that he can make any supplemental contribution to the record that he may wish to.

But I think, this being a public hearing, it is very helpful to the committee and to the public if you will make whatever comments you wish to make on his testimony.

That goes for you, Mr. Johnson, as well.

Mr. VENN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We certainly wish to respond in our memorandum to you about this subject.

In Dr. Lumley's testimony there is reference to the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts. I think that the proposal in the administration bill to eliminate the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden Acts is based primarily on the fact that the Federal Government, through those acts, specifies occupational areas. During the past year we have had 37 States, and there may be more now, which took advantage of the 1963 act provisions which allow the transfer of funds from the old acts to the new act. Transferred funds could, then, be used for other purposes than those enumerated in the Smith-Hughes and George Barden Acts. The administration proposal is also based on the fat that 37-plus States have requested the transfer of authorities which is possible under the 1963 act. We felt the combination into one act would be advisable. I believe that is why it is part of the proposal. On the question of provision for youngsters with special needs under the Vocational Education Act, I see no reason, at this moment, why language pertaining to handicapped children would not be included. I believe the intention is there and I would say we have been working with the people in vocational rehabilitation to try to work out programs so we can expand vocational training for these youngsters.

We would agree that this training is very necessary. We need to make a better effort in this area than we have been making, there is no question.

I think that would be the limits of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, at this time.

(The following material was subsequently supplied for the record:)

MEMORANDUM FROM OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, RE STATE DIRECTORS OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION POSITION ON SMITH-HUGHES AND GEORGE-BARDEN FUNDS

State Directors of Vocational Education are overwhelmingly in favor of consolidation of the vocational education acts. Since the Vocational Education Act of 1963 authorized transfer of Smith-Hughes and George-Barden funds from one category to another or to any occupational training covered by the new authority the States have increasingly used this provision to improve program flexibility. Senator MORSE. Mr. Johnson?

Mr. JOHNSON. The only comment I wish to make regards the concern Dr. Lumley expressed about State advisory councils bypassing the State agency. I think that what we are trying to do here is some thing of the same thing that this committee was trying to do in regari to advisory councils in title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This committee and a good many Members of Congress have expressed concern about the need for objective evaluation of programs. We believe that the evaluation responsibilities that the State advisory council would be given here are for the benefit of the State

agencies and in no manner would the State advisory councils have any determination as to the allocation of funds. They would be merely advisory to the State agency.

But of course, the materials which they prepare in the evaluation would be available to the Congress and would be published. I would not regard this as a bypassing by advisory councils. I think this is a proposal to help and to work with the State boards in a very effective

manner.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Supply us with any additional memorandums that you care to.

Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, while the representatives of the Department are here, I want to raise another question that I raised several days ago in this hearing, and ask the Department to furnish information. That is concerning the teaching institutes under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. As we discussed that bill in the committee, on the floor of the Senate, and in conference with the House, with all the testimony we have had, one of the weaknesses in American education is the capability of teachers to teach their subjects. Sometimes they knew their subjects but did not have teaching expertise. They might be pretty good teachers and not know the subjects. So teacher institutes were set up.

All the reports I have had from my State are that these have greatly helped education. Where teachers have gone to a summer institute, they have learned how to teach. Where they were professional teachers, they were primed to learn. This has been of great value. As the chairman knows, many could not go to summer institutes on their own because they did not have the means, with the low salaries that teachers are paid. This pays a stipend and pays more for each child and makes it possible for them to go.

I have been greatly concerned at the decline of the teacher institutes in my State. In 1965, for example, we had 1,131 participants in my State. In fiscal 1969, they anticipate 384. It has been cut down and the reduction nationwide has not been in that proportion.

Now, the reduction in money has been about that proportion. There were requests from the colleges for five times this many institutes. In 1965 in my State, with a population of about 5.5 percent of the nationwide total, the number of teacher institutes as a percent of the national number was 5.8 percent. In 1966, it had declined to 4 percent of the national total; in 1967, 3.6 of the national total; in 1968, to 2.2 percent of the national total, while the population was about 5.5 percent.

Now, I have talked to the Office of Education about this and I have received some written responses. One oral response they gave me seems to be the real rationale back of this. They did not say it publicly, and I am not criticizing them if this is what they thought. But it was that the schools and colleges were weaker there and you granted this where there were stronger colleges.

The very rationale of this bill, why we put it in there in the first place, was to aid the States with these weaker systems. If that is really what the Office of Education is doing, it is directly contrary to the intent of Congress when they passed that act. It is on a par with grant

ing over $500 per person in the deprived area of Westchester County, N.Y., and $100 per pupil in the poverty area of Appalachia in West Virginia or eastern Kentucky. You are not going to build it up by granting one-fourth as much money under the MDTA in a poorer area as if it went to the richest city of New York.

I have a further response, dated January 11, 1968, from the Burea of Elementary and Secondary Education. It says:

You are undoubtedly aware of the fact that programs supported by the Of are selected on the basis of recommendations of independent professional or sultants from throughout the nation.

I want to know there, in line with the questions raised by Dr. L' ley, if they are hired, if a contract is let with some private, independe contracting firm that told them to take the teacher institutes out of my State, this is right in line with the questions raised here: Who is running the educational system?

There was a decline from 5.8 percent of the number of institutes in the country in Texas to 2.8 percent-I note in the table, 66 of these over 100 institutions requested institutes in 1965; 29 were granted. In 1966, 92 of these colleges wanted to hold institutes there: 22 were granted in my State. In 1967, they were beginning to give up 70 institutions of higher learning in my State requested teacher institutes 20 were granted. In 1968, 58 institutions of higher learning requested institutes and only 10 were granted. That is a constant decline.

Teaching expertise is needed everywhere in this country, and if the State has a weaker educational system, that is where it is needed worst of all. But this rationale of the Department in their letter of January 11, and I shall direct that a copy be printed in the recordSenator MORSE. It is so ordered.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It says: "Programs in Texas accept participants from many areas of the country and, conversely, many Ters teachers attend institutes in other States.

"For instance, in the fall of 1965, 5.4 percent of the Nation's ele mentary and secondary teachers were employed in Texas while I the summer following, Texas teachers comprised 4.8 percent of the total enrollment in all title XI institutes. In the following year, Texas had 5.5 percent of the country's teachers, while Texas teachers cotstituted 4.2 percent of the enrollment in all title XI institutes."

I do not consider that it is the duty of the Office of Education to turn down these institutes in Texas, to say to Texas teachers, "You have to go off to another State." That is, in effect, what they are saying. Now, we have forced them to go off to other States; they do not have the money to go in the first place. The number of participants has declined in that area.

Getting away from the institutes to the number of people who paritcipated, it declined from 1,191 teachers in 1965 to 414 in 1968. You say you have to go to Colorado, to California, to New York, to some other State to go to an institute. They cut off two-thirds of the number going.

They say, "Oh, they are available, but you cannot have them in your own State; your universities are not good enough."

I invite the Office of Education-not in this few minutes left here. but I invite them to make an answer here. Their representative s

here, and I think the gentleman who wrote this letter is here, Mr. Bigelow.

How you can justify such an administration of the law, I cannot understand. I will not ask you to answer that here, since it would only be offhand. If you are not ready, that is not fair.

Mr. JOHNSON. If you would like, the Associate Commissioner who heads the Bureau of Educational Personnel, who sees these developments, Mr. Davies, and Mr. Don Bigelow are in the room. They have been listening to the testimony. They could answer if you would like. Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you come forward now, please, Mr. Bigelow?

STATEMENT OF DONALD DAVIES, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR
BUREAU OF EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT; ACCOM-
PANIED BY DONALD N. BIGELOW, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
EDUCATIONAL PERSONNEL TRAINING

Mr. BIGELOW. Good morning, Senator.
Senator MORSE. Good morning.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)

Senator MORSE. I want the attention of the counsel of the subcommittee. The Veterans' Administration procedure and policy has now been raised several times in these hearings. I think, Mr. Counsel, that we are going to have to have additional time set aside to hear from the Veterans' Administration. I think they must come before this subcommittee and give answer to the criticisms of the policies that have been raised in connection with their administrative practices in respect to carrying out the intent of Congress in connection with the GI bill. The Senator from Texas and I are exceedingly unhappy with the Veterans' Administration in regard to their policies. In fairness to them, however, they should have an opportunity to answer the policy questions that we have raised. Therefore, I ask counsel to make arrangements to give them that opportunity.

Counsel suggests they can work it out in conjunction with the Veterans' subcommittee staff. I am glad to hear that suggestion.

Gentlemen, we are grateful that you have come forward, and in fairness to you and to the Department, I will say I did not call upon you for any detailed comment at this time. I think you ought to make a general statement while the Senator is here, and then give us assurance that you will set forth in greater detail in a memorandum for inclusion in the record any further information you want to leave with us in regard to the points that Senator Yarborough raises. So you may proceed in your own way.

Mr. DAVIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Don Davies from the Bureau of Educational Personnel Development.

I would like to say I share Senator Yarborough's very positive evaluation of the teacher institutes as one important way to help teachers in this country improve their subject matter competence and their teaching competence. I would like to defer to Dr. Bigelow, who has been the director of the program, the director of the new division in the new bureau which will be administering the program. He has

two or three broad points to make. Then we have a good deal of detailed information relating to the Senator's questions for the record. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

Mr. Bigelow?

Dr. BIGELOW. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Yarborough, the basic point would be another set of stats tics which would match yours and therefore not agree with yours. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mine are from the office of education. Dr. BIGELOW. That is right, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are these wrong you gave me?

Dr. BIGELOW. No, sir. That is why I wish to point this out. You have a set of statistics for title XI institute programs which, so far as I could hear them, were quite accurate. There are, however, points that I think ought to be made regarding the total educational picture # Texas regarding institute programs generally. And this is not made in this point. I would like to introduce that.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Your letter to me includes those under titles V(B) and XI, both.

Dr. BIGELOW. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. They are both.

Dr. BIGELOW. To broaden that letter, which I now wish I had broadened earlier, and it perhaps would have helped at this time Senator MORSE. It is pretty good advice never to write a letter you do not have to write.

Dr. BIGELOW. I thought I was doing that, too, sir.

However, the examination has been good for us and I hope will be helpful here.

In the first place, the first year of title XI, which was fiscal year 1965, was an exceptional year both for Texas and for the country. We could indicate to you, sir, that the English department under the State Department of Education, the development of English was so far ahead of most other States in the Union that that accounted for 13 institutes in English alone, exceeded only by one State in the country at that time, and indicated a readiness for English institutes at that point which, in one sense, was out of proportion to other areas and other conditions.

Therefore, if we use it as a base year which is, I think, sensible chronologically, it is not, I think, the whole picture when we consider what happened in the following 3 years. These are my two points The following year, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was passed and therefore, the proposals which we received from Texas at that time included proposals for academic year institutes which, by the way. most people consider superior to summer institutes as a learning pro ess of one sort.

Now, there is a large difference of opinion here as to which is the better way to go at it, and I am not entertaining that question here. It is merely that once you do go into the academic year institute, you use more resources for fewer people, but the moneys that are spent are greater, of course, and this can be reflected if we extend our table to include teacher-training institutes but not restricted to summer institutes of title V (B) of the Higher Education Act and most of title XI.