"One thing is certain: we cannot treat all fields of knowledge of concern to the planner as though he were required to be a specialist in those fields. To do so is to misunderstand the essential function of the planner; and hence to pervert the educational process as it applies to him. At the same time, he must know enough of the varied subject matters with which he is involved so that he will be able to coordinate the different elements of a planning program. and will know when to get more specialized advice and how to use the results." The various programs recognize this concept in various ways. Some tend to emphasize physical design, both esthetic and “practical"; others emphasize social and economic considerations and the processes of administration and decision making. In no major program now existing, however, is either of these approaches developed to the exclusion of the other. Some variant of the "planning core" concept is present in almost all of the graduate programs, i.e., à required core, consisting of those courses which are considered to be the unique planning substance, both theoretical and practical. In addition, there are a series of required courses dealing with the subject matter of closely allied fields considered to be essential to the education of the planner, and elective courses in related fields which enable the student to develop his knowledge of some related specialty. In nearly all of the 2-year master's curricula, the central position within the planning core is occupied by the "workshop," "laboratory," or "studio" courses— often requiring 50 percent or more of the student's time and effort. It is in these courses that the planning student learns to analyze and solve problems in much the same manner as will be required in actual practice: as a member of a "team" of persons with individually different backgrounds and approaches but sharing common goals. The content of the workshops will vary widely, in keeping with the different emphases of the various programs. By far the most prevalent program being offered is that which normally leads to a master's degree upon the completion of 2 years of specialized planning study beyond the normal 4-year baccalaureate degree. A couple of schools offer a 1-year master's degree program, intended to follow a traditional 4-year baccalaureate degree; these programs are primarily oriented toward physical design, and require that the student's undergraduate degree be in either architecture or engineering. In a few schools, the traditional 4-year bachelor's degree is offered, or a 5-year bachelor's degree in planning, somewhat in the tradition of the "professional degree" widely offered by American universities in the fields of engineering architecture, landscape architecture, law, etc. Some universities grant the doctor of philosophy degree in planning, with periods of study varying widely with the requirements of the university and the previous education of the individual student. The doctor of philosophy is generally regarded as an advanced degree to be taken in preparation for teaching or research, rather than as an advanced professional degree. Several planning degrees are nominally a degree in some other field-arts, science, or architecture, for instance. It should not be inferred that such degrees necessarily represent less complete education in planning than do those degrees which include the word planning. A number of the graduate planning schools are related to institutes or programs devoted to research on urban or regional problems. These research programs have been organized in recent years in recognition of the great need for more adequate basic knowledge of cities and regions. The knowledge and techniques of many disciplines—including those of planning—are brought together in these programs to search out the basic facts of urban and regional growth. In general, the basic requirement for admission to the 2-year master's programs is a 4-year bachelor's degree in architecture, landscape architecture, civil engineering, or one of the social sciences. Most of the graduate planning programs require a thesis. Nearly half of the programs include a requirement which is unusual in most professional education—a required period of practical experience. This internship is usually served by the student during the summer months between his years of residence at school. It is regular, paid employment in the service of a planning office (usually a public agency) approved by the faculty of the planning program. Scholarships and fellowships are available at practically all of the planning schools. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES OFFERING EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS IN PLANNING (This listing does not constitute official endorsement of any of the programs by either AIP or ASPO. The AIP recognizes degrees from certain schools for purposes of professional membership in that organization; a list of currently recognized schools is available from AIP, upon request.) Institution and planning program University of California_ Cornell University-- Georgia Institute of Technology. University of Illinois_. Illinois Institute of Technology-- Iowa State College-- Degrees offered Master of science in urban planning, Master of regional planning, doctor of philosophy. Master of city planning. Master in city planning, master in regional planning, doctor of philosophy. Bachelor of science in city planning, master of science in city planning. Bachelor of science in city and regional planning, master of science in city and regional planning, doctor of philosophy. Bachelor of science in landscape architecture (planning option), master of science (town and regional planning major). Massachusetts Institute of Technology-- Master in city planning, doctor of Miami University University of Michigan__. Michigan State University----- New York University-- University of North Carolina__. University of Pennsylvania__ Pratt Institute of Technology- University of Mississippi-_ University of Southern California_____ University of Texas. University of Virginia___. Virginia Polytechnic Institute__ philosophy. Master in city design. Bachelor of architecture (planning option), master of city planning. Bachelor of science in urban planning, master of urban planning. Master of public administration (plan ning). Master of regional planning. Master of city planning. Master of regional and city planning. Master of science in urban planning, master of arts in urban planning. Master in city planning, doctor of philosphy. Master of science in planning. Bachelor of arts, bachelor of science (option in planning). Master of city planning. Master of science in city and regional planning. Master of arts, master of science, master of architecture (major in community and regional planning). Bachelor of city planning. Master of science in city and regional planning. PORTLAND STATE COLLEGE, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. MORSE: As you know, school districts received aid from the National Defense Education Act to assist in purchasing materials in the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign languages. As far as I can determine, most colleges preparing teachers do not have these materials to use in their training programs. In essence, this means that a large portion of teachers do not become familiar with the materials (and, in some cases, content and materials) in college that they will be using later on as teachers. Thus, they have to learn about these on the job. If this session of Congress could extend this portion of the act to colleges that train elementary and secondary teachers, new teachers could immediately make use of the facilities provided in the schools without having to spend time to be retrained. Sincerely yours, JEROME E. LEAVITT, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH, DEAR MR. MORSE: All competent observers of the American scene attest the importance of accurate verbal communication, the ability quickly to obtain information from listening and reading, the ability to use this information to solve problems, and the ability to communicate with one's peers through speaking and writing. The learning of language is a slow, cumulative process for which the public schools assume a large measure of responsibility. Yet, despite the work of dedicated teachers, high school graduates have been judged inadequate: they read poorly and are thereby handicapped in the further learning of all subjects: they find it difficult to discover and organize facts for oral and written presentation and are therefore impotent citizens; they display little interest in the reading of good books and magazines. The causes of this situation and some suggestions for possible remedies are contained in this brochure. "The National Interest and the Teaching of English," published by the National Council of Teachers of English. May I respectfully request its careful reading and your support of measures which might improve the teaching of English? Sincerely yours, Dr. SILVY KRAUS, Liaison Officer, National Council of Teachers of English. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. OREGON CHAPTER. MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The Oregon Chanter, NCTE, is pleased to join with the National Council of Teachers of English in sending you a copy of the council's report from its Committee on National Interest and the Teaching of English. Every leader in our profession and every conscientious teacher of English hope that you will find time in your exceptionally busy schedule to study this report carefully, for we believe that the teaching of English-both as a humanistic study and as skills in language arts-is an important task in our national life. We firmly believe that, in the long run, the preservation and safety of our country and our way of life in a democracy depend on our citizens knowing how to use their mother tongue effectively in reading, writing, and speaking. and listening. We also firmly believe that our people need and deserve teachers in the Nation's classrooms who are specifically and adequately trained to teach English to our children and young adults. We therefore hope that as a Senator from the State of Oregon to the Congress of the United States you will do all in your power to advance and improve the status of teaching and learning English. This petition I send you as a private citizen concerned for our national welfare, as a professor of English at Eastern Oregon College, and as the president of the Oregon Chapter, National Council of Teachers of English. Sincerely yours, GORDON W. CLARKE, President. CENTER FOR APPLIED LINGUISTICS Hon. WAYNE MORSE, OF THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In connection with the hearings being held by your subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on the proposed bill, S. 1726, which provides for revision and extension of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Center for Applied Linguistics would like to put on record some of the views which it holds on the scope and operations of the language development section of the Office of Education under the provisions of the original act and on modifications which seem called for in any renewal or revision of it. The Center for Applied Linguistics is a part of the Modern Language Association of America (founded 1883), which is the largest and most important professional organization of scholars and teachers in the field of English and modern foreign languages and literatures. The center itself was established in February 1959 as a clearinghouse and informal coordinating body in the field of language problems, with particular emphasis on the teaching of English as a foreign language and on the study and teaching of the so-called neglected languages in the United States. As such it is a nonprofit professional organization which can speak as a well-informed neutral party representing a wide range of professional interests in the language field within the academic community and, to a considerable extent, within Government agencies. The center, in the 2 years of its existence, has sponsored a number of national and international conferences on various aspects of language problems, has acted as an intermediary in bringing together universities and Government agencies concerned with similar problems, has pioneered in projects such as contrastive language studies and the use of sound films for teacher training. With the help of the British council and organizations in France, Australia, and some other countries, the center has carried out (November 1959 to March 1961) a survey of second language learning throughout Asia, Africa, and Latin America which has set a precedent for international collaboration in this area. As a consequence of these activities, we at the Center for Applied Linguistics have had ample opportunity to observe the effect of the NDEA language development program on individuals, professional organizations and academic institutions in the language field. We have formed opinions on a number of points in the legislation, ranging from small details to questions of major scope and we would be glad to have the opportunity of presenting these views to members of the subcommittee orally or in writing at any appropriate time. In this letter, however, I would like to make three points which we regard as of fundamental importance with reference to the NDEA: (1) Success of the NDEA.-The development of language and area centers, the holding of institutes, the granting of fellowships and the development of research programs under the provisions of the NDEA have been outstandingly successful. More has been done in the last 2 years to improve American competence in languages for the national interest than was accomplished in several preceding decades. The impact has been felt from elementary schools all the way to Government agencies with language proficiency requirements. The first big step has been taken. It is essential now to provide for an orderly continuation and the filling in of certain gaps in the original planning. (2) Linguistics. In the implementation of the act, it was wisely recognized from the beginning that linguistics—the scientific study of language phenomenacould make an important contribution in almost every phase of the national language development. Trained specialists in linguistics were called upon to play key roles in centers, institutes and research projects. By the end of the second year of operation of the act, however, it became clear that these specialists were far too few in number to carry all the burdens being put upon them and, further, that the number of such specialists currently being trained was not increasing proportionally to the demand. Any revision of the act should make explicit provision for the awarding of fellowships for training in linguistics, and in the implementation of the new legislation the Office of Education should assign high priority to fellowships in this field. (3) English as a foreign language.-The strengthening of American competence in foreign languages is only one side of the national language problem; the other side is the strengthening of programs for study, training and research in the teaching of English as a foreign language. For some years the demand for qualified people and for adequate training facilities has far exceeded America's ability to provide them. The disparity between supply and demand is increasing rapidly. Accordingly, provision should be made for the inclusion of English as a foreign language in all four categories of language development which are now limited to modern foreign languages rather than English. Special centers should be supported or established, especially since in many cases a center concerned with the teaching of English for a certain part of the world should be operated in close cooperation with a language and area center concerned with that part of the world. Special institutes should be established for teacher training in this field, and in some cases these should be located abroad under the sponsorship of an American institution. Also, fellowships should be made available for Americans who wish to specialize in the profession of teaching English as a foreign language. Finally, research should be supported in this field which would lead to the production of appropriate teaching materials for various parts of the world and improvement in the methods of teaching employed. I have enclosed a copy of the first issue of our bimonthly newsletter, The Linguistic Reporter (vol. I, No. 1, April 1959). It contains a description of the center and its aims and activities and several articles on matters relevant to the points made in this letter. I call your attention in particular to my brief article, "Overcoming the Asia-American Language Barrier" in which I attempted to give a balanced description of the three phases of our national language problem: the study of foreign languages here, the teaching of English abroad, and the key role of American linguistics. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the most recent issue (vol. III, No. 2, April 1961) for your information. This letter has the full approval of the executive secretary of the Modern Language Association, George Winchester Stone, and of the Modern Language Association's director of the foreign language program research center, Donald D. Walsh. If there is any further way in which the center or other units of the Modern Language Association can be of assistance in connection with consideration of S. 1726, please feel free to call upon us for information or the obtaining of professional opinions from appropriate experts. Very truly yours, CHARLES A. FERGUSON, Director. |