And just as we are enlarging the teaching program of so-called foreign languages here. Senator Yarborough and I yesterday, in the absence of Senator Case, discussed this matter with some other witnesses. And I think you know at least of our sympathy. Senator CASE. I have no questions-except to supplement what the chairman has said, I think this is just about as important an amendment as you could make at this time to the Education Act. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much. Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:) STATEMENT OF HAROLD B. ALLEN, PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH 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. 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 6-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. Because of the urgent need for more and better teachers of English, the National Council of Teachers of English strongly supports that provision in S. 1726 which amends "Title VI: Language Development"-of the National Defense Education Act to provide for institutes in English. As Secretary Abraham Ribicoff stated in advocating the adoption of this amendment, English is a "keystone discipline of the entire learning process, on which hinges the students' progress in other languages as well as in other parts of the curriculum." To prevent possible narrow legal interpretation that would thwart our full intent we ask that the expression "including English as a second language" be added after the word "English." This amendment to title VI will lead not only to strengthening of the preparation of teachers of English but also to provision of needed institutes for desperately required teachers of English as a second language. My own 2 years in Egypt on Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grants have helped to make me keenly aware of the critical need for teachers of English abroad. We know that teaching English as a second language requires special competence and linguistic training, but today we are forced to send people without enough of this training into foreign programs under ICA, USIA, the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt acts, and now the Peace Corps. Even at home the need is great. Last year in California nearly 40,000 non-English-speaking pupils began work in 1,037 elementary school classes taught mostly by teachers without the basic linguistic training. In Texas there were half a million such pupils. In New York, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, and elsewhere this problem is acute, and the teachers are not prepared to meet it. We must make it possible for teachers to get that preparation. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask permission to place in the record a copy of the council's supplementary statement concerning the teaching of English as a second language. The council supports also the proposed amendment which includes English under "Title II: Loans to Students in Institutions of Higher Education"-so that students of English may also receive particular consideration in receiving loans. Countrywide we face the disquieting fact that almost half of the Nation's secondary school teachers of English actually do not have majors in the subject which they teach. More favorable student loan provisions will make possible attracting more and better prospective teachers. Then to complete the program for improving English instruction the National Council of Teachers of English vigorously requests that two additional amendments to the National Defense Education Act be inserted in S. 1726. The council is sharply mindful of the importance of seeking such improvement throughout the country, especially of the widespread need to extend supervisory services in English and to provide necessary books and equipment. Hence the council asks that title III of the National Defense Education Act be amended so as to provide financial assistance for strengthening English. As Secretary Ribicoff observed in his message to the President on April 21, the provisions of title III "greatly aided and stimulated improved statewide leadership in mathematics, science, and modern foreign language instructions" and "increased the availability and quality of the laboratories and other special equipment and facilities needed in our elementary and secondary school for these fields of study." The omission of English creates a serious imbalance in the program for curricular improvement. In foreign languages alone the provisions of the present act have led to increasing from 8 to 42 the number of statewide consultants in the subject field. But only six States currently make provision for full-time consultants in English. This basic subject likewise calls for such assistance. Furthermore, the National Council of Teachers of English is sensitive to the impoverished state of many school libraries throughout the land and to the fact that 10 million elementary children as well as tens of thousands of high school students attend schools without central libraries. It accordingly asks that special provision be included in S. 1726 for strengthening school libraries. This Nation cannot be proud to learn that the average annual amount per pupil new spent on library books is about one-half the cost of a single book. Yet access to accurate, substantial, and extensive library resources is certainly essential not only to success in English but also to achievement in other academic areas. The need for these amendments the national council cannot exaggerate. From the kindergarten through the graduate school, English-our bedrock subject, the only one universally required through the whole educational span-is less well taught than it should be or can be. And now there is the immediate danger of further deterioration because of too few teachers, too many poorly prepared teachers, ever more crowded classrooms, and the lack of books and other facilities. The existence of our kind of society we accept as depending upon an informed and literate citizenry. We who are Americans must be able to evaluate what we read and hear, to think straight and express our convictions clearly and effectively, to discriminate between the specious and the real. Yet a complex of causes leads our school systems to allow English, which should make the major contribution to the education of American citizens, to be taught by many undertrained teachers, to be taught generally under severe handicaps of class size and extra work, and to be taught often without adequate materials. Some of the facts from the national council's study suggest the extent of the need. One-fourth of all elementary teachers are not college graduates and hence are often noticeably deficient in knowledge of the English language and the literature, including children's literature, written in it. About one-half of the high school teachers of English did not specialize in that subjsct, and yet the annual demand for high school teachers is about one-fourth greater than the supply. Even in college the shortage of well-trained English instructors mounts higher every year. The kind of preparation required to teach English competently is well known. But considerably fewer than half of the teachers now employed have that preparation. In 19 States one can be certified to teach in an elementary school without meeting any specified requirement in English; in 21 States an elementary teacher need meet no definite requirements in reading, children's literature, or methods of teaching the subject. On the secondary level, as a national median, a teacher can be certified to teach English if he has had only two semester courses chosen from such diverse fields as English and American literature, journalism, speech, dramatics, children's literature, and even library orientation-a median minimum requirement of only 16 to 18 semester hours of college credit. In 16 States the situation is even worse: a teacher is supposedly qualified to teach the huge subject called English if he has had in college only 12 semester hours in English (or in related fields). More details simply make the picture grimmer. Ninety-four percent of the colleges preparing elementary teachers do not require a systematized study of the history and structure of the English language. Over 61 percent do not require a course in grammar and usage. For the preparation of high school English teachers, 59 percent do not stipulate a course in advanced composition, and fewer than 200 out of 1,200 colleges graduate teachers informed about the farreaching advances in English language study during the past 25 years. In a world in which understanding of other peoples acquires deeper significance every day, only a third of the colleges preparing English teachers require work in world literature. Only a fifth of them require study of contemporary literature or of literary criticism. Further, the rapid rise in pupil population is making teaching conditions worse in many places. Elementary teachers have had to reduce the time given to each individual child-time particularly important in the development of skill in reading, writing, and speaking. High school teachers in many schools admittedly assign too few written composition. With 150 to 175 students they simply do not have the extra 25 hours required to mark carefully the papers these students should write each week. Too many schools cannot provide an adequate supply of books. Virtually no tape recorders, recordplayers, projectors, and other modern aids useful in the effective teaching of language and literature are found in many schools. English supervision in many school systems is almost nonexistent, although supervisory specialists in such subjects as home economics and driver education (and recently foreign languages) are almost always available. Such deficiencies in the lower schools show up dramatically when high school graduates enter college. Seven out of 10 American colleges and universities have found it imperative to offer remedial work in English, often at extra cost to the student. Approximately 150,000 students failed college entrance tests in English in 1960. More than $10 million was spent by the Nation's colleges to provide the remedial instruction these students had to have. In light of these facts, then, and of the more detailed evidence presented in the full report, the National Council of Teachers of English affirms its strong support for those proposed amendments to titles VI and II which would include English. The council asks furthermore that provisions of title III be altered so that English will be included along with the other central subjects of mathematics, science, and modern languages, and that a separate provision be introduced to support school library development. Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Richard C. Cornuelle, director of the United Student Aid Fund. Will the staff notify the witness that his statment will be published in the record, and that he will be free to file any supplemental statement he wishes to file between now and Monday night, 5 p.m. Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Dr. Knowles, president of the Northeastern University, Boston, representing the American Association of Colleges, American Association of Junior Colleges, the American Council on Education, and the Association for Higher Education. Dr. Knowles, we are delighted to have you. You have been in the room for some time. You know our procedure. You may proceed in your own way, within the time limitation. STATEMENT OF ASA S. KNOWLES, PRESIDENT OF NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, AND THE ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Mr. KNOWLES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am Asa S. Knowles, president of Northeastern University, Boston. I represent the American Council on Education, an organization with a membership of 146 educational organizations, and 1,065 institutions, among them nearly all the accredited universities, colleges, and junior colleges in the United States. On this occasion I have the pleasure of speaking also for three constituent member organizations of the council: The American Association of Junior Colleges, the Association for Higher Education, NEA, and the Association of American Colleges. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on the proposed legislation, S. 1726, to extend and improve the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The organizations which I represent strongly approve the extension of the NDEA. There can be no question as to the substantial contribution which the programs under this act have made in the last 3 years to the quality of education and the broadened opportunity for education in the United States. In the face of increasing demands both for excellence of educational product and for opportunity to greater numbers, those of us in the colleges and universities would find it unthinkable that we should give up the splendid advances which the NDEA thus far has made possible. We congratulate the administration and the Congress on the positive and constructive attitude demonstrated in the President's letter to the Senate and House on this subject, and in the bills which have been introduced in both Houses of Congress. We are in hearty accord with nearly all of the provisions of this legislation. On one or two points, however, we must dissent, and we wish to offer a few suggestions for additional amendments. I have a comprehensive and detailed statement of our recommendations, copies of which have been presented to the members of the subcommittee. I request that this statement be made part of the record. Senator MORSE. The statement will be made part of the record at the close of the witness' testimony. Mr. KNOWLES. Without attempting to summarize all the recommendations, I should like to point out that the organizations I represent are offering testimony only on those portions of the act which directly affect institutions of higher learning. For example, we have no comments on title III, which is designed to strengthen selected areas of elementary and secondary school instruction, nor do we have anything to say about title VIII, which offers support for area vocational education programs at below college level. In relation to title VIII, however, we do suggest a new program which would offer comparable benefits to institutions offering college-level, 2-year curriculums for the same purposes. I have here a letter from the American Association of Junior Colleges, and I would like to ask your permission at this time to submit this as part of the record. Senator MORSE. It will be inserted at this point in the record. Mr. KNOWLES. Thank you. (The letter referred to follows:) AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, Washington D.C., May 9, 1961. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Education Subcommitttee, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Attached hereto is a copy of "A Statement of Views of the National Defense Education Act of 1958" by the American Association of Junior Colleges along with a copy of a resolution passed by the American Council on Education regarding college level technician education programs. We respectfully request that we be allowed to have these entered in the record for the consideration of your committee. These two statements supplement the testimony given by a representative of the American Council on Education who also will speak in behalf of the American Association of Junior Colleges. While consideration should certainly be given to a comprehensive review of Vocational and technical education in this country, as requested by President Kennedy, it is our opinion that there should be no delay in the consideration of legislation aimed at providing support immediately for college level technician training programs. As indicated in the attached statement, junior colleges in a number of States curently are discriminated against in the operation of title VIII of NDEA as it is operated presently. What we seek at this time is an amendment to the NDEA either as part of title VIII, title III, or a separate and new title to correct this discriminatory action. The Nation cannot afford to neglect training manpower to fill the growing need for technicians in both engineering and nonengineering fields. We urgently request that your committee consider amending the NDEA to meet our manpower training needs. This association would certainly endorse S. 1562 introduced by Senator Benjamin Smith of Massachusetts as a sound approach to the problems mentioned in this letter. The title of that bill is "Title IIIA-Financial Assistance for Strengthening Science, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Language, and Technical Instruction in Public Community Colleges." We appreciate having the opportunity of presenting these views to you and your committee. Respectfully, WILLIAM G. SHANNON, Assistant Executive Director. A STATEMENT OF VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958 BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES The National Defense Education Act has made possible considerable achievements in American education. It has focused national attention on critical needs and has provided financial support on an unprecedented scale for a number of essential programs. However, a review of the act's operation reveals the need for certain changes in the language and the scope of the act itself to enable the NDEA program to fulfill its stated purposes more effectively. Limitations and ambiguities written into the act prevent institutions in some States from contributing their best efforts under the NDEA program in the national interest. This is particularly true where junior and community colleges are concerned. A. THE ROLE OF THE JUNIOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE Federal legislation which does not make clear the eligibility of junior and community colleges per se to share in the benefits of legislation results in dis crimination against institutions in some States. |