members of the committee have concern for the type of funding for these regional education labs.

The directors of these labs being employed at salaries exceeding the school State supervisor's office, and outside the normal appropriation process, are not subject to the hiring limitations, travel limitations, or salary limitations of other Federal employees, and I understand, for instance, that the State of Pennsylvania now falls in three separate regional lab areas.

I wonder about the rationale here. Why should there be three different regional labs serving the State of Pennsylvania?

Dr. SACHS. I would like to add one fear, that the regional lab would be subject to the same kind of complex as the R. & D. centers, the big institutions will dominate. Another thing that bothers me is that the regional lab should be centered in large centers and a great deal of their attention should be paid to urban school problems and I am not sure this is what has developed.

Mr. ERLENBORN. It seems most of the people I talked to held the view that their principal and only mission under this is to disseminate information about new teaching methods, and so forth, developed in the R. & D. centers.

Should we divide this job and create a separate system of educational labs to disseminate information developed in the universities and R. & D. centers? Is this the function they are to play and, if so, does it make any sense?

Does anybody have a comment on that?

Dr. ADKINS. I think our silence is because we don't really know what these labs are doing and don't know what they are going to do. We have had and still have high hopes they will serve worthwhile purposes in education but they should be more than dissemination centers, in my opinion.

If that is all they are going to do, we can find better and less expensive ways.

Dr. COLLINS. There is a reason for this rash of uncertainty. Most labs have been subject to more uncertainty on financing than most institutions.

This has made the mechanics of formulating and developing the regional labs much more complicated. It has meant the first year or year and a half in many cases has been addressed to the machinery of getting the labs set up on a cooperative basis in order to represent the interests of a region which is often, as you have said in the case of Pennsylvania, an artificial region.

A piece of Pennsylvania is in New York State for these purposes, and so on. These mechanical difficulties have, I think, precluded the possibility of any real results, indeed any clarity of purpose, from emerging as soon as we might have hoped.

Dr. ADKINS. There is nothing mechanical about Pennsylvania nor is any part of it in New York, I want that very clear.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Before anyone else continues here, I hope you do continue, I have to apologize that I must leave again. I have not been here very long but Mr. Esch is still here.

Mr. ESCH. I was signally honored by your serving as acting chairman, Mr. Erlenborn, and I am also honored to serve as acting chairman my first term.

I want to express my appreciation for your being here. I would like to discuss some broader interpretations. To what degree should we move ahead to a program for giving aid for students in higher education in specific programs of work-study and aid to disadvantaged youth?

Should our interest in the next decade be toward a broader scope or should we be concerned with a limited work-study program for the disadvantaged?

Dr. COLLINS. I am not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Escн. Should we consider a movement for higher education to be given to all students who can qualify? Do you think we should have a broad Federal program for support to such students as the disadvantaged?

Dr. COLLINS. You would set as a goal universal free higher education ?

Mr. EscH. I did not but I wondered what the philosophy was among the group.

Dr. COLLINS. Let me respond. As an individual, I will be disagreed with, but I think there is a contradiction in terms of the proposal, if I understand it, education which is universal is not higher.

Mr. EscH. Anyone else want to comment ?

Dr. PEARL. Education that is not universal is not necessarily higher. Dr. COLLINS. That is right.

Dr. PEARL. I would not be for it for the simple reason I don't think you could do it and I think you would end up having the same kind of discriminatory education we have now. I think we owe more to disadvantage youth than we are now giving them.

One of the problems we are having with all youth, rich and poor alike, is the problem we put them on the shelf for 20-some years before they do anything.

Society says you can't do anything until you have had 3, 4, 6, or 9 years of schooling after high school. These youths have never had the opportunity to participate. I would like the meaningful proposition of participating while you are getting college credits in lieu of just being a passing absorber of education.

Mr. ESCH. Anyone else?

Dr. SACHS. I would say a work-study program and something involving students in something more than just an opportunity to earn money while going to school.

Mr. EscH. One question relates to the great dichotomy of the Office of Education and the Health, Education, and Welfare Department and it is reflected sometimes in prolific programs, very diversified in nature, dealing with the problems of deprived youth.

To what degree do you see as a problem, the need to coordinate programs between the Department of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare?

Dr. ADKINS. Most of my testimony was on this particular point a few minutes ago and I for one, here this morning, feel this is one of the greatest deterrents to mounting a major program which might help solve some of these enormous problems in our cities.

Unless we can find a way to coordinate the many, many bureaus, agencies, and foundations, so that they can all be brought to bear on a major problem, a big one, then we will continue to have trouble.

Even on something as simple as applying for Federal aid for purposes of building a classroom structure, for instance, we have an almost impossible task.

We just completed one proposal on a graduate psychology institution where we had again to apply to three major agencies, National Science Foundation, Office of Education and the Department of Helth, Education, and Welfare; each was different.

It is the same building, the same program, and yet we spent an enormous amount of duplicating time, I don't mean on a machine, I mean duplicating efforts to prepare three separate proposals, each agency is separate in that it can have its own deadlines and guidelines, that sort of thing.

As a result the paper effort in our institutions is getting to be insurmountable also. Why is it we can't apply, for instance, directly with the same proposal at the same time and cut down the enormous costs?

Mr. ESCн. To what degree would Federal funding and Federal support but more local control over diversified programs, resolve this conflict?

Dr. ADKINS. It would resolve it a great deal if we could have more institutional-type grants.

Mr. ESCH. Noncategorical?

Dr. ADKINS. Noncategorical or within broad limitations, it might be for the improvement of teacher education, research in the physical sciences or whatever.

Mr. Escн. You recognize these would have to be subject to review? Dr. ADKINS. I understand and I am not asking for lifting of controls but there are different kinds of controls and they could be more unified so we could do this thing once.

For the building I just cited, in addition to the 6 months already in this, we will have three site visits one from each of these agencies, and that will take two more days each.

These people come from all over, why can't one group of experts come in and do this job?

Mr. EscH. I concur with you and appreciate your comments. We have not heard from Professor Collins formally and I wonder if we might hear from him now.

We will place your full statement in the record, Dr. Adkins, and thank you again, sir.

(The document referred to follows:)

TESTIMONY of Dr. Edwin P. ADKINS, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PHILADELPHIA

Madam Chairman, gentlemen of the Committee, I am Edwin P. Adkins, Director of Research and Academic Program Development at Temple University in Philadelphia. Prior to undertaking my present assignment I had been Dean or Vice President of Academic Affairs in three institutions of higher education over a period of 17 years. It is on the basis of this experience that I speak to you today.

May I begin by complimenting this committee and Congress on the tremendous program of federal support to education which has been generated in the last few years. In general, we in the higher education community are most supportive of the program and believe it has meant a giant stride forward of the educational enterprise in the several states and in the nation. We are much farther ahead

in education today than we could have even dreamed ten years ago. To be sure, part of this increased support has come from the states and local communities, but our rapid forward momentum has been in large part due to the effort of the federal government.

On the whole, I am in agreement with the proposed amendments to the various educational acts which are under consideration by this committee. The extension of the several titles, in some cases for a longer period of time than has been the practice in the past, is encouraging. The change in the nature of Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 is noteworthy. The new Sections 504, 505 and 506 are particularly to be commended, since they provide a small beginning in a much needed direction: the shifting of funds from program to program, and the coordination of effort among three agencies dealing with educational funding. The new Section 541 adds a needed provision for the training of teachers and administrators for our institutions of higher education.

I do disagree with two or three parts of the amendments, as proposed. First, the legislation dealing with the Teacher Corps continues the practice of having the Office of Education select participants, in a sense placing in the hands of the central government the responsibility for selecting teachers for our local school systems. It is true that the local system may reject these teachers and theoretically is free to participate in the program on a voluntary basis. In practice, this is hardly the case in these days of teacher shortages. I submit that the institution of higher education which trains these teachers and the local school system which uses them are in the best position to select participants with the greatest potential for success in a given situation. This is especially true of the conditions which prevail in our large urban centers.

Secondly, the extension of training programs for teachers under Title V is to be commended, but this section does continue the old practice of stipulating fixed amounts for the stipends going to participants. $2,000, $2,300, and $2,400 for the young man with a large family are not realistic in many cases. The man with four small children would be hard-pressed to live within this financial constraint. If flexible stipend payments were possible, a considerably larger number of highly qualified persons in the 25-40 age bracket would be made available to the program.

Under the amendments to Title VI as proposed, the historical practice of providing for programs of matching grants for equipment and materials is continuing. This in theory is not a bad idea. In practice, however, it does work to the detriment of those institutions which are academically strong but are lacking in financial resources. It would seem more equitable to establish a sliding schedule, geared to the financial resources of the institution. Unless some such practice is adopted, the "haves" will continue to prosper while the "have-nots" will fall farther and farther behind.

Thirdly, the support for teacher education at the graduate level, which is proposed under the amendments, should accrue to the benefit of the teaching profession. The lack of support for teacher education at the undergraduate level, however, continues to hold back many worthwhile efforts. For an institution such as I represent, which focuses its attention on the educational problems plaguing our urban centers, this need is especially great. A massive effort at the undergraduate as well as the graduate level is necessary if we are to solve the problems of education besetting our cities.

May I turn my discussion to several areas which are not covered in the presently proposed amendments but which, it seems to me, need careful attention by the Congress. In general, the system of overlapping authorities and overlapping programs of the many agencies involved in education continues to plague the universities. Some real coordination of effort among these myriad agencies must be brought about if we are not to expend an exorbitant amount of our resources in the process of discovering the sources of money and in preparing proposals for all the agencies involved. For example, at my institution we just now submitted proposals on a proposed science building to the Office of Education, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. Under the present system, these proposals are involved, bulky, and extremely time consuming in their preparation. A separate proposal must go to each agency because each has different deadlines and different guidelines. The preparation of one proposal does not help you too much in the preparation of the others, even though they are basically for the same purpose. In addition, we will have three site visits, probably of two days each, by these agencies. Six months of efforts on the part of

many people went into the writing of these proposals. Why could these three agencies not adopt a common set of guidelines which would serve all purposes well? One joint site visit should suffice. By the time we finish an exercise of the kind I have just described, I sometimes think that the greatest threat to the survival of mankind-particularly the higher education segment of mankindis not the hydrogen bomb but suffocation by the mountains of paper which must be handled in even the simpliest proposal. Coordination of the effort of the several agencies involved in the same kind of project is one of our greatest needs.

On another front, the proliferation of agencies which control federal funds for the support of higher education makes it virtually impossible to plan and seek support for a massive and fundamental effort in teacher education or, for that matter, in any other phase of our programming. Although some improvement has been recognizable, we have yet to find a way to bring together all the funding agencies appropriate to major proposals. While education may be central to the solution of many problems which present themselves in our cities, they are not educational problems alone. Our social agencies, our psychological services, our health program, our housing, among many other factors, contribute to these problems and all must be coordinated if basic solutions are to be found. At the present time, may I reiterate, it is almost impossible to bring all of the concerned agencies together in support of a major proposal. I can not emphasize too strongly the need for coordination at the highest levels, and I suspect this must be accomplished through some form of legislation.

Again, I do not believe that the presently proposed legislation corrects a very real evil which has developed in our institutions, partly as a result of federal support programs. I refer to the practice of granting most federal money on the basis of projects involving a few people, or one individual. The need is for institutional grants, to be made within prescribed areas of activity, over which the institution will have much more control than is presently the case. In many of our institutions the professor is becoming a private entrepreneur. He is putting all of his emphasis upon his personal research and upon the acquisition of additional research monies. As a result, he is virtually independent of his institution or control by his administration. The by-product of this system is that the professor, in too many cases, is putting all of his emphasis upon the discovery of knowledge, usually in a very narrow field of study, and is backing away from the teaching function and from the application of his acquired knowledge to the solution of problems. May I urge you to consider the possibility that greater gains. could be made in the long run if more of the grants were made on an institutional basis, thus leaving a certain amount of control over the expenditure of this money and over college and university personnel in the hands of the institutions. Again may I revert for an example to the problems of our cities. As I indicated earlier, these problems are so complex and so many-faceted that the isolated project approach is relatively ineffective. Ten isolated projects are equally ineffective unless overall planning is done by the institution and the problem attacked in some kind of unified manner. The institution which is devoting its attention to the study and solution of urban problems can do a better job if research and program monies come to that institution directly rather than to several members of the faculty or several groups of faculty members on the project basis.

Lest I be misunderstood, may I hasten to add that I am not proposing that the federal government lift all controls over the expenditure of its funds. I would oppose this vigorously. However, I believe the general controls and accounting could be maintained and at the same time more positive results could be obtained through the institutional grants system. It seems to me that the institutional grants procedure would minimize special program accounting and control problems, while providing a more effective tool for promoting the utilization of university and grantor support in producing an excellent program. Such insitutional grants should be based on some share of the university's total effort, as evidenced by its accounting for its functions. Detailed program accounts could be used as a measure of total effort in specific directions and would serve as a basis for determining eligibility for and the amount of grants. Once awarded, such support should be available for us without retriction except as to general purpose. We in higher education would hope that a system of block grants may be developed in such areas as education, service programs, and scientific research. In the longer term, it would be our view that the institutional program should become the general base for academic grants, thus increasing the university's