88 universities? If there are such differences, how are they identified? Do they demand methods of instruction markedly different from traditional ones? Is adequate action research being undertaken in the problems of larger-group instruction (other than the use of television, for example)? 2. Is the organization of the college such that communication among groups (particularly board of trusteesadministration-faculty-students) is swift, accurate, and flexible? Are there alternate (or additional) modes of internal structuring of the organization that, if adopted, would enhance communication? Have any particular patterns of organization, especially in large, multicampus colleges, shown themselves to be more efficient than others? 3. Does the college have specific administrative provisions (especially budget allocations) to provide faculty adequately with the following? a. Sabbatical leave, or special leave where indicated b. Grants-in-aid for advanced study or refresher work c. Travel and subsistence allowances for attendance at selected meetings or conferences d. Clerical and other assistance. 4. What is the nature and extent of in-service programs for faculty at the college? Are such programs planned and carried through by joint faculty-administration teams? Is budget provision made for outside consultants or instructors; for occasional released-time of faculty members coordinating these programs? Are the in-service programs adequately buttressed with supporting personnel (secretarial, visual aids where appropriate, etc.)? 5. Does the college have any program of administrative internship, especially to develop from its own ranks those who would eventually have responsible positions as department or division heads? 6. Does the guidance staff of the college have close working relationships with faculty so that, in effect, mutual and continuing education is taking place; so that each group knows the functions and needs of the other? 7. How is teaching evaluated at the college? Are both faculty and administration satisfied with current methods of evaluation? Is evaluation designed primarily for the 89 improvement of instruction, or is it simply a screening device for tenure and/or merit pay? 8. Does the college have the equivalent of an office of institutional research (perhaps only one person in a small college, several in larger ones), with the function, among others, of persistent inquiry and experiment with means and methods of instruction? 9. Does the college have adequate, clearly organized means of communications with the senior institutions to which its students transfer? 10. Since nearly two-thirds of all junior college students do not transfer, has the college a program of follow-up studies to provide knowledge of what, in fact, its students do and how they do after college? (Such knowledge is indispensable: perhaps the single most pragmatic way of judging and measuring the effectiveness of current programs.) CONCLUDING NOTE Such was the nature of this project, that its findings and interpretations had to be essentially the work of one person. However, during the nearly fourteen months of interviews, of consultation, and of drafting this report, guidance and counsel were sought from many knowledgeable persons in the field. They are too numerous to list, but their always generous help is gratefully noted. The Project Advisory Committee members were at all times during the year in touch with the progress of the study. They worked carefully with the draft of this report, and their many helpful suggestions and criticisms are embodied in its final form. In no sense is this report intended or thought to be a definitive statement. It is, rather, the record of an exploration. Its hoped-for use is that it will contribute to a necessary continuing dialogue about the professional issues and problems identified by junior college faculty, and that it STATEMENT OF MRS. LEONARD L. MANCUSO, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, AND MEMBER, GLASSBORO (N.J.) SCHOOL BOARD Mrs. MANCUSO. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Mrs. Leonard L. Mancuso, president of the National School Boards Association and a member of the Glassboro, N.J., School Board. I am accompanied by our association's director of federal and congressional relations, Mr. Paul N. Carlin. The National School Boards Association is a non-profit federation of the State school board associations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Our association, through its member State school boards, represents more than 86,000 elected and appointed local school board members. These citizen leaders serve voluntarily on the governing boards of their local school districts without compensation. In many communities, this amounts to a parttime assignment with virtually full-time responsibility. The National School Boards Association is the only national organization representing local school boards and its primary objective is the strengthening of public education through active citizen participation in the policymaking process of educating our children. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee, on behalf of the National School Boards Association, to present our views during this hearing on Title V of the Higher Education Amendments of 1967, S. 1126; part E of title I of S. 1125; and those provisions in H.R. 10943 which are concerned with both the Teachers Corps and the Education Professions Development Act. TEACHERS CORPS During the National School Boards Association's recent annual conference in Portland, Oreg. on April 22-25, 1967, the Delegate Assembly adopted the following resolution pertaining to the Teachers Corps: The National Teacher Corps is one experimental method for helping to alleviate the great shortage of competent personnel for teaching educational deprived children. As such the National School Boards Association recommends that the program be continued on a pilot basis. NSBA further recommends that the National Teacher Corps Act be amended to provide: a. Allocation of funds through State departments of education, and State approval of Corps members and their training. b. Authority for contracts with local school districts and universities for a two-year period of service. c. Compensation for teacher-interns at the prevailing rate for graduate students. d. Initiative for project proposals resting with the local school districts and cooperating institutions of higher education, with approval of the State department of education. The National School Boards Association has carefully studied the major changes in the Teachers Corps program which were incorporated into H.R. 10943 and we recommend that this program be continued as changed by that legislation. We were especially pleased to note that the local educational agencies, colleges, and universities would be responsible for the recruitment, selection, and enrollment of Teachers Corps members in the future. We specifically request that the subcommittee include in its committee report a clear policy directive, to be followed in the development of this program's guidelines and regulations, that the initiative for project proposals shall rest with the local school district and the cooperating institutions of higher education, with approval by the State educational agency. The provision that the compensation for the teacher-interns under the Teachers Corps program be at the prevailing rate for graduate students will remove an existing pay disparity between Teachers Corps members and fully qualified teachers who were already employed by the school system. The amendment to provide authority for contracts with local school districts and universities over a 2-year period of service will allow participating school districts to more effectively plan for utilizing the services of their "trained" teacher-interns during the corpsman's second year. The National School Boards Association endorses the Teachers Corps program, as modified by the proposed amendments in H.R. 10943, as being an effective instrument for the designing of local programs which will be carried out by local school authorities to meet essentially local needs and thereby strengthen and expand the educational opportunity for children residing within depressed urban, as well as rural areas. The National School Boards Association has continuously encouraged local school districts to establish local guides and policies for the evaluation, reporting and sharing of their experiences. We feel that this will strengthen the local initiative and the improvement of the local Teachers Corps training programs. Since the existing Teachers Corps programs is scheduled to expire on June 30, 1967, we recommend that this program be extended, as modified in H.R. 10943, as a pilot program. NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT During our association's annual conference in Portland, Oreg., last April, the delegate assembly also adopted the following resolution on school board representation on national advisory committees: The Delegate Assembly requests that the NSBA Board of Directors and staff actively seek to obtain local school representation on all National advisory committees involving the public elementary and secondary schools. The Delegate Assembly further urges that provision be made for substantial participation and involvement by local school board members in the formulation of national guidelines and regulations which affect the local public school. Our association was therefore pleased to note the language in the House of Representatives Report No. 373 on H.R. 10943 which stated: In connection with the study of the U.S. Office of Education, the Special Subcommittee on Education observed that there is a preponderance of persons from higher education on advisory councils and committees of the Office of Education. This is the case even on those committees or councils which have as their primary focus elementary and secondary education. It is of particular concern that so few advisory committee members are State or local school board members, or are actively engaged in teaching at the elementary or secondary level. The Committee does not wish to specify the composition of advisory committees. In this instance, the Committee has refrained from requiring the appointment of school board members and others representing elementary and secondary education in the expectation that balanced representation will be provided on the council. |