« PreviousContinue »
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS,
To: Dr. Norman Hackerman.
From: John Dodson.
Subject: Comments on H.R. 6232.
In regard to Title IV amendments in H.R. 6232 (pages 12-41). I am in favor of the changes in general. On certain problems, the following comments are offered: 1. Amendments to Educational Opportunity Grants Program.
a. Sec. 402 (p. 13): Practically all student financial aid administrators strongly favor this amendment because it will help prevent possible excessive financing of some students and provide a better means of packaging aid to suit individual needs of students.
b. Sec. 403 (p. 13): The authorization of grants as well as contracts for talent search projects provides more flexibility in funding for these projects. 2. Amendments to Provisions on Student Loan Insurance Programs. (pp. 23-30).
a. While in agreement with general changes proposed, I feel the bill falls short of proposing needed changes to offer lending institutions more incentive to participate in the loan program. Most of the amendments in H.R. 6232 are beneficial to the borrower, whereas most of the problems with the loan program thus far have been concerned with lending institutions' reluctance to make the loans.
b. Congress should attempt to include provisions for simplifying administrative requirements of the program, especially to relieve lending institutions of so much red tape in the paperwork now required.
c. Congress should allow for the raising of interest rates on the loans to 7 per cent as an inducement to lending institutions. This measure is already authorized in the Higher Education Act of 1965 provided that Congress deems it advisable, but no mention is made in H.R. 6232 of the intent of Congress to put the measure into effect.
3. Amendments to College Work-Study Program (pp. 23-30).
Student Financial Aid Associations throughout the country, including the National Student Financial Aid Council, have overwhelmingly supported retention of the present ratio of 90 percent Federal and 10 percent institutional contribution for student wages in the College Work-Study Program. The change to an 80:20 ratio may severely handicap some smaller colleges, especially those struggling in their development of improved academic programs.
4. Amendments to National Defense Student Loan Program (pp. 30-41). All amendments are acceptable. However, most business managers and financial aid administrators at educational institutions strongly favor a change in computation methods for reimbursing institutions for administrative costs of the National Defense Student Loan Program. Present regulations provide for reimbursement on the basis of "one percent of total notes receivable at the end of the fiscal period" or "five percent of total administrative costs," whichever is the lesser. The "one percent of notes receivable" method appears to the more practicable method and eliminates time-consuming and extremely difficult cost accounting.
No mention is made in H.R. 6232 of the House's intent to amend this provision, and I feel that suggestion should be made to do so.
The foregoing comments cover that portion of H.R. 6232 pertaining to student aid programs for which I am responsible. I shall be glad to confer with you or to furnish further written comments if you desire more detail.
JOHN H. Dodson. Director, Student Financial Aids.
SOUTHWEST TEXAS STATE COLLEGE,
San Marcos, Tex., April 19, 1967.
CONGRESSMAN J. J. PICKLE,
U.S. House of Representatives,
DEAR JAKE: Thank you for your letter of April 17, offering me the opportunity to express my views on the new Higher Education Bill.
By and large I am most impressed with the soundness of the proposed amendments. I am particularly in favor of those provisions which :
1. would relieve institutions of the burden of putting up one-ninth matching funds for National Defense Student Loans;
2. would permit work/study students to be employed forty hours a week while attending summer classes; and
3. would remove the present restrictions on subjects for which instructional equipment grants are made.
That portion of the bill which deals with the work/study program would call for a reduction in the Federal share to 80% rather than the scheduled 75%; however, I would strongly urge that the Federal share be continued at the present 90% level for on-campus jobs and that 5% of this Federal allotment be allowed the college for use as a way of meeting administrative overhead expenses.
The new bill proposes a change in the interest formula for academic facilities' loans which would, in effect, raise the rate from the current 3% to over 31⁄2%. I would prefer that the formula be left as is.
I hope that this will be of some help to you and please do not hesitate to call on me.
DEAR MRS. GREEN: In conformance with your request to convene a group of New York University professors for the purpose of discussing the Higher Education Bill, I am pleased to submit this report. More specifically, you were concerned with the problem of recruiting, educating, retaining, and upgrading teachers in the educationally deprived areas of our nation.
A task force of eight professors, chaired by Professor Jeanne Noble, worked on these and other questions related to the problem of teacher training. This report was developed from their discussions. In addiiton, we are pleased to convene this group and other professors with related specialists so that you and your committee may explore educational problems of mutual concern.
President James M. Hester has given top priority to University involvement in urban affairs. We in the School of Education are constantly seeking opportunities to help the City, especially its educational system, respond to modern demands. We are grateful for the legislative assistance that supports our efforts. We welcome this opportunity to explore new ways that the Congress might encourage educational endeavors.
In this spirit we welcome you and the committee to our campus. We are ready to offer assistance to your committee today and at any time in the future. Respectfully yours,
DANIEL E. GRIFFITHS, Dean.
REPORT SUBMITTED BY DANIEL E. GRIFFITHS, DEAN, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Congresswoman Edith Green posed several questions concerning the Higher Education Act and the adequacy in meeting the needs of teacher training for the disadvantaged. An NYU faculty task force considered these questions and other points of importance. The first part of this paper deals with proposed amendments we recommend and a rationale for each. The second part presents answers to questions not covered in our recommendations.
In some cases, we did not think the Higher Education Act the proper source of funding for the particular area of concern. Probably, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act should deal, among other issues, with working conditions and incentives for teachers. The Higher Education Act should deal more specifically with teacher training, both pre-service and in-service.
PART I-POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS TO THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT TO IMPROVE TEACHING IN THE DISADVANTAGED AREAS
President Johnson's 1965 education message included, among other immediate concerns in higher education, the need:
"To draw upon the unique and invaluable resources of the great universities to deal with national problems of poverty and community development."
He spoke of the potential of higher education to deal with the perplexities of of urban education—where 70% of the population now live.
The legislative intent of the Act was to strengthen the universities for these purposes and others. Among the urgent problems of the urban communities, however, none is more pressing than inadequate education for children attending schools in the slums. There is a high degree of correlation between inadequate education and other social problems such as crime and family disorganization. It would follow that there is an immediate need to strengthen universities to help with the school problems of urban areas. One of the primary tasks of the university is the training of teachers.
Part I of this paper deals with this area of university concern. In the ten largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States where % of the economically deprived children are being schooled, not one single school district has brought these children up to minimum educational standards, to say nothing about closing the widening educational opportunity and achievment gaps between the slum and suburban children. Indeed most of these disadvantaged neighborhoods are academic disaster areas. Here the "unlearning disease" has reached epidemic proportions, and crash programs tend to provide only "first aid" treatment instead of major therapy.
Certainly our government has recognized these problems and the Congress has made provisions for ameliorating some of the pathology. Surely, Opportunity Scholarships and loans have made it possible for universities to recruit teachers from among the economically disadvantaged.
Part-time and short-term training programs made possible under the National Defense Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act have brought aid to teachers of the disadvantaged. These programs certainly reflect a climate of concern in the universities. There is a body of literature that has developed from various teaching and research projects. Many of us have had extensive experience with workshops and demonstration projects in all parts of the country.
Most of all, these years of concern with educating the disadvantaged have led us to two conclusions. First, there is a need for sound theory and tested practice to be brought to bear in a concentrated interdisciplinary approach to an entire school district. This kind of experimentation is uniquely the university's province for it is the institution with a concentration of the special resources needed in the schools.
Short-term involvement of universities needs to be continued, and that is possible under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. There is a need, however, for a long-term application of theory and knowledge in an action setting. There is a need for these extensive programs to be university based so that the results are fed back into the classrooms.
Secondly, there is a need to give top priority to teacher training, both preservice and in-service, as the most pressing need in current educational designs to improve education for the disadvantaged child.
In this matter, certain questions persist:
1. Why is there a disproportionate number of less educated, less experienced teachers in disadvantaged area schools than in other districts?
2. Why are there so many substitute teachers and such high teacher turnover rates in disadvantaged areas?
One can probe for the answers in such factors as (1) working conditions, (2) teacher recruitment and selection, (3) teacher preparation and (4) in-service education.
Perhaps the first factor, working conditions, is beyond the scope of the Higher Education Act. We deal with some related questions in Part II. However, recruitment, selection, pre-service preparation and in-service training are clearly within the scope of this Act. These functions have been among the primary functions of the universities. In fact, there is evidence from many conferences and other sources to support an amendment to this Act to strengthen teacher educa
tion. The National Advisory Council on the Education of Disadvantaged Children stated in 1966 and 1967:
"In distinguishing classrooms that favorably impressed our consultantobservers from those that appeared poor, the explanatory factor most frequently observed was the quality of relationship-the rapport-between teacher and child . . . In speaking of this ingredient, the observers were not alluding merely to the techniques of teaching (but to) the subtle aspects of mutual understanding, commonness of purpose and warm human contact . . . If a crucial ingredient for changing the quality of education is the attitude of teachers. . . it follows that broad scale reorientation of teacher behavior should receive a high priority in the use of Title I funds.” Certainly the schools have relied upon the universities in the training of teachers, but often the relationship between the two has been limited with no follow-up plan developed. Universities have developed institutes to which teachers have come, but seldom have we had the opportunity to work with a group of teachers from one district over a long period of time. None of the legislation gives us the opportunity to initiate wide range programs.
The Teacher Corps portion of the Higher Education Act deals directly with the problem of staffing disadvantaged area schools. Otherwise that Act does not deal with teacher education. Yet, in the long run, America must depend on the universities as the primary source of trained teachers. Even the criticisms leveled against the educational establishment will not be answered significantly unless teacher training programs are included in any prospective innovations.
Perhaps it should be added here that many of us in the University have worked as consultants to business corporations and have watched the growth of non-university based programs in education. The Advisory Committee report mentioned earlier would strengthen non-university involvement in teacher training even more. Further, it is quite possible that professors themselves have strengthened the prestige of agencies other than their own universities. Ironically, government and university guide-lines inhibit us from accepting "over-load" pay from a government sponsored project on our own campus. This practice has benefited business corporations and newly developing research organizations. They can hire professors as consultants quite freely, while these very professors are not permitted to work with their colleagues on university projects and receive commensurate compensation. One either must work on a colleague's project sufficiently to warrant release from a portion of teaching load or he takes his "over-load" consulting time away from the university. In no small way does this prevent us from developing an all-university, interdisciplinary approach to critical educational problems. This also gives advantages to non-university organizations which are denied to the university. All of these ideas suggest that the Sub-Committee on Education has a responsibility to lend its support to the strengthening of the nation's universities. It is this committee to whom we look for leadership in making it possible for universities to better prepare educational personnel for the disadvantaged youth.
To this end we recommend that the Higher Education Act of 1965 be amended in 1957 to include a new Part D entitled Strengthening University Teacher Training Programs. This recommendation is designed to accomplish the following:
1. To enable universities to contract with agencies or organized groups, or otherwise engage in recruitment programs designed to discover potential candidates for teacher education programs, and to establish special programs designed to remedy deficiences that usually prevent these candidates from meeting entrance requirements.
Discussion: It is difficult to tap resources within the deprived community. There are many youths who would like to enter teacher training projects, but cannot meet requirements. They need special courses to qualify them to begin the regular training curriculums.
2. To strengthen college and university training programs designed to train educational personnel for work in educationally deprived schools.
Discussion Field work and internship programs could be funded as well as other innovative programs.
3. To encourage universities to take the initiative in contracting with Boards of Education in partnership ventures designed to concentrate massive university resources in a complex of schools constituting a district, provided that the joint projects serve the function of improving the total school situation. from community involvement to pupil performance, and contribute to the theory and practice of training school personnel.
PART II-FURTHER QUESTIONS CONSIDERED BY THE TASK FORCE
1. Should teachers who work in disadvantaged areas be given extra stipends for working there?
Most of the faculty agreed that extra pay likely to be considered "combat" or "hazard" pay-would not provide psychological motivation for teachers or raise their morale. The salaries of the city teachers should be competitive with suburban school districts in order to attract and hold good teachers. Our experience and study indicates that the "total school pattern," including the kind of principal who leads the school, the involvement of parents, the size of classes (which raises the question of ideal manageable size), the relationship of school to community and teacher competence, determines the quality of education. Other incentives, short of extra pay, might be built into the system which gives the teacher prestige and professional support. (See Question 2)
2. Should the following incentives be available to free teachers for professional growth and development?
Shortened teaching days
Supportive workshops and courses
Teacher aides or assistants
There was agreement that all four of these incentives are needed. Sabbatical leaves, for instance, should be tied to carefully structured development plans. All teachers in the system should have the benefit of professional growth incentives rather than only those in the "tough" slum schools.
The shortened day, however, should mean fewer direct pupil-master teacher contact hours. The hours when the teacher is not with pupils should be devoted to such professional activities as in-service courses, planning sessions, community visits and parent visits.
Workshops and courses for experienced teachers have proved worthwhile and should be fostered.
Teacher aides are essential. The acquiring of these assistants should be tied to the training of teachers, so that the teachers can learn how to live with another adult in the room and utilize the skills of that adult. A distinction between teachers and their aides should be carefully drawn. While both are valuable, they do different kinds of work.
3. Should joint university school district programs be funded?
4. Should pre-service teachers who train in disadvantaged schools be financially compensated for this choice? Or, should some other incentive be provided to encourage universities to develop internships in ghetto schools?
Such funding should be university based and not given directly to the student whether he is a graduate or undergraduate.
Competence in teaching is not based on classroom learning alone. We have found that field involvement is a necessary ingredient in the education of teachers. We would urge longer periods of field and community work as well as practice teaching. Our experience has shown that the field work and internship programs in the ghettos are costly, however. First, only a small cadre of professors are themselves comfortable in slum areas. Most universities, therefore, are understaffed in relation to field work assignments. The student-professor ratio must be small so that the intern may be properly supervised. Often "culture shock" causes costly delays for both student and teacher. Involvement in community and family affairs is quite time consuming. A professor's teaching load must be adjusted accordingly and this is costly to the university. There is a need to involve local teachers and community leaders in this internship process, and they should be paid as "clinical assistants."
It is our recommendation, therefore, that university plans for intensifiying field work and internship involvement in disadvantaged communities be funded under the Higher Education Act.
5. Should university non-degree programs to help parents in culturally deprived neighborhoods understand the problems of children and their education be funded?
There was unanimous support on the committee for developing new ways of working with parents who are anxious to have quality education for their children. Some professors would go so far as to provide financial incentive to parents who attend classes to improve their understanding of the educational process. Many successful programs have included parent involvement.
6. Should universities be funded to provide creative or innovative graduate degree programs for teachers or other school personnel who are committed to work in ghetto schools? (See Part I)