We do hope you will submit this letter for the official record and appreciate the opportunity of expressing the views of this New York State Federation of Women's Clubs. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR REPRESEntative BardeN: As an instructor of modern foreign languages for many years and at present chairman of the department of Spanish at Rosary College, I am deeply interested in the two bills currently under study, S. 3163 and S. 3187 I believe that Federal aid can help language education particularly in a national scholarship plan but I do believe that such aids should be specific in pertaining to modern foreign languages. Language institutes and grants for travel and study abroad are vitally important for language teachers. There are good aspects of both bills but I feel that the above needs of scholarship, institutes, travel and study grants and adequate representation on councils and committees are the most important. May I repeat some points that I believe could be helped by Federal aid: 1. Foreign language programs in the elementary school program. 2. Language institutes for the training of teachers and supervisors of languages on all levels of teaching. 3. Research institutes in the new educational media and in the acquisition and development of materials adapted to these new mediums as: language laboratories and audiovisual aids. 4. Travel and study grants in the country of the language taught. 5. Language institutes for the study and teaching of languages not now available at many of our institutions of higher learning. 6. Definitely adequate professional representation on any and all advisory councils and committees pertaining to foreign language education. From our own practical experience in the use of a language laboratory to teach French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Russian-we hope as of this coming semester-we know that audiovisual means of teaching languages are excellent and decidedly important. May Federal aid be granted to further the teaching of modern languages and all languages. Sincerely yours, SISTER H. SHEILA, O. P., Chairman, Department of Spanish. NEW YORK MILITARY ACADEMY, Hon. KATHERINE ST. GEORGE, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MRS. ST. GEORGE: I acknowledge with thanks the receipt of two copies of S. 3187 of the 85th Congress, 2d session which I understand was substituted for H. R. 10381. In it I find no reference to Public Law 475, 81st Congress (title IV housing for educational institutions) which is the real basis of my inquiry. I find no mention of Public Law 475 being rescinded; therefore, I can only assume that S. 3187 supplements and amplifies Public Law 475. Under that possibly false assumption, I wish to voice the following opinions: 1. The demand for education beyond the 12th grade is greater than existing colleges and junior colleges can accommodate. There is an ever-increasing need for institutions of higher learning. 2. Secondary schools are concerned about the loss to the Nation of trained manpower where education terminates with the 12th grade or earlier. 3. Secondary schools which are not tax supported are overburdened with the problems of teaching advanced subjects, better to meet college requirements, yet these schools which have traditionally and gratuitously contributed constantly to the advancement of scholarship throughout the Nation, now go unrecognized. 4. Reference is made to page 26 (S. 3187) and supra, sections 2, 3 and 4 under State plans, and supra, eligibility for grants under part B (assistance to institutions of higher education): The American policy based on free enterprise is deeply imbedded in our national system, yet even when the need of private schools was recognized through Federal tax exemptions, this bill says nothing about the independent school. 5. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare is nevertheless eager to have secondary schools (tax-exempt) enter the junior college field to lighten the burden of 4-year colleges. 6. Public Law 475 provides funds for dormitories, student unions, faculty homes, etc., but specifically exempts classrooms, laboratories, and faculty salaries. The prohibition of these key necessities prevents the unendowed, taxexempt secondary school from an expansion of its services which would provide higher education for able boys who cannot find college vacancies. 7. The exclusion of such nonprofit schools from Federal aid is fundamentally wrong. On a per capita basis these schools contribute more to the educational standards than tax-supported schools can possibly do. They are superior schools being penalized for their superiority. Private schools (the term is misleading because they are not private) are not class conscious, but they are indeed intellect conscious. They are selective to the ultimate benefit of the gifted boy and the Nation. 8. The alarmingly high attrition of college students reflects an inadequate perparation in high school, ineffective guidance and/or a lack of functional readiness for higher learning. The private school prides itself on scholastic excellence and effective guidance. Many intellectually capable young people who are not ready for the independence of the 4-year college can still be saved for the Nation's reservoir of educated men through the channels of the junior college. Generalizing, it is my belief that S. 3187 and Public Law 475 discriminate against the tax-exempt secondary schools in that they are excluded from both bills. Education is a relative term. More school buildings do not necessarily mean more education. For example, 23 percent of the tax-supported high schools offer neither physics nor chemistry. Only 1 out of 5 students in such schools take physics when it is offered. Only 44.5 percent of students in the 9th grade take general mathematics; 37.4 percent of 10th grade pupils enroll in plane geometry; 28 percent of 11th grade pupils take intermediate algebra; 13 percent of 12th grade students take elementary trigonometry and solid geometry, (quoted from United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare). Many public schools' displomas lack the true meaning of those issued 1 or 2 generations ago. It would be folly to pour money into any school without regard to the end results. No college can produce engineers and scientists unless it receives adequately prepared freshmen on its campus. Considering the fact announced by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare that the average dropouts from public institutions (engineering) is 62 percent and from private institutions 45 percent, is it not reasonable to ask, "Why this great production loss?" The tax-supported schools know full well that their problem lies in mass production. Their curriculums must meet the average intellect. Boys blessed with superior intellects suffer from lack of stimulating work, which results in indifference and low grades. The gifted boys, and there are probably thousands of them, are perhaps the most retarded group we have in our great country. Their talents are being wasted by disuse. The non tax-supported school recognizes this waste and deals with it accordingly, and yet their unsung contribution to the national betterment is ignored and omitted from S. 3187 which is presumably designed to better the education of our youth. In the national interest, and in recognition of merit, the nontax-supported schools should be aided in their present levels of education and subsidized to enable them to enter the junior college level. Were these schools to close, the added burden on the public, tax-supported schools would be great, and their contribution to the national welfare would be lost. The misbehavior of young America today emphasizes the importance of military schools and colleges. There are in the United States 41 independent non-taxsupported military schools and junior colleges pronounced "honor schools" by the United States Department of Defense. To earn this coveted title, each must pass an annual Government inspection of all its facilities and performances. It must be fully accredited academically, conduct a prescribed number of classhours of instruction in military subjects, and must meet many requirements not demanded of the tax-supported schools, and private schools not fully accredited and not holding the honor-school rating. In a sense, these select schools are quasi-Regular Army in that they have ROTC training conducted by assigned Army officers. With the increased need for disciplined youth and current emphasis on the need for more national defense, is it not also inconsistent to exclude these schools which produce potential Reserve officers, from the subsidies planned in S. 3187 and Public Law 475? Sincerely yours, Hon. CARL A. ELLIOTT, NELSON DINGLEY, III, THE FUND FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN ELLIOTT: I am writing to you in reference to title X of H. R. 10381. I do so because of my great interest in the subject of educational television. I commend most strongly your constructive statesmanship, your willingness to pioneer, and your practical recognition of the educational potential of television, as evidenced by your inclusion of title X in your comprehensive education bill, H. R. 10381. I believe that the enactment into law of even this part of the bill would advance immeasurably the program of American education not only in the present but for all the years ahead. Television is the most powerful means of communication yet devised by man. Education utilizes communication as one of its basic processes. The schools and colleges must learn how to use television as an integral part of their instructional procedures. They must learn how to exploit to the utmost this most powerful contribution of science to education since the invention of movable type. The schools and colleges of our country face a serious crisis. This crisis is not due to conditions without our country, but is due to conditions within our country. It is caused by three factors of American life that are a natural result of our marvelous growth and progress in recent years. These factors are (1) the rapid increase in the numbers to be educated in our country, (2) the vast expansion in the amount of education which a citizen must have these days, and (3) the baffling complexity of knowledge and skills, both tangible and intangible, needed to live effectively in our kind of civilization. All of these factors bear down heavily on our schools and colleges. They give rise to complications involving adequate teaching personnel and physical facilities to meet growing numbers, and curriculum challenges of quantity and quality that almost overwhelm an educational machinery geared to the simpler needs of yesterday. Television may help materially in providing ways and means of meeting these conditions, if we can only learn how to use it effectively. The legislative approval of title X may have more positive influence in meeting the educational dilemma than any other single action that could be taken in our times. Much experimentation has been and is presently being conducted with private and local and State government resources, to determine how to use television in education. Its potentialities are being probed here and there, but too slowly and too inadequately to affect rapidly the educational system of such a vast country. Meanwhile, the situation confronting the schools worsens instead of improving. Your bill does not come too late, but failure to pass title X now would be a calamity. Its adoption would give great encouragement and widened scope to a movement gathering strength and speed altogether too slowly at present. Several million dollars annually are already being expended from private and local government sources for experimentation in the use of television in education. I am sending, under separate cover, a few statements bearing on this subject. Additional copies could be made available if desired. Title X would inspire even greater attention to this subject. It would provide recognition of its importance, encourage and extend present experimental programs, and disseminate information rapidly as to results. Now a few words as to details. The provisions for the establishment of an Institute for Research and Experimentation in New Educational Media and an Advisory Council on New Educational Media are excellent, in my opinion. The functions of both are well stated and are essential to the program proposed. Section 1003 of part A is constructive and necessary. I am not so sure that the provisions of part B, section 1031, are so desirable, as far as they pertain to the establishment of a supply center, in the United States Office of Education, for materials to be used with television. I would omit or revise (1) and (2) and (7), but retain all the other paragraphs in section 1031. It might be desirable to reword (3). Also (1) and (2) might be related to (4), on a contract basis. Part C is excellent in all its parts and is of the essence in title X. I believe there would be practically universal approval of the enactment into law of the substance of title X in H. R. 10381. I cannot imagine much, if any, opposition. The amounts appropriated are relatively small and yet large enough to have enormous influence in promoting the possible use of a powerful resource for improving American education. I have concentrated this letter on title X because I believe I know something about the role that television can play in the instructional program of our schools and colleges. I served 47 years as a teacher, principal, and superintendent in our country's public schools. I was superintendent of schools in such cities as Schenectady, Providence, Denver, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. For the last 3 years I have been engaged in supervising some very extensive experimentation in the use of television, involving 52,000 students in 29 large city school systems and in nearly a hundred smaller systems. We are probing the effectiveness of television as a resource in teaching large classes at all grade levels, in effecting economies in building space, in better utilization of facilities, and in expanding the breadth and depth of curriculum offerings. The passage of title X would give the whole educational television cause a recognition and assistance that might enable it to become one of the most important factors, or possibly the most important factor, in meeting the educaional dilemma confronting our country. Thanks so much for your great help. A. J. STODDARD. Consultant. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, Hon. GRAHAM A. BARDEN, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Herewith is respectfully submitted for the attention of your committee a statement of policy concerning Federal aid to education. This resolution, representing official policy of the American Society of Civil Engineers, is submitted in the public interest. On the assumption that your committee will be concerned during this session of Congress with legislation pertaining to education of scientists and engineers, we ask that the statement of policy be made a part of the record of any hearings which may be held on the subject: In addition, we urge your personal support of this philosophy. We will welcome any opportunity to be of further service to the Committee on Education and Labor in connection with this vital problem. Sincerely, WILLIAM H. WISELY, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS-STATEMENT OF POLICY CONCERNING FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION1 The American Society of Civil Engineers recognizes the pressing need for a program to strengthen the educational system in the United States. Having in mind current considerations of expanded Federal participation in this program the society affirms its belief that: (1) It is essential, in any legislation which may provide for increased Federal participation in education at any level, to guarantee that the autonomy of local 1 Drafted by committee on engineering education, February 28, 1958; approved by executive committee of the board of direction, March 20, 1958. agencies and individual institutions to determine educational philosophy, policy, and procedures be retained. (2) Any expanded Federal participation in education should be accomplished by the utilization of existing agencies rather than by the creation of new organizations. (3) Any additional Federal funds which may be provided for education should be used for the encouragement of graduate study and for the improvement of teaching at both the collegiate and the secondary level, and that the funds provide for the physical, mathematical, biological, and engineering sciences should continue to be administered by the National Science Foundation. (4) Such legislation should increase the funds available to the National Science Foundation for the support of the physical, mathematical, biological, and engineering sciences through research and graduate education. (5) Grants for graduate study should be available both to full-time students and to teaching fellows engaged in part-time study. (6) The proportion of National Science Foundation funds allocated to engineering sciences should be established on the basis of a realistic and unbiased analysis of need and the national interest. GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, Hon. GRAHAM A. BARDEN, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives. Washington, D. C., April 16, 1958. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your request for the views of the Department of Defense with respect to H. R. 10278 and H. R. 10381, 85th Congress, the proposed National Defense Education Act of 1958. This bill provides authority for the establishment of broad educational programs including scholarships, student loans, work-study programs, scienceteaching facilities, summer schools and extension courses for teachers, fellowships, counseling and guidance programs, research in educational media, and Vocational education programs. The Department of Defense has been firmly in support of constructive measures to assist in meeting the Nation's educational deficiencies and critical manpower needs. In this respect, the Department of Defense is supporting H. R. 10278, 85th Congress. Also, the Department of Defense believes that the expanded programs of the National Science Foundation recommended by the President in his fiscal year 1959 budget proposals will be of substantial assistance in improving the supply of qualified technological manpower. It is noted that H. R. 10381 has essentially the same vital objectives as H. R. 10278. We are not in a position to comment on the merits of the differences in relative program emphasis of the two bills, as we feel that these are within the responsibilities and competence of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and of the National Science Foundation. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the submission of this report. Sincerely yours, Hon. CARL ELLIOTT, L. NIEDERLEHNER, (For Robert Dechert). COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. ELLIOTT: I am writing to thank you for your leadership and interest in education and in the role of the counseling staff in achieving a better program for all students. I would also like to urge you to continue your efforts and to assure you of our support. As you probably know, Jefferson County, Ala., has for several years been trying to pioneer in establishing a guidance program at the county level. I have worked with this county for nearly 5 years now and thus know from experience some of our local needs and possibilities. |