had better get busy to see what you can do to encourage more effective operation of the guaranteed loan program? Mr. howE. We are doing that and the Treasury Department is do- ing that. Mr. Barr, in the Treasury Department, has been helping us in working with the banks to encourage the operation of the guaranteed loan program. As you are well aware, it was launched during the pe- riod of tight credit, and as it loosened the number involved has grown. I believe the figures we gave you yesterday were an estimated 400,000 would be in it during the current year and we foresee something over 700,000 entering it in the subsequent year, the coming school year start- ing next September. This is a. very rapid growth and particularly in a period of tight credit. The total loans which will be outstanding, the figure 1 think we gave you yesterday was in the realm of 400 million as of next year. Mr. MtTIRHEAD. That is right. Mr. Howi~. So here again is a major expansion. We see it as a pro- gram which has a promise of getting launched and which is now more successful and will be successful a great deal more in meeting this par- ticular need. We see it as a program which we don't think has attendant PAGENO="0100" 94 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 upon it the kinds of problems you already mentioned. I will mention one more, I don't think the guaranteed loan program will have as direct and immediate effect, an immediate effect on the raising of col- lege tuition, particularly private college tuitions, as the suggested in- come tax credit program will have. I think that would have a very rapid effect particularly in private institutions and also make some problems for public institutions by placing them in the difficult position of wanting to continue their usual policy of keeping tuition low but wanting to gain the additional income which is available to private institutions by raising their tuitions~ That is, I think this will come about through the income tax credit feature. So it seems there are a number of problems connected with it that need to be carefully examined. Mr. MTJIRHEAD. I wonder if I might, Mr. Bradernas, extend this just a moment, the long-range projections for the guaranteed loan pro- gram, because I think that they are quite tremendous. The program, as it now stands, that the Commissioner has reported, will be support- mg over 400,000 students at the end of this college year and using a very conservative projection, we expect that the program will be sup- porting by 1973 more than 2 million students. I think you have to put this into comparison with the NDEA as it now stands. Of course, that is a very conservative projection, because as the Commissioner pointed out yesterday, the number of students who might be eligible for loans under the guaranteed loan program comes to about 90 percent of the college population. That is if we use the present income pattern that is in the guaran~ teed loan program. Mr. Qmu. You can do even better with a tax credit, you could get 4 million in 1 year taking part. That would be a great record. Mr. MUIRHEAD. When you compare that with the tax credit you must compare it with the amount of assistance that will be provided in the program which will be rather significant. Using the figures I have just suggested of about a little over 2 million* in 1973, the guaranteed loan program, will be providing assistance through interest payments to 2,300,000 students, for a total of about $400 million. That is significant assistance to middle-income families. It goes, of course, directly to the student. Mr. BRADEMAS. I take it, Mr. Muirhead, that you are saying that the sky looks a little, `brighter, the prospects better for the second year of the program? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, Mr. Brademas, I think that is exactly what I am saying. If I may repeat what I said yesterday, the program could not have been started at a more inopportune time with the interest rate being what it was, but we are getting cooperation from the banks and, as the Commissioner has indicated, we are reexamining the pro- gram to find ways in which it can move along more vigorously than it has moved along. Mr. Qmn. Does the $400 million now account for the interest that you pay while the student is in college, in the military, in the Peace Corps and if the family income is less than 15,000 the amount o~ inter- est that the bank collects over 3 percent. Is that right? . PAGENO="0101" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 95 Mr. HowE. That is exactly what this includes. It includes the full subsidy of interest while the student is in school or in some other situa- tion where he is not in a productive situation. It includes the Govern- ment's subsidy of the interest which at the present time is 3 percent while he is repaying the loan. Mrs. GREEN. If we made this forgiveness for the parents' tax credit, that they would be forgiven $325 of taxes if their son or daughter went into teaching, would it be more attractive to the Department? Mr. HOWE. I would guess not but I would like to examine it. Mrs. GREEN. Tomorrow, we are going to have the American Bank- ing Association here to discuss the guaranteed loan, too. Mr. QUIE. Under title I of the Higher Education Act? When do you think you will be able to start evaluating these projects that in- stitutes of higher learning have engaged in community services? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Quie, could I ask Mr. Pagano to respond? Mr. PAGANO. We have begun already. We have two small evaluations taking place from the first year's experience, a large problem in the area of government with small evaluation to determine what was clone, how the community and higher institutions in a three-State area define their problems and what has happened to the people involved. We will have a report on that by early next year. We have another one dealing in the area of poverty which was the second largest area of problems demonstrated by the States and we are looking at five States and in a larger proportion, and the same questions are raised, how the institutions use their resources, involv- ing people, and what was offered and what happened to people during this time which will also be available next year. Mr. Qun~. Will Congress be receiving an evaluation of programs a yea.r and a half after they have been completed? Now, these are completed projects you are talking about? Mr. PAGANO. No, these are projects on-going, and some are. completed. Mr. QUIE. Some are completed? Mr. PAGANO. That is right, or parts of them are completed. Mr. QmE. Do you expect a year and a half for Congress to receive the reports? Mr. PAGANO. Roughly. About a year since they were implemented. a year and a half, that is correct. Mr. QUIE. How do you expect most of the money will be spent in the future-research projects trying to find out how to solve the problems, demonstration projects putting into practice sonic of the research already completed, or actually getting into the dirty work of solving the problems? Mr. PAGANO. Most of it will be done in research already existincr being implemented and being transmitted in some fashion through education or demonstration, or services that the universities have avail- able, and it will move then to the dirty solutions, looking at the pos- sibilities of solutions coming out of fhis relationship between com- munities and universities. Mr. QUIE. Some money can be used to permit universities and com- munities to become involved? PAGENO="0102" 96 HIGHER EDUCATION .AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. PAGANO. Yes. Mr. Qrnu. What about your study on lightweight transit systems in urban areas? Who is doing this? Rather than take the time now could you give me more detailed information about that one later. I would be particularly interested in the one you mentioned here. (The information referred to follows:) EXAMPLES OF TITLE I HEA PROJECTS OHIO One of the primary reasons for the growing transportation problem in urban areas is the imbalance `between the two principle suppliers of passenger trans- portation `facilities and services. The highway-automobile sector, interlocking local, state and Federal agencies is vigorous and dynamic. The `public transporta- tion sector is by contrast fragmented, uncoordinated, and in some cases non- existent. Kent State University, `through its Center for Urban Regionalism, is conduct- ing a Title I program designed to accomplish the following. To `apply modern management tools and techniques to attain better understanding of the develop- ment and control of transit system. `In terms of the overall transportation pro'b- lem, `the aim is to a'ssist transit managers to take thdir proper place alongside highway `engineers and urban `planners in the planning process. It is also intended to demonstrate how existing transportation studies can be useful to transit management." Dr. James G. Coke, Direct'or of the Center and a *poli'tieal scientist, and Dr. Michael Blurton, a transportation economist, assumed responsibility for the de- velopment and planning of the program. As Project Director, Dr. Blurton drew upon his experiences as former `director for two transportation `demonstration grants in Decatur and Peoria, Illinois. His widespread contacts with people in the transporta'tion industry enabled him to obtain their cooperation in designing the program format. A geologist completed the three-member staff from the Center for Urban Regionalism. `Six professors from Kent State University worked with the Center personnel as `teachers in the program. T'hey represented the disciplines of economics, com- puter programming, operations research, management, accounting, and marketing. Outside consultants also participated in a teaching capacity. T'hey were: Mr. Salvatori Ferrare, Director of Research for the Chicago Area; Professor John Baerwald, Professor of Traffic Engineering from the University of Illinois; Mr. James Musick, Chief Traffic Engineer in Columbus, Ohio: Mr. Eli Rock, a Labor Relations Consultant from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Mr. William Walker, from the Webco Mass Transit Center of the Westinghouse Air Brake Corpora- tion; Mr. A. T. Steffin from the Service Bureau Corporation of International Business Machines; `and Mr. Thomas Floyd, Director of Transportation Projects, Urban Traffic Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, D.C. Two four-day sessions were held on `the campus of Kent State University, one in November and one in March. The sessions were composed of lectures, dis- cussions, and problem-solving exercises involving computer programming ap- plied to `actual transportation problems. T'he sessions were tailored `directly to the needs of top management personnel in `the transportation field. The November session covered the following: social science aspects of transit, land use considerations, traffic engineering, and the purpose of urban transporta- tion studies. Course content in the March session included: economic theory of firms, cost benefit analysis, the game theory, modern methods in management accounting, operations research, labor relations, consumer behavior and marketing, planning of surveys, political rela tionships, and new transit technology. Invitations to the sessions were sent to all transit companies in Ohio. Because the program was deemed to have national significance as well as application to Ohio's transportation problems, invitations were also extended to out-of-state companies and agencies, especially those interested in innovation in the trans- portation field. The participants, thirty in all, included: the Assistant Vice President of the WMA Transit Company in Washington, D.C.; the Executive Assistant to the PAGENO="0103" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 97 President of the Louisville Transit Company; a representative of the Massa- chusetts Bay Transportation Authority; the Manager of Market Planning of Detroit's Department of Streets and Railways; the Assistant Operating Manager *of the Bi-State Transit System in St. Louis, and the Manager of Operations and the Supervisor of Personnel from the Cleveland Transit System. Others came from Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Springfield, and Maple Heights in Ohio as well as Dallas, Texas, Charleston, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Most of the participants attended both the November and March sessions. Reaction to the program is best summarized in an unsolicited letter from Mr. -John W. Dameron, Executive Director of the Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Two of his employees were registered for the fall session and ten in the spring. He wrote: "This is the first time in my thirty-five years in the urban transportation field that such a program of instruction and research has been developed for transit management. It is a program sorely needed and hope- fully can be continued in order that more in-depth studies of the problems dis- cussed at the conference can be made." In addition, the Department of Housing and Urban Development was so im- pressed with the design and success of this Title I program that it has asked the Center for Urban Regionalism to conduct two two-week sessions on transit man- agement for its personnel this summer. TnXAS Professional, administrative, and technical personnel concerned with trans- :portation have difficulty keeping abreast of the rapid technological advances in their field. Technical research has produced many new concepts and methods for improving present transportation systems. However, the results of this re- search must be disseminated in readily understandable form before practical advances can be made. Texas A & M University has initiated a Title I program which applies the research findings of its Texas Transportation InStitute to the problem of im- proving urban transportation. The approach is twofold. Cooperating closely and utilizing the resources of the Texas Municipal League and the Texas section of the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the Texas Trans- portation Institute is offering a series of seminars for city, traffic, and urban planning engineers, professional planners, city managers, and training program personnel. Both active professionals and researchers give presentations covering such topics as continuous transportation in urban areas, multiple jurisdiction, and the impact of rapid transit. Because transportation problems are found throughout the State, four or five seminars are being held in each of ten regions. Each region centers around a large metropolitan area: El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo, Dallas-Fort Worth, Waco, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Corpus Christi, and Galveston. It is estimated that :2000 professionals and non-professionals involved iii transportation will benefit through direct attendance. The second approach is directed toward technicians responsible for installing and operating community transportation facilities. Training and re-training courses in the newest technical methods are being offered at James Connally Tech- nical Institute. Both approaches are problem oriented. The goal is not simple dissemination of knowledge, but making that knowledge available to those persons who can in turn apply it to the problems of urban transportation in Texas. Mr. QUIE. Going on to title III, the developing institutions, we had -the idea that title III would be used primarily to upgrade 4-year Negro institutions in the South. It has shifted away now partially be- cause the opinion of the House was not shared by the Senate, and 2-year institutions were included. I understand that now this is going to ]unior colleges, and that new junior colleges are evidently developing institutions. What is really the policy of the Department in title III ~ Mr. MUIRHEAD. I would be pleased to respond to that, Mr. Quie. You are quite right in pointing out that the developing institutions program, as discussed by this committee, had a sharper focus on these PAGENO="0104" 98 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 junior colleges as the law now stands. It was amended and the h~.w does contain a provision that 22 percent of the funds will be made available for junior colleges. With that type of program, I can report to you, however, that in the first year in which the program operated we had a total of 98 institu- tions receiving assistance and of that 98 we had 43 of the institutions that were predominantly Negro colleges. That amounted to about 60 percent of the money. We are about to announce and will announce probably this week the program for this year which amounts to $30 million and that will provide you with information, the first am ounce- ment will cover $22 million rather than the $30 million and 244 in- stitutions will be 4-year institutions and 81 2-year institutions making a total of 325 institutions. Of that amount of money, and also not only the cooperative institu~ tions, there will be over 1,200 fellowships supported under that. Again, there is an emphasis on the predominantly Negro colleges. I have some figures here on that, I think, telling precisely the amount of money that will go to predominantly Negro colleges. Of the programs that will be supported, 72 of the. institutions will be predominantly Negro colleges and they will have grants totaling about 50 percent of the amount of money that is being distributed at this time, the $22 million. Mr. Quu~. Could you put that information in the table in the record? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. Mr. Qun~. Also how many of the junior colleges are newly estab- lished and how many are now started. Will some of them be 4-year institutions or are all of the 4-year institutions ones that have been established for some time and the emphasis is on upgrading them? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, yes. Well, the law makes provision the institu- tion ha.s to be in operation for 5 years. The developing institutions program is not directed at providing help to starting institutions. This applies to all institutions. Mr. HowE. They have to be accredited or give other evidence re~lat- ing to accreditation. Mrs. GREEN. On that, did we change the three college, three letters for accreditation? Mr. MUIRHEAD. We have not changed it, Mrs. Green. We have be- fore you a proposal that would tend to bring hopefully some order out of chaos that exists now. Mrs. GREEN. Is this in the bill? Mr. HOWE. Yes; we have a provision in the bill. Mrs. GREEN. What is it? Mr. HOWE. What we are saying is that there should be an oppor- tunity for new institutions, which can receive from an aecrediting as- sociation a promise of reasonable assurance that they will meet their standards, to participate in the higher education programs. They do not have an opportunity at the present time. In some of the higher education programs one of the provisions, the one you mentioned, is that the institution can become eligible if they have three letters from institutions that are accredited. We would pre- fer, and I think you would agree, that we move to some sort of uni- formity in accreditation and that we place the responsibility . on the PAGENO="0105" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 99 accrediting associations. The proposal you have before you, if it is enacted, would mean in effect institutions which are not accredited per Se, could receive a provision of reasonable assurance from accredit- ing associations and would be eligible under that particular restriction. Mr. QUIE. Do the cooperating institutions have to be accredited? Mr. HowE. Yes. The cooperating institution has to meet the ac- creditation standards in the bill. In almost; every instance, as you would expect, Mr. Quie, the cooperating institution, being a major in- stitution, has a longstanding of accreditation. Mr. QmID. On page 18 of the Commissioner's statement, it says, "115 developing institutions and 16 cooperative and nine business in- stitutes." Are they developing business institutes or developing busi- ness entities? Mr. HOWE. The developing institutions law makes it possible for us to deal not only with institutions of higher education but with other institutions or other associations. For example, the association of small colleges would submit a proposal on behalf of a group of their clients. Mr. Qun~. The business entities are associations of colleges rather than IBM, General Electric, or anybody else who is in the business of manufacturing educational material? Mr. HoWE. That is right. Mr. Qrrii~. It seems odd you call them "business entities"? Mr. HoWE. It seems odd to me. Mr. QUIE. I will ask the Commissioner; who used the term? Mr. HowE. I will add "to me, too." Mr. QuIE. Let me ask one other question, which refers to the bot- tom of the paragraph on page 18 for developing institutions. In Florida there is an interinstitutional program on Asian studies. If you said this could be used, and Paul Miller was going to use his money, which I hope he finally receives from the Appropriation Com- mittees of the Congress, for the institutional five-college program on Asian studies, I wouldn't be surprised at all, but to find it under title III of the Higher Education Act, it seems there would be programs you need other than this. Am I wrong or is this something needed to develop the strength of some colleges in Florida? Mr. HOWE. That is a perfectly normal part of college education, to have an interest in one aspect or another of international studies. It is a reasonable way to strengthen an institution to add to its capa- bility in that area, so I don't see or don't say it should be outside of the concern of title III. I think as long as the institutions are those which would be eligible under title III, whatever aspects of their pro- gram seem to them as important to build up, as long as they are sig- nificant aspects of higher education, which international education certainly is, it would be perfectly reasonable to have this. Mr. Qu~. I would assume those five colleges are strong in every other way but in their Asian study department. Therefore, in order to develop strength, we have to improve them? Mr. HOWE. I would suggest they probably are not, but it seemed to them this is the element they wish to strengthen. Mr. Quin. It does not seem to me to be a very wise priority. Suppose the whole institution is weakened one way or another. Is this the way PAGENO="0106" 100 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 they are going to strengthen it, by improving their aid and studies ? As far as I am concerned I favor this, since we are going to be involved~ in Asia now and for a long time in the future. But the question is should it be done with title III. Mr. HowE. I think you are answering your question in saying the Government should support the Asian studies, as being an important part, but an institution with several hundred or thousand youngsters~ where it can't provide any opportunity in his area is missing a signifi- cant part of higher education. Mr. Quni. Yet, is this the purpose of title III? Mr. HOWE. I don't think title III tried to address itself to one area:. of the curriculum over another. I think it addressed itself to a variety of different approaches by institutions to improve their services. Mrs. GREEN. Would you yield? To help understand this, you say you have established a project in Oregon that is to improve instruction in five or six different areas.. Is this to improve the University of Oregon to bring people to the University of Oregon from developing institutions? Mr. HOWE. We work both ways actually. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, quite obviously, it is not aimed at strength- ening the University of Oregon, but the program to assist the de- veloping institut.ions may be carried on either on the campus of the cooperating institution or on their own campus, or the campus of the individual institution. I am not on top of the particular details of' this program, Mrs. Green, but it is typical of types of programs involv- ing major universities in which they may bring staff from the develop- ing institutions to their own campus or may share with the developing institutions some of their own staff. Mrs. GREEN. Could you provide, not for the record, but could you provide me the names of the people who are in this project in Oregon. for intensive faculty work sessions and where they come from? Mr. MUIRHEAD. By all means. Mr. QuiE. Could you also submit for the record the names of the institutions that are developing institutions and the length of time th at they have been in operation and what makes them a developmg insitution rather than a developed one? Mr. HOWE. Mr. Quie, by saying "names of institutions that are do- veloping institutions," you mean those to which we are making grants ? Mr. QIJIE. That is iight. Mr. HOWE. We would be hard put to draw a clear line, I think, look- ing at all 2,000 institutions. Mr. QIJIE. I won't ask you to do that, just the ones you have funded,. the 115 you mentioned here. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes; and we will be pleased to provide for the record also the number we are funding imminently, which will be this week.. Mr. QUIE. That is all the questions I have. ORITEnIA FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGrBILITY AS A DEVELOPING INSTITUTION (TITLE III HIGHER EDUCATION ACT) In order to be considered for support under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Strengthening Developing Institutions, an institution of higher edu- cation must first meet the basic requirements as set forth in Section 302 of the Act, "Defluition of `Developing Institution.'" PAGENO="0107" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 101 It must be "a public or nonprofit educational institution in any State which- (a) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of gradu- ation from a secondary school, or the recognized equivalent of such certificate; (b) is legally authorized to provide, and provides within the State, an edu- cational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree, or provides not less that a two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or offers a two-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the phys- ical or biological sciences which is designed to prepare the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific, or other technological fields which require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles of knowledge; (c) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or associa- tion determined by the Commissioner to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation; (d) has met the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) during the five aca- dernic years preceding the academic year for which it seeks assistance under this title; (e) is making a reasonable effort to improve the quality of its teaching and administrative staffs and of its student services; (f) is, for financial or other reasons, struggling for survival and is isolated from the main currents of academic life; (g) meets such other requirements as the Commissioner may prescribe by regulation; and (h) is not an institution, or department or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to be- come ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation or to prepare them to teach theological subjects." A majority of these items are clear-cut and may be readily applied to applicant institutions. However, such requirements as "is making a reasonable effort to improve the quality of its teaching and administrative staffs and of its students services" and "is, for financial or other reasons, struggling for survival and is isolated from the main currents of academic life" are less tangible, requiring a degree of subjective analysis and judgment. In its first two years of operation, the division of College Support has relied heavily upon the advice and assistance of its Advisory Council. The Council has provided guidance in the establishment of guidelines. It has seemed wise to avoid a strict definItion of developing institutions which might preclude assistance to a number of institutions defining themselves as developing. The data accumulating from this source have proved to be invaluable in establishing more objective characteristics for the judgmental aspects of the law. As our experience develops, we see emerging a profile which begins to dis- tinguish a developing institution from all others. For example, these institutions bear the following range of characteristics within the categories utilized by aecrediting associations as indices to quality. 1. Enrollment Mean average, 1,089. Moving toward the acceptable 1,500 level. 2. Endowment income or annual Mean average, $125,000. Moving toward State appropriations. $900,000. 3. Tuition Mean average, $556. Moving toward $1,500. 4. Educational and general expendi- Mean average, $1,141,000. Moving toward tures. $2,107,400. 5. Educational and general expendi- Mean average, $1,048. Moving toward tures for student. $1,740. 6. Faculty Mean average, 66. Moving toward 98. 7. Percent of faculty holding the Mean average, 26 percent. Moving toward doctorate. 52 percent. 8. Student-faculty ratio Mean average, 20. Moving toward 12. 9. Library volumes Mean average, 51,000. Moving toward 157,000. This profile could be interpreted, on the other hand, by stating what appears to be the emerging criteria for determining eligibility as a developing insti- tution. PAGENO="0108" 102 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 1. Extreme financial limitations such as salaries of less than $6,000, un- restricted endowment less than $3 million, percentage cost of instruction per student less than 45 percent and expenditures for library less than 5 percent. 2. High faculty-student ratio. 3. Limited library holdings (one-third of the generally accepted minimum requirements). 4. Low percentage (less than one-third) of faculty holding Ph.D degrees. 5. High percentage of students (two-thirds) on scholarships and grants in aid. 6. Poor physical facilities-lack of funds for upkeep and maintenance. 7. Poorly prepared students. 8. Cultural, social, professional, and academic isolation. 9. Little or no foundation, alumni, or corporate support. 10. Little or no sponsored research. No faculty publications. 11. Program offerings and counseling services out of step with new oppor- tunities in careers and vocational occupations. 12. Degree of concern for the development of remedial or corrective pro- grams. 13. Dearth of faculty with scholarly backgrounds and achievements ac- companied by inability to attract highly accomplished faculty due to poor institutional incentive. 14. Inadequate development offices and limited capacity for long-range planning. Hopefully, at the end of a three-year period, the program shall have matured sufficiently to have developed more objective guidelines for the appraisal of basic institutional strength within the universe of developing institutions. (Commissioner Howe submitted the following material:) Developing Institutions-Title III, The Higher Education Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-329). Alabama: Alabama Agricultural and Mechan- ical College Alabama College Jacksonville State College Livingston State College Miles College * Wenonah Junior College Sacred Heart College St. Bernard College Southern Union State Junior Col- lege S'tillman College Talladega College Troy State College Tuskegee Institute Alaska: Alaska Methodist University Arkansas: Agricultural, Mechanical, and Nor- mal College Arkansas College College of the Ozarks John Brown University Philander Smith College Southern State College California: Azusa Pacific College California College of Arts and Crafts California Lutheran College ~haffey College Chapman College California-Continued College of Notre Dame Golden Gate College Lassen College Marymount College Pacific College Pacific Oaks College San Francisco College for Women San Joaquin Delta College Southern California College Westmont College Colorado: Fort Lewis College Loretto Heights College Connecticut: New Haven College Delaware: Wesley College District of Columbia: Immaculate Col- lege of Washington Florida: Bethune-Cookman College Brevard Junior College Central Florida Junior College Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Insti- tute Florida A&M University Florida Memorial College Indian River Junior College Jacksonville University Junior Gollege of Broward County North Florida Junior College St. Joseph College of Florida PAGENO="0109" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 103 Georgia: Abraham Baldwin Agricultural Col- lege Albany State College Andrew College Clark College Columbus College Fort Valley State College Middle Georgia College Morehouse College Morris Brown College Norman College Paine College Reiniiardt College Savannah State College South Georgia College Spelman College Wesleyan College Guam: College of Guam Hawaii: Chaminade College of Honolulu Honolulu Community College Kapiolani Community College Kauai Community College Maui Community College Illinois: Belleville Junior College Crane Campus, Chicago City Junior College Eureka College Illinois Valley Community College Loop Campus, Chicago City Junior College McKendree College Thornton Junior College Trinity Christian College Indiana: Bethel College Indiana Institute of Technology Marion College St. Joseph College Taylor University Tn-State College Iowa: Graceland College Iowa Wesleyan College Loras College Morningside College Briar Cliff College Buena Vista College Mount Mercy College Northwestern College Ottumwa Heights College Upper Iowa University Westrnar College Kansas: Baker College Bethany College Bethel College Dodge City College Donnelly College Griends University Hesston College Hutchinson Community Junior College Kansas-Continued Kansas City Community Junior College Kansas Wesleyan University Marymount College McPherson College Mount St. Scholastica College Ottawa University St. Benedict's College St. Mary College St. Mary of the Plains College Tabor College Kentucky: Alice Lloyd College Bellarmine College Brescia College Kentucky State College Lees Junior College Paducah Junior College Southeastern Christian College Transylvania College Union College Louisiana : Dillard University Grambling College Louisiana Polytechnic Institute Southern University and A & M College St. Mary's Dominican College Xavier University Maine: Gorham State College * Maine Maritime Academy St. Francis College Thomas College ~Iaryland: * Allegany Community College Anne Arundel Community College Bowie State College Catonsville Community College Charles County Community College * Coppin State College Essex Community College Hagerstown Junior College Maryland State College Morgan State College Mount St. Agnes College St. Joseph College Villa Julie College Washington College Massachusetts: Emmanuel College Greenfield Community College * Lesley College Lowell Technological Institute Regis College Simmons College State College at Fitchburg Michigan: Alma College Kellogg Community College Lan sing Community Macomb County Community College Madonna College * Mercy College of Detroit PAGENO="0110" 104 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Michigan-Continued Michigan Christian Junior College Saginaw Valley College Suomi College Owosso College Minnesota: Bemidji State College College of St. Teresa `Concordia College Minneapolis College of Art ~ochester Junior College St. Mary's College Mississippi: Alcorn Agricultural and Mechanical College Copiah-Lincoln Junior College Delta State College East Central Junior College Hinds Junior College Holmes Junior College Jackson State College Jones County Junior College Milisaps College Mississippi Delta Junior College Mississippi Gulf Coast Junior College Mississippi State College for Women Mississippi Valley State College Northwest Mississippi Junior College Pearl River Junior College Rust College Southwest Mississippi Junior College Tougaloo College Utica Junior College Missouri: Avila College Christian College Evangel College Fontbonne College Kansas City Art Institute and School of Design Kemper Military Schaol and College Lincoln University Missouri Valley College Mercy Junior College Missouri Western Junior College Park College Rockhurst College St. Mary's Junior College Tarkio College Westminister College Montana: College of Great Falls Eastern Montana College Nebraska: Chadron State College College of St. Mary Dana College Doane College Duchesne College of the Sacred heart Nebraska-Continued Hastings College Kearney State College Midland Lutheran College Nebraska Wesleyan University Peru State College Union College Wayne State College York College New Hampshire: Keene State College Mount St. Mary College Nathaniel Hawthorne College New England College Notre Dame College Plymouth State College Rivier College St. Anseim's College New York: Briarcliff College Keuka College Marist College Marymount Manhattan College Mater Del College Mercy College Mount St. Mary College Nassau Community College Orange County Community College Roberts Wesleyan College State University of New York, College at Brockport Villa Maria College of Buffalo North Carolina: Catawba College Livingstone College Mitchell College Montreat-Anderson College Mount Olive Junior College North Carolina College at Durham Pembroke State College Pfeiffer College Sacred Heart Junior College St. Andrews Presbyterian College St. Augustine's College Shaw University Warren Wilson College Winston-Salem State College North Dakota: Bismarck Junior College Dickinson State College Jamestown College Lake Region Junior College Mary College Mayville State College Minot State College North Dakota State School of Science Valley City State College Ohio: Bluffton College Defiance College Findlay College Central State College Mary Manse College Ohio College of Applied Science Rio Grande College PAGENO="0111" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 105 Ohio-Continued Sinclair College Urbana College Walsh College Western College for Women Wilberforce University Wilmington College Oklahoma: Cameron State Agricultural College Central State College Connors State Agricultural College Eastern Oklahoma A & M College Langston University Murray State Agricultural College Northern Oklahoma College Northwestern State College Oklahoma Christian College Oklahoma College of Liberal Arts Panhandle A & M College St. Gregory's College Southwestern State College Oregon: Cascade College Eastern Oregon College George Fox College Marylhurst College Mount Angel College Warner Pacific College Pennsylvania: California State College Chestnut Hill College Cheyney State College Clarion State College College Misericordia Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture Elizabethtown College Gwynedd-MerCy College Immaculata College .Juniata College .King'sCollege Lincoln University Mansfield State College Mercyhurst College Messiah College Moravian College Philadelphia College of Art Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science Philadelphia Musical Academy PMC Colleges Robert Morris Junior College Rosemont College Seton Hill College St. Vincent College Thiel College York Junior College Puerto Rico: Catholic University of Puerto Rico College of the Sacred Heart Inter-American University of Puerto Rico Puerto Rico Junior College Rhode Island: Barrington College Roger Williams Junior College South Carolina: Allen University Benedict College Claflin College Coker College College of Charleston Columbia College Converse College Erskine College Furman University Lander College Morris College Newberry College North Greenville Junior College Presbyterian College South Carolina State College Voorhees College Wofford College South Dakota: Augustana College General Beadle State College Huron College Yankton College Tennessee: Bethel College Carson-Newman College Chattanooga City College Christian Brothers College Cumberland College David Lipscomb College Fisk University Freed-Hardeman College Hiwassee College King College Knoxville College Lane College Le Moyné College Martin College Maryville College Milligan College Morristown College Owen College Siena College Tennessee A & I State University Tennessee Technological University Tennessee Wesleyan College Trevecca Nazarene College Tusculum College Texas: Angelo State College Bishop College Cisco Junior College Houston-Tillotson College Incarnate Word College Jarvis Christian College Kilgore College Laredo Junior College Our Lady of the Lake College Paul Quinn College Prairie View A & M College PAGENO="0112" 106 HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Texas-Continued Washington-Continu~~ Ranger Junior College Peninsula College St. Edward's University St. Martin's College Tarleton State College Spokane Community College Texas College Wenatchee Valley College Texas Lutheran College Whitworth College Texas Southern University Yakima Valley College Texas Wesleyan College West Virginia: Weatherford College Alderson-Broaddus College Wiley College Bluefield State College Utah: Dixie Junior College Concord College Vermont: Windham College Davis and Elkins College Virginia: Fairmont State College Eastern Mennonite College Morris Harvey College Emory and Henry College Potomac State College Ferrum Junior College Salem College Hampton Institute Shepherd College Lynchburg College West Virginia Institute of Tech- Old Dominion College nology St. Paul's College West Virginia State College Virginia State College, Norfolk West Virginia Wesleyan College Virginia State College, Petersburg Wisconsin: Virginia Union University Alverno College Washington: Dominican College Cèntralia College Milton College Columbia Basin College Mount St. Paul College Fort Wright College of the Holy Mt. Senario College Names Northland College Gonzaga University Viterbo College Highline College Wyoming: Casper College Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner, Dr. Muir- head, Dr. Estes, and Dr. Alford. Tomorrow the committee will con- tinue hearings in this room at 10 o'clock and, as I mentioned, we will have the American Banking Association, American Council on Edu- cation, and the Librarian of the Library of Congress. Mr. Commissioner, we are grateful to you. We hope that we may call on you again toward the end of the hearings as we develop other facts and we will need your counsel on amendments we may have. Mr. HOWE. Thank you very much. We would be happy to come back. (Whereupon; at 12:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 19, 1967.) PAGENO="0113" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITrEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR. Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Thompson, Brademas, Carey, Gib- bons, Hathaway, Quie, Reid, Erlenborn, Esch, and Gardner. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come. to order for further con- sideration Of H.R; 6232 and H.R.6265. The first witness is the Honorable L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress. On behalf of the committee, welcome, Mr. Mumford. May I also express my appreciation for the material we have re- ceived from the Library of Congress, the reports and materials we have asked for, and for loaning to this subcommittee Terry Pridgen who is . such a wonderfully fine person, as we made the study of the Office of Education, who has helped us go through.the reports. And we express our appreciation for the department that does the computer program. I know it spent many days and many weeks going through some 6,000 questionnaires received by this subcommit- teo on the Office of Education I must say without the help of the Library of Congress, I don't think we would be able to make a report on the study. We are very grateful. You may proceed with your statement, sir. STATEMEI'TT OP HON. .L. QUINCY MUMPORD, LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS Mr. MUMFORD. Madam Chairman and members of the subcommit- tee, the Library is very happy to have been of assistance. I appreci- ate tI~is opportunity to appear here today in behalf of H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265, the bills to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 and other eduCation measures. Although I am here to speak to the title TI-C amendments to the act, I would like to express my whole-hearted endorsement. for the provisions in title II, A, and B. University and college libraries are facing the same problems that the schools themselves have faced in the last decade. An eve~-i~creasing student body, new area study programs, and a greater emphasis on research have placed enormous burdens upon the library resources of these institutions. 80-155-67-pt. i-8 107 PAGENO="0114" 108 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Until the passage of the 1965 Higher Education Act, Federal as- sistance was not available. The provisions of funds in title 11-A is, I believe, a national necessity if we are to give our students the kind of education necessary to cope with the world problems of tomorrow. No one questions the need for trained librarians. A cursory glance at the want ad section of any of the newspapers in cities of this Nation gives evidence of the increasing requests for professional librarians. The library community has attempted to offer financial aid to its students, but it does not have nearly enough resources to meet the demand. The grants provided for in part B should enable many stu- dents, who for financial reasons have not been able to attend graduate schoc~l, to pursue a career in library science. Without good library schools, it would be foolish to encourage these students to attend and the assistance provided for in H.R. 6232, for planning and development grants for library schools should assist in raising the standards of library education. Also, I am gratified by the inclusion of the provisions for grants for research in the area of library and information science research. Many worthwhile studies have had to be shelved because of lack of funds and it is quite clear that research in depth is the only way to find answers to the many problems involved in the collection and dis- semination of information. As most of you know, title TI-C of the Higher Education Act, com- monly known as the shared cataloging program or the national pro- gram for acquisitions and cataloging (NPAC to suggest its impact) which is administered by the Library of Congress and which was advocated by the Association of Research Libraries and the American Library Association, among others, was designed to assist the libraries of colleges and universities in this country with one of their most serious problems-the cataloging of foreign library materials. The program authorized by the legislation has been in operation for less than 1 year, funds having become available in May 1966. The act authorized $5 million for fiscal 1966 and $6,315,000 for fiscal year 1967. The total amount appropriated for these years, however, has been $3,300,000. Despite this very limited funding, the achievements to date have exceeded even the most optimistic expectations. In order to accomplish the purposes outlined in the Higher Educa- tion Act, the Library of Congress has worked out cooperative agree- ments with national libraries and the publishers of national bibliog- raphies abroad to utilize the professional cataloging done in several European countries. These shared cataloging arrangements eliminate the necessity of completely recataloging materials in this country. This enables the Library of Congress to utilize scarce catalogers here to the very best advantage and it speeds up the receipt of catalog information by American libraries. To date contracts have been entered into with 13 national bibliogra- phies for the Library of Congress to receive printers' copy well in advance of publication in the country of origin in order that the Library of Congress may have printed catalog cards available by the time the research libraries acquire the book itself. PAGENO="0115" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 109 Small offices to handle this work, staffed with local catalogers and usually headed by one American, have been established in London, Paris, Oslo, Wiesbaden, Vienna, and Belgrade. These offices provide bibliographic coverage of the publishing output of Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland, as well as of the countries in which they are located. The establishment of an office in The Hague to cover the Netherlands and Belgium is imminent. In addition, regional acquisitions offices are operating in Nairobi, Kenya; and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; to obtain materials not readily available through normal trade channels. If additional funds become available, we plan to extend the program to the Far East and to other countries in Eastern Europe. The early results of the program have been acclaimed by librarians in this country and abroad. I would like to quote just a sentence or two from letters received on the subject. One university librarian has stated: `The Title TI-C Program and its concept of centralized cataloging for research libraries has `been one of the most significant developments in the history of American libraries. It is the only solution to the irreconcilable realities of the flood of publications pouring from the presses throughout the world on one hand and the `severely limited numbers of qualified librarians, especially with compe- fence in foreign languages, to process them on the other hand. Another librarian has said: Title TI-C has the potential of contributing more to the solution of a major problem of research libraries than any federal legislation ever passed . . . But every libra'ry and especially research libraries, will receive vital assistance, as a result, in the form of catalog cards for a higher percentage of books added. This means not only that fewer professional catalogers will be needed, but also that books can `be made available on the shelves more quickly and at less cost. The `amendments before you today, would, we believe, enhance the value of this program to the college and university library. TJnder the present `authorization the Librarian of Congress is charged with "acquiring so far as possible, all library materials cur- rently published throughout the world which are of value to scholar- ship." The `addition of the words "copies of" before "all" would enable the Library of Congress, when necessary, to purchase additional copies of a single title. The present law could be in'terpreted to mean more than one copy, but the legislative history of the act indicates that the acquisition of a single copy was intended. A single copy of many publications, eS~)ecially those from areas where small editions are published and books cannot readily be ob- tained from dealers, is not always sufficient. Because the Library of Congress serves first the Congress, then other `Government agencies, and finally the research community, the copy obtained for centralized cataloging purposes is usually required in Washington for official purposes. A second copy for loan purposes is often needed. It would even be possible to place this copy on a deposit basis in a centrally located research library for the purpose of making it available on loan to other libraries. The cost of this second copy would be moderate because it would not be the intent to acquire materials that are generally available through regular book trade channels, but to acquire those materials PAGENO="0116" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS~ OF 1967 that are difficult to obtain and needed by libraries periodically to fill a special research request. The proposed language to amend section 231(2) reads: "providing cataloging information promptly and distributing this and other bibliographic information about library materials by printing catalog cards and by other means, and enabling the Library of Congress to use for exchange and other purposes such of these materials not needed for its own collections." The revision of the language of this section would make it perfectly clear that the Library of Congress could not only provide cataloging information about currently acquired materials but that it could also prepare other aids to higher education, such as bibliographies, indexes, guides, union lists, and the like, describing not only current books but other important materials vital for research. Such bibliographic tools are essential to the librarian and the scholar if a library's resources are to be effectively utilized. A new subsection (3) is proposed in I-I.R. 6232 and in }ii.R. 6265. If enacted, this language would enable the Library of Congress to pay administrative costs of cooperative arrangements for acquiring library materials published outside of the United States, its territories, and its possessions and not readily obtainable outside the country of origin for institutions of higher education or combinations thereof. In some areas of the world where there is little or no export book trade, it is impossible for American libraries to obtain the significant materials published in those areas without a staff member physically there to collect them, and this is impossibly expensive even for the larger university libraries. As I have already noted, the Library of Congress has had to estab- lish procurement centers in such areas in order to insure that we get needed publications. Because we already have a representative on the spot, to obtain an additional copy for another library would add little to the cost of acquiring the material, yet it would save an untold amount of acquisitions staff work in many libraries. Furthermore, in many instances the number of copies of a single title published in the emerging countries is so small that unless the publication can be obtained shortly after it comes off the press, there simply are no copies left for distribution outside the country of origin. Under the plan proposed in section 232(3) the library receiving the book would, of course, pay for it. Library of Congress would merely serve as a procurement agent in those developing countries where it has a person on the scene. It would be impossible to prorate the acquisitions cost. Therefore, authority to pay the administrative ex- penses out of the funds appropriated under title IT-C is requested. This subsection (3) differs from the proposed amendment to sec- tion 231 (1) of part C of title IT, in that universities and colleges with particular area programs would need to purchase a copy for their own collections, while subsection (1) as revised would permit the Library of Congress to obtain an extra copy; or copies, for national use. Because of the extreme importance of this centralized cataloging program, the research community has strongly recommended that title TI-C be extended, as are parts A and B, for a 5-year period, rather PAGENO="0117" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 111 than the 2-year extension program provided for in H.R. 6232. I agree with this recommendation. Although great progress has been made, the program, because of limited fuilding, is just getting started. A 5-year extension would give us sufficient time to put the national program for acquisitions and cataloging on a sound operating basis. Thank you for your attention. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mumford. I have a couple of questions. I notice in the bill and in the testimony of the Commissioner that a study is to be completed in 1969 of the relationship of the Library of Congress to the executive and the legislative branches. Who is conduct- ing this study and when did it get underway? How is the Congress involved in it? Mr. MUMFORD. I think there may be some misunderstanding with respect to that. I believe the Commissioner was referring to the National Commission on Libraries, members of which were appointed by the President about 6 months ago. This Commission has the function of studying the whole library picture throughout the country-the problems and needs of libraries generally. Its attention is not directed specifically toward the Library of Con- gress, or its relationship to the governmental structure. I am sure the Commission will acquaint itself with the work of the Library of Congress and its functions. As a matter of fact the Library of Congress has a meeting scheduled with the members of the Commission in May. A special study of the Library and its relationship to the executive branch was certainly not specified as one of the purposes o-f the Commission's study. Mrs. GREEN. Is that included In the study? Mr. MUMFORD. I can't say what the members of the Commission may give attention to, but this topic is not included in the outline of func- tions which the Presidei~t directed the Commission to follow or address itself to. The Library of Congress, Madam Chairman, as I am sure you and the members of this subcommittee are aware, is, however, central to the library system of this country. It is, in effect, the National Library, as well as the Library of the Congress. It serves other libraries and the scholarly community of the Nation. Although it is not specifically designated as an o'bject of study by this Commission, I would assume, therefore, that its role will be considered. Mrs. GREEN. I wonder if I might yield to Mr.Thornpson, a member of the Committee on House Administration that I think has jurisdic- tion over matters concerning the Library of Congress. In connection with this bill, Congressman Thompson, is there any conflict in juris- diction here? As you know, the cataloging was put in by this committee because of `the very urgent problems and because of the requests of colleges and universities. At that time we certainly had no intention of taking jurisdiction over the Library of Congress. Do you have questions to direct to Dr. Mumford and then any comments on this par~ticular legislation? Mr. THOMPSON. I have no comment except to thank Dr. Mumford for his statement. I alluded to a project the other day and was not in pos- PAGENO="0118" 112 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 session of as much information as I needed. It is clarified in Dr. Mum- ford's statement. With respect to the Library jurisdiction, I see no conflict. The Com- mittee on House Administration has a Joint Committee on the Library, of which I am a member. There has been no reference by any member of that committee to what we have done on the education side. As a matter of fact, I feel very strongly that we have acted wisely in legislating as we have because of the relationship of the Library services and the Library of Congress to the scholarly community and education in general. Speaking as an individual I would expect to have no difficulty arising out of our activities. Mr. MUMFORD. May I add to that a brief statement? In 1965, when the original act was being considered in the Senate, Senator Morse re- quested a statement from Senator Jordan, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and at that time vice chairman of the Joint Commit- tee on the Library, regarding the propriety of the Library's serving as the center for centralized cataloging. Senator Jordan sent Senator Morse a letter, which I have in front of me, and he agreed with the purpose of the act and with the Library's performing these functions. It read in part: As Vice Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library, this seems to me to be a proper extension of the Library's collecting, cataloging, and card-distri- bution programs and would be of great benefit to the research libraries. I think that the amendment properly belongs in the Higher Education Act of 1965 be- cause of the benefits which would be derived by the college and university libraries in the country and consequently by higher education and the research community. . . . I see no objection to the amendment from the viewpoint of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, and for myself I want you to know that I will strongly support the amendment when the matter is brought up in the Senate. I recently talked to the present chairman of the Joint Committee on the Library who is also chairman of the Committee on House Adminis- tration, Mr. Burlcson, and he fully endorsed it also. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. Congressman Brademas, do you have a question? Mr. BRADEMAS. I have one question, Mr. Mumford. Thank you very much for your testimony. My question is on the amount of money in title TI-C for you to use to acquire foreign books. How much money did you have appropriated for this last year? Mr. MUMFORD. $3 million during this current fiscal year and $300,000 appropriated in the previous fiscal year, 1966. Mr.. BRADEMAS. You say in your statement, "despite this very limited funding," to use your words. Can you give us any observation on how much money you feel would be wise? Mr. MUMFORD. As you know, the major emphasis of the program is on cataloging and only upon acquisitions in order to catalog the books being received in U.S. libraries The full authorized funding. The full amount authorized for the next fiscal year is $7,770,000 and we feel all of it is needed to implement the program fully. We have made an extremely good beginning, I think, on this pro- grain, and the rese~irch libraries all over the country are telling us they PAGENO="0119" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 11~ are feeling the impact of it. Already they are able to obtain consider- ably more cataJog cards than before the program was initiated. I have mentioned the countries with which we have worked out arrangements to use the cataloging from their national bibliographies as well as to attain additional publications. We have also negotiations or arrangements pending with several other countries where we should begin to operate especially eastern European countries. They are willIng to cooperate, in fact, they are anxious to. They recognize this as not only of the benefit to the re- search libraries of this country but of international benefit because the publication of information about important foreign books in our National Union Catalog makes it, in effect, an international bibliog- raphy. In short, we can't do nearly as much with the present funding as we ought to be doing in order to achieve the purpose of the act. Mr. BRADEMAS. One other brief question: Do you make any effort to obtain publications from Communist China through Hong Kong or any other source? Mr. MUMFORD. Yes; we do. We obtain a considerable number of publications from mainland China through Hong Kong and other sources. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie. Mr. Quiu. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. You testified a few years ago you had fallen pretty far behind on your cataloging, or there was a problem. Can you tell us now how far you are running behind? Mr. M1JMFORD. This act contemplated getting catalog cards out promptly to the research libraries and this included cards describing material we already had on hand `waiting to be cataloged as well as materials to be acquired currently from abroad. We have made a great deal of progress in clearing up that arrear- age, not only through title fl-C but through additional cataloging positions given the Library of Congress 2 `or 3 years ago under our regular appropriations. This is reflected in the increased number of cards available to the libraries. I can't give you specific figures. Possibly Mr. Applebaum here has some figures. Mr. GIBBONS. In terms of work time, how many months are you behind? Mr. APPLEBAITM. The current materials being received under the' shared catalog program are cataloged immediately and cards are avail- able to the libraries by the time they obtain the books. Mr. Mu~n'oRD. We are not getting further behind with the current material. Mr. GIBBONS. You are taking it off the top? Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, but as requests come in from libraries for cards for books 2 or 3 years old that have not yet been cataloged, we get them out and catalog them. Mr. GIBBONS. What about the material that the ordinary college would use? Mr. MuMF0RD. The cataloging of the English language materials which the smaller libraries use is current. We are thle to supply cards promptly for that. PAGENO="0120" 114 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS" OF 1967 Mr. GIBBONS. This is not particularly within the purview of this committee but I am also on the Committee on House Administration. Can you describe to us when the Congress is going to make available more space to you over there? Mr. MUMFORD. During the last session of Congress, it authorized ad- ditional rental space-220,000 square feet. We have found some, have already occupied some of it, and we are looking for additional space at the moment. We have an appropriation for such rental space. As you know, our third building has been authorized and `we have been busy with the architects for the last several months on the pre- liminary plans for this, which are now about completed. Mr. GIBBONS. On your additional building, when do you think it will be completed? Mr. MUMFORD. The estimate by the architects is a minimum of 5 years before occupancy. It will take about 2 years to complete the working drawings. Then they estimate it will take abdut 3 years for construction. I think it would be a minimum of 5 years before we can occupy it. Mr. THOMPSON. Are they going to pattern the architecture after this beautiful building? Mr. MUMFORD. No, sir; I don't think it will look like the Rayburn Building. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank heavens. Mr. BRADEMAS (presiding). Mr. Gardner. Mr. GARDNER. No questions. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Esch ? Mr. Esoji. Concerning section 231, if I interpret the language cor- rectly, the amendment would permit the Library of Congress to act in a way which many people throughout the country assumed the Library was acting, but in effect, was not authorized to act. Also, it ap- pears that the amendment would provide the Library of Congress a base for leadership throughout the country for specific distribution. Mr. MUMFORD. In one section we are providing for the possibility of acquiring additional copies that might be used for loan purposes. Perhaps, they might be deposited for that purpose in the Center for Research Libraries in Chicago or elsewhere. In 231(2) we have refined the language to make it clear that our authority to distribute information is not limited strictly to distribut- ing catalog cards or the information on ca:talog cards, but other biblio- graphic aids, such as guides, union lists, and so on. We have some prepared bibliographic guides but we are not able to do this work as extensively as would be useful to the research Ii- braries. Mr. ESCH. It would first allow you to utilize modern techniques, if desired? Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, sir. Mr. Escii. `Secondly, it could be interpreted to extend out to provide a depository on a broad base, utilizing the Library of Congress as a broad base for facilities throughout the country? Mr. MUMFORD. It could. We do not `at present anticipate any large number of such locations. Eventually it might mean placing library PAGENO="0121" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 115 materials on deposit in several locations around the country so the research community would have copies more readily available to them. Mr. ESOH. I would not only anticipate it but hope it would come to pass. It is an innovative program you propose in relation to the cata- loging; and the timelag between acquisition and cataloging which has been one bane of all librarians. I wonder would you comment on what kinds of other innovative `techniques you might utilize or present that might `translate the cata- loging program within the library systems internally in this country? Mr. MUMFORD. As you know, we are progressing on the automation of the Library of Congress' `central bibliographic record, which should benefit all libraries. As to techniques of disseminating information, we have h'ad a pilot program going now for several months whereby we are putting cataloging copy for English language titles on magnetic tapes `and sending them ou't to a selected number of libraries. `Sixteen libraries `are participating in this pilot project. They hav'e been experimenting with `the tapes to see how they can use `them and they are reporting back to us. `The response has been very favorable. We have requests from many other libraries for these tapes at the presen't time, and we are preparing to make it possible for others to have them. Eventually we expect this program to cover most `of our current cataloging output including foreign-language materials, and for this information to be available on tapes for use `in computers in various research libraries and other places. `The pilot project is not limited to research libraries; also taking part are county school systems, public libraries, laboratories, and so on. We have taken a `cross section of insti'tutions that have good computer equipment available and that know how `to manipulate the tapes. It is our intention to develop this program to the point where cataloging can be available on tapes to any library that wants it in that form. Mr. Eson. One further question, do you see the Library of `C'ongress as a catalytic agent serving centralization more and more `in the next decade toward not `only cataloging but the acquisition and the coordi- nating function for libraries throughout the country? Mr. MUMFORD. I think other libraries will continue to obtain copies of publications for themselves in areas where the export book trade is organized. One or more copies at the Library of Congress cannot serve all the national needs, `but the Library of Congress can help supplement and fill in gaps in collections, and supply thin'gs that other libraries do not have. Libraries are looking to us to take the leadership in serving as a central point of activity for many national programs, including the preservation of deteriorating materials, for example. There are other areas, as I just indicated-cataloging, automation, et cetera-where the Library of Congress is taking the leadership. Such programs can be done at one place more economically and more effectively for the use of the other libraries throughout the country than they could by having them carried on in many, many places. Mr. Eson. Thank you very much. Mr. GIBBONS. May I ask a question? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. PAGENO="0122" 116 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps this is an expression of ignorance but excuse me if it is. I notice more libraries are going to broader educational media rather than just books and periodicals. Does the Library of Congress attempt to catalog other media besides books and, I am talk- ingof films? [r. Mr~r ~o. Yes, we have films, recordings, graphic materials such as prints, posters, and so on, which we catalog or index in a way so that they can be used. Mr. GIBBONS. Is this cataloged in the same way? Mr. MUMFORD. There are some special rules for cataloging motion pictures, for example, that are different from the cataloging rules for books, but the principles are the same. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you make these catalog cards available to libraries? Mr. MUMFORD. Yes, we do. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Mumford. Mr. MUMFORD. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. We are privileged to have representatives of the Amer- ican Council on Education and a friend of many years standing, President Mason W. Gross, of Rutgers University, is here to repre- sent the American National Council. He is to be accompanied by a friend, also of many years, John F. Morse. ~Te are pleased to have you here. It is my understanding you are representing other professional organizations. STATEMENT OF MASON W. GROSS, PRESIDENT, THE STATE UNI- VERSITY, RUTGERS; AND IOHN F. MORSE, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION Mr. GRoss. That is right. Mrs. GREEN. You may proceed as you wish. Dr. GRoss. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I am Mason IV. Gross, president of Rutgers, the State university in New Jersey. I am appearing before you as a member of the board of directors and an ex officio member of the Commission on Federal Relations, of the American Council on Education to present the council's position in regard to H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. I am particularly pleased to report to you that joining the council in this testimony are the American Association of Junior Colleges, the Association of American Colleges, the Association for Higher Ed- ucation, the Association of State Colleges & Universities, and the Na- tional Association of State Universities & Land Grant Colleges. The views of all of these associations on the merits and the demerits of the bill before you are identical. If I may be permitted to do so, I should like first of all to call the committee's attention to what we believe to be the demerits of the bill. This requires that I move immediately to section 1001 of title X. At the present time, there is a ceiling of 3 percent on the interest rate for loans made under title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. We believe that this is a wise provision. The American Council on Education in its recent publication. "The Federal Investment in PAGENO="0123" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 117 Higher Education: The Need for a Sustained Commitment," states that one of the important roles that can be played by the Federal Gov- ernment is to help reduce the necessity for institutions to charge ever higher student fees. The proposal (~(~tnined. in section 1001 of title X would, in fact, probably force ft o:~u ~ up. So too would an identical proposal con- tained in the adnuinistrRtion's bill for college housing loans. The proposal in section 1001 is a seemingly simple one, but so writ- ten that there could be an immediate rise of more than 50 percent in the interest charged for facilities loans. The Secretary of the Treasury would determine a rate, taking into consideration the current average market yield of Government obliga- tions of comparable maturities. We are informed that at present this rate would be between 4½ and 43/4 percent. The Commissioner of Education would then be authorized to lower this rate by any amount up to 1 percent. So we can assume that the interest to be charged would fall somewhere between 3½ percent and 43/4 percent. There is no way to tell how the Commissioner would decide how much, if any, of the interest rate he would subsidize, but we assume that he would provide just enough subsidy to make it attractive for public institutions, which enjoy the tax-exempt privilege, to go to the private market for their loans. This would suggest that the in- terest rate would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.2 percent. Perhaps our speculations are wrong, but if so, this is illustrative of one reason we are opposed to the proposal. Within the limits of the figures we have cited, there is no way to tell what interest would be charged. Assuming that most loans for academic facilities are for a 30-year term, the annual debt service charged per $1,000 would be $51.02 at the current 3 percent. If the interest rate should rise to 43/4 percent, the other extreme the annual debt service per $1,000 would be $63.21. To put it another way, the total cost of a $1 million building at 3 percent amortized over 30 years would be $1.53 million and at 43/4 per- cent would be $1.9 million. The difference between these `two figures could, in most cases, be made up only by increasing the fees charged to students. As we have already pointed out, the administration has made an identical proposal in connection with the college housing program, which is not before this subcommittee. The net effect of raising the interest rates for college housing loans from the current 3 percent to the maximum permitted under the proposed legislation, even if one optimistically assumes that housing can be provided at $6,000 per bed, would be to increase room rents by approximately $100 per year. We recognize that if interest rates are increased sufficiently to stimu- late some institutions to turn to the private market, the pressure for Federal funds may be relieved. But we believe a better answer is to increase the amount made available for title III from the $200 million indicated in the President's budget request to the $400 million au- thorized in the act. We also believe it possible for institutions to secure part of their construction funds from private sources, such as insur- ance companies, and pay commercial rates, provided the average inter- est paid can be kept reasonable by a continuation of the Federal program at 3 percent. PAGENO="0124" 118 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We respectfully urge, therefore, that section 1001 be deleted. May I now address your attention to a second concern. This has to do with part C of title IV of the bill now before you. Unless the Higher Edu- cation Act of 1965 is amended, the so-called work-study program will require, beginning in the next fiscal year, an increase in the non-Fed- eral matching share for the support of student employment from 10 to 25 percent. When the legislation was enacted, this seemed a reasonable provision and we supported it. We believed that institutions would be stimu- lated to find work opportunities for their students both on and off the campus, and that once these work opportunities had been discovered, it was logical to expect that at least 25 percent of the load would be underwritten by non-Federal sources. Two things have become apparent since that time. First there are many institutions with inadequate resources, whose student bodies in general come from families who are most in need of assistance, which have found the work-study program a godsend. But often they are in rural areas or in rundown urban areas that do not have job opportu- nities readily available. I might add parenthetically that some of these institutions do not belong to any of our associations, and their voices are, therefore, not readily heard. We believe these institutions are going to have a terribly difficult time increasing the matching share from 10 to 25 percent. We are fearful that the increase will simply lead to a reduction in the number of jobs available. Mr. Qun~. What are these institutions? Are they some institutions that chose not to or are they a type of institution that does not belong? Mr. MORSE. We have an automatic requirement that an institution be accredited regionally, and many institutions can get the benefits of Federal legislation through indirect routes of submitting letters in- dicating their credits are acceptable. They can participate in the program but do not belong to our asso- ciation. Dr. Gnoss. There is a second factor which was not anticipated in 1965, namely, the extension of the Fair Labor Standards Act to cover all colleges and universities. We do not argue against the desirability of paying students a decent wage, but we do point out that those in- stitutions which will have the most difficulty in meeting the increased non-Federal share of the work-study program will undergo the dual impact of increasing pay for student employment to meet the minimum wage. Since this minimum wage goes up by 15-cent annual increments for 4 years until it reaches $1.60, we believe the strains on institutional budgets will be such as to do severe damage to this highly successful federally subsidized student work program. We are grateful that the bill before you recognized this and proposes that the ratio be changed to provide for an 80-percent Federal, 20-percent non-Federal partici- pation. We would urge, however, that the current 90-10 ratio be main- tained. There is in the bill before you-section 436-a proposal to allow institutions to utilize a part of their institutional allotments for admin- istrative expenses in connection with the arranging cooperative edu- cation programs. This in line with the current provision in the act to allow the use of funds for administrative purposes in off-campus em- ployment in nonprofit enterprise. PAGENO="0125" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 119 We are in support of the new proposal. We would urge, however, that the provision be broadened so that, a portion of the institutional allocation might be utilized for administrative expenses in all phases of the work-study program. There was a time when student aid could be administered in a. medi- um-sized institution by one or two persons attached to the admissions or dean of students' office. But as we again have reached out for more and more needy students and have seen the welcome development of Federal, State, and private programs to provide for `them financially, the problems of coordinating these programs, so that each youngster's needs may be met, have become severe, and administrative expenses have increased accordingly. Experience has shown that it requires almost as much administra- tive time and expense to establish and supervise on-campus employ- ment as is required for off-campus employment. When the work-study program, like the NDEA loan program, was relatively small, admin- istrative expenses could be absorbed by extracting that extra ounce of blood and sweat from existing staff. But' as the programs grow, quite properly, to meet the needs of increased numbers, the need for staff increases. The only way to meet this expense has been to take it out of instructional funds or, once again, underwrite it through increased charges to students. Neither seems to us a desirable condition. These, in general, are `the objections we have to the bill before you. I should like now to comment more briefly on the provisions we support. We are, as we have been, enthusiastic about the community service and continuing education programs, supported by title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Furthermore, we support the proposal in sec- tion 107 of the bills before you that up to 10 percent of the appro- priated funds may be used by the Commissioner to fund experimental or pilots projects. We face a host of problems in these areas to which we do not know the answers. We should be encouraging innovation, and we believe the Commissioner should have a certain amount of freedom in backing promising projects that do not necessarily come through the traditional channels. We are also in support of title II, the college libraries program. Such reservations as we have are shared by the American Library As- sociation and the Association of Research Libraries, which will be testifying before you tomorrow. We endorse the positions they will be taking. We also support, enthusiastically, the extension of title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which provides assistance to develop- ing institutions. This is not an easy program to evaluate, nor can one anticipate instant and dramatic results. But the institutions being aided are performing an essential service. They are educating many young people ~ho have been handicapped by woefully bad elementary and secondary schooling.They are faced, therefore, with an unusually severe challenge. We should do everything possible to strengthen them so that they may better perform their mission. Let me now move to section 453 of the bill before you. We have studied carefully the administration's proposal to fund a part of the NDEA loan program through the sale of participations. We believe PAGENO="0126" 120 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 that the idea has merit and that it may very well provide a solution to the prob}em of competing demands for funds. As we understand the proposal, an institution could, if it so elected, borrow all of or any part of its needed loan funds from the Commis- sioner. This would be an amount equal to its full approved request for a Federal capital contribution plus an added one-ninth to make up what would otherwise be the institutional contribution. The Commis- sioner would in turn transfer the notes executed by institutions for these loans to FNMA where they would be pooled with other notes held by the Government and sold on the commercial market in the form of participations. We see certain advantages and at the moment no disadvantages in such an approach. (1) Institutions would be assured their full share of the direct ap- propriation for Federal capital contributions if they elected to fund their program as they have in the past. (2) Additional funds would be provided through the new approach so that any institution electing to borrow would be assured of receiv- ing 100 cents on the dollar of its approved application. (3) This new approach would not require the institutions to provide one-ninth in matching funds. This would relieve theni of an obligation which is proving more and more onerous for all and virtually impos- sible for some. (4) The Government's concern for careful stewardship of funds would be preserved, since the institutions would still be responsible for collections and would be liable for 10 percent of any losses in- curred through failure of students to repay. We believe that enough institutions would elect to fund their loan programs through this new approach so that the money available in direct appropriations would be ample to meet the full needs of those institutions who could not, or for some reason chose not, to borrow. As I have suggested, we have studied this whole approach very care- fully and we have been unable to find any flaws in it. It ~nakes no change whatever in the relationship between student and the college. It changes none of the fundamental aspects that have made the NDEA program so successful. And it seems to offer the hope that full loan needs can be met without increasing strains on the budget. We view it as worthy experiment which should be tried out for a year or two, provided it is clearly an optional method of funding the program. If it works, and we hope that it will, it might very well prove to be the ideal way to fund the program in the decades ahead. If it does not, we shall have an opportunity to review it later. We are also pleased that the bill provides for the use of work-study funds as one element in matching opportunity grants. We never under- stood why such funds were excluded from matching, since the typical arrangement for a needy student is to package grants, loans, and jobs in appropriate balance, so that the needs of every student may be met. The prohibition against using work-study funds to match op- portunity grants has led to almost insoluble problems in financial aid opportunities. We would urge, however, that the elasticity provided to the financial aid officer go one step further. We believe that if a loan can be arranged for a needy student under the guaranteed loan program, the financial aid officer should be au- PAGENO="0127" HIGHER ED1JCATIO~ AMENDMENTS OF 1967 121 thorized to utilize these loans as a part of the matching for the op- portunity grant. At the moment such a provision might mean little, since the guaranteed loan program is experiencing difficulty. But if the many problems which the program is encountering are solved, it can be an important fourth ingredient in the Federal program of as- sistance and can conveniently be almost interchangeable with the NDEA loan program. We see no logic in allowing NDEA loans to be used to match opportunity grants and prohibiting the use of guar- anteed loans for this purpose. We strongly support the proposed Education Professions Develop- ment Act, title V. There is no question that all levels of education- higher education as well as elementary, secondary, vocational, and adult education-need a greatly expanded supply of teachers and other professionals. There are special needs in preparing students for under- graduate teaching. Over the next decade, tens of thousands of addi- tional teachers and other professionals, most of them educated at a level below the doctor's degree, will be needed in the Nation's junior colleges and technical institutes and at the freshmen and sophomore years, especially, at 4-year colleges and universities. Present Federal legislation in teacher education is piecemeal and does not give the Commissioner of Education the needed flexibility to establish programs at any level appropriate to need. At present there are Federal programs to support the preparation of teachers for elementary and secondary work and for university and upper division teaching at the doctoral level. Unquestionably the doctorate will continue to be regarded as essen- tial for many who will devote their lives to teaching and research in institutions of higher education. There is, however, an increasing need, especially in the 2-year colleges, but also in 4-year undergraduate col- leges for teachers whose education is at the subdoctoral level. There is no program to support this kind of preparation. Title V will do much to fill this gap. A survey of the Nation's graduate schools now being made by the American Association of Junior Colleges, in cooperation with the Association of State Colleges & Universities, shows that over 200 col- leges and universities, public and private, in every part of the United States, are now offering programs to prepare students for teaching positions at the undergraduate level, or are planning to do so. Federa' assistance is clearly needed to develop these programs. A list of these institutions will be filed by these associations in a supplementary statement. We urge one change in the proposed legislation. We believe that section 507 of H.IR. 6232 and H.R. 6265 should be amended so that Federal grants for teacher training may be made beginning in the fiscal year 1968 rather than in 1969. A failure to begin in fiscal 1968 because of delays in the appropriations process, may mean that the whole program will be delayed for more than 1 additional academic year. The large number of universities which are now offering programs, or actively planning to do so, is an indication that these institutions can make an effective use of Federal funds now, in the coming fiscal year, both for planning and development and for the education of graduate students. PAGENO="0128" 122 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 From what we have said about title V, it is clear that we support the provisions in the bill that would phase out the various institutes sup- ported under the National Defense Education Act. We have long urged that these institutions be opened to teachers in higher education. We have advocated that the latitude provided to the National Science Foundation to support teacher education programs at all levels be ac- corded to the Office of Education. As we see it, title V. would provide this latitude and enable the Office of Education to identify areas most in need of support and to provide that support without seeking spe- cific categorical legislation to fund it. There are other parts of the bill on which we should be happy to comment but which we have not touched on in this formal statement. In general, for example, we approve the proposal that would abolish certain advisory committees. Because of the number of acts that have been passed in the last several years, almost every one of which has pro- vided for some kind of advisory panel, the Commissioner would scarcely have time to do his job if he had to meet with each of them. Obviously we want the Commissioner to have the benefit of advice from the edu- cational conm'iunity and from the public. But equally obviously, it is not necessary that the Commissioner convene a special panel for each category to which Federal legislation is directed. I should like to make one comment on an administration proposal which is not, as I understand it, before the committee at this time. It is a proposal that was originally contained in the elenientary and sec- ondary education bill, H.R. 6230. We judge that responsibility for oversight of the training aspects of the Teachers Corps has been re- turned to the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. In H.1R. 6230 new language has been added to that section which provides for arrangements between institutions of higher education and the Commissioner of Education. The new language would require that any such arrangements have "the approval of the appropriate State educational agency." We have not had an opportunity to study this in detail, but our initial reaction is that it is a most unfortunate provision. No one knows at the moment how best to train teachers to work in deprived areas. We are not going to know unless there is active en- couragement of innovation and experimentation and a willingness, quite frankly, to experience failure as well as to believe in success. A direct line of communication and negotiation between .the university and the Office of Education is, we know from experience, an arrange- ment that works. To introduce the possibility of a veto by a third party, which may not be sympathetic to this experimentation, seems to us to have no merit. If the "approval" of the appropriate States authority, to put it in its best light, is pro forma then the only problem will be one of delay. But if it is more than pro forma, we fear that our strongest institu- tions which perhaps have most to contribute to this new program, will simply withdraw rather than subject themselves to the judgment of those who may not be sympathetic to or conversant with what is going on in higher education. We would urge that the Commissioner con- tinue to have authority to contract or make other arrangements di- rectly with institutions of . higher education for the training of the Teachers Corps. PAGENO="0129" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 123 Madam Chairman, I am grateful to you and other members of the subcommittee for giving us this opportunity to express the views of higher education. We shall be glad to answer your questions Or to sub- mit further statements on questions which we are not prepared to answer today. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, President Gross. The first question is in regard to funding. Since you have not touched on it in your statement, I take it you approve the amount of funds suggested for the various titles. When the American Council appears before this committee and testifies on the authorization, the amount to be appropriated, do you consider that a minimum amount or do you consider that a ceiling? Mr. MORSE. Excuse me, I think Mr. Gross is passing this one to me. I want to make sure I understand the question. What authorizations in this bill are we discussing? Mrs. GREEN. This is really a general question, there are a lot of au- thorizations in this bill, but I am really asking the question in regard to your general testimony in support of education bills when there is a specified amount for a particular year. When you testify, do you consider that as the minimum amount that is needed to accomplish the purpose or do you consider it the ceiling? Mr. MORSE. No, with the exception of 1 year; namely, last year, when, I think probably mistakenly, we were concerned with the total Federal budget rather than with the needs of higher education. With the exception of last year, what we seek to do is request the authorizations which we believe will meet the needs of higher educa- tion. Thus last year, as I think you will recall, we urged authorizations of approximately the magnitude which this committee later adopted for fiscal 1968 and fiscal 1969. We urged it because we believed this was the amount of the Federal share required to build the facilities necessary to take care of the future students. As we look at those authorizations now, assuming the Federal share will be approximately one-third of the total construction, those au- thorizations seem to us to be pretty much on target. The appropriations requests are a different thing but the authoriza- tions contained in the Facilities Act, for example, seem to us to be just about what they should be if one assumes the Federal share should be about 33 percent. Mrs. GREEN. The reason I ask this question is that just this week I had conversations with people interested in education legislation raising the question over the administration request for appropria- tions this year in relation to the authorization. For example, in the Higher Education Facilities Act the amount was $728 million. I be- lieve you testified in favor of that. The request for appropria- tion, however, is only $390 million which is only 54 percent, really a cut of over $300 million there. The conversation then went on but when we asked for authorizations, this is the ceiling, and the appropriation could be anywhere up to that amount. This makes a great deal of difference to this committee, whether we are requesting the amount of money in terms of the ceiling or in terms of the educational needs of the community. I want your reaction to this kind of debate. 80-155-67-Pt. 1-0 PAGENO="0130" 124 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr~ MORSE. We would like to believe that the appropriations and: authorizations would be identical. As a matter of fact., the American~ Council on Education is due to testify before the I-louse Appropria- tions Committee for HEW tomorrow. We will point out just what you have pointed out. Not oniy does this fall far short of the authorizations, which we believe to be real- istic but it is even a cut below the current fiscal year appropriation, which would seem to suggest that. people believe we are over the hump in the facilities need. As we see it, within the next 10 years there must be construction. of approximately $3 billion a year on college and university campuses to take care of the numbers we see èoming ahead. Whether the State and. private sources will be able to continue~ to match Federal appropriations at the rate of 2 to 1 as they are now doing is a matter of conject.ure, and I am fearful t.hat we may n~t be able to maintain this ratio. Quite sincerely we `believe that the appropriations for these educa-. tional programs should be what authorizations are, and we will sup- port that point of view. Mrs. GREEN. Regarding the teacher fellowships-i believe last year you testified in favor of an authorization .of $275 million. This year the administration is asking for only $35 milliOn. This would be for the fellowships for graduate educa.tion for elementary and secondary teachers, which would only be 12 percent of the authorization. \~Then you testified, did you consider the $275 million the ceiling there or as a minimum need in terms of teacher shortage? Mr. MORSE. I will check my recollection, but I don't believe the American Council on Education ever testified on the amount of money needed for elementary and secondary teacher preparation. The reason I am reasonably sure of my recollection is that none of us in higher education sees how one could possibly support teacher fellowships for elementary and secondary school teaching in the mag- nitude of $225 million or $275 million without completely stripping the schools of active teachers. If a program of that magnitude were launched I don't think we could staff our schools. We have not, as far as I know, made a careful study of how large a program one could support at the present time without running the risk of stripping the schools. We have felt, frankly, that the NEA was in a far better position to know the requirements for teachers-the supply and demand for teachers-so I think we have never taken a position on how large the program should be. Mrs. GREEN. I thought you supported the bill? Mr. MORSE. We supported the bill but I don't think we ever sug- gested what the authorization figure should be because I don't think we know. Dr. GRoss. It seems to me the question perhaps was a little unfair. Wha.t we do is recommend a program and then you try to make author- ization for carrying out of that program. We make suggestions about the program and amounts of money to carry it out. When an appropriation comes in, we may feel the money does not fit. I don't think it is a question of a minimum or ceiling; it is the PAGENO="0131" HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 125 program that you lay out for that year and that is what we usually address our comments to. Mrs. GREEN. If less were appropriated then you envision you could not carry it out; is that right? Dr. GROSS. That is right. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie of Minnesota? Mr. QUIE. Are you now talking about dropping your proposal for the Federal share to be up to 50 percent under the facilities grant? Mr. MORSE. No, sir; but in the bill before us there is not a provision for extension beyond the current authorization. There are no pro-a posals for amendment. Mr. Qtrn~. The act is before us, though? Mr. MORSE. You are quite right; and perhaps we should have in- cluded this in our testimony. In a position paper which the Council issued in January, and which I believe is available to you, you will see that we do advocate increasing the permissible Federal matching amount up to 75 percent. We do not advocate setting a minimum amount at this time, pri- marily because we believe the State commissions should have the elasticity to determine what matching share below 75 percent is ap- propriate for that State, considering the number of buildings that must be built, the availability of matching funds, and the amount of Federal money available. So we don't advocate establishing a minimum level of matching share at this time. We do advocate an increase of the permissible maxi- mum up to 75 percent. Mr. QurE. On page 4 you say job opportunities are not readily available now in rural or rundown urban areas. You mean off-campus jobs, don't you? Dr. GROSS. Yes, sir. Mr. Quu~. Is most of the work study on or off campus in the pro- grams presently operated? Dr. GROSS. That would depend on the college. It varies from col- lege to college. Mr. Qure. As I understand it, jobs on campus are rather scarce. Mr. MORSE. That is quite right; we have investigated this. It is my guess that the on-campus jobs are about at the saturation level, so any expansion of the program has to go off campus. Further, I think as summer jobs develop many more of these will be off campus. Mr. QuIE. Now the rural areas have few of the private nonprofit organizations operating where they can secure jobs. But are not there almost as many such jobs in the poor and rundown areas as there are in urban areas? Dr. GROSS. I suspect there are. Mr. Qure. You want to use the money in section 436 for more than administrative expenses in arranging programs, that is, a portion also to be used in the expenses in all phases of the work study program. Is it just this work-study program or the cooperative educational program, which would mean jobs in private industry where there would be no Federal money for salaries, that section 436 addresses it- seifto? PAGENO="0132" 126 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. MORSE~ What we are proposing-you may recall we discussed this with the subcommittee several years ago when the Higher Educa- tion Act of 1965, well when this program was coming into being. We discussed this with the subcommittee at that time and there seemed to be no particular reason to help underwrite the administra- tive costs for on-campus work. I would like Dr. GROSS to comment on what the problem is on the university campus as he sees it, it i~ becothing fkirly acute. ZDr. GRoss. This is speaking for my own university, it is stated briefly here. Mr. QUIE. You are talking of on-campus work? Dr. GROSS. Yes; that is what we wouk[ like to be able to do. Mr. QUIE. You stated your position quite clearly, but I understand -there are efforts of institutions to move into more cooperative pro- grams such as at Antioch College. That is the purpose of 436. Now the costs to an institution attempting to arrange this off-campus work for which there is no Federal funding would be higher. Mr. MORSE. This bill proposes that a certain percentage of the money made available may be used to underwrite the administrative expenses of arranging this off-campus employment in a cooperative program. Mr. QUIE. Would you understand it to be on going? It was my understanding that it would be just to arrange such programs and then it would no longer be available. Is it your understanding it would be on going? Mr. MORSE. I had assumed that. You may recall in our informal dis- cussion with this committee we did check with Antioch on the adminis- trative costs of the program and because there is a change in the orga- nizations or businesses employing students in a coOperative program, there is practically constant arranging to be done, so Antioch expenses were very heavy to keep this program rolling. Mr. QrnE. May I ask one more question, then I am going to yield if my colleague from Indiana would yield. Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. QmE. On the 1968 work-study program, would you prefer a 100-percent share? Dr. GROSS. This is not fair. We have trouble with the National Sci- ence Foundation programs, where we pick up so much basic cost, but here I think 90-10 is fair. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Brademas. Mr. BRADEMAS. May I make an observation and then ask you a question? It seems we are moving toward greater participation on the part of private lenders in financing student aid programs in this pro- posal under title II as well as in the guaranteed program. Do you see a similar trend with respect to college housing and academic facilities and if so, what kind of problems would that bring about? Dr. GROSS. You mean private sources? Mr. BRADEMAS. Replacing of direct Federal grants with private sources. . Dr~ GRoss. The total packagmg for facilities is quite elaborate and in one project on our campus amounted to $31/2 million. The uni- versity request to industry was for about a half a million, the State put PAGENO="0133" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 127 iii about a half a million and the Federal Government put in about a half a million. There has to be some seed money. For example, for our pharmacy building, we raised a third from private industry, `the State will put in a third, and we are hoping NIH will finance :the rest, or somebody will finance the rest. As you know, the Ford Foundation has rapped industry over the head for not picking up its share of educational costs. That may in- crease. But I can't imagine any time when Federal assistance will not be needed. Mr. BRADEMAS. The reason I raise this question is that I am some- what apprehensive about moves that would tend greatly to diminish Federal grant-in-aid programs, the suggestion behind these moves being that we could move toward reliance on the private sector. For example, you fellows could go out and try `to borrow the money, but if you can't, then where are you? We have, I realize, been told the guaranteed loan program will function more effectively in the year ahead than it has so far. To follow up Mr. Quie's question about matching, what about the situation in the State of New Jersey? Are you getting noble, forward- looking leadership with a lot of taxes voted by the State legislature for education? Dr. GRoss. I am glad you asked that this year and not last year. This year there is a considerable improvement if you look at the whole field of education, elementary right up through higher education. I would say the budget for the university is improving. As you know, we ar,e setting up a new authority in higher education and I imagine this will get things rolling. We certainly need more help than we have now. Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't know if you can accurately represent the views of all of these organizations but we have been talking in here about the tax credit proposal. Have you any comments to make on what your organizations feel about that one way or another? Dr. GRoss. On that I cannot speak for all of them. The Council has drawn up a general statement which we will `be glad to file with the committee. The land grant colleges, I. understand, are furiously opposed to it. I think we realize there is a kind of double face, at least we believe so, in that what is put forward as a tax credit plan would help both the students and the college. MTe don't see how the dollar can work both ways. Many colleges, particularly the smaller private ones, are des- perately in need of aid of one form or another and we would be happy to see them get it. I think that should be faced squarely as its own problem and not in this indirect way. We are faced with students `far too often at the marginal economic edge, and we can't see this tax credit plan as a broad program for aid to students. Mr. MORSE. As you can well imagine, with as heterogeneous an or- ganization as the American Council, we have a terribly difficult time with this issue because there are sizable numbers of small private in- stitutions which belong to the council who believe this is their salva- PAGENO="0134" 128 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 tion, not in terms really of helping students, but of capturing revenue by increasing fees without having it fall on the parent. I might say this is not strictly a public and private college con- troversy; there are a number of public institutions which support the tax credit concept. I believe Senator Prouty's advocacy of this reflects the fact the University of Vermont has to charge the highest fee of any public education institution in the country and yet in that State the resources of parents and students are not great. Our position has been a rather weak one, I have to confess. Mr. CAREY. Will the Congressman yield? Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes. Mr. MORSE. Simply stated we believe strongly in direct aid to stu- dents, the kind of aid programs this committee has sponsored in the past, and we believe that general support for all segments of higher education, public and private, through direct appropriation is better than the indirect route through tax credits. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have one final question, this is a general question. Looking down the road into the future, what do you see as the great- est need of American higher education? Dr. GROSS. There are many: a great increase in population will be on us; we need aid for capital facilities; fellowship and scholarship aids across the board. I think the greatest problem is trying to work out ways with the elementary and secondary schools to make it more possible for people from the disadvantaged areas to get the proper education and be drawn into the strong colleges. I think that is our greatest problem and a great social need. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Reid. Mr. REID. We have much appreciation for your thoughtful testi- mony, Mr. Gross and I appreciate the opportunity of asking one or two questions. First, to pursue the tax credit a little further; in the event, due to the war in Vietnam and lack of fiscal action in Washington, we return to a high interest rate in the economy and to the extent the existing guaranteed loan program does not meet some aspects of the need of middle income families, particularly, between $15,000 and $20,000, where the need may be just as great but not necessarily covered by State action, do you favor consideration of some tax credit or tax reduction approach to assist the middle income family that I think frequently is caught in the squeeze? Dr. GRosS. This is a real problem I don't want to see it dismissed in a light way. I think the picture you have drawn of what is happen- ing to the economy is right. You have to realize the costs will go up for colleges, and those colleges depending on tuition to a very large degree will have to raise their tuition unless they get relief from some other source, so the relief to the parent or student will quickly dis- appear. This will then result in giving funds to colleges that they have to have. The thing that is distressing is the way the costs are going up in all colleges. In some States we keep tuition constant but other bills are going up; housing and food is going up drastically. PAGENO="0135" ~GRER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 129 Mr. REID. To some extent that is true but the guaranteed loan would then have to go up as well. Some middle income families;have no relief whatsoever at the moment. The question is how do you address that ~group, should they be left out in the cold? My own feeling is they should not. Dr. GROSS. If the costs are going up for them, they are going up for the people in the lower income brackets too. If we have a situation -which permits charges to, go up, what about the poorer students? Mr. REID. You have to deal with all and not exclude any. Mr. GROSS. It seems to me a program of aid to the colleges would solve the problem at different levels rather than tackle the problem of one particular level. Mrs. GREEN. For the very needy students, do you consider the pro- grams that we have adequate in terms of student assistance; namely, the NDEA loan .which all needy students can receive, secondly, the -work-study program, again which the needy students are eligible for, ~ndthird, the economic opportunity grant. It seems to me in this combination there is quite a package for the needy students. It is above this category I am speaking of. Mr. GROSS. These programs are tremendous; they have made it pos- ~ible for many people to go on to college. You have a terrific package. I think we have one thing that should make us try to keep the costs down and that is when we talk in terms of work-study and in terms of loans. We are talking again in terms of male students rather than females. It is harder for the females to get a better paying job and the attrac- tiveness of a lady with a large mortgage may be a disadvantage. Mrs. GREEN. Don't you think the reverse is also true? Dr. GRoss. Well, maybe it is but we would like to keep these costs down. Mrs. GREEN. I think we have figures that show that the women do not have problems on loans or work studies. In some areas there are more problems in terms of clerical aid. Mr. REID. Just two other questions, Madam Chairman. Mr. Gross, your testimony on page 6 referred to the fact that we have studied carefully the administration's proposal to fund part of the NDEA program. I think there is considerable questioning in Washington as to the validity of the soundness of that approach. Are you favoring that solely as a means of meeting the funding re~ quirements for NDEA or do you particularly like that approach? Dr. GROSS. We think this is an approach that will make it possible for us and Government to meet the requests. As I understand it this year $190 million has been proposed in the budget and $230 million has been requested by the colleges. If you can make up this difference without imposing on the budget it seems a good way to do it. Mr. REID. Have you had experience with the Javits amendment pro-. viding $200 in terms of grants over and above the opportunity for excellence? How does that seem to be working? Mr. MORSE. I honestly can't answer that question, Mr. Reid, we were not quite sure how it could work because of the necessity of providing for no more than 50 percent of need through the opportunity grant, the other 50 percent to `be made up of loans and now we hope, jobs. PAGENO="0136" 130 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS' OF' 1967 We have had absolutely no comments fromthe financial aid com- munity but I can secure some and submit them for the record. Mr. REID. I would be extremely interested and I think the commit- tee would be interested in any information you could `su'bmit as to how that functions. (The document referred to follows:) MAY 2, 1967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, Chairman, Specia' Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dx&n MRS. GREEN: During the course of our testimony before your subcommit- tee on April 19, I was asked for comments on how well the provision to increase, under `certain circumstances, the maximum stipend to be paid on an opportunity grant was working. I `testified at that time that I `had `heard no reactions from the field. I should have realized at the time I was questioned that the provision has not been in force long enough to get any reaction. Obviously, a `student would not be eligible for the additional stipend until he had established a record for at least one college year. Since this is the first year the opportunity grant proS gram has been in effect, there have so far been no `students eligible to receive the extra stipend. I am advised of three things: 1. In the determination of class rank, institutions are permitted to use their generally established practice for determining this but whatever sys~ tern is chosen must be applied in a consistent manner to all `students who may `be eligible for the award. 2. Transfer `students will be considered eligible for consideration in the same way as are other college students. 3. The total aid provided to students must not exceed his measured need. If student need is being met in full, the matching funds for a student who receives a $200 additional award will be reduced accordingly. If the match- ing includes allowance for loans or for work, the $200 award may be offset by reduction in one of these. I think that in another year It should be possible to provide you with a rea- sonably good a'ssessment of how `the provision is working. Sincerely yours, JOHN F. Monsz, Director of the Commission. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Carey. Mr. CAREY. Let me submit a personal welcome to Dr. Gross; I have had opportunity to work with him, and serving as a sort of reform advisory committee, Dr. Gross has helped the Academy without dis- rupting the service to the country, so I am personally much indebted to you for that. On the basis of your analysis of your section 1001 and the effects it would have on fluctuating rates of interest in problems of long-term financing, I am glad that in drafting the bill we put section 1001 near the very end, it will make it more easy to drop it off like boots. Dr. Guoss. An excellent idea~ Mr. CAREY. I think this would be an impossible way to go out in the private sector and not know what your funds will be from the private sector. Second, in the Congress and the other body, the matter of financing the higher education through student guaranteed loans, and tax deduc- tions, it is not true that insofar as the guaranteed student loan pro- gram is concerned, we do have a tax deduction program now for the student who is successful in getting a loan when it comes to the time of repayment he does deduct the interest on that loan, that is a taxable reduction now, is it not? PAGENO="0137" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 131 Dr. GROSS. I believe so. Mr. CAREY. Have you had any experience in hardship conditions among those students who apply for loans but whose families are in that borderline area where, supposedly, on some standard or guideline set up by loan analysis organizations, the family does not again fall within the need category and therefore, the student loan application is denied. Is there any sizable number of students who cannot attend once that loan application is denied for failure to fall within the category of need in the loan program? Dr. Gnoss. I think many colleges will try to make this up some way with a pattern of college grants or something like that so the student who is qualified will be able to make his way. I have to admit that the number of people we don't know about are those that don't come. Mr. CAREY. Madam Chairman, I have a great concern in this field because of the rigid standards becoming more national in scope as to who can get a loan and who cannot. There are a vast number of low- income or middle-income families educating children, two or three at a time, and I feel sometimes that when they cannot get a loan at one of the four institutions they return to the family and say they can't get the loan, I think then they opt to the junior college or other institutes. I think we are passing the burden to those colleges. These students can pass on their academic standards but can't fit within the confines, the confining sections of the guaranteed student loan program and I feel we are missing a great many students who should attend 4-year institutions but can't because on a basis of analysis of the family in- come they do not seem to qualify for the student loan program. On the precise point of the tax credit, is it not true that we have two movements going on in American higher education? Strong voices, I think, with weighty arguments are saying that some day all higher education should be a matter of free tuition and these voices are heard in the land, less and less on the western slope of the Rockies. Over there the institutions are moving in a different direction, tui- tion costs of some nature. Now is it not true if the latter group succeeds in imposing tuition costs, even minimal in nature, there will even then be much stronger support among parents and the public to support a tax deduction, not just those having children attending private colleges, but all those faced with paying some form of tuition, they will be expected to sup- port tax cut proposals. Isn't that true? Dr. GRoss. There are two trends, one to put up tuition and one to maintain it at the New York City level of zero. Both are going on at the present moment. I don't know what is going to come out of this. In New Jersey we have a high tuition rate; we are second or third of all the States. There has been no discussion recently on raising the tuition. Our tuition is $400 a year. As a matter of fact, this year there was discussion for the first time in years of lowering it or cutting it to zero. I don't know what is going to come out of it. At the present moment it seems the program of aid to colleges m~ts this thing head on whereas in this tax-credit scheme, you don't know PAGENO="0138" 132 HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 who is being helped or whether you are helping to accelerate an in- crease in tuition rates by making this money available. Mr. CAREY. Certainly if we don't move as much as we can-$3 mil- lion in~ construction of facilities which you said is needed-if we don't move aggressively toward that, then the problem of financing the tui- tion institutions will become an even more vexing one for those who don't have any means to increase their capital commitments without increasing tuition unless we can move more aggressively toward fund- ing the authorizations we have legislated in this committee. Dr. GRoss. I do think that is the way to do it. Mr. CAREY. I would like to say a word on behalf of those supporting the tax credit. It is too often said this is merely an indirect means of getting money into the private sector and it is a conduit for simply raising fees. Is it not true a great many of those who support the tuition require- ments of the students honestly want to make a greater contribution to the school where their children are in attendance? Many do make dona- tions of gifts and so on. These are tax deductible but it is an insub- stantial way of financing. Unless you get a big drive going you don't get money coming in. I think many parents would be anxious and willing to make donations for their children if fhis was money not taken out of their need for daily upkeep for the family. This is something to enable families to make a greater contribution to American education. I think this is laudable. Dr. GROSS. I don't think this is something the private colleges are selling in order to raise their tuition. It is only a question of whether this is the best method of aiding colleges. Mr. CAREY. In the Secretary's testimony he indicated under title IT that under broader education colleges could move to build expertise in the background of school boards, teachers, and so on; does this mean we would find Rutgers instituting a program to upgrade the apprecia- tion of school board members of school problems like Wayne County members? Dr. GRoss. If it can be done, I would be for it. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch. Mr. ESOH. I think all of us are concerned with the tax credit con- `cept, for it is not following the regular pattern through Congress. It has been suggested the program is an indirect way of support of higher education. Yet if we gain another percept on it, might it be looked at as a more direct way of support with a great deal more flexibility on the part of the student to be selective and have more independence and freedom to choose those paths in the direction he wishes to go? Dr. GRoss. I don't think it is quite as narrow as you imply. For ex- ample, more and more programs are coming in with scholarship aid to the student, to take him where he wants to go, sometimes out of the State. There are programs designed to do just that: give the students greater flexibility. I really don't see it the other way because I don't think the amount is sufficient to make any drastic difference. Mr. ESCH. More and more States are utilizing the student aid pro- grams. PAGENO="0139" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 133 Dr. GROSS. That is right. Mr. Escu. Speaking for the group you represent, do you anticipate a need for more direct Federal-State institution and direct Federal institution aid and financial support in the next decade as a means for the way we must Dr. GROSS. I think this is essential. Mr. Eson. Within this prediction, to what degree should we have local opportunity for value judgment and action, categorical versus noncategorical funding on the Federal level? Do you anticipate the need for us to move to noncategorical grants as quickly as possible? Dr. GROSS. Yes; the Secretary testified we have to be realistic; we will never get rid of all categorical appropriations. New things come along like that all the time but I would be in favor of reducing the cate- gorical restrictions, making a move in the direction of general support. Mr. ESOH. I think the one dimension we have not discussed is the State aid and lack of predictability of aid to State institutions. To what degree is it a problem, matching program and predictability of receiving State aid? Dr. Gnoss. If you are talking of the State plan, most States are developing master plans; most States are moving toward the direction of giving us planning funds so we can start planning the building and so on. In New Jersey we are required each year to present a 6-year building program. I think there is a much more stable degree of State appro- priations than Federal because of the shift of emphasis in the Federal Government here. I know reasonably well what we can look forward to from the State of New Jersey. Mr. ESCH. Would not a longer range approach on the Federal level, to make it more compatible with the State planning program, be more desirable? Dr. GROSS. I think so. I was pleased this year that we got more funds from the State for higher eduction. This would give us much more assurance. Mr. ESCH. You suggest the need for opportunity to utilize the par- ticipation as a means of fihlin~ the gap between what is needed and what might be available. Is this to assume that your position is for a long-range continuing need to utilize this method of financing or do you look to more conventional ones? Dr. GRoss. VSTe would like to see how this works, and we can always study and see what is the best way of going about it. It does seem to be a good solution and we will see in the next 2 or 3 years whether it is. Mr. ESCH. You are not suggesting financing all programs in this way? Dr. Guoss. Certainly not. Mr. HATHAWAY. I would like to ask you if the greater involvement of the Federal and State Governments has decreased the contributions of private sources? Dr. Gnoss. No; I think it has increased them. Rutgers was first pri- vate, then operating in contract with the State, and finally we went whole hog, and people opposed to the movement pointed out other con- tributions would fall off. On the contrary, they have increased dras- tically. PAGENO="0140" 134 ~HE~ EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HATHAWAY. Have the individual colleges continued to divert the ~same amount of energies in obtaining other aid? Dr. GROSS. If you go out and say "I can get a thousand from the State, a thousand from the Federal Government," a contributor really sees he is getting something done for his money. In our institutions the increase in private funds has been tremendous. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Doctor. I suggest before we get through that we ask Mr. Morse to come back again. I should like, if time permits, to get into the forgiveness features of the NDEA loan. (Supplementary statement by the American Association of Junior Colleges follows:) SUPPLEMENTARY STATEMENT BY AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JuNIoR COLLEGES The American Association of Junior Colleges and the Association of State Colleges and Universities join with the other higher educational associations in support of the "Education Professions Development" program, Title V of the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. This new program is intended not only to coordinate and strengthen existing federal assistance programs for teacher training, but to authorize new programs. The Act places special emphasis on programs to train teachers for junior col- leges, technical institutes, the freshman and sophomore years at four-year col- leges, and teachers at the preschool, adult, and postsecondary vocational educa- tion levels. Present federal legislation provides little or no support for college teacher training at these levels-either fellowship programs below the doctoral level, or institute and in-service training programs. The AAJC and the ASCU wish to join, the other associations in em~phasizing one point: the proposed legislation. should be amended ($ection 507, page 64) to permit federal support for new teacher training programs to begin July 1, 1967, rather than July 1, 1068. The reason is very simple. There is a great need to expand college teacher training programs now to meet the nation's need for additional manpower at this level. A survey now being made by these two associations shows that over 200 colleges and universities in 46 states already have graduate programs for col- lege teacher trailning and wish to ewpand them, or are actively considering or planning such programs at the present time. A list of these institutions is attached. It was compiled by a survey Of the nation's graduate schools made by the American Association of Junior Colleges in coopei~ation with the Association of State Colleges and Universities and the Council of Graduate Schools. The list is incomplete, based on a preliminary questionnaire. However, it shows a great deal of interest in every part of the United States in expanding college teacher training programs and improving undergraduate college teaching. The survey found a strong interest in many kinds of programs-programs specifically tailored for teaching at junior colleges, teachnical institutes, and at the freshman-sophQrnore level generally; new degree programs, such as Master of Arts in College Teaching; a strong interest in programs for post- secondary vocational teacher training. The five educational associations have urged that the program begin im- mediately rather than `in the fiscal year 1969 because many universities are already in a position to make effective use of federal funds, both in the educa- tion of graduate students and in planning and development. A delay until July 1, 1968, with further delays into the fall and winter of 1968 possible because of the appropriations process, can mean that two academic years rather than one will be lost in a program of vital importance in increasing the nation's supply of skilled professional manpower. Graduate schools can confirm the fact that students lost to advanced training at a particular time may be lost forever. The associations have also urged that Congress, in addition to amending the statute, should provide funds for the fiscal year 1968 to get the program under way. PAGENO="0141" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 135 Alabama: Livingston State College Troy State College Tuskegee Institute University of Alabama University of South Alabama Arizona: Arizona State University University of Arizona Arkansas: Arkansas State College California: California State College at Fuller- ton California State College at Hay- ward Chico State College Claremont Graduate School and University Center Fresno State College Humboldt State College Pepperdine College San Diego State College San Francisco State College San Fernando Valley State College San Jose State College University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, Loa An- geles University of California, Riverside University of California, Santa Barbara University of the Pacific Colorado: Adams State College Colorado State College Colorado State University University of Colorado University of Denver Western State College Connecticut: Central Connecticut State College Southern Connecticut State College Wesleyan University District of Columbia: Catholic University of America Georgetown University Howard University Florida: Florida Agricultural and Mechani- cal University Florida State University Stetson University University of Florida University of Miami Georgia: Emory University Fort Valley State College Georgia Southern College University of Georgia Hawaii: University of Hawaii Illinois: Bradley University Eastern Illinois University Illinois Institute of Technology Illinois-Continued Illinois State University Illinois Teachers College Chicago-' North Illinois Teachers College Chicago- South Loyola University Northern Illinois University Roosevelt University South Illinois University University of Chicago Indiana: Ball State University DePauw University Indiana State University Indiana University University of Notre Dame Iowa: Drake University Iowa State University University of Iowa State College of Iowa Kansas: Fort Hays Kansas State College Kansas State College of Pittsburg Kansas. State Teachers College University of Kansas Kentucky: Eastern Kentucky University Morehead State University Murray State University University of Louisville Western Kentucky University Louisiana: Grambling College Louisiana State University Lowell Technical Institute McNeese State College Northeast Louisiana State College Northwestern State College of Louisiana Maryland: Bowie State College Frostburg State College Morgan State College University of Maryland Massachusetts: Northeastern University State College at Bridgewater State College at Fitchburg Williams College Michigan: Central Michigan University Eastern Michigan University 1\Iichigan State University Michigan Technological University University of Detroit University of Michigan Wayne State University Western Michigan University Minnesota: * Bemidji State College Moorhead State College St. Cloud State College Winona State College The list of more than 200 institutions follows. PAGENO="0142" 136 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mississippi: Mississippi College Mississippi State College for Women Mississippi State University University of Mississippi Missouri: Central Missouri State College Northwest Missouri State College Saint Louis University Southeast Missouri State College Southwest Missouri State College University of Missouri at Columbia University of Missouri at Rolla Washington University Montana: Montana State University Northern Montana College Nebraska: Creighton University University of Nebraska University of Omaha New Hampshire: Dartmouth College University of New Hampshire New Jersey: Glassboro State College Jersey City State College Newark State College Rutgers, The State University Seton lIall University Trenton State College New Mexico: Eastern New Mexico University New York: Alfred University Colgate University Long Island University New York University State University College, Brockport State University College, Buffalo State University College, Cortland State University College, Geneseo State University College, New Paltz State University College, Oneonta State University College, Oswego State University College, Platts- burgh State University College, Potsdam State University of New York, Albany State University of New York, Buffalo St. John's University University of Rochester North Carolina: Agricultural and Technical College Appalachian State Teachers Col- lege Duke University North Carolina State University at Raleigh University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill North Dakota: Minot State College North Dakota State University University of North Dakota Ohio: Bowling Green State University Ohio State University University of Akron Western Reserve University Xavier University Oklahoma Northeastern State College Oklahoma State University Oregon: Oregon State University University of Oregon Pennsylvania: Bloomsburg State College Bryn Mawr College Bucknell University Clarion State College Edinboro State College Indiana University Lehigh University Mansfield State College Margaret Morrison Carnegie Col- lege Millersville State College Shippensburg State College Slippery Rock State College Temple University University of Pittsburgh West Chester State College Rhode Island: Brown University Rhode Island College South Carolina: Clemson University South Dakota: Black Hills State College South Dakota State University Tennessee: Austin Peay State University East Tennessee State University George Peabody College for Teach- ers Middle Tennessee State University Tennessee Technological Univer- sity University of Tennessee, Knox- ville Vanderbilt University Texas: Abilene Christian College East Texas State University Sam Houston State College Southern Methodist University Stephen F. Austin State College Sul Ross State College Texas A & M University Texas Christian University Texas College of Arts & Industries Trinity University University of Texas Utah: Brigham Young University University of Utah PAGENO="0143" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 137 Vermont: West Virginia: Shepherd College Johnson State College Wisconsin: University of Vermont Stout State University Virginia: University of \~Tjsconsifl Madison College Wisconsin State University, Osh- Medical College of Virginia kosh Radford College Wisconsin State University, Platte- University of Virginia yule Virginia Polytechnic Institute Wisconsin State University, Ste- ~\Tashington: vens Point Central Washington State College Wisconsin State University, Su- Gonzaga University perior Washington State University Wisconsin State University, White- Western Washington State College water University of Washington Wyoming: University of Wyoming Thank you. The next group to appear before the committee are representatives from the American Banking Association, Mr. Charles Walker. While they are coming to the table, I will make an announcement for the members of the committee. Tomorrow the hearing will con- tinue with witnesses from the American Library Association, the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries, and the National Education Association. On Friday hearings will continue in New York City and our atten- tion will be turned to teacher training and teacher education, the shortage of teachers, and those schools where there is a high concen- tration of disadvantaged children. Friday morning we will be visiting two or three schools. Those arrangements have been made through the cooperation of Congressman Carey, and we are grateful to him for contacting the board of education for the city of New York. At noon and in the afternoon a seminar will be held and later in the afternoon we will hear from representatives from teacher groups. All of the members of the subcommittee are invited to attend these hearings. STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES B. WALKER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN BANKER'S ASSOCIATION; JOHN O'NEILL, VICE PRESIDENT, BOATMAN'S NATIONAL BANK OF ST. LOUIS; STANLEY BRYTCZUK, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, FIRST 1\TATIONAL CITY BANK OF NEW YORK; JOHN SMITH, FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, AMERICAN BANKER'S ASSOCIATION Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Walker, we are delighted to have you present at these hearings. Will you proceed in any way you wish. Dr. WALKER. Thank you very much, Mrs. Green. it is a pleasure to he back before the committee this year. I am Charles E. Walker. I am executive vice `president of the Amer- ican Bankers Association, and I appear here today on behalf of the Nation's commercial banks. With me. are John W. O'Neill, vice president of the Boatman's National Bank of St. Louis,. and Stanley Brytczuk, assistant vice president of the First National City Bank of New York. Their banks have been leaders in student lending and, these gentle- men have had extensive day-to-day experience in this area and they ~an answer any technical questions. PAGENO="0144" 138 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Also with me today is our associate federal legislative counsel, Mr. James Smith. Although the main purpose of these hearings is to discuss H.R. 6232, I would like to expand these comments to cover several aspects of the guaranteed student loan program authorized by title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Two years ago our association appeared before Congress to support the concept of State and private guarantee plans, rather than a Fed- eral program of guaranteed student loans. Our arguments at the time were based on the impressive records that State and private plans were compiling in a very short period. We felt at the time, and still feel, that a system whereby private lenders would work with State and private guarantee agencies would offer the best approach to meeting the demand for long-term, low-cost loans to finance college education. Congress supported this method in passing the Higher Education Act of 1965, which was signed by President Johnson on November 8, 1965. That act directed the Commissioner of Education to encourage the growth of State and private guarantee plans. It authorized the Commissioner to advance seed money to be used' as reserve funds by State and private agencies and to pay interest on behalf of eligible students. I might interpose a comment with respect to the point Mr. Carey brought up a moment ago. All students are eligible to borrow these' loans, regardless of family income, but it does not apply above a cer- tain income level. Mr. CAREY. Yes, it is true that every student is eligible to apply, but not all students get a guarantee of remission of interest. The funds' are limited and in order to serve the low-income student first, the policy is to tell the student from a family with greater means that he will not be recommended for loans; isn't that so? Dr. WALKER. Yes. Mr. CAREY. The effect is the same? Dr. WALKER. There is not a cutoff, I think, at this particular level and our goal is for all students to borrow this money and our state- ment is to correct the difficulties. Mrs. GREEN. How do you determine need? Dr. WALKER. I will go on with my statement and explain that. Our association conducted an extensive educational campaign to acquaint banks with the new program. We distributed a brochure en- titled "Banking's New Opportunity" to every bank in the country last June as soon as the regulations were completed by the Office of Education. We prepared kits for banks that included copies of the regulations and copies of the necessary forms, descriptions of the procedures in-S volved, and sample radio and newspaper ads. We discussed student loans at our last two annual conventions and passed resolutions in support of the program. We have had repre- sentatives of the Office of Education discuss the program at numerous national and regional banker meetings and conferences. Many State associations followed with workshops and seminars on student loans. PAGENO="0145" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 139 All of these activities took place in a very, short time span. The program is still new. Although the act was signed in November of 1965, the regulations were not completed until late April of 1966. The necessary forms were not available until August and the seed money did not reach many States until this past September. More- over, several State plans were not even open for business until aiter the start of the first semester of this current school year. To add to these problems, the program was launched in the face of the tightest money and the highest interest rate levels we have seen in 40 years. And, unfortunately, the peak rates were reached last Au- gust and September when the program was just getting started. The Federal Government at the time could not even borrow money, through sale of participation certificates, at 6 percent, which is the statutory ceiling on these loans. Yet, in spite of these problems, between July 1, 1966, and the end of March 1967, over 270,000 college students were a'ble to obtain such loans, the dollar volume of which amounted to more than $210 million. I will be the first to admit that these figures fall short of the demand for such loans. And, at the same time, they are far under the potential that exists for guaranteed student loans. However, it is still a fair observation to say that, all problems considered, the program got off to a promising start. With this background, I would like to discuss four specific areas that deserve attention if the program is to reach its `full potential. The first obvious subject that deserves mention is the rate of return on these student loans. `The statutory ceiling is 6 percent simple inter- est. The Government pays the full 6 percent while the eligible student is in school and 3 percent during repayment period. Two years ago when this matter of rate was first discussed, we made a rough estimation that 6 percent simple would be a `break-even rate for banks. We doubt now that our estimate was correct even 2 years ago. Today, however, it is clearly a loss rate. In December 1966, the American Bankers Association conducted a study on the cost factors involved in making and handling student loans. We obtained figures from 20 banks of various sizes and from various sections of the country. The banks, did, however, `have one thing in common: `They were all active in the student loan program in their State. Four cost factors were considered. How much did it cost to inter- view the student, complete the forms, get the college to verify his en- rollment, obtain the approval of the guarantee agency, and submit the forms to the Office of Education. These `are the costs of putting the loan on the bank's books, or as a `banker would say, the cost of acquisition. The average cost of acquisi- tion for the banks surveyed was $35. That figure, incidentally, is al- most $15 higher than the cost of acquisition of the average consumer loan. Moreover, this cost factor is not a one-time expense. If the same student comes back the next year to borrow money, the `bank has to repeat the whole process again. Many elements could have ch'anged. The student could have changed schools. His marital status could have changed. The adjusted family 80-155-67-Pt. 1-10 PAGENO="0146" 140 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 income-which determines the student's eligibility for the interest subsidy-could have changed. His residence could have changed. In other words, it costs the bank just about the same in man-hours to make the second and third loans to the same student as it did to make the first loan. The second cost factor arises from the need to contact the student after he graduates and to determine how he wants to repay the loan. In today's mobile society many of these students grow up in one State, attend school in another, and then go to work in still another. Getting in touch with a student on the move frequently involves many letters and phone calls before the bank can even set up a pay- ment book and shift the loan on its records. The bankers polled esti- mated that i't cost just as much to convert an inschool note to a payout note as it did to make the loan in the first place, another $35. The third cost factor is the cost of money. Because these loans are not intended to be profitable we used the marginal cost of money in our study; that is, the cost to the bank of pulling in the additional dollars needed to make the loan. You know how high interest rates have been in the past year. Banks, too, had to pay high rates. They also had to advertise to get these funds. In addition, they had to put part of the money aside as reserve and, of course, they had to pay the salaries for people to handle the money and overhead for the space. The average marginal cost of money in December when we did sur- vey was 5.5 percent. Money market banks, big city banks, insisted the figure should have been higher. The fourth cost factor is the cost of collecting these loans. The banks in the survey estimated that it cost abou.t $1 per month to handle the payments and recordkeeping. Based on these cost factors, if a student borrowed $750 as a fresh- man, started paying back 1 year after graduation and paid off the loan in 2 years, the bank would end up losing $71.50 on the whole trans- action. If the student borrowed $750 in each of his freshman and sophomore years, started repayment 1 year after graduation and paid off the loan in 3 years, the bank would lose $96. If the student borrowed in each of his first 3 years and paid it back in 5 years, starting 1 year after graduation, the bank would lose $127.37. If he borrowed $750 in each of his 4 years, and paid it back over a 6-year period, the bank would be out $149.50. I used the $750 figure because that was the average loan at the time of the study. However, the same red figures showed up on a specific example of students borrowing $1,000 for 1 year of $1,000 per year for 4 years. These losses are out of pocket. I am talking not about the income a bank sacrifices by putting this money into student loans instead of in- vesting it elsewhere at a much higher rate of return. This is a major problem for the student loan programs. A private corporation cannot indefinitely subsidize a social program, regardless of the merits of the program. You cannot solve hunger in the ghetto by insisting that the super- market give away its groceries. PAGENO="0147" IUGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 141 The question is how do we return these loans to the break-even point ~for lenders? Let me emphasize that we are not asking that the loans ~be competitive with other types of consumer lending where gross rates usually exceed 9 percent and the costs of making and administering the loans are much less. In fact, we are not asking for a profit at all. We simply want to break even. If Congress makes this possible you will be giving the program :a much needed and appropriate shot in the arm at a critical time. Initially, we suggested that the interest on these loans be made tax exempt; we didn't get far with this. This had limitations because the benefits would not be the same for all banks and the benefits would not be the same for other lenders in this program. The second consideration was to increase the interest return to the lender. However, this would not work well because many States have usury laws that prohibit rates above 6 percent on loans of this type. We considered the idea of having the student pay a fee. This is sim- ilar to the proposed increase in the interest rate. Many States consider fees along with interest under their usury statutes. If the fee and in~ terest amount to more than 6 percent, the charge is usurious. Therefore, ~this approach had to be rejected. The fourth, and most acceptable solution, is to have the Govern- -ment pay the lender a placerne~t fee at the time each loan is made. Such a fee system could be established on a flexible basis so the Com- missioner of Education, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, could adjust the fee up or down consistent with the chang- ing market rates of interest. We believe this approach has much to commend it and we urge the committee to give it careful considera- ~tion. Any time you have a program that involves a student, his parents, a college, a State or private guarantee agency, the Office of Education and a private lender, you are going to have paperwork. There is no way to eliminate it completely. However, there are -numerous ways to keep the paperwork-which is a big cost factor- down to a minmum. In this area, the Office of Education has been extremely cooperative. For example, the Office has revised its regulations covering the com- putation of adjusted family income so the lending officer doesn~t have to spend a lot of time answering questions which do not affect the student. As a result, a two-page form has been reduced to a few lines of computation. Moreover, the Office of Education has combined the adjusted family income information with the application for interest benefits. Now it is possible to include this one sheet of paper with the basic appli- cation of State and private guarantee agencies. I understand these agencies are now trying to devise a common form to be used by all student borrowers. That too, would be a simplification for lenders and college financial aid officers. But I think the Office of Education is making its greatest progress -in reducing paperwork by its efforts to set up a system which would permit lenders to bill the Office of Education for interest on a bulk basis once each quarter or semiannually. PAGENO="0148" 142 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Instead of listing the balance of each individual loan, the lender would submit a form showing the average daily balance for the quar- ter or the quarterly balance on all loans and the Office of Education would send one check for the total amount. The lender would still submit all the necessary statistical informa- tion each time a loan is made. However, after that the paperwork would be greatly reduced. If the Office of Education believes a post- audit system is necessary to make certain that interest payments are correct, perhaps an arrangement can be worked out with the Federal bank examiners. But the biggest potential savings in paperwork comes when the student graduates and starts to repay the loan. Tinder the present sys- tem, the lender is required to compute the outstanding principal bal- ance each quarter for as long as 10 years in order to receive the 3-per- cent interest paid by the Government. This is a complication that deserves close attention. Several plans have been advanced to deal with this problem. The most promising suggestion is that once the student graduates he should pay the full 6 percent interest. Then `when the loan is repaid in full the student. would get a rebate from the Government covering half of the interest paid. This proposal has several advantages. It would result in only one transaction between the bank or student and the Office of Education after the student graduates. If the student took 10 years to repay that would mean one transaction instead of 40. This system would also provide an important incentive for the stu- dent to repay the loan. Moreover, such a system might be less attrac- tive to those who actually don't need the loans, those who could meet college expenses with smaller loans. This would make more funds available to students who actually need the money to meet college costs. I realize that "need" is a sensitive word when it comes to these loans but it is a word that cannot be avoided. If the college financial aid officer is not permitted to recommend a loan of a certain amount for a student and each student asks for the maximum, then the bank is placed in a difficult position. if the bank sets aside a certain amount to meet the demand for these loans, and the demand is greater than the bank can meet, the bank will have to be selective. The bank would rather lend to the student who actually needs it. than to the student whose family just found it more convenient to. borrow. When money gets as tight as it did this past year, some students in dire need may not be able to get loans because students who didn't need loans got them. It seems to me that the college financial aid officer should be author~ ized to recommend a maximum amount for each student loan. He' Imows about other sources of financial aid available to the student. He knows about the work-study program and the grant program. He also knows about the National Defense Education Act loans. Getting back to the so-called Michigan plan, the only disadvantage to having the sti~dent pay the full interest during the repayment pe- riod is that the student would have to meet a slightly higher monthly PAGENO="0149" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 143 payment. In terms of dollars this amounts to very little on a monthly basis. Another way to eliminate the recordkeeping during the repayment period is to let the student pay the 3 percent and then when the loan is paid in full the bank would submit one bill for the other 3 percent. The bank would, of course, have to be compensated because it would not have the use of this money during the repayment period. However, I am sure a scale could be worked out to simplify this computation. A third possibility to have the Office of Education pay the lender one lump sum at the time the student graduates and starts to repay the loan. This would be difficult to work out an average repayment sched- ule, but this system would greatly reduce the paper flow between the Office of Education and the lender. We have not done enough research on these three approaches to be able to give you our final recommendations. However, we will discuss these various suggestions with representatives from the Office of Edu- cation and the Treasury Department and if possible submit our views to them as a supplement to this statement. It is clear, however, that we must find a simplified way for lenders to bill the Office of Education during the repayment period. The third major area that deserves the attention of Congress is the matter of reserve funds. We think it is critically important that the 90th Congress come to grips with the question of the applicable national policy as to the guar- anteeing function. If the Congress determines that it wishes to pursue the initial ob- ~ectives of the 1965 act., namely, a program to encourage the establish- ment of guarantee plans at the State level, then we would urge that modifications be made in the overall program which are designed to carry out this purpose in an affirmative manner: We hope, very frankly, this is the course that the Congress would finally decide to follow. On the other hand, if you should decide that the State approach is not the proper one, then there is equal need for a clear and unequivocal policy statement, directing the Commissioner of Education to begin implerneiitation and operation of the Federal insurance program. Until the Congress speaks clearly and forthrightly on this important policy question, we fear that the overall objectives of the guaranteed student loan program will be frustrated by uncertainties as to where the future responsibility for the insuring function will reside. We earnestly commend your most thorough scrutiny of this problem. In reaching an ultimate decision on this question, you may find the following observations and recommendations helpful. It should first be noted that when the authorizing legislation was finally approved in November of 1965, 12 States were operating State- funded guarantee programs. Today, there are 30 States with various types of loan programs. These figures would seem to indicate that the expectation for State action was not a frivolous one. At the beginning of this calendar year State and private guarantee agencies had total reserves of over $83 million. The Federal contribution to these reserves was less than $8 million. More importantly, current estimates indicate that these States with PAGENO="0150" 144 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 going programs will appropriate some $25 million to fund. reserve operations for the coming fiscal year. This 1-year figure for State appropriations exceeds by $75 million the total amount appropriated for Federal advance funds to be dis~ bursed over a 3-year period. Thus the State effort to date cannot be characterized as nominal. Of those States which have not yet authorized guarantee programs and which are currently operating on Federal advance funds, coupled. with USA funds private insuring capacity, several will reach a point within the current calendar year where their existing reserves are' totally encumbered. When this point is reached the U.S. Office of Education is empow- ered under the 1965 act to activate the Federal insurance program. for those States. It is our earnest belief that such action will toll the eventual dis- mantling of all State guarantee programs. We feel certain such a re- sult will occur, for we find it hard to believe that States such as New York, Connecticut, Louisiana, and South Dakota, will long continue to appropriate funds for insurance purposes when they look across their borders and see the Federal Government fulfilling this re- sponsibility for their neighboring States. Our concern with the phasing out of existing State guarantee op- erations is not predicated on a meaningless ideological desire' for the' State rather than Federal action. It stems from a practical conceru for the immediate if not the ultimate future of the entire program. You must understand that this association, State bankers associa- tions, and individual banks have exper~ded tens of thousands of dol-- lars in educating banks to the procedures and practices of particular State guarantee plans. If these plans are now to be replaced by a Federal insurance pro-- gram, it means starting anew with the entire educational and training process for all lending institutions and for educational institutions as well. Many lenders who have just been through this educational process may well determine that it is not worth the expense and time to become acquainted with new operating procedures and decide to discontinue their participation in student lending. That would be highly regrettable both to our association and~ me personally as we worked very hard on this. To prevent such a development we submit the following recom- mendations: (1) Amend the act to limit interest under the Federal program to 6 percent, the same as all State and private programs instead of the present permissible rate of 7 percent. This takes away incentive for States to favor the Federal program. (2) Extend the program of Federal advance funds for States to bolster their reserves for 2 more years. (3) Establish a provision in the act whereby those States which do not, after 2 years, appropriate reserve funds be excluded from the interest subsidy benefits under the act. In other words, the Federal Government should give the States the choice of providing reserves or foregoing interest benefits. PAGENO="0151" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 145 The Federal Government should not be expected to do both for col- lege students of a State. This approach -would be much more equitable for all States and would reduce Federal expenditures for this program. A fourth alternative might be to authorize additional Federal ad- vance funds for the next 2 fiscal years to those States which have not as yet established State-supported guarantee programs, and couple this authorization with a matching fund program-at such ratio as the Congress might determine to be equitable-for those States which have operative loan guarantee programs. The 2-year extension of the "advance fund" program would carry States without a program through the next general State legislative year in 1969, thus giving these States an additional period within. which to act. The matchino' fund program would serve as a very tangible induce- ment for these ~tates to move enactment of a reserve program in 1969, and would likewise encourage those States that have already acted to continue -the operation and further funding -of their guarantee programs. - Then, as I mentioned earlier, this program is still young with little more than 6 months experience behind it. We feel t-hat the results to date merit this extension of the advance concept so the program can be given a valid test. In the ABA educational booklet, which I noted a moment ago, which we published and distributed last summer, we stated that the goal of the American Bankers Association was 100-percent participation in student loans by the Nation's commercial banks. We have not changed that goal. Records in the Office of Education indicate that -to date over 8,000 of the 13,000-odd commercial banks in the country have participated in the program. Others are becoming involved almost daily. It is also encouraging to note that other types of financial institu- tions are signing up to participate in this program. Our conclusion has been that the more participants we have the more even the load will be shared. But, even more importantly, the more participants there are the easier it will be for students to obtain the funds they need to finance a college education. We are convinced that once the rate on these loans is returned to a break-even proposition and once the paperwork is streamlined we can, through continued hard work, gain the support of almost every lender in the land. Of all the schemes and proposals to finance higher education that have been advanced in Congress in recent years, the guaranteed student loan approach seems to us to be by far the most appealing. It gives the Government the greatest amount of leverage for the least amount of money. It encourages the cooperation of Federal and~ State Governments, private guarantee agencies, colleges, and univer- sities, and the Nation's lenders. Moreover, it attempts to have each section do what it does best. I hope we can eliminate some of the obstacles now in the program so it can function more smoothly and reach its full potential-that is, to make sure that no qualified student is denied a college education be- cause he lacks the marginal funds necessary to finance this education. PAGENO="0152" 146 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We have the foundation for a great program. The recommendations submitted here on behalf of the American Bankers Association will help build on that foundation. Thank you very much. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Walker, for an excellent statement. I particularly appreciate your outlining the alternative recommen- clations on page 12. It seems to me, also, on pages 4 and S you have given the best basis for arriving at the costs to colleges and universities on the NDEA loan. Would it be your judgment that the figures on those pages would also be the cost to the university when they are processing the NDEA loans? Dr. WALKER. I will say, and then perhaps let others comment on this that know a little more on it than I, first, we ran over these costs in a presentation to the administration task force some time back. Naturally, they checked out our figures pretty carefully on the basis of their own experience and the NDEA experience. They thought our figures were quite realistic. Second, just off the top of my head, I would think our figures are probably lower than the NDEA fund lenders; we are specialists in the area of doing this sort of thing, but I am sure the Office of Education people will tell you how they compare. I would think their figures are higher. Their loss ratio tends to be higher, and when you try to collect a loan that is bad, you really get into costs. Mrs. GREEN. In your statement you get into the number of students who had loans between July 1966 and 1967; do you have comparable figures from 1965 to 1966? How much of an increase has there been because of this program? Mr. GANNON. It was approximately $150 million by all States and private guarantee agencies during the last academic year. Mrs. GREEN. Do you know how many loans that would be? You have 270,000 with $210 million? Dr. WALKER. They average $750 per loan. Mrs. GREEN. The size of individual loans has not been increased? Dr. WALKER. Yes; it has been increased by the facts of life of a col- lege education and, in addition, the publicity that the Federal pro- gram got originally, which we thought was somewhat unfortunate in that it was a Federal lending program. The students came into the banks and said, "We want one of those loans to go to school." It was published as 1,000 and many students tried to borrow the full amount. There should be a limit put on this. The amount of cost has been rising because of some of this publicity. Mrs. GREEN. Would you know how many students were refused or turned down on the loan program of insufficient funds during fiscal 1966? Dr. WALKER. No global instances, figures were quoted in the press and I received letters myself from disgruntled and unhappy students, which we tried to check carefully. Mr. Brytczuk might comment on this. His bank is the largest lender in the country in this area. Could you give an estimate of loans made versus turndowns? PAGENO="0153" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 147 Mr. BRYTOZUK. I don't think our bank would be typical; we have made it a policy to make the loans as students approach us, providing they meet the qualifications. I don't know of any instance where we turned down a loan. The student has to show the scholarship ability and the desire to complete his education. Mrs. GREEN. Do you require need? Mr. BRYTOZUK. No; not a need in that way but we want to satisfy ourselves that this student has indicated in his past performance that he will be able to complete his college education and he has a desire to complete his college education. Mrs. GREEN. Do you give any weight in making the loan to your judgment of his ability to repay? Mr. BRYTOZUK. That is a minor factor because the loans are guar- anteed. Dr. WALKER. I think implicit in that is if he has the ability to get a college education-you have to look at this-if a student came in with a bare minimum in terms of his high school training and education and it seemed clear to the college people and others that he wouldn't get through the whole college career, that is one thing. On the other hand, if he is going to get through, we checked the figure this morning, the average B.A. student is employed at $611 a month and the average technical at $711 per month. There is no question if the student seems to be able to go ahead and get his degree. Mrs. GREEN. Do you think that by and large `the loans have gone to needy students? Dr. WALKER. I don't think there is any question about this. Our experience seems the parallel U.S. Air Force experience, if you recall last year when the head of the IL'S. Air Force testified the figures which they compiled in the survey indicated there was not much dif- ference between the levels at which their loans had been made and the NDEA loans. I think the needier students will tend to get the loans and this follows from the logic of the situation. If we are going to lose money or break even, but we would like to perform a public service at the same time. Mrs. GREEN. In your judgment do the NDEA and TJ;S. Air Force loan programs serve the same purpose in the socioeconomic area? Dr. WALKER. No; U.S. Air Force figures showed they were not ex- actly parallel. You will tend to have an average of lower income level, but in the earlier stages when you are getting off the ground, I think lenders, logically and appropriately, when lending to students with a family of $15,000 or $5,000, they would lend to the lower income. We think that is appropriate. If you get this thing going up into the $1, $2, $3, $6, or $8 million category, I think you will see loans move to the higher income strata. Mrs. GREEN. Does this really follow the intent of the legislation establishing the guarantee loan program? Dr. WALKER. Reading the record and reading the reports not pre- cisely because one, the word "need" was never used and could not be used. We demurred very strongly from this idea, we think you should start with need to begin with. I would hope very much that the Congress PAGENO="0154" 148 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 and your subcommittee would take a particular look at that and I 4levoted some portion of my statement to it. If you put yourself in the place of the lender and this bank puts aside $500,000 to make the loans and it has demands for $1,000,000 worth of loans, perhaps some of these you know are from students and customers you know can afford to get the funds elsewhere or pay it out of the current income. I think then the banker has to look at the situation. Maybe 5 years from now we can be away from this but I don't think we can in the embryo stage. Mrs. GREEN. Let me say I do understand the lenders' position. I think all bankers would operate in the same fashion. Where there is a limited amount of money it should be on the basis~ of need. I think legislation did say any student with income less than $15,000 was eligible. Dr. WALKER. He was eligible for the interest subsidy, not the loan. Any student is eligible even with an income of a million dollars, eligible for the interest subsidy. There is nothing, though, that says the lender must make the loan. We are doing all we can but there is no requirement that the loan must be made. Mrs. GREEN. I think this points up the concern of some of us that stu- dents from the middle-income bracket really do not have a program of student assistance to help them through college. Dr. WALKER. You (have hundreds of millions of dollars of loans for years under what we call the banks own plans. This is at a higher rate of interest and a more competitive rate of interest but, when you talk of an adjusted family income of $15,000, or gross family income of $19,000 or $20,000 or $21,000, and these loans run possibly 12 percent in interest, this is tax deductible, and particularly in accordance with the point Mr. Carey made earlier. I would disagree that these people are completely out in the cold. They have quite a few sources of credit and many families started when the child was born to build up a fund to send the student to college later Mr. CAni~Y. I will agree that a great many people did in frugal ways manage to sequester funds for the education of their children but none of us reckoned with the high cost of education today. No matter what the savings were, nobody could determine 20 years ago that we would face the high cost of the tuition in colleges today. I assume this is on my time now, Madam Chairman, had you finished your questioning? Mrs. GREEN. Yes; please go ahead. Mr. CAREY. I compute that roughly 480,000 students were able to obtain some kind of loan under the guaranteed program of TJSAF pro- gram, if my figures are accurate. Dr. WALKER. Including NDEA? Mr. CAREY. No; just the TJSAF, this calendar year. Dr. WALKER. Right. Mr. CAREY. We don't know, or I don't know, how we can find out how many students applied for lonns and were not fortunate enough to live in the area of the First National City Bank of New York. I think it is of interest to the commit,teo to determine what happened to these students, where did they go? Perhaps the parents were not PAGENO="0155" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 149 provident enough to put money aside, maybe the family was living up to their income levels. I don't know what they were doing with any of their money. The concern here is the student, not the family income or where he comes from. Maybe the family is broken up. The'level of income under the statutes we use for reckoningour tax income and so forth, the `taxable income, it may be sizable but is itavailable to the student? We don't know these answers. I am relieved a great deal to hear those `students coming to my office and saying they had been'clenied a loan and the bank won't give them one because they say they have no more funds for this purpose because ~oftight'money. I can now direct them in this mass number to the First National City Bank. Mr. BRYTCZTJK. I would rather you didn't do that. Mr. CAREY. This is a policy of the `bank that no one is turned away ivho is judged capable of pursuing `a college degree. `Mr. BRYTCZUK. We don't take loans from all over the country. Mr. CAREY. You `just take care of the 15th Congressional District of New York? `Madam Chairman, you will have to get your own First National Bank. I w'ant to say I do recognize the banking community in New York, which naturally would be more within my budget, has done a fabulous job of cooperatincr with the State leadership in this field and our State plan, which was ~ar in advance of the national plan, brought about `a great awareness of the opportunity'for the banks `to perform this pub- lie service. Dr. WALKER. It was one of the prototypes for the national plan. Mr. BRYTCZuK. I think in the figures New York State `accounted for $50 million of that total previously mentioned. Mr. CAREY. If you are successful in selling the committee and the committee is successful' in selling the Bureau of the Budget that you should get a placement fee, cost of acquisition fee to cover your paper- work and other factors in these loans, won't this make it far more at- *ractive for all the States, `all the banks~ rather, to operate for the Federal program because you get `the placement fee which you won't get on the other? Dr. WALKER. No, my statement is not clear on this point. This would be for any loan guaranteed under the Federal program. I say this again for the benefit of the members of the press, the Federal loan program is not `at thi's point a Federal-student `cooperation, it is `a Federal-private; there is no Federal yet. Mr. CAREY. It is only `a guarantee? Dr. WALKER. No, `there is no Federal guarantee anywhere yet. Mr. CAREY. When the State decides to come in the Federal guaran- tee will be there? Dr. WALKER. No, the `States have the opportunity first `of setting up their own plans or going under a private plan such as TJSAF. After a given period of time if the State is not doing this, the Office of Education can trigger the Federal plan in that State. PAGENO="0156" 150 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We hope they will not because we are afraid that will leave no in- centive for States to move ahead. Mr. CAREY. I might say it is common in New York commercial banks, but I did detect the bank is making a judgment as to who is capable of pursuing a college career successfully? Mr. BRYTCZUK. Only to this extent, we were anxious that we be able to collect the loan after the student graduates. One of the factors in being able to successfully collect your loan is to be sure the boy will have an adequate income. I think one thing follows the other. If he can complete his college education, he will have an adequate income and we will be able to col- lect our loans. We don't want to run into a situation where x percent of our loans are uncollectable because the people don't have enough money to repay them. Dr. WALKER. Bankers are not setting themselves up as scholastic judges of ability. We go on the college judgments. Mr. CAREY. What standard do you use? Mr. BRYTOZUK. Under the New York program the college first initi- ates it and they indicate in their judgment whether they think this boy will make a good college student. Mr. CAREY. So the college made this judgment? Mr. BRYTCZUX. Yes, and he submits his grades with this loan application. Mr. CAREY. But you still might turn him down even though the col- lege is willing to accept him? Mr. BRYTCZUK. Or we might reduce the loan amount. Mr. CAREY. If he can't make up the difference he does not go even though he is acceptable as college material~ Dr. WALKER. Tha.t is why we have to make this program grow and work better. Mr. CAREY. As good as the program is, there is still a number of persons, the number is marginal, hut a number who have gained acceptance, who are college material. I think it is clear to all of us who have studied this that there. are a great many that fall below acceptance because they went through the New York school system and many student.s who might have gone to other high schools, coming out of our high schools are not getting the proper diplomas. If the college accepts the person but he is borderline in the estimate of the bank, he still might not get a loan; is that correct? Dr. WALKER. That is true in many parts of the country. Mr. BRYTCZUK. We have been sort of bypassing this to the New York State educational program. Where we feel in doubt about a loan app1ication~ we forward it to Albany and ask the New York Higher Ecfncation Assistance Authority to make the judgment. Mr. CAREY. It all sounds good on paper. I would like to make this observation: as good as it sounds, in the grassroots, I am told by parent after parent that for all intents and purposes if your child has not won a regents scholarship, it really means he is in the top 10 percent, or if he is not. eligible on the. poverty program, forget it, you won't get a student loan. PAGENO="0157" HIGHER ED~CATI0N AMENDMENTS OF 1967 151 This is brought to my office day after day. You finance your own child. You are `a regent scholarship student or you start with a Federal opportunity grant from the Federal Government where there is a leg up for the student and the bank says, "Well, this is this much and we need to flesh out the substance." But one who starts without any of this, family after family tells me to forget it, you won't get a student loan. There is an inaccuracy here somewhere that we should discover. Mrs. GREEN. There were two statements made this morning that con- cern me. You indicated `the student's ability to repay the loan is a con- sideration in your making it? Mr. BRYTOZUK. Right. Mrs. Giu~EN. You used the word "boy." Is there any question here about giving girls loans in terms of their ability or what you think their ability to repay might be? I couple this with what Dr. Gross said about the reverse dowry, the apparent handicap that he thinks accompanies a girl but does not ac- company a boy. Mr. BRYTCZUK. Not that I am aware of, but most of our applicants are male. Mrs. GREEN. The majority are? Mr. BRYTOZUK. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a percentage? Mr. BRYTGZUK. No, I do not. Mrs. GREEN. What do you think it might be when you say most? Mr. BRYTOZUK. I can't guess. Mrs. GREEN. What does most mean as you use it? Dr. WALKER. Let me make a suggestion here, this is in response to a statement Mr. Carey made earlier. I am a little unhappy we `had not t'hought of this before. I think a survey conducted by the ABA and other interested groups as to experience during this formative period as to turndowns, we could get some information `and bring up some interesting information on this Score and `with respect to the sex problems. Mr. GANNON. The gentleman from the Office of Education gave a percentage after analysis that 43 percent of the loans under a guaran- teed plan went to women. Mrs. GREEN. Any dollar amounts? Mr. DEAKINS. I don't know, we just received the first analysis of loans that `had been made on Friday night and I don't recall the amount but the number of students-it is about 60-40 among the white stu- dents. More Negro girls were receiving loans than white girls. It was closer to 50-50 among Negro borrowers. Mrs. GREEN. But about 60-40? Mr. DEAKINS. Yes. I am sorry th'at I don't `have that information with me. Mrs. GREEN. Can you gentlemen representing the American Bankers Association really say to this committee that neither consciously or subconsciously would you consider the sex of the individual and the ability to repay in making the loans? Dr. WALKER. There are two things there. I would like to say some- thing on the ability-to-repay point but these gentlemen can respond to the other point. PAGENO="0158" 152 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. O'NEiu~. Absolutely not. We consider the applicant regardless of race, color, or creed. I can't think of a single girl. we have turiled down, either colored or white. Dr. WALKER. I want to comment on the ability to repay and also to respond to Mr. Carey. On the ability to repay, the point should be very clear that the bankers view these loans as very good, regardless of income level, if the student shows promise of completing school. We are talking about the student completing school and then it looks as though he will have the ability to repay. This is borne out be- cause in the TJSAF figures, they are not looking at financial worth at the present time, but earning capacity based on the ability to get a college education. With all due respect, Mr. Carey, our statement is directed to the fact this is a new program. It has a lot of bugs in it, but we are trying as conscientiously as we can to work out those bugs. In spite of all the problems, I am very proud of the fact that 270,000 students got loans. There were some turned down and I know you and I hear more about the turndowns than the others. I would like to follow through with the banks making the loans and see what we can find out. Mr. STr~rITH. I think the financial aid officers would be a good source for information on this point. Mr. CAREY. The bank figures would be inaccurate unless we get the student aid officer figures. Tn many cases the student aid officers say they won't recommend a `student because they deem you capable of making a loan on your own. If the student then goes home and says, "I can't get a loan," the student aid officers might assume that the student went to some other source. I say it is hard to get the actual figures of turndowns `from banks: alone. We must also get those figui'es from the student aid officers? Dr. WAIJI~ER. We will try to dO that. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Hathaway? Mr. HATHAWAY. If you lose money on some loans, why are so many more lenders getting into the program? Dr. WALKER. Because they think it is good for the `country for peo- ple to get college degrees and in the long run, we like the fact that a young man or woman has his first loan experience under this sort of discipline. We think they will be good customers in the future and when we pre- sented the program to President JOhnson last year, he brought out some good points supporting it. We have a difficult time finding enough people to come into the' banking industry. If you make them a loan to go to college, they are much more sympathetic about coming to you later. Basically, I think, without getting on a soapbox for my industry, but a banker in any community is vitally concerned with the success' of his community or his bank can't be successful. Mr. HATHAWAY. I appreciate the community interest but isn't there also a good possibility of making a profit. Dr. WALKER. It is good business and we think what is good business for the country will be good for the banks. PAGENO="0159" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 153 Mr. HATHAWAY. Have you taken into consideration the fact that stu- dents coming in for $1,000, or for the limit, borrow additional money at conventional rates which would offset the loss on loans? Dr. WALKER. There is some of that. Again, I think we should do some surveying on this score to find out how much there is. It is a threefold operation. You start putting a certain amount of savings aside, then the student qualifies for a guaranteed loan; the parents supplement that and there may be a scholarship or several things in the picture. This would raise the return somewhat to the bank but not to a break- even proposition as yet. Mr. HATHAWAY. That figure is not computed in here? Dr. WALKER. No, it is not. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Dr. Walker, and you other gentlemen. You have been very helpful. The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 20, 1967.) PAGENO="0160" PAGENO="0161" HIGHER EIIIJC&TION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, TVashington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Burton, Quie, and Esch. Mrs. GREEN. The committee will come to order for further consid- eration of the two bills on the higher education amendments. The first witnesses before the committee this morning are representatives from the American Library Association and I am glad to welcome Germaine Krettek and her colleagues and friends to the hearing. Would you come to the table and introduce the witnesses for the record to Congressman Gibbons and others who will be joining us? STATEMENT OF MISS GERMAINE KRETTEK OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MORRIS GELPAND, LIBRARIAN, QUEENS COLLEGE; AND MRS. SARA SEYGLEY, ASSO- CIATE PROFESSOR, LTBRARY SCHOOL, FLORIDA STATE UNI- VERSITY Miss IcI~rrsK. Thank you, I am very pleased to introduce Mrs. Sara Srygley, Florida State University professor, and I think you have her biography as well as Dr. Gelf and's for the record. This is Dr. Morris Gelf and, librarian, Queen's College, City University of New York. I should like him to speak first if it meets with your approval. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you and may I say to you people appearing here to testify that those of us on the committee recognize Germaine Krettek as an outstanding representative of the American Library Association and she represents you very well. Mr. GELFAND~ My name is Morris A. Gelfand. I am professor and chief librarian of Queens College, City University of New York. Ex- cept for a period of some four and a half years in the U.S. Armed Forces, during the last 7 months of which I served as library officer of. the Pacific theater. in General MacArthur's, headquarters, I have worked continuously since 1931 as a librarian, as a teacher, and super- visor of instructiOn in librarianship, and as a library consultant. From 1949 to the present, I have served as a member of more than 15 evaluation committees of the Middle States Association of Col- 155 80-155-67--pt. 1-11 PAGENO="0162" 156 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 leges and Secondary Schools. In this capacity, I have visited many colleges and universities, both small and large, in the United States. My foreign experience includes work as a teacher and library can- sultant in Burma, Thailand, India, and Brazil. On behalf of the American Library Association, a 35,000 member nonprofit organization of librarians and laymen, I wish to support enthusiastically the general purposes and provisions of the 1967 higher education bill, and to discuss some of its implications for college libraries. The passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was a great legis- lative achievement, the full potential of which has yet to be realized. As you know, the initial distribution of funds was not made until June 1966, and was limited to basic grants of $5,000 to college and university libraries. For fiscal year 1967 more funds were made avail- able and libraries were invited to submit applications for supplemen- tal and special purpose as well as basic grants. The authorizations for funding this act, as well as the National De- fense Education Act, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 are scheduled to expire June 30, 1968. By extendin~ most of the provisions for these acts for 5 years to 1973, and providing adequate funding accordingly the Congress will perform an essential service. The passage and ultimate implementa- tion of the 1967 higher education bill are vitally necessary because the needs of our colleges and the students continue to be great and urgent. Early passage of the bill will provide not only the additional authori- zation required, but also continuity of funding and time for colleges to plan wisely for long-range development and improvement. I should like to emphasize this moment this is indeed an extremely important aspect of the legislation from the point of view of colleges and universities. We do need the time for planning and hopefully we would look toward some sense of assurance of continuity in the fund- ing. The proposed amendments to title II of the Higher Education Act are my immediate concern, but I should also like to comment briefly on certain aspects of other titles. TITLE I-COMMUNITy AND CONTINUING EDUCATION We are in hearty accord with the purposes of title I, which allocates funds to colleges and universities to finance continuing education and community service programs that deal with juvenile delinquency, un- employment, inadequate health services, and other urban concerns. To support these important programs effectively, increasingly large amounts of books and other library materials are required. TITLE U-PART A. COLLEGE LIBRARY RESOURCES It is important that the full amount of the authorized $50 million if not a greater sum, be provided each fiscal year for college library resources. PAGENO="0163" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 157. The budget recommendation for fiscal year 1968 is $25 million, just half the amount. authorized, and the following factors should be con- sidered in making a judgment: 1. Contemporary college instruction depends heavily on a large variety of library materials, rather than textbooks. 2; Fifty percent of our 4-year colleges and 82 percent of our 2-year colleges are below standard with respect to library holdings. 3. The rapidly rising student enrollment in higher education institu- tions increases the demand for books and further aggravates the deficiencies of below standard academic libraries. 4. Most college libraries are receiving inadequate financial support. A widely accepted standard for support is 5 percent of the total annual budget for educational purposes but the actual amount that is being allocated averages about 3.5 percent. 5. There has been a phenomenal increase in publications in recent years and most of our libraries are unable to cope with it. It is esti- mated that in the natural sciences alone more than 50,000 journals are published annually. In the United States, 28,595 books were published in 1965, more than twice the number published in 1958. The college library must acquired a significant proportion of the current output of publications to serve effectively its students and faculty. 6. The broadening of the curriculum which is taking place in our colleges requires additional library material. 7. The expansion of graduate studies and research creates additional new demands for books and journals. My own college library provides a good example of the impact of these factors. We have 24,000 students; approximately 11,000 under- graduate day students, 3,000 graduate students, and 10,000 evening students. Up to 1961 our college was an undergraduate liberal arts institution. Today it is a university in fact if not in name. The library, accordingly, must serve a university type program. Our library presently contains about 250,000 volumes. It should con- tain also close to 1,000,000 volumes to serve present programs of teaching and research. By 1972 the college is destined to have an enrollment of 40,000. We applied for a basic and supplemental grant, but had no match- ing funds to support a special purpose grant. A library for an institu- tion of such scope and size should possess not only a large general col- lection, but must add new books at a rate of between 50,000 to 100,000 a year in order to keep up the flow of new publications and fill in the gaps in its retrospective collections. I migh't put in an aside that in the United States we published 20,000-some-odd books. In England I think they published somewhat more than this number. This is only the United States and England; when we consider the output of the other countries throughout the world, one can readily appreciate the mass of new materials we face is very great indeed. Every college has to have some portion of this mass for its students and its faculty. PAGENO="0164" 158 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 For those of us, like my own college, which is really a university, we have to build up large collections of retrospective materials to support programs of research, programs of higher studies. The example I have given may appear to be an extreme example, but it is not. Throughout our country it is possible to find many examples of academic institutions which have responded to the pressures of ris- ing demands for admission and the requirements of our country for well-educated specialists by opening their doors more widely despite deficiencies in staff, facilities and resources. The Higher Education Act can assist such institutions very signifi- cantly indeed. There is also a great need among hundreds of struggling smaller institutions. I should like to submit for the record some of the results of a lim- ited survey which the American Library Association has just made of title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965. In order to see what the act has accomplished, the association obtained replies from 71 institutions of higher education from various parts of the country, 40 different States and two territories in all. The group consisted of 16 junior colleges, 24 four-year colleges and 31 irniversities. We could not get a larger sample because the time was too short, owing to the fact that the guidelines from the Office of Education had been delayed and were just reaching the institution. The tabulations do give some indication of how beneficial the funds have been, however. According to the returns, these colleges and universities have a total enrollment of 325,282 of whom 254,337 are undergraduates and 70,945 graduate students. They expect to be short 143 professional positions in the academic year 1967-68. These 71 institutions of higher education are proposing to apply in the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 1967, for: basic grants, $385,400; supplemental grants, $1,206,665; and special purpose $1,054,300. This small group representing approximately one-thirtieth of the total number of institutions of higher education in the United States, has plans for spending $2,646,365 in fiscal year 1968 compared to the actual expenditure of over $8 million by 1,830 institutions in fiscal year 1966 on a total appropriation of $10 million. In other words, if all 2,200 institutions of higher education should apply at the same rate for these grants in fiscal year 1968, the total amount would be approximately $78 million. According to the replies of the ALA questionnaire, the colleges and universities gave the following purposes for which they were going to use the basic, supplementary, and special purpose grants in fiscal year 1968. I would like to ask that this material be made a part of my testi- mony for the record: PAGENO="0165" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 159 Uses of the grants, fiscal year 1968 ` . Basic Supplemental Special . purpose lunior colleges: . Audiovisual 2 4 1 Basic collections 4 BInding Cooperation General collections 0 0 1 4 1 1 Microfilm of periodicals, etc Periodicals and back files 1 3 1 Reference 2 1 Special collections 4-year colleges: Audiovisual 2 3 3 Basic collections 3 1 Binding Cooperation General collections 0 10 1 4 2 Microfilms of periodicals, etc Periodicals and back files 3 4 2 1 1 Reference 4 2 1 Special collections Universities: 5 2 2 Audiovisual 2 1 Basiccollections 3 1 1 Binding 3 1 1 Cooperation General collections 17 6 4 6 Microfilms of periodicals, etc Periodicals and back files 4 5 1 5 1 3 Ph. D. programs~ -- 2 2 3 Reference 2 *2 0 Special collections 1 1 8 These are e~ramples of some of the comments from libraries made regarding the use of Title II Grants: University of Maine, Orono, Maine: 11,275 enrollment. Special Purpose, fiscal year 1968: "Increased support for a new pro- gram in ocean sciences." Arkansas State University, State College, Arkansas: 5,165 enrollment. Special Purpose, fiscal year 1968: "Materials for joint effort in: "(1) Nursing education. "(2) Speech pathology and audiology, "(3) Diagnostic evaluation and treatment of the handicapped- both organic and mental. "(4) Additional materials for graduate research." University of Washington, Seattle, Washington: 26,880 enrollment. Special Purpose, fiscal year 1968: "Provide for better base of service to other libraries in the Northwest." Dana College, Blair, Nebraska: 800 enrollment. Basic, fiscal year 1968: "Provide for purchase of back volumes of periodicals on microfilm and research materials." Ripon College, Ripon, Wisconsin: 950 enrollment. Basic, fiscal year 1968: "Purchase materials for honors program." University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois: 14,681 enrollment. Special Purpose, fiscal year 1968: "(1) Purchase library materials for a planned Instructional Materials Center. "(2) Provide `additional reference materials for a Statewide sys- tern of regional reference centers. "(3) Purchase appropriate Western language materials to sup- plement vernacular publications purchased in South, Southeast, and East Asia, and Latin America, by staff members. sent to those areas by the Midwest Un~v~rsitses Consortium for International Activi ties, a cooperative group of four Midwest universities." Snow College, Branch, UtaI~ State University, Ephraim, Utah: 787 enrollment. Basic, fiscal year 1966: "This grant has allowed us to purchase addi- tional reference works, i.e. encyclopedias, dictionaries, indexes, etc. be- PAGENO="0166" 160 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 sides standard field books which we otherwise would have been unable to obtain through our own resources. These materials are used by both our students and our faculty." The College of St. Catherine, St. Paul, Minnesota: 1,353 enrollment. Basic, fiscal year 1966: "We used the entire grant of $5,000 plus an additional $5,000 from our college to purchase Grnelin, Handbuch der Anorganisehen Chemic. We have now placed a standing order for all subsequent parts. We could not have purchas:ed this without the grant funds to help with the basic volumes. This set, together with Beiistein, which we already had, has given us the basic research material in both organic and inorganic chemistry." Special Purpose, fiscal year 1968: "To provide common acquisition procedures and plan a research/storage center for 7 academic libraries (4-year liberal arts colleges) in cooperation with the James J. Hill Reference Library." Mouint San Antonio College, Walnut, California: 9,505 enrollment. "This legislation, in my opinion, is very important to support junior college libraries at a time which is so crtical in obtaining adequate materials for junior college library collections as increased demands are made upon the junior colleges. Receiving such funds will make the difference between ade- quate or inadequate services to our students." TITLE IT-PART B. LIBRARY TRAINING AND RESEARCI-I Mr. GELFAND. The purposes of this title are admirable. There is a continuing, critical shortage of librarians. It has been estimated that 125,000 librarians are needed to staff the school, college, public, and university libraries according to nationally accepted standards, but the existing library schools graduate only about 3,000 new profes- sionals each year. Although the authorization for fiscal year 1968 was $15 million for library training and research, the budget recommendation is only $8.25 million for training and $3.55 million for research. Research in library problems is now a national necessity. The impact of the computer, the development of library networks, the possibili- ties of improved methods of information storage and retrieval, the social and cultural potentials of modern libraries are all fit subjects for research. I would hope the committee could find time in their busy schedule to have a look at this subject. I would just have a few addi'tional comments to make here. Only last week I spent a whole week going back to school, at my age, to the IBM school where I received some insight into the possibilities of the computer and the way it can help our libraries in the future. Funds under this act will prove very helpful indeed in stimulating a rise in the production of librarians and intensification of research activities. TITLE 11-PART C. STRENGTHENING COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARY RESOURCES THROUGH THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS This subject is going to be discussed in some detail by our eminent colleague from Princeton University, Professor Dix, but on behalf of the association I would like to read the brief comment.s I have here. This is another admirable provision of the act. College as well as research libraries are already profiting under the expansion of the accession and* cataloging programs of the Library of Congress, under the Higher Education Act of 1965. Indeed, the scientific and cultural PAGENO="0167" HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 161 community, in the broadest sense, will benefit increasingly by having access to a large and growing source of important foreign materials if this program is continued and expanded as described in section 232 of H.IR. 6232 and H.R. 6265. This amendment deserves the strong support, as the whole Nation benefits from improvements in the services and resources of the Library of Congress. We would urge, however, that section 231 be amended to authorize continuation of the program for 5 fiscal years, instead of 2 years, to conform to other parts of the bill and to insure continuity of planning and administration of this important program. TITLE IV-STUDENT ASSISTANCE New provisions for work-study programs for college students might possibly provide college libraries with a supplementary source of stu- dent assistance. It appears doubtful, however, whether students who are permitted to work 40 hours a week while attending summer classes would profit from their studies. Perhaps I misunderstood the provision there but it certainly seems doubtful to me that they could do very much in the way of study if they were going to work that much time. TITLE VI-INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS A title of the Higher Education Act which has and will do much to improve undergraduate instruction is title VI. We heartily support continuation of this program. Elimination of present restrictions on subjects for which equipment grants could be made is recommended. At this point, if I may, I would like to read a very brief statement which I should have included in my original statement. There is one matter not included in my formal statement that I want to comment on, as I just said. This is on behalf of the American Library Association and especially the Division of College and Research Libraries. We do not believe that section 1001 of title X is in the best interest of the young people who are the students in our colleges and universities. We favor the provi- sion now in effect which places a ceiling of 6 percent on the interest rate for loans made under title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. We believe the proposal in section 1001 of title 10 would result in higher student fees and for this reason we respectfully urge that sec- tion 1001 be deleted from the two bills before you. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you. I thank you and respectfully urge prompt and favorable action on the Higher Education Amend- ments of 1967. Mrs. GREEN. I have two questions; perhaps Germaine Krettek can answer this, too. When the American Library Association comes to testify before this committee and other committees on bills relating to grants to libraries and when you support the legislation, or if you oppose it, PAGENO="0168" 162 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 but when you support the amount of money authorized, do YOU con- sider that a minimum amount needed or do you consider that the ceiling and that any amount up to that would be appropriate? Miss KRETTEK. In all cases I would say we consider the authorized amounts we have recommended that are incorporated in the bills a min- imum. In order to meet standards the amounts of money needed are far greater than any amounts appropriated thus far and certainly those authorized in the bills are minimum amounts to accomplish what needs to be done in the face of rising demands. Mrs. GREEN. Just this week I heard an explanation by a person high in education circles here in Washing1~on suggesting that the justification for the much smaller appropriation by the Appropria- tions Committee is that the authorization is a ceiling and should be considered as such and, therefore, part of that amount would be justified. Miss KRETTEK. I don't agree with that; it seems very unfortunate that impression has been given. Mrs. GREEN. In your own case, for example, just under title II the authorization for fiscal 1968 is $72.7 million, the appropriation is $37.2 million. What effect is that going to have, do you think, on your pro- grams? How are you going to adjust to the actual amount? Miss KRETTEK. I think it is going to be very difficult because these amounts that are in the bill, and that we supported `at the time the bill was originally before this committee, were carefully judged in terms of what the colleges could use, and what their ability would be for matching funds, under title TI-A. It is a matching program and we took into consideration the ability of matching by the colleges as well as their needs. In this situation of delayed funding there would be no possibility of the colleges using fully the amounts but in succeeding years, with increasing demands to be taken care of, full authorizations could be used. As you look ahead, there are increasing enrollments, and with all of these larger demands, colleges need increasing amounts of money. So it was our expectation that instead of the program starting at half of the amount authorized, and staying at that `amount, it would per- haps start `at less than `the full authorization in the first year, which has been a pattern, but hopefully in a year or so it would go immediately to the full `authorization. By the time the act came up for extension, we hoped to see what the effects of that authorized amount had been and then be prepared to make judgment on what the additional amounts needed would be. In the first year, unfortunately, the `actual appropriation was only $11 million with money just for basic grants. The second year we had $25 million with supplemental and special-purpose grants al- lowed for the first time. We have not yet had an opportunity to really see the impact. We did this limited survey, presented by Dr. Gelfand, which we were only able t'o do on a small sampling because the guidelines di'd not come `out until recently and thus the institutions did not have an opportunity to make `their plans in light of the `actual formal gmde- lines and regulations. PAGENO="0169" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 163 Mrs. GREEN. When did you receive the guidelines? Miss KEETTEK. I believe the end of February they went out. Mr. GELFAND. We received them in March. The applications have to be postmarked no later than April 10. Mrs. GREEN. When were the guidelines received, in March? Mr. GELFAND. I don't recall precisely, I think it was the middle of March that we received them. Mrs. GREEN. What day was the legislation signed? Miss KiucrrEK. It was passed the last of October, and signed No- vember 7. Mrs. GREEN. There was about a 5-month period between the time the bill was signed and the time the guidelines were received. Mr. GELFAND. May I add a comment here, please? Mrs. GREEN. Certainly. Mr. GELFAND. In my own institution, using the criteria set forth in the guidelines, we established that we would require a collection of some 900,000 volumes to serve the needs of our large and growing student population. We presently have, as I mentioned in my testimony earlier, 250,000, and if you take a rough figure, say $8 a volume, and multiply that by the 550,000-odd additional volumes we need to come up to standard, I think you can see what the effect would be in one institution. Even the little survey that the ALA made of the impact of the present act up to this time, I think that suggested that problems of this magnitude were being experienced on the college and university level. The other point I should like to make is that it has been unfortunate, really regrettable that the timing has been so poor. This length of time you just mentioned, 5 months or so that elapsed, that put us in the posi- tion where we were having to make applications for rather sizable funds which had to be made on short notice and for which we had to be prepared to make the expenditures before the end of, or commitments before the end of June 1967. All these factors impinge upon us in the field to create rather diffi- cult conditions. So, of course, we all hope that when the new legislation is passed that at the same time some provision will be made on the ad- ministrative side for facilitating the application for grants. Miss K1u~rri~K. The Library Services Division has been without a college library specialist which has made their handling of applica- tions very difficult. This stems in some measure from the fact there is a great shortage of librarians and other factors in the office where we have provided them with insufficient staff to do their job. Mrs. GREEN. When you relate the number of new books being pub- lished every year, my only reaction is that the American Library Asso- ciation ought to start a national program, a nationwide program in speed reading. Congressman Quie, do you have any questions? Mr. QmE. Yes, I have a question that was prompted from our field hearings on the study of the U.S. Office of Education last winter and a subsequent letter from Mr. Stanford, director of libraries at the University of Minnesota. He is a collector of college and university library statistics. PAGENO="0170" 164 HIGhER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Let me read a little of what he said in a couple of letters and see if you have had that experience. In one letter of April 27, 1966, he expressed concern to Dr. Frank L. Schick, Coordinator of Library Statistics, National Center of Edu- cational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, about the article in the March issue of `Special Libraries and the new system that would `be used. He was concerned that it would mean a delay of information being made available to colleges `and universiiies. He says: Statistics on expenditures and salaries `are of `little use in administrative planning if they do not arrive until a year or more after the `period they repre- sent particularly in these times of rapidly changing costs and library growth and support. `On April 12, 1967 he wrote to Mr. A. M. Mood, the Assistant Officer of `Statistics, Office of Education, indicating the changes that had occurred. He said: The fact that the request blank carries printed directive please return on or before October 1st, a date that passed over 6 months ago, clearly indicates that something is seriously wrong with your new procedures for gathering college and university library statistics. He then questions what little value this will be. He said: If library figures are to `be of any use in planning `budgets and in support of state legislative requests the data from the most recent fiscal year ending June 30th are needed by `the `following January or February. Instead the latest publication, he `said, `that is available now is insti- tutional data. for 1963-64. Have you had that~ same experience and what would your comments be on Mr. Stanford's criticism of the U.S. Office of Education? Mr. G-ELFAND. We have had similar experience, the statistics do come out. At least in the past they have come out rather late. I won't say they are useless, we have made good use of the statistics however late they have `been. Certainly it would be far better for us if we could have prompt tabu- Iati'on and p:u'blication of the statistics. I think since you received these letters, or the latest one of these letters, the statistics for 1965-66 have been published and although I personally have not received my copy yet, I have seen a notice of the publication. `That is comforting. Miss KRETTEK. That is an ALA publication, ilot U.S. Office of Edu- cation. It was done through a grant from the Office of Education because they were unable to compile the statistics at that. time. It was wholly an emergency situation. The only library statistics that have come out since the reorganiza- tion is this one publication by ALA. There has not `been a `library statistic from the U.S. Office of Education in several years. Mr. QUIE. Evidently things were going quite well prior to that, be- cause in his letter of April 27, 1966, he said: As you know, the ACRL and the Association of Research Libraries was de- lighted when the Office of Education assumed full responsibility for the collection and publication of library sta'tistics of colleges and universities a few years ago. PAGENO="0171" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 165 Each year thereafter, both the coverage and promptness in the publication of the statistics improved notably and under your direction, and it was very helpful to have these data available by January each year, for use iii our own internal budget studies and presentations. It is not that they are not able, because they were once. Miss KEETTEK. This is part of the problem of reorganization I would expect, and we hope they will be resolved. We are disturbed not oniy about the delay of statistics but the fact there is no librarian in the National Center for Educational Statistics. Mr. QUIE. I think they will be able to assume this responsibility again. Miss KRETTEK. We hope they will be able to. Mr. Q.txIE. I commend your organization for developing statistics and information, but it also does bother me that the U.S. Office of Education contracts with organizations t.o represent people who re- ceive funds individually through their institution and not the organi- zation itself. Miss KRETTEK. This particular project was just in order to get some needed statistics out. `We would hope this would not be continuing, because we feel this is a responsibility of the Office of Education. They have better facilities to gather statistics on a national basis. Mr. QUIE. I would think of any responsibility they have this one should come first. That is all. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton. Mr. BURTON. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons. Mr. GIBI30N. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Now we will proceed with the lady from the University of Florida, Mrs. Srygley. Mr. QUIR. May I request that these letters from Mr. Stanford be made a part of the record? Mrs. GREEN. `Without objection, they will be included. (The documents referred to follow:) UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, Minneapolis, Minn., April 12, 1967. Representative ALBERT Quis~, 11.2. House of Representatives, Washington!, D.C. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE QrnE: Since the enclosed matter (the Office of Educa- tion's fiasco in its new system for collecting college and university library sta- tistics) is directly relevant to the hearings on U.S.O.E. you conducted in Minne- apolis a few months ago, I am submitting copies of the correspondence for your attention. I hope you will wish to take it up with the Commissioner and perhaps with your committee at an appropriate time. I am sending copies also to Don Fraser, since he represents the University district, to Senator Mondale, and to Commissioner Howe, for information and any response they may be moved to make. Very sincerely yours, E. B. STANFORD, Director of Libraries. PAGENO="0172" 166 rnGHER: E~D~CATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 S UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Minneapolis, Minn., April 12, 1P67. Mr.A. M.:Moon, Assistant Commissioner for Statistics, U.S. Office of lJducation, Washington, D.C. DEAR l\IR. MOOn: With this letter I am enclosing the library statistics you rOquested in your forih~letter of March 30, which reached me yesterday. The factthat~the.-request blank carries the printed directive "Please return on or before October 1" (a date that passed over six months ago) clearly indicates that sornet~hingis seriously wrong with your new procedure for gathering college ~nd university library statistics. As I wrote* Dr. Frank Schick a year ago (before be left the Office of Education in discouragement with the new set up for statistics) I had misgivings lest the reorganization would fail to furnish university libraries with the data they urgently need fOr budget planning, in time to be useful. * This 1±as now proved to be the case. To date the latest library publication the Office of Educ~ttion has issued is the Institutional Data for 1963-64. As you know~ the A;L.A., A.R.L. and A.C.R.L. urged you to send your 1965-66 request forms directly to each library, but it was evident when you spoke to the A.b.A. conference last summer in New York that this advice would be disregarded. 5As a result of your decision A.L.A. had to undertake, as an emergency measure, it~ own of 1965-66 library data (with some financial aid from U.S.O.E;) when it became evident that your office could not do the job. Some time ~go I received the finished 233 page publication furnishing basic data for 1,891 Institutions. : Adthitting that the results of your current data solicitation may possibly cover more institutions, it will, whether compiled and issued in late 1967 or 1968 became available too late and be too out-dated to be of use to libraries, except for historical purposes. If library figures are to be of any use in planning budgets and in support of state legislative requests, the data from the most recent fiscal year, ending June 30, are needed by the following January, or February at the latest. Until last year's U.S.O.E. reorganization botched the enterprise, this time-table had become generally operative, after years of gradual improvement in U.S.O.E.'s handling. Now, these advances have been largely wiped out under the new system. In the light of this year's regrettable failure I strongly urge that next year, if U.S.O.E. is to continue to collect these data, the library figures for colleges and universities once again be solicited directly from the libraries, The central- ization of state reporting through the state library slowed up the operation in some cases, by introducing an additional level of clearance and communication, but was not serious. The well-intended effort to obtain all university data through each President's office obviously is not working. Frequently, especially in large universities, he simply does not have the figures, and with so many offices to contact to assemble full institutional data for all parts of the questionnaire, it it not surprising that deadlines cannot be met. Please solicit library figure directly from the libraries in the future. Very sincerely, E. B. STANFORD, Director of Libraries. APRrL 27, 1966. Dr. FRANK L. SCHICK, Co-ordinator of Library Statistics, National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Office of Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR DR. SCHICK: I have just read your article in the March issue of Special Libraries concerning the status of library statistics in the Office of Education. As you know, the ACRL and the Association of Research Libraries was de- lighted when the Office of Education assumed full responsibility for the col- *See enclosed letter. PAGENO="0173" HIGHER EDUCATION AME~TDMEN~S:~ O~. L9O~. 167 lection and pithlication of library statistics. Qf~ colleges ~ and un~versitieS? a few years ago. Each year thereafter, both the coverage and. promptness in the publica- tion of these statistics improved notEibly uii~[E~ YO31~ direction, and it was very helpful to be able to have these data àvâilable b~ January each year, for use in our own internal budget studies and presentations. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ I am sure the decision to centralize the co1l?ction~ of local statistics through each state library agency was well i~nténded, but I had ~ome misgivings that this. procedure might possibly delay their publicatifili. Now~ this year, we are ~tilt awaiting the institutional data, but'~nothing yet `has beerr forthcoming, although it is nearly the end of April. ` I note from your article that hereafter the Office of Education will probably discontinue to process separate, ati~tiCa~l forms, for elementary and secondary school as well as college and univer~ity `libralies and instead incoiporate requests for information about these' librariës~in more comprehensive manifold for'm~; which will be sent to parent~h~t1ti~tiOflS. ` , .` I .` While your article does~not~ indicate.that this new, procedure will affect any economies (which at le~st~mig~~ e~plain. the. proposed change) I: am under~ standably apprehensive that it may well delay t~he publication of this information even further, until it may' be tho ~ii~bf `date when we recets~e'it~ to be very n~ean~ ingful. ~ `~ ~ t,' ~"~.": .: .~ . ~... `Statistics on expen~dithnes . dsalai~ies ~are of little. u~e, in aclministratiyç planning `if they do ~riY'~11~nt~ a, y~a~ or more aftç~r the period they~repre4 sent particularly in these times of! rapidly changing costs an~ library growth and support. For this reason I ,~i~gc~olI th.bring"this matter to the atte~nti'ón of the Commissione Th~th~h'oiJO ~Thà~t'the ~Office'of~'E~ucà'tiOfl ~rñq~ `review1 its recommendations for~furt1ier dhanga'iin'thé gathering ~n~public4tion QfacademI~ library sta'tistics~ef~~ ~ patt~rr~ that,may delay the distri'but~on.,.of such information b~y~ond the period~ o~ it~ practical usefulness in budget planning Until now you lla'~~'e ~1b!ñe ai~' exdellei~t'iOb'i1~ collectih~ and' puMishing library statistical dat~ ~h~j~d nothi'ng'\viil, lie' dOne' `to `dèl~iy' or dec~easO `the i~e!ful- ness of thi's valt~abI~:finformatiOn ~by intrbklueing `ddditional~ steps' iptp~ the~prO~ess~ Very ~ ~ ~ :~ ~ `. ~ ~d I ~ ```c~ii",' ~ ~ ,~` `,~ Mrs. SI~YGLEY. I am ~ãra icrentzman Srygley, an associ~e~p~4~sqr in the G ~4~J~ibruw School of the,F1o~dq ~State TJnivqrsity ~`or the past~O ~ i~ing ~ ~ served as a professor of library science, a librai~, q9nsll'l~~t, ~ schooI~~l}V~1'~0r,,'U'd aschpo~ lib~rai~ian , ~ op~iT9 ~ia~t1 gop~.~bi~y ~nf~I~lfprmat1on services aie essential u'~ `i n~ation, ço11nn~tt~!4 to the necestsityfpr pro, ~ ~ it~ Z~I~ ~ ~ ~g~9~P[ ~ ~ T~,Qpç1 meiph~r~s o~M'~ ~ ~ ~ of r~O~e~9p,~4 hbn~,~4 1~r~c~Jt1ze~1s For almost 100 ye'iis $4'ie ~assp~i~tiqn h~,s `wbrked ~or the achievement of a well-defi~~4~ a,d~~t~ly stipp.~rt~ prQgr~~ry ~ey~l9p nt~f~i~ ~ ~ i~u~'I~g ~o~.e~#%~11e national intqrest ", ~ ~ ,11 ,.gr~t4'~t~ yç\l~t~ipc~h,~1tY,t9 ~ ~ ~ ~n I~ ~ ~23~ a~d 1-I B 62~5, ~id especially thos~ sections related to library training and research in title IT--B `oLt~ ~ ~I ` ~` `` ~ i~ ,~ i~'~~i~/\ x~i~tyçI~ express ~ ~a ~ ,t1~i~ .prq~s~o~ ~ ~q~'~f ~)6~,,~,iicL1i~i, ~ e~tct~4, h j~a~s~st~,in ihe deyelopmellt o~ 1i~rllry ~Tl~t ,rn~ormation science programs. ` ` \` S ` , ~1'itJ~e ~ ~f~c~r1 strengt~er14r~' co~Ilege and ivers1t~y lib~'i,ries, 4~'~ ~ ~ o ihIt~ry ~er~ricestp the ,i~ PAGENO="0174" 168 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ture and quality of higher education. Title TI-B relates to this pro- vision but has even broader implications. It provides assistance to graduate schools of library and informa- tion sc~enco in producing better qualified librarians and information scientists to staff libraries of all types. This refers to school, public, and special libraries as well as to those in universities and colleges. It further provides for support of research and demonstration projects for the improvement of libraries, or for the training of librarians or information scientists. This legislation has received high praise by the education com- munity, including librarians and library educators, and also the coun- try at large. It has been described as noteworthy evidence that the Congress and the people it represents are increasingly aware that the quality of the country's libraries determines in great measure the educational opportunities and achievement of its citizens. There has been serious concern that in the beginning stages of im- plementation, this important legislation has not been funded as au- thorized. In fiscal year 1966 no funds were available for research, and only $1 million for training grants. In fiscal year 1967 the amount allotted for research was $3.55 million and $3.75 million for training. The budget recommendation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1967, is $3.55 million for research-the same as fiscal year 1967-and $8.25 million for training. These amounts are quite inadequate to get a program of this nature really off the ground. The $15 million which was authorized for each of the fiscal years 1966, 1967, and 1968 to support both programs under flEA, title TI-B is considered to be the minimum appropriation nec- essary for implementing a great national program of library research and training. In fiscal year 1966 grants were awarded to 24 institutions of higher education providing 139 fellowships to individual students of library or information science. In fiscal year 1967, $3.75 million was allotted for fellowship pro- grams, and plans are presently underway to provide 595 fellowships to students of library and information science. Let us think of manpower needs in library and information science. The need for recruitment and training of librarians is even more acute than it was a year ago as my colleague has said, when it was estimated that 125,000 additional librarians would be needed in school, college, university, and public libraries. Developing programs of library services in this country to meet critical needs have precipitated an ever greater need and demand for qualified personnel. Librarians are essential to insure wise expenditure of funds for books and other materials and to plan programs making these materials both accessible and useful to the people who need them. A good example of this need can be found in school librarianship. In Florida the director of educational media in the State department of education has identified the need for 900 additional school librarians to staff the elementary and secondary schools of Florida in 1967-68 alone. Additionally, county supervisors of instructional materials are needed in approximately half of the 67 counties of the State. Similarly PAGENO="0175" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 169 in New Jersey, Harry T. Gumaear, director of college curriculums for teacher education, New Jersey State Department of Education, con- sidered the school librarian shortage in New Jersey, including the needs of public and private schools, elementary and secondary schools, and predictive data about enrollment. Mr. Gumaear found that New Jersey alone requires more than 250 additional school librarians for each of the next 10 years if the students in New Jersey schoo's are to have adequate library service. If the total needs of the 50 States are considered, it is obvious that there is a manpower crisis in school librarianship. A similar consideration of the development of other types of libraries in this country reveals a situation just as critical. This is even more serious when one considers `that the existing ac- credited library schools in the United States graduate only about 3,000 new professionals each year. These schools have the capacity to increase their output, and fellowship aid to encourage graduate stu- dents to prepare for careers as librarians seems essential. The manpower need has been identified by the American Library Association `as one of its most critical concerns. The recruitment and uses of professional manpower will be the program theme for the association's annual conference in June. The library profession speaks for all who are concerned with the progress of the Nation when it asks you to extend through 1973 the legislation that will provide the librarians so urgently needed. And now we come to `an aspect of the proposed amendments in H.R. 6232 which we believe important in intent but incorrectly placed. I refer to the p'roposed amendment to section 224(a) of the HEA, title IT-B, providing for planning and development grants to en- courage the opening of new library `and information science schools or of programs intended to lead to the accreditation of such schools. We do not question the critical need in this country for such grants for planning, establishment, or development of educational programs for library and information science. However, it is our belief that this amendment should more properly be made to section 223 (a) of the act, related specifically to "grants for training in librarianship," rather than to section 224 (a) related specifically to "research and demonstra- tions * * *" in this area. We further question the advisability of referring in the law to pro- grams intended to lead to the `accreditation of such existing schools. While it is assumed that improved programs will more likely meet the various accreditation standards, the complexity of accreditation agencies and procedures would seem to make this proposed part of the law difficult, if not impossible, to administer. And so we recommend that this phrase regarding accreditation not be added to the legislation. It should be made clear, however, that grants are needed to improve and expand existing library education programs in the Nation's insti- tutions of higher education, as well as for the purpose of supporting the establishment and development of new programs. As a substitution for the proposed amendments to section 224 (a) in H.R 6232 and H.R. 6265 title 11-B we propose that section 223(a) title IT-B be amended to read: PAGENO="0176" 170 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 GRANTS FOR TRAINING IN LIBRARIANSHIp SEC. 223 (a). The Commissioner is authorized to make grants to institutions of higher education to assist them in training persons in librarianship. Such grants may be used by such institutions to assist (1) in cover- ing the costs of courses of training or study including short-term or regular session institutes for such persons, (2) for establishing and maintaining fellowships or traineeships with stipends (including al- lowances for traveling, subsistence, and other expenses) for fellows and others undergoing training and their dependents, and (3) for estab- lishing, developing, or expanding programs of library and information science, not in excess of such maximum amounts as may be prescribed by the Commissioner. It is obviously our belief that this substitute amendment would achieve more effectively the purpose intended than the language in the bill before you. We support enthusiastically the obvious intent in H.R. 6232 to pro- vide early extension of the various titles of the HEA expiring at the end of fiscal year 1968. The library profession will be most grateful for anything you can do to make possible more long-term educational planning. In a study made by the Library Education Division of the American Library Association, the deans of accredited library schools reported almost unanimously as their most critical problem the need for ad- vance planning to allow for better use of personnel and appropriations. Your leadership in extending title TI-B of HEA this year will make possible much sounder educational planning and programing. Also significant is the need for research studies to determine the most effective ways to provide ~1ibrary services and to educate librar- ians. There have `been pitifully small amounts `of money from public and private sources `to support research and development programs for library and information services. When one considers the importance of `these services to national pro- grams, this becomes alarming. Since the research program authorized in title TI-B of t'he Higher Education Act was delayed in getting underway because of limited appropriations, it is impossible to give a valid evaluation of the library research program now. It is our understanding that the Bureau of Research, U. S. Office of Education, has received more proposals designed' to study a wide range of types of libraries and services than can be funded with the amount of money `currently available. There is much evidence that research in library `and information science is necessary and that research programs can be developed with competent researchers if there is funding available for it. In a recent release on `the library and information science research program by the Bureau of Research, U. S. Office of E'duca'tion, seven topics suggested in research proposals to that Bureau were identified as being of critical importance. These are: 1. Education: The techniques, philosophy, and scope of training `and education' for librarianship. 2. Use and users: Information and read services; expressed and un- expressed goals for different kinds of users (students, specialists, and PAGENO="0177" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 the public); variations in user patterns caused by geographic, eco- nomic, or other factors. 3. Organization of library and information services: Administra- tion, management, personnel (including manpower utilization, job description, and staffing), finance, and governmental relations. 4. Role of libraries and information centers in society: Purposes, values, goals; relationships with other educational and cultural in- stitutions; influence of various communication media public rela- tions; recruiting; `and the profession of librarianship. 5. Integration of library services in school and academic instruc- tional programs: Curriculum development, school planning, and, in particular, instructional programs `at the elementary and secondary levels. 6. Control of resources: Documentation; book and card catalogs; subject analysis; classification; indexing; abstracting; provision of an optimum collection for teaching and research needs; network `and sys- tem planning and analysis; automation (software). 7. Technology: Preservation of materials; storage and physical ac cess, reprography, automation (hardware). The needed research includes a range of project types; state-of-the- art studies; feasibility studies; prototype development and hypothesis generation; testing and evaluation, and demonstration and implemen- tation. I would like you to realize that these studies provide oppor- tunities for both small projects requiring support of less than $10,000 and larger projects requiring much more funding than this. Extension of title IT-B of the Higher Education Act through 1973 will encourage more long-range planning for research and serious study of library problems. We do urge the appropriation of the $15 million authorized for fiscal year 1968 for title IT-B and a serious consideration of increased funding in each of the succeeding 5 years. These next brief remarks deal with part E of title TV, amendments to the national defense fellowship program. This legislation clearly intended for school librarians to be considered as teachers in the pro- visions of the original act. In the first year of operation institutional grants were made for advanced study in librarianship under this legislation. In the pro- gram for 1967-68 no fellowships were funded for school librarians although a number of proposals for such fellowships were made. The guidelines for the program specifically gave low priority for school librarianship. As the NDEA program is extended and implemented, we urge that fellowships for school librarians be included as an area with high priority. The testimony given earlier supports the importance of pro- ducing librarians, adequate in number and quality to support instruc- tional programs in our schools. Teachers and the children they teach are dependent on school librarians to provide the instructional ma- terial services needed. So we urge that the intent of .the law be implemented in this pro- gram. In title V, part B, we are pleased to see that provision is made for a 5-year extension of title III of the National Defense Educa- tion Act of 1958. This title, providing instructional equipment and materials, has been of great value in improving educational programs in elementary and secondary schools. 80-155-67-Pt. 1-12 PAGENO="0178" 172 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 For those of us in this country who have long believed that a part- nership among Federal, State and local government is essential for achieving our national goals, these are exciting years in which to live and to work in the United States. For the first time in the history of our country, there has been recognition in our Federal legislation that library services must be provided to support the needs of our citizens in all aspects of their living. We are pleased to be of some assistance to you in determining these needs, and in implementing the programs designed to meet them. We hope that your committee will take favorable action upon our sugges- tions. Madam Chairman and committee members, I thank you personally and for the ALA, for `this opportunity to meet with you and I will be glad to attempt to answer any questions you may have. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mrs. Srygley. You mentioned the teacher fellowship provisions in the Education Act. Did you say there were no fellowships for librarians? Mrs. SRYGLEY. Not this year. Mrs. GREEN. Were there applications? Mrs. SRYGLEY. Yes, there were proposals; I don't know how many. We might get this specific information. Mrs. GREEN. How many applications there were? Mrs. SRYGLEY. Yes; we will be glad to do that and send it for inclu- sion in the record. Mrs. GREEN. Please do that. (The document referred to follows:) NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM According to information from the USOE, there were 26 proposals for educa- tion of school librarians in the experienced teacher fellowship program, and 12 proposals for education of school librarians in the prospective teacher fellowship program, although none were funded in fiscal year 1967. It is recommended that appropriations for these teacher fellowship programs be adequate to allow fund- ing for fellowships for education of school librarians as intended in the Act. Mrs. GREEN. I might make this comment: I have been greatly inter- ested in the Teacher Corps. I have had the president of one national education group wire me and send out word to all the affiliates through- out the United States to send letters and telegrams urging the reten- tion of the Teacher Corps. A few came in, but not one word was men- tioned about the fact that for the teacher fellowship program, which is also designed for graduate education for elementary and secondary teachers, there was $275 million authorized and a request by the ad- ministration for only 12 percent of that amount for fiscal year 1968, or $35 million out of $275 million for graduate teaching. Up to this point I have not had a telegram or letter from any educa- tional group objecting to this kind of cut. At the same time they are pleading for a new program for the Teacher Corps. Neither have I had any telegrams or letters from groups in this particular organization who have voiced any protest on the fact there 1S only a 50-percent request for authorized funds from elementary up through higher education. In higher education it amounts to about 52 percent and in elementary and secondary about 50 percent. PAGENO="0179" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 173 I am greatly interested in the priorities being established by educa- tional groups and groups interested in education this year. Apparently there is no concern over the cut in funds across the board and the small request for one very small program. Would you have any comments on this? Mrs. SRYGLEY. I would just like to say, Madam Chairman, tradi- tionally librarians are considered instructional personnel and they must be certified as teachers. It seems a logical thing that under this teacher educational fellow- ship program school librarians should be one of the significant types of positions that would be funded, particularly in view of this national crisis in shortage of library personnel, which we have just discussed, this would be extremely important. I don't believe that I have the knowledge to comment too much on what you have just said about appropriations, although this is some- what surprising to me, I think I may say, and very interesting. Mrs. GREEN. In terms of facilities under title I, the undergraduate facilities of the Higher Education Facilities Act, this year we have a request of only 54 percent of the authorized funds for fiscal year 1968. The request for fiscal year 1968 is $63,000,000 less than the actual appropriation for last fiscal year. I have not received any protest over this up to this point. Does this mean the librarians and people in education feel we have reached the saturation point on construction and we no longer need construc- tion for library facilities at the university level? Miss KRETTEK. We are testifying vigorously on the need for full funding for college construction for the whole program. Mr. GELFAND. In case of the Higher Education Facilities Act, I think one of the difficulties is a certain amount of matching is called for. I think many of our small institutions are simply incapable of meeting that in the time allowed under this new act. This is unfortunate but it really is, I think, a practical matter. Well, it stymies us. We wanted to apply for a special-purpose grant in my college under the college resources provisions of title II of the Higher Education Act and we are so far extended financially that we simply could not find another $35,000 that would qualify us to ask for three times that amount then in the special-purpose grant. The situation, of course, is quite different with respect to requesting money in aid of buiding, construction, because we run here into the millions. Even a small college library buiding of let us say 50,000 square feet of space is going to cost you a million or more to put up. First you have to have the matching money yourself before going out to ask for additional funds. Then to say we can expect the Federal Government to pay all the money, perhaps that is unreasonable. We have to find more sources at home in order to take full advantage of the Federal sources. Mrs. GREEN. Are you saying the $387 million is sufficient for fiscal 1968? Is this the thrust of your argument? Mr. GELFAND. I would hate to see the appropriation reduced below the authorization for fiscal year 1968, and the money ought still to be available to encourage institutions to go out and find their own match- ing funds, but I am not in a position to comment in specific terms. PAGENO="0180" 174 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. SRYGLEY. Madam Chairman, it would be hard to believe more adequate funding was not necessary in view of the burgeoning enroll- ment in these institutions. In my State, for instance, how many new institutions do wo have? I think one of the problems is the matching provision in terms of how this is used. I can speak specifically at Florida State University we need very badly a building to house our library school. We in the library school are presently occupying one floor of our university library which is needed for this other purpose we are talk- ing about, serving increasing numbers of students. It is matching pro- visions that has on us the first floor of the library. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie. Mr. QUIE. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton. Mr. BURTON. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch. Mr. E5OH. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much for being with us today. Mrs. SRYGLEY. Thank you. Mr. GELFAND. Thank you. Miss KRETTEK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. We appreciate your testimony. Mrs. GREEN. Our next witness is Dr. William S. Dix, librarian from Princeton University. Dr. Dix, on behalf of the committee, welcome and we are anxious to hear your comments. STATEMENT OP DR. WILLIAM S. DIX, LIBRARIAN, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, AND DONALD P. CAMERON, DIRECTOR, ASSOCIA- TION OP RESEARCH LIBRARIES Dr. DIX. I have with me this morning the librarian emeritus of Rutgers who has come out of retirement to help us with the library of research as directOr, Mr. Donald Cameron. I think I will use the limited time you have if I concentrate on one part of the proposed legislation. I hope you and members of the com- mittee will understand that we are in complete support of the testimony delivered by our library colleagues from the American Library As- sociation and I might add also Ihave just read the testimony given by President Gross on behalf of the American Council on Education. We are very impressed by the comments he had to make. These things all hang together in a definite way and I think there is no question of the points he made. One point in particular-I have no instruction from my association on this-but personally I am inclined to think removal of the 3-percent ceiling rate on loans under title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act would be a mistake at this point as proposed in the legislation but I have no special competence on this point. Let me then move particularly into part C, title II of the Higher E~ducation Act of 1965 and some suggested minor changes. I hope you will permit me to begin by expressing the thanks of the Association of Reseaich Libraues for the courtesy and the underst'tnding w rth PAGENO="0181" BIIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 175 which you and the other members of your committee heard our testi- mony on March 10, 1965. The result was the addition of part C to title II of the Higher Edu- cation Act of 1965. I said in my original testimony that it would prob- ably take about 3 years before the effect of this legislation would be fully apparent in the increased speed and economy with which the libraries of the country cataloged and organized for use the flood of new books from all over the world. It had been my first intention to report to you in about a year but it gives me particular pleasure to report today, only about 9 months after the first appropriations were made available, that the impact of the legislation is already beginning to be felt and felt strongly. The Library of Congress has moved with speed and imagination to set the program in operation. Ninety-one of the larger libraries are participating and amplifying the book selection machinery of the Library of Congress by reporting all books which they are acquiring for which cataloging copy is not available at the time the books are ordered. Thus the Library of Congress is assured of getting the books which are important for American teaching and research, and the program is fitted to the real needs of libraries. Furthermore, the Library of Congress has established offices in many of the major book-producing countries of the world and more import- ant, in a number of areas from which book procurement is difficult. The offices in the developed countries have established close working relationships with the book trade and national bibliographic centers in order that in implementing the TI-C program, full advantage may be taken of all cataloging work done abroad. In the less developed areas these offices are essential to procurement of the books themselves because there is often no well-developed ma- chinery for publication and distribution as we know it. Without a representative in the area we cannot even find out what is being pub- lished. In preparation for this testimony we asked a number of major col- lege and university libraries to let us know whether they were able yet to see any effect of title TI, part C, upon their own operations. The replies were so enthusiastic that they surprised even us, optimistic as we had been about the potential benefits. Let me read you a few ex- cerpts from these letters: University of Pennsylvania (reading): Title IT-C provides the support for one of the most promising cooperative endeavors in the history of research library development in this country-After just the few months that this massive and complex program has been opera- tional, we are beginning to feel its effects here at Pennsylvania * * * Cornell University (reading): If all aspects of salaries, space, benefits, and the administration of this per- sonnel were included, the total savings to this library in dollars would undoubt- edly be in the range of $15,000 to $18,000 * * * Duke University (reading): The facts are, however, that because of what the library of Congress has been able to do in this first year of the program, we shall catalog with the same num- ber of catalogers 5,000 more volumes than last year, and a substantially larger PAGENO="0182" 176. HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 percentage of the total items cataloged have been handled by non-professional help. These non-professional people, incidentally, given Library of Congress cards, can catalog three to four times as many books a year as a professional cataloger without Library of Congress cards. The 5,000 additional volumes we are adding this year if the books had come to us without Library of Congress cards, would have required four professional catalogers who would have cost us at least $28,000. When one begins to multiply this kind of savings by the number of libraries that will be affected, the significance of Title Il-C to Ameri- can research libraries can be appreciated. University of Michigan (reading): Although Title Il-C has been in operation only a short time, there has already been an increase of over 20,000 titles cataloged by LC from May 1966, through February 1967, over the same period for the previous year, as demonstrated by the catalog cards received by our library. * Moreover, because of the high level of competence at which original cataloging must be performed, with cor- responding higher `salary levels, the use of an LO card reduces the cost by considerably more than fifty percent. University of Chicago (reading): The benefits of this program rest not just in greatly improved utilization of this country's limited specialized manpower, but absolute benefits that can fre- quently not be secured in any other way, for example, in the cataloging of mate- rial in very difficult foreign languages where local capability simply does not exist. Dartmouth College (reading): Although conversion to LO `classification is partially responsible we have been able to reduce our general monograph catalogers from seven to two and to use the five professional positions for more efficient catalog department organization or to accomplish cataloging that was formerly going into arrearage * * University of California (reading): We have admired the speed and precision with which the Library of Congress has instituted this new `program, to a point where already we see a fifty percent increase in the availability to us of Library of Congress printed cards University of Washington (reading): `The Head of our Catalog Division estimates that, while `before Title Il-C catalog information was available for thirty to thirty five percent of such acqui- sitions now LC card's are available for approximately fifty percent and it is expected that this percentage will rise even more * University of North Carolina (reading) If the `savings realized on only title Il-C *country titles is projected over a one year period, the savings will amount to $10848.00. If the title Il-C program were expanded to the point where world wide overage was provided and `copy made available for all foreign books purchased by this library, this figure would increase to approximately $59,500.00, a `considerable `savings to this library * * May I remind you, Madam Chairman, this result has been achieved even without full funding. We urgently hope that the Congress wifl appropriate for fiscal year 1967 the full $7.7 million authorized by the act. The full sum is essential for the extension of the program to other critical areas of the world with the consequent increase of available catalog copy and the further reduction of wasteful duplicated effort. We in the libraries need this help to gel more books more rapidly to the people who need them. I think it is appropriate for me to say just a few words about the international effect of the program for none of us when we proposed PAGENO="0183" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 177 the program, had clearly foreseen quite the extent of its effect abroad, a valuable byproduct of the central program which you will remember we discussed in terms of savings which individual U.S. libraries might obtain, primarily. Without going into complex details, let me say simply that the new international cooperation achieved through the opening of these Library of Congress offices abroad has produced a new level of uni- formity in cataloging practice which has brought us definitely closer toward reducing the world's output of books to some semblance of bibliographic order, an important prerequisite to the free flow of books and ideas among the nations of the world. I was told last week that the Spanish-speaking nations of Latin America, because of this program, already have their knowledge of the publications of each other increased by about 50 percent. In other words the.y discovered and recorded an aditional 50 percent of new titles in Latin America. Sir Frank Francis, director of the British Museum and president of the International Federation of Library Associations, in discussing the centralized cataloging program at the last meeting of that organi- zation in Holland said- The acceptance and the implementation of their proposal for shared cataloging on an international scale would result in speedier bibliographical control of the materials flowing ever faster into our libraries would reduce cataloging costs and would release the energies of our cataloging forces, which are at present engaged in duplicating each other's efforts a countless number of times in dif- ferent libraries not only in all parts of the world, but in almost every country under the sun. I hope that over the next three to five years, it will be possible to get this collaboration fully worked out and made into a going concern. It is not only desirable that this should be done, it is necessary; otherwise the great libraries will cease to play their proper part in the intellectual life of their countries, be- cause of the sheer impossibility of meeting all the demands which are made upon them... It may be noted that this program is completely in accord, in spirit, and in substance, with the U.S. policy as expressed by President John- son, last January, in his statement on international book and library activities. The accompanying directive to Government agencies specifically in- structed them to furt.her a greatly increased inflow of foreign books through appropriations under title TI-C. The Interagency Book Com- mittee, appointed by Assistant Secretary of State Frankel, to coordi- nate and implement these activities, has recommended full funding for this purpose. To make this important legislation even more effective, we recom- mend respectfully, in addition to full funding, certain specific changes: 1. These foreign offices of the Library of Congress are purchas- ing for that library one copy of each of the new books believed im- portant for American scholarship and research. One copy for the whole country is hardly enough and we believe that the relatively modest added cost of depositing another copy in some institution in another part of the country as a national loan copy would be thoroughly justified. The Center for Research Libraries in `Chicago, for example, would be an appropriate institution. This is a sort of library's library, a nonprofit corporation supported and operated jointly by 24 major universities from coast to coast. It PAGENO="0184" 178 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 collects and makes available the sort of library books, journals, and documents which are important but which need not be held by every local college or university library. If it could obtain a second set of the foreign books now being pro- cured by the Library of Congress under title IT-C it could supple- ment the resources of the National Library in an important way. 2. These foreign offices of the Library of Congress in areas ~where national bibliography and the book trade are poorly developed could serve another very useful function. The problem is that in many less-developed countries there is no way to get a book unless you are there nor indeed any way to know that the book exists, for there are as yet no booksellers there capable of handling so complex an operation as international book trade. If title TI-C were amended to permit these Library of Congress offices to act as agents for other libraries in this country, a great step toward solving this problem would be taken. The individual libraries would, of course, pay for the books, and the staff costs of ordering a few extra copies of a book already being selected and purchased would be nominal. 3. Finally we proposed that the bibliographic information gathered through this and other programs of the Library of Congress be made available not only through the original legislation, but also through other means, such as the distribution of printed bibliographies. Current bibliography, the accurate recording, and the prompt distri- bution of information about what is being published around the world, is of the greatest importance. It is the key to `the free flow of ideas across the oceans of the world, and ideas are the basis of economic development as well as interna- tional understanding. As a librarian I am tempted to claim too much for the importance of bibliography, but it does seem to be a fact that there is an `almost exact correlation around the world between `the state of bibliographic development in a country and its economic development. `These three prop'osals are covered by section 232 of H.R. 6232, amending the Higher Education Act `of 1965. On behalf `of the Asso- ciation of Research Libraries, I urge the passage of this legislation. We disagree with H.R. `6232 in one respect. In section `231 the original act is amended by authorizing "such sums `as may be necessary for the next 2 fiscal years." We respectfully urge that appropriations be authorized for the next. 5 years `as is proposed f'or part A of this title. Quite complex internal administrative `arrangements must be made in each library t.o utilize effectively this new and essential flow of catalog information from the Library of Congress. `To have this aid held out to us and then withdrawn would lead to tremendous `waste and inefficiency. We need as much assurance of con- tinuation as possible. Madam Chairman, in concluding let me thank you and the members of this subcommittee once again for your imagination as well as your courtesy. In sponsoring title II, part C, of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and in watching over it until it `becomes law, you have helped demonstrate once again how Federal assistance of a relatively modest PAGENO="0185" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 179 sort, applied at an effective point, can have a far-reaching influence upon State and privately supported higher education throughout the country. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Dr. Dix. On the last point, in Commissioner Howe's tes~irnony the other day he said as follows: The Adnñnistration proposed amendments to Title II would extend Parts A and B for five years through fiscal year 173. Part C would be extended through fiscal year 1969. At this time the program would be reviewed and the results of an on-going study to be completed in 1969 on the relationship of the Library of Congress to the Congress and the Executive Branch would be considered. Some perfecting amendments to Title 11-0 have also been suggested to make the program even more responsive to the total library needs of higher educatiou in this country. I take it you do not feel this is sufficient justification for extending that Only 2 years. Dr. Dix. I am a little confused as to which study he is referring to. Mrs. GREEN. Following Dr. Mumford's testimony yesterday. Dr. Dix. I assume he is referring to the Presidential Commission. If so, I can find nothing in its directive to say it is specifically studying the relationship of the Library of Congress to other activities. I have here the President's appointment of the Commission. I am sure you have seen that. Under duties, nothing is said about that. Mrs. GREEN. If it is, and I presume it is from the Commissioner's statement, would you not think Congress would be ill advised to ex- tend it only for 2 years and get the results of the study at that time? Dr. Dix. I am afraid I am in an area where by knowledge is really lacking. Let me put it this way. Our interest is in seeing the program continued at the Library of Congress with full funding, whatever is needed to get the job done. What legislation is needed to do this is not completely clear to me except that we want something that is as safe as possible, 5 years would be better than 2. I would assume if the legislation authorized this for 5 years and if there were in the meanwhile some maj or reor- ganization of the positions of the Library of Congress and the Gov- ernment, I would hardly believe it could happen that fast, a change could be made in spite of that 5-year authorization. I would hope so. Let me say that certainly the librarians of the country have no rea- son for thinking this program should appear in legislation of the U.S. Office of Education. It is, it seems to us, related to the Higher Educa- tion Act. As we pointed out 2 years ago, it enables the dollars spent in buying books to go farther. If it could be incorporated into legislation for the Library of Congress, we would be happy, indeed. Mrs. GREEN. As you know, in order to get the program going, this committee decided it had to amend the Higher Education Act. Dr. Dix. We are grateful for that. Mrs. GREEN. At this time I think we do need to verify the rela- tionship of the Library of Congress to the executive branch, to the Congress itself, and to the Office of Education. Would you state in capsule form again the reasons you consider it necesary to have the branch offices of the Library of Congress in sev- eral other countries. PAGENO="0186" 180 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Dr. Dix. There are two, and they are really rather different. One, in the highly developed countries, for example, the United Kingdom, in France, in West Germany, in the Scandinavian countries there are now offices which are assisting with the procurement of books on an incidental fashion, but this I hasten to point out by the way is in full and careful relationship with the organized book trade in those countries. In other words, there is no problem there in buying books. The problem there is to take full advantage, as full as possible of the bibliographic work already being done in those countries. To be very specific, taking Britain as an example, the Library of Congress there works very closely with the British Bibliographic Office. This is a cataloging operation similar to our own. It picks up a copy there once a week, sends it to the Libary of Congress where it is adapted for use. By contact with these agencies we are getting a lot of work done that would have to be done here. We list the importance of cataloging the book only once in this country. Actually what happens is this practice has been extended to the world as a whole, at least in model form. Mrs. GREEN. The reason I ask is that when we placed this in the legislation, we did not see establishment of branch offices of the Library of Congress in a good many countries. Evidently from your testimony and Mr. Mumford's, this would be an expanding operation? Dr. Dix. I hope so. Let me put it simply and crudely, we are getting much more for our money when we can get this information from Britain instead of doing it ourselves. Let me nnswer the rest of your question. In the smailler countries, there is no cataloging available. This is a procurement operation to scout out and find books. This is what is happening with the office in Latin America, Africa and, hopefully, others to be established. Mrs. GREEN. Any questions, Congressman Quie? Mr. QUJE. No questions, but I commend you on your statement. Mrs. GREEN. Any questions, Congressman Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch? Mr. ESCH. I commend you on your satement, hut I wante.d you to more specifically reiterate whether you think the. Library of Congress might be the vehicle for expansion of our library system in this next decade. Dr. Dix. It *seems to me the Library of Congress, which is the National Library in a great many ways and has been for 50 years, and serving many functions of other libraries, including those as Library of Congress, it does seem to me that this must be recognized and the Library of Congress must have the backing, authority, and official recognition of its role, whether in the administrative or execu- tive branch. Mr. GIBBONS. It's not going into the executive branch if I have any- thing to do with it. You put it in the executive branch, `and we will have to get a pass to get in~ there. You are the only thing we have that we are proud of. Dr. Dix. Yes, that is true. May I say to the chairman, I compliment Mr. Gibbons on the libraries in his State. I am attending a ceremony in Gainesville tomor- row at the new library of the University of Florida. I compliment him. PAGENO="0187" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Esch? Mr. Escn. No further questions. Mrs GREEN. I thank you, Dr. Dix. I would appreciate a further statement if you can find out more about the study being completed in 1969. Dr. Dix. I will supply that. (The information to be supplied follows:) PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, Princeton, N.J., Ma~y 5, 1967. Hon. EDITH. GREEN, 1?ayburn Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: During the course of my testimony before your sub-commit- tee on April 20 you expressed interest in the overseas offices established by the Library of Congress in the implementation of Title IT-C of the Higher Education Act of 1965. In order that you may be more fully informed, here is a summary of the current status of these offices, based on information supplied by the Library of Congress: There are five Shared Cataloging (Title IT-C) offices in western Europe. They consist of a handful of people, nearly all Europeans. The London office, the prototype office, now has no U.S. personnel. The Belgrade, Oslo, Paris, and Viennh offices have one U.S. citizen each, while the Wiegbaden office has two. These offices provide bibliographic coverage of the publishing output of Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland as well as of the countries in which they are located. In addition there are two regional acquiSition centers, one in Nairobi, Kenya, and the other in Rio de Janeiro. There is one American in charge of each, and these offices also acquire materials from the surrounding countries. In other words, these are very small operations, involving few Americans. While not contemplated at the time I made my original proposal, these offices represent an imaginative extension by the Library of Congress of the mechanics for achieving the original objectives, the prompt acquisition and cataloging of a substantially higher percentage of the current book publishing output from foreign areas for the benefit of all American libraries. The five offices in Europe make it possible for us to obtain and use after some adaptation bibliographic information being produced in the countries of origin, thus making more efficient use of scarce American cataloging personnel. The offica'~ in Africa and South America are essential for the procurement of material in those bibliographically under-developed areas. I shall `be glad to obtain further information if it will be useful to you. Yours sincerely, WILLIAM G. DIX. Mrs. GREEN. The next witness represents the National Education Association. Dr. Lumley, will you and your associates join us? STATEMENTS OP DR. JOHN LUMLEY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION Ø~ FED- ERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; DR. RONALD UHL SUPERVISOR, AUDIOVISUAL EDUCATION, PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MD.; DR. HOWARD' S. DECKER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS ASSOCIATION; MRS. MARY GEREAU, STAFF MEMBER; AND RICHARD CARRIGAN, STAFF MEMBER Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Lumley is accompanied by Mrs. Mary Gereau, Mr. IRichard Carrigan, and others Perhaps the three of you want to present your statements first and then the others afterward That is Dr Carrigan, Mrs Gereau, and you, Dr. Lumley, and then the other two. PAGENO="0188" 182 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 On behalf of the committee may I express our appreciation for your willingness to come here and give us your views. Your statement will be made a part of the record and you may proceed in any way you wish. (The statement follows:) TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY JOHN M. LIJMLEY IN BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL EDIJOATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am John M. Lumley, Di- rector of the Division of Federal Relations of the National Education Association. The NEA, as you know, is an independent association of professional educators. Our membership includes educators in the public and private schools and colleges ranging from pre-school teachers to university presidents. Of our 1,025,000 mem- bers, 95% are classroom teachers. Our testimony on HR 6232 and HR 6265 is based on the policies of the parent Association as defined by the platform and resolutions adopted by the 7000 dele- gates to the annual convention of the Association. There are 33 constituent special interest departments in the NEA complex. They do not always agree in every detail with the position of the parent organization. With me today are representatives of two of these departments, Dr. Ronald Uhl, representing the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction, and Dr. Howard S. Decker, Executive Secretary of the American Industrial Arts Association, and they will be presenting statements. Two members of the staff of the Division of Federal Relations, Mrs. Mary Gereau and Mr. Richard Carrigan, are also with me today. In general, the National Education Association supports HR 6232 as we have in the past supported the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Facilities Act, the Higher Education Act, and the National Vocational Student Loan Facilities Act. All of these laws have made significant contributions to im- proving the quality of American education. Their main thrust, to provide greater opportunity for individuals to improve their professional competence is, of course, not only important to the individuals but also to the nation's economic and social development. We regret only that the programs are too meagerly financed and thus too limited, especially in the number of student aids of all types which they provide. We have read the testimony presented by the American Council of Education and as a constituent member of that organization we concur with the formal testimony presented by Dr. Gross yesterday. It is not necessary to repeat the points he made, especially as they pertain to details of the higher education amendments. For the convenience of the Committee, I believe it preferable to present our comments on the bill item by item as they appear in the draft legislation. How- ever, I would like to comment first on what we believe to be a serious departure from acceptable practice which appears several times in this bill and is a develop- ment which is a recurring feature in various Administration proposals relative to education before the 90th Congress. The Commissioner is authorized at several points in this bill to contract with profitmaking agencies for carrying out projects ranging from improving the quali- fications of persons who are serving or preparing to serve in education programs in the public elementary and secondary schools to hiring public relations firms to recruit persons into the field of education. Madam Chairman, this constant effort on the part of the Office of Education to secure authority for the Commissioner to bypass the public and private non- profit education agencies and deal with profit-makers is, in our opinion, the most dangerous proposal ever to come before the Congress. Potentially it would authorize the Commissioner to use tax-payers' money to provide profit for private agencies in carrying out activities which are clearly and solely the prerogative of the public schools and public and private non- profit institutions and agencies. Of even more danger, however, is the potentiality for federal control and direction of the entire education effort of this country, in direct violation of the American tradition of state control of public education. Profit-making agencies are in business primarily to make a profit. If the permis- sion to contract with profit-making agencies is granted, nothing prohibits the PAGENO="0189" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 183 Office of' Education to hire persons to accomplish objectives, to conduct slanted "research," and to conduct well financed Madison Avenue type promotion cam- paigns to achieve purposes which the public education sector, and the ethical private non~profit institutions would never consider becoming involved in. This seems to us not only a totally unnecessary practice, but indeed a frightening one. This type of activity, that is contracts with profit-making agencies, was first proposed as an amendment to the Cooperative Research Act (Title IV ESIDA) in 1906. We objected at that time. HEW spokesmen claimed that the purpose of pro- viding authority in the Cooperative Research Act to contract with private profit- making agencies to train research personnel was necessary because such training was not available from non-profit sources. The emphasis was on need for skilled workers and researchers in the use of computers. Perhaps there is some validity to that argument, although we believed then, as we do now, that direct con- tracts between the USO'E and profit-making agencies are inherently wrong and that the objective of increasing the supply of computer experts could be achieved by subcontracts between nonprofit agencies receiving federal grants and the coin- puter training agencies. In addition, we questioned the practicality of training such researchers in `a situation isolated from the education community. We lost that argument but not our concern. At that time they told us it was just for the computer processes with IBM, General Electric or some other corporation like that. Now, however, in HR 6232, the original USOE justification (for training re- search personnel) has been discarded. Virtually blanket authority is sought for the Commissioner to enter into contracts' with profit-making agencies for con- ducting experimental and pilot projects in continuing education and comrnunit~ service (Sec. 107, page 6); talent search projects (Sec. 403, page 13); attracting qualified persons to the field of education (Sec. 504, page 51) ; and providing preservice and inservice training for elementary and secondary teachers, in- cluding pre-school, adult and vocational teachers, etc. (Sec. 532, page 59). The latter is the most astonishing of all. `These things could be given out under Title II on contract. We find it incredible that the `Administration would propose that the Com- missioner be granted such authority! May I make it perfectly clear that we are not criticizing the incumbent. Nor are we opposing the involvement of the profit- making sector of our society in the educational enterprise. We believe that sit- nations can arise where it is economical and efficient for public and nonprofit educational agencies to contract with industries such as the computer or elec- tronics industry, to provide `specialized training or develop machinery for specific parts of a research or demonstration project. Our strenuous objection is the proposal that the TISOE ,be authorized to contract directly with profit-making agencies, with no involvement of the public and nonprofit educational sector, in such a manner `as to achieve whatever objectives the USO'E may unilaterally de- termine. The provision for a'dvi~ory councils, which are appointed by the `Com- missioner, in no way lessens the danger--indeed `could enhance it. Carried to extremes, a Commissioner could appoint a council which he knows would advise him' tO `concentrate on contracts with profi't-~making `agencies and to use the majority or all of the funds `availa'ble under the pertinent sections to bypass completely the public and uther nonprofit agencies. TJSOE spokesmen compare this requested authority to that in the health and defense fields. Neither area is comparable to education. National defense is ex- clusively a `federal concern and is not carried on by the s'tates. Health research by industry, such as that which resulted in the `discovery of antibiotics, was carried on long before the National Institutes of Health was developed. On `the other hand, public education has traditionally `been provided by the states and nonprofit institutions. There is no federal education operation-and no reason to develop one. The role of the `federal' government in education m'ust be confined to that of channelling funds to the public' and other nonprofit education agencies and institutions to meet. the objectives defined by the Clongress as representa- tives of the people. Research, demonstration projects, inservice `educa~tion;"and information dissemination about worthwhile developments in education should be carried on, not by the Office of Education,' but by schools, state education departments and institutions of higher education with funds provided through the Office of Education for the purposes which the grantees identify as most appropriate. Violation of this principle places a Commissioner in a position where PAGENO="0190" 184 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 he can contract with any person or group of his ehoice (-and he éan Un- doubetdly find a profit-making agency which can be hired, for a price, to do almost anything he may ask-) to develop programs which he wants the nation to follow. This is federal control of `the most objectionable sort; and we- urge the Committee to reject this proposal every time it is made,' for the sake of placing authority for Americami education where it belongs-with the state and local governments and nonprofit institutions. If my language seenis strong, I assure you our feelings on this matter are even stronger. We do, of course. have other comments on this legislative proposal, and I shall return now to the beginning of the bill and make comments on items as `they appear in the text. We support the extension of the Community Service and Continuing Education~ Programs for au additional five years, the retention of the 75% federal matching provision, but regret that the request for an authorization of $50 million is being dropped and that only $16.5 million is being requested for appropriations. We strongly object, I repeat again, to the granting of authority to the Com- missioner to enter into contracts with private profit-making agencies for the purpose of developing experimental or pilot projects in `the field of continuing education and community service. (Sec. 107, page 6, lines 15-21.) We urge the extension of the College Library Resources program (page 8) for five years and the liberalization of the provision relatingto matching for special purpose grants. We also support the extension of Parts B and 0 of Title II. We support `the extension of Title III of the Higher Education Act (Strengthen- ing Developing Institutions) for five years and regret tha't the appropriation re- quest is some $20 million short of the authorization figure approved by the Congress. The technical amendments to Title IV (Student Assistance) seem reasonable, except `that again we strongly object to granting the `Commissioner `authority to contract with profit-making agencies to carry out the talent search provision of Part A (Opportunity Grants; Sec. 403, page 13, lines 16-23 end page 14, lines 1-2.) We recommend substantial additional funding of the work-study program to at least the level of the authorization for 1968 as passed last year ($200 million). We also suggest that the federal share of this program be 90%. We especially ap- prove the inclusion, expansion, and extension of the Vocational Student Loan Insurance program in Part B of this Title. Part D of Title IV, the National Defense Student Loan program, is, of course, the heart of the student assistance title. We urge that it be made permanent legis- lation and that the authorization of at least $225 million be continued for the following five fiscal years. We resist any efforts which may be made to substitute a guaranteed student loan program for the NDEA loans, which have been of such great value to lower and middle-income students. The proposal that specific authorizations be scrapped in favor of the indefinite "such sums as are necessary" phraseology is a cause for concern. Such a proposal surrenders the control of this committee and of the entire Congress over the future of the program. We note with regret that the appropriation request for NDEA loans for fiscal 1968 is $35 million less than the present law authorizes. Part E of Title IV, as it permits extension of the period of study to four years under special circumstances, is a sound proposal. Also bringing the financial as- sistance into line with other federal fellowship programs is desirable. Part F of Title IV (which becomes Part E to the Higher Education Act on page 45) provides for an advisory Council on Financial Aid to Students. We are becoming somewhat wary of the recent proliferation of "advisory councils." Perhaps the advice received by the Office of Education in the Congressional hear- ing process might suffice in this instance. Of major interest to the National Education Association is the proposal entitled Title V-Education Professions Development. The purposes of the proposal as outlined in Sec. 501 are certainly in accord with the objectives of the National Education Association. Sec. 503, on pages 54 and 55, by expanding the definition of elementary and secondary teachers to include pre-school, adult, and post-secondary vocational teachers, improves the teacher fellowship program. Also, including a specific reference to educational and instructional television and radio is desirable. We particularly approve the addition of "child development" to the listing of career PAGENO="0191" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 185 areas in this section. We suggest that a definition of child development be consid- ered for inclusion in the definition section of the basic act. The customary advisory council is proposed again (page 48). We believe in this instance it is justified, provided that a specific number of members is delineated, and that the practitioners-i.e., working teachers and supervisors in the elemen- tary and secondary schools-are well represented. (By this we do not mean a private prestige college president who taught a one-room rural school 40 years ago.) The direction to the Commissioner that he survey from time to time the nation's existing and future personnel needs in the field of education is quite necessary- although we believe he should do this whether or not the Congress directs him specifically into this activity. We note again that the Commissioner is to be empowered to contract with profit-making agencies for the purposes of attracting persons into the education professions. We oppose such a policy. We have several other comments on the parts of the bill which amend Title III and Title XI of the National Defense Education Act, especially on pages 59 through 73. On page 59, line 22, through page 60, line 5, the existing NDEA categories are enumerated and augmented with "health, physical education, international affairs, the arts and humanities." We urge the addition of safety education to this listing and also urge that school librarians again be included in this section. The programs in the Library Services Act are suited to regular and college library training, but we feel as do school librarians, that the interests of elementary and secondary education can be better served if school librarians are grouped with the teaching profession. We have some doubts as to the wisdom of deleting specific mention of categories in the NDEA Title XI program for teacher institutes after this year. We recognize that the identification of specific subject matter areas limits the program to those subjects specifically mentioned in the Act. More flexibility is definitely desirable. However, we do not believe that the federal office should alone decide the direction the institute programs should take. We urge, in order that federal control be lessened in this respect, that language be inserted into the bill under Sec. 532, page 61, a new subsection (c) as follows: "On or before January 1 of each year the Commissioner shall solicit from each chief state school officer a priority listing of such subject matter areas or categories of educational personnel as each such officer deems needs strengthening in his state, and that the Commissioner shall be guided by the results of such survey in determining the number and type of institutes or programs to be funded under this Act. And further, that before April 1 of each year the Commissioner shall report to the Congress the results of the survey and his determination based* thereon." (Present subsection (c) becomes (d) ; and subsection (d) becomes (e).) Philosophically, we feel that the proposal to eliminate the specific categories in the language of NDEA Title III has merit. In our view, however, the pretense here is that the program will be expanded to include all subject matter areas. But as a matter of fact, unless the Congress provides substantially increased funds for this Title, the net result will be retrenchment. We wonder, for example, whether USOE has considered the possibility that equipment and supplies for hitherto unsupported areas can be enormousl~v expensive. A good example would be for badly needed industrial arts equipment, which (in an extreme case) could gobble up a disproportionate amount of the state's allocation. It should certainly suffice to list the subject areas in wording that does not exclude new offerings. And the Committee might consider the desirability of placing suggested-not arbitrary or restrictive-limits on the proportion of state allocations for any single subject matter area. In other words, the state plan would simply assure USOE that every discipline in need of equipment, supplies, and supervisory services would be guaranteed a reasonable degree of assistance. Page 67, line 6, and page 68, line 10, exclude "athletic and recreational equip- ment" from the purposes for which Title III funds may be used by colleges and schools. If by this is meant equipment for interscholastic spectator athletic pro- grams, we concur. However, we believe that it should be made clear that the funds can be used for equipment for physical education classes in schools and colleges, including teacher education programs in physical education or college PAGENO="0192" 186 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 programs for the training of recreation personnel. As the NDEA categories have expanded over the years, the physical education program has been discriminated against, since equipment for other school subjects could be financed up to 50% from federal funds, while physical education equipment was not so favored. Unless the language excluding "athletic and recreational equipment" is clarified, this unfortunate situation is likely to continue, even though the litany of cate- gories is eliminated from the Act, presumably so that all interests can be treated fairly. We believe that the bill should clarify such matters as this and not leave the decision `to the guideline writers in TJSOE. Page 70, lines 19 through 21, repeal the provision in Title III of `NDEA which authorizes $10 million for state supervisory services in the categories enumerated in `Title III NDEA. We oppose the repeal of the authority for the states to use NDEA funds for `this purpose. Indeed, there is reason tO believe that this part of NDEA Title III `has been perhaps of more `benefit than the equipment provi- sion, especially in `what `the Office of Education `ëalls the weaker states. Until Title V `of ESEA l's amended to provide for autonomy within the states over uses of funds provided to strengthen state departments of education as each `state determines, we strongly `urge that C'ongress continue to provide state education agencies the opportunity to appoint subject matter specialists to their staffs to as'sist local school systems in strengthening their curricular `offerings. This is further reason for our resistance to removing the categories in NDEA Title III. Page 72 provides for extension of the private school loan program for equip- ment. We note with approval that the bill proposes to extend this opportunity t'o schools `operated by United States citizens primarily for American children over- seas. This is'a minor, but important, step in the `direction of extending to pupils in these schools some `of the a'ssistance they are entitled to as American citizen's. While `the language on page 73, `Sec. 701,' extends Part A of NDEA Title VII (Guidance, Counseling and Testing) for five more years, it is silent on Part B. We assume that Part B (Institutes) `is to be absorbed, after this year,' into the Education Professi'ons Development Act. We note also that Sec. 801, page 74, extends Title VIII: Language Develop- ment of NDDA `for one year only. We trust `the programs developed un'der this title will continue to receive `comparable attention from the TJSOE under `other acts in `subsequent years. Note: We have not been able to determine how much the USOB is `requesting to implement the Educational Professions Development Act. We believe the amount should `be `substantially higher than the total of the authorizations for the various programs-~such as teacher fellowships under the Higher Education Act and the NDEA institutes-presently `in the laws. For' example, if anything approaching an adequate expansion of the NDEA `type of subject matter institutes is to be carried on, and considering th'e extension, potentially, t'o all subject matter areas at the elementary, secondary and college level, at least three times the amount requested in the 1968 budget for NDEA institutes alone would be required. Specifically, at least $100 million is necessary for this activity alone. If in addition any meaningful effort to implement~programs described in the imposing list `of activities outlined on pages 60 to 63 for every type of educational personnel from tea'cher aides `to school administrators, school bOard members and college presidents is to `be `carried `out, at least $150 million or more in additional funds should `be provided for the first year, `with proportionate increases in sub- sequent years. Further, if the `Commissioner is to `be authorized to employ experts and consultants-as we think he should-for $100 or more a day as provided on page 53, Sec. 507, the need for adequate funding for thin purpose also must be met. A conservative esti'mate of the funds required for the first year of operation of the Professions Development Act would be about $255 million, in addition to full funding of the teacher fellowship program. We testified at length on March 14 in support of the Teacher Corps as amended by legislation before the full House Education and Labor Committee. We re- emphasize that supportive position again here `today, f'or the record. We note the extension of NDEA program's to children in the `federally-operated Bureau of `Indian Affairs Schools. We `have consistently maintained that th'ese youngsters belong in the public school systems in the states in which they reside. Madam Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the National Education Association to this Committee. We are confident :that this Committee will produce a bill which will continue to improve the quality and quantity of educational opportunity in this country and at the same time preserve the traditional `structure and control of education by the states. PAGENO="0193" HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 187 Mr. LUMLEY. It is a pleasure to be here before the committee. I think it is my first oportunity to testify before your committee. Mrs. GREEN. You have neglected us; we have been here for quite a while. Mr. LIXMLEY. I know the NEA has been here. On the first page of the statement I would call your attention to the fact the NEA is a many-headed monster in that we have many orga- .nizations. Mrs. GREEN. I don't know about that; you said that. Mr. LUMLEY. There are 33 constituent special interest departments in the NEA complex. They do not always agree in every detail with the position of the parent organization. With me today are representatives of two of these departments. Dr. Ronald TJhl, representing the de- partment of audiovisual instruction, and Dr. Howard S. Decker, executive secretary of the American Industrial Arts Association, and they will be presenting statements. Two members of the staff of the division of Federal relations, Mrs. Mary Gereau and Mr. Richard Carrigan, are also with me today. In general, the National Education Association supports H.R 6232 as we have in the past supported the National Defense Education Act, the Higher Education Facilities Act, the Higher Education Act, and the National Vocational Student Loan Facilities Act. All of these laws have made significant contributions to improving the quality of American education. Their main thrust, to provide greater oppor- tunity for individuals to improve their professional competence is, of course, not only important to the individuals but also to the Nation's economic and social development. We regret only that the programs are too meagerly financed and thus too limited, especially in the number of student aids of all types which they provide. We have read the testimony presented by the Amercian Council of Education, and as a constituent member of that organization we concur with the formal testimony presented by Dr. Gross yesterday. It is not necessary to repeat the points he made, especially as they pertain to details of the higher education amendments. For the convenience of the committee, I believe it preferable to pre- sent our comments on the bill item by item as they appear in the draft legislation. However, I would like to comment first on what we believe `to be a serious departure from acceptable practice which appears several times in this `bill and is a development which is a recurring feature in various administration proposals relative to education before the 90th Congress. Mrs. GREEN. I may have to leave and I wonder if my colleagues would object if I asked a couple of questions. Mr. GIBBONS. Please proceed. Mrs. GREEN. I read the first couple of pages of your statement. I think it is great, perhaps because it agrees with my views. I notice you express some concern over what I think is a real trend in the Office of Education to contract with profitmaking institutions and corporations for a great deal of the business of education. Would you read part of your statement there on that and then let me ask- summarize it or whatever you want to-the reasons for your feeling this way and what you see if this trend continues? 8O-155-67-p~. 1---1~3 PAGENO="0194" 188 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. LUMLEY'. For the other members, we start on the bottom of page 2 and on the top of page 3 we say the Commissioner is authorized at several points in this bill to contract with profitmaking agencies for carrying out projects ranging from improving the qualifications, of persons who are serving or preparing to serve in education programs in the public or elementary and secondary schools to hiring public relations firms to recruit persons into the field of education. Madam Chairman, this constant effort on the part of the Office of Education to secure authority for the Commissioner to bypass the public and private nonprofit education agencies and deal with profit- makers is, in our `opinion; the most dangerous proposal ever to come before the Congress. Potentially it would authorize the Commissioner to use taxpayers~ money to provide profit for private agencies in carrying out activities which are clearly and solely the prerogative of the public schools and public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies. Of even more danger, however, is the potentiality for Federal control and direction of the entire education effort of this country, in direct violation of the American tradition of State control of public education. Profitmaking agencies are in business primarily to make a profit. If the permission to contract with profitmaking agencies is granted, nothing prohibits the Office of Education to hire persons to accomplish objectives, to conduct slanted "research," and to conduct well-financed Madison- Avenue-type promotion campaigns to achieve purposes `which the public education sector, and the ethical private nonprofit institutions would never consider becoming involved in. This seems to us not only a totally unnecessary practice, but indeed a frightening one. Now, you will recall at the ESEA hearings last year we also raised this same question and it was only in one research section last year we tried to hold it off. We probably `were a little more gentle. This year we are making it as strong as we know how. ~Te say, this type of activity, that is, contracts with profitmaking agencies, was first proposed as an amendment to the Cooperative Research Act (title IV, ESEA) in 1966. We objected at that time. HEW spokesmen claimed that the purpose of providing authority in the Cooperative Research Act to contract with private profitmaking agencies to train research personnel was necessary because such train- ing was not available from nonprofit `sources. The emphasis was on need for skilled workers and researchers in the use o'f computers. Perhaps there is some validity to that argument, although we believed then, as we do now, that direct contracts between the USOE and profit- making agencies are inherently wrong and that the objective of in- creasing the supply of computer experts could be achieved by sub- contracts between nonprofit agencies receiving Federal grants and the computer training agencies. In addition, we questioned the practicality of training such researchers in a situation isolated from the education comrni~rnity. We lost that argument but not our concern. At that time they told us it was just for the computer processes with IBM, General Electric, or some other corporation like that. Mr. GIBBONS. Will the gentlelady yield? ` Mrs. GREEN. Yes. PAGENO="0195" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 189 Mr. GIBBONS. Let's get specific. I don't want to keep good brains out wherever they may be. I want to keep the charlatans out, such people as that. Are we talking of IBM, General Electric, or Westing- house, or some of these people? Mr. LUMLEY. We are protesting against any private corporation getting a contract from the Office of Education because we believe this is a national problem, and as you read this statement, you will find that we say that this can be done by the university, by the State Department, or anything below the level of the Commissioner. Mr. GIBBONS. Maybe I want to debate with my chairman as much as you but I think it is interesting. It is your contention then that. people like Westrnghouse and Gen- eral Electric have no business to be involved in this field? Mr. LUMLEY. No, we are saying-let's go back and take as an ex- ample the textbook publishers. Over the years they have been doing research and preparing textbooks for the schools of the country. The result is you have many different kinds of textbooks that are being produced, the State of Florida can use one kind of book, the State of New Jersey another, or cities within that area. If you. are contract- ing at the Commissioner level, the Federal level, they have a contract with a company producing hardware, now they are going to produce instructional materials. They get a contract and this nationalizes, potentially nationalizes the curriculums of the country. This is why we say it is wrong. So far as the contract is concerned, if there is need to develop re- search in the preparation of instructional material in mathematics, the University of Florida should have the grant to do this. If they need the ability of some private corporation, if they need them to work with, then they in turn work with whatever corporation you may take that is producing the particular kind of hardware. I think the thing we are trying to say is that we see we have been heading down a road that we are getting closer and closer to a federal- ized system with Federal control. The one thing we fought against over the years was to get away from Federal control. `rhis, in our opinion, is indirect Federal control. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you get any more Federal control by the Office of Education contracting with say General Electric than the Office of Education contracting with you or contracting with somebody else? Mr. LtTMLEY. I don't know-Mrs. Green asked me that question somewhere before. I don't know that they should contract with us. Mr. GIBBONS. I think you made your point; the only reason I am pursuing it is to develop some information. Mr. QUIE. Will the gentlewoman yield? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Mr. QuiB. I believe title 5 also carries language including oTants to scholarly associations. Some may not call you scholarly but y~u are professionally associated. Mr. LUMLEY. I don't think that should be in the record either. At the top of page 4 we state, in H.R 6232, the original USOE justi- fication-for training research personnel-has been discarded. Vir- tually blanket authority is sought for the Commissioner to enter into contracts with profitmaking agencies for- PAGENO="0196" 190 hIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Conducting experimental and pilot projects in continuing edu- cation and community service (sec. 107, p. 6); Talent search projects (sec. 403, p. 13); Attracting qualified persons to the field of education (sec. 504, p. 51); and Providing preservice and inservice training for elementary and secondary teachers, including preschool, adult, and vocational teachers, etc. (sec. 532, p. 59). The latter is the most astonishing of all. These things could be given out under title II on contract. Mrs. GREEN. What about research? It seems to me if you are con- sidering the possibility of Federal control that here is the greatest possibility of all because you can then select the corporations and the companies to carry out the specific research that you have already predetermined is important in building the curricula of the country. The results of that research may have a direct bearing and a tre- mendous impact on the curricula for many, many years. If there is any chance of Federal control, it seems to me it lies in this particular area. This is one of my concerns as I see the Bureau of Research more and more dominated by business people. I am not convinced that they are the ones who have the greatest knowledge about education nor the greatest concern about it. I have had discussions in the last few weeks with people in the educational community over this exact point. I don't know how many times I have been told we must turn to business be- cause the schools have failed to do it. Mr. LUMLEY. This is the story that has been given out, and this is one of the great concerns we have. Mrs. GREEN. I think this is one of the most dangerous bits of propa- ganda being circulated in the United States today; the statement that schools obviously have failed or we wouldn't have the problems we have. We wouldn't have a million dropouts, or a million emotionally disturbed youngsters, it is said. It seems to me this is really a dangerous philosophy because I am of the firm conviction that these schools have not done many of these things because they have not had the money. In fact, the O~ce of Education hasn't done it. We could charge it with being no good, too, and say let's do away with it and get some other Office of Education. It has not done all of these things. The reason is it has not had the authority nor the authorization, and neither have the schools. I am concerned about this hne of arguing. One of my colleagues, who is here today, even seriously considered that we should turn to a corporation that is not a school and set up competing programs. I said, "Would you have them set up under the same ground rules, have the program limited by the kind of money the taxpayers are willing to give, or would you have the public schools operate under those ground rules and a corporation work on a negoti- ated contract, a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis?" His answer was, "Yes, let's have them do that and then compare the results." This seems to be a dangerous trend. PAGENO="0197" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 191 The other argument advanced is that because business corporations have been successful, at least on the profit-and-loss sheet, therefore they would also be successful in the field of education. I don't look on the investigations of drug companies or car manu- facturers, nor do I look on the price fixing of General Electric, in such a way that I have complete confidence that when they get in the field of education their one and only concern would he the education of the child. I am very interested in your testimony on HEW, and I ani sorry we have not heard it in the last year. I think your testimony on page 5: Research, demonstration projects, in-service education and information dis- semination about worthwhile developments should be carried on, not by the Office of Education, but by schools, state education departments and institutions of higher education with funds provided through the Office of Education for tie purposes which the grantees identified as most appropriate. I think your next sentence is really crucial- "Violation of this principle places a Commissioner"-we are not critical of Commissioner Howe; I personally have the greatest adinir- ation for both Secretary Gardner and Commissioner Howe. Violation of this principle places a Commissioner in a position where he can contract with any person or group of his choice (-and be can undoubtedly find a profit-making agency which can be hired, for a price, to do almost anything he may ask -) to develop programs which he wants the nation to follow. This is federal control of the most objectionable sort. I just want to say that I am so pleased finally to hear representa- tives of some educational group come up and have the courage to make that statement. I have not heard from the NEA in regard to the requested funds, and I really place the same question to you I asked of Germaine Krettek. I was not referring to your organization when I said the president of a national association sent out the word that all groups were to wire and write about the Teacher Corps. Is this your priority that the graduate teacher fellowship, author- ized at the $275 million level, has a request for only 12 percent of the funds? If this is of no concern to you then you would not express concern to the Congress about the big cut here. At the same time would you place the Teacher Corps program in a place of far less importance? Mr. LUMLEY. We have asked on the elementary bill, you will find in here we say there should be full funding. We go one step further, we object to the provision in here that would delete the sums of money and say that the money is necessary for the program. We do not believe that this lets Congress express what it thinks. In other words, if the Congress decides that the fellowship program should have $250 million, we think the law should say $250 million so that the Budget Bureau and Office of Education, when they come back to you and ask for only a hundred million, they have to justify it. If you use the expression they use in here, such sums as are neces- sary, it throws it back into the hands of the executive department to come to you and say that is all we need. Mrs. GREEN. May I make one comment on that? This is traditional language in bills, but it does not prevent the executive branch from domg this. Anytime there is not full funding, PAGENO="0198" 192 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 the executive branch has complete control over the priorities as is obvious in the request for appropriations. The only way I know to offset this is that the committee should give consideration, after we determine the `authorization, `to a lump sum for the entire `bill, `and then say, if there are `any cuts in any parts, they would be prorated at a certain percentage. This leaves some kind of congressional control, otherwise Congress has completely abdicafed any control over various items. Mr. LtTMLEY. I realize they are not asking for the money on the authorization you have put in in the last year. They have less to justify or less of a goal in a sense if you do not have the amount of money specified in the authorization which you, as a committee, have decided is not the maximum, say $250 million, so that the Budget Bureau and Office of Education, when they come back to you and ask for only a hundred million, they have to justify it. If you use the ex- pression they use in here, "such sums as are necessary," it throws it back into the hands of the executive department to come to you and say that is all they need. Mrs. GREEN. Y'ou have always considered it a minimum when you testified? Mr. LTTTMLEY. That is right. Mrs. GREEN. I was told by one person from the Office of Education this was a ceiling not a minimum. Mr. LUMLEY. No; we always felt this way. This is one of the rea- sons we felt there was debate in a committee for an authorization; it was the minimum they thought should be given and the appropriation could meet. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Mr. QurE. Dr. Lumley, you have made these same comments about your concern over the Commissioner of Education contracting directly with private profitmaking organizations? Mr. LUMLEY. Yes, sir; we did last year on the corporate research, and we did it at the elementary-secondary hearings. Mr. QuIE. This was raised in my mind before, and I had not crys- tallized my thinking to the extent that I was ready to make the strong statement that you did here. However, I am surely pleased that you did, for two reasons. One, I am convinced that you are sure in your own mind that you are saying the right thing, and, secondly, you are willing to throw a few hard punches, and I like to see the NEA throw hard punches. I think this is the kind of independent organization we need. That is why I mention the language on pages 6 and 7. I hate to see them start to contract with professional and scholarly associations and weaken `their independent voice. I would like to see the American Library Association come in and speak their own mind. I would like to make sure Germaine Krettek will continue to do as she has in the past, and you will, too. You know our chairman's concern even from the contract NEA received before wi'th the Office of Education. Have you any comment on any of the other organizations? Mr. LUMLEY. I can't comment for any of the other organizations, but the commentI made when the question was raised at the previous PAGENO="0199" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 193 meeting, that is if there is some special department in the NEA that could do a special thing, then I think I would give it consideration, but, on the whole, I don't believe the contract should be made with the NEA any more than with a profitmaking organization. Mr. QUTE. What kind of special thing? The American Library As- sociation was given a special task of securing some statistics for the Office of Education. It's better to have them provide it than not at all. My own feeling is the Office of Education ought to do this them- selves. Mr. LUMLEY. That is right. I am thinking of institutes for training teachers; we have a national training laboratory. I said institutes for training of teachers. There may be some kind of institutes that this national training laboratory could do well for them. This one is out of my area, but I can see there is a possibility of doing something there. Mr. QmE. I am concerned that, when you question the Federal di- rection of control, and when the Federal Government is funding re- search, funding the production of curriculum, funding the institutes for training teachers and then funding the programs for the teachers to be operating in the schools, you have the full circle of control there, and I would have a concern even of your organization doing that. Mr. LUMLEY. I would not advocate it. I just picked the one group probably furthest removed from the parent organization, one of the most independent, the national training laboratories as an example of something that might be done. I come back to your concern, the same concern I think Mrs. Krettek mentioned when she said they did the survey for the Office of Educa- tion, and she said it could be done. I wouldn't want the Office of Edu- cation to contract with the NEA department to do a statistical study. I am sure we can do it, we have a wonderful research division, but we shouldn't be doing it with Federal money; we should do it on our own. Mr. QUIB. When the NEA used to provide up-to-date information for us, I remember what they supplied and what you supplied in com- parison. I think we need this. Mr. LUMLEY~ This is the reason I think we should be doing it our- selves. Mr. Qim~. I would hope you would always in the future, whether I agree with you or not, hit hard when you feel strongly about som~- thing as you did here. I think I agree with you. Now you say you want to make it perfectly clear and not criticize the incumbent Commissioner Howe. I want to preface my remarks and say I have a high regard for Commissioner Howe and Secretary Gard- ner. I would say he is the best Secretary of HEW I have ever seen. But where does this idea come from if you don't criticize them? They must agree with it, must support it, and advocate it. Mr. LUMLEY. I think my statement would have to be exactly what you are saying, we have the greatest admiration for Secretary Gardner and Commissioner Howe, but whatever is done in the organization cer- tainly has to fall on the steps of the Commissioner. He is issuing the orders, so, professionally, we are criticizing what the Office of Edu- cation is doing, we are criticizing something he has permitted or or- dered; this obviously is true. PAGENO="0200" 194 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. QtTIE. Do you feel as strongly about the comprehensive plank section of the elementary and secondary school bill-that hopefully will be on the floor next week-permitting the Commissioner to con- tract directly with profitmaking organizations as you do in this bill? Mr. LUMLEY. Very definitely. We believe this comprehensive plank should go back to the State education. Mr. QIJIE. I don't believe you have said that as strongly before. Mr. LUMLEY. In our discussions on the elementary bill I said it in general. Mr. QUIE. Now the Office of Education, as I recall, has contracted with some agencies to send teachers to the Job Corps to learn how to teach that type of an individual. Has the NEA made any study of the contracting with private corporations in the Job Corps? Here you have had experience with the job cost-plus contract. Mr. LUMLEY. We do not have studies to my knowledge. You see, in the Job Corps they have contracted out the whole educational pro- gram in many instances to industry and not to an educational insti-~ tution. We have not conducted a study. Mr. QUIE. Is there any in the making? To me the Job Corps is a sig~ nificant education program going on in the country right now. As you know, I have had great criticism of the Job Corps, but still it is an educational program and needs to be evaluated. If the only evalua- tion we are going to get is from OEO, some of us might have some question about it. Mr. LUMLEY. We are in the position of asking our research divi- sion-again we are limited by size and amount of money they have- we have asked that this kind of thing be done, not on this but some of the other contracts that have been made with private industry. Mr. Qum. Let me go on to another question. Mr. GIBBONS. We only have 2 or 3 minutes. I will ask the other two witnesses to give their statements to the secretary to be entered in the record. I regret we don't have more time, but we do not have permission to sit after the bell rings, and I don't want to transgress on the House prerogatives. Mr. ESCH. If I may, I would add my commendation for NEA's statement and recognize that it does represent a broad base of diversity and a broad base of interest. I wonder how the statement reflects the need for us to maintain some policymaking at the local level whereas the resources and the sources, the information gathering, the administrative detail might be con- tracted out. The policymaking, you suggest, should be left at the local level; is that correct? Mr. LUMLEY. State and local. Mr. ESCH. Should the information gathering, the research be left atOGA? Mr. LUMLEY. That is right. There is one part I would like to emphasize to all of you; that is, there is in the Professional Development Act which brings together all the institutes and the fellowships and so on for teachers and pro- vides for another of these advisory councils which should be repre- sentative of various groups of people. PAGENO="0201" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 195 My colleagues kind of make fun of me because I keep insisting the language of the bill should say that the majority of the Commission that is involved in this should be made up of real working staffs; in other words, the people involved, not the deans that taught 40 years ago, but people in the field right now should be on this and deciding. In addition we go one step further and don't believe the institutes should be in the hands of the Commissioner to decide you are going to have this or that institute, but it should have a survey made annually of the superintendents of schools. In other words, what does the superintendent in Florida need: a reading specialist, English specialist? This may be different in Minne- sota, or some other State, but if it is done on a national basis, we can all of a sudden decide there is a shortage of English teachers and, therefore, we will put money in for English teachers. Philosophically we favor the elimination of categories in title III or title II. This is a goal to achieve, but you can't eliminate categories when you don't have any more money. You are kidding the people if you say title III of NIDEA should have $10 million but we are going to give you $6 million. Mr. GIBBONS. I regret we must adjourn. If you will turn your state- ments in, we will include them for the record. (The statements follow:) STATEMENT OF RONALD M. UHL ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AUDIOVISUAL INSTRUCTION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Ronald Uhi, the Super- visor of Audiovisual Education for the Board of Education, Prince George's County, Maryland. Ours is the 27th largest school system in the United States, with approximately 132,000 students. Since last year our enrollment has increased by 12,000 students. In many ways our system is typical of educational develop- ments across America today. My responsibility in the Prince Georges School system is to improve instruction through the effective application of a wide range of instructional materials, audio- visual equipment and a growing array of technologies applied to the instructional process such as the video tape recorder and the Edison Responsive Environment- popularly termed "the talking typewriter." Incidentally, we have the only such device in the state of Maryland. All of this, Madam Chairman, constitutes what is often called educational media. It will, I think, give you and members of the Subcommittee a better understand- in~ of the field of educational media today, if I very briefly give you some facts concerning our department in Prince Georges County where we have six divisions dealing with various aspects of audiovisual media. They are the Divisions of Previewing and Evaluations, Film Library, Graphic Arts, Video Tape Recording, Audio Tape Duplication, and the In-Service Training Division. Our budget for audiovisual education, not including staff salaries, has grown from $103,265 in 1963-64 to $377,950 for the current school year. We are convinced in Prince Georges County that these educational media resources are playing an increasingly important role in the improvement of learn- ing, and particularly in making possible more individualized instruction. I appear before you this morning, Madam Chairman, in my capacity as Chair- man of the Legislative Commission of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction, one of several autonomous professional organizations related to the National Edu- cation Association. Established in 1923, our Department is made up of nearly 7,000 educators who, like myself, are particularly concerned with the improve- ment of education through the more effective application of instructional media to the teaching-learning process. As you know, our organization ha~ a continuing interest in legislation dealing with educational media. At our national convention earlier this month in Atlantic City, the role of the federal government in the field of educational media was a topic of major concern PAGENO="0202" 196 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 to the 5,000 educational leaders in attendance. The subject was also reflected in our program, and we were honored to have the keynote address delivered by a member of this Committee, the distinguished Congressman from New Jersey, Frank Thompson, Jr., whose topic was "The Rise of Government in Implementing Learning." Other action at our recent Atlantic City convention was the nearly unanimous approval of two resolutions dealing with H.R. 6232 which I would like to make a part of my statement this morning. Our first resolution deals with Title III of the National Defense Education Act and reads as follows: The officers and members of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association assembled in convention in Atlantic City, N.J. on April 6, 1967 wish to call attention to certain changes in Title III of the National Defense Education Act proposed in Part B, Title VI of H.R. 6232, a bill now before Congress to amend the Higher Eduction Act of 1965. While DAVI supports in full the extension of NDEA Title III for five years, until June 30, 1973, it views with great concern the intent to abolish the subject matter categories which has been traditionally one of the great values of NDEA Title III in its nine years of strengthening American education. The categories of Title III were established by the Congress to identify areas of need in the schools and to serve as a guide to providing support for these areas of weakness. If enacted into law, H.R. 6232 would transfer NDEA Title III supervision to Title V of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act where State Depart- ments of Education would then be in a position to administer such funds without regard to the original purposes and categories of NDEA Title III. It is the con- viction of DAVI that when aiid if NDEA Title III funds are subsumed within ESEA Title V for administration on a project basis by State Departments of Education; the educational media field, a wide range of educational innova- tions, and the schools themselves will suffer as a consequence. Our second concern about HR. 6232, Madam Chairman, is reflected in another resolution passed by our members: The officers and members of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association assembled in Convention in Atlantic City, N.J. on April 6, 1967 applaud the intent and purpose of Title V of the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1967 which is intended to coordinate, broaden, and strengthen programs for the training and improvement of the qualifica- tions of teachers and other educational personnel for all levels of the American educational system. At the same time, the Department wishes to express its concern over another proposal in this act that would not extend Title XI of NDEA beyond the end of fiscal year 1968. This title, with its institutes for educational media special- ists, has been of great value to American education, and DAVI views with great concern the possibility that, should this measure be enacted into law, the results would be detrimental to the future preparation of educational media specialists. DAVI, therefore, respectfully urges the Congress, in considering this measure, to make clear its intent that programs for the preparation of media specialists will not be decreased as a result of this new legislation. Institutes for educational media specialists were added to Title XI of NDEA three years ago by The Congress and since then this program has been very successful, in a small way, to meet the need for trained personnel in this field. This summer, for example, there will be 33 institutes for educational media specialists. There are, however, 63 colleges and universities that were unsuccess- ful in their efforts to hold such government-sponsored institutes this summer, and for every teacher attending one of the 33 media institutes this summer, there have been 15 unsuccessful applicants. In nearly every case these unsuccessful applicants are fully qualified, and were denied this opportunity simply because of the limited size of the program. The problem, Madam Chairman, is akin to something Congressman John Brademas pointed out in 1965 at a Columbia University Seminar on Technology and Social Change. He said: "It seems to me that we in Congress who vote all this money for scientific enterprise are going to have to begin thinking in terms not only of dollar budgets for such programs, but in terms of manpower budgets as well. We vote money for these vast programs on the blithe assumption that the highly trained professional and scientific personnel required to perform this research will drop out of the skies. That as you know is not the way the world is.,, PAGENO="0203" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 197 The growing field of educational media in our schools is an inseparable part of educational innovation, and its success is closely related to the in-service training of school personnel and the prepartion of specialists in the field of educational media. We urge that this matter be given careful consideration. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before your committee. TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY DR. HOWARD S. DECXER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERI- CAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS AssocIATIoN, NATIONAL EDUCATION AssocIATIoN Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Howard ~. Decker, Executive Secretary of the American Industrial Arts Association. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the amendments to the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Today, I appear before you as a representative of the more than 10,000 officers and members of the American Industrial Arts Association. The Association is composed of those industrial arts teachers who really care about the future of industrial arts education. The views stated herein have been ap- proved by the AIAA Executive Board and by the Delegate Assembly of the Asso- ciation at Philadelphia on March 12, 1967. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 (PL 85-864) was signed into law on September 2, 1958, during the period of national emergency generated by the launching of the Soviet Sputnik. This legislation quickly effected an increase in highly trained manpower related to the fields of science, mathematics and for- eign languages. The original act has been amended from time to time, most recently by the Higher Education Amendments of 1966 to extend its coverage to virtually all the areas of education. Students at every level of education benefit from its provisions. The American Industrial Arts Association feels that the National Defense Education Act has been the most significant piece of educational legislation passed by Congress to this date. It holds this opinion not because of any legal perfection in tIe Act but from the record of accomplishments of this Act in the schools of this nation. The NDEA is, of course, divided into titles. I would like to comment briefly today on the two titles which most affect industrial arts education. Title III of the National Defense Education Act deals with both equipment and teaching materials as well as the supervision of the subject areas mentioned categorically under the provisions of this Act. In 1958 Title III of NDEA made it possible for this nation to equip and remodel laboratories and classrooms and to expand and improve the supervisory and related services in science, mathematics, and modern languages. In 1964 five additional subjects, history, civics, geography, English, and reading, were in- cluded in Title III by Public Law 88-665. This Title was further strengthened in October of 1966 to include industrial arts as a subject area. Title III of NDEA has been called "a hardware act" and it is this hardware that has made possible the implementation of curriculum innovations throughout the nation's schools. Reaching the moon and our nation's youth seem irrevocably tied to "hardware". Throughout the history of Title III there has been a direct participation by the several states of our nation in the educational affairs included in this Act. State participation has taken the form of matching funds and through supervisory personnel. This multiplier effect should not be overlooked. In addition, this Act is non-project oriented and as a result has been efficiently administered at the federal level through the U.S. Office of Education. Dollar for `dollar, Title III of NDEA has been one of the most effective methods of achieving dramatic upgrading of both the physical facilities and the supervision of the subject areas mentioned in the Act. Title III of NDEA has been a program which has been well received in Con- gress. This is best evidenced by the fact that although the Bureau of the Budget in 1965 proposed to cut Title III of NDEA to $54.4 million, Congress voted to restore the appropriation to $79.2 million, the same amount as in the preceding year. On July 1, 1967, industrial arts will be eligible to receive funds under Title III of NDEA. The industrial arts teachers of our nation anticipate that this Title will provide the necessary support to update the industrial arts facilities throughout the nation for the purpose of providing the necessary tools and PAGENO="0204" 198 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 equipment to initiate the curriculum innovations which have been developed in this field, and to provide at least one full-time industrial arts supervisor for the 26 states of our nation that do not have a state supervisor in the area of industrial arts education. In consideration of these facts, the Delegate Assembly of the American In- dustrial Arts Association meeting in Philadelphia, on March 12, 1967, passed the following resolution: 9. NDEA Whereas the National Defense Education Act has been highly successful in providing improved instruction in the elementary and secondary schools of our nation; and Whereas this improved instruction has been achieved through the in-service education of teachers, specialized supervision, curriculum development and the provision for equipment and instructional materials: Therefore be it Resolved, That the officers and members of the American Industrial Arts As- sociation encourage the Congress to extend this act for five years and to in- crease an authorization and an appropriation to $175,000,000 in fiscal 1969: Be it further Resolved, That the Congress be urged to retain the existing administrative procedures including an authorization and an appropriation of $15,000,000 in NDEA Title III (b) for specialized supervision and administration. We respectfully urge that the provisions of this resolution be given considera- tion by this committee. I would like at this time to comment on Title XI of the National Defense Education Act. Industrial arts as a subject area was included under Title XI of the National Defense Education Act in 1965. During the summer of 1966, five pilot institutions were initiated and during the summer of 1967, twenty-nine industrial arts insti- tutes will be offered in our colleges and universities throughout the nation. Title XI of NDEA has created a real interest in curriculum innovation in the industrial arts field. All twenty-nine of the institutes which are funded for the summer of 1960 are innovative in nature and represent the very finest curriculum concepts that have been produced in the industrial arts field. The American Industrial Arts Association feels strongly that Title XI of NDEA has been a successful program and feels that its administration in the U.S. Office of Education under the leadership of Dr. Donald Bigelow has been both efficient and just. President Johnson's budget message to the 90th Congress has seen fit to con- solidate Title XI of NDEA into a new Education Professions Act (Title V of the Higher Education Amendments). The American Industrial Arts Association is not opposed to this Act if it will bring greater order out of the present patchwork of educational training legisla- tion. In support of this Act, the Delegate Assembly of the Association passed the following resolution on March 12, 1907: 10. EDUCATION PROFESSIONS ACT OF 1967 Whereas the Education Professions Act of 1967 will bring order to the present diversity of educational legislation through flexible authority allowing the co- ordination, broadening, and strengthening of programs for the education of teach- ers and other personnel for all levels of education: Therefore be it Resolved, That the officers and members of the American Industrial Arts As- sociation support and encourage the passage of the Education Professions Act of 1967. We respectfully urge that this committee give serious consideration to this resolution. The American Industrial Arts Association, however, would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that it supports this legislation on the basis of verbal reassurances from representatives of the U.S. Office of Education who have indicated that the subject areas presently categorically mentioned in Title XI of NDEA will not suffer a curtailment in the number of the institutes funded, nor in the amount of the funding by virtue of the inclusion of Title XI of NDEA in the new Education Professions Act. At the present time, the 1967 institutes in industrial arts are receiving not less than 800 and up to 1,500 applications for an average of 30 places in an in~ PAGENO="0205" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 199 dividual institute. At the present level of funding, it will take as much as 20 years to adequately serve those who are at the present time soliciting this ad- vanced training under Title XI of NDEA. Over 44,000 professionals are currently employed as industrial arts teachers in our nation's schools. To adequately up- grade this large number of teachers, more effort, rather than less effort, is needed. The American Industrial Arts Association looks with disfavor on the Educa- tion Professions Act if this Act will mean a reduction of funding in those subject areas categorically mentioned in Title XI. It sees no advantage in diluting the institute program. It is better to train an adequate number in a few selected areas than to try to train everyone inadequately. The American Industrial Arts Association strongly recommends that reassurances concerning the support level of those subject areas presently under Title XI cf the NDEA be written into the present bill. Thank you. Mr. GIBBONS. The subcommittee is adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair. (\\Thereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0206" PAGENO="0207" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Wa.shington, D.U. The subcommittee met at 10: 20 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Burton, Hathaway, Brademas, Scheuer. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order for further con- sideration of H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. The first person to appear before the committee this morning is the Commissioner of Labor Statistics from the Department of Labor, Mr. Ross. STATEMENT OP ARTHUR M. ROSS, COMMISSIONER OP LABOR STATISTICS, ACCOMPANIED BY SOL SWEItD'LOFP, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS Mr. Ross. Madam Chairman, I have with me Mr. Sol Swerdloff, of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He was in charge of our occupational outlook work for many years and now has a key position in our general program planning. I have a brief statement, Madam Chairman, which I would like to read. I can read it in 8 or 10 minutes, and I would be glad to answer any questions from the committee. I am pleased to testify today, representing the Department of Labor. I would like to tell you something about the Department's programs that might be of interest to you in your concern with title V of this act, relating to the "need for educational personnel both present and long range." The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a program that esti- mates manpower requirements in a great variey of individual occupa- tions, including teachers and other educational personnel. The'Bureau has been making occupational projections for more than 25 years through its occupational outlook program. This program pro- vides information on future employment requirements and resources for use in vocational counseling and in planning education and train- ing programs, and for a variety of other purposes. I have brought some publications that stem from this program-~-- notably the "Occupational Outlook" handbook. 201 PAGENO="0208" 202 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 If the committee would like, I would be pleased to leave them with the committee to give you some idea of the nature of our work in this field. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. Mr. Ross. Let me turn to employment trends in the teaching field. Since the close of World War II, the United States has had persistent shortages of qualified personnel in this most vital possession. In fact, just this last year many school systems reported unusually critical shortages in the large urban areas. At the college level there has been a continuing shortage in many fields of people with the doctor's degrees. The future holds promise of an improvement in the supply and demand situation for teachers. Nevertheless, training needs in the profession will remain high because of mounting personnel require- ments. These stem from the increase in enrollments at the secondary school level, a hoped-for reduction of student-teacher ratios, the need to upgrade the quality of education generally-particularly among the educationally disadvantaged and other deprived students in our society-and rising college enrollments. Teaching is the largest group of professional workers. In the 1965- 66 school year, about 2.2 million men and women were employed full. time, and thousands of others taught part time. Among the latter are many scientists, physicians, accountants, mem- hers of other professions, and graduate students. Similarly, large num-~ bers of craftsmen teach part time in vocational schools. Many others. instruct part time in adult education classes and in recreation proW grams. More than half of all teachers were employed in elementary schools, more than a third in secondary schools, and about 10 percent in col- leges and universities. Women teachers far outnumber men in kindergarten and elemen- tary schools and hold slightly less than half of the teaching positions in junior and senior high schools. However, only about one-fOurth of all college and university teach~ ing positions are filled by women. As I indicated earlier, there is a shortage of teachers in many school districts in this school year. According to information from 39 States that responded. in a special survey by the National Education Association in the fall of 1966, 20 States had substantial shortages of teadher applicants. Shortages of elementary school teachers.were wide- spread. . , Nine out of 10 States had shortages of mathematics and science teachers, and many lacked teachers of English, foreign languages, and special education. Shortages affected communities of every size: 37 States, lacked teachers for rural areas; 33 for small cities; 22 for central cities; and 19 for suburbs. So the situation is worse in the rural areas and less serious in the suburbs. Even States and cities with relatively high salary levels and good fringe benefit provisions had serious shortages, particularly in poverty areas where the need for improvement in educational services is most acute. PAGENO="0209" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 203 The number of teachers needed to staff the Nation's schools depends mainly on the number of persons enrolled in school, and the teacher- pupil ratio. The latter is related to the ability and willingness of school districts to budget for a sufficient supply of teachers. At the beginning of the 1966-67 school. year, 55 million people- more than one-fourth of the country's total population-were en- rolled in the Nation's schools and colleges. Over the 1966-75 period, continued growth of the high school and college age population as well as continued increases in college at- tendance rates are expected to produce a rise in high school enroll- ments and an impressive rate of increase in college enrollments. On the other hand, enrollment at the elementary school level is not expected to increase between 1966 `and 1975, as a result of recent declines in the birth rate. Total enrollments in all schools and col- leges combined, according to the U.S. Office of Education estimates, may increase to about 63 million by 1975. To staff the necessary new classrooms, the Nation's full-time teach- ing staff will need to be about 540,000 larger in 1975 than in the 1965-66 school year. In addition, a much greater number of teachers-more than 1.8 million-will be required to replace those who leave the profession. Moreover, additional teachers will be required to replace those who do not meet the minimum standards for certification. So we have the 540,000 net growth, and close to 2 million to replace those who leave or fail to meet standards. Mrs. GREEN. Do you include the 540,000 in the 2 million ~ Mr. Ross. No, that is an additional 2 million. These trends apply to the teaching field as a whole. I would like now to discuss the future requirements separately for each school level-elementary, secondary, and college. About 1.1 million kindergarten and elementary teachers were em- ployed in the 1965-66 school year. In addition, an estimated 47,000 principals and supervisors also work in public and private elementary schools. An estimated 1.1 million kindergarten and elementary teach- ers may be required by 1975. That is the total need. About 155,000 of them will be required to provide some improvement in the pupil- teacher ratio and the remaining 960,000 are needed to replace those who die, retire, or leave the profession, and to replace persons who don't meet the certification requirements. About 825,000 teachers were employed in the public and private secondary schools during 1965-66. By 1975, roughly 1 million new secondary school teachers will be required. About 26 percent of the total requirements will stem from the need to take account of enroll- ment increases and to reflect some improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio. About three in every four will be needed to replace teachers who retire, or leave the field for other reasons or to replace persons who do not meet certification requirements. Finally, about 245,000 persons were employed as full-time teachers in the 2,000 colleges and universities in the 1965-ff6 academic school year. More than 120,000 others were teaching part time in medicine, law, business administration, and other professional fields, using part- time college instructors. 8O-155-67---pt. 1-14 PAGENO="0210" 204 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 A large increase in college enrollment is in prospect. You will re-j call I said a moment ago, Madam Chairman, that the elementary school enrollment will not be increasing. The secondary school enroll- ment will increase moderately, but there will be a very large increase in college enrollments. The number of people in the 18- to 21-year age group is expected to rise by nearly 3.5 million between 1966 and 1975. At the same time, it is likely that larger proportions of young people will attend college, because of rising family income, new Federal legis- lation to help needy college students, greater demand for college- trained personnel, and the increasing number and proportion of the population who finished high school. The anticipated increase in the number of community colleges and schools offering evening classes will also tend to make it possible for more young people and adults to attend college. If the proportion of young people attending college continues to increase as we expect and if the facilities are available, college en- rollment will increase from 6 million at present to almost 9 million by 1975. These are projections of the U.S. Office of Education, which confirm our own thinking. Taking all these factors into account, it is estimated that the full- time college teaching staff will increase from 245,000 in 1965-66 to 360,000 by 1975, almost 50 percent. In addition, `about 180,000 more teachers may be needed to replace those who retire or die or leave the profession. The supply of elementary and secondary teachers comes mainly from college graduates receiving bachelor or master degrees. About 30 per- cent of all persons receiving the bachelor degree meet certification requirements for teaching. So that is a very large proportion of the total college graduating group who are potentially available as teachers. To this group of new entries to the teaching field each year must be added an estimate of reentries. Reentries represent in large measure woj~nen whose homemaking responsibilities have diminished as their children grew `older and who find time to devote more time to their teaching careers. With the large increase in college graduates anticipated over the next decade, the supply of new teachers may increase greatly if the percent of college students who complete teaching training continues at the 30-percent level mentioned above. This prospective rise in the supply of new teachers could help re- duce the present shortages in certain subjects and grades. It could also offer opportunities* to improve educational services to the dis- advantaged and to implement innovations in education. Madam `Chairman, I am starting on page 9, since the copies are now available. The counseling profession will benefit directly from an improve- ment in the supply-demand relationship for elementary and secondary teachers. I would like to emphasize that in our view the most pressing need in terms of educational personnel, at the high school level in particular, is in school counseling. PAGENO="0211" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 205 A prerequisite for school counselors in most States is a teaching certificate. Specialized training often is superimposed on this founda- tion. Parenthetically, I think it ought to be superimposed more frequently. For many years, the supply of school counselors has been inadequate to meet the overall demand for their services; in some areas the situa- tion has been critical. A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed, for example, that about three-quarters of the high school dropouts re- ported they received no vocational counseling either from their school or employment service office. In the 1965-66 school year, some 26,000 secondary school counselors were employed full time and another 20,000 worked on a part-time basis, making a full-time equivalent of about 34,000 counselors. In elementary schools about 2,000 school counselors were employed full time and 3,500 worked part time. The ratio of school counselors to students has improved somewhat in recent years and the current ratio is roughly 1 counselor for every 500 students. The recommended ratio is, and I regard this as a conserv- ative recommendation, 1 to 300. While the average current ratio is 1 to 500, there are many schools and many school districts with a ratio of 1 to 1,000 or 1 to 1,500. With so few counselors per student, no real counseling can be done with most of the students. It is really just impossible for a counselor to serve a thousand or 1,500 or 700 students with any degree of adequacy. Guidance services have been strengthened and have stimulated an increase in the number of school counselors by Federal support and by improving quality through attendance at National Defense Educa- tion Act Institutes. Y~t shortages of counselors are still reported in many schools. Increasing demands have been placed on school and other counselors because of the many new Federal programs that require supportive services. For example, counseling is an essential tool in the implementation of the Vocational Education Act of 1963, and more recent Federal legislation has extended support of school counseling services to ele- mentary schools, technical schools, and junior colleges. That completes my statement, Madam Chairman. I would~beglad to answer any questions of the committee, if I am able to do so. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Ross. Your statemeiTt on the next to the last page, "guidance services have been strengthened and have stimulated an increase in the number of school counselors," how do you measure that ~ Mr. Ross. In terms of the ratio between counselors and students, the ratio is presently 1 counselor for 500 students. That is better than it used to be. I would add that it can also be indicated by the greater attention being given to specialized training of counselors, aside from the train- ing required to receive a teaching certificate. *Mrs. GREEN. Can you measure, though, an increase in counselors due specifically to the NDEA Institutes ~? Mr. Ross. We do know how many graduates there are from these institutes. I would be glad to furnish that information to the com- mittee if I might do so in the next day or so. PAGENO="0212" 206 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. You have the breakdown of those who were not coun~ selors before and who came into the counseling? Mr. Ross. I believe it will be possible to obtain that. Mrs. GREEN. The ones who came in as a result of the institutes? Mr. Ross. The ones who became counselors through participating in these institutes who had not been counselors before. Mrs. GREEN. `Who had not been in the education profession before? Mr. Ross. They have been in the education profession. I believe they were teachers but not fully qualified to be counselors because they lacked the necessary preparation for counseling. For example, they lacked the extremely important information about occupational out- look. Unless school counselors, who are doing occupational counseling- in particular, know a lot about the world of work, the types of jobs available, the fields of work that are increasing, those that are dimin- ishing, the kinds of training required for various jobs and professions, they cannot do a good counseling job. (The information requested follows:) Between FY 1959 and FY 1967, 652 NDEA institutes were conducted: 477 short-term and 175 long-term. Short-term institutes are designed for upgrading counseling skills; long-term institutes are designed for enrollees with no prior counselor-education training. During this period, 15,563 attended short-term institutes and 5,366 long-term institutes. Follow-up surveys by the Office of Education show that institute enrollees have increased the amount of time that they spend in counseling activities with: secondary school students. This represents an important increment in the coun- seling labor force. When the average percentage of time in counseling before and after institute attendance are computed for the first four years of the program, the net change shows that estimated increase of slightly more than 1500 full- time counselor equivalents. (Since the time of the follow-up survey, the total number of students attending institutes has nearly doubled. Mrs. GREEN. I think your statistics deliver a very important message' about three-quarters of the high school dropouts who receive no voca- tional counseling either from their school or employment service office. Mr. Ross. Yes, I think that is a real reflection on the inadequacy of the whole counseling operation. Mrs. GREEN. `Would you say that three-quarters of the high school students receive no counseling? Mr. Ross. No, I would not say that. Mrs. GREEN. Why do you have this breakdown? Mr. Ross. I don't know. For one thing, the dropouts are less likely to have availed themselves of counseling opportunities. Even in schools that have adequate counseling facilities, many stu- dents drop out in the ninth or 10th grade, whereas the counseling is. more intensive in the 11th and 12th grade. So, while I don't know what percentage of high school graduates or students as a- whole have received counseling, my assumption is that it would be greater than the percentage of dropouts. Mr. GIBBONS. As I recall, the NDEA chief counseling that we have~ is primarily geared toward the college-bound student anyway. We have just neglected this whole area~ of the dropout as far as counseling is concerned. Mr. Ross. I agree fully with that-that all too much of the counsel-. ing has been concentrated on the college-bound student. Mr. GIBBONS. Congress gave it that direction. PAGENO="0213" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 207 Mr. Ross. Many school counselors know a good deal more about what a college student might qualify for and what colleges have open- ings and that sort of thing than they know about the kind of work, the training requirements, and so forth, for those students who are not going on to college and who still make up a majority of the graduates. Mrs. GREEN. Flow did you get the figure three-quarters of high school dropouts? Mr. Ross. WTe made a special survey out of school youth in our monthly interviewing of families. This is the same source from which we derive the employment and unemployment figures. We usually have one or two special inquiries each month. Currently we survey 52,000 families each month. The number of families or the identity of the families rotate occasionally, but at any one time we have 52,000 families who are interviewed monthly. This was a special inquiry in the current population survey of unem- ~ployment and employment. Mrs. GREEN. Do either of you gentlemen have anything to do with *the U.S. Employment Service? Mr. Ross. Not directly, the U.S. Employment Service is an agency in the U.S. Department of Labor. MTe do work closely with them but they are not directly connected with the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mr. Frank Cassell is the Director of the Service. Mrs. GREEN. When you gave the number of teachers, do you have any breakdown on accredited and substitute? Mr. Ross. We would be glad to supply that. (The information requested follows:) The number of classroom teachers reported reflects (1) both full- and part- time teachers (in 1965, 98 percent of the public elementary and secondary school teachers were full time) and (2) both fully certified teachers and emergency certificated teachers. Emergency certificates are usually issued to take care of vacancies that cannot be filled with fully qualified personnel. Currently, about 00000 elementary and secondary teachers are teaching on emergency certificates. All States require teachers in the public schools to hold a certificate. Several States have this same requirement for teachers in parochial and other private schools. Certification requirements vary from State to State but `the minimum educational requirement in all States is now a bachelor's degree. In addition to a college degree, a specified number of professional education courses is usually required. Substitute teachers are not included in the Office of Education count of class- room teachers. The data are obtained directly from the school systems and do not reflect the number of substitute teachers being used during any single year. Mrs. GREEN. Could you also define your term as to what you mean by accredited and what you mean by substitute teachers? is a substitute teacher fully accredited? ~ Ross. Yes, indeed. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. I call your attention to section 503-A of the act here. Have you had an opportunity to examine it? I will read it to you. It says: "The Commissioner of Education shall from time to time ap- praise the Nation's existing and future persomlel needs in the field of education including present school programs, elementary school pro- grams, secondary school programs, vocational, adult education" and just names them all. It seems to me like that is what you have been doing. Is that right? PAGENO="0214" 208 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. Ross. Yes, sir; but the Office of Education also is very active in the field of studying educational personnel. I don't believe that we over- lap or duplicate the activities of the Office of Education, but we do ex- change information fully. Mr. GIBBONS. What is the difference between what you are doing now and what would be directed to be done under this act? Mr. Ross. I think that the statement that I have made today does bear upon the questions that are listed here in section 503-A, but you will notice in my statement that the Office of Education is the source of certain of the facts which I have used. * Mr. GIBBONS. Then you all just exchange information, is that right? Mr. Ross. Yes, sir; I would say that we exchange information. We know that they use our information. We use theirs. Mr. GIBBONS. Someone suggested some time ago, I guess it was the President, that perhaps the Department of Labor and the Department of Commerce ought to be combined. It seems to make more sense to combine the Department of Labor and the Department of Education, I think. It is beginning to look that way. It is amazing to me how many pro- grams you all conduct whichare parallel to each other. Mr. Ross. I think I should point this out, also: We are only talking now about one occupation. That is the occupation of teaching. Our work covers hundreds of occupations. Mr. GIBBONS. Isn't that what education is supposed to be related to, to work? Mr. Ross. Yes, we have 700 occupations which are dealt with in con- siderable detail in our Occupational Outlook Handbook. This is our major publication in the occupation outlook field, which sells from 75,000 to 100,000 copies per edition. More than a million re- prints from the current edition of the handbook have been sold. Mr. GIBBONS. Who are the principal purchasers of that? Mr. Ross. Principal purchasers are school districts; vocational counselors of all kinds; rehabilitation counselors; libraries; and per- sonnel offices in private industry and in Government. It is a publication with very wide circulation. But with respect to the comparison with the Office of Education it does not appear to me that we are overlaping or doing the same work because we have the responsibility to study all occupations, and I think it is understand- able that the Office of Education would be going in somewhat more detail in some aspects of the educational personnel than we do. For example, there have been detailed studies of production of Ph. D.'s in all the different fields of science that involves the National Science Foundation. There have been studies `of research activities and research person- nel in the colleges and universities. I know the National Science Foun- dation does a good deal of that in connection with their subsequent studies of research and development. So I suppose it isn't surprising that two or three agencies in some way or another have a concern with educational personnel. Mrs. GREEN. Do they supplement or do they duplicate? Mr. Ross. I will ask Mr. Swerdloff to comment on that because he has been responsible for our occupational outlook work for many years. PAGENO="0215" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 209 Mr. SWERDLOFF. We start out with the basic statistics which are col- lected by the Office of Education and we go further into these areas in connection with providing information for vocation~d counseling. They are trying to find out the characteristics of the schools. They don't prepare occupational outlook information for counseling of stu- dents interested in teaching or any other field. So we utilize their data. In regard to the National Science Founda- tion, we do work for them under contract. It is in terms of how many people are in scientific occupations, what kind of training they need, what the trends, and future requirements are. Mrs. GREEN. Would it make better administrative procedure, and would it be at least better if we gave you some extra authority if that is what you need, rather than give the authority now to the Office of Education to do what it seems to me you are doing?' Mr. Ross. Mrs. Green, I am sure that the Department of Labor would undertake any assignment that Congress might want to give it. Our general view is that the work of the Office of Education, the Department of Labor, and the National Science Foundation comple- ment and supplement. each other rather than overlap. We are very short of personnel ourselves and so I have no interest in doing something that the other agencies do, and I expect the other agencies may have the same feeling. If Congress should feel that a reorganization of the functions would be more efficient, then we would be glad to do whatever the assignment is. Mrs. GREEN. I appreciate the figures which you gave me last week on very short notice in terms of overall shortage of personnel. Mr. Ross. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. You say you are already short of personnel. If we give to the Office of Education the authority also for a collecting of statis- tics on manpower needs, isn't there a chance that you will be still shorter of personnel if you divide it up into three departments and `agencies? Mr. Ross. I am sure that you are studying the functions of these other agencies and of our `agency and I think .the committee would be in the best position to decide what the most appropriate division of labor is. Mrs. GREEN. Did you come from the State Department to the De- partment of Labor? [Laughter.] Mr. Ross. No. Mr. GIBBoNs. Let me ask you, if we pass section 503A as it is now written, will the Department of Labor give up the function th'at you have been performing apparently pretty adequ.ately, or will you just phase it out and save that much money? Mr. Ross. No, I don't believe so, because we certainly have the re- sponsibility to cover the teaching profession along with hundreds of other occupations and professions in our general occupational out- look work, manpower forecasting, and preparation of materials for counseling. Mr. GIBBONS. It is a small item in a $130 billion budget, but I just was wondering where we were going in this thing. I guess we are going to have to combine you two somewhere. PAGENO="0216" 210 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. Ross. We would be glad to do it any way that the committee might feel it is best. Mr. GIBBONS. It may be interesting. We can spend this money here and then compare your statistics, if you could get them compatible. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Hathaway? Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Dr. Ross, your shortage figures are based on certain teacher-student ratios. Are those yours or the States' or the communities', or whose? There would have to be a certain assumption that there should be one teacher for so many students. Mr. Ross. Mr. Swerdloff could answer that. Mr. SWERDLOFF. We first projected requirements on the basis that there wouldn't be any change at all in the teacher-pupil ratio. Then we *have alternate projections which assume changes in the trend in pupil- teacher ratios. Mr. Ross. These figures that we have in my statement are based on a small decrease in present teacher-student ratios. Mr. SWERDLOFF. If you read the statement, we said if you improve the ratios to an even more desirable level then you need even more teachers. Mr. Ross. I might, in connection with your question, sir, add a little bit. I would like to say a little bit about the Department of Labor's view on improving the situation of teaching among areas of poverty and disadvantaged. We think it is important to improve the situation there because there is a crippling out-migration of teachers from those schools even when the salaries are relatively high. With the aid to schools in poor districts available under legislation, progress is being made in making teaching in those schools more satisfactory as a professional assignment, hut in- tensified efforts are needed. We feel that one such effort is to reduce the size of the classes in these schools and to employ assistant teachers and teaching aides so that the teacher can give each child the attention needed for his individual progress. And less of the teacher's time would be spent in custodial and administrative activities and more in the individual coaching and in- dividual attention that these children need so much. So that in our view, the reduction in the size of classes is an im- portant need in many schools in areas of poverty and disadvantage. Mr. HATHAWAY. You have answered one aspect of my second ques- tion, but before I got to my second question, I wanted to find out a little bit more about those teacher-student ratios. You don't base it on any study of what an ideal ratio would be, do you? You just take what is empirically there and say that if they don't have teachers to come up with that ratio, then there is a shortage? Mr. Ross. Yes, sir. Mr. SWERDLOFF. There are statistics on the long-range trends in the ratios. Mr. BRADEMAS. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to observe that I was surprised and somewhat annoyed a couple of years ago in trying to get from the Office of Education some justification for their continued reduction of research projects aimed at trying to figure out what the happiest classroom size would be; that is, the teacher-pupil ratio. PAGENO="0217" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 211 It would seem on a commonsense judgment, at least to me, that this is a significant kind of research because it gives you some idea of what kind of classrooms you should be building. But they came up with all kinds of reasons why this was not a wise kind of research project to support. I only mention that because you gave an answer in response to Mr. Hathaway that suggested that you didn't have any justification for your answer either. Mr. HATHAWAY. Maybe he would specify such a research project. Getting back to the reasons that you may know why that even cities with relatively high salary levels still have a shortage of teachers in areas where they are most needed. Do you know the causes for the shortages in these other categories that you have set out on page 3? We are primarily interested in what we can do to relieve the teacher shortage. Mr. Ross. I don't think that I am prepared to answer that question very intelligently, Mr. Hathaway, because I am not an expert in prob- lems of educational administration. We would be glad to look into it now and give you a statement of our opinion as to the cause for these shortages, but I couldn't answer it offhand. Mr. HATHAWAY. When you made the survey, the survey didn't find out what the causes were? Mr. Ross. We are summarizing a survey made by the National Edu- cational Association. This was not our own survey. We would be glad to review that and other literature on the subject and give you a state- ment on it. Mr. HATHAWAY. I would appreciate it, very much. Mr. Ross. I will do so. (The information requested follows:) According to the special National Education Association survey of teacher supply and demand, the most frequently mentioned factors having an unusual influence upon staffing conditions as schools opened in the fall of 1966 were: (1) competition from Federal programs, e.g., Head Start, (2) greater opportunities in business and industry, (3) unattractive location of vacancies, (in ghetto schools, for example) and (4) military service. Mrs. GREEN. Let me ask you one question. You stated that there would be a need for 540,000 additional teachers by 1975. Then 2 million teachers in addition to that by 1975, because of the ones who retire or die or leave and so on. Mr. Ross. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. How do you arrive at the 2 million figure? Mr. Ross. Mr. Swerdloff, I think, will answer that. Mr. SWERDLOFF. In elementary and secondary schools, on the basis of several surveys, about 7 or 8 percent of the teachers leaving teaching* are not returning to teaching. I don't mean leave to go from one school system to another, but they don't return to the teaching profession the next year. Mrs. GREEN. You say 7 or 8 percent? Mr. SWEIWL0FF. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Is that nationwide? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes; it varies from place to place. Mrs. GREEN. Is that at all levels? Mr. SWERDLOFF. It is for elementary and secondary; it is less for colleges. PAGENO="0218" 212 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a breakdown for the 7 percent? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Excuse me? Mrs. GREEN. That is, why they leave. Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes, there were some reasons. I would be glad to summarize the study. It did have a breakdown. Many of these were women who stayed home for family responsibilities and who may return later on. Some of them move over to nonteaching jobs in the schools. Other people just move out of teaching into industry or busi- ness, but there is a breakdown and I would be happy to furnish it. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have also a breakdown of how many years they have been in the system before they leave? Do they leave after the first year? Mr. SWERDLOFF. I don't believe it was in that study, but I think there is some information on this. Mrs. GREEN. Could you get that for me? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes. (The information requested follows:) Major surveys of teacher turnover are conducted by both the Office of Educa- tion and the National Education Association. These surveys have both shown a turnover rate of roughly 8 percent for elementary-secondary school teachers in public schools in recent years. The replacement estimate represents an applica- tion of the 8 percent turnover rate separately to the estimated number of teachers employed each year at the elementary and secondary level. In the private schools, the percent leaving teaching has been estimated at about 4 percent (the lower per- centage reflects the large number of teachers who are members of religious orders teaching in parochial schools). College teachers are predominately male and the replacement rate is, there- fore, somewhat lower. Our estimates are based on a 6 percent replacement rate developed by the American Council of Education. The Office of Education turnover data reflect losses of public school teachers to the teaching profession. These are teachers who leave public school teaching positions, and do not accept another public school teaching position during the nex~t academic year. Losses to the teaching field reported in this survey include teachers who were (1) on leave of absence, (2) retired, (3) deceased, (4) dis- missed, (5) changed to a nonteaching job in the same school district, or (6) transferred to another occupation. The estimate, thus, is the number of teachers who were not classroom teachers in public schools in the following year. The survey does not indicate years of experience or age of the teachers lost to the profession. The following table provides a distribution of the total separa- tions by the various reasons given in the 1959-60 survey. Distribution of total separations from teaching [In thousands] 1959-1960 Total Men Women 1i'otal separations 116.2 27.2 89.0 On leave of absence 16.6 2.9 13.8 Retired 16.3 2.6 13.8 Deceased 3.1 1.1 2.1 Dismissed 24.4 10.5 13.9 Changed to a nonteaching job in the same district 6.0 3.6 2.4 Other separations (primarily women leaving the labor force for family responsibilities) 49.9 6.6 43.0 NOTE-Details do not add up to total due to rounding. Source; Office of Education, Teacher Turnover In Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1959-60. PAGENO="0219" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 213 Mrs. GREEN. In other words, you are saying that as of today about 140,000 of the elementary and secondary teachers leave each year, 7 percent of ~ million? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes; or 8 percent, it is 150,000 or 160,000. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have any way of knowing how many come back? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes; there are estimates. The survey included both new teachers and teachers who had taught before. There is an estimate of how many of these people are returnees. I don't remember offhand. But less than half as many come back as go out each year. But we could give that number, too. (The information requested follows:) According to the most recent Office of Education turnover survey, roughly 56,000 teachers returned to the classrooms in the fall of 195g. During that year 116,000 teachers left the field. Mrs. GREEN. All right, very good. Thank you, very much. Mr. BRADEMAS. I have one question on the matter of reentries, to use your phrase. Is there any trend one way or the other in this respect; that is, today is there a trend toward more people reentering the teaching profession or fewer? Mr. SWERDLOFF. With a much higher proportion of women with children going back to work, we get an increase in the proportions of teachers who dropped out for family responsibilities coming back into the labor force and coming back into teaching. Mr. BRADEMAS. Could you give us any hard information as to how that trend is moving so we will have some way of judging how signifi- cantitis? Mr. SWERILOFF. I could try, sir. (Noa'~.-No information on this trend was available.) Mrs. GREEN. How do you define teacher for the purposes of this paper? Mr. SWERDLOFF. I think in this case these are both the public and private schools. S Mrs. GI~N. Do you count counselors? Mr. SWERDLOFF. No. S Mr. Ross. They are the classroom instructors. Mrs. GREEN. These are classroom teachers only? Mr. Ross. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Do you include, any special teachers or counselors or librarians? S Mr. SWERDLOFF. Special teachers would be included, but not librar- ians or counselors. These are full-time teachers. S Mrs. GREEN. Are there other classifications of school personnel that are not included? Mr. Ross. We have mentioned the teachers and counselors. There are the school psychologists. We have librarians; I think there are real manpower problems in all of those fields. Mrs. GREEN. But outside of those, did you exclude any from your statistics on teachers? S Mr. Ross. Yes, the maintenance personnel. Mrs. GREEN. I mean personnel who are working with students. PAGENO="0220" 214 HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. SWERDLOFF. We have included all the instructional staff. Mrs. GREEN. Music teachers and all of those would be included? Mr. SWERDLOFF. Yes. (The information requested follows:) The estimate of teachers presently working is based on an Office of Education count that is produced in the fall of every school year. This count includes full-time teachers and the full-time equivalent of part-time teachers. The data includes teachers in public day schools, parochial Schools and other privately operated schools. It excludes teachers in vocational high schools not operated as part of the regular public school system and teachers in subcollegiate depart- ments of institutions of higher education and residential schools for exceptional children. The number counted represent classroom teachers only; as such, it excludes the following positions: principals, including assistant principals, consultants or supervisors of institutes, librarians, guidance personnel, psychological person- nel, and other nonsupervisory instructional personnel. At the college level, the Office of Education count of full-time teachers reflects faculty with the rank of instructor or above for resident instruction in degree credit courses, at both 2- and 4-year colleges. Excluded are staff for general administration, for student personnel services, for instruction in other than degree credit courses, extension staff, other faculty including instructional staff for courses by mail, radio and TV, short courses and individual lessons, pro- fessional library staff, research staff, and instruction staff for elementary or secondary instruction. The projections are based on full-time staff only, since the part~time staff are predominantly practitioners in other professional fields such as medicine, law, business administration, etc. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, very much. The next person is Mr. Walter G. Davis, the director of the Depart- ment of Education of the American Federation of Labor. Mr. Davis, welcome to the committee. You are accompanied by whom? Mr. DAVIS. Dr. John Sessions. Mrs. GREEN. Welcome, both of you. Mr. Ihvis. Dr. Sessions is on the staff of the Department of Educa- tion of the AFL-CIO. I might add he is also a member of the school board of the District of Columbia. A major responsibility of his with the AFL-CIO is he deals with the area of public education and higher education. We have a very brief statement and I would like to proceed with that and answer whatever questions you might have. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. STATEMENT OP WALTER G. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OP EDUCATION, AMERICAN PEDERATION OP LABOR AND CONGRESS OP INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. JOHN SESSIONS Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chairman, my name is Walter G. Davis. I am the director of the AFL-CIO Department of Education. On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am very happy to have this oppor- unity to discuss the Higher Education Amendments of 1967, H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265, and to give testimony to the significant benefits which have come to millions of American's college-age young people as a result of the efforts of this committee. Organized labor, of course, has consistently championed legislation designed to widen the opportunities for higher education which are available to the Nation's young people. PAGENO="0221" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 In recent years higher education has become a matter of increasingly important concern to members of the AFL-CIO. There was a time when it was the exception rather than the rule for the children of working class families to attend college. Today it is a common presumption among working people that their children need higher education. A recent sampling of the concerns of union members indicated that about 42 percent listed as their major concern a desire for their children to complete college. You may be sure that this percentage will grow even larger in the years to come. Yet the costs of higher education have increased so sharply that had there been no positive Federal action, most working people would find it an unmanageable burden to send their children on to college. In supporting legislation concerned with higher education, there- fore, the AFL-CIO is at one and the same time supporting a legisla- tive program which it believes is in the national interest and which is also very much in the enlightened self-interest of our own members. We are very proud of the part which we have played in helping to bring about the enactment of the legislation which is the subject of H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265; namely the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the National Defense Education Act. This committee has served the Nation well in its careful examination of the needs in higher education and in its shaping of legislation de- signed to meet those needs. Before turning to the specific provisions of the amendments which are presently before the committee, we would like to reiterate our very deep concern over the possibility that existing programs in higher education may be funded at considerably less than full authorization for fiscal 1968. This committee has spent countless hours studying the extent of actual need in higher education and the present authorizations reflect the committee's findings. If the Congress were to appropriate less than full authorization for the higher education programs which have now been adopted, it would be doing a serious injustice to the wisdom and vision of this committee and the entire Congress. Yet we note with apprehension that the requested appropriation for title III of the Higher Education Act, by way of illustration, is only $30 million or 55 percent of the present authorization. With `the great need for facilities in higher education, it is of urgent importance that existing institutions be strengthened to the limit of their ability. Many colleges which are inadequate to the demands of modern higher education-in terms of faculty standards, library facilities, and similar matters-can nevertheless `be `developed into valuable components of the national resources in higher education. Similarly, the requested appropriation for title I of the Higher Education Facilities Act is for only $338 million or 54 percent of the present $728 million authorization. This reduction in funds for the construction of facilities for junior colleges and technical institutes would be tragic. The money which would be eliminated would be suf- ficient to provide classroom space for more than 300,000 American young people. PAGENO="0222" 216 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 All in all, programs in the Higher Education Facilities Act and the Higher Education Act involving a total authorization of $1.449 biffion would, under the present request, be cut to $712 million or less than 50 percent of the present authorization. We realize that restoring these appropriations to the maximum au- thorization is beyond the power of this committee, but the AFL-CIO strongly recommends that this committee exert every possible influ- ence to encourage the House Appropriations Committee to provide Federal funding to the full authorization permitted. We turn now to the specific amendments included in H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. Essentially, these bills extend the provisions of the Higher Educa- tion Act of 1965 and the National Defense Education Act. We par- ticularly welcome the extension of the National Defense Education Act a year before it expires. By doing this Congress reduces the un- certainties which do violence to long range educational planning. The National Defense Education Act has immeasurably strength- ened American education from the earliest years through graduate school. The Higher Education Act has opened the gate to higher education for hundreds of thousands of young people who might otherwise have found those gates closed. Both of these measures deserve to be a permanent part of a Federal program for education. In short we support the extension of all programs covered in H.R. 6232 and HJL 6265, and we further support the funding of these pro- grams at maximum authorization. We particularly welcome the extension of the student aid programs which were established by the National Defense Education Act and by the Higher Education Act. The national defense student loan pro- gram has aided many thousands of young people in their efforts to obtain higher education. The forgiveness feature has had the added benefit of enceuraging many young people who might not otherwise have done so to enter the teaching profession. We welcome the provision in the present bills to extend this for- giveness feature to certain teachers other than those entering public school systems. The AFL-CIO has long supported the extension of the forgiveness feature to all those who become teachers in non- public, nonprofit schools. We would therefore urge an even more liberal broadening of the forgiveness feature than is included in the present bills. We welcome too the extension of the student loan msurance program begun under the Higher Education Act. We supported this program when it was before Congress because it seemed to us an excellent way to make a small Federal expenditure go a long way in facilitating stu- dent aid. This program has not worked as effectively as we had hoped that it would, in part because of the tightening of the money market. We have had reports from many parts of the country that large numbers of banks will not make loans on the ground that they can't make profit from it. Although we agree that the program should at least be extended, we hope that this committee will reexamine the program, particularly PAGENO="0223" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 217 with a view to making it easier for Federal credit unions and employee trust funds to participate in it. In the meanwhile, we feel that the na- tional defense student loan program remains as the most significant element in the student loan situation and we urge its continuation with maximum funding until the loan insurance program has fully demonstrated its workability. We welcome too the extension of the college work study program. This program is one of the most useful forms of student aid for young people from low income and minority families. These young people have usually been too educationally disadvantaged to come out well in the tight competition for scholarships and the level of their family in- come makes it difficult for them-and in most cases unwise for them- to obtain loans to pay for higher education. We are particularly disturbed that the proposed appropriation for this program is $60.1 million under the present authorization. If Congress were to cut funds for the work-study program, it would make higher education that much more difficult for low income students. Title VI of the present bills continues the National Defense Educa- tion Act program of support through provision of instructional ma- terials and equipment for elementary and secondary schools. This program, which began originally with a recognition of a spe- cial national interest in the teaching of science, mathematics and mod- ern foreign languages, has been broadened over the years to include a large number of subjects in which there is a similarly demonstrable national interest. The proposal in the present bills to do away with the subject limitations altogether is a realistic recognition that all learning is interrelated. It also recognizes that much teaching equipment can be used for many kinds of courses. A film projector, for example, acquired for a science program can be used equally well in all courses and it is only reasonable to free it for maximum use. Title V of the present bills would establish under the Higher Edu- cation Act a new program of education professions development. This program can play a significant part in assessing the extent of the Nastion's need for additional teachers and in recruiting young people into the teaching profession. We welcome this new program and be- lieve that it can contribute to an improvement in the supply and qual- ity of American teachers. We appreciate this opportunity to present the view of the AFL- ClO on the matters covered in the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. We again congratulate this committee on the energy and imagina- tion which it continues to devote to making a reality of the goal of a. system of education in which neither financial need nor lack of ade- quate facilities will ever deprive young people of continuing their education as far as they are able and as far as they desire. That completes our formal statement. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Davis. Let me start on page 4. You state the guaranteed loan makes it easier for Federal credit unions and employee trust funds to participate. How would you do that? What do you think is required? Mr. DAVIS. At the present time, the AFL-CIO Federal credit union has tried to work out a plan of its own so that it could be a part of PAGENO="0224" 218 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 a program of this kind. They have run into some difficulties with it. Before coming in here we tried to ascertain from them whether or not they had cleared this matter up or whether or not they could pro- vide us with some information for the committee. They indicated that they would not be able to at this time but that "we can in a few days tell you precisely what our proposal wouid'be in this area." I am sorry that we cannot be more precise than that. Mrs. GREEN. I was unaware of any problems. I thought the credit unions were participating to the maximum extent of the money they had. Mr. DAVIS. There is some conflict, I understand, between certain State laws. Mrs. GREEN. We would appreciate that additional information. (The information requested follows:) AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS, Washington, DXI., June 9, 1967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, u.g. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: We have devoted some time and effort over the past few weeks Investigating the matter of Federal credit union participation in the Title IV student loan program. Our objective was `to document that part of our testi- mony read into the record of hearings of the House Sub-Committee on Higher Education Amendments of 1967, which related to the difficulty encountered by Federal credit unions to make student-guaranteed loans in all the 50 states. We cited in our letter of May 10, 1967 the examples of the AFL-CIO Federal Oredit Union which services eligible union borrowers nationally and similar credit unions operated by the Federal government and servicing regional person- nel throughout the country. In `the above cited instances, we drew attention to the problem of the lack of uniformity at the state level in regard `to laws and regulations which pre- clude these credit unions from making loans in certain of the states. In the State of New Jersey, for example, only lending institutions whose prin- cipal offices are physically located in that state may participate. Federal credit unions with interstate memberships', headquartered in Washington, D.C. cannot provide this service to their members residing in Virginia. These are but some examples of our experience alt AFL-CIO. In exploring fur. ther, we find similar circumstances in those states listed below: California Michigan Pennsylvania Connecticut New Hampshire Rhode Island Illinois New Jersey Tennessee Indiana New York Vermont Louisiana Ohio Virginia Massachusetts Oklahoma Wisconsin Although it is true that Federal and state credit union's may make loans when located in the state of the loan applicant, we have learned that these institutions are generally small uni'ts and the 10% of assets limitation cuts deeply into potentially available resources. We agree with the restriction, but hasten to point out that the larger institution's which would provide these funds generally carry out-of-state members on their rolls as in the case of labor unions. In reviewing this matter with other Federal credit uiiion officials serving Fed- eral employees, we confirmed the fact that they too are precluded from participa- tion in the program. Federal credit unions must make loans available in a fair and equitable manner to their members. Therefore, any lending program which by state action provides restrictions from participation, in effect, bars all such institutions with a national membership. We, therefore, propose that `the `Sub-Committee give serious consideration to amending Part B, Sec. 421(a) (2) to read as follows: PAGENO="0225" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 219 "to provide a Federal program of student loan insurance for students or eligible lenders who do not have reasonable access to a state or private non-profit program of student loan insurance . . ." The above underlined language merely adds two words to the section. We offer this as a suggestion only. Of course, wherever appropriate changes are needed to put into effect this proposed change we would welcome it. I hope that our efforts in regard to this matter will be useful to the Committee. Sincerely yours, WALTER G. DAVIS, Director, Department of' Education. Mrs. GREEN. How would you liberalize the forgiveness feature? Mr. SEssIoNs. We have taken the position that we would like to see the forgiveness feature extended generally to people who go into teaching in nonpublic schools. Mrs. `GREEN. The forgiveness feature goes to `all teachers in public or private schools or from kindergarten through college? Mr. `SESSIoNS. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Beyond that, is there some other extension? Mr. SESSIONS. I think that is about as far as we `have suggested. Mr. DAVIS. That is now in effect. That is an error in our testimony. Mrs. GREEN. I just wondered if there was some other thing you were suggesting. Mr. SESSIONS. We have on occasion raised the question of whether this might be extended to librarians, for instance, who have somewhat ~similar problems to teachers, as the profession requires that they `have college training and the earnings are not `commensurate with the gen- eral level of earnings as many other professional college graduates. Mrs. GREEN. Do you mean librarians in schools? Mr. SESSIONS. Pttblic librarians. Mrs. GREEN. You say that the forgiveness feature has had the a'dded benefit of encouraging many young people who might not have other- wise have done so to enter the teaching profession. Have you `any evi- dence to support this? Mr. SESSIONS. I think we could provide it. I `don't have it on `hand. Mrs. GREEN. The Office of Education sent us a memorandum last year in which it said there was absolutely no indication that their forgiveness feature had attracted anybody into the teaching profession who would not otherwise have gone in. I think both we and the Office of Education might be interested in any evidence you might have. Mr. SESSIONS. I `will see if I can d'o better than they. Mrs. GREEN. On p'age 2 `and also a't the top of page 3, you talk about the amount, the small amount, of appropriations. In paragraph 1, you refer to the Congress. As a Mem'ber of Congress I am willing to take the blame where we are to blame. I must say I take exception to this. It seems to me~ that you might direct your lobbying and your in- fluence to the executive branch because it is the executive branch that is requesting only 50 percent and `52 percent `of the funds. As a member of this committee I have protested this. But the blame, if there be blame, seems to me to rest squarely there. Mr. DAVIS. I think that was our intent. Mrs. GREEN. Have you d'one anything in this matter or have you made any pleas or written any letters or done anything as far as influencing the executive branch to take another look at its requests for appropriations? 80-155----67-pt. i-15 PAGENO="0226" 220 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. DAVIS. We have been talking with the officials at the Office of Education about this. Mrs. GREEN. May I suggest it is beyond the Office of Education? Mr. DAVIS. This, I have learned, and we are getting some response from our people out around the country about this many of whom are involved at the State level and serve on advisory boards of some of the committees at the State level. We are at a point in time where there hasn't been any real action from them and what we are doing now is encouraging such action to bring to bear on the administration in its proposal here. Some programs have been planned and ready to begin only to find that there perhaps won't be enough or sufficient funds to handle them. This is the report that I get at least in the Department of Educa- tion of the AFL-~CIO. I plan to turn this material over to our legis- lative department as soon as I compile it all. I have asked the State federations to do this. Mrs. GREEN. On page 3, you urge us to extend the bills a year in advance and you say by doing this Congress reduces the uncertainties which do violence to long-range educationai planning. Suppose we extend the authorization for 5 years and the adminis- tration comes up and requests 25 or 50 percent of the funds. What have we done to provide any long-range planning? On the second part of the question, would it not be well to keep the legislation under the control of the Congress because if it is only partially funded the executive branch can completely change the priorities? Maybe we need to take a look at it every year, if it is a 50-percent funding and the administration decides that in this category it will ask for 12 percent as it did for instance for teachers fellowships. We just had the Department of Labor telling us there will be a need for 2 million new teachers. We had these fellowships for train- ing of the people at the elementary and secondary level. They are requesting 12 percent of the funds. As you indicated, the administra- tion is requesting less funds this year for construction facilities in higher education than it did in fiscal year 1967. Isn't this a reason that this committee ought to take a good look at it every year and if the priorities are being completely distorted, maybe we had better still exercise or try to exercise some control? Mr. DAVIS. I think I ought to mention this: That we have testified on these elementary and secondary school bills. We want to make it quite clear we are not pointing any fingers at the Congress on this at all. We think that the testimony being read in all circles of government and all parts of the executive branch, so that our view with respect to this is quite clear as to what we blame or who we blame, if you say there is any blame to that. It is certainly not the Congress. I hope that you don't interpret this to mean that. Mrs. GREEN. No; I am really trying to needle you to do something with one of the other supposedly coequal branches of the Government. Mr. DAVIS. We are quite aware of that. Mrs. GREEN. You still, though, have not answered my question. Don't we loose control when it is partially funded and your priori- ties are distorted over the original congressional intent? PAGENO="0227" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 221 Mr. SESSIONS. These are two uncertainties. One is will the bill be there, and the other is, will the money be there. I think this bill reduces some of the uncertainties, certainly not all of them. Mrs. GREEN. I don't think I make myself clear. Inside the bill there are various kinds of programs. If there is only partial funding the administration then, without any consideration of the Congress, cam. eliminate certain parts of the bill. Isn't this a reason for Congress to keep its eye on t.he authorization each year? Mr. SEssIoNs. I think the existence of the continuing program is an: important fact here. The other thing, we certainly are prepared to. give our help to obtain the full funding for the progi~ams that are. in existence. Mrs. GRr~N. Congressman Brademas? Mr. BRADEMAS. I only have one question, gentlemen. You have discussed the question of your concern with various Federal programs which provide aid for students to go to college. One of the suggestions that has been made touches on the bill passed the other day by the Senate, the amendment on tax credits. I would be interested in any comments you may have on this tax credit proposal, considering the fact that you have endorsed guar- anteed loans and the undergraduate loans and work study program. Mr. DAVIS. We did have a meeting recently with members of the staff of Senator Ribicoff in which this was discussed. Originally, we had come out against that suggestion. New information has been given to us and our office of research is now starting that to see whether or not this changes our views on this. I personally was partially persuaded having set up the meeting my- self, but I presented a memorandum to our research people with views set forth by the staff members of the Senator. I think however, if I were guess on this, I would think that we tend to look at it as a tax bill which perhaps would be helpful but we have our own notions about what the tax bill should look like and where it should apply. Our original notes dealt with who is going to be helped by this and we felt it was not going to help the people that we represent. That was one of the problems and of course some of the land grant college people advise us that this would raise tuition costs and a multi- plicity of problems that would result from this kind of tax relief. So all I can say at this time is that we are reviewing our position as a result of the last meeting held with Senator Ribicoff's staff. We don't have anything further than that. Mr. BRADEMAS. I would be very much interested in hearing from you when you decide to make public your views on this matter. Mr. DAvIs. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons? Mr. GIBBONS. I want to direct my questions to your colleague, Mr. Davis. You are also a school board member here in the District of Columbia? Mr. SESSIoNS. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. As one of your 535 city councilmen 1 day a month, I want to find out something about the school system. I read horrible PAGENO="0228" 222 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 things about it and I understand that you have double and triple sessions in your schools. Do you have anything to add to that? Mr. SESSIONS. We do not have any double and triple sessions at the present time. We have eliminated all of them during the last year in the District school system, largely by a small program of transporting children from overcrowded areas to some other areas where there are more available classroom spaces. We completely eliminated them for the present but our school system, as you know buildings are overcrowded and they are old. It is entirely conceivable that we will have to again have some classes on a split session next year. Mr. GIBBONS. How many years have you been on the school board? Mr. SESSIONS. This is my first year. Mr. GIBBONS. I was going to ask you the question whether you thought based upon your experience this was a good way to run the local school systems with a sort of absentee city council like we have here. Mr. SEssIoNs. It is a cumbersome system at best and Mrs. Green has a bill that would legislate me out of a job, I believe. Mrs. GREEN. And lie helped with this effort that you and I under- took last year, Congressman Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. Do you mean he is a sympathetic supporter? Mr. SEssIoNs. One of our difficulties is that the school board con- ceives the need for a new school but then has to take this to the District government to agree to this need that it has conceived. Then we go to Congress and get site and planning money. When we have that we come back with the final plans and get construction money. The result is that it tends to be 5 years after we have con- ceived the school before we begin breaking ground on it in terms of what has been happening in broadening education. Maybe a building is obsolete before we get started. Mr. GIBBONS. I wonder if sometime we couldn't have, particularly as far as this bill is concerned, Madam Chairman, a long session with our school board here. I say "our" because I am on the city council and really go into this because I think it has an important effect on the way we handle all of our business in the District. Mr. SEssioNs. We would be very happy to have that kind of ses- sion. A special problem relating to what we talked about this morn- ing, the teacher shortage, is very severe in Washington because Con- gress at its best is likely to get the budget passed in September and October and you know what it is to go out and try to hire teachers in October. They have all been hired. Perhaps there are ways we could work out something. Mr. GIBBONS. I will yield to the chairman. Mrs. GREEN. We already have started the arrangements for a day similar to the one we had in New York City to visit some of the schools and to talk about the teacher's professional needs. I-low many years ago did you start the idea of replacing Shaw? Mr. SEssioNs. Five years, I will agree is a hopeful estimate. Mrs. GREEN. I have been here since 1955 and there was discussion then. I was under the impression then that, was kind of an old idea in 1955. PAGENO="0229" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 223 He has no comment. Mr. SEssIoNs. I say five years is a very conservative estimate. Mr. GIBBONS. I have no further questions if we are going to go into this in detail. I certainly hope our committee will go into great detail bèf ore we get this bill out. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton? Mr. BURTON. There are two observations I would like to make. They are both with reference to the impact of our expenditures in Southeast Asia on all of these domestic programs. I think it only is right that all of those who feel that this war should be escalated and our financial commitment should be increased, it should be well understood that there is a limitation on Federal funds available. It is not an unexpected consequence of spending at the rate of $2 or $3 billion a month in Southeast Asia that some of our domestic programs are being curtailed. I share with you your concern that the requests and approval in the form of the authorization by the Congress for the coming fiscal year has been cut by the administration by more than 50 percent. The second observation I would like to make-and it is somewhat related-is that I had favored a long period in terms of years of au- thorization so that all affected local and State and Federal agencies could better plan their programs. But when we find the administration has selectively sought to fund some authorizations and some of the titles to a greater extent than others, we find as the authorizing committee we lose almost full con- trol over the policy. So the administration might decry that we do not give them longer authorizations, it is a consequence of their own acts that have converted a number of us who would have supported that into wanting to keep them on a short leash because we find out that in all too many areas they completely ignore the policies established by the Congress in their authorization bills. Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Hathaway? Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Davis. I am in entire agreement with you that this bill ought to be fully funded. You mention on page 1 that recent sampling indicates that 42 per- cent of the people interviewed listed as their major concern a desire for their children to complete college. How much additional training do you think is necessary beyond high school to fulfill most of the jobs that your people are involved in? Mr. DAVIS. The statement we make here about the 42 percent is really a reflection of a survey, a private poll, that we took just to give our headquarters staff enough information to dovelop realistic pro- grams. We wanted to be knowledgeable about the concerns of the member- ship of the AFL-CIO so in this year in February we did poll the country. It was a sampling of about 12 international unions. We didn't get in any real depth so that I can answer the c&uestion as result of the poll. But we did get some notion that this was listed as a major concern among several other items which were significant to us, because we had listed about eight or nine other items on our map and by far education came out in the age group 40 and above, as a major concern of our own membership. PAGENO="0230" 224 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. HATHAWAY. I realize you cover an awful lot of skills, but do YOU think that high school training today equips a person so that he can take `a training program in a factory and fulfill the needs that are required? Mr. DAVIS. I would say on that that it would depend on the in- dustry itself. It varies all over. Prior to taking on this assignment with the AFL-CIO I took leave from a previous assignment with the organization to work with the Equal Employment Opportunity Coin- mission at its beginning. There, I learned that if you took industry `by industry you found that the requirements depending upon the competition for training varied. You found that in some industries they wanted or they would prefer, `let us say, people who had a year or two in college as an entry level requirement to some of the training programs. In other industries you found that high school graduation was acceptable. Mr. HATHAWAY. What industries would require a year or two of college? Mr. DAVIS. In some `of the higher `skills, for example I know in the auto industry in the skilled trades for example if there were a num- ber of applicants with college backgrounds or at least a year in college that they would probably get more preference than those who did not have that. It was not a rigid requirement, that is the point I am trying to make, but there was always preference given to those who did have college. Mr. HATHAWAY. I understand that because of the shortage in skilled workers a plant which I visited in Detroit was using high school grad- uates to do all the molding that was done formerly by college grad- uated engineers. After completing a training course, these high school graduates were starting at up to $12,000 a year. What I am getting at, is `the additional education required or can we just take a high school graduate and put him into one of these train- ing programs and have him come up to the level that maybe previously required a college degree or a couple of years in college? Mr. DAVIS. I don't have the information to accurately answer that. Mr. `SESSIONS. I don't know if we have any statistics on hand. I Sus- pect that wh'at you are `suggesting is true in many cases, that employers have artificially raised standards, that there are more jobs that people with less education can do than might seem to be so. There are even jobs where illiteracy is an advantage. If y'ou have a secret installation it is a help if the guy that empties the waste `basket is illiterate. Bu't on the other hand I think it is quite clear that our own people or membership in the AFL-CIO is becoming more, `at least a large percentage of it, is a white-collar and professional membership. We have just `organized for the first time in the AFL-CIO a profes- sional workers `council comparable to the `building trades council. I think this reflects a growing professional level in the w'ork force. PAGENO="0231" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 225 Mrs. GREEN. I think the concern of this committee would be though how many applicants do have the ability to empty waste baskets com- pared to the ones who apply for the bookkeeping department. Mr. SEssIoNs. I am not suggesting this is `a solution to the problem of illiteracy. Mr. HATHAWAY. You haven't done any research or had occasion to determine just what beyond the high school is really necessary to ful- fill these needs, including possibly secondary, vocational school as well as college? It seems to me a lot of these skills could be learned in a short tram- ing program after high school. Mr. DAVIS. In another context we are concerning ourselves with the vocational education areas and we are now working with a group con- ducting a private study of vocational education in the junior high schools. We are hoping that we can make some contribution to that study to the extent that we can get people trained at the junior high and high school levels sufficiently so that they can be productive in voca- tional areas. Mr. HATHAWAY. We would be interested in seeing the study when it is completed. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Scheuer? Mr. SOHEUER. I am very much interested in the line of questioning that Congressman Hathaway started. It seems to me that there is an imbalance today between the job demands in this very sophisticated, automated, cy'bernated, computerized economy and the education we are giving under our free public education system, especially when you consider the fact you mentioned, that the firms generally require a little more. They generally require some amount of education that except `in wartime really isn't necessary to perform that job. I would like to ask you a question that involves the new math. You take our economy of a `half a century ago when it was a simple agrarian economy and when m'ost jobs didn't require much in the way of tech- nical skill: We `had a free public education system and I hope the chairman, who has forgotten more every day about this subject than I will ever know, will correct me if I'm wrong. I only said she forgets more every day than I ever know-'she doesn't forget much but I don't Imow very `much. But the state `of my knowledge is that we had a free public education system through high school at least `at the turn of the century and in many States a good deal before that, didn't we, Mrs. Chairman? Mrs. GREEN. Except for books and fees and other things that every- one had to supply for himself. Mr. SCHEIJER. If A is to B as C is to D, and if you take A, the degree of sophistication and learning and skills that we needed a half a cen- tury `ago and B is the public education through high school, and C, in the next equation, the last half of that equation, is the degree of capability and learning and sophisticated skills that a person needs to have a reasonably comfortable life today what would D be? What would the degree of public education be that would equip a young person to function as effectively in society today as a free public PAGENO="0232" 226 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 high school education equipped him to function in society half a cen- tury ago with the then much lower level of demands for sophisticated learning and knowledge and skills and capabilities? What would the comparable degree of public education be today? Mr. HATHAWAY. You mean P in the number of years, not in intensification. Mr. SOHEUER. Both. Mr. DAVIS. I cannot give you the precise number of years but I can say there is an element that relates to D and that would be this: That as in contrast to the situation a century ago, today a youngster needs to have a multiplicity of skills in order to assure himself of some securi- ty in terms of job opportunities, et cetera. Whereas, this wasn't true. We didn't have occupations wiped out or became obsolete by automation and new technology at the turn of the century as we have it today. So that as new concepts and new inventions are introduced and new methods of procedures for producing things in this country, I would say, one, they are coming about at a much more rapid rate than they have ever, and what might seem to be a lifetime occupation today might be out of business tomorrow. Therefore, whatever additional years of education one needs to keep pace with a minimum level, it seems to me it should go beyond the high school diploma. I would think that one could feel a little more comfort- able with 2 years of college. That is, a young person finding himself in that situation. Mr. SESSIONS. The skills in the work force these days are really fan- tastic and quite common. The pipefitters who work on the atomic sub- marines are held to an allowable seepage of one drop a year. George Meany was a plun~ber but I am sure he doesn't know any- thing about that kind of pipefitting. I worked as a machinist and we used to boast about working with tolerances of one hundred thou- sandths of an inch. Now there are Goverument contracts that have no allowable tolerance. I confess I don't know what kind of machining that is. Mr. SCHEUER. It is some kind of super race cast in the image of God but not a machinist. Mrs. GREEN. Would my colleague yield? There are two figures that seem to me to be pertinent to what you are saying. One is the statistic which we have been given many times that a successful businessman needs the equivalent of a new col- lege education every 10 years just to stay ahead of his competition and he is already a college graduate with a Ph. P. on top of that. The other is that every single person requires retraining three and a half to four times during his lifetime. So I don't know how you can ever measure the number of years. It seems to me that education of the individual is his flexibility and capacity to be retrained. Mr. Scnnmn. That in itself requires education-to get to the point where you have enough basic literacy in learning skills to go through a retraining program every decade or so. PAGENO="0233" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 227 Mrs. GREEN. I have sometimes seen sixth graders more flexible 7than Ph. D.'s. Mr. HATHAWAY. Will the gentleman yield? Wouldn't D and B be approximately the same if we had curriculum changes to keep up with the changes in the outside world such as dropping Latin and Greek and taking up something a little more practical, use the same amount of years to give the requisite amount of basic training, admitting that, of course, that retraining will be needed to keep up with the changes in technology after you got the job? Mr. DAVIS. I would like to yield to my colleague. Mr. SCHEUER. I would like to say as a former Latin and Greek stu- dent in college, I object vociferously to the question, but answer anyway. Mr. SESSIONS. I don't think Latin and Greek are the problem. I can't qualify as a Greek scholar but as a Latin scholar. This is not the problem. The people who are going into the work force are not handicapped by having spent too much time on Latin and Greek, I wouldn't think. What they need is a sequence of mathematics that so far I don't thmk we have been able to fit into 4 years. Mr. HATHAWAY. You didn't have to take the Latin and Greek. You could have taken the sequence of mathematics so that at the end of 12 years they would be prepared. Mr. SESSIONS. Speaking for our Washington schools I don't think particularly Latin and Greek are that commonly taught. Mr. GIBBONS. Can I get in the Latin and Greek discussion here? Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield? We could probably discuss the philosophy of education from now un- til Congress ends. We have representatives from the American Per- sonnel and Guidance Association and the Investment Bankers Asso- ciation of America. I am willing to abide by the majority vote here. Would you like to discuss the philosophy of education or hear from these people this morning before we adjourn? I am stating what the situation is. Mr. SCHETJTER. I yield. Mr. GIBBONS. I will yield. Mrs. GREEN. We will call these gentlemen back if we may. Thank you, Mr. Davis and Mr. Sessions. We will be talking with you, Mr. Sessions, and with the District of Columbia schools. The next witnesses are our representatives from the American Per- sonnel and Guidance Association, Dr. Gilbert P. Moore, Dr. H. Carroll Parish, of the American College Personnel Association, dean of finan- cial aids at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Dr. Willis E. Dugan, executive director of the American Personnel and Guid- ance Association. `Welcome, gentlemen. Will you proceed in the manner that you wish calling your attention to the time limitations and the possibility of a quorum call with which this committee is faced. We have your full statements which will be placed in the record. Would you want to read those or would you feel like summarizing and giving us a chance to question? PAGENO="0234" 228 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 19' 67 STATEMENTS OP DR. GILBERT D'. MOORE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE OP THE AMERICAN PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE ASSOCIATION; DR. H. CARROLL PARISH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON FINANCIAL AID OP THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION; AND DR. WILLIS E. DUGAN, EXECU- TIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE ASSOCI- ATION, REPRESENTED BY DYCKMAN W. VERMILYL Mr. VERMILYE. I, as a representative of Mr. Dugan, who has had to go to Pontiac, Mich., for a scheduled conference, simply want to explain my presence here as his assistant and I think I can let the statement that he has prepared and submitted to you stand unread by me. There is no need to take up our time with this. I would prefer to have the substance of the important matters discussed and spoken to by Dr. Moore and Dr. Parish. Mr. MOORE. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I think then that I shall not read the whole statement. But may I, with your indulgence, skip from one paragraph to another? The first few paragraphs indicate our past support of the work of this committee. We in this testimony are once again supporting the work of this committee. However, I would like to go on to the bottom of page 2 and read several of these paragraphs to emphasize the major points we would like to make. We are furthermore concerned about the continuing need for counseling spe- cialists in many levels and settings in American society. Many of the esteemed members of this committee are acutely aware of the intent of Congress in the establishment of training programs for counselors and personnel workers through the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and its subsequent amend- ments. Our association has, I repeat, consistently supported such legislation ~e- cause we felt that it was in the best interest of American education and Ameri- can youth. I would like to then skip ahead. I would also like to suggest that the need for counselors seems not to be diminishing at `all, but in fact is increasing. Various forms of social legislation passed by the Oongress has indicated the compelling need for improved counselling and guidance services. However, subsequent legislation to provide training for the counselors has not been forthcoming. Consequently, we find that counselors are sometimes leaving school settings to move into other counseling situations brought about ~y federal programs. If I may then, I would like to skip ahead to page 4 to some specific recommendations which we have relative to this legislation. I am quoting: We think it is very important that Section 532(b) be revised to specify "pupil and student personnel specialists such `as counselors, social workers, school psychologists and student personnel workers." Such specificity could come from adding a number nine after line seven on Page 61. Furthermore, we would like to support the testimony of Secretary Gardner and Commissioner Howe when they suggest that currently supported programs will not receive any less support under these amendments. In addition, we would like to see the same kind of specificity be accorded the broad field of College Student Personnel Work. This could be done by adding te PAGENO="0235" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 229 Section 541 (a) Line 16, Page 62, the phrase College Student Personnel Workers. We want to give as much help as possible to the Congress and the Office of Edu- cation. We would like to see in Section 532(c) reference to the advisability of involving professional organizations in the development of guidelines and for planning the implementation of training programs and projects. I think I will skip on then to a point raised by a member of the committee this morning. On the bottom of page 5- Finally, we would urge that this committee consider adding to the bill more support for evaluating proposed new practices as well as those which are firmly established. We recognize that the evaluation of human activities is not an easy task. However, we are convinced that the continued expenditure of federal and local funds on new programs has with it the obligation to evaluate that which is done. Therefore, we urge the addition of provisions for the evaluation of the various activities which are relevant under these amendments. Madam Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and I will leave the rest to the record. (The prepared statements of Dr. Dugan and Dr. Moore follow:) STATEMENT or Dn. WILLIS E. DUGAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN PERSONNEL & GUIDANCE AssoCIATIoN Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Willis E. Dugan, Executive Director of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. It is a privilege for me to appear before your Committee today to speak in support of the amendments to the Higher Education Bill. Presidents of our Association have appeared on other occasions before this Subcommittee to indicate the support which our Association has long given to proposed legislation aimed at improve- ment in our Nation's educational programs, from elementary through graduate study. I am accompanied today by several distinguished colleagues of mine. First is Dr. Gilbert Moore, Professor of Education at New York State University at Buffalo, who is Chairman of the Federal Relations Committee of our Association. Dr. Moore will speak directly to the proposals included in Title V of H.R. 6232, the Education Professions Development Section of the proposed amendments. I am also accompanied by Dr. H. Carroll Parish, Dean of Financial Aid at the University of California at Los Angeles, who serves as Chairman of the Com- mission on Financial Aid for the American College Personnel Association, a Division of our parent organization. In previous testimony before Congressional committees, the position of our Association in support of legislation in the financial aid area, and resolutions adopted by our Association, have been re- ported. Dr. Parish will present suggestions and recommendations concerning those sections of the proposed amendments under consideration which affect financial aids for college students. My few comments will be directed to the general higher education aspect of the legislation. I do not hesitate to have entered in the record the support which I feel free to relay from our Association for the entire Bill. The creative and dynamic leadership which has been evidenced by Congress in the develop- ment and passage of legislation, which has effectively opened the doors of higher education to hundreds of thousands of young men and women who would otherwise not have been able to take `advantage of this opportunity, has already had important impact on the health and strength of our Nation. The broad social pressures which encouraged this type of legislation in the past are not only still with us, but are increasing. The extent and nature of Federal support of programs designed to facilitate post high school education of American citizens is still in need of revision, innovation, and substantial support. Needed also are programs which will facilitate and encourage the entry of many more qualified men and women in the process of determining the most useful and satisfying educational and vocational careers possible for each individual. Commissioner Howe testified last week that over 600 NDEA Guidance and Counseling Institutes have been held since the Act was passed, and that approxi- mately 21,000 counselors have participated in these training programs. An addi- tional 1,200 individuals are expected to enroll in Institutes next summer and during 1967-68. And yet the critical need for trained guidance and counseling PAGENO="0236" 230 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 personnel continues. There is some indication that current Guidelines are actu- ally discouraging institutions from submitting proposals for additional Insti- tutes; care must be exercised to see that the legislation now before you encour- ages even more activity on the part of recognized graduate training programs for counselors and student personnel specialists. It might be noted that of 23,500 graduate fellowships supported under Title IV of NDEA, only 27% (or approxi- mately 6,000) were in the area of the social sciences. And of this number, the total fellowship support for individuals entering the guidance and counseling profession is minimal: there are only five such programs in 193 institutions which will receive support in 1967-68. Approximately 5% of the support for the Teacher Fellowship Program under Title V(c) of the Higher Education Act will be used to support Guidance and Counseling Fellowships. The need for guidance and counseling personnel is not only still acute, but increasingly acute. Our colleges and universities which have training programs for counselors need support and assistance. Although the college housing loan program is not a part of the legislation be- fore you, I cannot help but echo the concern expressed by President Mason Gross of Rutgers, testifying last week for the American Council on Education, con- cerning the proposal in Title X of the Bill to adjust the interest rate for loans made under Title III of the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. An identi- cal proposal is included in the Administration's bill for college housing loans. We feel that the provision of housing on college campuses is still critically short, and are unable to support any proposal that would affect interest rates on loans for the construction of educational facilities that would then be used as a ra- tionale for adjusting the interest rate on loans for college housing. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee together with my colleagues, and to speak to you about the support and the concerns we have for the legislation now being considered. Thank you very much. STATEMENT OF DR. GILBERT D. MOORE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE OF ~HE AMERICAN PERSONNEL & GUmANCE ASSOCIATION Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Gilbert D. Moore. I am Professor of Education at the State University of New York at Buffalo, New York. I am speaking today on behalf of the Federal Relations Com- mittee of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. More descriptive information about the Association has been given to you by our Executive Direc- tor, Dr. Willis Dugan. I, too, join with Dr. Dugan in thanking you for the oppor- tunity of presenting our Association viewpoints. There are several specific points which reflect the concerns and positions of our committee and Association. First, we should like to point out that the American Personnel and Guidance Association has consistently supported the wide variety of federally sponsored education bills, more specifically, the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and its subsequent amendments; the Vocational Education Act of 1963; and its later amendments and the International Education Act of 1966. Examination of prior testimony will reveal that the Association has consistently supported efforts which were in the best interest of American education. At the present time we would like to indicate our support of the amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1964. However, we think it is very important that a number of serious questions be raised with the committee with the hope that the legislation can be amended. We recognize that giving to the Commissioner of Education the responsibility for determining manpower needs in education is an historic and major step. We do not necessarily take issue with this new move but we do feel it is very impor- tant for the Commissioner of Education to work closely with state departments of education and the professional organizations who are deeply concerned about educational manpower. Our professional organization is in close touch with its membership and the needs of children and youth whom they serve. We are equally aware of the critical and continuing shortage of counseling manpower at all levels. Although we do not have data collecting facilities we are able through our state branches, and university training programs to be of assistance to the Commissioner in determining manpower needs in our own field. We are also confident that other associations would be able to provide similar assistance. We are furthermore concerned about the continuing need for counseling spe- cialists in many levels and settings in American society. Many of the esteemed PAGENO="0237" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 231 members of this committee are acutely aware of the intent of Congress in the establishment of training programs for counselors and personnel workers through the National Defense Education Act of 1958' and its subsequent amend- ments. Our Association has, I repeat, consistently supported such legislation because we felt that it was in the best interest of American education and American youth. As we survey the scene today, we find that the work of NDEA has succeeded in preparing at the graduate level, many more counselors for American schools, colleges, and agencies than ever before. Indeed, the record will show that approximately 21,000 counselors have been prepared or their education extended through Title V-B of NDEA~ It is with pride that we recog- nize the role `of this committee, the Congress, and our Association in this develop- ment. However, I should like to point out that there is still considerable need for support in our field. I would also like to suggest that the need for counselors seems not to be diminishing at all, but in fact is increasing. Various forms of social legislation passed by the Congress have indicated the compelling need for improved counseling and guidance services. However, subsequent legislation to provide training for `the counselors has not been forthcoming. Consequently, we find that counselors are sometimes leaving school settings to move into other counseling situations brought about by federal programs. We would like to see the continued support of the preparation of counselors not only for schools and colleges but for all the various social agencies included in past and projected social legislation. We think it is very important that section 532(b) be revised to specify "pupil and student personnel specialists such as counselors, social workers, school psychologists and student personnel workers." Such specificity could come from adding a number nine after line seven on page 61. Furthermore, we would like to support the testimony of Secretary Gardner and Commissioner Howe when they suggest that currently supported programs will not receive any less support under these amendments. In addition, we would like to see the same kind of specificity be accorded the broad field of College Student Personnel Work. This could be done by adding to section 541 (a) line 16, page 62 the phrase College Student Personnel Workers. We want to give as much help as possible to the Congress and the Office of Education. We would like to see in section 532 (c) reference to the advisability c~ involving professional organizations in the development of guidelines and for planning the implementation of training programs and projects~ The `third area of concern we have is related to the language dealing with train- ing programs themselves. We laud efforts of the Congress at providing funds for experimentation and for making training programs more flexible and for opening new sources of educational activity. However, we are obliged to poin't out that constant change need not by definition mean continued improvement. Our Asso- ciation is committed to graduate training programs for counselors in schools and other agencies. We are more than anxious to participate in a wide variety of efforts at increasing the effectiveness of training. However, we are somewhat fearful tha't the wording of the present bill is such as to indica'te a de-emphasis of graduate education for counselors and an increased reliance on short-term, non-supervised activities. We think it is imperative that the education of pro- fessional educators be pursued with diligence and academic enthusiasm. There- fore, we ask this committee to consider alteration of `the wording of the bill to in- sure that at least a substantial proportion of the training institutes be managed by es'tablished counselor education programs. We in no way wish to limit the development of new programs nor experimentation with the preparation of counselors, but we do insist `that practices developed over the past decades do have relevance and do have in them the ability to effectively prepare counselors for a variety of settings. Finally, we would urge that `this committee consider adding to the bill more support for evaluating proposed new practices as well as those which are firmly established. We recognize that the evaluation of human activities' is not an easy task. However, we are convinced that `the continued expenditure of federal and local funds on new programs has with it the obligation to evaluate that which is done. We therefore urge the addition of provisions for the evaluation of the various activities which are relevant under these amendments. On behalf of the Association and the Federal Relations Committee I thank you for the opportunity of presenting these viewpoints to you. We continue to offer our services in any way possible toward the more effective education of Ameri- can you'th. PAGENO="0238" 232 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. Dr. Parish, may we hear from you? Dr. PARISH. I will try to follow the same procedure, if I may, Madam Chairman and Members of the subcommittee, and go to page 3 on my particular testimony. At the top we mention, in particular in light of the testimony we had earlier- Section 452 provides for further extension of the cancellation provisions for loans made under this program. In principle the Association opposes extensions of the cancellation provisions especially as it is extended to more and more fields. As the American Council on Education has pointed out in its policy statement, the cancellation provisions "may well be undermining the whole concept of a loan as something that should be repaid. It unduly complicates the problems of those responsible for collection." Along with the American Council on Education, we urge that "Congress give serious consideration to eliminating existing forgiveness programs and move instead toward larger grant programs open to needy students regardless of the fields they wish to enter." The second point, on the same page- The program of greatest value to youths from disadvantaged backgrounds is that which provides them the opportunity of obtaining meaningful work experi- ence which, in their cases, may be equally as important as their educational attainments. Proper employment of the Federal College Work-Study Program also culti- vates a sense of pride in achievement among these youths and is vital to students whose cultural mores prohibit borrowing. These amendments provide that the Federal support formula for this program be changed from the present 90 percent to 10 percent to 80 percent to 20 percent rather than 75 percent to 25 percent as originally scheduled. Again, we join with the American Council on Education in recommending that the present 90 percent to 10 percent ratio be retained. I will skip then to- An amendment to Section 124(d) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1904 should be included in these amendments to permit graduate students to work twenty hours a week rather than the stated fifteen and to allow the fifteen hours a week for undergraduates to be averaged out over the month. This would allow employment on the Work-Study Program to conform to college employment for other graduate students and permit undergraduates, particularly those under the quarter system, to schedule free time before examinations. I will skip then to the bottom of page 4- Section 402(a) provides that Educational Opportunity Grants can be matched by earnings from the Work-Study Program. This is desirable. However, in addition, such grants should be able to be matched by any other financial resources such as private employment arranged by the institution. The college should be required to insure that these grants are matched at the re- quired percentage and that the student will be assured of the resources to com- plete his undergraduate education. On page 5 at the top of the page- In view of the need for remedial education among youths from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is recommended that Section 403 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended to permit the renewal of their grants for a fifth year in cases where remedial studies or special tutorial assistance may be required. In addition, grants to students enrolled in regular five-year undergraduate pro- grams, such as the education curriculum leading to the elementary or secondary teaching credential, should also be renewable. Skipping to the third paragraph on that page- In the same Act, Congress provided for an interest snbsidy for students from moderate income families which made these loans almost comparable to na- PAGENO="0239" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 233 tional defense loans. It is suggested that the 6 percent interest rate is a subsidy in itself and it is recommended that the additional interest subsidy be canceled. The funds thus saved might well be used to provide additional loan insurance and thereby provide a substantial increase in the amount of guarantee funds. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, that concludes, I think, the most significant portions of our testimony in this matter. (The prepared statement of Dr. Parish follows:) STATEMENT OF DR. H. OARROLL PARIsH, CHAIRMAN, CoMMISSIoN ON FINANCIAL AID OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is H. Carroll Parish. I am Dean of Financial Aids at the University of California, Los Angeles. I am appearing today as Chairman of the Commission on Financial Aid of the American College Personnel Association, a division of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, to present testimony on behalf of the Association. The American College Personnel Association includes in its membership more than 6,000 professional student personnel workers at the university and college level. ACPA's Commission on Financial Aid, which until recently has operated under the able leadership of Dr. Robert P. Huff of Stanford University, includes both experienced student aid administrators from institutions of higher education in every part of the nation and leading representatives from private and public agencies with major programs involving the student aid field. The opportunity to present the Association's views on H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265, cited as the "Higher Education Amendments of 1967," is deeply appreciated. My comments will be limited to the financial aid provisions of the Amendments contained in Title IV although I am prepared to answer your questions on related matters not contained in this title. The Association has strongly supported student aid provisions of Federal legis- lation, the passage of which has enabled an increasing number of college capable youths to obtain a higher education which otherwise might well have been denied them. Originally restricted to making loans available to students with a "superior" academic background," programs inaugurated under recent legislation have pro- vided several kinds of aid to make college education available to academically qualified youths from the environmentally disadvantaged segment of the popu- lation. In fact, the Higher Education Act of 1905 in Section 408 requires that "qualified youths of exceptional financial need" be encouraged to continue their education beyond secondary school. Institutions participating in these programs are ex- pected to make conditional commitments of financial assistance to high school students in the eleventh grade and below. If such promises are to be honored, legislative action is required. H.R. 6232 and HR. 6265 contain some important changes which we support. There are other provisions of these bills about which we are somewhat concerned. There are, also, some important changes which we would like to see inéorporated in these Amendments. We favor the authorization to extend all programs on a five year basis as pro- vided in Section 401(a). Institutional commitments to students can thus be made with more assurance. The National Defense Student Loan Program is aimed at assisting students from low income families and those with exceptional financial need. It should be funded in amounts necessary to take care of the increasing numbers of students entering higher education. The amount set forth in Section 451 (a) is favored. Section 452 provides for further extension of the cancellation pro- visions for loans made under this program. In principle the Association opposes extensions of the cancellation provisions especially as it is extended to more and more fields. As the American Council on Education has pointed out in its policy statement, the cancellation provisions "may well be undermining the whole concept of a loan as something that should be repaid. It unduly com- plicates the problems of those responsible for collection." Along with the American Council on Education, we urge that "Congress give serious consideration to eliminating existing forgiveness programs and move instead toward larger grant programs open to needy students regardless of the fields they wish to enter." The program of greatest value to youths from disadvantaged backgrounds is that which provides them the opportunity of obtaining meaningful work ox- PAGENO="0240" 234 HIGHER EDUCATiON AMENDMENTS OF 19 ti 7 perience which, in their cases, may be equally as important as their educational attainments. Proper employment of the Federal College Work-Study Program also cultivates a sense of pride in achievement among these youths and is vital to students whose cultural mores prohibit borrowing. These Amendments provide that the Federal support formula for this program be changed from the present 90%-10% to 80%-20% rather than 75%-25% as originally scheduled. Again, we join with the American Council on Education in recommending that the present 90%-10% ratio be retained. In any case, this latter ratio should be continued for those community projects which otherwise might of necessity be terminated. Whatever the decision, it is urgent that the Congress act before August 20 when the original ratio change is scheduled to take effect. An amendment to Section 124(d) of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1904 should be included in these Amendments to permit graduate students to work twenty hours a week rather than the stated fifteen and to allow the fifteen hours a week for undergraduates to be averaged out over the month. This would allow employment on the Work-Study Program to conform to college employment for other graduate students and permit undergraduates, particularly those under the quarter system, to schedule free time before examinations. Since the 5% allowance for the cost of administering off-campus projects is. wholly inadequate, allowance should be made for at least a part of the admin- istrative costs of the total program. A cost study should be undertaken similar- to the one employed for the National Defense Student Loan Program. The Federal Government should be expected to assume its fair share of the ad- ministrative costs of the total program as determined by an advisory committee which would have the benefit of information gathered through the study. Section 402(a) provides that Educational Opportunity Grants can be matched by earnings from the Work-Study Program. This is desirable. However, in addi- tion, such grants should be able to be matched by any other financial resources~ such as private employment arranged by the institution. The college should be required to insure that these grants are matched at the required percentage and that the student wifi be assured of the resources to complete his undergraduate education. In view of the need for remedial education among youths from disadvantaged backgrounds, it is recommended that Section 403 of the Higher Education Act of 1905 be amended to permit the renewal of their grants for a fifth year in~ cases where remedial studies or special tutorial assistance may be required. In addition, grants to students enrolled in regular five-year undergraduate pro~ grams, such as the education curriculum leading to the elementary or secondary teaching credential, should also be renewable. The Student Loan Insurance Program was intended to make loans available- from the private sector to students from all income levels. States and non-profit corporations were encouraged to provide funds to guarantee such loans. Au appropriation for reserve funds to make such guarantees was approved but the amount was insufficient to meet anticipated demands. In the same Act, Congress provided for an interest subsidy for students from moderate income families which made these loans almost comparable to Na- tional Defense loans. It is suggested that the 6% interest rate is a subsidy in itself and it is recommended that the additional interest subsidy be cancelled. The funds thus saved might well be used to provide additional loan insurance and thereby provide a substantial increase in the amount of guarantee funds. It is also recommended that commercial lenders be permitted to compute* interest on these loans in any manner they desire, including the discount (add- on) method. The invitation to set forth our views is very much appreciated. The Association wishes to compliment you, Madame Chairman, and the Committee for the in-~ depth attention that you have given these problems and for the substantial progress that has been made in educational legislation under your guidance.. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Parish. Congress Brademas t? Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have just one or two quick questions. One question concerns the last suggestion you made on page 5 of your statement where you are suggesting that the additional interests subsidy be canceled. Have' PAGENO="0241" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 235 you any analysis that would support the proposal that the program would be successful if such an interest subsidy were canceled? Mr. PARISH. Since the purpose, according to many people, of this program is to take care of moderate and upper income groups mamly, we feel- Mr. BRADEMAS. I don't think that is accurate. I think the moderate or middle income is accurate, but I don't think it has been defended in here as an upper income. Go ahead. Mr. P~nIsH. Let us say that it has been used in some places for upper income people. Since it is intended for the moderate income group, we consider, those of us who work in the field, that a 6 percent guaranteed interest rate is a subsidy and that it can be well afforded considering the pay- back provisions of this act. We feel that the job has not been done under the program mainly because there isn't enough Federal insurance money provided so that it can be extended to all the moderate income groups and it has been used also in the low income group but although bankers are not too eager to help that group, certainly the moderate income group, the low interest loans, 6 percent, is we feel a very, very nice subsidy. Mr. SCHEUER. Will my colleague yield? In the field of housing, we give moderate income groups Government loans at 31-/s percent to 3% percent interest. Six-percent interest is the going bank rate. A person may not be able to get a 6-percent loan hut if he can get a loan from a bank at all, he is not going to pay more than 6 percent. I don't see any subsidy involved there at all except that you are making a loan at any interest rate available to him. If we can make it available for housing a moderate income person-and I am not talking about public housing, but a moderate income person above the public housing income level-and we give him a direct loan for 40 years at 31/s percent interest, why do we have to charge him 6 percent for an educational purpose which is just as important if not more important than his shelter? Mr. P~u~IsH. Let me say this: That the going rate for borrowing money for educational loans is of course even as stated at 6 percent has been twice that and much more. In fact, the loan companies that do involve themselves in this program may charge as much as 2&~ per- cent interest. It doesn't appear that way, but this is what actually hap- pens if you really get the true rate of interest. Mr. BRADEMAS. Are you endorsing the truth in lending? Mr. PARISH. I think it would be very helpful speaking personally. But we feel that if you actually get a simple interest rate with the payback terms with this particular loan, it is a tremendous thing. All of us in the moderate income group, and again I speak personally, as well as for the committee, would be very happy with this if we can use the money that is not now being made available in our State particularly. Certainly we had about $61/2 million last year and we restricted be- cause we knew we wouldn't have enough money, and, therefore, did not make it available to all the people it was intended to be made available to. 80-155-67-pt. 1-i6 PAGENO="0242" 236 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 If we had that money by taking away the interest subsidy, we would be very happy. If you can provide both, if the Congress can provide both, perhaps we would not argue that way. Mr. BRADEMAS. You make no distinction, I take it, between the lan- guage of the act which does make a distinction `between the student borrower whose family adjusted income is $15,000 and the student whose family adjusted income is more than that. Mr. PARISH. ~IFhe $15,000 of course is modified as you know. It can go up to $20,000 with the particular amendments that were included. But the question is there that we are not making any money in California available to those above the $15,000 in just the education field because we haven't got that much money. We have restricted it. But if you take the number of students involved, if you take the total number of students involved, you will find most of them fit into, or say 85 percent would fit in the amounts below the adjusted $15,000, so actually we are talking about the largest number in that group but we cannot provide enough funds to take care of that particular group ut the present time. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you. `Mrs. GREEN. `Congressman Hathaway? Mr. HATHAWAY. I `wonder if you could give me your thoughts on the tax credit proposal? `Mr. PARISH. I h'ave to give them to you as the Commission itself felt because we cannot speak for the association on this particular matter. The Commission on financial aid opposes tax credits. We feel it will help only those with highest incomes `and, therefore, we have taken action for that purpose `to oppose it. `Mr. HATHAWAY. Don't you think t'he tax credit proposal in conjunc- tion with a good loan program for those of low incomes would be an ideal situation? Mr. PARISH. I think my own personal feeling is that the loss to the Treasury of this amount of money would make it `almost impossible to properly fund the proper kind of loan program and the proper kind of other programs. I think the loan program used to be the most important but today I think college work-study and others have supplanted the loan pro- gram as being the most effective. Mr. HATHAWAY. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Are you speaking from the effect on the Treasury? Is this why you oppose the tax credit? Mr. PARISH. Yes, this is the main reason. Mrs. `GREEN. Do you oppose the `tax incentive for businessmen `that would cost $2.2 `billion this year? Mr. PARISH. That is not within our competence. Mrs. GREEN. It is kind of a tax reduction to the Treasury. Is it less important to make arrangements for students to go to college than to get the tax incentive for businessmen? Mr. PARISH. I wish I could speak to that point, but I feel that tax credit could be `a very worthwhile thing if we have enough money `to fund `all of these programs properly. Mrs. GunEN. On your guaranteed loan, you make your plea here in regard to the 6 percent subsidy in the cancellation. I judge on that basis you want the money to go further? PAGENO="0243" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 237 Mr. PARISH. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. At the top of page 5 on the opportunity grants, you make the plea that they be extended for the fifth year. Mr. PARISH. That is correct. Mrs. GREEN. Wouldn't the argument also hold there that if we had given a student 4 years opportunity and had given you the right grants and since we only have partial funding anyhow that that ought to be enough and then make the additional funds available to others for the first year? We don't have enough opportunity money in this or everyone. Mr. PARISH. This is true, but we feel here that the people that we have aimed this at, the people we are trying to recruit under your section 408 of the Higher Education Act are of a certain level that need this remedial assistance and, therefore, most of them have not been getting through or will not be able to get through although this hasn't run that 4-year period yet. We feel that from the present studies that we have made what has happened to this first group that they will not be able to get through in 4 years. Therefore, they are in the category of the background of the eco- nomics that at least four and a half or five years may be required in almost every case. Mrs. GREEN. If I understand it, your justification is that we have given him an economic opportunity grant for 4 years, and he is closer to being a productive member of society. Therefore, do you say, we should choose to give him the fifth year rather than help another student who may not be able to go to college for the first year if we do not help? Mr. PARISH. This is very hard to say, looking at it right here at this table, but I would say that the question, and we do in many cases give more money to less people in scholarship programs because we feel that it is better to do a good job with a certain person rather than just spread it very thin and not do a very good job with a lot of people. In our scholarship award at my university certainly we often make the scholarship award a little larger for the person we really want to take care of. It is a matter of philosophy and is widely debated. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, very much. Our next group of representatives are from the Investment Bank- ers Association of America, Frank Carr, president of John Nuveen & Co., Chicago, Ill., Noble L. Biddinger, president, City Securities Corp., Indianapolis, md., accompanied by Alvin V. Shoemaker, mu- nicipal director, IBAA. STATEMENTS OF FRANK CARR, PRESIDENT OF JOHN NUVEEN & CO., CHICAGO, ILL, ACCOMPANIED BY NOBLE L. BIDDINGER, PRESIDENT, CITY SECURITIES CORP., INDIANAPOLIS, IND.; AND ALVIN V. SHOEMAKER, MUNICIPAL DIRECTOR, IBAA Mrs. GREEN. Welcome, gentlemen, and would you proceed. We have your statements which will be made a part of the record at this point. If you could summarize your statement and hit the highspots, I understand that you are particularly concerned about the interest rate ~of the loans. (Statements follow:) PAGENO="0244" 238 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANK CARE, PRESIDENT, JOHN NUVEEN & Co., CHIcAGo, ILL. My name i~s Frank Carr; I am an investment banker from Chicago, Illinois;: I am here representing the 700 member firms of the Investment Bankers Associa- tion of America. On my left is Mr. Alvin V. Shoemaker, 1\Iunicipal Director, In- vestment Bankers Association of America, Washington, D.C. I am President of John Nuveen & Co., the Nation's oldest and most active firm specializing in State and Municipal Bonds. The firm was founded in 1898 and underwrites more new bond issues of colleges and universities than any other investment banking firm. As noted in my printed statement, the IBA supports a strong and financially sound national system of higher education. Probably no industry depends more on the Nation's colleges and universities for preparing people for it than the investment banking industry. So I am here to talk about students, not dollars. The IBA believes that a more effective and useful program of Federal loan aid to the Nation's colleges and universities, as far as the individual student is~ concerned, would result from a flexible rate of interest on Federal loans related to the cost of money to the Government, rather than a fixed sub-market interest rate of 3%. I am not going to read my statement; however, I will comment upon it and request that it be put into the record, along with this supplementary statement which will be furnished to you within the next few days. The essence of the IBA position is that a 3% fixed interest rate on Federal college loans is inefficient and negative, rather than positive, in its effect. A flexible rate of interest, related to the Government's cost of long-term funds,~ would overcome this problem. The IBA position is very close to that of the Administration, as recommended by the Departments of Health, Education, and Welfare and Housing and Urban Development, the Treasury Department and the Bureau of the Budget. The IBA feels the fixed 3% Federal loan rate is inefficient and negative in its effect for the following reasons: First, a 3% interest rate is usually below the interest rate obtainable in the private market. This forces "cash-short" colleges and universities (which is- practically all of them) to try to do their borrowing from the Federal Government to save interest charges (or face the alternative of explaining to their trustees, contributors, or legislators why they don't take advantage of "low-cost Federal money"). This includes many large public universities which enjoy excellent credit ratings and are able to borrow in the private market on favorable terms (lower- in cost than at which the Government can borrow long-term funds). The demand for Federal loans accordingly far exceec~s the amounts available therefore. a. Many urgently needed college facilities are therefore delayed while- awaiting Federal financing. b. Smaller private schools are sometimes forced into the private market for financing an emergency project at an interest cost penalty substantially in excess of the saving realized by a larger public institution in its utiliza-- tion of Federal loan funds. Third, the private market for college loans, which is capable of at least absorb-- ing practically all the requirements of the public schools on favorable terms, is not fully exploited. And finally, it is self-defeating because: a. It in effect discriminates against the schoo~s which most need Federal. loans (because the private schools don't have the alternative of the non- Federal market when all appropriated Federal funds are loaned). b. To benefit one student with a minor monetary saving, facilities required to accommodate other students are deferred and delayed. The proposal to allow a reduction in the Federal loan interest rate by 1% below the Government's average long4erm interest rate, as contemplated by the Admin-- istration's amendment, should be reduced to not more than 1/~ %-a 1% reduction will continue to force much of this financing into the Government. It was brought home to me this past week that it is the individual student with whom we must be concerned in assessing the merit of Federal loan aid proposals for colleges and universities. So I asked one of our Chicago IBA members who is. PAGENO="0245" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 239 ~a specialist on college financing to explore the benefits of the 3% fixed interest ~rate proposal as far as the individual student is concerned. A. John Kennedy of White, Welde & Co. reported: 1. Using the example of a $4 million college bond issue, lease rentals, taxes, tuition or general income, payable from student fees, amortized over a 40- year period, issued by a state university with a student body of 15,000, a differential of 1% in interest rate on the issue (4% vs. 3%) would be equiv- alent to less than $2 per student per academic year. 2. If all the bonded debt of the University of Illinois, some $71 million in amount, was refinanced from a theoretical average interest rate of 4% to the Federal loan rate of 3% and amortized over a 40-year period, the saving that would be realized by each of the estimated 29,725 students who will enroll in the fall of 1967 would amount to less than $14 for a school year, less than 400 a week for a 36-week academic year. Individual student savings amounting to a few cents per week do not seem significant considering: The relative insignificance of this saving in relation to the estimated gross cost of schooling at a top private college of $3,000 to $4,000 per year, or even in relation to the estimated $1,500 to $2,500 annual cost of attending one of the large state universities. That in order to effect such a saving, facilities to accommodate other stu- dents are postponed and delayed. The Federal program is presumably designed to benefit all students in all respects, not just certain students and only from a financial standpoint. The postponement of significant improvements in facilities (such as libraries, classrooms and laboratories) may result in an impairment in the academic dividends that could be realized by a student as a result of their availability. increases in the costs of construction and in the purchase of materials and furnishings during the delay in perfecting a Federal loan is almost sure to outweigh the savings to be realized from a 3% sub-market interest rate, considering that construction costs have historically increased over a long period at an annual rate of 3% on average. The IRA concurs with the American Council on Education and others who report that it is time to examine the entire Federal program of a:id to the Na- tion's colleges and universities. The financial health of these important educa- tional and research institutions is fundamental to the national welfare; progress in expanding and improving their facilities and programs adequately to serve the national fnterest requires periodic examination. The IBA will be glad to cooperate in such an investigation to find the most efficient basis for long-term financing of college buildings and facilities. If at all possible, this should be done prior to the convening of the next Congress. In the meantime, however, the IBA agrees with the Administration that the abandonment of the 3% fixed interest rate on Federal college loans, in favor of a flexible rate tied closely to the Government's cost of borrowing long-term funds, will be to the greatest advantage of the individual college student. This will maximize the participation of the private market in the financing of pubic college faclities, will relieve the Treasury from the burden of this financing, will result in savings to college students and will expedite the construction of the multitude of college and university projects that otherwise will get tied up in the Federal loan program, to the disadvantage of the students who need these facilities. STATEMENT BY THE INVESTMENT BANKERS AssoCIATIoN OF AMEItICDA I am Frank Oarr, President of ,Tohn Nuveen & Co., Chicago, the Nation's largest firm engaged strictly in the business of underwriting and marketing state and municipal bonds. I am appearing today in behalf of the 700 members of the Investment Bankers Association of America. IBA member firms are lo- cated in every state in the Union, with over 2,000 registered branch offices. Col- lectively, they underwrite, deal in and act as brokers for all types of corporate, Federal Government, and State and local government securities. PAGENO="0246" 240 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 The Association believes that continued and increased quality of education is a laudable and necessary national objective which deserves the support of all Americans. Our testimony, however, will deal only with Title 10, Section 1001, Adjust- ment of Interest Rates on Loans. This is a subject upon which we believe we are particularly qualified to speak, IBA members being regularly engaged in the business of underwriting and marketing the securities of universities and col- leges for expansion of needed academic facilities, dormitories and essential equipment. It is the understanding of this Association that the ultimate purpose of the leg- islation before you today is to make an education more available to the Nation's young people, regardless of their individual financial means. However, we submit that this purpose is defeated by provision for a fixed sub-market interest rate on Federal college loans. The establishment of an arbitrarily low interest rate on Federal loans will result in the delay of urgently needed education facilities that could promptly be financed in the private market at a somewhat higher interest rate. This results in delays in the improvement and expansion of already overtaxed facilities and proves a handicap, not a net benefit, to our higher edu- cation institutions. Under the present Office of Education Program of aid to higher education money is available to colleges and universities in the form of grants and/or loans. It is our understanding `that the grant program was designed to provide general Federal assistance for higher education while the loan program would finance those `schools which cannot obtain funds in the private market at reason- able rates of interest. The Federal loan program could be particularly useful ta those colleges which, due to their less favorable credit situation (size, scope, type, location, history, etc.) pay considerably higher than average interest rates on borrowed `funds. The vast majority of public institution's of higher learning already are `borrowing at costs lower than the U.S. Government, and at interest rates which are considerably below the prime rates charged to private corpora- tions. In `order for the Federal loan program to `be most effective, i'ts funds should be reserved for those schools with the greatest need. The Federally subsidized 3 per cent interest ra'te, as provided for in the Act, forces most college borrowers to abandon the private sector in favor of the Federal program, regardless of their ability to raise funds on reasonable terms; in the private market. There is no logical reason why one school `should receive 3 per c'ent funds and another must pay the going rate of interest in the private market. The choice for a college, regardless of need, `between 3 per cent and a higher rate is simple. The real question is how long the construction of a project can be delayed in order to `obtain a sub-market rate Federal loan. As long as the Federal govern- ment loans money well below `the market price, there will likely never be sufficient funds to meet the artificial demands created `by the low interest rate. So unless the Federal government is willing to commit itself on this ba'sis to satis'fy the total demand for new college facilities, the net overall value of its assi'stance to colleges is negative rather than positive. While the 3 per cent interest rate may have been relatively close to the market at the time it was established, there has been considerable disparity between it and the money market during practically all of the last two years. The yield on typical "A" rated municipal bonds, as indicated `by the Daily Bond Buyer "20-Bond Index," was 3.07 per cent on January 28, 1965. By March 4, 1966 this yield had increased to 3.83 per cent `and by August 1966 was at a modern alitime high of 4.24 per cent. As of April 17, 1967 the yield-index bad declined to 3.54 per cent. Therefore it is our opinion that interest rates on college loans' made under the Federal academic facilities and college housing programs should not be estab- lished separately from the private market and without regard for its fluctuations. In addition, Federal subsidies to higher education should be provided in such a manner as to supplement the private market, not pre-empt it. It is notable `that this `opinion has `been shared in various degrees by each of the following: Com- mission on Money `and Credit,1 U.S. Treasury Department, Bureau of `the Budget, 1 Money and Credit, The Report of the Commission on Money and Credit, page 197, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1961. PAGENO="0247" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 241 U.S. Office of Education, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The U.S. Treasury department agrees that direct Federal loan programs should be designed to broaden the private market, not preclude its use; its recent report to Congress2 states at pages 15 and 16: "Such fixed statutory interest rates insulate the programs from market in- fluences. In addition, they limit the possibility of converting such direct loans to an Insured or guaranteed basis to periods when market rates are unusually low, or to the sale of guaranteed certificates of participations in `a pool of loans which the Government subsidizes and continues to service. Thus, the full par- ticipation of private lenders in credit programs is frustrated. In the case of college housing loans, for example, enactment of 3 percent ceiling has greatly increased the demand for direct loans, especially by public institutions which formerly could `borrw through tax-exempt issues at rates below the Federal lending rate, but more recently have found it advantageous to use the Govern- ment program at the 3 percent rate. This has limited private partidpation and adversely affected the total supply of credit for college housing." We sincerely believe that it is in the National interest to program Federal sub- sidies to higher education in such a manner as to supplement the contribution of the private market, not preclude its participation. Historically, the private capital markets have provided the bulk of financing for our public schools of higher education. With substantially increasing require- ments for funds, it is a disservice, not a service, for a Federal loan program of necessarily limited size to be so designed as to force those schools least needing Federal subsidy to abandon the private market in favor of Federal loans, to the disadvantage of those less-forunate schools which most need Federal assistance. For instance, in 1965 over $750 million was raised in the private market by issuance of long-term college bonds. In 1966, in the face of tight credit conditions, state and local governments raised over $1 billion for higher education from the private market sector. The ability of the private market to provide this amount of long-term funds last year, the great majority of which was at interest rates below the yield on outstanding long-term U.S. obligations, is even more significant in view of the inability of the Federal government (because of statutory limita- tions on interest rates) to borrow any long-term funds. The static and overloaded condition of the Academic Facilities Program, and particularly the College Housing Program, is faultless evidence of the inefficiency of the present method of providing Federal financing assistance to higher education. In `the academic facilities program administered by Health, Education and Welfare, loan requests at the low interest rate of 3 per cent totaled some $240' million in fiscal 1966, of which over $140 million had to be deferred to fiscal 1967. (Approximately $100 million was available in fiscal 1966 out of an original appro- priation of $110 million due to enactment of P.L. 89-429 on May 24, 1966.) A similar situation exists at the Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment as of January 31, 1966. HUD has had to refuse to accept applications for loans, regardless of need, because it had applications on hand as of that same date for $760 million of loans. This amount of applications included a carry- over of $192 million from the previous fiscal year ended June 30, 1965. HUD was authorized to make loans in the amount of $300 million each for fiscal years 1965, 1966 and 1967. All of the $300 million authorized for fiscal year 1966 was allocated well before the end of the year, leaving an approximately carry- over to fiscal year 1967 of $460 million in loan applications. This carry-over is more than double the amount of `the previous year's carry-over of $192 million. Therefore, it is obvious that to continue a sub-market rate of interest, 3 per cent, on Federal college loans means less college `construction and facilities as a result of abandonment of the private market by those schools able to utilize it, to the detriment of those educational institutions which need Federal assistance and find the funds they need largely appropriated by more affluent schools. In 2Feasibility, Advantages, and Disadvantages of Direct Loan Programs Compared to Guaranteed or Insured Loan Programs, A Report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Congress as required by the Participation Sales Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-429, 89th Congress, May 24, 1966), submItted November 24, 1966. PAGENO="0248" :242 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 fact, what happens is that much needed construction must stay dormant awaiting funds at the artificially low rate of 3 per cent from the Federal government when many of these projects could and should be financed promptly in the private market at reasonable rates. Some might say that although the private market has performed admirably in the past, the expected heavy demand for long-term funds for the Nation's col- leges in the future will be more than the market can efficiently provide for this and all other public purposes. However, a recent study published by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress ~ indicates that the private market can be expected to provide an adequate supply of additional funds for college facifities and other public improvements on increasingly favorable terms. In comparing the expected demand and supply of private funds for public university and other facilities, the report reads "during the decade 1966-1975 the demand for municipal securities by various investor groups is expected to be higher than the supply arising from projected public facilities capital requirements." Further, it is important that the expected increase in required college financ- ing can be handled in the private market without materially increasing interest and other financing costs. From another section of the same study, it is noted that ". . . a pronounced trend of increasing number of bids exists for all cate- gories (of state and municipal bonds) over the past 9 years. For all categories, the average number of competitive bids was at least 50 per cent higher in 1965 than 1957." ~ Investment bankers' compensation for `services has markedly declined. "The most noticeable relationship is the decrease in spread in all categories between the time periods 1958-59 and 1963-65 (spread is the price paid by the issuer for the investment banker's underwriting services). Even during the latter time period of increased interest rates the trend remains downward. Thus, in 1958 a community borrowing $250,000 to $500,000 through the bond market would have paid the investment banker (on the average) $4,327 to $8,655 for his serv- ices. In 1965 these services would have cost $2,955 to $5,910." C Both the declining cost of investment banking services and the ability of the private market to produce a greater number of bids for new municipal bond issues is particularly significant when it is considered that these accomplishments occurred in a bond market that grew in volume from $7.0 billion in 1957 to $11.1 billion in 1965, and to over $4 billion in the first quarter of 1967. Under the formula for determining the rate of interest proposed in the Higher Education Amendments of 1907, the Secretary of the Treasury is to take into consideration the current average market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with redemption periods to maturity comparable to the average maturities of such loans, adjusted to the nearest ~ of 1 per cent less not to exceed 1 per cent per annum, as determined `by the Commissioner. It is our understanding that at present this formula would produce a rate of interest of 4% per cent, less the option to reduce it to the extent of a maximum one per cent, to 3% per cent. We feel that the Federal borrowing cost as reflected by market yields is not an unreasonable basis for determining the interest rate on Federal loans to colleges and universities, even though it `affords the Govern- ment no reimbursement for its expense of making, administering a'nd servicing such loans. An interest rate of 4% per cent is substantially below the borrowing cost of private colleges and'is somewhat above the borrowing cost of most public schools. Even this interest rate, however, would be advantageous to many of the public schools. For instance, in 1966 30 per cent of state and local bond issues to finance higher education were sold in the private market at a cost ranging from ~4 of 1 per cent below to more than 1/4 of 1 per cent above the U.S. long-term bond yield; over 21 per cent of `the dollar volume of financing for public schools fell into this category. Thus, in 1966 many schools in addition to those already receiving Federal loan assistance would have benefited from Federal loans even if the loan rate were equal to the yield on outstanding long-term Government obliga- tions. 2 U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee, El tate and Local Public Facility Needs and Financing: Volume 2, Public Facility Financing, 89th Congress, 2nd Session, Joint Com- mittee Print. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.) 4lbid., p. 21. 5lbid., p. 196. `Ibid., p. 196. PAGENO="0249" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 243 Thus, the IBA can see no advantage to giving the Commissioner the option of reducing the interest rate on Federal college loans by a full one per cent below the prevailing rate on long-terra Government bonds. Ii some protection against the normal movements in the Government bond market is necessary, a provision for adjustment up to one-half of one per above and below the U.S. Government borrowing rate would be more realistic for purposes of fixing terms on the loan of Federal funds. If an interest rate of even 1/2 of 1 per cent below the yield on outstanding U.S. obligations was fixed on Federal loans, the rate would have been less than the private market rate for over 60 per cent of the number of municipal bond issues marketed for higher education in 1966 (which accounted for over 60 per cent of the dollar volume raised in 1966). Even in 1965, a year of lower mu- nicipal interest rates, the Federal rate, less 1/2 of 1 per cent, would have been lower than about 20 per cent of the volume of private market financing for pub- lic higher education facilities. So even an arbitrary reduction of 1/2 per cent could result in a surplus of application for Federal loans to the detriment of those schools most needful of Federal assistance. A compilation of the relationship between private market rates for state and local obligations of various investment ratings that were issued for higher education, with the corresponding rate on outstanding U.S. obligations, is pre- sented in the accompanying chart. Should it be the aim of the Subcommittee to subsidize higher education beyond the interest rate formula suggested by this bill, it is our suggestion that it be accomplished in such a manner as to not substantially restrict or preclude the participation of the private sector of the economy in financing college expansion. Where credit is available at prevailing reasonable market rates, but this legislative body determines that the resulting student costs will be too high and therefore a subsidy is needed, it is suggested that the subsidy be direct and be provided in such a manner as not to offset its benefit by the reduction in the availability of credit for the Nation's colleges. For the most part, we are all parents, be we Investment Bankers or Members of Congress; and individually we can attest to the higher cost of higher education. It is therefore the suggestion of the Investment Bankers Association that some means be found to reduce the cost of education to that party which is ultimately responsible for the education of the child-the parent. Many Members of Congress have introduced legislation calling for some type of income tax adjustment for expenses incurred in providing higher education for dependents. Just last week the Senate approved a special tax credit for parents of college students as a rider on the Administration's Business Tax and Incentive Bill. This provision,, if adopted by the House, would allow those individuals earning $25,000 or less a year to deduct up to $325 in college costs for each child in college and with a declining maximum amount for deductions for parents up to an annual income of $57,500. A Federal subsidy could also be provided by (a) expansion of the present grant program, (b) a variable interest grant (to absorb interest costs over a prescribed rate), or (c) a guaranty program that would lower market interest costs on all bonds colleges sold to investors. In conclusion, we are confident that our objectives are the same as yours- maximum financing and construction on new academic facilities and dormitories for the Nation's colleges and universities on reasonable terms. The present 3 per cent interest rate on Federal college loans is a self-defeating means of trying to accomplish this. Its net effect is to force an abnormally high demand for Federal money by causing many large public institutions, with interest savings in many cases of less than one per cent, to apply for Federal loan funds. This results in less Federal funds being available for the private and small public institutions of higher learning, many of which badly need Federal loan aid. In addition, it results in the resources of the private market not being used to their fullest capacity for college facility financing. The maximum construction of new college academic buildings and dormitories depends upon utilizing the private market to its full potential, and then supplementing it when necessary with a Federal government loan program. Accordingly, we strongly support the Administration's effort to revise the rate of interest on the Office of Educa- tion's loan program for college academic facilities to a flexible rate at least more closely in line with the cost of money to the Government and the cost of money to colleges in the private market. PAGENO="0250" 244 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Percentage of 50 Dollar Voluno 40 30 CHART I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE DOLLAR VOLUME OF MUNICIPAL BONDS ISSUED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION By Relative Borrowing Cost aod Bond Quality 1/ - 1965 .-~ ç5Aaa+Aa - d A~ d ~ U d I Percentage of Dollar Volune 40 30 ______________________________________________________________________ 20 ______________________________________________________________________ 10 _____________________________________________________________ More than 67. above Withio 67. of 9~7. to ~5'/. below 6% to 3/4'!, below More than 3/47. below U.S. Gov't. Yield U.S. Isn't. Yield U.S. Govt. Yield U.S. Govt. Yield U.S. Gov't. Yield MUNICIPAL BORROWING COST RELATIVE TO YIELDS ON U.S. GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS 11 As measured by Moody's ratings Note~ U.S. Govennoont yields (all maturities included) areas given in the Treasury BulletIn, February, 1967. Prepared by the Research Department of the Investment Bankers Association of America CHART El PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP ThE DOLLAR VOLUME OF MUNICIPAL BONDS ISSUED FOR HIGHER EDUCATION By Relative Borrowing Cost and Bond Quality 1/ - 1966 A4c~ *09 _________________________________ Uneated ______________ lJorated LIUweateo~] __________ __________ More than 6% above Within 6% of 5o% to 67. below 6% to 3/4% below More than 3/4% below U.S. Gov't. Yield U.S. Govt. Yield U.S. Gwv't. Yield U.S. Gov't. Yield U.S. Gov't. YieLd MUNICIPAL BORROWING COST RELATIVE TO YIELDS ON U.S. GOVERNMENT OSLIGATIONS 11 As measured by Moody's ratiogs Note: U.S. Government yields (all maturities included) are given in the Treasury Builstim, February, 1967. Prepared by the Research Department of the Investment Bankers Association of America Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, very much, Mr. Carr. Mr. Shoemaker, do you have anything to add. Mr. SHOEMAKER. No. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Hathaway? Mr. HATHAWAY. I have no questions. Mrs. GREEN. I am really very grateful to you for making this trip from Chicago. By the time situation, we probably should have come to you first. (Off the record.) (Whereupon, at 12 :15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene Thursday, April 27, 1967.) PAGENO="0251" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMIrIEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 :30 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Quie, Erlenborn, and Reid. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order for the further consideration of R.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. This, morning the first people to comment on this legislation will be the representatives from the United Business Schools Association. We welcome to the table those people who are representatives from this group. My paper says Mr. Rohlffs, Mr. Green, Professor Binnion, and our friend for many years, Mr. Fulton. STATEMENTS 0]? DR. C. B. ROHLLPS, PRESIDENT, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION, AND PRESIDENT OP NETTLETON COM- MERCIAL COLLEGE; HARRY C. GREEN, PHILLIPS BUSINESS COL- .L~GE AND PRESIDENT-ELECT, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOLS ASSO- CIATION; PRO]?. JOHN BINI'TION, DIRECTOR OP GRADUATE STUDIES IN BUSINESS EDUCATION, TEXAS TECHNOLOGICAL COLLEGE; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD A. PULTON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED BUSINESS SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Fulton, do I have the names right of your colleagues Mr. FULTON. Yes, Madam Chairman, and I will introduce them. On my left is Prof. John Binnion, director of graduate studies in business education, Texas Technological College. Dr. Binnion serves as a commissioner on the accrediting commission for the schools and he is also a member of the Advisory Council on Vocational Loans for the Office of Education. He is one of the outside accrediting commissioners, lie is not a business school administrator. Because time is so important in these hearings I am going to forgo listing his professional background and accomplishments. On my far right Prof. Harry C. Green, from Phillips Business College, Lynchburg, Va., president-elect of United Business Schools 245 PAGENO="0252" 246 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Association and he is more or less here to prepare himself for future hearings. On my immediate right is your witness in chief, Dr. C. D. Rohiffs, who is president of the Nettleton Commercial College in Sioux Falls, S. Dak. He is president of the United Business Schools Association. I am. just here in case there are some technical aspects to some questions.. Therefore, with the Chair's permission I would like Dr. IRohiffs t& go ahead. Mrs. GREEN. Very good. Dr. Rohiffs, we have your complete state- ment which will be put in the record with the attachments. Would you like to read the statement or summarize and hit the high points of the matter in the interest of time this morning? Dr. ROHLFFS. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee. This will save time because we were going to ask that the complete statement be made a part of the record. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF Dn. 0. D. ROHLFFS, PRESIDENT OF UNITED BUSINESS ScIH00LS ASSocIATION Maclam Chairman and Members of the Special Subcommittee on Education, nay name is 0. D. Rohlffs. I am President of Nettleton Commercial College of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. For more than 35 years I have been associated with business education including service as a Commissioner on The Accrediting Commission for Business Schools. I am presently serving as President of the United Business Schools Association which is the one association of educational institutions in which more than 500 of the quality Jusiness schools and colleges of the Nation hold membership. The roots of UBSA go back more than half a century to 1912. However, many mem- ber institutions have been serving students for more than 100 years. UBSA itself is an affiliate of the American Council on Education. At least one administrator in every UBSA school is a member of the American Vocational Association. Also by way of background, the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools; a professionally independent body was founded hi 1953 by UBSA. It was desig- nated in 1956 as a "nationally recognized accrediting agency" ~y the U.S. Office of Education. In that capacity it has accredited just over 300 independent edu- cational institutions after careful review and inspection. STATEMENT OF POSITION We are delighted to have the opportunity to express our support for the Higher Education Amendments of 1967 as represented by H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. We particularly would point to the following sections as having our support: (a) Sec. 103(a) which would add a new Sec. 107 to provide for Experimental Projects. We feel this proposal is in line with information developed at the hearings last August conducted by this Subcommittee in its study of the U.S. Office of Education.1 (b) Sec. 403 which would permit schools such as ours to join in the Talent Search project dealing particularly with the problem of college transfers and dropouts. Our experience indicates that each year an increasing percentage of stu- dents in accredited business schools enroll after having had one or more semes- ters of college. These are both college transfers and dropouts. (c) Sec. 422 (b) which would raise the annual maximum of the guaranteed loan program to $1500. An increasing percentage of our students no longer live at home. Thus, room and hoard in addition to tuition enters into student finan- cial planning. 1 U.S. Office of Education, Hearings before the Special Subco~nmlttee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Represea.~-atives (89th Congress, Second Session), pp. 30-33. PAGENO="0253" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDM~NTS OF 1967 247 (d) Sec. 423(b) which would extend the guaranteed loan program for another five years to 1977. We feel the insured loan program should definitely be a part of what we hope will be a comprehensive package of student financial aid. (e) Sec. 435 which would authorize students attending proprietary institu- tions to participate in the work-study program of Title IV-C. These would be real work-study programs and not just another type of fellowship program. The students would not be working in the school but rather in places like hospitals and legal aid centers. Thus, there would be a real work experience combined with financial aid to the student. There is an urgent short- age of trained medical and legal secretaries and white collar workers to adminis- ter the Medicare program. This amendment illustrates well that statutory language can be successfully drafted to provide aid to students without any deviation from present public policy on aid to institutions. (f) Part F which would establish one Advisory Council on Student Aid. This is a most commendable proposal. At the present time there is no comprehensive program of aid for students in accredited proprietary schools. Through the means of one coordinated council the problems of all types of students in all types of institutions can be discussed and put into perspective. However, of extreme concern and interest to needy students in accredited proprietary institutions is the fact that they still do not have access to the Title II student loan provisions of the National Defense Elducation Act. It is to this problem which we would like to address ourselves. EXPAND THE NDEA STUDENT LOAN PROGRAM Despite eligibility and participation in some eighteen other Federal programs by needy students in accredited proprietary institutions, including six such programs which provide cash monthly payments to students, there seems to be a reluctance on the part of some administrators to make this landmark legisla- tive program available to needy students in accredited proprietary schools. As best we can determine from the testimony last week of Commissioner Howe and Associate Commissioner Muirhead, this reluctance is grounded in five questions wthich these gentlemen raised in response to questions by Members of the Sub- committee. These five questions, or reservations, and our responses to them are as follows: 1. Does the Vocational Guaranteed Loan Program meet the need? It does not. 2. What budgetary effects would result from an NDEA expansion? It would have an overall beneficial dollar allocating effect on nonprofit institu- tions of higher education and need not disrupt present programs. 3. As a matter of policy, should Federal resources be used to help strength- en profit-making institutions? The policy has been long established that Federal resources have long been used to help people via proprietary schools. Student aid is not institutional aid. We are talking about aid to needy stu- dents. We are not asking for institutional support. 4. Do these students have access to direct loans? We find no evidence that a single dollar has been appropriated or has been requested as an appro- priation to implement Section 10 of the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-287). 5. Are there any "loan forgiveness" problems under the NDEA? There are no problems because the loan is "forgiven" by reason of subsequent service in a nonprofit institution. If there be any statutory technicalities they can easily be resolved by amending Sec. 205(b) (3) of the NDEA (P.L. 88-665). The USOE has already shown that statutory technicalities can be handled so as to aid students without aiding institutions. The Sec. 435 work-study proposal proves that point. We plan to develop these answers more fully but with the Subcommittee's per- mission we would like to give some background on present Federal policy as re- flected in other programs of student financial aid and training. EIGHTEEN OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS Our research leads us to the conclusion that there are at least eighteen Fed- eral programs which involve proprietary business schools with Federal programs relating to education which provide: PAGENO="0254" 248 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 (a) "Under Contract" training, or, (b) financial aid to students without discrimination to the student by reason of the corporate structure (i.e. public, nonprofit, or proprietary) of the school. Eight of these programs involve wider contract training with proprietary in- stitutions. The money received by the institution is not a grant or a subsidy, but is legal consideration received in performance of a contractual service performed by the institution. The two best known programs of this type are the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and the Manpower Development and Training Act. Ten of the programs provide direct aid to the student. Six of these programs provide monthly cash allowances, which are not loans, to students enrolled in educational institutions and this includes accredited proprietary schools. These programs are: (a) "Under Contract" training. 1. Vocational Rehabilitation Act of June 2, 1920, as amended 29 U.S.C. 31 et seq. 2. Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962; as amended 42 U.S.C. 2571; P.L. 89-792 3. Indian Adult Vocational Education; 25 U.S.C. 309, 452, 823(c) 4. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2701 et seq; P. L. 89-794 5. Government Employee's Training Program; (P. L. 80-554) 5 U.S.C. 4101-4118 6. Economic Development Administration (P. L. 89-15) 42 U.S.C. 2583 7. Veteran's Vocational Rehabilitation, 38 U.S.C. 1501-1511 8. Vocational Education Act of 1963; P. L. 88-210; Sec. 8(1) (b) Student Financial Grants, Loans or Tax Benefits. *9~ Social Security Student Dependent; P. L. 89-97; See Sec. 202(d) (8) (C) *10. F.E.C.A. Student Dependents; P. L. 89-488; See Sec. 10(M) *11. Railroad Retirement Student Dependents; P. L. 89-700; See Sec. 5(1) (Z) * 12. Civil Service Retirement Student Dependents; P. L. 80-504; 5 U.S.C. 2251-2268; See Sec. 2251 (j) and Sec. 2260, and P. L. 89-554; Sec. 8341 ~13. War Orphans Educational Assistance; 38 U.S.C. 1701 et seq. * 14. Veterans Readjustment Benefits Act of 1966; P. L. 80-358; See Sec. 1652(c) 15. Vocational Loans to Indians; 25 U.S.C. 471. 16. Vocational Loans to Eskimos; 25 U.S.C. 479 17. National Vocational Student Loan Insurance; P. L. 89-287 18. Income Tax Deduction for Student Dependents; 26 U.S.C. 151 (e) (4) STUDENT AID IS NOT INSTITUTIONAL AID Much confusion has resulted from the lack of a conceptual analysis of how Fed- eral money is used in support of education. Educational support is accomplished both by aid to institutions and by aid to students. The eighteen programs cited are all in the form of student aid. None of them constitutes institutional aid inso- far as the involvement of proprietary schools is concerned. It is the need of the student and the quality of the educational program of- fered which determines whether or not the student is properly enrolled in an eligible institution. The corporate form of the inStitution, whether it is public, private nonprofit or proprietary, has nothing to do with the need of the student or the quality of the education program. The proper question is "Is the institution approved or accredited by a recogiiized authority?" It is true that proprietary institutions are the recipients of Federal funds un- der at least eight programs whereby their facilities are used to provide train- ing for people "under contract." But, in none of these cases is the money re- ceived in the form of grants or subsidies. It is payment for services rendered under a contract. The money is earned. NDEA 15 TilE KEYSTONE All of the eighteen programs which we have previously listed are speicalized, peripheral, and ancillary programs designed to meet the particular needs of a *Outright grants of money paid monthly direct to student. PAGENO="0255" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 249 particular category of people. This would include Veterans, War Orphans, American Indians, MDTA, Social Security, Student Dependent Survivors, etc. But, the very heart of student financial aid in cases of "need" is the NDEA Stu- dent Loan Program. The only basis which excludes needy students in accredited proprietary schools from the Title II student loans of the NDEA is the proprie- tary corporate form of the accredited educational institution. A Stanford Research Institute study2 under contract from the U.S. Office of Education has pointed out graphically that: "Many young high school graduates-more has generally been suspected-pass up low-cost public education to go to proprietary schools." The 1150K sponsored Stanford study has shown that even in the face of pub- lic education, at no cost to the student, some students find that proprietary schools are better able to offer them an educational program to prepare them for em- ployment. We don't say all students but only some. The requirement of NDEA. Sec. 103(b) (4), that the institution be public or private nonprofit is the barrier to student aid. This same requirement for pur- poses of grants and subsidies to institutions for bricks and mortar may be a valid expression of present public policy. But we are talking about student aid and not institutional aid. Therefore, we respectfully request the repeal of Sec. 103(b) (4) of the Title II NDEA Student Loan Program. This can be accomplished by the following language: To amend NDEA title II student loans sec. - The second sentence of section 103 (b) of the National Defense Educa- tion Act of 1958 is amended by striking out "(4),". This is exactly the same type of amendment which has been proposed in the Work-Study Amendment of Sec. 435 of the bill now before the Subcommittee (HR. 6232). VOCATIONAL LOAN PROGRAM DOES NOT MEET THE NEED All discussion both from the Congress and from the Administration have clear- ly identified the insured loan program as being specifically designed for assistance to the middle class income group. But the fact is that most students enrolled in proprietary business, trade and technical schools come from lower-income fam- ilies. Dr. Kenneth B. Hoyt, immediate Past-President of the American Personnel and Guidance Association has studied thousands of these students and has stated: "I have collected the research data personally and so have had extensive op- portunities to both observe and visit personally with these students. Our data show that most of them-both from the trade-technical and the business schools- come from families of a lower-income socioenomic (sic) background." The guaranteed loan program, which is admittedly designed for middle income students, somehow turns into a panacea when the discussion involves vocational students who preponderantly come from lower-income families; Possibly by now the 1150K has clarified its statement of last week to this Subcommittee that under the Guaranteed Loan Program $400,000,000 of loans have been made to 460,000 students. These figures relate solely to the insured loan program of Title IV-B of the Higher Education Act. The Student FinTancial Aid Division of USQE, as of last week, has been unable to supply us with any figures as to the number of students or the number of dollars loaned under the vocational loan program. They were clear on one point however. Neither the $400,000,000 nor the 460,000 *students includes any vocational students. Possibly by now the 1150K has clarified its statement of last week to this Subcommittee that there are in operation now 50 state agencies to operate the Guaranteed Loan Program. The Student Financial Aid Division of 1150K, as 2 Final Report, Contract No. OE-5-85-068, "Supply and Demand Factors Affecting Vocation Education Planning," A Methodological Study In Santa Clara County, California October 1966, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education Bureau of Research, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, California. ~ "American Education," published by Department of Health, Education, and Welfare U.S. Office of Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, April 1967, back cover. Statement by Dr. Kenneth B. Hoyt, University of Iowa. Hearings before the Subcom- mittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate (89th Congress, First Session), Higher Education Act of 1965, p. 1083. PAGENO="0256" 250 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 of last week, informs us that "seed money" for vocational loans has gone to only twenty-four states. Agreements to operate the vocational program have been signed in only twenty-six states as follows: State Agencies 4 State Agency under contract with USAF 5 United Student Aid Funds under contract 16 United Student Aid Funds limited contract 1 Total states 26 DO VOCATIONAL STUDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO DIRECT LOANS? Possibly by now the USOE has clarified its statement of last week to this Subcommittee that there is also in the Vocational Loan Program a provision which would say that if some students are not able to get loans at the bank under the Guaranteed Loan Program there would be a direct loan program available to them. It is our understanding and information that no money has ever been requested and no money has ever been appropriated to implement the Sec. 10 Direct Loan provision of the vocational loan program. THE NEED IN ALABAMA IS UNMET Attached to this statement as 1~xhibit "A" are copies of a number of letters written by and received by Mrs. M. L. Gaston of the Booker T. Washington Business College of Birmingham, Alabama. These letters illustrates graphically the plight of vocational students who cannot get access to bank loans. These are the students who cannot get loans whether credit and interest rates are high or low. These letters point out why the Vocational Loan Insurance program is not doing the job. While these letters concern primarily needy Negro students. I am confident that the same problems apply to poor white students. The Booker T. Washington Business College has ten to fifteen calls a day on how to get vocational loans. The school has been carrying students since last September who are unable to pay tuition. What a difference access to Title II NDEA loan funds would make! These letters graphically show that poor children whose parents don't have bank accounts or credit experience are not going to get loans whether credit is "easy" or "tight." The bank replies show an expressed policy of reserving avail- able funds for regular customers with credit experience. Mrs. Gaston, who serves as a member of the Advisory Council on Insured Loans to Vocational Students, notes further that the demand ~for graduates far exceeds the number trained. She says they get four to six calls every day for secretaries. WHAT ARE THE BUDGET EFFECTS OF AMENDING NDEA It has been alleged that an expansion of NDEA to include needy students in accredited proprietary institutions would necessarily involve planning for ad- ditional students in additional institutions. But in the overall budget picture it would represent a judicious reallocation of student financial aid which would permit public and private nonprofit institutions to reallocate their own total budgets more effectively. Additionally, with the prospect of a $50,000,000 overage in view there may be no need for any reallocation of NDEA. student loan funds. The budget request for fiscal 1968 is $190,000,000. The projections given to the Subcommittee last week were rounded off at $240,000,000 based upon proposed amendments to the NDEA financing method. The USOE sponsored study by the Stanford Research Institute has shown con- clusively that some students are motivated and are educated better in a proprie- tary institution even though the same program is offered at no charge in a public institution. But what are the true costs of inducing a needy student to enroll in or remain in a public institution when he really should not be there? This too is a budget factor. A 1966 Oregon study of Education Beyond the High School is most exhaustive and detailed on the whole subject. Statements by the American Council on Edu- 5 "Education Beyond the High School," A Projection for Oregon, a report of the Post- High School Study Committee appointed by the Educational Coordinating Council, October 7, 1966. See page 51, Table II. PAGENO="0257" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 251 cation6 show that colleges and universities spent an estimated $2,442 per student in operating costs per student in 1965. The American Association of Junior Colleges7 claimed they spend annually per student $800 to $1200 in operating costs and $3000 to $4000 for construction and equipment. The Oregon study showed that for 1964-65 operating costs per student at the University of Oregon were $1,117 and that tuition and fees of in-state students of ~$330 were only 29.5 percent of those operating costs. Thus, another $787 had to come from Federal, state or endowment sources. In contrast, the proprietary business, trade or technical school relies 100 per- cent upon tuition for its operating costs. It gets no Federal or state tax money and seeks no such institutional support. The increasing percentage of students with one or more semesters of college who are enrolling in business schools and the USOE sponsored SRI report show that these schools have a needed and legitimate role in American postsecondary education for some students. The Oregon study devotes fifteen pages to proprie- `tary schools. Every time one of these such students enrolls in a proprietary Oregon business school the University of Oregon budget can then devote that same $787 to a student who can more properly `benefit from a four-year college program. The business schools are not in competition w-ith the colleges and universities for the same students. Our role is to complement and supplement the structure of postsecondary education. Access to NDEA. loans for our students has a far reaching budgetary impact of almost geometric proportions in permitting the colleges and universities to budget their operating cost of $2442 per student for those students who can best profit by a college or university program. By making NDEA loans available to students in accredited proprietary schools the University of Oregon would then be relieved of $787 operating cost for a student who should not be there. The University of Oregon could properly aid a needy student from its NDE'A allocation for the payment of the tuition increment of $330. On the budget side, it would be most judicious to utilize the resources of the proprietary business, trade and technical schools by allowing them to administer Title II NIJEA funds for students to use and pay back. This is certainly a far more conservative approach than that recommended by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its report calling for tuition grants.8 NO REQUEST FOR USE OF FEDERAL RESOURCES TO HELP STRENGTHEN PROPRIETARY SCHOOLS The question has been raised whether, as a matter of policy, should Federal resources ~e used to help strengthen profit-making institutions? The question is not pertinent and such an allegation is, perhaps, a red herring. Student aid is not institutional aid. For many years it has been Federal policy to utilize "under contract" £he resources of the quality proprietary (i.e., tax-paying) schools. Since 1920 pro- prietary schools have been training students for the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. According to Secretary Gardner of HEW in his 1967 Report to the Congress on MDTA: In all, 140 Manpower training projects in 28 states involved private schools in one or more of these ways during the year. The cost was about $6.8 million, and 7,858 trainees were enrolled. (p. 27) UBSA itself is administering the educational aspect of a million dollar MDTA demonstration project in an eight state area for about 450 people. Tuition is limited to $300,000 with the balance for subsistence and transportation to the MDTA trainees. If there ever was a question of public policy over the use of proprietary schools, it was resolved long ago. Little publicity has been given to the successful training of students in proprietary schools under Title V of the Poverty Program. Only the notoriety of the Job Corps Centers seems to have emerged. "Higher Education and National Affairs," American Council on Education, Vol. XV, No. 41, December 16, 1906, p. 8. Statement by Bill J. Priest, President, American Association of Junior Colleges, Hear- ings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Thiited States Senate, (89th Congress, Second Session), Higher Education Amendments of 1966, July 1966, p. 181. 8 "The Disadvantaged Poor: Education and Employment," Third Report of the Task Force on Economic Growth and Opportunity. Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Library of Congress Cat. No. 66-29037. SO-155--67-Pt. 1-17 PAGENO="0258" 252 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Last year USOE Assistant Commissioner Walter Arnold told the General Sub- committee on Education about the need to use all resources. He said: "Mr. MEEDS. And the fields in which there is such a crying need today, with inadequate facilities to even serve vocational education. Mr. ARNOLD. That is correct. I was reminded when you were discussing where the emphasis should be placed, I think you could say safely that if we utilized every resource in this country to its maximum, we wouldn't meet the needs in all of these programs, and for all kinds of persons in the country, at different levels of schooling." Public policy in the State of Pennsylvania now includes scholarship grants to students in proprietary business, trade and technical schools. Please see Exhibit In terms of the total education budget it would ~e consonant with long-estab- lished public policy to further utilize the resources of the proprietary schools through NDEA student loans with no problem or expense Qf institutional support. NO LOAN "FORGIVENESS" PROBLEMS UNDER NDEA An increasing percentage of business school graduates are transferring on to a number of four-year colleges with credit hour recognition for their business school courses. Many are becoming busines education teachers of which, accord- ing to the testimony last week, there is a shortage. Is such a partial solution to an admitted shortage to be discouraged or encouraged? It should be encouraged. Present public policy dictates that services as a teacher in certain institutions justify "forgiveness" of the loan at the rate of 10 percent per year up to 50 percent. If there is some statutory technicality involved, it can easily be rectified by amending Sec. 205 (b) (3) of the NDEA (P. L. 88-665). The Administration has already proved via the proposed language amending Sec. 435 Work Study that statutory technicalities can be resolved with a little thought and a little care in order to help students without aiding insitutions. It is unconscionable to penalize a qualified teacher in a favored institution because of where he might have gotten some portion of his education. ACCREDITATION IS NO PROBLEM When the Congress enacted Social Security payments for student dependent survivors under P.L. 89-97 there were no halting steps in implementing this program of monthly cash grants to students enrolled in proprietary institutions. Within weeks the checks began to flow from the Social Security Administration, an agency of HEW, to the students. The same expeditious handling has been ac- complished for similar cash payments under the F.E.O.A. (P.L. 89-488); Rail- road Retirement (P.L. 89-700) ; Civil Service Retirement (P.L. 89-504) ; and of course for Veterans and War Orphans. Certainly accreditation is no problem. The Accrediting Commission for Busi- ness Schools was designated back in 1956 by the 1IJSOE as a "nationally recog- nized accrediting agency." The Social Security Administration, for example, merely asked for our Directory of Accredited Schools and that was that. If it can be done for cash grants to aid students it can be done for NDEA loans. GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY SEEK OUR GRADUATES Certainly the quality of our educational programs is not a problem. Attached are representative letters (Exhibit "C") from the U.S. Civil Service Commission, General Tire and Rubber Company and the National Institutes of Health all showing the need for our graduates. The NIH uses without charge our monthly magazine, The Compass to help re- cruit needed secretarial and clerical employees. The U.S. Civil Service Com- mission equates a business school education with that of a junior or community college for purposes of the Junior Federal Assistant Examination as well as for many other Federal positions. Business School graduates are eagerly sought by government and industry. Other Federal agencies have experienced little, if any, difficulty in administering Statement of Walter M. Arnold, Assistant Commissioner for Vocational and Technical Education, Bureau of Adult and Vocational Education, Office of Education, Hearings before the General Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives, (89th Congress, Second Session). Vocational Education Amendn~ents of 1966, H.R. 1544 and H.R. 1545, June 1966, p. 42. PAGENO="0259" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 253 programs of financial grants to students in proprietary business schools. The USOE should not have any particular difficulty in administering NDEA loans to needy students in accredited proprietary schools. A SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP Less than half of the 3.8 million youngsters who entered the ninth grade this fall probably will go to colleges, and only one in five is likely to stay long enough to win a degree, according to data prepared by the USOE.1° We have a society publicly committed to the college graduate ethic. But this ethic does not coincide with the fact that less than 20 percent of the high school graduates earn a bachelor degree. Proprietary education is an important, if often unacknowledged, segment in the whole complex of postsecondary vocational education. To the bewilderment of some theorists and to the satisfaction of their graduates these business, trade and technical schools continue successfuly to train people for jobs. One reason why the contribution of these schools is not recognized is because they have never and do not now come to Congress asking for money for insti- tutional support. Proprietary schools have long recognized and affirmed that the present public policy of our nation limits institutional aid to public and non- profit schools. Please see 1960 exchange of letters with USOE attached as Exhibit "D." The increased enrollments in and continued growth of proprietary education can only be explained in terms of a synThiotic relationship with the tax supported schools. These two corporately dissimilar educational organisms are obviously existing together in an intimate, but unacknowledged, association which is ad- vantageous and necessary to both and not harmful to either. SUMMARY 1. We wish to affirm our general support for the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. 2. We wish to indicate our particular approval of the cited sections which would be of aid to students in accredited proprietary schools. 3. We respectfully request an amendment to the Title II NDEA loan program to help needy students in accredited proprietary schools because- (a) The Vocational loan program does not and will not meet the needs of some students, (b) With a USOE projected $50 million NDEA overage, budgeting for fiscal 1968 can be achieved without disruptive effects on the NDEA program itself and would redound to the benefit of the overall educational picture. (c) This is an issue of student aid and not of institutional aid. It has long been public policy to use Federal resources to help people via the facilities of proprietary taxpaying institutions. (d) The direct loan provision of Sec. 10 of the insured loan program has never been implemented. (e) Any problems of "loan forgiveness" are purely of a technical nature which can easily be resolved by amending the language of Sec. 205(b) (3) of the NDEA. The proposed amendment in this bill to the Sec. 435 Work Study program proves that if the goal is to help people that with a little thought andcare language can be amended. CONCLUSION The need of a student should not be measured by the proprietary corporate form of the educational institution in which he is enrolled. Student aid is not institutional aid. In 1960 HEW Secretary John W. Gardner wrote: "V "INNOVATION IN EDUCATION "All the organizational arrangements, all the methods and procedures that characterize American education today were originally devised to help us ac- 10 USOE press release, Thursday, January 19, 1967. PAGENO="0260" 254 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 complish our purposes. If they no longer help us, we must revise them. The arrangements and methods must serve us and not control us." u We respectfully urge your favorable recommendation that the arrangements and methods of administering the NDEA loan program be such that needy stu- dents in accredited proprietary schools also can be served. We appreciate deeply the opportunity of expressing our views to the members of the Subcommittee. BooKER T. WASHINGTON BUSINESS COLLEGE, Birmingham, Ala., April 17, 1967. Mr. RICHARD A. FULTON, Ecvecutive Director, United Business Schools Association, 1101 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn FULTON: I received a call from Mr. Mike Naftalin, Washington, today stating that there is a little confusion as to whether or not there is a need for The MDTA Project in.private schools. My answer was yes, because I do feel that there is a great need for additional projects' because of so many poor children in private schools and junior colleges'. ~Too, I know that the four-year colleges and the private schools are not feeling the effect of the insured loans. My office receives on the average of 10 to 15 calls a day asking for help and guidance as to how to receive loans under the Guaranteed Loan Program. We have contacted all the banks here and throughout Alabama. It appears that the answers are always the same . . . they can only lend to their customers; they only lend to third and fourth year students, etc. As I was receiving `so many calls, I polled the Negro college presidents to see if they have received any help under the Guaranteed Program. By telephone con- versation, only a few had been serviced. Alabama State College did state that they have twenty who have approved loans; I have not been able to pinpoint the others. In talking with Dr. Foster today, he too expressed his feelings that there is a need for us to receive extra help if our students are to be ready by September. I am sending copies of the letters that I have received from the banks. I would like to get your views on the approach you think we should use. Yours very sincerely, MRS. M. L. GASTON, Director. BIRMINGHAM TRUST NATIONAL BANK, Birmingham, Ala., April 12, 1967. DEAR MISS LEWIS: We are returning your United Student Aid Funds, Inc. loan application as we will be unable to handle it for the following reason(s). Due to the extremely heavy demand for this type loan, we have had to limit our loans to: X Those students who are legal residents of Jefferson County and whose parents maintain a deposit relationsihp with our bank or married stu- dents who live in the county and carry either a checking or savings account with Birmingham Trust National Bank. -- Those `students who have maintained a satisfactory academic average. -- Those students who have successfully completed their freshman year. The bank has temporarily exhausted funds which have been allocated to this student loan program. X No credit experience or credit information available on applicants. There are two other banks in the city who participate in this loan program and should you desire the names of these banks, please call us and we will be delighted to furnish them to you. We very much appreciate your thinking of our bank and regret that we are unable to handle your loan request under this plan. Should you have an applica- tion at a later date, we will be glad to review it at that time'. Sincerely, B. C. MATHEWS, Assistant Vice President. U "Goals for Americans," Prentice-Hall, Inc., Library of Congress Cat. No. 60-53566, Oh. 3: National Goals In Education, John W. Gardner, p. 81. PAGENO="0261" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 255 BIRMINGHAM TRUST NATIONAL BANK, Birmingham, Ala., April 12, 1967. DEAR MRS. COLLIER: We are returning your United Student Aid Funds, Inc. loan application as we will be unable to handle it for the following reason(s). Due to the extremely heavy demand for this type loan, we have had to limit our loans to: X Those students who are legal residents of Jefferson County and whose par- ents maintain a deposit relationship with our bank or married students who live in the county and carry either a checking or savings account with Birmingham Trust National Bank. -- Those student who have maintained a satisfactory academic average. -- Those students who have successfully completed their freshman year. The bank has temporarily exhausted funds which have been allocated to this student loan program. X No credit experience or credit information available on applicants. There are two other banks in the city who participate in this loan program and should you desire the names of these banks, please call us and we will be delighted to furnish them to you. We very much appreciate your thinking of our bank and regret that we are unable to handle your loan request under this plan. Should you have an appli- cation at a later date, we will be glad to review it at that time. Sincerely, B. 0. MATHEWS, Assistant Vice President. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BUsINEsS COLLEGE, Birmingham, Ala., March 21, 1967. Mr. RUDOLPH DAVIDSON, Director, Division of Research, Planning and Information, $tate of Alabama, Department of Education, Montgomery, Ala. DEAR Mn. DAVIDSON: Early in the calendar year, I wrote you concerning Guaranteed Loans and wanted to know if they were available to students here in Alabama. At that time, Alabama had been funded but plans had not been formulated for distribution of loans. For the past several months, I have been in constant contact with the banks here in Birmingham. First National Bank informed m~ that they are not working with this particular phase of loans, however, Birming- ham Trust and Exchange Security Banks are working with loans. None of mT students have received loans because they do not qualify with those banks~ for they nor their parents are fortunate to have bank accounts with these par- ticular banks. I should like to know where an average child may apply for a Guaranteed Loan. Is it possible that a loan can be made through your office? Hundreds of students enrolled in colleges in Birmingham are seeking this general information. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare released a bulletin last week stating that 669 applications were received and 669 loans were made here in Alabama. This is questionable, for I know the applications of my students were refused. Enclosed are copies of the letters they received. Your very truly, MRS. M. L. GASTON, Director. STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT or EDTJCATION, Montgomery, Ala., March 23, 1967. Mrs. M. L. GASTON, Director, Booker T. Washington Business College, Birmingham, Ala. DEAR MRS. GASTON: Thank you for your letter of March 21, 19f~7, concerning the Student Guaranteed Loan Program in the State of Alabama. As of February 28, 1967, Alabama banks have made 810 loans to students within the State and 206 loans to students attending out-of-state institutions, for a total of 1,016 loans. United Student Aid Funds, Incorporated, has guaranteed these loans where applications have been forwarded to them from lending Institutions. PAGENO="0262" 256 HIGHER EDLTCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Neither United Student Aid Funds, Incorporated, the State Department of Education, nor the Department of Health, Education and Welfare can force ~banks to make these loans. I am happy to report, however, that the banking ~industry seems to be showing more interest in making such loans. In the mean- ~time, all of us must work to try to sell the banking industry on the idea that Tthis program is good; that it is workable; and that it is in the best interest ~f the State of Alabama. I would speculate that the reason none of your students have received loans is because they are not eligible under the Student Guaranteed Loan Program. Your institution is listed, however, as an eligible institution to participate in the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Program. The State of Alabama has completed and filed all necessary paperwork with the Office of Education; however, as of this date, no response has been made as to when the Vocational Student Loan Program will be operable in the State of Alabama. I hope this letter will answer some of the questions that you have raised. Sincerely yours, RUDOLPH DAVIDSON, Director, Division of Research, Planning, and Information. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., February 27, 1067. Mrs. A. G. GASTON, Director, Booker T. Washington Business College, Birmingham, Ala. DEAR Mns. GASTON: The special committee under the chairmanship of Under Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Joseph W. Barr, will make a report soon to Secretaries Gardner and Fowler on ways in which the program can be made more appealing to lenders. It will probably be in some form of an application fee paid to the lender by the Federal Government. This will require an amend- ment to the Act, therefore, I cannot be too optimistic about how soon money for student borrowers will become abundant. It is always a pleasure to hear from you and I am sorry I haven't better news. Sincerely yours, C. B. PEAKING, Chief, Insured Loans Branch, Division of Student Financial Aid. BOOKER T. WASHINGTON BUSINESS COLLEGE, Birmingham, Ala., February 14, 1967. Mr. C. E. PEAKING, Chief, Insured Loans Branch, Division of Student Financial Aid, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Higher Education, Washing- ton, D.C. DEAR MR. DEAKINS: Thank you very much for sending the follow-up material on Insured Loans for vocational and four-year colleges. We are still stranded in Alabama. I think I can say that the banks have not been very liberal because very few and none of my students have received loans nor consideration. An article appeared in last week's newspaper stating that Alabama had been funded and that several banks were participating. Although when students make applications, they are turned down. They are given different reasons such as: their parents do not have bank accounts with the bank or the hank funds have been exhausted for the year. As you know, many students who need a loan are naturally unable to bank. I am carrying a number of students who have been unable to pay tuition since September. They are making satisfactory progress, and within a year they will be ready for employment. Our demands far exceed the number we are able to train, for we receive from four to six calls for secretaries every day. PAGENO="0263" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 257 Please let me know just how much longer you think we should carry these students and whether you feel that it is any way possible that they can receive a loan. Sincerely yours. Mas. A. G. GASTON, Director. Dr. ROHLFFS. I have a short summary statement I would like to go ahead with. My name is C. D. Rohiffs. I am President of Nettleton Commercial College in Sioux Falls, S. Dak., and I am now serving as president of United Business Schools Association. My testimony today is on behalf of the 500 schools which belong to th'at association. We are delighted to support the Higher Education Amendments of 1967 as represented by H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. In my prepared statement you will see that we especially support a number of provi- sions, particularly, of course, section 435 which makes the work-study program available to students in accredited proprietary schools for work in public and nonprofit institutions such as hospitals and legal aid centers. These would be real work~study programs that are job oriented for needy students. `We feel this could substantially contribute to solving the existing shortage of trained medical and legal secretaries and competent office workers in the medical field. However, Madam Chairman, we are greatly concerned that needy students in accredited proprietary institutions still do not have access to the student loan provisions of NDEA. It is to this problem that I would like to confine my remarks. By way of background, let me merely note that there are currently 18 other Federal programs which involve proprietary institutions either through contracts with the institution for the training of people or direct financial support to students enrolled in these institutions. In fact, six of these programs provide monthly cash grants directly to the students and not merely loans. These programs are listed and described at pages 5 and 6 in my prepared statement. In addition, let me hasten to point out that what we are advocating is aid to students and not aid to private institutions. While all of the 18 programs are of value to our students, it is none- theless true each of these programs are limited to a particular category of student such as war orphans, veterans, social security dependents, American Indians, and so forth. `When we talk about student assistance, however, we must acknowledge that the NDEA loan program is the keystone. In suggesting our proposed amendment I recognize the reluctance in the Office of Education to open up this program to needy students in accredited proprietary schools. From the testimony before this sub- committee last week of Commissioner Howe and Association Commis- sioner Muirhead, I observe that this reluctance is based upon five questions which these gentlemen raised in response to subcommittee questions. Permit me if you will to restate their questions and provide you with our answers. The first quetion raised was whether the vocation guar- anteed loan program does not already meet the need of our students. Our answer is that it simply does not. Everyone admits that the in- sured loan program was designed to accommodate. students from mid- PAGENO="0264" 258 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 die-class families. It is equally clear that most of the students in busi- `ness, `trade, and technical schools come from families of a lower income background. In addition, this program is only functioning in about half the States. Attached to our statement as exhibit A are 11 copies of letters, mimeographed bank rejection forms and data proving that the voca- tional loan program is not meeting the need in Alabama. This is one exhibit. Second it has been suggested that to open the NDEA program to needy students in proprietary schools would require a great deal of budgetary planning. We would simply poin't out that the presently participating schools are planning their loan programs in light of the fiscal 1968 budget submission of $190 million. Mr. Muirhead suggested to you last week that he anticipated that an additional $50 million in loan funds would be generated in fiscal 1968 by reason of the proposed financing amendments to the NDEA program. There would be $240 million available instead of $190 million. Third, I was very surprised to note a question was raised as to the policy of permitting Federal funds to be used to help strengthen profit- making institutions. In the first place, that is not the point. We are here to discuss aid to students and not aid to institutions. In the second place, it has long been Federal policy, as reflected by the 18 programs listed at pages 5 and 6, t'o utilize the resources of proprietary taxpaying educational institutions to contribu'te to the success of Federal educa- tion programs to help people. For many years we have been under contract to train students for vocational rehabilitation. More recently we have been training stu- dents under contract for MDTA and title V of the poverty program. I repeat, we are only talking about aid to students. Fourth, there was the suggestion that as part of the vocational guaranteed loan program our students have access to direct loans under section 10 of that act. In fact, however, as I am sure you will all realize, no funds have ever been appropriated to implement the sec- tion nor has the Office of Education submitted a budget request for fiscal 1968. Finally it has been suggested that there may be pro'blems relating to the loan forgiveness provisions of NDEA. It would seem to us that to the extent that the forgiveness clause constitutes a national policy to encourage students to go into the teaching profession, it would be' a contradiction in policy to penalize a needed business education teach- er serving in a public or nonprofit institution because of where that teacher received a portion of his education. The forgiveness is related to where the teacher serves and not where he was educated. We hope we have answered the objections to including needy stu- dents in accredited proprietary schools in the NDEA student loan program. Thank you very much for your courtesy. All of us here will do our best to respond to any questions. Before questions, Dr. Binnion from Texas has a short statement which I wish he would be permitted to give at this time. Mrs. GREEN. Very good, and his complete statement will be placed in the record at this point. (The document referred to follows:) PAGENO="0265" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 259 TEsTIMoNY OP DR. JOHN B. BINNI0N Madam Chairman: Although a prepared script has already been presented to you, I would like to make a few additional preliminary remarks. As you know, I am a Professor of Business Education at Texas Technological College in Lubbock, Texas. This is a multi-purpose university with a Fall, 1966, enrollment of approximately 18,000 students. During the Fall term of 1967, we will have a total of eight different schools represented on the campus, including ~t new School of Law. There are presently about 1,000 faculty members in the university. Of particular importance to this discussion is the fact that our School of Busi- ness Administration had an enrollment of slightly more than 4,000 undergraduate students for the 1966 Fall term. A rather careful check has been made about the enrollments of other schools of business throughout the country and we find that Texas Tech ranks No. 1 in full-time, day, undergraduate student enrollment. I fully realize that numbers themselves do not make a quality program. But we do have a rather fine record with regard to undergraduate education and this is evidenced through the fact that many of our students go on to graduate schools of business at Texas Tech and elsewhere, and many others go into professional areas of education including law schools and theological schools. To add one more point to this is the fact that we currently offer three differ- ent master's degrees in business administration and also the Doctor of Business Administration degree. All of this serves as some background for the point that I am presenting at this time. We, of course, are desirous of having quality students attend our School of Business Administration. But we all know that in the present days of increased school enrollment all educational institutions will need to exert their very best efforts in order to provide a good atmosphere for the young people who want to take advantage of post high school educational opportunities. About a year ago Dr. Peter Drucker, the well-known Professor of Management in the Graduate School of Business at New York University, wrote in The Per- sonnel Administrator as follows: 1. Within a year or two, maybe three, one-half of the American population will be under 25 years of age. 2. By the mid-1970's at least two-thirds and perhaps three-quarters of the American population will be under 35. 3. Almost half of the young families who will be the dominant force in this country and in politics will have at least one member who has had a very high degree of formal schooling, going beyond 12 years. If Professor Drucker is correct in these figures-or even if he approximates them-the educational institutions of the country will have to join hands in a iinited effort to provide the proper kind of education for our country. And it is for this reason that I feel obligated to take a stand with the independent schools of business of this country who are doing the best possible job they can do in order to help prepare effective, functioning, productive, economically literate members of our society. My stand here today is that some people will intentionally choose the independent school of business rather than a traditional four-year or two-year college education. My position here today is that these independent business schools deserve sound consideration when thought is being given to a re- vision of any of the Federally sponsored educational acts which provide financial assistance of any sort to the student. But it is not just young people alone who concern me. In September of 1960, the Gregg Publishing Division of the McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. published what was called A Counsellors Business Education News Letter. On page 2 of this report there was quoted something from one of our governmental agencies and I would like to read that quotation. "This is another surprising revelation of the U.S. Department of Labor * * * and one which your girl students should take into consideration. The latest statistics on working women prove that the average American teen-age girl can expect to work no less than 25 years of her life * * * even if she does marry and have children. She will work 31 years if she marries but has no children * * * and 39 years if she does not marry at all. So it is obvious that we are not concerned just with young men who are going to be raising and supporting families but we are concerned with the continuing education of the ladies who will also be part of the work force whether married or not. PAGENO="0266" 260 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Still another factor to be considered was mentioned in the February 5, 1967, edition of The San Francisco Examiner. In an article on the rising tuition costs throughout the country there was a notation that nationally 40% of all families have income of less than $6,000 per year. If this article in The Examiner is correct, we should then have additional proof that student help in the form of loans and other grants is an essential when we are talking about education beyond the high school. And it would further bear out the fact that this educa- tional need is not based upon any particular line of work, nor can one dif- ferentiate between types of schools. Students attend all types of schools; and all types of schools, if accredited, should therefore be entitled to give help to their students through public as well as private funds. There is a final statistic which I would like to present at this hearing and this one comes from the April, 1967, issue of Finance Facts. This publication is put out by the National Consumer Finance Association. On page 2 of the April issue there is the notation that school enrollment is at an all time high of 55.1 million persons, or approximately 30% of the total population of the United States. The article goes on to say "Increase of enrollment in the last 6 years has been 8.8 million, or 19%, over the 46.3 million enrolled in October 1060. During this 6-year period, enrollment increased 70% in colleges, 30% in high schools (grades 9 to 12), and 8% in elementary schools (grades 1 to 8)." The increase which has been evidenced during the past six years will continue to grow and will be a matter of ultimate concern to us. I submit to you here today that not every individual in our society is a member of a professional group-an attorney, physician, minister, architect, certified public accountant, teacher, or something similar. We need skilled workers both in the office and in the factory and it seems to me that the accredited independent business schools of America serve a very important need when they are helping to prepare people for office and distributive occupations. In closing I would like to quote once more from the Peter Drueker article. "We have a very real stake in forcing people to acquire a skill, to be trained because otherwise the problem of a rapidly changing technology will not be manageable in this country. The problem does not depend on the number of jobs we create, but on our ability to make people capable of moving easily from one kind of a job to another." It seems to me that this is one of the major functions of education-to help make these people capable of moving easily from one kind of a job to another. And the independent schools join with all other institutions of higher education in making this possible. Students in accredited schools of business should be entitled to participate in Federal loan funds, no matter what the source of those funds, nor the Act that provides them. Dr. BINNI0N. Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, perhaps you and your committee members will later want to question me at length about several points-the independent busi- ~iess school in relation to the traditional college or university education for business; about accreditation: and NDEA loans to students in proprietary schools. As a professor in a university program I have some strong feelings. Of course, one must understand however, that I cannot speak officially for my school, Texas Tech. The words here are my own. But the fact remains that I do know something about preparing young people for careers in business. And the years ahead are going to be a challenge to all institutions which are involved. There is a real need for the independent school of business, and our citizens often choose this type of school over the traditional college or university. Our Federal Government in recent years has done a fine job in help- ing American citizens achieve a better education. Many, many different acts have been involved. It is my opinion that the country has received good value from that investment. My part in this hearing is to urge a continuation of that help to needy students Who attend accredited proprietary schools. PAGENO="0267" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 261 This is not only a fair and equitable conclusion but I think it is a matter of expediency. As a professional educator, I submit to you here today that not every individual in our society is a member of a professional group- attorney, physician, teacher or something similar. We need skilled workers both in the office and in the factory and it seems to me that the accredited independent business schools of America serve an important need when they are helping to prepare young people for offices and distributive occupations. That is all of my comments here; thank you. Mrs. GEBEN. Thank you, Dr. Binnion. Dr. IROHLFFS. All of us here will be pleased to respond to any ques- tions, if we can. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons. Mr. GIBBoNs. As I understand your main thrust it is that the voca- tional school loan program we enacted a couple of years ago is not working? Dr. ROHLFFS. It has only been activated in 26 States. Of course, the need of a bank to accept the loan even though the word guaranteed is in there is the keystone, regardless of what the interest rate might be, and many banks are not doing it. As I say about 26 States is about correct, just that number of States have implemented any kind of program. Mr. FIJLTON. There are just some students who are not going to get credit whether interest rates are higher or lower and it is for these needy students that last year the Congress extended the NDEA. We feel there is a small portion of our students that should have access to this program. For example, if 1 percent of the total .NDEA appro- priation were to be made available it could make a great difference. In exhibit 3, for instance, a little girl in Birmingham wants a $337 tuition loan and $40 for books. Her familiy has an income of less than $3,000 a year and she just got a mimeographed reply from the banks saying "no credit experience or information available" and they go on to say this is not the type of people they loan money to. Mr. GIBBONS. How many students do you feel would need NDEA- type loans every year? Mr. FULTON. Probably there are about 100,000 full-time equivalents. I believe there are 80,000 full-time students and about 40,000 part- time students in accredited proprietary schools. I would say our de- mand factor might run a little higher than the university or college people. I don't know what it is but somehow the figure 5 percent runs in my mind. . . If we ran 15 percent there might be 15,000 students in the United States in our schools that should have access to this program. I may be cutting myself down too much but I am trying to show there are just some students that need to be served. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esëh. . Mr. EscH. No questions. . . Mrs. GREEN. May I thank all of you for your statements. The parts. you did not read will be gone over later. PAGENO="0268" 262 HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. The next witness will be Dr. Lois Torrence, director, office of institutional studies, American University, accompanied by Mrs. Allison Bell, legislative associate for the association and Dr. Dolari. We appreciate your coming here this morning to give us the benefits of your views. I would like you to proceed in any way you wish. Your statement will be placed in the record and you may read it or suni- marize it. STATEMENT OP DR. LOIS TORRENCE, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP INSTI- TUTIONAL STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. ALLISON BELL, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE; AND DR. DOLAN Dr. TORRENCE. I believe I will read the statement, it is a relatively short one. I am Dr. Lois Torrence, Professor of Government and Director of Institutional Studies at American University. I am here today to rep- resent the American Association of University Women, an association with a membership of 173,911, organized into 1,607 branches in the 50 States, Guam, and the District of Columbia. Madam Chairman, as we are among the last of the organizations to appear before your subcommittee in support of the higher education amendments of 1967, we shall not go into detail on each section of H.R 6232 and H.R. 6265 and will concentrate on a few of the areas of concern to us. As an association member you know, but other members of the subcommittee may not, that a very substantial number of our members teach at one educational level or another; serve on local school boards, act on State boards of regents or as trustees of individual institutions. Many of our branches have taken leadership in the support of develop- ing institutions as well as of existing ones. We work actively with State legislatures to promote bettor educa- tiona~l opportunities not only for the usual college-age student but for those who can profit from continuing education and the chance to learn new skills. Because we have this kind of knowledge about educational needs in this country we support H.R. 6232 and H.R. 6265. Our major con- cern is that there really is not enough Federal help being provided in this legislation to substantially relieve the problems at the higher edu- cational level to which it is addressed. This committee has heard quite differing projections on increases in enrollments which can be expected in the decade ahead of us. We should like to remind this committee that earlier projections, even from such sources as the Office of Education, have been low by 10 to almost 20 percent. In the face of our population growth, growing demand for greater skills for retraining or new training, for new jobs for adults now in the Nation's work force, we cannot see anything but an increasing percentage of all age groups enrolled for schooling at some level. As we need not point out to this committee, the most rapidly growing segment in higher education enrollments has been at the graduate and professional levels. PAGENO="0269" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 263 At the same time we are facing growing shortages in the pos~bac- calaureate fields such as the teaching and health professions. We know that we are being trite when we say buildings must be provided in which to teach and teachers must be provided to meet the classes held in these buildings. We also know it is harping on an old. theme to say that the richest nation in the world cannot afford t~ neglect its most valuable asset: human resources. Nonetheless, space, personnel, and financial assistance to deserving students are three major problems of education today. To even hold our own, let alone to improve our position, will require large alloca- tions of funds, with a substantial contribution coming from the Fed- eral Government. We are not unaware of the strain upon the national budget today, but we do believe the provision of educational opportunities for those who can benefit from them is of paramount importance and is the one area in which skimping must not take place. To mention a few specific systems among the amendments, we be- lieve a 75-percent Federal sharing in fiscal 1968 of section 2, title I, community service and continuing education programs should be con- tinued. We wish to stress the importance of new ideas, of innovation in the fields of community service, and continuing education. We would like to see this committee write clarifying language into the legislative history of this measure that would serve as a gmdeline for the Commissioner in implementation of several sections of this bill. Our requests for clarification is brought about because of our inter- est in one of our Educational Foundation projects. The Educational Foundation since 1962 has had an experimental project `which we call our college faculty program. Its purpose is to search out qualified women who, for one reason or another, have been otherwise occupied but who are in a position to be trained to enter college teaching. This has been a small project, originally funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. It is now being supported by the association's membership and through solicitation of our friends. After our own screening of ap- plicants we have assisted these women in finding the institution which they prefer for their particular field and have assisted them with grants. These grants have varied in size depending on need and whether the applicant lives near a university, and so forth. In the period 1962 to 1965 we supported the training of 125 women from 11 `States. Well over 90 percent of these women are now em- ployed in teaching, administration, or research at the higher educa- tional level. Because of this `original success the program was extended to 12 additional States through the efforts of `our own membership. In the first year of this extension 35 women are now in graduate school pre- paring for work in higher education. Our present problem is to secure sufficient funds to make grants to even a reasonable proportion of th'ose who apply to us for assistance. Our query to this committee `would be whether a project of this type operated solely by an organization such as our own could be PAGENO="0270" 264 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 considered to fall under section 103, section 403, or section 504 of this bilL In commenting upon title II, we would like to point out that no institution of higher education can function effectively without good library resources. We would regret any weakening of the provisions of the existing legislation. We would, in fact, approve strengthening of all three parts of title II through authorization of adequate funds. We concur with the recommendations of the American Library Association. We are urgently aware of the woeful plight of some developing institutions in providing library resources and of schools and libraries in obtaining trained library personnel. We have been distressed that the funds authorized for these pro- grams in the 1965 act have not been appropriated. At this point may we stop to say we are both aware and grateful for this committee's dedication to promotion of educational opportuni- ties and therefore believe if this committee had the power to appropri- ate the authorizations it makes, such a comment would not be a part of this statement. We spoke earlier of our interest and concern for the quality of deveioping institutions. We have read the varying estimates of the Cost of attending public and private institutions, and we know from the experiences of our members that the opportunity to attend an in- stitution in or near the community in which the student lives may mean the difference between taking or not taking post-high-school work. Fifty-five million dollars to strengthen developing institutions in 50 States seems far from adequate. Without student assistance programs the proportion of college-age students going on to college would surely drop. Various sources quote differing averages for the total cost of an academic year. If we accept one such set of figures for the current year-$1,640 for a public institu- tion and $2,570 for an independent institution-as a fair estimate it can readily be seen that college will be ruled out for many students. Although loan funds may be available at commercial rates, many families have already assumed a full burden of debt. The provisions of title IV should be extended and hopefully ex- panded by this committee in 1967. We understand provisions for the training of Teacher Corps candi- dates are the responsibility of this committee. We take this opportunity to express our confidence in this new and still experimental program. In our estimation its successes have been surprising in view of the imcertainty about funding which the Teacher Corps has experienced from the beginning. We believe that title V, the Education Professions Development Act, will go quite a distance in the direction of alleviation of teacher short- ages at all levels of education. As we have pointed out in the first paragraphs of this statement, the provisions of talented teachers at all levels is, to us, one of the most urgent problems of the day for which institutions of higher edu- cation must shoulder responsibility. We believe this program .would ena~blo planned programing in the development of the teaching profession. PAGENO="0271" HIGHER ED~JCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 265 In earlier statements before this committee we have supported matching grants for instructional equipment and materials. We do question whether, with the dropping of subject or categorical limita- tions, the sum of $71 million for fiscal 1968 requested in title VI is great enough to cover the needs of 50 States or even to make a visible impression. We wonder also about the adequacy of $30 million to the 50 States and territories for improving their guidance, counseling, and testing programs. We are happy to see that title VII, as do several other titles, extend this legislation to 1973, but we are curious why title VIII pro- vides for extension of language centers and language fellowships only through 1969. The AATJW has had a long commitment to Federal assistance for college housing and more recently to college facilities construction. It is our firm belief that the proposed changes in the interest rates on these loans would serve as a check on the construction of desperately needed buildings at many institutions. We believe this underwriting of interest has been a great boon to higher education and urge retention of the current rate of interest. Madam Chairman, in `this latter connection we would like very much to draw again to your attention a source of relatively untapped and frequently very able manpower-or rather, we should say, woman- power. `We direct the attention of this committee to the many college graduates and high school graduates, too, who have been excellent scholars but have dropped out of school or who never have been gain- fully employed because of marriage or other responsibilities, who enter the labor market each year. These women either lack professional training or have skills in which they need retraining. We recognize that most of the avenues of financial assistance open to other students from private sources as well as those listed in these amendments are not closed to such women. But who can blame the admission officer, the student loan officer, or the faculty counsel who selects the student who is just graduating or who is now at work in a~ job requiring further training, to someone who has been out of school for some years ~ . . . . . We recognize that it is the responsibility of these administrators to be certain that these limited funds are spent where the greatest expectation of return can be anticipated. Our experience with the college faculty program, which was limited to one area, higher education, is `such that we would urge that a pro- vision for assistance to this potential source of skilled womanpower be written into the legislation now before this committee. In conclusion we wish to say again as we have in earlier years that we wish a time lapse could be legislated which would permit the im- plementation of education programs in the year following the one in which authorizations and appropriations `are made. Under the present plan school systems at all levels do their hiring and oDerational planning months in advance of the time when they have actual knowledge of the funds available to them. We again thank you for the privilege of appearing before you. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Torrence. It is very seldom that this subcommittee is able to announce such prompt action on PAGENO="0272" 266 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 recommendations made to us but this morning on page 4 you referred to late funding and the problems involved inherent in the late funding and on page 6 you have suggested that there should be a lapse between the authorization and the time the appropriations are made. The subcommittee is today releasing a statement on late funding. It will be available to you and, American Association of University Women and to other organizations late this afternoon in the press gallery. I believe we will also be introducing a resolution this afternoon in regard to the late funding problem. Dr. TERRENCE. I am delighted. Mrs. GREEN. I am very pleased I can respond so promptly to your legitimate complaints. Dr. TERRENCE. I think it will be of great assistance if something can be done on that particular. Mrs. GREEN. On page 5 you mention the Teacher Corps and on page 6 you direct the a.ttention of the committee to the womanpower that is available and not used at the present time, with which I whole- heartedly agree. I am always delighted, may I say to my colleagues, when the Ameri- can Association of University Women testifies. Mr. Rum. You are not alone, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. I wonder if you do not feel that the Teacher Corps may not have been blown out of all proportion last year. The Corps recruited interns who never thought of teaching. They proposed 5,000 this year. I for one want to recruit as many teachers as possible who can teach-but, at the same time, the testimony from the Depart- ment of Labor yesterday was that each year 140,000 new teachers leave the profession. Are we in danger of oversimplifying the proble1n? We give the impression that if we have a Teacher Corps that will recruit 5,000, the problem is solved. Ought not equal attention be given to the fact that 140,000 are leav- ing the profession? I ask the question again-has it been blown up out of all proportion? We have had, as I am sure both of you know, a fellowship for training of elementary and secondary teachers in the graduate field for advanced degrees. This year the administration is requesting only 12 percent of the funds, 12 percent out of $275 million. If we were really dedicated to the proposition that we desperately need more teachers, it seems we would give equal attention to the 12-percent funding of an existing program as well as to the possibilities of expanding the Te.acher Corps. The second part of my question is, on page 6 when you talk about womanpower, has the American Association of University Women considered an amendment to the Teacher Corps which would invite women who have been teachers and left the profession, invite them to come back in. We need to get these people back as well as ready those who never thought of teaching as a career. Mrs. BELL. Last year we had a study program, it is a 2-year-long one, in which we solicited AATJW women and their friends to enter PAGENO="0273" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 267 the Teacher Corps. Because of that we have not stressed that in our statement, it is an oversight in our statement in ignoring the 12 per- cent of the already authorized program. We should have taken note of that in our statement to you today. Mrs. GREEN. Do you feel women who have been in the teaching profession who have left the labor market, raised their families, are eligible for the Teacher Corps the way the legislation is drawn up at the moment? Mrs. BELL. I am not confident that they are. We have had reports from our branches that some of these people have not been accepted by the school systems because their teaching experience is so long in the past. Other States and other programs have accepted our menThers who have not been teaching for 30 years and accepted them very grate- fully. This is the report we have had back from our branches across the country. Mrs. GREEN. The intent of the Teacher Corps at the present time is to attract people who have never had training experience. Mrs. BELL. I was also talking of Headstart. We have tried to enlist the people but have not had great success. Mrs. GREEN. I would seriously direct your attention to offering an amendment from AAUW and getting other organizations to help you. Mrs. BELL. As you see, our pilot project in attracting people to go back into college teaching has been very successful. Something of this sort might work not necessarily just for the Teacher Corps. Dr. TORRENCE. I have interviewed a very few of the women who wanted to go back into college teaching and were interested in this program we have. Some were interested in going into teaching, not necessarily college teaching. I think certainly there is a potential source here of teachers that could very well be tapped. Mrs. GREEN. One suggestion, on page 6, I would suggest you work on your third paragraph of teacher financial assistance. Congressman Quie, do you have questions? Mr. Quii~. Does the AATJW receive Federal grants now? Mr. BELL. We had one and Dr. Dolan here can explain our one grant. Dr. DOLAN. I am sorry, I did not hear the question. Mr. QrnE. The question is, Do you now receive any grants or con- tracts from the Federal Government? Dr. DOLAN. As far as higher education or elementary education is concerned, no, sir; we are not eligible in some and in others as our own program is so involved we could not undertake anything else. The only contract we had was with the then OMAT section of the Department of Labor which was a research program intended to define, if possible, the techniques desirable for the training of coun- selors of mature people who are hopeful of returning to the labor market, and, of course, our emphasis was for defining those techniques for mature women. That report was turned in to the Labor Department and is available. Mr. QUIE. The sections, namely, 103, 403, and 405 which you were inquiring as to whether you could qualify for or not are more than 80-155-67-pt. 1-18 PAGENO="0274" 268 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 just the surveys that you already have contracts for with the Depart- ment of Labor. Do you think it is wise for organizations such as yours who have through the years spoken with an extremely independent voice about programs of the Federal Government to be dependent on them for a portion of your activity. This could become the case if you did qualify under those three sections? Dr. TORRENCE. Not speaking for the association, but as an individual, I would think there would be no more danger than there would be for a university. I see no inherent danger in the idea of having some sort of contrac- tual arrangement for a program specifically designed which fits in with our overall purposes as an association. Mr. QrnE. Have you had any of the experience I have had where people from universities talked to me privately about their relation- ship and their real feelings about the activity of the Federal Govern- ment but are fearful to say it on the record before the committee be- cause of substantial contracts they have? Universities must be involved in these programs but are we going to come to the day when independent organizations of people who are related to the universities-I[ say there are a number of associations who have appeared before us-will have to talk to us privately? Dr. TORRENCE. I don't see it that way. This is an association of some 170,000 women. It is just not a headquarters operation in Washington which is going to make certain statements and is going to feel reluctant to criticize if it is dependent for funds in some way. It reflects the views of the association and, as such, I think you would find it a little difficult to see any condition under which all of these people, all of these women, would feel they could not speak out. Mrs. GREEN. Will you yield? Mr. Qun~. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. What would be your response to a bipartisan set up? I can think of one Republican and one Democrat who, in recent months, said we ought to reconsider the grants being given to this particular university because they have people on the faculty who protest our foreign policy. You do not see any inherent danger in this? What would be your reaction if the AA1JW women took a position and this was the congressional reaction? Dr. TORRENCE. I think it could work both ways. The association might not be speaking out and some people might go to the association and say you had better be a little less quiet. Mrs. GREEN. In response to Congressman Quie's question, isn't there a danger that the association might be a little afraid to speak out? Dr. TORRENCE. I can answer oniy that I hope the leadership in higher education is such that it can stand on its own two feet. Mr. GIBBONS. May I interrupt? Mr. QUIE. Yes. Mr. GIBBONS. I think, as a practical matter, I remember my own experience in universities and private schools depending on pri- vate donations, and you start treading on the toes of those private donors and I know they go to the universities and say, "Shut up or PAGENO="0275" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 269 you get cut off." I don't think the Federal Goveriunent would ever do anything that bad but these big old private corporations do. Dr. TORRENCE. I know in many cases State schools are dependent on State legislatures. They seem to survive but there are problems. Mr. QUIE. I know the dangers that exist. A State university really belongs to the State and the State college board, usually. Our educa- tion systems, other than private and parochial schools, are dominated by government at one level or another and parochial schools are dominated by other groups. Certain organizations coming before us, like the AAUW, speak with an independent voice, but if Government has contracts with you, then we begin to wonder how independently are you speaking? Dr. TORRENCE. There has only been one contract and we ask: Are they the type of programs we sponsor ourseif or through the Rocke- feller funds-the kind of programs you are talking about-in terms of attracting people back to the level of teaching? I don't see where this interferes with our sense of judgment or our ability to express our opinions. Mrs. BELL. I think we were addressing ourselves to the 140,000 women, teachers who leave the profession and trying to solicit new ~people. We were attempting to solve a national problem. There is no gain to the association if such a project were possible under this bill. No such proposal hns been made by our board; this is a question from our legislative committee. Mr. QrnE. Section 103 is continuing education? Mrs. BELL. Yes. Mr. REID. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. QuIE. Yes. Mr. REID. I would just add one comment to the colloquy: As one ~member of this committee I would hope that Government regulations will not cause anyone to be fearful of speaking out of expressing dis- sent, and that the Government will always encourage the greatest degree of inquiry and the greatest possible degree of academic freedom. Mr. GIBBONS. I think this academic freedom and this stuff that mas- querades as academic freedom, I am recalling the riots and semiriots at Howard University recently, when a public official was asked out to speak and he comes out to speak and then people break down the doors and won't let him speak. I don't think that is academic freedom. Mr. REID. I think it is not up to the Government to make a comment in an area of that kind. I think it is up to the board of Howard University. Mr. GIBBONS. We put up the money to give students assistance and give them everything else. Mr. REID. But it is a private university. Mr. GIBBONS. I was expressing a personal opinion. I want to find out more about the college faculty program. I think it is an interesting concept. Dr. TORRENCE. I will speak for a moment and then Dr. Dolan, I am sure, will have additional comments to make. There was a feeling that there were many women who had not Only a bachelor's degree and oftentimes an advanced degree, who would be interested in going into college teaching. The funds pro- ~vided by the Rockefeller brothers made it possible to give the grants which would cover tuition and perhaps a stipend of a nominal nature PAGENO="0276" 270 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 to help a person-and they defined those eligible as women over 35 years of age-who wanted to enter college teaching. She was to go to school full time. A total of 126 who have received a. year's graduate school, oftentimes at the doctor's level rather than master's. Ninety percent of these women have entered colleges or universities, either teaching or in administration. I think this testifies to a good deal of success for that program, These were women whose families had grown to the point where they felt they could go back to school full time. I knew one or two of these women and they have found it an exhilarating experience, both in going to school and then engaging in teaching efforts. Mr. GIBBONS. I think it is a worthwhile project because I think it is one of the greatest wastes of talented resources we have. Dr. TORRENCE. Our problem at the moment is in trying to continue it on our own. We can't match the Rockefeller brothers in terms of funds available and the associations in various States that have agreed to go on with it and want to extend the program are trying to raise funds on their own. This gets to be a difficult situation. Mr. GIBBONS. Other than the college faculty program, a.re any other public agencies working in this area? Dr. DOLAN. I think the general answer is there are a few but they are very few because this is an expensive business. May I be very boast- ful and say we think ours was the first program to tackle the college faculty level. Yet there were many other universities that worked with the public school levels. Some had Ford grants to help with the ex- penses and in some the people themselves or the universities paid. Sticking only to the higher education level, although I could report. something on the others if you want, there are what are called the E. B. Fred fellowships at the University of Wisconsin that help a mature woman to her doctorate only for college teaching or research.. In the first 3 years of the program about 50 received fellowships; you see what this means even in one State. In addition, since then, the Danforth Foundation has instituted a. program to help mature women also. Theirs is an extremely valuable program; they take women for graduate study even on a part-time basis and will carry them through to the degree they wish, usually, the doctorate. These women are interested in college and other levels. of teaching. Their program in the first year had around 20, I think- don't hold me to the exact number. It is not much larger in proportion even now in its third year. Radcliffe College has an institute of independent study which is open to women who have their doctorate, or equivalent in experience and ability. Since it began they have trained about 140. Theirs can be used also for part-time study, and is included to advance their pro- fessional interests. There again most of the women have been from the State of Massachusetts. Mobility for study is one of the problems. when you are dealing with women of this age and family status they need to keep near their homes. Money for the Radcliffe program comes from private funds, in the first instance the Rockefeller Bros. Fund; I understand they have Merrill and Josiah Macy, Jr., grants to carry on similar work. In programs similar to our, they are mostly financed at the moment by private funds. There is a great need for more financial help to women of this experience and age group and to my mind it is equally PAGENO="0277" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 271 important to help them whether they wish to serve at the college level or in some other professional capacity in our areas of great need in the country. These women are from families where in most cases there are quite a number of children, they are the war-baby families, who are expensive to raise. These are one-salary families. The women are very, very conscientious; they would not, for anything in the world, take support from the family budget which would injure the opportunities, as they see them, for their youngsters to have fully the education they deserve. We feel ours is not only pushing ahead to help the colleges and universities, but has been a pilot program to show what can be done with this splendid resource in any part of the country for any highly skilled need. If I may digress, I think you would be interested in knowing the names of some of the States in which this program operates. It oper- ated on an experimental basis in the 11 Southeastern States, the whole area of the southern accrediting region. Now it is extended, among others, to California, Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, State of Washington; it exists in the State of Nevada and Texas and this year it has been activated in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. One more thing to indicate the need for such support: In the State of California where there are very limited resources for helping, we `selected four `women to go into the college faculty training program `nexl year. Even for this very limited career opening we had 90 appli- ~cants. Mr. `GIBBONS. I think it is a very worthwhile project and I certainly hope you are able to expand it. I think it could lead the way to devel- Coping resources that so often go to waste in this country. Mrs. Giu~EN. Congressman Erlenborn? Mr. ERLENBORN. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. My thanks to all three of you. I hope we will hear from you in the next few days on possible amendments. This morning we have the privilege of welcoming to this committee ~a new organization, as I understand it, one that has been born in the last year or so. This is the National Student Financial Aid Associa- `tion and Mr. Allan Purdy, the chairman of that group, is represent- ing it today. ~STATEMENTS OF ALLAN W. PURDY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL STU- DENT FINANCIAL AID COUNCIL; CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL AID COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ASSOCI- ATIONS; DIRECTOR, STUDENT FINANCIAL AIDS, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA; AND J~OHN D. JONES, DEAN OF STUDENTS, ARKANSAS A. & M. COLLEGE, SECRETARY, NATIONAL STUDENT `FINANCIAL AID COUNOIL Mrs. GREEN. Am I right that this is a. new organization? Mr. Prnu~. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. Members have expressed their concern `for many years on this subject. Mr. PURDY. I would like to introduce Dr. John D. Jones, dean of PAGENO="0278" 272 HIGHER. EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 students at the Arkansas A. & M. College and secretary-treasurer of the association. I am the current chairman of that group. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I do have a writ- ten statement. If it is all right with you, I will let that go in the record, and I would rather take from that statement and talk to any questions that might have been raised. Mrs. GREEN. Very well. (The full statement of Allan W. Purdy follows:) STATEMENT OF ALLAN W. PURDY, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL STUDENT FINANCIAL Am COUNCIL; CHAIRMAN, FINANCIAL AID COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATIONS; DIRECTOR, STUDENT FINANCIAL AIDS, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, COLUMBIA Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this oppor- tunity to participate in these hearings .011 ~~eha1f of the people who administer the Student Financial Aid programs on the College and University campuses across the nation. The Financial Aid Administrator, Officer, or Counselor-whichever he is called-is the person who works directly with the students who are in need of financial assistance. It is at this point that the programs either work or don't work. If we do our job well, the wisdom that you have put into the planning of the Federal Programs will accomplish its purpose. If we do our job poorly, then your best efforts are wasted and the programs fail. The purpose of our organization is to build lines of communications so we can trade ideas, discuss problems, and do a more effective and efficient job in financial aids. Hence, this meeting is an opportunity to convey to you some of our ideas on student aid and in turn learn more of your philosophy of improving educational opportunity through financial help to those who need it. Financial Aids people generally are well pleased with the Federal-educational programs developed since 1958 which provide funds so that the colleges and universities can put together a combined "package" of gilt aid, student employ- nient, and loans tailored to fit the needs of the individual student. This combi- nation maintains certain fundamentals which we believe to be necessary in our work with students as individuals: * 1. Keep the door of opportunity wide open with enough financial help to enable students to see that they can go to college even though family finances may be short. 2. Let students see this open door while they are in the lower grades so they will be encouraged to think and plan ahead towards college. 3. Leave a place in every financial aids package for students to put forth their efforts and their planning. 4. Keep the parents in the picture helping to provide for and encouraging their children to the extent that circumstances will logically permit. We know that there are cases where this isn't possible, but where the family can provide some support they should be included as partners in the program. 5. Maintain the tailoring of each student's aid as the responsibility of the college financial aid officer. There are wide variations in individual circum- stances, and there is some concern that legislation and the subsequent ad- ministrative guide lines are tending to stipulate programs in such detail that not enough room is left for the exercise of wise judgment to fit mdi- viclual cases. 6. Make each financial aids package fit the needs of the individual student so that he can pursue his education without anxiety as to where the next fee payment is coming from and not have a dqbt of frightening size at graduation time. The above can be accomplished through building a sound continuing program that works year after year so parents, counselors, and students can depend upon it. New programs go through a period of trial. All of us wish things would work smoothly the first time, but they don't. The mark of cooperation is the willing- ness of Congress, the Colleges, and the Office of Education to evaluate and make PAGENO="0279" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 273 changes. Hence, we find the amendments in HR 6265 quite encouraging. Here are some specific comments which I will confine to those portions specifically re- lated to Student Financial Aid in higher education. 1. The ecotension of the various programs for another five years in advance will add a great deal to the confidence in the programs on the part of students, parents, school counselors and college administrators. 2. It is particularly important that the programs actually be funded in advance' so al,l of us can proceed with assurance. Students want to make definite plans and many don't really know whether they can go to college until they receive a firm answer about financial help. We should be able to tell the student in Jan- uary what help `he can expect the following September. I realize that funding is the responsibility of the appropriations Committee, but any support that can be given for this suggestion will be gratefully appreciated. 3. The Educational Opportunity Grant program is not yet through its first year, but at this point we think the preliminary unofficial reports sound quite encouraging. Thus far the dropout rate appears `to be less than had been ex- pected. This is a "high risk" group from the standpoint of educational motivation and they require a tremendous amount of individual attention and counseling. Most colleges cannot add staff fast enough to take care of the extra load and if this program has a successful year it will be `testimony to a lot of good high school counselors and a lot of overtime on the part of many college stag members. 4. Finding institutional resources to match Educational Opportunity Grants Is quite a problem and doing the matching on an individual basis is an immense bookkeeping chore. Section 402 which permits Work-Study earnings to be used for matching Edu- cational Opportunity Grants is a real improvement and will be a great help. 5. I have a couple of suggestions on matching which I wish you would consider very carefully. If work at the cafeteria or book store on campus is considered matching, why don't we consider work at the restaurant or book store across the street is matching? The owners are tax-paying citizens like you and me, and why not encourage them to have a part in student aid when they are providing good work opportunities at fair wages. Furthermore, why curb the initiative of the boy who will hustle out and help himself locate a job by telling him the rules say tha't he has to wait until we locate a job for him? I still endorse the principle that the institution is obligated to continue to main- tain its total effort to help students, and this should be rigidly enforced. However~ our objecive is to aid the student to get an education, and, if a few private dollars can be worked into the plan why not use them! Some of the smaller col- leges can provide a very limited work opportunity and this could be a partial answer to their problem. If we're afraid of abuse on such a suggestion, then a reasonable limit could be put on the number, or percentage of such cases per- mitted at an institution. The other suggestion would be to permit an insured loan from any source te count as matching the same as we now use NDEA Loans. 6. Section 403 to continue the talent search program is good. The job needs te be done on a larger scale and as we study the results of the programs now in operation, they will point the way to further improvement. 7. Sections 421 `through 424 concerning the Loan Insurance Programs for higher education are further improvements. The insured loan situation, in general, needs some very thorough thought given to it. However, since it is now being studied in considerable depth by a special committee, I will make no further comment at this time. 8. Section 432 authorizes the college Work-Study Program to change to an 80% federal, 20% matching after August 20, 1967. While it is recognized that this is still a good deal for most institutions, we feel that the change from 90-10 will be particularly difficult for some of the smaller colleges. There are places where it will result in a reduction of the work program. Also, some campuses will be having difficulty meeting the wage scale of the Fair Labor Standards Act and' a shift to higher matching on Work-Study will further complicate their problems.. 9. Section 433 provides for a liberalized combination of work and study dur- ing vacation periods. This is good. We'd like to suggest one other slight change.. This would be to provide for an average of 15 hours of work per week in a pay- roll period in the weeks in which classes are in session. This would permit a stu- dent to work 13 hours one week and 17 another without having to shift two PAGENO="0280" 274 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 hours to another payroll. Examination loads and class work loads vary from week to week and it would be to his educational advantage to have some reasonable leeway. Limits of variation could be set if it was felt necessary. Incidentally, I think yoa will be pleased to know that our first studies at the University of iiiissouri show that Freshmen on Work-Study are making just as good grades as other Freshmen of comparable academic aptitude who have no part-time jobs. 10. There is a need for more cooperative-Education programs. Any encour- agement along this line is good. 11. The National Defense Education Act loan program continues to be one of the soundest types of Credit programs for college students. We need it maintained and expanded to meet the needs at least until an alternate program of student credit proves that it can effectively do the job better, or at less cost. We support the idea of a revolving fund as a supplemental source of funds which an institution can borrow to meet the credit needs of its students. How- ever, certain technicalities in some states forbid state schools from borrowing as herein suggested. Therefore the revolving fund could not serve the whole needs of all institutions. But since it would increase the total funds available, then all institutions could benefit either directly or indirectly. 12. The further ewtension of loan cancellation provisions continues to com- plicate the loan programs. Students studying in areas not covered by cancella- tion, want to know by what line of reasoning are we operating an "occupationally segregated" program. The Educational Opportunity Grant program should now make it possible to adequately take care of those from the low income families so their debt will not be excessive regardless of their occupational choice. There- fore, maybe this would be a good time to review the cancellation idea. If there are particular professions where more educated people are needed, then, maybe we need to be seeking a solution which will attract qualified persons from all economic levels and not have `to depend upon luring only those from the low family income brackets. 1,. Earlier I referred to the difficulty of finding adequate staff for financial aids programs. These programs are immense and need highly qualified people. Hence, maybe we should give some thought to some federally sponsored spe- cial summer institutes or other programs of training, which can help answer these demanding needs. 14. We find most helpful the move by the U.S. Office of Education to administer the student aid programs through their various regional offices. Our communica- tions with the Office of Education is quite good. Their staff is over loaded like all the rest of us `but in spite of this, their administration is effective, helpful, and understanding. On behalf of the groups which I represent may I again express our sincere appreciation to this subcommittee for your concern, your help, and your courtesy. We are sure that ever improving student financial aid programs in higher educa- tion will result. Mr. PURDY. The newness of the organization comes from the fact we are the people in the colleges and universities who actually work with students. We are the people making the EOG, making the work- study assignments and packaging `the students' aid. Of course, you are quite aware of the newness in education of this whole concept in terms of getting a three-prong program to meet the full needs of students; therefore, we need to conununicate with each other very closely, learn- rng from each other, and the thing we need to know also is your philos- ophy of the way you see this fitting into American education. We are at the grassroots on the firing line and, if we do a good job, then the wisdom of your program is put into effect. If we do a poor job or n-uslmderstand what you have in mind, the programs could fail at the point where it is actually suppose to do the good work. We have a philosophy which is pretty well cemented now; we are helping the student in higher education. We want to keep the parents in the picture where there are parents. We know there. are cases where there aren't and we may have to give full support but this philosophy PAGENO="0281" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 275 is we are helping, we are not wanting the families to give up where there are resources. We are wanting them to be a part of the picture~ We are wanting to leave the door of opportunity open to these students and open it to them while they are still in the lower grades so they know they can go to college if they have the motivation to do it Then when it comes time for them to go to school, make them up a package that is reasonable but also leave a part in every package for the student to do his own planning, show his own initiative and put forth some effort on his own. We will take one or two points as they come; first we are pretty well pleased with the package the Federal program has built smce 1958 of having three types of aid rather than just one. In the amendments having to do with this program, the extension of these various programs on a longer time basis is going to lend confi- dence and put them on a much better footing than they have had. before. It is good news to learn you are already in the process of speak- ing toward this advance funding because this will help the programs quite materially. We need, in talking to the students, to be able t~ give firm answers and they need to know in January or February are they going to have the help or not and, if so, they can. make their plans. Advance funding is real important and we congratulate you. on being way ahead of us on that suggestion. The educational opportunity grant program is real interesting, it is real challenging because we are hitting one of the great needs of our country in getting these kids with educational potential and get- ting them to go to school. This is a high-risk group; we all know it.. They take a tremendous amount of counseling. You will be interested to know a girl showed up, I talked to her and. then, on enrollment day, she showed up in my line. I said, "Helen,. what can I help you with?" She was not sure and it took 5 minutes for me to find out what she wanted. She got to the cashier's window, got her EOG check and she did not know how to endorse it. This shows how complete the counseling must be. We think we see an encouraging aspect here. The preliminary report shows the dropout rate among these EOG's is not as high as we feared it might be but we won't know too much about that until the end of this year. This is a rather exciting program. If you happen to be looking down here, point 4 on page 3, finding the matching resources for educational opportunity grants is a real problem and the smaller the school, the larger the problem, pretty much. We are very pleased that you are looking toward making work- study a part of this matching grant because this is logical. This also puts the student in a position of helping himself and we think this is a real part of the program. Now, I have a couple of suggestions here, you may not like them, but hear them and let's discuss them just a minute. We have work on campus as a matching idea. Working at the bookstore across the street, which is privately owned, is not a matching idea. I wish it were. TIns is private money and if they want a part in helping these stu- dents, I think this is good. Any private dollar we can get in the pro- gram is good. I say that every institution must maintain their efforts and increase their efforts. PAGENO="0282" 276 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 I am looking upon a private job that a student might have as just something in addition to what we are already committed to. IL am also looking at it this way, the kid with the vitality to go out and get a job on his own, I would rather pat him on the back and say go to it than say, "No, wait; you have to wait until we assign you to a job we have found `for you." I think there is a great deal of logic in this so I would have that in the picture. You may have some questions on that because I know it is controversial. Mrs. GREEN. You are speaking of the work-study program here? Mr. PURDY. We are actually speaking of matching in an educational opportunity grant with a job, instead of being at the university book- store, have been gone across the street at the private bookstore. This is a job the kid got on his own. He is earning money. If he has an EOG grant, he is earning money on his own and, whether or not during that term the earnings could not be considered part of the matching, or `saying, "No, if you were working at our bookstore, it would be consid- ered matching." Mrs. GREEN. I did not know which you were talking about. Mr. PTJRDY. They are closely coordinated. First of all we appreciate your getting work-study matching and here is another form of match- ing, private money, and I kind of like that idea. Again I want to restate that we are finally committed to the prin- ciple of the institution maintaining and increasing its efforts of help- ing its own students. The other suggestion on matching, if we use NDEA and we use a ,guaranteed loan where the institution has made the guarantee, that is matching for EOG. We have the other guarantee programs which are not matching. I would like to see it simplified in terms of if he is get- ting an insured loan that it be a matching for EOG purposes, whether from this program or another program. We have quite an array of means of guaranteeing loans here and I would rather not confuse the students by saying, "No; you can't use this." He wants to know the difference and it is difficult to explain. It is a bit controversial but nevertheless I think it is an idea. Mr. GIBBoNs (presiding). Could you give us some suggested language? If you don't have any available, could you send some that might straighten out this problem? I am having a hard time follow- ing it, too. Mr. PURDY. It is not easy to follow, as you know there are several ways loans may be guaranteed. Let me illustrate, through the U.S. -students aid fund, there is money put up to guarantee loans. That is at an institutional level, the rules say this is a matching dollar for educational opportunity grants just as surely as an NDEA is. That is all right, that is fine. However, if the loan comes from a program. in which the institution has not participated, suppose it conies from a seed, money dollar, then it comes from the same bank or similar bank, and it could not be a matching loan so it gets that technical, Mr. Gibbons, and it isn't really quite understandable to t.he students ~tnd I am not sure it is to some of the financial aid people. Mr. GIBBONS. Or the Members of Congress. I don't understand Teally what you are driving `at. PAGENO="0283" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 277 Mr. PURDY. These technicalities which really burden the adminis- tration of the programs and really don't accomplish anything com- pensatory with the time it takes to do it. I think one of our pleas here is to relieve the programs of some of the annoying technicalities that increase the administrative load tremendously without accomplishing anything in addition. I think we would like to get the most for our dollar. This whole guaranteed loan program is, shall we say-a kind word would be to say it is confused. It needs an awful lot of study and I irnderstand a committee is going into it in depth and maybe I should say no more at this point until we see what is coming out. Lord help us if we don't come out with a clearer picture. Mr. GIBBONS. What committee is studying it? Mr. PURDY. I understand there is a bar committee on a pretty high level, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury is working with the American Banking Association. Another fellow is Kenneth Greer, who is national chairman of State student loan programs. Mr. GIBBONS. When are they supposed to be finished with their work? Mr. PURDY. I have not seen the report. If it is out, I have not seen it. I have been looking for it. Maybe I am behind on that but I have not seen the results of their study. As I say, this thing needs a tremendous lot of work because this past year there were some fundamental mechanics in it which kept it from working on the level that it needs to work so I think that is all 11 need to say on that. On the work-study, the proposal is for the 90-10 matching to go down to 80-20. Any of us know 80-20 is still a good deal for the institution. However, we also face the fact that the smaller institu- tions-some of them are struggling a lot now even with the 90-10 and 80-20, 1 would think, would further increase the workload in some of the smaller institutions. Maybe there needs to be a provision or some of the weaker institutions to have special consideration. I don't know the answer. The meeting of the Minimum Wage Committee on the Fair `Wages Act is going to put a further crimp on that. I think the larger institu- tions are not voicing this same concern. I think they can take it either way, but certainly the smaller institutions would have a problem there. On work-study, here is a little technicality I wish could be straight- `ened out; that is, we felt in the original, in the wording of the original, the word "average" may have been lost somewhere. We say a student should work not more than an average of 15 hours a week while in school. The law, as written, I believe, says he shall not work more than 15 hours. This means we have a boy on work-study and he has a series of examinations this week and he says, "May I work 10 hours this week and I will make it up next week?" Yet under the work-study program, if lie works 17 hours, we have to take 2 hours off that payroll and put it over on another payroll. This type of little picayunishness is killing us on administrative costs. This type of thing I don't think would cost the program hardly a recognizable amount and yet it would relieve the burden and, if the time ever comes when the Office of Education auditors or Government auditors want to come in and PAGENO="0284" 278 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 see whether the schools are doing this, they are going to have millions of timecards to look over, not by the month but by the week. To me it is logical to say a student in any pay period should not work more than 15 hours a week. If you feel this needs some control, put an upper limit on it but let's get away from these little things that add so much to the cost. Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps we made a mistake; the only control was to try to make sure the students still went to school. Mr. P1IRDY. Right; and you are wise as can be. Mr. GIBBONS. We were not trying to `limit the money spent; we wanted to give the money to a full-time student and not to a working student who was incidentally attending college. Mr. PURDY. Right. Mr. GIBBONS. I think you understand the difference, we wantedl honest bona fide students receiving the money, not people just sort of incidentally attending college. I don't know why the interpreta- tion should be as strict as perhaps somebody is making. Is the Office of Education actually enforcing it at 15 hours, no less or no more? Mr. PtTRDY. Of course, it can be less but they have said absolutely no more and they base it on their legal interpretation that it says it shall not exceed. This is the type of interpretation and it does not fit what I think is your philosophy and it does not fit the philosophy of' the working student. We could not agree more with the fact we want. these students to go to school. I said 2 or 3 years ago, to the committee proposing this, we talked in terms of an average of 15 hours. Over~ the years we found this was a reasonable thing. We agree 100 percent. but it is the technical interpretation that is giving us problems. Mr. GIBBONS. We would also like bona fide co-ops to .be able to work more. I think they worked out that difference in interpretation, didn't they? Mr. PURDY. As I say, some of those things are the things which. would make the programs flow smoother and really not cost any more.. In fact it would cost a lot less. If the programs get loaded with these things that run up administrative costs, then that brings the question, why can't you help us with these administrative costs? Mr. GIBBONS. I think it is the purpose and intention-it is my inten- tion, as one of the authors of this legislation-that you be allowed edu- cational flexibility within this law, that the only purpose of putting 15 hours in there was to make sure the money went to bonafide students rather than people who were incidentally students and working on a regular job. We also meant for the institution to treat a bonafide co-op student and allow him to work more hours during the time he had off for his co-op training, not to pin you down. The objective was for' educational rather than financial. Mr. PtTRDY. This is excellent, then, and we hope it gets out to us in directive form so we can operate that way. We are in agreement on that. Of course, we do feel that your provision here for encouraging more cooperative education is excellent, we need more of it. Incidentally, I think you will be pleased to know at th University of Missouri we ran a work-study program on the incoming freshman, his first semester. This is the critical semester of any student attempt- PAGENO="0285" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 279 ing to work. We found our freshmen students were making as good grades as students who were not working. This is encouraging. We are going to keep watching to see whether our work students are keeping up their academic programs and we think we have the historical knowl- edge to know that they will but we have to watch them. Getting into the National Education Act loan funds, we think this is one of the sound forms of financial support. We are pleased with the revolving fund idea to keep ample funds for students. Admittedly some of the States can't participate because of a technicality in the Constitution; private schools can and some State schools, but whatever *aid we can get helps directly or indirectly. I am going to get into an area here where you say maybe it does :not concern a financial aid man, but I will throw it out. The ever- increasing loan cancellation provisions continue to complicate the loan programs. I am not sure it is not affecting the philosophy here in that, if too many get cancellation, the others wonder how can we operate on an occupationally segregated program. Mr. GIBBONs. I wish we had more members here to hear you. Mr. Quie and I agree with you. Go ahead and say it; we want it in the record. Mr. Puiwr. We admit there are areas in education where we need more educated people and teaching is one of them. We think there ought to be found a better way of attracting educated people into those areas than to have a program that attracts them only from lower economic levels. We think it is unbecoming to professional education to lure them into teaching from lower economic levels when they are only 17 years old. This is just a problem of financial aid business but we do deal with this and it is making loan collection pro- cedures quite complicated. I think that would be our statement. Mr. Qrnn. May I interrupt and ask, this is a judgment your orgami- :zation had made? Mr. PruDY. Mr. Jones and I are two of 15 members. There is the Southwestern Regional Association of Financial Aid people; South- ern Association, Eastern Association, Mid-West Association; on the West Coast we don't have `an association of people but we have rep- resentatives growing out of a college service grouping. We are speak- `ing for the working financial aid people. Mr. Qurs. I just w'ant to reiterate what Congressman Gibbons said, I feel very strongly about this and have for `a number of years and am glad to hear you people come in with this. Mr. Pui~ny. We realize this is dynamite and people in the areas of education would spank us if we were heard saying it. Mr. Qurs. Less so today, there are more and more people in the educational field that agree, both In higher education and secondary `and elementary levels. Mr. Pmwy. This thing is insoluble in `higher education, what is a full time teacher-his research and so forth-well, I won't take further `time there. Mr. GIBBONS. That is a good question, I think we said the person `that went into teaching would be entitled to forgiveness but how do you treat one of these fellows who spends a couple of hours teaching and the rest of the time looking at seahorses in bottles, or something, do you forgive them, too? PAGENO="0286" 280 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. Punry. I wish I knew. This is the thing we are facing this next June. This is the question, how to interpret what the college man is doing in an institution of higher education when the law says teaching. Mr. GIBBONS. Suppose he is a sort of assistant dean and does not do any teaching at all, and gets a loan, does he still get a forgiveness? Mr. JoNEs. Presently that is the question. Mr. GIBBONS. The Office of Education does not have any guidelines or policy statements out on that? Mr. PIIRDY. As I say, there is such a wide variation here that I think there is going to be an awfully wide variation in the experience that we see coming up in this kind of thing. As I say, it is a barrel of worms to pick out a clear policy in. Financial aid is getting to be immense, you are putting lots of money into it, the colleges are putting a lot of money and time into it. It takes more and more full-time people out in the colleges. Nobody goes to college to train to be a financial aid man. We need some people-the best we have been able to do so far is to have some summer training courses for new people going in. Here I would like to say the Col- lege Board through the Scholarship Service Board has helped sponsor groups here and there, it has been good and adequate to meet support- ing needs. But the College Board cannot continue to do this on a large scale. We have some institutes for others, counseling and so forth. I am not proposing this for legislation but I think it is something we might take a look at sometime. We are really building up a big area in education and we need some qualified people in it if it gets the job done you want done. We are finding most helpful the idea of the Office of Education to administer through their regional offices. This gives closer contact. We folmd communication excellent and the Office of Education very help- ful. We would like to commend them on this. Mr. GIBBONS. This is one place in the college picture where regional- ization helps out. We find in most places college professors don't like regionalization elsewhere. Mr. PUnDY. We are speaking only of student aid and we find this contact very helpful. That is our presentation, gentlemen, and we certainly thank you for your consideration and your courtesy in asking us to appear. If you have further questions, Mr. Jones and I will be glad to try to answer them. Mr. GIBBONS. I would like to ask more questions if we had time. You must have worked on TV somewhere. You finished about 15 min- utes before the time was up. Thank you very much, it was very interesting. We will have to re- cess and reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow. (Whereupon, the subcommittee recessed at 12 noon, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, April 28, 1967.) PAGENO="0287" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1967 HousE o~ REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITPEE OF EDUCATION OF THE CoMMIT'n~E ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 :15 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam NI. Gibbons, presiding. Present: Representatives Gibbons, Quie, Erlenborn, and Esch. Also present: William F. Gaul, associate council to the committee. Mr. GIBBoNs. The subcommittee will come to order and we will ask the first witness to come forward. Our first witness is Dr. Marckwardt, president of the National Council of Teachers of English. STATEMENT OP DR. ALBERT H. MARCKWARDT, PRESIDENT OP THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OP TEACHERS OP ENGLISH Dr. MARCKWARDT. For purpose of identification I am Albert H. Marckwardt, professor of English and president of the National Council of Teachers of English. In addition to some 40 years of university teaching I have held of- fice in a number of professional and scholarly organizations, includ- ing the Linquistic Society of America, the Learned Council of Educa- tional Societies, and I speak also from 8 years of service on local and county school boards and I have been a member of the board of direc- tors of a State board of schools. The association on whose behalf I am speaking-I have a prepared statement, but in the interest of time I will try to summarize this more briefly. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH The National Council of Teachers of English, with more than 122,000 members and subscribers, is the world's largest independent organization of teachers from a single discipline, drawing its membership from all levels of education, pri- mary through graduate school. Its size is a measure not only of the vigor of the profession but of the scope of the su~bject as well. There are now nearly a million teachers in the nation's elementary schools; virtually all of them teach English. Approximately one hundred thousand secondary school teachers are also in- volved in the teaching of English. Studies reported by the National Education Association and the U.S. Office of Education indicate that of the entire educational effort, kindergarten through twelfth grade, about one quarter of the time and energy of the personnel is committed to the teaching of English. In the primary grades this figure ranges from 40 to 60 percent. Yet it is not on behalf of our membership that we speak today, nor on behalf of the tens of thousands of unaffihiated teachers of English. Rather, it is for the 281 PAGENO="0288" 282 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 children in the grades and the students in higher education, whose continuing needs make English the largest single concern of the schools and one of the major concerns of colleges and universities. These needs are urgent because the shortage of qualified English teachers and elementary teachers remains on a par with shortages in mathematics and science, shortages to which the President pointed so dramatically in his 1967 "Message on Education and Health in America." National concern for national needs The leaders and members of the National Council of Teachers of English share in the American conviction that education is the province of the states and local school districts. The Council has long encouraged its affiliated state and local English associations to work for the imprflvement of English instruction within their respective areas. But just as the affiliates have found professional strength and betterment in working through their National Council, so the NOTE has called for federal involvement when the needs of the profession were so great as to require national attention. As the Council reported to the Congress in 1961: "If the teaching of English is to be improved throughout the country, bold and thimediate action must be undertaken on a national scale. . . The basic problems of improving the preparation of teachers and of articulating the study [of Eng- lish] at all levels of education are so important and so large that they can be undertaken only by a national supported program." Viewed in this light, 1963 and 1964 stand out as momentous years for American education. The passage of the Amendments to the National Defense Education Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and the National Arts and Cultural Development Act of 1964, were notable achievements of the Eight-eighth Congress. In all of this legislation the prestige of the federal government was brought to bear on educational problems which local school dis- tricts and states bad been unable to solve alone or which had remained unsolved because community pressures stood in the way of a national perspective. Much of the legislation consisted of categorical aid. Categorical aid from the federal government has resulted in the upgrading of teachers and instruction in such subject-matter areas as English and reading, which are basic to all education. Categorical aid has insured the allocation of funds to such programs as teaching English as a second language and the teach- ing of English and reading to disadvantaged children, programs which dovetail with the civil rights goals of the federal government and with federal aims for economic opportunity. Categorical aid has provided federal funds to give students experience with artistic achievement2 and to balance education in science and mathematics with education in the humanities.3 Although there have been gains all along the line, no one of these tasks has been completed. The Council believes it is too early to jeopardize these educational gains by abandon- ing categorical for general aid at the present time. The leaders of the National Council of Teachers of English can understand the position of local boards of education, who wish to receive general funds for allo- cation to what they see as their greatest needs. But they realize that not all local boards of education are prepared, without federal and professional encourage- inent, to minister fully to the needs of all their students. They are also aware that local boards often fail to take into account national as well as purely parochial educational concerns. In anticipation of the opportunity to present testimony at these hearings, the Executive Committees of the National Council of Teachers of English and its con- stituent body, the Conference on College Composition and Communication, unan- imously endorsed the principle of categorical aid to subject areas in the schools and institutes, as the federal government has been furnishing over the past several years. English basic to edncation We, in the National Council, realize that by advocating categorical aid we open ourselves to the charge of proceeding from motives of self-interest. To this we would reply that our profession has already given evidence to the Congress that 1 Committee on National Interest, The National Interest and the Teaching of English (Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1961), p. 3. 2 Through P.L. 88-759. Through the NDEA amendments and the National Foundation on the Arts and Humani- ties Act of 1965. PAGENO="0289" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 283 its concern for English as a subject is based upon the premise that English under- lies the total educational program. Actually this is more than a premise. It is a fact, and it has been documented.4 Consequently, if at any time general funds ullotted to a school district were distributed proportionally among the subject- matter disciplines on the basis of students enrolled, English would have nothing to fear. It would receive its cut of the pie. But this is not our point. We favor the retention of categorical aid for reasons more fundamental to what we believe to be our national educational goals. We share the concern of Congress for education as a means of improving the lot of all citizens and increasing the chances of all children for a better life. We are convinced that teachers of English have a profound contribution to make to the education of the disadvantaged. "The strength of the English component in our school programs will largely determine whether students will someday be able to surmount the social, economic, and educational barriers which have given rise to the present conditions." We extend our concern to those who are held back because English is not their native language. This can result in des- perate loneliness, social rejection, and economic handicap.6 Our society cannot afford to tolerate situations where children are held back by unsound teaching, poor materials, and frustrating home environments, so that after years of study- ing English they lack even comprehensible control of it. In order for English teachers to deal adequately with these situations they need special training which is not now available to them. The continuation of categorial aid while education is tackling these challenges of the sixties would insure success where programs have made a good start, im- provement where they have been faltering, stimulus where school districts have remained indifferent to crucial needs. Until boards of education awaken to their full responsibilities, until administilators act to meet nationwide problems crys- tallized locally, until all teachers are educated to teach the children of today for the world of today and tomorrow, categorical aid would seem the better way to safeguard the national interest. Schools structured by subjects Retaining the principle of categorical aid will better enable the schools and colleges, in terms of their present structure, to execute the intentions and plans of Congress. Throughout the entire range of our educational system, cur- ricula are organized by subject matter. In the secondary schools, instruction in the traditional subject-matter disciplines has been improved by strengthen- ing the areas of specialization. Following that example, elementary schools have recently been able to capitalize upon the specializations of their teachers. Such innovations in method as team teaching, computerized instruction, and language laboratories have required well-developed subject-matter competence. Current demands upon the schools for upgrading competence in subject-matter Thave resulted in new sources of support and counsel for the teachers. Many school districts are now appointing supervisors who are subject-matter specialists-in English, in methematics, in social studies, and so on. In the fifty state departments of education there are now 456 supervisors in all subjects, as against only 33 before NDEA in 1958. There are 74 each in English and reading; there were only 10 in English before 1964. Teachers have been joining professional subject-matter organizations in increasing numbers, and as the NCTE well knows, have placed upon these organizations demands for increased services and professional publi- cations. Until recently local teachers and supervisors, state supervisors, and subject-matter specialists in colleges of education were able to find their counter- parts among subject-matter specialists in the United States Office of Education. For a brief period, the utmost cooperation prevailed and worked to the benefit of all-and to the benefit of elementary and secondary students. School-college cooperation The organization of curricula by subject matter has also led in recent years, under the stimulus of the National Defense Education Act and as a result of certain activities on the part of the Bureau of Cooperative Research, to a profit- The National Interest and the Teaching of English, pp. 15, 19. RIchard Corbin and Muriel Crosby (cochairmen), Language Programs for the Disadvan- taged (Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1965), p. 17. Harold B. Allen, A Survey of the Teaching of English to Non-Englssh Speakers in th~ United States (Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1966), p. vii (Introduction). 80-155-67-pt. 1-19 PAGENO="0290" 284 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 able cooperation between teachers in the schools and subject-matter faculty in the colleges.. This cooperation between teachers and scholars has resulted in better materials and stronger teaching in the schools; college-bound students especially have found themselves better prepared for college and university work. It would be unfortunate to lose these benefits by turning prematurely to general instead of categorical aid. Another danger has arisen in the recent. reassignment of subject-matter spe- cialists in the IJSOE to positions of general responsibility. Already one working arm of the profession has been amputated, or at least disabled, in terms of its accessibility to teachers in the schools and colleges. Sound program development and evaluation depend upon administration by qualified subject-matter specialists who are in frequent communication with their counterparts and colleagues in schools and colleges throughout the country. Even if Congress approves the general authority that has been proposed, it should insure that programs in each subject-area be administered by competent specialists. Categories and priorities The Congress and the Administration have declared their intention to improve all education. The NOTE applauds that intention. It would not oppose the wish of Congress to add categories of aid which its members deem crucial. But the Council would urge Congress to establish priorities. In 1967 and 1968 some areas are more important than others, and categorical aid can attend more adequately to those priorities than can general aid. For the same reasons that English and reading were important in the early years, they are important now. Qualified English teachers are still among those in shortest supply. Teachers of English for the disadvantaged need specialized training, as do teachers of English as a second language. Members of the NCTE Task Force reported instance after instance of programs for the disadvantaged floundering because of the shortage of personnel trained in English.7 Seventy percent of the teachers of English as a second language indicated a desire for additional formal training in subject-matter areas in their field.8 These needs are specific and not general. In 1964 the NOTE reported to Congress on the need for inservice education of teachers of English. At that time teachers were complaining that their local institute and workshop programs had, for the most part, been devoted to general educational problems. "Over two-thirds of both elementary and secondary teachers of English report that less than 50 percent of the time in such institutes is given to the teaching of English. Only 21.4 percent of the teachers of English have an opportunity to attend a district, sponsored institute or workshop devoted largely or entirely to English."9 The Congress responded that year by establishing NDEA institutes in English and reading, to meet the needs of those teachers who wished to acquire com- petence in specific aspects of language instruction. Thus far, opportunities for advanced study in English and reading have provided for only some 15,000 of the one million teachers of these subjects. The compelling need for specialized institutes for such teachers continues. Subject snpervisors for states One of the clearest gains following the inclusion of English under NDEA was the extraordinary increase in the number of full-time state supervisors in Eng- lish, ~a fact which has already been mentioned (p. 5). This seven-fold gain over a period of less than three years was achieved because of provisions within Title III of NDEA for such state positions. Moreover, state departments of educa- tion were quick to see the desirability of having a person with competence in a specific subject area available to coordinate state activities with a counterpart in the U.S. Office of Education. And since the nation's schools and colleges are organized on the basis of subject areas, such state appointments are logical extensions of existing educational conditions. The National Council of Teachers of English has found state supervisors to be an invaluable contact and accurate source of information about state and local Language Programs for the Disadvantaged, pp. 27-28. 8 A ~S'urvey of the Teaching of English to Non-English ~5peakers in the United ~S'tates, p. 5. Committee on National Interest, The National Interest and the Continuing Education of Teachers of English (Champaign, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1964), p. 5. PAGENO="0291" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 285 programs. We are convinced that. this situation is just as true for other subject- area organizations. The National Council regularly communicates news of profes- sional interest through various mailings and ,a special newsletter to supervisors and consultants. Such an information exchange is fast and efficient. lit reaches not only the state departments but also the districts and the individual schools inasmuch as state supervisors ordinarily have their own channels of intra-state dissemination. The original intent of categorical state grants for .supervisory services was to strengthen instruction by providing state leaders able to cope with the accelerat- ing peace of curriculum revision in subject areas considered vital to the national interest. The importance of such positions is suggested by the multiplicity of duties commonly assigned to state supervisors: initiation and coordination of inservice training programs, assessment and dissemination of pertinent research findings, development of sequential state curriculum guidelines that provide for articulation and continuity at all grade levels, evaluation of existing programs, cooperation with higher education and state . agencies on certification require- men'ts, and specialized assistance to teachers and schools on current develop- ments in specific subject areas. Obviously, only a person with considerable knowl- edge of the subject area concerned can master such an assignment. Although there are those in education who deplore the movement toward more and more specialization, the most rapid expansion of knowledge man has ever known has made such a move inevitable. Virtually all professions and the dis- ciplines they represent are moving toward `more specialization, rather than less. A handful of "Renaissance men" in education may exist in the United States; hardly enough, however, to fill the needs of the state and federal agencies. The professional challenge posed by English alone, in all its aspects of language, com- position, and literature, suggests the unlikelihood of a state "curriculum spe- cialist" serving all or several subject areas with equal competence. The National Council, therefore, views with concern the propo'sal in Bill H.R. 6232 that amends Title III of NDEA by eliminating all matching support for strengthening supervisory services at the state level in the fields currently con- sidered "critical." We fear that as a result of this, there will be a shift from state subject-area supervisors to those with general educational responsibilities. The National Council does not question the need for those in the latter category. State superintendents, assistant superintendents in charge of education, and curriculum consultants must necessarily be charged with broad educational responsibilities. But it seems obvious that such persons can function best with expert help in major subject areas. To withhold support for these positions represents a reversal of ~the trend toward close cooperation between subject- matter specialists and professional educators-a trend which in the past decade ha's been of inestimable value to American education. Scholars from the disciplines, on college an'd university faculties, have much to contribute to American education. Whereas in `the past too many of them dis- dained involving themselves with the education of the young, many of `them are now deeply engaged in the betterment of programs in mathematics, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. Twelveto fifteen years ago, there was an undeclared but obvious war between academic `specialists and specialists in edu- cation. The profession suffered, teachers suffered, and worst of all, children in- evitably suffered. An education bill that sets a policy of declassification, of gen- eralization, risks a rupture between these two' important groups and jeopardizes the great gains which have come only from their recent harmonious cooperation. It is the National Council's belief that both those in education and those in academic disciplines have substantial contribution's to make to American educa- tion, contributions unlikely to materialize except in a balanced program encom- passing both groups. Materials and equipment for English teaching Yet another threat to professional harmony and effectiveness lurks in the proposal to make further cuts in NDEA Title II aid through state education agencies to local schools for the purchase of equipment and supplementary teach- ing materials. For the most part, purchases under this title have been jud'icious, if for no other reason than that federal funds must be matched by local funds. The success of this program is indicated by the extensive participation by school districts and the fact that every year there is a backlog of proposed Title PAGENO="0292" 286 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 III projects. Even critics of the program, such as I. T. .Tohnson, concede that cer- tain benefits have accrued Iron Title 111.10 Teachers participating in NDEA institutes, school workshops, and similar in- service training programs are frequently introduced to the latest audiovisual equipment and to helpful techniques in its use. Teachers of English, for example, may be shown the usefulness of an overhead projector in discussing the writing problems of their students, or given instruction in the use of the tape recorder for assisting students with language problems. Teachers returning from such programs can then properly use existing equipment in their schools, or intelli- gently develop projects which qualify under Title III. While it is generally con- ceded that in education the "software" has not kept pace with the "hardware," the recent mergers of publishing houses with large business or industrial firms promise to make available to the schools an abundance of educational material that can do much to extend learning experience. Under the present categorical provisions of NDEA, this program of aid to schools has coincided neatly with the institute provisions for teacher education. It is supremely ironic that the contemplated amendment to roduce matching funds for the purchase of audiovisual and other materials comes at a time when ~there is increased national attention to the use arid effect of mass media in our society. In the teaching of English, considerable attention is being cur- :rently directed to the study of the film as an art form and to its use in con- ;nection with the study of literature. In the last few years, thousands of record- ~ngs, tapes, and films have been produced which can profitably be used by ~the teacher of English. Films can bring the excitement and drama of a Shake- spearean play into the most geographically isolated class; recordings can enable ~itudents to hear major poets reading from their own works; tapes can provide students with an opportunity to listen and compare their dialect with other forms of American speech. A recent Study of High School English Programs (Cooperative Research Project No. 1994) suggests that the potentialities of the media have scarcely been tapped by teachers of English. Too often in the past the English classroom has been barren, a place devoid of its most basic necessity-books. In High School Departments of English: Their Organization, Administration; and Supervision (Cooperative Research Project No. F 047), it was recommended that "Room libraries of approximately 500 selected books, many of them paperbacks, should be provided for every English classroom." Such supplementary books, purchasable under Title III, can do much to provide varied reading experiences for students. In addition, the report stipulated that an overhead projector, phonograph, film and slide pro- jector should be considered as basic equipment for classroom use. English programs that employ such equipment and materials can be expected to pro- vide far richer and more exciting experiences for students than those that operate with only one or two textbooks and a blackboard. Title III has provided for the extension of important learning experiences in the classroom and the use of techniques which have been demonstrated to teachers in NDEA institutes. To reduce funds for the continuation of such programs discounts almost entirely their potentialities for the education of the nation's youth. The institute program It is understandable that Congress and the President see various forms of aid to education as instruments for attacking and remedying an accumulation of social ills. Equally understandable are revisions in organization necessary to accommodate changes in the scope and intensity of the program. It is apparent that "Higher Education Amendments of 1967" intends not only to introduce more aid but also to provide flexibility for meeting varying needs at the state levels. Certainly we all favor optimum freedom to attack those areas where needs are most apparent. We feel it equally important to conserve whatever has been learned from the experience of NDEA institutes in specific subject fields. As far as English is concerned, thi~ has been a great deal. We have witnessed a changing conception of the task of teaching English, as the college people and the sec- ondary teachers have come together in the institutes to carry on what frequently amounted to a useful form of mutual instruction. NDEA. institutes in English, in reading, in the teaching of English as a second language, and in the teaching 10 J* P. Johnson, The Inspect in California of NDEJ! Titles III, V, and VIII (Sacramento: California Office of State Printing). PAGENO="0293" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 287 of English to the disadvantaged have taught us to see the breadth, the com- plexity, and the interrelatedness of the problems of teaching our subject. They have helped us to recognize the shortcomings of past programs and stimulated increasingly creative proposals for new institutes. The granting of NDEA contracts in 1966 for institutes for t.he summer of 1967 revealed a multitude of excellent proposals which could not be funded. This gap between professional energy and limited funding is a situation that is un- derstandable but remediable. To snuff out the unique contribution that has come from specialists, teachers, and uniquely equipped administrative presonnel at- tacking a common problem would be retrogression rather than remedy. The designation, by the Congress, of categories of aid has contributed to the success of the Institute program. Congress did this to assure a focus of energy upon a clearly delineated problem, and the action ha5 paid off in professional and educational dividends that have gone far beyond what was consciously in- tended. Any new legislation should preserve this energy and creativity to assure that no momentum is lost. We do not interpret our position as one of opposition to all proposed changes in legislation. We are sympathetic with the desire to bring federal help to other areas of the curriculum and with the need for more flexibility at all levels. We are fearful, however, that sweeping revisions will forfeit much of what has already been gained. Responsibility for the two-year college Once again, with respect to Part E, "Training and Development Programs for Higher Education Personnel," the NOTE is impressed by the rightness of purpose and the directness of the attack upon a national problem whose dimen- sions are growing. Higher education must be granted a high priority if we are to meet the teacher-training needs of American education at all levels. Beyond this, with reference to the two-year college, we face a special responsibility to serve those of the adult community who seek higher education and to extend the opportunities of college training to a segment of the population which, up to the present, could scarcely contemplate the possibility of going beyond the secondary school. Assuredly, the demands of higher education must be met as forthrightly as this legislation intends. The increased numbers of persons expecting to attend colleges and universities during the next ten years astound us all; the number of students who will be attending the two-year college is breathtaking. We in English, to keep ourselves aware of the extent of our future responsibilities, need only bear in mind that for the next decade there will .be created in the United States one new two~year college per week. Should each college need on the average twelve English instructors, this would require 6,240 teachers who must be educated, since it is neither helpful, ~desirable, nor possible to raid high school and four-year college and university staffs to fill this need. Two years of NDEA English institutes have now engaged college faculty and secondary school English teachers in problems related to the teaching of new subject matter to a new generation of stndents. But the needs of English in- ~tructors in the two-year colleges have been almost entirely overlooked by fed- eral legislation; yet perhaps no area in the total curriculum is more complex and more in need of direct aid and support. The two-year college English instructor often needs inservice training, for some of the subject matter he originally learned is now obsolete. He needs the opportunity also to meet with other English instructors in two-year colleges to study and define a role and an assignment that are evolving within the current scene. He needs precisely what the NDEA institutes have given to the secondary school teachers: awareness of others' problems, the opportunities for joint plan- ning, and emphasis upon the application of newly-developed concepts to class- room teaching. Conclusion On November 1, 1964, President Johnson released his "Policy Paper on Educa- tIon." In it he cited five goals: to broaden and improve the quality of our school base; to concentrate teaching resources in the urban slums and poor rural areas; to expand and enrich our colleges; to recognize that education is a lifelong proc- ess; to strengthen our state and community education systems. Although progress has been made, nothing has changed to diminish the importance of these goals or our commitment to them. Indeed, it is our commitment to them that leads the PAGENO="0294" 288 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 National Council of Teachers of English to make the following recommendations and urge their thoughtful consideration: 1. That whatever form the legislation finally takes, both the statement of the law and the report of legislative intent specify clearly that aid to schools and state agencies, and that preservice and inservice programs for teachers be pro- vided in proportion to national need. 2. That the present organizational "fit" among schools, colleges, the profes- sions themselves, and state and federal agencies be preserved by insuring that teachers of school subjects and scholars in the subject-matter disciplines find their counterparts in state and federal educational agencies. 3. That the principles which govern aid to schools match in some measure those which govern support for education of teachers, to insure that the training re- ceived in institutes and through fellowships is followed by corresponding oppor- tunities to strengthen subject-matter instruction in the schools. 4. That the principle of opening to teachers in colleges, particularly junior colleges, inservice and preservice educational opportunities hitherto open only to teachers in schools be established. Dr. MARGKWARDT. The association on whose behalf I am speaking has some 122,000 members and subscribers. It is the largest profes- sional subject-matter organization in the country and, we believe, in the world. All together we believe there are about a million teachers in our school systems who are associated with the teaching of English in one wny or another. I would like to think I speak on their behalf as well, and for the chil- dren in our school systems since English underlies so completely the educational program. It is the one subject they take for some 11 or 12 years so that in a sense we are talking about one-fifth of the Nation in our classes. With respect to teachers, English teachers, I should like to point out that in many parts of the field of English, further development and further training of the teachers for the development of teaching pro- cedures and materials is urgently needed This is true in connection with English for the disadvantaged and educational clientele that has been supported particularly by recent legislation from the Congress. It is true also for English for the speak- cis of other 1'ingwtges, which me~ns a r'ither large sector of the people in oui urban centers ~tnd it is true also for the te'~chers of English in the 2-year colleges about whom I shall have something to say a bit `later on. ` We are particularly concerned over three features of the proposed House bill 6232: The, first of these is ~he proposed abolition of title II of NDEA which, in the past, has supported institutes in. English., in reading and teaching `of the disadvantaged, among others. it has gn~ en c~ tegorical ~nd supporting institutes that focus on the subj ect iu'~ tter We are concerned also over the proposed amendment to title III of NDEA in such a way that it would reduce still further matching aid to schools for the purpose of materials and equipment to strength- en instructions in critical fields. ` Our final concern is over also a proposed amendment of title III of NDEA which would eliminate matching funds foi strengthening supei visory services at the State level in critical fields In short, we should like to make as strong a case as we possibly `can for the retention of the principle of categorical' aid, understand- PAGENO="0295" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 289 ing the categorical aid here to mean aid to the various subject disciplines. We favor the retention of categorical aid largely on the `basis of the experience that the schools have had with it. We are impressed with how much it `has achieved for teachers of mathematics and science over the past decade and in the field of the humanities also the foreign languages, where Mr. Brademas was a great supporter of aid in that direction. In these subj ects it has had almost a decade to operate, that is since 1958 and the passage of the first NDEA legislation. in the case of English, aid to the subject matter discipline has just begun to make its impact. The provision that included English within the NDEA came only about 3 years ago and up to the present NDEA institutes have reached only approximately 1,500 teachers of English and reading, which is a very small proportion indeed of the tremendous numbers we have. It has, however, resulted in a very fruitful collaboration between the teachers of English in the colleges and universities, the so-called subject-matter people, and the schooitea~hers. The NDEA institutes were, I think, a liberal education for both sides in many, many instances. So far as the title III provisions are concerned, first of all, there has `been a tremendous increase in the number of su'bject matter super- visors in State departments of education. This has occurred all the way upthe line. V I believe when the NDEA was first `begun there were ouly four foreign language sup~rvisors in* any of the State departments of education. I believe 110W all but one Or two States have them. When NIDEA first began from the point of view of the English. field there were only 10 supervisors of English in State departments V of education. V V V V V V NOW Vail 50 States are covered; there are 74 supervisors in all. V V These serve, I should like to make the point, these serve as a val- uable link in communications between the schools and the State de- partment. The State department has its `channels of communications so that V national associations can use them as a communications link and, on the other hand, they serve also as a link between the State departments of education `and hence the schools and the U.S.. Office of Education. V V V V~ : V V We also see a danger and something of an irony in the proposal to cut matching funds in title VJJJ to reduce support for the purchase of equipment. V V , V V V V V V V V V Certainly as Vfar Vas the teaching of English is concerned, record.. ings, tapes, films, overhead projectors, all manner `of materials have a: potential thatV I think we are just beginning to realize and the evi- dence from the operation of title III so far, on the whole, has `been that money has been wisely' `used, Vprmlarily V because it was money that matched local funds. V V; Another point :here, that is that classrooms and school libraries are still woefully short on what might be considered an adequate supply of books and V throughout the country title III has been used very wisely for the building up of school libraries. V V V V PAGENO="0296" 290 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1067 Mr. ERLENBORN. You make the point that money in title III was wisely spent because it was matching. Do you think there is a better chance of wise use of money-when there is matching? Dr. MARCKWAimT. As I have seen it work out, it means the local school system will watch its pennies very carefully at the same time it makes its proposal to the Federal Government. I don't know whether I would be willing to enunciate that as a gen- eral principle or coverall, but I know it has worked well because I have sat in on State meetings as well as seeing it from the Office of Educa- tion side. Mr. ERLENBORN. That carries the implication it is not as wisely spent if there is no matching. Dr. MAROKWARDT. It does carry that implication but on the other hand it would be difficult to make the case in the case of the foreign language centers, which were *matching, they were operated with greater effectiveness or economy than let us say the teacher institutes. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you. Dr. MARCKWARDT. In this same connection of communications we are a bit concerned about the recent developments in the Office of Edu- cation where again a tendency toward generalism is something of the same kind we feel that is reflected in these changes, where it has led to a reassignment in the subject offices, subject matter specialists, to general responsibility. It tends to make it difficult for people in the disciplines out in the States to communicate with their opposite numbers in the Office of Education. I think the prepared statement does say that already one working arm of the profession has been amputated or at least disabled in terms of its accessability to teachers in the school system. Now I should like to make a special plea of both support in in- service and preservice training of teachers in the colleges. These are growing at an absolute fantastic rate. For the next 10 years there will be one new 2-year college organized in this country every week, which means over 600 in the next 10 years. There were some 700 when we were counted this fall. I spoke recently at a meeting of 250 and was told there were 800. Obviously these schools will need staff, they will teach probably the largest share of incoming college freshmen and sophomores by, well, 1977 at least if not 1975. It will be impossible to impoverish either the existing colleges and universities or high schools by drawing on them for staff and we need every bit of help that is necessary to convince students that there is a potential profession in the 2-year college and I believe that preservice of the institute type would be very helpful. I can certainly understand the position of those who would like to receive general funds for the allocation as they see fit. As I say, I have been a member of the board of education myself and I know how the thinking goes there. In this connection I believe we must heed the warnings of the past. School boards don't always take care of the needs of all of their stu- dents, nor are they always able to see the situation from a national rather than a local point of view. PAGENO="0297" HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 291 Unfortunately, the country can't afford poor instruction in science in the State of New Jersey, or poor instruction in English in the school system in Alabama. Our educational needs are national rather than local. As an organization we applaud the intentions of the Congress and the President to improve all education. We consider particularly the achievements of the 88th Congress in the field of education as a mo- mentous one, but we believe that many of the declared aims of the President and the Congress can best be achieved by the retention of the categorical aid, a retention based upon the very reasons for which it was adopted, namely, that community pressures often stood in the way of the national purpose. The record of the immediate past achieved toward this kind of aid has been impressive. We feel it is too early to abandon the principle without serious consequences. The national council and the executive committee of the national council and its affiliated organization, the Conference on College Com- position and Communications, have both unanimously endorsed the principle of retention of categorical aid and, in light of this action, I would like, on behalf of the National Council of Teachers of English to make the following recommendations and urge their consideration. This is the only part of my prepared statement I am going to read. (1) We hope that whatever form the legislation finally takes, both the statement of the law and the report of legislative intent specify clearly that aid to schools and State agencies, and that preservice and inservice programs for teachers be provided in proportion to national need. (2) That the present organizational "fit" among schools, colleges, the professions themselves, and State and Federal agencies be pre- served by insuring that teachers of school subjects and scholars in the subject matter discipline find their counterparts in State and Federal educational agencies. (3) That the principles which govern aid to schools match in some measure those which govern support for education of teachers, to insure that the training received in institutes and through fellowships is followed by corresponding opportunities to strengthen subject- matter instruction in the schools. (4) That the principle of opening to teachers in colleges, particu- larly junior colleges, inservice and preservice educational opportuni- ties hitherto open only to teachers in schools be established. Thank you. Mr. GAUL. Thank you, Doctor. I would like to ask a few questions. If I recall correctly, you expressed concern over the reduction of funds for the title III program. Dr. MARCKWARDT. That is right. Mr. GAUL. I wonder if you see anything in the legislation before this subcommittee which reduces the `funding or are you speaking solely to appropriations and the 40-percent reduction? Dr. MARCKWARDT. I believe the legislation itself rather narrows the field in which matching aid can be given. Mr. GAUL. Is there any specific provision of the legislation which you believe does this? Dr. MARCKWARDT. I am sorry, I can't say right at this point. PAGENO="0298" 292 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. GAUL. In suggesting that `the categories be retained in title III, perhaps you know there is other legislation before this subcommittee which approaches this matter in a different way. It proposes to add on additional categories. I take it you would, without speaking to any one subject matter, prefer this approach of adding on categories rather than by deleting the present limitations? Dr. MARCKWARDT. I should not like to see the categorical aid deleted. In general areas I can see where it might be useful but I would hope there would still be a place for categorical aid. Mr. GAUL. Has your association ever taken a position on the forgive- ness feature of the student loan program? Dr. MARCKWARDT. No; I believe not. Mr. GAUL. Other than'the implications of this legislation that it does not provide for the continuation of title XI of the National Defense, Education Act, does the association support generally the title V pro- gram, the teacher development part of the act? Dr. MAROKWARDT. Yes; it does. Mr. GAUL. I think those are all the questions I have. Thank you. STATEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION, BY' DR. WALTER J. MARS, SECRETARY; DR. EVANR. COLLINS, PRESIDENT, STATE UNIVER- SITY OP NEW YORK, ALBANY; DR. EDWIN T. ADKINS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP RESEARCH AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY;. DR. ~EROME SACHS, PRESIDENT', ILLINOIS TEACH- ERS COLLEGE; DR. ARTHUR PEARL, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF OREGON; `ACCOMPANIED BY DR. MATTHEW J~. TRIPPE, PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF' MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE, NATIONAL NDEA INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED `STUDY IN TEACHING DISAD'- VANTAGED YOUTH; DR. JAMES KELLY, ER., ASSOCIATE DIREC- TOR, NATIONAL. NDEA INSTITUTE Dr. MARS. For the record I am Walter J. Mars, `associate secretary of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. I am here representing Dr. Edward C. Pomeroy, our executive secretary, who is presently out of the country. The' American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education is a national voluntary education association of some 775 institutions of higher education which maintain programs of teacher preparation. The AACTE membership prepares better than 90 percent of the new teaching force of this Nation each year. As an association, we are vitally concerned with and emphatically committed to the im- provement of teacher education at all levels. It is a privilege to respond affirmatively' to this request to testify on the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. Generally speaking, the AACTE wishes to commend the House committee for its leadership in strengthening and broadening the coverage of the Higher Education Act of 1965. , Because they are more directly associated with the implementation of this legislation, we have asked some representative `teacher educators from the field to jom us this morning to react to these amendments. PAGENO="0299" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 293 You will hear from them shortly. The AACT'E supports the amend- ments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 that increase aid for the various teaching subjects and disciplines, that extend assistance to pre- school and postsecondary levels, and that couple these broader cover- ages with the gradual elimination or at least a reduction of categorical aids. These are moves in a direction which the association, perceives as highly desirable. We generally support the amendments to titles I and II. However, we urge that the committee reconsider then in the amendments such statements as those included in section 103 of title I and section 222 of part B of title II which give to the Commissioner the right to deal directly with profitmaking organizations. While we support the need for a continuing and cooperative rela- tionship between the educational and industrial committees, we raise the question as to whether the Commissioner should have the right to deal directly with such organizations. ``H Would it not be more in keeping with our systen'i of checks and balances to have, all such relationships established with the support and approval of committees, commissions, and/or councils which were publicly appointed' and openly representative of the Nation's total educational community. We raise these `issues, only. to urge that our historically and. tradi- tionally effective system of checks and. balances be maintained. Amendments to title .111 are very, necessary. In addition, we would suggest that the expansion of the definition of developing institutions be sei iously considei ed by the committee Sm'tll `md nen institutions are categorically denied the opportunity to participate in the act under existing legislation. New and developing institutions are making: progress toward re- gional accreditation, but t'hat, `of course, `cannot be achieved until after the institution's graduates and the institution's progiams are evaluated by the regional accrediting agency. Yet the intent of this act seems to be to' support developments in these institutions at a `,time when they are in the critical phases of their growth. Increased funding for programs for developing insti- tutions is, of, course, essential.' ` However, the definition of the institutions that are, eligible for this kind of assistance needs serious study and extension. The amendments to title IV seem appropriate and can better be sup- ported by those more knowledgeable in this area than I. .The amendments to title V seem to us crucial. The appointment of the National Advisory Council on Educations Professions Develop- ment could be a giant step forward. The broader coverage intended by the amendments to title ,V have been badly needed. Again we com- mend the committee and support the elimination of categorical limi- tations presently included in title VI. , . The proposed amendments for titles VII through X appear to be highly desirable and will probably be commented upon by the gentle- men with me today. ` . ` Before I introduce them, may I direct the attention of the commit- tee to some general possibilities now and in the future. There is a highly recognized and evident need for outright assist- ance to those institutions that historically have carried the major pro- PAGENO="0300" 294 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ductive responsibility in the preparation of teachers who actually enter the field of teaching. I am proposing some kind of institutional grants which do not bind the institution by applying a variety of categorical restrictions. A por- tion of these funds granted outright to institutions of higer educa- tion which prepare teachers should be devoted to research and develop- ment, a portion should be devoted to program support and improve- ment, and a portion should be devoted to knowledgeable dissemina- tion throughout the educational community. Finally, it is felt that the Federal Government needs to support the development of a national center for the study of teacher education. This might be in concept something on the model of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study, the Brookhaven Laboratories, or the National Institutes of Health. In such a center effort could be devoted to the study of teaching strategies and teaching competence and effectiveness. Almost every- thing that is done in teacher education and in the related enterprise of improving the process of children's learning is related to the need for definite answers as to what constitutes the most effective teaching style, for which groups of children, at what points in time, and in what subject areas. To discover answers to these and other equally important queries would be the purpose of such a center. I have appreciated the opportunity to support the Higher Educa- tion Amendments of 1967, and as I noted earlier, the comments of my colleagues in the field will, I am certain, be meaningful and helpful to the committee. Allow me to introduce them. Dr. Jerome Sachs, former dean and now president of Illinois Teach- ers College, North Chicago, Ill. Dr. Arthur Pearl, professor of education, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg. Dr. Edwin P. Adkins, director of the Office of Research and Pro- gram Development, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pa. Dr. Evan R. Collins, president, State University of New York at Albany. In asking these gentlemen to respond to the committee's request for testimony, the AACTE has attempted to bring together a group which is both geographically and professionally representative of teacher education in the United States. In addition to these gentlemen, each of whom will make a short statement, I have with me this morning my colleague, Dr. Mark C. Smith, AACTE associate secretary. Dr. James Kelly, Jr., associate director of the National NDEA Institute for Advanced Study in Teaching Disadvantaged Youth. May I suggest that we hear all the statements first and upon com- pletion of the testimony, we would be pleased to respond (either as a team or individually) to any questions the committee might have. Thank you. Mr. SACHS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Jerome Sachs, president of the Illinois Teachers College North in Chicago. My statements on H.R. 6232 reflect the focus of my home institution on fervent problems. We believe that a great deal of atten- PAGENO="0301" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 295 tion must be given to the improvement of teaching in central city schools. We believe in programs designed to help teachers understand the problems of diverse urban subcultures and to recognize the roles they must play in cooperative efforts to solve these problems. We believe that urban colleges particularly must seek ability how- ever hidden among those who are underemployed because of financial pressure, financial fear, the lack of opportunities or the lack of con- fidence. We welcome the addition of the section on experimental projects. This should encourage the questioning of educational orthodoxies so that creative teachers will feel free to find new solutions to vexing problems. The impact of experiment will also be important in the exploration of educational media under title VI. The use of media to reach students who do not initially respond to an essentially verbal structure needs a great deal of attention. We favor the national defense student loan program in title IV. We find that many of those who need loans most come from backgrounds which make them most reluctant to incur debts. They are particularly fearful if a private lending agency is involved. The forgiveness feature of those who will teach has drawn the attention of many of these stu- dents to the rewards of careers in teaching. Among the many high school graduates who do not look with favor upon teaching as a career, there are a large number who exhibit great interests by the end of the sophomore year. The flow of badly needed teachers into the schools of our great cities has been greatly increased by the availability of this loan program. No guaranteed loan program would do this job. We are in general agreement on most of the phases of the very valu- able work-study program which we have used to great advantage. We have brought people into our college who could not have come or who would not have thought of college, and we have kept people in college when they felt they could not manage financially by providing work which is appropriate for prospective teachers. We strongly urge that the Federal matching be kept at 90 percent rather than 80 percent or 75 percent (sec. 432). Work-study which is professionally useful to the student is gen- erally done at an off-campus agency. Some of these agencies can con- tribute 10 percent but if the support goes to 20 percent or 25 percent they will be unable to meet this demand. Most colleges, then, will be forced to bring such programs back ~o the campus so that the college share can be financed out of normal budget for student employees. This work which is largely clerical, will not be professionally bene- ficial to the student or useful to the community. There has been a considerable body of testimony in favor of the continuation and expansion of the Teachers Corps and I would like to go on record as favoring this continuation and expansion. I base this judgment on my experience with the Chicago consortium of six colleges and universities which in conjunction with the Chicago public school system has the most promising series of internships in the classroom. PAGENO="0302" 296 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 We are enthusiastic at our college about the graduate fellowship programs. The experienced teacher fellowship program has made it possible for us to try a completely new approach, combining the efforts of specialists in anthropology, sociology, history, literature, education, psychology, and communications. The program with 25 fellows is now at the end of the first year, and harns attracted a great deal of attention in the city and the demands from teachers in service have been met by the college out of operating funds by providing classes like those in the fellowship program for more than 200 Chicago teachers. Visitors from almost every State attest to the fact that the time is right for experiments and innovation. The other fellowship pro- grams, for example, our prospective teacher fellowship program with a language emphasis, and short programs and institutes, give great promise for a major attack on the manifold problems of the urban schools. It seems appropriate here to seek financial support for some more mature undergraduates at the same level as support for graduate students. Through the economic opportunity legislation, there are many people who have managed to achieve positions as teacher aids, or parent-teacher coordinators. Some of these people have the ability, the ambition, and the con- fidence to go on with professional teacher education. If they have families, and most of them do, they cannot plan toward degrees with- out being assured of a reasonable level of support. As a final part of my speech, I would like to cite three cases in which loans and work-study have played really significant roles. John A. is the oldest of a family of 11 children living in .a public housing project. His father is employed but needs a relief supple- ment for an inadequate income. Without work-study John could not have come to college. He did not think of college until he met our recruiter looking for needy stu- dents of ability and heard about work-study. John is well on his way to becoming a teacher. In the same housing project lives Jean B. Jean who came to our college on her own. We discovered her when she went on academic probation because she was trying to work 30 hours a week and carry a full academic load. It was difficult to convince Jean that she should use the loan pro- gram. She had too much bitter experience with debt. After a great deal of persuasion, a flexible combination of loan and work-study was arranged. Her average came up quickly. With this kind of support she is now on the dean's honor list. Her work assignment is in the college library where she is making a real professional contribution. Jean is planning to bring her younger brother to the college. She is helping him to prepare for entranc.e and she has informed our work-study coordinator that she will pay his way out of her earnings as a teacher. Jean and John are now working co- operatively in their housing project to try to find other youths who should go to college to help them prepare and find promising opportu- nities for them. The third case is that of Mr. 0. who is a veteran who came to col- lege after his discharge but found the financial obstacles overwhelm- PAGENO="0303" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 297 ing. He had decided to drop out and changed his mind when he heard of work-study. His assignment was tutoring at an inner city youth center. He did a remarkable job and the local Office of Economic Opportunity hired him to run a tutoring center for Upward Bound students. His college schedule has been arranged so that he can finish the work on his degree. This man was raised in a housing project and is deter- mined to help urban youngsters find their places in society. I appreciate the opportunity to present my views before this com- mittee. I appreciate the fact that in this bill there is recognition that educational opportunity is a primary weapon in the battle to solve the problems of our cities. Mr. GAtTL. President Sachs, I notice you look with favor on the suggested amendment to title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Is your institution participating in title I? Mr. SACHS. Not at this time. Mr. GAUL. Do you intend to? Mr. SACHS. Yes. Mr. GAUL. Perhaps you know from the hearings this subcommittee has been conducting over the last few weeks that there seems to be growing sympathy for the deletion of the cancellation provisions or forgiveness features of the National Defense Education Act. I think a variety of reasons are stimulating the members to think along these lines. One is a lack of any statistical information which shows that the forgiveness feature has fulfilled its* purpose; that is, of attracting people to the teaching profession. I notice in your statement you say it has and I wonder if you have any studies you could provide the members of the subcommittee to show it is helping attract teachers. Mr. SAOHS. I don't think we have enough graduates or informa- ~ion to make this significant. We have some case studies of this kind. I think perhaps the most important study is this young girl intending to send her young brother through because of the forgiveness feature. I am not sure I could document this significantly. If you are attempting to get teachers, then I think the forgiveness feature is something we should give careful consideration to. Mr. GAUL. You mentioned that off-campus work-study is very use- ful and good for the professional students. Is most of your work-study off campus? Mr. SACHS. Yes; about 80 percent. Mr. GAUL. It was my understanding most colleges and universities had a larger work-study program on campus than off. Mr. SAGHS. We have again made a definite effort to provide work in boys clubs and housing projects. This is much more beneficial than doing work on campus. Mr. GAUL. You mentioned promising internships in Chicago. Is this at the undergraduate or graduate level? Mrs. Green has raised questions as to whether it would be desirable to lessen the restrictions in the Teachers Corps so as to involve interns at their iumor or senior year of undergraduate work. Mr. SACH5. We are trying to involve groups of students-teachers m projects out in the districts of Chicago. We are working with one PAGENO="0304" 298 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 district now and will be working with two in the fall where we send faculty members out into the district and try to provide the same kind of internship. This is at the senior level. This needs to be looked into. Mr. GAUL. You mentioned you have both an experienced and pros- pective teacher fellowship program and you are expecting another one. Did you receive a development grant for your teacher program? Mr. SACHS. Yes. Mr. GAUL. How did you use those funds? Mr. SACHS. The assistance grant was used for two purposes; one for staff, staff that we will support ourselves now that we have been able to acquire them through this project, and part for terms in setting up a center. We would like our people to work in the field as much as possible. Mr. `GAUL. How much did you receive? Mr. SAGUS. I don't have the figures. Mr. GAUL. Dr. Mars, is this the type of grant you were talking about when you mentioned an institutional grant? Dr. MARS. We are thinking of a direct grant to an institution which would allow it to exercise its own creativity in terms of the kind of teacher education program it might develop rather than being re- stricted to a preconceived kind of program. Mr. GAUL. About how much do you think the average grant should be? Dr. MARS. I would not be able to respond to this, I think it should reflect certainly the ability of the institution to put some kind of pro- gram into operation. I think we could, in this regard, we being the association, we could probably mount a proposal in this respect. I would not be able to respond at this time in terms of specific figures. Mr. PEARL. I am Arthur Pearl, professor of education at the Uni- versity of Oregon and a task force member of the National Institute for Advanced Study in Teaching Disadvantaged Youth, and activity sponsored by the American Association of Colleges for Teachers of Education. I am also director of the Upward Bound program at the University of Oregon and involved with an experimental program of the Bethel school system in Oregon which is attempting to interest and train dis- advantaged youth to consider teaching as a profession. I would like to talk to you out of this experience and some of the things I think have to take place in teacher education in the future. At the heart of, then, any success of educational effort will be the effect of teaching. I think-despite the amount of money we have been spending in Elemetary and Secondary School Act Act programs and higher educa- tion teacher education, and the economic opportunity program-it is clear we have not turned the tide in dealing with disadvantaged youth, particularly those living in ghettos, migratory youth, and others. I think part of the reason is we have not really begun to look at the problem. The problem, to some extent, is who we draw into teaching. If we insist, as you talked of earlier, if we only draw in to the profession PAGENO="0305" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 299 persons having completed or nearly completed a college education, we are drawing from a population that is very select in socioeconomic terms and they have great difficulty in relating to disadvantaged youth. I don't know of any kind of way to get these people to stay in ghetto populations. We won't bribe them and I don't know that they belong there. We have had considerable experience working with them and can improve through work programs but `we have to look at our strategy. We also have to look, in addition, to recruitment, we continue to think of teachers as a relatively single homogeneous activity, yet we know from teaching activities that some areas are much more demand- ing than what we train them for and it seems we will have to begin to look at this in such a way that we analyze the teaching role from an entry position that requires little skill and training to intermediate roles and to advance roles and draw persons into these programs from different populations. We have made some progress in a kind of ad hoc way by having numbers of teachers aids functioning in education but we are experiencing some difficulty here because. largely there is very little legislation and support.for the training. We have difficulty bringing about either increased competence within the level they are functioning and there is almost no oppor~ tunity for them to be able to advance and consider education as a. career without having to go through a college experience which is really beyond them economically and in terms of their academic' experience. As a consequence, while we have `had some good success, seemingly from some research I don't think we can continue to have it. It is hard to expect people to remain enthusiasti'c about their activities if they are locked into dead-ended, low-status, low-paying jobs with- out possibility for advancements. I think it is also a fact that, to a large extent, teachers are handi- capped as to `what they can do in ghetto schools. If they are not able to draw an increasing competence from their aids, they are handicapped. I have worked in a pretty overwhelming j'~b trying to deal with youth without reasons for being interested in education. The lack of building in growing competence support makes it difficult. What I would like to advocate-speaking as an individual-is an alternative path to a tea'cher role in `which we now talk about a four- step ladder to becoming a professional teacher. First an entry position which would have no entry requirements and the person upon entering this would begin to receive college credits. You see we have pretty much a system `where a person gets an education and then gets his career and I am speaking of an alterna- tive position, first your career and then your education. Give credits on the job. To a l'arge extent this would be supervised by capable teachers and supplement this with a kind of theory that is tied their activities and then make it possible, through a variety of arrangements for people to develop their liberal arts education and other subject materials. 80-155-67-Pt. 1-20 PAGENO="0306" 300 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 I am suggesting a four-step approach, and entry position which would be a full-time paying position, differentiating from a work- study intern position, in which a person would enter at relatively low pay, and take on relatively low activities but begin to acquire com- petence on the job. He would receive credits in a kind of apprenticeship program for what he is learning on the job. This would be developed by the teach- er he is working with. In addition he would have at that level of functioning a. theory dealing with the growth and development of children, classroom man- agement, organization of the schools, and things of that nature. In addition he would be encouraged to take other courses that would increase his liberal education and increase his subject competence. It is anticipated that at the end of 2 years he would have the equiv- alent of an AA degree. The next step would be what is called teaching assistance. He really would not function too differently from a teaching assistant at a uni- versity level. Then he would be working with professors, with in- dividual instruction, putting on demonstrations and things of that nature. . He continues to get his education and he could in 2 more years be eligible for the next step which would not be too dissimilar from what we expect of a class ~oom teacher now. In 2 more years he could get his masters degree and take on the train- ing of the lower echelon people. He would be a consultant and to deal with them as they work with their problems, instruction, supervision, and work program management. We are talking of developing a range of competence where the low- er levels are primarily tacticians and the upper levels are graduates. We can continue to take hold of some of the problems we are not working with now. I think some of the value is that it draws people into education and makes possible the meeting of manpower needs in the future. I think we have to anticipate 10 years from now we will need twice the number of teachers, that we have now, both because more people are going to school and also because they will be going earlier and later and very likely because of other legislation there will be a reduction in teacher-pupil relationships. We may need 5 or 10 million people tecahing in place of the two and a half million now. I don't see how we can meet those manpower demands without overcrowding and weakening teaching even more than now and reducing some of the quality without thinking of this alternative path. It would have two other values, it would draw in people into teach- ing who can work effectively with hard-to-reach youngsters and two, provide opportunities for a way out for many people who now see themselves locked into permanent poverty and into having avail able to them opportunity in the fastest growing industry in our country. `We should have under the auspices of this institute a modified program using these principles to see if they have merit. In the Bethel School District we have a number of young people together under a kind of weird kind of conglomeration of funding. PAGENO="0307" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 301 They were brought together under Upward Bound and the other ~projects we have. We have Negro youth~ Indian youth, Mexican and other economically deprived youth in work-study programs on a half- tiine basis and it is elementary, junior high school, and high school level. In a short period of time, despite the fact some had a very in- adequate education, some are now able to teach in the eighth grade. The general conclusion of the administration is that it has been enormously successful; however, I think we don't have the kind of legislation to do the things I have talked about. We have tried to build a program out of bringing funds together from various acts, none of which fit together in the total picture. Any program under title V that would allow this great experimenta- tion with the kind of people we bring in and early involvement I think are to be encouraged. Let me add a word or two on other aspects of legislation. I think any effort that could provide for support for this training, direct train- ing to the teacher aid who is now employed under the elementary and Secondary School Act, would be valuable and efforts that would encourage schools of education to train teachers to train them would also be valuable. One word on title IV, I have been involved In an Upward Bound program and I think every effort should be.made to not only maintain what we have and I would certainly second President Sachs' view that we would have to keep 90 percent work-study and also allow work- study to be used, and matching funds for educational opportunities grants as a means where disadvantaged youth could get additional funding. We have to recognize that many young people coming from dis- advantaged backgrounds are not only economically not ready for col- lege but academically and socially are not ready for college. We have spent, I think, $30 million on Upward Bound programs for high school students to prepare them for college. A good number are ready to go on-and under section 408 there could be an academic bringing in. It is hard for me to anticipate a $30 million investment for a summer program. Should not we have twice that for year around programs to bring young people into college, particularly if they have had inadequate academic and social preparation. I think I probably rambled more than you wanted me to but thank you very much. Mr. ERLENBORN. Your full statement will be placed in the record at this point, Mr. Pearl. (The document referred to follows:) ~FESTIMONY PRESENTED BY ARTHUR PEARL IN BEHALF OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Madam Chairman and members of the committee: I am Arthur Pearl, Profes- sor of Education at the University of Oregon, and a Task Force member of the National Institute For Advanced Study In Teaching Disadvantaged Youth, an activity sponsored by the American Association of Colleges For Teachers of Education. I am also Director of the Upward Bound Program at the University of Oregon and involved with an experimental program at the Bethel School Sys- tem in Oregon which is attempting to interest and train disadvantaged youth to consider teaching as a profession. PAGENO="0308" 302 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 There are many titles in the Higher Education Act that apply specifically to these activities and I would, with your permission, like to share with you, briefly, some of my experiences as they might apply to your deliberation on the Higher Education Amendments of 1067. At the heart of education success or failure is the competence of classroom teachers. Title V provides means by which both selection procedures and teacher training can be improved. To improve educational quality, to meet manpower needs and to offer opportunity to denied populations (e.g., impoverished popula- tions and disadvantaged minority groups) the procedures by which persons enter the teaching profession need to be examined. Programs which will permit relatively unskilled, uneducated and inexperi- enced personnel to become initiated to teaching at low-level entry positions,. and, through a combination of college preparation and extensive supervised on- the-job experience graduate to higher positions commensurate with their abilities: and maturation, should be encouraged. This in no way is intended to reduce the standards but is designed to maintain standards despite the enormous demand for teaching personnel. Such procedure allows for bringing into education per- Sons capable of establishing effective teaching relationships with ghetto youth, migrant youth and Indian youth. These youth now present formidable obstacles. to teachers drawn primarily from markedly different backgrounds. Currently there are many thousands of persons working as teacher aides in. schools. Many of these are indigenous to economically deprived areas. They make valuable contributions to education but they are handicapped by lack of training and opportunity for advancement. In time their value to education must be lessened since it is difficult to maintain enthusiasm if one is restricted to dead- ended low paying situations. Teachers, particularly those in ghetto schools, are handicapped by the lack of' developing competence in non-professional assistance. The flow from the ghetto. of skilled practitioners will continue unless the teacher has supportive staff to enable him to succeed. One approach to education profession development is to create alternative paths to professional competence other than the one route of college matricula-. tion. It is possible to restructure teaching activity into a four step approach; an entry aide; an assistant (equivalent of two years of college) ; an associate (equivalent of four years) and the terminal professional. Such division is con- sistent with team teaching concepts and would conserve the scarce professional for functions which demand his talents. In the Bethel Project young Negro, Indian, Mexican and other economically denied youth are working half-time as teaching aides and they are, at the same time, taking courses at this University. They are learning to become teachers through carefully structured activity supervised carefully by especially selected, highly qualified, experienced teachers. They are participating in seminars to give them a theoretical orientation to human development, classroom manage- ment and school organization. There is general enthusiasm from both teachers. and aides that this is a model worth exploring. However, there are limitations to the program which come from restrictions in the current act. Amendments to Title V which would allow the commissioner of education to assist local school systems to develop, with facilities of higher education, pro- grams which would allow for combining of academic training with practical experience (which is both recompensed and awarded college credits) would be an important step toward solving manpower needs in education. By 1975, not only will there be 20% more persons of school age than was the case in 1965, but more of this group will be going to school and very possibly there will be a marked reduction in the pupil4eacher ratio. It is not unlikely that there will be a demand for twice the number of persons in teaching roles in 1975 than is the case now. Amendments in Title V of the Higher Education Act that allow for an alternate route to teaching can bring this call for trained. manpower within the realm of reality. The approach, (which Frank Reissman and I have labeled "New Careers") also has relevance to quality of education. If no new avenues to teacher preparation are created, then schools of education will be forced to bring even more students on to the campus; further overtaxing of campus facilities could lead only to larger and larger classes, reduction of professor-student contact and a decline in standards. One other observation must be made. There is a growing consensus among edu- cators, supported by considerable evidence, that current approaches to teacher PAGENO="0309" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 303 training are not producing persons capable of functioning effectively with ghetto populations. The "New Career" approach draws from a wider universe of per- Sons and keeps people in training for a longer period of time. There is not one solution to Education Profession Development. The New Career approach offers a total alternative. There is need for less ambitious under- takings. The non-professional now on the job needs considerable in-service train- ing and amendments to Title V which would allow higher education institutions or other qualified agencies to offer this service directly, or would train teachers to perform this task, who in turn would train the non-professionals, would lead to better school programming. The more such programs offer opportunity for career growth, the more valuable the program will be in the future. Education is hampered by developing adequate manpower. It is also hampered by the barriers facing disadvantaged youth. Title IV has attempted to eliminate some of those obstacles, yet many problems remain. Some of these problems have come to my attention in my role as Director of Upward Bound programs at the University of Oregon. One project involves bridging disadvantaged high school graduates into the University. It is not easy for many students who are economically well situated and academically prepared to successfully make the transition from high school to college. For poor youth this is an enormously difficult proposition. The lack of funds is a major handicap. Costs of college living in recent years have escalated and while wages for college students have also increased, the increase has not kept pace with living expense and other costs. Any amendments which increase work-study benefits and allow these funds to be used as matching funds for educational opportunity grants will ease the situation for poverty stricken youth. But economic support is not enuogh help for disadvantaged youth. There is also the need for academic and social support of disadvantaged youth. Very few are ready for the demands of college or university. They need more counseling and academic assistance than their more favored counterparts. If $30,000,000 is to be spent on summer programs to prepare students for college. (Upward Bound under OEO) at least twice that amount will be necessary to enable students to survive the first year of college. Amendments to Section 408 would allow universities to offer this special assistance would permit many more youth to escape a ghetto existence through college matriculation. I have concentrated on two major areas-amendments to Title V, which would support the notion that adequate manpower in education can be met by dividing the teacher function into a graduation of more challenging roles and would pro- vide support for training at every level of teaching activity and, amendments to Title IV, which would make it possible for more deserving poor youth to negoti- ate a university experience. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to present my views and I hope that they will be of some assistance to you and your committee in your deliberations. Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Pearl, for your fine statement. I have no questions at this time. Dr. MARS. Mr. Adkins is next, sir. Dr. ADKINS. I am Edward Adkins, director of research and academic programs development at Temple University, in Philadelphia. Prior to undertaking my present assignment I had been dean or vice presi- dent of academic affairs in three institutions of higher education over a period of 17 years. It is on the basis of this experience that I speak to you today. I will limit my oral testimony to two points basically. I would like to talk for a few minutes about these points raised by my colleagues having to do with institutional-type grants as oppose~l to the project- type grants and so on. Several things are happening in our institutions and I am speaking particularly to the need in the usual environment. It seems to me that we need a massive injection of funds, oftentimes the heart of our pro- :gram may well be education when we attack the problem of ghetto. PAGENO="0310" 304 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1067 It is not education alone and I believe our legislation does not take this sufficiently into account as was indicated in the previous testimony. A great many agencies are involved in the Government, all of them. having some funds, all interested in a segment of the problem, each in- terested in a segment, and it is almost impossible for the institution which wants to mount a major program to attack some of these prob- lems to even find all the agencies and bureaus which are involved. If the heart of the problem is education, very important parts of the problem have.to do with economics, social conditions in the homes,. health, and many other factors. To really attack these problems and bring the kind of teachers into those schools, to bring the kind of help necessary into the home to support the teacher in the school, to do something about the economic problem, then a major single unified kind of proposal should come in and should be funded in some way. It seems to us-those of us in the education field, at least-struggling with these problems, which we think these are extremely critical and it Seems to us there must be a great deal more coordination brought about and we believe pretty firmly this. will have to be mandated by the Congress if we ever get it. A lot of coordination among these many bureaus and agencies and foundations is needed where they have some interest in these kinds of `problems. . .` For example, let me point to something we are now doing at Temple Urnveisity as an example This is an `tttempt to approach this m'i~ssr~ e problem in a large slum area in that city. . A . separate school district within the Philadelphia School District is being created. Temple University will be a partner with the city in this new school district. It cuts straight across the city and is largely a slum area... Some 50,000 children, will be involved in the schools in this district.. We found very early when we began planning for this we were not talking about education alone, we ha.d to talk about the health fac- tors iiivolved, the economic factoi s invol\ ed and the soci'tl f'mtors involved. ` We had to coordinate in this total attempt `and we had to coordi- nate some seven social and State agencies, welfare, childrens courts, and others into the total efforts. We found when we approached various funding agencies, `all were. interested in a slice of this thing but nobody was interested in the total project and we have spent several months now trying to identify all the agencies in' Washington which might contribute in one wa.y or another and we think this is almost an impossible task. Nevertheless,"if this program is to be mounted, if we are to create the, kind of model school district here, we might serve as a pattern for other parts of Philadelphia or other cities in the country, then it has to be broader than any segment of education, broader than health and broader than any institution. One project is not any good if `it only hits one part of the problem; 10 programs like that would not be good. Most of our legislation re- serves the pattern of project support. It will be almost impossible for us then to bring together the kind of resources necessary to solve the problem. This is one kind of institutional grant, when we mention institu- tional grant, being something' that will leave a great deal more initia.- PAGENO="0311" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 305 tive to the planning of the institution itself and will not divide the effort in too many ways and into too small projects which are not coordinated. The only way possible is through the institution of higher educa- tion in collaboration and cooperation with many other agencies inter- ested in that area. Mr. ERLENBORN. May I interrupt and ask: Are you talking about aid available under the Higher Education or the Elementary and Secondary Act, or both? Mr. ADKINS. Both and NDEA. There is possible aid in many of the bills and in many of the amendments proposed here there is mention of one segment or another of this problem. Our plea is that we find a way-to whom do we present this kind of proposal, for instance, in Washington? Mr. ERLENBORN. Maybe I should not even get into this area; it does not belong to this committee, but there is a lot of hot discussion about whether we should continue the elementary and secondary programs or go to a State plan which would incorporate what you have here. Instead of having titles I and II funds, you would have a single fund and State plan to coordinate these funds. Maybe we should not get into this but I think this is what you are addressing yourself to. Mr. PEARL. Is it possible for me to respond to that? Mr. ERLENBORN. Maybe this is unfair, since the majority members are not here, but you may. Dr. PEARL. I feel that would be disastrous. We have a difficult time as it is in attempting to establish meaningful guidelines for education, given what the State has at this time, and I think without the almost kind of check and balance that the Federal Government offers, and I think at this. time with categorical aid, I think what we would end up having is a further loss to a population already not too well served~ Mr. ERLENBORN. I take it you two gentlemen disagree? Dr. ADKINS. No, not necessarily; I think he may be disagreeing with the implication of your statement, with which I would also disagree. Dr. PEARL. We have to look at what is going on in the States, the nonurban, what used to be urban and rural, there are problems in every State I know of. I worked in New York, was involved in the State of California and know something of the State of Oregon and every State is in this predicament. Let's look at Oregon, where there is so much less State dollar and local dollar than some of the more affluent States and communities. I think you would find that at this point in. history through this kind of move. . . Mr. ERLENBORN. Even with the same purposes being specified in the agency and the Commissioner of Education having to approve t.he State plan? Dr. PEARL. Yes, I think the more steps removed, the more places it has to stop off before it gets down to the person. The thing they are asking is how do we get universities to move to an omnibus kind of involvement without having to go through that many steps? We are talking of giving greater attitude to the Commissioner on programs. PAGENO="0312" 306 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Dr. ADKINS. And on other kinds of institutional program grants, an example might be the grant for program development in an area, let's say, as broad as teacher education, leaving latitude to the insti- tution as to how it will spend those funds-not removing all control Tby the Federal Government, I am not saying that, nor would I support that, but there are many ways to control the expenditure of money. Of course if it's improperly used, funds can be withdrawn but there has been a shift of program planning and some policymaking in higher education from the campus to Washington. This is inevitable, we welcome some of this, to be sure, but if grants were made rather than to individual professors, small groups of pro- fessors in fields with a lot of projects, if grants were made in larger sums and let the institution have a greater hand in seeing who is to use that money and how it is to be used, in the first place it would bring the professor back to the institution and help correct one of the real evils partly as a result of the massive Federal legislation which has come then into being the last few years. The professor is being, in many cases, a private entrepreneur, and he is no longer responsible to his college administration, he does not look to them for support in many institutions and actually he is interested in perpetuating his own grants and this kind of thing. This is how he stays in business and this is status on campus. Often- times this is good and oftentimes it is unfortunate because it does re- move control over this kind of institutional purpose from the insti- tution. I am afraid it puts it in the hands sometimes of the budget people. That is a pretty strong statement but we are making educational policy through budget a great many times. We will present a proposal from one of our institutions and it will be approved for some amount less than the original proposal very likely, which is understandable, but who does the cutting, who decides what will be funded and what will not be funded. All too often it is the budget side of the picture there rather than the program side of the picture and this is indeed unfortunate when this happens. This is one of the reasons I am making a plea for returning more control over the kinds of research done, the kinds of programs mounted to the institution with a greater latitude for expending the funds once they have been approved, not removing control of those funds but giving more latitude. Mr. GAUL. How do you view the establishment or funding of 12 R. & D. centers by the Office of Education? Dr. ADKINS. These will benefit the large universities, the one where they are located generally, but others are involved. I would add to this one further plea, I think Federal money should be distributed somewhat more widely than the precise system-the present system permits, the law permits, administration does not permit. The haves are continuing to get and the have-nots are continuing to fall behind. There are many good emerging colleges and universities in this country which have not been long standing-long established, and as great research institutions but which have real potential; they * are training teachers and are giving the kind of service Congress has asked for this much of its legislation. PAGENO="0313" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 307 They are not getting their fair share of these funds and I think in the long run the country would be served better if more institutions were raised in quality and a broader base were given to the whole higher education spectrum, particularly as it relates to quality because quality is there in many cases but funding cannot come to that institu- tion because they have not had grants in the past, of any great amount at least and as a result they cannot qualify now. The IR. & D. centers, you know where they went as well as I do. How~ about small IR. & D. centers for the emerging type university such as in the problem of teacher education, for example. Mr. GAUL. Dr. Mars suggested a national center for teacher educa- tion, would this be in line with your thinking? Dr. ADKIN5. Exactly in line because these kinds of smaller centers' could complement the national center and work in collaboration with it very nicely and at the same time give that local institution an oppor- tunity to really contribute. Mr. GAUL. Are some of the R. & D. centers doing the type of work you would envision the national center would do? Dr. MARS. On paper, from what I have been able to gather, there their intent is to do this. We proliferate the task that needs to be put into operation. I think one of the major weaknesses that we have not yet come to grips with is the task of moving into the mainstream of' education and particularly of teacher education, the results that have been discovered as a result of the kinds of research that have taken place. I think that a national center can devote itself-its energies-to this kind of activity, to the research itself, and the dissemination of that research in a meaningful and knowledgeable manner on the campuses in a more efficient manner than a half dozen minor institu- tions working in isolated parts of the problem. I think, too, that those individuals with a talent for and an inclina- tion to do this kind of research can be pulled together where they can interact positively and we don't see the sentiments of a professor' of English, for example, because we can get a grant in English edu- cation being asked to assume the directorship of this project when, in essence, his real love and desire is to teach. So we can center the researcher, the experimenter, the disseminator at a place where he has someone to talk to and we can return the' teaching function to the university. Mr. ERLENBORN. Along this line, what role do you see for the re- gional labs? Dr. ADRINs. I think it is really too soon to say how effective they' will be. I can reflect some concerns `I have in terms of conversations. with educators in the field who raise questions. Will these be regional offices of education; will these be-will they have the function of dis- seminating funds geographically? I don't know. Mr. ERLENBORN. You are saying you don't know what their role' is. Dr. ADEINS. That is right. Mr. ERLENBORN. I am afraid this is true. In talking with people involved in the labs across the country, apparently there is no unani- mity of opinion as to what their role is. Mrs. Green and I and other' PAGENO="0314" 308 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT,S OF 1967 members of the committee have concern for the type of funding for these regionai education labs. The directors of these labs being employed at salaries exceeding the school State supervisor's office, and outside the normal appro- priation process, are not subject to the hiring limitations, travel limi- tations, or salary limitations of other Federal employees, and I un- derstand, for instance, that the State of Pennsylvania now falls in three separate regional lab areas. I wonder about the rationale here. Why should there be three dif- ferent regional labs serving the State of Pennsylvania? Dr. SAOHS. I would like to add one fear, that the regional lab would be subject to the same kind of complex as the R. & D. centers, the big institutions will dominate. Another thing that bothers me is that the regional lab should be centered in large centers and a great deal of their attention should be paid to urban school problems and I am not sure this is what has developed. Mr. ERLENBORN. It seems most of the people I talked to held the view that their principal and only mission under this is to disseminate information about new teaching methods, and so forth, developed in the iR. & D. centers. Should we divide this job and create a separate system of educa- tional labs to disseminate information developed in the universities and R. & D. centers? Is this the function they are to play and, if so, does it make any sense? Does anybody have a, comment on that? Dr. ADKINS. I think our silence is because we don't really know what these labs are doing and don't know what they are going to do. We have had and still have high hopes they will serve worthwhile purposes in education but they should be more than dissemination centers, in my opinion. If that is all they are going to do, we can find better .and less ex- pensive ways. Dr. COLLINS. There is a reason for this rash of uncertainty. Most labs have been subject to more uncertainty on financing than most institu- tions. This has made the mechanics of formulating and developing the regional labs much more complicated. It has meant the first year or year and a half in many cases has been addressed to the machinery of getting the labs set up on a cooperative basis in order to represent the interests of a region which is often, as you have.said in the caseof Pennsylvania, an artificial region. A piece of Pennsylvania is in New York State for these. purposes, and so on. These mechanical difficulties have, I think, precluded the possibility of any real results, indeed any clarity of purpose, from emerging as soOn as we might have hoped. Dr. ADIcINS. There is nothing mechathcal about Pennsylvania nor is any part of it in New York, I want that very clear. Mr. ERLENBORN. Before anyone else continues here, I hope you do continue, I have to apologize that I must leave again.' I have not.been here very long but Mr. Esch is still here. ` :` : Mr. ESOH. I was signally honored by your serving as acting chair- man, Mr. Erienborn, and I am also honored to serve as acting chair- man my first term. PAGENO="0315" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 309 * I want to express my appreciation for your being here. I would like to discuss some broader interpretations. To what degree should we move ahead to a program for giving aid for students in higher edu- cation in specific programs of work-study and aid to disadvantaged youth? Should our interest in the next decade be toward a broader scope or should we be concerned with a limited work-study program for the disadvantaged? Dr. COLLINS. I am not sure I understand your question. Mr. ESCH. Should we consider a movement for higher education to be given to all students who can qualify? Do you think we should have a broad Federal program for support to such students as the dis- :advantaged? Dr. COLLINS. You would set as a goal universal free higher education? Mr. ESCH. I did not but I wondered what the philosophy was among the group. Dr. COLLINS. Let me respond. As an individual, I will be disagreed ivith, but I think there is a contradiction in terms of the proposal, if I understand it, education which is universal is not higher. Mr. ESCH. Anyone else want to comment? Dr. PEARL. Education that is not universal is not necessarily higher. Dr. COLLINS. That is right. Dr. PEARL. I would not be for it for the simple reason I don't think you could do it and I think you would end up having the same kind of discriminatory education we have now. I think we owe more to dis- advantage youth than. we are now giving them. One of the problems we are having with all youth, rich and poor alike, is the problem we put them on the shelf for 20-some years before they do anything. Society says you can't do anything until you have had 3, 4, 6, or 9 years of schooling after high school. These youths have never had the. opportunity to participate. `I would like the meaningful proposi- tion of participating while you are getting, college cr.edits in lieu `of just being a passing absorber of education. :, * Mr. ESCH. Anyone "else? . ` . ` Dr. SAOIIS. I would say a work-study program and something in- volving students in something more than just an opportunity to earn money while going to school. ` . . . Mr. ES0H. One question relates to the great dichotomy of the Office of Education and the Health, Education, and Welfare Department and it is reflected sometimes in prolific programs, very diversified in nature, dealing with the problems of deprived youth. To ~what degree do you se'e `as a problem, ~the need ,to' coordinate programs between the Department of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare? Dr. ADKINS. Most. of my testimony was on this particular point a few minutes ago and I for one, here this morning, feel this is one of the greatest deterrents to mounting a major program which might help solve some of these enormous problems m our cities Tjnless we can find~ a way to coordinate the. many, many bureaus, agencies, and foundatiOns, so that they can all be brought to bear on a major problem, a big one, then we will continue to have trouble. PAGENO="0316" 310 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Even on something as simple as applying for Federal aid for pur- poses of building a classroom structure, for instance, we have an almost impossible task. We just completed one proposal on a graduate psychology insti- tution where we had again to apply to three major agencies, National Science Foundation, Office of Education and the Department of' I-ielth, Education, and Welfare; each was different. It is the same building, the same program, and yet we spent an enormous amount of duplicating time, I don't mean on a machine,. I mean duplicating efforts to prepare three separate proposals, each agency is separate in that it can have its `own deadlines and guide- lines, that sort `of thing. As a result the paper effort in our institutions is getting to be in- surmountable also. Why is it we can't apply, for instance, directly with the same `proposal at t'he same time and cut down the enormous costs? Mr. ESOH. To what degree would Federal funding and Federal support but more local control over diversified programs, resolve this conflict? Dr. ADKINS. It would resolve it a great deal if we could have more institutional-type grants. Mr. ESCH. Noncategorical? Dr. ADKINS. Noncategorica.1 or within broad limitations, it might be for the improvement of teacher education, research in the physical sciences or whatever. Mr. Eson. You recognize these would h'ave to be subject to review? Dr. ADKINS. I understand and I am not asking for lifting of controls but there are different kinds of controls and they could be more uni- fied so we could do this thing once. For the building I just cited, in addition to the 6 months already in this, we will have three site visits one from each of these agencies, and that will take two more days each. These people come from all over, why can't one group of experts: come in and do this job? Mr. ESOH. I concur with you `and appreciate your comments. We have not heard from Professor `Collins formally and I wonder' if we mi~ht hear from him now. We will place your full statement in the record, Dr. Adkins, and' thank you again, sir. (The document referred to follows:) TESTIMONY or DR. EDWIN P. ADKINS, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA Madam Chairman, gentlemen of the Committee, I `am Edwin P. Adkins, Di- rector of Research and Academic Program Development at Temple University in Philadelphia. Prior to undertaking my present assignment I had been Dean or' Vice President of Academic Affairs in three institutions of higher education over a period of 17 years. It is on the basis of this experience that I speak to you today. May I begin by complimenting this committee and Congress on the tremendous' program of federal support to education which has been generated in the last few years. In general, we in the higher education community are most supportive- of the program and believe it has meant a giant stride forward of the educational enterprise in the several states and in the nation. We are much farther ahead' PAGENO="0317" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 311 in education today than we could have even dreamed ten years ago. To be sure, part of this increased support has come from the states and local communities, but our rapid forward momentum has been in large part due to the effort of the federal government. On the whole, I am in agreement with the proposed amendments to the various educational acts which are under consideration by this committee. The extension of the several titles, in some cases for a longer period of time than has been the practice in the past, is encouraging. The change in the nature of Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is noteworthy. The new Sections 504, 505 and 506 are particularly to be commended, since they provide a small beginning in a much needed direction: the shifting of funds from program to program, and the coordination of effort among three agencies dealing with educational funding. The new Section 541 adds a needed provision for the training of teachers and administrators for our institutions of higher education. I do disagree with two or three parts of the amendments, as proposed. First, the legislation dealing with the Teacher Corps continues the practice of having the Office of Education select participants, in a sense placing in the hand~ of the central government the responsibility for selecting teachers for our local school systems. It is true that the local system may reject these teachers and theoretically is free to participate in the program on a voluntary basis. In practice, this is hardly the case in these days of teacher shortages. I submit that the institution of higher education which trains these teachers and the local school system which uses them are in the best position to select participants with the greatest potential for success in a given situation. This is especially true of the conditions which prevail in our large urban centers. Secondly, the extension of training programs for teachers under Title V is to be commended, but this section does continue the old practice of stipulating fixed amounts for the stipends going to participants. $2,000, $2,300, and $2,400 for the young man with a large family are not realistic in many cases. The man with four small children would be hard-pressed to live within this financial constraint. If flexible stipend payments were possible, a considerably larger number of highly qualified persons in the 25-40 age bracket would be made available to the program. Under the amendments to Title VI as proposed, the historical practice of providing for programs of matching grants for equipment and materials is continuing. This in theory is not a bad idea. In practice, however, it does work to the detriment of those institutions which are academically strong but are lacking in financial resources. It would seem more equitable to establish a sliding schedule, geared to the financial resources of the institution. Unless some such practice is adopted, the "haves" will continue to prosper while the "have-nots" will fall farther and farther behind. Thirdly, the support for teacher education at the graduate level, which is proposed under the amendments, should accrue to the benefit of the teaching profession. The lack of support for teacher education at the undergraduate level, however, continues to hold back many worthwhile efforts. For an institution such as I represent, which focuses its attention on the educational problems plaguing our urban centers, this need is especially great. A massive effort at the under- graduate as well as the graduate level is necessary if we are to solve the prob- lems of education besetting our cities. May I turn my discussion to several areas which are not covered in the pres- ently proposed amendments but which, it seems to me, need careful attention by the Congress. In general, the system of overlapping authorities and overlapping programs of the many agencies involved in education continues to plague the universities. Some real coordination of effort among these myriad agencies must be brought about if we are not to expend an exorbitant amount of our resources in the process of discovering the sources of money and in preparing proposals for all the agencies involved. For example, at my institution we just now submitted proposals on a proposed science building to the Office of Education, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Under the present system, these proposals are involved, bulky, and extremely time consuming in their preparation. A. separate proposal must go to each agency because each has different deadlines and different guidelines. The preparation of one proposal does not help you too much in the preparation of the others, even though they are basically for the same purpose. In addition, we will have three site visits, prob- ably of two days each, by these agencies. Six months of efforts on the part of PAGENO="0318" 312 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 many people went into the writing of these' proposals.' Why could these three agencies not adopt a common set of guidelines which would serve all purposes well? One joint site visit should suffice. By the time we finish an exercise of the kind I have just described, I sometimes think that the greatest threat to the survival of mankind-particularly the' higher education segment of mankind- is not the hydrogen bomb but suffocation by the mountains of paper which must be handled in even the simpliest proposaL Coordination of the effort of the several agencies involved in the same kind of project is one of our greatest needs. On another front, the proliferation of agencies which control federal funds for the support of higher education makes it virtually impossible to plan and seek support for a massive and fundamental effort in teacher education or, for that matter, in any other phase of our programming. Although some improvement has been recognizable, we have yet to find a way to bring together all the fund- ing agencies appropriate to major proposals. While education may be central to the solution of many problems which present themselves in our cities, they are not educational problems alone. Our social agencies, our psychological services, our health program, our housing, among many other factors, contribute to these problems and all must be coordinated if basic solutions are to be found. At the present time, may I reiterate, it is almost impossible to bring all of the con- cerned agencies together in support of a major proposal. I can not emphasize too strongly the need for coordination at the highest levels, and I suspect this must be accomplished through some form of legislation. Again, I do not believe that the presently proposed legislation corrects a very real evil which has developed in our institutions, partly as a result of federal' support programs. I refer to the practice of granting most federal money on the basis of projects involving a few people, or one individual. The need is for insti- tutional grants, to be made within prescribed areas of activity, over which the institution will have much more control than is presently the case. In many of our institutions the professor is becoming a private entrepreneur. He is putting - all of his emphasis upon his personal `research and upon the acquisition of addi- tional research monies. As a result, he is virtually independent of his institution. or control by his administration. The by-product of this system is that the pro- - fessor, in too many cases, is putting all of his emphasis upon the discovery oV knowledge, usually in a very narrow field of study, and is backing away from the teaching function and from the application of his acquired knowledge to the~ solution of problems. May I urge you to consider the possibility that greater gains.. could be made in the long run if more of the grants were made on an institutional basis, thus leaving a certain amount of control over the expenditure of this. money and over college and university personnel in the hands of the institutions. Again may I revert for an example to the problems of our cities. As I indicated earlier, these problems are so complex and so many-faceted that the isolated, project approach is relatively ineffective. Ten isolated projects are equally in- effective unless overall planning is done by the institution and the problem at-~ tacked in some kind of unified manner. The institution which is devoting its at- - tention to the study and solution of urban problems can do a better job if re- - search and program monies come to that institution directly rather than to sev- eral members of the faculty or several groups of faculty members on the project basis. Lest I be misunderstood, may I hasten to add that I am not proposing that' the federal government lift all controls over the expenditure of its funds. I would oppose this vigorously. However, I believe the general controls and accounting - could be maintained and at the same time more positive results could be obtained through the institutional grants system. It seems to me that the institutional grants procedure would minimize special program accounting and control prob- lems, while providing a more effective tool for promoting the utilization of' university and grantor support iii producing an excellent program. Such insitu- tional grants should be based on some share of the university's total effort, as evidenced by its accounting for its functions. Detailed program accounts could be used as a measure of total effort in specific directions and would serve as a basis for determining eligibility for and the amount of grants. Once awarded, such support should be available for us without retriction except as to general purpose. We in higher education would hope that a system of block grants may be~ developed in such areas as education, service programs, and scientific research. In the longer term, it would be our view `that the institutional program should become the general base for academic grants, thus increasing the university~s PAGENO="0319" HIGHER EDuCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 313 responsibility for its total program and reducing the significance of panels and counsels and their particular prejudices and biases in the development program. We believe that imposing responsibility for program and substantive leadership of the faculty on the university administration will significantly improve both the morale of the staff and the balance of program for the student and the nation. As a final point, may I suggest that additional attention should be given to the need to distribute research and program monies more widely among institu- tions throughout the country. At the present time a few universities get most of the support. Many of our colleges and universities, particularly of the emerging variety, now have high-quality staffs which offer great potential in research and program development. They are, on the whole, ineligible for many kinds of grants because they have not yet fully proved themselves, especially in the research areas. We do not argue that a substantial portion of the research funds should not be invested in the well-established university. A proportion of our capital should always be invested in the sure thing. What I do argue, however, is that another substantial sum should be placed in what may be called, if you wish, "risk in- vestment." Potentially higher~ returns and greater long-range benefits to society might be much more pronounced if a larger percentage of research and program money were invested in these kinds of institutions. The Congress has traditionally adopted the view that a broad base of institution support is good for the Ameri- can system and that "risk investmept" pays off in our society. We hope that the Congress will continue to take the broad view that the investment in the smaller college and emerging university is sound and necessary. This can be done only if the legislation makes certain that promising institutions are sought out and developed. The present large sums of money going to such things as research and develop- ment centers and regibnal research labOratories, as well as research monies in general, will benefit, almost exclusively, the large, well-established university. Additional money is needed for the development of diversified curriculums based on sound planning and directed to meeting the needs of students and society in general. One example would be a provision for monies to establish smaller re- search and development centers in these kinds of institutions. This would be especially desirable in the area of teacher education. One of the reasons behind my argument is that it is these kinds of institutions which are most likely to develop a balanced research, teaching and service program. It is here that the emerging university, which is at the present time teaching- and people-oriented, can make its greatest contribution. Unless funds are made available to these kinds of institutions, they have no choice, if they are to share in the federal bounty, but to copy the pattern of the already successful university. I see nothing in the amendments which will help correct this situation. May I thank the committee for this opportunity to present my views relative to the proposed legislation. Dr. CoLLINs. Thank you. I am president of the State University of New York at Albany. While my opinions are not representative of any official views of any organization or institution, allow me first to express my appre- ciation of the early extension of existing acts which are accomplished by the amendments of 1967. When Congress gives colleges and universities, as it does here, time for advance planning, the usefulness of Federal assistance has increased. In general I would join with my colleagues in expressing support for the general intent of the 1967 amendments and our suggestions and criticisms are minor as compared to the total provisions of the act. One point I think not mentioned here this morning is one I am sure you have already heard testimony on from other representatives of higher education and that is the desirability of retaining the 3-per- cent interest rate on loans for the construction of college academic facilities and to raise the percentage as would result from the amend- PAGENO="0320" 314 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 inent to title X, would seriously restrict the very institutions it is designed to even help most. The operation of the interest formula would result in an increase of at least five-eighths percent and possibly 1% percent and such an increase would inevitably constitute a deterrent in construction of the facilities needed. To come back inconcert with my completion I am happy to support those provisions designed to broaden and consolidate support of the teacher training programs. We especially applaud the innovative and imaginative approaches to teacher education as in title V, section 531. The supply of needed teachers in the elementary and secondary scl~ools will be increased somewhat by the provision of fellowships for college students. A far more important effect, I `believe, is accomplished `by the encouragement of desirable. changes in the pattern of curriculum in teacher education. Too often an aspirant of the provision is repelled by the dull and discouraging program `which is said to lead to teaching. This amendment should encourage the development of programs which make courses preparing for teaching more realistic, more meaningful, more clearly representative of the appeals and rewards of teaching. `Such a result all in the profession would applaud. Similarly, I welcome the proposed provisions for strengthening the programs for the preparation of higher education personnel, espe- cially the development of capabilities for college teaching. The efforts of some 200 colleges and universities now offering or planning to offer such programs would be greatly strengthened by this proposal. The shortage of instructors in higher education, especially for the 2-year colleges, is currently urgent, and will get worse. Provision such as is made in the proposed act for a range of subdoctoral programs to prepare college teachers is urgently needed and offers real promise of alleviating the impending shortage. The increased scope and variety of programs eligible for support and the greater flexibility of administration especially in regard to the setting of stipends, these provisions increase the effectiveness of the basic program. I do not share the fears expressed by some of the colleagues in teacher education regarding the `authority granted to the Commis- sioner for them to contract with private agencies to carry out programs or projects designed to prepare teachers. If the purpose is to prepare more and better teachers, no legitimate resource should be ignored or restricted and if some private agency can present a program more attractive than that of the usual institutions, that program should be supported and the traditional institutions urged to benefit from the comparison. Title V, in creating the new education professions development pro- gram, attacks `both the problem of the shortage of `teaching personnel and the problem of the multiplicity of overlapping programs and agencies through which the institutions must operate. This latter is so familiar to members of the committee it should need no further emphasis from me. To the extent this present con- fusion can `be simplified by the provisions of the act, the effectiveness of the combined college and university efforts will be multiplied. PAGENO="0321" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 315 I would be pleased to elaborate on any of these points, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the committee. Thank you. Mr. ESCH. Thank you for your statement. Your complete state- inent will be placed in the record at this point, Dr. Collins. (The document referred to follows:) TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY EVAN R. COLLINS IN BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES FOR TEACHER EDUCATION Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Evan R. Collins, President of the State University of New York at Albany. I appreciate the op- portunity to bring to you this morning views which I feel are representative of teacher educators across the country. Allow me first to express my appreciation of the early extension of existing Acts that is accomplished by Higher Educa- tion Amendments of 1967. When the Congress gives colleges and universities, as it does here, time for advanced planning, the usefulness of federal assistance has increased. In general, I join by colleagues here this morning in expressing support for the general intent of provisions of the 1967 amendments. Our sug- gestions and criticisms are minor in comparison to the total provisions of the Act. You have already heard testimony from other representatives of higher education as to the desirability of retaining the 3% interest rate on loans for the construction of college academic facilities. To raise the interest rate by a full~ percentage point or more, as would result from the proposed amendment of Title X, would seriously restrict the advan- tages of the program for the very institutions it is designed to help most. As has been pointed out to you, the operation of the interest formula would result in an increase of at least ~/8 of 1% and possibly as much as 1%%. Such an increase would inevitably constitute a deterrent in the construction of the facilities needed. I am happy to commend and support those provisions designed to broaden and consolidate support to teacher training programs. We especially applaud en- couragement of innovative and imaginative aproaches to teacher education as in Title V, Section 531. The supply of needed teachers in the elementary and secondary schoels will be increased somewhat by the provision of fellowships for college students. A far more important effect, I believe, is accomplished by the encouragement of desirable changes in the pattern of curriculum in teacher edu- cation. Too often an aspirant of the provision is repelled by the dull and dis- couraging program which is said to lead to teaching. This amendment should en- courage the development of programs which make courses preparing for teaching more realistic, more meaningful, more clearly representative of the appeals and rewards of teaching. Such a result, all in the profession would applaud. Similarly, I welcome the proposed provisions for strengthening the programs for the preparation of higher education personnel, especially the development of capabilities for college teaching. The efforts of some 200 colleges and universities now offering or planning to offer such programs would be greatly strengthened by this provision. The shortage of instruetors in higher education, especially for the two year colleges, is currently urgent, and will get worse. Provision such as is made in the proposed Act for a range of sub-doctoral programs to prepare college teachers l5 urgently needed and offers real promise of alieviating the impending shortage. The increased scope and variety of programs eligible for support and the greater flexibility of administration especially in regard to the setting of stipends; these provisions increase the effectiveness of the basic pro- gram. I do not share the fears expressed by some of my colleagues in teacher education regarding the authority granted to the Commissioner to contract with private agencies to carry out programs or projects designed to prepare teachers. If the purpose is to prepare more and better teachers, no legitimate resource should be ignored or restricted and if some private agency can present a pro- gram more attractive than that of the usual institutions, that program should be supported and the traditional institutions urged to benefit from the comparison Title IT, in creating the new Education Professions Development Program, at- tacks both the problem of the shortage of teaching personnel and the problem of the multiplicity of overlapping programs and agencies through which the in- stitutions must operate. This latter is so familiar to members of the committee it should need no further emphasis from me. To the extent this present confusion 80-155-67-pt. 1-21 PAGENO="0322" 316 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 can be simplified by the provisions of this Act, the effectiveness of the combined college and university efforts will be multiplied. I would be pleased to elaborate on any of these points, `and I am appreciative of the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the committee. Thank you. Mr. ESOH. I wonder if we might get into the question of the Com- missioner being allowed to award contracts. The general tone of your statement was that you thought the innovation provided by colleges could develop creative programs for colleges and university teachers? Dr. COLLINS. Right. Mr. Eson. Yet you say you need a stimulating program to develop competition of agencies with insti'tutions of higher learning? Dr. COLLINS. I don't think this is an acknowledgement that we need this, it is rather to say we need `to leave the door open for good ideas from any sources, we should not preclude any. Mr. Esoii. I `think those opposing the Commissioner granting con- tracts oppose it on the basis of policy made by the Commissioner rather than policy by the institutions of higher learning `and they would strongly support contracts directed by `the institutions of higher learning. You, however, believe the Commissioner should also have this power of setting policy through awarding contracts. Dr. CoLLINs. I should prefer to see the institution put this in a larger framework. I should be much more comfortable with the pro- vision that the Commissioner would need clearance through his co- ordinating councils if this power were to be vested in him. Mr. Eson. Do we have the creativity and innovation available in our institutions and colleges of higher learning to change the curriculum in teacher education as you suggest there? You are implying you do by your testimony. Dr. COLLINS. I think we do, yes. Mr. ESOH. What is needed now is the funding, is that right? Dr. COLLINS. I think there is an increasing recognition on the part of even the most traditionally minded institution that current problems need new solutions and there is a considerable ferment going on in in- stitutions across the country that could well use the kind of encourage- ment that is represented by some of the provisions of this act. Mr. SACHS. I don't think money is the key to this. But my institution is 5 years old and we have a very nontraditional approach to teacher training We are changing it now after 5 years I think we need to encourage this kind of thing. I would like to leave the door open. If some private agency has a bright idea and wants to bring it into the educational arena, I think that is good.' Dr. PEARL. I don't, accept the thought there is some great innovative power now in these private agencies. I watched them in the Job Corps and they are just as bad as we are. Mr. ESOH. If we reflect, the goals are consistency and creativity, and the problems this committee faces is how to reach both in the. coming decade. We appreciate all of you being here. I am sure your testimony will be well received and well read. We will stand in recess until next Tuesday at 10 o'clock. (17\Thereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 12, 1967.) PAGENO="0323" HIGHER EDIJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TUESDAY, NAY 2, 1967 HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Ra~burn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Carey, Burton, Quie, Erlenborn, and Esch. Also present: William F. Gaul, counsel to the subcommittee. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order for further con- sideration of the Higher Education Act of 1967. We are delighted to have our colleague appear before the subcom- mittee this morning to discuss a particular piece of legislation that she has that would have an impact on the Education Professions De- velopment Act. May I say to you that we are always delighted when you can join our subcommittee and I wish personally that you were a member of this subcommittee. I hope one of these days you will be. I think you are doing a tremendous job on the full committee and in the House. You may proceed. STATEMENT OP RON. PATSY T. MINK, A ~PRESENTATIYE IN CONGRESS PROM THE STATE `OP HAWAII Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the Spe- cial Subcommittee on Education. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcom- mittee now considering }LR. 6232, the Higher Education Act Amend- ments of 1967. I am particularly interested in title V of the bill relating to the edu- cation professions development. As you know, in the last session I sponsored a bill-H.R. 10622-~-which provided for the establishment of a national sabbatical leave program for elementary and secondary teachers. It was reported out of our Committee on Education and Labor, but did not reach the House floor for consideration. I am pleased to see that H.R. 6232, now before this committee, is also' addressing itself to this vital question of improving the quality of American education by providing programs of @nrichment for our Rlementary and secondary teachers. 317 PAGENO="0324" 318 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1 ~ 67 While it is well known that our country faces a serious shortage of teachers, and that this bill seeks to respond to this question, I feel that it is equally important that we strengthen it by specifically recognizing the special needs of teachers who are already teaching and who have not had an opportunity to leave work for an extended year7s study in their field of teaching or to develop further skills in another field in which they may have found new interests. I heartily endorse section 532(b) (1) of H.R. 6232 which specifically refers to various subject matters such as history, civics, reading, inter- national affairs, and the arts and humanities, in addition to education- type courses, as those which might be included in programs that insti- tutions could provide for teachers who are presently in specific teaching fields. Paragraph (2) refers to guidance, remedial speech and reading, child development, and educational media as other areas of study for the teacher. Reference is also made in other paragraphs to special programs for teachers of preschool children, or disadvantaged children, of handi- capped children, as well as programs for administrators and other sdhool personnel. This bill authorizes the Commissioner to include in the terms of the grant or contract with the institution of higher education, State or local educational agency, or other agencies payments to persons par- ticipating in these training programs of such stipends, including allow- ances for subsistence and other expenses for such persons and their dependents, as he may determine to be consistent with prevailing practices under other comparable Federal programs. This provision, I feel, is absolutely necessary for the teacher to par- ticipate in these programs. A recent study by the National Education Association showed that in urban districts selected for study only 19.4 percent offered their teachers sabbatical leaves with at least partial pay for professional study. The study also showed that the smaller the school district and the more limited its financial resources, the less likely it was that any pro- vision for such a leave was available. The study also pointed out that only 4,229 tea~hers were on such leaves, averaging less than one teacher from the 4,697 school districts that were included in the study. The complexity of our society and the rapid expansion of new knowledge and ideas are self-evident. Equally apparent is the fact that we are not helping our teachers keep up with the current explo- sion of concepts and ideas, if the vast majority are left to their own resources to maintain professional competence and expertise. We are penalizing our children if we do not provide our teachers with ample opportunities to return to institutions of higher learning without undue sacrifice to their families' well-being. Summer institutes, inservice training programs and other short- term programs, seminars, workshops, and conferences are worthwhile PAGENO="0325" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 319 but in my opinion cannot take the place of offering the teacher con- centrated full-time academic study in his particular field of study or in a new area which is urgently needed in his school system. For this reason I urge this committee to amend the language on page 61 of H.IR. 6232 to make specific the authority that section 532 grants to teachers already in the system may be for year-long aca- demic programs at institutions of higher education. While fully supporting the provisions of the bill which provide refresher courses, as well as the degree-program fellowships which are designed to attract qualified people into the teaching profession, I am most fearful that H.R. 6232, as drafted, will not make possible the intensive study many of our nondegree teachers need to upgrade their qualifications. Nor will it allow such longer periods of study to experienced teach- ers. It cannot be assumed that these teachers are able to maintain pro- fessional competence only through attending evening institutes or summer courses. In H.R. 3372, which I have again introduced in the present Con- gress and which was reported favorably out of the House Committee on Education and Labor in the last session, I have made specific pro'- vision in order that teachers who are currently teaching and who do not have a baccalaureate degree have specific assistance. Current figures are not available; however, a 1955 report of the NEA showed that 34 percent of all elementary school teachers lacked a bachelor's degree and in 1960 a further study revealed that 25 percent of the elementary teachers had less than 4 years of undergraduate teacher preparation. In recognition of this problem I urge this subcommittee to' write specific language in this bill to provide special programs which will accelerate the completion of the basic academic studies necessary to bring these teachers' professional requirements up to standard. Such a move is as necessary as attracting new students into teaching careers. No matter how vigorously we work to achieve equal educational opportunity for our children, each class is only as good as its teacher. The Federal Government needs to make a firm commitment to our teachers by providing them with greater ease aiid access to the avail- able knowledge and education in our universities. Finally, I urge the provision of adequate funds for implementing these programs; this would be the surest guarantee of the highest quality education for our elementary and secondary school children. Thank you very much for this opportunity to express my views on this most vital matter. With your permission, Madam Chairman, I would like to have appended at the conclusion of this statement a list of organizations and individuals who have written in support of my bill, H.R. 3372, which I believe lends support to the testimony I have presented today. Thank you very much. (The list of organizations and individuals follows:) PAGENO="0326" ~2O HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS IN SUPPORT OF ER. 3372 ORGANIZATIONS American Federation of Teachers California Teachers Association Everett Federation of Teachers (Massachusetts) Hawaii Education Association Hawaii State Board of Education Illinois Federation of Teachers International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers International Brotherhood of Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America Kauai Education Association (Hawaii) Labor's Non-Partisan League Lanai Education Association (Hawaii) Maine Teachers Association Minnesota Federation of Teachers National Education Association of the United States Nebraska State Education Association New Jersey Education Association North Dakota Education Association Ohio Education Association, Association of Classroom Teachers * Oregon Education Association * Overseas Education Association, Inc. Rhode Island Federation of Teachers Texas State Teachers Association United Automobile Workers of America Washington Education Association Wisconsin Education Association INDIVIDUALS Mr. Mark Cockrill, Maunaolu College, Maui, Hawaii * Mr. Eugene C. Edgerly, Heidelberg American School Mr. Don B. Goodloe, The Washington Teachers' Union Mr. Don~Kenyon, Covina High School, California U.S. REPRESENTATIVES Ilion. John H. Dent, identical bill introduced :11on1. John G. Dow, identical bill introduced :1101TL Ed Edmondson, identical bill introduced -Ron. Don Edwards, identical bill introduced :1b01~1. Donald M. Fraser -Ron. Julia Butler Hansen flon. Henry Heistoski, identical bill introduced Hon. Elmer Holland, identical bill introduced Hon. Hervey Machen, identical bill introduced Hon. Spark Matsunaga, identical bill introduced Hon. George P. Miller Hon. Robert N. C. Nix, identical bill introduced Hon. Joseph Resnick, identical bill introduced Hon. James Scheuer, identical bill introduced Hon. Lionel Van Deerlin Hon. E. S. Johnny Walker, identical bill introduced Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, Mrs. Mink. Congressman Gibbons, do you have any questions? Mr. GIBBONS. I cer~ainly support your request for more real oppor- tunity for teachers who are now in the profession to go back and up- date thoroughly their knowledge, not just only on a hit-and-miss or piecemeal basis as they have often had to do in the teacher institutes. PAGENO="0327" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 321 I want to thank the lady for the constructive suggestions she makes on the legislation. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie. Mr. QmE. You make the suggestion on page 6 that we amend H.R. 532. Do you feel that the programs as specified in this suggestion do not permit a year-long program when they talk of regular-session institutes? Mrs. MINK. it might, but the language is unclear as I read it. The more I read it the more I become concerned that the whole thrust of the 1, 2, 3 enumeration under subparagraph C was with reference to short-term-type instruction seminars and other inservice programs. I felt compelled to request an opportunity to appear before the subcommittee to point out what I thought was a deficiency in the language, that the universities might not be permitted to seek grants under this section for year-round programs even though they felt it might be necessary for teachers in their community. Mr. QUIE. Would it be satisfactory to you if we made regular session institutes into year-round sessions? Mrs. MINK. Yes, instead of regular session, year-round courses, or whatever language would be best suited would be quite acceptable and I feel that is where the amendment should go.. Mr. QUIE. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch? Mr. EscH. No questions. Mrs. GREEN~ Regarding the stipends you suggest, $200 a month and $1,000 to the institution, do. you think there would be some merit to making this amount the same as that which is given for institute programs? Mrs. MINK. Yes, and for that reason I did not raise any objection to the paragraph that I cited which gives the Commissioner the right to look to the other programs and to designate stipends which are comparable in other areas. I feel it is important not to make distinctions and that whatever the basis might be for making payments not only to the teachers but to the dependents to carry through for the year-round program. We selected the $200 because we felt that wasa minimum amount at least to get started with this program and it would afford roughly $2,000 to the teacher and a 10-month program at a university program and alsO the $1,000 to cover travel to the university and the tuition. Mrs. GREEN. Would you give attention to amendments which would make this a part of the total teacher training program? I am think- ing in terms of section 6 and also where you suggest 50 percent be given to those who don't have a degree and 50 percent to those who have. We have a national program for teachers in the elementary and secondary schools for those who would go on beyond the baccalaureate degree. As you know, $275 million was authorized by the Congress last year and only 12 percent is being requested in terms of funds. I think this would have a great bearing on section 6 of the bill. If the teacher fellowship bill were completely funded, I think it would take care of subparagraph A. Mrs. MINK. Subparagraph A of- PAGENO="0328" 322 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Section 6 of your bill. Mrs. MINK. There is a tremendous difference, howeyer, between the need for a baccalaureate for the basic degree for the teachers who are in the system as distinguished from those seeking advance degrees and I felt this bill did not give any consideration to the teacher who is already in the system and who lacks the 4-year or 5-year basic education to be a teacher. Nowhere in it-I stand corrected if I have misread the bill-but nowhere in the bill do I feel there is any reference to this problem which, in our hearings, was clearly pointed out as a major deficiency of many major systems. Mrs. GREEN. I heartily agree with what you said; there is nothing for the person who has not completed the undergraduate work. But the 50 percent of the funds for teachers having their first degree, that part, it seems to me, should be meshed in with the existing fellowship program. Mrs. MINK. Yes, I would agree that would be a proper place to put it. Mrs. GREEN. Also I would think there would be some merit to having the stipends the same? Mrs. MINK. Yes, I would agree with that also. Mrs. GREEN. If it were the same, people wouldn't go on a shopping spree to see where they could get the most money? Mrs. MINK. Yes, I think that is very important. Mrs. GREEN. I will say I am in agreement with your views. I have said many times the important thing is to retain teachers. I get a little discouraged when we put so much emphasis on recruiting 5,000 teachers when 140,000 are leaving each year and we better turn our attention to that problem. Thank you very much. Mrs. MINK. I thank the Chairman `and the committee. Mrs. GREEN. The next individual to appear before the committee is Dr. Richard Frost from the Office of Economic Opportunity and Di- rector of the Upward Bound program. Welcome to the committee hearings. We are delighted to have you with us. STATEMENT OP DR. RICHARD' PROST, OPPICE OP ECONOMIC OPPOR- TUNITY, UPWARD BOUND' PROGRAM; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. BILLINGS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM, WASHINGTON STATE COLLEGE, BELLINGHAM, WASH. Dr. FROST. Thank you very much. May I introduce the new Deputy Director of the program, Dr. Bill- ings, from Washington State College in Bellingham, who has been the Director of the Upward Bound program there since 1965. He~ knows about it from the ground up. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a statement? Dr. FROST. I filed a statement with your committee which is a basic description of the program and, with your permission, I wouldn't just merely read it, I would summarize it `and go on to your questions. PAGENO="0329" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 323 Mrs. G~EN. Very well, and without objection your statement will be made a part of the record. (The statement of Dr. Frost follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD FROST, OFFICE OF EcONoMIC OPPORTUNITY, UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM I. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION UPWARD BOUND is a pre-college program, operated largely by colleges and universities, for poverty high school students. It is designed to remedy poor preparation and motivation in secondary school, and thus increase a youngster's promise of acceptance and success in a post-secondary institution. A typical Upward Bound Program consists of two parts- (a) an intensive residential summer academic session on a campus and (b) an effective "follow- up" system during the academic year, so that the gains of the summer sessions are consolidated through tutoring, after-school or weekend sessions, and so on. Once a program begins, institutions must be prepared to work with the UPWARD BOUND students all the way to the college doorstep. In operating UPWARD BOUND programs, educational institutions commit themselves to assisting each UPWARD BOUND "graduate" get on to an appro- priate post-secondary educational institution with the financial assistance he will need. Because we have surmised that "one summer of happiness" is not enough time to repair educational and motivational deficiencies, the focus of the program is on 10th and 11th graders. At the base of the whole idea is a very simple assumption-persons now in poverty and likely to stay there will get out and stay out of poverty if they obtain the marketable skills that post-secondary education can give them. IL RESULTS ACHIEVED A. Data from six of the first (1965) Upward Bound demonstration projects show `that 80% of the students continued their education, with 78% going on to an accredited college. Only 12 percent of these UPWARD BOUND alumni dropped out during their freshman year of college, less than half the customary dropout rate for such students. (Previous studies put the dropout rate in pre- dominantly Negro colleges at one-third the freshman class.) Although they were having a tough time competing academically, those students from the lowest economic status were those who most often improved their grade level in the second semester. Also 20% of the UPWARD BOUND students in college improved their academic standing in the second semester over the first semester. It is estimated that only 8% of the American high school graduates whose family income meet OEO's poverty lines go on to continue their education after high school. The rate so far in Upward Bound is 75-80%. This not only multiplies the college-going rate of `the American poor by 9-10 times, it exceeds the college going rate of all American high school graduates, rich and poor, which is esti~ mated at 65%. B. A 10% representative sample of all UPWARD BOUND students in the U.S., funded in. Fiscal year 1966, tested at the beginning and end of the summer phase of the on-campus program showed significant improvement in six psycholo' gical measurements: 1. Motivation for college 2. Possibility of graduating from college 3. Self-evaluation of intelligence 4. Self-responsibility 5. Interpersonal understanding 6. Self-esteem (The students, in 21 of the total 216 programs, were. selected as representa- tive of all urban `and rural, small and large UPWARD BOUND projects, and all racial and ethnic backgrounds.) III. ONGOING EVALUATION OF UPWARD BOUND A. Characterization of 1906 Summer Upward Bound Programs. This study, conducted by Dr. David Hunt and Dr. Robert Hardt of the Youth Development PAGENO="0330" 324 HIGHER EDUCATION AIvIENDMENT,S OF 1967 Center of Syracuse University, showed the results of attitudinal tests given to all of the Upward Bound students in 21 target programs. The tests were given twice, during the first week of the summer program and during the last week. The 21 target programs were chosen as a group which were representative of all of the programs. B. Report to the Director of Upward Bound: Program for Pre-College Centers: Evaluation of the 1965 and 1966 Upward Bound Programs of the Pre-College Centers located at Dillard, Fisk, Howard, Moréhouse, Texas Southern, and Webster Universities. This report followed the progress of both the original 1965 Upward Bound students and those selected in 1960 at the six colleges which used materials developed by Educational Services, Incorporated. The original group consisted of students who had graduated from high school in June of 1965. Many of the 1966 summer group entered college last Fall. C. National and Regional Profile of Programs, Students, Staff and Advisory Committee. This was a compilation made by the cOnsultant agency for Upward Bound, Educational Projects, Inc. (EPI) based on a Summer Summary Question- naire sent to all fiscal year 1966 Upward Bound Projects, in June 1966. D. National and Regional Profile of Student Retention and Attrition, Causes of Attrition, Follow-up Program Plans, and Staff Medical Examination and Treatment Costs, Student Stipend Distribution. This was a compilation made by EPI based on the 1966-1967 Academic Summary Questionnaire #1 which was sent to all Funded 1967 Upward Bound projects early last Fall. E. Careful in depth site visits for each program are on file for both the sum- mer phase and the academic year phase. The reports are written by persons who have had prior knowledge of OEO and pre-college programs. IV. DATA ON 1966-67 UPWARD BOUND PROGRAM Profile of Upward Bound Programs 1. Total number of Upward Bound projects 220 2. Total number of students 20, 139 3. Total community action 205 funds in fiscal 1066 $25, 949, 165 4. Federal cost per program $117, 096. 00 5. Federal cost per student funded $1, 243. 06 6. Range of Federal grants: (a) Smallest (Princeton) $14,550.00 (b) Largest (Texas Southern) $410, 872. 00 7. Average enrollment per program 88. 22 students 8. Range of enrollment: (a) Smallest (Princeton had 60-we financed 12) 12 (b) Largest (Texas Southern) 337 9. Location of programs: (a) In public institutions of higher education 114 (b) In private institutions of higher education 96 (c) In public secondary schools (BIA school in Alaska) 1 (d) In private secondary schools 9 PROFILE OF 20,000 UPWARD BOUND STUDENTS A. large percentage of the 20,000 high school students enrolled in Upward Bound in the summer of 1966 come from families below OEO's minimum poverty level; and are severely handicapped culturally when compared with the U.S. high school population. Indications of the level of deprivation of the more than 20,000 students enrolled in Upward Bound in the summer of 1966 are: Mean family income, $3,501.86 (OEO considers $4,000 a poverty level for family of 6). Size of family, 53% have 6 or more members in a family. Parental guidance, 55% of students were living with only one parent (30% living with mother) or with no parent. Comparison with a national high school sample graphically points up the deprivation of Upward Bound students: PAGENO="0331" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 $tudent data fronl Upward Bound 325 U.S. high school students 25 82 48 57 25 23 1. Total number applying to the 224 Upward 2. Total number enrolled 20, 139 3. Mean age 1 4. Sex distribution (percent) (a) Male 48.6 (b) Female 51.3 5. Ethnic composition (percent) (a) Caucasian 33. 0 (b) Negro 51. 9 (c) American Indian 4. 1 (d) Spanish American 7. 3 (e) Other (e.g., oriental) C. Grade level completed upon entry to program: Mean grade level completed (grade) 10 7. High school grade point average upon entry to program: Mean grade point average (73% C or lower) (C) 2.46 Only 43% were in academic course in high school. 8. Total number who had "dropped out of high school" 370 9. Total number entering from Job Corps Centers 152 metropolitan areas Upward Bound students were drawn from the largest (40% lived in cities of over 100,000 population;) and the most isolated rural regions (25% lived in communities with less than 2,500 population.) Most at- tended densely populated high schools, with 55% reporting their high school enrollment in excess of 1,000 students. Eight percent attended schools with fewer than 300 students. first heard about the program Nearly four out of five Upward Bound students through school contacts: 47% from a school counselor, 16% from a teacher, 10% from a principal and 8% from a school friend. Although most of their parents looked favorably upon their being enrolled in the special academic program (80% according to the students), their neighbor- hood friends were much more skeptical (only 43% were reported to favor stu- dents' joining the program.) Source: Questionnaire distributed by OEO to Upward Bound Project Direc- tors, combined with data from the Syracuse University Youth Development Center. (A) EOG-NDBA Loans and Work~Study.-ObvioUSly Upward Bound's "grad- uates" are prime contenders for these financial aids at the college level. To emphasize that fact, Commissioner Howe sent a letter to all Presidents' and Admissions Offices of institutions receiving federal financial aid funds, pointing out that thousands of Upward Bound students were now coming "around the track" and would be obvious candidates for financial help. Whether and to what [In percent] Upward bound ~ 6 to 8 members in family 9 or more members in family 20 Living with both parents Living with mother only 30 Education of parents: High school graduate, father 31 high school graduate, mother Post-high-school education, father 12 Post-high-school education, mother 14 Older siblings of Upward Bound students have a high secondary school drop- out rate and extremely low college attendance record. Only 5% of older siblings are college graduates, while 30% of the older brothers, and 26% of the older sis- ters have already dropped out of school without a high school diploma. PAGENO="0332" 326 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 extent colleges and universities, due to the matching provisions of BOG, are willing to spend money on students with less conventionally measured "qualifi- cations" or "promise", OEO does not know. The signals so far from around the country are mixed. Other important issues are raised. Should the poorest students carry the highest educational debts? Should less well prepared students be forced to put in many work-study hours per week? Will colleges invest their dollars in the student taking a lighter load and going for five years? (B) Talent Search (Sec. 408, Higher Education Act). Upward Bound has worked closely with Talent Search in OE. UB representa- tives sit on Talent Search's panels reviewing proposals. JIB has commented on Talent Search's Guidelines prior to their issuance. There are five significant differences between UB and TS: (1) All UB programs contain a major academic, instructional component de- signed to remedy educational deficiencies. No TS programs do. All UB programs bring the high school student to the campus for an entire summer and off and on during the year. No TS programs do. (2) TS programs are a crucial "broadcasting" of news about college-going, financial aid, and related matters. UB's "sphere of influence" is smaller and more concentrated on a particular batch of heavily involved students. (3) UB, being in OEO, has the needed flexibility to fund a variety of curricula and types of programs. TS, in a more established agency, must be folded into established workways which have proven useful and workable but, necessarily, don't provide the flexibility OEO can give Upward Bound. (4) UB is directly tied to OEO's local community action agencies and, through these, can mobilize local resources more easily in health, dental care, family support, other tutoring programs, etc. (5) OEO views Talent Search as a very important complementary program which reaches many more students than UB can reach. It is our own view that neither program is a substitute for the other. The relationship between TS and UB staffs has been excellent. Dr. FROST. Upward Bound is the academic instructional pre- college program run by the war on poverty, making grants to colleges and universities who take high school youngsters on to the college campuses in the summer for academic and motivational beef-up, if you will, youngsters who are not now headed for college and who, the colleges think, with this kind of intervention and work, could be moved into higher education. The program was started in 1965 with 18 pilot programs and then in 1966' became full-blown with 216 Upward Bound programs. There are now 20,000 Upward Bound youngsters in these 216 programs. They go from Guam to Maine and there will be programs this summer in every State. Most of these youngsters, all of them in fact that we support, are not only at the OEO poverty criteria but even lower. The mean family income of these youngsters is $3,500 for a family of six and OEO considers $4,000 the poverty level for a family of six. The average age is 16. They come into the program as 10th graders and we work with them in the summer programs and all year round with further direction in the form of tutoring and back to campus visits. Once in the program, the college tries to keep him there through the summer between high school graduation and when he might go to college. Some have called it the Headstart program for teen-age pov- erty youngsters. Madam Chairman, unless you wish more detail, I would stop with that kind of summary. Mrs. GREEN. I notice you gave statistics on how many of the young- sters from low-mcome families went to college and that the percent- PAGENO="0333" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 327 age is increasing. Do you have any information on how many of them stayed in college or how many became dropouts? Dr. FROST. What I have, Madam Chairman, is the first data on the group in 1965. We took a sample of six of those and tracked those six. Mrs. GREEN. Six youngsters? Dr. FROST. No, six colleges; a total of 953 youngsters and we are now tracking them. They are currently sophomores. I can file this with you as soon as I can get a copy made. The data is not easy to come by as colleges-for us at least-they have a diff- icult time remerbering this youngster was an Upward Bound student but we are making progress. It looks as though they are going to stay in college at about the same rate as other youngsters going to college. This is a messy business as far as data is concerned. You know many youngters start at a college but don't finish in that college but some finish college even though not at the college where they started. I am working to firm up this data but it looks as though they have a staying power about the same as other youngsters going to such colleges. Mrs. GREEN. What are your figures? Dr. FROST. We know data on 819 of the 953. We can extrapolate on the others. There was an initial college going rate of 80 percent, 23 percent of those who went withdrew during or at the end of the first year. Fifty-one percent of them came back for their sophomore year. Of those, we knew as of February, Mrs. Green, that 18 percent were on probation. We knew nothing about 37 percent as to whether they were on probation and we knew 45 percent were in good standing. The summary of this data is that the sample was 953, 762, or 80 percent started college, 23 percent were not there after the freshman year, and then over the summer we lost more and 51 percent of them went back so the whole number of the original college going group still in college is about 40 percent and I think that that is comparable to the kind of figures you expect with the regular college-going popula- tions in these colleges but I want to say clearly I am not clear on this general data and I am working with the Office of Education to get some data. I think it is fair to compare these youngsters with regular going college students. I don't know whether we can get retention rates for other poorer young American youngsters who were not in this pro- gram. Mrs. GREEN. These statistics are for what year, 1966? Dr. FROST. These youngsters started in Upward Bound in the pilot summer, a sample of them, and they are therefore currently in their sophomore year. They went through their freshman year last year and are now in their sophomore year. The data I have was taken in February 1967, and we are waiting for the spring performance records of this group. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have figures on the number that stayed in college university programs on their own before this program was in operation in the Office of Economic Opportunity? Dr. FROST. No, I do not; nor do I know of any other program where the poverty criteria were so strictly enforced and an Upward Bound- PAGENO="0334" 328 HIGHER EDUCATiON AMENDMENTS OF 1967 type program, as we have now actually developed it, was actually op- erated. There may well have been some. Mrs. GREEN. On page 2 in the second paragraph you say something that has some significance, it seems to me. This not only multiplies the college-going rate of the American poor by 9-10 times, it exceeds the college going rate of all American high school graduates, rich and poor, which is estimated at 65 percent. From an educational standpoint what is the justification for concen- trating just on the poor? If education is important, why is it not equally important for the middle income or anybody else? Is this good Fed- eral policy to say we are more concerned about poor boys going to col- lege and staying in than anybody else? Dr. FROST. I agree with you as an educator there is no unevenness in the importance of all of these groups. The war on poverty is just that, the war on poverty, and in my understanding a great many other programs address themselves directly and more effectively than we could to other kinds of students with loan programs and much of the TJSOE practice, as I understand it, is that Associate Director Muir- head's group is directed to larger support and I would think it is crucial. MrS. GREEN. What is the cost of the Upward Bound program for the average student you have enrolled Dr. FROST. It costs about 1,250 Federal dollars per student per year for the year-round Upward Bound program. Mrs. GREEN. In addition to the other expenses, the normal college expenses? Dr. FROST. No; I am talking now of the high-school youngster who is in the conventional IJpwarci Bound program through the summer and on campus through the year, that is, the average cost across the country; it is a 90-10 Federal sharing so the total cost is another sum of dollars. Mrs. GREEN. Does that. include all costs? Dr. FROST. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. Tuition? Dr. FROST. Yes; that is the educational costs of a precollege Upward Bound program. Mrs. GREEN. Pro rata amount of the cost of facilities? Dr. FROST. Yes; we pay precisely for the time faculties give us in those Upward Bound classes. Mrs. GREEN. And the stipends for the youngsters? Dr. FROST. We authorize a college to pay up to $10 a week during the summer because the youngsters are taken out of the small-job market and up to $5 a week in the winter where they are again taken out of part-time jobs for pin money because they are back in college weekends or afternoons. In the summer they are often tutored after school. Mrs. GREEN. $1,250 for both summer and winter? Dr. FROST. Yes; on the average across the country. Mrs. GREEN. What is the range? Dr. FROST. I am guessing. I think it would be a little over $800 in a small handful of southeastern programs, probably $1,600 at UCLA and one or two others at the high end. PAGENO="0335" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 329 I watched with some care to see why it is that high, the average is $1,250. Mrs. GREEN. As we consider the war on poverty program this year and in the light of your statement on page 2 pointing out the increased rate for the very poor, do you think Congress is justified in spending an average of $1,250 just on the poor without being equally concerned about the middle income? We don't have any other program compar- able to this. Dr. FROST. Any other precollege program for middle-income youngsters? Mrs. GREEN. Right. Dr. FROST. I am not sure how much precollege program the middle- income youngsters would need. My own view of the support the Con- gress ought to provide for youngsters going on to higher education is the more the better, that the shortage of talent is not among the un- skilled; it is among the skilled and certainly the Nation enhances thvilization when it helps to increase that pooi. Mrs. GREEN. What you are saying is the number of poor youngsters in schools has increased. Then isn't there merit in increasing the number in the middle-income levels? Dr. FROST. I think so. Mrs. GREEN. I thought you said earlier you didn't know of any special need for youngsters in the middle-income group? Dr. FROST. I have not given enough thought for a judgment as to ~whether middle-income youngsters deprived educationally, motiva- tionally and otherwise would need this type of program to send them to higher education. Mrs. GREEN. Doesn't that paragraph on page 2 refute that? Dr. FROST. I don't see how. The poor go to college at such low rates that the object `of the program is to do something about the discrepancy in the rate of the poor going to college and the richer Americans going `to college Mrs. GREEN. It seems to me what you are saying is that there is more merit in concentrating on having the poor going to college than con- centrating on the middle-income group. I think they should all be treated the same. If youngsters have the same ability, I think they should have the same opportunity. This is the question when we renew, or whatever we do to the poverty program that this should be considered. Dr. FROST. My assignment is to do something about that low-going ~ol1ege rate from the poor. With my other general educator's hat on, I would agree with you. Mrs. GREEN. The assignment of the Congress is to see that all people are treated equally; this is why we are renewing the program. Dr. FROST. Yes; surely. Mrs. GREEN. Let me explain the main reason I invited you to appear. How do you coordinate your program with the Talent Search pro- gram in the Office of Education and would it not be well to combine `the two programs? Dr. FROST. When Talent Search was started, we got together with Hugh Satterlee, who is the Director over there, and we have coordi- nated it to date by our people sitting on the panels he has that review applications to him. PAGENO="0336" 330 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Second, if he gets an application that has an instructional academic teaching component, a major chunk like that for high school young- sters,.he sends it over to us because it is, by our agreements, an Upward Bound program. When I get one that is largely-and I think importantly-a broad- casting program to get the word out that there are opportunity grants, what an NDA loan is, and all of that, I send those over to him. Before he funds and before I fund we try to make sure that there are not overlaps between the kind of things we are funding into the same institution and there have been probably 20 or so where we have an Upward Bound program and the Talent Search grant and we compare those and have pared down the figures on those to be sure there was no overlap. Mrs. GREEN. If all that was done in one office under one authority, wouldn't it greatly facilitate the administration of the programs? You wouldn't have to do the things you have just described, would you? You wouldn't have to send applications there, they wouldn't have to send them to you, and you wouldn't have to see what they are doing and coordinate the efforts. Wouldn't it make more sense? Dr. FROST. I think it wouldn't on the programs we are talking about. My own view is Upward Bound ought to stay in the poverty program, wherever that is, because in my view its basic thrust is antipoverty and it benefits so substantially from its tie-ins to the community action agencies and the mobilization of health resources, dental resources, on- going tutoring sources where we can plug our kids in very facilely. I would be disappointed if it were subtracted from the general anti- poverty thrust that OED represents. Mrs. GREEN. What is there you can do that the Office of Education could not do if Upward Bound and Talent Search were combined? Couldn't they do everything you are doing? Dr. FROST. I don't know; I don't know their statutes and the rul- ings made under it. I just don't know. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie? Mr. QUIE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. You say on page 5, Mr. Frost, that a large percent of the 20,000 high school students enrolled in Upward Bound in 1966 come from families below OEO's poverty level. Wi~at percent comes from under the poverty level? Dr. FROST. Someone said that was going to get me in trouble. All are at the poverty line or below the poverty line. What I meant was to point out a large percent are noticeably below OEO's poverty level on the average of $500 per family and I was pointing out we were indeed reaching a pretty poor clientele, even poorer than OEO's level. Mr. QUIE. Everybody is within the poverty level? Dr. FROST. Yes. It is clumsy language; I apologize. Mr. QUJE. When you say the local community action programs pro- vide health assistance and so forth, the grant with the institution of higher learning, however, is between the National Office of Economic Opportunity and institutiOns of higher learning? Dr. FROST. Yes; except in some cases where the grant is to CAA andtheinstitute is a delegate, there are about 15 of the 215. PAGENO="0337" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 331 Mr. QmE. The $1,243.06 which is Federal cost, is this the grant to the institution of higher learning and that portion of it? Dr. FROST. All of that goes to the institution of higher learning; yes. Mr. QmE. Is the amount of assistance from the local community action agency that helps with dental care, family support, and tutor- ing programs all additional? Dr. FROST. The point I wanted to make there was that it is very easy for a university in a locality when it is hooked into, the corn- munity action framework to plug Upward Bound youngsters when they are high school juniors into tutoring programs the CAA is already operating. I have found it to be a facile kind of thing and Upward Bound is a better program because it is a `community action program. It is not a conventional one as you can see because the grants are from OEO Washington out of discretionary funds largely to universities. Mr. QmE. Getting back to my question, when you estimate the average Federal cost per student funded, that is the cost between OEO and the institution of higher learning? Dr. FROST. Right. Mr. QmE. You don't count any additional Federal money, such as that for health and dental care `and local CAA as being utilized for those families, except perhaps for the 15? Dr. FROST. Where my office is not paying for it, it is not in the figure. Mr. QUIE. I have had some concern about earmarking of money in the Economic Opportunity Act, especially in title II, the `Com- munity Action Agencies, because the local agencies need the versa- tility. However, earmarking funds in Upward Bound should not be a problem with Upward Bound, since you actually make the con- tracts directly with OEO and the institution of higher learning in most cases? Dr. FROST. I think if there were other `Community Action Agency officials here they might wonder why there was earmarking. You are more aware than I of the kind of discussions going on about that problem. All of the funds are so-called discretionary funds from here and as I understand it they are not in the mix of allocations t'hat go out to the CAA's. Mr. QmE. A number of the institutions of `higher learning' which have an Upward Bound program find that the local Community Action Agency is not developed sufficiently to provide health, dental care, family support, and all these other services. Isn't this true of most Community Action Agencies? Isn't there a limited number of `CAA's who have the comprehensive program developed already? Dr. FROST. Oh, sure. My verb here was that the CAA can help the university mobilize these resources and not necessarily provide these services itself. Important, for example, is the fact a CAA has well-established relationships with medical and dental people in the city and a college then, with 100 poor kids on its hands with needs like this, finds it easy to work with the CAA in mobilizing those services even though the CAA may not provide those services. 80-155-67-pt. 1-22 PAGENO="0338" 332 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mr. Qun~. You talk of the flexibility that Upward Bound has as compared with the Talent Search. Why does Talent Search have a contract with institutions of higher learning and Upward Bound not? You find other colleges have an Upward Bound program but they don't have a Talent Search program. It seems to me that this is poor coordination because the individuals found through Talent Search who need an Upward Bound program must find their way into another institution to secure the benefits. I use the example of a good State college that has a good Talent Search program as evidenced by the hearings a week ago, but they have no Upward Bound program. Dr. FROST. My own view is there has been so much to do in this field that there is all sorts of room for both of us. We are careful to be sure that every Talent Search program knows about Upward Bound pro- grams and I would view over the years, even sooner, Talent Search as it moves toward younger age youngsters could certainly serve as a major recruiter for Upward Bound instructional programs. I have no marvelous answer as to why we don't have Upward Bound programs in Talent Search colleges and vice versa. Mr. QUIR. I would think you would coordinate them so that if the student is fitting into one institution of higher learning program, then he should be able to move right along with it rather than looking for another. What flexibility are you talking about in the variety of curriculums that Talent Search has stymied? Dr. FROST. As I understand it, Talent Search funds no curriculum activity. It is basically a recruiting and counseling program, that's the case with the proposals to Talent Search that I have read. OEO has more flexibility, as I understand it, I suppose because of its very young age. For example, Upward Bound last year was scheduled out of discretionary funds at $20 million, and when an enormous num- ber of good applications came in the Director was able to raise that to 25. I don't know whether other agencies have that kind of flexibility. I am told they don't. Mr. QUIE. I would assume they would have that much flexibility in Talent Search but I was mostly interested in the curriculums. It seems by your statement there that the Office of Education would have dif- ficulty in funding some curriculums you now fund. Dr. FROST. I didn't intend to convey that. Mr. Quru. That is all the questions I have. Dr. FROST. I was going to point out Talent Search is limited in the amount of money it can contract with a college and we are not. When we see a fully first-rate proposal that goes over that limit it does not hamstring us on that one. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Erlenborn. Mr. ERLENBORN. On page 4 you have figures relating to this pro- gram. Item 9, location of programs, C and D, you have one program in the public secondary schools and nine in private secondary schools. I understood you to say, before, these programs were generally located in the schools of higher learning. Would you explain to ma what these 10 programs are in the secondary schools? Dr. FROST. Yes, sir, we have watched with great interest some of the activity of the private residential secondary schools in their pre- PAGENO="0339" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 333 college work with poverty youngsters that had been funded in a variety of ways, frequently by foundations in 1963, 1964, and 1965. I suppose the most prominent is that group of prep schools hooked up with Dartmouth College in `the so-called A-B-C program. We have included in our guidelines college prep schools that had resi- dential capacity so they could operate on their campuses in the sum- mer, full blown residential programs which most other private or parochial high schools could not do., We have no intention of converting Upward Bound to a private prep school program, yet we `did not want to exclude them entirely. Some of those have done a superb job. Mr. ERLENBORN. I understand the students taking part in these secondary schools are not the regular students in those schools but are brought in from the outside. Dr. FROST. That is right. Mr. ERLENBORN. One other question. These programs are funded direetly with the school that is operat- ing, usually the higher education school and I notice nine , of these in the secondary schools are private. How many of these are church related and `what problem, if any, do you have wi'th the funding pro- grams in church-related schools? Dr. FROST. I don't know how many `are church-related; you know ehurch-reiated is on a scale. Wesleyan University in Connecticut has probably not been a Methodist `college, for years and yet it is `so conceived. ` Community action programs have elaborate regulations on how a church institution, whether college or otii~r, may behave within a Govermnent grant from OEO. I could file that with you. It is quite elaborate and it runs through every grant we make ~to such a school. Mr. ERLENBORN. No further questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Esch. Mr. Escu. Thank you. I wonder if you would comment on the question, if you had more funds, how extensive could `this program be and how long could it continue? Dr. FROST. This year we knew we would have limited funds, only about $2 or $3 million of new money. We tried to discourage the colleges all fall, explaining how bad the odds were. Nevertheless, we got 125 full-blown applications which we had to reject. We were able to fund only 27. We had about 150 new applications and had to reject 125. By our program judgment and the people we used to appraise `these, we should have funded about 70 of them as good programs, `well proposed. I don't know what the pool would be if we ever sent out a signal-there would be substantial amounts of money. I think it would be quite high. Mr. ESCH. You have never, as administrator, tried to determine the depth of the problem you are trying to attack? You look for it to continue 5 years, 10 years, 15 years? Dr. FROST. There are 1,400,000 American youngsters in high school that are poor. Mr. EsoH. Do you think they should all go to college? PAGENO="0340" 334 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Dr. FROST. No, I do not, nor will they ever. I think some 600,000 or more of these students should go and we only have 20,000 in this program. Mr. Eson. When you see a means of coordinating this program with the Office of Education, can you see your program absorbed by the Office of Education entirely in the next 2 or 3 years? There has been a discussion Headstart could move in there. Could you say that this office could move into the Office of Education? Dr. FROST. My opinion is that on academic terms alone, Associate Director Muirhead and those working with higher education in USOE-that agency has been good-I have no objection. Mr. ESOH. You see no problem with an integrated system? Dr. FROST. I would rather see it in antipoverty. I think that is what it is and I don't think the Office of Education is fundamentally an antipoverty agency. Mr. ESCH. You see it fundamentally as an antipoverty rather than education? Dr. FROST. I see it as both. Mr. ESCH. I wonder if we might go to another area. The question you raised on page 7 of your testimony regarding the relationship between the ongoing program such as NDEA loans and the apparent problem within the institutions regarding continuing on. Are you suggesting here the need of more coordination between institutions and Upward Bound in future years to get these young- sters into continuing programs of aid? Dr. FROST. Yes, sir, the more the better. I think there is a gap in the current higher education response we all make and that is the special counseling and kind of informal needs most of these youngsters will have when they move into higher education. My own view is-I have experience with this in moving some of these into my own institution, the conventional dean's office and con- ventional approach is not going to do the trick with these youngsters. I would l1ke to see a way where a college could apply to some agency to support a full-time or half-time additional person who looks after those OEO students. Mr. Esoji. You raise important issues. I would like to raise this with you; should the poorest students carry tile highes't~ educational debts? Dr. FROST. That's the fact now, but it shouldn't be. Mr. ESOH. Should less well prepared students be forced `to put in many work-study hours per week? Dr. FROST. No, sir. Mr. ESCH. Will colleges invest their dollars in a student taking a lighter load and going for 5 years? Dr. FROST. Eventually I think they will. Their tendency and that of `all of us in the colleges has not been to do that, but I think we will change our responses to accommodate better these kind of youngsters. I think the good will around this problem is substantial. `Mr. ESCH. Could we go back to your first two answers. You believe we should give additional aid to the poorer student rather than treating all students `alike. You further suggest `the poor Students should not carry `tile, highest educational debt? We would have to give them more funds thanthe nonpoor students? PAGENO="0341" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 335 Dr. FROST. Yes, sir. Mr. ESCH. You believe this should be the pattern for the next 5 or 10 years? Dr. FROST. Yes; I believe a pattern of aid for the poor in education is now in many pieces on the books, with NDEA, work-study, and so on, and I would like to see it packaged up as GI bill of rights for the poor. Mr. ESCH. Should they be forced to carry a heavier workload than the so-called nonpoor students do? You think they should be all treated equally? Dr. FROST. Most of these youngsters getting to college will have all they can do to attack the academic schedule without carrying 15 hours of work-study. If it is possible to avoid that I think it should be done. I have nothing against work, having done it in my own background, but I don't have the problems some of these kids have. Mr. ESCH. That is all. Mrs. GREEN. Is there any evidence to support the theory that the state of the father's pocketbook should be the criteria by which you would measure the amount of work a student could or should carry in college? Dr. FROST. I don't think that would be the primary reason I would make the statement. I think these youngsters come in to college on the whole just less prepared and I would rather, if it is possible, that they are not required to put in so much time in nonacademic activity. Mrs. GREEN. I would agree the Upward Bound youngsters would not be in Upward Bound unless they were less prepared. Dr. FROST. That is right. Mrs. GREEN. When you are talking of youngsters coming from poor families, is there any evidence that they are less prenared to do college work than youngsters from middle-income families? Dr. FROST. I don't think there is any evidence either way. Mrs. GREEN. Right; that would be my judgment. So would there be any reason for singling them out for special programs or special consideration? Dr. FROST. I guess what confuses me somewhat, Madam Chairman, is the antipoverty agency has this mandate and in this way I am trying to meet that mandate and answer that question for Upward Bound students. You are, with your responsibilities, enlarging it to mean the poor in general and asking those questions. I agree with you there is certainly no solid view that the youngster, just because he is economically poor, should not carry 15 hours of work-study. I think I would agree with that. Mrs. GREEN. I would go further. Isn't this kind of a faulty criteria by which to judge the ability of a person, his academic ability, moti- vation, or anything else? There are many poor families that have wonderfully fine parents, good family life, motivation, and every- thing else. It seems we have gone overboard in saying if you come from a family of a certain income that you are going to be judged differently from anybody else. Do you consider a $4,000 income a~s a poverty level for a family of six? Dr. FROST. Yes. PAGENO="0342" 336 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Isn't this kind of a superficial approach? What about a family of a $4,500 income? How can you be fair in drawing these arbitrary amounts? Dr. FROST. Arbitrary amounts are always a problem but you have to have your standards or there is no program there. These are the ones OEO has drawn out. I know there are a great many poor youngsters who are tremendously motivated and high performing. I also know that the college going data on the poor vis-a-vis other Americans is that the poor go to college at a much lower rate. Mrs. GREEN. Isn't there some correlation also between the abilities of the person? I would think there is some correlation between the IQ, for lack of a better word, of a person and whether he digs ditches or is a college professor. It seems to me. when we put up this rather superficial determination of poverty, we then throw all other criteria out the door. Dr. FROST. I have no well-formed view on that, Mrs. Green, I really don't. I have worried about the dropout rate in high school, which, as you know, is much higher among the poorer kids and the college dropout rate which is niuch higher among the poorer kids. That is the discrepancy with which we are trying to deal. Mr. ESCH. Would the chairman yield? Mrs. GREEN.YeS. Mr. ESCH. Do you know of any young person today who is qualified who could not receive a higher education if that person is (a) pro- perly motivated and, (b) if channeled to the right institution? Dr. FROST. Providing the youngster was willing to accept a sub- stantial loan and can put in this kind of work-study while in school, the answer is I don't know of any such youngster. Mr. ESCH. I think, Madam Chairman, that is a crucial question. We are talking here of just basically motivation, because there are no youngsters today who could not receive a higher education under our present system tivough the loan structure if they are quaJified *and informed of these opportunities. It is a question of channeling the lroper youngsters into the proper situation. I would like to see evidence, if you have evidence to the contrary. Dr. FROST. We have kids who have never heard of college who are high school students. Mr. E50H. That is right. Dr. FROST. I want to state as clearly as I can my own view that when you are trying to move a poverty youngster from a family that, has no college in its universe into college, the first to go with the mother say- ing, "you should stay home and get a job because I need that $20 or whatever it is," a father that has vanished and a lot of younger broth- ers and sisters coming along and, when you say to him on May 10, you can go to some institution providing you take a $1,500 loan. That is a tremendous amount of money to a youngster. His idea. may be differ- ent from yours or mine where we can go to a bank and float a lot of credit. I feel a lot of youngsters fear that and say, let us just go on the job market. ~ Mr. ESCH. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Most of your comments have. been in relation to the arrangements with 4-year institutions? PAGENO="0343" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 337 Dr. FROST. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have any arrangements with junior colleges, technical institutes or vocational schools? Dr. FROST. No, we do not and this is a very active subject within the agency. We have not yet been able to fund the 4-year colleges that applied. We are rejecting a large number of them. There is a solid dis- cussion in OEO, Mrs. Green, that either we or somebody in OEO or somebody in OE ought to be thinking of programs like this in the jun- ior college structure. Mrs. GREEN. Your programs are only in residential schools, is that what you are saying? Dr. FROST. No; we funded about 18 nonresidential ones to see whether it made any difference. At Berkeley we have a nonresidential program. At Harvard we have a nonresidential program but the great majority are residential. I would like to see someone engineer a pro- grain like this directed to the junior college. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have authority to do that under the law? Dr. FROST. I don't know. Upward Bound is not mentioned in the OEO statute. Mrs. GREEN. I don't see why this has not been explored. I think it would be almost more important in terms of junior colleges and techni- cal schools. Dr. FROST. I know the section 207 people are now working up some demonstration with junior colleges. I could not give you the details. Mrs. GREEN. Do you give any money to foundations? Dr. FRoST. No, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. Do you know of any money in OEO that is given directly to foundations? Dr. FROST. I don't know the answer to that. Not a penny of Upward Bound goes to a foundation as far as I know. As you know when you make a grant to the State University of New York, you do it to the~ "Research Foundation of the State of New York" but that is a mecha- nism, I believe, all Of it goes to the university. Ostensibly it goes to a foundation but it actually gbes to the university. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Gibbons. Mr. GIBBONS. As you know, when this program first came out, I was quite critical and we had many discussions of it and you talked me aroirnd to a position where I have not been quite so critical and, since I have had opportunity to visit a number of campuses where you have programs, I think you are doing a good job. There is certainly a lot of room for this upreach or outreach. I. agree it would probably be good to get students into a junior college setup. As you remember I wrote you about that in connection with some of our Florida colleges. I want to assure you under the law you can do it. There is no problem there. It is just a matter of money. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Burton. Mr. BURTON. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you both very much. Dr. FROST. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. We will now have representatives from the National University Extension Association, Dr. Goerke, from the Florida State Board of Regents. PAGENO="0344" NATIONAL UNIv1~RSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION, MEMBERSHIP ROSTER Alabama: University of Alabama Auburn University Alaska: University of Alaska Arizona: University of Arizona Arkansas: University of Arkansas California: University of California Humboldt State College University of Southern California Colorado: University of Colorado Colorado State University Connecticut: University of Connecticut Delaware: University of Delaware District of Columbia: George Washington University Home Study Institute Florida: University of Florida Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Florida State University State University System of Florida University of South Florida Georgia: University of Georgia Georgia Institute of Technology Hawaii: University of Hawaii Idaho: University of Idaho 338 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 STATEMENT OF DR~ GLENN A. GOERKE, STATE DIRECTOR, CONTIN- UING EDUCATION, FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, OFFICE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION, STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OP FLORIDA; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT J~. PITCIIELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION Mr. GIBBONS. We are glad to have you here, sir. Anytime we have a face from Florida I am happy to see them. We particularly welcome you. Dr. GOERKE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Glenn A. Goerke, State director of continuing education, Florida Board of Regents Office for Continuing Education, State University System of Florida. I have with me Robert J. Pitchell, executive director of the Nation- al University Extension Association, a man with broad experience in education and government. He has served in education on the facutlies of Indiana and Purdue Universities, and as president of Roosevelt University; and in government as director of the Indiana Tax Study Commission, as deputy administrator of the Federal Extension Serv- ice and as a senior member of the staff of Senator Birch Bayh. Dr. Pitchell and I are appearing before you on behalf of the 129 U.S. member institutions of the National University Extension As- sociation who represent the leading institutions of higher education with extension and continuing education programs in 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. I am pleased to provide a list of member institutions for the record. (The list follows:) Illinois: Bradley University University of Chicago University of Illinois Loyola University Northern Illinois University Northwestern University Roosevelt University Southern Illinois University Western Illinois University Indiana: Ball StateUniversity Indiana University Indiana State University University of Notre Dame Purdue University Iowa: University of Iowa State College of Iowa Iowa State University Upper Iowa University Kansas: Fort Hays Kansas State College University of Kansas Kansas State C~llege of Pittsburg Kansas State University Kansas State Teacher's College at Emporia Kentucky: University of Kentucky Louisiana: Louisiana State University PAGENO="0345" HIGHER EDTJC.ATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 339 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION, MEMBERSHIP ROSTER-Continued Maine: University of Maine Maryland: Johns Hopkins University University of Maryland Massachusetts: Boston University Harvard University Northeastern University Michigan: Central Michigan University Eastern Michigan University University of Michigan Michigan State University Michigan Technological University Northern Michigan University Oakland University Wayne State University Western Michigan University Minnesota: University of Minnesota Mississippi: University of Mississippi Mississippi State University University of Southern Mississippi Missouri: University of Missouri St. Louis University Washington University of St. Louis Montana: University of Montana Nebraska: University of Nebraska University of Omaha Nevada: University of Nevada New Hampshire: University of New Hampshire New Jersey: Rutgers-The State University New Mexico: Eastern New Mexico University University of New Mexico New Mexico State University New York: Cornell University New York University State University of New York at Albany State University of New York at Buffalo State University of New York (Central) Orange County Community College Rochester Institute of Technology Syracuse University North Carolina: East Carolina College University of North Cerolina North Carolina State University at Raleigh North Dakota: University of North Dakota North Dakota State University North Dakota-Continued State of North Dakota, Division of Supervised Study Ohio: Bowling Green State University University of Cincinnati Kei~;t State University Miami University Ohio University Ohio State University Western Reserve University Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Oklahoma State University Oregon: Oregon State System of Higher Education Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University University of Pittsburgh Puerto Rico: University of Puerto Rico (Mayaguez) University of Puerto Rico (Rio Piedras) Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island South Carolina: University of South Carolina South Dakota: State University of South Dakota South Dakota State University Tennessee: Carson-Newman College University of Tennessee Texas: Southern Methodist University University of Texas Texas Technological Cellege Utah: Brigham Young University University of Utah Utah State University Virginia: University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute Virginia State College Washington: Central Washington State College University of Washington Washington State University Western Washington State College West Virginia: West Virginia University Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Wyoming: University of Wyoming Canada: University of Atherta University of British Columbia University of Manitoba University of Montreal Dr. GOERKE. On behalf of our members, I wish to thank the commit- tee and its gracious chairman for the privilege of testifying with regard to two amendments to the Higher Education Act which are embodied in H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. PAGENO="0346" 340 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 I refer specifically to the amendments to title I and title V of the act. The deep and abiding interest of member institutions in title I of the Higher Education Act is exemplified by the fact that 105 mem- `bers received title I grants under the 1966 and 1967 appropriations, out of 122 who were eligible. Over 64 percent of funds allocated during fiscal year 1966 were received by meniber institutions. Because of our interest in title I, we would like to go on record in support of the administration's amendments. We are especially interested in maintaining the matching require- ments in the 75-25 formula. One of the great boons of this act is the opportunity it provides many public and private community colleges to develop community service-oriented extension a~id continuing edu- cation programs for their constituents. Many of these schools were without the necessary staff resources and facilities for developing title I programs as intended under the act. Many were unable to be funded during the first 2 fiscal years because only $20 million of the $75 million authorized were appropriated. The schools which could least afford it would be hurt the hardest by a change in the matching requirement to a 50-50 formula. In the well-established schools, continuing education programs have traditionally been self-supporting. At the University of California, for example, which has the largest budget in the Nation for general extension, State funds account for only 7 percent of the budget. The managers of' extension divisions have usually had to restrict themselves to self-supporting programs. The limited experience `under `title I during the 10 months it has been operating in the field has not enabled these schools to develop the necessary sources of funds to assume the burden of 50 percent financing. We, therefore, urge you to give favorable consideration to extend- ing the 75-25 matching requirement for at least through fiscal year 1969. The amendment also provides for extending authorization through fiscal year 1972. In reviewing the implementation of many new Federal education programs, many of us are learning anew what we have always known: There is no such thing as instant education. `This is true at every level of education and is accentuated where we are dealing with the more complex processes of community develop- ment. Public officials, such as the honorable members of this committee, have often been acutely aware of the difficulty of educating the public regarding the complexities of many public issues and political proc- esses. The problem is essentially the same for educators, although in many instances they cannot gain easy access to adequate media coverage. Extension of the authorization is necessary for another practical reason. Good administration is usually half the solution to any organi- zational goal. One of the more important elements of good adminis- tration is a reasonable degree of predictability regarding income. General Motors could not run efficiently or effectively if its car sales were to fluctuate wildly and unpredictably each year. Universities are not exempt from this requirement. Professional' staff cannot be hired or retained, space cannot be allocated economically, and program prob- lems cannot be resolved with maximum benefit to the community if PAGENO="0347" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 341 longer range planning than is currently assured is not available to Federal and university administrators. We, therefore, urge you to give the most sympathetic consideration to the administration's request for extension of the authorization through fiscal year 1972. The member institutions of the National University Extension As- sociation are aware that a major purpose of title I is to bring about community change as a part of the process of solving serious or per- sistent community problems. Many of these problems are regional-Appalachia is a noteworthy example, or cut across State lines-as in the transportation problems of Metropolitan New York or Metropolitan Washington. Administratively, it is far more efficient to attempt to organize solutions to these area problems with direct project funding from Washington, provided, of course, that some imaginative and ingenious State and local administrators have not worked out effective solutions on their own. Under the existing statute solutions to regional problems through direct funding are not possible. The existing statute also inhibits in- novative and experimental programs. It is likely that if research funds were available, we could readily demonstrate the truth of the proposi- tion that the possibility of innovative, experimental programs being approved is in inverse ratio to the number of layers of bureaucraQy and the size of the committees through which approval must be ob- tamed. The State agency system and its advisory committee are beneficial to the program in niost respects but they have not produced the ex- iperimental projects this program deserves and needs. Not every community needs highly innovative or experimental projects in any given year of course; but many do, especially where community problems have been most persistent. Where community leaders and their local institutions of higher edu- cation are willing to undertake such projects, they should be allowed to do so with a minimum of screening except to insure that the pur- ~poses of the act will be achieved. For these reasons, we believe that the administration has wisely re- quested authorization for allocation of up to 10 percent of appro- priated funds to the Commissioner for grants or contracts with insti- tutions of higher education to carry out innovative, experimental and regional projects. We hope the committee will also review this request sympathetically. We have a word of caution regarding grants and contracts under this section (107) which we will refer to at the end of our comments on title V. The amendment to title V is a piece of legislation the education profession has long awaited. It represents a bold, imaginative and soirnd response to the growing needs for recruitment into the profes- sion and the continuing retraining of those who are careerists in education. Those of us in the field of higher adult education are deeply aware of the need for lifelong learning no matter what one's profession is; ~nd we recognize this need for ourselves as well as for others. PAGENO="0348" 342 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 This amendment will enable us to expand and intensify our efforts iu this area. Up to now budgets for this purpose in our institutions of higher education have been nonexistent in many cases. Professional training programs in most member institutions are limited to selection of a few senior people to attend the annual con- ference of the association and a larger number to attend a regional meeting once a year. We can expect no more when students are unwilling or unable to pay the full cost of adult educal ion coursework and public funds are not made available for this purpose. As excited as we are at the prospects for the education professions in the United States and more specifically to the higher adult educa- tion movement `by the passage of the Education Professions Develop- ment Act, we would like to share with the members of this committee our deep concern with the provisions of titles I and V amendments which authorize the Commissioner to contract with private organiza- tions to carry out many of the key programs thereunder. We refer specifically to `section 107 of title I and section 532 (a) of title V. It is our understanding that the Commissioner has asked for this authorization so that he may `have maximum flexibility for carrying out the purposes of the act. We will support; all efforts to achieve this goal. But we do not believe that contracts with profitmaking enterprises to conduct preservice or `inservice training programs for professional and paraprofessional staff in the education professions are likely to produce the desired effects. On the contrary, they will have many undesirable results. It would be proper for you to ask: What is the nature of thi's issu.e and how might it be resolved? This matter was thoroughly discussed at the association's annual con- ference in Ann Arbor, Mich., last week. Representatives of member institutions expressed strong feelings on the subject. They agreed that the prdblem centered on the following points: 1. There is no evid'ence that private profitmaking organizations are capable of organizing effective education programs at an economical cost. We are not referring to inservice training programs which corpo- rations organize for their own personnel. As a general rule, one can say that no one is more capable of con- ducting a true inservice training program for a given organization than its own `staff. Nor are we referring to "canned" programs such as the one-shot deals offered by specialist companies in the fields of public speaking, busi- ness management, and foreign languages. We believe it is imperative that the record in this regard be reviewed carefully and objectively. 2. Experience on many of our campuses reveals that most private contractors find it necessary to raid university campuses to get profes- sional staff after contracts are received. In many cases, we find these contractors using the ingenious tech- nique of `hiring faculty on a part-time basis only for the period of the contract. The faculty member receives marginal rates on an overload basis from the contractor and the university pays the basic costs of PAGENO="0349" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 343 supporting him. These same universities in many cases are for~bidden to pay their own faculties on the same basis. 3. Given expectations for the same educational product, the cost to* the puldic is higher when private contracting is used. Institutions of higher education could not and would not have cause for protest if private organizations could deliver the same or better educational product at lower cost. Inasmuch as complete data are not available on this point, we believe it merits further consideration by this committee. 4. In our dealings with private organizations who have contracted to manage a number of national trainin~ programs such as Bleadstart and Job Corps, we have been seriously disturbed by the lack of under- standing of institutional needs and requirements on the part of the contractors. This has resulted in unnecessary agonies for all concerned and a waste of extremely scarce staff and faculty resources on our campuses. The additional cost to the Government has not as yet been measured but we believe it to be considerable. Our members have no desire to become embroiled in a struggle with private organizations. The cause of education would receive a setback and ultimately the people of this country would suffer from such a conflict. We are convinced that our nonprofit educational institutions and corporate enterprises have a mutual need for each other. It is our hope that this committee would take cognizance of the problem before it develops further and provide the leadership to resolve it in the best interests of the people of this country. Madam Chairman, those are our prepared remarks. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Goerke. I must say I am in agreement with many of the comments in your statement and I think your points are well taken. Let me turn to two questions. On page 4 you support the allocation of 10 percent of the appropriated funds to the Commissioner and, if I understand what you are saying correctly, that there would be a greater chance to carry out innovative, experimental and regional proj- ects if the Commissioner had this authority. Why is this true? Why wouldn't a grant to an institution result in just `as innovative and just as experimental and good a project if it were given on the allocation of funds State by State as if the Commis- sioner deals with it directly? Dr. GOERKE. The way the act is structured it specifies program areas in the legislation and sets up broad categories in order to direct pro- grams. It delegates responsibility to the State level to the Governor, or designated State agency who in turn appoints an advisory com- mittee. Everybody submits programs on a State plan which further outlines requirements on specific proposals. A State plan is a little outside this framework of dealing with com- munity problems. University and community leaders pretty much have to come up through these channels as outlined now. This might be changed. It does not provide for work on an area basis. In other words, the administrative structure is in-State, Florida and Georgia could not go to work on one program that might be beneficial as it now stands. PAGENO="0350" 344 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Mrs. GREEN. Aren't those categories outlined so broadly that they would include everything the mind of man could conceive? Dr. GOERKE. They have a way of being very broad until they are interpreted. Mrs. GREEN. Interpreted by whom ~ Dr. GOERKE. In one case at the State level; further refinement at the Federal level. Mrs. GREEN. Who at the Federal level? Dr. `GOERKE. The Office of Education. Mrs. GREEN. You say on one hand they interpret these categories so narrowly they limit the programs and on the other hand you would give the `Commissioner the funds or authority so they would be more immovative? Dr. GOERKE. No; I `say it `would give more opportunity for innova- tive programs. There is opportunity as set forth in the legislation but it does not provide for opportunity outside individual State areas. Mrs. GREEN. We could amend it so it would be on an area basis., Wouldn't that take care of it so there would be funds for direct alio-~ cation by the Commissioner? Dr. GOERKE. I don't know. You then put them in the position where you would have clearance of projects through several States to accom-. plish this. You would still have several State administrations where projects would have to be submitted and be cleared through advisory' committees. We don't have the ability now, for instance, for one of our schools,, either public or private, to come in and be operating with someone outside of the State. Mrs. GREEN. You are the executive director, Mr. Pitchell? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. How many grants or contracts does your organization have? Mr. PITCHELL. We haveone right now. Mrs: GREEN. What is the amount there? Mr. PITOHELL. For the current fiscal year, it is $1,055,000. We just had this renewed for a second year at $1,400,000. Mrs. GREEN. Is that within the funds which the Commissioner of' Education has at his disposal to allocate? Mr. PITCHELL. Not under title I but he has it under the Adult Edu-~ catiOn Act. Mrs. GREEN. Adult basic education? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. This is where you received the million dollars? `Mr. PITCHELL. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. What is the purpose of this? Mr. PITCHELL. To conduct. a national program for teacher trainers and for administrators. of adult basic education in all of the States, and territories of the United States. This is carried out in two institu- tions of higher education in each of the nine Office of Education regions of the United States. Mrs. GREEN. I-low many universities or colleges belong to the na~ tional association ~ Mr. PITCHELL. We have 133 including four in Canada. PAGENO="0351" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 345 Mrs. GREEN. Under this million dollar grant which has been ex- tended, which amounts to $ 1/2 million, could these teacher training programs be carried on in any institution in the United States or only in those institutions which are members of your association? Mr. PITCHELL. They can be carried on in any one. In fact, Montclair State College is not a member of our association and it is carrying out one this year; the State University of New York at Albany is also carrying out an intitute this year. It was selected before it became a member. It just became a member last week. Mrs. GREEN. In the contract you sign with the Office of Education, doesn't it say only your members can participate in the program under this grant? Mr. PITCHELL. No; on the contrary, the contract specifically says the Office of Education will have full authority to name institutions without consultation. As a matter of fact, I insisted on that since I would not want to be in a position in my association of selecting spe- cific institutions, nine or 18 with 129 eligible. Most of them were fight- ing to get into this program. Mrs. GREEN. 1~\Thy would only 129 be eligible? Mr. PITCHELL. I am sorry. I didn't understand your question. Mrs. GREEN. You said you would not want to choose 18 out of 129 eligible? Mr. PITCHELL. If the Office of Education came to me and asked which of our institutions were interested in getting into this program, which would I recommend be considered? I didn't want to be in the position of selecting among my institutions and making recommendations as to which ought to be involved. I said, for my survival in the association and the best interest of our association we believe that the Office of Education should have full and complete authority to select the institutions. In 1966 this was a crash program; it was one you might call a super- crash program. We had less than 30 days to get organized for it. At that time in our discussions with the Office of Education on the pro~ gram-they came to us, as a matter of fact, and offered us this contract because there was no administrative way whatsoever in the available time to notify institutions about the availability of this program, the characteristics of it. We provided our facilities, our know-how, and our communication processes for communicating with our institutions. We were able to advise them within 60 hours as to which of the insti- tutions were interested in coming in and they selected from this group because there was no other way of doing it, as far as we knew. Mrs. GREEN. I know the Office of Education makes the final selec- tion, but are you saying it is not in the contract that only the members of your institution are eligible? Mr. PITCHELL. I am absolutely certain of that. As I say, they just selected two institutions who were not members and we subcontracted with both of them. One has become a member since. One still has not and has not applied. Mrs. GREEN. I may be wrong, but I sent for a copy of the contract. I have a copy of an application submitted to the Office of Education in regard to the adult education programs. I have been advised the application I have has been approved. PAGENO="0352" 346 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 In this application it says the regional training institutes will be carried out by nine or more member institutions of NDEA, adult basic education. This is under your million dollar grant? Mr. PITCHELL. This is 1966? Mrs. GREEN. Yes, 1966 summer training program. Mr. PITCHELL. This was the understanding in 1966 that this was the only way it could possibly be done. Mrs. GREEN. 1966, the only institutions that were eligible were the members of your association? Mr. PITCHELL. The only ones that were contacted; yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. The contract provided it would be limited only to your members? Mr. PITCHELL. I think that is a fair statement of intent if not of specific language. I don't think there was much of a possibility of developing a communications system at that time to carry out the pro- gram as it was planned. Actually North Carolina State University at Raleigh was selected by the Office of Education even though not a mem- ber, because of its well-known, special competency in adult basic ed- ucation. At the time it had already applied for membership in NIJEA and was admitted in July. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a new contract for 1967? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. This sentence is not in it? Mr. PITCHELL. I can't remember exactly on that point but if it is there, it is clearly qualified by the authorization, by the unqualified statement that the Office of Education will select institutions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Quie. Mr. Quii~. You say on page 3 of your testimony that the National University Extension Association is aware that a major purpose of title I is to bring about community change as a part of the process of solving serious or persistent community problems. And then going on to the rest of your testimony there in support of this new section (107), it seems that you have a different idea of the purpose of this act than I do when it was passed last time. I thought it was to enable institutions of higher learning to ex- pand their program in order to meet particular community need prob- lems especially in the urban-suburban area and they would be con- tinuing their education program, not as it sounds here, to start run- ning some programs of their own to solve the problems of Appalachia, or other large regional areas larger than one State. What do you envision that the university or college would be em- barking on here? Dr. GOERKE. These are only given as examples of larger regional problems. I can think of one in our State, the migrant problem which travels across State lines where there is need for cooperation and where agencies have dealt with this without Federal funding all the way up to Delaware. I don't think this is a major emphasis of the money. I think it would provide opportunity. I think your statement was absolutely correct. Mr. QmE. Now you are cooperating all the way up to Delaware. Why can't you cooperate all the way up to Delaware under the pres- ent act? I don't see anything in there preventing you from doing so. PAGENO="0353" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 347 It is true you can't get funds from Delaware for a program in Florida but, if you are cooperating with institutions in Delaware, what as to prevent your cooperation when you secure funds from your State and they get funds from their State? Dr. GOERKE. Only that it comes up through channels and the agree- ment is not there now. Mr. QUIE. Who brings agreement about? Does the Commissioner come to you and say here is a program I like and you people should cooperate in it? Dr. GOERKE. I think it would be based on need primarily. I think they certainly see need on some occasions. Mr. QUIE. If this new section 707 was adopted, who would actually be doing the cooperating? Would you be working with an institution of higher learning in another State or would the Commissioner come to you and say, here is a program I think we ought to get into. Dr. GOERKE. I actually see both. Mr. PITCIIELL. I think both would be possible and I call your atten- tion again to the first paragraph on page 4 in which Dr. Goerke men- tioned that the proposition we think holds here is that the possibility of innovative experimental programs being approved is in inverse ratio to the number of layers of bureaucracy and the size of the committees through which approval must be obtained. What we are saying here is it is not impossible but you have increas- ing difficulties as you have to go through advisory committees to do this and then have State agencies review it again. Many of the people on these committees are sensitive about experi- mental programs in sensitive areas, say areas such as Watts, for example. It took a major riot there before someone had the courage to do a project there and they finally have accepted one from the University of Southern California, which is right on the border. Mr. QtTIIE. We didn't have this act in operation when the first Watts riot occurred. Mr. PITCHELL. That is true but there were not many projects in any of the Federal programs iii that area because of sensitivity of people in that area. Mr. QUTE. I think you should use an example where you were un- able to have a program under this particular act, not an area before this program came into operation. Dr. GOERKE. This is a problem in itself. We just had applications in 1967 submitted in Florida from 38 institutions, roughly $1,038,000. These go thorugh a committee constituted of people from the public and private sector, health, you name it. If you, as an institution of lugher education, were to start a program you want to operate broadly, your chances are pretty slim of even getting a program through under the amount of money now available. Mr. QUIE. You think going to the Commissioner would be easier? Dr. GOERKE. I think it would allow institutions cooperating together to have the opportunity if they come up with something. Mr. QUTIE. You haven't come up with anything definite as to how this could pos~ibly be easier through the Commissioner. Let me go on. You raise objection to the Commissioner contracting with private profitmaking organizations but you don't seem to object 80-155-67-pt. 1-23 PAGENO="0354" 348 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1067 to the Commissioner writing contracts with public and private non- irofit agencies outside institutions of higher learning or other or- ganizations or professional or scholarly associations. I thought this legislation was to fund institutions of higher learn- ing to help solve community problems. I didn't know the purpose of it was to permit contracts with every other type of organization. I don't know what other organization would qualify under that language. Why do you limit your criticism just to profitmaking? If every- body is going to get in the business, I suppose they might as well get in the business of taking some of your money away from you. Dr. GOERKE. I don't think this is the problem. We could get into this at some depth and I would just as soon not but I think somebody ought to take a look at it. When, for the sake of expediency on a contract basis, educational goals become secondary to the project, then I think we have problems and somebody ought to take a look at them. We have had instances in the past including a few cases where we dropped out of cooperating on this type of thing. When it comes to hardware, I think business and industry have a lot to provide for us and in some cases in the software areas. But when they define goals and prospectives and design curriculum, I think we have problems. I don't think they have the capability for that. Mr. GIBBONS. Let us talk practically on that, a profitmaking agency has a budget just like a nonprofit agency, and when: you run out of money you have to cut out programs. I can understand you don't want anybody coming into your own area but it seems to me sometimes some of these things are stimulating in not only getting more of what you need or to demonstrate wbat you are doing is correct. I think you all have an unholy fear of something. Dr. GOERKE. I don't think we are afraid of working with them. T think what we are concerned about is where they are placed directly in a position of outlining curriculum and this type of thing. I can see under these provisions a good many places where technical and voca- tional ability- * Mr. GIBBONS. The only difference in a profit and nonprofit organi-. zation is a practical matter. In a nonprofit it is a charter and in the other you take profit out in dividends. That is about the only difference in operation of the thing. I have participated in many of them, perhaps, not in the educa- tional field like you do, but that is what happens, particularly when you are working on a contract. Dr. GOERKE. I think there are a good .many instances, as this is. designed in the Education Professions Act, where you would have to turn to business and industry for their technical expertise and vo- cational expertise but I think the foremost goal and objective is cur- riculum content and design and these should not become secondary when contracts for education programs are made with profitmaking organizations. Mr. GIBBONS. I agree, I wouldn't want to turn the whole educa- tional system over to a profitmaking institution but I can't see any PAGENO="0355" HIGHER EDTJCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 349 real problem in allowing them to come in. Sometimes they help to prove some of the things you have been telling us all along. Dr. GOERKE. This is true but I think the conditions of the opera- tion are something that somebody should take a closer look at. Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you. Mr. QIJIE. That is all. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Gibbons, would you like more time? Mr. GIBBONS. Yes; I would like to ask what type of programs we are conducting in Florida now or have we conducted? Dr. GOERKE. Let me get my folder out. Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps you could give me an idea or sketch of what areas they cover? Dr. GOERKE. Right. The State plan as developed by the advisory committee in the board of regents office-we have only one member on that committee-the board of education and board of regents deals primarily with five problem areas. One, human relations, particularly geared to migrant farmworkers and Cuban~ refugee problems in the Miami and Tampa areas. Second, public administration. For instance, there are programs developing with the east-central Florida plan- ning area. Some of the problems there are involved with the rapid growth and the need for community leadership for education and public respon- sibilities. The third major area, economie development and full-time employ- ment. Fourth, human resources, which covers family development problems of the aged. Mr. GIBBONS. I asked for broad categories. In the remaining amount of time we have here, could we get specific. Tell me something about the length of the courses and the number of times they meet, the types of participants, and what they are actually teaching. Dr. GOERKE. I have to start first by saying these are not necessarily courses. Mr. GIBBONS. I realize that. I just use courses in a descriptive sense. Dr. GOERKE. The University of Miami in Coral Gables has put to- gether what they call an urban extension coordinating center; their major effort is to provide adult continuing education courses, insti- tutes, and services to adults at all levels, directed primarily to creat- ing a better urban environment. Mr. GIBBONS. That is a broad one; can we get specific? Dr. GOERKE. There is a counseling center for the continuing educa~ tion of women housed in Dade County. Thirteen institutions:of higher educa:tion are working on this. This counseling is for women going into the labor market, or women college graduates coming put for counsel- ing, and possible placement in one educational situation or another. They have begun to branch out and work with the disadvantaged a.s they add staff and counsel these people, particularly those :~ith edu~ cational experience. It is a matter of where they are and where they would likë~ to go. Florida State has an urban internship program in extcnsion~ where they are sending out from their public administration program at Florida State interns into the east and central regions~ ~ms.connse1ors to work with these people, strudturing educatiOnal. experience, for pjib- PAGENO="0356" 350 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 lie administrators, hopefully having these interns pick up on~ the job practical experience and at the same time extending resources over there. Mr. GIBBONS. I didn't realize we had an intern program under title I of college students. Is that what we meant to do under this pro- gram? It may be great but you surprised me. Dr. GOERKE. This is a small part; actually this provides the vehicle for additional programing. It is a part of it. These youngsters over there are also taking tile leadership role in structuring educational ex- perience for public administrators. Mr. GIBBONS. How do they do that? Dr. GOERKE. They work with t.his group and, as you know, the East-Central Regional Florida Planning Council had a large Ford Foundation grant in their initial stages. A great deal of research was done in the area primarily due to the population explosion, the ad- ministrative setups, and trying to get them started. Research has been done in the areas and, unlike too many situations where research piles up and piles up, hopefully it will not sink the State of Florida someday, that research is being applied in action programs and these young people are taking courses in instructional research. I will give you this "University and the Community." Mr. GIBBONS. We have had those in Florida for years. Dr. GOERKE. That is true. I think the type of thing being done is an extension of what we have done before. This was ihe 27th annual meeting. Mr. GIBBONS. I didn't know it had been that many years but I knew it had been alot of years. Dr. GOERKE. I think the approach is different. Mr. GIBBONS. What is the difference in the approach? That might be interesting. Dr. GOERKE. I think one thing that has happened-I will take a crack at institutions in this respect-I think for too long what was being done was being done because of available resources rather than being based on community need. I think the new program pushed institutions out into the community for an accurate assessment of need and, in many cases, it is systematic rather than actual. I think for too long we were stuck with saying we have these two professors available and this must be the problem. We will be glad to send them out to solve it even if you don't have it. I think we have gotten out of the hallowed halls and ivy-covered wails into the combat areas. Mr. GIBBONS. I think the interns can bring something back to the institution but I think we had in mind when drafting title I that the institutions would help the communities and it was only incidental the communities would be helping the institutions. Perhaps that is how we find out things. Mr. BURTON. I feel I am on the Banking and Currency Committee. Mr. GIBBONS. Go ahead. Mr. BURTON. I will yield my time. Dr. GOERKE. I want to set the record straight. The community is not paying for those internships. PAGENO="0357" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 351 Mr. QUIE. Who is? Dr. GOERKE. This is part of the program submitted from the univer- sity. It is part of the total package and what they are doing. I have that somewhere here. Mr. QUTE. With regard to this total package, did title I money start picking up the cost of the internship program? Dr. GOERKE. No, title I could not supplant, in fact, you have to swear to this on a stack of Bibles but it has not taken on a program that was not currently in existence. It has to be an extension of what was title I programing. Mr. Quii~. How was title I money used, then? The interns were being funded, and the communities didn't get a.ny money. What was title I money used for, somebody to coordinate? Dr. GOERKE. You are talking to a specific project? This is a project we are talking about here and it is a relatively small one wheii you get right down to it. I would be happy to show you the whole proposal and you can see it was structured so interns could come out of. Florida State University's graduate program. I think there were two for half the year to work along with the people under the Ford Foundation grant operating in the area as well as personnel from Florida. State University and from this construct community programs. These people were a. part of the contributing part of the program. It is on two things, yielding a program for the commuity in a problem area as far as this community is concerned. Mr. QmE. What was money used for, to pay somebody to lay out this plan? You say no money was expended-title I money was ex- pended on the interns? Dr. GOERKE. No, I didn't say that. I thought Mr. Gibbons said, "community money." Title I money was expended. I thought he al- luded to the fact that money was coming from the community. It was not. The money was under the proposal. Mr. QmE. What did you pay these interns? Dr. GOERKE. I couldn't answer this specifically. It is not a great deal. Mr. QUIE. Are they getting academic credit for the intern exper- ience? Dr. GOERKE. I don't believe so. Mr. QmE. Is this a gap in their undergraduate study? Dr. GOERKE. No, I think the Department justifiably feels this is a good opportunity to place them in a situation. Mr. QmE. Were they going to school at the same time? Dr. GOERKE. No, they were released. Mr. GIBBONS. Perhaps this is oversimplified and perhaps a naive opinion of how I thought title I funds were going to be used in this extension work but I thought the universities would participate in the evaluation of community problems and then they would offer myriad approaches to solving these community problems. That is what we talked about. Maybe that is what is happening and I have not given you the chance to respond. Dr. GOERKE. It is, but. when you say "evaluation," most of the pro- posals that have come forward and proposals submitted have been PAGENO="0358" 352 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 from the university in conjunction with the community. This was designed so the community could also assess needs and not just the university go out and evaluate and say this is your problem. Mr. ERLENBORN. How does the community participate in drafting this program with the university? Dr. GOERKE. I will go back to the women's program in Miami. Mr. QtTIE. Why don't you stick to the interns? Dr. GOERKE. This was done by the East-Central Florida State Planning Council which is constituted of seven counties in that area who have gotten together on this planning, zoning, and other areas. The proposal they submitted was for assistance in institute work in ongoing activity in public planning, zoning, and these areas as related to public administration. Mr. ERLENBORN. My question was, How did the community get involved? Dr. GOERKE. The East-Central Florida Planning Council is the community, made up of people living in those counties. This is the leadership in the various areas that have gotten together in working on their problems. Mr. ERBENBORN. This was originally funded by the Ford Founda- tion? Dr. GOERKE. Research funds. Mr. ERLENBORN. Are any funds coming from the Ford Foundation now? Dr. GOERKE. I don't believe so. Mrs. GREEN. Do either of you gentlemen know of any Federal funds through the Office of Education or Office of Economic Oppor- tunity that go to a foundation and then come back to a program? Dr. GOERKE. Not to my knowledge. Mr. PITCHELL. The only ones are those that Mr. Frost mentioned. Some universities set up a fund, such as the New York State Founda- tion, for administering funds for an institution more readily but it is usually a completely public, wholly owned foundation of a university. Mrs. GREEN. You do not know of funds going to the Ford Founda- tion or other foundations and then channeled back? Mr. PIToiIEr~L. I have never heard of it. Mr. ERLENBORN. I would be curious to know how much of local funds was spent at the time the Ford Foundation was funding this. Was the Ford Foundation funding it wholly or in part? Dr. GOERKE. I think it was in its entirety but I don't know because we were not in on that. I think it was a 100-percent outright grant. Mr. ERLENBORN. Do you feel a change in the law to 50-50 participa- tion is not desirable and you would support the 75-25 continuance? Dr. GOERKE. Very definitely. Mr. ERLENBORN. Don't you think the local community has to have a deep involvement of its own and should not be designing programs simply because resources are available from the Government? Dr. GOERKE. I think this will come but one of the critical things is that the time the programs have been off the ground has been roughly 10 months. I am sure the University of Miami in a project they have going down there with several agencies representing PAGENO="0359" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 353 municipal and other government agencies will come up possibly with funds of $25,000. In other areas this will take some work and demonstration of what is happening so you can get the support. Pr~bably if we had 2 full years we would have been in a better position to accept 50-50. I would make this plea more for private schools and junior colleges than for the State institutions. There is a little bit of difference here. The community colleges are just getting their programs off the ground and to ask them to go 50-50 would just about eliminate their participation. We had 32 projects submitted and 11 were submitted that said if it went to 50-50 they would withdraw their proposals. We tried to work in our own State with a statewide approach to this and we feel our junior colleges and our State and private institutions are as important, if not more important in some cases than we are. I would hate to be put in the position they were not able to par- ticipate. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Pitchell mentioned there was a crash program. You had 30 days to get the thing off the ground. Are you talking about these community programs? Mr. PITOHELL~ No, sir; on that occasion I was talking about 1966 teacher training program for adult basic education. Mr. ERLENBORN. What time period were you talking about, when was this 30 days running out? Mr. PITCHELL. It was at the end of May, really. We had word from the Office of Education- Mr. ERLENBORN. For 1966? Mr. PITOHELL. Yes. We had word from the Office of Education in early May that they were very interested in having us do this program but it was not until the end of May that the proposal was received. The program at the universities had to start August 1. We had to start the national work in June. We had our first meetings on June 13 ~iid 14, as a matter of fact, so actually from the time we had official word it had received official approval from the Office of Education, we had about 2 weeks to get the first national conference going. We had 60 days then for the actual institutes to go in at the universi- ties. This is a very, very serious problem of administration to try to get effective programs going. Mr. ERLENBORN. It certamly is and I wondered what kind of effec- tive program you can design to hire the personnel and develop your program in a period of 60 or 90 days and then start running institutes. Isn't there a lot of waste in a crash program like that? Wouldn't you have been able to do a better job and get more for your money if you had 6 months or a year for planning? Mr. PITCHELL. I think that would be true but we would have lost 1 year's leadtime on this as in Headstart in 1965 when they decided to go in 1965 instead of 1966. The teachers could only be available in the summer for a 4-week residential course; They had to go back to school and teach in September. It had to go in August or in the following June. I think our best estimates are-and this is a rough guess-there may be about 250 teachers really qualified to teach adult basic education; that is, well-trained and experienced teachers. PAGENO="0360" 354 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 At that time the States were funded for bringing in about 200,000 adult illiterates into the program. It was evident they would have to use about 25,000 teachers in this program, of which a maximum would not have any specialized training. The answer was to set up a teacher training program. This was a program in which the States and local school systems attempted to identify master teachers-that is, their most capable teachers-some of these 250, as many as possible, the best, most experienced people in this field. They were brought to the universities, given 4 weeks of intensive training. We recruited the best and most experienced academic peo- ple. After training, the teacher trainers went back to their States and local communities and it was their job to run inservice programs for other teachers. With a thousand trained during the summer of 1966 in ways and means of organizing teacher training programs in the local schools, the theory was that they would be able to go back and operate inserv- ice training programs during the course of this coming year; that is, since last September until right now. We have just finished our fieldwork to see how well this has worked. I have been out in the field on this myself in several places. At least in the places I have been this really worked quite well and I really think we got our money's worth. The alternative was to abandon the program or have teachers with no exposure whatsoever to adult basic education. They were profes- sional teachers mostly but they have been trained in elementary and secondary and not to work with adult illiterates. Mr. ERLENBORN. Isn't there an advantage in having more planning time? Dr. G0ERKE. We had one member institution from our State uni- versity system in the program and our response, most appropriately to the Office of Education, was either we get 6 months' leadtime or we are not in the program. Mr. PITCHELL. The early evaluation we made was that it is im- perative that everybody be given 6 months' leadtime. But the alterna- tive at that time was different. The money was out there, the programs were going. That was the point. Mr. ERLENBORN. That is the point. Every time we appropriate money there is a crash program to spend it and very little thought given to designing the kind of program that will make meaningful use of the funds available. I hate to put it in these terms but it seems people across the country become greedy as soon as Federal dollars are appropriated; they grasp to get the money before the authorization or appropriation elapses. Mr. GIBBONS. I was trying to cut that down and somewhere trying to boost it up. I won't get into personalities on that. Mrs. GREEN. They did not apply for funds. The Office of Educa- tion came to them and asked if they would not spend them. Mr. ERLENBORN. We found this in other programs. Maybe I shouldn't blame the people in the field but the Office of Education. PAGENO="0361" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 355 Mr. Btri~roN. 1 note that you have 49 States, the District of Co- lumbia, and Puerto Rico in your continuing education program organi- zation; what is the State that is missing? Mr. PITCHELL. Vermont, but they just indicated they are going to apply. Mr. BURTON. I note the Virgin Islands is not included. What is the status of the Virgin Islands? Is your organization in contact with them? Mr. PITOHELL. Yes, I had a nice chat with President Wanlass down there about a year ago and told him we would be very much interested in having his college a member of the Association. It is a voluntary association. We never pressure anybody. People simply feel there is a need for association with other institutions having programs of this type. It is the only vehicle we now have for professional training inside the higher education institutions, the divisions of con- tinuing extension education. Mr. BURTON. They are not on your institution lists? Mr. PITCHELL. No. Mr. BURTON. Were they informed as to this program the Coin- missioner of Education asked you to disseminate through your com- munications setup? Mr. PITCHELL. In 1966 that was not possible. In 1967 they were. All of the institutions of higher education in this country were noti- fied by the Commissioner of Education as to the availability of this program. Mr. BURTON. You wouldn't know of your own knowledge whether or not they participated to any extent in this program, or would you? Mr. PITOHELL. Let us see. I didn't come to testify on that but I am pretty sure they sent at least two people in adult basic education. I am not referring to the college down there, but the Virgin Islands sent two people up to the State University of New York in Buffalo for training. That is my impression. Mr. GIBBoNs. It is my impression they have very little adult illiteracy. They have a good school system and maybe they didn't need it. Dr. GOERKE. We ought to find out what they are doing. It must be right. Mrs. G~EN. Let me recap the time you had to conduct the program. The Office of Education came to you in May? Mr. PITCHELL. Actually just the first time was in April. The Office of Education asked if we would be interested in talking with them about doing this programS I had to talk with our people, our board of directors and the executive committee so that after the first contact in April, I went back early in May and said our people would be in- terested in continuing discussions with them about it. Mrs. GREEN. And the institute was during what month? Mr. PITCHELL. They all began about the 1st of August. Only one began, I think, the 8th of August. They were over in August. Mr. GREEN. So in May sometiiñe you were contacted. When did you sign the agreement for doing this? Mr PITCHELL We h'~d `~ preliminary training gr'tnt It was early PAGENO="0362" 356 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 in June, so we could begin the work on it. We had a fundamental agreement to do it and then had to work out the details. Mrs. GREEN. You had in June and July, sent notices to all the people who might be interested in attending the institute, the training program? Mr. PITCHELL. It was the responsibility of the Office of Education since we do not have any regular contact with the State directors of adult basic education either through this contract or otherwise. The Office of Education has this responsibility. It was their responsibility to communicate with the State directors, advise them of the fact these institutes were set up, who would be qualified, what the purposes were, then it was up to the State directors to communicate with the local communities, get the names of qualified persons and supply them to the universities. Universities in turn notified these people of housing arrangements and all the other logistics needs. Mrs. GREEN. If I understand correctly, in 2 months' time the notices went out to the States and interested parties who might want to attend and in 2 months' time you recruited all-you said-the most highly qualified personnel in the country, and made arrangements made for them to be there in August. You made arrangements for the housing and everything else? Mr. PITOHELL. Yes, we are proud of our accomplishment here. As far as I know we had no serious breakdowns. We had no serious com- plaints that there was a serious deficiency. There were normal prob- lems. Mrs. GREEN. Do you know what the cost was? Did a thousand attend? Mr. PITCHELL. 982 trainees and 59 State administrators attended so we had 1,051. Mrs. GREEN. It averaged out about $1,000 per individual? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am. Mrs. GREEN. For 4 weeks' training? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am, and much of this I would say-about 60 percent was in stipends and travel to the participants. Mrs. GREEN. Isn't $1,000 for 4 weeks a pretty good sum? Mr. PITCHELL. The universities were paid approximately $14 per day per student, which is really very low for this kind of program. Mrs. GREEN. $1,000 for 4 weeks. A 9-month school year would be $9,000. Do you think that is a cheap amount? Mr. PITCHELL. If you add the travel and stipends it becomes a large amount. This is a basic policy decision as to whether people coming to these programs will have their travel paid. Stipends average about $105 a week including dependency for training, or $420 for the 4- week session. Hence $420 of that went to the trainee and $110 went to the trainee for his travel so over half the funds that went to the institutions went to the trainee. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr. Goerke and Mr. Pitchell. The hearing stands in recess subject to call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0363" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 357 (The following material was submitted for the record:) STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT TENZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEw YORK Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear and present to the Members of the Special Subcommittee on Education my views on the pro- posed Higher Education Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 6232). I am pleased to say that during the 89th Congress, I supported the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Amendments of 1966. I favor legislation designed to improve our country's educational system and to provide our students with the available service and our teachers with the funds necessary for their education and for further development of their careers. Therefore, today, I support the Administration's proposal to extend and strengthen the Higher Education Act of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Education Professions Development Act and the National Vo- cational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965. I, too, have introduced legislation (HR 8550), being considered by your Sub- committee today. My proposal differs from HR 6232 under the proposed Educa- cation Professions Development Act, which will become effective July 1, 1969, in that I am further amending Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to ex- tend the coverage under the bill to include all foreign languages. Thus, we will enable all present and prospective language teachers to qualify under the amendments to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. I believe this amendment will remove most of the categorical restrictions so that all lan- guages not classified as modern foreign languages, but which are official languages used in international trade such as Greek and Hebrew, will also qualify under the provisions of Title V. Since I support the proposed amendments to the aforementioned Acts, I will only direct my testimony to the areas which I feel have not already been exten- sively covered by previous testimony. Speaking in defense of my proposed amendment to Title V, I have in mind specifically such languages as Greek, Hebrew and Latin. These languages should be considered on an equal basis with modern foreign languages under the provi- sions of Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Approximately 90 universities and colleges in the United States, including every major university have courses in Judaica studies in their curricula. These courses include Hebrew as a modern language. Hebrew the original language of the Old Testament is today the official language of the State of Israel which car- ries on trade with the United States and more than 70 other nations of the world. When the State of Israel was established many of the agencies and departments of the United States Government sought stenographers, typists and translators of Hebrew and that need exists today. A considerable amount of research Is being conducted today in many fields* of education of original documents in the Hebrew language. To a very great extent, and particularly with reference to International Trade the same applies to the Greek language. Since higher institutions of learning generally set the pace for our secondary schools, it is significant that colleges are aware of their responsibility and are taking practical steps toward revitalizing the teaching of Latin. A survey published by the American Classical League reports that experiments have been conducted "to find out what factors, if any are found among men who have attained the greatest success in their chosen fields of work. Only one such factor was found universally present. That was a wide knowledge of the meaning of English words. The top business executive ranked first in this re- spect; the college professors were a close second." But this direct value to English is something more than a knowledge of words and of grammar. It includes training in understanding and expressing thought. By constant practice in trying to express in English the thought of a Latin writer, in choosing precisely the right words to convey the exact shade of his meaning, the student learns his own language as he otherwise could not do. Furthermore, this training in understanding and using English makes abstract thinking possible. The understanding of meaningful symbols, which transcend the boundaries imposed by a single language, is enhanced by the study of Latin. PAGENO="0364" 358 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Albert Einstein wrote that "Latin is superior to any modern language for devel- oping the power of thinking." More broadly, the knowledge of Latin is essential to an understanding of our cultural heritage. The fatuous assumption that Latin is a "dead" language, that its study is not practical, and hence useless in the modern world, is belied by the awareness in education circles if not in the popular mind, that from Latin springs the fountain of Western philosophy and thought. Latin is the language of many men who have directly influenced the way we think today. If there are no more scholars who can read the original works of these men, the direct coin- munication with our cultural past will be lost. Zoological, botanical, biological and genetic terms are frequently written in Latin. In all of the areas, the terminology can obviously be memorized, but a viable and spontaneous understanding of the language is essential to a full and meaningful command of the technical vocabulary. Of the almost 500,000 recipients of four-year degrees in the United States in 1964, more than 43,000, or almost nine percent majored in the biological and physical degrees, of which almost 16,000 or 34% were in the field of health and/or medicine; and almost 12,000 or 26% were in the field of law. Of the 16,000 doctoral degrees awarded in the same year, almost 29% were in the sciences. Thus, it is clear that substantial percentages of our students will need the benefit of Latin study if they are to pursue meaningfully and thoroughly the careers they have chosen. To further this necessary foundation, we must make available under the amendments to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the language in my bill, HR 8550. I believe this adoption will remove any doubt which may exist under the provisions of HR 6232. At this point, I am submitting as additional testimony a letter with qualify- ing attachments from Dr. John F. Latimer, widely renowned for his work with the American Classical League and, in general with languages, who addresses himself to the problem at hand and supports my proposed amendment to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. AMERICAN CLASSICAL LEAGUE, Owford, Ohio, April 17, 1967. Hon. HERBERT TENZER, ujg. House of Representatives. M~ DEAn MR. TENZER: I was very pleased to have your letter and to know that you are proposing that the word "modern" in the phrase "modern foreign languages" be omitted in Title V of the Higher Education Act Of 1965, as pre- sented in the Administration's proposal. This change would make it absolutely certain that classical languages and Classical Hebrew would come under the provisions of Title V. This change would have a most beneficial effect on the study and teaching of the classical languages, particularly in our secondary schools. In 1956 a study, initiated by the American Philological Association and the American Classical League, pointed out that within a period of ten years, 40 per cent of the Latin teachers in public secondary schools of the United States would have to be replaced. These figures were probably an underestimate. During the last tw-o or three years reports that have reached me by letter and by personal contact indicate that the teacher shortage has become one of our most serious problems. This shortage, ironically enough, is related to some of the provisions in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The current Title XI of that Act per- tains to some of our institutes for teachers. Although the Act has been amended several times, teachers of the classics have never been eligible for summer insti- tutes. This omission has been a handicap in the recruitment of teachers in the field of classics at the secondary level. Since classical languages constitute the only major discipline in American education not included in summer institutes for the training of teachers at the secondary level, the effect has been to *set up what Dr. Jerome Bruner, the outstanding American psychologist at Harvard, has called a "meritocracy." In brief, a meritocracy comes about when scholar- ships and prizes are awarded for merit in a given academic field with an increas- ing "devaluation of other forms of. scholarly enterprise . . . good teachers in the nonscientific fields will be harder to recruit, harder to attract into teaching. Motives for learning in these fields will become feebler." This quote is taken PAGENO="0365" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS. OF 1967. 359 from The Process of Education, by Jerome S. Bruner,; Harvard University Press (1960) pp.77-70. . The results which Dr. Brunèr foresaw were beginning to happen because of the increasing emphasis on science and technology which had not been coun- terbalanced in 1960 .at the time he wrote. The counterbalance had actually begun for modern foreign languages by the passage of the NDEA in 1958, but the effects had not yet become noticeable in 1960. Additional counterbalance for the arts and humanities was provided by the establishment of the National Arts and Humanities Foundation in 1965. Although the classical languages are ob- viously included under most of its provisions, the opportunities for the retrain- ing of teachers in summer institutes, in competition with all of the arts and the other humanities, are extremely limited. In the summer of 1966 a summer insti- tute for forty Latin teachers was held at the University of Minnesota, for six weeks. In the summer of 1967 an institute for thirty-five Latin teachers will be held at the University of Minnesota for two weeks. Since the retraining of teachers is one of the desirable factors of a summer institute, if larger number of Latin teachers in the secondary schools do not receive such training, the situation in Latin will undoubtedly grow worse and worse. In all fairness it must be pointed out that classical languages are included in the provisions of Title IV of the revised National Defense Education Act. In 1966-67 fellowships were awarded to eighteen different institutions. For the academic year 1967-68 thirty institutions have received the fellowships. These awards are most gratifying. Since the programs require doctoral studies, most if not all of the recipients of the fellowships will be in preparation for teaching on the college level. These facts show very plainly that the need for an enlarged program for the training and retraining of Latin teachers in secondary schools is one of the most serious problems in the field of classical languages today. The American Classical League, The American Philological Association, and all of the classical organizations in this country enthusiastically support your efforts and those of your colleagues to make the teachers of classical languages eligible for the provisions of Title V of your bifl, H.R. 8550. In support of the statements in this letter, certain facts and figures are set forth in the enclosures. Sincerely, JOHN F. LATIMER. ENCLOSURE TO JOHN F. LATIMER's LETTER TO CONGRESSMAN HERBERT TENZER DATED A~nu~ 17, 1967 I. Public high school enrollments, grades 7 to 12 Latin French Spanish 1964 1965 609,354 626, 199 1,447,010 (1) 1,690,221 (1) 1 Not available. NoTE-These figures taken from "Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964," published by Modern Language Association. Those for 1965 have not yet been published. Figures for Latin given to JFL by the MLA. II. Enrollments in institutions of higher education in fall 1965 and 1964 Latin Greek French Spanish 1965: Undergraduate Graduate 1964 (estimated): Undergraduate Graduate . 34,228 1,677 . 29,828 1,314 15, 596 . 2,631 ~. (~) (1) 321, 587 12,449 . 318,778 11,456 . 257,463 8,573 262. 343 7,333 1 Not given. NoTE-These figures are taken from "Foreign Language Enrollments in Institutions of [igher Educa- tion Fall 1965 pubhshed b~ the \lodern Language Assocution of Ameiica Septembei 19Gb PAGENO="0366" 360 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 2.2 2.26 ENCLOSURE TO JOHN F, LATIMEIS'S LETTER TO HERBERT TENZER DATED 4-17-67 The American Classical League was founded in 1919. Its purpose is to promote the study and teaching of Latin and Greek and related subjects in sdcondary schools and colleges of the United States. At its headquarters in Miami `Univer- sity, `Oxford, Ohio, it maintains a Service Bureau, which provides teachers of `Classics `and Ancient History with a great number of supplementary materials and visual aids. It publishes the classical outlook nine times each year' with articles on a wide variety of subjects, educational and pedagogical. The Coun- cil of the League is composed of representatives from national,, regional, state, and local classical organizations. Represented are the American Philological Association, four regional associations, and several state and local associatons. Approximately three-fiigth of the 6,000 members are secondary school teachers. In 1936 the League founded the National Junior Classical League, which now has over 2,000 chapters in forty-nine states, for a total of 105,000 members. The Junior Classical League has its own elected officers and `holds an annual convention with representatives usually from thirty to thirty-five states. Its affairs are under ,the general supervision of a committee of `high school teach- ers `appointed by the President of the American Classical League. In 1962 some high school JCL graduates formed the Senior `Classical League to continue the support of the study of classical antiquity in and outside of college. Its member- ship now numbers about five hundred. Membership in any of these organizations is open `to interested laymen and a number of them have joined to help support classical studies in this country. Although I `am not recommending other changes in the National Defense Educational Act of 1958, as amended, because I believe participants in the programs speak well for the `security of our country's educational system, I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the co- operation loan programs with colleges `and universities. In the last few years, many institutions of higher education have been unable to approve student loan applicatons before the end of August of each year. Without the assurance of an approved loan application, many students, who plan to matriculate the following September, are forced to remain on the school's pending list until the sch'ool received authority or a final commit- ment from the Office of Education. Therefore, I am suggesting that perhaps this Subcommittee could further study the application process of the Higher Education Assistance Cooperation Loan Program, and alleviate the difficulties in this area. I thank the distinguished Chairman of this `Subcommittee for extending me this opportunity to testify on the proposed amendments contained in hR 6232 and to further present my views to expand Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include all foreign languages as a proposal in my bill, H.R. 8550. STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAwAII Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this op- portunity to present my views with respect to H.R. 6232, a bill which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The Higher Education Act of 1965 has been hailed as probably the strongest manifestation in our history of Congressional commitment to high quality higher education. Now, we in the 90th Congress have the Opportunity to build upon this III. Teachers certified in 1966 and 1965 1966 1965 Percent of total NOTE-Actual figures were taken from "Teacher Supply and Demand in Public Schools, 1966," pub- lished by the Research Division of the National Education Association, 1966. Additions and percentages were made by JFL. PAGENO="0367" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 361 :great legislative achievement of the 89th Congress. I strongly support H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967, because I think that these amend- ments are vital if we are to follow through with our efforts* to strengthen the Nation's institutions of higher learning and to make higher education available to every qualified student. Among the major amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 is one which would extend Title I-Community Service and Continuing Education Programs- for 5 years through fiscal year 1973. Title II would also be extended. Parts A and B, dealing with College Library Resources and Library Training and Research~ would be extended through fiscal year 1973, and Part C. concerning the acquisi- lion of valuable worldwide library materials would be extended one year, through fiscal year 1969. Title IV of the Higher Education Act is, in my opinion, one of the most signifi- cant in the law. Its objective is to provide students with alternative means of financing their education. They may utilize one of several forms of assistance or .a combination thereof. Students of exceptional need may qualify for educational opportunity grants in sums ranging from $200 to $800 a year. An estimated 134,000 students are benefiting from such grants this year, and the number is expected to increase to about 221,000 next year. Undergraduate students may also avail them- selves of an insured loan of $1,000 a year, and an estimated 430,000 will do so in fiscal year 1967. Under the guaranteed loan program the Federal Government will pay all of the interest .f or students whose adjusted family income is less than $15,000 a year while the students are in school, and 3% thereafter; S The cOllege work-study program in Title IV provides employment opportunities to further enable students, especially those from low-income families, to finance their education. During the current year, the U.S. Office of Education estimates that more than 184,000 students are employed under the work-study program and are earning an average of approximately $700 a year. These programs, together with the National Defense Education Act student loan program and the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance . Program, which form the nucleus of our. efforts to expand educational opportunity, would be extended 5 years by the 1967 amendments. . . Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National Defense Education Act, like the Higher Education Act, does not expire until 1968, but by extending both of these laws before they actually approach expiration we would `affordour educational institutions the time they need to draw up plans which will enable them :to use appropriated funds more efficiently and effectively. Several titles of the National Defense Education Act would simply be incorporated into our laws by the 1967 amendments. Several others would be allowed to expire at the end of fiscal year 1968. . S Another of the major amendments in H.R. 6232 would extend the National Defense Education Act for 5 years through fiscal year 1973. Title II under this Act makes loans available for undergraduate and graduate study, and when the school year. ends this June it is estimated that over 1 million students will have borrowed $1 billion since the program began. The proposed amendments would make more funds available, through a revolving fund and would extend loan cancellation benefits. .. 5 Title III under the National Defense Education Act is the title which has been indispensable in strengthening the various elementary and secondary curriculum~ areas. The 1967 amendments would eliminate subject restrictions, pay State ad- ininistrative expenses, repeal the allotment formula for loans to private schools, authorize loans to American sponsored dependents' schools abroad, and extend -the title through fiscal year 1973. I would also like to suggest that in `spite of the fact that the States repeatedly have reported that this program ban served as both `the impetus and .the catalyst fOr the improvement Of instruction, only $50 million of a $110 million authoriza- tion is being requested in the Budget for fiscal year 1968. The Office of Educa- tion has indicated that experience in fiscal years 1965 and 1966 reflects much unmet need. In view of the continuing need, such a `cutback is incomprehensible. I respectfully urge `that this Subcommittee take appropriate action to increase the request to the full amount authorized. . S The `Higher Education Amendments of 1967 would also provide for, the Educa- tion Professions Development Act, effective July 1, 1969, to enable the U.S. Commissioner of Educaiton to appraise the Nation's future teacher needs at every level and to take steps to meet these needs. For example, grants would be authorized to State and local education agencies to~ identify and encourage qualified people to enter and reenter the field of education. Grants would also be PAGENO="0368" 362 HIGHER EDUCATION. AMENDMENTS OF 19 67 authorized to strengthen graduate and undergraduate education programs in- cluding those for non-teaching personnel. In addition, the 1967 amendments would establish a National Ad~visory Oouncil on Education Professions Develop- ment. Finally, the 1967 Higher Education Amendments would extend the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 to provide loan insurance to new borrowers until June 30, 1973 and to borrowers making loans prior to that date until June 30, 1977. The maximum annual loan would be $1,500, with a maximum aggregate of $3,000 to any student whether his loan is insured under a State, private agency, or Federal Government program. The 1967 amendments would also establish a minimum annual payment whether under a State, private or Federal insured loan program, and would authorize uniform deferments irre- spective of the loan program. Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, these are the major 1967 Higher Education Amendments. I support them enthusiastically and I urge their favorable consideration and speedy passage. Thank you very much. COMMENTS OF DR. L. D. HASKEW, THE TJNIvER5ITY o~' TEXAS Title I. The University of Texas System has great interest In advancing the intent of Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as we understood that intent. All three amendments proposed in HR 6232 seem advantageous from the practical standpoint. It is especially necessary to keep as low as possible the percentage of costs to be borne by local funds (as Section 102 does). Title I calls for activities relatively unrecognized in state legislative appropriations and in funds budgeted by private institutions, and it will take time to build up the sources of local support. For an institution such as The University of Texas, the amendments proposed in Section 103 should be a real boon. Under existing arrangements a project of any long range significance and innovative character his little chance of being funded because it requires such a large proportion of the State's allotment~ Yet, this is exactly the character of projects most needed. Quite franky, after our high hopes for what Title I would make possible we are somewhat disenchanted with what has occurred in its administrative im- plementation. The difficulties appear to arise in differing interpretations of Congressional intent. One hopes consideration of HR 6232 may provide occasion to clarify that intent. Title II. The amendments proposed are desirable, we think. However, see Section 222(a): "and, (2) for the planning or development of programs for the opening of library or information schools . . ." It would be most unfortunate if the Commissioner proceed to make such grants without recognition of the plans of such state bodies as the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University system. Title IV. The amendments under Parts A and B concern areas in which we have little experience, but Section 402 is endorsed by our specialist on student aids. Part C: We argue strongly that the Federal share for the Work-Study program for jobs in nonprofit enterprises should be continued at 90 percent and that institutions should be permitted to use 5 percent of their Federal allotment for administrative expenses (see Section 432). However, eighty percent is better than 75 percent. Section 404 is an especially desirable amendment, from our experience. We find nothing objectionable in the others, although we have no information of their justifiability in terms of cost. Part D: As long as "forgiveness" is extended for some positions of subse- quent employment, the extensions by Section 452 appear proper. Section 453 deals with loans for which we have no statutory authority to apply, and hence we have not studied its implications. None of the amendments get at our basic, con- cerns about the National Defense Students Loans, but this is not the place to express these, but we are glad to see that basic features of this highly useful pro- gram are being continued. Title V. This new Title and its provisions are warmly welcomed, and the approach represented by it is a decided forward step, in our opinion. Of course, its usefulness depends heavily upon the administrative acumen of the Commis- sioner, but the conception involved is very fine, in our opinion. The remaining Titles in HR 6232 have not been examined in detail, but on the surface the approaches appear to be constructive. PAGENO="0369" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 363~ STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS F. JONES, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA For some time now a number of institutions of higher learning in the South have been disturbed about the allocation of fellowships under Title IV of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. There can be little doubt that the more prestigious institutions of our nation have beent favored. The recently announced allocations for the academic year 1967-68 indicate some evidence of a trend away from the imbalance in the awards, but it is apparent that unless corrective measures are taken, the more prestigious institutions will continue to be favored at the expense of those of us who are striving to develop into graduate schools. which meet the needs of the regions we serve. According to the U.S. Office of Education, the objectives of the National Defense Graduate Fellowship Program are to increase the numbers of well- qualified college and university teachers and to develop and expand the capacity of doctoral studies nationwide. Admittedly, the program has increased the nation- wide output of well-qualified college and university teachers and helped to develop and expand the nationwide capacity of doctoral studies. It is doubtful~ however, that the current methods of administering the Act are the best and. most appropriate for the purpose of promoting a wide geographical distribution' of do,ctoral programs, a purpose which iF notably absent from the Office of Edt~cation's statement of purposes and objectives in its correspondence regarding these fellowahips of this past year. The major cause for concern is the disparity between the relative output of' baccalaureate degrees in each state and the percentage of total NDEA Fellow- ships awarded. The attached tables illustrate both this disparity and the ga~ between the percentage of awards and the percentage of population by state. It is apparent that the awards are not being made in an effort to achieve the wide geographic distribution as originally intended by the legislation. In fact, for the academic year 1066-67, 25 of the institutions ranked top in terms of size and prestige each received 95 fellowships, or about 50 per cent of the total awards. This year, these same institutions will be receiving a total of 2,004 fellowships, or 34.4 per cent o.f the total. In addition to the stipends paid directly to NDEA fellows, it is worthy of note that support money in the amount of $2,500 is provided for each student. While we are delighted to see graduate' education as a whole supported, we must note that the distribution of fellow- ships and support funds in such a disproportionate manner cannot help but make these already prestigious institutions larger (but not necessarily better) and further aggravate the already undesirable gap between them and those of us historically in less fortunate circumstances. One of the most alarming indications is that at least until 1909-70 all institu- tions will receive "not less than 75 per cent of the number of fellowships allo- cated for initial use in 1906. Such additional allocations will be made on the basis of each institution's application for 1906 fellowships and will not require a new application." (The underlining is mine.) The big question, of course, is in what manner the Director's Office of NDEA Title IV makes free use of "not less than 75 per cent." This year's awards indicate strict adherence to this' clause. Administration of the Act under these conditions inevitably has the tendency to enlarge the strong institutions instead of developing the less strong. It would be unrealistic, indeed, to make too much of comparisons in this manner. However, the question is not whether we are as strong as so-and-sot but more importantly, are we or are we not worthy of support? We are not only worthy of support, but we, the rapidly emerging institutions, must be supported in developing our graduate schools. We, most of us, are re- moved geographically from the pres'tigious institutions. Because there is no strong positive witness of record to graduate study, our young people think in terms of completing the baccalaureate and taking a job, instead of going on to graduate study. The percentage of those who continue to graduate school is far below national averages. Furthermore, those who go away tend to stay away and thereby do not contribute to the development of our backward economy. Strengthening of our graduate schools will rapidly correct both `of these regional problems. Our schools and colleges will be better staffed and our economy will have a fighting chance to move into the national mainstream. The next question, then, is whether the existing method of distributi'on iS fulfilling `the original purposes of increasing the number of persons preparing for and entering professional careers as college or universi'ty teachers and to expedite their training, encouraging the development and full utilization of the 80-155-67-pt. 1-24 PAGENO="0370" 364 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT.S OF 1967 capacities of graduate programs leading to the doctorate and promoting a wider geographical distribution of such programs and, by means of these fellowships, strengthening and expanding the nation's doctoral study programs. With respect to the attachments to this letter, we should like to point out the following for your consideration: 1. The original language of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 in Title IV Section 403 (a) had this to say about the awards: Sue. 403(a) The Commissioner shall award fellowships under this title to individuals accepted for study in graduate programs approved by him under this section. The Commissioner shall approve a graduate program of an institution of higher education only upon application by the institu- tion andonly upon his finding: (1) that such program is a new program or an existing program which has been expanded, (2) that such new program or expansion of an existing program will substantially further the objective of increasing the facilities avail- able in the Nation for the graduate training of college or university level teachers and of promoting a wider geographical distribution of such facUlties throughout the Nation, and (3) that in the acceptance of persons' for study in such programs preference will be given to persons interested in teaching in institutions of higher education. 2. Public Law 88-665 made the following amendments to the original act: Sue. 402(a) The first sentence of subsection (a) of Section 403Of the Na- tional Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended to read as follows: "Of the total number of fellowships authorized by Section 402 (a) to be awarded during a fiscal year (1) not less than one thousand five hundred of such fellowships awarded during the fiscal year ending June' 30, 1965, and not less than one-third of such fellowships awarded during the three succeeding fiscal years shall be awarded to individuals accepted for study in graduate programs approved by the Commissioner under this section, and (2) the remainder shall be awarded on such bases as he may determine, subject to the the provisions of subsection (c)." The second sentence of subsection (a) of such section is amended by striking out ", and" at the end of clause (2) and inserting in lieu thereof a period, and by striking Out clause (3) thereof. (b) Section 403(b) of such Act is amended by striking out "under this title" and inserting in lieu thereof "as described in clause (1) `of subsection (a) ," and by inserting before the period at the end thereof the following: and the Commissioner shall give consideration to such objective attendance at any one institution of higher education." (c) Section 403 of such Act is further amended by, adding `at the end thereof the following new subsections: `(c) Recipients of fellowships under this title shall `be persons who are interested in teaching, or continuing to teach, in institutions of higher education and are pursuing, or intend to pursue, a course of study leading to a degree of doctor of philosophy or an equivalent degree." Please note that the amendments as contained in 88-665 provided that not less than one-third of the fellowships awarded should be made on the basis of the original language of the National Defense E'ducation Act `as passed in 1958, but then permitted the remainder to be made on such bases as the Commissioner may determine. Exhibit 3 is a good example of what happened under this determi- nation. Harvard went from 0 to 95, Yale from 0 to 95, Columbia from 6 to 95, and most of the other "top 25" from less than a dozen to 95. At the same time, the smaller institutions, which had been most encouraged at the outset of the program, went from 12-15 awards out of 1,000 fellowships to a dozen or less out of 6,000 fellowships. Although going through many amendments (86-70, 86-624, 87-293, 87-344, 87-400, 87-835, 88-210, 88-665, 89-253, and 89-329) the basic purpose is still ex- pressed in Section 403, section (a) ,of the original language. By `the insertion of a single sentence' as an amendment (Section 402(c) in 1964), the `basic objectives as outlined above have largely been nullified. This is readily apparent from `Exhibit 3, which lists the awards made over the years to those institutions which re- ceived 95 fellowships to be awarded in the fall of 1966 PAGENO="0371" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ C C.~ L'~ C ~ ~ ~ CJ* t~ ~ ~ ~ O~ C ~1C ~ C C ~ C C C C C C C ~ CCC ~1 ~ CC C C C C C ~ ~CCCCCC~~~ CCCC~~ 0 -1 0 ~ -1 C C C C C -1 © CO C-I CCI CI C C C tI ~ © © C © ~ ~ C C C C CC C CII C -I -I I~ C C C Ct~ -1 C C C C I 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 t~j ~ z PAGENO="0372" a tn tn c C S a a! PAGENO="0373" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 367 EXHIBIT 3 Distribution of awanis for institutions receiving 95 awards for 1966-67 1 Name of institution 1967-68 1966-67 1965-66 1964-65 1963-64 1962-63 1961-62 1960_612 Stanford University 85 95 17 18 14 23 23 26 University of California at Berkeley- 85 95 13 12 10 14 14 12 University of California at Los Angeles 85 95 18 15 7 12 12 7 University of Colorado 80 95 12 18 5 16 19 14 Yale 85 95 23 15 5 0 0 0 University of Florida 80 95 20 21 15 14 13 12 Northwestern 85 95 15 10 19 18 9 3 University of Chicago 85 95 23 23 22 23 11 28 University of Illinois 85 95 21 12 19 22 23 13 Indiana University 85 95 29 22 22 17 21 30 Johns Hopkins . 75 95 17 22 21 14 7 16 Harvard University 85 95 19 12 0 0 0 0 University of Michigan 85 95 2 12 14 21 21 27 University of Minnesota 85 95 28 18 14. 19 19 28 Washington University (St. Louis). 72 95 26 15 12 12 12 13 `Columbia University 85 95 16 11 7 9 6 11 Cornell University 85 95 15 14 27 21 18 10 University of Rochester 72 95 25 17 20 10 16 11 University of North Carolina 85 95 15 11 14 19 18 27 University of Oregon 75 95 33 23 28 22 25 26 `Pennsylvania State University 80 95 17 8 4 7 9 5 University of Pennsylyania 85 95 18 12 13 9 15 20 University of Texas 85 95 15 17 17 . 23 22 14 University of Washington 85 95 17 6 18 11 22 29 University of Wisconsin 85 95 36 20 12 22 27 19 1 The numbers of awards for the years 1967-68, 1966-67, 1963-64, 1962-63, and 1961-62 were taken from corn. -pilations sent out by the Office of Education. The numbers of awards for the other years were compiled by ~this office from lists of awards by fields published by the Office of Education. 2 Figures are not available for 1959-60. EXHIBIT 4. NDEA, TITLE IV-PR0POSED CORRECTIVE LEGISLATION In order to achieve more effectively the purposes of `the Act, it is recommended that it be amended to require the Office of Education to follow the procedure set out below in allocating and approving fellowships to institutions: I. The total number of fellowships for the year would be allocated among states according to a two-criteria formula. This formula should reflect the need, state by state, for training college teachers; so, the two criteria would be: First, the number of bachelor degrees awarded by all higher institutions in the state in the most recent year for which data are available, since this reflects the flow of students who need teachers. Second, the per cent of the state's college `teachers in bachelor degree institu- tions who do not have the Ph.D., or appropriate terminal degree, since this reflects the need to upgrade the training of teachers now in college positions. Using this formula a figure would be determined for each state which would be announced as the maximum number of fellowships that could be allocated. 2. The maximum number of fellowships that any single institution could re- ceive would be announced as a single figure, which would be no more than one per cent of the total number of national fellowships. 3. Institutions would be invited. (as at present) to submit proposals by academic .department or program. These proposals would be evaluated by panels selected from the appropriate fields as at present. The Office of Education would then determine .the number of proposals to accept with the total number of fellowships `kept within `the maximum by state and by institution. Because of the maximum and the possible failure of institutions to propose a sufficient number of approved programs it might be provided that the office of Education should carry over `to `the following year any unused funds for fellowships. For example, if fellowships fall 300 short' of the `allocation for the year the total available for all states in the following year would be increased by 300. PAGENO="0374" 368 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, Austin, Tee., April25, 1967. MEMORANDTJM To: Dr. Norman Hackerman. From: John Dodson. Subject: Comments on H.R. 6232. In regard to Title IV amendments in HR. 6232 (pages 12-41). 1 am in favor of the changes in general. On certain problems, the following comments are offered: 1. Amendments to Educational Opportunity Grants Program. a. Sec. 402 (p. 13): Practically all student financial aid administrators strongly favor this amendment because it will help prevent possible excessive financing of some students and provide a better means of packaging aid to suit individual needs of students. b. Sec. 403 (p. 13) : The authorization of grants as well as contracts for talent search projects provides more flexibility in funding for these projects. 2. Amendments to Provisions on Student Loan Insurance Programs. (pp. 23-30). a. While in agreement with general changes proposed, I feel the bill falls short of proposing needed changes to offer lending institutions more incen- tive to participate in the loan program. Most of the amendments in H.R. 6232 are beneficial to the borrower, whereas most of the problems with the loan program thus far have been concerned with lending institutions' reluct- ance to make the loans. b. Congress should attempt to include provisions for simplifying adminis- trative requirements of the program, especially to relieve lending institu- `tions of so much red tape in the paperwork now required. c. Congress should allow for the raising of interest rates on the loans to 7 per cent as an inducement to lending institutions. This measure is already authorized in the Higher Education Act of 1905 provided that Congress deems it advisable, but no mention is made in H.R. 6232 of the intent of Congress to put the measure into effect. 3. Amendments to College Work-Study Program (pp. 23-30). Student Financial Aid Associations throughout the country, including the National Student Financial Aid Council, have overwhelmingly supported reten- tion of the present ratio of 90 percent Federal and 10 percent institutional con- tribution for student wages in the College Work-Study Program. The change to an 80:20 ratio may severely handicap some smaller colleges, especially those struggling in their development of improved academic programs. 4. Amendments to National Defense Student Loan Program (pp. 30-41). All amendments are acceptable. However, most business managers and financial aid administrators at educational institutions strongly favor a change in com- putation methods for reimbursing institutions for administrative costs of the National Defense Student Loan Program. Present regulations provide for reim- bursement on the basis of "one percent of total notes receivable at the end of the fiscal period" or "five percent of total administrative costs," whichever is the lesser. The "one percent of notes receivable" method appears to the more practi- cable method and eliminates time-consuming and extremely difficult cost account- ing. No mention is made in H.R. 6232 of the House's intent to amend this provi- sion, and I feel that suggestion should be made to do so. The foregoing comments cover that portion of H.R. 6232 pertaining to student aid programs for which I am responsible. I shall be glad to confer with you or to furnish further written comments if you desire more detail. JOHN H. DODSON. Director, Student Financial Aids. SOUTHWEST TEXAS STATE COLLEGE, San Marcos, Tee., April 19,1967. CONGRESSMAN J. J. PICKLE, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DXJ. DEAR JAKE: Thank you for your letter of April 17, offering me the opportunity to express my views on the new Higher Education BilL PAGENO="0375" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 369 By and large I am most impressed with the soundness of the proposed amend- ments. I am particularly in favor of those provisions which: 1. would relieve institutions of the burden of putting up one-ninth match- ing funds for National Defense Student Loans; 2. would permit work/study students to be employed forty hours a week while attending summer classes; and 3. would remove the present restrictions on subjects for which instruc- tional equipment grants are made. That portion of the bill which deals with the work/study program would call for a reduction in the Federal share to 80% rather than the scheduled 75%; however, I would strongly urge that the Federal share be continued at the present 90% level for on-campus jobs and that 5% of this Federal allotment be allowed the college for use as a way of meeting administrative overhead expenses. The new bill proposes a change in the interest formula for academic facilities' loans which would, in effect, raise the rate from the current 3% to over 31/~%. I would prefer that the formula be left as is. I hope that this will be of some help to you and please do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, JAMES H. MCCROCKLIN, Presiden t. NEW YORK UNIvERsITY, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, April 18, 1.967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: In conformance with your request to convene a group of New York University professors for the purpose of discussing the Higher Edu- cation Bill, I am pleased to submit this report. More specifically, you were con- cerned with the problem of recruiting, educating, retaining, and upgrading teachers in the educationally deprived areas of our nation. A task force of eight professors, chaired by Professor Jeanne Noble, worked on these and other questions related to the problem of teacher training. This report was developed from their discussions. In addiiton, we are pleased to convene this group and other professors with related specialists so that you and~ your commitfee may explore educational problems of mutual concern. President James M. Hester has given top priority to University involvement in urban affairs. We in the School of Education are constantly seeking oppor- tunities to help the City, especially its educatiOnal system, respond to modern demands. We are grateful for the legislative assistance that supports our efforts. We welcome this opportunity to explore new ways that the Congress might~ encourage educational endeavors. In this spirit we welcome you and the committee to our campus. We are ready to offer assistance to your committee today and at any time in the future. Respectfully yours, DANIEL E. GRIFFITHS, Dean. REPORT SUBMITTED BY DANIEL E. GRIFFITHS, DEAN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION INTRODUCTION Congresswoman Edith Green posed several questions concerning the Higher- Education Act and the adequacy in meeting the needs of teacher training for the disadvantaged. An NYU faculty task force considered these questions and other points of importance. The first part of this paper deals with proposed amendments we recommend and a rationale for each. The second part presents answers to questions not covered in our recommendations. In some cases, we did not think the Higher Education Act the proper source of funding for the particular area of concern. Probably, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act should deal, among other issues, with working condi- tions and incentives for teachers. The Higher Education Act should deal more - specifically with teacher training, both pre-service and in-service. PAGENO="0376" ~37O HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMEIcTS OF 1967 PART I-POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT TO IMPROVE TEACH- ING IN THE DISADVANTAGED AREAS President Johnson's 1965 education message included, among other immediate concerns in higher education, the need: "To draw upon the unique and invaluable resources of the great universities to deal with national problems of poverty and community development." He spoke of the potential of higher education to deal with the perplexities of of urban education-where 70% of the population now live. The legislative intent of the Act was to strengthen the universities for these purposes and others. Among the urgent problems of the urban communities, how- ever, none is more pressing than inadequate education for children attending schools in the slums. There is a high degree of correlation between inadequate education and other social problems such as crime and family disorganization. It would follow that there is an immediate need to strengthen universities to help with the school problems of urban areas. One of the primary tasks of the uni- versity is the training of teachers. Part I of this paper deals with this area of university concern. In the ten largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States where 1/3 of the economically deprived children are being schooled, not one single school district has brought these children up to minimum educational standards, to say nothing about closing the widening educational opportunity and achievment gaps between the slum *and suburban children. Indeed most of these disadvantaged neighborhoods are academic disaster areas. Here the "unlearning disease" has reached epidemic proportions, and crash programs tend to provide only "first aid" treatment in- stead of major therapy. Certainly our government has recognized these problems and the Congress has made provisions for ameliorating some of the pathology. Surely, Opportunity Scholarships and loans have made it possible for universities to recruit teachers from among the economically disadvantaged. Part-time and short-term training programs made possible under the Na- tional Defense Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have brought aid to teachers of the disadvantaged. These programs certainly reflect a climate of concern in the universities. There is a body of literature that has developed from various teaching and research projects. Many of us have had extensive experience with workshops and demonstration projects in all parts of the country. Most of all, these years of concern with educating the disadvantaged have led us to two conclusions. First, there is a need for sound theory and tested practice to be brought to bear in a concentrated interdisciplinary approach to an entire school district. This kind of experimentation is uniquely the university's province for it is the institution with a concentration of the special resources needed in lhe schools. Short-tqrm involvement of universities needs to be continued, and that is possi- ble under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There is a need, however, for a long-term application of theory and knowledge in an action setting. There is a need for these extensive programs to be university based so that the results are fed back into the classrooms. Secondly, there is a need to give top priority to teacher training, both pre- service and in-service, as the most pressing need in current educational designs to improve education for the disadvantaged child. In this matter, certain questions persist: 1. Why is there a disproportionate number of less educated, less experi- enced teachers in disadvantaged area schools than in other districts? 2. Why are there so many substitute teachers and such high teacher turn- over rates in disadvantaged areas? One can probe for the answers in such factors as (1) working conditions, (2) teacher recruitment and selection, (3) teacher preparation and* (4) in-service education. Perhaps the first factor, working conditions, is beyond the scope of the Higher Education Act. We deal with some related questions in Part II. However, recruit- ment, selection, pre-service preparation and in-service training are clearly with- in the scope of this Act. These functions have. been among the primary func- tions of the universities. In fact, there is evidence from many conferences and other soutces to support an amendment to this Act to strengthen teacher educa- PAGENO="0377" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 371 tion. The National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stated in 1966 and 1967: "In distinguishing classrooms that favorably impressed our consultant- observers from those that appeared poor, the explanatory factor most fre- quently observed was the quality of relationship-the rapport-between teacher and child . . . In speaking of this ingredient, the observers were not alluding merely to the techniques of teaching . . . (butto) the subtle aspects of mutual understanding, commonness of purpose and warm human contact . . . If a crucial ingredient for changing the quality of education is the attitude of teachers . . . it follows that broad scale reorientation of teacher behavior should receive a high priority in the use of Title I funds." Certainly the schools have relied upon the universities in the training of teachers, but often the relationship between the two has been limited with no follow-up plan developed. Universities have developed institutes to which teach- ers have come, but seldom have we had the opportunity to work with a group of teachers from one district over a long period of time. None of the legislation gives us the opportunity to initiate wide range programs. The Teacher Corps portion of the 1-ligher Education Act deals directly with the problem of staffing disadvantaged area schools. Otherwise that Act does not deal with teacher education. Yet, in the long run, America must depend on the uni- versities as the primary source of trained teachers. Even the criticisms le~ eled against the educational establishment will not be answered significantly unless teacher training programs are included in any prospective innovations. Perhaps it should be added here that many of us in the University have' worked as consultants to business corporations and have watched the growth of non-university based programs in education. The Advisory Committee report men- tioned earlier would strengthen non-university involvement in teacher training even more. Further, it is quite possible that professors themselves have strength- ened the prestige of agencies other than their own universities, ironically, gov- ernment and university guide-lines inhibit us from accepting "over-load" pay from a government sponsored project on our own campus. This practice has. benefited business corporations `and newly developing research organizations. They can hire professors as consultants quite freely, w-hile these very profes- sors are not permitted to work with their colleagues on university projects and receive commensurate compensation. One either must work on a colleague's proj- ect sufficiently to warrant release from a portion of teaching load or he takes his "over-load" consulting time away from the university. In no small way does this prevent us from developing an all-university, interdisciplinary approach to critical educational problems. This also gives advantages to non-university or- ganizations which are denied to the university. All of these ideas suggest that the Sub-Committee on Education has a responsibility to lend its support to the strengthening of the nation's universities. It is this committee to whom we look for leadership in making it possible for universities to better prepare educational personnel for the disadvantaged youth. To this end we recommend that the Higher Education Act of 1965 he amend- ed in 1957 to include a new Part P entitled Strcngth~ning University Teacher Training Programs. This recommendation is designed to accomplish the follow- ing: 1. To enable universities to ëontract with agencies or organized groups. or otherwise engage in recruitment programs designed to discover potential can- didates for teacher education programs. and to establish special programs do- signed to remedy deficiences that usually prevent these candidates from meet- ing entrance requirements. Discussion: It is difficult to tap resources within the deprived community.. There are many youths who would like to enter teacher training projects, but cannot meet requirements. They need special courses to qualify them to begin the regular training curriculums. 2. To strengthen college and university training programs designed to train educational personnel for work in educationally deprived schools. Discussion: Field work and internship programs could be funded as well as other innovative programs. 3. To encourage universities to take the initiative in contracting with Boards of Education in partnership ventures designed to concentrate massive university resources in a complex of schools constituting a district, provided that the joint projects serve the function of improving the total school situation, from com- munity involvement to pupil performance, and contribute to the theory and practice of training school personnel. PAGENO="0378" :372 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 PART Il-FURTHER QUESTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE 1. Should teachers who work in disadvantaged areas be given extra stipends for working there? Most of `the faculty agreed that extra pay likely to be considered "combat" or "hazard" pay-would not provide psychological motivation for teachers or ~raise their morale. The salaries of the city teachers should be competitive with suburban school districts in order to attract and hold good teachers. Our experi- ence and study indicates that the "total school pattern," including the kind of principal who leads the school, the involvement of parents, the size of classes (which raises the question of ideal manageable size), the relationship of school to community and teacher competence, determines the quality of education. Other incentives, short of extra pay, might be built into the system which gives the teacher prestige and professional support. (See Question 2) 2. Should the following incentives be available to free teachers for professional growth and development? Sabbatical leaves Shortened teaching days Supportive workshops and courses Teacher aides or assistants There was agreement that all four of these incentives are needed. Sabbatical leaves, for instance, should be tied to carefully structured development plans. All teachers hi the system should have the benefit of professional growth incen- ~tives rather Ithan only those in the "tough" slum schools. The shortened day, however, should mean fewer direct pupil-master teacher contact hours. The hours when the teacher is not with pupils should be devoted ~to such professional activities as in-service courses, planning sessions, com- munity visits and parent visits. Workshops and courses for experienced teachers have proved worthwhile and `should be fostered. Teacher aides are essential. The acquiring of these assistants should be tied to the training of teachers, so that the teachers can learn how to live with another adult in the room and utilize the skills of that adult. A distinction between teachers and their aides should be carefully drawn. While both are valuable, rthey do different kinds of work. 3. Should joint university school district programs be funded? 4. Should pre-service teachers who train in disadvantaged schools be finan- cially compensated for this choice? Or, should some other incentive be provided ~to encourage universities to develop internships in ghetto schools? Such funding should be university based `and not given directly to the student whether he is a graduate or undergraduate. Competence in teaching is not based on classroom learning alone. We have ~found that field involvement is a necessary ingredient in the education of teach- ers. We would urge longer periods of field and community work as well as prac- `tice teaching. Our experience has shown that the field work and internship pro- grams in the ghettos are costly, however. First, only a small cadre of profes- sors are themselves comfortable in slum areas. Most universities, therefore, are `understaffed in relation to field work assignments. The student-professor ratio must be small so that the intern may be properly supervised. Often "culture shock" causes costly delays for both student and teacher. Involvement in com- munity and family affairs is quite time consuming. A professor's teaching load must he adjusted accordingly and this is costly to the university. There is a need `to involve local teachers and community leaders in this internship process, and `they should be paid as "clinical assistants." It is our recommendation, therefore, that university plans for intensi'fiying field work and internship involvement in disadvantaged communities be funded under the Higher Education Act. 5. Should university non-degree programs to help parents in culturally de- prived neighborhoods understand the problems of children and their education `be funded? There was unanimous support on the committee for developing new ways of working with parents who are anxious to have quality education for their chil- dren. Some professors would go so far as to provide financial incentive to parents who attend classes to improve their understanding of the educational process. Many successful programs have included parent involvement. 6. Should universities `be funded to "provide creative or innovative graduate degree programs for teachers or other school personnel who are committed to work in ghetto schools? (See Part I) PAGENO="0379" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 373 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, I am forwarding to you the following statement concerning Title V of H.R. 6232. "We support this amendment and its goals. "We would strongly urge two changes as follows: and ask you to represent us to this end: "A. on p. 60, line 9, insertion of the word `school' in place of the word `child' so as to specify school psychology as a traditional example, historic- ~ally the first, of those educational personnel cited in this paragraph. "B. on p. 61, insertion of a new paragraph (9) to read: "(9) programs or projects to train or retrain professional nnd nonpro- professional psychological personnel whose focus is on increasing the effectiveness of learning and teaching in schools." 1 hope that your committee will respond favorably to these recommendations. I will be glad to furnish any clarifying information. Sincerely, ARTHUR H. BRAYFIELD, E~vecwtive Officer. MEMORANDUM To: Arthur H. Brayfield. From: Executive Committee of Division 16. Be: Background Information for Amendment to Title V of the Higher Education Act. There are approximately 85 training programs in school psychology in the United States at the present time, of which 45 are doctoral and 40 are undoctoral. There were over 1,000 students (1963) in a variety of training programs in school psychology. It is estimated there are 4,500 school psychologists in the United States at the present time. Thirty-seven states now have formal certification requirements in the state educational agency. Sixty-two percent of elementary schools of over 100 pupils employ psychologi- cal services. A survey of urban schools (Magary, 1967) indicates that psychologists were first hired by schools as follows: Chicago 1899 `St. Louis 1905 Detroit 1910 New York 1918 Los Angeles 1920 Philadelphia 1920 Atlanta 1921 Minneapolis 1924 The ratio in 1966 of school psychologists to the number of pupils in these large cities is as follows: Chicago 1:7800 New York City 1:5900 Los Angeles 1:5100 Philadelphia 1:7400 Detroit 1 :15, 800 Houston 1:21, 500 Cleveland 1:26, 500 St. Louis 1:7900 Milwaukee 1:4200 San Francisco 1:7000 Seattle 1:6000 Denver 1:6000 Atlanta 1:8800 ~&nnneapolis 1 7000 Portland 1:13,300 ~iiami 1:16, 900 PAGENO="0380" 374 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 STATE OF OREGON, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUOATION, Balem~, Oreg., March 21, 1967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, if ov/se of Representatives, Washington, D.C.: It is my understanding that the U.S. Office of Education is not requesting the extension of Title X of NDEA beyond June 30, 1968. In my judgment, the Title X program for gathering, processing, analyzing, and disseminating pertinent information relating to school staff, pupils, property, program, and finance is a most successful and worthwhile activity. For the first time in the history of educational data, states are submitting comparable and reasonably adequate information to the U.S. Office of Education. I like the matching feature of Title X requiring the state to match federal funds dollar for dollar. This is a desirable partnership arrangement which. places equal responsi~bility for the Title X program on the states. I was recently informed that the U.S. Office of Education is recommending that Title X (NDEA) funds be included in Title V of ESEA. Should this happen, state matching funds will no longer be required, which will probably reduce many states' participation to a minimum. There is need to strengthen this program if states are to continue to feed vital educational data to the U.S. Office of Education. Instead of reducing the amount of funds for this program, and this is actually what the U.S. Office of Education's recommendation does, a larger federal appropriation is needed. Matching federal grants to states of $100,000 to $150,000 would be nearer in line to adequately build an educational information system needed by State Depart- ments of Education and the U.S. Office of Education. May I ask your help in retaining Title X of the National Defense Education Act in its present form? It has become an effective and efficient program, and I have every reason to believe that, through adequate funding, you can expect even better performance. LEON P. MINEAR, Superintendent, Public Instruction. STATEMENT OF HUGH CALKINS, MEMBER, CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Section 623 of the Amendments proposes to amend Subsection 303 (a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 by inserting a paragraph requiring that the State plan set forth any requirements imposed upon an applicant for financial participation "including any provision for taking into account, in such requirements, the resources available to any applicant for such participation relative to the resources for participation available to all other applicants." The purpose of this statement is to suggest that, either by amendment to the proposed legislation or by explicit reference in the legislative history, the in- tent of Congress be made clear that the fiscal problem known as "municipal overburden" be included among the factors to be taken into account by a State in determining resources available to applicant school districts. One of the most important problems in school finance within the States arises from the fact that in certain school districts, principally the larger and older cities, the portion of local taxes (normally property taxes) required for municipal services (police, fire and the like) is much higher than in the average community in the State. This differential is not reflected in the tradi- tional formula by which State money is allocated among school districts. The result is that the big cities are treated as "wealthy" school districts upon the ground that their total property tax base per pupil is higher than the average in the State. This is only a half truth since in fact a smaller por- tion of the property tax base in the cities is available for the costs of educa- tion. The situation in Ohio is illustrated by the enclosed chart. It shows that in Ohio the true measure of the size of the tax base per pupil in the larger cities is 51/G8ths of the figure which is in fact used by Ohio in allocating State money among school districts. The same problem appears in reverse when tax effort is used in State for- mulas. The effort of Ohio's big cities, measured by school taxes alone, is about average in the State. However, their effort for Government services as a whole, and their total local tax. rate, is about 175% of the State average. PAGENO="0381" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 375 This condition exists in many States, and is a principal explanation of the phenomenon documented recently by work done at Syracuse University, that the big cities have higher taxes and lower per pupil expenditures than the sub- urban areas. The reason I bring this matter to the attention of the Committee is not be- cause I think the Federal Government should mandate a change in State foun- dation formulas. However, the amendment to Section 303 (a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 proposed by Section 623 will establish a Federal -requirement that a State plan take into account the resources available to a school district in relation to resources available to other school districts. It seems to me highly desirable that the Federal government require that, for this Federal purpose, the heavy burdens of municipal taxes should be taken *into account. If the States were required to recognize this factor for this Federal purpose, 1 feel confident that they would in a short period, also consider its significance --in allocating State funds. One of the most interesting consequences of Title I of ESEA is its educational effect in leading progressive States- to adopt -similar programs for channeling State funds to the education of the disad- -vantaged. - A recent experience I have had testifying before the Ohio State Board of Education with respect to allocation of Title II Elementary and Secondary Education funds in the State of Ohio confirms that specific reference to this -problem by the Congress is necessary. if the States are not to continue to re- gard property tax base per pupil as the sole criterion of wealth, ignoring the proportion of that tax base which is available for schools. OHIO Per cento~e - 68°/c -~n~9~me I ~- Taxes used ~ o~tO~~BIGcIf~ES5/% EVE~NDj~p~, 0 ID ~.0 30 `+0 50 (oO /0 80 ~0 I0~j PercentoQ.e - STATEMENT BY Dn. JOHN J. NETJMAIER, PRESIDENT OF MOOREHEAD STATE COLLEGE, MOOREHEAD, MINN. A major purpose in this legislation should be to strengthen higher education -programs at all levels, and to take `advantage of teaching and research talents, wherever they are found. Restricting awards for fellow-ships or for research projects to Ph.D-granting -insti'tutions means eliminating contributions that are possible from a great many other colleges and universities. Moreover, -the country becomes largely -dependent upon a relatively few institutions for the development of programs and personnel urgently needed to coin-bat poverty and ignorance and for na- tional defense. Only 129 colleges and universities in the United States -today grant doctor's degrees and consequently are eligible for National Defense Graduate Fellowships, and 76 of these institutions are located in six states- New York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio and `Texas. PAGENO="0382" 376 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENT.S OF 1967 Since the ability to qualify for National Defense Graduate Fellowships and many other federal educational awards is largely governed by a Ph.D.-granting "status," we can probably expect a great many colleges and universities to seek to establish Ph.D. programs, even though these programs will obviously lack the depth and `the strength that is essential. Institutions will `be tempted to structure a new educational form which includes doctoral programs, at least in name, but probably not in content. Encouraging mediocrity in Ph.D. programs perpetuates a kind of educational impoverishment which this country cannot afford. It seems to me the educational, social and defense needs of our nation will be better served if programs and scholars are supported on a basis of indi- vidual merit, not institutional size or prestige. We need very much to broaden the base of support to the nation's colleges and universities if we have any' intention of endeavoring to meet `the critical needs of young people and the multiplying needs of our society. A report, "Programs and Services," published by the U.S. Office of Education, explains that the "amount of federal support to institutions of higher educa- tion in various states and regions is largely influenced by the concentration of such funds in a few institutions." The report reveals, for example, that Massa- chusetts Institute of Technology, which received 60 million dollars, and Harvard, University, with about 41 million dollars, account for two-thirds of the total federal support to institutions of higher education in Massachusetts. The major l'and-grant and private institutions, in fact, account for about four-fifths of' the total federal support to universities and colleges `in `the separate states. Concentrating thi's support in a few institutions, however expedient, rein- forces a system `of institutional privilege, sustaining and preserving positions of influence and alliances of power and discouraging any effort either to discover' or to exploit talent that may be available at less prestigious institutions. The 1966 annual report of the Ford Foundation underscores a serious needi to `put a premium upon `diversity in grant-making and be ready to give a hand to the unorthodox (which can mean help to those who are academically un- fashionable, or unpleasing `to orthodox intellectuals, as well as help to those - who may be critical of what is rather uncritically called the establishment ). A NEW OUTLOOK IN HIGHER, EDUCATION-A NEED FOR A COLLEGE OF COMMuNITY'- SERVICE1 AN UNRECOGNIZED NEED IN HIGHER EDUCATION Mrs. Audrey `0. Cohen, Execuive Director, Women's Talent Corps, Inc., New York, N.Y. In a country dedicated to universal public education, where colleges are~ theoretically open to all who have the necessary ability, there is no adequate place for `the mature dropout, however ambitious and intellectually gifted he or she may be. Evening high schools have not satisfied the need:' Their `programs are dis- couragingly drawn out. The sub ject matter is routine high school fare. The hours are punishing, if not impossible, `for t'he mother of a family who is `often the* mainstay of the family income as `well. Special programs for high `school dropouts, `such as they are, have `been geared to teen-agers. They have made no effort to meet, if indeed they recognize, the~ demand for continuing education from mature working women. The "war on poverty" and the pressures for equal opportunity from minority' groups have resulted in a proliferation of college scholarships and special com- pensatory programs. These have come too late for the thousands of women living' and working in our inner cities who now wish they could continue their education and prepare for more useful lives. Can the existing colleges not accommodate the rising group of people who want higher education in a changing world? College are crowded beyond capacity at the present time with young people of `traditional college age. But even if there- is more physical space after the peak enrollment is passed, colleges have given~~ no evidence that they have `the vision to solve or even -to see the problem. 1 IncorporatIon in process. PAGENO="0383" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 377 Experimentation, it is true, is as much a part of the American tradition as universal education itself. It is true, also, that a series of experimental colleges have been based on the principles that are central to the proposed College of Community Service-individualized programs, respect for work experience, the importance of learning directly from contemporary social situations. Not one of the existing experimental colleges, however-not Antioch, Bennington, or even Black Mountain and Goddard-addresses the problem of providing higher edu- cation for the mature working people of our cities. These are colleges for upper middle class liberals and the few representatives of poor, minority-group young people who can be helped to qualify for admission. As the education historian, Frederick Rudolph, bluntly states, they are "not really peoples' colleges; simply variations on the old elite institutions now operating according to new i.rinciples." (1) In the cities, where the people are, higher educational institutions make little or no attempt to function as "peoples' colleges." In general they deliver a pre- fabricated college education, impartially to all corners, boxed as English-A. Intro- duction to Sociology, six credits of laboratory science. If a mature woman over~ comes the hurdles of the admissions office and can schedule her life to include college attendance, she confronts the same, set, departmentalized courses and the routine requirements, designed for middleclass young people and for the most part unchanged for a generation or more. How useful is that brand of education to those in a ghetto? What relevance does the prescribed college curriculum have for the low-income Negro with a superior mind and uneven preparation, who is determined to help improve the Harlem schools? Negro colleges hold out no solution to the problem, even in the few southern cities where excellent Negro universities exist. In the first place, as Kenneth Clark points out, "Negroes are ambivalent about Negro colleges; even at best, they are ashamed of them, for such colleges are an anachronism." (2) But in any case Negro colleges have been no more sensitive than the institutions they emulate toward the emerging needs of their communities and constituencies. The bold and basic changes, necessary to accommodate rising demands for higher education of the deprived, are not likely to occur in long-established col- leges, Negro or not. "Resistance to fundamental reform," as Rudolph has said, is "ingrained in the American collegiate and university tradition." For more than 300 years, be observes, "except on rare occasions, the historic policy of the Ameri- can college and university (has been) drift, reluctant accommodation, belated recognition that while no one was looking, change had in fact taken place." (3) ~\Tomen of the inner city have every American citizen's right to equal oppor- tunity for higher education. They have been deprived of sufficient preparatory education by a complex of circumstances deriving from poverty and segregation. Now. as. a by-product of the social revolution taking place among urban minori- ties. they are awakened to the potential of education, and many are clamoring for it. The colleges of the establishment are not geared to respond to this rising group, and in fact do not seem to be aware of its existence. In the educational vacuum the Women's Talent Corps proposes to introduce a precedent-ignoring, innovating, peoples' college-The College of Community Service. In September 1966 a radio station carried an announcement of the Women's Talent Corps, a new program of training for jobs in the schools and social agen- cies of New York City's blighted neighborhoods. Within three days the Corps bad received hundreds of inquiries from women eager to fill the openings. A large proportion of applicants for the Corps were Puerto Rican or Negro. The majority were women in their thirties or late twenties, with two or more children. Typically, they were high school dropouts, but many had not attended school be- yond the seventh or eighth grade. A number had once hoped to go to college but had been "counselled" into commercial or home economics courses by the school guidance officer. Staff members of the Women's Talent Corps saw, in the rush of applicant~ an overwhelming willingness among women living in slum conditions to work for community betterment, and an outcry for more education. The result was a design for an institution of higher education that breaks the mold of the traditional college: 1 It meets the women where they are educationally, and helps them pre- pare for equivalency examinations at the secondary level as they begin college work. PAGENO="0384" 378 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 2. It prepares them at once for useful work in the helping professions (teaching, guidance, social work, medicine), and places them in part-time jobs. 3. It carries instruction into the field, utilizing the actual field setting and actual day-to-day tasks on the job as the medium for "methods" teaching. 4. It offers a core curriculum, built on the needs of the professions and the populations being served. Case studies drawn from the field experiences of the group give dramatic relevancy to child psychology, urban sociology, and anthropology, as well as to conversational Spanish and English grammar. 5. It avoids the conventional computation of credit hours and the four- semester, two-year pattern of the junior college, although the program leads to a junior college degree. Instead, it offers learning programs of varying lengths of time, individually developed for each student according to her needs, and includes-for those who wish it-preparation for transfer to a four-year college. The Women's Talent Corps, Inc., is developing the experiniental program out- lined above as The College of Community Service. STATEMENT BY ALLEN D. MARSHALL, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS I am grateful for this opportunity to present the views of United Student Aid Funds concerning HR. 6232. Since my comments must necessarily be based on the experience of my own organization, I should like to start by summarizing the purpose and history of United Student Aid Funds. Ours is a privately supported, nonprofit agency which guarantees low-cost bank loans to college students. On the strength of our guarantee, banks and other lending institutions have agreed to lend students up to $12.50 for every $1 in our reServe. This reserve consists primarily of deposits by colleges and donations by businesses, philanthropic organizations and individuals. Since last August we have also received advances for deposit from the Office of Education under terms of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and something under one- fourth of our loan guarantees are currently backed by Federal deposits. GROWTH OF USA FUNDS We guaranted our first loan in 1961, in Indiana. By the middle of 1962 we had guaranteed about 3,000 loans with a total value of a million and a half dollars, and were beginning operations in a few more states. From then on our expansion was dramatic. Four years later-that is, by June of 1960-we were active in all fifty states. 814 institutions of higher education were depositors in our reserve account, and more than half of the banks in the country were honor- tag our endorsements. More than $05 million worth of loans had been made on the strength of USA Funds guarantees. If our growth was dramatic prior to last June, it has been explosive since then. Total loans guaranteed passed $100 million before the end of the year. More than 10,000 commercial banks, Savings and loan associations and credit unions now participate in our program, as do more than 900 colleges and universities. We expect that our guarantees for the 1960-07 academic year alone will exceed $50 million. THE EFFECT OF FEDERAL "SEED MONEY" While much of this recent growth would have taken place in any event, there is no doubt that it was greatly accelerated as a result of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and specifically by `the infusion of the Federal advances, or so-called "seed money", to which I referred a moment ago. Under the terms of the Act, the "seed money" is allotted to "establish or strengthen" non-Federal guarantee service in the states. Where a state has a guarantee program of its own, the Federal money is deposited in the reserve of that program. If a state has named United Student Aid Funds to operate its program, the Federal money goes to the state, which then deposits it in our reserve. And if the state has no guarantee program of its own, the Office of Education deposits the advance earmarked for that state directly in our account. At the moment, we are operating 12 state PAGENO="0385" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 379 programs and serving in lieu of a state program in 17 states, the District ci! Oolumbia and Puerto Rico. Thus more than half of the states use us in one way or the other to handle their loan guarantees. This is in addition to our regular reserve program, which, as I said earlier, operates in all 50 states. A college thus may have loan capacity on our books as a result of a deposit made by the college itself, as the result of a deposit made by the state, or as the result of a Federal deposit. We find it gratifying that despite the influx of Federal "seed money" in 1966, deposits by schools creating their own reserves increased substantially during the year. In our view, it is psychologically sound for a college to have some of its own money at stake in a program of this kind. We believe it is good for the college, the borrowing students, and the whole con- cept of guaranteed loans, when colleges make deposits to help create lending capacity on behalf of their own students. This is consistent with the philosophy of the National Defense Education Act, where a 10% participation by the college is required by law. Under the United Student Aid Funds program, while we obviously cannot "require" any such deposits, we do encourage deposits by the colleges. By way of comparison with NDEA, it might be said the college par- ticipation with United Student Aid Funds is at an 8% level, since for every $1.00 in our reserve funds lending institutions will make available $12.50 in direct loans `to students. REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE GROWTH This brings me to the question of whether the Federal advances provided under the Higher Education Act of 1965 should be continued. In our judgment, such advances are needed in the near future to support the anticipated loan demand- but they should not be in such form as to discourage private and state support. The response of the private sector to the loan need has been outstanding. In view of the fact that the peak demand for loans came at a moment when money was tigher and credit rates higher than they had been for perhaps forty years, "outstanding" is really too weak a word. In nine months beginning last July 1, financial institutions made guaranteed loans totaling $210 miljion (which is more than the total appropriated for NDEA loans for the entire fiscal year). Next year will be even better. The country owes the banks and other lending institutions participating in the guaranteed loan program-without profit, and often at an actual out-of-pocket loss-a rousing vote of thanks. But the few months which have passed since the first "seed money" was ad- vanced are simply not time enough for full development of so large and complex an undertaking. Some of the hurdles faced by the fledgling guarantee operation were des- cribed in a recent speech by Under Secretary of the Treasury Joseph W. Barr before the New York chapter of the American Institute of Banking. "I can only admit", he said "that this program ha'~ had a rough begin- ning. After it Was enacted `into law in the fall of 1965, it took the Office of Education about six months to really get started. I might say at this juncture that we have had the complete and enthusiastic cooperation of the American Bankers Association, the two `savings and loan association leagues, the Association of Mutual Savings Banks, and the credit unions association (OUNA International). "Our troubles largely can be traced back to the phenomenon known as tight money, which began to be evident in A~pril of last year. Tight money life extremely `difficult for the savings and loans `and the mutual savings banks, and, to a lesser degree, fo'r the credit unions `and the `commerical banks. It made most financial institutions t'hin'k twice about committing them'selves to new and untried programs." Mr. Barr went on to point out that banks found the `costs of getting these loans on the books to be more than they anticipated, so that they were fac- ing a losing rather than a break-even proposition. And they were deluged with paperwork. Nonetheless, he went on: "We still `succeeded `in the fall `semester of 1966 in getting out loans total- ing $160 million to 190,000 students. For the full 1986-1967 year, our orig- inal target was loans to 963,000 students, totaling $700 million. At the moment, we are guessing that we will actually `hit a. level of 480,000 loans `totaling $400 million." He added: "I would `hope that you would agree with me that t'he guaranteed loan program provides the most promising `solution currently available to the problem of financial assistance to the student." 80-155-67--pt. 1-25 PAGENO="0386" 380 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMEI~ES OF 1967 It is clear that the program is on the right track. Half the states have already made appropriations to guarantee programs for their own citizens. Inasmuch as legislative sessions are not simultaneous in all the states, it seems reasonable to give the remaining states more time to take action on behalf of their citizens, with the stand-by Federal guarantee remaining inoperative, as it is now. We believe activation of a Federal guarantee program would soon dry up existing state and private guarantee effort. We also believe it would depress bank par- ticipation, and in this view the American Bankers Association concurs. Under the circumstances, continuation of Federal "seed money" for a limited period appears to be advisable. THE DANGER OF OVER-DORROWING A second matter that I hope this Committee will reconsider is the existing prohibition on consideration of need in recommending or granting loans. I do not think this prohibition has worked out quite the way Congress intended. Simply stated, the law provides that no student will be denied the benefits of the guaranteed loan program, based on consideration of his family income or his lack of need. The practical effect of this is that student financial aid officers uniformly feel closed from counseling effectively with students as to amounts they should borrow. Further, they feel frustrated in their inability to coordinate the total assortment of student aid items they generally administer. For example, they feel they cannot effectively relate scholarship aid, work-study activity, and the like, along with guaranteed lending, into a total package for a particular student. We think this is a mistake which ought to be corrected. I want to emphasize, however, that we do not advocate a needs test in the sense of fixing any dollar amount for family income, or in the sense of prescribing any dollar level of family net worth as means of determining whether need exists or does i~ot exist. We don't think this dollar approach is either advisable or necessary. In fact, it is often the case that a greater need exists with a higher income family than with a lower income family, depending on the situation. A boy or girl from a $30,000 income family may have greater need in a particular case than a boy or girl from, say, a $12,000 family. This will depend on many things. The higher income family might have three or four children in college at the same time, the lower income family perhaps only one. All we suggest in this whole situation is that the law and its intent be stated in such a way that the student financial aid officer may be a meaningful participant with the student, the student's family and the lender in helping the student decide on the amounts he will borrow. As the law is now written, this kind of participation is foreclosed. Information which comes to us almost daily from lenders and colleges; all across the country convinces me that this is a real problem. For example, I am informed again by both bankers and college administrators that there is a sharp and continuing rise in loan applications from students who appear to have adequate resources. And a growing number of students are borrowing up to the full $1,000 annual limit, whether or not they need that much. This unnecessary borrowing certainly does the borrower no good. Sooner or later he is going to have to pay that money back, and the more he has to pay the more difficult it will be. Prudence in borrowing, like promptness in repayment, is as good a rule for a college student as it is for his father. Over-borrowing has the additional effect of reducing the amount of money re- maining for loans to the young men and women who without such help might really be forced to discontinue their education. The funds available for nonprofit loans are limited, and banks would like to allot them to students who need the money most. I suggest that this portion of the Act be changed to say that income level alone should not be a factor in granting or refusing a loan. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS I understand that a Treasury task force is now making a study which may lead to recommendations for lightening the cost load to lenders-one of the most serious obstacles to getting the added banks we need into the program. We shall therefore make no recommendation on this point now. We do, however, have one last suggestion. We should like to see colleges have more loan options. Some colleges have substantial funds which can only be used PAGENO="0387" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 381 to make loans to their students. If government policyis to pay part of the interest on guaranteed loans, and if a college is making a direct loan to a student, there~ seems to be no reason why the government should not pay interest on that loan an well. We find that a very considerable body of sentiment for this change exists in the colleges. We believe also that those colleges which wish to do so should have the option of depositing some percentage of NDEA repayments in the reserve fund of a guarantee agency. Here again we find widespread sentiment in favor of this pro- posal among colleges. They don't want to tamper with NDEA, or diminish its effectiveness in any way. Neither do we. However, I do think Congress should. examine this suggestion very closely, bearing in mind that it places the option to~ act or not act in the college itself. In many cases colleges might not assert the' option. In many others, however, colleges might well view the option as a meana of multiplying the loan funds available to their own students. We think it should be in the interest of the overall student financial aid effort to give such an option to the college. In closing, let me restate my strong belief that guaranteed loans to students are now, and will continue to be, a vital and growing portion of student financial aid. Working along with other aid programs, it offers a very desirable blend and balance. We are pleased that Congress has seen fit to encourage private nonprofit and state guarantee services, and we urge that this encouragement be continued. The Higher Education Act of 1965 has greatly stimulated the work of private non- profit and state guarantee agencies, principally because `of the Federal "seed money" advances on behalf of the several states arid through the Federal pay- ment of an interest subsidy for most borrowers. The absence of a Federal insur- ance program as such has greatly stimulated the growth of state and private nonprofit guarantee effort. In this regard, we would cite the fact that the last year has seen a sharp increase in the number of states appropriating their own funds to guarantee purposes. Likewise, there has been a very sharp increase in the financial participation of colleges themselves, in the form of deposits made to guarantee reserve funds. The performance of lenders, under severely adverse conditions, has been tremendously gratifying. This is not to say that the process to date has been without problems. It has had many, most of them in recent months coming from the adjustments necessary because of the Federal Govern- ment's involvement under the terms of the 1-ligher Education Act `of 1965. And even though that Federal Act became law iii November, 1965, we have had only one semester's experience with the provisions relating to guaranteed loans. It was not until the fail semester of 1966 was about to begin that Federal "seed money" advances were available to the states. Federal regulations under the program were available only a short `time before that. Thus, more time is needed to see how well the existing system will work out. We urge that Congress authorize a continuation for two `or three more years under existing ground rules. We have every confidence that the program will succeed fully under state and private nonprofit guarantee auspices. Yet, as I pointed out earlier, with only one semester's effective experience since the enactment of the Federal Higher Education Act, there has simply not been time enough for the full development of so large and complex an undertaking. STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES-PROPOSED AMEND- MENTS TO TITLE IV, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 I. THE ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES AIJEC was organized in 1939 and now consists of 154 member institutions of higher learning distributed over 36 states and Canada. In addition, AUEC in- cludes 153 associate and contributing members who are deans, directors and ad- ministrative officers of evening colleges and universities. The main concern of ATJEC is the advancement of collegiate evening education of adults in degree-granting curricula. AUEC deems this objective as a basic function and responsibility of institutions of higher learning. AT5EC promotes high standards for professional excellence; stimulates faculty leadership in constructive support of evening college objectives; sponsors re- search on evening college problems; and cooperates with other groups and organ- izations in the achievement of these goals. PAGENO="0388" 382 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 IL UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES Approximately one-third of college enrollments in curricula leading to the baccalaureate degree consists of part-time students in evening colleges. This type of evening education at the college level is a phenomenon unique to the United States. According to reports of the United States Office of Education, there was 5.56 million students enrolled in degree-credit curricula in the fall of 1965. Of these, 3.93 million were on full-time and 1.63 million on part-time attendance. (OE- M003-65, Circular No. 790) Evening colleges are an essential part of the system of higher education in the Tlnited States. Designed primarily for adults employed during the day, who seek to continue their education at night, the university evening colleges have grad- ually expanded their facilities to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student body. In addition to offering complete programs of evening instruction in a variety of curricula leading to associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, many of these schools conduct forums, institutes, short courses, and non-credit programs at all hours in response to the demands of a serious and mature citizenry. By serving the requirements of adult students who wish to resume or continue their studies, the evening colleges are making an invaluable contribution to contempo- rary American culture while, at the same time, widening the scope and enhancing the intellectual mission of the universities of which they are a part. The twentieth century is best characterized as an age of change. Not only is there constant obsolescence of machines and methods, but there is constant obso- lescence in the learning of men. Man's knowledge is increasing at an unprecedented rate. Technological advancements and change in almost every field of endeavor miecessitate widening of horizons for people already employed. The lengthening life span reflects a steadily rising percentage of the population in the age group of twenty one and over. Labor saving devices and automation continue to shorten the work day and week. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the cultural aspects of society. All of these factors favor a limitless pursuit of learning-a privilege not possible for previous generations. In recognizing the importance of the need for opportunities for part-time study, the Association of University Evening Colleges dedicates itself to the encourage- ment and support of high quality degree programs for adults among its member institutions of higher learning. III. PROPO5ED AMENDMENT5 TO TITLE iv Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 provides for student financial assistance in three forms. First, it establishes "educational opportunity grants" to institutions to enable them to provide undergraduate scholarships to "qualified high school graduates of exceptional financial need, who for lack of financial means of their own of their families" would be unable to obtain the benefits of higher education without scholarship aid. Second, it establishes a low-interest insured loan program designed to absorb interest costs during the period of study and to pay a portion of the interest thereafter on insuted loans made to qualified students. Third, it provides for work-study programs. Grants, loans, and jobs are the triad of Title IV. A. SCHOLARSHIP GRANTS Scholarship grants, which are limited to lull-time studeiits, may not `be less than $200 a year or more than $800 a year or one-half the amount received by the student from all other scholarships (public or private), whichever is lower. Thus the institution must in effect equally match the federal "educational opportunity grant." B. IN5URED LOANS While scholarship grants are available only to full-time students in good standing, insured loans, on the other hand, are available to students who are "carrying at least one-half of the normal full-time workload as determined by the institution." Part-time students enrolled in evening colleges thus do not qualify for scholarship aid even though they may be low-income wage earners or come from low-income families. But, significantly, part-time students are eligible to mortgage their futures under the insured loan program by borrowing. Why the discriminatory treatment of part-time students? PAGENO="0389" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 383 C. WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS While the purpose is "to stimulate and promote the part-time employment of students, particularly students from low-income families," it significantly limits work-study programs to f~il1-time sti~ulents. This limitation, too, is dis- criminatory because worthy and otherwise eligible part-time students are dis- qualified from admission to a college work-study program. D. MATCHING ON WORK-STUDY PROGRAMS Until June 30, 1007, the institution was required to contribute 10% of the total fund for the work-study program, the remaining 90% being contributed by the federal government. Thereafter, the matching ratio will be 25%-75%. No over- head is allowed to the institution in the Federal grant for work-study programs unless the work is of a community action type under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act. In that case, 5% overhead is allowed. The Higher Education Act of 1965 made no changes in these matching requirements. The 25% matching provision is prohibitive for many institutions and the 10% matching should be maintaineth PROPOSAL The discriminatory features of Title IV should be eliminated and opportuni- ties for scholarships and work-study participation should be accorded to part- time students on a reasonably proportionate formula basis. Specifically, AUEO respectfully requests that Title IV be amended in the following respects: 1. Recognition of eligibility of part-time students under Title IV for educa- tional opportunity grants and work-study programs on an equitable formula basis reasonably related to full-time attendance. 2. A uniform definition of full-time students (12 or more credits), and part- time students (less than 12 credits but at least 6 credits). The determination of full-time attendance should also be as defined by the institution, if higher than that stated. 3. Freezing of the 10% institutional contribution in college work-study pro- grams and repeal of the 25%-75% escalation. 4. Recognition of tuition-free institutions, on a reasonable formula basis,. with respect to institutional matching for educational opportunity grants. The problem arises out of an administrative ruling, a copy of which is attached~ denying such recognition by the use of the world "arbitrary." In our judgment, the administrative ruling is contrary to law and the statue should be amended to abrogate the ruling. 5. In addition, earnings from work-study programs to the extent of the institutional share should be included as insti.tutional matching for educa- tional opportunity grants. 6. Adequacy of appropriations for all three Title IV programs. THE EVIDENCE OF NEED Summarized below are pertinent statements in writing received by the Legis- lative Committee of AUEC concerning the proposed amendments to Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Copies of these letters will be furnished upon request. The summary below contains appropriate excerpts from all the replies re- ceived to the questionnaire of the Legislative Committee of AUEC without regard to the position taken. It is evident that the majority are opposed to the present discrimination under Title IV against part-time students. Dean Clemo of Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, writes in part: "I would anticipate no trouble at all on the 10% matching should we ever have need to do so but I would anticipate considerable trouble on the 25% matching. "On the other hand, I could not agree more that evening students (or, rather, part-time students) should not be discriminated against in the receipt of scholarship grants arid I would strongly urge a revision of this law." Director Southouse of the University of Bridgeport, Bridgeport, Connecticut, writes in part: "In regard to institutional matching problems, I would simply say that the problem is that this institution could not afford to match any grant PAGENO="0390" 384 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 from the government on a 25-75 per cent basis. The desirability of the suggested amendments certainly should be clear to any legislative committee." Dean Bushey of the University of Chattanooga, Chattanooga, Tennessee, writes in part: "The increase in the matching funds to be provided by the University for the work-study program will work some hardship on us since we have a private institution and work on a close budget. Of course, I favor legislation to remove discriminatory practices related to part-time students. As we realize, far too few legislators realize the im- portance of continuing education for adults and the need to make proper provisions for this segment of higher education." Coordinator Farmer of the City College of the City University of New York, writes in part: "I have found that many of our evening part-time students who come from the poverty areas of the City could eke out a more acceptable standard of living if they were given the opportunity of participating in the Work- Study program. The margin between existence and subsistence is sometimes a very narrow one... You have my unqualified support as suggested amendments are long over- due and should provide a standard principle for the benefit of part-time students which should appear in all legislation affecting higher education." Dean Harpel of the University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, writes in part: "The question seems to be why the student is attending part-time. Often he is married with family obligations and simply cannot afford to be a full- time student. If, however, it is at all possible with the help of all university resources to bring the student to a full-time status, every effort is made at the University of Colorado to do so. The University of Colorado has at- tempted to use institutional funds for tuition grants to meet the need of the student who finds it impossible to attend full-time... The real value of federal aid to the part-time student would seem to be to lighten his work load by providing a Work-Study position and supple- menting it with grant or loan funds to make up for the ioss in earnings. I would strongly support the inclusion of part-time students in the Educa- tional Opportunity Grant and Work-Study Programs." Director Sonneborn of the University of Detroit. Detroit, Michigan, writes in part: "It is suggested that financial aid fulfill only educational costs rather than attempt to satisfy overall financial need as in the case of a full-time stu- dent. As an example, a part-time studOnt who is a part-time worker would be a charity case as far as financial assistance is concerned, with no real progress toward the obtainment of a degree because of a light academic load. Matching would not be a problem, except that available University funds would be called upon to a much greater degree to provide a match." Dean Gwiazda of the Drexel Institute of Technology, Philadelphia, Pennsyl- vania, writes in part: "If educational opportunity grants were made available to evening col- lege students, the Institute monies now available could be used for match- ing federal funds, thus doubling the monies available to students. I am certain this would benefit those who find the present $150 grant-in-aid hardly sufficient to dent their financial burden. In view of rising costs, tuitions, and fees, and no increase in private funds for scholarships and grants-in-aid, federal funds are sorely needed to encourage the qualified part-time student to continue his education. If the availability `of these funds were made known in the underprivileged urban areas, more qualified in- dividuals could be attracted to continue their education from among those who are convinced they cannot afford the high tuition costs of an evening college." Director Jones~ of Drury College, Springfield. Missouri, writes in part: "The cases we have found where adult students need help financially have been concerned largely with women who were employed part time or not at all and yet had a `strong motivation for completing college. I have in mind two cases of divorced women who were faced with `supporting a family and who felt they could do so if they could get enough financial help to complete an already started college course. In both the cases I have in mind. the adult student already h'ad two years or more of college work. In both of these PAGENO="0391" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 385 cases the mother could not hold a full-time job, care for her family and make progress toward a degree without some financial assistance. In the case of the adult male student, quite often the employer is helping with his tuition and we have not found the need to be so great. We would have some problems with institutional matching funds but we could meet them in a limited way. I believe as far as our demand is con- cerned we could meet matching funds without too great difficulty but we have no general college funds in loans or in scholarships which are available to the part-Lime students. However, we believe that we could set up a fund which would match federal money. We have no interest in work-study programs for adults because our college is small and we do not have an unlimited number of needs and, too, most of the people who could participate in a work-study program could also partici- pate in regular emplojment at regular wages." I )irector Mackensen of Fairleigh Dickinson University, Rutherford, New Jer- ~ey, writes in part: "Work-study programs would be of no assistance to a part-time student fully employed during the day since hourly wage rates are higher in the local labor market. Educational Opportunity Grants would be effective for ex- treme hardship cases involving direct contribution of the student's earn- ings for family support. This type of case has occurred once or twice in the past year. Recently, a high school senior was accepted to the Evening Division of Fairleigh Dickinson University. The student's guidance counselor requested information as to availability of financial aid for this student. The boy quali- fies financially to receive an Educational Opportunity Grant-his family exists on welfare. Prospective students such as this could benefit greatly from the Educa- tional Opportunity Grant if such awards were available to part-time students." Dean Robinson of Hunter College in the Bronx of the City University of New York, Bronx, New York, writes in part: "It would seem most desirable to make it possible for deserving students- who are likely to earn a degree-to be given financial aid." Director McGuff of Indiana Central College, Indianapolis, Indiana, writes in ~part: "Possibly because of the nature, of our institution-we are a private school located in a community with full and active competition to state uni- versities-we have not experienced the problem of indicating a need for educational opportunity grants or work-study programs. Our students are employed, and more than one-third of them are receiving financial reim- bursement from their employers. The average age of our students is thirty- one years. I 10 not believe that our experiences are typical of many of the other evening or extension programs." Financial Aid Officer Ballentine of John Carroll University, Cleveland, Ohio, writes in part: "The biggest problem in this area is the allocation of funds for six month periods. The demand for Work-Study has increased for `on-campus' em- ployment. I find it very difficult to work in a six month allotment because we have to consider financial aid for a whole year. In order to take care of the student demand, deficit spending of `OWS' Funds may result. The match- ing requirement should stay at 9O%-1O% proportions, inasmuch as `on- campus" employment costs the school administrative expenses which are not reimbursed. The 75%-25% ratio is not satisfactory." Dean Mumma of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, writes in part: "Our cumulative enrollment during the academic year is approximately seventy-five hundred students. Virtually all of these adults are employed dur- ing the day and are taking a part-time program during the evening hours. A large percentage receive financial assistance in paying their tuition from their employers. Perhaps a thousand others are receiving support from the Federal Government because they are either on active duty or are veterans. "We have a few scholarships, not many really, and these are advertised in our catalogue and in the metropolitan newspapers. However, we receive very few applications for these scholarships and every year we have scholarship money which is not used." PAGENO="0392" 386 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Director Hill of the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, writes in part: "The financial problems of evening class students are something of which we have been aware for some time. Fortunately, many large industrial and business firms in the Twin Cities off-set tuition costs for their employees. But there are many students in the Twin City area who are not employed by continuing-education~mjnde~ companies. "Many of our students are sincerely interested in bettering themselves, but are handicapped by lack of financial resources. For example, a young `lady who works in a `downtown office may be paid less than $250 per month. Since she is self supporting, she usually finds `that after having `taken care of her basic needs-food, housing, clothing and transportation-she will have little money left for `education "Unfortunately, Title II regulations require that an institution provide matching funds. This clause `of the Act would create financial problems for' the Department of Evening Classes, since the cost of instructors', `administra- tion and supplies must `be off-set by student tuition. The 10% provision in 1967 was not at the point of `being prohibitive, but the 25% provision would make it virtually impossible for the Department of Evening Classes to assist students under Title II of the Economic Opportunity Act. "For the above reason, I strongly advocate that the Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, be amended to give consideration to the part-time student. Further, I `believe it necessary `for our type of self-sustaining operation that our contribution to the program `be reduced to less than 10% and preferably reduced to the point at which we make no contributions whatsoever." Dean Pliska of Old Dominion College, Norfolk, Virginia, writes in part: "Evening College students may borrow from local banks, but `this' year be- cause of the tight money situation and `low interest rates, loans were not that easily available. `Some persons are likely to consider a person who cannot pay a tuition fee of $42.00 (three credits) or $84.00 as a poor risk. "Because the College has n'o scholarship fund for part-time `students the Evening College Honors Society is establishing such a fund to be available during the coming academic year." Secretary Waidman of Pace College, New York, New York, writes in part: "Our Scholarship and Financial Aid Officer tells me that not a single in- quiry has been received from part-time students. Both of us feel `that perhaps students working in the `downtown lower Manhattan area would not qualify for either' jrogram because of their level of income. "We would anticipate no problems with matching funds since we have a substantial amount budgeted each year as Trustee T'uition Grants." Director Barden of the Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, writes in part: "It appears the amendments are desirable if we are to carry the almost forgotten cause of part-time evening students to the national powers in higher education." Dean Hostetter of the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York, writes in part: "Personally, I fail to see the need for this type of aid for these students since if we prorate the E.O.G. aid on the basis of proportion of course work taken by the two groups the amount of money available to our part-time students would be minimal and in addition we lack matching funds. Like- wise a student carrying a full-time job and a part-time academic load with us has no time available to devote to work on a work-study program." Dean Pease of the Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, writes in part: "We would have very great institutional matching problems at the present time. We are moving into a $53 million campus which has us `in hock' for something over $40 million and the next year or two our budgets are going to be exceedingly tight. Because of the attitude of Rochester employers in granting tuition reimbursement, and I might add that this is rapidly moving to 100 percent without any maximum in a given year, and as the men who are responsible for these policies in their companies are also members of our Board of Trustees it is just not compatible on the one `hand to be push- ing them to increase their contribution to the student's tuition through re- imbursement and on the other hand asking them to approve a policy in which their taxes are going to be raised to pay the interest on a deferred loan. PAGENO="0393" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 387 "I think you can gather from this that the opinion at the Institute is that we might much better spend our time selling employers on the idea of re- imbursement of tuition for their employees than worrying about getting governmental loans." Director Rigney of Saint Joseph's College, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, writes in part: "In the last year and a half we have successfully conducted a college work study program with a grant of funds under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965. As required by the statute, the participating institution con- tributed 10% of the total amount paid to the students participating in the work-study program. "For the fiscal year 1967-1968, the statute requires the institution to con: tribute 25%. This requirement will seriously jeopardize the continuation of the program "The Economical Act was primarily to help the students from low income families . . . but aside from the Work Study program, little or no help has yet been given to low income families. "This writer has interviewed many parents from low income families, and most stated that it was all they could afford to send their children to high school; after that, the children would have to get a job to help the financial condition of the family. "If the work study program is stopped or even curtailed, in many colleges fewer students will be able to be helped and not be able to continue their higher education. A low income family must sacrifice an awful lot in loss of income that a high school graduate could supply by getting a job and contributing financial help. "My I urgently request that you propose or support a bill to freeze the institutional matching at the 10% level for the 1967-1968 fiscal year. To do so will he in the public interest." Dean Barrows of Saint Peter's College, Jersey City, New Jersey, writes in part: "The greater number of requests for the work-study program came from students with part-time jobs. These, of course, we have been unable to favor because of the priority given to full-time students. With regard to matching, we have difficulty now, under the 10 per cent provision, in meeting the demands of full-time students. It is hardly likely that the situation will improve under the 25 per cent provision. I am in favor of the suggested amendments, that the discriminatory fea- tures of Title IV should be eliminated and opportunities for scholarships and work-study participation should be accorded to part-time students on a reasonably proportionate formula basis." Dean Hadley of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Californ1a~ writes in part: "While we sympathize with the objective of your legislative committee, r am afraid that evidence from this University would not be helpful. We have received no application to date from students employed outside the Univer- sity full-time to engage in work-study programs to finance evening courses. Our experience, I am informed, is that students who are employed full-time are able to finance a course or two if they wish to attend this University. If the do apply for NDEA loans, which are now available to them, they usually fail to qualify on the basis of need." Dean Arnold of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, writes: "As of the present, we do not have experiences to relate. Our fees are low, and our needs for such grants and/or work-study programs are not critical. Our institution would match the funds as a matter of course. While our problem is not critical now, increasing costs and additional educational requirements will make this program most desirable." Dr. Palmer of Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas, writes in part: Under the existing circumstances we have approximately ten students applying each semester for financial assistance. Where they meet the re- quirements they are given assistance. If Title IV for the higher education act for 1965 were amended to cover the part-time students we feel sure that it would help some individuals but we cannot identify them as to number. We do feel that this discriminatory limitation should be eliminated in any event. We believe that it would be possible to meet the matching requirements~ here because we do not anticipate a large volume and believe that it could be handled in the overall picture. We can see how this might be more of a problem at other institutions." PAGENO="0394" 388 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 Dean Bruderle of Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, writes in part: "Although we have made no study of the problem and no specific cases of need for Educational Opportunity Grants and/or work-study programs, we are sure the need exists and certainly endorse the proposed amend- ments. There might be some problems regarding institutional matching, especially if it were 25%. For us, a private, Church-related institution, even 10% might'be difficult." Dean Floyd of Western New England College, Springfield. Massachusetts, writes iii part: "We are a `small college with limited institutional financial resources and of course the 75%-25% matching formula is more of a strain on us than the 90%-1O% now required. As indicated in the answer to the first question above, this is not related to `the Evening Division in our current experience, but to the full-time students in the Day Division." Coordinator Luton of Western Reserve Un'iversity, Cleveland, Ohio, writes in part: "We strongly favor the extension of all feasible financial aid opportunities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act to part-time students, and we heartily commend you for your efforts in their behalf. At Cleveland Col- lege of Western Reserve University we have a part-time enrollment of 1,306 `students compared with a full-time enrollment of 161. Many of these part- time students certainly need and deserve financial `help but are unable to qualify because they find it impossible to attend college full time because of the press `of other responsibilities. It is certainly relevant that during the current academic year (1966-67) we have managed to find some kind of financial aid (scholarships, grants, or loans) for 26 part-time as well as 21 full-time students. Of the 2 part- time people, 13, or exactly one half, took course work amounting to nine credit hours, and eight students took six credit hours. The remaining five students registered for 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 academic hours. There is doubt that if funds were more readily available for part-time students, many more would apply for and utilize financial aid to hasten and ensure attainment of their academic goals. At present, for many adults there is no way to make a realistic combination of part-time work and part-time education where both are in sufficient quantity to be significant. This is the large group that is penalized by the present requirements of Title IV In the light of the above, we believe that our need is evident, and that it would be highly desirable to pursue amendments to the effect that the dis- criminatory features of Title IV should be eliminated and opportunities for scholarships and work-study participation should be accorded to part-time students on a reasonably proportionate formula basis." Director Pappert of the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, writes in part: "As a point of interest, we do have some students who are required to with- draw from their evening studies because of financial pressure. We regret this very much but at the present time there is no legislation available for their assistance." CONCLUSION It is respectfully submitted that the proposed amendments will eliminate the inequity and discrimination now affecting part-time students and will advance the purposes of the Higher Education Act of 1965. Therefore, the proposed amendment should be approved and adequate ap- propriations recommended to carry out the purposes thereof. It is further respectfully requested that this statement submitted by the As- sociation `of University Evening Colleges be made part of the record of the Committee's hearings. STATEMENT n~ Mns. EDWARD P. RYAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION On behalf of the National Congress of Parents `and Teachers we should like to offer brief comments in respect to the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. In making these comments we are governed `by the policy~ to which National PTA has subscribed throughout its history, and which has `been explicitly Stated in its Legislation Program since 1945: that funds appropriated PAGENO="0395" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 389 by the federal government for education should go only to public tax-supported institutions. We are thus limited in the support we may offer these programs in that the Higher Education Act has previously provided aid to non-public institutions. Nevertheless there are certain points we wish to offer for consideration. Title I. We welcome and support the concept of advance authorization of funds which allows adequate planning and therefore more advantageous use. We very strongly oppose, however, the new autliorhmtion of giants to private organizations in Section 107, and again in Section 403. We believe the profit- making institutions which supply educational needs should be directly responsive to the direction of education, not to the direction of federal agencies. Title II. We support the extension of training facilities for librarians who are all too few to meet current needs, and the proposed authorizations. We support the proposed increase in services of the Library of Congress and the full author- ization of $7,700,000 for the increased catalog and materials program. Very likely no other single program can yield more widespread benefits to students all over the country than these library programs, and it would be a false economy to delay this concrete training resource. Title III. We support the concern for the quality of developing institutions, particularly as these include community colleges which we see as a major factor in educating the large numbers of able young people for whom education beyond the high school is now unavaila:ble. The proposed authorization of $55,000,000 is not large, but would be an assistance to states already financially burdened. Title ITT. In respect to student assistance programs, we would observe that this method is much superior to that of tax credits for tuition, which are more likely to aid colleges than individuals, and private much more than public colleges. Title T~. We support the Education Professions Development program, which would include the needed evaluation of programs available for teaching, ad- ministration, and teacher-related responsibilities, and for assessment of future needs, as well as fellowships for teacher preparation. In toto, this Title appears to provide for meeting what is probably the most urgent need of educatloil at all levels, and we support the full appropriation of authorized funds. We support, in addition, specific provision in Part D of this Title for training National Teacher Corps internes, with funding as previously authorized. Wide observation by our members aad enthusiastic reports to us by school adminis- trators describe a program which is uniquely training teachers in the attitudes and methods necessary to reach disadvantaged children. We are informed by a variety of professional sources that this specific training has not been hitherto available, and reported experiences in city school systems support this infor- mation. We are further informed that the National Teacher Corps experience is already bringing about desirable changes in established teacher education programs. Such changes are not yet so widespread, however, that we can take them for granted. We fear that if this highly innovative and highly specific program is lost the present impetus toward training teachers in the desired attitudes and methods will also be lost, and we can ill afford this in the present state of inner-city schools. We therefore most earnestly request that the Na- tional Teacher Corps be continued for its present good influence, while the Education Professions Development program is implemented without delay for the broader needs of education. Title 171. In general our comment on this Title is governed by our policy re- specting the use of public funds, but we would specifically commend the elimi- nation of subject limitations in the use of NDEA funds. Title T7111. We would request a reconsideration of the limitation on langauge centers and fellowships to fiscal 1969, whereas other titles are to be extended through 1973. If it is expected that these programs are to be transferred to the International Education Act, we would suggest that funds for this Act have not yet been appropriated. If authorization for the language programs is ex- tended, they could still be transferred when the International Education Act programs have been established. Title IX. We welcome the extension of NDEA programs to the Trust Terri- tory of the Pacific Islands, the schools of the Department of the Interior for Indian children, and for the overseas dependents schools under the Depart- ment of Defense. We shall appreciate very greatly any consideration the commmittee may give to these views. PAGENO="0396" 390 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, N.J., May 11, 1967. Hon. EDITH GREEN, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Education, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, DCI. DEAR MRS. GREEN: During the hearings being held upon HR 6232 (including some amendments to Title 11-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, PL 89-329)~ I wish to ask your support for particular parts of the program which I believe are of very considerable importance on a national level to education in librarian- ship and information science. Title IT-B, as you know, provides financial support to train professional per- sons for service in libraries and information centers. This includes education at the doctoral and post-master's levels (to qualify persons to teach in higher educa- tion and to carry on research) and at the master's level (personnel to man the information centers in academic, public, school, and special libraries). There is a great shortage of professional librarians of all kinds and, perhaps most critically, of those who are qualified by doctoral study to teach in graduate pro- fessional schools. The present support for this part of the program is minimal and should be increased at least to the amount authorized by law (15 million dollars for training and research. Title 11-13 also provides support for research in librarianship and information science and for demonstration projects. For many historical reasons, basic re- search in this field is in an elementary stage (either it has not been done or in many cases it has not been soundly based), and steadily increasing support for it must be forthcoming if the acquisition, storage, and communication of informa- tion in the United States is to develop to meet the national need. Funds for professional education and research in the field have been minimal at the start (1966. 1967), and this support must be regarded as a program of gradual implementation and not a proper standard. An apparently large proposed increase for 1968 (from $3.75 million to $8.25) must in addition fund the insti- tutes for school library personnel which have up to now been financed under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and which by law must he sup- ported at at least the same level under the new authority. The effect of Title 11-B of the HEA has been markedly to stimulate interest in doctoral study in the field and has attracted some hundreds of inquiries here during a calendar year (instead of several dozen) and made it possible to select from two to three times as many outstanding candidates for the Ph.D. as here- tofore; this support to individuals and institutions has, therefore, made an imme- diate improvement in the educational outlook. Since funding at the master's level has thus far been very limited (where the need, numerically at least, is much greater), the change to date has been less evident. Funds for research are at this time just about to be awarded for the first time under the Act. The proposal in HR 6232 to amend the Higher Education Act to support plan- fling and development grants to encourage the opening of new graduate schools and the upgrading of existing programs would help to alleviate the present real shortage of educational facilities, including the upgrading of some which are not now at a satisfactory standard. I believe this is an essential part of the total program and would suggest that it would be more appropriately included under Sec. 223 (a) of the Act-Grants for Training in Librarianship than under Sec. 224 (a)-Research and Demonstration, as proposed. I ask your support for increased funding for training and research in librarian- ship under Title IT-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and for new support to plan and develop new and existing educational programs in this professional field. An early extension of the titles which expire at the end of fiscal 1968 would be extremely helpful to us in carrying on long-range planning. ~\~ith appreciation and best wishes. Yours sincerely, NEAL HARLOW, Dean. TEsmIoNY OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN At the outset, Madame Chairman, I want to express my deep gratitude to you and the members of the Subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity to contribute testimony to your consideration of Amendments to the National Defense Education Act. PAGENO="0397" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 391 My remarks today will be directed to ll.R. 8203, legislation which I have introduced to assist in closing what has been termed "the defense education gap." It is a situation in which Government policies have failed to recognize the contribution and needs of a segment of our school population, and have failed to provide adequate assistance. Let me begin at the beginning. In 1958, after the Russians had launched their sputnik into space, the Con- gress enacted the National Defense Education Act to meet the challenge of the space age in our national security and defense. This program was intended to correct existing imbalances in American edu- cation which bad led to insufficient numbers of American students in elementary and secondary schools being educated in science, math, modern foreign languages and other related subjects. An important provision of this legislation, title III, provided for matching Federal grants for the purchase of laboratory and other special instructional equipment. Although this program was aimed at increasing the scientific and other de- fense-related aptitudes of all our Nation's schoolchildren, discrimination was written into the bill. A youngster who went to a public school could have full benefit of the pro- gram of matching Federal grants. One who went to a nonpublic, parochial or private school could benefit only from loans, not grants. The loans must be paid back in ten years and carry an interest rate which currently is about four percent. Because of their bard~pressed financial condi- tions, most nonpublic schools have found it almost impossible to participate in NDEA title III programs. They simply cannot take on the financial obligations which a loan entails. In the eight years of its existence, the NDEA program has provided $328 million in Federal funds for laboratory and other special equipment to public school children. During the same period, only $4.5 million has gone to students in nonpublic schools-and that in loans only. At this point I would like to include figures which have been provided to me by the Office of Education on the year-by-year appropriations and expenditures under title III of NDEA. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE-OFFICE OF EDUCATION Appropriations, obligations, and ewpenditures wnder title III of the National Defense Education Act, fiscal years 1959-UG GRANTS TO STATES Appropria- tion Obligations Expendi- tures Amount lapsing 1959 1960 1961 1962 1953 1964 1965 1966 $49,280,000 52,800,000 47, 520, 000 47.520,000 47 520 000 1 43, 634, 430 70,400,000 79,200,000 $32,607,341 46,335,475 29, 944, 635 44,120,210 43 099 707 ~ 548, 752 69,992,539 79,086,908 $32,617,341 46,331,593 25, 144, 086 36,328,062 30 540 753 52, 691, 937 46,301,753 18,039,903 $5,415,327 5,000,825 8,114, 627 4,763,608 3,063,288 1,003,410 407,461 113,092 LOANS TO NONPROFIT PRIVATE SCHOOLS 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 $6,720,000 7,200,000 6,480,000 6,480,000 6,480,000 750,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 $1,104,920 393,897 651,485 671,727 615,977 520,780 400,331 786, 443 $013,253 1,203,468 618,914 615,727 535,881 662,336 429, 566 438, 755 $5,717,101 6,809,903 5,828,515 5,808,273 5,480,000 229,220 599,669 713, 557 1 Plus $36,326,299 carried over from 1963. NoTE-From 1959 through 1963 the funds appropriated to both grants and loans were available for 2 years. Beginning with the 1964 appropriations, funds appropriated have been available for only 1 year. PAGENO="0398" 392 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 A study of these figures makes several things clear: the funds appropriated for grants to public schools usually have been fully used. Funds set aside for loans to nonpublic schools generally have not been used-for the reasons previously cited. You will note that in every year of the program's operation except 1964, the amounts lapsing were greater than the actual loan expenditures. In 1961, 1962 and 1963, the amounts which went unused were ten times the amount actually loaned out to nonpublic schools. It takes no great amount of imagination to see what has happened over the 8 year period. Because of title III, the defense-related education of public school children has been tremendously benefited. At the same time, the defense- related education of non-public school children has been assisted minimally. The result of this provision of the National Defense Education Act, therefore, has been to widen the gap between the public and nonpublic schools in providing an education geared to national security needs. It is a classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer. Today about 7 million American boys and girls attend nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. This is about 14 percent of the total national school population. This 14 percent of American youngsters have received a little over 1 percent of the funds which the Government has expended under title III of NDEA. And even that small amount must be paid back, with interest. There is only one inescapable conclusion: Those schoolchildren who attend non-public schools are being tragically shortchanged. No one can pretend that the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of our young men and women-specifically prescribed in the policy declaration of the National Defense Education Act-is being accomplished when 14 percent of our school children have little opportunity to obtain needed laboratory and other special equipment. This situation must not be allowed to continue. For that reason I have introduced H.R. 8203, legislation which would amend NDEA to give adequate, effective aid in defense-related subjects to those Amer- ican children who do not attend public schools. This can be done without major alteration of the existing law and without danger that the constitutional prohibitions on church-state relations will be violated. In amending this act, we have as a guide and precedent the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, passed by the 89th Congress. Title II of that act provides that grants of Federal funds can be made to purchase textbooks and library aids for non-public schools so long as the owner- ship of the materials lies with a public education agency. Only the use of these materials is given to the children in private and parochial schools. This formula easily could be applied to the laboratory and other special equipment provided by title III of NDEA. Who owns the equipment is immaterial. It is the use of this equipment which is so important to the educational welfare of the 7 million students in nonpublic schools. In the 89th Congress I first authored and introduced legislation amending the NDEA title III program to embody the principle contained in title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No action was taken. In the months since the end of the 89th Congress I have been restudying the problem and possible solutions in an effort to strengthen and improve my proposed amendment. Today, therefore, I am introducing new legislation which incorporates the basic concept of the old bill, but incorporates perfecting changes. Basically, the provisions of the bill are these: Public authorities would be required to provide laboratory and other special equipment on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private and parochial schools. The nonpublic schools, or groups of such schools, would be required to prove that they had spent an equal amount themselves for laboratory equipment or remodeling. This provision is necessary to satisfy the matching provisions of the National Defense Education Act. In any State in which no State agency is authorized by law to provide labora- tory or other special eauipment for use in nonpublic schools, the Commissioner of Education would be authorized to provide the equipment for use on an equitable and matching basis directly to nonpublic schools. This provision also follows the precedent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. PAGENO="0399" HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 393 The allocation of funds under Title III of NDEA would proceed as present. HR. 8203 would not close out or abolish the loan program, but it is contem- plated that little use would he made of that provision after the inauguration of matching grants. It would be possible, therefore, to add a large portion of prospective loan funds to grant allocations for the states. In passing I might mention that the bill provides for allocations by the states to non-public schools or "groups of schools." By this wording it is my hope to encourage the trend toward greater coordination among parochial schools. ifl the past these schools have been characterized by their dc-centralized nature. Too often this has meant less than adequate planning and coordination of activities. Today, fortunately, these problems have been recognized and an effort is being made to correct them. It is my hope that this legislation will provide increased inducement for non-public schools to consolidate their planning in the best interests of the education they provide their students. Madame Chairman, I am convinced that only by amending the National De- fense Education Act, as HR. 8203 does, can the purposes of that historic legisla- tion be achieved. The seven million children who attend nonpublic schools are no less important to the future defense and security needs of our Nation than those who attend public schools. We must quickly indicate our recognition of that fact by amend- ing title III of NDEA in other to provide them with fair and equitable benefits. The text of the bill follows. [HR. 8203 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To amend the National Defense Education Act of 1958 to make equipment purchased under title III thereof available to all children attending public and private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress c~ssembied, That (a) section 303(a) (1) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended (1) by striking out "public" after "or reading in", (2) by inserting "public" after "of local", and (3) by in- serting immediately before the semicolon at the end thereof the following: "in public schools". (b) Section 303 (a) of such Act is amended by renumbering paragraph (5) thereof as paragraph (6), and by inserting immediately after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph: "(5) provides assurance that such laboratory and other special equipment will be provided on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools in the State which comply with the compulsory attendance laws of the State or are otherwise recognized by it through some procedure customarily used in the State, but such equipment shall be provided for use in such a school or group of schools only if such school or group of schools has expended an equal amount of its funds derived from private sources for equipment or remodeling described in paragraph (1) ;". SEC. 2. (a) Section 304(a) of such Act is amended by inserting after "except that" the following: "(1) the payment on account of equipment provided for use in private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools shall be equal to the full amount expended for such equipment and (2)". (b) Section 304 of such Act is amended at the end thereof the following new subsection: "(c) In any State which has a State plan approved under section 303(b) and in which no State agency is authorized by law to provide laboratory or other special equipment for the use of children and teachers in any one or more public or private nonprofit elementary or secondary schools in such State, the Commis- sioner shall arrange for the provision on an equitable basis of such laboratory and other special equipment for such use." SEC. 3. Section 305 of such Act is amended to read as follows: "PUBLIC CONTROL OF LABORATORY AND OTHER EQUIPMENT WHICH MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE "SEC. 305. (a) Title to laboratory and other special equipment furnished pur- suant to this title, and control and administration of their use, shall vest only in a public agency. PAGENO="0400" 394 HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMEI~TS OF 1967 "(b) The laboratory and other special equipment made available pursuant to this title for the use of children and teachers in any school in any State shall be limited to those which have been approved by an appropriate State or local educational agency for use, or are used, in a public elementary or secondary school of that State." THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGo, Chicago, ill., Apr. 4, 1962. Hon. BARRATT O'HARA, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR Sin: I should like to call your attention to the Bill introduced by Mr. Sisk of California (HR 5793), and ask for your interest and support. This Bill would provide funds to colleges and universities for construction of outpatient facilities for college health services. I am sure it is unnecessary to point out to you the importance of protecting the health of our college youth since they repre- sent one of our greatest national resources. The assumption that these young people are free of health problems is not borne out by the facts. Last year at the University of Chicago with an enrollment never gretaer than 8,000 students, we had over 43,000 visits to the University Health Service-many of them repre- senting serious medical and surgical problems. While most colleges and universi- ties are coming to recognize their responsibility to provide sophisticated medical care for students, only a handful of institutions have services that could be called adequate. The reasons for this vary with each institution, but in general reflect the fact that since student health is not a strictly academic function, there is often relatively little knowledge or sympathy devoted to it in the competition for previous budgeary funds. Sharp enrollment increases have made most health services obsolete in terms of space. For most institutions it will be extremely difficult to improve the quality of medical care and expand facilities at the same time, without diverting important funds from academic areas. As a health service director at an institution which takes this responsibility seriously, I can assure you that it is an expensive enterprise. As president of the Mid-Atlantic College Health Association, I can also assure you that most colleges and universities have a long way to go to provide the level of medical care our young people deserve. Without important help in providing facilities for student health services, institutions will either remain inadequate or will have to take funds from areas of equal importance. I request your serious consideration of this problem. Yours very truly, RIOHAnD H. Moy, M.D., Director, University Health Services, University of Chicago; President, Mid-America College Health Association. (Th