THE ROLE OF THE PRIVATE BUSINESS SCHOOL IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL PROGRAMS

The private business school should be included in the proposed legislation because of the work it is now doing in the field of science and technology. The private business school is instituting new crash programs and courses such as engineering secretarial courses and engineering aid courses which have been designed with the aid of industry as an answer to its problems. A constant complaint of many engineers is the fact that they are tied down by office tedium to a point where they spend too much of their time on matters which can be handled by a competently trained secretary or aid. Our schools have developed and are offering a 2-year course of intensive training, consisting of the specialized terminology of the technical, scientific, and engineering professions; laboratory work in general science (especially physics and chemistry); engineering mathematics; drafting-all in addition to a full curriculum of standard secretarial instruction.

In addition a 2-year program for developing engineering aids is also being offered by the private business schools.

The purpose of these courses is to cut months off a new secretary's usually lengthy adjustment to complex engineering terminology and to free engineers from some of those only marginally professional duties such as routine calculations and graph plotting. "Development of supporting personnel such as secretaries and technicians is one of the most productive avenues available to increase engineers' output." This is a quotation from Mr. William Cavanaugh of the Engineers Joint Council, a New York headquartered association of engineering societies. Mr. E. Paul Lange, secretary of the joint council, explains the shortage of engineeringwise office aids this way. "Before World War II few companies went in heavily for research and development projects. Now that's all changed and about 150,000, or approximately 25 percent of the country's engineers, are working on some kind of civilian or military research and development project. These are the engineers that baffle secretaries with complicated technical jargon; they lose 'idea' time when they have to go back over letters and reports to iron out errors."

Reports a leading news publication (U. S. News & World Report, January 10, 1958, p. 89), "Lack of technical help is found to load down engineers with all kinds of chores. One electronics firm found that engineers in one of its divisions spent 19 percent of their time on jobs that could be done by technicians and clerical or administrative employees."

Most companies agree there is a need for secretaries and engineering aids with engineering knowledge. A typical quotation is from Mr. Miles McConkey, supervisor of the Westinghouse Electric Research Center near Pittsburgh, “Proofreading of research reports bothers us a lot. Most secretaries don't know enough about engineering terminology to avoid mistakes when they're typing reports, so our engineers have to take time out to go over the finished paper." Naturally these courses require the careful selection of proper students. It is clear, however, that the private business school will be advancing science and technology by its work in these fields.

The private business school, because of its unique flexibility, is the only type of institution that can quickly adjust its programs to adapt to the present-day emergency. It is well known that in the beginning of World War II many private schools were called upon to train people quickly at Government expense. There was a recognition that only the private schools could adjust their programs and facilities to meet the emergency and to accomplish the end result.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES IN BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION

Our main objection to the two bills presently being considered by this committee is in the definition of an “educational institution." Under the definition in both the administration bill and Senator Hill's bill, training in private business schools, technical institutions, or other types of institutions which are meeting the present emergency in science and technology would be excluded. We believe that it is in the best interests of the American people to include this segment of education in both of these bills. In fact we believe that many students desire this type of training to prepare for good jobs, and at the same time help their country in its time of emergency. We would therefore suggest in Senator Hill's bill and in the administration bill that the language defining an "educational institution" be changed to read as follows:

"The term 'institution of higher education' (1) means an educational institution in any State which (A) admits as regular students persons having a secondary education or its equivalent, (B) is legally authorized within its own State to provide a program of education beyond the high school, (C) offers and conducts an educational program extending at least two years beyond the high school level; and (2) also means, for the purposes of Titles II, III, and VI only, an educational institution outside of any State, if the Commissioner determines that such institution is substantially comparable to educational institutions in the States which meet the standards set forth in clause (1) of this subsection."

REASONS FOR CHANGES IN LANGUAGE

One of the reasons for changing the language is that most private business schools are proprietary in nature. They do not receive from the Federal Government any subsidy of any kind, nor are they asking for any such subsidy. They operate their institutions on a high quality level without Federal or State aid, while at the same time providing an income for their owners. In the past there has been some question raised as to the validity of so-called profitmaking institutions. The private business school contends that it provides a worthwhile service at a reasonable price, and the profit, if there be any, amounts to a salary for its owner. On the whole, private business school salaries for teachers are commensurate with any other field of education, but in most cases the salaries and profits received by its owners are less than the salaries of college presidents or football coaches in various academic institutions of higher learning. The fact that a school is privately owned does not mean that its instruction is not comparable to that given in other educational institutions on the same level. The competition for students in the field of education is such that the private business schools must provide worthwhile educational programs in order to survive and flourish.

The other change that was made in defining an "institution of higher education" was to delete the clause requiring a school to be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association approved by the Commissioner. This is not as important a change to the private business school, since many schools have been accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools which is a nationally recognized accrediting agency, recognized by the Office of Education. However, there are many other good institutions which have not received such accreditation, but who should be considered for this program. The private business schools would not object if the requirement were again inserted that the school had to be a member of a nationally recognized accrediting agency in order to be eligible for this program.

SUMMARY

It may be desirable to summarize the points made in this testimony as a guide to the members of the committee.

(1) The private business school has been responsible for many firsts in education and is much more flexible in its operation, thereby enabling it to make changes to meet emergency situations.

(2) The private business school has developed many courses such as engineering secretarial and engineering aid to meet the emergency in the science and technology field. These courses have been highly recommended by governmental agencies, private industry, engineering, and scientific societies.

(3) Any bill providing for scholarships should include the private business school field, as its courses contribute to the objectives of the educational bills presently being considered by this committee.

(4) The private business schools endorse the idea of Federal aid to education, so long as the aid is to the student and not to the institution.

(5) The only change in the bills contemplated would be to define an educational institution so as to include the private business school. This would allow private business schools owned by private owners to participate in this program, since the quality of the instruction given by these institutions is comparable to that of any other field of education.

(6) It is important to the Congress of the United States and to the American people that all educational institutions beyond the high-school level be utilized to their fullest extent. This includes the private business school. The private business school is making its contribution and will continue to do so as the need arises.

(7) There is ample precedent for including the private business schools in any Federal aid to education program. The success of the GI training programs was due to the full utilization of all educational facilities and types of institutions. The private school field under the World War II GI training program trained 3,500,000 veterans, as compared with 2,200,000 trained by colleges and universities.

In conclusion we wish to express the appreciation of our group for the privilege of appearing before this committee. We are enclosing, in addition to the other material previously mentioned, an editorial which appeared in many newspapers throughout the country. We feel that this summarizes in part the value of private business school training.

Respectfully submitted.

H. D. HOPKINS, Executive Secretary.

[Enclosure]

PRACTICAL-CUM LAUDE

In all the current commotion over higher education, our crying need for double-dome scientists we haven't got, we think it's high time somebody gave a thought to the kids-hundreds of thousands of them across the Nation-who do not go to college, and who will not be going to college, no matter what the inducements.

These are the youngsters who must shoulder responsibilities at a tender age, who must prepare themselves quickly to "help out" at home; the girls who want to be secretaries, the boys who want to be accountants but who may have to get their education via the night school route; still others who are frankly not students, but require some special grooming to prepare for the battle of life at a modest level. For these, a Government program that would force them into college would be both heartless and futile-just as it is tragic today to see young people in our colleges who are there because their parents insist upon it and can pay the bills.

And let us recognize, too, that no group of our citizenry contributes more to the Nation's economic and civil welfare, to keeping the wheels turning in business and industry and our Government functioning at the National, State, and local levels than these business school careerists. Without them, we should be in a bad way-but quick. In fact, we can think of nothing more chaotic and generally insufferable than a world of double-domes.

Actually, so far as we can see, any institution to which high school graduates go in further preparatiton to deal with the world, whether a university or a business school, is in simple fact a college—and should be so established in the public mind.

It is encouraging, therefor, to note that this attitude is beginning to evolve. While it is not practical for youngsters of the Horatio Alger persuasion to devote time and money to football-the primrose path to acclaim-there is such a thing as school spirit in these specialized educational facilities.

In many business schools there are social functions and alumni organizations that keep memories green and contacts alive. More and more of these schools, we learn from E. R. Moore in Chicago, now conduct formal and impressive graduation exercises-complete with perorations, prayers, and patriotism and even to caps and gowns. In fact, the Moore people have gotten out a booklet for business schools that spells out just how appropriate commencement exercises are arranged and conducted.

There is, in other words, growing recognition of the fact that it makes just as much sense to live for good old "Spivis Commercial" as to die for dear old Harvard Law.

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

The National Association of Manufacturers appreciates this opportunity to offer its views on Federal aid to education for the record of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. The association, which has a membership of some 22,000, 83 percent of whom employ less than 500 employees, is genuinely concerned with the adequacy of the Nation's schools, and the contribution they make to our Nation's well-being. The association has and will continue to work in the Nation's best educational interests. But it cannot believe that the Nation's interests in education, or in other domestic programs, is a mandate for action by the National Government.

Numerous proposals have been brought before this committee for programs which claim to strengthen the country's educational system. The approach, emphasis, or specific aspect involved differs from bill to bill, but one characteristic is constant. This is the assumption that Federal aid to the States, in one form or another, and for one purpose or another, is the solution to the problem at hand, whether it be better schoolrooms and better teachers, or better courses and better students. The chronic answer to more and better education seems to be more and better forms of Federal aid.

The National Association of Manufacturers takes vigorous exception to Federal aid as a basic answer to problems in our educational system, regardless of the particular pattern of the proposed aid. Fundamentally, the association believes that public education is the direct and exclusive responsibility of each State and its own communities, that the financial position of each of the States is adequate to fulfill this responsibility, and that failure of some of the States to meet their full responsibility can be rectified by the States themselves through changes in statutory provisions and through improved foresight and leadership. The association also believes that the best help which the Federal Government can offer the States is not an aggressive aid policy, but abstinence.

There are several aspects to a pertinent policy of restraint, abstention: (1) do not open new doors to Federal aid; (2) firmly close those already in use; and (3) unblock the basic tax-rate barrier to adequate State-local and private financing of education.

This committee is considering, among other proposals, S. 3187 and S. 3163, both of which open new doors to Federal aid to education which should not, and need not be opened. Where the emphasis in past years has been on Federal aid for school construction, the essential characteristic of these bills is Federal aid for school construction. The framework is one of providing scholarships and fellowships for students, and institutes for teachers; testing and counseling of students, and training and counseling of teachers; equipment or facilities improvement for instruction in science, mathematics, or modern languages; and grants to help State educational agencies in their supervisory and consultant relationship to local schools.

The content of S. 3163 was previewed in outline in the President's budget message this January. Comments were made on these proposals in the National Association of Manufacturers' publication, Federal Expenditure Control and the 1959 Federal Budget, and are appropriate here:

"In all of the proposals for Federal aid to education heretofore advanced, vigorous disclaimers have been made to emphasize that there is no intention of exerting Federal control over curricula, school management, or other aspects of local responsibility. These assertions have always been open to challenge on the grounds, first, that he who pays the piper has the right to call the tune,' and second, that there would be neglect of Federal responsibility in the failure to exercise supervision over the way in which Federal grants were used. These grounds lead to the unavoidable conclusion that there will be, and in fact must be, controls by the Federal Government to the extent that it provides funds. Obviously, the more money it provides, the more control it will exercise.

"This year, there is a frank assertion of intent to control. In the budget message it is said (p. M33), that a major objective of the new program will be to provide matching grants 'to strengthen State departments of education and local school systems, particularly in the administration and teaching of science and mathematics.' The new grants are also to be used to 'strengthen graduate schools and expand the teaching of foreign languages.'

"The direction of this control is pointed up in the President's special message to Congress, in these words:

"Because of the national security interest in the quality and scope of our educational system in the years immediately ahead, however, the Federal Government must also undertake to play an emergency role. The administration is therefore recommending certain emergency Federal actions to encourage and assist greater effort in specific areas of national concern. These recommendations place principal emphasis on our national security requirements.'

"In other words, a condition of the Federal grant will be that the States and local school districts expecting to receive Federal money must introduce and emphasize the subjects and courses of study which fit into a Federal determination of 'national security requirements.'"

This study pointed out our specific opposition to grant-in-aid programs. The minimal first-year cost of such was recognized. But, the study says:

***** grant programs have a habit of being started on a temporary or emergency basis, and then, as Senator Byrd has said, ‘growing to the size of elephants.'

The President's special message says 'this is a temporary program and should not be considered as a permanent Federal responsibility.' However, all the special interest pressures which were brought to bear for passage of the grants proposed last year for general aid for school construction would undoubtedly be summoned to expand these beginnings. Already the National Education Associtation has said "You can't meet a great challenge with a small and restricted program;' and it has asked for a program starting at $1 billion and going up to $5 billion in 4 years.

"The only way to prevent the spending of Federal billions for State and local responsibility is to stop at their inception, programs with so obvious a future. These grant proposals are new doors to Federal aid for education which should not be opened. The case made in 1956 by the association in opposition to Federal aid to education is applicable in this instance, too. And the concluding paragraphs of it are equally pertinent here:

'We agree with the President that the fundamental responsibility for education is State and local; but we do not share the view that Federal assistance will help these governments do their job nor spur them in it; on the contrary * * *

"'We believe that a clear statement by the Federal Government of disinclination to participate in financing the public school system in any of its aspects would provide the sharpest spur for the full discharge of State and local responsibility.'

But it is not simply the form which the proposed Federal aid takes that is at issue. The question is one of perspective and fundamentals. In these regards, the association's study of the 1959 budget makes the following points: "1. There should be more effective utilization of available scientists and engineers. When this has been done, it may appear that no special inducements are needed to increase the supply.

"2. As the budget message admits, the basic responsibility for science education and training as well as for conduct of research in this country depends primarily on non-Federal support, and requires a thorough understanding of the problem by all citizens. But experience with other grants has shown that a Federal grant tends to prevent the States, local units, and private institutions from fully facing up to their own responsibility. It is not likely to be otherwise in this case.

"3. No one should be led into thinking that just by spending money, scientists can be turned out overnight, or even in a year or so. A long period of study and training is required. For this reason, and since there is general agreement that the responsibility rests on the States and localities, and on private educational institutions, these agencies should not be even temporarily distracted from their task by so-called stimulative grants. The budget message recognizes this danger by cautioning against overemphasis on the grants. Contrary to all of the evidence, a belief is indicated in the message that these grants can and will be terminated after a few years.

"4. As to the specific case of the science education grants, it must be kept in mind that science, however important, is not the whole of education. Again quoting the budget message: "The national needs require the development through a strong educational system of a vast number of aptitudes and skills.' The proper way and the best way to provide better education for more students is to concentrate on the hometown and the home-State obligations to assure that the job is done.

"5. In further support of the preceding point, there is a danger that too great emphasis on specialized programs which may be popular at the moment may upset the balance needed in a well-rounded educational program.

"All of these reasons connect back to the fundamental truth that in the American system, education is not a function of the Federal Government, but a clear responsibility of the people, whose children are to be educated, acting through their local and State agencies in this field. It is dangerous for the institutions of a free society to let either policy or financing of education out of their control. The menace of Federal grants, regardless of the merit or urgency of particular reasons, is that local control is to some extent weakened and may be lost entirely."

The obstacles to adequate financing of our educational system are several: a too ready acceptance of Federal aid as the necessary or only answer, specialinterest pressures for such aid inside and outside the Government, State statu

2 New York Times, January 28, 1958.

a Does Public Education Need Federal Aid?