I am accompanied by Mr. Thomas Harris, associate general counsel of the AFL-CIO, and Mr. Larry Rogan, director of the department of education of the AFL-CIO.

Let me say at the start that we are aware of the published reports that the bill before you-S. 580, the National Education Improvement Act is about to be separated into four or more parts, each of which will deal with a different aspect of our national educational problem.

This prospect does not disturb us in the least. It does not, in any way, affect our position. For, as a general proposition, I can tell you that we are in support of the President's proposals, whether taken together or one at a time. Except for details that I will mention later, our only dissent is that the administration program is too modest.

We believe it would take at least twice as much money to achieve the stated objectives of S. 580 as the bill itself contemplates. In our view it is high time that this country stopped shopping around for a bargain basement or discount house solution to the educational crisis. Adequate schools cost money, and we might as well accept this as a fact.

Even though its financial terms are unrealistic, and even though its format has been-or is about to be-altered by legislative realities, the omnibus bill submitted by President Kennedy has already contributed to public understanding of the scope of the problem. As the AFL-CIO executive council said last February:

Whether the omnibus pattern survives in Congress is not important; it has already served its purpose by stressing the unbreakable interrelationship of elementary, secondary, undergraduate, postgraduate, vocational, and adult education.

We think that is true. And therefore it is our conviction that the Congress would be gravely mistaken if it looked upon Federal aid to education as a phantom issue, an exercise in parliamentary maneuver, a matter better left to the campaign in 1964.

We say that progress is needed now and that there will be no political advantage to either party in further delay.

Mr. Chairman, we say this is realists. We recognize that this whole matter, which otherwise would long ago have been resolved, has been enmeshed in religious controversy.

As an organization whose membership includes those of all religions it might be the better part of valor for us to sidestep this unpleasant fact. But if we did so we would not do justice to our members and we would not keep faith with our obligation to the Nation.

Like President Kennedy we stand on the Constitution of the United States. Yet, as our specific proposals suggest, we believe that within the framework of this basic American charter there lies an area in which seemingly irreconcilable positions can be brought together.

Above all I want to stress the deep conviction of the AFL-CIO that Federal aid to education at all levels, can no longer be shunted aside. We are here, not to make a record, but rather in the hope of a prompt legislative result.

I have here, Mr. Chairman, four detailed studies which deal with the major educational divisions I would like to cover. They set forth the positive arguments on the need for Federal aid in each case. In order to save the committee's time I ask leave to have them inserted

in the record as an appendix to my testimony. I shall then concentrate on our proposals for strengthening the bill before you. Now let me take up the various forms of Federal aid envisioned by

the bill:

(1) Elementary and secondary education.-Apart from the budgetary reservation made earlier-and I might say, Mr. Chairman, that, since I have already noted the inadequacy of the funds asked, I will not repeat it at every point-we endorse the administration proposals with these exceptions:

(a) Raising teachers' salaries to a "State average" is an inadequate goal when the best salary in the State may be meager. Without pretending to have a definitive remedy, we suggest that a better formula could be devised.

(b) Private nonprofit schools are now eligible for National Defense Education Act loans to buy equipment to teach science, mathematics, and foreign languages. Such loans should also be available for the construction of classrooms devoted to these subjects, and English and social studies should be added to the list for which National Defense Education Act loans are permitted.

(c) We have long urged the extension of the forgiveness feature of the National Defense Education Act loans to all teachers-elementary, secondary, college, and university, whether private or public-and we are pleased to see this provision included in the present bill. This is one method by which Federal policy can assist nonpublic education through completely constitutional means. We would also urge that serious consideration be given to including librarians and social workers among those who are eligible for loan forgiveness. These professions, like teaching, require college education, usually at the graduate level, but neither their educational attainment nor their essential public service is reflected in their earnings.

(d) The phasing-out concept of Federal aid is not realistic. The Congress ought not to embark upon a fundamental program of this kind under any illusion that it will soon come to an end. If the principle of Federal aid to primary and secondary education is written into law--as we hope will be the case—it should be done with the full understanding that the obligation will be permanent. The amount of aid may decline after the first crisis is met, but we cannot foresee a time when the need itself will have disappeared.

To put it another way, this whole approach to the educational system is too serious a matter to allow for polite fictions that might be tolerated on lesser issues.

When the Federal Government at long last acknowledges its responsibility for the education of its future citizens it must continue to fulfill that responsibility.

I am reluctant to pass over without comment some features of the administration's proposals which we find especially welcome.

Assistance for emergency school construction is badly needed. It would also have a salutary effect upon the economy. Unemployment among construction workers has run far higher than the national average. The 1962 rate among construction craftsmen other than carpenters average 8.8 percent, among carpenters 9.4 percent, and among construction laborers 20.4 percent. We need the school con

struction for the sake of our children, but the healthy effect in terms of employment is an added benefit which should not be overlooked.

The administration's plan further provides that Federal funds may be used to meet the special needs of children in slum schools, depressed areas, and migratory labor camps. Improving the educational opportunities for such deprived children is an urgent need.

One of the President's recommendations would indirectly be of great benefit to elementary and secondary schools, both public and private, and that is the provision of grants for the improvement of teacher training. The AFL-CIO, in testimony last year, noted the extent to which teachers of social studies are poorly prepared, few States requiring them to have taken even one formal course in college economics. Many union members have expressed dismay at the confused ideas about organized labor that their children develop in school. important reason is that the teachers who are supposed to educate our young people about economic and social problems are ill equipped to do so. The proposals advanced by the administration could do much to improve the teaching in America's schools.

In requesting a continuation of the existing program of aid to federally impacted areas, the administration has made one specific recommendation which we vigorously support, the inclusion for the first time of the District of Columbia.

We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that opponents of Federal aid to elementary and secondary schools pretend that no need exists. They cite the tremendous strides that have been made by innumerable local school districts in building classrooms and otherwise expanding their facilities.

We in the AFL-CIO are aware of these local efforts and we admire them. But we make these points:

Irrefutable statistics from impartial sources make it clear that, for the Nation as a whole, local efforts have not been enough.

Local property owners, who in most communities carry most of the burden of school costs, are already taxed to the limit of their ability to pay.

Sales taxes, adopted by many States as an easy fundraising device, are not only essentially regressive, but in States like Michigan, which exacts a 4-percent tribute even on milk and bread, impose an intolerable burden on those least able to shoulder it.

(2) Vocational education.-Here again we find ourselves in general agreement with the objectives of the administration, but offer the following suggestions:

(a) The law should provide for continuing authorization rather than be limited to a 5-year period. There can be no "phasing out" in this area either.

(b) The 2-year period allowed for the States to convert their present programs of vocational education to the patern suggested by the President should be reduced to 1 year. The immediate need for training in new occupations is too great to permit the luxury of a 2-year lag.

(c) The AFL-CIO has repeatedly pointed out the need for studies to evauate the adequacy of training programs and the quality of curricula and instructors. The bill should require the U.S. Office of Education to do this and to develop experimental and pilot programs

in the field of vocational education. The bill does set aside 5 percent of the total appropriation for experimental programs directed to the special needs of slow learners and unemployed youth. There should also be a specified amount for research in vocational schools.

(d) For slow learners, the new legislation should spell out the role of general educational as well as special training. Without an integrated educational program, slow learners will not be able to retain their jobs.

(e) Public vocational education relates to education below the college level and excludes professional occupations for which college education is required. The administration bill leaves it up to the U.S. Commissioner of Education to determine what occupations are to be considered professional. This is too great a responsibility to place upon the Commissioner, since such decisions may endanger the highly skilled occupations in the apprenticeable trades. The AFL-CIO believes that the definition of "professional" should be spelled out in the law and not left to administrative determination.

(f) The proposed act provides for training and retraining of persons-youth and adults who are unemployed but vocationally not equipped to find or to keep a job. The AFL-CIO welcomes this provision. But as stated earlier, such training should be related to employment possibilities.

According to the proposed legislation a State must determine the availability of jobs in the occupations for which persons are trained. It is explicitly suggested that such information be secured from the State employment services.

However, it is not enough to determine whether there is

a reasonable expectation of employment in the occupations for which persons are to be trained.

This is not specific enough. The State and local training agencies must make use of all information regarding job opportunities, skill requirements, occupational outlook, labor supply in the various skills, and current employment trends in order to make realistic judgments. Title I of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962 might well serve as a guide in this area.

(g) The proposed legislation provides for State advisory councils to include persons "familiar with vocational education needs and objectives of management and labor in the State." This section should specify representation for such groups as employers, labor, agriculture, professional educators and the public.

Also, this provision should more clearly assign to State advisory councils such responsibilities as a review of changes in the labor market, of job skills, training needs, quality of vocational programs and of instructors.

Similar committees should be established locally. The AFL-CIO further suggests that an Advisory Council on Vocational Education be established on the national level to review the operation of the program and consult with the U.S. Commissioner of Education.

(3) Higher education.-There are two general types of aid to higher education included in S. 580. One would help students; the other would directly help colleges and universities. We support both. Aside from the pervasive matter of inadequate funds, there is very

in developing and implementing desirable research studies. They could sponsor seminars or conferences to assist the Commissioner of Education in discharging his responsibilities under the act.

Finally, national organizations could assist in serving as a clearinghouse on the various ongoing research projects being supported in their special fields of interest. This could be of great assistance to the individual projects. It would enable those responsible for specific projects to exchange information that could prove helpful in their project development and the conduct of their work. Consequently, it is respectfully requested that members of this committee, and other Members of Congress, give their support to S. 580 that broadens and extends the Cooperative Research Act to empower the Commissioner of Education to make grants and to extend the act to groups presently not eligible to assist in furthering the basic purposes of the act.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LESLIE H. FISHEL, JR., DIRECTOR, THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF WISCONSIN

Our deep concern is with the social studies in Wisconsin and the United States and specifically with the social studies curriculum in elementary and secondary school systems. Social studies embrace those areas of knowledge which are primarily concerned with man's relationship to man and the impact of nature upon this relationship. Taken with the natural and biological sciences, language, and the arts, an intimate knowledge of the social studies, or social sciences, is a basic requirement for an educated people. Two Russian historians, visiting the State Historical Society earlier this month, commented on the explosive news and headline techniques of American newspapers. Our reply was that, as an educated people, we deserve to know all of the news and could select the pith from the trivia. Our democracy is rooted in the elemental fact that we are a thinking people and we have our educational system to thank, or to blame, for that.

It is this educational system, particularly in the area of the social studies. which is faltering, unable to live up to its responsibilities. Teachers need to be trained and retrained so that new interpretations of old information as well as new information itself is made available to them (title III, pt. A). Teachers need time and study to develop, with those more expert in subject matter than they can be, new curriculums and new curricular material (title III, pt. B). More importantly, colleges and universities and other institutions with research and training facilities need to have support for initiating and developing new ideas in teaching and teaching materials (title III, pt. D).

A reexamination of the social studies curriculum will quickly reveal a dull repetitive, and unexciting series of courses. While details differ all over the country, the general picture is one of American history courses rigidly slotted at two or three grade levels, frequently going over the same ground in much the same way. Courses in economics and sociology, if offered at all, are offered at the last moment in high school and as entirely new subjects. Courses in political science, often called civics, examine the process of government as if robots, not men, governed the affairs of the country. Courses in world history are jammed so full of required material that teachers must depend upon their own and their pupils' rote learning to complete them. Courses in geography are almost nonexistent except for those students who are not able to handle world history. These courses are constructed as if land masses existed for statistical groupings of temperature, imports, and major industries, or are so well inte grated into history courses as to be lost. It is a dismal and depressing picture. History and the social sciences are in a constant state of flux. New areas of history, such as the history of American science, of mass communications, of urban history, have not filtered down to elementary and secondary school levels. yet no one can gainsay their tremendous significance for midcentury Americans. New information in the social sciences is equally significant and, at present, blocked from elementary and secondary education because teachers are not informed and materials are not available. New interpretations of older concepts need to be presented, too, but cannot be unless the teacher and the materiais are readied for the presentation.

History and the social sciences need to be revitalized if they are to perform their function of preparing young people to shoulder the increasingly heavy bur den of living in a democratic society. They must know about their society, their