EDUCATION LEGISLATION, 1968

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1968

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator Jacob Javits presiding pro tempore.

Present: Senators Morse, Javits (presiding pro tempore), and Yarborough.

Committee staff present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Charles Lee, professional staff member; Richard D. Smith, associate counel; and Roy H. Millenson, minority clerk.

Senator JAVITS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our first panel this morning is that of the National Education Association, consisting of Dr. Lumley, Mr. Carrigan, Mr. Seeber, and Mr. Weintraub.

Will they come forward and take their seats at the witness table? Would Mr. Richard Johnson and Mr. Grant Venn of the Office of Education also come forward.

Dr. Lumley, we will without objection consider your statement made a part of the record. You may proceed to paraphrase it or deal with it in any way you wish.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN L. LUMLEY, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, LEGISLATION AND FEDERAL RELATIONS, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD CARRIGAN, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; CLAYTON SEEBER, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION; AND FREDERICK WEINTRAUB, ASSISTANT PROJECT DIRECTOR, COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Dr. LUMLEY. Thank you Senator. It is a pleasure to be here again. before the subcommittee. I have prepared two statements. One is a statement on higher education; the other is a statement on vocational education.

Senator JAVITS. They will both be considered as incorporated in the record.

AREAS OF SUPPORT

Dr. LUMLEY. Referring to the higher education amendmentsS. 3098-I want to emphasize one statement. One of the main goals of NEA for the last few years is to establish the early funding and the full funding of Federal education programs. Therefore we strong endorse the proposed 5-year extension of the NDEA, the Higher Ed cation Facilities Act, the Higher Education Act, and the Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act. We most strongly support section, which would provide for the appropriation to be made 1 year it advance.

AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

We support, in general, the proposal to consolidate the national de fense student loans, educational opportunity grants, and work-study programs, because we believe in each of them. But we also continue to believe, Senator, that the heart of these programs is the national defense student loan program provided in title IV. The establishment of this financial assistance program in the Hill-Elliott Act is one of the outstanding enactments of this subcommittee. However, we have reservations concerning the proviso that an institution could transfer up to 20 percent of its allocation for each program to one or both of the remaining programs, for to be very frank with you, we believe that this may possibly provide an opportunity to phase out the NDEA student loan programs under the guise of flexibility of administration The proposal that specific authorizations be scrapped and the use of the terminology "such sums as are necessary" we believe is not sound. The Education Committees of the Congress should establish what they believe to be the minimum amount of money needed for a program and that should be put in the authorization. The appropriation process is another matter. When the Education Subcommittee passes up the opportunity of selling a figure, leaving this determination to the executive department, it abrogates its responsibility.

Senator JAVITS. I think we can give you every assurance, Dr. Lumley, that it is very unlikely to come out of the committee that way. Dr. LUMLEY. Thank you, sir. We call your attention to an objection which we have stressed on several previous occasions. Sometimes our objection has been misunderstood, but we believe section 107 is a serious departure from acceptable practice. The Commissioner of Education is authorized to contract directly with profitmaking agencies to carry out experimental projects in the fields of community service and continuing education. This kind of authority has appeared in numerous bills, and each time we have voiced objection. We are not objecting to contracting with profitmaking agencies, but we are objecting to the grant of this power to the Commissioner of Education. It is the belief of the National Education Association that eduction is the responsibility of the 50 States. We oppose centralized control of education. When the Commissioner of Education is given power to make contracts with profitmaking agencies, this in itself begins to centralize. The contracts should be made by institutions, by State departments, or by school districts.

You see, Senator, we are concerned that because we have new technology, the statement is made that the Commissioner needs to make

these contracts. I call your attention to the fact that for many years, textbook companies and the people who are supplying equipment and materials to the schools also have been doing research. They are providing this material. It is a competitive field, and they do a tremendous job for the schools. We think it is unfair as well as unwise to centralize this authority in the Commissioner. We believe, as I say, that this contracting should be done by either the State departments, institutions of higher education, or by local school districts.

Permit me also to call your attention to the language in the bill on page 86, lines 21 through 24, relating to financial assistance for strengthening instruction in "Academic Subjects." This heading is objectionable because in certain states, the term "Academic Subjects” has a special connotation which is quite narrow in scope. We have supported the concept of expanding NDEA categories, not restricting them. We believe the bill should not include this narrow and restrictive definition.

We note that on page 88, lines 15 through 17 repeal the provision in title III of NDEA which has authorized about $10 million for State supervisory services. We believe that one of the greatest contributions made by the National Defense Education Act is this provision for supervisory services provided in title III. I am quite sure that the Office of Education will say this can be done under title V of ESEA, but title V of ESEA does not do what title III of the NDEA does; that is, provide supervisory services for the specific subject matter areas.

Senator MORSE (presiding). I want to express my apologies, but I was tied up in a series of emergency long-distance calls. I could not. get away.

We are very glad to have you, Doctor. You have always been a great help when we have been preparing things for the floor. I know you are doing the same thing this morning, although I have not read your statement. I am all ears, however.

Dr. LUMLEY. We appreciate the opportunity to be here, Senator. If there is one subcommittee in the Congress of the United States that we believe is outstanding, it is this one, because you have made a record in the last few Congresses for doing great things for education. We strongly support you in the belief that education is the answer to our social problems.

BIPARTISAN SUPPORT

Senator MORSE. You are very kind, but the entire committee deserves the credit. There sits at my right the ranking member of the minority party he can close his ears when I tell you this-I never take a bill to the floor of the Senate without its being a bipartisan bill. I never take a bill on the floor of the Senate without having had the complete cooperation of Senator Javits of New York. No one is more dedicated to the cause of education than he. I think what success we have had is because the Republicans and the Democrats on this committee have always ceased to be Republicans and Democrats when we come into the field of education-and they should. We have to face these problems on a nonpartisan basis and we do.

Again, as I have said so many times in the past, I want to thank Senator Javits for the great help he has been to me, as chairman of the subcommittee.

Dr. LUMLEY. This is the reason I said it is a pleasure to appear be fore you and your subcommittee, because of the fact that you and your colleagues do work so cooperatively together. You do a fine job. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT ACT

Dr. LUMLEY. I am summarizing two statements, one on higher edu cation, one on vocational education. I will continue my testimony with a comment relating to the Education Professions Development Act and a statement that the Commissioner of Education has made. He has testified that current institutes include many subjects, but other important ones are not supported. I would observe that sociology. anthropology, and a number of others are not included. Last year we had the impression that there would be no curtailment of the institute program that the EPDA program was going to consolidate and expand. If you will recall, we expressed reservations but we supported the enactment of EPDA when we were assured that its programs would be over and above those already established. I am sorry to say thatSenator MORSE. Dr. Lumley, if you will give me just a couple of minutes, I want to scan what you have already read so I can catch up with you.

Dr. LUMLEY. Certainly, sir.

Senator MORSE. Taking particular note of the comment where you say that you support in general the proposal to consolidate national defense education loans, educational opportunity grants, and workstudy programs into the proposed single Educational Opportunity Act in view of the apparent benefits and advantages of improved administration-that is a matter of great importance. I am very glad that you have expressed as specifically as you have the position that the NEA has on it.

AUSTIN, TEX., HEARING DATA

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, since you have paused at tha point, I want to mention the testimony that we had at Austin, Tex. last Friday by Dean Silva, dean of the college of arts and sciences, of the University of Texas. He was protesting this whole loan concep that the student had to borrow money to go through college, that so ciety ought to furnish this college education. He pointed out in a very perceptive statement that this was not just a mortgage on the student who borrowed the money but that it was a mortgage on their children when these graduates from the university were married and rear. families. They were paying back on these loans money that they shou be using to rear their generation, their children, and giving them opportunities in life. He felt these loans to college students were an impediment to their chance in life. It was one of the finest papers on tie subject.

I want to reiterate my support for outright scholarships, fellowship and grants; if we cannot get grants, then NDEA loans. Then last of all, what Senator Kerr called the three balls of the pawnshop on their shoulders.

While we were having that meeting in Austin, Senator Morse, I want to thank you for that wonderful telegram you sent from here.

You were detained here in an inescapable obligation. They were expecting you, wanted to see you. We had a very fine hearing, led off by Dr. Muirhead, who was succeeded by Chancellor Ransom of the University of Texas, then numerous panels.

The question was raised when we were discussing my amendment for higher education for the Government to bear the cost for some portion of this total of student tuition fees. It developed there that the average tuition in public institutions of higher learning was $300 per year per student. The average tuition in private colleges was $1,300 per student per year over the country.

Well, if you just added those two and took half, you would have an average of $800. There are actually more students in public than in private colleges, but even if we raised it and said the average tuition was a thousand dollars per student per year, with 6 million in college, you would have a total of $6 billion. For a rich economy like ours spending about $30 billion a year on the war in Southeast Asia, we could spend all this money on all the students in colleges every year. I think that a loan puts this in the realm of possibility and feasibility and supports Dean Silva's statement there that says we are mortgaging not only these students going into college, but their children, too. I think it is time we started in America to build a concept of college education, not based on this growing concept of increasing loans to mortgagees, bankers, savings and loan associations, and credit unions all over the Nation. We are mortgaging their future when we do it that way. Dr. Silva had one of the finest statements I have ever heard in my life. He had studied it in depth. We are awaiting a copy of that paper, Mr. Chairman. When it is received, we will print it in the Congressional Record as well as this record.

Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough, this seems to be a morning of emergencies. We are going to have to leave for 3 or 4 minutes.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I just got that note. Gentlemen, there is an executive committee. We are marking up a bill and with your great expertise, you know what that means

Dr. LUMLEY. May I say that Senator Yarborough attended an educational finance meeting in Texas last year and he did a tremendous job. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

(Short recess.)

Senator MORSE. Dr. Lumley, I have read your excellent statement up to the point where you stopped. You may pick it up there and proceed. Dr. LUMLEY. Senator, off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

INSTITUTE PROGRAMS

Dr. LUMLEY. We talk about EPDA and the fact that we supported this act on the basis that it was going to consolidate programs. You know, when we talk about consolidation, we believe we are going to create efficiency and by having more efficiency, we think we will have a better program. This is what we thought of EPDA and that it would provide for institutes in additional subject matter areas and for other kinds of programs.

Last year we were assured that any new EPDA programs would be over and above what already was established in the subject matter