lished subject matter, procedures, and traditions within the field and overlook the opportunities which lie concealed in unexplored adjacent terrain. As in the case of education for the doctorate, a few land-grand colleges and state universities dominate research in home economics. The findings in this study show that among 49 of the land-grant colleges 7 institutions account for 45 percent of the active research projects. In contrast to an earlier recommenda tion that doctoral programs be limited to a few well-qualified institutions, it is recommended that applied research programs in home economics be dispersed over a wider number of institutions in order to permit faculty members at these institutions to participate in the intellectually invigorating pursuit of new knowledge and to provide internships in applied research enterprises for students working for the master's degree. CONCLUSION In conclusion, to expand the three functions of teaching, Extension, and research that have been the subject of these recommendations may require a reorganization of home economics programs within the state universities and landgrant colleges. For example, to assure widespread cooperation in interdisciplinary research and teaching, it may be necessary to consider structural reoganization in the university so that schools or departments of home economics can be placed in closer relationships with other units. Newly created colleges of human resources or human development at several universities illustrate the types of such possible arrangements in which home economics is coordinated with the social sciences to assure continuous dialogue between the relevant professional groups and teaching and research effort in cooperation with the basic disciplines. At other institutions, to facilitate the preparation of skilled professional practitioners able to work in professional teams, home economics could become a unit in a College of Applied Arts and Sciences organically connected with other units in education, journalism, and business. In still other institutions it may be necessary for the time to maintain a separate and autonomous unit in home economics. With respect to organization and administration, however, one fact stands out in this study: the programs of home economics now under the jurisdiction of schools of agriculture should be given greater autonomy and freedom in establishing relationships with a wide range of disciplines in the liberal arts colleges and in the professional and graduate schools. Only under such an administrative and structural reorganization will home economics be able to reorient itself away from its traditional limited purposes toward the broader educational and social needs of a culture which continues to change swiftly from the conditions of American life existing when home economics came into being. There is no single realignment which will automatically produce the most effective structure. Nor will a gradual evolutionary process produce the desired changes. The initiative and encouragement of university presidents and deans, representing the interests of the total institution and its constituency, will be required as well as support from outside the universities. One such extramural agency is the federal government. Through the years, the organization and scope of home economics as a college subject have been greatly influenced by federal legislation in particular, the Hatch Act of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, and the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917. The future course of home economics in the land-grant colleges and state universities will be affected no less profoundly by the character and purposes of federal legislation and support. Existing federal and state legislation and agreements that undergird home economics education. Extension, and research in the land-grant colleges do not provide enough latitude or stimulation to enable home economics to meet the changing needs of the time. This is particularly true of the statutes and regulations governing the Cooperative Extension Service. A thoroughgoing review of the adequacy of these legislative acts and agreements should be launched at once at the highest levels of government to assure that home economics is enabled and, indeed, required to redesign its programs and services to meet the needs of American society which have emerged during the past 50 years. Particular attention in this review should be given to the confining relationships now existing between county government and agrarian interests. Such a review will unquestionably show that large additional federal support is urgently required to allow home economics to fulfill its potentially rich variety of service needed to help raise the conditions of life among the urban poor in America and the impoverished throughout the world. Home economics was born at a time when the United States economy was oriented to agriculture and when its most direct beneficiaries were farm families. No one who knows the history of its immeasurable contributions to the rural areas would suggest that they should now be neglected or bypassed. But today this rural orientation is disturbing to those who wish to bring the teaching. research, and Extension services of home economics into broader contact with the whole of American society. Among the land-grant institutions in the various states and regions the ties of home economics with both agricultural and city life will properly vary because of differences in population concentration, vocations, and the conditions of life generally. But home economics must view American society as a whole and respond to the needs of the cities, the countries abroad, and our overarching economic requirements as well as the needs of rural society. If it fails to keep abreast of these demands it will lose much of its support and the gratitude of a society to which it has richly contributed. More importantly, the functions and services it fails to provide will be assumed by other agencies. With federal support, with the encouragement of the administrators responsible for the total institutional program, and with the imaginative planning of leaders within the field, there is no reason why home economists cannot in the future benefit the familities of generations yet to come at home and abroad as fully as they have enriched the lives of countless Americans in the days which have passed. It is our devout hope that this study may be helpful in the achievement of this worthy goal. Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION, Greenville, N.C., January 15, 1963. DEAR SENATOR ERVIN: Let me express my appreciation for the copies of your remarks made in connection with the Constitutionality of some provisions of the education acts recently passed by Congress. I concur wholeheartedly with you in that they seem to violate the First Amendment; however, I believe an amendment allowing this kind of Federal aid to church supported institutions would be in the best interest of all the citizens of the United States. There are two problems on which I would like some suggestions and opinions from you. First, we are having a most difficult time finding graduate students in the area of industrial and technical education who can accept fellowships for graduate education leading to preparation for college or university teaching. As I am sure you know, one of our greatest National problems is the lack of qualified personnel for teaching positions in higher education. These qualified young men cannot accept these fellowships because it will immediately make them eligible for the draft. Consequently all areas that rely primarily on mes for these positions are facing this problem. The second problem is that I believe that special aid to education, as opposed to categorical aid, is providing for unnecessary spending in those areas for which aid is given and causes neglect in those areas for which it is not offered. It North Carolina more money is wasted on vocational education than is spent to a good advantage through programs that are not needed and unqualified staf I would suggest some sort of foundation program on the Federal level that would allocate funds to states based on the state's need and ability to finance its ont educational program. Categorical aid has served a good purpose, but it has become obsolete in serving the needs of the American people. In addition to your reactions to these two problems and suggestions as to what I can do to effect improvement in these areas, I would appreciate it if yo would send me a list of the various committees of the Congress along with the names of those serving on the various committees. This will be most helpful ** me in directing my correspondence to the appropriate persons during the currer session of Congress. Wishing you a most successful venture into the second session of the 90th Congress, I am Very sincerely yours, Dr. WILLIAM F. HOOTS, U.S. SENATE, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, COMMITTEE OF FOREIGN RELATIONS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I enclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Robert L. MacDonald of Van Nuys, California, regarding the manner in which his request for financial assistance to complete his doctoral dissertation was handled by - officials of Ohio State University and the Federal Government. His remarks might be of interest to you and the other members of the Subcommittee on Education. Sincerely yours, Enclosure. J. W. FULBRIGHT, Chairman. MEDIA, DEAR SENATOR FULBRIGHT: I recently returned from a rather frustrating experience at an eastern university and, en route, read your statements regarding defense corruption in higher education. I had, previous to your public statements, talked of the changing attitudes of university personnel. This "change" was of great concern to me after a 31⁄2 year absence from the university community. I would like to generally amplify my experience to you. I returned, to Ohio State University, to complete study for my doctoral degree. It was proposed to me that I submit my dissertation outline for possible Federal funding. I delivered a three page outline, for purposes of discussion, to one individual. It was a simple-straight forward project which could have easily been completed in a six month period. The cost, for the total project, would not have exceeded $9,000 with ALL monies being expended for materials and technical assistance. I did not intend for any monies to accrue to me for the role of principal investigator. On submission of this outline, I was told that the project would have to have a 40% increase for the university and that the project would be scheduled-if I desired university approval-for a two year period. I left the papers with the Department and returned two weeks later for another conference. I discovered, in the intervening period of time, that the "simple" project had been taken to Washington for a "lobby" conference. The new project, calling for a greatly expanded proposal, could not be completed for less than $250,000. It was apparent that the lobby group, comprised of university personnel, was desperately searching for new proposals to keep their departments intact. Good-bad-or-indifferent-these individuals had surrendered the precious freedom of intellectual curiosity in favor of accumulating large sums of Federal monies which could be diverted to personnel gains. And the intellectual community had gone full circle to reflect the ills of American society. I left a short time later, conerned about honorable men who had surrendered their hard-won positions for lesser rewards. At one time, the university was the last refuge for those individuals seeking the freedom for independent thought. I'm afraid I saw such men changed in their attitudes and value. The use of Federal monies had bought responses which were never planned for by our legislators. I've never written such a letter before but the critical changes are worthy of reporting. Keep up your faithful attention to the democratic processes and to the needs of this nation. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, ROBERT L. MACDONALD. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D.C., March 15, 1968. Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Thank you for your letter of February 29 requesting our comments on the issues discussed in your letter of that date to Senator Carl Hayden. As you have so correctly remembered, the reason for the College Work-Study Program's funding pattern is historical. The first grants under the program were made in January 1965. The program year of operations, which is funded from a fiscal year's appropriation, therefore has extended from January 1 through December 31. The combination of the proposed new Section 908 (Advance Funding) and Seetion 911 (School Year Availability) of the Higher Education Act as included in Section 1006 of S. 3098 would provide sufficient authority to make the kind of adjustment desired by Mr. Pell. Of course, both you and Senator Hayden are well aware that Section 402 of S. 3098 would, if it became law, eliminate the provision that an Educational Opportunity Grant may not exceed one-half of the financial aid made available to a student. If the Office of Legislation can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely yours, ALBERT L. ALFORD, Assistant Commissioner for Legislation. ARIZONA WESTERN COLLEGE, Senator CARL HAYDEN, State of Arizona, U.S. Senate Building, HONORABLE SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you for your immediate concern relative to our Work/Study Program situation. With the award granted, juggling stodents to other financial aid programs and Arizona Western itself providing additional employment, we are adequately providing for those students previously participating in the Work/Study Program, whom we thought might have to be cut off. We are unable to add to the present program, nor, as previously indicated. do we plan a June program. An important point in my original letter was our concern with the rigidity of the Work/Study Program resulting from the current two fiscal periods in the year. It is my understanding that Congress has approved a single fiscal pe riod concept beginning January 1 and ending December 31. This represents an improvement over the present system, however, a fiscal period comparable to the Educational Opportunity Grant Program and the National Defense Student Loan Program, that, is, July 1 through June 30, is much more workable due t the academic school year within which we must operate and within which w must make Work/Study awards to students. For these awards to be meaningfu they must be for the academic school year rather than through December 31 and then a second award for the remainder of the school year. Secondly, we would strongly urge you to vote for legislation changing the irstitutional matching fund requirement of the Educational Opportunity Gran Program to allow Federal Work/Study to be used for matching purpose. Th would once again allow greater flexibility of operations and better fulfill the program intent. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter, and if this office : provide you with information relative to how Federal Aid Programs operate a” the junior college level, please do not hesitate to call on us. Sincerely, JIMMY R. PELL Director of Financial Aids and Placement. FEBRUARY 29, 1968. Hon. CARL HAYDEN, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you for sharing with me the very thought* points raised by Mr. Jimmy R. Pell, Director of Financial Aids and Placeme of Arizona Western College in his February 13, 1968 letter to you. I, too, regret that the budgetary restrictions on the funding of this prog cause institutions of higher education such as Arizona Western College difficulties I am pleased to note that they have been able to accommodate many of their students from an educational standpoint. I would agree that it would be desirable to add to their present program and to institute a summer program. With respect to the concern Mr. Pell voiced with regard to the work-study program operating periods, it is by recollection that it was originally caused by the date when this program was activated. It would appear, however, that such a reason may no longer be valid and I have, therefore, taken the liberty of bringing the matter to the attention of the Commissioner of Education with the request that he cause a review to be made of the present policy and procedures to determine what adjustments if any might be made. In this connection, I recall that in our Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments Act, passed last December, there were conforming amendments to the legislation which provided discretion to the Commissioner of Education to adjust programs to the requirements of the academic year. I refer to section 405. found on page 35 of the attached conference report no. 1049. Although this language applies only to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Adult Education Act, comparable language is included in the Administration bill governing higher education activities of the Office of Education and will be before the subcommittee for hearings in March. At that time I will be most pleased to bring to the attention of my colleagues Mr. Pell's comments about the need for this change and I have asked that the letter be included in the hearings record that will then be made. I am also asking the Commissioner of Education to review Mr. Pell's comments and to advise me if in his judgment the proposed new language of section 911 of the draft bill would meet the problem. Upon receipt of his reply, of course, I shall be happy to share it with you. With kindest personal regards, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. WAYNE MORSE, Chairman, Education Subcommittee. U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C., February 19, 1968. DEAR SENATOR: Enclosed is a letter I have received from Mr. Jimmy R. Pell, Director of Financial Aids and Placement, Arizona Western College, Yuma, Ariona, suggesting such changes be made in the Work-Study awards. I will appreciate your reviewing Mr. Pell's comments and advising me of such a possibility. Yours very sincerely, CARL HAYDEN, U.S. Senator. ARIZONA WESTERN COLLEGE, Senator CARL HAYDEN, State of Arizona, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE SENATOR HAYDEN: Thank you for your immediate concern relative to our Work/Study Program situation. With the award granted, juggling students to other financial aid programs and Arizona Western itself providing additional employment, we are adequately providing for those students previously participating in the Work/Study Program, whom we thought might have to be cut off. We are unable to add to the present program, nor, as previously indicated, do we plan a June program. An important point in my original letter was our concern with the rigidity of the Work/Study Program resulting from the current two fiscal periods in the year. It is my understanding that Congress has approved a single fiscal period concept beginning January 1 and ending December 31. This represents an improvement over the present system, however, a fiscal period comparable to the Educational Opportunity Grant Program and the National Defense Student Loan Program, that is, July 1 through June 30, is much more workable due to 93-989 0-68-pt. 6 -35 |