demonstrates the need for teaching the fundamentals of mathematics and elementary science at the grade school level: Therefore "Resolved, That the General Federation of Women's Clubs advocates, supports and urges member groups to participate in a concerted effort to "1. Discover special scientific aptitudes at an elementary school age through the use of testing programs; "2. Strengthen the teaching of mathematics and science in the schools of the United States at all scholastic levels; "3. Recruit science teachers and encourage students to major in science through the establishment of scholarships and fellowships and other incentives; "4. Seek auxiliary teachers from the ranks of industry and from among retired scientists; and "5. Secure for local schools adequate laboratory and other necessary facilities." In the light of scientific achievement of Russia in this space age, we believe it is for the welfare of all our people, for our Nation and for the preservation of the democratic way of life in the free world-that it is a must for the United States to take advantage of every possible means of developing trained personnel to cope with the numerous problems facing us today. We The GFWC is committed to support legislation to further this effort. believe that H.R. 15 which would establish a 7-year plan to encourage and expand the training of teachers for the education of exceptional children is the one that should be enacted into law at this time, and we, therefore urge the passage of this bill. Statement on S. 1241 and Related Bills Pertaining to Federal Assistance by Dr. Edgar Fuller, Executive Secretary Subcommittee on Education Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare August 21, 1961 This is a statement on behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers, supporting certain portions of S. 1241 and opposing others on the basis of Council policies in education. The members of the Council are the state superintendents and state commissioners of education of the 50 states and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa. These chief state school officers are represented here because they are very much involved in many aspects of education covered in this bill. As the constitutional and statutory chief officers for education in the states, they have direct responsibility for the operation of many institutions of higher education. For instance, they are the executive officers of state boards that operate teachers colleges in ten states, and they are involved in the operation of other post-secondary institutions of various kinds in many states. They serve as members of governing boards of many colleges and universities. The members of the Council also have broad responsibilities for general supervision of education. In New York these cover all educational institutions. In at least 27 states the chief state school officers exercise general supervision over the public junior colleges covered by this bill, which are integral parts of the state systems of public education. Within the framework of state constitutions and laws, the chief state school officers are the official representatives of the states concerning many policies affecting these institutions. They are specifically connected with community college developments in a number of states, especially new local two and four year colleges that will have a major role in meeting the needs of increased enrollments during the next decade. The chief state school officers also have important responsibilities that are directly affected by the programs of most institutions of higher education. For instance, they certificate all public school teachers on behalf of the states, along with private school teachers in a few states. They are responsible for maintaining minimum standards of education established by the states for all children, and for exceeding those standards as far as possible by insuring an adequate supply of competent teachers. This inevitably involves legal accreditation of institutions preparing teachers for certification and state coordination of teacher demand and supply, as well as certification of competent teachers. The scholarship provisions of this bill apply most importantly to students still in high school. It affects their schooling and guidance even before their senior year. Under S. 1241, testing and other activities of the state scholarship commission that would select the scholars under this bill are high school connected, and the scholar, once selected, attends any college that will admit him. The House version of this legislation (H. R. 7215), granting individual colleges more authority for the selection of scholars, leaves the coordinating and other functions of the state quite as important as under S. 1241. The chief state school officers cannot stand aside while important issues in education that so directly affect their responsibilities are being decided. Such issues are unavoidable in S. 1241 or any other legislation of its kind. TITLE I LOANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ACADEMIC FACILITIES Title I authorizes low cost federal loans for construction of academic facilities in all types of institutions of higher education public, private nonprofit, and church-connected. The Council supports this title only to the extent indicated by the following statement of established policy, first adopted in 1948 and reaffirmed in succeeding years: "Federal and State financial assistance for education, whether The loans for academic facilities authorized by Title I would often have beneficial results for public colleges and universities. wise be obtained. Interest rates would sometimes be lower than could other Experience has demonstrated that approval of state borrowing for the construction of such facilities would be accelerated by federal offers to supply the funds. Similar benefits would accrue to both church-controlled and other private nonprofit institutions. The policies of the Council, however, are not favorable toward public financing of nonpublic education at any level, nor do we believe there is any present national necessity for doing so. And in the complex involvement of the government in financing classrooms and laboratories for church-controlled educational institutions, which exist expressly in order that particular religious doctrines will pervade all subjects taught and influence all aspects of student life, a serious constitutional question under the First Amendment is raised. Government aid to church-controlled colleges and universities in the financing of classrooms and other facilities appears to involve different constitutional principles than those that 1/ "Our System of Education", p. 29, National Council of Chief State School Officers. 1951. apply to the college housing loan provisions of the Housing Act of 1950, under which federal funds have been loaned to such institutions for student and faculty housing. Such housing is closer to the constitutionally acceptable theory of benefit that inures to the individual rather than to the institution. It appears that neither case has yet been specifically decided by the Supreme Court, but government financing of academic facilities for church-controlled institutions may not be constitutional, even if self-liquidating loans to house individuals are held to be so under welfare and individual benefit doctrines. in others. Public policy in education, under these circumstances, must be the determining factor. Such policy requires, in the national interest, that the principle of separation of church and state be observed. Federal financial involvement in general financing of church-controlled educational institutions, whether by loans or grants, is as undesirable at the junior college level as in church-controlled elementary and secondary schools. This is because junior colleges are legally defined and financed as secondary schools in some states and as higher institutions Meanwhile, courses of study of both college grade and less than college grade are offered in almost all junior colleges, regardless of how the state defines the institutions. Efforts to draw lines of constitutionality and policy between high school seniors and college freshmen in church-controlled institutions are unconvincing. The intermixture and overlapping of college students and students of less than college grade in junior colleges provides a back door for violation of the principle and practice of separation of church and state in secondary education. Following an inquiry to chief state school officers, indications are that 100% favor a policy of federal assistance for construction of academic facilities in public institutions of higher education. Approximately 60 percent favor federal loans for both public and nondenominational nonprofit institutions, but a slight majority is opposed to federal loans for such |