Page images

Washington, D.C., March 29, 1967.


U.S. House of Representatives,
Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, D.O.

DEAR MRS. GREEN: On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Division of School Psychology, American Psychological Association, I am forwarding to you the following statement concerning Title V of H.R. 6232.

"We support this amendment and its goals.

"We would strongly urge two changes as follows: and ask you to represent us to this end:

"A. on p. 60, line 9, insertion of the word 'school' in place of the word 'child' so as to specify school psychology as a traditional example, historically the first, of those educational personnel cited in this paragraph. "B. on p. 61, insertion of a new paragraph (9) to read:

“(9) programs or projects to train or retrain professional and nonproprofessional psychological personnel whose focus is on increasing the effectiveness of learning and teaching in schools."

I hope that your committee will respond favorably to these recommendations. I will be glad to furnish any clarifying information.


To: Arthur H. Brayfield.


From: Executive Committee of Division 16.

Re: Background Information for Amendment to Title V of the Higher Education Act.

There are approximately 85 training programs in school psychology in the United States at the present time, of which 45 are doctoral and 40 are undoctoral. There were over 1,000 students (1963) in a variety of training programs in school psychology.

It is estimated there are 4,500 school psychologists in the United States at the present time.

Thirty-seven states now have formal certification requirements in the state educational agency.

Sixty-two percent of elementary schools of over 100 pupils employ psychological services.

A survey of urban schools (Magary, 1967) indicates that psychologists were first hired by schools as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The ratio in 1966 of school psychologists to the number of pupils in these large cities is as follows:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]



Salem, Oreg., March 21, 1967.

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.:

It is my understanding that the U.S. Office of Education is not requesting the extension of Title X of NDEA beyond June 30, 1968. In my judgment, the Title X program for gathering, processing, analyzing, and disseminating pertinent information relating to school staff, pupils, property, program, and finance is a most successful and worthwhile activity. For the first time in the history of educational data, states are submitting comparable and reasonably adequate information to the U.S. Office of Education.

I like the matching feature of Title X requiring the state to match federal funds dollar for dollar. This is a desirable partnership arrangement which places equal responsibility for the Title X program on the states. I was recently informed that the U.S. Office of Education is recommending that Title X (NDEA) funds be included in Title V of ESEA. Should this happen, state matching funds will no longer be required, which will probably reduce many states' participation to a minimum. There is need to strengthen this program if states are to continue to feed vital educational data to the U.S. Office of Education. Instead of reducing the amount of funds for this program, and this is actually what the U.S. Office of Education's recommendation does, a larger federal appropriation is needed. Matching federal grants to states of $100,000 to $150,000 would be nearer in line to adequately build an educational information system needed by State Departments of Education and the U.S. Office of Education.

May I ask your help in retaining Title X of the National Defense Education Act in its present form? It has become an effective and efficient program, and I have every reason to believe that, through adequate funding, you can expect even better performance.

LEON P. MINEAR, Superintendent, Public Instruction.

STATEMENT OF HUGH CALKINS, MEMBER, CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION Section 623 of the Amendments proposes to amend Subsection 303 (a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 by inserting a paragraph requiring that the State plan set forth any requirements imposed upon an applicant for financial participation “including any provision for taking into account, in such requirements, the resources available to any applicant for such participation relative to the resources for participation available to all other applicants." The purpose of this statement is to suggest that, either by amendment to the proposed legislation or by explicit reference in the legislative history, the intent of Congress be made clear that the fiscal problem known as "municipal overburden" be included among the factors to be taken into account by a State in determining resources available to applicant school districts.

One of the most important problems in school finance within the States arises from the fact that in certain school districts, principally the larger and older cities, the portion of local taxes (normally property taxes) required for municipal services (police, fire and the like) is much higher than in the average community in the State. This differential is not reflected in the traditional formula by which State money is allocated among school districts.

The result is that the big cities are treated as "wealthy" school districts upon the ground that their total property tax base per pupil is higher than the average in the State. This is only a half truth since in fact a smaller portion of the property tax base in the cities is available for the costs of education.

The situation in Ohio is illustrated by the enclosed chart. It shows that in Ohio the true measure of the size of the tax base per pupil in the larger cities is 51/68ths of the figure which is in fact used by Ohio in allocating State money among school districts.

The same problem appears in reverse when tax effort is used in State formulas. The effort of Ohio's big cities, measured by school taxes alone, is about average in the State. However, their effort for Government services as a whole, and their total local tax rate, is about 175% of the State average.

This condition exists in many States, and is a principal explanation of the phenomenon documented recently by work done at Syracuse University, that the big cities have higher taxes and lower per pupil expenditures than the suburban areas.

The reason I bring this matter to the attention of the Committee is not because I think the Federal Government should mandate a change in State foundation formulas. However, the amendment to Section 303 (a) of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 proposed by Section 623 will establish a Federal requirement that a State plan take into account the resources available to a school district in relation to resources available to other school districts. It seems to me highly desirable that the Federal government require that, for this Federal purpose, the heavy burdens of municipal taxes should be taken into account.

If the States were required to recognize this factor for this Federal purpose, I feel confident that they would in a short period, also consider its significance in allocating State funds. One of the most interesting consequences of Title I of ESEA is its educational effect in leading progressive States to adopt similar programs for channeling State funds to the education of the disadvantaged.

A recent experience I have had testifying before the Ohio State Board of Education with respect to allocation of Title II Elementary and Secondary Education funds in the State of Ohio confirms that specific reference to this problem by the Congress is necessary if the States are not to continue to regard property tax base per pupil as the sole criterion of wealth, ignoring the proportion of that tax base which is available for schools.

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100




A major purpose in this legislation should be to strengthen higher education programs at all levels, and to take advantage of teaching and research talents, wherever they are found.

Restricting awards for fellowships or for research projects to Ph.D.-granting institutions means eliminating contributions that are possible from a great many other colleges and universities. Moreover, the country becomes largely dependent upon a relatively few institutions for the development of programs and personnel urgently needed to combat poverty and ignorance and for national defense. Only 129 colleges and universities in the United States today grant doctor's degrees and consequently are eligible for National Defense Graduate Fellowships, and 76 of these institutions are located in six statesNew York, California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.

Since the ability to qualify for National Defense Graduate Fellowships and many other federal educational awards is largely governed by a Ph.D.-granting "status," we can probably expect a great many colleges and universities to seek to establish Ph.D. programs, even though these programs will obviously lack the depth and the strength that is essential. Institutions will be tempted to structure a new educational form which includes doctoral programs, at least in name, but probably not in content. Encouraging mediocrity in Ph.D. programs perpetuates a kind of educational impoverishment which this country cannot afford.

It seems to me the educational, social and defense needs of our nation will be better served if programs and scholars are supported on a basis of individual merit, not institutional size or prestige. We need very much to broaden the base of support to the nation's colleges and universities if we have any intention of endeavoring to meet the critical needs of young people and the multiplying needs of our society.

A report, "Programs and Services," published by the U.S. Office of Education, explains that the "amount of federal support to institutions of higher education in various states and regions is largely influenced by the concentration of such funds in a few institutions." The report reveals, for example, that Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which received 60 million dollars, and Harvard University, with about 41 million dollars, account for two-thirds of the total federal support to institutions of higher education in Massachusetts. The major land-grant and private institutions, in fact, account for about four-fifths of the total federal support to universities and colleges in the separate states. Concentrating this support in a few institutions, however expedient, reinforces a system of institutional privilege, sustaining and preserving positions of influence and alliances of power and discouraging any effort either to discover or to exploit talent that may be available at less prestigious institutions.

The 1966 annual report of the Ford Foundation underscores a serious need to "put a premium upon diversity in grant-making and be ready to give a hand to the unorthodox (which can mean help to those who are academically unfashionable, or unpleasing to orthodox intellectuals, as well as help to those who may be critical of what is rather uncritically called the establishment. ...").



Mrs. Audrey C. Cohen, Execuive Director, Women's Talent Corps, Inc.,

New York, N.Y.

In a country dedicated to universal public education, where colleges are theoretically open to all who have the necessary ability, there is no adequate place for the mature dropout, however ambitious and intellectually gifted he or she may be.

Evening high schools have not satisfied the need: Their programs are discouragingly drawn out. The subject matter is routine high school fare. The hours are punishing, if not impossible, for the mother of a family who is often the mainstay of the family income as well.

Special programs for high school dropouts, such as they are, have been geared to teen-agers. They have made no effort to meet, if indeed they recognize, the demand for continuing education from mature working women.

The "war on poverty" and the pressures for equal opportunity from minority groups have resulted in a proliferation of college scholarships and special compensatory programs. These have come too late for the thousands of women living and working in our inner cities who now wish they could continue their education and prepare for more useful lives.

Can the existing colleges not accommodate the rising group of people who want higher education in a changing world? College are crowded beyond capacity at the present time with young people of traditional college age. But even if there is more physical space after the peak enrollment is passed, colleges have given no evidence that they have the vision to solve or even to see the problem.

1 Incorporation in process.

Experimentation, it is true, is as much a part of the American tradition as universal education itself. It is true, also, that a series of experimental colleges have been based on the principles that are central to the proposed College of Community Service-individualized programs, respect for work experience, the importance of learning directly from contemporary social situations. Not one of the existing experimental colleges, however-not Antioch, Bennington, or even Black Mountain and Goddard-addresses the problem of providing higher education for the mature working people of our cities. These are colleges for upper middle class liberals and the few representatives of poor, minority-group young people who can be helped to qualify for admission. As the education historian, Frederick Rudolph, bluntly states, they are "not really peoples' colleges; . simply variations on the old elite institutions now operating according to new principles." (1)

In the cities, where the people are, higher educational institutions make little or no attempt to function as "peoples' colleges." In general they deliver a prefabricated college education, impartially to all comers, boxed as English-A. Introduction to Sociology, six credits of laboratory science. If a mature woman overcomes the hurdles of the admissions office and can schedule her life to include college attendance, she confronts the same, set, departmentalized courses and the routine requirements, designed for middleclass young people and for the most part unchanged for a generation or more. How useful is that brand of education to those in a ghetto? What relevance does the prescribed college curriculum have for the low-income Negro with a superior mind and uneven preparation, who is determined to help improve the Harlem schools?

Negro colleges hold out no solution to the problem, even in the few southern cities where excellent Negro universities exist. In the first place, as Kenneth Clark points out, "Negroes are ambivalent about Negro colleges; even at best, they are ashamed of them, for such colleges are an anachronism." (2) But in any case Negro colleges have been no more sensitive than the institutions they emulate toward the emerging needs of their communities and constituencies.

The bold and basic changes, necessary to accommodate rising demands for higher education of the deprived, are not likely to occur in long-established colleges, Negro or not. "Resistance to fundamental reform," as Rudolph has said, is "ingrained in the American collegiate and university tradition." For more than 300 years, he observes, "except on rare occasions, the historic policy of the American college and university (has been) drift, reluctant accommodation, belated recognition that while no one was looking, change had in fact taken place." (3) Women of the inner city have every American citizen's right to equal opportunity for higher education. They have been deprived of sufficient preparatory education by a complex of circumstances deriving from poverty and segregation. Now, as a by-product of the social revolution taking place among urban minorities, they are awakened to the potential of education, and many are clamoring for it.

The colleges of the establishment are not geared to respond to this rising group, and in fact do not seem to be aware of its existence. In the educational vacuum the Women's Talent Corps proposes to introduce a precedent-ignoring, innovating, peoples' college-The College of Community Service.

In September 1966 a radio station carried an announcement of the Women's Talent Corps, a new program of training for jobs in the schools and social agencies of New York City's blighted neighborhoods. Within three days the Corps had received hundreds of inquiries from women eager to fill the openings.

A large proportion of applicants for the Corps were Puerto Rican or Negro. The majority were women in their thirties or late twenties, with two or more children. Typically, they were high school dropouts, but many had not attended school beyond the seventh or eighth grade. A number had once hoped to go to college but had been "counselled" into commercial or home economics courses by the school guidance officer.

Staff members of the Women's Talent Corps saw, in the rush of applicants, an overwhelming willingness among women living in slum conditions to work for community betterment, and an outcry for more education. The result was a design for an institution of higher education that breaks the mold of the traditional college:

1. It meets the women where they are educationally, and helps them prepare for equivalency examinations at the secondary level as they begin college work.

« PreviousContinue »