responsibility for its total program and reducing the significance of panels and counsels and their particular prejudices and biases in the development program. We believe that imposing responsibility for program and substantive leadership of the faculty on the university administration will significantly improve both the morale of the staff and the balance of program for the student and the nation. As a final point, may I suggest that additional attention should be given to the need to distribute research and program monies more widely among institutions throughout the country. At the present time a few universities get most of the support. Many of our colleges and universities, particularly of the emerging variety, now have high-quality staffs which offer great potential in research and program development. They are, on the whole, ineligible for many kinds of grants because they have not yet fully proved themselves, especially in the research areas. We do not argue that a substantial portion of the research funds should not be invested in the well-established university. A proportion of our capital should always be invested in the sure thing. What I do argue, however, is that another substantial sum should be placed in what may be called, if you wish, “risk investment." Potentially higher returns and greater long-range benefits to society might be much more pronounced if a larger percentage of research and program money were invested in these kinds of institutions. The Congress has traditionally adopted the view that a broad base of institution support is good for the American system and that "risk investment" pays off in our society. We hope that the Congress will continue to take the broad view that the investment in the smaller college and emerging university is sound and necessary. This can be done only if the legislation makes certain that promising institutions are sought out and developed. The present large sums of money going to such things as research and development centers and regional research laboratories, as well as research monies in general, will benefit, almost exclusively, the large, well-established university. Additional money is needed for the development of diversified curriculums based on sound planning and directed to meeting the needs of students and society in general. One example would be a provision for monies to establish smaller research and development centers in these kinds of institutions. This would be especially desirable in the area of teacher education. One of the reasons behind my argument is that it is these kinds of institutions which are most likely to develop a balanced research, teaching and service program. It is here that the emerging university, which is at the present time teaching- and people-oriented, can make its greatest contribution. Unless funds are made available to these kinds of institutions, they have no choice, if they are to share in the federal bounty, but to copy the pattern of the already successful university. I see nothing in the amendments which will help correct this situation. May I thank the committee for this opportunity to present my views relative to the proposed legislation. Dr. COLLINS. Thank you. I am president of the State University of New York at Albany. While my opinions are not representative of any official views of any organization or institution, allow me first to express my appreciation of the early extension of existing acts which are accomplished by the amendments of 1967. When Congress gives colleges and universities, as it does here, time for advance planning, the usefulness of Federal assistance has increased. In general I would join with my colleagues in expressing support for the general intent of the 1967 amendments and our suggestions and criticisms are minor as compared to the total provisions of the act. One point I think not mentioned here this morning is one I am sure you have already heard testimony on from other representatives of higher education and that is the desirability of retaining the 3-percent interest rate on loans for the construction of college academic facilities and to raise the percentage as would result from the amend ment to title X, would seriously restrict the very institutions it is designed to even help most. The operation of the interest formula would result in an increase of at least five-eighths percent and possibly 15% percent and such an increase would inevitably constitute a deterrent in construction of the facilities needed. To come back in concert with my completion I am happy to support those provisions designed to broaden and consolidate support of the teacher training programs. We especially applaud the innovative and imaginative approaches to teacher education as in title V, section 531. The supply of needed teachers in the elementary and secondary schools will be increased somewhat by the provision of fellowships for college students. A far more important effect, I believe, is accomplished by the encouragement of desirable changes in the pattern of curriculum in teacher education. Too often an aspirant of the provision is repelled by the dull and discouraging program which is said to lead to teaching. This amendment should encourage the development of programs which make courses preparing for teaching more realistic, more meaningful, more clearly representative of the appeals and rewards of teaching. Such a result all in the profession would applaud. Similarly, I welcome the proposed provisions for strengthening the programs for the preparation of higher education personnel, especially the development of capabilities for college teaching. The efforts of some 200 colleges and universities now offering or planning to offer such programs would be greatly strengthened by this proposal. The shortage of instructors in higher education, especially for the 2-year colleges, is currently urgent, and will get worse. Provision such as is made in the proposed act for a range of subdoctoral programs to prepare college teachers is urgently needed and offers real promise of alleviating the impending shortage. The increased scope and variety of programs eligible for support and the greater flexibility of administration especially in regard to the setting of stipends, these provisions increase the effectiveness of the basic program. I do not share the fears expressed by some of the colleagues in teacher education regarding the authority granted to the Commissioner for them to contract with private agencies to carry out programs or projects designed to prepare teachers. If the purpose is to prepare more and better teachers, no legitimate resource should be ignored or restricted and if some private agency can present a program more attractive than that of the usual institutions, that program should be supported and the traditional institutions urged to benefit from the comparison. Title V, in creating the new education professions development program, attacks both the problem of the shortage of teaching personnel and the problem of the multiplicity of overlapping programs and agencies through which the institutions must operate. This latter is so familiar to members of the committee it should need no further emphasis from me. To the extent this present confusion can be simplified by the provisions of the act, the effectiveness of the combined college and university efforts will be multiplied. I would be pleased to elaborate on any of these points, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the committee. Thank you. Mr. ESCH. Thank you for your statement. Your complete statement will be placed in the record at this point, Dr. Collins. (The document referred to follows:) TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY EVAN R. COLLINS in Behalf of THE AMERICAN Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Evan R. Collins, President of the State University of New York at Albany. I appreciate the opportunity to bring to you this morning views which I feel are representative of teacher educators across the country. Allow me first to express my appreciation of the early extension of existing Acts that is accomplished by Higher Education Amendments of 1967. When the Congress gives colleges and universities, as it does here, time for advanced planning, the usefulness of federal assistance has increased. In general, I join by colleagues here this morning in expressing support for the general intent of provisions of the 1967 amendments. Our suggestions and criticisms are minor in comparison to the total provisions of the Act. You have already heard testimony from other representatives of higher education as to the desirability of retaining the 3% interest rate on loans for the construction of college academic facilities. To raise the interest rate by a full percentage point or more, as would result from the proposed amendment of Title X, would seriously restrict the advantages of the program for the very institutions it is designed to help most. As has been pointed out to you, the operation of the interest formula would result in an increase of at least 5% of 1% and possibly as much as 1% %. Such an increase would inevitably constitute a deterrent in the construction of the facilities needed. I am happy to commend and support those provisions designed to broaden and consolidate support to teacher training programs. We especially applaud encouragement of innovative and imaginative aproaches to teacher education as in Title V, Section 531. The supply of needed teachers in the elementary and secondary schools will be increased somewhat by the provision of fellowships for college students. A far more important effect, I believe, is accomplished by the encouragement of desirable changes in the pattern of curriculum in teacher education. Too often an aspirant of the provision is repelled by the dull and discouraging program which is said to lead to teaching. This amendment should encourage the development of programs which make courses preparing for teaching more realistic, more meaningful, more clearly representative of the appeals and rewards of teaching. Such a result, all in the profession would applaud. Similarly, I welcome the proposed provisions for strengthening the programs for the preparation of higher education personnel, especially the development of capabilities for college teaching. The efforts of some 200 colleges and universities now offering or planning to offer such programs would be greatly strengthened by this provision. The shortage of instructors in higher education, especially for the two year colleges, is currently urgent, and will get worse. Provision such as is made in the proposed Act for a range of sub-doctoral programs to prepare college teachers is urgently needed and offers real promise of alleviating the impending shortage. The increased scope and variety of programs eligible for support and the greater flexibility of administration especially in regard to the setting of stipends; these provisions increase the effectiveness of the basic program. I do not share the fears expressed by some of my colleagues in teacher education regarding the authority granted to the Commissioner to contract with private agencies to carry out programs or projects designed to prepare teachers. If the purpose is to prepare more and better teachers, no legitimate resource should be ignored or restricted and if some private agency can present a program more attractive than that of the usual institutions, that program should be supported and the traditional institutions urged to benefit from the comparison Title V, in creating the new Education Professions Development Program, attacks both the problem of the shortage of teaching personnel and the problem of the multiplicity of overlapping programs and agencies through which the institutions must operate. This latter is so familiar to members of the committee it should need no further emphasis from me. To the extent this present confusion 80-155-67-pt. 1-21 can be simplified by the provisions of this Act, the effectiveness of the combined college and university efforts will be multiplied. I would be pleased to elaborate on any of these points, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to bring my thoughts to the committee. Thank you. Mr. ESCH. I wonder if we might get into the question of the Commissioner being allowed to award contracts. The general tone of your statement was that you thought the innovation provided by colleges could develop creative programs for colleges and university teachers? Dr. COLLINS. Right. Mr. ESCH. Yet you say you need a stimulating program to develop competition of agencies with institutions of higher learning? Dr. COLLINS. I don't think this is an acknowledgement that we need this, it is rather to say we need to leave the door open for good ideas from any sources, we should not preclude any. Mr. ESCH. I think those opposing the Commissioner granting contracts oppose it on the basis of policy made by the Commissioner rather than policy by the institutions of higher learning and they would strongly support contracts directed by the institutions of higher learning. You, however, believe the Commissioner should also have this power of setting policy through awarding contracts. Dr. COLLINS. I should prefer to see the institution put this in a larger framework. I should be much more comfortable with the provision that the Commissioner would need clearance through his coordinating councils if this power were to be vested in him. Mr. ESCH. Do we have the creativity and innovation available in our institutions and colleges of higher learning to change the curriculum in teacher education as you suggest there? You are implying you do by your testimony. Dr. COLLINS. I think we do, yes. Mr. EscH. What is needed now is the funding, is that right? Dr. COLLINS. I think there is an increasing recognition on the part of even the most traditionally minded institution that current problems need new solutions and there is a considerable ferment going on in institutions across the country that could well use the kind of encouragement that is represented by some of the provisions of this act. Mr. SACHS. I don't think money is the key to this. But my institution is 5 years old and we have a very nontraditional approach to teacher training. We are changing it now after 5 years. I think we need to encourage this kind of thing. I would like to leave the door open. If some private agency has a bright idea and wants to bring it into the educational arena, I think that is good. Dr. PEARL. I don't accept the thought there is some great innovative power now in these private agencies. I watched them in the Job Corps and they are just as bad as we are. Mr. EscH. If we reflect, the goals are consistency and creativity, and the problems this committee faces is how to reach both in the coming decade. We appreciate all of you being here. I am sure your testimony will be well received and well read. We will stand in recess until next Tuesday at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 12, 1967.) HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1967 TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1967 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edith Green presiding. Present: Representatives Green, Gibbons, Carey, Burton, Quie, Erlenborn, and Esch. Also present: William F. Gaul, counsel to the subcommittee. Mrs. GREEN. The subcommittee will come to order for further consideration of the Higher Education Act of 1967. We are delighted to have our colleague appear before the subcommittee this morning to discuss a particular piece of legislation that she has that would have an impact on the Education Professions Development Act. May I say to you that we are always delighted when you can join our subcommittee and I wish personally that you were a member of this subcommittee. I hope one of these days you will be. I think you are doing a tremendous job on the full committee and in the House. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. PATSY T. MINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Mrs. MINK. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the Spe- . cial Subcommittee on Education. I am pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee now considering H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Act Amendments of 1967. I am particularly interested in title V of the bill relating to the education professions development. As you know, in the last session I sponsored a bill-H.R. 10622-which provided for the establishment of a national sabbatical leave program for elementary and secondary teachers. It was reported out of our Committee on Education and Labor, but did not reach the House floor for consideration. I am pleased to see that H.R. 6232, now before this committee, is also addressing itself to this vital question of improving the quality of American education by providing programs of enrichment for our elementary and secondary teachers. 317 |