products and scientific students learn from museums. Scientific research is often fostered and aided by museums, and in the case of Philadelphia, special film libraries are open to all and used extensively. Because of these and many other facilities, museums can no longer be considered as mere storehouses for treasures. They are important centers for learning in many communities and they can be more so if adequate funds and staff were available to satisfy the increasing public thirst for knowledge. Many smaller communities have a museum that provides the only facilities available for such programs. In our own museum, if I can speak of it for just a minute we have had for some time the largest attendance. Each Saturday over 2,500 children come for a regular, free art-class program, to go on for 5 years. Over 400 classes from the public and parochial schools of our city come for regular programs for about 8 times during the school year, so it is a serious program directly related to their classroom studies. Over 1,000 adults are enrolled regularly in our classes there in the museum. Of these, approximately 500 or half of them take these courses for university credit through the University of Toledo. The other half are just as important to us and because they are studying for nonuniversity credit, they are only interest in what they get from it as an advocation.

For instance, a railway brakeman in his city changed his career to that of a high school art teacher through the art museum credit courses he took there. Many housewives study interior design.

Senator CLARK. That is the best example of retraining I have heard yet.

Mr. WITTMANN. And a very necessary one for the railroads too. Many retired businessmen find a new hobby from their work at the museum. The Toledo museum has a concert hall attached to it which seats 1,750 people, and is used now 5 over of every 7 days of the week during the concert season for concerts or rehersals.

Senator, we have the great Philadelphia orchestra and the great Pittsburgh orchestra coming to play in the hall this year.

Senator CLARK. How long has this been going on?

Mr. WITTMANN. This has been going on since the museum was founded in 1901. This particular concert hall was built in 1933, and the hall was opened in 1933 by the Philadelphia orchestra.

Senator CLARK. How do you raise your money?

Mr. WITTMANN. Our money comes from endowment funds to a certain extent. I think 30 percent come from endowment funds. Senator CLARK. That is what Mrs. Thompson calls the first phase of support.

Mr. WITTMANN. Yes, sir; some of its comes from membership, broad support in the community, and some of it comes from industry which has been very helpful to us; some comes from the tuition fees for our courses and for the tickets from the concerts. However, both the tuition fees and the concert tickets are more or less priced on the basis of the talent. We are a nonprofit organization.

Senator CLARK. Do you have an annual drive?

Mr. WITTMANN. We have an annual drive, yes, and find it very successful. We follow the pattern of most museums.

Senator CLARK. What is your goal this year?

Mr. WITTMANN. Our goal is 5,000 members this year.

e of professional relationship with the community of creative workers which ves and which it needs in order to work effectively.

ere is another reason for a separate foundation-a reason mainly symbolical psychological but nonetheless important. The establishment of the Na1 Science Foundation testifies to the status of the sciences in our country in our culture; we should not fail to symbolize in like manner the impore we attach to the things of the spirit. The National Foundation for the anities and the Arts would be a dynamic institution dedicated to creative ural work, a visible, living monument to humane knowledge and action. e bills before your committee are of two kinds: Two would establish a dation for the arts alone; two others would combine the arts and huities in a single agency. The question therefore arises: Should the arts the humanities be separated, or joined? I advocate putting them together, use I believe this will result in a stronger agency, and a stronger contributo our national life, and because I believe that joined together the huities and the arts will strengthen one another. Clearly the arts and anities have much in common, since most humanistic learning deals with artistic creations of the past in art, music, literature, architecture. In conence humanistic scholars are better acquainted with the work of the artists he past than with those of the present. A foundation which brought artists scholars, and their concerns, together would have a healthy effect. Many ative artists in turn have little respect for the past, and for scholarship oted to understanding it. But the best artists have always studied their bears and had a deep understanding of their tradition, and in this the study the humanities has been an essential part of their creative development. h artist and scholar, furthermore, have a common stake in the education an audience that is receptive to and capable of understanding the creative ievements of the present, and this is the main educational task of the manities.

For these reasons, I would argue for a single agency. But that is not to y that the arts and the humanities are alike in their nature or ends. They e very different, and require different kinds of training and expertise. Planng and organization of the two should be in separated divisions, budget and affing should be separate. For this reason I believe there is an advantage spelling out the separate functions of the arts and humanities divisions of e new Foundation. But I do not think that the budgets for the two should established as equal by the legislation. This seems to me to be an admintrative matter better left to those who will organize and direct the Foundaon. The intent of the present bill, that one branch should not suffer at the pense of the other, can, I think, be carried out without an arbitrary advance rmulation.

In even more general terms, I am convinced that the wisest policy in this and in number of other instances is to leave considerable discretion to the Board ad Director of the Foundation. On the question of grants to individual holars and artists versus grants to institutions, for example, I would urge at the Foundation be explicitly authorized to make grants of both sorts. erhaps, like the National Science Foundation's Board, it will decide to make nly grants of one sort at first, or perhaps from the outset it will proceed in oth ways. This seems to me not to be a legislative question, but rather to be question of choosing appropriate means at various times for carrying out he functions laid down by the Congress. If the Board is sufficiently distinuished and trustworthy, it should be given the broadest latitude and the greatest exibility; if the Board is not sufficiently distinguished and trustworthy, then t seems to me hardly worthwhile to establish the Foundation at all.

If a Foundation is to be established, I would very much hope that the legislaion will contain no special loyalty provisions for individuals or organizations hat might receive grants. This, as I am sure you know, is a matter about which he academic and artistic communities of this country feel very strongly. The kind of discriminatory oaths and affidavits-with stiff penalties spelled outhat have marred other bills in the past by singling out scientists, students, and other members of the educational community are invidious in that they imply that somehow this part of American citizenry is more amendable to disloyal tendencies or at any rate more in need of attention on matters concerning their loyalty as citizens than is the population at large. There is, of course, no basis whatever for such an inference, and I strongly urge the omission of such provisions.

Senator CLARK. You have your own symphony orchestra in Toledo? Mr. WITTMANN. A very fine one.

Senator CLARK. And it plays in your museum?

Mr. WITTMANN. It does indeed. We also have a Toledo Orchestra Society and Opera Society and all of those participate and play in the museum. But I think we think if I can sum up, Senator Clark, the American Association of Museums supports the laudible steps of this bill toward meeting the increasing public demand for greater participation in the arts and humanities. We also believe that any major effort to stimulate the arts and humanities should also strengthen and improve existing museums.

There has been a great deal of talk these days of establishing a series of cultural centers across the country. We believe that many of these cultural centers already exist. Museums are the cultural centers of many communties across our land. They stand ready to play their part in our country's cultural growth. They should be recognized and supported as an integral part of the many fine educational institutions already serving the people of our country in the field of the arts and humanities.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Wittmann, for your most helpful statement. Our next witness is Mr. Edward Mattil, president, National Art Education Association of the Pennsylvania State University.

Welcome, Mr. Mattil. We are happy to welcome you here on behalf of our subcommittee. We will put your statement in the record, in full, as you have submitted it to us and I will ask you to follow the custom of the last two witnesses and summarize it for us.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Edward Mattil follows:)

STATEMENT BY EDWARD MATTIL, HEAD, DEPARTMENT OF ART EDUCATION, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, AND PRESIDENT THE NATIONAL ART EDU

CATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Special Subcommittee on the Arts and Humanities. My name is Edward Mattil. I am a professor and head of the Department of Art Education at the Pennsylvania State University. Since 1963 I have served as the president of the National Art Education Association, a professional association of approximately 6,500 art teachers and artists from all 50 States. With the exception of the war years, I have been engaged in art teaching since 1940, working at every level from the one-room rural schools to large universities.

Today I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak briefly in favor of legislation which will add strength to the arts and humanities in America. I firmly believe that these are two of the important bases upon which civilization and human culture rests. Like science, the arts and humanities are part of the responsibility of the Federal Government and as such should be recognized by adequate legislative support.

My concern with the legislation under consideration focuses mainly on those parts dealing with education such as the section in S. 316, page 7, line 5, which says, "*** it shall be one of the objectives of the Foundation to strengthen education, research, creative work and performance in the humanities and the arts throughout the United States * * *" and that section on page 18, line 17 of the same bill, which says, "(3) to enter into contracts or other arrangements or modifications thereof with accredited public or other non-profit institutions of higher education for the establishment and conduct of summer or academic-year institutes, or both, for the training of teachers of the humanities and the arts: (4) to support improved teaching at all levels by encouraging experiments in presenation and organization, including interdisciplinary studies and the development of new curricular materials." I cite these only as examples and not as a means of suggesting that I am not concerned with the entire bill. My thinking

follows the line of that famous spiritual which goes "the knee bone's connected to the leg bone, the leg bone's connected to the ankle bone and ankle bone's connected to the foot bone, etc." I think it important that no part be omitted, but I can speak with more reliability on the parts I know best. Those parts are the art education of children and the preparation of art teachers.

I need not tell you that I am terribly concerned with the art education, or rather the inadequacy of the art education of this generation. Although our flourishing economy could well support the creation of the most beautiful manmade environment in history, one need only to ride 50 miles in any direction to encounter the intrusion of tasteless unesthetic environment being created, or to turn on the radio or television to realize that not enough time has been devoted to helping our people to establish reasonable value systems. This even has its economic overtones, as much as I hate to mix art and economics. Using Denmark as an example, this country is without any of the usual exportable or manufacturable natural resources yet it survives in a highly competitive world economy on two things, good design and good craftsmanship. In international trade the buyer's choice is determined by price, delivery conditions, service, quality, and design. In a country such as our's where production costs are high we are compelled to make up the difference in imaginative and efficient technical methods, but also on good design. In addition to Denmark, I might mention Sweden, a country where the motto "export or die" is a daily fact of life. In 1786 King Gustaf II instituted the Swedish Academy and gave it the motto "Talent and Taste." Sweden has industrialized, as we well know, but the arts have not died. Rather, with stubborn energy, handicraft skill, the feeling for materials, and the joy of making, designing, and decorating have flouished to strength the Swedish economy. The Government has supported the arts in many ways, in the support of schools and in bringing good art to the masses. On a per capita basis of comparison between Sweden and the United States, the sum would represent about $25 million annually just for art alone.' This does not include music, theater, or the humanities.

1

Neither the ability to produce good design or good craftsmanship, nor the appreciation of good design and craftsmanship are something acquirable through short-term crash programs in the arts, or something that just happens. Rather, like any desirable human faculty, they require nurture from the earliest years, especially the very formative years of the elementary school and the junior high school. This requires purposive and sustained programing and responsive teachers to carry out such programs, for to neglect the creative development of children is a great waste, perhaps the greatest waste of all resources.

I want to give you a very brief, very sketchy picture of the condition of art in education. The vast majority of American children who have any art experience in the elementary school are taught by teachers who may have taken one or two courses in art in their entire lifetimes. Many teachers have not had even one course, yet are expected to teach art without any help. About 10 percent of the elementary schools do provide a special art teacher. Interestingly, the Research Monograph 19632 reported art to be maintaining or improving its position at the time of their survey. Perhaps we are in a condition difficult to worsen. Over 90 percent of the elementary schools provide for art, but of these only 10 percent have trained personnel to carry out the programs. Under these conditions, art is not taken very seriously and is therefore mistakenly considered peripheral to the major goals of the curriculum. This same survey reported "far less enthusiasm for art on the part of responding principals, and indicated far less effort to provide special programs in art than in music." This entire study reveals one thing clearly, which is, the quality of programs and the degree of their importance and acceptance is directly related to the number and quality of trained art teachers.

Turning very briefly to the art programs of the secondary schools, we find a greatly improved situation in terms of the percentage of trained art teachers. Yet, one teacher out of six is judged to have had inadequate training by his school principal.3

Art does not hold a major place in either the junior high school or in the senior high school curriculum. While over 95 percent of the large secondary schools offer art at the senior high school level, only 14.9 percent of the students had

1 Bo Wennberg. "Art Subsidy in Sweden," the Swedish Institute, March 1960.

2 Research Monograph 1963-M3, "Music and Art in the Public Schools," Research Division. NEA, August 1963.

"Music and Art in the Public Schools," Art Education, December 1963, vol. 16, No. 9. 43-737-65--pt. 2 ---21

elected to take art in 1961-62. Very few schools require art for graduation. (My own son, whose talents and loves are the arts and humanities, denied himself the pleasure of art in high school so he could concentrate on mathematics and science, which he deplored, so he could be admitted to a first rate university to study the arts and humanities.) More than two-thirds of the small secondary schools with enrollments under 300 fail to offer art. The reason for this is more likely related to the fact that there are too few trained art teachers than the fact that the curriculums are narrowly conceived because of the small enrollments. Larger schools do not seem to have a problem in finding adequately prepared teachers of art.

There are approximately three females for each male graduate at the bachelor's degree level in art education. This accounts for a rapid loss of teachers within the first few years, as many marry and leave teaching to raise families. The ratio shifts rapidly for those who remain in the art teaching profession long enough to get advanced degrees. At the doctoral level the ratio of women to men is 1 to 3.

From the foregoing it should be apparent that an upgrading of art in education is a national problem. The following procedures may provide the basis for effecting positive changes:

(a) Support for a variety of types of institutes for retraining or additional training of elementary and secondary school art teachers.

(b) Assistance programs in the form of loans, scholarships or grants for the encouragement of capable young men and women to enter art teaching as a profession. (At the present time scholarships in art are so limited that they may be considered almost nonexistent.)

(c) Support for both research and creative production for the experienced teacher, particularly for postdoctoral research aimed at the improvement of teaching and learning in art and the development of new teaching materials. (Presently, this has been given much impetus by the arts and humanities branch of the USOE.)

(d) Assistance programs for outstanding graduate students in art education. (At the present time a limited number receive assistance in the form of teaching or research assistants but many qualified people are unable to endure the financial rigors of pursuing the doctorate. At the present rate we are awarding about 20 doctor's degrees, per year, 1 for every 21⁄2 States. The profession could easily accommodate many times that number. In a typical year there are about 75 full-time doctoral students majoring in art education in the United States, that is only 12 per State.)

(e) The support of improved teaching at every level through encouraging experiments in presentation, methods, and organization, especially the development of new curricular materials and demonstration projects in schools.

(f) The support of new or enlarged libraries, instructional space, research space, and exhibition space.

I am fully aware that these suggestions are only part of a much larger need. There are many others better qualified to talk about the other areas such as the performing arts, special art schools, and the professional artist. Thank you for this opportunity to make this brief statement of some of my concerns.

APPENDIX I

Number of master's and doctor's degrees awarded in art education by sez from 1955 to 19621

Source: "Ear ed Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Institutions," U.S. Department of Health, 1 Office of Education, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957-63.