Some of that work has been completed while other aspects of the study are either continuing or soon will begin.

Nevertheless the important fact remains that unless Congress acts immediately to extend this authorization for 1 additional year, 89–10 funds for BIA schools will be cut off effective July 1, 1967, and countless worthwhile and needed educational programs will be curtailed, some long before they will have made any worthwhile contribution to the education of Indian children. Many if not most of the programs made possible through ESEA are just getting off the ground, particularly with regard to the BIA schools, which were excluded from the original act and which did not receive any funds for fiscal year 1967 until after November 9, 1966, the date Congress finally passed the necessary appropriations bill. Even if the BIA had been prepared to initiate effective educational programs immediately, an assumption that is at best doubtful, they could not have been operational for more than 6 months, hardly sufficient time to make a dent in the educational problems that have confronted Indian children and perplexed educators for more than half a century.

I need not remind my colleagues that Indians are in every way disadvantaged Americans. They remain at the very bottom of the economic ladder, they have the highest rate of unemployment, they live in the poorest housing, and they suffer chronic poverty.

The reason for this national tragedy is obvious to all who care to look: poor education. Indian adults under 45 years of age average less than an eighth grade education, compared to the average for all Americans of approximately 12 years of school. Also, even today more than 50 percent of the Indians who attend school-and no one knows for sure how many Indians are not being educated-drop out before they complete the 12th grade. This figure is almost twice the national average of 28 percent.

As one might logically suspect, many of the new programs in BIA schools being funded under titles I, II, and III of ESEA are directed at improving education generally and at encouraging Indian children, in large part through the acquisition of the educational skills that lead to success in school and in life, to stay in school.

It would be a tragic mistake, therefore, not to extend for another year the right of BIA schools to receive some funds from the ESEA. We should not-cannot-let these programs lapse. I respectfully and urgently ask my fellow Senators to approve this needed and worthwhile amendment immediately.

In closing, Mr. President, I want to say that I have spent countless hours during my years in public office studying the problem of Indian education. It interests me not only as an Arizonan but as one who is very much concerned with the health and welfare of all Americans, particularly our native Americans. We cannot afford-educationally, economically, or morally-to turn our backs on the fact that the American Indian has for too long been neglected, and no more so than educationally. And I will speak to that problem in greater detail in the near future.

Meanwhile, however, the Congress can make a beginning. It can pass this amendment to permit BIA schools to share the fruits of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

[S. -, 90th Cong., first sess.]

In the Senate of the United States

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fannin

At the end of the bill insert a new section as follows:

"AMENDMENTS TO TITLES I, II, AND III OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

"SEC. 2. Section 203 (a) (1) (A) of title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, section 202(a)(1) of title II of such Act, and section 302 (a) (1) of title III of such Act are each amended by striking out 'fiscal year ending June 30, 1967' and inserting in lieu thereof 'fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, and June 30, 1968'."

Amend the title so as to read: "A bill to amend Public Law 874, Eighty-first Congress, with respect to the amount to be deducted from payments pursuant to such law on account of certain Federal contributions, and to amend titles I, II, and III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 with respect to schools operated by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Defense."

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD HOWE II, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY SAMUEL HALPERIN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; PRESTON VALIEN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS; RICHARD GRAHAM, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL TEACHER CORPS; AND EDWIN W. MARTIN, CONSULTANT, BUREAU OF EDUCATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. Howe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to express my appreciation for the arrangements you are making for these hearings and the dispatch with which they are being conducted to solve problems related to authorizations which expire.

Senator MORSE. Let the record show we would have had them out of the way except for the Dodd case, but there was nothing I could do

about that.

Mr. HowE. We are extremely grateful.

I would like to introduce my associates. There are some differences from the material presented on the front of my testimony.

Mr. Halperin is here on my right. Mr. Muirhead will not be able to be with us, but Mr. Preston Valien of the Bureau of Higher Education is here; Richard Graham, the Director of the National Teacher Corps, and Dr. Edwin Martin of the Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, to consider in detail various questions you may wish to ask. In the spirit of your request that this go as rapidly as possible, I would like to read some of my testimony, but I will try to go through it rather more quickly than I otherwise might.

TRUSTEESHIP OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION

Senator MORSE. Before you start, Mr. Commissioner, I want this record to show, speaking for my subcommittee, our gratitude and appreciation for the unfailing cooperation that we have received at all times from you and from Mr. Graham, Dr. Martin, Dr. Halperin, and

Mr. Muirhead-in fact, from your whole staff, and from the Secretary himself on the educational problems that have confronted the subcommittee.

The record shows there are differences of opinion in regard to some matters. But there are no differences in motivation, and no differences really in the basic objective that I have pleaded for now for years.

That objective is that the Federal Government has a clear responsibility to be of assistance in carrying out what I call a trusteeship obligation on the part of the Federal Government, which is shared by State governments and local school districts, to do everything possible to give to the young of this country the maximum opportunity to carry out the maximum development of their intellectual potentials for service to the country as enlightened citizens.

That sentence outlines my whole educational philosophy as far as Federal aid to education is concerned. I have said over and over again, as I said yesterday in another form, it can be done; it must be done. In keeping with what I have found, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and you and your colleagues recognize as an absolute requirement, without the Federal Government dictating educational policy to the States or to the local school districts, of the Federal Government imposing those financial restrictions and controls necessary in order to carry out a Federal responsibility to the taxpayers.

LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT PROGRAMS

That is the balancing of interest that has to be involved. Where there are gray zones as to whether or not a regulatory order or an administrative policy or a guideline for the expenditure of Federal funds in order to protect the taxpayer interests may seem, to a degree, to involve an interference with educational policy at the local level, then it is for this committee to be a watchdog. That is why we are undertaking the legislative surveillance program that I announced earlier this year in the letter that I sent to the Secretary with unanimous approval of this committee, in which I told him we are going to evaluate the policies of the Department in regard to such problems. I further want this record to show that we have had from the Secretary and his Department in our conduct of our studies complete cooperation.

These studies, in my judgment, will take 2 years with intermediate reports from time to time on the specific issues that may arise.

But I want the country to know that you do not sit before this subcommittee this morning with any presumption against you in regard to policies of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. You sit before this subcommittee as a very responsible and, in my judgment, effective and efficient public servant with an obligation in this testimony to advise this subcommittee as to the Department's policies and set forth its recommendation for legislative action, which, I can assure you, will receive very fair consideration from this subcommittee.

I thought it might be useful to the Department that this statement be made by the chairman this morning, because I have been answering much mail from people who do not understand the relationship between this subcommittee and the Department. I hope that this statement will be helpful in clarifying any misunderstanding.

Now you may proceed.

Mr. Howe. I thank you very much for those observations. Mr. Chairman. And I would say that the various inquiries which the subcommittee has made in this process of surveillance of the Office of Education have indeed been useful to us as well as you. The business of having an independent mind raise questions about our affairs helps us to examine our affairs, and these questions that have been put to us to answer for the subcommittee have helped us to think about all problems of administration and the purposes of these programs and our responsibilities for them. And I hope that this exercise of surveillance will continue, and that you will continue to be satisfied with our

responses.

Now, in regard to my testimony, I would like to ask that the full testimony be printed in the record.

Senator MORSE. The full statement will be printed in the record at this point. The witness will summarize it.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Howe follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD HOWE II, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am happy to be here today to discuss a number of proposals for extending and broadening our Federal commitment to education at all levels. The proposed Education Professions Development Act would coordinate similar Federal assistance programs, consolidate programs having related intentions, and add flexibility to existing program authority. The amendments to Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act-Education of Handicapped Children-will provide greater assurance that every handicapped child within every State will be able to receive educational assistance designed to meet his special needs. Extension of provisions added last year, allowing Indian children in BIA schools to participate in programs under Titles I, II, and III of ESEA and allowing children in DOD overseas dependents schools to participate in programs under Titles II and III, will allow these children to receive the same benefits from Federal education legislation as other schoolchildren. Finally, extension of the Teacher Corps will assure that this worthy program will not die with the end of this fiscal year. Education Professions Development Act

The Federal government has an admirable record of being responsive to the manpower needs of education. But the recent increases in school enrollments and the expansion of Federal educational prorgams have demonstrated that existing Federal training authorities are inadequate. Present training programs are not capable of encouraging either the numbers, kinds, or quality of people needed to staff this Nation's educational programs.

Existing programs have not been without impact in attracting new persons into the teaching profession and in updating the skills of those already in the profession.

More than 60,000 persons have attended 1,500 institutes authorized by Title XI of NDEA. Of these, 13,000 have received special training in English, 10,000 in history, and 9,000 in modern foreign languages.

In the critical area of guidance and counseling, more than 600 institutes authorized by Title V-B have helped to train nearly 21,000 school counselors.

More than 4,000 teachers and prospective teachers have received graduate training under Title V-C of the Higher Education Act, although the program has been in operation only two brief years.

However, the critical need for teachers continues and, according to a nationwide study, is more acute this school year than it was a year ago. Thousands of additional teachers are needed to meet the demand, to reduce class size, to replace teachers leaving their positions, and to eliminate the number of teachers-estimated at more than 90,000-who do not have adequate training.

Increased understanding of the educational process has led to new categories of educational personnel. For example, the role of the classroom teacher is undergoing revision, and an emphasis is now being placed upon new categories of support staff, such as teacher aides and teaching assistants. In addition, new cur

ricula are being developed which give increased emphasis to the social and behavioral sciences, resulting in the need for increased numbers of teachers trained in these disciplines.

Also, we have come to understand better the vital educational role played by school administrators and school board members and now realize that we must pay more attention to their training and orientation.

Current programs are handicapped in meeting these changing manpower requirements. Legislative authority is fragmented, and too often applications must be fashioned to meet legislative requirements rather than educational needs. Title XI of NDEA cannot provide training at less than the graduate level, thus precluding institutes for subprofessionals.

Institutional development grants are given only in conjunction with Title V-C HEA fellowships. Yet an institution of higher education may need such a grant to prepare a good fellowship program.

Title V-C programs do not support fellowships for junior and community college teachers. Yet these institutions are growing rapidly and are experiencing the same staffing problems as schools at the elementary and secondary level. Institute authority includes many subjects; other important ones are not supported. In addition, programs for specific educational groups or problems, such as preschool education, may not readily fit into any specific subject area.

Present programs do not really permit a continuum of teacher education from the undergraduate level through the special programs on continuing education for master teachers. A university's master plan for such a continuum can now be supported only on a piece-meal basis, as each application is submitted and reviewed as a separate entity.

Obviously, such a patchwork of programs is ill-equipped to solve some of the severe educational manpower needs and hardly lends itself toward sound educational planning at any level.

The Education Professions Development Act calls for a more systematic ap proach to meeting the staffing needs of our schools and colleges. To accomplish this will require a degree of flexibility not now available. It will require that categorical legislation specifying types of courses, levels of instruction, or target groups give way to broader and more flexible authority immediately responsive to emerging needs. The Act would direct the Commissioner to conduct both long and short-range forecasts of manpower needs for all categories of educational personnel. He would subsequently have the authority to plan and establish appropriate training programs, subject to annual review by Congress and to the guidance of a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development.

With this broader legislation

We could move quickly to meet heavy new demands, such as the current need for preschool, adult education, and junior college personnel;

We could assure better prepared teacher with more relevant training to attack the problems of vocational education;

We could develop a more ample supply of faculty in fields outside those presently authorized, such as business education and sociology;

We can build an expertise into the backgrounds of school board members and school and college administrators in order to enable to discharge their complex responsibilities more competently;

We could strengthen the auxiliary staffs of schools: librarians, nurses, school psychologists;

We could experiment with new ways of structuring teaching tasks, relieving teachers of extraneous duties which diminish their professional roles; We would be able to retrain teachers in surplus subject-matter fields to teach in shortage areas.

I believe this legislation is essential if we are to reinforce the base of talented educational personnel. Technological developments may come to play a sig nificant role in the education process, but will not replace human intellectual and social resources.

Mr. Chairman, in your statement before the Senate on Wednesday, you indicated that you wished me to comment on H.R. 10943, the amendments to title V of the Higher Education Act recently reported by the House Committee on Education and Labor. I am happy to do so.

In general, the provisions of H.R. 10943 are excellent. If enacted, they should immeasurably strengthen the American educational system. I hope that this Senate Committee will go at least as far as the House Committee in broadening