LEXINGTON CITY SCHOOLS, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Since 1958 the Lexington Public Schools have participated in the NDEA Title III program. With local funds being matched with federal funds in the various areas which this act encompassed we have been able to provide better and more adequate equipment and facilities in providing for quality instruction of the boys and girls in this community. We request that consideration be given to a continuation of this program on the same basis as in the past years. Very truly yours, JOHN D. Cox, Superintendent of Schools. OMAHA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Tremendous improvements in the instructional programs of elementary and secondary schools in the United States have been brought about through support extended from the National Defense Education Act, Title III. Much additional benefit can be brought to bear upon education if NDEA Title III is extended beyond June 30, 1968. Much of the improvement in instruction in the Omaha Public Schools initially applied to the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign language and later to many other subject areas in the curriculum came about as the result of the availability of funds from NDEA Title III. With an expanding school population and the addition of school buildings in our school system to meet the resulting needs, it is still important that support from NDEA Title III be extended. While we feel that the funds which we have been able to utilize to date have been used wisely and have been most helpful, we know even better and more how to apply funds today than we have known in past years. I would sincerely hope that you would again exert the leadership which we have so much appreciated in connection with NDEA Title III in bringing about the extension of the application of the act past the expiration date of June 30, 1968. DEAR SENATOR: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Nebraska State Department of Education's reaction to the changes now being proposed by the Administration for Title III of the National Defense Education Act. We are strongly in favor of the proposal to extend the Title until June 30, 1973 and we are pleased with that section which will transfer the provision for state supervisory services to Title V of ESEA. Although we favor the elimination of the categorical subjects so that nearly all elementary and secondary school subjects are eligible, it is extremely difficult for us to understand how the administration can recommend legislation which will greatly broaden the scope of the program and at the same time recommend that the available funds be reduced drastically. We believe the impact of Title III, NDEA Program on Nebraska and other states is self-evident. Nebraska has noted a growth in participation from 105 to 359 schools, and from 41,000 to 293,994 students since the inception of the program until the present time. These figures in themselves illustrate the impact of Title III, NDEA on the intellectual potential of our Nebraska youth. We believe that the proposal for reduced funding is most undesirable at a time when we anticipate that nearly all subjects will become eligible. We must object strongly to one additional provision in the amendment. State administrative expenses which will be paid out of Title III project funds (35% of the amount paid to the State under Title III for a given year, or $50,000, whichever were greater) will be on a matching basis. We recommend that the matching provision for administrative funds be removed. It would then be consistent with the outright grant funds for supervisory services transferred to Title V. ESEA Since the new legislation will add more subjects we strongly recommend that the President's request for a 32.2 million cut under the NDEA, Title III acquisition program not only be restored, but that an additional twenty million be added to fund equipment and materials that will be acquired in the newly eligible subjects. An overall acquisition figure of 100 million would be realistic in FY 1968 There is reason to believe that Title III, NDEA is not only necessary for education, but is also vital to the economy and security of the United States. We have complete confidence that you will ardently defend the need of this program when the issue is presented. We would also report to you that members of the Nebraska State Depart ment of Education and Nebraska School Administrators concur with Congressman John Erlenborn's Resolution 89, which provides that Congressional Appro priation Committees report bills for education assistance programs, not later than May 1, preceding the fiscal year for which such funds are authorized. This is probably the most significant and desirable change that can be made to im prove the administration of the present Federal education aid programs. Sincerely yours, FLOYD A. MILLER. Commissioner of Education. NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ASSOCIATES FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, INC., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., July 7, 1967. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator, U.S. Senate Office Building, DEAR SIR: In consideration of the administration of Title III funds under Public Law 89-10, this corporation concurs with the position of the Commissioner of Education on the application of these funds. As an organization composed of individuals who are deeply involved in gross improvement for education through innovative methods, there is a clear indication determined by actual experience in the field of a critical need for national coordination through a central agency. With the limited funds available under this title, widespread duplication and inefficiency would logically prevail throngt the decentralization in the application of these funds. This association views the Title III funds as the major source of assistance to the practitioners at the gras root level for research and development. We believe that a very high percentage of the major innovative and creative experiments being conducted in the public schools across the country have and are originating with the teachers and school administrators at the local school level. It is our experience that institutions of higher learning and the State Depart ments of Education have not clearly demonstrated their ability and willingness to assume leadership roles for originating research and development at the loca school level. Until such time as this does occur, it is our belief that greater current economies in administration, the coordination of innovative develop ments and the dissemination of productive results can best be accomplished through the services provided by the U.S. Office of Education. Sincerely yours, A. B. WOLFE, President ELEVA-STRUM AREA SCHOOLS, Senator GAYLORD NELSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR NELSON: Information has reached us that the Public Law 329 commonly referred to as NDEA (National Defense Education Act) Title III, is in danger to being phased out. The original bill has been revised to include more areas of education, and could be liberalized even more, but it has been and still is one of the most effective federal aid programs to education. I feel every effort should be made to continue it because: 1. The matching feature of the law requires a school district to discriminate how the funds are to best be used. 2. Wisconsin state laws require that all capital outlay be entirely sponsored from a local level. A poor district such as ours is badly handicapped by such state regulations and NDEA Title III has been our only salvation. 3. NDEA Title III has provided incentive and long range planning but it still is flexible enough to handle emergency needs. 4. It is extremely simple to operate and account. Other federal programs have become nearly unmanageable but NDEA has been simplified so that it functions without strain. Please use every effort to see that NDEA Titles III and V continues as a means of federal aids to local education. Sincerely, HAROLD SATTERLUND, Superintendent. THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Senator JACOB JAVITS, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, DEAR SENATOR JAVITS: On March 7 you wrote me asking for a statement for the hearing record in support of S59. I attach it. Faithfully yours, EWALD B. NYQUIST. PREPARED STATEMENT OF EWALD B. NYQUIST, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF The New York State Education Department supports the amendment in S. 59 which provides that short-term training sessions may be encouraged under New York's State Plan for the administration of NDEA, Title V-A. Principally, these considerations influence our support. In our State, guidance since 1958 has experienced an "application" explosion. In 1958, the number of counselors employed in elementary schools, area occupational education centers, manpower training centers, junior colleges and technical institutes, was miniscule. Although training programs for these special applications of guidance have begun to appear, their appearance lags far behind the employment of counselors in these settings. These counselors need opportunities to develop the special skills and insights their assignments require which were not foreseen in their original programs of preparation, usually for secondary school guidance. In addition, there are demands faced today by counselors, the emergence of which is so recent that formal and pertinent preparatory programs are almost nonexistent. Here we identify all the challenges of educational technology such as the use of electronic data processing equipment to search for new meanings in pupil record information, the manipulation of occupational information in relation to pupil characteristics to identify new career alternatives, and the use of the computer in overseeing certain pupil decision making programs as an adjunct to the professional counseling process. Of fundamental importance is the need for counselors to become skillful supporters of the educational progress and career aspirations of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Pupil personnel services, including school psychology, social work and school health have expanded apace with guidance. Guidance counselors and their pupil personnel colleagues must review and revise their strategies for combining their efforts to the end that the most economical and efficient blend of their individual contributions to the school community is realized. New research in career development theory imposes obligations upon counselors to modify their assistance to pupils considering career choices. These short-term training sessions would be coordinated in the Education Department, but the sessions would be provided largely by consultants engaged by major school districts and by boards of cooperative educational services. In the large cities, arrangements which combine the resources of the Department, the counselor preparation programs of the urban universities, and the city school districts would be sought to develop and conduct sessions appropriate for local counselors. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, Eugene, Oreg., March 12, 1968. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I would like to indicate my concern with the recent administrative action by the United States Government and to express a hope that the situation might be alleviated by Congressional action. I am referring to the recent action that virtually eliminated draft deferments for graduate students and that apparently will lead to induction of a major portion of those graduate students unless some modifications are made. I do not disagree with the principle that the government has a right to demand special services in the military and otherwise at times of national emergency. If the emergency is sufficiently great, those services should indeed be demanded of everybody. At times when the emergency is less severe, the national interests may be better served by exempting some persons who can make greater contributions in other ways. I do not believe that the military operation requiring approximately half a million men in Vietnam is a sufficiently grave emergency to justify an action that will have serious consequences for years to come. I am particularly qualified to speak about the situation in Chemistry. Each year, approximately two thousand persons in the United States of America receive the Ph. D. degree in Chemistry. This number includes women and foreigners in addition to physically fit men. This number of persons is obviously of trivial significance to the military effort presently being undertaken, yet the future development of one of the most dynamic industries in America today depends upon a steady stream of just those persons! Even now the American chemical industry finds the output of our graduate schools insufficient to meet its demands for new people to develop the new products our economy demands. I appreciate the concern of many people that our graduate schools should not become havens for "draft dodgers". I believe that the persons making such charges are unaware of the difficulties of gaining admission to these graduate schools. Last year, approximately five hundred persons applied for graduate work through the Department of Chemistry of the University of Oregon. We had room for only twenty-five or thirty, and we made offers to about one hundred persons. We received the number of acceptances we wanted, and the other people from that first hundred probably went elsewhere. I do not know how many of the other four hundred persons did get admitted to graduate schools. but I expect it was rather small. Only a very few people have the ability to be research chemists. If they are not allowed to serve their country in this way, there will be nobody to take their place. Our experience has been that many persons who could have done graduate work if they continued right after their undergraduate training either do not come back to graduate school after being away for two years or else are much less satisfactory students because of the interruption. I have been speaking about chemistry because this is the field I know best I am sure that a similar situation applied in other fields. The objectives of the Selective Service is that the service should be selective. Only a few people are able to profit by advanced training, but it is vital to the national interest that those persons be encouraged to take additional training. It is appropriate to adopt criteria that will insure that only the most capable persons are being de=ferred and that persons of lesser ability are not allowed to evade the draft by taking graduate work. However, the recently announced change in draft regulations appears to be unwise militarily and is certainly disastrous in its implications for the long-range ecenomic well-being of the United States. Respectfully yours, SENATOR MIKE MANSFIELD, Senate Majority Leader, Senate Office Bulding, RICHARD M. NOYES, Head, Department of Chemistry. UNIVERSITY OF OREGON, Eugene, Oreg., February 7, 1968. DEAR SENATOR: I note with interest the interest and attention given to the nation's educational system recently. It is quite appropriate that America's "Fifth Freedom" be freedom from ignorance-achieved through a much-needed expansion of educational opportunity for all, especially with regard to finances and higher education. Looking at national newspaper coverage given to the President's recent proposals, his higher education package, I am deeply disturbed, however, by the omission of any significant measure to assist students pursuing advanced degrees. My complaint is not based on personal motives (my NDEA stipend is both generous and tax-exempt) but rather on the results of a generous exposure to problems of graduate students on this campus. The state of Oregon has also indicated their recognition of, and concern over, the problem of students doing advanced educational work under extreme financial duress. They just enacted a bill which might well become a model of a much-needed federal tax-relief measure, a copy of which I have attached for your benefit. Graduate students in today's age of increased knowledge and specialization represent a high priority national educational resource, and the practical impossibility of making direct federal aid available to all deserving students, coupled with rising costs and other pressures on the graduate student (often young married students) makes clear that a necessary step, if only a first one, is to make tax-exempt wages (defined in Oregon's law as stipend or scholarship earnings) earned during the student's pursuit of advanced degrees. Many have pointed to the student's needs; many specific programs, such as NDEA, have been passed. But the need is general, and tax-relief is general, a very simple solution to a pressing problem. I hope that you would concur in my feelings, and that you might take any necessary steps to insure that a proposal of similar nature to the one outlined above is at least aired in the appropriate committee of the Senate this year. Thank you very much, Sincerely, CARL J. CLAVADETSCHER, Jr. CHAPTER 61 AN ACT Relating to personal income taxation; and prescribing an effective date Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon: Section 1. Section 2 is added to and made a part of ORS chapter 316. Section 2. (1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, in the case of an individual, gross income does not include any amount received as a scholarship at an educational institution (as defined in subsection (1) of ORS 316.454), or as a fellowship grant at such institution, including the value of contributed services and accommodations, and any amount received to cover expenses for travel, research, clerical help or equipment which are incident to such a scholarship or fellowship grant, but only to the extent that the amount is so expended by the recipient. (2) Subsection (1) of this section is applicable only if : (a) The grantor of the scholarship or fellowship is exempt from taxation under the provisions of ORS chapter 317 or 318 or has no business or family connections with the recipient. |