and title VII of that legislation. This resolution is offered for your consideration with that view in mind and with the strong and shared feeling that local production of unique teaching-learning materials is one of the most significant developments now underway in our particular area of education. HENRY C. RUARK, Jr., Consultant, Instructional Materials, Oregon State Department of Education; Secretary, ACSsavo. To Whom It May Concern: RESOLUTION Whereas experience in education clearly shows that a very great potential exists for the improvement and strengthening of instruction through facilitating production by teachers and students of special and unique materials for learning; and Whereas such experience reflects the essence of the overall purposes of title III, of the National Defense Education Act of 1958; and Whereas local school district needs in the various States reflect a growing demand for educationally desirable applications of facilities for local production of unique materials; and Whereas this demand is placing an unintended and unjustified premium on commercially produced materials, which are not necessarily as effective for integration into local educational needs; and Whereas experience seems to show that no amount of commercial material will fill these unique local needs; and Whereas title VII studies seem to show that very few effective facilities for local production of unique materials now exist; and Whereas at present some confusion exists among the States as to the application of title III assistance to school districts in the area of local production of unique materials; and Whereas public hearings during the last session of Congress resulted in recognition of the need for changes in title III interpretation by Senate passage of a bill containing an amendment to this effect: Now, therefore, We, the assembled members of the Association of Chief State School AudioVisual Officers, suggest and request that the present definition of "materials and equipment" contained in title III of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 be reexamined by pertinent staff members of the U.S. Office of Education and by selected Members of Congress in order to determine if any changes in the present interpretation should be made to effect action needed to make possible the benefits of local production of unique materials for participating school districts under title III National Defense Education Act projects. To make this resolution effective, it is proposed that copies be transmitted by this association to the directors of the U.S. Office of Education sections involved in title III interpretation and the application of educational media, and to selected Members of Congress. Copies will also be transmitted to the appropriate recipients within the National Education Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and otherwise distributed as is deemed wise by the officers of this association. NEED NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT TITLE III IN OREGON Senator MORSE. I will also order printed in the record a letter of May 21 from the State department of education of my State giving a report on the activities of the department in connection with title III of National Defense Education Act, which includes a breakdown count of Federal receipts and State expenditures. I put it in for illustrative purposes. It is duplicated in many other States, but I think it shows very clearly the need for an extension of (The letter referred to follows:) STATE OF OREGON, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Some weeks ago our foreign language consultant, Berton Bailey, informed you that we planned to produce a full and inclusive National Defense Education Act title III progress report in time for your use with your colleagues during this year's hearings on the National Defense Education Act. I am pleased to direct your attention to the enclosed summaries of our more extensive reports; you will note that information is given as to the extent of both State and Federal involvement in title III activities during the past 5 operating years in Oregon, with additional information as to the amount of demand which is a matter of record for the sixth and last presently authorized year of program activities. It seems to me that the records enclosed show quite clearly what can happen in a State when careful insistence on planned progress to strengthen and improve instructional programs is taken as the theme for the type of legislation represented by title III of National Defense Education Act. You will note with interest the increasingly heavy demand during the past 3 years for further development of what we term our "county-joint projects." These projects are invariably cooperative activity involving two or more districts within one or more counties, working together to establish an instructional materials center which can make truly available to teachers a wide variety of very excellent instructional items. In Oregon, our county and intermediate units are spearheading the development of this pattern, and as a result we find that district programs are now under stimulation and especially under close examination to determine ways in which each level can cooperate with the others: the school building itself, the school district which should and must supply basic instructional materials, and the county or intermediate level, which can play a most valuable supporting role for those materials which can best be centralized and most efficiently and effectively distributed. This pattern has been strongly in evidence for all the years of title III work, but the early demand under title III for specific and basic items at the school district level tended to hold down the extensive development now in evidence for the future. You will note that the demand for reimbursement in this type of project rose slightly during the first 3 years of title III, dropped the following year (due to withdrawal of some large projects by several counties in which districts involved ran into budget problems), and then has risen rapidly in every year since, doubling in the present application period. Mr. Henry C. Ruark, Jr., our instructional materials consultant, tells me he expects to see this demand continue at this level or higher for each of the next 5 years, depending, of course, on continued title III support. Most important to this continuing effort to establish county-level instructional materials centers is the whole area of local production of unique materials. One of the prime functions of the instructional materials center at both district and county levels is to help teachers to prepare and produce a wide range of unique materials which cannot otherwise be made available for learning and teaching; examples are many, from the great demand already developing for overhead projector transparencies to the basic exhibits, charts, graphics, mounted pictures, and slide sets on localized and specialized areas of instruction which good teachers have always been hungry to get. We hope you will continue to use your leadership efforts for extension and broadening of title III, especially in the areas which will allow acquisition by local and county or cooperative centers of materials and equipment for the production and reproduction of unique materials of instruction. There is already before Congress, submitted in public hearing before the House subcommittee which is chaired by Mrs. Green, a proposal for certain changes in wording which would accomplish this. This change in wording is detailed in a letter to Mrs. Green, a copy of which is also enclosed. This proposal was made by Mr. Don White of the National Audio-Visual Association. We want to be on record as supporting this change in title III, and as stating that in our opinion in Oregon this is a most important advance in the spirit as well as the letter of the act. We are one of the States which has for more than 3 years now been working to get a changed interpretation in this area from the U.S. Office of Education; this change has not been forthcoming. We appreciate your continued interest in this legislation, which is certainly among the most important programs available in Oregon at present, in our view. If you would like further information or analysis from our Oregon experience, we would be most happy to supply it. Title III of the National Defense Education Act provides for the allocation to each State, annually, of certain sums to be paid to local school districts as a matching reimbursement for acquisitions of science, mathematics, and modern foreign language facilities, equipment, and instructional materials approved by the State department of education. OREGON FEDERAL ALLOCATIONS Since the act went into effect the following Federal funds have been paid as reimbursement to school districts in Oregon under its provisions: 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61. Amount $139, 127. 51 462, 308. 45 517, 791. 91 1961-62. 1962-63 (approximate). Grand total____. 532, 192.39 850,000.00 -- 2, 501, 420. 26 Thus at the end of 5 years of the title III program in Oregon, local school districts will have received $2,501,420.26 from the Federal Government to pay for equipment and instructional materials which they have purchased to put in their schools. Since this has been a 50-percent matching payment title III has brought about the expenditure of $5,002,840.52 which has served immeasurably to lift the standards of instruction in these vital subjects-science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages—to a level never before attained in our State. Looking to the coming biennium, we find an allocation of $720,000 proposed for Oregon in the title III NDEA congressional appropriation bill. If this sum is appropriated and maintained in the second year of the biennium, an additional $1,440,000 will be available for disrtibution to our school districts during the 1963-65 biennium. This, added to the allocations from the previous 5 years, brings a total of $3,941,420.26 which will have been received for reimbursement to school districts by the end of this biennium, and which will represent an expenditure of $7,882,840.52 over that period for the technical equipment and up-to-date instructional supplies and facilities needed for instruction in these important subjects. STATE COSTS FOR PROGRAM The Federal Government pays one-half of the costs of the staff services involved in distributing the funds allocated under title III, including evaluation of the projects submitted by local school districts and consultant services to insure that these funds are wisely used in the schools. For the current 1962-63 fiscal year, the Federal Government has provided $28,992.24 toward administration and supervision of the plan, which coupled with an unexpended balance of $1,959.76 carried over from the 1962 fiscal year, make a total of $30,952 contributed by the Federal Government as one-half of the costs of administration and supervision. Thus, this indicates that it has cost the State of Oregon $30,952 to participate under title III in 1962-63 which has brought $30,000 to $36,000, has been expended by the State of Oregon in each of the 5 years of the duration of title III to provide the necessary administrative and supervisory services. SCHOOL DISTRICT DEMANDS FOR TITLE III MONEY Title III projects requests which have already been submitted for the 1963-64 fiscal year by Oregon school districts total $1,094,995.08. This sum is almost twice the amount of the money that will be available for distribution to districts under the act during this next fiscal year. This is the largest amount ever requested by school districts since the law was enacted and indicates the growing strength of title III in Oregon and the increased reliance of school districts upon title III funds to upgrade, improve, and maintain the instructional equipment and facilities in their schools. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPERVISORY REQUIREMENTS FOR TITLE III The National Defense Education Act of 1958, title III, section 303 (a) provides: "Any State which desires to receive payments under this title shall submit to the Commissioner, through its State educational agencies, a State plan which "(1) sets forth a program under which funds paid to the State from its allotment under section 302(a) will be expended solely for projects approved by the State educational agency for (A) acquistion of laboratory and other special equipment, including audiovisual materials and equipment and printed materials (other than textbooks), suitable for use in providing education in science, mathematics, or modern foreign language, in public elementary or secondary schools, or both, and (B) minor remodeling of laboratory or other space used for such materials or equipment; "(2) sets forth principles for determining the priority of such projects "(3) provides an opportunity for a hearing * * *. "(4) provides for the establishment of standards 46 (5) sets forth a program under which funds paid to the State from its allotment under section 302(b) will be expended solely for (A) expansion or improvement or supervisory or related services in public elementary and secondary schools in the fields of sciences, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, and (B) administration of the State plan." Thus it will be seen from the above that the law provides that the State of Oregon shall (1) allocate title III funds to school districts under certain conditions for acquisition of laboratory equipment and instructional materials, and (2) provide a system of improvement of supervisory services to the public elementary and secondary schools in the fields of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, as part of the administration of the plan. OREGON STATE PLAN FOR TITLE III The Oregon State plan for title III, NDEA, approved by the State board of education and the U.S. Commissioner of Education, provides for consultants in science, mathematics, modern foreign languages, and instructionl materials, to work in the schools of Oregon and for a coordinator of acquisitions to process the school district projects for allocation of funds, plus some administrative direction. It is these services which are costing the State of Oregon, annually, approximately $30,000 per year. SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPPORT FOR TITLE III School district administrators have given overwhelming support to title III of NDEA. They have found it to be the greatest single course of additional funds for school equipment and facilities that has become available since the enactment of the basic school support fund. The oversubscription, or request, for funds for the ensuing fiscal year of 1963-64, which almost doubles previous requests and greatly exceeds the funds which are likely to be available, indicates their complete acceptance of title III, their cooperation with the program, and their desire to see it maintained. Elimination of title III and its services to the schools would be a definite setback to education in Oregon. REPORT B NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT, TITLE III, 1958-63 During the first 5 years there have been 2,428 projects approved under National Defense Education Act, title III. The number of projects listed by subject areas are as following. The subject area percentages of total expenditures during the above period would read as follow: During the same period and with the addition of the next fiscal period the growth of county-joint projects would be reflected as listed below. 1958-59: 5 projects covering 49 school districts for---1959-60: 10 projects covering 84 school districts for.. 1960-61: 8 projects covering 67 school districts for...- 1961-62: 8 projects covering 79 school districts for.. REPORT C NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT, TITLE III-1963-64 Federal allotment for 1963-64 (based on 1962-63 amount). Available from unused 1961-62 partial claims__. Available from 1962–63 final claims paid to date-- $23, 637. 52 34, 331.98 32, 917.50 17, 214. 62 53, 893. 68 109, 890. 50 $489, 302.00 44, 000. 00 15, 368. 84 7, 402. 71 556, 073. 55 Total____ Tentative amount requested by distircts and county-joint projects for 1963-64____ Amount short to match the above requested funds----- 1,094, 995. 08 538, 922. 53 Listed below are some of the means that we might consider in using the available funds for matching the 1963-64 requests. 1. Cut all projects 50 percent across the board. 2. Cut the total amount requested by the district 50 percent and let the district apply the resultant amount to any or all projects. 3. Use the district's subject or project priority and match as much as we can. 4. Count the total number of students involved in all projects and divide into the amount of money available. This will give an amount per pupil to each applying district that they could apply to any or all projects. 5. Determine the title III priorities by the general principles as outlined under the State plan (4). Senator MORSE. I certainly shall strongly support its extension on the basis of the recommendations of you and other witnesses. Thank |