Page images

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. QUIE. What kind of special thing? The American Library Association 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 themselves.

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. QUIE. I am concerned that, when you question the Federal direction of control, and when the Federal Government is funding research, 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 Education, and she said it could be done. I wouldn't want the Office of Education 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


Mr. QUIE. 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 onrselves.


Mr. QUIE. I would hope you would always in the future, whether agree with you or not, hit hard when you feel strongly about something 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 Gardner. 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 certainly has to fall on the steps of the Commissioner. He is issuing the orders, so, professionally, we are criticizing what the Office of Education is doing, we are criticizing something he has permitted or ordered; this obviously is true.

Mr. QUIE. 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 contract 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. QUIE. 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 program in many instances to industry and not to an educational institution. 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 evaluation 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 division-again we are limited by size and amount of money they havewe 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. QUIE. 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 contracted out.

The policymaking, you suggest, should be left at the local level; is that correct?

Mr. LUMLEY. State and local.

Mr. Escн. Should the information gathering, the research be left at OGA?

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 provides for another of these advisory councils which should be representative of various groups of people.

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 Minnesota, 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 NDEA 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 statements in, we will include them for the record.

(The statements follow :)


Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Ronald Uhl, the Supervisor 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 developments 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, audiovisual equipment and a growing array of technologies applied to the instructional process such as the video tape recorder and the Edison Responsive Environmentpopularly 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 understanding 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 learning, and particularly in making possible more individualized instruction.

I appear before you this morning, Madam Chairman, in my capacity as Chairman of the Legislative Commission of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction, one of several autonomous professional organizations related to the National Education Association. Established in 1923, our Department is made up of nearly 7,000 educators who, like myself, are particularly concerned with the improvement of education through the more effective application of instructional media to the teaching-learning process. As you know, our organization has 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

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 Departments 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 conviction of DAVI that when and 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 innovations, and the schools themselves will suffer as a consequence.

Our second concern about H.R. 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 qualifications 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 specialists, 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 unsuccessful 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."

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. DECKER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL ARTS ASSOCIATION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Howard S. 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 approved by the AIAA Executive Board and by the Delegate Assembly of the Association 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 foreign 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 the 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 included 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 Congress. 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

« PreviousContinue »