NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE, Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on General Education, House Office Building, Washington, D.O. DEAR MR. BAILEY: May I respectfully present the viewpoint of the department of education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference with respect to the Metcalf bill, H.R. 22, which is now before your subcommittee for consideration. The concern expressed by so many for the welfare of American education is certainly genuine; obviously thoughtful citizens recognize the need for a strong educational system both now and for the future. This was the underlying conviction behind the enactment last year of the National Defense Education Act. One of the admirable features of that act was the recognition of the pluralistic character of American society and American education. The act clearly reognized that there is more than one kind of educational system in America and made provision accordingly for education carried on under both public and nonpublic auspices. This statesmanlike attitude ought, it seems to us, to characterize the approach to considerations for Federal assistance in the Metcalf proposals and we recommend, therefore, if there is to be Federal aid that appropriate steps be taken to provide for the needs of nonpublic schools in the United States. These nonpublic schools represent about one-twelfth of the educational effort in our country. Along with the public schools they have been and continue to be partners in American education. The outstanding contribution they make to the Nation should be continued and their place in American life should be maintained and assisted in all feasible ways. May we recommend, therefore, that provision be made in the Metcalf bill for extending long-term, low-interest Government loans to nonpublic schools according to formulas successfully developed in the National Defense Education Act. If we are to strengthen American education then the pattern we use for this purpose ought to be a consistent one. All education should be assisted according to formulas that are reasonable and objective. There is much discussion about the continuing need for leadership both for the present and for the challenging days that lie ahead. We cannot afford to neglect our talent, and we must use every facility to encourage and train it wherever it may be found in our diversified educational pattern. To guarantee then that no phase of American education be neglected, may we suggest that Congress approach any plan for educational assistance along the lines laid down by the National Defense Education Act of 1958. Respectfully submitted. Rt. Rev. Msgr. F. G. HOCHWALT, Director. KALISPELL, MONT., March 9, 1959. Representative GRAHAM A. BARDEN, Chairman, Education and Labor Committee, DEAR SIR: We wish to file a protest to Representative Lee Metcalf's bill providing Federal aid to education. We think there are several objectionable features in it. 1. It would take control of the schools away from the States. Most parents want to have some "say" about their children's education. It is a close personal matter to us. We do not want to be standardized. 2. It would take more money. The money would have to come from the States in the first place-but a lot of it would be taken out for administrative purposes before any got back to us. 3. It would be inflationary and extravagant. School boards would not be as careful with money that seemed to come in free as with money that came directly from taxes close to home. So, we hope you will work against this piece of proposed legislation. Yours truly, H. F. BOWDISH. ELLEN BOWDISH. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Member of Congress, House Majority Leader, DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCCORMACK: I am pleased to forward for your perusal and comment, a copy of a communication which I have recently addressed to the President of the United States on a proposal which I believe may assist the individual States in providing needed educational facilities. You will note from the enclosed that I have formally requested the President to initiate a study by appropriate executive action in order that the results of such a study may guide the several States in their present planning for expansion of educational facilities. I should appreciate your communicating with the President or with me concerning your endorsement of my request for such a study at your earliest convenience. If you desire any further information, will you kindly contact Mr. Elwood S. McKenney at this office. Cordially yours, FOSTER FUBCOLO. THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE HONORABLE DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER, * DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Confirming my recent conference with you with reference to educational institutions college and high school-may I briefly summarize some of the facts and views which were presented for your consideration: 1. The student population and the trend toward more and more education is rapidly increasing. The existing shortage of teachers becomes doubly important as the student population increases. Therefore, the main problem is to provide enough good teachers which poses the subsidiary problem of using them most effectively. 2. There are approximately 2,000 public and private colleges and universities in the Nation. About 1,300 of these institutions belong to some regional accrediting associations. 3. There are six regional accrediting associations. lished by law, but are merely voluntary groups): (These are not estab New England Association of Secondary Schools and Colleges Northwest Association of Secondary and Higher Schools Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools Three of them have no specific teacher-student ratio as a criterion for accreditation. The New England Association has a ratio of 15 students to 1 teacher for 4-year, degree-granting colleges, and a ratio of 20 to 1 for 2 year colleges. The Northwest Association has a ratio of 13 to 1, and the Southern Association has a ratio of 20 to 1 for 4-year colleges, and 25 to 1 for 2-year institutions. The academic standing of any institution of higher learning is largely dependent upon whether or not it is an "accredited" school. 4. A college or university is not accredited unless it abides by the standards set by its regional accrediting association. Accreditation is important to the student, because it often determines whether he can be admited from a nonaccredited school to an accredited one. It is also important in transfers from one college to another, the value of a diploma, and so forth. 5. Education is one of the most expensive items and a most important item in the budget of any community, State or Nation. The problem becomes greater as the population increases-and as the pay of teachers increases. It is clearly evident that education will continue to be a more and more expensive item. 6. It is obvious that the lower the teacher-student ratio-the greater the cost. I wish to again emphasize that which I stressed so much to you in our conference, namely, that under no circumstances do we want any action taken that would impair the quality of education. We must maintain standards of high quality. 7. For many generations, most educators and virtually all other people of the Nation have accepted as incontrovertible that the fewer the number of students per teacher, the better the educational achievement of the students. It does not seem wise to accept this premise without a thorough study by an unquestioned authoritative source. This almost universally held belief requires examination, particularly in view of the development and extensive use in the last decade of many new teaching methods-including film, television, radio, tape recordings, and so forth. 8. I have just completed a survey of dozens of studies that have been made that unfortunately are either not widely known or may not be called “authoritative" because of their somewhat limited scope. They all cast serious doubt on the widely held theory that the quality of education improves as the ratio of teacher to student decreases. I discovered that most recent studies indicate that there is no relationship or that student educational achievement actually improves with classes that are larger than the generally accepted models. For example, the more important of more than 200 research studies of class size and pupil achievement that were undertaken in the past 50 years were reviewed by the Encyclopedia of Educational Research. It found that 40 percent of the research reports favored large classes, and only 22 percent favored small classes. The more recent studies showed 50 percent favored large classes, and 21 percent favored small classes. The remainder felt there was no significant difference either way. Factual research studies found better than 2 to 1 that pupil achievement is higher in larger than in smaller classes. * The encyclopedia summarizes: "* * the general trend of evidence places the burden of truth squarely upon the proponents of small classes *** on the whole, the statistical findings definitely favor large classes at every level of instruction, except the kindergarten." (Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 1950 rev. ed., pp. 212–215.) The Connecticut State Department of Education study of 1957 reported that "the correlation between achievement and pupil-teacher ratio is practically zero." 9. A very thorough and exhaustive study of the entire subject is being com pleted by Prof. Seymour E. Harris, chairman of the Department of Economics at Harvard University. While the study will not be completed or published for another few weeks, there is a published quotation of his that bears on the ratio of college student to faculty. The September 1958 issue of the American Association of University Professors has this quote by Professor Harris: "There is nothing sacred about the 10 to 1 ratio. In fact, when it is considered that in elementary schools the ratio is 30 to 1, and in secondary schools, 22 to 1, one is puzzled by the 10 to 1 ratio in higher education." Professor Harris then goes on to point out the millions of dollars that could be saved by a changed ratio. 10. Prior to my trip to Washington to outline my proposal to you-it was discussed with three of the most distinguished educators in Massachusetts and the Nation-State Commissioner of Education Owen B. Kiernan; University of Massachusetts President J. Paul Mather; and Prof. Seymour Harris, chairman of the economics department at Harvard. All three believe this situation merits thorough exploration. Neither they nor I make any specific recommendations other than to say that a full-scale review of the teacher-student ratio appears advisable. 11. I believe that it should be authoritatively determined whether or not the almost universally held teacher-student ratio theory is sound, in view of the many new teaching methods. We should know whether this aids or hinders the educational achievement of our students. This is a duty we owe, not only to the taxpayers who pay the bills and to those who consistently and conscientiously support the costs of private education, but also to the students themselves. 12. As was suggested at our conference, I recommend that the education experts in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be requested to carefully review the situation. If it be determined that the situation warrants exploring, then I urge you to name a committee of distinguished citizens, including well-known educators, to head up a task force survey-and then make recommendations to you. I am certain that such findings or recommendations will have a very persuasive effect on all public and private colleges and universities. 13. I would like to have it noted that our conference in Washington was limited to educational institutions beyond high school. 14. I stress the fact that at this time I am not suggesting anything more than exploration of the situation, for it appears that the teacher-student ratio theory may be a limiting factor based on outmoded preconceptions and, therefore, should be explored. 15. If full and careful investigation by an unimpeachable survey establishes that the teacher-student ratio should be revised upwards, resulting in more students per teacher, it will unquestionably mean: (1) Greater educational opportunities for more students. (3) Better pay for teachers and more effective utilization of qualified teachers. (4) An easing of the teacher shortage problem. (5) A saving to Massachusetts taxpayers and to every city and town in the State of many millions of dollars a year and every year in the future— thus saving Massachusetts hundreds of millions of dollars. (6) A similar saving to every State in the Nation, which means the taxpayers of the Nation will be saved billions of dollars. In conclusion, I believe that anything that even offers the possible solutions outlined in paragraph 15 certainly merits profound consideration. Please be assured that my staff and I will be more than pleased to work with any of your staff who may be assigned to this problem. We have had considerable research done on it that we are glad to make available. With all good wishes to you, I am, Sincerely yours, FOSTER FURCOLO. THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA, INC., Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, Chairman, House General Education Subcommittee, DEAR CONGRESSMAN BAILEY: The Associated General Contractors of America, a national trade association representing more than 7,000 general contractors who annually perform the majority of contract construction in the United States, is interested in the many bills now being considered by your Subcommittee to provide Federal funds for local school construction. At the 40th annual convention of this association, held in Miami, Fla., in January 1959, the following resolution was adopted: "Whereas the financing of school construction in this country has been traditionally and constitutionally the responsibility of the States and local communities; and "Whereas the use of Federal funds for school construction is a step toward Federal control of education; and "Whereas use of Federal funds for school construction will immediately result in Federal controls which will add greatly to the cost of school construction, thus destroying the economy that is inherent in local supervision over local expenditures of local revenues: Now, therefore, be it "Resolved, That the 40th annual convention of the Associated General Contractors of America, meeting in Miami Beach, Fla., Jan. 19-22, 1959, opposes any additional Federal program for financing school construction." In view of the important role construction plays in the economy of each of the 49 States, and the thousands of local communities, we felt that our position on this matter should be brought to your immediate attention. Sincerely yours, JAMES D. MARSHALL, Executive Director. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY Women, Hon. CLEVELAND M. BAILEY, Chairman, Subcommittee on General Education, DEAR SIR: I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Branch of the American Association of University Women to urge the committee to report in favor of substantial Federal support for education. |