Beginning in 1944 many persons left teaching for other positions or for armed service. Their places have been filled by persons unable to meet full certification standards, which in some States are still no more than high-school graduation plus the rudiments of teaching elementary-school subjects.

At present we are losing more teachers per year than are entering teaching.
Unless conditions change, ahead of us lie-

More overcrowded classrooms,

More one-half- or one-third-day sessions,

More teachers with less than standard preparation, or

More children without teachers.

To help solve the teacher shortage, we must

Prepare more teachers,

Get those in teaching to stay in teaching,

Consolidate more small schools which enroll but a few pupils,

Use available teachers more effectively.

Not shown on the chart are these facts:

(a) There is no leveling off in the number of births as yet.

(b) High-school and college teacher shortages are ahead unless there are rapid changes in the number preparing for these positions.

This chart presents the facts about a serious national problem. One of the big losses in potential skilled workers, in potential military manpower, and in potential trained leadership lies in the large numbers of young people with inadequate education.

In 5 States 12 to 18 percent of the population 25 to 34 years old has less than 5 years of schooling and is generally considered functionally illiterate. In 11 States 4 to 12 percent of the population 25 to 34 years old has less than 5 years of schooling.

Note that the five States with the largest percentage of functionally illiteratethe States in black-have the largest percentage of selective-service rejections on the Armed Forces qualifications test. This test depends, to a considerable degree, on ability to use skills commonly associated with schooling. The percentage of rejections in the 5 States runs from 36 to 58 percent. The average rejection rate nationally is 19.2 percent.

The high rejection rate in certain States is

(1) A serious waste of potential trained manpower, and
(2) An undue burden for other States.

Another way to show the extent of loss of potential trained manpower in the Nation is to show the record of the children entering public school fifth grade in 1943. Of course, there are close relationships between dropouts and functional illiteracy, delinquency, social and economic competence, and military service.

By the end of the 8th grade nearly 200 of every 1,000 in this class had left school; by the end of the 10th grade, 200 more. Another 100 dropped out in the 11th and 12th grades. In other words, just about one-half of the 1,000 children who were fifth graders in 1943 finished high school.

Figures show that those who drop out of school are not necessarily the stupid ones. We lose each year hundreds of thousands of able youngsters. This loss is a serious national handicap.

The administration's proposals are important steps toward the solution of the problems which Dr. Brownell has outlined.

The first of these proposals, embodied in S. 2723, provides for State and White House Conferences on Education which aim to bring about greater citizen action to meet our educational challenges.

In his state of the Union message, President Eisenhower said:

"I hope that this year a conference on education will be held in each State, culminating in a national conference. From these conferences on education, every level of government-from the Federal Government to each local school boardshould gain the information with which to attack this serious problem."

He reiterated these views in his budget message of January 21, 1954.

S. 2723 would authorize a series of study-action conferences on education in the States and Territories. It would bring citizens and educators together to consider educational problems, to mobilize for their solution, and to prepare for the White House conference.

To assist States to collect the needed facts and to hold meetings S. 2723 would authorize an appropriation of $12 million to be allotted to the States on the basis of their respective populations. No State, however, would receive an allotment of less than $10,000. Few States, Mr. Chairman, would have available the funds to prepare materials, to conduct the conferences, and to follow up with the reports and materials for the White House conference.

Following the State conferences, the President would call the White House Conference on Education to be composed of interested laymen and educators from all parts of the Nation.

The purpose of this conference would be

To bring into sharp focus the national implications of the results of the State conferences.

To stimulate greater citizen understanding and support for meeting the educational needs of a free country.

The second administration bill, Mr. Chairman, is S. 2724, to establish a National Advisory Committee on Education.

In his budget message of January 21, 1954, President Eisenhower recommended such a committee in the following terms:

"An advisory committee on education in the Office of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare should be established by law. This recommendation carries forward an objective of the reorganization plan under which the Department was created last year. This committee, composed of lay citizens, would identify educational problems of national concern to be studied by the Office of Education or by experts outside the Government, and would advise on action needed in the light of these studies."

S. 2724 would establish a 9-member, lay committee with 3-year overlapping terms. The Commissioner of Education would serve ex officio as a nonvoting member of the committee. The committee would recommend to the SecretaryThe initiation of task forces to study problems of national concern. Appropriate action indicated by such studies and would report on the progress being made in carrying out its recommendations.

Funds would be appropriated to the extent determined by the Congress. The third bill, S. 2856, to establish a cooperative research program, we believe, represents an extremely useful complement to the two proposals mentioned. It would carry out the President's budget message recommendation:

"***that legislation be enacted which will enable the Office of Education to join its resources with those of State and local agencies, universities, and other educational organizations for the conduct of cooperative research, surveys and demonstration projects."

The purpose of this research program is to strengthen educational research services and facilities by authorizing cooperative research arrangements between the Federal Governmant and various other agencies, institutions, and organizations concerned with the problems of American education. At the present time the Office of Education is not specifically authorized to enter into projects involving the joint expenditure of funds for these purposes.

Cooperative research arrangements of the sort proposed in S. 2856 have shown great returns-notably in the field of public health for each Federal dollar spent. We are convinced that such arrangements can make equally valuable contributions in the field of education where the need for research is great.

One important advantage of the approach proposed in S. 2856 is that, while increasing and improving the research services available, the bill would not add substantially to the research staff of the Office of Education.

Funds to carry out the purposes of the bill would be authorized to the extent determined by the Congress. We believe this program should begin modestly, perhaps at an appropriation level of $100,000 for the Federal portion of the program for the first year.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask Dr. Brownell to discuss these three bills in further detail.

Within the past few years there has been a great upsurge of citizen interest and concern about education in this country. Doubling of enrollment in PTA's and the development of local citizen advisory groups from 1,000 in 1950 to more than 8,000 at present are expressions of this interest. Many other indications could be cited. These have grown out of the recognition, by increasing numbers of citizens, of such school needs as housing and financing of teachers salaries. Citizen groups in towns and cities can get together easily and frequently. They can get the facts, study them along with the educators, arrive at reasonable plans of action and then work to convince others to favor the action program. The result has been approval of school building bond issues and increased salary schedules in thousands of communities.

But certain conditions are impeding progress. Some of these are

Limitations in financing local school districts almost exclusively through property taxation;

Limitations on the rate of taxation for school purposes;

Maximum ceilings on bonded indebtedness;

Difficulties in securing teachers because State legislatures control budgets for teacher eduction facilities;

Limitations on freedom to reorganize school districts because of State laws;

and

Inequities raising local assessed valuations, unless these are raised generally throughout the State.

These factors indicate that essential action on meeting school needs can be taken most effectively at the State level.

S. 2723 provides the machinery for citizens in each State to develop the kind of educational program they want and need by

Changing property assessments;

Changing limitations on taxes and bonds;
Reorganizing inefficient school districts;

Expanding the facilities for higher education;

Attract capable teachers; and

Providing State aid for school construction.

Each State conference would develop solutions to problems by

Bringing together a small group of representative citizens and educators to plan and prepare the materials for the larger citizen-educator conference; Studies of local and State problems in education in the light of the facts so that study and discussion lead to

Mobilizing resources to solve the problems.

Thus study and action would intermesh to meet the long-range problems ahead. The conference approach would expedite State and local action by involving the citizens as central figures-for the citizens will, in the last analysis, decide the quality and quantity of education.

It is expected, of course, that lay citizens and educators would meet together. They would decide what needed to be done and then how to do it-across the board-by giving thought not only to the urgent problems of today, but those which face us ahead.

In summary we believe that the pattern of citizen-educator cooperation on the local level is the soundest course. We believe that the Federal Government should assist and encourage the States to bring together representative citizeneducator groups to work out such action programs.

The White House Conference would serve a complementary and a somewhat different purpose. It would

Emphasize the importance of education to the national well-being;
Report on the progress being made in the several States;

Summarize the resources available and needed to keep American education operating at the level essential for national security and well-being;

Demonstrate clearly what the citizens of the 48 States can do and want to do to meet their educational needs;

Indicate whether citizens wish greater or less Federal support or participation in various phases of education;

Give great impetus to the speed-up in educational efforts needed in these coming years throughout the country; and

Show citizens the nationwide significance of local schooling.

I have no illusions that the White House Conference would solve the problems of education in this country, but I believe it can be very important and helpful. S. 2723 appears to provide a practical and badly needed impetus by the Federal Government. It also would provide evidence-not now available as to whether our citizens believe that the Federal Government should maintain its present relationships to education, do more, or do less.

The problems which the Advisory Committee might consider are many. For example, the committee might consider such matters as

The role of the school in reducing juvenile delinquency;

Illiteracy, particularly in relation to selective-service rejections;

The education of children with special abilities;

The education of children with mental and physical handicaps;
The education of the children of migratory workers; and

The education of teachers.

These are but a few educational problems of national significance. In each area, there has been some research on aspects of the problem. Communities and States could be much more effective in dealing with these problems if a task force, under competent professional leadership, were to analyze and bring together the findings of researches already made, were to define problems needing immediate study, and were to make such studies. They could set forth authoritative conclusions as to what is known about the problem, what needs to be known, and what seem to be reasonable lines of action for individuals, schools, public and private agencies. Such task force work might properly take 2 or 3 years.

The Committee's analysis might result in the conclusion, for example, that the problem of the education of the children of migratory workers would be appropriate for study because of the complexity of the problem, its interstate implications, its national importance, and the lack of accurate studies in the field. Re