Page images

Albert Einstein wrote that "Latin is superior to any modern language for developing the power of thinking."

More broadly, the knowledge of Latin is essential to an understanding of our cultural heritage. The fatuous assumption that Latin is a “dead” language, that its study is not practical, and hence useless in the modern world, is belied by the awareness in education circles if not in the popular mind, that from Latin springs the fountain of Western philosophy and thought. Latin is the language of many men who have directly influenced the way we think today. If there are no more scholars who can read the original works of these men, the direct communication with our cultural past will be lost.

Zoological, botanical, biological and genetic terms are frequently written in Latin. In all of the areas, the terminology can obviously be memorized, but a viable and spontaneous understanding of the language is essential to a full and meaningful command of the technical vocabulary. Of the almost 500,000 recipients of four-year degrees in the United States in 1964, more than 43,000, or almost nine percent majored in the biological and physical degrees, of which almost 16,000 or 34% were in the field of health and/or medicine; and almost 12,000 or 26% were in the field of law. Of the 16,000 doctoral degrees awarded in the same year, almost 29% were in the sciences.

Thus, it is clear that substantial percentages of our students will need the benefit of Latin study if they are to pursue meaningfully and thoroughly the careers they have chosen.

To further this necessary foundation, we must make available under the amendments to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the language in my bill, HR 8550. I believe this adoption will remove any doubt which may exist under the provisions of HR 6232,

At this point, I am submitting as additional testimony a letter with qualifying attachments from Dr. John F. Latimer, widely renowned for his work with the American Classical League and, in general with languages, who addresses himself to the problem at hand and supports my proposed amendment to Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965.


U.S. House of Representatives.

Oxford, Ohio, April 17, 1967.

MY DEAR MR. TENZER: I was very pleased to have your letter and to know that you are proposing that the word "modern" in the phrase "modern foreign languages" be omitted in Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as presented in the Administration's proposal. This change would make it absolutely certain that classical languages and Classical Hebrew would come under the provisions of Title V.

This change would have a most beneficial effect on the study and teaching of the classical languages, particularly in our secondary schools. In 1956 a study, initiated by the American Philological Association and the American Classical League, pointed out that within a period of ten years, 40 per cent of the Latin teachers in public secondary schools of the United States would have to be replaced. These figures were probably an underestimate. During the last two or three years reports that have reached me by letter and by personal contact indicate that the teacher shortage has become one of our most serious problems.

This shortage, ironically enough, is related to some of the provisions in the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The current Title XI of that Act pertains to some of our institutes for teachers. Although the Act has been amended several times, teachers of the classics have never been eligible for summer institutes. This omission has been a handicap in the recruitment of teachers in the field of classics at the secondary level. Since classical languages constitute the only major discipline in American education not included in summer institutes for the training of teachers at the secondary level, the effect has been to set up what Dr. Jerome Bruner, the outstanding American psychologist at Harvard, has called a "meritocracy." In brief, a meritocracy comes about when scholarships and prizes are awarded for merit in a given academic field with an increasing "devaluation of other forms of scholarly enterprise . . . good teachers in the nonscientific fields will be harder to recruit, harder to attract into teaching. Motives for learning in these fiields will become feebler." This quote is taken

from The Process of Education, by Jerome S. Bruner, Harvard University Press (1960) pp. 77-70.

The results which Dr. Bruner foresaw were beginning to happen because of the increasing emphasis on science and technology which had not been counterbalanced in 1960 at the time he wrote. The counterbalance had actually begun for modern foreign languages by the passage of the NDEA in 1958, but the effects had not yet become noticeable in 1960. Additional counterbalance for the arts and humanities was provided by the establishment of the National Arts and Humanities Foundation in 1965. Although the classical languages are obviously included under most of its provisions, the opportunities for the retraining of teachers in summer institutes, in competition with all of the arts and the other humanities, are extremely limited. In the summer of 1966 a summer institute for forty Latin teachers was held at the University of Minnesota, for six weeks. In the summer of 1967 an institute for thirty-five Latin teachers will be held at the University of Minnesota for two weeks.

Since the retraining of teachers is one of the desirable factors of a summer institute, if larger number of Latin teachers in the secondary schools do not receive such training, the situation in Latin will undoubtedly grow worse and worse.

In all fairness it must be pointed out that classical languages are included in the provisions of Title IV of the revised National Defense Education Act. In 1966-67 fellowships were awarded to eighteen different institutions. For the academic year 1967-68 thirty institutions have received the fellowships. These awards are most gratifying. Since the programs require doctoral studies, most if not all of the recipients of the fellowships will be in preparation for teaching on the college level.

These facts show very plainly that the need for an enlarged program for the training and retraining of Latin teachers in secondary schools is one of the most serious problems in the field of classical languages today. The American Classical League, The American Philological Association, and all of the classical organizations in this country enthusiastically support your efforts and those of your colleagues to make the teachers of classical languages eligible for the provisions of Title V of your bill, H.R. 8550.

In support of the statements in this letter, certain facts and figures are set forth in the enclosures.




[blocks in formation]

NOTE.-These figures taken from "Foreign Language Offerings and Enrollments in Secondary Schools, Fall 1964," published by Modern Language Association. Those for 1965 have not yet been published. Figures for Latin given to JFL by the MLA.

II. Enrollments in institutions of higher education in fall 1965 and 1964

[blocks in formation]

NOTE. These figures are taken from "Foreign Language Enrollments in Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 1965," published by the Modern Language Association of America, September 1966.

[blocks in formation]

NOTE.-Actual figures were taken from "Teacher Supply and Demand in Public Schools, 1966," published by the Research Division of the National Education Association, 1966. Additions and percentages were made by JFL.


The American Classical League was founded in 1919. Its purpose is to promote the study and teaching of Latin and Greek and related subjects in secondary schools and colleges of the United States. At its headquarters in Miami University, Oxford, Ohio, it maintains a Service Bureau, which provides teachers of Classics and Ancient History with a great number of supplementary materials and visual aids. It publishes the classical outlook nine times each year with articles on a wide variety of subjects, educational and pedagogical. The Council of the League is composed of representatives from national, regional, state, and local classical organizations. Represented are the American Philological Association, four regional associations, and several state and local associatons. Approximately three-fiigth of the 6,000 members are secondary school teachers. In 1936 the League founded the National Junior Classical League, which now has over 2,000 chapters in forty-nine states, for a total of 105,000 members. The Junior Classical League has its own elected officers and holds an annual convention with representatives usually from thirty to thirty-five states. Its affairs are under the general supervision of a committee of high school teachers appointed by the President of the American Classical League. In 1962 some high school JCL graduates formed the Senior Classical League to continue the support of the study of classical antiquity in and outside of college. Its membership now numbers about five hundred.

Membership in any of these organizations is open to interested laymen and a number of them have joined to help support classical studies in this country. Although I am not recommending other changes in the National Defense Educational Act of 1958, as amended, because I believe participants in the programs speak well for the security of our country's educational system, I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to re-evaluate the effectiveness of the cooperation loan programs with colleges and universities.

In the last few years, many institutions of higher education have been unable to approve student loan applicatons before the end of August of each year. Without the assurance of an approved loan application, many students, who plan to matriculate the following September, are forced to remain on the school's pending list until the school received authority or a final commitment from the Office of Education. Therefore, I am suggesting that perhaps this Subcommittee could further study the application process of the Higher Education Assistance Cooperation Loan Program, and alleviate the difficulties in this area.

I thank the distinguished Chairman of this Subcommittee for extending me this opportunity to testify on the proposed amendments contained in HR 6232 and to further present my views to expand Title V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to include all foreign languages as a proposal in my bill, H.R. 8550.


Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to present my views with respect to H.R. 6232, a bill which would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 has been hailed as probably the strongest manifestation in our history of Congressional commitment to high quality higher education. Now, we in the 90th Congress have the opportunity to build upon this

great legislative achievement of the 89th Congress. I strongly support H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967, because I think that these amendments are vital if we are to follow through with our efforts to strengthen the Nation's institutions of higher learning and to make higher education available to every qualified student.

Among the major amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 is one which would extend Title I-Community Service and Continuing Education Programs— for 5 years through fiscal year 1973. Title II would also be extended. Parts A and B, dealing with College Library Resources and Library Training and Research, would be extended through fiscal year 1973, and Part C, concerning the acquisition of valuable worldwide library materials would be extended one year, through fiscal year 1969.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act is, in my opinion, one of the most significant in the law. Its objective is to provide students with alternative means of financing their education. They may utilize one of several forms of assistance or a combination thereof. Students of exceptional need may qualify for educational opportunity grants in sums ranging from $200 to $800 a year. An estimated 134,000 students are benefiting from such grants this year, and the number is expected to increase to about 221,000 next year. Undergraduate students may also avail themselves of an insured loan of $1,000 a year, and an estimated 430,000 will do so in fiscal year 1967. Under the guaranteed loan program the Federal Government will pay all of the interest for students whose adjusted family income is less than $15,000 a year while the students are in school, and 3% thereafter.

The college work-study program in Title IV provides employment opportunities to further enable students, especially those from low-income families, to finance their education. During the current year, the U.S. Office of Education estimates that more than 184,000 students are employed under the work-study program and are earning an average of approximately $700 a year. These programs, together with the National Defense Education Act student loan program and the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Program, which form the nucleus of our efforts to expand educational opportunity, would be extended 5 years by the 1967 amendments.

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the National Defense Education Act, like the Higher Education Act, does not expire until 1968, but by extending both of these laws before they actually approach expiration we would afford our educational institutions the time they need to draw up plans which will enable them to use appropriated funds more efficiently and effectively. Several titles of the National Defense Education Act would simply be incorporated into our laws by the 1967 amendments. Several others would be allowed to expire at the end of fiscal year 1968.

Another of the major amendments in H.R. 6232 would extend the National Defense Education Act for 5 years through fiscal year 1973. Title II under this Act makes loans available for undergraduate and graduate study, and when the school year ends this June it is estimated that over 1 million students will have borrowed $1 billion since the program began. The proposed amendments would make more funds available through a revolving fund and would extend loan cancellation benefits.

Title III under the National Defense Education Act is the title which has been indispensable in strengthening the various elementary and secondary curriculum areas. The 1967 amendments would eliminate subject restrictions, pay State administrative expenses, repeal the allotment formula for loans to private schools, authorize loans to American sponsored dependents' schools abroad, and extend the title through fiscal year 1973.

I would also like to suggest that in spite of the fact that the States repeatedly have reported that this program has served as both the impetus and the catalyst for the improvement of instruction, only $50 million of a $110 million authorization is being requested in the Budget for fiscal year 1968. The Office of Education has indicated that experience in fiscal years 1965 and 1966 reflects much unmet need. In view of the continuing need, such a cutback is incomprehensible. I respectfully urge that this Subcommittee take appropriate action to increase the request to the full amount authorized.

The Higher Education Amendments of 1967 would also provide for the Education Professions Development Act, effective July 1, 1969, to enable the U.S. Commissioner of Educaiton to appraise the Nation's future teacher needs at every level and to take steps to meet these needs. For example, grants would be authorized to State and local education agencies to identify and encourage qualified people to enter and reenter the field of education. Grants would also be

authorized to strengthen graduate and undergraduate education programs including those for non-teaching personnel. In addition, the 1967 amendments would establish a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development.

Finally, the 1967 Higher Education Amendments would extend the National Vocational Student Loan Insurance Act of 1965 to provide loan insurance to new borrowers until June 30, 1973 and to borrowers making loans prior to that date until June 30, 1977. The maximum annual loan would be $1,500, with a maximum aggregate of $3,000 to any student whether his loan is insured under a State, private agency, or Federal Government program. The 1967 amendments would also establish a minimum annual payment whether under a State, private or Federal insured loan program, and would authorize uniform deferments irrespective of the loan program.

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, these are the major 1967 Higher Education Amendments. I support them enthusiastically and I urge their favorable consideration and speedy passage.

Thank you very much.


Title I. The University of Texas System has great interest in advancing the intent of Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as we understood that intent. All three amendments proposed in HR 6232 seem advantageous from the practical standpoint. It is especially necessary to keep as low as possible the percentage of costs to be borne by local funds (as Section 102 does). Title I calls for activities relatively unrecognized in state legislative appropriations and in funds budgeted by private institutions, and it will take time to build up the sources of local support.

For an institution such as The University of Texas, the amendments proposed in Section 103 should be a real boon. Under existing arrangements a project of any long range significance and innovative character his little chance of being funded because it requires such a large proportion of the State's allotment. Yet, this is exactly the character of projects most needed.

Quite franky, after our high hopes for what Title I would make possible we are somewhat disenchanted with what has occurred in its administrative implementation. The difficulties appear to arise in differing interpretations of Congressional intent. One hopes consideration of HR 6232 may provide occasion to clarify that intent.

Title II. The amendments proposed are desirable, we think. However, see Section 222(a): “and, (2) for the planning or development of programs for the opening of library or information schools. . ." It would be most unfortunate if the Commissioner proceed to make such grants without recognition of the plans of such state bodies as the Coordinating Board, Texas College and University system.

Title IV. The amendments under Parts A and B concern areas in which we have little experience, but Section 402 is endorsed by our specialist on student aids. Part C: We argue strongly that the Federal share for the Work-Study program for jobs in nonprofit enterprises should be continued at 90 percent and that institutions should be permitted to use 5 percent of their Federal allotment for administrative expenses (see Section 432). However, eighty percent is better than 75 percent. Section 404 is an especially desirable amendment, from our experience. We find nothing objectionable in the others, although we have no information of their justifiability in terms of cost.

Part D: As long as "forgiveness" is extended for some positions of subsequent employment, the extensions by Section 452 appear proper. Section 453 deals with loans for which we have no statutory authority to apply, and hence we have not studied its implications. None of the amendments get at our basic concerns about the National Defense Students Loans, but this is not the place to express these, but we are glad to see that basic features of this highly useful program are being continued.

Title V. This new Title and its provisions are warmly welcomed, and the approach represented by it is a decided forward step, in our opinion. Of course, its usefulness depends heavily upon the administrative acumen of the Commissioner, but the conception involved is very fine, in our opinion.

The remaining Titles in HR 6232 have not been examined in detail, but on the surface the approaches appear to be constructive.

« PreviousContinue »