gentleman from Kentucky knows, considerable testimony on this question of the changing communities. I think that this is the area that needs the greatest help. We have to find formulas, we have to devise means to stabilize those communities so that when a city or a school district makes a projection that a school is going to be 70/30, 40/60 or 80/20, or whatever, there will not be the flight of the families in these changing areas that there is now. There has to be stability for the children attending these schools so that the quality of education is maintained. I have a very strong feeling that that will be a great contributing factor toward stabilizing these communities, and this is one of the aspects this bill would cover.

Mr. PERKINS. Congressman Scheuer?

Mr. SCHEUER. First, let me say how much I appreciated the dedicated, able and thoughtfulness you exhibit in bringing this to the attention of the committee.

Do you have any statistics as to the percentage of the teachers in the Chicago school system with masters' and doctors' degrees who are teaching in these deprived schools as compared with the one-third of the children who are in schools in deprived areas? Would you say far fewer than one-third of the teachers have these advanced degrees, are teaching in the schools in deprived areas?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I regret that I do not have the figures. I would think Dr. Willis would have them. I would guess that there are relatively few teachers with master's degrees or doctor's degrees or even with long years of experience with a bachelor's degree teaching in these areas of greatest need. I would doubt that very much.

If my memory serves me correctly, during the testimony before the committee holding hearings on the poverty bill earlier this year, I believe that there was considerable testimony presented at that time by critics of the school system, both in Chicago and in other parts of the country, but primarily in Chicago. The main thrust of the criticism was that the qualified teachers were not being attracted to these poverty areas. As a result, the quality of education had been consistently depleted.

The answer, if my memory serves me correctly, and I believe it does, was that the problem is that they have not been able to attract these high quality teachers into these poverty areas because of the seniority system. As a matter of fact, it was that testimony that gave birth to this legislation.

Mr. SCHEUER. You do not have any detailed statistics on just how that inequity works, do you?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No, but perhaps it would be an excellent idea to get some statistics on this.

Mr. SCHEUER. I think it would be helpful to have such statistics. I have a strong feeling that the same situation which you have outlined would exist in New York.

I think it would be informative for all of us to have these specific figures to buttress the sound arguments that you make.

Let me ask you a somewhat different question. We have had detailed consideration of H.R. 9948, the Elementary and Secondary School Construction Act of 1965, which was introduced earlier this year by Congressman Perkins. This bill provides for construction of new schools in economically and culturally deprived areas. principle behind this is that it is especially important for the children

The

from deprived areas, from neglected homes and ugly communities and environs, to have attractive, stimulating, bright, gay and cultural surroundings during their school hours. We heard extensive testimony from school superintendents that particular attention should be paid to high quality of design and artistic amenities, because this plays an indispensable part in the total educational challenge of motivating and stimulating these children.

I take it you would agree with that.

We also heard much testimony from these school superintendents, indicating that this would also stimulate and motivate the teachers. It would make it very much easier to attract teachers to these deprived areas where the teachers of excellence, as you accurately and fully described, are so desperately needed. Don't you feel that this measure and Chairman Perkins' measure for providing new schools of beauty and distinction are of a companion piece and that, together, they would provide a total package of incentives including the bright, gay, environments as well as incentive of higher salary to attract these teachers of excellence?

Mr. PUCINSKI. I certainly agree with the gentleman. The record and the history will show that the very keystone of the Great Society is the legislation that has been moved by this committee, and each of the bills that we have reported out complements the other bill. There has been no overlapping, and I have little patience with those on the floor who say this committee has been turning out too much legislation. We have a right today for the first time in the history of America to look to the future with confidence that, indeed, the poverty and the lack of schools, the lack of abilities, the great lack of knowledge is going to be a thing of the past in this country if all of these bills that this committee has been reporting out become effective. This legislation certainly complements the other bills that have been passed here.

Mr. SCHEUER. Let me get a little more specific. You are focusing and zeroing in on a special problem, to attract the teachers of excellence into the deprived areas. The fact is that exceptionally well qualified teachers prefer to teach in the suburban areas where, first, the salary scale is higher and, secondly, the total teaching environment is far more congenial and attractive.

Considering the specific and special purpose of your bill, do you not think that Chairman Perkins' bill is a companion piece to that? Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman is absolutely correct. The bill proposed by Mr. Perkins is an absolute must.

Take the situation of the schools here in the District of Columbia. You can take the best teachers in the world and give them the remedial reading and counseling, and so on, but until you give them some brick and mortar to provide the kind of atmosphere that is conducive to uplifting the child's whole morale, all of these things are working under a great strain, and I agree with the gentleman that if the Perkins bill is not approved, then much of the funds that we have provided in other bills

Mr. SCHEUER. And specifically in this bill, even assuming it is passed, it would be less effective than without the companion measure for encouraging attractive and beautiful new schools.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I agree with the gentleman completely. I think all of these bills are complementing each other and, in my judgment,

the great investment that America can make is in its educational planning.

We are now spending in this country $47 billion every 12 months on all sorts of social welfare programs. Much of this money is being spent because of the inability of people to adjust themselves to environments and the neglect of previous generations. Now we give these people education and training. I think the taxpayer is going to find that he will be able to save vast sums of money within a reasonably short time.

Mr. PERKINS. Let me suggest to the gentleman from Illinois we all know that it is common knowledge that teachers are hard to secure for the culturally deprived areas. So, if you could gather some statistics by tomorrow when Dr. Willis appears to point up the shortcomings, that is, the teachers with the professed qualifications that fail to get into these areas, it would certainly be most helpful.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I shall try to do that, Mr. Chairman.

If I might make one additional observation, one of the reasons why rural areas so frequently lose their teachers and there are good teachers in rural areas, too-not necessarily with masters' degrees or doctors' experience but with long experience is that many of these teachers must leave their communities for the 2 additional months each year to seek other employment and they just do not come back. Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Bell has some questions.

Mr. BELL. I just want to congratulate my colleague for his efforts in this direction. I know he is a very diligent Member of the Congress and I respect him for his good work as well as his ideas.

There is one question I had which pertains to page 3 of your bill. Under section (b)(1), your bill contains the following language:

have both a master's degree or higher and 3 or more years of teaching experience in elementary or secondary schools and who either commerce or remain teaching in the school district governed by the local agency after January 1, 1966; or (2) regardless of training or experience, commerce teaching in the school district governed by the agency after January 1, 1966, unless, immediately prior thereto, they were teaching in a district governed by another such agency.

I am a little confused by that language. Are those sections not contradictory?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No. The main thrust of this bill is to attract teachers with masters' degrees or doctors' degrees or with experience. I do not think that there is any conflict.

Mr. BELL. No. 2 said regardless of experience. I am not trying to cause you difficulty.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Your question is directed to page 3.

Mr. BELL. I think I know what you mean but the wording causes me slight difficulty.

Mr. PUCINSKI. One of two criteria can apply to a teacher to qualify for this additional compensation—

regardless of training or experience, commence teaching in the school district governed by the agency after January 1, 1966, unless, immediately prior thereto, they were teaching in a district governed by another such agency.

Mr. BELL. Does not No. 2 contradict No. 1?

Mr. PUCINSKI. No. 2 is designed not to freeze out the teacher who is now teaching. Take a teacher with a straight

Mr. BELL. Excuse me. You said: "Regardless of training or experience, commence teaching in the school district governed by the

57-880 0-66--3

agency after January 1, 1966, unless, immediately prior thereto, they were teaching in a district governed by another such agency." By saying 1966, a teacher could be there teaching conceivably or employed under this legislation without the necessary experience or training. Maybe he is just starting in 1966. It just seemed to me to contradict No. 1.

I am wondering if there is not some mistake in the phraseology. Mr. PUCINSKI. We can have the counsel who prepared the bill check this. I would be pleased to have him check this out.

First of all, we are trying to get the better teacher into these poverty areas, but we cannot foreclose the new teacher, the graduate teacher. If she wants to take a job in this school and wants to stay there, fine. We just cannot foreclose such a teacher. So, what we have done, we have set up two criteria here as qualifying. However, the main purpose is that the teacher must teach in a school that is in an area as defined in the main school aid bill as a poverty area.

Mr. BELL. First you say a master's degree or higher or 3 or 4 years of experience and the second says regardless of training or experience, and that is what is confusing.

Mr. PUCINSKI. This is for the new teacher, the teacher who comes right out of teachers college and wants to accept an assignment over there. We cannot close her out. We cannot say we are going to give the teacher with a master's degree, if my colleague will hear me out, 12 months' salary but the teacher who just comes out of college and wants to work will receive only 10 months' salary. Perhaps the language does need some clarification.

Mr. BELL. If I may comment, the principle you do not want to forget is the principle that you do want to aid the better trained and more capable teacher in these deprived areas, and not even out the situation where the one who is not adequately trained and is not adequately educated can get the same benefits. I think that might be a mistake.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The main purpose of this legislation is to attract good teachers into these areas of greatest need, greatest proven need. There are good teachers coming out of teachers' colleges. May I add that we not only want to attract good teachers, but we want to be able to keep them there.

The chairman in his opening remarks discussed the difficulty of getting teachers to stay in these areas. We may have a teacher who comes out of college who is a good teacher, she moves into one of these areas and teaches in this area and, after a year or a year and a half, she then leaves. We would like to give her the incentive to stay there to develop and deal with these culturally deprived youngsters. Mr. BELL. I would not belabor that point with my colleague. I would like to ask you one other broad question.

In your opinion, does this in any way conflict or overlap with the recent teacher training bill that we passed here? I am sure you have been asked this before.

Mr. PUCINSKI. This question had been asked before and I responded that it does not. The teacher corps proposal, as are many of the other proposals that have been enacted by this committee and the Congress, is directed across the board to uplift quality in education in all teaching institutions, elementary and secondary, with an emphasis perhaps on poverty areas; but they are not limited to

poverty areas. This bill has a specific purpose-to encourage teachers, qualified teachers, to accept assignments specifically in poverty aeras as designed in the general aid to education bill.

Mr. BELL. Under certain circumstances, I suppose the other bill could affect the poverty areas, too, could it not?

Mr. PUCINSKI. Yes, ultimately I am sure it will, but even there we are going to have difficulty.

What I am afraid is going to happen is that teachers will assume assignments in these poverty areas for a brief duration. This legislation is designed to keep them there, to encourage them to stay there.

Mr. BELL. I understand my colleague has been on the stand here for almost an hour. I want to congratulate him, Mr. Chairman, for doing a real fine job in testifying, in making these comments, and in presenting his views.

I have no further questions.

Mr. PERKINS. Without objection there shall be inserted in the record a communication and letter received prior to preparation of record for printing.

If there are no other questions, the subcommittee is recessed until call of the Chair.

[The subcommittee was recessed at 10:32 to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

(The communication from NEA and the research report: "What Teachers Think" follow:)

Hon. CARL PERKINS,

NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., September 14, 1965.

DEAR MR. PERKINS: The request to comment on H.R. 10590, the bill to provide for "The Teaching Incentive Act of 1965" is deeply appreciated by the National Education Associations. The author of this bill, Mr. Pucinski, has been an outstanding supporter of Federal assistance to education and we commend him again for his sincere and dedicated interest in the educational opportunity of the Nation's children.

The objective of H. R. 10590, to improve educational opportunity for children of low income neighborhoods, is, of course, one with which the National Education Association concurs. While our policy in support of Federal financial assistance to enable the States and local districts to pay all teachers salaries more commensurate with their professional responsibility has not changed, it is recognized that more immediate but limited action, such as contemplated in H.R. 10590, is justified. We do have some specific comments about H.R. 10590 for your committee's consideration, however.

We agree, with the requirement as outlined in section 2(b)(1) providing that teachers have masters' degrees and at least three years of experience to qualify for this program. Perhaps the master's degree is not really essential, however. We suggest the deletion of section 2(b)(2) as a limitation, since it seems to discriminate against those teachers with less than the M.A. who are presently employed in the district, at the same time offering teachers with the same qualifications who are employed after January 1966, an opportunity equal to those described in section 2(b)(1). It also, unintentionally, we are sure, puts a further stumbling block before those teachers from the South, displaced by desegregation, who may secure employment prior to January 1, 1966, in a Public Law 874, title II, district.

It should be recognized that, under title II of Public Law 874 as it now stands, eligible school districts can conduct summer programs, provide supplementary and supporting services, reduce class size and thus meet, in part, the objectives of H.R. 10590. The results of a 1965 teacher opinion poll conducted by the research division of the National Education Association, relative to the subject of providing qualified teachers for slum schools, may be of interest to the committee. The results of the poll are as follows:

Staffing slum schools: March 1964, teacher opinion poll 6 reported in the NEA Journal, May 1965, page 64.