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

higher standards of adequacy that are constantly being required in American education.

The relationship between education and our military strength and national survival is even more direct. Higher and higher levels of education are required to supply a literate and well-trained source of military manpower in an age of electronic and nuclear weapons.

Far more crucial, the apparent lead of the Soviet Union in missiles and space exploration can be overcome only by accelerated research and technological advance. In this much broader sense, education is a powerful weapon of greater importance to our national defense than military hardware. It spells the difference between being the world's first rate and the world's second-rate power, scientifically and militarily. Our successful measures to increase plant capacity through various forms of subsidies and incentives, like accelerated amortization, price guarantees, and loan programs, must now be supplemented, perhaps in part supplanted equally strong and determined measures to expand brain capacity.

The National Defense Education Act is making a valuable, though limited and highly specialized, advance on this front. It in no way conflicts with, nor removes the pressing need for broad measures like the Murray-Metcalf bill. This broader program of Federal support will strengthen the foundations on which the required higher levels of human understanding, skill, and scientific achievement can be built.

What kind of financial commitment must we make to gear our educational system to the performance of these vital tasks?

Again, the Rockefeller group speaks with great cogency on this problem:

Perhaps the greatest problem facing American education is the widely held view that all we require are a few more teachers, a few more buildings, a little more money. Such an approach will be disastrous. We are moving into the most demanding era in our history. An educational system grudgingly and tardily patched to meet the needs of the moment will be perpetually out of date. We must build for the future in education as daringly and aggressively as we have built other aspects of our national life in the past * * *.

Even allowing for considerably greater efficiency in the use of educational funds, it is likely that 10 years hence our schools and colleges will require at least double their present level of financial support to handle our growing student population. In other words, by 1967 the entire educational effort is likely to call for expenditures on the order of $30 billion, measured in today's prices.

The Rockfeller panel for special studies, project IV, projected public not total outlays for education at $30 billion in 1967, and this figure is utilized in the discussion below. Total public and private expenditures for education, all levels, were about $18 billion in 1956– 57. Estimates of public expenditures for education for the calendar year 1957 round to $15 billion.

If the urgent recommendations of the Conant report, "The American High School Today," are to be carried out, the $30 billion projection may prove to be modest. Consider, for example, Dr. Conant's recommendations for counselors, individualized teaching programs, more rigorous required courses, ability grouping, developmental reading and a host of other improvements. All of these will serve as steps to the higher quality required by the complexities and dangers of tomorrow's world, and all of them are expensive.

Even apart from these and other qualitative improvements, increases in numbers and changes in the age composition of school-age children will push school costs up steadily for years to come. Enrollments in public elementary and secondary schools stood at 34 million in the fall of 1958; will rise to 36 million in 1960-61, 40 million in 1963-64, and 42 million in 1966-67.

One might keep in mind that that is only an 8-year period in which there will be a rise from 34 million to 42 million, an increase of 8 million from 34; in other words, roughly 25 percent in just 8 years in school enrollments.

Rising even faster than total enrollments are secondary school enrollments, and these enrollments are more expensive than the primary school enrollments. Annual per pupil costs in high school are running about 1.4 times higher than elementary school costs for teachers, and 1.3 times higher for classroom construction.

In considering future costs one is also struck with the rapid rise in costs in the past 10 years. Taking only current expenses-capital outlays grew even faster-one finds that the cost of public elementary and secondary education rose from $4.2 billion in 1948-49 to $10.7 billion in 1958-59, an increase of 155 percent. And here the forecasts or the projections are that for the next 10 years there should be a rise of 100 percent, a doubling of the current level of expenditures.

OUR DEFICIENCIES IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND TEACHERS' SALARIES

As against the demonstrated need for a vast increase in our educational effort and in spite of the best efforts of State and local units to do the job, we find the American school system still suffering from classroom shortages and inadequate salary levels. If our goal is not merely maintenance of our educational effort, but its expansion and upgrading, the deficiencies are all the more glaring.

Although the U.S. Office of Education estimates that 71,600 classrooms were constructed in 1957-58, the resulting net reduction in the classroom shortage was a mere 1,800, from 142,300 in the fall of 1957 to 140,500 in the fall of 1958. At this annual rate of net gain over obsolescence and increased enrollments, it will take decades to wipe out the backlog.

If, in the course of urban redevelopment, we apply modern standards of school construction and safety to many of the older school buildings in the central cities of our metropolitan areas, the backlog of obsolescence is considerably greater. To eliminate many thousands of small high schools, as urged by Dr. Conant and others, an even greater building program is required.

Low salaries for teachers and chronic shortages of qualified teachers have ceased to be news. To some extent, standards for teachers have been held down to match the salary level. Young people with only 2 years of college education can still get elementary school teaching certificates in a fourth of the States.

Even with low standards of admission, some States have found it possible to staff their schools only by accepting teachers who have not obtained regular teaching certificates. This year 7.4 percent of our public school teachers are working on temporary or emergency certificates a proportion of 1 in 13. And this is a continuing condition

that has shown no improvement in the past 8 years. Although the great majority of teachers do have college degrees and many have advanced degrees, more than one-fourth of our elementary school teachers are not college graduates.

This condition is a tragic one for the schools and for the Nation. Many adults today feel a lack of the training needed for wise decisions and skillful action in meeting the problems of our complex society. But, whatever the demands upon our generation, we know that they will be far greater upon the children who constitute the coming generation of adults. Without gifted and dedicated teachers at every level of the school system, our children cannot be prepared for challenges they must meet.

Yet, the economic rewards of teaching are below the levels that would permit our schools to compete on even terms in the highly competitive market for the limited supply of human talent. In this school year of 1958 over 200,000 teachers are being paid annual teaching salaries of less than $3,500. The average salary this year of the instructional staff of the schools-classroom teachers, principals, supervisors-is only $4,935.

For the past several years the average annual salaries of teachers have been only a few percentage points higher than the average annual earnings of all wage and salary workers in the United States. Careful studies by the National Education Association conclude that to meet any reasonable estimate of a professional level of compensation, teachers' salaries would have to be at least 60 percent above their present average level.

Not only are schools currently understaffed and teachers underpaid, but recommended provision for better counseling and supervisory services, for small classes for the mentally talented as well as for the slow learners, and the like will involve a substantially enlarged school staff. To provide the numbers of qualified teachers needed and to raise their salaries to professional levels present major financial challenges.

in

The primary point I would like to stress is that in the past year, spite of constructing about 71,000 classrooms, we reduced the backlog by a mere 1,800 classrooms because obsolescence and increases in needs wiped out most of the advance, so to speak.

Mr. BAILEY. Is the committee to understand that 70,000 is the approximate figure for us, even to keep level with the existing shortage? Mr. HELLER. As a matter of fact, exactly 70,000 in the past year was what was necessary just to keep abreast of the obsolescence and growing enrollments.

The backlog would not be cut down at all if we kept going up at 70,000 at the current rate of obsolescence and enrollment increase.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. On that point, Dr. Heller, since you do not mind interruptions, if you have a backlog which is being eaten into very clowly at the present rate of construction, I wonder if it would not be a reasonable role for the Federal Government to try to accelerate the elimination of that backlog, which, in effect, could be a oneshot proposition, though that one shot might extend over a number of years, but that it would not create a continuing responsibility at a considerable scale, because presumably the backlog would disappear in a relatively short time if there could be some Federal assistance.