Mr. BRIGHT. Not in this ratio.

Mr. DUNCAN. This ratio was not involved with your people but I think there were serious doubts whether additional money could be used profitably.

I do not want to raise an issue about it so long as this is one factor that you consider in making your awards.

That is all I have, thank you.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Shriver.

MEETING THE TEACHER GAP

Mr. SHRIVER. I am concerned about this gap you were talking about in the personnel to deal with the problem we all feel so keenly about, and the increase of training grants is only $5 million that you are asking for, is it not?

Mr. HARRIS. Yes.

Mr. SHRIVER. Is that as much as you asked for originally?

Mr. HARRIS. No; the original request was $29.5 million, which would have been a $10 million increase.

Mr. SHRIVER. Where was that cut?

Mr. KARSH. As I stated to the chairman, in the Bureau of the Budget.

Mr. SHRIVER. We are never going to eliminate this gap, are we, with this kind of a small increase for a problem as serious as this is? Mr. HARRIS. Except this program does provide impetus to institutions. And as interest on the part of college and university students in selecting this particular occupational field increases, independently of this program-to that extent this gap will be closed.

Mr. SHRIVER. Are any States putting in, what you call, this seed money?

Mr. WIRTZ. Two States I know of, since this Federal money has been made available, have instituted a State fellowship program because they began to see the requests for fellowships coming in could not be met with the Federal funds. Illinois is a good example.

RECRUITING TEACHERS OF THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. SHRIVER. Are students reluctant to enter this field, and, if so, why?

Mr. WIRTZ. That is a difficult question to answer. I do not think students are reluctant to go in this field at all. It is a very demanding field. Particularly, teaching the deaf, to me is the most difficult teaching there is, bar none. The problem is to recruit people in this particular field. One of the real problems is that this has been a relatively unknown field.

Mr. SHRIVER. We have had this problem for 20 years. I remember when I was in the State legislature the great problem was the shortage of teachers in special education.

Mr. WIRTZ. I think the situation is beginning to change. I know of one instance where the combination of good leadership at the local level plus an adequate salary has maintained a stable group of teachers. Particularly in the field of the mentally retarded. In the past, we have had teachers encouraged to go in this field because they were not

too successful teaching regular classes. Now, however, the status is building up so we are having young people coming in who are highly committed to this field. We are looking for people of the type that go in the Peace Corps, for example, and as a matter of fact many of the people returning from the Peace Corps are going in this field.

Mr. SHRIVER. Do you have any figures on that?

Mr. WIRTZ. I have no exact figures but I know of two institutions that are establishing programs for the training of people returning from the Peace Corps to go into this field, a crash training program.

PREMIUM SALARY SCALES

Mr. HARRIS. I might say some States have provided premium salary scales for the teaching of the handicapped.

Do o you know in how many States this is in practice?

Mr. WIRTZ. It probably is in practice in every State in the United States.

Mr. SHRIVER. And do you think this is good?

Mr. Howe. I think it has been successful in getting more people in the handicapped field. I think you will find some objections to it on the part of teacher organizations, but by and large I would support it as a means of moving people rapidly into a field where they are needed. Various States have various practices. In some States the incentive is in the form of funds available for summer training, and things of that kind.

REGIONAL DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS

Mr. SHRIVER. On page 11 there is a discussion of the regional demonstration program and reference is made to small school districts supporting special education classes by joining together in a cooperative program. Are there not some States now doing this?

Mr. Moss. There are many States that have school systems involved in demonstration projects. As a matter of fact, we are supporting many of them ourselves.

Mr. SHRIVER. When you talk about seven additional projects, how many are going now?

Mr. Moss. Regional demonstrations?

Mr. SHRIVER. Yes.

Mr. Moss. We did not fund any this year at all.

Mr. SHRIVER. But you are asking for seven?

Mr. Moss. We would like to get it started next year. This is a program that requires quite a bit of work and we have not been able to do it this year.

PROGRAMMATIC RESEARCH

Mr. SHRIVER. There are, in my State, a number of school districts joined together with special classes for the handicapped.

Mr. Moss. This is different. This is like programmatic research. We would like to see centers established where

Mr. SHRIVER. What do you mean by that?

Mr. Moss. Programmatic research is where you enable an institution to attack a particular problem through a number of avenues, simultaneously, so they may have several projects all working toward

the same goal. With the demonstration project one of the requirements is a good dissemination program to get the information out. A good demonstration program should have consultants. That is a rather expensive component if it is done right. The idea here was to be able to launch several different demonstrations within the same setting, making use of the same dissemination staff, to enable the system to have one dissemination program to show people what we were doing and bringing in people to see several model programs in operation at the same visit rather than having them go to one place to see one thing in operation and to another place to see something else in operation.

UNIQUE FEATURES OF PROPOSED RESEARCH CENTER

Mr. SHRIVER. What would be the difference between the proposed center you mentioned of $2 million and existing research facilities? What would be the difference between that and what is now in existence?

Mr. Moss. Two things. One is that most of the major research centers around the country now are concentrating on a particular area of the handicapped-the deaf, the blind, the mentally retarded. This center would incorporate training and research for many areas of the handicapped in one center to make the best use of ideas across the board. That would be a major difference.

The other would be the construction of model type classrooms and bringing together a major dissemination unit all within the same

structure.

Mr. SHRIVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Farnum.

POSSIBLE LOCATION OF RESEARCH FACILITY

Mr. FARNUM. I would like to talk about the $2 million facility you are talking about. You say on page 11 that—

a review committee will select the site from applications, taking into account the overall excellence and cohesiveness of the institution's program for the handicapped.

Does that statement say to me that there are a limited number of institutions that could be considered?

Mr. Moss. Yes.

Mr. FARNUM. Would you explain to me what kind of institutions you are looking for?

Mr. Moss. We would expect institutions who have had some history of interest and work in the area of handicapped children.

Mr. FARNUM. Did you not just get through telling Mr. Shriver your problem is that you have institutions all over but they specialize in only one area?

Mr. Moss. There are institutions doing doctoral training and research in all areas.

Mr. FARNUM. How many would you say are in that category?
Mr. Moss. Roughly, 20 to 30.

TYPE OF REVIEW COMMITTEE TO SELECT SITE

Mr. FARNUM. What kind of a review committee will this be that will select the site?

Mr. Moss. We were talking some time ago with the Bureau in regard to that. I would expect it would be made up of people experienced in research with the handicapped.

Mr. FARNUM. Can you explain the kinds of people you are talking about?

Mr. Moss. Sam Kirk, Mr. Hobbs

Mr. FARNUM. I mean as to their background.

Mr. Moss. I would expect they would have a background in education and psychology with extensive research experience in the handicapped area. I am not sure this is the way it will go. There is some talk of having people with a broader base, people not heavily involved in the handicapped area.

Mr. FARNUM. Explain that.

Mr. Moss. People, for example, in the Ford Foundation who have been involved in program support but not in this field. University presidents have also been considered. This has not been decided. Mr. FARNUM. How long will it take you to decide that if you get the money?

Mr. Moss. Perhaps 20 minutes.

Mr. FARNUM. Twenty minutes does not necessarily reflect good judgment unless there has been a lot of decisionmaking prior to this. Mr. Moss. I think what is required is a representative of the Bureau and myself to sit down. We have had committees that have given thought to this and we have an ad hoc committee which has been working with me on it. We need to get the thinking of the ad hoc committee and the Bureau's thinking and the Commissioner's thinking and it does not seem to me it would take long to make that decision.

Mr. BRIGHT. I might mention they have been thinking of including some of the experience we had with a review committee for the establishment of other types of research and development centers around the country.

FUNDING RESEARCH CENTER OPERATIONS

Mr. FARNUM. I notice you will be asking for a commitment of 20 years for whatever institution is decided upon by the committee. Also, according to your statement, they have to take into consideration, or you will, their ability to administer the institution and financially support it after the completion of the center.

Are you saying what we are really talking about is the building of the center and providing the equipment, then it will be the responsibility thereafter of the institution to provide all the financial support? Mr. Moss. No.

Mr. FARNUM. What are we talking about?

Mr. Moss. We intend to support it out of programmatic support funds and then hopefully to reduce the level of support over the years. Mr. FARNUM. Have you made any projections so that when you talk to prospective applicants you can tell them what they must expect in the way of financial support?

Mr. Moss. We have figures on what we expect to contribute to this in the next 5 years.

Mr. FARNUM. I am talking about what the institutions might have to contribute.

Mr. Moss. We do not have those figures.

Mr. FARNUM. There must be something that could be submitted to show what it will cost an institution.

Mr. Moss. We can show what we would expect the operation to cost over the year. I think the balance, Federal support versus local support, will be negotiated.

Mr. FARNUM. That is all.

IMPACT OF LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING FUNDS FOR TRAINING TEACHERS

Mr. FOGARTY. Regarding Mr. Shriver's question on the shortage of teachers in these various areas, I thought Dr. Wirtz gave an excellent explanation; but as I look back on the history of this legislation authorizing funds for the training of teachers, we were told 10 years ago that the State and local institutions were not training teachers for the handicapped, and as a result these were the forgotten children. As a result of the passage of that act it did increase the interest in the States to try to do a better job to improve the quality and the number of teachers. I think perhaps the quality of the teachers has been improved at a higher rate than the number of teachers to come into the field.

There is not a good State school for the deaf today, and the main reason has been, I think, because of the lack of qualified teachers. In my State, in our school for the deaf, only 30 percent of the faculty meet the standards set by the Rhode Island Department of Education. The others are protected by the grandfather clause, but any new ones will have to meet the standards of the State department of education. The passage of the act for training teachers of the deaf has increased the interest, in my part of the country, for more people going into the field of teaching the deaf. As a result of this bill, for 4 or 5 years now, the quality of the teachers has improved, the methods of training teachers for the deaf has improved, and the number entering the field has increased. The bill providing for the training of teachers for the mentally retarded was really to teach teachers to teach the retarded. There was a difference there because we did not have teachers in the field to teach teachers for the retarded. They were really the forgotton children. They were sent into institutions and left there and the parents did not want to talk about the problem. But now people are talking about it, I think, because of the impetus provided by legislation that has been passed in the Congress in the last 10 years and the appropriations initiated by this committee over the President's budget.

So I do think we are making some headway, though not enough, and I think this seed money will stimulate greater interest in these fields. I think in many cases they should, and will, pay higher salaries to teachers of the deaf and other handicapped children.

Also, because of this Federal support industry has shown an interest in recent years in developing new techniques and new equipment to help teachers in this field. Through the cooperative research program

60-627-66-pt. 2--31