While some of my colleagues feel that some features of title III are less desirable than others, in general, S. 1576 seems to be a bill which will strengthen speech and hearing training programs and provide an increased number of fellowships for graduate students in this area. I hope it will be possible for you to offer support for this bill and others like it. Those of us in speech and hearing and other rehabilitation fields have been extremely gratified by the congressional and Senate support the Alabama delegation has afforded us, and I will look forward to your comments concerning this bill, and particularly title III. Sincerely yours, EDWIN W. MARTIN, Ph. D., Coordinator, Adult Division, Speech and Hearing Clinic. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION, Hon. OREN HARRIS, Frankfort, Ky., June 21, 1963. Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN HARRIS: As legislative chairman of the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, I noted with pleasure that the U.S. Senate passed Senate bill 1576 on May 27, 1963. The national association is composed of officials in State departments of education who are directly responsible for leadership, administration, and supervision of special education programs for exceptional children. You may be interested to know that the association went on record as favoring the type of Federal legislation as represented in title III, Senate bill 1576, although the long-range goals of the association are somewhat more extensive and include the gifted. These goals are set forth in the association's policy statement that was adopted at the 1963 annual meeting. A copy of this legislative policy statement is enclosed. We sincerely hope that the two-pronged attack on the teacher shortage in the field of special education, as contained in title III of Senate bill 1576, will receive the strong support of your committee and you, personally. We want you to know that the association stands ready to provide any possible assistance in providing information or suggesting names of people who might be of assistance. If your committee has hearings on this subject, we would appreciate the opportunity of our association being represented. Sincerely yours, STELLA A. EDWARDS, Chairman, Legislative Committee. LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENT OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION (UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AT 1963 ANNUAL MEETING) The National Association of State Directors of Special Education is the organization of officials in the State departments of education of all States. These officials are directly responsible for leadership, administration and supervision of special education programs for exceptional children at the State level. The nature and administrative provisions of any legislation at the Federal level is of primary interest to this organization and to each of the States. The National Association of State Directors of Special Education adopts the following statement of principles and recommendations. This statement outlines some of the most urgent needs in special education and suggestions as to ways the Federal Government could aid in their solution. I. SCOPE OF PROGRAM Education of exceptional children in the United States is part of the total program of American education. "Exceptional children and youth" are those with significantly different or additional educational needs resulting from physical limitations (including blindness, partial vision, deafness, impaired hearing, crippling or special health conditions); speech defects; mental retardation; mental giftedness; or social maladjustment or emotional disturbance. The purpose of special education is to meet the needs of 6 million exceptional children and youth who, without special aid, will not have an adequate opportunity for education. Only about one-fourth of these children and youth are now being served by the Nation's schools. Special education and rehabilitation programs, although related in many respects, through their very nature and legal responsibility, are different enough in their methods of financing, procedures and personnel to require separate administrative organization and supervision. It is recommended that the administration of these two types of programs be maintained in separate agencies at the Federal level and in separate branches, sections or divisions (as applicable) in State programs. II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION We recommend comprehensive overall special education legislation, accompanied by adequate budget, as follows: 1. Broadening of Public Law 85-926.-The National Association of State Directors of Special Education appreciates the benefits of Public Law 85–926. an act to encourage expansion of teaching in the education of mentally retarded children, making Federal fellowships available to institutions of higher learning and to State educational agencies for the training of leadership personnel in the area of the mentally handicapped. We are especailly appreciative of section II that affords an unprecedented opportunity to recruit personnel who, with this training will be able to give improved leadership to State and local programs. We would point out that the need for leadership personnel is also serious in other areas of special education, including the physically handicapped, the speech handicapped, the blind, partially seeing, the deaf and hard of hearing, emotionally disturbed, the socially maladjusted, and the gifted. We recommend that Public 85-926 be amended, with adequate budget, to provide fellowships for leadership personnel in all other areas of exceptionality. We further recommend that Public Law 85-926 be implemented, with adequate budget, to provide fellowships for teachers. 2. Legislation to provide Federal financial assistance for special education programs in the various States. We recommend more comprehensive legislation to provide Federal financial assistance for special education programs in the various States. These funds should be administered by State departments of education. Funds appropriated should be allocated according to the school population of the various States. Receipt of funds should be contingent upon approval of a State plan for expenditures of the funds. This legislation should include funds for: (a) Salaries for State department special education professional personnel. (b) Support of special education programs for exceptional children and youth in local school districts throughout the various States. (c) Promoting the education of teachers and supervisors of exceptional children and youth through scholarships, grants for higher education, workshops, conferences, and inservice education programs. (d) Research and demonstration projects and pilot studies. 3. Expansion and improvement program in the various States.-We recommend that additional funds be granted to the Branch for Exception Children and Youth for stimulation grants to the States for the expansion and improvement of selected programs of special education in the public schools. 4. Research and studies under Public Law 83-531.-We recommend the continuation and expansion of Public Laws 83-531, an act to authorize cooperative research in education, with additional funds, to include research on the various types of exceptionality, the effect on the children's ability to learn, and the methods that provide the best educational opportunities for these children. Furthermore, we recommend a revision of the procedures of reviewing and approving programs for research on exceptional children and suggest such proposals originate from preliminary studies by the Branch of Exceptional Children and Youth, such studies indicating research needs and priorities for special education. We also recommend Federal aid for the cooperative research program be in form of grants rather than reimbursements. 5. Responsibility for administration of special education legislation.-We recommend that all Federal funds appropriated to implement the proposed legislation should be administered by the Office of Education, Branch for Exceptional Children and Youth. III. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY FEDERAL LEGISLATION The National Association of State Directors of Special Education opposes provision in any multidisciplinary Federal legislation which assigns responsibility to a single State agency. We believe that such legislation would tend to bring about problems and inequities in administration at the State and local level, IV. MARKED INCREASE IN OFFICE OF EDUCATION BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL Special education staffs in State departments of education look to the Branch on Exceptional Children and Youth, U.S. Office of Education, for leadership in all aspects of planning and promotion of educational programs for exceptional children. The scope and amount of services rendered by the Branch in the past has been limited by its resources, such as lack of personnel and limited budget. We recommend that the staff and functions of the Branch on Exceptional Children and Youth, U.S. Office of Education, be expanded. This expansion would not require legislation, but would require a much larger appropriation. 1. Staff. We recommend that the Branch staff be expanded to include a specialist, and supporting staff, in each area of exceptionality. 2. Consultative services.—-We recommend the expansion of the Branch's consultative services to State departments of education. 3. Annual conferences for State directors.--We recommend that funds be provided so that the Office of Education can call and finance an annual conference of special education State directors and consultants. 4. Regional or area meetings. We recommend that funds be provided so that the Office of Education can call and finance regional conferences of special education specialists in each area of exceptionality. 5. Sponshorship of conferences.-We recommend that funds be provided so that the Office of Education can call and finance conferences of special education leaders and specialists to assist in the identification of critical issues, trends, problems, and gaps in educational programs for exceptional children and youth. 6. Clearinghouse of information.-We recommend the expansion of information services on such matters as State legislation, State support of programs, special education costs, etc. 7. Recurring studies and surveys. We recommend the continuance of recurring studies and surveys such as: (a) College and university programs for the preparation of teachers of handicapped and gifted children. (b) State certification requirements for teachers of handicapped and gifted children. (c) State legislative provisions for exceptional children and youth. 8. Special studies.-We recommend that the Branch conduct special studies dealing with the needs of all or several types of exceptional children and youth, such as: (a) Incidence and numbers of various types of exceptional children and youth. (b) Problems and methods of providing for exceptional children in rural areas. (c) Preschool and kindergarten programs for exceptional children. Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM DIRECTORS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Safety, Washington, D.C., June 14, 1963. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: During the Health Subcommittee hearings on H.R. 3688 and H.R. 3689, you asked our association to provide the committee with data on what the States have spent on mental health and retardation in the past 10 years. We furnished the committee information on 40 States and that data is printed on page 228 of the hearings. 21-853-63-16 The State of Alabama is among those listed in the charts. However, since the hearings were printed, 4 more States have reported and we are now able to give you total data on 44 out of the 50 States. New totals on State efforts in combating mental illness and retardation are as follows: Forty-four States reporting: total expenditures over the past 10 years, all mental disorders, $10.9 billion. Forty-one States: (a) mental illness, $7.9 billion; (b) mental retardation, $2.3 billion. In addition to the above data, you will want the facts on how many States have gone on record (through either the Governor or commissioner of mental health) in support of the community mental health center program you will be considering Tuesday. Twenty-five Governors and sixteen commissioners (in States and territories other than where the Governor made a statement) are on record, before either the House or Senate, in support of the program (a total of 41 States). Your State mental health director has supported the program (see p. 458 of the hearings). Sincerely. HARRY C. SCH NIBBE, Executive Director. AMERICAN PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE ASSOCIATION, Hon. KENNETH ROBERTS, House Subcommittee on Public Health and Safety, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR MR. ROBERTS: This association is very much interested in one of the measures currently before your subcommittee, namely, H.R. 3688 on mental health and H.R. 3689 on mental retardation. These important legislative proposals are of significance not only to the people who would be directly affected by the services made available, but to all American citizens of good faith and good will. We have too long overlooked the needs of our mentally handicapped people, whether they be mentally retarded or mentally ill. Our association felt so strongly on this matter that it adopted the following resolution at our convention, held in Boston, Mass., in mid-April. The resolution is as follows: Resolved, That the American Personnel and Guidance Association supports an expanded and enlightened program of State and federally aided mental health care services and facilities, and urges that a stronger effort toward early identification and treatment of mental illness be activated. Your favorable action on these bills currently before your subcommittee would certainly be an act of good legislation and good faith in keeping with the overwhelming action in the Senate regarding their companion bill S. 1576. Your positive approach to this matter will certainly be appreciated by the 17,000 members of this association and certainly by the millions of Americans who will be indebted to you by this progressive legislation. Cordially yours, ARTHUR A. HITCHCOCK, Executive Director. Hon. KENNETH ROBERTS, OHIO SOCIAL HEALTH COUNCIL, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, June 26, 1963. Chairman, House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, DEAR SIR: The Ohio Social Health Council encourages your committee to give favorable consideration to the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963, S. 1576, which we understand is now before your subcommittee. The council believes that the passage of this legislation will be a long step forward in establishing provisions for a comprehensive long-range program of very much needed mental health services. The council endorses the statement prepared by the National Association for Mental Health on President Kennedy's message to Congress on mental illness and retardation. Sincerely, Mrs. MARGARET WALGENBACH, President. MARTHA LAUMAN, R.N., Secretary-Treasurer. WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF VOCATIONAL EDUCATION, Hon. KENNETH A. ROBERTS, U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ROBERTS: As director of West Virginia's program of vocational rehabilitation, and as a private citizen vitally interested in the health and welfare of this Nation's handicapped population, I would like to request that you give your full support to S. 1576. I have carefully examined this bill and consider it to be a sound piece of legislation which will do much to combat the serious problem of mental health in the United States. The twin problems of mental illness and mental retardation are of such magnitude and complexity that our individual States have neither the means nor the incentive to come to grips with them at this time. What is needed most at this point is national leadership from the Federal Government to point the way for all States. I feel that S. 1576, if passed by Congress, will pave the way for an effective nationwide program. Sincerely yours, F. RAY POWER, Director. STATEMENT BY JOHAN W. ELIOT, M.D., ON BEHALF OF THE PHYSICIANS FORUM, INC. I am Johan W. Eliot, M.D., assistant professor of maternal and child health at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, and a member of the board of directors of the Physicians Forum. The Physicians Forum, Inc., an organization of physicians concerned with improvement in the distribution and quality of medical care, is impressed with both the wisdom and the urgency of the proposed improvements in medical care for mothers and children embodied in H.R. 3386. We are aware that this legislation has attracted widespread support from both professional and lay groups and seems likely to achieve eventual passage. However, we are very much concerned that this passage be accomplished expeditiously in order that the programs of the many agencies and institutions which will be involved in development of the new activities and improved care programs envisioned in this act may be carried forward without loss of time or loss of personnel. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that merely to carry on existing programs in maternal and child health, mental health, and care of crippled children and retarded children at their present levels of support will be to slip backward in relation to the rapidly mounting problems. With the number of children rapidly increasing in the country, some States which have maintained only a modest rate of growth will actually receive substantially less funds for maternal and child health services during the coming year than in previous years because of redistribution of fixed amounts of funds amongst all the States. Those States whose populations are increasing less fast than some others are not necessarily free of problems. As a matter of fact, many of them are continuing to produce children at substantial rates but because of lack of job opportunities and because of other economic factors, young people of working age are tending to leave the States. Some of our most acute needs for medical care services, therefore, are obscured by population shifts, due to unemployment and other economic factors. It is truly difficult to say which of the programs encompassed in this legislation is most urgent. To a family forced to choose between subjecting children to serious emotional upset because of the presence in the home of an emotionally disturbed parent, and the family disruption associated with complete separation |