« PreviousContinue »
This Du Pont engineering executive added, "The majority of our employees who qualify as engineering technicians are high school graduates with up to 40 years' education' by experience. We are losing this valuable segment of our technical manpower through age and retirement, and have not, for many years, been able to replace it adequately with men limited to a secondary school education. The speed with which engineering and scientific developments are occurring does not make it feasible for us in industry or Government to allow our men to learn through experience alone. In my opinion, the proper technical development of our Nation and its prosperity may well depend on an adequate supply of graduate engineering technicians who can begin to acquire, from a higher basis of formal education in science and mathematics, the experience necessary to competently support our engineers and scientists.”
Some persons, particularly from the field of traditional vocational education, have argued that because a start has been made in technician training under title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, any further action in this field should come through an increase in title VIII funds. You will recall that although the National Defense Education Act specified that technician training programs under title VIII shall be conducted at "less than college grade," a ruling by the Office of Education has made it possible for title VIII money to be used in technician training programs, some of which are now being operated in junior and community colleges.
I should here point out that although patterns vary from State to State, the most typical method of administering title VIII funds is through the State board of education or its equivalent.
STATE HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY
The technical education measure contained in President Kennedy's Education bill and the technical education feature of H.R. 6143, the college aid bill introduced by the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon, Hon. Edith Green, and reported by the House Education and Labor Committee on May 21, 1963, provides for the administration of technical education programs by the State higher education authority. Why did we reach this conclusion?
We were convinced that semiprofessional education requires a specific curriculum, course content, faculty, and the maintenance of definite standardsall of which can be achieved only if the administration and operation of the programs are the responsibility of persons who thoroughly understand the nature of this kind of technical education and the conditions required for its success. Certainly, none of the members of the advisory group who introduced the technical education bill or of the Special Education Subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, which included the technical education measure in the college aid bill, has any desire to deprecate the fine vocational education programs which have been carried out and are now being carried out at the high school and post high school level under title VIII and other Federal programs.
In fact, for the last few weeks, members of the General Education Subcommittee of our House Committee have been working hard to strengthen the existing vocational education programs by providing them with more funds and with broader authority to train people for occupations more closely related to job opportunities. Certainly, greatly increased numbers of technically trained persons will be needed in the years ahead and vocational education can and must train many of them. But backers of the technical education measure I am here discussing feel strongly that semiprofessional technicians are a distinct type of specialist who must be trained at the college level rather than in vocational education programs. We are convinced that, as the President's education message indicates, the correct approach for providing the appropriate kind of education for the semiprofessional technician is as a part of higher education.
TWO BILLS AGREE
The President's bill and the House committee's college aid bill embody this conclusion.
Here, moreover, is what Mr. Robbins of the National Society of Professional Engineers has to say about this important issue of who will administer the technical education programs:
"There is *** widespread agreement among engineers and engineering educators concerning the level of training in education required to produce the type
of technicians so acutely needed. This subject has been discussed with hundreds of these people, and their conclusions have been the same: Engineering technicians, as supporting personnel for engineers, can only effectively and efficiently be trained in an atmosphere oriented toward engineering. This cannot be accomplished at the vocational or skill craft level; nor can adequate numbers of the type and quality of students amenable to the rigorous academic discipline of a technical institute curricula be attracted to a vocationally oriented school. "I might also add that this same situation prevails in attracting the quality of faculty necessary for instructional purposes. It is far less difficult to secure competent college educators for an institution of higher education than it is to try to attract them to a 'less-than-college-grade' vocationally oriented institution. Thus, the question of whether technician training should be accom plished on a less-than-college-grade level or on the college level is more than just philosophy of education-as important as that is. But it would do little good to construct an equipped building for less-than-college-grade curricula and be unable to attract a top faculty and students to utilize their facilities." In like vein, Dr. W. G. Torpey, of the Office of Emergency Planning, in the Executive Office of the President, said on May 2, 1963, at the technician manpower conference at Dearborn, Mich. :
"Of all the sources of technicians, evidence indicates that, on the whole, 2-year college level technician education programs-offered primarily through technical institutes and junior and community colleges-produce the highest quality technician personnel, having a basic but broad technical orientation and able to contribute to present as well as future technical work challenges. One national trend which has been accelerated during the past 2 years is the growing role of junior and community colleges as a vehicle for educating technicians not only in engineering and related fields but in nonengineering areas as well
As you know, Mr. Chairman, part C of title II of S. 580, which represents the administration's proposal for college level technical education, would authorize $20 million for fiscal year 1964 and such sums as are necessary for each of the next 2 years for project grants to institutions of higher education or 2-year college level programs to train semiprofessional technicians in engineering, science, and health occupations. The proposal would include construction and equipment of academic facilities and would provide that up to 50 percent of construction of program costs can be supported with a Federal grant. Both public and private noninstitutions would be eligible for the moneys.
H.R. 6143, COLLEGE AID BILL REPORTED BY HOUSE COMMITTEE
H.R. 6143, reported by the House Education and Labor Committee on May 21, 1963, provides assistance for college aid facilities through:
(1) A 5-year program of grants to public and nonprofit higher education institutions for the construction of academic facilities with 22 percent of the funds reserved for facilities for junior colleges and technical institutes. Appropriations of $230 million annually are authorized for 3 years under this title of H.R. 6143. This means that approximately $50 million annually is set aside for the encouragement of these two types of programs.
(2) I should add that H.R. 6143 also provides a program of matching construction grants for the establishment or improvement of graduate schools or of cooperative graduate centers created by two or more higher education institutions. For this program, appropriations of $25 million are authorized for the first year and $60 million for each of the succeeding 2 years.
(3) The third feature of H.R. 6143 is an authorization of loans to colleges for construction of academic facilities with $120 million annually authorized for 3 years.
DEFINITION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES AND TECHNICAL INSTITUTES
For the purposes of definition, the term "junior colleges and technical insti tutes" is defined as institutions of higher education which are organized ani 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 prepar the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineer ing, scientific, or other technological fields which require the understanding an application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles or knowl edge, and, if a branch of an institution of higher education offering 4 or mor
years of higher education, is located in a community different from that in which its parent institution is located.
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, 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 to justify inclusion in the college aid bill the kind of technical education measure I have here been discussing.
There is strong support from the higher education community for this proposal. President Kennedy's education bill endorses the technical institute measure. There is strong bipartisan support for it in Congress as well.
I hope very much that members of this distinguished subcommittee and of the full Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee and the Senate will include a provision for technical education programs in college aid legislation this year. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Congressman Brademas, for a very fine statement.
Since I served also on the education subcommittee of the Senate and have served on conference committees with you and have worked on this problem for years and are coauthor of the National Defense Education Act of 1953, I am greatly tempted to comment on this and discuss it with you. But we have only 22 minutes left for all of the out-of-town witnesses, many of whom have come from long distances. So I will forgo that privilege.
Mr. BRADEMAS. I understand. May I say that if every Member of the House and every U.S. Senator were as dedicated as the distinguished Senator from Texas, Senator Yarborough, to the cause of education of the young people of our country, I think that we would have not nearly the troubles that we sometimes have in passing sound education legislation.
Thank you very much.
Senator YARBOBOUGH. You described your own dedication, Congressman Brademas. The next witness will be Mr. Maurice B. Mitchell, president of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Before we proceed with Mr. Mitchell, it has been called to my attention that we have a large group visiting the committee this morning from the United Steel Workers of America from Bethlehem, Pa. I want to congratulate you on your visit to Washington and the time you have taken to listen in on this subject of education.
I know you have a limited time and many places you could go. You have come here for intellectual food rather than just seeking the sights from the exterior of buildings. I congratulate all of you for the part that union labor has had in the building of education in America.
Historically, we recall that back in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, when the hard fight was being made and people in positions of power and leading politicians were saying that this is socialism, because you are taxing people without children to educate children of those who do have children, union labor was one of the great forces in America who helped bring about tax-supported or public, universal free education in America.
Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator YARBOROUGH. On the record.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. POSIVAK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, DISTRICT NO. 9, BETHLEHEM, PA.
Mr. POSIVAK. I want to thank you in behalf of the delegates for your statement to the United Steelworkers of America.
Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell, are you and former Senator Benton the people who have lured Mr. Minow away from the FCC?
STATEMENT OF MAURICE B. MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN BOOK PUBLISHERS COUNCIL AND AMERICAN TEXTBOOK PUBLISHERS INSTITUTE
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
Senator YARBOROUGH. We wish you well.
We hope he is as good for you as he has been as Chairman of the FCC.
One other question, were you in hearings on the National Defense Education Act in 1958? We have had some fine film and other matters presented by the Encyclopaedia Britannica people. Were you not before the committee in the hearings in the old Supreme Court room when we had those hearings?
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
Senator YARBOROUGH. I thought I recognized you. It is a pleasure to have you back.
Mr. MITCHELL. I accept the chairman's off-the-record challenge to test my ability to compress my statement against that of those legally trained in those matters.
As a matter of fact, I have a statement for the record. With the chairman's permission, since it does contain the essence of what I have to say, I will submit it without reading it and attempt in 3 or 4 minutes, to summarize the gist of it here.
Senator YARBOROUGH. It will be ordered printed in full.
But we hope in your summary, Mr. Mitchell, you will give the substance of it.
Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir.
I am here as a director of the American Textbook Publishers Institute and I represent them here, as well as the American Book Publishers Council. Between the two associations, they produce some 90 percent of the books printed and distributed in the United States.
They produce the overwhelming majority of the educational materials used in the United States and they also produce a large percentage of the audiovisual instructional materials, sound motion pictures, filmstrips, recordings, and programed learning materials.
NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT EXTENSION URGED
They would want me to say, I know, that first they are energetically in support of the extension of the National Defense Education Act. Many of them like myself spend a great deal of time traveling around to the schools and talking to the educators at the level where
education really takes place. They recognize the problems Congress wisely dealt with in producing the National Defense Education Act in the first place 5 years ago and they strongly feel that the act has to a great extent dealt effectively with these problems.
Senator YARBROUGH. The groups you represent are actually the ones who go in and install this language equipment? I have been in a number of the speech laboratories in high schools in my State where they had the sound equipment for teaching foreign languages, foreign language libraries, etc.
Mr. MITCHELL. I don't represent them, although many people who are members of the American Textbook Publishers Association and the American Book Publishers Council have produced language laboratory materials.
And indeed that is the essence of the problem I am here to discuss. Under title VII and title III of the National Defense Education Act, there is a restriction which forbids the procurement or acquisition of or research into and dissemination of knowledge of textbooks, other kinds of printed materials, and programed learning materials, and programed learning materials when they were considered to be textbooks. There is also an administrative interpretation under at least one of those titles that restricts the acquisition of general refer
Now, since the National Defense Education Act
Senator YARBOROUGH. Would you repeat that? I had an interruption.
NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT TEXTBOOK RESTRICTIONS
Mr. MITCHELL. Under both title III and title VII of the National Defense Education Act, there are limitations and restrictions which prohibit the acquisition of textbooks, programed learning materials when they are considered to be textbooks-as a matter of fact, textbooks are specifically excluded as such under title III of the National Defense Education Act-and there are restrictions on the acquisition of programed materials when they are considered to be textbooks.
I would observe, parenthetically, that programed learning materials are now becoming one of the most significant new developments in our education technique development programs. There is also a restriction against the acquisition of general reference books. That is an administrative interpretation under title III.
Under title VII, there is a limitation on the amounts of research that can be done in the use of textbooks and the improved educational materials and techniques, and there is a similar limitation on the dissemination of information about these printed materials.
Since the National Defense Education Act was passed back in 1958, there has been a massive movement toward the revision of the curriculum in the American schools.
The knowledge explosion and all of the events that have surrounded it have literally catapulted us into an age of highly advanced knowledge and put us under tremendous pressure to update and modernize our curriculum in the key areas described by the National Defense Education Act. These are most importantly the areas of science and mathematics and foreign languages. Doctor Zacharias of MIT, who