« PreviousContinue »
municipal and other government agencies will come up possibly with funds of $25,000.
In other areas this will take some work and demonstration of what is happening so you can get the support. Probably if we had 2 full years we would have been in a better position to accept 50-50. I would make this plea more for private schools and junior colleges than for the State institutions.
There is a little bit of difference here. The community colleges are just getting their programs off the ground and to ask them to go 50-50 would just about eliminate their participation. We had 32 projects submitted and 11 were submitted that said if it went to 50-50 they would withdraw their proposals.
We tried to work in our own State with a statewide approach to this and we feel our junior colleges and our State and private institutions are as important, if not more important in some cases than we are.
I would hate to be put in the position they were not able to participate.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Pitchell mentioned there was a crash program. You had 30 days to get the thing off the ground. Are you talking about these community programs?
Mr. PITCHELL. No, sir; on that occasion I was talking about 1966 teacher training program for adult basic education.
Mr. ERLENBORN. What time period were you talking about, when was this 30 days running out?
Mr. PITCHELL. It was at the end of May, really. We had word from the Office of Education
Mr. ERLENBORN. For 1966?
Mr. PITCHELL. Yes. We had word from the Office of Education in early May that they were very interested in having us do this program but it was not until the end of May that the proposal was received.
The program at the universities had to start August 1. We had to start the national work in June. We had our first meetings on June 13 nd 14, as a matter of fact, so actually from the time we had official word it had received official approval from the Office of Education, we had about 2 weeks to get the first national conference going.
We had 60 days then for the actual institutes to go in at the universities. This is a very, very serious problem of administration to try to get effective programs going.
Mr. ERLENBORN. It certainly is and I wondered what kind of effective program you can design to hire the personnel and develop your program in a period of 60 or 90 days and then start running institutes. Isn't there a lot of waste in a crash program like that? Wouldn't you have been able to do a better job and get more for your money if you had 6 months or a year for planning?
Mr. PITCHELL. I think that would be true but we would have lost 1 year's leadtime on this as in Headstart in 1965 when they decided to go in 1965 instead of 1966. The teachers could only be available in the summer for a 4-week residential course.
They had to go back to school and teach in September. It had to go in August or in the following June. I think our best estimates are-and this is a rough guess-there may be about 250 teachers really qualified to teach adult basic education; that is, well-trained and experienced teachers.
At that time the States were funded for bringing in about 200,000 adult illiterates into the program. It was evident they would have to use about 25,000 teachers in this program, of which a maximum would not have any specialized training.
The answer was to set up a teacher training program. This was a program in which the States and local school systems attempted to identify master teachers-that is, their most capable teachers-some of these 250, as many as possible, the best, most experienced people in this field.
They were brought to the universities, given 4 weeks of intensive training. We recruited the best and most experienced academic people. After training, the teacher trainers went back to their States and local communities and it was their job to run inservice programs for other teachers.
With a thousand trained during the summer of 1966 in ways and means of organizing teacher training programs in the local schools, the theory was that they would be able to go back and operate inservice training programs during the course of this coming year; that is, since last September until right now.
We have just finished our fieldwork to see how well this has worked. I have been out in the field on this myself in several places. At least in the places I have been this really worked quite well and I really think we got our money's worth.
The alternative was to abandon the program or have teachers with no exposure whatsoever to adult basic education. They were professional teachers mostly but they have been trained in elementary and secondary and not to work with adult illiterates.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Isn't there an advantage in having more planning time?
Dr. GOERKE. We had one member institution from our State university system in the program and our response, most appropriately to the Office of Education, was either we get 6 months' leadtime or we are not in the program.
Mr. PITCHELL. The early evaluation we made was that it is imperative that everybody be given 6 months' leadtime. But the alternative at that time was different. The money was out there, the programs were going. That was the point.
Mr. ERLENBORN. That is the point. Every time we appropriate money there is a crash program to spend it and very little thought given to designing the kind of program that will make meaningful use of the funds available. I hate to put it in these terms but it seems people across the country become greedy as soon as Federal dollars are appropriated; they grasp to get the money before the authorization or appropriation elapses.
Mr. GIBBONS. I was trying to cut that down and somewhere trying to boost it up. I won't get into personalities on that.
Mrs. GREEN. They did not apply for funds. The Office of Education came to them and asked if they would not spend them.
Mr. ERLENBORN. We found this in other programs. Maybe I shouldn't blame the people in the field but the Office of Education.
Mr. BURTON. I note that you have 49 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in your continuing education program organization; what is the State that is missing?
Mr. PITCHELL. Vermont, but they just indicated they are going to apply.
Mr. BURTON. I note the Virgin Islands is not included. What is the status of the Virgin Islands? Is your organization in contact with them?
Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, I had a nice chat with President Wanlass down there about a year ago and told him we would be very much interested in having his college a member of the Association. It is a voluntary association. We never pressure anybody. People simply feel there is a need for association with other institutions having programs of this type. It is the only vehicle we now have for professional training inside the higher education institutions, the divisions of continuing extension education.
Mr. BURTON. They are not on your institution lists?
Mr. PITCHELL. No.
Mr. BURTON. Were they informed as to this program the Commissioner of Education asked you to disseminate through your communications setup?
Mr. PITCHELL. In 1966 that was not possible. In 1967 they were. All of the institutions of higher education in this country were notified by the Commissioner of Education as to the availability of this program.
Mr. BURTON. You wouldn't know of your own knowledge whether or not they participated to any extent in this program, or would you? Mr. PITCHELL. Let us see. I didn't come to testify on that but I am pretty sure they sent at least two people in adult basic education. I am not referring to the college down there, but the Virgin Islands sent two people up to the State University of New York in Buffalo for training. That is my impression.
Mr. GIBBONS. It is my impression they have very little adult illiteracy. They have a good school system and maybe they didn't need it.
Dr. GOERKE. We ought to find out what they are doing. It must be right.
Mrs. GREEN. Let me recap the time you had to conduct the program. The Office of Education came to you in May?
Mr. PITCHELL. Actually just the first time was in April. The Office of Education asked if we would be interested in talking with them about doing this program. I had to talk with our people, our board of directors and the executive committee so that after the first contact in April, I went back early in May and said our people would be interested in continuing discussions with them about it.
Mrs. GREEN. And the institute was during what month?
Mr. PITCHELL. They all began about the 1st of August. Only one began, I think, the 8th of August. They were over in August.
Mr. GREEN. So in May sometime you were contacted. When did you sign the agreement for doing this?
Mr. PITCHELL. We had a preliminary training grant. It was early
in June, so we could begin the work on it. We had a fundamental agreement to do it and then had to work out the details.
Mrs. GREEN. You had in June and July, sent notices to all the people who might be interested in attending the institute, the training program?
Mr. PITCHELL. It was the responsibility of the Office of Education since we do not have any regular contact with the State directors of adult basic education either through this contract or otherwise. The Office of Education has this responsibility. It was their responsibility to communicate with the State directors, advise them of the fact these institutes were set up, who would be qualified, what the purposes were, then it was up to the State directors to communicate with the local communities, get the names of qualified persons and supply them to the universities.
Universities in turn notified these people of housing arrangements and all the other logistics needs.
Mrs. GREEN. If I understand correctly, in 2 months' time the notices went out to the States and interested parties who might want to attend and in 2 months' time you recruited all-you said the most highly qualified personnel in the country, and made arrangements made for them to be there in August.
You made arrangements for the housing and everything else? Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, we are proud of our accomplishment here. As far as I know we had no serious breakdowns. We had no serious complaints that there was a serious deficiency. There were normal problems.
Mrs. GREEN. Do you know what the cost was? Did a thousand attend?
Mr. PITCHELL. 982 trainees and 59 State administrators attended so we had 1,051.
Mrs. GREEN. It averaged out about $1,000 per individual?
Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. GREEN. For 4 weeks' training?
Mr. PITCHELL. Yes, ma'am, and much of this I would say-about 60 percent was in stipends and travel to the participants.
Mrs. GREEN. Isn't $1,000 for 4 weeks a pretty good sum?
Mr. PITCHELL. The universities were paid approximately $14 per day per student, which is really very low for this kind of program.
Mrs. GREEN. $1,000 for 4 weeks. A 9-month school year would be $9,000. Do you think that is a cheap amount?
Mr. PITCHELL. If you add the travel and stipends it becomes a large amount. This is a basic policy decision as to whether people coming to these programs will have their travel paid. Stipends average about $105 a week including dependency for training, or $420 for the 4week session.
Hence $420 of that went to the trainee and $110 went to the trainee for his travel so over half the funds that went to the institutions went to the trainee.
Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much for your testimony, Dr. Goerke and Mr. Pitchell.
The hearing stands in recess subject to call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the call of the Chair.)
(The following material was submitted for the record :)
STATEMENT OF HON. HERBERT TENZER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear and present to the Members of the Special Subcommittee on Education my views on the proposed Higher Education Amendments of 1967 (H.R. 6232). I am pleased to say that during the 89th Congress, I supported the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Amendments of 1966.
I favor legislation designed to improve our country's educational system and to provide our students with the available service and our teachers with the funds necessary for their education and for further development of their careers. Therefore, today, I support the Administration's proposal to extend and strengthen the Higher Education Act of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Education Professions Development Act and the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965.
I, too, have introduced legislation (HR 8550), being considered by your Subcommittee today. My proposal differs from HR 6232 under the proposed Educacation Professions Development Act, which will become effective July 1, 1969, in that I am further amending Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend the coverage under the bill to include all foreign languages.
Thus, we will enable all present and prospective language teachers to qualify under the amendments to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965. I believe this amendment will remove most of the categorical restrictions so that all languages not classified as modern foreign languages, but which are official languages used in international trade such as Greek and Hebrew, will also qualify under the provisions of Title V.
Since I support the proposed amendments to the aforementioned Acts, I will only direct my testimony to the areas which I feel have not already been extensively covered by previous testimony.
Speaking in defense of my proposed amendment to Title V, I have in mind specifically such languages as Greek, Hebrew and Latin. These languages should be considered on an equal basis with modern foreign languages under the provisions of Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Approximately 90 universities and colleges in the United States, including every major university have courses in Judaica studies in their curricula. These courses include Hebrew as a modern language. Hebrew the original language of the Old Testament is today the official language of the State of Israel which carries on trade with the United States and more than 70 other nations of the world. When the State of Israel was established many of the agencies and departments of the United States Government sought stenographers, typists and translators of Hebrew and that need exists today. A considerable amount of research is being conducted today in many fields of education of original documents in the Hebrew language.
To a very great extent, and particularly with reference to International Trade the same applies to the Greek language.
Since higher institutions of learning generally set the pace for our secondary schools, it is significant that colleges are aware of their responsibility and are taking practical steps toward revitalizing the teaching of Latin.
A survey published by the American Classical League reports that experiments have been conducted "to find out what factors, if any are found among men who have attained the greatest success in their chosen fields of work. Only one such factor was found universally present. That was a wide knowledge of the meaning of English words. The top business executive ranked first in this respect; the college professors were a close second."
But this direct value to English is something more than a knowledge of words and of grammar. It includes training in understanding and expressing thought. By constant practice in trying to express in English the thought of a Latin writer, in choosing precisely the right words to convey the exact shade of his meaning, the student learns his own language as he otherwise could not do.
Furthermore, this training in understanding and using English makes abstract thinking possible. The understanding of meaningful symbols, which transcend the boundaries imposed by a single language, is enhanced by the study of Latin.