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 cosponsorship 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.

Senator YARBOROUGH. So ordered. This data will be ordered printed in the record at the conclusion of the statements of you three gentlemen.

Dr. FULLER. And I have three little pieces outside that that I would like also

Senator YARBOROUGH. First the data that you have here, attached here, the index, is that correct, and then the three additional documents. Thank you. All so ordered printed in the record.

Dr. FULLER. We appreciate that because those documents are necessary to explain formally the positions of the council concerning this legislation. They constitute exhibits 1 to 7 as indexed.

TITLE I

Part (a) Student loans: This title is supported by the council. In recent poll returns from 46 chief State school officers, section 105 (b)(3), which extends forgiveness of 50 percent of the amount for student loans to teaching in nonprofit private elementary and secondary schools met approval by 32 and disapproval by 11, with 3 not voting. The corresponding vote concerning forgiveness for such loans for teaching in colleges or universities was 33 for, 9 against, and 4 not voting. This represents a policy change on individual benefits from tax funds by teachers in nonpublic educational institutions. The results of this poll on 16 issues involving Federal funds for private chools and colleges have been made a part of the record here today as exhibit V.

Part B, student loan insurance: The council supports part B. Part C, student work-study programs: The council takes no position on part C.

Part D, graduate fellowships: The council supports the general purpose of part D, but section 163 (a) places too much discretion in the Commissioner for determination of amounts of individual stipends. It also vests excessive discretionary authority in the Commissioner for determining the amounts to be paid to each college or university. Comments on excessive discretionary authority throughout this statement are made as a matter of basic principle and without any past or present U.S. Commissioners of Education in mind. They are based on the general policy that Federal statutes should contain obective formulas for computation of Federal-aid payments received by institutions or State governments. This protects all parties against abuses and insures that the congressional intent will prevail.

Section 163 is contrary to the policies of the council insofar as it authorizes payments of Federal funds to be made to nonpublic institutions of higher education.

Senator RANDOLPH. On that subject, Mr. Chairman, could I question Dr. Fuller just very briefly?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Certainly.

SENATOR RIBBICOFF'S BILL

Senator RANDOLPH. Dr. Fuller, you are familiar with the legislative proposal of Senator Ribicoff of last week?

Dr. FULLER. Yes.

Senator RANDOLPH. What would you comment in reference to the aid which he has anticipated should go to the private and parochial schools?

Dr. FULLER. I believe that it would be a great diversion here in terms of time, Senator, to go into details of all of those suggestions made by Senator Ribicoff.

Senator RANDOLPH. I didn't mean all of them. I mean as to the private and parochial school aid.

Dr. FULLER. Well, there are many facets to that

Senator RANDOLPH. I realize that.

Dr. FULLER (continuing). And I believe they will come out in the policies of the council as we go through this.

Senator RANDOLPH. All right.

Dr. FULLER. So that you can judge on the basis of those policies. Senator RANDOLPH. Thank you, Dr. Fuller. Sorry.

Dr. FULLER. I think there are some of them that would be acceptable and I think probably more of them would be more unacceptable to the chief State school officers.

Senator RANDOLPH. You see why I asked this question. You just said you were against aid to private and parochial schools.

Dr. FULLER. That is right.

Senator RANDOLPH. And certainly then I wanted to see if the approach of Senator Ribicoff or others frankly changes your thought on this basic assumption or statement or commitment that you have made.

Dr. FULLER. I would say substantially it wouldn't change the policies at all. It would be a matter of laying down the proposals against the policies and see how they fit.

Senator KENNEDY. Doctor, what about the proposal made by the Senator about tax deductions regardless? I mean, this is an indirect way of helping the system of public and private, and yet in the introduction of your statement

Dr. FULLER. In our method of formulating policy for the entire council, we have to poll on that because it came out so recently. We would have to check with the membership.

Senator KENNEDY. I think this was one of the points which my colleague was interested in which I would be interested in as well.

OPPOSE AID TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Dr. FULLER. We have in exhibit 5 in this document 16 of those public-private issues on a poll answered by 46 chief State school officers and I believe that many of those issues are covered in those 16 results. The council is

Senator YARBOROUGH. I have one question there that I am interested in, in your poll. Title I, parts A and D. Your poll on part A shows members overwhelmingly approved the forgiveness of loans to students in colleges if they teach in private institutions or church related institutions. Yet under section D your members overwhelmingly reject support for fellowships where that study is in private institutions. What is the logic of the difference in the two votes?

Dr. FULLER. The difference here, without getting the details of those out of the poll at this point, the differences here arise under the

differences between payments to the individual and payments to the institutions. There are payments to the institutions in the secondSenator YARBOROUGH. In section D?

Dr. FULLER. Yes. Direct payments to the institutions which are owned and operated by religious denominations. Those we oppose all along the line.

The individual benefits which come under a different theory of constitutional law we do not oppose; in fact, we favor them, as has already been said in the statement here.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

TITLE II

Dr. FULLER. Part A, higher education facilities: The council is deeply involved in and concerned about higher education, and supports the principles of title II, part A of S. 580 by a vote of 34 in favor, 5 opposed, and 7 not voting. Should the provisions for loans for academic facilities be changed to grants, the council would oppose them for other than public institutions on the basis of the same poll, in which such grants for nonpublic institutions were favored by 2 and opposed by 39, with 5 not voting. (See exhibit IV, pts. I and II.) The council favors a Supreme Court test on tax funds for sectarian institutions of education as soon as possible. Help by Congress on this is illustrated by the Morse-Clark bill, S. 1482 of 1961, and by the provision in the Green bill, House bill 6143, of May 8, 1963, which was dropped by the full Committee on Education in the other branch of Congress on May 21, 1963. We urge that this provision for a constitutional test be restored should such legislation reach the Senate.

Part B, public community college academic facilities: The council strongly supports part B. Exhibit IV includes a statement by a nationally recognized authority that reflects the reasons for this position. The public community college is widely regarded as providng the most effective and most economical approach for the Federal Government to assist in the provision of facilities to meet the eduational needs of all post-high-school youth, and at the same time to relieve enrollment pressures on colleges and universities offering the baccalaureate or higher degrees.

Part B, fortunately, provides for State administration. Many States object to higher education legislation which may make it Lecessary to treat institutions within State junior and community college systems as individual colleges to be dealt with directly from Washgon or from a Federal regional office. Such institutions are often elssified legally by the State as secondary schools and are superVed by the State and community boards of education. It is an imposition on the State school systems for the Federal Government to l with such junior and community colleges in the same manner as deals with colleges and universities outside the State school systems. Part C. college level technical education: The council cannot support part C insofar as it authorizes tax funds for private institutions. The poll on this was 2 for, 37 against, and 7 not voting. Increases in e number and capacity of public community and junior colleges, existing opportunities for technical education in other higher institu