continuously since 1889. This school has been able to continue to serve the profession despite the high cost of education in this field.

Since the end of World War II the Congress of the United States has appropriated large sums for civil defense and the associated activities, in full realization of the hazards that the civil population would be exposed to should the world be involved in an atomic war. This is as it should be and while the Armed Forces recognize the need for the benefits of the sciences of medicine, surgery, and nursing care for their people, bent upon destruction, our civilian population may have even a greater need.

I was extremely interested to note in a newspaper publication recently that a project for the development of educational opportunities for prospective scientists had been approved by President Eisenhower. The release stressed the physical sciences, nuclear, engineering, etc., in their destructive application. No mention was made of the need for education in those sciences, medicine and nursing, for which there may be dire need to survive widespread destruction. I have made some inquiry into the shortage of nurses and the dearth of students of nursing throughout the country, and it is my understanding that the deficit of nurses is in excess of 50,000. Many of the nurses now connected with the Public Health Service and Armed Forces obtained their education and qualifying experience in private nursing schools and hospitals. No governmental services operate schools for their education. For instance, Walter Reed Hospital discontinued its nursing school after only a few years of operation.

The purpose I have in mind is to direct your attention to the need to support the education of young women, dedicated to careers in this field, in accredited schools of nursing throughout the United States. Many private schools of nursing have closed because of lack of funds. The expense of educating a nurse must be defrayed, unfortunately, from charges added to other fees which the hospital patient must pay.

Our inquiry discloses that of the nurses trained in the Garfield Memorial Hospital School of Nursing (which will continue as the nucleus of the new Washington Hospital Center School of Nursing) some 16.6 percent seek employment in various governmental institutions. In other words, private hospital patients pay for the education of nurses while the governmental institutions get the benefit of their education without cost.

I write this letter with the hope that when the bill for the education of scientists is being drafted young women, seeking education in nursing, will be made eligible under the broad term of "scientists"; and the Government will, by grant or contract, contribute to the support and educational costs of a percentage of the students in the schools of nursing accredited by the National League for Nursing.

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES S. DEWEY, President.

Mr. DEWEY. I wish to thank you for your courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dewey, in the National Science Foundation Act we included medicine and biology along with the other sciences. They come in along with the other sciences. Is not the nurse—in the field of medicine and biology to the doctor, and the scientists in these fields akin to the technician to the scientists in other fields of science? Mr. DEWEY. I would think so, sir. They go hand in hand with the other sciences.

NURSES AS TECHNICIANS

The CHAIRMAN. We have had a good bit of testimony here that, along with the scientists, we must have trained technicians.

Mr. DEWEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. So, your plea might well be for technicians, nurses in the field of medicine and biology, to work with and to assist your doctors and your biologists and your scientists. Is that correct? Mr. DEWEY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator ALLOTT. Yes. I am glad to see you again, Mr. Dewey. The one thought which I do not think is controversial, but, nevertheless, this should be noted, is that you realize, of course, that the proposals that you have made this morning would tend to, if not actually, take the instruction of nurses out of the Department of Health in HEW and actually place them in the Department of Education in HEW.

Mr. DEWEY. Sir, I think in the preamble of the bill the Commissioner and the Secretary, who is also mentioned in the bill, who is the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, would be the controlling person as to the decision of the rules and regulations under which these students would be admitted. My only appeal is that the hospitals and the sick people cannot forever go on paying for the education of these nurses. It is the reason why so many schools affiliated with hospitals have been closed.

ADMINISTRATION OF NURSE TRAINING

Senator ALLOTT. I am not necessarily even suggesting that this is undesirable. I just wanted to suggest that what you have advocated here does involve pulling the instruction of nurses completely away from the field of health, which has been associated with doctors, primarily, and scientific people in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and putting them over where they would actually become, primarily, under the Commissioner of Education. It is like shifting categories in an index, in a sense, except that it has a much greater significance.

Is it true, Mr. Dewey, that most nurses today are trained in 1 or 2 ways? I just happen to be acquainted with my own State, where the first way nurses are trained there is by going to the University of Colorado and receiving a degree. That is one method. Secondly, there are several hospitals that I am aware of who do train nurses in association with their hospitals. Would these two general categories categorize the general situation in the United States?

Mr. DEWEY. May I call upon Mrs. Katherine Knauff to respond to that? She has for many years been head of the School of Nursing of the Garfield Hospital. Suppose you direct a question to her. Senator ALLOTT. Did you hear my question?

Mrs. KNAUFF. I believe I did.

CATEGORIES OF NURSES' TRAINING

Senator ALLOTT. Do these two categories of training which I have just mentioned roughly cover the methods of the nurses' training in the United States?

Mrs. KNAUFF. Yes, with the exclusion of the associate-degree program, the 2-year program. There are at the present time 967 diplomatype programs. The majority of these programs are supported by hospitals. The major costs of the nursing students' education are paid for from hospital funds which are, for the most part, fees received for care of the sick.

There are at the present time 135 degree programs; these programs are under the control of a college or a university and grant only a degree.

There are 23 programs that give both a diploma and a degree and are college or university controlled.

There are 19 associate-degree programs. These programs cover a 2-year period and, in most instances, are conducted by a junior college. Senator ALLOTT. How many of them are of the first category mentioned, where they are actually college graduates, as we have in the University of Colorado?

NUMBER OF NURSES' SCHOOLS IN EACH CATEGORY

Mrs. KNAUFF. There are 135 such schools.

Senator ALLOTT. 135 of those?

Mrs. KNAUFF. Yes.

Senator ALLOTT. And the balance, with the exception of the associate degrees, are the schools in association with hospitals or medical institutions ?

Mrs. KNAUFF. Yes; the majority-931 schools are conducted by hospitals; the control is noncollegiate.

Senator ALLOTT. And that would be the far greater majority of the number of nurses graduated and the number of schools?

Mrs. KNAUFF. Yes, and in the numbers of students or enrollment. The hospital diploma programs have 95,902 students. The degreeconferring schools, or college or university programs, have 17,437 students. The students all study the basic course.

Senator ALLOTT. I think that answers my question very well. Thank you very much.

Mrs. KNAUFF. Thank you very much, indeed.

The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator MURRAY. I have no questions. We are most happy to have had you here this morning.

Mr. DEWEY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Americans for Democratic Action, Mr. Edward D. Hollander, the national director.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD D. HOLLANDER, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mr. HOLLANDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward D. Hollander. I appear here today on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action, of which I am national director.

ADA has long been on record in recognizing the unmet needs of American education and the Federal Government's role and responsibilities in meeting those needs.

Three years ago I testified before this committee in support of a massive program of Federal grants-in-aid to States for meeting the shortage of classrooms.

The 10th Annual Convention of ADA a year ago reiterated our support for such a program, and, in addition, for a program of federally financed scholarships, to be awarded on the basis of ability and need, to students in colleges and universities.

SPUTNIK-AND THE GOALS OF AMERICAN EDUCATION

The appearance of Sputnik suddenly dramatized to the American people the awful consequences of the deficiencies of the American

educational system. Actually, of course, these deficiencies were already known to most Americans. They were no greater the day after sputnik than they were the day before; no greater in 1957 than they had been for several years.

As I pointed out before this committee in 1955, the arithmetic of our educational needs was written plainly in the record of children. then already born and to be educated over the next 20 years. It was perfectly predictable then, as it has come to pass since, that the need for educational plant and equipment and the need for greater numbers of qualified teachers would appear at all levels of the educational system in dimensions which would make it impossible for the States, unaided, to meet them. And we have only begun to feel the impact of the rising birthrate.

PROBLEM'S TRUE DIMENSIONS

Unfortunately, the problem is not yet recognized in its true dimensions. What we have seen since last October has been a frantic emphasis on the teaching of mathematics and the sciences, without a corresponding awareness of the total needs of the educational system-as though a crash program for finding and training scientists and mathematicians could be superimposed on a system of elementary and secondary schools which were basically deficient in the rudiments of an educational system.

Even if that were true, it would not follow that the total challenge which sputnik poses to the American society could be met simply by increasing the number of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, with the continued neglect of the social sciences and humanities and the education of just good citizens. We must, of course, first marshal and expand our resources of science and engineering to regain the superiority or, at least, parity-which we lost by penny-pinching neglect and ignorant disrespect of science and research.

This means, as we have so often been reminded in recent months, a massive effort to use scientific talents without stint and a massive program to educate and train scientific and technical personnel on an unprecedented scale.

TOTALITARIAN CONTROL

But, as Alexander Korol and Max Millikan, of MIT, remind us in their recent study of Soviet education, it is not merely the numbers of Russian scientists which have made possible their spectacular advances; it is even more the ability of a totalitarian regime to mobilize and concentrate brains and resources for those purposes to which they give highest priority.

What is to be democracy's answer to this, they ask. How is the free world to meet the Russian challenge in science and still serve the goals of social and economic progress and the freedom and dignity of every individual?

And their answer is, the free world must learn to make its own allocations and find its own ways to release a larger share of our total resources "from nonessential material uses and to devote them to the service of indispensable goals." It means maximizing our resources as well as allocating them intelligently.

The challenge to America lies precisely in defining these "indispensable goals" and the means of reaching them.

Clearly, these goals include-in fact, begin with-the common defense; but surely they cannot stop there, lest we forget the general welfare we are defending.

BREAKTHROUGH TO PEACE

No less than breakthroughs in missiles and rockets, we need to break through to peace.

We need to break through the stubborn doctrinaire bureaucracy that has stalled the development of the atom as a practical source of energy.

We need to break through the deterioration of American urban life: the physical and moral decay, the slow strangulation, the rank growth of planless suburbs and the spread of slums, the persistence of poverty, the widespread delinquency.

We need to break through the appalling problem of mental health. There is no doubt that as we must educate more scientists and engineers, we must educate, too, more doctors, more social scientists, more city planners, more of all sorts of people needed to domesticate the accrued knowledge of a thousand years and put it to work in the service of mankind.

And we need to educate citizens of a democracy.

Alexander Korol has warned us that the Soviet schools are controlled by the Communist Party, to serve the aggressive expansion of Communist power. By the same token, our schools must serve the humanistic purposes of a free, pluralistic society.

As the Soviet school system emphasizes science and technology above all, ours must emphasize equally the social arts and the values of democracy.

PRIMARY AIM OF EDUCATION

As the Manchester Guardian said:

The primary aim of educational advance is not the production of ballistic missiles or synthetic moons. These, however essential, can only be byproducts. The central aim must remain the continued development of a healthy and purposeful society which, by the manner in which it manages its own affairs, provides a practical example of the value of freedom.

We believe this is the meaning of universal education in a free society.

ELEMENTS AND COSTS OF A FEDERAL PROGRAM

We of ADA have tried to approach this problem with an open mind and with as much information and understanding as can be had of those who are not professional educators. We believe that an adequate program of Federal aid to education should provide at a minimum the following essential elements:

1. School construction: A 5-year program of Federal grants to localities to enable them to overcome in 5 years the accumulated backlog of about 150,000 classrooms facing us if the present rates of building new schools and abandoning old ones are maintained. We estimate that this would require about $1.2 billion per year for the next 5 years.