Page images

Wonderful things have been done in this field in practically every State in the country. We can only hope that this work will be continued on and on.

We would make special reference to a provision in the law in a large number of States through which the law itself not only condones social and economic deprivation, but confirms sternly that such should be the prevailing law. We ask that education funds be provided to each State to enable it to enforce a compulsory school attendance law and further, and perhaps most important. that every State be encouraged to eliminate the provision in its basic school law which exempts poor children from attending school.

Frankly, we thing it's a disgrace that any State law would excuse a child under its jurisdiction from attending school if the child is too poor to attend or if the child is needed to help support the family or if the child is called on to help support a widowed mother or the family is too poor to provide adequate and proper clothing for the child. These are not justifiable excuses. They are crying demands for socially just implementation of basic requirements.


Title VI may well be regarded as not only helping meet a grave emergency in providing extension programs for adults but in thereby helping build homes which will make it unnecessary for the children of the untrained to continue the sad picture which has victimized them. In considering programs for adult basic education, we would call attention to the fact that organized labor wants to eliminate not only reader illiteracy but social illiteracy. Knowledge of the world and the problems that are presented to us is the only way to build a strong citizenry in our country.

As a part of this program we would call attention to the number of young men who are not called for military service because they are either mentally or physically unable to meet the standards which the Armed Forces require. We would urge that a conference be held to consider the best and most socially profitable way to equip men mentally and physically to serve our country as civilians or for military purposes should such an emergency arise. There ar excellent men who could help restore many who have been cast aside as unfi: were those in need of help required to take such training as their handicapped condition would require them to take to become fully equipped.

The place of the community libraries, of the community colleges in giving us a functionally equipped adult citizenry is clear to all. Surely as the Mexican agrarian revolt gave motivation to the unlettered and unschooled hungry peasant and as Huxley almost a hundred years ago gave inspiration to the workers from the coal mines of Wales and England, so we can today, by using available practical resources, bring hope to our adult citizenry as well as to our youth and build the resources of our Nation to a new high level.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.

Miss BORCHARDT. We certainly appreciate your continuing interes in these many cases and your active support.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your statement.
Mr. Goodloe, you may proceed.


Mr. GOODLOE. Senator, I am Don B. Goodloe, legislative representa tive of the Washington Teachers Union, Local 6, of the American Federation of Teachers. That is our national organization. We are moreover, affiliated with the Central Labor Council here and the Na tional AFL-CIO.

I concur in what the two preceding witnesses have said, but I wil confine my testimony to title IV-D on page 105; that is, the impacted area section.


In addition to supporting the provisions of these acts already in force, we propose that they be amended so as to include the District of Columbia in the assistance granted to school districts which have suffered from increase of school population, along with diminution of revenue, as a result of Federal activities which have been initiated or expanded within their several areas.

We consider it illogical and unfair to exclude the District of Columbia from the benefits of these acts. Certainly, the school population of Washington has increased considerably and part of the growth has been due to expanded activities of the National Government. At the same time, it is undeniable that the taxable property of the District of Columbia is constantly dwindling because of the spread of Federal buildings all over the 70 square miles of the District of Columbia.

Adequate maintenance of public facilities in the capital of our Nation has become a major problem. It is, however, the obligation of Congress to see that the people of the United States give the citizens of Washington a fair deal. Not only are the inhabitants of the District without self-government, but the sources of revenue available to them are very limited. All they can possibly tax must be found within 70 square miles allotted to our Federal district. Unlike some other cities, Washington cannot extend its taxable basis by annexing outlying territory.

As further argument, for including the District of Columbia in the impacted areas appropriation, the union observes that the city has been and is included in the George-Barden Act for vocational education, in the National Defense Education Act, in school lunch appropriations, and in a multitude of legislation for health, welfare, traffic, and urban renewal. The Congress has not expected the Federal appropriation to the District to take care of these needs.

Congress can support our Capital more adequately by increasing the regular Federal payment. To date there has not been sufficient Federal money advanced to meet the needs of our Capital City. In fact, the full authorization of $32 million has never been appropriated. Inclusion of Washington schools under the program set up by Public Laws 815 and 874 would be an equitable means of helping to solve this serious situation.

Our union from its inception has steadily supported integrated schools and does not support the use of Federal funds for segregated schools.

Senator, I will conclude by referring to some arguments that have been given against including our city in this impacted area program. It has been said that if Washington is included in the impacted area program and gets $4 or $5 million, the authorization or the appropriation, the regular payment, may be cut.

Well, it is not my business to predict what either House of Congress will do. But regardless of what any political outlook may be, we urge you to do what is the right thing.

Another argument has been that the District should not bank too much on being included in what is a temporary program. Well, we are inclined to ask, How temporary is "temporary"? This act, these two laws, have been on the books since September 1950. They have been amended again and again.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Would that argument not be kind of like saying we do not want any overtime pay this month because we might not earn any next month?

Mr. GOODLOE. Very aptly put, Senator. And the conditions which have brought these acts into being have not changed and do not seem to be likely to change. So, Senator, we urge the committee to report out this bill and to include Washington, D.C., in the impacted area program as provided in title IV, section D of this bill. We are grateful for being allowed to give this testimony.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you. The Senate has passed, in one form or another several times, has it not, impacted aid for Washington?

It has failed in the House. We are soon to hear from a distinguished House Member who henceforth will lead the appeal across the south portion of the rotunda of the Capitol.

We are glad you made this statement.


What is the enrollment of the District Teachers College? Miss BORCHARDT. I do not know the exact enrollment at the present time, but I will be glad to insert it in the record.

(According to figures supplied by the District of Columbia Public Schools, peak enrollment of District Teachers College was 1,610 for the 1962-63 school year.)

Senator YARBOROUGH. Are these other subjects you have mentioned not included in the teaching you mentioned-engineering and other subjects?

Miss BORCHARDT. It is purely a teachers college now, which is very good, but we should have a junior college for persons wishing to take other courses. There is no provision for a publicly supported institu tion of that type here.

Senator YARBOROUGH. It is pointed out by the staff that that teachers college and that junior college is not the responsibility of this committee, but goes to the Senate District Committee.

Miss BORCHARDT. No; it was cited here as an example of the need for a junior college, you see. We have no community junior college Senator YARBOROUGH. It seems the great need for Washington is a community junior college with a good many terminals in it.

Miss BORCHARDT. We should like to have a junior college here, at least. We at some time want a full university.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you for your very fine statements. Our next witness will be Congressman John Brademas, Congressman from Indiana.


Senator YARBOROUGH. We are glad to welcome you to the committee You were to have been the first witness, but we proceeded in you absence. We appreciate your leadership in the field of education and educational improvement in the Congress of the United States and you great leadership in the House.

Your active support of improved educational opportunity for the youth of America I think is known over this whole country. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Senator.

I am most grateful to you for that kind statement. May I say that I am glad to be able to testify this morning before you, Senator Yarborough, and the Senator from New York, Senator Javits, because I know that from both sides of the aisle, you two Senators have given great leadership to the cause of American education.

I have, Mr. Chairman, what may appear to be a fairly long statement, but because I am dealing with a subject that has not heretofore come to the attention of the Congress to any great extent, I would like to read my statement and may I say to the Chair that I read fast.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Well, we are glad to hear it and with your great leadership, we are glad to hear it all. I do not know whether you heard the earlier statement, but we are under somewhat of a limitation and we have a number of witnesses from out of the city. The Congress is in session; Senator Morse has been called to an emergency session of Foreign Relations and we are faced with the prospect of letting these witnesses go back to distant States.

Mr. BRADEMAS. In that event, let me ask, Mr. Chairman, if I may, that the text of my statement be entered as read in the record and I will summarize very briefly the major points which I have come here today to discuss, if that is satisfactory to the Chair.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I think it would be more enlightening to the subcommittee if we could hear it all, but with your powers of summarization, you may be able to do it. But do not summarize so briefly that we do not get the message.

Mr. BRADEMAS. First of all, let me say I feel very strongly that there are several areas where Federal action to support education is most


In my testimony, I have listed a number of the major problems which scientific and technological change has brought to our country and I would argue that to a significant degree, our capacity to resolve these problems is very directly related to the way in which we reshape and give support to our system of education. I refer to problems such as unemployment, a slow rate of economic growth, and a large increase in the number of high school dropouts; and several other problems. I make the case that in order to cope effectively with some of these problems, we need to increase our national investment, not only in plant and equipment, but in human beings as well.

What I should like to do here this morning is address myself to one particular aspect of education legislation before Congress this year, the area of higher education, and still more narrowly to one feature of the college academic facilities title of S. 580, or H.Ř. 3000, the educational bill.


I refer to that aspect of the bill to which I have given considerable time during the last year and a half, part C, the college level technical education part of the bill. I refer the members of the subcommittee to the statement of President Kennedy in his education message in January, in which the President described the particularly urgent

need for college-level training of semiprofessional technicians to help our scientists and our engineers and our doctors.

The President sets forth some figures on the appropriate ratio of technicians to our professional personnel, and then calls in his bill for a program of grants to aid in the encouragement of the establishing of 2-year college level programs of technical education for the purpose of producing more of the semiprofessional technicians that we need.

I think you may be interested to know something of the natural history of how this feature of the education bill came to the attention of Congress.

In 1961, the closing days of the first session of Congress, the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee commissioned 5 members of our committee, 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans, to study unmet needs in higher education in those areas which contribute most directly to national security and economic growth and to develop certain recommendations for congressional action in this field.

Congressmen Robert M. Giaimo, of Connecticut, James G. O'Hara, of Michigan, and I, and two Republicans, Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota, and Charles E. Goodell, of New York, constituted the group of which I had the honor of serving as chariman.

In my prepared testimony, Mr. Chairman, I list the names of the distinguished American scientists and educators and Association representatives with whom our advisory group on higher education consulted. I would like at this point, however, to ask unanimous consent to include a letter from our group to the chairman of the committee, listing our recommendations, as well as the text of our first recommendation, which deals with the question of the education of semiprofessional technicians.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Congressman Brademas, the material you asked to be printed is ordered inserted in full in the record.* Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

In my testimony, I speak of the important semantic problem we have when we get into a discussion of technicians, because as you are aware, there are technicians and technicians.

We are addressing ourselves not to the so-called industrial technician, normally, who receives his training through vocational educational programs, but to the semiprofessional technician who receives his training or education at the college level with a minimum of 2 years of college level education.

All five of the members of our subcommittee, Democrats and Republicans alike, were deeply impressed by the urgency and the concern of the expert scientists and educators with whom we talked. When I say experts, I mean people like Fred Hovde, the president of Purdue, and James R. Killian, President Eisenhower's science advisor and now the chairman of the corporation of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The kind of education which the panelists recommended to us and the kind of education which we called for in the Technical Education Act of 1962, which all of us, Democrats and Republicans on this

The letter referred to may be found on p. 1550.

« PreviousContinue »