tions, and expansion of area vocational and technical schools under an amended title IV of S. 580 can meet the needs in this field. Part D, college and university libraries: The council cannot support part D insofar as it authorizes tax funds for private institutions. The poll on this issue was 5 for the position of part D and 35 against, with 6 not voting. Part C of title VI, of S. 580 presents a preferable proposal in the library field that can be supported by the council. Part E, graduate schools: The council cannot support part E insofar as it applies to nonpublic institutions. The poll on this was 3 in favor, 38 opposed, and 5 not voting. Otherwise, there is excessive discretionary power lodged in the Commissioner and incomplete representation on the advisory committee under section 423. Part F, modern foreign language training and research: The council has taken no position on part F, which would extend title VI of the NDEA for 2 years and authorize higher appropriations. TITLE III Part A, institutes for advanced study for teachers: The council generally favors institutes for teachers supported by Federal funds, including teachers from private schools and colleges. The poll on this question was 35 in favor, 5 opposed, and 6 not voting. We suggest changes of some details of part A, such as Federal use of contracts rather than use of both contracts and grants under section 301. Less discretion should be vested in the Commissioner in prescribing which teachers of particular subjects are eligible under section 302. State agencies should determine such eligibility or at least participate in decisions concerning it, since the demand and supply of qualified teachers for all elementary and secondary subjects is a major concern of State agencies for education. Part B, teacher education programs: The council is in agreement with the general purposes of part B, but regards the statutory provi sions as too vague and indefinite, with too much discretionary authority left in the hands of the Commissioner. Contracts are favored. rather than grants. State departments of education should be eligible for such projects. Part C, specialized training for teachers and related educational personnel: This provision could well be combined with part A, which it already overlaps in part, with the same improvements previously suggested for part A. Part D, educational research and demonstration: The council is opposed to the inclusion of so-called "nonprofit private *** other organizations with research or professional training facilities" among those eligible under part D amendments to Public Law 531. The council approves the operation of the Cooperative Research Act (Public Law 531) as a source of contracts for research by colleges, universities, regional boards of higher education, State departments of education, and local public school districts after approval of local school project application by the State department of education. It requests substantially increased funds confined to contracts for these purposes. (See exhibit II.) Part E, State statistical services: The council supports part E except that it opposes section 381 (e) the statutory provision that requires each State plan to give assurances to the Commissioner that the State will cooperate with the Commissioner by gathering and furnishing to him the statistical information he needs, in such form as he may find necessary, to enable him to carry out effectively his functions under the act of March 2, 1867, as amended ***. Unless that is eliminated or confined strictly to the Commissioner's functions under part E, the Council of Chief State Officers will do everything possible to defeat it, or to have it amended as I have suggested here. The statute establishing the U.S. Office of Education in 1867 covers all education and even its promotion. Section 381 (e) would give the Commissioner power to require the overburdened staffs of State departments of education, as a condition for receipt of Federal matching grants under part E, to do any statistical work in any field of education certified by the Commissioner as needed by him. Such broad authority could lead to Federal interference with State systems of education in regard to the entire field of educational information and statistics. To substitute such a comprehensive Federal control for the current Federal-State cooperation as a condition for modest Federal funds under a comparatively narrow special aid provision such as part E (title 10 of the National Defense Education Act) would damage Federal-State cooperation in the administration of the Cooperative Research Act. It would also jeopardize the much broader cooperation. freely extended by the States for a century in the large programs der which the State agencies now furnish statistics to the U.S. Office of Education on a voluntary official and professional basis. TITLE IV Part A. public elementary and secondary schools: President A. W. Ford, of the council, will deal today with the major problem of categorical aids that part A presents to State school systems. Part A tains many categorical provisions that would necessarily involve essive paperwork and Federal controls. There should be more State and local selection of public school needs than part A would permit. If part A were standing alone on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, probably a majority of the chief State school officers would favor acceptare. Only a few would favor part A, however, if it can be enacted ly as an inseparable part of an omnibus bill including numerous other provisions that violate fundamental State and local policies in education. The policies of the council in this matter are clear. In 1962, 50 of members specifically approved the principles of H.R. 10180, *hich has been described in two volumes of House General SubCommittee on Education reports (82355) of hearings held February 4-August 28, 1962. Similar principles are found in S. 1343 of 1963, troduced by Senator Fulbright, and H.R. 5344 of 1963, introduced by the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Education, Repreentative Perkins, of Kentucky. These are identical bills sponsored by the Bipartisan Citizens Committee for Federal Aid for Public Elementary and Secondary Education and supported by the Council of Chief State School Officers. The exhibits are parts I to V of exhibit 7, which give this proposal in detail. It has a great deal of information which, of course, could not be repeated here on account of the lack of time. Part B, science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction equipment: The council supports part B if the Congress finds that the original need for which title III of the National Defense Education Act will continue to exist for 2 years. It opposes extension of such categorical curriculum aids to other areas of education as a general approach to Federal aid to education. (See exhibit II.) Part C, guidance, counseling, and testing: The council supports part C if the Congress finds that the original need for which title V of the National Defense Education Act will continue to exist for 2 years. It opposes extension of such categorical aids to other areas of education as a general approach to Federal aid to education. Those are the general policies of the council. The members are strongly of that opinion, still, throughout the council, with very few exceptions. Exhibit II spells out this policy. Part D, federally affected areas: The council favors the extension without change of Public Laws 815 and 874, as amended, for any period from 1 to 4 years. I do feel, and this would be a personal opinion and not from a general poll, they would favor the inclusion of the District of Columbia in the Federal assistance laws for federally impacted areas. TITLE V Part A, vocational education: The council supports portions of part A and opposes others. It favors the expansion of vocational and technical education, especially for post-high-school graduates, dropout, and other adults. It favors larger Federal funds and larger programs than proposed by part A, and opposes the repeal of the George-Barden Act. It also opposes section 4(c) of part A, which would allow Federal funds to be allocated to private groups at the discretion of the Commissioner and which would authorize allocations that for the first time in this field would violate the principle of separation of church and state in education. The principles favored by the council are more adequately incorporated in H.R. 4955 of 1963, introduced by Congressman Perkins, of Kentucky. A more detailed statement of the council's policy in this field of education has been made a part of the record today as exhibit VI. Part B, Education of Handicapped Children: The training of teachers provided for in sections 521-523 of part B is probably already covered in section 341 of part C of title III. Both could easily be incorporated into part A of title III, with improvements similar to those suggested for part A of title III. Such categorical aids for teacher preparation should be consolidated to minimize Federal administrative expenses and controls, and to coordinate Federal-State cooperation in the preparation of teachers. The provisions of section 524 (a) which authorize funds for demonstration projects conducted by private nonprofit educational or research agencies and organizations for research or demonstration projects relating to education of handicapped children should be restricted to educational agencies. TITLE VI Part A, General University Education: The council supports part A. TITLE VII Section 706, Interchange of Personnel With States: The council has not considered this section and takes no position concerning the de-irability of its enactment. (The exhibits attached to prepared statement of Edgar Fuller and other papers referred to hereinafter are as follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT of Dr. EDGAR FULLER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, COUNCIL OF CHIEF STATE SCHOOL OFFICERS, WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Edgar Fuller. I am executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers. 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 committee, Mr. Chairman, is greatly appreciated. The council will always cooperate with your committee 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. 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, because they are necessary to explain more fully the positions of the council concerning this legislation. They constitute exhibits 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 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 schools 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 objective 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. Part A-Higher education facilities TITLE II 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 pool, in which such grants for nonpublic institutions were favored by 2 and oposed by 39, with 5 not voting. (See exhibit IV, pts. I and II.) 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 providing the most effective and most economical approach for the Federal Government to assist in the provision of facilities to meet the educational 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 necessary to treat institutions within State junior and community college systems as individual colleges to be dealt with directly from Washington or from a Federal regional office. Such institutions are often classified legally by the State as secondary schools and are supervised by the State and comunity boards of education. It is an imposition on the State school systems for the Federal Government to deal with such junior and community colleges in the same manner as it 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 pool on this was 2 for, 37 against, and 7 not voting. Increases in the number and capacity of public community and junior colleges, existing opportunities for technical education in other higher institutions, and expansion of area vocational and technical schools under an amended title IV of S. 580 can meet the needs in this field. Part D―College and university libraries The council cannot support part D insofar as it authorizes tax funds for private institutions. The poll on this issue was 5 for the position of part D and 35 against, with 6 not voting. Part C of title VI presents a preferable proposal in the library field that can be supported by the council. Part E-Graduate schools The council cannot support part E insofar as it applies to nonpublic institutions. The poll on this was 3 infavor, 38 opposed, and 5 not voting. Otherwise, there is excessive discretionary power lodged in the Commissioner and incomplete representation on the advisory committee under section 423. Part F—Modern foreign language training and research The council has taken no position on Part F, which would extend title VI of the National Defense Education Act for 2 years and authorize higher appropriations. |