green based table like Greyhound buses. Everybody got their bowels all upset about science and mathematics. We had to have engineers and scientists and mathematicians, and isn't it terrible we do not have them in the Government area and private sector and learned societies; everybody has to be a mathematician and scientist. Oh, my, the country has gone to hell. Everybody forgot about the poor humanities. I see that we are finally respectable again. To what extent have we returned to the fold? I see a reference to title XI in which you have a request for teaching teachers in history and English and literature? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes. We have a request for $40 million for institutes which does include teachers of English.

Mr. FLOOD. It should warm the cockles of your heart.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.

Mr. FLOOD. It does mine.

Mr. Howe. Likewise.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. There have been other evidences in the legislation that has passed since sputnik.

Mr. FLOOD. Frank Thompson's bill, which Manny Celler and I introduced in 1945 and never got off the floor-it never got out of the cuspidor-passed last year, thank goodness.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think we are approaching this business of supporting education with a good deal more maturity and sophistication than we did with the NDEA.

Mr. FLOOD. I hope you are properly enthused by it and don't get submerged in space and mathematics with my technical friends.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. We are delighted with that development and perhaps one of the very best examples

Mr. FLOOD. If you need somebody to break a lance for you, come and

see me.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLOOD. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Farnum?

NEED FOR STATE SPECIALIST SUPERVISORS

Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Muirhead, on page 185 you talk about the specialist that is needed in the States in the supervisory capacity, especially, or as advisers. When you started there were only 32 State specialist supervisors in science, mathematics, and modern language. Now we have 254. Then you say there is a big hole in the area of history, economics, civics, geography, English, and reading. How many are really needed in this whole area, including science and math?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think I would have to turn to the Director of the program to get a measure of that. I would say before he does respond that the reason why there is this gap, if you will, is because we were rather belated in broadening the support in this program. Mr. FLOOD. You could not get it

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Thank you, sir.

Mr. FLOOD (continuing). From the Congress for a hundred years. You know why, so do I.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Let me see if we can get an estimate from Mr. Becker what the need is.

Mr. FLOOD. One does not live by bread alone.

Mr. BECKER. Each State department should have at least one specialist in each of the subjects which are covered under NDEA, title III. We started with three subject fields, and then added five more and last year added economics. That would be nine. Nine times 50. States would be at least four hundred and fifty. Many States would want more than one in each subject field; some as many as three or four. A good estimate is 900 subject supervisors.

SLOW INCREASE OF STATE MATCHING FUNDS

Mr. FARNUM. Then you have approximately one-third of what really is needed.

Mr. BECKER. Yes, I would say that is getting close.

Mr. FARNUM. Can you explain why you are only asking for an amount appropriated for this year as you had last year?

How are you going to make any increases or keep pace? You are saying here they will be able to maintain their increases but I do not think they can.

Mr. BECKER. This again is a matching problem at the State level. Mr. FARNUM. Some States have had difficulty in securing sufficient funds to match the Federal dollars available under administration and supervision.

Mr. FLOOD. For this kind of subject.

Mr. BECKER. Not necessarily, because you see this kind of subject was just added.

Mr. FLOOD. That is what I am talking about. That is what I am cheering about.

Mr. BECKER. They are showing an increase in the States, a considerable increase.

For instance, modern foreign language is about the same, English has moved from 12 to 44.

Mr. FLOOD. What about history?

Mr. BECKER. Just a minute 15 to 63.

Mr. FLOOD. When this bill was on the floor, do you know three efforts were made with three amendments and for nearly 1 hour to strike out history?

Mr. Howe. I did not know that.

Mr. FLOOD. I am telling you.

Mr. Howe. I am glad it is in here.

Mr. BECKER. English has moved from 12 to 44. With encouragement, the States do move up and they do find matching money, but not fast enough to use the present appropriation.

Mr. FLOOD. The know-nothings are not dead, by a long shot.

NEW LANGUAGE AND AREA STUDY CENTERS

Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Muirhead, under advanced training on 198, you have a request for $240,000 to establish eight new langauge and area centers selected from a substantial backlog of institutions which have worked diligently to prepare themselves to incorporate language and area studies into their basic educational program. Does this mean the Department has already decided where these eight new language area centers are going to be, or will that have to be decided if you get the money?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. That will be decided when we get the money and that will be decided upon the advice of the Advisory Committee who will look at the proposals submitted.

CRITERIA FOR LOCATING CENTERS

Mr. FARNUM. What are the criteria you will use in making this decision?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. First of all we will use a number of criteria that are related to the centers we have now in place and to the language in the areas serving and the geographic distribution in the Nation of those particular centers.

Mr. FLOOD. What is a language center?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. We call them language and area centers largely because we believe in the things you believe in, Mr. Flood. Not only should they speak the language and understand the language in the center and develop competence in the language in the center, but they should understand the area in which the language is taught.

Mr. FLOOD. Excellent.

GRANTS TO STATES FOR STATISTICAL SERVICES

Mr. FARNUM. Let's go over to your grant to States for statistical services.

I see there are few States who are matching the maximum here, very few. There is a limited number of States evidently that have used all of these funds that are available.

I noticed that most of it is used in the area of evaluation of statistics collected to improve the organization of collecting statistics, to revise data collection procedures and probably to install or expand automatic data processing.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.

Mr. FARNUM. This is on a State basis.

What, if any, effort has been made by the Office of Education to collect the statistics and information that is available and to have this evaluated in a central data collecting system so the dissemination of this information could be utilized by those States not taking advantage of this program.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The efforts that have been made by the Office of Education to accomplish some of the objectives you have mentioned are heroic up to this point.

Mr. FARNUM. Put the heroics into facts so I can understand them. Mr. MUIRHEAD. I will try to do that and will call upon someone who can transpose the word "heroic" into "accomplishment," and we have Mr. Mood with us, Director of our Education Statistics Center.

Let me say Mr. Mood is the Director of our Center for Educational Statistics.

Mr. FARNUM. I would like to know the accomplishments that have been made.

Mr. FOGARTY. I think it would be better for them to get the facts and supply them for the record.

Do you understand the question of Mr. Farnum? He is an expert on statistics and computers and systems development.

(The information requested follows:)

TITLE X. SECTION 1009, NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT, IMPROVEMENT OF STATISTICAL SERVICES OF STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES

The significant benchmark of evaluating the value to American Education of section 1009, title X, National Defense Education Act of 1958, Public Law 85-864 is September 1958. The legislation providing maximum annual grant funds of $50,000 on a matching basis to State educational agencies, was enacted for the specific purpose of the improvement of statistical services of State educational agencies beyond the level existing at the established date. The legislation reflected an obvious concern of Congress about the quantity, quality, and timeliness of available data about education in the United States. It is significant to note that section 1009, title X, was directed toward stimulating State responsibility for improvement of State services without the condition of sup plying data directly to the Federal Government. Federal funds were not intended to directly buy or obtain data. The central purpose was to assist the States in their own efforts to improve statistical services with the expectancy that they could and would be more able to respond to the National need for educational information,

In answer to the general question of accomplishment under title X the following facts are presented:

In fiscal year 1959, 29 States participated; there were 51 in fiscal year 1965.

In fiscal year 1959, $236,766 was expended by States for new or expanded statistical services; in fiscal year 1965, an estimated $1,808,312 was expended. In fiscal year 1959 there were a total of 225 title X and other statistical service personnel in participating State educational agencies; in fiscal year 1965 there were 747 employed.

In fiscal year 1959, 15 States reported an expenditure of $10,643 for equipment rental and $221,756 for purchase of equipment; in fiscal year 1964 reports showed expenditures of $832,021 and $169,342.

In fiscal year 1959 only 13 States were using data processing equipment; in fiscal year 1965, 53 were reported using such equipment or services. It seems apparent that the States have participated in the title X program to improve statistical services; States have been stimulated to divert State funds to obtain educational information; that professional and clerical statistical personnel have been employed within the States to obtain, process, analyze, and disseminate educational information; and the States have increasingly developed machine capability to process educational data and advanced electronic computer equipment are being utilized or planned for in about 20 States. The question, "Does the U.S. Office of Education now have better data?", can be answered in the affirmative. There has been a decrease in the "NA" (not available) category on requested reports. On the basis of the increased number of statistical personnel in State educational agencies since 1958, increased machine capability, and attributing the benefit of experience, data received in the U.S. Office of Education are of better quality and in greater quantity. While there is much room for improvement there is no doubt of the progress made since 1958.

A factor of vital significance to data quality is whether it is derived through use of common definitions and terminology. A significant contribution to data quality has been the rapid increase in State use of the U.S. Office of Education cooperatively developed handbooks for State and local school systems. For example, all but five State agencies report full or partial implementation of financial accounting for local and State school systems, handbook II. Other handbooks in pupil, staff, and property accounting and instructional programs are being steadily implemented.

The second allied question, "To what extent has data flow to the U.S. Office of Education been mechanized?", can be answered by pointing to the almost across-the-board use of mechanized equipment in State education agencies. Submission of requested educational data in unit record form or in summary is becoming increasingly feasible and is now being done to a limited extent. One deterent is the Office of Education's facilities and personnel for data handling. More than 35 State agencies indicate their ability to forward selected data in machine usable form.

"To what extent has the U.S. Office of Education assisted States to use automatic data processing equipment?" Several approaches have been made. Information with regard to equipment has been supplied on request to State agencies; successful data processing applications have been described by various agencies and copies have been distributed through the title X office; various applications have been described by State agency personnel at regional meetings; title X staff have routinely visited with State officials to encourage use of automatic data processing equipment and have assisted the agency in systems and other problems. The title X staff have been active in the development of the Council of Chief State School Officers Standing Committee on Educational Data Systems and the companion U.S. Office of Education project to develop a basic educational data system. The Committee with representation from all States has repeatedly studied use of automatic data processing.

"To what extent are new data being disseminated?" The title X program has served as the distribution point for an increasing number of State statistical publications and his stimulated a nationwide interchange of educational information. Over the period 1958-66 there has been a steady increase in data available from States which is simply a reflection of their capability and competence to produce educational information. Considerable effort needs now to be placed in the area of dissemination of educational information for it is the significant product of a rapid development where emphasis has been first placed on developing and refining the capacity to produce data.

Mr. FARNUM. I would like to see better utilization of equipment and information as it is collected. We have so much of it that is collected and filed and really does not help those that may be do not have matching funds, so I am quite concerned about how we get this information out when it is needed when it might be of value to other States and other educational institutions.

Mr. Howe. In useful form.

Mr. FARNUM. In useful form.

CRITERIA USED IN APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS UNDER INSTITUTE PROGRAM

One other question-this is under "Institutes," page 207.

Under program accomplishments, you use the word "quality," and as I understand it, the word "quality" is used in terms of the design of the program. Is this the character of the word as used here?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Mr. Bigelow is in charge of our program I think the word is used here to underscore the concept that we have. We have not been able to support all of the proposals that seem worthy of support.

Mr. FARNUM. I understand the context in which it is used in that particular sentence, but also, evidently the quality of proposal runs through all the requests, and they must be based upon a determination that has to be made on the basis of quality?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Right.

Mr. FARNUM. It says final selection is also made on the basis of need and geographical distribution. Can you explain what your basis of need is?

What is the criteria you use in the term "need", and geographical distribution?

What takes precedent, quality, need, or geographical distribution? Are they equal?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Let me call upon Mr. Bigelow and let you get a direct answer to your question.