"(2) shall prepare and publish an annual report on developments in the utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and related mediums of communication for educational purposes; and

“(3) shall make recommendations to the Congress with respect to additional activities or legislation which may be required for the further development of the utilization of television, radio, motion pictures, and other audiovisual materials, and related mediums of communication, for the improvement of instruction."

9. Title X, part C, section 1061 (e) (new subsection):

"(e) Any member of the Advisory Council appointed under this Act is hereby exempted, with respect to such appointment, from the operation of sections 281, 283, 284, and 1914 of title 18 of the United States Code, and section 190 of the Revised Statutes (5 U. S. C. 99)."

10. Title X, part C, section 1063:

"SEC. 1063. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $5,000,000 $1,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, and the sum of $10,000.000 $2.000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, and each of the four succeeding fiscal years."

11. Title X, part D (new part):

"PART D-ASSISTANCE TO STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

"APPROPRIATIONS AUTHORIZED

"SEC. 1066. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated the sum of $10.000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959, the sum of $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1960, the sum of $30,000,000 in each of the three succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000 in each of the next two succeeding fiscal years, and the sum of $10,000,000 in each of the next three succeeding fiscal years, for making payments to State educational agencies under this part.

"ALLOTMENTS TO STATES

"SEC. 1067. (a) Subject to the provisions of section 1309, from the total funds appropriated for any fiscal year pursuant to section 1066, the Commissioner shall allot to each State an amount which bears the same ratio to the total funds so appropriated as the product of—

"(1) the school-age population of the State, and

"(2) the State's allotment ratio (as determined under subsection (b)), bears to the sum of the corresponding products for all the States.

“(b) The ‘allotment ratio' for any State shall be 1.00 less the product of (1) 0.50 and (2) the quotient obtained by dividing the income per child of school age for the State by the income per child of school age for the continental United States, except that (A) the allotment ratio shall in no case be less than 0.25 or more than 0.75, and (B) the allotment ratio for the District of Columbia shall be 0.50. The allotment ratios shall be promulgated by the Commissioner between July 1 and August 31 of each even-numbered year, on the basis of the average of the incomes per child of school age for the States and for the continental United States for the three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce, and such promulgation shall be conclusive for each of the two fiscal years in the period beginning July 1 next succeeding such promulgation, except that the Commissioner shall promulgate such percentages as soon as possible after the enactment of this part, and such promulgation shall be conclusive for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1959. "(c) For the purposes of this part

"(1) The term 'child of school age' means a member of the population between the ages of 5 and 17, both inclusive.

"(2) The term 'continental United States' does not include Alaska or the District of Columbia.

"(3) The term income per child of school age' for any State or for the continental United States means the total personal income for the State and the continental United States, respectively, divided by the number of children of school age in such State or in the continental United States, respectively.

"(d) A State's allotment under this part shall remain available for reservation of funds pursuant to section 1069 (b) for projects in such State until the end of the fiscal year following the year for which the allotment is made.

"STATE PLANS

"SEC. 1068. (a) Any State which desires to receive payments under this part shall submit to the Commissioner, through its State educational agency, a State plan which meets the requirements of section 1303 (a) and—

"(1) sets forth a program under which funds paid to the State under this part will be expended solely for projects, approved by the State educational agency, for the acquisition of audiovisual instructional materials and equipment (including motion pictures, filmstrips, slides, and other visual aids, recordings, magnetic tapes and other auditory aids) for use in elementary and secondary schools; and

"(2) provides an opportunity for a hearing before the State educational agency to local boards of education or other subdivisions of the State affected thereby, with respect to each application for the approval of a project under this part.

"(b) The Commissioner shall approve any State plan and any modification thereof which complies with the provisions of subsection (a).

"PAYMENTS TO STATES

"SEC. 1069. (a) Payments under this part shall be made to those State educational agencies which administer plans approved under section 1068 and which furnish statements to the Commissioner in accordance with this section. Each such statement shall set forth one or more projects approved by the State educational agency under the plan, the estimated cost of each such project, and the amount which the State educational agency desires to be paid for each such project out of the State's allotment.

"(b) Except as provided in section 1070, the Commissioner shall issue, to each State educational agency furnishing a statement in accordance with subsection (a), a commitment reserving, out of the State's allotment, for each project included in the statement, the amount requested by the State educational agency for that project. The Commissioner shall change any amount so reserved upon request of the State educational agency and receipt of an amended statement from such agency, but only to the extent the change is not inconsistent with the other provisions of this part. The Commissioner shall pay the amount reserved to the State educational agency, upon certification by such agency that the financing of the remainder of the cost of the project has been arranged. Funds so paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of the project for the acquisition of audiovisual instructional materials and equipment for which the amount was reserved.

"(c) If any project for which one or more payments have been made under this section is abandoned, or is not completed within a reasonable period determined under regulations of the Commissioner, the State to which such payments were made shall repay to the United States, for deposit in the Treasury of the United States as miscellaneous receipts, the amount of such payments or such lesser amount as may be reasonable under the circumstances (as determined by agreement of the parties or by action brought in the Federal district court for the district in which such project is located).

"MATCHING PROVISIONS

"SEC. 1070. In each of the first five fiscal years provided for under this part, the State educational agency shall be required to provide 50 per centum of the total cost of its projects applied for under this part. In the sixth and seventh fiscal years, the State educational agency shall be required to provide 66% per centum of the total cost of its projects applied for under this part, and in the eighth, ninth, and tenth fiscal years, 85 per centum of such financing. In computing the per centum of financing of the projects provided by the State educational agency, the Commissioner shall award appropriate credit to such agency for the total sums expended by the State and its political subdivisions for the salaries of audiovisual specialists and the provision of enlarged audiovisual distribution facilities required to carry out such projects."

12. Title XIII, section 1303 (a) (6) (new subsection):

"(6) provide, in the case of a plan or project submitted under part A of title V or part D of title X, for reasonable notice and opportunity for a hearing to local boards of education or other legally constituted local school authorities with respect to the selection of instructional materials and equipment."

Mr. ELLIOTT. The committee will meet at 2 p. m. this afternoon to hear the other witnesses who have not yet been heard. They are Dr. Lyle M. Spencer, president of Science Research Associates of Chicago, and Mrs. Marie R. Turner, superintendent of the Breathitt County, Ky schools at Jackson.

We will resume at 2 p. m.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mitchell.

(Thereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the hearing recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. ELLIOTT. Our first witness this afternoon is Dr. Lyle Spencer. Dr. Spencer is president of the Science Research Associates of Chicago. The Science Research Associates is a research publishing organization, and one of its major concerns is the development and improvement of psychological and educational evaluation measurements.

The Science Research Associates developed and scored the 1957 Navy Academy entrance examinations, I am told. Is that correct?

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ELLIOTT. They are currently preparing tests for the Navy Officer Classification Battery, and will conduct testing programs for the NROTC program and the United States Coast Guard selection program.

It is my understanding also that the Science Research Associates has conducted a project for the National Science Foundation aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the foundation's summer institutes program.

With that as a background, may I say to you, Dr. Spencer, that we are happy to have you. We look forward to your testimony.

STATEMENT OF LYLE M. SPENCER, PRESIDENT, SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES OF CHICAGO

Mr. SPENCER. Essentially the company of which I am president, Science Research Associates, is heavily involved as an educational service organization, in a great many scholarships programs that are run throughout the country.

The largest single program that we run is the national merit scholorship program. We also run a number of other similar programs at the State and local level, such as the scholarship program in the State of Illinois, whereby $600,000 is being allocated for scholarships this year. That figure will step up to $1,200,000 next year, and eventually to $2,400,000.

We have had about 20 years of experience in this field, not only in scholarships and in all sorts of testing, but in the development and use of guidance materials and counseling materials in schools, counselor training programs, and so on.

It seems that possibly our experience might be of some use to you in four areas.

Mr. PERKINS (presiding). Let me say to you, Doctor, that undoubtedly your experience will be beneficial to the committee and I only regret that the full committee is not here to listen to your testimony. As busy as the members are on Friday, that is impossible.

Mr. SPENCER. The features that might be relevant in the several bills that you have read are: First, provisions for increasing the num

ber of guidance counselors and improving their quality; second, the desirability of Federal support for guidance and testing programs, particularly from the seventh to the ninth-grade level; third, the desirability of establishing Federal scholarships.

Mr. ELLIOTT (presiding). You may proceed.

Mr. SPENCER. I was speaking to the point, Mr. Elliott, of the areas in which possibly the experience of our research organization might be of use to the members of this committee.

I mentioned that the first one is that we have had a great deal of experience in training guidance counselors and improving their quality. Second, what might be done in the area of Federal support for guidance and testing programs; third, the desirability of establishing Federal scholarships; and fourth, we have completed a major study to the National Science Foundation on the evaluation of the utility of the summer training institutes to improve the quality in training of science and mathematics teachers, both at the high-school and college levels.

The question is whether this sort of technique might profitably be expanded to other areas, with particular reference to training and the upgrading of guidance counselors.

I do not think it is necessary, as Mr. Perkins suggested, to read this entire statement. I would like to put the statement in the record, if I may. I would like to, however, summarize very briefly our feelings on these four points.

Of all the things that we feel might be the greatest help in salvaging the wasted talent among superior students, our general feeling is that whatever can be done to increase the number of guidance counselors in our schools and to improve their quality and training, would be the No. 1 thing that ought to be done.

The second thing would be some sort of support for guidance and testing programs, at least in individual schools, going down at least as early as the seventh grade.

We have a number of experimental projects underway right now whereby we hope that, in a few more years, we, and other groups in this field, will have developed our techniques enough so that this sort of program could go down to the fourth grade.

This has a number of very interesting and possibly important results.

For example, by the time children reach the fifth or sixth grades, arithmetic is already the least popular subject in the school curriculum. Almost every young child is avidly interested in science. Again, by the time they get into the fifth or sixth grade, a disturbing number of them have lost this interest. Almost every child is eager to learn to read, and again, before they reach the age of adolescence, there has been a diminishing interest for many children.

We do not know enough about why this is, so far, and it is possible that some of the research studies now in process will have very important results along that line.

By the way, we have just received another major grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York to work in cooperation with the North Central College and Secondary School Association, which is the accrediting agency for colleges and secondary schools in 19 Midwestern States, to set up pilot programs in 50 to 75 high schools during the next 2 years to see whether we may not be able to develop other

ways of identifying and motivating these bright students, particularly in schools that lack highly trained personnel and lack adequate money to do the things that might well be done.

The third point is the desirability of establishing Federal scholarships. This is a matter that I have given a good deal of thought to, and, frankly, it has troubled me a lot because I am in favor of doing anything we can to increase the proportion of these 150,000 to 200,000 bright young people coming out of school each year who do not now go to college. By this I mean the top 30 percent, roughly, of the students in terms of mental ability.

For a long time, I was frankly in favor of Federal scholarships. As I have reexamined the data from our shop and other available studies in getting ready to come down here today, I think that I have essentially changed my view. The reason for this is that, while the objective of providing the Federal scholarships is to help bright young people who would not otherwise go to college to get there, I am afraid that the evidence is fairly convincing that this objective will not be achieved by the institution of Federal scholarships, unless it could be done on a scale enormously greater than anything that has been proposed up to the present time.

For example, let us suppose that a program were to be instituted this year so that it could go into effect in the fall of 1959. There are now about 1,600,00 junior students, as I recall it, in our high schools. They are in the 11th grade. Let us suppose that we were having a program of 40,000 scholarships per year. This would take into account the brightest 212 percent.

Our general experience, and I outline this more in detail in my testimony, is that the experience in the national merit scholarship program and others is that something of the order of 95 percent of the top 2, 3, or 4 percent of the bright students would go to college whether they had scholarships or not.

On balance, I think that I would have to say that that money, which might be spent for scholarships at this time, would be better spent for other efforts in this area.

I think, furthermore, that if we could develop a major program for the training of more and better guidance counselors, we could provide reasonable amounts of money for guidance and testing at early ages. I think we could take care of something of over half of this problem, because there is some pretty good evidence that if you get started with these children early enough and build in them the desire to go, many ways can be found to help them.

Another thing that concerns me is the possibility that a Federal program would have the effect of inhibiting other scholarship programs now in existence or that are under consideration.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Before you get into that, Dr. Spencer, let me interrupt you.

Mr. SPENCER. Yes.

Mr. ELLIOTT. A previous witness told us that he thought a guidance and counseling program, if established on a massive scale without a scholarship program to go with it, might be something in the nature of a hoax. He felt that scholarships and guidance and counseling sort of went together. I see that you do not agree with that appraisal of the situation. You apparently feel that guidance and counseling, by itself, might do some good.