from the 103rd school board to which he applied, having first been turned down by 102 school boards because he was blind.

A blind woman, applicant for a teaching position in the public schools who, when asked if there was discrimination against the hiring of blind teachers in her state replied: "I have a whole bureau drawer full of letters from school officials who unequivocally declare, 'We do not have a blind teacher now. We have never hired a blind teacher. We have no intention of hiring a blind teacher now.""

In still another state, the college of education authorities only admitted a blind person to teacher training when advised their unreasonable and unjustified discrimination would be known to the press-and two years later, the same officials again refused to admit a blind person to teacher training, and again only admitted the blind applicant upon the threat of publicity.

Mr. Chairman, such experiences of blind persons are nearly endless, but the above should serve to indicate the need for enactment of our proposed antidiscrimination because of physical impairment amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

Mr. Chairman, we who are older, we who have lived and functioned for years with blindness, once we believed that as we proved our capacities and capabilities by on-the-job demonstrations-by actually teaching sighted children in public schools, by actually selling insurance, by actually operating complex machinery in shops and factories—by actually living successfully in normal society—by actually working successfully in the regular livelihoods of the community-that the blind successors to the blind pioneer would find things easier, the obstacles fewer, the barriers lower-that the blind successors to the blind pioneer would find it easier to get in, easier to say in, and a more fair opportunity to advance and achieve improved status and recognition and reward according to merit and established accomplishment.

But, Mr. Chairman, it has not become so!

It has not become so, particularly in the field of education!

As each aspiring, ambitious blind person knows from personal experience, each blind man who would enter a field of endeavor already successfully invaded by others who are also blind seldom gains an advantage when he points to provensuccess blind predecessors.

But each blind person who dares and tries finds it's just as though he were the first-and he must, over and over and over again, prove the capacities and capabilities of a blind person, prove his right to live normally, prove his qualification for regular employment.

This is the situation confronting blind persons throughout our entire national economy, today.

It is the situation which confronts blind persons who seek to enter the field of education.

And this situation exists at a time when just about every school board in the Nation is desperately trying to fill long vacant positions in their public school systems.

Mr. Chairman, the illustrations we have given in support of our proposed amendment are from the lives and experiences of blind persons, since the National Federation of the Blind is an organization of blind men and women, but we seek by our measure, not only to protect employment opportunities for blind persons in the field of education, but we seek protection for other physically impaired persons who would enter this field, for all physically impaired persons, whatever the nature of their impairment, encounter the same denials and discriminations, the same prejudicial practices as do blind persons.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the National Federation of the Blind urges this committee and the Congress to adopt our proposed anti-discrimination because of physical impairment amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in order that blind persons, in order that all physically disabled persons, who would be teachers in America's public schools may be assured that their applications for employment will receive fair and just consideration, that they may be assured of acceptance or rejection on their merits, on their established record as individuals.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

Visually impaired children, children with hearing difficulties, children with malformed limbs, children that are mentally defective, children that are emotionally disturbed-each disability grouping of children presents uniquely different problems and special and distinctively different needs-problems to be

resolved, needs to be met and satisfied, by special education programs, by specially trained and qualified teachers and supportive personnel.

Adequately educated and equipped through these programs by these specialists, many disabled children will develop into self-dependent adults.

Properly prepared to cope with life under adverse circumstances, all disabled children will be enabled to live fuller, more worthwhile lives.

The members of the National Federation of the Blind, blind men and women, seek to secure equality of opportunity for children made unequal by physical and mental impairment, for children who must be given special opportunity for them to have any opportunity at all.

But if equality of opportunity is to be a reality in the lives of physically impaired children who will grow into physically impaired adults, then fair and just consideration must be assured to them when they apply for employment in any position in America, and particularly, when they seek employment in the field of education.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Now, we had other witnesses this morning listed. Next was the National Farmers Union-first I want to commend you for your fine statement, Mr. Nagle.

Mr. NAGLE. Thank you.

Senator YARBOROUGH. As our next witness we had Mr. Blue Carstenson, assistant legislative director, National Farmers Union.

Is he here, or a representative?

Next, the American Library Association. Miss Cooke, is she here, Eileen Cooke, is she here?

Next, the National School Boards Association, Mr. Paul N. Carlin, Washington representative. Is he here?

The American Council on Education, Dr. John F. Morse. Dr. Morse is here.

Next, American Association of Junior Colleges, Dr. John P. Mallan. Is he here? Both of them are here.

Well, gentlemen, we wish to go into executive session on this bill Monday afternoon. We can call another special hearing session Monday morning or you can file your statement, whichever you prefer. We will accommodate the witnesses in either manner.

Mr. MORSE. We would be glad to accommodate you, so we will file the statement, if that would expedite matters.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Morse, in the absence of others who were to have testified, I will be forced to call another meeting of the subcommittee to give them an opportunity to file their statements.

Mr. MORSE. Well, you have a difficult time schedule, sir. Either way is fine with us.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, you have your preference of filing your statement now and getting it in the record or coming back Monday morning.

The statements will be printed in the record as if they were presented in person due to the time element.

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. MORSE, DIRECTOR, COMMISSION ON FEDERAL RELATIONS, AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, JOINED BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES; THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES; THE ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION; THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; AND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITITS AND LAND GRANT COLLEGES

EDUCATION PROFESSIONS DEVELOPMENT ACT

(TITLE V OF S. 1126 AND H.R. 10943)

Mr. MORSE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am John F. Morse, director of the Commission on Federal Relations of the American Council on Education. I am particularly pleased to report to you that joining the council in this testimony are the American Association of Junior Colleges, the Association of American Colleges, the Association for Higher Education, the Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. The views of all of these associations on the merits of the bills before you are identical.

The American Council on Education wholeheartedly endorses the proposed Education Professions Development Act, contained in title V of S. 1126 and in the new separate House bill, H.R. 10943.

The chief purpose of the proposed new act is to increase the supply of adequately trained teachers and other school personnel at all levels, from preschool to college. There is no question that all segments of education need not only many more but better trained teachers if they are to meet the increasingly heavy demands placed upon them by swelling enrollments stemming from the growth in our young population and incentives to improve the general level of education.

In higher education alone, tens of thousands of additional teachers and other professionals-most of them educated at a level below the doctoral degree-will be needed over the next decade for the nation's junior colleges and technical institutes and for freshman and sophomore years at 4-year colleges and universities.

Present Federal legislation to aid in the preparation of teachers is piecemeal and does not give the needed flexibility to establish programs at any level appropriate to the need at any given time. As this committee knows, there are presently Federal programs to support the preparation of teachers for elementary and secondary schools and for upper division university and college teaching at the doctoral level. While these programs are essential, there is also an increasing need for college teachers with subdoctoral training, particularly in the expanding 2-year colleges and the 4-year undergraduate colleges. The council proposed a program to fill this gap in its statement of legislative recommendations issued early in the 90th Congress. In the statement, entitled "The Federal Investment in Higher Education." the council said:

"We urge the enactment of new Federal legislation which would award fellowships to institutions that wish to develop programs leading to a variety of subdoctoral programs. These programs need not necessarily be regarded as terminal, for recipients might well

wish to go on later to the doctorate. The programs should include, but not be limited to, traditional academic disciplines. There is, for instance, an acute shortage of teachers qualified to instruct in post-high school subprofessional and vocational fields. The legislation to provide such a program should be sufficiently broad to permit a variety of experimental approaches, including the support of internships in college teachings."

In the same statement, the council urged that support for teacher training institutes authorized under the National Defense Education Act be broadened to permit programs for college teachers. We feel that it is as important for them as for elementary and secondary school teachers to have the opportunity to keep abreast of their fields through attendance at intensive training institutes, either during the summer or, occassionally, during the academic year. The National Science Foundation has made such opportunities available in the scientific fields for years, with highly beneficial results. We believe it only logical that the Office of Education be given similar authority for its programs.

We are pleased that the proposed Education Professions Development Act contains sufficient authority to provide these two new types of training for higher education personnel, namely subdoctoral fellowships and subject-matter institutes. By permitting training programs for college administrators and other educational specialists, the act also would go far in meeting a crying need for trained personnel in the increasingly complex business of college operations. In this day and age, a college must not only have teachers, but counselors, financial aid advisers, business officers, and a variety of other adminisstrative personnel to operate efficiently. The need for such trained personnel is obvious in the large universities with many thousand students. But it is no less real in the smaller colleges which are trying to cope with new demands and problems.

We would suggest, however, that the proposed Education Professions Development Act be amended to permit the new training programs for higher education personnel to start in fiscal year 1968, rather than in fiscal 1969. While we appreciate the wisdom of providing leadtime for commencing new Federal programs, this is one instance where the new programs could be initiated quite promptly, providing support were available. More than 200 graduate schools in every part of the United States are now offering or developing programs to prepare teachers for undergraduate and post-secondary vocational instruction. This indicates that some meaningful programs could be launched in fiscal 1968 and a great deal of planning accomplished for others.

A failure to start these programs in fiscal 1968 may mean-because of delays in the appropriations process-the loss of one academic year in launching this needed new training.

While the council is primarily concerned with higher education, we support provisions of the Education Professions Development Act that would provide training for preschool, vocational, and adult education personnel as well as regular elementary and secondary classroom teachers, permit training of a variety of related education personnel and school administrators, and support more intensive efforts to recruit persons to the teaching field.

We are confident that the broader latitude provided in the Education Professions Development Act would be as beneficial to the other schools as to the colleges. In this connection, the council supports provisions which would phase out the restricted subject-matter institutes supported under the NDEA, and substitute general authority to support training institutes. This would enable the Office of Education to identify and fund areas most in need of support, without being tied to specific statutory categories, where the relative needs may vary from time to time.

The council applauds a provision in both S. 1126 and H.R. 10943 establishing a National Advisory Council on Education Professions Development to survey the needs for educational personnel at all levels, survey the effectiveness of all existing training programs, and make recommendations annually to the Congress and the President. Here again, the entire educational community will benefit from an objective, overall look at the supply and demand for teachers and related personnel. The advisory council's studies may well result in improved coordination of Federal training programs.

Turning finally to the Teachers Corps, the council supports the 3year extension of this experimental program as contained in S. 1125, the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967 introduced by Chairman Morse, and in H.R. 10943, the teacher training bill approved by the House Education and Labor Committee.

We have one reservation, however, about language in both bills requiring approval of the appropriate State educational agency for arrangements between the Commissioner of Education and institutions of higher education for the training of Teachers Corps members. As mentioned earlier, the Teachers Corps is still an experimental program, promising though it is. No one as yet knows how best to train teachers to work in deprived areas, and thus we need to encourage new and different approaches which hopefully will prove successful, but possibly may not.

From experience, we know that direct negotiations between the Office of Education and the universities work well in developing training programs, We see no necessity in introducing the possibility of a veto by a third party which may or may not be sympathetic to an experimental approach. If the required State agency "approval" is merely pro forma, then the only problem would be one of delay. But if the approval is more than pro forma, we fear that many institutions which could contribute greatly to this new program might withdraw rather than go through yet another level of negotiations. We do not know, as yet, whether these fears would be realized, but in any case we see no reason why the Office of Education should not continue to have authority to make arrangements directly with the colleges for the training courses for Corps members.

In summary, the council appreciates this opportunity to voice its overall support for the proposed Education Professions Development Act, and would be glad to furnish any additional information or answer any questions.