velopment of specialized teaching materials, are indispensable to the implementation of section 601, which authorizes the establishment of centers. No amount of money spent on the hiring of teachers of critical languages can produce adequate instruction that is readily available until effective instructional materials are first produced. The Congress was therefore wise in recognizing research and studies as a corollary of the establishment of centers.

The Office of Education has been helped in its initial planning by a quick, preliminary study conducted, under contract, by the American Council of Learned Societies. This survey did not concern itself with the important matter of area study programs, which must therefore by the subject of later surveys. It attempted, instead, to ascertain as quickly as possible the language needs of Government, business and industry, and education, and to review the current situation, in regard to personnel and instructional materials, in the teaching of all the needed languages. The report revealed enough alarming facts about our present linguistic deficiencies to make clear the need for a further, more thorough survey, to be followed by periodic stocktaking of our resources and requirements.

The national problem of achieving adequate instruction in critical languages will meanwhile, therefore, have to be attacked simultaneously on several different fronts. It is not simply a matter of establishing centers in as many languages (and related areas) as funds will permit. Title VI of the National Defense Education Act is explicitly a contracting, not a grant-giving program. The implementation of sections 601 and 602 will therefore develop simultaneously along the following three lines, the extent of development in each to be determined by the funds appropriated.

1. For some languages where the evident need is for relatively large numbers of trained persons, a number of centers for each language must be expanded and strengthened or, when necessary, created, in order to make adequate instruction more widely available. Six languages which, at the outset, will be considered as belonging in this category are: Arabic (in its chief dialects, and with the modern written language stressed), Chinese (in its chief dialects, with Mandarin given the highest priority), Hindustani (or Hindi-Urdu), Japanese, Portuguese, and Russian. Hindustani is the only 1 of these 6 critical languages which is not currently taught in at least 20 American colleges and universities. Russian is the most widely taught of these, but it seems doubtful that the instruction is yet adequate to the needs. One reason is the current movement to introduce Russian into American secondary schools; Russian will therefore figure also in the Institutes program under title VI.

Federally supported centers in the six critical languages listed above should achieve certain objectives at present lacking in the case of all of them. Among these goals are (a) intensive courses available frequently and at geographically distributed locations, (b) the production of several complete sets of reliable and effective teaching materials, and (c) adequate instruction in related area studies. At centers in this category there should also be variety in the length of intensive courses, and in the content of intermediate and advanced courses, so as to provide training for various kinds of assignment and at various levels of competence. For reasons explained in the section below, centers in this first category will be encouraged to add other critical languages which are linguistically related or have significance in the area program.

2. For other languages where the evident need is for smaller numbers of trained persons, at least two geographically separated centers should be strengthened or, when necessary, created. Needed languages which, at the outset, will be considered as belonging in this second category fall into two groups: (a) the remaining national or official languages of sovereign nations, and (b) a small group of unofficial languages spoken by many millions of inhabitants of a nation or territory. Examples of the latter group are Javanese (spoken by approximately 42 million in Indonesia, where the official language is Indonesian) and several widely used Arrican languages such as Hausa (13 million) and Swahili (10 million). Examples of official languages are Afrikaans (Union of South Africa), Cambodian (Cambodia), Laotian (Laos), Pashto (Afghanistan; Pakistan), Singhalese (Ceylon), and Tagalog (Philippines)- -none of which seems to be currently taught in any American university—as well as Amharic (Ethiopia), Burmese (Burma), Bengali (Pakistan; India), Tamil (Ceylon; India), Thai (Thailand), and others taught only at a few institutions.

With the present uncertainty about the extent of financial support to be provided by the Congress, the most efficient way of coping with the 40 to 50 needed languages in this category is not yet clear. Ideally, for each there should be at least annual availability of intensive courses (with provision for language-and

area training beyond the basic course) continuing to intermediate and advanced study. Ideally, for each there should also be at least two geographically separated centers in language and area, for the training of experts and teachers, for research, and for the preparation (in a number of instances) of a complete set of basic instructional materials.

Further study should enable us to proceed wisely with available funds by establishing priorities within this category. For some of these languages it may also prove most efficient to have a single major center for advanced, intensive training and the education of experts, and several minor centers offering only the basic course in the language. Moreover, it seems probable that many of the languages in this category can be taught along with other languages of a common geographical area or culture, or with languages of the same linquistic family. Thus, a federally supported center in Near Eastern languages and area might offer intensive instruction, not only in Arabic, but also in Turkish, Kurdish, Berber, Pashto, Persian, and modern Hebrew.

3. For still other languages where the evident need is for even smaller numbers of trained persons, but where the need may someday be greater and urgent, we should look now to the strengthening of, or, as will be necessary in most cases, the creation of our linguistic resources. The languages in this category perhaps fall into two groups, depending upon funds available.

For some of them there should be at least one center in the language and ares (or involving the language among others in its area program), offering at least biennially an intensive course, and with resources to guarantee greater frequency in an emergency. Such a center should also prepare basic instructional materials as needed. Examples of languages in this group are Azerbaijani (U.S.S.R.), Ilocano and Visayan (Philippines), Quechuan (Bolivia; Ecuador; Peru), Yoruba (western Africa), Tibetan, Mongolian, and a number of languages of India, such as Gujerati, Kanarese, Malayalam, and Nepali. Only a few of the languages in this group are now taught in any American university.

Also depending upon funds available, for other languages there is need, not so much for a center in the sense hitherto used, but rather for a center of basic research, leading to preparation of instructional materials which might be required in an emergency. Presumably an important factor in the establishment of such a center would be standby availability of personnel for teaching. Examples of languages in this group are Twi-Fanti (west Africa), the Berber dialects (north Africa), Byelorussian and Georgian (U.S.S.R.), Kashmiri and Oriya (India), and many others not now taught in any American university.

At least 50 languages, each spoken by more than 2 million people (14 of them spoken by between 10 and 42 million), are not now taught in any American institution of higher education. It may seem impractical to try to teach (or get ready to teach) all of them, in addition to improving instruction in those already taught. But the real question, in view of the rush of events and the contracting of time and space, is whether the United States can afford not to make the attempt.

Dr. DERTHICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an announcement here that I would like to introduce at this point, and it is the first public announcement on the subject: That we are making available National Defense Foreign Language Fellowships for advanced students of six critical languages-Arabic, Chinese, Hindustani, Japanese, Portuguese, and Russian.

The fellowship awards will be made before July 1. We are making awards based on recommendations of colleges and universities offering advanced study in these languages.

As you know, we have determined these to be the six languages in which the national need for instruction is most urgent at this time. They are spoken by more than 1 million people, and yet very few people in the United States have studied any of them. The awards carry stipends of between $1,500 and $3,500, as well as allowances for dependents and travel. Students accepting the awards must give reasonable assurance, as required by the law, that after completing their studies they will be available to teach the language of their choice. I know that this committee will recognize the great potential impact of this dramatic new program upon the urgent language needs

of the country. We have great hopes that this program will have a prompt and stimulating effect upon the advance study of critically needed modern foreign languages.

As you can sense, this announcement is one of which we are very proud. We think it is extremely significant. It is the first time we have indicated it, and it reflects much work and study in the preceding weeks and months to get ready to make an announcement like this.

Mr. ELLIOTT. I certainly join you, Dr. Derthick, in the pride which you have expressed. And I think that that announcement is a very historic one in the annals of learning in America.

Dr. BABBIDGE. Mr. Chairman, a memorandum amplifying the conditions of the fellowship program has been forwarded to the committee.

As to the language research program, the remaining feature of the language development program, we have conferred extensively with educational leaders and language specialists on the identification of urgent problems in language teaching and learning which require immediate research attention. During the next 6 weeks a number of contracts will be let to begin a program that we believe will result in a major breakthrough in the teaching of modern foreign languages. As you know, our language research authority, as we call it, extends well beyond true research activity and includes authority to conduct surveys and studies as well as to develop new teaching materials.

In these two areas, also, our language development staff has been active, and the work they will begin with supplemental funds bids fair to begin dramatically and promptly to improve our ability to meet these needs.

By way of illustration, let me simply say that activity already is underway in the development of new teaching materials in French, German, Spanish, and Russian, and that basic and extensive survey and development work will soon be begun in such neglected languages as the Ural-Altaic group, the non-Slavic languages of the Soviet Union and its satellites. If this committee wishes, I think this is an appropriate time to have Professor Parker answer any questions you may have about the research activities of his section.

Mr. ELLIOTT. It seems to me you have given a very fine report on this title, and, strictly because the time is very short now, I will forgo any questions on my own part.

Do you have any questions?

I believe we will have to adjourn now.

Perhaps you have additional matters which you would like to call to the attention of this committee. If so, we shall be glad to have you submit statements regarding them which can be included in the record of this hearing.

Dr. DERTHICK. Thank you, Mr. Elliott. We shall consider this and send you any additional statements which we feel your committee would find helpful in understanding the administration of the National Defense Education Act.

May I say again that we appreciate very much this opportunity to appear before your committee.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.) (Additional statements were submitted, as follows:)

FIELD SERVICES AND PROGRAMS OF THE OFFICE OF EDUCATION

In the broad sense of the term all educational services provided by and all programs conducted in the Office of Education since its establishment have been "field" services and programs, for the primary function of the Office is and has always been to be of service to educational agencies and institutions throughout our Nation in those areas of educational need in which the Office has competence, and which have been determined by the representatives of the people assembled in Congress to be appropriate to a Federal office of education in the United States. Until World War II direct services were provided by the Office to State educational agencies, schools, colleges, and universities only insofar as the limited staff of specialists could accommodate requests for such services by traveling from and to its single centralized location in Washington, D.C. With the advent of the Lanham Act during World War II, the Office was called upon to provide professional consultative services to the Federal Works Agency in the program for construction of school facilities in housing areas developed for workers in the war effort. These services required that specialists be available in an assigned geographic area on a continuous schedule. Thus, for the first time the Office provided services through a staff which was supervised from Washington but was located in various stations or field offices about the country.

At the close of World War II the Office was again called upon to provide services to another Federal agency, the War Assets Administration, in the disposition of war surpluses consisting of complete facilities, equipment of all types, and quantities of supplies and materials. The nature and extent of the demand for services again required the assignment of Office of Education specialists to field locations throughout the States until the fall of 1950.

The surplus property program was followed in the Office of Education in 1950 by the program providing Federal financial assistance for the construction of school facilities and for current school expenditures in areas affected by activities of the Federal Government (Public Law 815 and Public Law 874, 81st Cong.). (The surplus property program was expanded at the same time to serve public health activities, and its administration thus was assigned to what is now the Office of the Secretary of the Department.)

The school assistance program now serves, through 54 State and Territorial educational agencies, almost 4,000 school districts, including those educating Indian children in public schools, from the State of Alaska and the Territory of Guam in the west to Maine and the Virgin Islands in the east. The necessity for making services more immediately available by placing field representatives in strategic locations throughout the country has been recognized since the program was initiated. Such recognition has been granted not only because of the requirements in the particular situation, but because in each program administered by the Office, both the implementing legislation and the undeviating policy of the Office of Education have prohibited the exercise of control in any form by any Federal agency or official over the content of education, the personnel of education, or State, local, and private agencies administering education. Furthermore, the professional personnel of the Office of Education, through their experience in school systems and educational institutions, are imbued with the conviction that the American way of life can best be preserved by a system of education determined and administered at the local and State levels, and free from domination by any central government or power.

These convictions, which are shared generally, do not preclude the possibility that the Federal Government may be called upon to assist States, localities, and institutions to perform more effectively their educational functions and responsibilities and to meet educational needs in a critical situation such as that which has developed nationally in the last few years. Nationwide reappraisal of the effectiveness of current educational resources and programs in meeting current and anticipated educational needs in our country has resulted in the passage of the legislation known as the National Defense Education Act and has stimulated widespread interest and activity in all aspects and levels of our educational system. As in previous instances described above the nature of this act is such that field services likewise are required.

The comprehensive and emergency nature of the NDEA program has placed a grave responsibility upon the Office of Education. It is obvious that the success of the program depends not only upon sound and cooperative planning and efficient administration, but also upon effective liaison with agencies and institutions through which the program must operate and careful coordination of the various phases of the program at operational levels. We are not certain of the

extent to which operation by a decentralized staff will be required to serve the needs of the situation. We propose therefore, to decentralize staff on a minimum basis, being guided by the nature of the particular program function involved, the demand for such services from the field, and the necessity for coordination in the field even though program functions are performed by and from the Washington office.

We recognize a special necessity in this program for providing service through field representatives to institutions of higher learning, since there are no State agencies through which all of such institutions in a given State can be reached, and consultative service must be available to individual institutions upon request. We propose, therefore, to place in each of the nine regional offices of our Department a well qualified specialist in higher education to provide such service to institutions in the region, under the program direction of the Defense Education Branch of the Division of Higher Education in our Washington office.

We recognize also the need for coordination, in the field, of activities under the various titles of the NDEA involving State and local educational agencies and private secondary schools as well as institutions of higher learning. Thus, we plan to place in each of the HEW regional offices, as a regional representative of the Commissioner, one of the best qualified educational generalists we are able to recruit. Such a representative will serve to clarify interrelationships of various phases of the NDEA program and of the agencies and institutions concerned, thus averting possible confusion and misunderstanding; he will assist the central office in its determinations of the extent to which decentralized staff and services are required; he will coordinate, in the field, all programs of the office which have an impact upon educational agencies and institutions through the activities of office personnel from the Washington office or the field office. In brief, the regional representative will represent the Commissioner of Education in the region to which he is assigned and will provide officewide service and coordination at the regional level; he will discharge such special field assignments as may be appropriate under the NDEA, civil defense programs, and other office responsibilities. However, these services in the regions will in no way affect the direct relationships between the chief State school officers and the Commissioner. On the contrary, it is expected that the channels of communication and services will be greatly strengthened by this program.

There are, within each HEW regional office, personnel from the Children's Bureau, Public Health Service, vocational rehabilitation, surplus property utilization program, civil defense program, and other Department activities who are working constantly in local, State, and regional programs, and who have experienced urgently the need for a well-qualified educational generalist available to assist in interpreting and coordinating the educational aspects of their work. The Office of Education is engaged in the gathering and dissemination of information, and in the sponsoring of cooperative research in problem areas common to those being studied in the regions, such as the mentally retarded child, juvenile delinquency, education for survival in a national emergency, and the education of children of migrant workers. Thus the Office will be able to contribute to the effectiveness of a number of programs on critical individual and social needs of national concern, and can also contribute substantially to the coordination of the efforts of these groups with those of State educational agencies which too often are not drawn into such councils through inadvertence or lack of staff. To the extent that time will permit the Commissioner's regional representative will be expected to serve this need.

No group is more aware of the danger in or more zealous to prevent interference or control by a Federal Government of the education of our youth and of our adult population than is the professional staff of the Office of Education. Of this you may be assured, even though we are in a time when that Government must actively assist American education to accomplish its task, since, in the words embodied in the National Defense Education Act, "The security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women.'

GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

In the graduate fellowship program, as you know, the Commissioner already has formally announced approval of 48 fellowship programs involving 150 fellowships. Interested institutions have been informed of our intention to award the remaining 850 fellowships authorized, and every possible step has been taken to insure the prompt award of this full number of fellowships, just as soon as con