Senator JAVITS. I think he answered my question. Thank you. Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply grateful to the Senator from Oregon, but I would not have him put that burden upon Dr. Priest. We are very proud to have him in Texas, and if he goes back with a speech like that he might not last very long in Dallas as president of that junior college, so I suggest we relieve him of that burden.

Senator MORSE. Oh, I charge him with it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Wait until he has been in Texas an additional 3 or 4 years.

Senator MORSE. There is no reason that the educators should not participate in statesmanship, too.

Mr. PRIEST. God and American Airlines willing, I will be in Dallas at 6:09 and I will pass the word. We do appreciate the help, Senator Yarborough.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Dr. Charles F. Schuller, director, Instructional Media Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich.

We are delighted to have you, Dr. Schuller.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman knows, I am chairman of the subcommittee on labor which is meeting on the minimum wage law, and I must go to that subcommittee. I want to say in reference to this testimony of Dr. Schuller that I am taking it with me to work on while I wait to get my quorum. I am very much interested on this question of title 6 and I do not leave through lack of interest. There is no section of this bill that I am more interested in, Mr. Schuller, than in this section.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES F. SCHULLER, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST LANSING, MICH.

Mr. SCHULLER. Thank you, Senator Yarborough.

Senator MORSE. I will be able to help you with the quorum just as soon as Senator Edward Kennedy comes to relieve me.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORSE. You may sit down, Mr. Schuller, and proceed in

your own way.

Mr. SCHULLER. Thank you. I am going to extrapolate from my prepared statement, which the committee has, assuming that that statement will be considered in its entirety by the committee.

Senator MORSE. The chair rules that the entire statement of Dr. Schuller be inserted in the record at this point.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Charles F. Schuller follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. SCHULLER, DIRECTOR, INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA CENTER, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Charles F. Schuller, a professor of education and director of the Instructional Media Center at Michigan State University. At this hearing, I represent the 6,000-member Department of Audiovisual Instruction of NEA of which I was President in 1958-59. I also helped organize and served for three years, from 106-63, as President of the Educational Media Council, an organization of representatives of 15 national organizations with a primary interest in the improvement of instruction through educational technology and media of all kinds.

On June 2, 1965, I had the privilege of appearing before this distinguished Committee as chairman of a panel of prominent college and university administrators and professors representing several national professional associations and institutions of higher learning. That panel presented the case for amending the Higher Education Bill of 1965 to add provisions which subsequently became Title VI entitled "Financial Assistance for the Improvement of Undergraduate Instruction." The amendment was effectively and successfully sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Texas and supported by the honorable chairman and other members of this Subcommittee. By reason of its importance, the title has since come to be known by the names of its sponsors in the Senate and the House of Representatives and is now commonly referred to as the YarboroughCarey Program.

TITLE IV, HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

The need for that Program has been borne out by its reception by the higher education institutions of the nation. Although funded only late in October of last year with a consequent delay in getting organization, regulations, and State Plans established and approved, none the less some 944 institutions in 50 states met the April 30, 1966 deadline for submitting applications for the first instructional equipment grants and 180 applications were received for CCTV equipment grants. As of the end of the fiscal year on last June 30, virtually all funds appropriated for those purposes had been allocated. I bring this fact to the Subcommittee's attention primarily to illustrate the need felt by higher institutions and their demonstrated desire to participate under the provsions of Title VI. I would indeed be remiss, however, if I did not also take this occasion to bring to the Committee's attention the outstanding and intensive work done by Mr. Muirhead and his staff in the Bureau of Higher Education of the USOE which made it possible to get the program off the ground and into effective operation before the end of the 1966 Fiscal Year.

During its first half year of operation, the validity of those provisions of the Title which were funded has been demonstrated. On the other hand, our experience of the past six months has also revealed certain problems which appear to require legislative amendment if the worthy purposes and intent of the Yarborough-Carey Program are to be effectively implemented. These problems center in those parts of Section 604 and 605 dealing with maintenance of effort.

Section 604 (b) states:

MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT

"An institution of higher education shall be eligible for a grant for a project pursuant to this part in any fiscal year only if such institution will expend during such year for the same purposes as, but not pursuant to, this part an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution for such purposes during the previous fiscal year. The Commissioner shall establish basic criteria for making determinations under this subsection."

One key problem with the above section lies in its pyramiding effect. At the present time, an institution wishing to participate and which spent $10,000 for a given category of instructional materials and equipment in 1964-65 must spend at least $10,000 in 1965-66 and then add an amount such as $5,000 to qualify for $5,000 in matching grants. There is a general agreement with the principle involved here and no desire whatever to remove a maintenance of effort requirement. However, in fiscal '67 under current regulations, the same institution would then have to expend $15,000 before matching support could begin. Clearly, there is an escalating effect which tends both to discriminate against those institutions which have been making a good effort in the past and to make it progressvely less possible from year to year for an institution to participate in the program. The effect of this requirement is particularly harmful to the poorer institutions and to those institutions which are not growing rapidly. I believe that requirements in Sections 202 (b) and 407 (a) of the same Act permit the institution's share used to match the Federal grant to be included in the Maintenance of Effort and would regard such a change as a distinct improvement in Title VI as well.

It should be noted, also, that an institution could totally avoid the effect and intent of the Maintenance of Effort section as it now stands by simply submitting proposals every other year. In the alternate years, expenditures for pertinent equipment and materials could actually be reduced and still comply with the

regulations. It seems clear from the legislative record that it was the intent of this Subcommittee and of the Congress to encourage and to stimulate the improvement of undergraduate instruction as rapidly as possible rather than to penalize or delay efforts to that end. In spite of exhaustive discussions and explorations-between the Bureau of Higher Education and the legal department of the Office of Education-of this and other problems covered in this statement, there appears no legal alternative to enforcement of current provisions as contained in the regulations. Thus the remedy must be found in changing the language of the pertinent sections of the Act itself.

A second difficulty with Section 604 as it now stands (and with consequent regulations) is that it calls for an isolation of expenditures for certain types of equipment and materials for a given year in order for the institution to be eligible to participate in the program during the following year. Few institutions maintain their books in a way which would permit securing such information without rechecking virtually every purchase order issued during the preceding year. By the same token, Government audits to establish the legitimacy of grants already made and expended would be correspondingly difficult, timeconsuming, and costly. The net effect is to force institutions to alter their entire system of accounting if they are to comply with the requirements of this Section.

A third problem lies in the fact that legal interpretation of the current language of Sections 604 and 605 does not permit discrimination between current cxpenditures for instructional equipment and materials and nonrecurring capital expenditures in determining the relative eligibility of an institution to participate in the program. Thus, an institution making a $100,000 installation of equipment in a new building one year becomes ineligible to participate the following year unless a like amount is spent even though such expenditures are normally amortized over a 5 to 10 year period or longer. This clearly violates the spirit of the Yarborough-Carey Program in that it penalizes those institutions making substantial efforts to move ahead and resolve their instructional problems. Furthermore, it tends to exaggerate the pyramiding effect mentioned earlier.

Numerous interested people and agencies have been working jointly on the problems described in this statement to determine the most feasible solutions to suggest. These individuals and organizations are in substantial agreement that the following amendment would accomplish the desired results:

Section 604

AMENDMENTS FOR SECTIONS 604 (b) AND 605 (b)

Heading-delete: ", AND MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT" so that the heading reads: "BASIC CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING PRIORITIES AND FEDERAL SHARE:

(Note: This does not imply a proposal for the elimination of maintenance of effort as a requirement. Instead, a more practical and workable means of achieving it is proposed under Section 605(b).

Section 604 (b)

Delete: "An institution of higher education shall be eligible for a grant for a project pursuant to this part in any fiscal year only if such institution will expend during such year for the same purposes as, but not pursuant to, this part an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution for such purposes during the previous fiscal year."

Section 605 (b)

1. Delete subparagraph (5) (c) which reads: "(c) that the institution will meet the maintenance of effort requirement in section 604(b)”

2. Insert a new subparagraph (6) which reads: "The Commissioner determines that the institution will expend from current funds for instructional and library purposes during the fiscal year in which the project application is submitted an amount at least equal to the amount expended by such institution for such purposes during the previous fiscal year."

The Office of Education reports virtually unanimous agreement among institutional and State commission representatives on the need for the proposed changes in the Maintenance of Effort provision of Title VI to facilitate administration of the program at both the state and national levels. I can speak personally for the State of Michigan where I chaired a group of 17 institutional representatives who helped write the State Plan for Michigan. In addition. I have conferred

from time to time with administrative officers of institutions in Michigan and other States on problems arising chiefly from the Maintenance of Effort provisions as now constituted.

YARBOROUGH-CAREY PROGRAM

One final point which I should like to make is the need for more adequate funding for the Yarborough-Carey Program. While I recognize that this Subcommittee does not deal with appropriations directly, I am also aware of your demonstrated interest in the success and effectiveness of this Program. I find universal enthusiasm for the Program among colleges and universities throughout the nation. This was demonstrated in the numbers making application for grants this Spring even though time for planning and preparing applications before April 30 was very limited. The next deadline of November 30 can be expected to produce a substantially greater number of applications. As indicated in the table below, however, it was not possible even the first time around to fund equipment requests from 164 institutions who applied and were eligible. This was true even though a stringent limitation of $50,000 per applicant was set by most states in order to assist as many institutions as possible with the dollars available. These dollars should be increased at least to the amounts authorized under the Act-as soon as it is feasible to do so.

Summary of grants to colleges and universities to June 30, 1966, under title VI. pt. A, Higher Education Act of 1965, Public Law 89-329

Currently available appropriations of $1,500,000 for CCTV projects under this Title are particularly inadequate in light both of the cost of such equipment and of the major significance of CCTV systems where large numbers of students are involved. A minimum CCTV system with compatible professional equipment costs upwards of $125,000. Our total allocation in Michigan for CCTV projects, as an example, was $65,000 and this is more than most states received. To spread that $65,000 equitably, our State Plan limits to $15,000 the amount any one institution may receive on a CCTV project under this Program.

Of the 180 CCTV grant applications received by the Office of Education last May, the majority of institutions reported having no closed circuit television installation of any kind. None the less, these institutions are anxious to get under way and appreciative of such help as can be provided. Thus they applied even though only minor assistance can be expected. Being from Michigan State University where we have a CCTV system which, during the academic year just completed, played a major role in producing over 56,000 student credit hours, I have a high regard for the potential of this medium along with other educational media in improving the quality of instruction.

It is for the above reasons that I respectfully urge the distinguished members of this Committee to lend their support at the appropriate time and place to increasing appropriations for CCTV projects so that this as well as other apects of the Yarborough-Carey Program may have a chance to function at a level commensurate with their importance.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my appreciation for the opportunity of presenting this statement in support of needed amendments to Title VI of P.L. 89-329, the Higher Education Act of 1965.

Mr. SCHULLER. I am speaking in this instance for the Department of Audio-Visual Instruction of NEA, of which I was past president, and also informally for a number of higher education administrators and organizations who have expressed interest in the problems arising from this particular title.

I would say at the outset that the reception by higher institutions. of the Higher Education Act of 1965 has been uniformly enthusiastic.

and that while I speak specifically only to title VI, I would add that those I represent certainly support its other provisions and the various improvements which are being proposed.

Senator MORSE. You have given the subcommittee great support. I remember very well your appearance in the seminar group the last time you were here. I wish that we had a seminar group this time, but on the other hand we have covered this subject matter pretty well in past hearings and I think you are particularly well qualified to sort of summarize it for that segment of higher education that you represent.

TITLE VI

Mr. SCHULLER. I am sure that the subcommittee would be interested in the rather extensive reception of title VI, the section dealing with the improvement of undergraduate instruction, in terms of the number of applications for grants received under this title, even though, as the honorable chairman knows, the appropriations for this section were not made until late in the last congressional session, and that the matter of regulations and State plans, and all of this kind of thing, had to be started at that late point. In spite of the fact that regulations in most States did not get out until February or March, there were 944 institutions in 50 States that applied for the first instructional equipment grants, and some 180 applications for closed-circuit television equipment grants. And at the end of the fiscal year, a couple of weeks ago, virtually all funds appropriated for those purposes had been allocated.

I bring this fact to the subcommittee's attention primarily to illustrate the need felt by the institutions for the provisions of title VI, but I would be remiss indeed if I did not also bring to its attention the outstanding and very intensive and high-quality work done by Dr. Muirhead and his staff in the Bureau of Higher Education of the Office which made it possible to get this program off the ground at all and into effective operation during the 1966 fiscal year.

PROBLEMS WITH MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT-SECTION 604(b)

In the approximately 6 months of its operation the validity of those provisions of the title which were funded has been initially demonstrated. Certain problems did arise, however, with the maintenance of effort section, which is essentially included in section 604(b). I will not read the language of this section, but simply indicate that several problems have arisen because of that language. We are proposing that the language be modified by amendment to resolve some of these problems.

One of those problems is that the language as it now stands and as interpreted by legal counsel for the Office of Education requires a pyramiding of effort on the part of institutions.

INEQUITIES IN CURRENT LANGUAGE

For example, an institution wishing to participate and which spent $10,000 for a specified category of equipment last year must spend the same amount this year plus whatever amount they wish to have matched by a Federal grant under this title. Say that that is $5,000.