« PreviousContinue »
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.)
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 presentations on S. 580 and related legislation will be headed by Dr. Joseph V.
Before we proceed, Senator Keating has requested that his statement 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 value greatly the distinguished Senator's comments. They will be most 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 to present a statement in support of S. 571, a bill which I introduced, and which Senator Prouty of Vermont cosponsored, to amend the National Defense Education Act. The purpose of this bill is to insure that private and public school personnel receive equal treatment in attending summer counseling and guidance institutes, and language institutes. At the present time, under the provisions of the National Defense Education Act, all teachers are eligible to attend summer institutes for advanced training in the fields of guidance and foreign languages. Only public school teachers, however, can receive a living allowance in the form of stipends of $75 a week with an additional payment of $15 a week for each dependent.
The fields of guidance and foreign language instruction are vital to programs in our elementary and secondary schools, and of course, it is in the national interest that studies in these fields continue. The arbitrary distinction now made between public and private school teachers in this context is both artificial and unwarranted. Fully 512 million American children attend private elementary and secondary schools, and their educational needs, and those of their teachers cannot be ignored.
Since the financial burden on most teachers does not allow for the accumulation of savings to see them through an extended unsalaried 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 is 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
receive stipends for the period of their attendance at such institutes in amounts specified by the Commissioner in regulations including allowances for dependents and including allowances for travel to attend such institutes.
I hope that this correction will be made in the final draft of the bill thereby incorporating my suggestions, and that this much needed amendment will be enacted by the Congress without delay.
Senator RANDOLPH. Now if you, Dr. Totaro, will proceed, perhaps, to introduce your colleagues, or to present your material in any way you think is desirable, the subcommittee will be happy to hear you and your associates now.
STATEMENTS OF DR. JOSEPH V. TOTARO, DIRECTOR, TEACHER PLACEMENT BUREAU, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, WIS.; DR. JERROLD R. ZACHARIAS, PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE, MASS.; DR. EARL R. BOGGS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, W. VA.; AND JAMES H. STRAUBEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AEROSPACE EDUCATION FOUNDATION, AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dr. TOTARO. Thank you, Senator Randolph.
Our presentation this afternoon will be made in the following or der, which is just a step out of order in the list presented to you. Our first speaker will be Dean Earl Boggs, of the College of Education, West Virginia University.
Our second speaker will be Dr. Jerrold R. Zacharias, professor of physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, second from the right. The third will be Mr. James H. Straubel, executive director, Aerospace Education Foundation, Air Force Association, immediately to my right.
And I, speaking in behalf of Dean Lindley Stiles of the School of Education, University of Wisconsin, and myself.
We would like to present each of our own papers and the papers of the supporting individuals into the record, with your consent.
Senator RANDOLPH. Those papers which support the general premise that will be given in oral testimony will be included at an appropriate place in the record. It might be now, it might be after you have spoken, but we will place that material in the record.
Dr. TOTARO. Thank you.
It is no accident that the individuals appearing this afternoon are here. I think you will observe as you look at the background that we are not all pedagogues. Our purpose was to show that there are diverse interests in educational research and development, but that these interests are all important and we are all striving for the same kinds of long-term objectives.
I would like, since two of our speakers are going to have to move out a little more rapidly than others this afternoon, and because I had agreed initially not to speak due to the tight schedule we are under this morning, to eliminate my remarks at this point and proceed with Dean Boggs.
STATEMENT OF DR. EARL R. BOGGS, DEAN, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY, MORGANTOWN, W. VA.
Dr. BOGGS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am anxious to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear before you today in order to support S. 580, the National Education Improvement Act of 1963, which is designed to improve quality, quantity, and opportunities for education at various levels in America. Time limits make it necessary for me to address my testimony to one phase of the bill-research. However, I should like to emphasize the importance of all other aspects of the bill under consideration.
The improvement of quality in education requires the discipline of Systematic and consistent effort on the part of educational leaders. Research is the most effective tool to eventuate this orderly process. The lag in the use of research is largely the result of lack of funds. Two of the major requirements for this-trained research staff and climate of acceptance-we have today, but without financial support the research program lags far behind demand for development.
Colleges of education today orient efforts toward the improvement of quality with renewed vigor. I have spent a good many years in colleges and I have never seen greater vigor expressed on the part of the dedicated staff members than we have today for digging into the basic research patterns, not only of the new knowledge, but of a renewed use and a reinterpretation of the old.
Staff members are restless to expand present research to secure data which can become the basis for further development of quality.
RESEARCH IN WEST VIRGINIA
Permit me here to list a few examples of research projects in the College of Education of West Virginia University which have been done in the last year or are currently in progress which need expansion but funds are not available to support further activities: T. J. Brennan, "A Study of High School Dropouts"; E. C. Kennedy, "The Improvement of Reading Skills for College Bound High School Seniors." There was a time when we thought the only ones we needed to work on in the field of reading are those people who are poor readers. But now that has moved on far beyond that to the improvement of the reading skills of the college-bound and so-called academically talented people.
Dr. B. H. Bailey and Stanley Ikenberry, "Educational Expectancy Levels of Parents for Their Children," you will be interested to know the dry run of this research is in Preston County, centered around Kingwood; Dr. A. N. Hofstetter and Charles Ritchie, "Competencies Needed by Supervisors of Instruction;" R. H. Neff, "Program Requirements for Educable Pupils;" W. V. Wagner, "Criteria for Admission of College Students Into Teacher Education;" and K. A. Cook, "Analysis of Contributions of the College of Education of West Virginia University."
Other research efforts could be enumerated, but these, no doubt, are exemplary of other graduate institutions, both large and small.
In addition to the yeoman efforts being exerted within individual institutions, there are studies of a national and regional character,
which have proved that research is a sound basis for us to unearth the new and to find a new approach to the old, such as Project Talent, a nationwide inventory of a half million talented students, the study of college teaching methods in academic classes and research in curriculum revision. Many other examples could be cited if time permitted.
EDUCATIONAL QUALITY RESEARCH BASED
The improvement of quality, quantity, and educational opportunities in America requires systematic and consistent effort based on reliable and valid data. Research is the tool by which such data are secured. The climate of acceptance among educational leaders and academicians for this mammoth task is entirely affirmative today. The educational environment presently has two sides of the triangle, staff researchers and permissive environment. The passage of S. 580, the National Improvement Act, will help to establish the base, particularly that of research, for us to move ahead.
I come from a State that is considered often, as Senator Randolph knows, an underprivileged State. But I hasten to add, we are not an underprivileged State as far as the spirit is concerned. We have the spirit, if we can get a little money to move ahead on establishing a base, and we want to establish that through research. I believe that this is characteristic of many of the other States.
Generally speaking, today institutions are financed about one-third from taxes, one-third from student fees, and one-third from other
I think that S. 580 gets us into the area of thinking that we can move half of the support from Government funds, Federal aid to education, and that sort of thing, covering the whole gamut that is included in this S. 580, which will move us in the direction of really getting into high gear in some of the things that we were forced into. Institutions are merely the agents for society in that respect, and very, very valuable agents.
The two requirements that I spoke of in my testimony a minute ago, the trained research staff and the climate of acceptance are important features, and these two areas have not appeared accidentally. I would guess that within the last 2 or 3 years, there has been more study on the part of staff members of the smaller institutions, which up to the present time have done a very little bit of this research that we need.
I would guess that those staff members have done more preparation in how to do research than they had done in the previous 10 years. The climate of acceptance along comes when you get the sociometry of technology at work in a faculty and some understanding of it in the community. And it takes time to do that and there is danger in that unless we have it established on a firm base and that is the main reason for my wanting to speak today in favor of the research part of this bill.
And I do not mean, in doing that, to lessen my attempt to encourage the passage of the bill as it stands.
S. 580 should be approved, in my opinion. It points in the direction of security in education; improved teaching, counseling services,