had no money and no way to go to college, except to work, which she did. The laboratory must wait for her skills and talents. So far I have only been concerned with providing opportunities for our best minds, but in the middle of the class there are many fine minds and talents that our Nation also needs. In addition to the professions, we need specialized training instead of college degrees, but often even this training is out of reach for so many of our students. The Government might select students who are capable and place them in technical schools where the cost of their education would be covered by loans, scholarships, or salaries for on-the-job training. The training of more technicians would go far toward relieving the acute shortage of college-trained scientists, engineers, nurses, and other professional categories. Tests could be given to every graduating class, in order to determine which students should have college training and which should have technical training. The boy, who states a desire to enter the field of medicine and whose tests show that his aptitude and intelligence justify this desire, might be educated at Government expense. Thus, his education would be paid for with the single stipulation that he, in turn, give the Government 3 years of his practice when he finishes his training. In this way, the Government could save many doctors who would otherwise be lost for the lack of funds, and there would always be a supply of young doctors to be assigned to remote areas where doctors are so badly needed. This same plan could apply to the other professions. With Government aid the States could extend public education beyond the 12th grade. Two years of college might be provided at public expense to those seniors who rank high on the college entrance examinations. After these 2 years, the Government might find it practicable to foot the bill so that top rankers might complete their education. This spring will the line of seniors who receives their diplomas march away to jobs that could be held by people with a lesser degree of intelligence, or will they be given a chance to go on and be developed to their fullest? It seems that the Government cannot afford to fail to help them further their education. Ivan, Pablo, and Chang will be educated, regardless of personal finances, and Jim is going to have to compete with them for our place in the sun. If Ivan, Pablo, and Chang are better equipped, then our boy may not have a chance. But he will have a chance, if our Government does not lose its best minds. Someone has said: The most critical bottleneck to the expansion and improvement of education in our great Nation is the mounting shortage of excellent teachers. Unless enough of the Nation's ablest manpower is reinvested in the educational enterprise, its human resources will remain undeveloped and specialized manpower shortages in every field will compound. The Federal Government of the United States cannot afford to fail to make provisions for more and better trained teachers. We cannot afford to consume the seed corn needed for future harvests. The teacher situation in eastern Kentucky where the birth rate and unemployment are extremely high is most serious. Teachers are poorly qualified. Their education has been received in piecemeal; that is, they teach school 9 months and take a few correspondence courses, then to summer school, and then back to teaching. After years and years of teaching, they finally get a degree. During this long period how many brilliant young minds have gradually floated down the stream-lost in crime and idleness in a Nation which is so capable of leading the world in the conservation of young brains. Many school buildings are old, dilapidated, and unsafe, but there are no funds for better ones. We sincerely believe that overcrowded classrooms and unsuitable buildings help to contribute to the erosion of great brainpower which our country cannot afford to lose. Gentlemen, we could go on and on, but the thought comes that when Thomas Gray wrote of his beloved hill country in England that "many a flower is born to blush unseen and waste its sweetness on the desert air," we believe that the was including the sometimes latent, often lost, talent which never is developed like the youth of our eastern Kentucky hills who lack only money-not ability, not courage, not perserverance, not brains. Society and the Nation need the abilities of these youths. The quickest way to realize their fullest accomplishments will be to assist them with college training. We who work with them feel this is a wise and sound investment-as wise as any defense plan and as sound as the United States Government Bond. Thank you. Mr. ELLIOTT. Mrs. Turner, I want to say to you that out of nearly 200 witnesses that we have had here in these recent months on this subject, that your testimony, in my judgment, is just about the best that we have had. Mrs. TURNER. Thank you. Mr. ELLIOTT. It comes right from somebody who works in the vineyard day after day with this problem as you do and who knows what they are talking about and who knows that it cannot be solved by these promotional ideas; that people who have said that there is no problem and that if there is, it can be solved by some means that has not much merit and no substance to it. I think you and I agree that our Nation cannot much longer afford to let the door of opportunity close in the face of these boys and girls. It cannot, like these boys and girls that you describe in Kentucky. I will say to you that they are the same in north Alabama, the area I am familiar with. I suspect that all of the States in the Union are in an area such as you described. If we had a real good scholarship program and a good loan program and a good work-study program such as you have recommended here, we would be doing something toward getting on the way toward a solution of this problem. Mrs. TURNER. I think you would, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. I do not know how you can expect parents of children who work an average of 2 days a week, year in and year out, to save enough money to send their children to college. That is the situation in many parts of this country of ours where work is slack or scarce and people really have no opportunity to save. The average income of the people that I represent in the Congress here, is about $700 per person. Mrs. TURNER. That is about right. Mr. ELLIOTT. When I hear people say that if those people were eager to send their children to school, they could save enough money to do so, I am appalled at the ignorance that some exhibit. Then they come in here with an idea that we give them a tax exemption and that this will cure everything. I do not know how on earth a tax exemption is worth anything to a fellow whose average income is probably below the amount required to pay income tax. Mr. TURNER. I agree with you. Mr. ELLIOTT. There are a lot of people around the country saying that this is the solution to the problem. I am glad that you are not in that group. I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Turner has put her finger on the problem, and I know the committee appreciates the down-to-earth examples showing the need for legislation. I want to concur in the statement of the chairman without any repetition, Mrs. Turner. I have one question, and it does concern this committee. How much migration have we had back home, so to speak, in recent months, of the schoolchildren? Mrs. TURNER. In our county we have had practically 100 children come back in our schools that are already overcrowded. Mr. PERKINS. That has been since the first of the year? Mr. TURNER. Since the first of the year. Their parents have come back. It is getting serious. Mr. PERKINS. I wish the full committee could have heard your illustrations today, Mrs. Turner. I am certainly glad you came. Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you, Mrs. Turner. That concludes our hearings for today. Our schedule calls for us to meet again at 10 a. m., Monday morning. Our witnesses will be Congressman Keating, Mr. Shrewsbury, and Dr. Anne Hyer of the NEA. We will be looking forward to hearing them on Monday. (Thereupon, the hearing recessed at 3:30 p. m., to reconvene on Monday, March 31, 1958, at 10 a. m.) SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN PROGRAM MONDAY, MARCH 31, 1958 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION AND SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL EDUCATION, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10: 10 a. m., in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Carl Elliott, presiding. Present: (Subcommittee on Special Education): Representatives Elliott (chairman), Green, and Nicholson. Also present: Representative Wier. Staff members present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Kennedy W. Ward, assistant general counsel; Bob McCard, professional staff member; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator; and Mary P. Allen, clerk (Subcommittee on Special Education). Mr. ELLIOTT. The two subcommittees hearing the matters pending will be in order. Our first witness today is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Kenneth Keating, who represents the 38th District of New York. Mr. Keating is the author of a bill pending before the subcommittee, H. R. 11261, which would establish a scholarship loan fund to enable qualified high school graduates in financial need to receive a college education. A copy of Mr. Keating's statement is in the hands of the members of the subcommittees, and with that as a background, you may proceed. I will say to the gentleman, you may proceed in any manner you see fit. We are happy to have you here, and appreciate your consideration in coming to give us some benefit of your extensive knowledge on this subject. Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may have permission, I would like to ask that Mr. David Provost of my office, who is one of the fellows of the American Political Science Foundation, sit here with me because he knows a good deal about this subject and has done a lot of research on it. There might be questions that he might help me on. Mr. ELLIOTT. Without objection, he may do so. 1765 STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK; ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID PROVOST Mr. KEATING. I am happy to be here, and I thank the committee for this opportunity to appear before you. The vast interest that has been manifested in the investigations of this subcommittee is indicative of the concern of Congress and of the American people generally in the state of this Nation's schools. It is a healthy sign, for as one educator put it, the American people will get the type of schools they deserve. Poor interest will lead to poor schools. High interest will mean better schools. The place of the scientist, both physical and social, in our society is the subject of growing interest and concern. Original thought gave us the Constitution. It gave us the cotton gin, the airplane, radio and television, and a host of other social and technological benefits. We perhaps have become too complacent in our superiority, too smug in our success. By overestimating our own strengths, we have dangerously underestimated the potential of other peoples. Much of the present concern is plainly the result of that bolt across the blue called sputnik. With sudden and startling impact the deficiencies of our educational system were brought into focus. For some time responsible men and women have been warning us that our system was too soft; that it made no adequate provision for the exceptional student, that glorification of the mediocre had become a characteristic trait of American schools. What sputnik and muttnik have done for many is to place the problem in a new perspective. Instead of a nagging, somewhat annoying, impression, it has become a case of deep concern for our national survival. Not only can't Johnny read, he can't add either. I was quite frankly shocked to read the statement of a prominent MIT professor to the effect the students entering that institution-students that constitute the cream of high-school graduates-cannot read, cannot write, and many cannot even recite the alphabet. The question you and I are concerned with today is at the college level. My own bill-H. R. 11261-is directed at making it possible for more of our highly qualified, highly intelligent young people to secure a college education. But this is, as I see it, a two-pronged problem. Simply putting more students in college won't solve it if, as in the case with many at MIT, they are deficient in the essentials of a sound education. I do not want to single out MIT, which is a distinguished institution, Mr. Chairman. The task of our institutions of higher learning has been made doubly great by forcing them to provide remedial English courses, in effect making them do the job our high schools and junior highs should be doing. In the rash of reappraisal of the last few months, mountains of statistics have been adduced to show the extent to which our schools have been failing to produce the scientists and engineers needed to face up to the Soviet challenge. It is clear our youth are not taking the "meat and potatoes" courses. Instead they have taken full advantage of the broad elective prerogatives of modern education to become |