ment programs. This will give institutions greater freedom in meeting their equipment needs.

We are proposing a more flexible and coordinated approach to the training of educational personnel under the Education Professions Act.

We are proposing amendments to the insured loan programs for college and vocational students in order to provide greater coordination and more effective administration.

We are proposing a more rational system of advisory committees to assist the Office of Education in carrying out its mission. We believe that reducing the number of overlapping advisory groups and broadening the authority of the remaining ones will considerably strengthen the voice of institutions of higher education in the development of Federal higher education policy.

We are not requesting that certain educational statutes be extended. when newer and broader authorities will do the job as well. For example, the educational media research authority under NDEA need not be extended. We believe that these activities are more logically funded under the broad authority of the Co-operative Research Act.

There is an additional facet of the pending legislation which deserves highlighting: the early extension of expiring legislation. The subcommittee is familiar with the difficulties our colleges and universities have in coordinating institutional planning schedules with the authorization and appropriations timetables of the Federal Government. All too often, programs are not enacted or funds are not made available until well after necessary plans for the coming school year have been completed. By extending legislation in the fiscal year prior to its expiration, administrators in colleges and universities and in the Office of Education would have more time for effective planning.

It is our intention to propose early extension for all legislative programs in the Department where such a policy would be in the interest of better State and local planning. It is our hope not only to make Federal resources available, but also to make them more dependable and timely.

I would now like to discuss the Education Professions Act-the amendments contained in title V of the Higher Education Act. The Federal Government has an admirable record of being responsive to the manpower needs of education. But the recent increases in school enrollments and the expansion of Federal educational programs have demonstrated that existing Federal training authorities are inadequate. Present training programs are not capable of encouraging either the numbers, kinds, or quality of people needed to staff this Nation's educational programs.

Increased understanding of the educational process has led to new categories of educational personnel. For example, the role of the classroom teacher is undergoing revision and an emphasis is now being placed upon new categories of support staff; teacher aides, teaching assistants, and so on.

In addition, new curriculums are being developed which give increased emphasis to the social and behavioral sciences. This has resulted in the need for increased numbers of teachers trained in these

disciplines. Also, we have come to understand better the vital educational role played by school administrators and school board members and now realize that we must pay more attention to their training and orientation.

However, not only have educational personnel needs changed, but also there is every indication that they will change even more in the future. What passes for adequate training today may well prove obsolete within 5 years or a decade.

The Education Professions Act calls for a more systematic approach to meeting the staffing needs of our schools and colleges. To accomplish this will require a degree of flexibility not now available. It will require that categorical legislation specifying types of courses, levels of instruction or target groups give way to broader and more flexible authority that can be immediately responsible to emerging needs.

The act would direct the Commissioner to conduct both long- and short-range forecasts of manpower needs for all categories of educational personnel. He would subsequently have the authority to plan and establish appropriate training programs. The Commissioner's training plans would be subject to annual review by Congress and the guidance of a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development.

Also, the Commissioner would be expected to consult regularly with the Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, and the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities.

With this broader legislation

We could move quickly to meet heavy new demands such as the current need for preschool, adult education, and junior college personnel;

We could assure better prepared teachers with more relevant training to attack the problems of vocational education;

We could develop a more ample supply of faculty in fields outside of presently authorized categories; for example, business education and sociology;

We could build an expertise into the backgrounds of school board members and school and college administrators in order to enable them to discharge their complex responsibilities more competently;

We could strengthen the auxiliary staffs of schools: librarians, nurses, school psychologists, et cetera;

We could experiment with new ways of structuring teaching tasks, relieving teachers of extraneous duties which diminish their professional roles;

We would be able to retrain teachers in surplus subject matter fields to teach in shortage areas.

I believe this legislation is essential if we are to reinforce the base of talented educational personnel. Technological developments may come to play a significant role in the education process, but they will not replace human intellectual and social resources.

Finally, I would like to reemphasize the significance of the Teachers Corps as a part of the Nation's arsenal in the war against illiteracy and educational deprivation. Let me comment on one or two characteristics that are essential to its effectiveness as an instrument for attracting talented volunteers into teaching.

One of those characteristics is national recruitment. There cannot be any serious question that it has been possible through nationwide recruitment to attract young men and women who would never have been reached through local recruitment efforts.

However, since there has been some tendency to suppose that national recruitment means wholly centralized recruitment, let me describe the process by which the selection of Teachers Corps members will actually be carried out. There is a small staff in the Office of Education which services the Teachers Corps and acts as a clearing house for initial processing of applications, but the primary selection job is not done in Washington.

During the coming year, the Teachers Corps will use the present teacher interns to recruit and interview the next group of volunteers. In the final analysis, selection of the most promising of the applicants is made by the institutions of higher education providing the training and the educational agencies in the States and localities where the corpsmen will serve.

Another unique characteristic of the Teachers Corps is the espirt which it appears to engender. The "team" spirit which pervades the Teachers Corps is a strong source of encouragement and support to these young college graduates as they go about the difficult tasks for which they volunteered.

Moreover, this spirit appears to be contagious and to infect the other teachers with whom corpsmen come in contact. This spirit is a priceless commodity. It cannot be purchased; it should not be allowed to wither.

In summary, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967 are significant additions to and refinements of existing legislation. The programs contained in this legislation do not call for dramatic new levels of funding, but they do promise more effective use of existing authorizations. They do not in every instance possess the glamour of innovation, but they do promise the benefits of consolidation. They are most worthy of your consideration, and I urge their approval by this subcommittee and the Congress.

I apreciate the opportunity to appear here this morning, and I will be very happy to try to answer your questions.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. In order to save your time, if the Commissioner agrees, I think we will wait and hear from you after the questions have been asked of the Secretary so as to perhaps let him go to other demands on his time.

Congressman Gibbons, any questions?

Mr. GIBBONS. Yes. Mr. Secretary, I have been worried about some aspects of the work-study program that originally came about on the poverty program and was transferred over to you a couple of years ago. It seems to me we failed to give adequate consideration to the change when we made it a couple of years ago.

When the program was first instituted, it was designed almost exclusively for those who were in a poverty category to enable them to stay in school. I now notice Congress made certain changes in transferring the program exclusively over to your control. I notice institutions of higher education are using this as just almost a fellowship program for all types of students who happen just to walk in and say, "I am in need."

Now, I am not sure that you are familiar with what I am talking about. Perhaps some of the people who are here with you would like to comment on it, but what has been the change in emphasis or what has been the result in this change in emphasis in the program? Have we really changed it to a fellowship program with little Federal

direction?

Secretary GARDNER. May I make a general comment and then ask Harold Howe to comment on the development that you describe. I think there has been some movement in that direction, and Mr. Howe can comment on it extensively. I would like to say that I believe the work-study principle is valid for all students at all income levels and ought eventually to be extended considerably beyond the poverty levels, but it seems to me that it has a valid educational consequence quite aside from any consequences with respect to the student's economic circumstances.

Harold, would you like to comment?

Mr. Howe. Mr. Gibbons, there still remains in the administration of the college work-study program a needs tests. It is not quite as sharp as when the program was originally conceived as strictly a poverty program. It is administered in the same way that NDEA loans are administered and, as you are aware, I am sure, the colleges typically use their eligibility for NDEA loans for students who are in need.

The very high proportion of students eligible for NDEA loans falls below the $6,000 family income level. So that it is going primarily to students, in fact almost entirely to students who have a need to pay for their higher education, and the way the colleges administer it, it becomes a part of a full package. A student who receives an NDÉA loan will, in all likelihood, fill out a portion of his financial needs to pay for college expenses with a piece of work-study funding. A student who comes from an extremely poor family will add to that an opportunity grant under the opportunity grant legislation, with which you are familiar also, I am sure.

Mr. GIBBONS. It seems to me, and I am not sure this is bad, in some of the programs I have run into, these people are actually sort of being used as student assistants or repaying some of the professors' salaries out of the work-study program. Is that an accurate statement? Mr. Howe. I don't think we are paying for professors' salaries out of the work-tudy program. We are allowing colleges and universities to employ undergraduates, for example.

Mr. GIBBONS. And graduates?

Mr. Howe. Yes, and graduates, to do things that are important to the institution and for which the institution would have to pay in order to get services performed.

Mr. GIBBONS. Carrying on instruction in classrooms; isn't that right? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, it is quite possible, Mr. Gibbons, that graduate students might be working as lab assistants, giving some assistance to staff members and in carrying out instructions, but again I think it was clearly the intent of the program that it would provide workstudy opportunities that were valuable both to the students and to the institution. There is a whole wide range of work-study opportunities in the program, both on campus and off campus.

Mr. GIBBONS. I don't want to take any more of the Secretary's time on this question, so I will yield the rest of my time, Madam Chairman,

but when we get into that, as I say, I am not necessarily opposed to what we are doing but trying to understand how far we are going in this direction under the work-study program.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you. I would like to say we will operate under a 10-minute time limit, not the usual 5 minutes, to see how we come out. Congressman Quie.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Secretary, do we need to subsidize the guaranteedloan program to such a high income as $15,000? Wouldn't it be possible to run that program without even subsidizing the interest?

Secretary GARDNER. Well, this tends to vary with the year and economic conditions at the time. During this past year it has not been very easy for students. Thus, I think it was useful to subsidize them. I would like to hear Harold Howe's comment on that.

Mr. QUIE. I thought the intention of the guarantee program was to phase out the NDEA loans. I think we have passed that crossroad. You realize the interest of Congress to retain that loan program. I was wondering, then, why higher income people needed the guarantee. Mr. Howe. Mr. Quie, I think we have all come to recognize there needs to be in places a comprehensive package of student aids ranging from scholarship grants to various types of loans to work-study enterprises. I think the guaranteed-loan program performs the particular function of addressing itself to the problem of the middle-income family confronting high college expenses. This is a real problem.

As tuitions have moved up, particularly in private institutions, the person in the $8,000 or $10,000 or $12,000 income bracket confronting education costs of, say, $2,500 when you put tuition beside residential cost in a college, has an unmanageable situation to handle.

So it seems to me there is some rationale for a relatively high limit for the benefit of middle-income people. It seems to me we could argue about exactly where that line ought to be drawn, but I think it needs to be a reasonably high line to handle a very real problem.

Mr. QUIE. I guess, well, we won't argue this any more. I can understand the reason for helping with a loan and guaranteeing the loan so he can secure it, but it still bothers me why we have to have the subsidization of the interest, because it is pretty big subsidization now. Mr. Howe. It is 6 percent.

Mr. QUIE. Right; the way the level of interest rates are at the present time.

You mentioned on page 7, "The act would direct the Commissioner to conduct both long- and short-range forecasts of manpower needs ***." Why does the Commissioner need direction from Congress to do that?

Secretary GARDNER. I don't think he does.

Mr. QUIE. Why has it not been done already?

Secretary GARDNER. In the last 10 years we have seen a series of manpower needs but we have tended to do it in piecemeal fashion. The whole movement of the Education Professions Act is to examine all educational manpower in its totality. The purpose of putting it in the act was simply to make it a matter of record and make it a requirement that we place these appraisals before you. It seems to us that as we move toward broader categories we should be more punctilious in our reporting to you as to what we think the requirements are.