« PreviousContinue »
Dean Bruderle of Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, writes in part:
"Although we have made no study of the problem and no specific cases of need for Educational Opportunity Grants and/or work-study programs, we are sure the need exists and certainly endorse the proposed amendments. There might be some problems regarding institutional matching, especially if it were 25%. For us, a private, Church-related institution, even 10% might be difficult."
Dean Floyd of Western New England College, Springfield, Massachusetts, writes in part:
"We are a small college with limited institutional financial resources and of course the 75%-25% matching formula is more of a strain on us than the 90%-10% now required. As indicated in the answer to the first question above, this is not related to the Evening Division in our current experience, but to the full-time students in the Day Division." Coordinator Luton of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, writes in
"We strongly favor the extension of all feasible financial aid opportunities under Title IV of the Higher Education Act to part-time students, and we heartily commend you for your efforts in their behalf. At Cleveland College of Western Reserve University we have a part-time enrollment of 1,306 students compared with a full-time enrollment of 161. Many of these parttime students certainly need and deserve financial help but are unable to qualify because they find it impossible to attend college full time because of the press of other responsibilities.
It is certainly relevant that during the current academic year (1966-67) we have managed to find some kind of financial aid (scholarships, grants, or loans) for 26 part-time as well as 21 full-time students. Of the 26 parttime people, 13, or exactly one half, took course work amounting to nine credit hours, and eight students took six credit hours. The remaining five students registered for 2, 3, 7, 10, and 11 academic hours. There is doubt that if funds were more readily available for part-time students, many more would apply for and utilize financial aid to hasten and ensure attainment of their academic goals.
At present, for many adults there is no way to make a realistic combination of part-time work and part-time education where both are in sufficient quantity to be significant. This is the large group that is penalized by the present requirements of Title IV
In the light of the above, we believe that our need is evident, and that it would be highly desirable to pursue amendments to the effect that the discriminatory features of Title IV should be eliminated and opportunities for scholarships and work-study participation should be accorded to part-time students on a reasonably proportionate formula basis."
Director Pappert of the University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, writes in part:
"As a point of interest, we do have some students who are required to withdraw from their evening studies because of financial pressure. We regret this very much but at the present time there is no legislation available for their assistance."
It is respectfully submitted that the proposed amendments will eliminate the inequity and discrimination now affecting part-time students and will advance the purposes of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Therefore, the proposed amendment should be approved and adequate appropriations recommended to carry out the purposes thereof.
It is further respectfully requested that this statement submitted by the Association of University Evening Colleges be made part of the record of the Committee's hearings.
STATEMENT BY MRS. EDWARD F. RYAN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
On behalf of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers we should like to offer brief comments in respect to the Higher Education Amendments of 1967. In making these comments we are governed by the policy to which National PTA has subscribed throughout its history, and which has been explicitly stated in its Legislation Program since 1945: that funds appropriated
by the federal government for education should go only to public tax-supported institutions. We are thus limited in the support we may offer these programs in that the Higher Education Act has previously provided aid to non-public institutions. Nevertheless there are certain points we wish to offer for consideration.
Title I. We welcome and support the concept of advance authorization of funds which allows adequate planning and therefore more advantageous use. We very strongly oppose, however, the new authorization of grants to private organizations in Section 107, and again in Section 403. We believe the profitmaking institutions which supply educational needs should be directly responsive to the direction of education, not to the direction of federal agencies.
Title II. We support the extension of training facilities for librarians who are all too few to meet current needs, and the proposed authorizations. We support the proposed increase in services of the Library of Congress and the full authorization of $7,700,000 for the increased catalog and materials program. Very likely no other single program can yield more widespread benefits to students all over the country than these library programs, and it would be a false economy to delay this concrete training resource.
Title III. We support the concern for the quality of developing institutions, particularly as these include community colleges which we see as a major factor in educating the large numbers of able young people for whom education beyond the high school is now unavailable. The proposed authorization of $55,000,000 is not large, but would be an assistance to states already financially burdened.
Title IV. In respect to student assistance programs, we would observe that this method is much superior to that of tax credits for tuition, which are more likely to aid colleges than individuals, and private much more than public colleges.
Title V. We support the Education Professions Development program, which would include the needed evaluation of programs available for teaching, administration, and teacher-related responsibilities, and for assessment of future needs, as well as fellowships for teacher preparation. In toto, this Title appears to provide for meeting what is probably the most urgent need of education at all levels, and we support the full appropriation of authorized funds.
We support, in addition, specific provision in Part D of this Title for training National Teacher Corps internes, with funding as previously authorized. Wide observation by our members and enthusiastic reports to us by school administrators describe a program which is uniquely training teachers in the attitudes and methods necessary to reach disadvantaged children. We are informed by a variety of professional sources that this specific training has not been hitherto available, and reported experiences in city school systems support this information. We are further informed that the National Teacher Corps experience is already bringing about desirable changes in established teacher education programs. Such changes are not yet so widespread, however, that we can take them for granted. We fear that if this highly innovative and highly specific program is lost the present impetus toward training teachers in the desired attitudes and methods will also be lost, and we can ill afford this in the present state of inner-city schools. We therefore most earnestly request that the National Teacher Corps be continued for its present good influence, while the Education Professions Development program is implemented without delay for the broader needs of education.
Title VI. In general our comment on this Title is governed by our policy respecting the use of public funds, but we would specifically commend the elimination of subject limitations in the use of NDEA funds.
Title VIII. We would request a reconsideration of the limitation on langauge centers and fellowships to fiscal 1969, whereas other titles are to be extended through 1973. If it is expected that these programs are to be transferred to the International Education Act, we would suggest that funds for this Act have not yet been appropriated. If authorization for the language programs is extended, they could still be transferred when the International Education Act programs have been established.
Title IX. We welcome the extension of NDEA programs to the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the schools of the Department of the Interior for Indian children, and for the overseas dependents schools under the Department of Defense.
We shall appreciate very greatly any consideration the commmittee may give to these views.
Hon. EDITH GREEN,
RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY,
Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Education, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MRS. GREEN: During the hearings being held upon HR 6232 (including some amendments to Title II-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, PL 89–329), I wish to ask your support for particular parts of the program which I believe are of very considerable importance on a national level to education in librarianship and information science.
Title II-B, as you know, provides financial support to train professional persons for service in libraries and information centers. This includes education at the doctoral and post-master's levels (to qualify persons to teach in higher education and to carry on research) and at the master's level (personnel to man the information centers in academic, public, school, and special libraries). There is a great shortage of professional librarians of all kinds and, perhaps most critically, of those who are qualified by doctoral study to teach in graduate professional schools. The present support for this part of the program is minimal and should be increased at least to the amount authorized by law (15 million dollars for training and research.
Title II-B also provides support for research in librarianship and information science and for demonstration projects. For many historical reasons, basic research in this field is in an elementary stage (either it has not been done or in many cases it has not been soundly based), and steadily increasing support for it must be forthcoming if the acquisition, storage, and communication of information in the United States is to develop to meet the national need.
Funds for professional education and research in the field have been minimal at the start (1966, 1967), and this support must be regarded as a program of gradual implementation and not a proper standard. An apparently large proposed increase for 1968 (from $3.75 million to $8.25) must in addition fund the institutes for school library personnel which have up to now been financed under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and which by law must be supported at at least the same level under the new authority.
The effect of Title II-B of the HEA has been markedly to stimulate interest in doctoral study in the field and has attracted some hundreds of inquiries here during a calendar year (instead of several dozen) and made it possible to select from two to three times as many outstanding candidates for the Ph.D. as heretofore; this support to individuals and institutions has, therefore, made an immediate improvement in the educational outlook. Since funding at the master's level has thus far been very limited (where the need, numerically at least, is much greater), the change to date has been less evident. Funds for research are at this time just about to be awarded for the first time under the Act.
The proposal in HR 6232 to amend the Higher Education Act to support planning and development grants to encourage the opening of new graduate schools and the upgrading of existing programs would help to alleviate the present real shortage of educational facilities, including the upgrading of some which are not now at a satisfactory standard. I believe this is an essential part of the total program and would suggest that it would be more appropriately included under Sec. 223 (a) of the Act-Grants for Training in Librarianship than under Sec. 224 (a)-Research and Demonstration, as proposed.
I ask your support for increased funding for training and research in librarianship under Title II-B of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and for new support to plan and develop new and existing educational programs in this professional field. An early extension of the titles which expire at the end of fiscal 1968 would be extremely helpful to us in carrying on long-range planning. With appreciation and best wishes.
NEAL HARLOW, Dean.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
At the outset, Madame Chairman, I want to express my deep gratitude to you and the members of the Subcommittee for providing me with an opportunity to contribute testimony to your consideration of Amendments to the National Defense Education Act.
My remarks today will be directed to H.R. 8203, legislation which I have introduced to assist in closing what has been termed "the defense education gap."
It is a situation in which Government policies have failed to recognize the contribution and needs of a segment of our school population, and have failed to provide adequate assistance.
Let me begin at the beginning.
In 1958, after the Russians had launched their sputnik into space, the Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act to meet the challenge of the space age in our national security and defense.
This program was intended to correct existing imbalances in American education which had led to insufficient numbers of American students in elementary and secondary schools being educated in science, math, modern foreign languages and other related subjects.
An important provision of this legislation, title III, provided for matching Federal grants for the purchase of laboratory and other special instructional equipment.
Although this program was aimed at increasing the scientific and other defense-related aptitudes of all our Nation's schoolchildren, discrimination was written into the bill.
A youngster who went to a public school could have full benefit of the program of matching Federal grants. One who went to a nonpublic, parochial or private school could benefit only from loans, not grants.
The loans must be paid back in ten years and carry an interest rate which currently is about four percent. Because of their hard-pressed financial conditions, most nonpublic schools have found it almost impossible to participate in NDEA title III programs. They simply cannot take on the financial obligations which a loan entails.
In the eight years of its existence, the NDEA program has provided $328 million in Federal funds for laboratory and other special equipment to public school children.
During the same period, only $4.5 million has gone to students in nonpublic schools-and that in loans only.
At this point I would like to include figures which have been provided to me by the Office of Education on the year-by-year appropriations and expenditures under title III of NDEA.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION Appropriations, obligations, and expenditures under title III of the National Defense Education Act, fiscal years 1959–66 ·
$113, 253 1, 203, 468
5, 480, 000
1, 500, 000
From 1959 through 1963 the funds appropriated to both grants and loans were available for 2 years. Beginning with the 1964 appropriations, funds appropriated have been available for only 1 year.
A study of these figures makes several things clear: the funds appropriated for grants to public schools usually have been fully used. Funds set aside for loans to nonpublic schools generally have not been used-for the reasons previously cited.
You will note that in every year of the program's operation except 1964, the amounts lapsing were greater than the actual loan expenditures. In 1961, 1962 and 1963, the amounts which went unused were ten times the amount actually loaned out to nonpublic schools.
It takes no great amount of imagination to see what has happened over the 8 year period. Because of title III, the defense-related education of public school children has been tremendously benefited. At the same time, the defenserelated education of non-public school children has been assisted minimally.
The result of this provision of the National Defense Education Act, therefore, has been to widen the gap between the public and nonpublic schools in providing an education geared to national security needs. It is a classic example of the rich getting richer and the poor, poorer.
Today about 7 million American boys and girls attend nonpublic elementary and secondary schools. This is about 14 percent of the total national school population.
This 14 percent of American youngsters have received a little over 1 percent of the funds which the Government has expended under title III of NDEA. And even that small amount must be paid back, with interest.
There is only one inescapable conclusion: Those schoolchildren who attend non-public schools are being tragically shortchanged.
No one can pretend that the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of our young men and women-specifically prescribed in the policy declaration of the National Defense Education Act-is being accomplished when 14 percent of our school children have little opportunity to obtain needed laboratory and other special equipment.
This situation must not be allowed to continue.
For that reason I have introduced H.R. 8203, legislation which would amend NDEA to give adequate, effective aid in defense-related subjects to those American children who do not attend public schools.
This can be done without major alteration of the existing law and without danger that the constitutional prohibitions on church-state relations will be violated.
In amending this act, we have as a guide and precedent the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, passed by the 89th Congress.
Title II of that act provides that grants of Federal funds can be made to purchase textbooks and library aids for non-public schools so long as the ownership of the materials lies with a public education agency. Only the use of these materials is given to the children in private and parochial schools.
This formula easily could be applied to the laboratory and other special equipment provided by title III of NDEA. Who owns the equipment is immaterial. It is the use of this equipment which is so important to the educational welfare of the 7 million students in nonpublic schools.
In the 89th Congress I first authored and introduced legislation amending the NDEA title III program to embody the principle contained in title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No action was taken.
In the months since the end of the 89th Congress I have been restudying the problem and possible solutions in an effort to strengthen and improve my proposed amendment. Today, therefore, I am introducing new legislation which incorporates the basic concept of the old bill, but incorporates perfecting changes. Basically, the provisions of the bill are these:
Public authorities would be required to provide laboratory and other special equipment on an equitable basis for the use of children and teachers in private and parochial schools.
The nonpublic schools, or groups of such schools, would be required to prove that they had spent an equal amount themselves for laboratory equipment or remodeling. This provision is necessary to satisfy the matching provisions of the National Defense Education Act.
In any State in which no State agency is authorized by law to provide laboratory or other special equipment for use in nonpublic schools, the Commissioner of Education would be authorized to provide the equipment for use on an equitable and matching basis directly to nonpublic schools. This provision also follows the precedent of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.