Page images
PDF
EPUB

at least high school graduation. In New York State, our successful STEP program (school to employment) is making a significant contribution in this direction. But the funds presently available for it are woefully inadequate. There is a serious need for modernizing and expanding opportunities in vocational education, particularly for industrial-technical training at the secondary school level. Efforts to secure the funds necessary to implement our State plan for vocational education have thus far failed.

New York State ranks 12th among the States in percent of population 25 years and older having completed at least 4 years of college. The median school years completed by this age group in New York State is only 10.7. On this score, we rank 28th. It is reported that the number of adults in this State with less than 5 years of school is nearly 800,000. A massive effort is needed to raise the education level of these members of our society.

While New York State citizens have made, as I have pointed out, a relatively strong effort to support their schools, that effort will have to be substantially creased in the years immediately ahead. Estimates indicate that expenditires for public schools will continue to increase by approximately 10 percent annually over the next few years.

The State and the localities have done much in the past to provide the needed revenues. They can and will do more in the future. I am convinced, however, that the size of the task in education in New York State, and in the Nation, Gands that the role of the Federal Government be substantially enlarged. Federal financial assistance for vocational education and for the support of the National Defense Education Act have been of great value to New York State. Their continuance and expansion as proposed in S. 580 would be of even greater Vale in the solution of our educational problems.

There is much in S. 580 that appeals to me. I like the fact that it is comprehensive and interrelated-that it recognizes the indivisibility of education, the interdependence of all levels and programs from the kindergarten to the graduate school level. I hope that it will be treated as a whole by the Congress and that some progress will be made with respect to all of its parts.

Before commenting briefly on titles III and IV of S. 580, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to a statement of principle which guides my views in general with respect to programs and proposals for Federal aid to education.

As a matter of principle, I strongly favor the policy of leaving as much discretion as possible to the States for determining where the needs are within the State and how best to use the Federal funds for meeting these needs. In short, I favor the noncategorical approach to Federal aid for education, as set forth here by Mr. Ford. My position on this, with respect to aid for eleDetary and secondary education, is set forth in a statement of policy adopted last year by the New York State Board of Regents. A copy of that statement is attached.

At the same time, I believe we must identify the most critical of our educatical needs and make special efforts to meet them. Until such time as we have developed more experience and sophistication in dealing with the financial Poles and relationships of our three levels of Government, the categorical approach may be the proper one for the Federal Government. It is my hope, however, that the trend would be toward strengthening State and local leadera:p and control, and leaving to the States the widest possible degree of disretion in the use of all funds available to them for education.

Now for a few words about titles III and IV of Senate bill 580. I strongly support that title.

he quality of education is determined primarily by the quality of the teacher. Te III of the bill is addressed to this very subject.

Title III of National Defense Education Act has helped to strengthen intruction in science, mathematics and modern foreign languages. For instance, ith the help of National Defense Education Act funds, foreign language teachers New York State participation in 120 conferences and workshops in 1959-60, h the aim of improving foreign language instruction. Four universities in New York State were designated as language and area centers. They offered languages in 1960. In addition, 97 teachers attended summer language itutes under title VI of National Defense Education Act.

la the area of guidance, 213 New York State guidance counselors or teachers ended institutes at seven colleges or universities for 6- to 8-week sessions in 98-466 63 vol. 39

the summer of 1960. National Defense Education Act funds were of significance in increasing the number of guidance counselors in New York State from 1,400 in 1958 to 1,775 in 1960.

Title III of the new bill would expand the teacher institute program (now limited to teachers of foreign languages and guidance and counseling per sonnel) to include teachers of English, humanities, social sciences, and library personnel. New York State is presently making efforts to stimulate and produce substantial improvement in the quality of instruction in these areas. Federal support would be of great consequence in furthering our efforts.

I would like, in particular, to lend strong endorsement to part D of title III. authorizing the support of educational research and demonstration centers involving colleges and universities and State and local education agencies. We have never had enough money for research. Also important is part E, which extends for 2 years the grants to State education agencies to finance the collection and analysis of statistics about the character, quality, and quantity of educational programs in the States. This is a matter vital to the better understanding of education's needs and progress.

Title IV of Senate bill 580 would provide a Federal program for support in such areas as teacher salary improvement, classroom construction and special projects for improving educational quality particularly in disadvantaged rural and urban areas. I am pleased that the bill appears to leave room for the States with their varying needs to vary in the percentage of funds allocated to each purpose.

I could go into greater detail in giving support to S. 580, but I think I have made sufficiently clear my reasons for believing it to be good and necessary legislation.

I have been speaking primarily from my position as Commissioner of Education in New York State, but as an educator and as a citizen of the United States, my interest in education cannot be confined to the limits of State boundaries.

While State responsibility for education is firmly embedded in American tra dition and legal structure, practical matters of operation and need have evolved a three-way partnership-local-State-Federal-for the carrying out of this re sponsibility for education.

Experience has shown that each of these levels has special resources and op portunities and that the most effective operation of education requires that each be assigned those areas of responsibility and those functions for which each is best suited.

This sharing of powers among the three levels of government has served us well in education and provides, I believe, the best framework for education in a country so vast in dimension and so diverse in needs.

In considering the role of the Federal Government in education, or in any other endeavor, it must never be forgotten that the Federal Government is not remote nor impersonal-it is merely the people of the United States operating in a broader sphere of action. Therefor, it is the duty of the representatives of the people at that level to make certain that they provide the framework and the support necessary for the most effective and the most productive exercise of the share of responsibility for education which falls to the Federal Government With the responsibility for education distributed over the whole sweep of local State-Federal organization, there exists the broad scope of action and the variety of approach suitable to education in a country soon to have a population of 200 million. With the proper balance of strengths achieved among the three, ther can be the vitality, strength, and responsiveness which give to education th adaptability requisite for eras of unprecedented change.

Carved in the stone of the State Education Building in Albany are these word of Gov. DeWitt Clinton: "The first duty of government, and the surest evidenc of good government, is the encouragement of education."

This applies to all government-local, State, or National-and education ca be strong only if there is evidence in full measure at each level of this exercise o good government.

A STATEMENT OF POSITION BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RELATING TO FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE FINANCING OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

(Adopted by the board of regents, May 25, 1962)

The regents of the University of the State of New York have the responsibility for the general control and supervision of education in the State and for extending to the people at large increased educational opportunities.

The regents believe that the provision of adequate opportunities for a firstrate education for every boy and girl in America is among the most urgentif not the most urgent-needs of our time. Such provision requires the continuous improvement of all our schools and colleges, wherever in the Nation they may be located, and the extension of further opportunities for quality education wherever needed.

The regents believe that the primary responsibility for the support of quality education in the public elementary and secondary schools of America rests upon the State and local governments. In this regard, we are proud of the record of the people of the State of New York.

The regents believe, furthermore, that the preservation of State and local control of our schools is essential for the production of quality education in America and that vigorous efforts must be made to strengthen the legal and fiscal structure for education in the States and localities in order to make possible the continuance of control at those levels.

At the same time, we are aware that the States vary in their financial ability to support education, and that this variation accounts in part for the relative differences among the States in the educational opportunities provided and in the level of education achieved by the Nation's citizenry.

The regents are also aware of the many contributions to education made by the Federal Government through grants-in-aid for numerous special programs and activities. They recognize, too, that the continuance and growth of Federal financial support of education are essential to the defense and general welfare of the Nation. The needs and problems of our schools and colleges are indisputably of national concern.

Such

The regents believe, however, that the form and direction of Federal financial assistance in education are of utmost importance, not only for preserving and enhancing State and local control, but also for deriving maximum educational value from the Federal funds. The regents believe that the present policy of Federal aids for federally defined special purposes is not in the best interest of American public education at the elementary and secondary levels. special aids inevitably involve a degree of Federal control, excessive administrative expenses, and the substitution of Federal educational judgments for those of State and local educational authorities. We believe that the interest of public elementary and secondary education in America will be best served by permanent, broad-purpose Federal financial support rather than by limited, emergency Federal aid for special purposes.

Therefore, as a guide for determining their position with respect to proposals for the extension and continuance of Federal financial aid for public education, the regents have adopted the following principles or criteria.

1. Federal funds for the support of public elementary and secondary education should be apportioned to the States for general rather than categorical purposes so that the responsible educational authorities within the State may apply such funds for purposes consistent with State and local needs and obSectives. Federal legislation for the allocation of such funds to the States should be sufficiently flexible to permit the State and local authorities to determine the purposes and needs for which such aid should be used and to spend accordingly.

2 Federal funds for the support of public elementary and secondary education should be apportioned to, and administered by, the States through the gally constituted State education agency, and not to educational entities within the United States.

3 Federal funds for such public educational purposes should be apportioned among the States on an equalization basis, with relatively more funds being apportioned to the poorer States than to the wealthier ones.

4. Federal funds for public educational purposes should be used to supplement and augment State and local funds, not as a substitute for them, and

to encourage the provision of high quality education in every community in America.

5. Federal funds for such public education should be subject to Federal audit only at the State level and only to assure their use for educational purposes.

Senator RANDOLPH. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.)

Senator RANDOLPH. We will come back at 2:45 p.m. this afternoon. (Thereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to resume at 2:45 p.m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The subcommittee reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 3:05 p.m. in room 4230, New Senate Office Building, Senator Randolph (presiding pro tempore).

Present: Senator Randolph presiding pro tempore.

Senator RANDOLPH. The Subcommittee on Education will resume its hearing with an afternoon session, and our panelists with presenta tions on S. 580 and related legislation will be headed by Dr. Joseph V Totaro.

Before we proceed, Senator Keating has requested that his state ment concerning title III of the National Defense Education Act and specifically S. 571 be made part of the record at this point.

I know I speak for the subcommittee when I say that we all valu greatly the distinguished Senator's comments. They will be mos helpful to us.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH B. KEATING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity t present a statement in support of S. 571, a bill which I introduced, and which Senator Prouty of Vermont cosponsored, to amend the Nationa Defense Education Act. The purpose of this bill is to insure that pri vate and public school personnel receive equal treatment in attendin summer counseling and guidance institutes, and language institutes At the present time, under the provisions of the National Defens Education Act, all teachers are eligible to attend summer institute for advanced training in the fields of guidance and foreign languages Only public school teachers, however, can receive a living allowand in the form of stipends of $75 a week with an additional payment $15 a week for each dependent.

The fields of guidance and foreign language instruction are vita to programs in our elementary and secondary schools, and of cours it is in the national interest that studies in these fields continue. Th arbitrary distinction now made between public and private scho teachers in this context is both artificial and unwarranted. Full 512 million American children attend private elementary and second ary schools, and their educational needs, and those of their teacher cannot be ignored.

Since the financial burden on most teachers does not allow for th accumulation of savings to see them through an extended unsalarie period, the provision to grant stipends to those attending summer in

stitutes has made it possible for a large number of teachers to take advantage of the program. Since the passage of the act, and the first summer institute in 1959, approximately 21,000 teachers have taken the courses offered. The need for the amendment which I propose is emphasized when one considers that less than 5 percent of this number made up of teachers from private schools, who are in effect, prevented from taking the courses because they are not completely self-supporting during the period of study. In the vital area of guidance for example, 9,225 public school teachers attended the institutes, while only 240 private school teachers could afford to do so. This wasteful and useless ignoring of potential talent is harmful, not only to these teachers and their 512 million students, but eventually

to the entire Nation.

The contribution of the private school to the American way of life cannot be ignored or overlooked. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in its publication, "The State and the Nonpublic School," acknowledged this fact by stating:

Nonpublic educational institutions are and have always been a significant part of the Nation's total educational resources. These institutions serve millions of American youth and adults each year. They play an enormous role in transmitting our cultural heritage and enriching it. They exert a tremendous influence in fashioning the American way of life.

To be more specific, I would like to present a few statistics on the largest private, nonprofit school system in the United States-the Catholic school system. Almost 60 percent of the nonpublic schools, and about 90 percent of the students in such schools belong to this system. In my own State of New York, the Catholic school population is well over 750,000 children, exceeding in enrollment the public school population of 34 States and the District of Columbia.

Each year in New York alone, the Catholic school system saves the State almost half a billion dollars in annual operating expenses by providing educational facilities and services to children in their schools which otherwise would have to be provided by the taxpayers of the State. The system represents a capital outlay of approximately $1.5 billion. These figures concern only the elementary and secondary school system and exclude the 44 Catholic universities and colleges in New York, which are educating 55,000 students.

The legislation which I have proposed would provide aid for the teachers in private nonprofit schools but it does not relieve these schools of many of the additional financial burdens which they presently bear. The school, or the church which runs the school is not the beneficiary of the legislation, but the teachers, and the millions of children enrolled in the nonpublic school system would gain.

I have been informed by staff mmebers of the Education Subcommittee that it was the intention of the drafters of S. 580 to incorporate in that bill the substance of my amendment. They have referred me to section 304 of title III which concerns the stipends avaliable to persons attending National Defense Education Act institutes. I would like to point out that that section in listing persons eligible for stipends refers back to section 203 and incorporates by reference teachers in nonpublic schools. It is my understanding that the number 203 is a misprint, and that section 304 should read as follows:

Individuals referred to in sections 301 and 303 who attend an institute operated under the provisions of this part shall, upon application, be eligible to

« PreviousContinue »