and other media not yet even devised all have or will have their places. They need to be used in varying combinations depending on the subject and even the particular unit being taught, the size of the class, the grade-level of the students, the classroom situation.

As an aside, I might say that a very well-known example is a course in modern physics that was prepared at MIT by the physical science study committee. This was a program prepared for high schools that included not only the textbooks but an enormous range of teaching materials to be used by the teachers.

It included a textbook, tests, films, film strips, and simple apparatus that the student could use. It included a whole host of supplementary paperback books.

These were all used in concert to make a complete course, and this is what we mean by a range of subjects put together in a pattern. Senator MORSE. I will interrupt the witness, if I may, at this point and have the attention of the representative of the Office of Education. It seems to me that the point of view of this witness, is just commonsense, and I would like to have the Office furnish a memorandum to tell this committee any possible objections that there might be to modifying the bill in accordance with the recommendations of the

witness.

I want to say, as a lawyer, "When you are winning you quit." That takes us to the discussion of the printed materials.

Mr. BOOHER. Very good.

Senator MORSE. Your whole statement will be included in the record. Mr. BоOHER. Thank you very much.

In addition to our objections to the exclusion of printed materials from title VII we object also in principle to the present exclusion of textbooks and programed learning devices and materials from title III of the act.

We do not anticipate that except in very unusual cases State educational agencies would wish to use any significant portion of their title III funds for textbook purchases; nor would we recommend that they do so.

It may well be that in certain situations shortages of basic books might render ineffective the utilization of some of the newer media. Here again, the MIT materials which I referred to before could be purchased, in part, by funds under this act.

But basic textbooks, which is the core of the program, could not be, as title III is now drafted.

Therefore, each State should be placed in a position to draw from the widest resources possible to insure the success of the program. For the Congress, by statute, to provide Federal funds for every other type of material capable of use in teaching science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages and specifically to exclude textbooks and textbooks alone seems to imply an attitude toward the utility of textbooks which I am sure is far from the intention of the Congress or the Office of Education.

We urge therefore that section 303 (a) (1) of the National Defense Education Act be amended by deleting the phrase "(other than textbooks)" and adding programed learning devices and materials. exact language proposed is attached to my prepared testimony.

The

Mr. Chairman, in addition to our proposals with respect to title VII and title III, I should like to indicate the strongest support of the American Textbook Publishers Institute and the American Book Publishers Council for proposals that I understand will be laid before you by the National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association with respect to the addition of English to the list of subjects covered by title II and by the American Library Association with respect to libraries.

Certainly an effective ability to read English is no less basic to the national defense than science, mathematics and modern foreign languages; and the ability to write clearly in English is equally basic. I understand that nearly as many youths are rejected by selective service for near illiteracy as for medical defects. No other subject in the whole area of national defense can be effectively pursued without the basic ability to read and write clearly. This is recognized in other titles in the bill before you, but not now in title III.

Senator MORSE. I want to say to the witness that I think the record has also shown up to this point that both the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Oregon, two members of the subcommittee here, quite agree with the point of view expressed here.

You have gone further with this.

I am glad to say I am glad to have this additional support-to make it perfectly clear, it covers the teaching of English.

And we also recognize, as you point out here, the importance of supporting libraries. As I said yesterday, a school without a library, in my education book, is not a school at all.

it.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony.
Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not have any questions.
Senator PELL. No questions.

Senator MORSE. Your testimony has been very good.

Mr. BOOHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mr. Donald D. Walsh, Director of the Foreign Language Program Research Center, the Modern Language Association of America.

Is Dr. Walsh here?

Dr. Walsh is absent. Will the staff notify Dr. Walsh that his statement, if he wishes to file it, will be made part of the record, and this record will be kept open until Monday night, 5 p.m., for the inclusion of any rebuttal material that any of the witnesses that testified may wish to file in supplementing their statement, or for the inclusion of any supplemental material that any witness may wish to file that is not rebuttal material.

We have a statement from Dr. Walsh. It will be inserted at this point in the record.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Dean Henry Bent, dean of the Graduate School of the University of Missouri, representing the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association.

Dean Bent, I am delighted to have you before us.
You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF DEAN HENRY BENT, DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND STATE UNIVERSITIES, AND THE STATE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION

Mr. BENT. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Education: my name is Henry E. Bent, and I am dean of the Graduate School of the University of Missouri at Columbia. I appear as a witness representing the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, and the State Universities Association, two organizations with a combined membership of 94 major public universities and landgrant institutions.

You have, I think, Mr. Chairman, a carefully prepared document of the position of the Land-Grant Association. If I may, I would like to speak informally with regard to two or three points which we would like to stress.

Senator MORSE. The document referred to will be inserted at this point in the record, and Dr. Bent will summarize it.

(The prepared statement by Dean Henry Bent follows:)

TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF LAND-GRANT COLLEGES AND STATE UNIVERSITIES AND THE STATE UNIVERSITIES ASSOCIATION, BY HENRY E. BENT, DEAN, GRADUATE SCHOOL, THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Education, my name is Henry E. Bent, and I am dean of the Graduate School of the University of Missouri at Columbia. I appear as a witness representing the American Associa tion of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities and the State Universities Association, two organizations with a combined membership of 94 major public universities and land-grant institutions.

While there are several features of the National Defense Education Act in which our two associations are vitally interested, we wish to place particular emphasis in this testimony on the fellowship provisions. This also falls within the field of my particular interest and competence. For a year, while on leave from the University of Missouri, I administered the graduate fellowship title of the National Defense Education Act (1959-69). I am past chairman of the Graduate Council of the Land-Grant Association, and am currently president of the Council of Graduate Schools of the United States, a new organization which includes approximately 100 of the major graduate schools of the country. My testimony, however, reflects the views of the Land-Grant and State Universities Associations, and not of any other organization. The 94 members of the two associations award about 55 percent of all doctoral degrees in all fields in this country, Mr. Chairman, although they enroll only about 30 percent of all students in degree-granting institutions.

First, Mr. Chairman, let me say emphatically that our two associations believe the National Defense Education Act has served a most useful purpose and that certain of its major provisions should be made permanent. We feel that the administration of the act has on the whole been sound.

Your committee has before it detailed suggestions for extension of and changes in the act, as proposed by the administration. Our two associations have given very careful consideration to the working of certain titles under the act and adopted detailed statements with respect to them at their 1960 annual conventions. The titles of particular interest, and the positions taken by the two associations jointly, are as follows:

STUDENT LOANS (TITLE II)

We agree with administration recommendations that the student loan program has sufficiently proved its value that it should be made permanent, and appro priations to the capital fund authorized as needed to meet demand. We advocate

extension of the forgiveness feature, as proposed, to include teachers in colleges and universities as well as those in elementary and secondary schools.

The administration has recommended that the limitation on Federal grants of capital funds for the loan program in any one year to any one institution be raised from $250,000 to $500,000. We strongly urge that the limitation be eliminated entirely. There is no justification for its retention. Originally the provision was intended to prevent large institutions from using up the loan funds to the detriment of the interests of smaller institutions. As the act has been administered, the interests of the smaller institutions are fully protected, and the only effect of the limitation has been to penalize unfairly students at certain large institutions, without any benefit whatever to students elsewhere. Each institution must justify its needs on the same basis as the others. If the funds allocated to a State are inadequate to meet the total of justified needs, the amounts are prorated among the institutions.

The $250,000 limitation, however, makes it impossible for certain large institutions to come even close to receiving the total of their justified needs even though those of all others in the State are met 100 percent and funds are left over from the State allocation. For example: Last year all institutions in Illinois except the University of Illinois received 100 percent of their justified needs in capital contributions to the loan fund. The university received less than 50 percent, though funds were available in the State allocation to meet the full amount. There are several similar examples, the University of Minnesota being one. The limitation is not even equitable as among large institutions, Mr. Chairman. Because of technical details of internal organization, some large universities are able to qualify as two or more institutions and thus receive a $250,000 allocation ceiling for each segment, while others are not so able. For example, Columbia University, for loan purposes, is three institutions: Columbia, Columbia Teachers College, and Barnard. The Universities of Illinois and Minnesota, although they have two or more major separate campuses, cannot so qualify and therefore come under the limitation.

Another way of assuring a more equitable handling of capital contributions, Mr. Chairman, would be to allocate quotas among insitutions on a student enrollment basis (in the same manner as quotas among the States are handled). We prefer the flexibility of the present system, which permits taking into account student bodies of different financial backgrounds. But we also believe that if this flexibility is to be preserved the discrimination against students in certain of the larger universities should be stopped, by removing the ceiling on capital contributions.

GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM (TITLE IV)

We believe the present graduate fellowship program has made a substantial impact in increasing the numbers of graduate students, stimulating new graduate programs in existing graduate schools, and in encouraging institutions to enter the graduate field. As the program has operated, there are three areas in which it has proved inadequate, or otherwise should be amended:

(1) By limiting the fellowships to be awarded through institutions providing "new or expanded" graduate programs, it has failed to provide needed fellowships at institutions which have substantial unused capacity in certain areas of their present graduate offerings. Our associations therefore have recommended that the present program of 1,500 fellowships administered through graduate schools offering "new or expanded" programs be retained, but that an additional program of comparable size be initiated, designed to give fellowships in graduate areas of institutions which can take more students without expanding staff or facilities.

(2) The present program has been interpreted as requiring awards intended for 3 years of graduate study. This interpretation has made it impossible to fill vacancies left by students who drop out after 1 or 2 years, and it has made it impossible to do anything for a very important group on our faculties: those who have completed virtually all requirements for a doctoral degree except their doctoral dissertations. These faculty members have typically acquired family and other responsibilities which make it difficult for them to get away for the year required, in most cases, to finish their doctoral work. We believe the administration should have sufficient flexibility in making awards to design a program suited to their special needs.

(3) The present law provides that institutions may be reimbursed for up to $2,500 for the costs of "new or expanded" programs. This has involved elaborate, time-consuming, and costly calculations of the costs of these programs, involving both the institutions and the U.S. Office of Education. With rare exceptions, the cost calculations made have shown that costs of the programs have been far in excess of $2,500 a year, frequently upward of $3,500 a year, indicating that the elaborate cost accounting should be dispensed with and reimbursement put on a flat basis.

The administration has recommended—

(1) That the number of fellowships be increased from 1,500 to 5,000, and that up to 2,500 of these may be awarded through institutions for "new or expanded" programs;

(2) That awards may be made for from 1 to 3 years, instead of 3 years, and that vacancies may be filled for the unexpired portion of fellowships when a student drops out of the program;

(3) That preference in the program be extended to persons going into elementary and secondary education as well as to higher education;

(4) That institutional payments of $2,500 per year, on a flat basis, be made per fellow in the case of "new or expanded" programs, and $2,000 per year for those going into programs which are not "new or expanded"; (5) That all fellowships except those under "new or expanded" programs be awarded to the individual, who may then go to the institution of his choice which will accept him, rather than being awarded through institutions. It is our understanding that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare contemplates initially using 1,000 of these fellowships for faculty who have completed all requirements for the doctorate except the dissertation, 500 for postdoctoral work, and 1,000 for straight awards not requiring “new or expanded" programs. Presumably if the number going into "new or expanded" or "all but dissertation" program is reduced, as it well may be in the future, the numbers in the other categories will be expanded.

Mr. Chairman, we believe the administration recommendations are seriously deficient in one respect:

We believe that all fellowships awarded under the National Defense Education Act except those for postdoctoral study or the completion of a final year of doctoral work should be awarded through graduate schools on application, and not awarded on the basis of permitting the fellow to enroll in any institution of his choice which will accept him.

The purpose of the provision for awarding fellowships through institutions for "new and expanded" programs was to increase staff and facilities for graduate education, and to broaden the geographical basis of graduate education in this country.

The major unmet need now is to supply graduate fellowships in institutions which already have strong programs but which do not have sufficient fellowship awards available to them to make maximum efficient use of present staff and facilities. There are already many fellowship programs, public and private, which permit the student to go to the institution of his choice. These have resulted in a high concentration of fellowship holders in relatively few institutions. They include substantial programs under the National Science Foundation Act, the Woodrow Wilson Graduate Program, programs of the National Institutes of Health, and others. To put it bluntly, Mr. Chairman, it would not be wise, it would not be sound national policy at this time, simply to increase the present concentration of fellowship holders in a few institutions.

We believe the amendments to the act should require that all fellowships other than those for "new and expanded" programs or for the completion of doctoral work already well along, or for postdoctoral research, be awarded through graduate schools on the basis of application and a showing that additional fellowships are required to make efficient use of present graduate capacities. Such a requirement will not discriminate against any university which has fewer fellows in a specific program than can be handled effectively by present staff. On the other hand, it will not result in further concentration, through Federal action, of graduate work. It should be stated as one of the objectives of this section of the act: that of providing for maximum efficient use of existing graduate facilities.

As to other proposals under this title, Mr. Chairman, we believe there is justification for making the flat payment to institutions having "new or expanded” programs $3,000; we have no objection to making students going into