6. To encourage and support needed research and the dissemination and application of the findings, these steps are essential: a) Support of needed basic research relevant to the content and methodology of English teaching; b) Support of controlled research in teaching conditions and utilization of teacher time. 7. To cope with the shortage of new teachers coming into the profession, the following measures are among those which should prove useful: a) An increase in preparatory programs to encourage and aid liberal arts graduates, who now decide late (perhaps after graduation) that they would like to teach English; b) Increased scholarships and loans for college undergraduate students who express an interest in teaching English; c) Systematic distribution of information about the career of English teaching to high school students and college undergraduates; d) Inauguration of summer programs for superior high school students, designed to increase their interest in English and knowledge of the significance of English and the other humanities to the national welfare. Neither informed laymen nor leading teachers of English are satisfied with the results of present-day English teaching. Results that might have been satisfactory two decades ago are no longer acceptable, because our complex society demands levels of proficiency and accumulations of knowledge that no earlier society required. To achieve the necessary results drastic and far-reaching remedies are required. The problems in the teaching of English, as in science, mathematics, and foreign languages, are of such magnitude that the attempts toward solution must be broad in scope, imaginative, thorough-and immediate. This is a summary of a complete report on the status THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND THE TEACHING OF ENGLISH published in January, 1961, by The National Council of Teachers of English 508 South Sixth Street, Champaign, Illinois Single copies $1.95 each NCTE member's price $1.65 6 Other memorandums and communications ordered inserted: U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM MAY 15, 1961. To: The Honorable Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, chairman, Subcommittee on From: Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. Commissioner of Education. As you requested during the hearings on S. 1726 to extend and improve the National Defense Education Act, I am pleased to supply (1) a supplementary statement defining "physical fitness instruction" and (2) a statement outlining the safeguards which would be followed in the administration of title III to insure that funds so appropriated would be used for physical fitness instruction and not interscholastic athletics. Physical fitness instruction means programs of instruction administered by local school units conducted by regularly employed instructional personnel designed to develop and maintain the health and physical efficiency of elementary and secondary school pupils. These programs include organized instruction in (1) information and ways of acting that will promote healthful and safe living, and (2) exercises, games, and other physical activities which contribute to the development of physical vigor, strength, skill, and other physical qualities. Such programs of instruction would not include activities conducted as a part of an interscholastic athletic program, programs of driver education or health services. The importance of sound bodies as well as sound minds cannot be overemphasized in the crucial years ahead. Such programs are clearly related to the Nation's well-being and defense. Recent studies using physical achievement tests indicate that our youth are not as strong and agile as children of immediately preceding generations and that they do not perform as well in achievement tests as contemporary youth of other countries. Many State departments of education do not have full-time staff leadership personnel to advance this important area of instruction, and there is great need for specialized instructional equipment essential to physical fitness instruction. Safeguards in the act and administrative procedures to insure proper use of funds appropriated and alloted to States include: (1) States desiring to participate are required to submit certified State plans and annual statements of projected program activities. (2) Local school districts submit projects itemizing instructional equipment and materials they propose to acquire to the State educational agency for approval in terms of State-established priorities and standards, and certify that the equipment is to be acquired for strengthening science, mathematics, modern foreign language, or physical fitness instruction. (3) Participating States provide for fiscal audits of State and local expenditures involving Federal financial participation. (4) Office of Education representatives conduct program reviews in cooperation with State program administrators for compliance with the provisions of the act and the regulations. (5) Participating States are required to file certified financial reports and statistical reports annually. Respectfully submitted, RALPH C. M. FLYNT, (For Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. Commissioner of Education). U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM MAY 15, 1961. To: The Honorable Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, chairman, Subcommittee on Education. From: Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. Commissioner of Education. Mr. Dunne, in his statement before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, delivered on May 12, 1961. draws attention to independent nonprofit schools established by American citizens outside the United States. Mr. Dunne asserts that these schools are American-sponsored but are not connected in any way with the school system of any State of the United States or with the dependent schools overseas of the Armed Forces. Mr. Dunne urges the committee to bring the teachers in these independent schools within the purview of (a) the loan forgiveness clauses of title II of the National Defense Education Act, (b) the provision for loans to private schools contained in section 305 of title III of the act, and (c) the provisions for the payment of stipends for teachers in attendance at counseling and guidance institutes in section 511 of title V of the act. (Mr. Dunne apparently does not request that stipends be paid to teachers from the independent schools under the privisions of title VI of the act.) Mr. Dunne suggests model language which would amend section 205(b) (3) of the act by grouping teachers in these schools with the teachers in dependency schools operated by the Armed Forces. We have recommended that the latter schools be included in the provisions of title II because they are in effect part of our total public elementary and secondary school system for American children, though located abroad. We can find no justification for placing the schools referred to by Mr. Dunne and their teachers in a special category separate and apart, for purposes of title II, from private schools in the continental United States. In addition, Mr. Dunne proposes model language which would extend provisions of title V, part B, to teachers in independent schools abroad. Again, we can find no justification for classifying these teachers in any category other than that of teachers in private schools within the continental United States. To extend the provisions of title II and V, part B, would raise the question of equity of application of these titles to teachers in private schools in the continental United States. We have not recommended that these titles be extended to nonpublic schools and their teachers within the continental United States. and therefore are not prepared at this time to suggest that the schools and teachers referred to by Mr. Dunne be so included. With regard to the inclusion of the independent schools recommended by Mr. Dunne under the provisions of section 305 of title III of the act, we would point out that while this section makes provision for loans to private schools for equipment and minor remodeling of instructional facilities in the fields of mathematies, science, and modern foreign languages, and might be amended to include schools outside the United States, a number of very difficult questions are raised in this connection. I may say that we cannot without extensive investigation provide the answers to these questions: What is the legal status of these independent schools? Under whose auspices and by what authority do they operate and who can legally speak for them? We would need information as to whether they are chartered by a State of the United States or whether they are chartered under the laws of the country in which they operate. Are these schools capable of incurring legally enforceable indebtedness? Can these schools be sued or can they be subject to other actions in courts within the United States? If loans are to be made to these schools, it would be very important to the Federal Government to know if suit could effectively be brought to recover unpaid loans. Pursuant to your request, we are providing model language which would amend section 305 of title III to authorize loans to the independent schools referred to. However, we must point out that before the executive branch could indicate whether or not it would regard such loans as practicable or desirable. it would require much further study and the submission of information not made available in the testimony of Mr. Dunne or in other statements made avail able by him to the Office of Education. If Congress should elect to amend title III in order to provide loans to the independent schools referred to, it would be our strong belief that such loans should not be made unless the complete fiscal responsibility of these schools can be established. I should like to draw your attention also to the fact that these schools are receiving aid in the form of direct grants and tuition payments from the Department of State, the International Cooperation Administration, and the Department of Defense. The suggested language for amendment is as follows: Amend section 103(j) by striking the period at the end of the subsection and adding", or, for purposes of section 305, includes a nonprofit school located outside the United States in which, at the time a loan is approved by the Commissioner, at least one-half the student body consists of children of citizens or nationals of the United States who are attending such school under a contractual arrangement between the school and an agency of the United States." Amend section 305 by adding at the end thereof: “(c) Notwithstanding the above provisions of this section or any other provisions of the Act, the Commissioner may utilize such portions of the funds reserved under the provisions of section 302 (a) as he may determine to be appropriate for making loans under the same terms and conditions set forth in section 305(b) to private nonprofit elementary and secondary schools located outside the United States which educate children of citizens or nationals of the United States under a contractual arrangement with an agency of the United States." U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM MAY 15, 1961. To: The Honorable Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, chairman, Subcommittee on Education. From: Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. Commissioner of Education. We agree with the objectives stated in President Knowles' testimony; i.e., that graduate education be expanded and that attention be given to wide geographical dispersion of graduate facilities. However, we would emphasize that our proposal is designed to meet long-range needs of graduate education all of which cannot be determined at this time. Our proposal is for a permanent program because we see a long-range need for fellowships and assistance to graduate education. We have suggested a number of ways in which such fellowships may be used to strengthen graduate education now and in the near future. Changing needs may require different uses of such fellowships a few years from now. For example, we believe that the present provisions of title IV give justifiable priority to new and expanded programs of graduate education. These provisions recognized the long leadtime in developing new facilities so that this was done first. There have been identified additional areas in which support for graduate study will be useful. We can anticipate similar changes in the future and we feel that it would be most desirable to have a flexible program to meet new needs as they develop. The Commissioner of Education has the resources to identify new needs in graduate education. Aside from his new staff resources, he has access to the advice of recognized leaders in the field of graduate study. We feel that there is no need to restrict the Commissioner's discretion with restraints based upon a conception of the needs of the moment. We feel that the best approach is that of the National Science Foundation graduate fellowship program. In response to this recognition that the regular predoctoral fellowship program of NSF tended to benefit a few institutions, the Foundation inaugurated the cooperative program to distribute good students more widely. In addition, NSF has postdoctoral and other specialized programs and the authority to change the emphasis of their programs as new needs develop. In our judgment, the flexible program we have proposed is best suited to a period of great movement and change in education. U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM MAY 15, 1961. To: The Honorable Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, chairman, Subcommittee on From: Sterling M. McMurrin, U.S. Commissioner of Education. The substance of Mr. Booher's statement is that titles III and VII of the act should be amended to permit the utilization of Federal funds (1) for the purchase of textbooks by public elementary and secondary schools under title III for instruction in science, mathematics, modern foreign languages, and physical fitness, and (2) for research and experimentation and dissemination of information with respect to printed materials and textbooks under title VII. First, with respect to title III, we think it most inappropriate for the Federal Government to use these funds to purchase textbooks. Aside from this basic objection, we would emphasize that printed materials other than textbooks for instructional use in the specified subject-matter areas may be purchased. The purpose of this title is to help provide schools with specialized materials and equipment which they would not otherwise obtain because of the expense involved. In our judgment, local public school districts generally are capable of providing textbooks and this responsibility should not be assumed by the Federal Government. Moreover, as title III funds are limited the effective utilization of these funds should not be diluted by this extension of the purposes for which they can be used. Second, with respect to title VII, we have considerable reservation as to the extent the Federal Government should become involved in producing text material for use in our schools. Apart from this basic question, however, we believe that the title VII program can be utilized most effectively as a means of perfecting and advancing the uses of new educational media. If too much is asked of this program-as in extending it to cover all educational media-we believe the vital thrust and purpose of the program would be dulled. Then, too, funds available for the program of cooperative research in education can be utilized to advance research in these other areas of education. For these reasons, we oppose the modifications of these two programs suggested by Mr. Booher. We very much appreciate this opportunity to respond to Mr. Booher's testimony, and we trust that our objections will not cast any reflection upon Mr. Booher's sincere and constructive interest in the improvement of education. U.S. GOVERNMENT MEMORANDUM MAY 15, 1961. To: The Honorable Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education. From: Ralph C. M. Flynt, Assistant Commissioner for Legislative and Program Development, Office of Education. Subject: On behalf of Commissioner McMurrin I am transmitting herewith comments of the Office of Education relating to the testimony of Mr. Richard Shipman of the National Farmers Union. This statement is submitted in response to a request from the chairman of the committee to be used as a reply to the statement made by Mr. Richard Shipman of the National Farmers Union. The statement of the Farmers Union recommends extension of the title but asks that the so-called Bush amendment be deleted and also submitted some statements with respect to policies and regulations for the administration of the title. In a release by the Office of Education, it was stated that the word, “technician," whether used as a noun or adjective, whether singular or plural, has reference to the scope of training and work capability rather than to employment classification as such. Suggestions were made concerning criteria for approval of programs under the title as follows: 1. There is a need in the employment market for persons trained in the occupation for which the training is provided. |