Page images

the Commissioner of Education would make available to such children those materials used in the public schools of the State.

Funds would be allotted to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands on the basis of the number of children enrolled in public and nonprofit private elementary, and secondary schools in each State or territory. The previous level of non-Federal support for these materials would be maintained and, if possible, increased.

First-year authorization would be $100 million.



While the problems existing in school districts impacted by poverty are particularly acute, there are also chronic limitations in elementary and secondary schools throughout the Nation regardless of the level of community wealth. A fundamental weakness is the uneven distribution and inconsistent quality of educational, scientific, and cultural resources presently available.

Among the variety of supplementary services that make the difference between a poor school and a good school are special instruction in science, languages, music, and the arts; counseling and guidance; health and social work; and access to such resources as technical institutes, museums, art galleries, and theaters. In these respects there are many unmet needs.

Today, less than one-quarter of our elementary schools have the services of a guidance counselor 1 or more days a week. More than 3 million elementary school children are estimated to be in need of social work or psychological services. At present, however, there are only about 3,000 school social workers on the staffs of the public schools; most school systems cannot afford to hire them. Although surveys show that today 7 to 14 percent of schoolchildren have significant emotional problems, more than 9 out of 10 school systems have no special programs for these children and are unable to deal with them effectively through their regular programs.

Reforms and improvements in science and language instruction appear in uneven quality throughout the country. In only 10 States. do all secondary schools have science laboratory facilities. Science specialists generally agree that modern science cannot be taught properly without laboratories for teacher and students experimentations. Moreover, less than 30 percent of public secondary schools now have language laboratories available.

By 1968 at least 25,000 additional science laboratories will be needed in elementary schools to meet increases in enrollments-a 500-percent increase. At least 40,000 additional labs will be needed in the high schools, almost a 100-percent increase. Just to keep pace with growth, by 1968 elementary schools will need 8,000 additional language laboratories and high schools will need at least 20,000 more such labs. Centralized laboratory facilities serving a number of schools and systems are one of the answers to meeting this need where individual labs cannot be provided.

Although educational research is demonstrating the increased capability and advantages of early school experiences, about one-half of

[blocks in formation]

the Nation's 26,000 school districts today maintain schools without kindergartens, and in only 1 school district out of 260 is a nursery school available.

At a time of greatly accelerating needs, the Nation's educational structure is weakened both by the lack of these special programs and staffs within the schools and by the frequent insulation of students from the cultural, social, and scientific life of the community. Enrichment of the curriculum of elementary and secondary schools through supplementary services is essential to the total strength of education.


Title III proposes a 5-year program to provide vitally needed educational services not available in sufficient quantity or quality in elementary and secondary schools and to develop and establish exemplary elementary and secondary school educational programs to serve as models for regular school programs. Special personnel, equipment, and other costly educational services not normally available in most schools would be made available for the widest possible participation of the entire community.

Grants would be made to a supplementary educational center and services organization created to establish and coordinate a program of supplementary educational services. Funds would be made available on the basis of an application reviewed by the State educational agency and approved by the Commissioner of Education. The governing board of the organization would include representatives of the agencies and institutions participating in the conduct of the program. The participants would include at least one local educational agency and one or more of the following: Institutions of higher education, State educational agencies, public agencies such as health and welfare units, and private nonprofit agencies including nonpublic schools, museums, art galleries, educational television stations, and other cultural orga


Federal funds would be used for planning, pilot projects, and the establishment and operation of programs offering a diverse range of educational experience to children and adults of varying talents and needs. Programs might include guidance and counseling; remedial instruction; school health, psychological, and social work services; enenriched academic programs; afterschool study halls; continuing adult education; dual enrollment (shared services); specialized instruction and equipment; specially qualified personnel (including artists and musicians) on a temporary or other basis; educational radio and television programs; special educational services for persons in isolated rural areas; and other specially designed educational programs. Grants could also be used for the lease or construction of necessary facilities.

Children attending nonpublic as well as public schools and out-ofschool youth and adults would have the opportunity to receive the services and participate in these educational and cultural activities. An Advisory Committee on Supplementary Educational Centers and Services would advise the Commissioner on the action to be taken on each application for a grant.

Initially, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands would each receive $50,000. The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico would each receive $200,000. The remainder of the funds would be distributed among the States and territories on the basis of (1) the number of children aged 5 to 17, and (2) the total population of each jurisdiction.

The first-year authorization would be $100 million.



Eleven years ago Congress authorized the Commissioner of Education to enter into contracts or jointly financed cooperative arrangements with colleges, universities, and State educational agencies to conduct research, surveys, and demonstrations in the field of education. The program that has subsequently emerged from this decade of experience has two basic purposes: (1) to develop new knowledge about education, and (2) to develop new ways of applying existing knowledge.

Significant progress has been made in educational research. For example:

Programs have been developed to guide elementary pupils in "discovering" the basic concepts of modern mathematics; results are so encouraging that many school systems throughout the country are adopting these methods.

Two-year-old children have been taught to read-and to read well-in experimental programs that stimulate their curiosity and intellectual drive.

Grade school pupils have been successfully taught college-level economics, indicating that curiculum evaluation and research are necessities at all levels.

A New Jersey study of the education of migrant children points to new and more fruitful directions for handling a problem that plagues most of our States.

A total of about $16 million is being spent in fiscal year 1965 on cooperative research. Some 280 projects are involved. This is, however, a small answer to a great need. Only $3 of every $1,000 of Federal expenditures for research and development were devoted to education in 1964.

Education, with a total annual expenditure of about $34 billion, is the Nation's No. 1 industry. Yet we spend only $72 million-one-fifth of 1 percent of our total educational outlay-for research and development in this vital field. By contrast, we spend $8 billion annually for research and development on our Nation's defenses. Many progressive private industries invest as much as 10 percent of their total annual expenditures for research and development.

To carry out research is to assume the obligation of disseminating the findings, so that education as a whole may benefit. In medicine the average lag between research and its application is estimated at 2 years. In education, the process often takes 30 years or more. The record of education in publishing research findings has not been satisfactory. To help in finding a solution to this problem, pilot research and development centers have been established-at a cost in 1965 of about $1,900,000-at the Universities of Pittsburgh, Oregon, Wisconsin, and at Harvard University.

Each of these centers will conduct activities stretching across the research and development spectrum, including basic research, development of educational procedures and materials, field testing, and demonstration and dissemination. At the University of Pittsburgh, where the first center was established, significant results are being obtained. In one project, for example, courses of study have been tailored to fit the needs of the individual learner; in another, new educational devices are employed to motivate preschool children to read.

Such educational research and its dissemination help the schools and colleges of the Nation to carry on educational programs more efficiently, more effectively, and with greater economy of resources. But a mere 4 centers, with all their promise, cannot serve the needs of 26,000 school districts and a tenth as many institutions of higher learning. Other regions of the country and many other segments of education need assistance in the form of new R. & D. programs.


Title IV would amend the Cooperative Research Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-531) by authorizing the training of research personnel and improved dissemination of information derived from educational research and development. Authority would be granted to utilize the research competence of research organizations not now eligible to contribute to the program, such as private noncollegiate research organizations and professional associations. In addition, the program would provide for the construction and operation of centers to improve the quality of teaching in our schools and for the purchase of research equipment.

Together, these amendments would permit the continued growth of educational research programs in the United States and an accelerated funding of research and development centers or regional educational laboratories. The goal: a national network of federally supported but State- and university-operated research centers.

Regional educational laboratories offer a promising way of meeting problems of research, development, and dissemination. They will help to train teachers and improve curriculums. They will draw equally upon educators and the practitioners in all the fields of learning mathematicians, scientists, humanists, historians, economists, social scientists, linguists, musicians, artists, and writers.

These laboratories will have close ties with the State departments of education. They will also work directly with the schools and supplementary education centers in order to bring innovation directly to the student. They will train teachers as well as those who teach teachers.

First-year cost of these amendments would be $45 million, in addition to the regular cooperative research budget of $25 million in fiscal year 1966.



The immediate responsibility for providing professional counsel and direction to the schools lies with the various State departments of education. At the very time that demand for this kind of counsel and direction is on the increase, the ability of the State departments

to respond is inadequate. The necessity of meeting school operating costs, of spending what it takes to keep sufficient classrooms available, exerts increasing pressure on the share of the school dollar made available to State departments of education. Moreover, the responsibility of insuring the wise and proper use of Federal funds dispensed in a variety of Federal-State cooperative programs generally rests squarely with State educational agencies.

The States vary greatly in their educational expenditures. Some States spend barely $200,000 a year for State educational leadership, while others spend more than 70 times that amount. Some States employ 500 professional educators; other States, as few as 35. Professionals to oversee school library services are lacking altogether in one-third of the State departments of education, while only 11 States have consultants in school social work. Moreover, during the past 5 years there has been a 40-percent turnover in State supervisory personnel; the majority have gone into better paying positions at the local level and in colleges and universities.

The department of education in a typical, middle-income State has 75 professional staff members available to serve as consultants to 20,000 school people-superintendents, principals, teachers, and others. On the average, these professionals are able to visit the State's schools for only one-half day each 7 years. Demands on the education budget are such in this State that no likelihood is foreseen in the ability of its department of education to improve its services.

If the States are to be strengthened and American education kept both strong and decentralized, measures are needed to bolster the administrative and legal foundations of our educational system. Proposal

Title V proposes a 5-year program to stimulate and assist in strengthening the leadership resources of State educational agencies. The State educational agency would identify educational needs of the State and design programs to meet these needs.

Programs and activities might include long-range educational planning; improved collecting, processing, and analyzing of educational data (including use of automated data systems); conducting, sponsoring, or cooperating in educational research; developing the competency of individuals who serve State or local educational agencies and provide leadership, administrative, or specialist services; cooperation with institutions of higher education and local educational agencies to improve the quality of teacher preparation, including student teaching; and other special needs of State departments of education.

Eighty-five percent of the funds appropriated would be apportioned as follows: $50,000 each to Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands and $100,000 to each of the States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The remainder of the 85 percent would be apportioned among the States and territories based on the number of public school pupils. State agencies would apply to the Commissioner for a grant or grants for part of the costs of their proposal. The Commissioner would approve applications if he determined that the proposal would be within the purposes of the law.

« PreviousContinue »