EDUCATION CRISIS IN UNITED STATES Foolish we would be, however, if we were to remain complacent in the face of an obvious threat to our national security. We as American citizens are duty bound to examine our educational needs and to explore every possible avenue along which we may find the answer to our problems. It seems apparent that the character and nature of our school crisis is, as it has been for many years, national in scope. The need for Federal aid to education is not new; however, as we have seen, the advent of the space age aggravated this need. In the past, and I am sure a certain segment of our society still adheres thereto, a degree of opposition has been voiced against the concept of Federal aid to education. Fear that the Federal Government would take over control of our educational system seems to be paramount in the minds of such opponents. I should like to dispel this fear and point out the folly thereof. The control of education always has remained, and shall so continue to remain. just where our Federal Constitution left it; namely, in the hands of the States or in the hands of the people. The primary right and duty to educate rests with the parents of our children. A study of the history of education reveals that parents were the first teachers. The process of instruction and discipline by which the physical, mental and moral powers of a human being are suitably developed and rendered efficient for the duties of life always has been, and rightly so, initiated in the home. Throughout the years there has been no deviation from this pattern. At the time it becomes necessary for the parent to delegate much of the function of education to trained specialists in the field, they do not thereby surrender their primary responsibility. The schools established and maintained by civil authority belong to the people who are responsible for them. The people cannot resign the right to control their schools, if they are to retain government by and for the people. Federal aid or support of education in this country dates as far back as the Northwest Ordinance (1785) when the Continental Congress acted to set aside one section of each township in the territory for the support of schools. Since that time there has been approximately 60 major Federal aid laws passed in the United States. Not a single such legislative enactment has ever resulted in Federal control except where the law itself provided for some degree of Federal control. Even in those very few exceptions, most were promptly repealed. In recent years additional safeguards have been taken by specifically prohibiting Federal control, although the Constitution, State laws and about 175 years of tradition would seem to be adequate surety against such control. The February 6, 1958, statement of the AFL-CIO executive council captured the true nature of our dilemma: "The crisis in education is a national problem, with national survival itself at stake in this space age. The role of the States and the school districts will continue to be crucial, but the magnitude of the crisis is so great that a major national effort is essential. "There may be honest disagreement among Americans as to the best types of missiles we should develop, or how many army divisions we should support. But there can be no disagreement about the need to protect America's most precious asset-its children. There can be there must be no limit on what we do to protect and strengthen this asset." Thus, it would be nothing short of foolhardy to block or frustrate Federal aid or support of our educational endeavors. REMEDIAL MEASURES The executive council pointed up the administration's failure to grasp the magnitude of the Soviet challenge with the fact that "the President's proposed budget requests $300 million less for all types of educational activities than he requested in his last year's budget-before sputnik." Why? I am at a loss to understand. How? By merely neglecting to make any recommendations for a school construction program, which the President originally requested Congress to approve in February 1955, and by substantially curtailing the 10-year-old program of assistance to school districts affected by the impact of Federal Government installations. Recognizing our need for more scientists and engineers, as well as a need for better trained diplomats, social scientists, and language experts, the execu tive council declared: “*** neither the physical nor the social scientists will come from a vacuum. Their college and postgraduate training must be based upon a sound grounding in fundamentals at the primary and secondary levels. Yet, the administration has abandoned the school construction programwith the prospect looming of a 500,000 classroom shortage within 5 years." CWA wholeheartedly endorses and supports organized labor's efforts to press for real assistance for education at every level and in every field. CWA will be in the vanguard of that effort: First, we are responsible citizens interested in the welfare and survival of our Nation. We will support a school construction program that will truly alleviate our growing classroom shortage. We will support an effective program that would help to recruit and retain the best possible teaching force. Our children's instructors must be assured adequate wages and decent working conditions. We will support a program aimed at assisting higher education so that every youth in America, regardless of race, creed, or national origin, who demonstrates ability and interest to complete a college education may have the privilege of doing so without regard to his or her financial posture. I am fully aware of the size of this order and I am cognizant of the fact that tremendous sums of money must be appropriated to effectuate these programs. I ask you, however, how much is our national security worth? What pricetag can we afford for lasting peace? Can we afford ill-preparedness of tomorrow's leaders? Each of us must live with our own conscience. The administration's 1958 education program (S. 3163) is a step in the right direction, but this greatly ballyhooed billion dollar 4-year program falls far short of the Nation's needs. Educational authorities have declared that we need to invest billions of dollars more each year in our education system and in our youth if we are to make real progress. While little fault can be found in the purposes of the administration's proposals, CWA does not favor their enactment since they are too few and too restricted. HILL-ELLIOTT BILL On the other hand, even though some improvements are likewise desirable, CWA lends its full support for the passage of S. 3187 which has been proposed by Senator Hill and others. Its counterpart in the House (H. R. 10381) has been proposed by Congressman Elliott. The Hill-Elliott proposals call for an emergency, $3 billion, 6-year national defense education program to strengthen the national defense, advance the cause of peace, and assure the intellectual preeminence of the United States. This bill would strengthen American education at all levels, especially in science, mathematics, engineering, technology, and modern foreign languages. This program is designed to stimulate the development and to increase the number of students in the above-mentioned fields and other areas of learning and to provide additional teaching facilities in these essential fields. It is also designed to promote the development of technical skills essential to the national defense and to lend aid to teachers so they may enhance their knowledge and improve their effectiveness. Further, it is designed to asure that no student of ability will be denied the opportunity for higher education because of financial need and to proptly make available to scientists the results of research carried on in this country and throughout the world. The basic principles of the bill are threefold: (1) Control over and primary responsibility for public education is and must remain in the States and local communities; (2) the national-defense requirements point up the necessity for Federal aid to stimulate States, local communities, secondary and higher educational institutions and individual students through a broad program aimed at insuring world scientific supremacy for the United States; and (3) a balanced education program is needed to maintain lasting world leadership, while current national-defense needs require that temporary emphasis be placed on the quality of instruction in the sciences, mathematics, modern foreign languages, and technical skills. One of the purposes of the administration's program is to meet critical national needs, yet the scholarship provisions fail to encompass aid to students currently enrolled in schools beyond the secondary level. Thus, the effectiveness of the program is postponed at a time when urgency is of uppermost importance. The Hill-Eliott bill recognizes the wisdom in providing scholarships to students who are now enrolled in colleges or universities. This being in the nature of emergency legislation, I would urge that serious consideration be given to passage of a bill which would allow even more scholarships-more than the 20,000 provided in S. 3187-for students now beyond the secondary-school level. I am disturbed at the possibility that all of the scholarships authorized, whatever the number or amount might be, will be awarded to students desiring to pursue scientific studies. We have seen how imprudent this would be. The temptation will be great; but wisdom and foresight must prompt the administrators of the program to refrain from making a tragic error by creating an imbalance of interest in scientific studies. Much could be said on the matter of selection of scholarship winners. Suffice to say, however, that desire, ability, and aptitude for higher education, as well as financial need, should all be considered in determining scholarship recipients. Any method of selection which excludes one or more of these factors shall be subject to grave criticism. Moreover, there should be absolutely no discrimination in the manner of selecting eligible students, whether they be products of public or private schools. The purpose of the scholarship program is to lend assistance to individual students, who may ultimately advance the cause of our Nation, and is not intended to aid a particular type of school. It is most important that the administrators of the program keep this in mind. The permanent guidance, counseling, and testing program proposed in the HillElliott bill goes far toward assuring intellectual preeminence of the United States. The very nature of such a fine program necessitates permanency. By not requiring the States to match Federal funds dollar-for-dollar until after the second year will help preclude delay in getting the program underway. For the reason mentioned above, I urge passage of a provision that would permit the State educational agency to pay directly for testing in private, nonprofit schools, as well as in public schools-the program is intended to benefit individual students, rather than the school itself. Likewise, the permanent nature of the program to keep secondary-school teachers abreast of advances in knowledge and instructional methods, devices, and textbooks in the fields of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages is excellent. The adoption of anything short of a permanent program in this vitally important area would be a drastic mistake. Further, the proposed amendment to the George-Barden Act of 1946 should definitely be included in any education for national-defense law. S. 3187 provides for a permanent program for aid to area vocational education programs in occupations essential to national defense. Here again, permanency is essential. In addition to the above-mentioned features, the Hill-Elliott bill also provides for (1) college student loan programs; (2) college student work-study programs; (3) graduate student fellowships; (4) congressional recognition for outstanding scholastic achievement of high-schol graduates; (5) improvement of science and language teaching facilities, laboratories and equipment in schools and colleges; (6) payments to teachers for advanced studies in summer schools and extension courses, as well as payments for attending summer institutes in guidance and counseling; (7) research and experimentation in new educational mediums such as television; and (8) establishment of a Scientific Information Service to provide scientists with information on research developments throughout the world. CONCLUSION CWA finds that the Hill-Elliott proposals are far reaching, reasonable, sensible, and necessary. Under proper administration these proposals will permit well-rounded advancement and improvement of our country's educational needs. Now is the time to act. Delay in the enactment of this bill into law will merely constitute perpetration of fraud on the American public. All of us recognize our shortcomings many of us realize the truly critical nature of our educational needs. There is nothing left for us to do except for taking immediate action and to meet this crisis head on. While the President's most recent seven-point Federal spending program aimed at bolstering the Nation's sagging economy is a commendable program, it is most noteworthy that he makes no mention or suggestion of congressional action in the area of Federal funds for school construction. I should like to urge you gentlemen to take your place in the vanguard of real public service by reviving the drastically needed school construction program. Federal aid in this area would have a twofold effect: (1) Provide our children with better educational facilities and environment by reducing the tremendous classroom shortage; and (2) provide the Nation's sagging economy with a shot in the arm by alleviating the frightening unemployment situation to a considerable degree. STATEMENT OF THE FOUNDATION COMMITTEES OF THE DANIEL AND FLORENCE GUGGENHEIM JET PROPULSION CENTERS AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AND CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, AND THE DANIEL AND FLORENCE GUGGENHEIM INSTITUTE OF FLIGHT STRUCTURES AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY A MAJOR PORTION OF SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION MUST COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT It is evident that Russia has had great success in certain scientific and engineering fields, notably in the launching of satellites and in the development of long-range missiles; and that Russia has placed and continues to place greater emphasis than we do on scientific research and engineering education. We feel that it is now necessary for the United States to adopt a positive and dynamic program, embracing these points, among others: 1. A substantial increase in emphasis on scientific research, especially fundamental research, and on engineering research and development. 2. More and better facilities for university education in research and engineering, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. 3. Increased emphasis on mathematics and science subjects in our secondary schools and high schools, where students should not only be better taught, but should be held to higher standards of learning and stricter curricula in technical fields. Better training in mathematics and science in the high schools will provide a larger number of competent young people for science and engineering training in the colleges and graduate schools. The present funds available are wholly inadequate to make these advances possible. In the past, funds for educational purposes and research have come primarily from private donors, business, and foundations. But adequate amounts of money are no longer available from these sources to cope with the problems of the space age. We can no longer depend primarily on private donors to support our educational system, if we are to keep up with the progress being made by the Russians in science and engineering education. In future a major portion of support for science and engineering education and research must come from the Federal Government. Individuals, business institutions, and foundations must also be encouraged to continue and even increase their contributions but without neglecting the arts and humanities. These sums should provide, either directly or through matching funds, better salaries for teachers, well-equipped laboratories, suitable classrooms, and other necessary educational facilities, as well as scholarship or other support for able science and engineering students who otherwise could not attend our colleges and universities. Federal support for basic research in the areas of rockets, missiles, satellites, and space flight now comes principally through six agencies-the National Science Foundation, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the three armed services, primarily the Office of Naval Research (Navy), the Office of Ordnance Research (Army), and the Office of Scientific Research (Air Force). The research funds in the above areas available through these agencies should be at least doubled, which would mean an increase of only some $20 million annually. In addition, the application of research funds provided from governmental sources should hereafter be hedged around with fewer restrictions. Some of the major research breakthroughs of the past have been made through freedom to follow bypaths encountered in the course of the exploration of nature, and we believe further substantial discoveries will also be made by this means in the future, if freedom to follow promising leads is made possible by removing restrictions on grants for research. Research and education are a basic foundation for our self-preservation in the supersonic and space age. We also need the proposed program so that this Nation can make its rightful contribution to human progress. Harry F. Guggenheim, president, the Daniel and Florence Guggenheim Foundation Dr. Theodore von Karman, Chairman, Advisory Group for Aeronautical Research and Development, NATO, consultant to the foundation Dr. Clark B. Millikan, director, Guggenheim Aeronautical Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Prof. Courtland D. Perkins, chairman, aeronautical engineering department, Princeton University 22201-58-85 Dr. John R. Dunning, dean, school of engineering, Columbia University Dr. Luigi Corcco, Robert H. Goddard professor, Princeton University Dr. Martin Summerfield, professor, aeronautical engineering, Princeton University Prof. Hans H. Bleich, technical director, institute of flight structures, Columbia University Prof. Lee Arnold, professor of civil engineering, Columbia University Dr. George Herrmann, associate professor of civil engineering, Columbia University Dr. A. M. Freudenthal, professor of civil engineering, Columbia University STATEMENT BY DR. H. D. HOPKINS, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AND COUNCIL OF BUSINESS SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Dr. H. D. Hopkins, executive secretary of the National Association and Council of Business Schools, with offices in the Hotel 2400, 2400 16th Street NW., Washington, D. C. I appear before you as a representative of our organization, which has been in existence since 1912, and which was organized for the specific purpose of serving the public in the supervision and direction it gives to business education. Over this intervening period, our group has developed course structures, designed minimum offerings, and provided standards of operation for the protection of students wanting sound instruction in business education. In addition, our group has sponsored the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools, which organization was recognized by the Office of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency. Some information concerning both of these groups is attached to this statement. For the most part, the member schools which I represent are well-established educational institutions which were founded from 20 to more than 50 years ago, and in some cases are more than 100 years old. According to our latest information, private business schools train at least 500,000 students of posthigh school age every year. We believe that the private business school is worthy of at least one paragraph of explanation regarding its place and function before passing on to the matter of the proposed legislation and its probable impact upon our field. Many firsts in education were developed through private-school initiative and enterprise. Among these firsts in education are many important contributions made by private business schools to improve educational methods, text materials, the start of frequent enrollment opportunities, individual progress according to ability, adult education, and new programs for technical education. In order to meet the changes in the last 20 years, the private business school has made many other contributions to our educational system. Because of the history of the private business school and the role it plays in the community, it is our opinion that care should be exercised that the bona fide interests of private business schools (which number about 1,500 throughout the country) be considered and supported. Indeed, our schools are considered community colleges which cater to the requirements of industry and individuals in their areas. The courses and curricula offered meet the needs of all phases of industry, including the scientific field, and students graduating from private business schools are able to secure important positions at top salaries. STATEMENT OF POSITION We have given careful consideration to the bills pending before this committee. particularly the administration bill S. 3163 and the bill introduced by the distinguished chairman of this committee, Senator Hill. Our group endorses, in principle, any Federal aid to education bill which provides assistance to the student, rather than to the school. Our only objection is that the bill does not include all segments of education. |