I have asked for a few minutes of your time because I feel that your committee has an historic opportunity to improve the effectiveness of education in our country.

As a parent, a businessman, and a citizen I am well aware that we face a problem in education. From every side we are presented with statistics as to our growing school population, the need for more schools, more classrooms and more teachers. The facts are inescapable. Much needs to be done and, I believe, much is being done.

Not so widely publicized, but of equal import, I believe, is the problem which faces our teachers and school administrators—and our students as well. As our school population has grown, the body of knowledge which each student must or should absorb has grown even faster. Think of the discoveries, the breakthrough in scientific knowledge since you and I attended elementary and secondary schools. Gigantic steps forward have been made in the physical sciences and our present store of knowledge is being increased every day.

Much has been said about getting back to the basic study of the liberal arts and sciences, of eliminating some of the frills from education to leave time for real learning. But seldom have we stopped to think how tremendously much more there is for the youngsters of today to learn. Even eliminating the frills, does not leave time for the absorption of all this knowledge unless we find a way to assist the process.

I think this can be accomplished by making available to education for wide and immediate use the great wealth of modern teaching tools and materials which our society has developed as our communications skills and techniques have progressed.

It seems to me that this can be done without any of the complications involved in building a new educational system, or even in altering the present structure. It seems to me that this is an area where Federal assistance on a matching basis can best be applied, with the widest possible application and the least possible waste motion, to affect at once those key areas of education with which all of us are presently concerned-the natural sciences, physical and social, and the humanities.

My own interest in education motion pictures goes back to 1937 when I was a student at the University of Chicago. Along with an entire class I was struggling to absorb the complexities of the nervous system of the human body. The course was taught by a brilliant physiologist, Dr. Anton J. Carlson. The words used were words we could define. Yet our grasp of the subject was anything but secure until one day the class was shown a sound motion picture of the nervous system. As a result of a 20-minute film, what had taken thousands of words to describe and weeks of classroom time, became crystal clear. We saw, heard, understood-experienced. It was this experience that intensified my interest in seeking a position in the educational department of Bell & Howell Co., 20 years ago. My interest in education has continued as a trustee of the University of Chicago and as a director of the Fund for Adult Education of the Ford Foundation.

For a long time I wondered at the small extent to which these modern tools were applied in education, where their values were first proved and where the basic techniques were formulated and researched. I knew from contacts with educators that a large majority were enthusiastic about what could be accomplished with audiovisual aids. By audiovisual aids I mean sound motion pictures, filmstrips, slides, tape recordings, and other similar materials.

But many educators who have sought to use these modern tools have found themselves handicapped by lack of equipment and materials. They have found that nearly every available educational dollar has had to go to build more classrooms and pay additional teachers.

That is because in America we are committed to universal education, not merely out of sentimental, humanitarian concern for mankind, nor even from general, abstract democratic principles, but because we as a people believe that America's best hopes depend upon her human rather than natural resources.

To strengthen our human resources, to make the most of our greatest assets, the youth of America, we need the kind of educational experience that will increase the use of human intelligence. We need the fullest possible development of the capacity to think, to reflect, to weigh and judge, to make choices among alternatives, and to foresee the results of these choices. This is the modern mind we need-the mind of the scientist, the key executive, the mathematician.

Recent international events have emphasized this point more strongly than can any words of mine. The eerie sounds and signals reaching earthword from the satellites can be heard quite clearly within any circle discussing education. Our future as a nation, I believe, depends upon what action we take to accomplish these educational goals.

I believe that this is what critics of education today have in mind when they cite "soft" courses, point to "poorly prepared" teachers, demand "minds trained for the scientific era," and "self-disciplined students."

What they are really seeking cannot be accomplished by increasing the difficulties of the process of education; it can be done by giving teachers and students the basic materials and tools they need for the kind of education they must have.

Perhaps the biggest educational job the world has ever witnessed was the teaching and training of the American Armed Forces immediately prior to and during the course of World War II. For a period of 3 years I was involved in this program as a naval gunnery officer in charge of three naval districts for the advanced base aviation training units. The subject matter to be covered was vast, time of the essence, and competent, trained teachers few and far between. Our only answer was to place modern teaching tools at their disposal to maximize the effectiveness of the teachers we had. No less an authority than Gen. George Marshall indicated that without audiovisual equipment the training job could not have been done. If I recall correctly, his actual figures were that in many cases retention of learning was increased 60 percent and teaching time halved with the use of motion pictures.

Audiovisual aids do pay off. In business when we want a job done, we never start by making it harder to do the job, or harder to learn to do it. Instead, we provide the best machines and tools we can to help the worker get maximum productivity and we use the best teaching tools we can find to teach him. We teach through the eye and ear, through carefully, skillfully used repetition and drill; we let him use his hands and eyes and brain, to feel and see the effects of what he is doing. We give the learner every possible chance to learn through every channel we can find.

It pays off*** not only in increased learning in less time, but in higher production sustained throughout a complex operation. That is why industry and business rely on audiovisual materials and equipment; they work.

It has always seemed unfortunate to me that almost 70 percent of all audiovisual materials and equipment are purchased by industry and business, while education, where they are most urgently needed and can make their greatest contribution to our national welfare, has been able to afford only a limited use of these teaching tools.

There is little disagreement on the need for aiding education in some broad and efficient way. Our present shortage of teachers, especially in the sciences and mathematics, merely emphasizes the coming crisis if our educational system fails us.

Our American technological development puts a high premium on educated human intelligence, and creates an enormous demand for people capable of using their intelligence.

Far from encouraging intellectual conformity, our developing needs demand men and women who can and will think for themselves. This is no phenomenon of the postwar boom, but a long-range, growing and expanding fundamental need coupled tightly to the future of America.

Action now is needed. This committee has before it a bill, H. R. 10381, cited as the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

I am specifically confining my testimony only to title V of the bill which concerns the acquisition of science teaching facilities and title X for research into the more effective utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and related mediums for educational purposes.

Good as it is, I believe title V can be strengthened and broadened by specific inclusion of audiovisual equipment and materials in the definition of science teaching facilities which appears in section 103 (c) of title I. I would like to suggest that this be accomplished by changing the wording of this definition to read: "The term 'Science teaching facilities' means specialized equipment and instructional materials (including audiovisual materials and equipment, and printed materials other than textbooks), suitable for use in providing education in science, mathematics, engineering or modern foreign languages." [Changed wording italicized.]

It seems to me, too, that the program laid out in part B of title V, to aid institutions of higher education in the acquisition of science teaching facilities, is exactly what is needed to move quickly in a fashion which will produce results with those now studying in these crucial areas of science.

This provides one prong of a two-pointed attack on our educational problem. The first part of this attack, in the colleges and universities, must be to bring about the essential improvement of those now in the crucial phases of their studies of science, mathematics, engineering and modern languages. The second part of this attack is the improvement, through part A and other titles of this bill, of the education of pupils from the elementary grades on up, thus preparing them for better utilization of the improved educational opportunities to be afforded them when they in turn reach the institutions of collegiate level.

No matter how good the equipment and material is, it is the teacher who finally determines the quality of the learning experience, by her use of the teaching tools. We need action to attach the problem on two fronts *** by provision of equipment and materials, and through demonstration and teacher training to insure highest efficiency in using equipment and materials.

But in part B of title X, I would suggest that the committee consider the implications of the proposed program in this part. It seems to me that this program goes far toward putting the Federal Government in the business of producing educational meaterials, a development which I doubt the committee would wish to encourage.

This same program in part B is designed to do a job at the national level which all audiovisual experience has long shown is best performed at the local level-selection and integration into the curriculum of program units.

And still further on part B, I would like to observe that the problem is not one of production of materials there is no lack of materials-but is one of support for distribution of enough copies of materials already available, to make them readily available to the teacher when and where needed.

However, the provision for technical assistance and counsel to State and local educational agencies and institutions of higher education is something needed and I believe should be retained.

It seems to me that this whole matter of local choice and purchase of audivisual equipment and materials is a key to the problem of getting more audiovisuals at work quickly. Teachers must use these materials and this equipment; if they themselves through their local organizations have a choice in what is acquired, and can express preferences and indicate alternatives among the needs which must be met, they are much more likely to get what they really need and that which they will really use. One outstanding lesson has been learned in working with teachers using audiovisual materials and equipment; they know what they need and how they want to use it, perhaps better than anyone else. I would also suggest that this principle of local choice and selection be recognized in the language of this bill by inclusion of this suggested wording in title V, part A, section 503 (a), (1) as follows:

"(1) sets forth a program under which funds paid to the State under this part will be expended solely for projects, approved by this State educational agency, for the acquisition of science teaching facilities for use in elementary and secondary schools; and which recognizes the principle of local choice in the selection and acquisition of such teaching facilities;"

IN SUMMARY

I believe that audiovisual materials and equipment can aid teachers at every level. I believe that the tremendous increase in the body of learning makes it more than ever necessary for us to use effective aids to the learning process. We are certain that audiovisuals are especially helpful-indeed, are essential and fundamental-in certain areas of the sciences, in mathematics and in language learnings.

We can see that not only in the colleges, where we need immediate action with students in crucial phases of their training, but more fundamentally in the elementary and secondary schools, audiovisual materials and equipment can do an improved job of educational communication, and can bring about improved and faster learning, with larger groups.

There already exists a large pool of basic materials, and that the equipment to make those materials meaningful can be made readily availble.

We have thus ready at hand many of the factors needed to bring about a definite and spectacular improvement in education at all levels. There is, how

ever, one notable exception. That one missing factor is the provision of adequate funds to provide enough basic materials and essential equipment to do the job now.

I believe that this is not only an historic opportunity for the Federal Government to act, in cooperation with the several States, but that it is a positive obligaion of the Government to act now as a strong step toward aiding our educators in their task of producing the kind of brainpower, and the kind of educated, thinking citizens we must have to insure the preservation of our liberties and our way of life.

It seems to me that the provision of adequate teaching materials and equipment is a step which can be taken at once without disturbing our traditional and well-entrenched educational system, built by and under local option in many choices.

I hope that members of your committee, in further study of these suggestions and those of others who have appeared before you, will find ways of providing for the teachers and the students of America the essential educational tools without which they will be handicapped in the tremendous task they face.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I wish to thank you for the privilege of appearing before your committee. If you have any questions about the matters I have talked about, I shall be very happy to do my best to answer them.

Senator GEORGE D. AIKEN,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

SHOREHAM, VT., January 26, 1958.

DEAR SENATOR AIKEN: There is now wide public interest in a problem-that of educating engineers and scientists-in which we did a lot of work several years ago when dealing with war surplus. At that time the work was done with little publicity, so it may be worth something to send you an analysis of the problem as it then appeared. Solutions may then be much simpler.

We should realistically face the fact that during the intervening years, our country has spent several billion dollars in veterans' education—a lot of this in engineering and similar training-yet we have not attained the goals we should have attained. We should face this fact squarely and inquire as to the reasons. My own interest in the problem came soon after joining the Advisory Council of War Assets. A group of manufacturers of production equipment presented a plea for consideration of their difficulties. Their fear was that we would do the same as after World War I, when the surplus of their products had been sold to speculators, who gradually unloaded it for many years to the injury of new manufacture. They had a good case, but little constructive suggestion for solution.

Because it was a knotty problem and I was a new member, it came on my desk. Several months later, when I became chief of general disposal, one of the first papers I was asked to sign was a reduced price list of machine tools, with the intent of further reduction about each 60 days to stimulate demand. I refused to sign the lower pricelist, and continued some study and opinions started while I was on the Advisory Council. Subsequently experience proved that the majority of prices had already been reduced too low.

One subject we studied was the prewar machine-tool policies in several countries. Only two were interesting enough to remember, aside from our own. Those were Germany and Russia.

When the Nazis first came to power in Germany they took over the machinetool industry and began modernizing their school equipment, thereby helping to modernize the production in their factories. By the start of World War II, they had carried this policy so far that they had about the same number of machine tools as the United States had at the end of the war.

That does not imply that their total productive capacity was up to ours, but it does mean that they had a very wide distribution which helped greatly in efficient utilization of labor potentialities and aided greatly in continuing production despite our bombing raids. In fact, it gave them tremendous production for a small country.

As the German armies invaded Russia, they entered areas where Russia had concentrated too much of her war production. It was necessary to move many of these factories-buildings, equipment, and workers back to safer areas, and in such cases they freely took their workmen away from their families.

At the end of the war Russia simply closed many of those factories, and began buying production equipment from our war assets and other sources, apparently to maintain her war production potential and also build up her peacetime capacity.

We had on our staff many of the executives who had worked on problems of war production. So we could make inquiry while their experiences were fresh in their memories.

They had constantly been faced with difficulties of training production manpower through lack of proper facilities in schools and colleges. Those difficulties varied from extending manufacturing into areas where there had been little peacetime production to those in other areas where the change in nature of production was important.

Continually there had been needs to get schools and colleges to train personnel while factories were being built or converted. And constantly there had been delays because schools were not prepared for such training. Also there was constant effort to recruit war production personnel from less active areas, with the same difficulty of finding workers with such training.

To assist in the solution of such problems, we received approval of our legal department to sell production equipment to colleges for veterans' training at discounts about 95 percent. That was intended to serve three purposesimprove training, retain machinery which in event of war would become a reserve, and aid in modernizing factory equipment demand.

We did not get sufficiently wide distribution in schools. Generally, those areas where we had large stockpiles did well in modernizing their school equipment.

As I recall, the University of Michigan took 700 pieces. California and Washington used up available supplies and came East for more. The late Alva Bradley was interested in some education problems in Cleveland and he made some inquiry for us. His opinion was that their schools were well equipped. However, the facts are that many areas with large potential personnel capacity did not get to modernize their equipment. During this period the law was passed creating a national reserve of production equipment, so our efforts along educational lines were halted, and much left undone.

We had a representative visit the governors of States which were not getting their share of available equipment, and found usually those States had little of our storage, did not fully understand how to proceed, or they had to wait for their legislatures to provide funds, etc.

In our electronic equipment we had an even poorer distribution. That was not under my supervision, so my knowledge of it is limited. That division did not follow the policies outlined above. Their problem was even more acute because of previous security regulations limiting such work to a very few colleges. Most colleges simply did not have enough information to properly prepare courses-to say nothing of equipment for instruction.

In going into this problem in 1947 and 1948, we were going into something new in national policies and with little public interest at that time. Many of the conclusions from our research have since proven correct. However, time, funds, and lack of general public understanding of the problem did not permit carrying through the program as fully as subsequent developments have proven desirable. It seems fully as important to have proper training in other war problems as in combat duty. We should drop some of the secrecy labels-advise colleges and high schools as to desired courses to offer-assist them in getting equipment, texts, etc. We should not build a lot of buildings.

I hope that some of the study and experiences of my associates on this problem may prove useful at this time. We gave much time in considering different

parts of the problem. Sincerely,

E. H. STEWART.

TESTIMONY OF GEN. NATHAN TWINING, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

WASHINGTON, D. C., Monday, February 3, 1958. The Committee on Foreign Relations is releasing the following self-explanatory passages from the testimony of Gen. Nathan Twining, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, before the committee in executive session on February 3, 1958, with the consent of General Twining. Additional portions of General Twining's