steps needed to assure that we know Russian at least as well as we know French, Spanish, and German."

At present there are only six public schools† in the United States known to be teaching Russian: Eveleth High School, Eveleth, Minn.; Washington High School, Portland, Oreg.; Hicksville High School, Hicksville, Long Island, a New York suburb; the Maine Township High School, Des Plaines, Ill., a suburb of Chicago; Demonstration School, Kent University, Kent, Ohio; and University High School, associated with the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, which presents a well-rounded, 4-year course.

Cleveland and Franklin High Schools (Madison High School is to start Russian next year).

Eight private schools † are teaching Russian: Chatham Hall School, Chatham, Va.; Horace Mann, New York City; Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.; Riverdale Boys and Riverdale Girls School, Riverdale, N. Y.; St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H.; Choate School, Wallingford, Conn.; and St. Albans, Washington, D. C.

Two New York City high schools are initiating Russian courses to begin in February 1958. A circular letter has been received from the head of the Department of Education of the State of South Dakota, indicating desire to introduce Russian in South Dakota high schools.

The State Department of Education of Connecticut plans to undertake a survey, at the secondary level, as to what schools are interested in introducing Russian into their curriculums. Oxnard and Camarillo High Schools in California are also considering the introduction of Russian next year.

A survey made by Brooklyn College gives these results of a questionnaire submitted to State departments of education: Out of 34 departments replying, 10 stated they would be willing to introduce Russian if qualified teachers were available. Six high-school principals in New York City responded favorably to the idea of introducing Russian.

Committee

In September 1957, at the annual convention of the American Association of Slavic and East European Languages in Madison, Wis., a committee for promoting the study of Russian in high schools was organized. Since the geography and political philosophy of America led to the decentralization of education in this country, with the result that many educational problems are best tackled on the State and local levels while others are best tackled on a national or regional level, the committee was organized on a basis of regional representation. It includes representatives from the west coast (Prof. Olge A. Maslenikoff, University of California (Berkeley), the Midwestern States (Prof. Francis Sobotka, University of Illinois; Prof. Justina D. Epp, Ohio State University; Prof. Emma Birkmaier, University of Minnesota), and the east coast (Prof. Serge A. Zenkovsky, Harvard University; Mrs. Kyra T. Bostrem, University of Connecticut, Waterbury, Conn.; Prof. Claude P. Lemieux, U. S. Naval Academy; Prof. Catherine Wolkonsky, Vassar College; Prof. F. Holzman, Brooklyn Col lege; and Prof. Helen B. Yakobson, George Washington University, Washington, D. C.).

The purpose of this committee is to explore the possibilities of promoting instruction in Russian in high schools and to develop pilot programs wherever possible. These pilot programs will serve as workshops, enabling the teachers to develop the best methods and materials of instruction, and will also prepare for the eventuality that the teaching of Russian will be adopted on a mass scale throughout the United States.

Russian has an undeserved reputation for difficulty which, in some cases, acts as a deterrent in students' choice of subjects. Winston Churchill's famous remark that "Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma" is sometimes, unfortunately, applied to the Russian language. A great many misconceptions exist as to the origin and the nature of the Russian language. Great is the surprise of many students when they discover that Russian is not an oriental language, or that it belongs to the family of Indo-European languages, or that more than half of the letters of its supposedly exotic alphabet consist of familiar Latin symbols. The Russian alphabet is based on an important phonetic principle; it represents every sound in the most perfect and scientific way. The Russian spelling, therefore, presents no difficulty. There are no silent letters; no letter serves more than one purpose; and 2 letters never represent 1 sound. It is, thus, very difficult to mispronounce a Russian word.

+Late figures supplied by the author indicate there are 15 public and 12 private high schools offering Russian language courses.

Being an inflected language, it resembles Latin, Greek, and German from the point of view of morphology. The Russian sentence has no rigid order of words or sequence of tenses. It has been the experience of many students of Russian that, as they advance in their studies, they soon observe a definite pattern in the acquired vocabulary. By breaking down words into their component parts, they soon learn how to go on developing from a single root a great many derivatives and compounds and, thus, considerably enlarging their vocabulary and acquiring greater ease in reading.

John C. Davis, of St. Albans School in Washington, D. C., writes in a letter to the Washington Post and Times Herald, December 16, 1957, of the school's experience in teaching Russian. "In our experience, both the courses in Russian language and Russian history have been among the most valuable recent additions to our curriculums. St. Albans graduates are now doing advanced work in Russian at West Point and Princeton; and some have proceeded into another Slavic language, Polish. I am glad to report our success and to urge other schools to introduce Russian into their curriculums."

Teacher training

2. One of the first problems to be faced by the department of education of various States is the shortage of adequately trained teachers of Russian. It is important, however, to know that much has already been done in this direction. Several universities have started the program of teacher training in RussianBrooklyn College, University of Minnesota, Columbia University Teachers College.

The University of Minnesota offers a training program for teachers, with Russian language as a minor. Columbia University Teachers College has a summer language-training program for Americans of Russian descent who received their academic training abroad. Yale University indicated its willingness to hold a summer seminar to selected well-educated native speakers, preparing them to teach later in American sceondary schools. New York City Department of Education announced that a group of 30 public-school teachers will start their training in Russian in February 1958 (New York Herald Tribune, December 1, 1957).

There are 183 universities and colleges teaching Russian, and about 4,000 students taking the language. Graduate work in Russian is being done in 12 universities: University of California, Columbia University, Fordham University, Harvard University, Indiana University, University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Notre Dame, Syracuse University, University of Washington, Wayne State University, Yale University. Language laboratories are available for the use of Russian language practice in 38 institutions.

There are also several special summer language training programs offered throughout the country: Yale University, University of Indiana, University of Wisconsin, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, University of California, George Washington University, Georgetown University, Colby College, Middlebury College, University of Minnesota, University of Washington, Fordham University, Alliance College, University of Montreal, and others.

The future teachers of Russian can be recruited from the graduates of these schools.

Included in the President's bill for education is a plan for sponsoring language training institutes which will enable those interested in teaching to acquire the necessary preparation for this career under the most favorable conditions. Textbooks

3. Lack of adequate textbooks is usually cited as another obstacle in introducing Russian in secondary schools.

In the experience of teachers working with Russian in high schools, the textbooks most widely used by the majority of universities and colleges, such as Bondar's Simplified Russian and Gronicka-Bates Yakobson's Essentials of Russian can be used successfully on the high-school level.

A very interesting detailed outline of a 4-year high-school course in Russian has been worked out and tested by Professor Birkmaier at the University of Minnestota High School in Minneapolis. It is available gratis upon request. The foreign language program of the Modern Language Association produced a number of reports (16) on methods of language teaching. These are readily available and, although not dealing directly with the Russian language, could be of help and guidance to the teachers of Russian. The number of technical educational aids (records and pictures) is ever on the increase and easily available.

Examinations

4. If Russian is offered in the high schools, it would have to be included on college board examinations. Professor Wolkonsky, of Vassar College (a member of the committee for promoting the study of Russian in high schools) was delegated to approach the Educational Testing Service, and there is little doubt that Russian will be accepted on the same basis as the traditional languages.

Summary and Conclusions

Admiral Rickover, the man in charge of developing our atomic submarines and naval nuclear reactors, is quoted in the Washington Evening Star in an editorial as follows: "Our trained manpower in the future can only come out of a thoroughly reorganized educational system with totally different aims and considerably higher scholastic standards."

Numerous editorial comments on our "suicidal linguistic lethargy," the realization that as compared to the other nations the United States occupies an inferior position in its language training program,1 and numerous public statements by Government officials testifying to the need of the linguistically trained specialists-all these facts bring the inevitable conclusion that, in the process of the reappraisal of our educational system, Russian must find its place in the high school curriculum.

Our educational institutions cannot produce the needed number of Russian language specialists unless a student is given an opportunity to study the Russian language in high school. Whereas a student majoring in the traditional languages such as French, Spanish, or German will have had a total of 7 years' training in the language, a student of Russian can have at the most only 3 years of the language, because in his freshman year he is encouraged to continue with the language which he studied in high school. As a result, sometimes a Russian major even on the graduate level has difficulty in acquiring proficiency in reading and speaking fluency.

Mr. Clarence Brown from Arlington, Mass., rightly points out in the November 26, 1957, issue of the New York Times:

"It would be a shame to exhort our students to study Russian solely in order to acquire another weapon in the cold war. For Russian is also the language of the great Russian people. It is, moreover, the vehicle of one of the transcendentally great literatures of all time. Russian can, therefore, serve our understanding not only of our enemies but of ourselves and perhaps even of the human animal."

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JOSEPH A. BEIRNE, PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, while my first desire was to appear personally before you to testify on Federal aid to education-specifically on the pending bills relating to science and education for national defense-I am, nonetheless, grateful for the opportunity to take this means of informing the committee and the Congress of the position of the Communications Workers of America with respect to this matter.

CWA is an international labor organization representing over 380,000 employees in the communications industry. These people live and work throughout the width and breadth of the United States and as far north as Hudson Bay, Canada. As their president I am proud to state that they look upon themselves first as loyal and responsible citizens, secondly as faithful trade-union members. Our people advocate and live by the principle that what is good for America is good for CWA.

It is of vital interest and concern to all citizens that appropriate measures be adopted and implemented by their Government to safeguard their freedoms and to forever secure them from the wrath of tyranny.

In France, according to the figures given in a Russian magazine, Russian Language in Elementary Schools, No. 1, vol. 1, January-February 1957: "Russian is being taught in 70 secondary schools. In 1955, there were 2,081 students taking Russian, and by now there has been a great increase in enrollment. Russian is also taught in many evening schools and special courses. The program of Russian studies in French schools is a 5-year program of 3 to 4 hours a week."

In England much is done to encourage British scientists to study Russian. It is the required language in its leading technical schools. More English translations of Russian scientific literature will be made available in England, according to the statement made in Parliament on December 11, 1957.

Thus, I would be derelict in my duties if I were to neglect the opportunity to express CWA's views on this matter.

THE CAUSE OF CONCERN

Oh, I need not detail the possible evil ramifications of the sputniks as they relate to the security of our great Nation. You know of them, I know of them, and what is most important the American people know of them. We are all well aware of our obligation to meet this most recent challenge head-on.

Frankly, I might say to you that we should be indebted to the Russians who made possible the sputniks. Why? Because their accomplishment caused some of us in this country to awaken from a too prolonged slumber of passiveness. Following sputnik a sense of urgency supplanted a mood of complacency. Let us hope and pray that we stay awake long enough to do the job that is necessary. We must not permit the least disturbance of the warp and weft of the tapestry of our Union that was so spectacularly woven by our forefathers. Thus, we must embark on the necessary project of revitalizing and reinforcing certain aspects of our national framework with wisdom and foresight.

We have had our curiosity aroused since the advent of the outer-space age last November. I dare say but a handful of American citizens were not initially stunned upon hearing of Sputnik I. We were not so much surprised at the idea of an earth satellite being placed in orbit, but shocked at the realization that the United States was sitting in the back seat, having been forced there by a foreign nation.

Fortunately, our recuperative powers are alive and we have endeavored to determine the reasons for our current posture in the world of nations. At least one of the reasons propounded is that the United States is lagging far behind Russia in the fields of natural and physical science. Another way of stating it is that our educational system has not produced enough persons schooled in the fields necessary to maintain the strongest national defense in the world.

Gentlemen, I must first agree, and I am certain you will likewise agree, that the current world situation dictates a need for more and better schooled engineers, mathematicians, scientists and technicians. However, I should hasten to add that national strength and leadership in the world today will be lasting only if our educational system continues to be geared primarily toward the training and development of the whole person. After all, the real subject of education is the student in his entirety.

In his state of the Union message, President Eisenhower cautioned that preparation for peace concentrating only on military strength would be a “tragic error"; we need also "economic development, trade, diplomacy, education, ideas and principles * * *." The problem now facing us is to accomplish that which is necessary without losing sight of or neglecting the social aspects of national life.

When speaking of the urgent need for more men of science, Marion B. Folsom, Secretary of the Health, Education, and Welfare Department, recently reminded the Nation that: "Our society is in even greater need of broadly educated men who have the intellectual ability and moral conviction to make those difficult and oftentimes unpopular decisions that determine the course of mankind's advance."

Some educators have observed that a generation of narrow scientists would present a greater danger to our national security than Russian bombs, unless their horizons evidenced a background of training also in the humanities, social sciences and the liberal arts.

It is of great concern, therefore, to many persons from varied walks of life that we cannot afford the error of distorting or perverting our secondary and college level school programs in a frenetic endeavor to encourage and promote the study of science and technology. Reasonable and sensible approaches to strengthen scientific education and encourage the desire for scientific knowledge are a must, but the quest for broader wisdom must never be supplanted thereby. Science and technology can and must go hand in hand with wisdom and human dignity.

Words of caution were recently uttered by Dr. Theodore A. Distler, executive director of the Association of American Colleges, to the effect that we should not allow technology to flourish under the shadow of nuclear war and at the same time permit human qualities to go by default.

EDUCATION IN A TOTALITARIAN STATE

Let us review for a moment the relative merits of the educational systems in Russia and the United States. According to the Office of Education report on "Education in the U. S. S. R." schools in the Soviet Union operate 6 days a week; algebra and geometry are taught in the sixth grade; three-fourths of the students in 4-year semiprofessional schools receive monthly stipends; and school inspectors, representatives of the party and state, are expected to insure that official policy and procedure are carried out in the schools.

The Russians concentrate in 10 years about the same number of hours of instruction as are scheduled over 12 years in the public school systems in this country. Between 1951 and 1955 the number of students graduating from the Russian 10-year system increased 4 times. The Soviet Government, through its planning mechanism, attempts to decide the number of skilled personnel needed in various fields for the most effective development of Soviet power, whether they be athletes, entertainers, or science or engineering graduates.

Schools are opened, approved and run by the state. The Government allocates educational facilities, controls teaching staffs, determines methods of instruction and curriculum, and selects textbooks. Above the secondary level the state fixes quotas for enrollment in various fields and assigns graduates to jobs in industry. It is reported that more than half of the primary-secondary curriculum comprises courses in the physical and natural sciences, mathematics through trigonometry, and mechanical drawing. Seventy percent of advance degrees conferred in higher education are in scientific and technological fields.

The report reveals further that parents must sign pupil report cards each week, and students must keep the card with them at all times. All students in Russia are required to take nationally controlled examinations and meet certain national standards to pass the 4th, 7th, and 10th grades. Due to lack of space, the majority of Soviet schools operate on a double-shift basis and are generally in use from 8 a. m. to 8 p. m. Pupils are expected to participate in extracurricular work activities known as voluntary-compulsory programs.

Moreover, stipends may be increased up to 25 percent in one semester for higher education students in preferred fields who make excellent marks. They must be forfeited by students who fail to maintain satisfactory grades. There is no teacher shortage in Russia due to teacher conscription. By Soviet standards the economic status and prestige of teachers compares favorably with that of persons in other high-priority professions in the U. S. S. R.

Lawrence G. Derthick, Commission of Education, remarked when releasing the report:

"It would be tragic if the evolution of education in the U. S. S. R. should be considered as any cause to question our basic concepts of freedom in education. Rather, it should challenge every American to reexamine the extent to which we as a people support our democratic system of education. It should, in fact, challenge Americans to take new interest in meeting the needs of our schools, and universities as they serve the purposes of our society: freedom, peace, and the fullest development of the individual."

It must be remembered that the Soviet Union will not tell us that while they have made great strides in the areas of science and technology they have had to maintain concentration camps and secret police in order to preserve their totalitarian form of government. Possibly the greatest challenge facing our Nation today is the matter of preserving our hard-won and inherent freedoms without forsaking the human values to which we are historically and traditionally devoted. Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders. Consequently, they must be imbued with knowledge and appreciation of the ideals and principles upon which their way of life was founded.

As we have seen in the Soviet Union, the welfare of the individual has been largely submerged because education is centrally and firmly controlled to serve the political, military and economic goals of the State. Secretary Folsom made this observation when he cautioned:

"We in America should be true to our conviction that the purpose of education is the fullest development of free men and free minds. We believe that a system based on liberty of the mind and freedom of inquiry will accomplish more than a system based on conscription and regimentation."