much as 20 percent a year. That is the conservative side. In other words, 20 percent of the people who live in America move each year, whether it be across the street, around the block or to another State. There is an enormous migration east and west. I quite agree that this is a national responsibility.

Mr. Secretary, you would not be surprised, would you, to learn that the Federal Government spends in excess of $3 million a year, through the various departments and agencies, on education?

Mr. RIBICOFF. No, I am not surprised at all. As a matter of fact, I knew this long before I took this job. In reading up on the background, there was an excellent survey made by the Library of Congress known as the Quattlebaum report, which was made 2 or 3 years ago, which outlined in detail Federal expenditures. There is a very large commitment financially in education by the Federal Government that runs through practically every department of our Govern

ment.

Mr. THOMPSON. There has been some suggestion within this committee that some of its members were startled to know that the Government spent as much as the figure of $2 billion was used.

I was astounded that anyone would be shocked by learning this. There have been proposals that all education legislation be stalled or held pending a study to determine how much is being spent.

I hope that my colleagues in the course of that study will read the Quattlebaum report and in the meantime that we can get on with not the statistics of what we are spending and from where, but to programs such as this and the adult basic education program, which we know, notwithstanding whatever is being spent today, are aimed at problems that must be remedied.

Mr. Martin, do you have questions for the Secretary?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, just one or two.

It has always been my contention that educational systems were not built of brick and mortar, but rather with the quality of the instructors that we had in those institutions. This bill, I believe, begins to get at that problem. Perhaps, this is out of your scope, but many States, in fact I believe most States probably in the Union, have regulations that require that teachers in the public schools, elementary and secondary school level, receive a certain number of hours of training in the field of education; in other words, how to teach.

As a result of that regulation, many of our teachers, for instance, in the field of English or science or in history or other subjects, do not have sufficient hours in the particular subject in which they are going to teach. Therefore, to my mind, some of them are not properly prepared to teach their subject.

Now do you have any comments, Mr. Secretary, on that?

Mr. RIBICOFF. Yes. As a matter of fact, we are very well aware of this and this is one of the weaknesses that this bill seeks to correct. If you took a teacher such as you described from any State, they could apply to one of the summer institutes, whether it be English or history or the social sciences, to improve the depth of knowledge of the subject matter. The question of these 2,500 fellowships is definitely addressed to subject matter, not method. To me, method is important, but certainly what good is method if you do not have the depth of understanding, the knowledge to teach with the method you know? I think, always, subject matter is the most important.

I agree with you that the key to the entire educational system is a teacher, an inspiring, dedicated, and knowledgeable teacher, and a willing and able pupil, and not a fancy schoolhouse, is the key to an education.

Mr. MARTIN. Many of your graduates with A.B. degrees from some of our finest colleges in the country are not eligible to teach in the public schools; they can teach in private schools in which the requirement is not necessary to have so many hours of courses in the field of education.

Yet, they have had far more hours in their particular subject matter in which they are interested and to my mind they are much better qualified to teach than those coming out of teachers' colleges.

I am not condemning teachers' colleges, but because of their requirements.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MARTIN. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the Secretary and Dr. McMurrin will agree that there has been a rather happy turn in the structure of teacher education recently. For instance, New Jersey has abandoned the use of the phrase "New Jersey State Teachers College," and is now making them liberal arts colleges, still with emphasis on enough education.

There have been too many doctor of education degrees granted on such ponderous subjects as "How To Fix the Zippers on 6-Year-Old's Snowsuits," and "The Structure of the Maintenance Crews of the Albany, N.Y., School System," and so on.

They are getting away from that a lot, I think, methodology, in other words.

Secretary RIBICOFF. What we are trying to do, too, in part of this bill is to strengthen our colleges and universities in the country. This is what we try to do. To go deeper into this, I have always felt that one of the great weaknesses in our educational system is the fact that our best faculties at many of our universities are not allocated or assigned to the teacher's college.

There are too many universities that have their weakest program in the teachers' college branch. I would say this should be one of the strongest departments. I have long advocated that our great universities should have a lot of crossbreeding, that in their teachers' college branches of the university they should take some of the most outstanding members of the faculties of arts and sciences in the graduate field and bring them over into the teachers' college, where those who are going to teach can be exposed to the teaching of the greatest professors at all these universities.

I do believe there is more and more realization of this in our colleges and universities and we are trying to encourage by this bill just such improvements as both you gentlemen are talking about. I believe both of you are of the same mind as Dr. McMurrin, and myself, on this.

Basically, like you say, we have a problem. Basically we, in this Department, cannot tell the States and the localities what to do and we do not want to. Ours is a problem of education, Dr. McMurrin and I have very few moments to ourselves. When we are not up on the Hill and doing the work in our Departments, both of us undertake very extensive speaking engagements around the country to try to provoke the thinking that you gentlemen are talking about.

We get brickbats for our efforts and labors, but we do believe it is worth while.

Mr. MARTIN. I notice in your statement your attention to the fact that English was extremely important.

Secretary RIBICOFF. Very important.

Mr. MARTIN. If a person could not write and express himself correctly in correct English, that he was at a great loss.

Secretary RIBICOFF. That is one of the great neglected subjects. How can you be an educated man if you cannot use the language of your country? There is no question that there are great deficiencies in the teaching of English.

Mr. MARTIN. No question.

Secretary RIBICOFF. We have been emphasizing sciences; we are very anxious to emphasize our own tongue, our own language, how to use it in all respects.

Mr. MARTIN. I have applications for jobs from young college graduates with an A.B. degree, and in writing out their letter of application they did not even spell some of the words correctly, and lacked completely any knowledge of punctuation, and their phraseology was extremely bad. Yet, they were graduates of some of our colleges.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much. We know you have other commitments and we are grateful to you for coming here. Secretary RIBICOFF. Should your committee desire me to return at any time during the proceedings, I am available at your call. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, sir.

Dr. McMurrin, I see that you have your defensive linebackers with you, all of whom are familiar to us and are most welcome. Please feel free to proceed as you wish with your statement. Would you prefer not to be interrupted in the course of your statement?

Dr. MCMURRIN. Whatever you would prefer, or other members of the committee, Mr. Chairman. The statement describes in somewhat more detail some of the things that Mr. Ribicoff has presented to you and, I am very pleased to say, gets at some of the issues that you gentlemen have already raised in some detail.

Mr. THOMPSON. It might be helpful if you do not mind then, in order that we do not forget a question during the remainder of your statement, if we could interrupt.

Dr. MCMURRIN. Whatever you prefer sir.

STATEMENT OF STERLING M. McMURRIN, U.S. COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES RADCLIFFE, CHIEF, LEGISLATIVE SECTION; RALPH C. FLYNT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (RESEARCH); AND PETER P. MUIRHEAD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (LEGISLATIVE AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT), OFFICE OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Dr. MCMURRIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Martin, it is a pleasure to appear here today in support of H.R. 10145, and to join Secretary Ribicoff in urging enactment of this bill. The Secretary has made an excellent statement of the educational needs to which this bill is addressed, and of the practical means provided by the bill to meet those needs.

My purpose is to develop for the subcommittee a more detailed exposition of H.R. 10145. Before doing so, however, I would like to express my personal enthusiasm for the central purpose of this legislation and for the type of programs that it would authorize. Genuine excellence in our educational system must not be considered a distant goal. It should be, rather, the constant driving purpose of all who play a part in determining the quality of education.

There cannot be a unifying sense of purpose in education if we shrink from the hard judgments of the nature of our national situation and of the character of our education. We must now be willing to meet head on the sobering fact that our Nation is in deadly peril and its security and survival depend in considerable measure on the quantity and quality of our education.

Quite apart from the direct threat to our national security, we are confronted with enormous domestic problems arising from the acceleration of major social processes. Forces such as the dramatic progress of technology, increasing industrialization, and the dislocations, strains, and tensions of our awkward pattern of urbanization, all make increasingly large demands upon our educational establishment.

In this situation, Mr. Chairman, we must carefully-and coldlyassess education in terms both of its impact upon the individual and its relevance to personal, community, and national needs. It is true that our educational attainments have been highly commendable and have provided a foundation for our society and a guarantee of its values.

But I believe it is also true that we have failed to adequately exploit our full potential for the achievement of the proper ends of education, and that we must now assure the effective deployment and application of our educational effort.

The quality of our educational enterprise is not to be measured simply by examples of excellence. It must be measured across the board by the opportunity it affords students in every type of community, in all sections of the country, from every social and cultural background, to develop their highest intellectual capacities. The blunt truth is that by this standard of measure the quality of American education falls dangerously short of the requirements of these times.

The most critical qualitative area is elementary and secondary education. It is the most critical because, if for no other reason, it is the most important. The first 12 grades are the entirety of formal education for millions of children, and they are the foundation of education for all. Talent undiscovered and unnurtured at this level is nearly always lost. Inadequate instruction at this level cannot be fully compensated for at higher levels.

The Federal Government can make a major, perhaps decisive, contribution to the accomplishment of sharp and specific improvements in the quality of American elementary and secondary education. Financial assistance and the stimulation of Federal support is urgently needed in two basic areas: better preparation of present and future teachers, and the wide application of improved instructional practices in the schools.

H.R. 10145 is squarely addressed to these needs. Secretary Ribicoff has outlined the provisions of the bill. In the matter of teacher

preparation, the bill provides for three programs: Subject-matter institutes, scholarships, and grants to colleges to strengthen teacher education.

For the improvement of instructional practices, it has three aspects: State leadership, local projects, and Cooperative Research Act amendments—all providing for programs of development, evaluation, and demonstration of quality teaching in the schools.

While the separate parts stand alone serving different objectives, they also form an interrelated pattern influencing both the preparation of the teacher and the practice of his profession.

In the final analysis, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the quality of our schools must depend upon the quality of our teachers. Our major task is to bring to the classroom the large number of teachers of high qualification that are necessary to the full success of the educational enterprise.

It is deplorable that the American people have all too often overlooked their many highly competent teachers and have considered teaching-especially in elementary and secondary schools-to be a vocation appropriate for persons of second- or third-rate ability. They have accordingly rewarded them with third- or fourth-rate salaries.

It is not surprising, therefore, that many of our teachers are less able and competent than their profession should demand. Our objective must be to assure that all our teachers are comparable to our present top 10 percent, and to make teaching competitive with medicine, law, engineering, business, or government in its attraction for brilliant minds.

Mr. THOMPSON. I might interrupt you at this point, doctor, to state my agreement with that statement and to emphasize that this bill is not a teacher-salary bill.

Dr. MCMURRIN. Quite true, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Teachers' salaries were covered in the bill H.R. 7300, and the Senate passed it.

Dr. MCMURRIN. Quite true.

We are caught in a vicious circle to the extent that low salaries do not attract a sufficient share of high competence to teaching and those who pay teachers' salaries often use the general level of competency as an argument against higher salaries.

My point in referring to salaries here, Mr. Chairman, is to point out that in the long run teachers' salaries will not rise adequately unless the competence of teachers rises more rapidly than it now is.

Salary scales have been rising in recent years, albeit neither fast enough nor far enough. This bill attacks the problem at the other part of the circle, at the point of teacher competence.

Our immediate concern is to improve the competency of the teacher who is now in the classroom--and particularly of those who deal with the basic subjects that are the foundation of learning. The need is easily demonstrated. It is most serious with regard to instruction in English.

I am very pleased, Mr. Martin, that we have selected as an example of the problem the very field in which you have already indicated a clear interest.

The study of the English language is the gateway to every field of knowledge. Yet today there is both a shortage of English teachers