Mr. Freeman further ignores the whole matter of persuading students to mak use of a year-round calendar. He ignores the fact that many students nee summer employment in order to help meet the financial burden of higher educa tion. He ignores the fact that time away from the campus during the summe or some other part of the academic year may be devoted to work which is relevan to the individual's educational program.

Furthermore, we simply do not yet know the impact upon students from year round concentration upon academic instruction, as opposed to work experience an other related forms of learning. It is possible for a highly motivated and able student to go through most colleges and universities on a 3-year basis now if the student so desires. It would look as if Mr. Freeman, in the name of efficien utilization of plant, wants to compel students to conform to a 3-year, 12-mont program of education, as opposed to a 4-year, 9-month program of education This would certainly be regimentation on a large scale.

There are many places in his testimony where Mr. Freeman does not clearly differentiate between elementary and secondary education on the one hand, and higher education on the other hand. He does make the distinction at variou crucial points, but at certain other times he speaks of education as if it wer all one process and all one system of organization. Furthermore, he is guilty of a statistical misrepresentation when he uses averages for all levels of education from which to draw certain conclusions about educational needs. Undoubtedly the growth rate of elementary and secondary education is on the verge of slowing down. This does not apply to the growth rate of higher education. We ar just on the verge of our greatest expansion.

Moreover, Mr. Freeman does not cite his sources for various enrollmen projections. He gives us an average of four projections, but I cannot find ou what these four actually are. Moreover, he says nothing about differentia enrollment expansion in the future between private institutions of higher edu cation and public institutions of higher education.

Insofar as the quotation from the Commission on Financing Higher Education is concerned, I have no special quarrel. The quotation is accurate. The rea point is that the quotation is also historical. Only the footnote gives the dat of the report, which was 1952. He does not point out that the statement advo cated a halt to the introduction of new programs "at this time." The Commission was not trying to speak for all time. It was speaking primarily about the decade of the 1950's which lay ahead.

Furthermore, the Commission was primarily concerned about many proposal then under discussion having to do with Federal scholarship aid to individua students. I believe this opposition remains among many educational leader today.

On the other hand, the Commission on Financing Higher Education failed to foresee the great enrollment growth which higher education would face in the decade of the 1960's as a result of the expansion of the birth rate in this country after World War II. I point out this failure in my article for the Educationa Record which was published this spring. It was this failure on the part of the Commission which has led various persons now to endorse the idea of Federa grants for instructional facilities.

Mr. Freeman talks about the dangers of Federal control over education These dangers are substantial. He never mentions the fact that support of: program for Federal grants for instructional facilities is based in part upon a concern for Federal control. Mr. Freeman ignores the fact that individua institutions would have to apply for construction grants, and that the institu tions themselves would determine what buildings they wish to construct Moreover, the Federal grant under the proposed statute could be only one-thir of the total cost of the facility. The institution would retain responsibility fo providing the other two-thirds of the cost, and this surely would enable then to retain control of their own construction program. Moreover, once a building is built, there would not be any continuing Federal control of the academic pro gram which might take place in the building.

Mr. Freeman is a worthy protagonist of his particular point of view. None theless, he does have a definite point of view and he uses all available argument to support it. Those with a different point of view would not have too much trouble in presenting an equally effective argument in favor of Federal assistanc for facilities on the limited scale now contemplated.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN D. MILLETT, President.

Senator YARBOROUGH. At this time we will order printed in the record a statement of Senator Hubert Humphrey who planned to testify today but who has a letter to Senator Morse, the chairman, explaining why he couldn't be here. The statement will be printed in full at this point in the record. It is a fine statement. I wish we had time to read it orally.

(The prepared statement of Senator Humphrey follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, I would like to add my voice and my thoughts to the many which are being raised on behalf of increasing the level of Federal financial support in the many vital areas of education envisioned in the administrationsponsored bill, S. 580.

There may be other measures coming before this Congress which generate more excitement, and get more headlines in the newspapers, but there is none which offers a greater opportunity for a significant forward step-for real progress-as a nation, and as a people, than does this measure.

This measure is neither entirely new, nor is it radical. It is an extension of Federal support on a broad front, selecting the most critical areas, where such action can make a very real positive impact on the quality of education available to the young people of this country in the years ahead.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENTS

The history of Federal activity in the field of education is a long and a proud one. It antedates the Congress of the United States, eginning with the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. During the administration of Andrew Jackson, the Federal Government contributed S million for the construction of classrooms. Last year was the entennial of the Morrill Land Grant Act establishing the great landat universities of this Nation. The Agricultural Experiment Nations established in connection with the land-grant colleges were The result of Federal action in 1887. Vocational education received the attention and support of the Federal Government with the passage of Smith-Hughes in 1917. The 1930's saw the addition of educational programs under the auspices of the NYA, the WPA, and the CCC. I. 144, the Federal Government made a most prudent investment, -pa'd already in increased tax receipts from those veterans who to advantage thereof, when Congress enacted the GI bill permitting

to increase their contribution to our society, as well as their ning power. The school lunch program, the impacted areas aid gam, and the National Science Foundation are other postwar Programs through which the Federal Government has exercised its ponsibility for education. In 1958, we took a major step forward er the impetus of sputnik by passing the National Defense Eduton Act. This is by no means an all-inclusive list.

98-466-63-vol. 3 -5

HOW GREAT IS OUR CONCERN?

I recount this bit of legislative history only to call attention to two facts. One, that those who address themselves to the question of whether or not the Federal Government ought to provide aid to education are directing their attention to a question which was answered in the affirmative even before the Constitution was adopted, and which has been reconfirmed periodically and frequently since then. The questions they should ask are, "How great is our concern and, "Where and how can our limited resources be most effectively put to work in this broad area?" The other important fact to note is how kindly history has treated the actions of Congress in this area. I only wish all the actions of past Congresses could withstand the scrutiny of passing years with such continuing near-universal approval for their wisdom and foresight. This should surprise no one, for education is-as the President has reminded us-the keystone in the arch of freedom and progress.

Let us then address ourselves to the questions, "Why this program?" and "Why now?"

S. 580 is a comprehensive program which recognizes both the allinclusive nature of the challenge which confronts us in this area and also that within the broad interdependent problems of education there exists priorities. Some 24 major provisions affecting education from the elementary level through the graduate college level, and on to university extension and basic adult education are highlighted here. There is general agreement among educators as to the need for a broad program of support and a surprising consensus of approval for the particular priorities selected.

FEDERAL SUPPORT NEEDED

I shall not attempt to examine the need for each of these 24 provisions, but would like to address myself to the need for a considerable increase in Federal support for education in general. most States, and in most communities, the burden of financing education to meet the dual problem of the explosion of knowledge and the rapid increase in number of students has been faced boldly and with an appreciation of the importance of education. It has been faced, in general, to the full extent of the tax resources available to the local community, and in most cases to the State.

Public school enrollment in grades kindergarten through 12th grade increased in excess of 43 percent during the decade of the fifties. During this same decade, expenditures for education by local government increased from 39.4 to 44.7 percent of their total expenditures. It increased from 16.9 to 19.8 percent of total State expenditures. But the direct expenditures on education dropped from 6.5 percent to less than 1 percent of total Federal expenditure during this period of time. In the same period, total tax revenue increased by 126 percent for local governments, 127 percent for State governments, and 119 percent for the Federal Government. The debt of State and local governments increased from $20.7 to $60 billion, an increase of 190 percent while Federal debt increased 10 percent. and net private debt increased 132 percent. If the Federal Govern

ment can't afford aid for education, then obviously, no one can. Even in the wealthiest county in the land-our neighboring Montgomery County-it is clear that local property tax resources are not sufficient to finance the necessary level of increased educational expenditure. And still, vastly increased funds for education must be found. The number of students in our public elementary and secondary schools is going to increase by approximately 40 percent in the decade of the sixties. The number of students enrolled in public and private institutions of higher education will nearly double in this decade. If we then take into account that just to continue the present rate of improvement in educational financing calls for increased expenditures 85 percent higher than present levels per student during the coming decade, the size of the problem is apparent.

Those who insist that this can be done entirely by units of government other than the Federal, are not only indulging in wishful thinking and refusing to face up to our responsibilities, but also are shortchanging our Nation's most valuable resource our youth-and thereby endangering theirs, and the Nation's future.

FEDERAL SCHOLARSHIPS AND LOANS

In addition to cosponsoring the administration bill, I have introduced specific legislation to establish federally financed scholarships for students in higher education, based upon merit and need. A scholarship bill passed the Senate 68 to 17 in 1962 and this is one area wherein the administration program is lacking. I hope that you will give serious consideration to S. 389.

I have also introduced for your consideration, with the cosponsorhip of Senators Fulbright, Gruening, Long of Missouri, and Pell, S. 390, which will establish a Federal loan insurance program to profect educational and financial institutions making loans to students. There is an urgent need for such action-action which will cost the Federal Government very little.

I also call your attention to S. 392, which I have introduced, to permit teachers in private nonprofit schools to share in the benefits presently available to others under the terms of the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

Senator YARBOROUGH. The next group of officials is the Council of Chief State School Officers, headed by Dr. Edgar Fuller as the executive secretary; Dr. A. W. Ford, president and commissioner of education, Arkansas; and Dr. James E. Allen, Jr., commissioner of education, State of New York.

Will all you gentlemen come around, please.

STATEMENT OF EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY; A. W. FORD, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS; ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES E. ALLEN, JR., COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator RANDOLPH. Mr. Chairman

Senator YARBOROUGH. The Senator from West Virginia, Senator Randolph.

Senator RANDOLPH. I trust this is an appropriate point in the hearing for me to make a personal comment. I would not wish to embarrass one of the members of the panel but I would want to recall for the record that it was my privilege to serve as a member of the faculty at Davis & Elkins College, Elkins, W. Va., during a period when the president of that institution was Dr. James E. Allen. His son, James E. Allen, Jr., is here today. I have known Jim from the time he was a small boy. I am very delighted at the attainment and the achievement that he has received by his creative and challenging efforts in the field of education in the State of New York.

Thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Senator Randolph.

Dr. Fuller is the executive secretary of this council, and you have been called as executive secretary of this panel, also. So we will ask you to lead off and call on the panel as you gentlemen wish.

Dr. FULLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Randolph, and Senator Kennedy.

President A. W. Ford-he is the State commissioner in Arkansashas asked that I make a general statement followed by his general statement and a general statement by Commissioner Ållen of New York. These are short statements and we trust that we will conserve time as much as possible.

Senator YARBOROUGH. This is an important council and important representation here of great groups in the country. And we express our regrets at the condensation of your time that has been forced

upon us.

Dr. FULLER. My name is Edgar Fuller and I am the executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers in Washington, D.C. The council's membership is composed of the State commissioners and State superintendents from the 50 States and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Canal Zone, and the Virgin Islands.

The privilege of appearing in these hearings of your subcommittee, Mr. Chairman, is greatly appreciated. The council will always cooperate with your subcommittee to the fullest extent in behalf of improved education. Formal education is the full-time interest of about one-fourth of our population, and it is an inescapable lifelong process for almost everyone.

As individual citizens, as communities and States, and as a nation our future depends greatly upon what we do in education. We desire to work with all who seek to advance it.

The council favors Federal aid for public education, with its specific purposes defined by the States rather than categorically by the Federal Government. These principles are illustrated by the Fulbright bill. S. 1343, and Council President A. W. Ford will emphasize them today. The great efforts already being made by the State governments are presented in exhibit 1.

My short statement consists of conclusions on the entire bill insofar as such can be based on present council policies. We would like to have copies of these policies and other relevant materials entered in the record at a point immediately following the statements.