elementary and secondary work eligible for graduate fellowships, provided it is understood that this will continue as a doctoral candidate program.

We strongly endorse the expansion of the program, and making it sufficiently flexible to award fellowships to those within a year of their doctoral degrees, and to replace those who drop out.

DISCLAIMER AFFIDAVIT

Our two associations strongly endorse elimination of the present requirement of a disclaimer affidavit from the act. We have no objection to the retention of the present affirmative loyalty oath.

OTHER TITLES

Mr. Chairman, the two associations for which I am privileged to speak have not taken formal positions with respect to other titles of the National Defense Education Act. Failure to comment on them in detail does not imply lack of appreciation of their importance. This is particularly true, so far as higher education is concerned, of the language development program. I am sure there is general agreement that it should be continued and amended as recommended. With respect to the area vocational education programs, Mr. Chairman, we feel that while they have made an important contribution to strengthening training in certain technical areas, there is a substantial and important area not covered by present legislation. This is the area of adult education at the post-highschool level, which is beyond the competence of the secondary school system and should be handled under college and university auspices. Our two associations have for many years supported legislation to this end, which has recently been the subject of hearings in the House on H.R. 4386, introduced by Representative Cleveland Bailey, of West Virginia. It is similar to legislation sponsored in the 86th Congress by Senator Hill, but not thus far introduced in the Senate this year. We respectfully suggest that consideration be given for inserting this proposal as a title in the National Defense Education Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I express my appreciation on behalf of the two associations for the opportunity to present testimony, and for the interest which this committee has shown in attacking the major problems which confront higher education today.

Mr. BENT. My first comment would be that our association would like to express strong support for the National Defense Education Act.

We feel it has been of great value to higher education and to the association which I represent, composed of approximately 94 institutions.

There are two or three points in the new legislation upon which we would like to comment.

The first of these has to do with the loan program. We feel that this has resulted in a certain inequity on account of the ceiling placed upon the amount of money to each institution. In the case of large schools, they are not able to obtain enough money to take care of all of the properly qualified students.

We realize that this ceiling was placed on the loan operation in order to be sure that the small schools would get their share.

But in the case of the University of Illinois, approximately 50 percent of their students who are qualified can receive loan funds, whereas other institutions in the State can get 100 percent for their students.

This arises on account of the ceiling which has been placed on the amount of the loan funds.

This means a student going to a large school, like Illinois or Minnesota, has a smaller chance of getting help, even though he is equally qualified.

We recommend strongly, therefore, that the ceiling be removed entirely. We feel that the present flexibility would take care of the situation adequately, and that smaller institutions would not lose.

The second point which I should like to make I hate to repeat too much the comment on the affidavit, we would like to support strongly the removal of the affidavit. And I appreciate personally very much the remarks that you have made and Senator Yarborough with respect to this aspect of our present program.

We feel that the program would be much more effective without the affidavit.

I would like to turn next to the fellowship program which I am particularly interested in because of my leave of absence a year ago to be here in Washington and to administer the fellowship program. There are three items which we should like to investigate here. First of all, in the new legislation there is a recommendation that about 1,000 fellowships, or perhaps more, should be given to students with freedom to go to any institution which they might wish to attend. We feel this would be unwise, because our experience with the Woodrow Wilson fellowship program, and with some of the National Science Foundation operation has been that students tend to go to three or four large institutions.

The commonest criticism which we had for the Defense Education Act fellowship program was that we had unused capacity in many good institutions. Therefore, we feel it would be better if these fellowships were awarded through institutions to use what is now unused capacity, rather than simply to leave it to the student to go wherever he might want to go, to increase the congestion in the larger schools and to tend to concentrate fellowship aid in a few locations. So we would urge that the fellowships be allocated through institutions rather than give the student complete freedom to go wherever he wants to go.

The second item is the stipend of the institution. This is now set at a maximum of $2,500.

We recommend that it be increased to $3,000. We feel that this is more realistic in terms of the actual cost of the program to the institution. Many institutions have reported that more than $3,500 is required for an average graduate student.

I should like to add that the marginal student costs more than the average, because we are required-because there must be expansion of the program.

When you expand the program, that means the new student really costs more. So we would recommend at least $3,000 as a stipend to the institution.

And the last item which I should like to stress is the opening up of the program to teachers in elementary and intermediate grade

students.

We feel that this, as written, might imply that we were turning this over into a master's degree program, and would involve much larger numbers of students. We do not object to including these areas, but we would feel it would be better if we indicated that the training should be at the doctoral level.

This way we would make a contribution in these fields, but we would not be turning it over to a master's degree program which would involve many, many times as many students.

These are the five points, Mr. Chairman, which I should like to

stress.

Senator MORSE. Dean Bent, you have made a very able presenta

tion.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have no questions.

Yes, I believe that I do have a question.

Dr. Bent, I take it from that you approve the increased number of fellowships provided?

Mr. BENT. Very much, indeed.

As I indicated, my experience the last year was that we did not have the flexibility to take care of students who were all through except the doctor's degree, or to take care of substitution, which was a very important handicap.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are the full 1,500 allowed under the National Defense Education Act being granted at this time?

Mr. BENT. That is correct.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The full 1,500 a year are being granted at this time?

Mr. BENT. We could award twice that many this year without difficulty to adequately prepared students.

Senator YARBOROUGH. By people with the capacity to do this work and who want to do it?

Mr. BENT. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Doctor, of these fellowships, how many teachers do you think the colleges of America could absorb a year, new teachers, with doctorates?

Mr. BENT. As far as we could tell, the number of faculty members with doctorate degrees is going down steadily, and perhaps is not much more than half now what it was 10 years ago. And so we feel that we need to greatly increase the approximately 9,000 a year which are produced in our universities.

Our previous program of about 1,500 a year is not nearly adequate to take care of this need.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You say about 9,000 doctorates are being granted per year now in the American university system?

Mr. BENT. The increase of 1,000 a year is not a very large percentage increase.

Senator YARBOROUGH. And that your number of teachers in the colleges of America with doctorates are now about half the number 10 years ago?

Mr. BENT. I cannot give that as an exact figure, but I think it is approximately that.

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt just a moment to say I think that is probably the most vital statistic that has been presented in these hearings yet, with all of its implications. To think that in the last 10 years we have reduced, in round numbers, about 50 percent of the doctors, Ph. D.'s, that are working really in the field-graduate work-in American higher education.

You just cannot permit that. We just cannot afford from the standpoint of the security of this Nation, as well as the whole cultural and economic future of the Nation, to permit that trend to continue. That is a danger sign, may I say, to the American people, and you are bringing it out here this morning, and it startles me.

Mr. BENT. I want to repeat: I am not sure of the precise figure, but it is a very important trend downward.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I know, Doctor, at the time we heard the evidence in the National Defense Education Act of 1958, as I recall, we heard from only one school of engineering, and there there had been a very small drop up to 1958 in the number of doctors among teachers of engineering in the country. But I did not have it for all branches of teaching. But since you were the administrator of that program, I thought you would probably be the most knowledgeable witness on this point.

Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough, it ought to be brought out the number of teachers has not decreased, but has increased.

What this really means is that-and this is one standard of competency with its limitations, but a pretty good standard-you are sending more and more graduate students for training under more and more teachers that have less training to train them than you had 10 years ago.

That does not speak well for the future of American education, if we do not stop it.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Doctor, this shortage, is it not caused by two things: One, the smaller number of students that go ahead-smaller proportion in regard to the total number-who go ahead and receive their doctorates?

And do you not have a drain on the teaching profession by private industry that you did not have a generation ago, by the employment of such persons as professors of anthropology, and perhaps professors of psychology for their personnel departments, the type of skills that industry did not use 15 years ago?

Mr. BENT. This is very true. It is increasing in all fields. Government and industry are increasingly taking people away from our faculties.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Senator MORSE, Senator Case?

Senator CASE. No questions.

Senator PELL. No questions.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.
Mr. BENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Professor Harold Allen, president, National Council of Teachers of English. We are delighted to have you with us, Professor Allen. You may proceed in your own

way.

STATEMENT OF PROF. HAROLD ALLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Harold B. Allen. I am a professor of English at the University of Minnesota.

In appearing today before the Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, I represent the National Council of Teachers of English, of which I am president. This council, with more than 65,000 college, secondary, and elementary school members and subscribers, is the largest independent subject-matter teachers' organization in the world.

Members of the National Council of Teachers of English have become more and more gravely concerned about the inadequacies of English teaching in the Nation's schools. They believe that to remove many of the most serious inadequacies only strong national leadership and support can be effective. Ninety days ago the council published a comprehensive factual report of the status of English teaching in the United States, "The National Interest and the Teaching of English," a book-length study prepared primarily to provide data for the Congress of the United States. Copies of this book-length study and of the supplementary report on the teaching of English as a second language have been made available to members of the subcommittee.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Allen, do you have a copy of that with you? I do not believe we have received that.

Mr. ALLEN. They were sent from my headquarters office about 3 weeks ago to the offices of the members of the subcommittee. I had one yesterday. I left it inadevertently in a taxicab last night. Senator MORSE. We will check into that.

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, sir.

The distressing conditions revealed in these documents have been widely analyzed and discussed as indicating clearly the need for national action. The larger study has been concisely condensed in this six-page summary I have here. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place a copy of this summary in the record of your subcommittee hearings.

Senator MORSE. It will be inserted at this point.

(The summary referred to follows:)

THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH-A SUMMARY

National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, Ill.

THE NEED

Two of the three R's basic to American education are subsumed under the rubric we call English. Competence in English is essential to successful study of every other subject field and no less essential to success in most trades and professions. In addition, English encompasses much of our children's introduction to a cultivated understanding of themselves and other human beings, their grasp of lasting human values in an increasingly machine-dominated society.

From the kindergarten through the graduate school, English is less well taught than it should be or can be. There is now grave danger of further deterioration because of too few teachers, too many poorly prepared teachers, ever more crowded classrooms, lack of books and other facilities, and inadequate systematized research. The very existence of our society depends upon an informed and literate public, upon citizens who can evaluate what they read and hear, citizens who can think straight and express their convictions clearly and effectively, citizens who can distinguish between the tawdry and the worthwhile Yet our schools allow English, which should makę a major contribution to the education of such citizens, to be taught by many ill-prepared teachers, and all too often expect them to work under handicaps-such as a 60-hour weekthat would be regarded as intolerable in any other occupation.

Leadership in English teaching is asserting itself in many ways, but lacks both the coordination and the funds necessary to make the massive attack on the definition of the subject, the preparation of its teachers, and the articulation of English in its course sequence in the whole school system. English was largely ignored in the 1958 version of the National Defense Education Act. Several foundations have been helpful in the performance of certain specific tasks. But it seems impossible to correct the basic weaknesses in English in