and the problems of discipline in the schools have increased paralleling the decline in male teachers. Dean Keppel told me their requirement files could place 5,000 of these people in jobs as fast as they were turned out. This was last year. It should be a crash program, he said, to begin in September. That was last September. He said he would take 100 in Harvard if they would apply. Everywhere it was the same. "Can legislation be provided to give these people tuition, fees, and a monthly stipend?" I came back to Washington and wrote a bill and Senator Kennedy eventually introduced it in the Senate. But sputnik had not gotten off the ground and the bill did not, either. A year ago today I left for home. But I should like to place in the hands of the committee counsel, for the record, language for a better bill, a post-sputnik bill, to be considered for inclusion as a part of the bill to be produced from these hearings. And, if I have the committee's permission, I should like to include letters not only from Dean Keppel, of Harvard, but from Dr. Luther Gulich, president of the Institute of Public Administration and, until recently, administrator of the city of New York, and other material in support of this proposal. Mr. ELLIOTT. Without objection, the material to which the witness refers will be made a part of the record immediately following his testimony, and this permission goes also to the suggested language for a bill to which he refers. Mr. STEPHENSON. One more word about these former service personnel. They have not only fine educations, but they are skilled and experienced in matters of horsepower, jet propulsion, electronics, highspeed communication, radar, and increasingly in the missile sciences. Here is material for junior college vocational programs. The highest percentage of Army college graduates is in the Engineers, the Chemical Corps, and the Signal Corps-the truly technical services. With a master's degree in education, including a brush up on their teaching subject, what additions these people would make to our school systems. Eve Arden, as Miss Brooks, even would welcome that kind of teaching material on her staff at Madison High. I wonder if the layman has the remotest idea how much teaching experience a service officer gets in his career? Today the services are vast universities in themselves. Every young man at every level is going to class at some point. And who does all the teaching? The officers, commissioned and noncommissioned. And where do they learn to teach? They take courses and are taught how to teach. The services probably have forgotten more about the use of modern teaching aids, charts, movies, and visual-aid devices than most school jurisdictions know. You teach 6 months in the service, a minimum for most officers, and you are an expert on teaching aids compared to the average. The question is, What type of carpet and how red must it be to run from the little pentagons around the world into the teaching profession at home? How can a percentage of that 2,500 a month, 30,000 a year, and the tens of thousands of those who have left the services in the past be interested in retooling for teaching? Lastly, I think we can anticipate that any effort to retrain former service personnel will meet the old charge somewhere that something is being done for veterans. I believe sincerely that in this case the shoe can be shown to be on the other foot. This Congress, to my mind, should induce our former service personnel to retool and to continue to serve in a critical defense need the high school and junior college teaching profession. I believe sincerely that the prime source for strength in educational defense is within the Defense Department itself. The bill is very simple. It simply says that a former serviceman of "X" years may apply to the Commissioner of Education for a certificate of eligibility as to his military service. That the Commissioner would pick up from the service involved. All of his records from the day he was born are there. You know all about him. You have FBI reports, efficiency ratings every 6 months, and everything. Now he must go to Harvard or Michigan or elsewhere, and there the sifting begins. The schools will take only those they feel are qualified to teach. Once admitted they advise the Commissioner of Education and he, through the Treasury, pays his tuition and each month he picks up a check for whatever is decided to be his stipend. As long as he is eligible and keeps up his grades and does a full program of work, the cupboard will have a check for him every month. The moment he slips, the cupboard becomes bare. The bill would also provide that his college record becomes a permanent part of his military record. There is one other source I will include in the record. Today we have a great many men, juniors and seniors, coming out of colleges and they do not know exactly what they are going to do. At present young men can go in the service for 6 months with a long term of Reserve duty, or for 2 years with a shorter term. I believe that if the possibility of returning after their service and getting a master's degree for teaching were available to them, more would go in the service for the full 2-year hitch. I believe the military services would prefer this. After the 2 years they could return for their master's and by committing themselves to teach for at least 3 years, as the bill would provide, subject to health and availability of positions, by this device you would be turning out more of these men as young teachers with 4 years of college and a teaching master's instead of having them come off the line with a 4-year total teaching degree, much of which consists of pure teaching courses. Incidentally, Dean Olsen's office of Michigan told me that the GI's who came back after the war and went into education and became teachers are by all odds the finest group of teachers we have today. Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you very much. Let me say I feel you have brought us some of the most interesting testimony we have had since these hearings started, and I would like to extend to you the privilege, in view of the time situation, of extending your remarks and furnishing us any additional ideas you may have in writing between now and the 15th of April. Let us have it by the 15th of April. Mr. STEPHENSON. I have a great deal of information I will make available. THE MASTERY OF INNER SPACE On December 2, 1942, at the University of Chicago, man entered the atomic age. On October 5, 1957, somewhere in Russia, he entered the age of space. These events have brought man to one of the great bench marks of his history. What, now, should be the role of the university where the atom was first harnessed? The answer is not spectacular. In the era of outer space, Chicago will continue to nurture the inner space-the minds of men-wherein lie the keys to our future. It will continue to seek out and to sustain the uncommon man who may help solve the dilemmas of an uncommon age. It will continue, whatever the risks, to drive beyond today's outposts of knowledge. It was uncommon men, willing to gamble, who triumphed in 1942 under the stands of Stagg Field. Men like them are working now at Yerkes Observatory, at the Fermi Institute, in the university clinics. Young scientists who will take the great gambles of tomorrow are on the Midway today. Counsel is heard-and it will increase-that our universities must now intensify scientific training at the expense of other branches of learning. This Chicago will not do. Your university would be proud to produce a man or a concept instrumental in giving the Western World superiority in space research. (Hermann I. Schlesinger of the department of chemistry developed the boron hydrides, the new missile fuel.) But the University would win the blessings of all the world were it to find a man or a means that could channel the great discoveries of our age away from the realm of terror into the service of mankind. Chicago's responsibility for shaping the minds of men extends far beyond its own classrooms and laboratories. This school is a leader among universities; what it does or does not do is reflected on myriad other campuses. Its actions are felt, too, in the vast area of secondary education, where the current drumbeat of criticism echoes an urgent need for Chicago and comparable universities to reassume their historic responsibility for the training of the high-school teacher. Chicago proposes to act on this need and, by example, to encourage its sister institutions to do likewise. Standing at the crossroads of American life and thought, Chicago has an unparalleled opportunity to give guidance and direction to the future. How well it does so will depend greatly on whether you who know Chicago best will allow it to draw fully on your collective strength and understanding. Armed with your allegiance-moral, intellectual, and monetary—your university will meet the obligations which a new age is thrusting upon it. (Supplemental information referred to by the witness was subsequently furnished and follows:) Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, Subcommittee on Special Education, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It can be anticipated that opposition to any proposal for the retraining of former armed service personnel for further public service as teachers will be based primarily on the grounds of class legislation. It will be contended that no matter how logical the proposal, how economical the use of trained manpower by its retooling from a surplus category to a short supply category, the individuals are veterans under the broad and inaccurate use of the term-and therefore nothing should be done for them. At the same time we will be considering the expenditure of many millions for fringe benefits and other inducements to service personnel to remain in the service rather than leave for higher paying positions. Possibly this program for retraining is an added fringe inducement toward eventual security that would help to encourage service personnel to remain on duty until at least the 20th year retirement. The attached statement is to set forth certain notable points justifying the proposed legislation. Points (6) to (12), inclusive, are calculated for consideration in connection with the "nothing for veterans" arguments. Sincerely yours, WM. A. F. STEPHENSON. FURTHER STATEMENT OF WM. A. F. STEPHENSON REGARDING THE PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR THE RETRAINING OF FORMER SERVICE PERSONNEL FOR FURTHER PUBLIC SERVICE The committee and the Congress should take particular note of the following points: (1) The armed services, by their very nature and structure-and by their age requirements-necessarily send highly qualified and college-educated person nel back into civilian life every month. This situation will always exist. The vast majority of such personnel find it necessary to seek new employments. Most represent a large public investment in training and many will receive earned retirement payments from public funds from a comparatively early age. Such personnel should, on a permanent basis, be encouraged and enabled to continue in the public service. With their retirement base many could well afford to do so. (2) Teaching is an ideal field for the utilization of this large, continuing supply of educated and talented manpower. The teaching field is probably the public service most urgently in need of this manpower at the moment but its utilization in other public employments in the future should interest the Congress. (3) What better source of supply is available for experienced persons in the field of public administration? With additional formal training in a graduate school of public administration (in public finance, for example), where might one find a better candidate for the profession of city or county management or engineering than in the engineering services of the Armed Forces? Trained persons for such positions are in very short supply today. (4) The developing program of junior colleges envisions many 2-year vocational courses in badly needed fields. Where are the teachers to come from in these short-supply high-paying professions? Is there likely to be a better source, on a permanent basis, for teaching material in these lines than the armed service graduates? (Jet propulsion, horsepower, electronics, high-speed communication, radar, and the missile sciences.) Can the United States afford not to provide formal training as teachers to induce a percentage of this prime personnel to become teachers? (5) There is a backlog of about 15 million former service personnel in the United States. The number increases rapidly. In officer personnel alone there are the current figures below. These take no account of the much larger number of enlisted personnel. The noncommissioned group turns out a large number of college educated men. Total return of naval officers to civil life for the period July 1 to December 31, 1957: USN. Total (average 1,060 per month) 1,393 4, 965 6, 358 As of March 1956, 60.8 percent of all naval officers on active duty were college graduates. Release of Air Force officers (WAFS, nurses, and deaths not excluded): 1957-July August- September (reduction in force started). October-- November December. 1958-January_-_ 1,373 Total 6 months ending January 1958, 11,911. Estimating only 9,500 to allow for deaths and other unavailabilities, there is an average of 1,600 per month returning to civil life. 47.2 percent of Air officers have college degrees. Release of Army officers for the 7 months ending January 1958 totaled 16,939. In 7 months over 15,000 thus returned to civil life or an average of better than 2,000 per month. The last figures available showed 53 percent of the Army officers on duty had college degrees or higher. Total average returns to civil life for all 3 services is upward of 2,500 per month or 30,000 officers alone, per year. Well over half have college degrees or better. (6) Pay scales in the services are admittedly low on a comparable basis. There is more than ample justification for a "further public service" retraining opportunity on termination. (7) Teaching salaries cannot compete on a dollar basis. Many persons with earned armed service retirement payments are teaching today because such payments enable them to do so. An effort to greatly increase their number is justified. (8) Great sums of public money are invested in former service personnel and the United States now has a problem in another public service. It should logically retrain its former personnel for the new need. (9) If this program is a subsidization, the subsidization is of special aptitudes and training, urgently needed by the public services and by the United States. There is no end of precedent for such action. (10) If it is true that an “additional teachers" program is part of those needs which are as urgent as the missile program itself, then the retraining program is sound and in the public interest without additional justification. (11) Many young college men in their junior and senior years face the decision on a future profession or employment. Military service and when and how to meet the obligation is another decision. One can serve for 6 months with a long Reserve obligation or go in for 2 years or more and a short Reserve committment. The armed services greatly prefer the longer terms of active duty. The 2-year minimum service requirement of the proposed legislation would undoubtedly cause many such young men to decide on a 2-year active-duty tour, a master's degree program and a career of teaching. Taking 2 years from the lives of these young men at a critical period amply justifies the United States in providing the added educational opportunity in return for the service, and the committment of at least 3 years of teaching as provided in the proposed legislation. (12) It would seem clear that in the case of the proposed legislation, far from doing something for veterans the Congress would be appealing for the enlistment in the teaching profession of certain highly qualified and specially trained former armed service personnel and providing a vehicle for their return to the public service in a critical category. (13) The suggested appropriation of $17,500,000 is estimated to provide for the full expense of 5,000 fellowships under the payment terms of the proposed legislation. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO H. R. 10381 TO PROVIDE FOR RETRAINING OF FORMER SERVICE PERSONNEL AS TEACHERS Page 5, line 24, following the word "teach", insert a new paragraph as follows: "There is a critical shortage of teachers in many fields at all levels in education. Population increases, the development of junior colleges, and the increased need in defense and industry for individuals with advanced training in science are annually making such shortages even more critical. Individuals who have served in the Armed Forces constitute a great reservoir and source of supply of personnel possessing the necessary skills, experience, and maturity for immediate retraining, through graduate work, into highly qualified teachers at all levels in education for early availability. The Armed Forces terminate each month substantial numbers of individuals who have in many cases received costly training at the expense of the United States and leave its service at an age which leaves many years during which they could put such training to further valuable public service as teachers." Page 9, line 8, following the end of subsection (j), add a new subsection as follows: "(-) The terms 'former service personnel' and 'service personnel' mean a person who has served not less than 2 years on full-time duty, other than for training purposes, in the Armed Forces of the United States, and who has not reached his birthday on the first day of study under a fellowship provided under this title." Immediately following the new subsection above, add a second new subsection as follows: "(-) The term 'graduate school' means any accredited institution of higher education in the United States which regularly offers curriculums leading to advanced degrees or to teacher certification at the graduate level." Page 52, line 5, following the end of title IX, insert as title X (renumbering all subsequent existing titles accordingly) the following: "TITLE X-PROVISION OF FELLOWSHIPS FOR QUALIFIED FORMER SERVICE PERSONNEL TO RETRAIN FOR FURTHER PUBLIC SERVICE AS TEACHERS -. "AUTHORIZATION FOR FELLOWSHIP AWARDS "SEC. The Commissioner is authorized to award to former service personnel in accordance with the provisions of this title and in such numbers as may be possible with funds made available under the authorization in section — |