and S. 1021 first rumored publicly in New York Times April 27 and Wall Street Journal April 28 which would act to detriment of all three programs and, in fact, jeopardize enactment by introducing the church-state and integration issues. In fact persistent rumor that S. 1726 is to be amended to S. 1021 during floor action on the latter AAUW urges presentation of S. 1726 as separate legislation. Believe S. 1726 can be enacted on its own merit as a measure in the interest of the national defense. DR. MAYCIE SOUTHALL, Chairman, Elementary and Secondary Education Commission, AAUW. DR. EUNICE ROBERTS, Chairman, Higher Education Commission, AAUW. Chairman, Legislative Program Committee, AAUW. Senator WAYNE MORSE, NEW YORK, N.Y., May 12, 1961. Senate Committee on Education, Please record me as strongly supporting elimination of affidavit requirement for student loans as proposed in Senate bill 1726. The Dartmouth faculty has consistently favored elimination of this requirement. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, JOHN S. DICKEY, President, Dartmouth College. OREGON CITY, OREG., May 11, 1961. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Library Department of the Oregon Education Association is strongly in favor of having the NDEA bill include a title which would provide specific aid to public school libraries. STANLEY RUCKMAN, President, Library Department, OEA. MADISON, WIS., May 11, 1961. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Subcommittee on Education, The faculty and regents and administration of the University of Wisconsin support and urge enactment of section 9(c) of bill S. 1726 repealing requirement of disclaimer affidavit for payments and loans under National Defense Education Act. Our university faculty consisting of all academic ranks in all departments has twice voted, after full consideration, their strong disapproval of this particular requirement. Our reasons are that: First, it involves inquiry by Government into the individual beliefs of American citizens contrary to the principles of the first amendment; second, it asks people to swear to a statement whose meaning is not at all clear; third, it insults college students and teachers by assuming they are more likely to be subversives than the thousands of other Americans who receive Government pay of many kinds free of any such requirement; fourth, it is useless since any actual subversive will sign it without question, and finally it is unnecessary since the oath of allegiance will remain in the act period that historic and affirmative oath rather that this confused disclaimer is the appropriate and sufficient statement of patriotic duty for college students and teachers participating in these programs just as it is for servants of the Government and for officers of the Armed Forces. The regents for our university have also by resolution twice expressed their opposition to the disclaimer affidavit. FRED HARVEY HARRINGTON, Vice President for Academic Affairs. Chairman, Faculty Committee on the Disclaimer Affidavit, University of Wisconsin. EUGENE, OREG., May 11, 1961. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Oregon Library Association urges that NDEA bill include title specifically providing aid for public school libraries. PERRY D. MORRISON, President, Oregon Library Association. SPEECH ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Senate Education Subcommittee, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I first should like to applaud your vigorous and effective support to the cause of higher education over these many years. Second, I want to encourage you in your fight to improve the National Defense Education Act in this current Congress. At our meeting in St. Louis last December, the legislative assembly of the Speech Association of America passed the enclosed resolutions which I hope can be inserted in the Congressional Record to indicate our desire for an expanded program of study, research, and training in the humanities and social sciences. Members of our association of course believe that such federally sponsored programs should include the study of speech and its role in a free society. As you know, these resolutions are consistent with the action taken by the American Council of Education in its "Proposed Program of Federal Action To Strengthen Higher Education," and by the American Council of Learned Societies which warned that the present priorities of the NDEA may create a dangerous imbalance in the curriculum. The council has urged an extension of fellowship grants in all fields. We approve of the addition of English to the section of the act which provides for training in foreign languages. Properly interpreted, this should include training in speech. We ask no amendments which might jeopardize passage of the bill, but we do hope that the wording can be made explicit so that funds can be provided for improving instruction in a discipline essential not only to defense but to our democracy itself: communication. Sincerely yours, ROBERT G. GUNDERSON. 1960 ACTION REPORTS, SPEECH ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA To: Legislative assembly. ACTION REPORT M From: Thorrel B. Fest, University of Colorado. Resolved, That the executive vice president of the Speech Association of America petition the President and the Congress of the United States requesting nonpartisan encourageing and financial support for undergraduate, graduate, and special programs of study, research, and training in the humanities and social sciences, and that the petition emphasize the need to include in such programs study of the nature and role of all forms of communication in a free society. Passed December 28, 1960. To: Legislative assembly. ACTION REPORT R R. G. GUNDERSON. From: F. W. Haberman, University of Wisconsin. Resolved, That the SAA legislative assembly strongly disapproves of the "affidavit of disbelief" requirement of the National Defense Education Act; that the legislative assembly urges that the Congress of the United States take immediate action to repeal this requirement; that the proper SAA officers are instructed to express the legislative assembly's views on this issue to the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Education, and the chairman of the Senate Committee on Education. Passed December 28, 1960. R. G. GUNDERSON, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We understand that the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is immediately holding hearings on the National Defense Education Act and has asked for testimony. The time is too short for more than the written statement which is here submitted. It is a privilege and a duty in our free country to present testimony for historians. The American Historical Association was chartered by Congress in 1889 to promote the study of history in America. It is composed of most of the historians in the United States and citizens interested in the study of history. This testimony concerns the provision of the bill for institutes for teachers. These institutes are greatly needed in all the major academic subjects taught in the high schools, not only in the natural sciences and foreign languages but in English and history as well. In all those subjects which prepare students for intellectual activities substantial work in the training of teachers remains to be done. Too long we have been satisfied with teachers who are not fully competent in the fields in which they teach because they have not had full and expert training and because they have not had opportunity to keep up in their fields. Aid should not be given for special areas alone but in all areas of the basic and academic subjects. If aid is given in some areas rather than others, then the latter are harmed because they are not given equal weight in the preparation of school curricula or in the training and employment of teachers. If Federal assistance is given in certain academic subjects and not others, then by Federal control we are determining the content of the curriculum. The two courses of history most often taught in the high schools are American history and world history. In both fields too few teachers are well prepared. This is especially true in world history. Institutes could materially improve the competence of high school history teachers through provision of instruction by professional historians and by acquainting teachers with the latest and best sources of information. We have received many letters from high school teachers and administrators throughout the country asking for institutes in history. We cannot afford financial support for these institutes nor can, without assistance, the colleges and universities of the Nation. Of the approximately 550,000 secondary school teachers 11.7 percent teach history and the social studies; over 30,000 teach history. Of this last number many are ill prepared and all of them now need specially devised programs that will enable them, while teaching during the year, to keep abreast of research in history. One of our correspondents (Mrs. Lennie E. Stubblefield of Premont, Tex.) writes, "History classes in high school have too long been held by football coaches and athletic directors and little history has been taught." In one large Texas high school, according to the leading Texas authority, Prof. James Taylor, "9 of 14 social studies teachers are coaches of athletics with majors outside the social science field." We here state no objection to the employment of coaches as coaches but we do need more trained teachers of history who teach history. If coaches teach history, then they should have training in history. Institutes are one significant answer to the problem. In Kansas, a study made in 1958 reveals, of the 315 teachers assigned to teach world history only 151 had had any modern European history in college and only 27 had had any Far Eastern history. Institutes would help overcome this weakness. In Indiana in 1957-58 only 340 of 65,000 undergraduate students had opportunity to study the history of Russia in any one year, and only 275 Far Eastern history. Institutes would enable teachers who have not had work in these fields to become acquainted with them. The need is urgent in both world history and American history. If it is in the national interest to assist in institutes for teachers of the sciences, mathematics, foreign languages, and English, then it is also in the national interest to afford this assistance in history. If the Federal Government gives assistance for some basic subjects and not others, then it is determining the nature of education. The institutes in history should be established in universities and colleges as have the institutes in other subjects. They should be administered by the individual institutions and independent scholars should decide what shall be taught. It is our hope that early consideration of the bill will not prevent further and full testimony from educators. We shall, if the committee desired, be able and willing to present views of historians. Sincerely yours, BOYD C. SHAFER, Executive Secretary. CONFERENCE BOARD OF ASSOCIATED RESEARCH COUNCILS, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am writing on behalf of the Committee on International Exchange of Persons, which was appointed by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils to cooperate in the administration of the Fulbright exchange program. We are following with much interest the hearings which the Senate Committee on Education is holding on S. 1726, which amends title VI of the National Defense Education Act. We recognize the usefullness of the provisions which would remove limitations on the terminal date for the establishment of language and area centers and of teacher institutes and on the amounts of the annual appropriations for these two programs. We consider also that under title VI, part B, the amendments which would authorize the institute to give instruction in English as a foreign language and would permit the use of NDEA funds to send teachers of modern foreign languages abroad for study are logical and useful. So far as we are aware, however, no specific provision is made under title VI. part A, for language and area centers to offer training for the development of specialists in the teaching of English as a foreign language, an area which seems to us to be of crucial importance. During the past decade we have become keenly aware of the overwhelming desire on the part of the peoples of the Middle East, southeast Asia, the Far East, and Latin America to acquire a reading and speaking knowledge of English. We have made the most vigorous and continuous effort over the past 10 years to meet the annual requests of foreign universities and teachers colleges for Fulbright professors who would be able to train teachers in the methodology of teaching English as a foreign language. But the demand for these specialists has been so great and the number of them in such short supply that we have each year been able to meet only a portion of the requests which we have received. The supply will, moreover, be even less adequate now that a considerable number of experts will be required for training candidates for teaching of English posts under the Peace Corps program. Yet the opportunity presented by the urgent requests from abroad for assistance in this field must be viewed as uniquely important. The specialized training in general linguistics and related aspects of language study, which constitutes the base of the modern approach to teaching English as a foreign language, could be offered by the language and area centers now established under title VI, part A, which are now authorized to give advanced training in the more critical foreign languages. We believe that the Senate Committee on Education may wish to consider an amendment for this purpose or may wish to state its intention that such training should be offered in its report on the bill. Sincerely yours, FRANCIS A. YOUNG, Executive Secretary. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, MIDWEST CITY SCHOOLS, Midwst City, Okla., April 21, 1961. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: First let me thank you for the fine reception you gave me when I appeared before your Education Subcommittee in behalf of S. 1021 recently. Since giving this testimony, another problem has arisen in connection with my school administration to which I want to call your attention. I believe this experience is general enough to add further evidence showing need for Federal support for education as proposed under title I of this legislation. It especially points up the need for coordinating the various types of Federal support in order that one particular effort does not turn out to be damaging to public education. The National Defense Education Act passed by the Congress 2 years ago has certainly been of great value to certain areas of instruction such as science, mathematics, language, counseling, etc. However, the improvement made by this legislation and the work of the National Science Foundation will in one way rob the public schools of some of their finest teaching material through improving them to the point that the local public school salary schedules can no longer attract them to remain as teachers. Both of these forces have done a splendid jeb in providing training institutes at the various universities for a number of teacher trainees, and of course, these are selected from the very best of the public schoolteachers. The institutes are held during the summer, as well as during the fall and spring semesters. The summer institutes do not compete with the teacher's time as a teacher but the fall and spring institutes do just this. For instance, three of the finest teachers in the Midwest City school system have resigned to accept full-year scholarships next year. The three persons' combined take-home pay as teachers in the Midwest City school system is $1,090 per month, whereas their scholarship stipened which is nontaxable and thus all of it represents take-home pay will be $1,080, or only $10 less than they would earn as teachers. Even so, next year is not the problem which I want to call to your attention. It is the fact that not any one of these three teachers has given us any indication that they will return to teach here after they have completed this year's additional training. They tell us very frankly that they expect to earn more than the public schools will pay under present salary schedules when they have had this additional training. I am not criticizing the National Defense Education Act or the National Service Foundation for encouraging and assisting in the better training of anyone who can profit by such training. I simply want to point out that with such training teachers' salaries must be more adequately financed in order that they may compete for this better trained personnel. Otherwise, what was designed to help public schools will simply skim off the cream of our faculties and leave us only a mediocre teaching staff. I trust this information will be of value to you in presenting general Federal support for teachers' salaries to the Congress. I further hope that in your deliberations both in the subcommittee as well as in the full committee and on the floor of the Senate you will accept the position as expressed in my testimony that Public Law 874 and Public Law 815 should not be reduced until the principles of title I are enacted into law and we have some experience in its application to the overall educational program. When we have this experience I heartily agree that we should take a careful look at the assistance provided under Public Law 874 and Public Law 815 to be sure that the assistance provided is not duplicated under the different titles of the proposed legislation. Respectfully, OSCAR V. ROSE, Superintendent. KENYON COLLEGE, Gambier, Ohio, April 20, 1961. CHAIRMAN, SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, DEAR SIR: The president and faculty of Kenyon College earnestly solicit your support for the action proposed in the attached statement of principles, which was adopted by unanimous vote. |