Mr. ELLIOTT. Let me ask you this: Based upon your experience to date, do you feel that we were wise in setting aside some funds to be used wholly for gaining knowledge on the educational aspect of this thing, as distinguished from providing equipment and those sorts of things? In other words, is this program in your mind justified for now and the future of 4 years of this program? Dr. HALL. It certainly is, Mr. Elliott, and I certainly think you were justified. And there are two kinds of evidence that you were justified. One is in terms of the knowledge that we are gaining about the use of these media and the ways they can help us in edu cation. For instance, the profession itself is beginning to recognize that these media are not substitutes for teachers. They are aids to teachers. These media are not going to solve the problems of learning and all these things. They are going to help us solve them. This in itself, I think, is justified. Second, we are getting new knowledge about education and educational processes and motivations and ways of learning things. Also, in addition to the new knowledge, there is the fact that we are encouraging people, through this law, to look at education, to look at learning processes, to look at communication as a part of the educational program. If I may go ahead with my enthusiasm, sir, there is also the matter, which I think is tremendously important, that through this law, and by providing research money and experimentation money, you are doing something which has been needed in education for a long time, and that is influence us in education to take what we would call an interdisciplinary look at education, so that you bring your subject matter this law mentions that subject matter is to be emphasized. You bring your subject matter people, your curriculum people, your psychologists, your teachers, your engineers, your scientists, and so forth, together, to look at problems of education and processes of education, rather than having each one operate independently and individually. So that people who are making equipment and facilities are brought together with the people who are carrying on educational programs in order to study the use of these things in educational processes. I think over the long haul this is going to be tremendously important in terms of the kind of equipment. Mr. ELLIOTT. You have an advisory committee. Is that what you call it? That works with you? Dr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. And how many members are there on that advisory committee? Dr. HALL. There are 14, including the Commissioner and a member of the National Science Foundation. Mr. ELLIOTT. Fourteen all told? Dr. HALL. Yes, sir. Mr. ELLIOTT. And I gathered from you that the equipment people are represented on that committee. Dr. HALL. Three of the committee members by law must be broadly representative of the lay public and the whole enterprise itself of communication and the media. Mr. ELLIOTT. And you do have representatives from the people who manufacture this equipment, or who sell it, or deal with it, on your committee, people who are broadly familiar with that phase of the business? Dr. HALL. We do not have on the committee at the present moment a national representative of any producers' organization; but we do have, for instance, Leland Hazard, head of the Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., who has been instrumental in this whole TV movement in this country, on the committee. We do have men advising us on various aspects of the program, such as the dissemination of information. The electronics industry has appointed a committee and is now developing a book, on which we are advising with them, in terms of what kinds of facilities are available, how they can be used, and so forth. One of our staff members just came back from Miami, where the engineers' meeting also set up a committee and have asked us to work with them in terms of doing a survey of at what level these facilities are now being used in the schools and what kinds of equipment seem needed most. So we do have working in the program the actual producers themselves, the film people, the TV experts, and actual producers of equipment. But we do not have any on the advisory committee at this moment. This committee will probably rotate. Mr. ELLIOTT. I got the impression last year and year before from our investigations that this is really a fertile field in which much good can come. And I am going to be following very closely what you are doing in it, because I am so interested. Dr. DERTHICK. Mr. Chairman, it might be of interest to the committee to file the names and positions of this advisory committee. Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes. Without objection you may do that; and a little about their background. MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE NEW EDUCATIONAL MEDIA PROGRAM (Title VII, National Defense Education Act) Clayton H. Brace, assistant to the president, Aladdin Broadcasting Corp., 131 Speer Boulevard, Denver 3, Colo. Dr. Lawrence G. Derthick, Chairman; U.S. Commissioner of Education, Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington 25, D.C. Scott Fletcher, president, the Fund for Adult Education, 200 Bloomingdale Road, White Plains, N.Y. Elizabeth Golterman, Director, Division of Audiovisual Education, Board of Education, 1517 S. Theresa Avenue, St. Louis, Mo. Leland Hazard, director-consultant, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 1 Gateway Center, Pittsburgh 22, Pa. Richard B. Hull, director, radio and TV broadcasting, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Harry C. Kelly, assistant director, National Science Foundation, Washington 25, D.Č. L. C. Larson, director, audiovisual center, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. Ralph McGill, editor, the Atlanta Constitution, the Constitution Publishing Co., Atlanta, Ga. Austin Meadows, assistant superintendent, Alabama State Department of Instruction, Montgomery, Ala. III. Wanda Mitchell, television project, Evanston Township High School, Evanston, Howard Nostrand, executive officer, Department of Languages and Literature, University of Washington, Seattle 5, Wash. Glenn T. Seaborg, chancellor, University of California, Berkeley, Calif. The Very Rev. Robert J. Slavin, O.P., president, Providence College, Providence 8, R.I. Dr. DERTHICK. We have a very distinguished committee. It has brought much prestige to the program of itself. And I think it will be of interest to you to know that in making these extremely careful selections, we did not have a single person turn us down, although we invited some of the busiest people in the United States to accept appointment. We have had 100 percent acceptance. It is remarkable. Mr. ELLIOTT. That is wonderful. Now, Dr. Hall, you have given us, I think, a good rundown on title 7, here. What else do we have now? Dr. DERTHICK. Mr. Chairman, if you wish to continue longer at this session, we might give you additional highlights in the higher education area. We have title 4, you know, the fellowship title, and title 5(b), on the Institutes, and then we have title 6, the language title. Mr. ELLIOTT. I am just wondering whether or not we should try to finish today, or should come back, in view of the fact that our time for today is about up. Will it cause an undue burden on you gentlemen to return at some time? Dr. DERTHICK. No, sir. We would be very happy to return. It might be advantageous if you wanted to take just enough time to do title 6. Dr. Parker is not always with us. And I do not want to impose upon you, Mr. Chairman, but just because Dr. Parker is here today and might not be available every time, I suggest that. Mr. ELLIOTT. We will hear from Dr. Parker on title 6 right now, sir. Dr. DERTHICK. We might have Dr. Babbidge introduce it and then have comments from Dr. Parker. Dr. BABBIDGE. Mr. Chairman, we do feel that in many ways our most dramatic progress in the higher education program since we last met with this committee has been in the modern foreign language development program. We have established four summer institutes, of which this committee was earlier informed. Mr. ELLIOTT. Again, for the purpose of building up our recollection, or my recollection, where are those four? One of them is in the West, I remember. Dr. BABBIDGE. Those four are at the University of Colorado, at Boulder, Colo., at Louisiana State University, at the University of Michigan, and at the University of Maine. We are ready, as soon as the supplemental funds are available, to establish eight additional summer institutes and four regular-session institutes. Mr. ELLIOTT. Have the schools been notified that they can expect summer institutes this summer, and in those other eight schools? Dr. BABBIDGE. We are actually engaged in contract negotiations with those institutions. Mr. ELLIOTT. And are they accepting applications already from people who are interested? Dr. BABBIDGE. No, they are not, as yet. The contracts, as I understand it, cannot be signed until the funds are legally available, and the institutions are understandably reluctant to undertake commitments themselves. Mr. ELLIOTT. Here is the thing I am thinking about. Since summer school will be started, here, in another month or so, in most colleges, will they have time to take the applications and fill up? I have noticed this: that in all these fields, Dr. Babbidge, where there is time, there is a great oversubscription of the places. Now, will there be enough time? Let us say it takes 2 more weeks for the supplemental appropriation to become law, assuming that we might get through or the Congress might finish with it, the conference committee this week or early next-we will say it will be around the 1st of June before that money is actually available. Will there, then, be enough time for these eight schools to fill up their institutes in 2 or 3 weeks? Dr. BABBIDGE. We believe there will be time, Mr. Chairman. It will require considerable effort on the part of those institutions, needless to say; but there has been such a significant oversubscription already announced that I think we have identified by name literally thousands of people who wish to attend summer institutes, who cannot be accommodated in these first four. I think we ourselves could be helpful to the latecomers in the program, by referring to them the names of people who have unsuccessfully sought admission in the institutes earlier announced. Mr. ELLIOT. There will be eight additional institutes. And where will they be, sir? Dr. BABBIDGE. If Mr. Parker sees no objection to making an announcement of the names of institutions with which we are currently negotiating contracts, we can provide those for the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. DANIELS. Dr. Babbidge, inasmuch as the curriculums of the various colleges usually come to an end around May 31 or shortly thereafter, do you think there will be sufficient time to get these additonal eight summer courses or schools organized? Dr. BABBIDGE. Well, as I indicated earlier, I am confident. I might ask Mr. Parker if he could not confirm or question this judgment. Dr. PARKER. I think I can reassure you on this point by explaining that just a week ago the directors of the four institutes which are certain, and the remaining ones which have been named to you, got together for a 3-day conference and faced this unusual predicament head on and in the most heartening, cooperative way. And they have worked out among themselves a system to solve this problem, of exchange of names and addresses, and so on. Mr. ELLIOTT. I think that is very wonderful. You have, in connection with the administration of this act, experienced more cooperation than I have been acquainted with around here for a long time. Nearly everybody, apparently, has been anxious to see that the act functioned and that it functioned in a manner to reflect credit on America. And for that I have been very thrilled. I have been very thrilled about that fact. Dr. DERTHICK. Exceedingly well said, Mr. Chairman. I have never experienced a greater degree of cooperation in my life. And when we remember that this is on a nationwide basis, it is indeed significant. Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir, I think it is very significant. Dr. BABBIDGE. Mr. Chairman, in the language and areas center program, we are currently engaged in negotiations with a dozen centers for the establishment and operation of such centers. You are aware that these concern languages not commonly taught in the United States, or as we have described them, critical languages. There has been a preliminary survey conducted by the National Council of Learned Societies. The Commissioner has issued a policy statement on the center's program concerning these activities, copies of which I would like to submit to members of the committee, and if possible make a part of the record. Mr. ELLIOTT. Without objection the material to which Dr. Babbidge refers will be made a part of the record at this point. (The statement referred to is as follows:) BULLETIN ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE (EDUCATION ACT-PUBLIC LAW 85-864) To: All persons interested in language and area centers. Subject: A statement of policy, language development program centers and research and studies. As a basis for the establishment of federally supported language and area centers the U.S. Commissioner of Education is required by section 601(a) of Public Law 85-864 to determine (1) the modern foreigh languages needed by individuals in the Federal Government, business and industry, and education in the United States (hereinafter needed languages), and (2) of these languages, which ones are not now readily available in terms of adequate instruction (hereinafter critical languages). NEEDED LANGUAGES Although linguistic needs are to some extent unpredictable, and even recognized ones are relative, there is clearly a present, continuing need for individuals trained in the national or official languages of all the sovereign nations with which the United States has business or diplomatic relations, and also in some of the unofficial languages spoken by many millions of inhabitants of a foreign country or territory. Determining the priority of needs, not only in Government, business, and industry, but also in education in the United States, is another matter. Priorities vary with time and circumstances. Nevertheless, without attempting a complete list, and recognizing the necessity for a thorough, continuing survey, it seems evident that, among the languages now most needed by American citizens, are Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Hindustani, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. CRITICAL LANGUAGES However, federally supported language and area centers are to teach needed languages which are not now readily available in terms of adequate instruction. Pending further study, and despite some criticism of current teaching methods and objectives, these criteria would seem to eliminate French, German, Italian, and Spanish as languages to be taught at the centers to be established. Instruction in these four languages is widely available. Much of it is adequate. Insofar as it is still inadequate to national needs, the remedy lies largely in the recognition of those needs by educational administrators and by language teachers themselves. Determining adequacy of instruction is a complicated matter involving, not merely methods and objectives, but also the availability of properly trained teachers and the effectiveness and availability of such indispensable instructional materials as (1) a basic course, with an elementary textbook and tapes for oral practice, (2) a reference grammar, based on a sound structural analysis of the language, (3) a set of graded readers with useful content, and (4) a contemporary dictionary suitable for student use. For many of the important languages of the world, including a number of official languages with many millions of speakers, none of these essential instructional tools now exist for English-speaking students. In other cases, one or two such tools exist but the others are lacking. In still other cases, materials exist but the teachers who must use them question their reliability and effectiveness. In sum, the provisions of section 602 of Public Law 85-864, authorizing the de |