for throughout the Nation. To reap the full potential of each individual requires major additional investments in the special facilities required for handling well these pupils. Smaller classes, teachers with special competencies and training, and a great variety of expensive equipment and resources are involved.

THE NEED FOR WELL-EQUIPPED CLASSROOMS

More and more, educators regard the classroom as a "learning laboratory." Great advances in such fields as audiovisual equipment, textbooks, and scientific apparatus, place at the disposal of school districts tremendous aids to learning. But priorities in local financing have too frequently had to go for teachers' salaries and classroom space alone. The Hill-Elliott bill will remedy deficiencies in some fields, but in others there will remain a great need for such essential teaching facilities as tape recording machines, projection equipment, book cabinets, bulletin boards, display cases, record players, radio and television receivers, maps, globes, pictures and charts.

The actual availability of necessary equipment is only one aspect of the problem, for classrooms must be so constructed as to make possible its use. A recent survey by the National Education Association revealed that only about one-fourth of the Nation's elementary schools' classrooms were well adapted for the use of audiovisual materials. Furthermore, teachers' difficulties in using these materials were most frequently due to the lack of adequate adaptable space.

Thousands of classrooms are still equipped with the furniture of another era. Movable seats and desks built in conformity with what is known about their relation to pupils' health and learning, cannot be purchased in school districts where every available dollar must go for salary and maintenance. Special furniture and equipment for science, music, art, drama, industrial arts, vocational education, and homemaking are essential in the secondary schools. Even in the general classrooms, more space and special construction are necessary for such purposes as the following:

1. Work areas with tables and chairs for small groups where materials can be spread out during the process of development.

2. Storage cabinets, drawers, and files for pupils' work and teachers' supplies and records.

3. Alcoves or conference rooms where teachers can meet with individual pupils and with parents.

4. Classroom libraries or collections of materials.

Mr. Chairman, the quality of American education is of national concern. I have examined with this committee some of the elements necessary to provide quality education for American children and youth which I believe are basic to any consideration of the problems now confronting our schools. Everything that happens in school depends on what we desire the schools to accomplish and upon the provision of competent teachers and necessary facilities to achieve our desires. Quality instruction is no accident.

Thank you.

Mr. BAILEY. May I say on behalf of the committee that we appreciate your presence here, Doctor. Your testimony has been quite informative and will be beneficial.

I think you realize the problems that face the committee in writing satisfactory legislation, and we appreciate your efforts and cooperation.

Mr. ALEXANDER. In turn, let me thank you for the opportunity. Mr. BAILEY. May I wish every possible success to the Peabody Teachers College.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BAILEY. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow, at which time we will hear Dr. Heller, a specialist from the University of Minnesota.

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed until 10 a.m. on Friday, February 6, 1959.)

SCHOOL SUPPORT ACT OF 1959

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1959

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GENERAL EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Cleveland M. Bailey (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Bailey, Thompson, Udall, Brademas, Frelinghuysen, and Kearns.

Also present: Fred G. Hussey, clerk, full committee; Melvin W. Sneed, minority clerk; Russell C. Derrickson, investigator, full com-. mittee; and Robert E. McCord, clerk, subcommittee.

Mr. BAILEY. The subcommittee will be in order.

At adjournment on yesterday we made an announcement that our witness for today's hearings of the subcommittee would be Dr. Walter W. Heller, chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Minnesota.

I understand that the doctor is going to dwell largely in the field of economics. I am certain that the subcommittee will be very much pleased to have his views on this particular angle of the problem on which we are attempting to write legislation.

Doctor, you may identify yourself further, if necessary, to the reporter, and proceed with your testimony.

May I inquire first, would you care to be interrupted as you give your testimony, or would you rather present your material and then be subject to questioning?

STATEMENT OF DR. WALTER W. HELLER, CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, ACCOMPANIED BY MRS. JEAN M. FLANIGAN, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, RESEARCH DIVISION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

Mr. HELLER. It is at the committee's pleasure.

Mr. BAILEY. We will leave the choice up to you.

Mr. HELLER. I would be happy to be interrupted en route.
Mr. BAILEY. You would be?

Mr. HELLER. Yes, if you wish to do that, I would be glad to have questions.

Mr. BAILEY. You may proceed.

Mr. HELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, may I first introduce Mrs. Jean Flanigan of the NEA research division, who assisted in the preparation of this material and who will assist in an

swering technical questions that may arise during the course of the testimony.

Mr. BAILEY. Doctor, if you could, we would appreciate it if you would lift your voice an octave or two.

Mr. HELLER. I will do that.

May I ask that the formal statement be entered in the record, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. BAILEY. Yes, if there is no objection, it will be accepted for inclusion as prepared.

Mr. HELLER. In appearing before you today on the role of the Federal Government in the support of public elementary and secondary education, I wish to speak primarily as an economist, as the chairman has noted.

Without in any sense neglecting education's abiding human and moral values, without slighting its critical importance as a basic ingredient of democracy, without ignoring the heated political controversies over Federal control and interference, one may still conclude that the key issues in the debate over Federal support for schools in the space age are increasingly economic in nature:

(a) Are we investing enough in public education in the light of (1) the rich rewards it offers in economic growth and military superiority; (2) the existing deficiencies in teachers' salaries and school buildings?

(b) Can our economy afford the greatly expanded financial effort required to realize the full potential of public education as a contributor not only to human betterment but also to economic growth and military power?

(c) Once the dimensions of our total effort have been determined, how should the costs be shared? The answer to this question will depend

1. On the nature of the objectives being served; that is, to what extent is public education an instrument of national economic and defense policy in addition to its traditional functions?

2. On the role of the Federal Government as a fiscal transfer agent for the States in an interdependent economy; that is, to what extent should educational support for poorer States be drawn from wealthier States?

3. On whether the State and local governments have the necessary taxable capacity to finance the required level and quality of education; that is, will our total investment in education be large enough without Federal support?

This statement will take up each of these issues in the order listed, and will conclude with a consideration of the fears of Federal control, Federal deficits, and inflation which seem to be playing so large a role in thwarting efforts to obtain Federal participation in public school financing. Our investment in education: To determine whether we should allocate more of our national resources to public education requires a careful consideration of the returns that education offers on our investment. These returns fall into four general categories:

(a) Increased capacity to enjoy the fruits of our labors, to open the way to individual self-fulfillment, and an improved quality of life.

(b) Creation, through human knowledge and understanding, of the informed and responsible citizenry which is the keystone of a free democratic society.

(c) Development of the human resources which lie at the base of an expanding economy and material abundance.

(d) Creation of the skills, technological competence, and comprehension which are the ultimate source of military security and world leadership in an age of missiles, satellites, and cold war.

Russia's sensational advances in science, highlighted by its successes in space exploration, have brought education's contributions to economic and military strength to the forefront of our national thinking. But our national shortage of developed brainpower was only underscored, not created, by the need to match Soviet advances. This shortage is basically a product of our—

explosive rate of technological change and the increasing complexity of our social organization. Not only are the tasks that must be performed to keep our society functioning ever more intricate and demanding, they are constantly changing in character. As a result, we are experiencing a great variety of shortages of human resources in fields requiring high competence and extended training. We are having to become more and more concerned with seeking and cultivating talent. We have become more conscious of the strategic importance of education in our society.

As you will note, I have been quoting there the Rockefeller Bros. Fund study "The Pursuit of Excellence-Education and the Future of America," and I will quote it again later.

The impact of technological changes on our past and future manpower needs can be clearly seen in table 1, and I will address myself for a moment to that table.

(Table 1 follows:)

TABLE 1.-Actual and projected occupational distribution of workers: 1900 to

Source: Data for 1900-50 from: Kaplan, David L., and Casey, M. Claire. Occupational Trends in the United States, 1900 to 1950. Working Paper No. 5. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1958. Table 2, p. 7. Data for 1965 and 1975 derived from unpublished data supplied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Sept. 12, 1958. Totals may not add to 100 percent because of rounding of percents for specific items.

Mr. HELLER. You will note that professional, technical, and kindred workers rose from 4.3 percent of the labor force in 1900, to 8.6 percent in 1950, and are projected to increase to 14 percent in 1975. In other words, the types of employment requiring the highest levels of education, the more advanced levels of education, are advancing as a percent of the labor force much more rapidly than those which require perhaps lower levels of technical education."

Corresponding reductions are taking place in the needs for less highly trained personnel. These figures dramatically illustrate the