small number of well-known graduate schools, most of which were already filled to capacity, were flooded with additional applications, while other graduate schools with excellent but less well-known programs had large numbers of vacancies.

The Congress therefore stated in the original act that the graduate fellowship program would have "the objective of increasing the facilities available in the Nation for the graduate training of college or university level teachers and of promoting a wider geographical distribution of such facilities throughout the Nation." The mechanism by which this objective was achieved was to have the Commissioner of Education set quotas for programs at the graduate schools, and then to permit the schools themselves to select and recommend candidates for their fellowships under their own recruiting plans.

It is this program to which Secretary Ribicoff refers when he says that experience with it has been successful and that the program consequently should be enlarged and made permanent.

It seems clear, however, that under S. 1726 the Commissioner would be under no compulsion to follow this pattern. Indeed, the statement by Secretary Ribicoff mentioned above would suggest the intent to depart from it and to use a major portion of the fellowships in the future on a basis which, instead of promoting a wider geographical distribution of facilities for graduate study, would concentrate thousands of additional applications in the admissions offices of a few noted graduate schools.

We should like to point out that the defect in the present program is not in its objective, but in a provision inserted by Congress in an effort to further the objective: the requirement that the Commissioner may approve a graduate program only if it is a new program or an existing program which has been expanded. The effect of this in many instances has been unfortunate. For example, if a graduate school had 10 existing vacancies for students of English literature, it could not fill these vacancies with fellowship holders under the NDEA. In order to receive a quota, the graduate school has had to prove that it would expand its capacity to accommodate an additional number of graduate students. It would seem sensible to permit existing vacancies in programs of high quality to be filled before, or at the same time as, additional places are filled through new or expanded programs.

Consequently, the American Council on Education recommends that the expanded fellowship program be divided into three parts.

A. One program, providing additional fellowships each year for up to 2,500 students, would be identical with the existing program, as provided in S. 1726. B. Another program, providing approximately 2,000 fellowships each year, plus any not used in the quotas for programs A and C, would be allocated to graduate schools under quotas to fill existing vacancies in programs of graduate instruction approved by the Commissioner.

C. An experimental program would provide a minimum of 500 1-year fellowships each year for college teachers who are within 1 year of completing the requirements for the doctorate. As the need for this program decreases in future years, the unused fellowships should be reallocated to program B.

It is possible, of course, that the Commissioner of Education intends to use the authority that would be granted him under S. 1726 for precisely these purposes. However, we do not believe that policies of such great importance to higher education should be left entirely to the Commissioner's discretion. We strongly recommend, therefore, that these three types of fellowship programs be written into the law.

It is obvious, of course, that under program C each fellowship holder would have to return for his final year of graduate study to the institution where he had completed the other portion of his graduate work. This is a reasonable exception, but in our judgment, it is the only reasonable exception to the principle that the NDEA fellowship program, as a whole, should cling to its original objective of increasing the available facilities for graduate training and promoting a wider geographical distribution of such facilities.

TITLE V: GUIDANCE, COUNSELING, AND TESTING; IDENTIFICATION AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF ABLE STUDENTS

We are gratified to note that the programs under title V have been continued and expanded. Of particular interest to the colleges is the addition under "Part B: Counseling and Guidance Training Institutes" of authority for the Commissioner to award traineeships to selected college graduates who are able

and willing to undertake specialized training in guidance and counseling at institutions of higher learning. This has been strongly recommended by the college groups. Since this is in effect the establishment of graduate fellowships, it would seem only consistent, in accordance with provisions made in other sections under this act, that payments in addition to tuition be made directly to the institutions.

Additional improvements under this title which we recommend, and for which we ask your consideration, are the following:

1. The institute program should be extended to include counseling and guidance personnel in the colleges, as well as in the elementary and secondary schools as now provided. Capable personnel in counseling and guidance are in short supply in higher education, both for service as counselors and as trainers of counselors, and the need for first-rate performance in this area is widely recognized.

2. Stipends now paid only to public school enrollees in the institutes should be paid to all enrollees. Since individuals from nonpublic schools are permitted to attend, we believe they should be accorded equal treatment.

3. Further research should be authorized in more effective ways to identify and counsel able youth. Basic research is needed in this area to go along with the improved opportunities for special training.

TITLE VI: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

We are pleased to note that the language development program of modern language centers and institutes under title VI has been made permanent in S. 1726. The results of this program, in our judgment, have been excellent. The American Council is now engaged in an inventory of the language and area centers established under title VI (A) of the NDEA. Although it will be some months before the final report of this inventory is ready, we can now say, on the basis of visits by members of the council's inventory staff to each of the 46 centers established by title VI(A), that rarely has a small amount of money been so well and productively invested. It is in these centers that our colleges and universities are training a cadre of specialists in rare and critical languages. Here is a genuinely cooperative venture, with the Federal Government and the institutions sharing the cost on a 50-50 basis and with each institution in full control of the operation on its campus. Indeed, it is clearly and immediately evident from the preliminary findings of the council's inventory that there is no Federal control over the operation of the language and area centers.

I hardly need to emphasize that, with the increasing demand for persons who can speak one or more of the languages of the African or Asian regions, the title VI center program must be sustained and expanded to involve more institutions, and extended downward to involve more undergraduate students. If, for instance, we are to succeed with programs such as the Peace Corps, we need more undergraduate study of Hindi, Swahili, and Yoruba. The title VI centers are training the persons who will teach undergraduates those languages and others just as critically in demand.

Moreover, though it may seem odd to speak of English as a foreign language, we need to expand training programs for teachers of English as a second language. The proposed amendments to title VI will help to train teachers for elementary and secondary schools attended by American children for whom English is not the home language. Again, we might cite the Peace Corps as an example of a program which is creating a demand for persons who can teach English as a second language, a demand greater than the immediately foreseeable supply. With assistance under the title VI program, colleges and universities could expand their programs for training the specialists who will teach the teachers of English as a second language. The committee might wish to consider amendments for this purpose.

The council notes with approval the authorization to use NDEA funds to send language teachers to study in the country where a language is spoken.

We recommend further that in all types of training under this title, stipends now paid to enrollees from public schools only, be paid to all enrollees. Only in this way, we believe, can the maximum benefits of this valuable program be achieved.

Among the amendments proposed in the bill, we especially commend the one for expansion of the program of institutes to include English as well as modern foreign languages. This is in accord with our recent recommendation that the

NDEA as a matter of basic policy should insofar as possible be designed to support "all of the important disciplines" rather than to support fragmented

areas.

TITLE VII. SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL MEDIA-RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION

We endorse the provision which would extend for 3 years the program of research and experimentation in the more effective utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and related media for educational purposes. The achievements under this program to date have been substantial, and the potential benefits are obvious to all.

TITLE X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Under this title the colleges and universities are gratified to note that section 1001 (f) has been amended so as to limit the oath required of students to the simple oath of allegiance.

It should be observed that requirement of an additional disclaimer affidavit has been the major factor of discord and difficulty in the administration of the NDEA. This requirement has troubled the consciences not only of students but, of members of the faculty, administrators, and trustees as well. The result has been a loss of benefits to students on a good number of campuses and a feeling among many individuals that the requirement involves an unnecessary and unproductive intrusion of Government. Opposition to the disclaimer affidavit is nonpartisan, both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy having made strong public statements to the effect that the affirmative loyalty oath is adequate.

PROPOSAL FOR ADDITION OF A NEW TITLE

The Congress in the NDEA rightly emphasized in the introduction to title VIII the need to support programs of instruction designed to fit students for useful employment as technicians or skilled workers in scientific or technical fields. However, the benefits of title VIII are specifically limited to institutions giving less-than-college-grade courses.

Many excellent programs of instruction having the same objectives are given in institutions which operate at the college level. It is our recommendation that these institutions offering 2-year technical courses should receive benefits comparable to those accorded to vocational schools under title VIII, and that for this purpose a new title should be added to the act.

The precise wording of the recommendations of the council's committee on relationships of higher education to the Federal Government follows:

"During the coming decade the fastest growth will occur among professional and technical occupations, especially engineers, scientists, and technicians. Junior colleges, technical institutes, and other institutions of higher education will be assuming increased responsibility for the education and training of technicians.

"The American Council on Education recognizes these developments and recommends that support be given through the provisions of the NDEA or other Federal legislation for the strengthening of technician education at postsecondary levels to train individuals for useful employment as highly skilled technicians in recognized occupations related to engineering, the biological sciences, health services, or other areas requiring scientific knowledge."

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me point out that the recommendations which I have made here today are broadly representative of the views of higher education, extending even beyond the American Council on Education and the three organizations directly associated with us in this testimony. Other major organizations in higher education have worked with us for many months to determine the consensus of our memberships on what should be done to strengthen the National Defense Education Act. There have been almost numberless surveys, communications, conferences, and debates on these matters, and on the most significant issues the institutions of higher learning have been polled. In the statement I have presented we offer recommendations only on matters which we consider to be of both merit and relative importance and on which there is either virtual unanimity or very strong consensus.

Knowing that this subcommittee, and indeed the entire Congress, are seeking as we are to bring the NDEA to maximum usefulness, both to our individual young men and women and to the Nation, it is our hope that these recommendations from the colleges and universities will merit your careful consideration.

Thank you for this opportunity. If there are questions, I shall be happy to respond.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Knowles, referring to the change that you have proposed in the National Defense Education Act relating to the 2,000 fellowships a year that the Commissioner could award, would the main change be that fellowships be awarded to fill existing vacancies in the program of graduate instruction, provided it was of such high quality as to merit approval of the Commission, only where there are vacancies with no requirement of increased faculty or facilities, if that could be done?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is not required in the act as drafted at this time.

Mr. KNOWLES. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. But the Commissioner could put them anywhere now. He could put a thousand, if he wanted to, in one college. Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not mean he would do that, but I am just using that as an illustration.

Mr. KNOWLES. I understand.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you think if this amendment you have suggested were added, and the 2,000 were so distributed, that that would carry out the purpose expressed in the 1958 hearings and in the 1958 act of seeing that these fellowships were distributed somewhat in accordance with existing graduate facilities, and would tend to keep all the graduate students from going to a few name institutions? Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You think your language would be sufficient to do that?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, indeed; we do. This is the position of the council, and we feel this would accomplish what we have stated here. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much.

Senator CASE. I have no questions.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Knowles.

The next witness will be Mr. Edmon Low, president, and librarian, Oklahoma State University Library.

We are very happy to have you with us. I have a suspicion before I hear you that we are with you, but we are very glad to have your testimony.

STATEMENT OF EDMON LOW, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, AND LIBRARIAN, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Low. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very encouraging, indeed. It is a pleasure to appear before a sympathetic group.

My name is Edmon Low. I am librarian of Oklahoma State University and president of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, which has a total membership of more than 25,000. The Association of College & Research Libraries represents the college, university, and research libraries of the United States.

The association supports S. 1726 which extends and makes a number of significant amendments to the National Defense Education Act. The association is of the opinion that the original act passed in 1958 has accomplished much for the Nation and should be extended with modifications.

The association is fully in accord with the purpose of training more college men and women and encouraging research in certain areas in institutions of higher education. It notes, however, that despite the incentives to enlarge the enrollments and provide new programs, a fundamental factor has been overlooked both in the original act and in the pending amendments. No specific provision is made for improving college and university library resources and services.

May I say here, as I have listened to the testimony this morning, almost all the testimony infers use of library resources in some way or other.

The lack of provision is contrary to the accepted fact that modern methods of college instruction and ever-growing research require increasingly larger expenditures for the essential printed materials and library personnel to facilitate their use. Not only the additional students will need more books, more periodicals, more library staff, but the undergraduate and graduate students already in colleges and universities will make greater demands under the intensified programs. The association wishes, therefore, to propose an amendment to the National Defense Education Act, which would be included as title XI, and would authorize matching grants to institutions of higher education for certain library purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like at this point to make this proposal a part of the record.

Senator MORSE. It will be inserted at this point in the record.
Mr. Low. Thank you, sir.

(The proposed amendment follows:)

TO AMEND THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958 IN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION FOR CERTAIN LIBRARY PURPOSES

That the National Defense Education Act of 1958 is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:

"TITLE XI-LIBRARY GRANTS TO INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
"APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED

"SEC. 1101. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, and for each of the three succeeding fiscal years, to enable the Commissioner to make grants to institutions of higher education to assist and encourage such institutions in the acquisition for library purposes of books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials (including necessary binding).

"GRANT CONDITIONS

"SEC. 1102. From the sums appropriated pursuant to section 1101 for any fiscal year, the Commissioner may, upon application therefor, make a grant for the purposes set forth in such section to any institution of higher education

"(1) in an amount not exceeding 25 per centum of the amount expended by such institution during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, for books, periodicals, documents, and other related materials (including necessary binding) for library purposes, except that notwithstanding such 25 per centum limitation, such institution may receive—