Page images

speak to, namely, a 5-year program of grants to public and nonprofit higher education institutions for the construction of academic facilities. Twenty-two percent of these funds are reserved for facilities for junior colleges and technical institutes.

Appropriations of $230 million annually are authorized for 3 years under this title of the House college aid bill. This means that approximately $50 million annually is set aside for the encouragement of these two types of programs.

For the purposes of definition, the term "Junior colleges and technical institutes" is defined as institutions of higher education which are organized and administered principally to provide a 2-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree or a 2-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the physical or biological sciences which is designed to prepare the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific or other technological fields which require the understanding of basic engineering, scientific or mathematical principles or knowledge and if a branch of an institution of higher education offering 4 or more years of higher education is located in a community different from that in which its parent institution is located.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by saying that I believe we have a splendid opportunity this year in any college aid legislation Congress enacts to give, with a relatively small amount of money, a great stimulus to a too much neglected but highly important aspect of American education, the education of semiprofessional technicians.

As I have already indicated, there is plenty of hard evidence, there is plenty of solid fact to justify including in the college aid bill the kind of technical education measure I have here been discussing.

There is, moreover, Mr. Chairman, strong support as I have already indicated, from the higher education community for this proposal. There is as well in President Kennedy's bill endorsement of the technical institute measure.

There is, finally, strong bipartisan support for this proposal in Congress as well.

I hope very much that members of this disitnguished subcommittee and of the full Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and the Senate will include a provision for technical education programs in college aid legislation this year.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy you have shown me in allowing me to testify before your subcommittee. (The prepared statement of Hon. John Brademas follows:)


Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before the distinguished members of this subcommittee to discuss one of the most important pieces of legislation before the 88th Congress, S. 580 or H.R. 3000, the education bill.

For as President Kennedy said in his education message of January 29, 1963, "Education is the keystone in the arch of freedom and progress."

One might generalize and say that education serves three principal purposes in our society. Education serves to enhance the quality of life of the individual. It is essential to our survival as a Nation. It is an indispensable key to the economic growth and development of our country.

For these reasons we must act now to meet some increasingly serious deficits in the Nation's budget for education. The education bill now being considered by this subcommittee is aimed at helping local, State and private authorities remedy these deficits by attacking selective and urgent problems facing our schools and universities.

Certainly, as President Kennedy has made clear, the Federal Government should not try to take over responsibility for education in the United States. But, as a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, I feel very strongly that there are several areas where Federal action is both urgent and appropriate if we are to meet certain serious needs in American education.


Let me first simply list some of the major problems which scientific and technological change has brought to our country and argue that to a significant degree our system of education has a direct bearing upon our capacity to resolve these problems:

First, a continuing high level of unemployment.

Second, a sluggish rate of economic growth.

Third, an alarming increase in the number of students who drop out of high school before finishing.

Fourth, a serious increase in juvenile delinquency and youth crime.

Fifth, a grave shortage of scientific and technical manpower.

Sixth, a serious shortage of college and university classrooms, laboratories. and libraries.

And these are only a few of the challenges we face. Clearly we cannot as a Nation allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by these problems.

It ought to be equally clear that in order to be effective in attacking them we must increase our national investment not only in plant and equipment but our national investment in human beings.

To point to only one of the purposes of education, I believe there is increasing recognition today of the validity of the proposition that economic growth largely depends on education. Secretary of Commerce Hodges said earlier this year that less than half the rise in our country's output since 1900 can be accounted for by increased amounts of labor and capital. The rest, he said, comes largely from improved skills and education of the labor force and from advances in management and technology. To the point, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Growth, under the chairmanship of Walter E. Heller, reported to the President that two-fifths of the sharp increase 56 percent-in the real output per American worker for the period 1929-57 is attributable to improvements in the quality of the labor force resulting from increase in formal education. Even if we ignore the obvious value of education to the individual, we would still be driven to the conclusion that education is essential to the security of our country and to its economic growth and development.

I would like, if I may, to address myself particularly here this morning to one title of the National Education Improvement Act of 1963, title II, which deals with the expansion and improvement of our facilities for higher education. College enrollments in the United States will double by the end of the decade and without Federal assistance, colleges and universities will simply be unable to build the classrooms, laboratories and libraries to cope with this explosion of population on the campus. Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare Celebrezze said that institutions of higher learning should invest $2.3 billion annually to provide for increasing college enrollments. Current expenditures currently fall short of this by $1 billion annually. Fortunately, there is substantial support from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for such assistance and I believe that the case for Federal aid for college academic facilities is overwhelmingly accepted on both sides of the aisle in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I should like today to address myself still more narrowly to one aspect of the college academic facilities title, an aspect to which I have given considerable time during the last year and a half. I refer to part C, the college-level technical education part of title II.


Let me at this point quote from President Kennedy's education message this year.

Said the President:

"There is an especially urgent need for college-level training of technicians to assist scientists, engineers, and doctors. Although ideally one scientist or engineer should have the backing of two or three technicians, our institutions today are not producing even one technician for each three science and engineering graduates. This shortage results in an inefficient use of professional manpower the occupation of critically needed time and talent to perform tasks which could be performed by others an extravagance which cannot be tolerated when the Nation's demand for scientists, engineers, and doctors continues to grow. Failure to give attention to this matter will impede the objectives of the graduate and postgraduate training programs mentioned below.

"I recommend, therefore, a program of grants to aid public and private nonprofit institutions in the training of scientific, engineering, and medical technicians in 2-year college level programs, covering up to 50 percent of the cost of constructing and equipping as well as operating the necessary academic facilities."

Mr. Chirman, because the education of 2-year, college level, semiprofessional technicians is a relatively new field and one not as widely understood at the present time as other, more traditional areas of higher education, I want to take the liberty of discussing the natural history of this particular part of the bill. In 1961, in the closing days of the 1st session of the 87th Congress, five members of the House Education and Labor Committee were commissioned by the chairman of the committee, Mr. Powell, to study the unmet needs in higher education in those fields which contribute most directly to national security and economic growth and to develop recommendations for specific legislative action. Three Democrats, Representatives Robert N. 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. I had the honor of serving as chairman of the group.


Because all five of us shared a concern over the effects of Federal programs in emphasizing the natural sciences and mathematics at the expense of the humanities and social sciences, you may be surprised to learn that the major new recommendation of our group called for the training of greatly increased numbers of semiprofessional technicians at the college level.

Instead of holding formal hearings, our Advisory Group on Higher Education conducted a series of informal, off the record discussions with recognized leaders in the scientific and university community and authorities on scientific and professional manpower. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I should like to request that there be included at this point in the record: (1) the names of the panel members and association representatives with whom our advisory group consulted; (2) the letter from our group to the chairman of the committee listing our recommendations; and (3) the text of our first recommendation which deals with the training of semiprofessional technicians.

The material follows:

Panel Members, Advisory Group on Higher Education, Committee on
Education and Labor

H. Russell Beatty, president, Wentworth Institute, Boston.

Hilton C. Buley, president, Southern Connecticut State College, New Haven. C. R. Carpenter, director, Division of Academic Research and Services, Pennsylvania State University.

John H. Fischer, president-elect, Teachers College, Columbia University. Ralph W. Gerard, director of laboratories, Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan.

H. Bentley Glass, professor of biology, Johns Hopkins University.

Thomas S. Hall, former dean, College of Liberal Arts, Washington University, St. Louis.

Frederick L. Hovde, president, Purdue University.

J. R. Killian, Jr., Chairman of the Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

George G. Mallinson, dean of the graduate school, Western Michigan University.

Neal E. Miller, Angell Professor of Psychology, Yale University.

Paul C. Rosenbloom, Professor of Mathematics, University of Minnesota. Paul A. Samuelson, professor of economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Theodore W. Schultz, professor of economics, University of Chicago.

E. A. Trabant, dean of the School of Engineering, University of Buffalo.
Byron K. Trippett, president of Wabash College.

M. H. Trytten, director, Office of Scientific Personnel, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Randall M. Whaley, vice president, Wayne State University, Detroit.
Benjamin C. Willis, general superintendent of schools, Chicago.


Homer D. Babbidge, Jr.,1 American Council on Education.

Lester W. Burket, American Dental Association and American Association of Dental Schools.

Robert H. Carleton, National Science Teachers Association.

Germaine Krettek, Association of College and Research Libaries.

Charles P. McCurdy, Jr., State Universities Association.

Thomas B. Merson, American Association of Junior Colleges.

Ralph Morgen, Engineers Council for Professional Development.

G. Kerry Smith, Association for Higher Education.

Russell I. Thackrey, Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Don White, National Audio-Visual Association.

Dael Wolfle, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.

Letter of Transmittal

Congressional Action for Higher Education

Washington D.C., January 22, 1962.


Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Advisory Group on Higher Education of the Committee on Education and Labor is pleased to submit this report of its findings and recommendations for congressional action on higher education. The undersigned Members of Congress are unanimously agreed on the recommendations contained in this report.

In response to your instructions, we have given special attention in our work over the past 4 months to the problem of identifying the unmet needs of higher education in the fields which contribute most directly to our national security and economic growth-especially in engineering, medicine, and the sciences. Four of the five members of the Advisory Group also visited the Soviet Union during the fall of 1961 for the purpose of observing Soviet higher education in action, particularly scientific and technical education.

We feel we profited greatly from a series of informal discussions with leading members of the American scientific and university community. As a result of our study, we are in agreement that action is required to meet the following major national needs in higher education and specialized manpower.

I. The training of greatly increased numbers of engineering and other semiprofessional technicians to fulfill our national commitment to the conquest of space, to staff our vital research and development projects, to make the best use of our limited supply of engineers and scientists and to fill the rising demand for highly skilled technical workers in industry and government.

II. The immediate start of construction of classrooms, laboratories and libraries to help provide for the doubled enrollments anticipated in our colleges and universities in this decade.

1 Now president of the University of Connecticut.

III. The production of many more, better trained new teachers and the improvement in the effectiveness of present teachers in order both to meet rising enrollments and raise the quality of instruction in higher education.

IV. The provision of new forms of financial assistance for promising but exceptionally needy students and for incentives for outstanding academic achievement. V. The effective stimulation of high-quality basic research on the learning process itself, an important field in which research results have been disappointing.

The Advisory Group therefore presents the following findings and unanimous recommendations for congressional action:

Recommendation (1):

That a program of Federal grants to the States be authorized to stimulate the establishment and expansion of technical institutes for the training of semiprofessional technicians at the college level; and

That the Committee on Education and Labor conduct legislative hearings on this subject at the earliest possible date.

We are convinced the Nation faces an alarming shortage of semiprofessional technicians, which will become increasingly acute in engineering and space technology. Because professional engineers and scientists will be in extremely short supply for the foreseeable future, we must take steps now to insure that the limited number of engineers and scientists can be utilized as effectively as possible. We therefore believe that it is essential to make immediate provisions for a program to stimulate the training of greatly increased numbers of engineering technicians, with approximately 2 years of college-level training, to assist our engineers and scientists and to multiply their effectiveness.

Experts maintain that we should be training at least one engineering technician for each graduating engineer. We are now producing only about one such technician for every four engineers. The problem has become even more serious in the past few months with the mounting of a full-scale project for a space flight to the moon. Members of the university and scientific community fear that in order to recruit enough engineers for this project alone, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be forced to raid the Nation's universities and industrial organizations. The required engineering technicians are nowhere in sight.

The Federal Government has done much over the years to support vocational education of less-than-college grade through such programs as Smith-Hughes and George-Barden, but these programs are not suited to meet the urgent new demand for widespread technical training at the college level.

NOTE.-The advisory group feels that the area vocational programs established under title VIII of NDEA to provide vocational and technical training of less-than-college grade would be made more effective in producing industrial technicians and craftsmen if the phrases "highly skilled," "scientific knowledge," and "national defense" were removed from title VIII. Because the area vocational programs provide training of less-than-college grade, we feel they are unsuited to the production of semiprofessional technicians who require training at the college level.

The advisory group believes that the best way of meeting the Nation's rising requirements for semiprofessional technicians is to expand existing or create new 2-year technical institutes at the college level, whether operated as independent institutions or by universities and community colleges, and that Federal funds are necessary to stimulate the development of the institutes. We believe it is important that professional societies should have a role in approving the programs of such institutes.

All the members of our group were impressed by the sense of urgency on the part of the expert consultants that we need to act now in the field of technician education.

All five of us, Democrats and Republicans, therefore unanimously concluded that legislation to encourage progress in the field of technical education was essential.

Before I offer some evidence in support of the need for such legislation, let me speak of one difficulty in any discussion of the education of technicians.


The first problem is a semantic one for, as you are all aware, there are technicians and technicians. The man who works with the most sophisticated com

« PreviousContinue »