testified here yesterday, told the committee in very dramatic terms about the work done by the physical science study committee, which in a crash program that was liberally supported by National Science Foundation and other foundation funds, almost literally revised the physics curriculum of the American high schools overnight.

This, by the way, was a curriculum that went out of date in 1926 and had to be revised under conditions in which there was no time for the retraining of teachers and no opportunity to take the usua! long, thoughtful steps that precede the change of the curriculum in the traditional form in which it is changed in the American school system.

NEW CURRICULA

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Mitchell, I visited a high school in Corpus Christi last year that had this physics science laboratory and the instructors had about eight or nine boys in there working out of the regular class with this equipment. They told me those boys in high school were doing physics work the equivalent of sophomores in good colleges.

They said that by this, they could let very gifted students work in study period time and said when they graduated from high school, they would have as much knowledge in that science as the average student who majored in physics in the colleges.

Is that what you are referring to?

Mr. MITCHELL. That is correct. It is a great tribute to these revised curriculums that they upgrade the students and the teacher at the same time. They do this by introducing a package of materials. The MIT people did this by some motion pictures. They also introduced a brandnew textbook, the only first new one we have had in the schools in 25 years.

They produced a series of monographs for this curriculum and wrote specifications for new laboratory devices for the modern development in physics of the students who have the capacity to take advanced instruction.

Now, the problems our schools face today is that they get these new curriculum developments and I should say the development in physics is paralleled by similar activity in biology, in chemistry, in mathematics, and languages. The problem the heavily burdened schools face as they try to absorb these materials is that under the National Defense Education Act, they are allowed to obtain only a portion of what must be and is an integrated team of teaching tools. What I hope you will do is give serious consideration to amending the language of both title VII and title III to make it possible for the schools to face the real opportunity that the last 5 years of intensive curriculum change has made possible for them, to buy the entire package. They are in the position of somebody getting an automobile who cannot get any tires. Or the position of an Army which is fighting a situation on all fronts with limited weapons, when all of the weapons are available and could be made available to them. That, sir, is the essence of the recommendation we make here today. We think the act is restrictive and we think modern developments have made it possible to make great strides, and that minor changes in its intent would achieve that purpose.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAURICE B. MITCHELL

My name is Maurice B. Mitchell, and I am a director of the American Textbook Publishers Institute. I am also president of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. I am appearing here today on behalf of the Textbook Institute and the American Book Publishers Council.

The members of these two associations produce the overwhelming majority of the educational materials used in the schools, colleges, and libraries of this Country. These materials include not only textbooks but reference and general library books. They also include related instructional materials, such as educational motion pictures, filmstrips, tape recordings and phonograph records, and programed learning ("teaching machine") materials.

Over 90 percent of books of all kinds distributed in the United States, including not only the materials referred to above but also the publications of university presses, religious institutions and general or "trade" books are produced by the members of these two associations.

We approve in general the provisions of S. 580, but we should like to suggest amendments to two titles of the National Defense Education Act which this bill would extend for 2 years.

The National Defense Education Act has indeed produced the beneficial result in American education that was the hope of those who wrote and supported the original legislation only 5 years ago. We believe that many of the urgent problems in education that prompted the enactment of this act continue to exist and will be with us for a number of years to come, and we heartily approve and endorse the further extension of various provisions of the act proposed in the bill before you.

Many of the members of these two associations spend the majority of their time in close association with school officials, educators, scholars, specialists in a variety of instructional fields and techniques and school boards. We feel that we can speak with considerable assurance regarding the effectiveness with which the National Defense Act has been administered. We have observed many of the programs that have been developed with funds and assistance made available ander the act, and it is our belief that great progress has been made in many of the critical areas for which relief and improvement are urgently needed.

We believe that great credit is due the Office of Education staff, the superintendents of schools of the various States, and the school officials of countless communities where projects under this act have been activated for their prompt and effective acceptance of the opportunities offered by the act.

AMENDMENTS TO TITLES III AND VII OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT

While I have indicated our wholehearted support of this legislation, I do now also wish to indicate that our two associations strongly urge your approval of two changes in the present National Defense Education Act. We recommended these amendments to titles III and VII of the National Defense Education Act (title IV, pt. B and title III, pt. D of S. 580) in 1961, when the National Defense Education Act was reexamined and extended. The amendment of title VII of the National Defense Education Act was accepted by this subcommittee and the full Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare and had the support and approval of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Unfortunately, it did not find its way into the act and we now ask again that these amendments be given your approval and that the language of these titles be amended as suggested in appendixes A and C, attached.

Our recommendation deals with limitations in titles III and VII of the National Defense Education Act that exclude certain published materials, among them textbooks and programed learning materials, as instructional media eligible for consideration in a variety of programs made possible by this legislation.

Title III. for example, specifically excludes textbooks by name, and programed learning materials when considered to be textbooks and general encyclopedias by administrative interpretation, while making funds available for other instructional materials.

Title VII limits activities in the field of research and dissemination of information to a list of the so-called newer media and thus has the effect of excluding published materials.

In the light of major and far-reaching developments in the field of education in the last 5 years, it seems to us to be clear that these restrictions now not only limit the useful scope of the very activities encouraged and supported by the act, but also tend to frustrate and discourage the application of some of the newest and most significant developments in educational materials and techniques.

USE OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS IN COMBINATIONS

A few illustrations of this may be helpful. The act, under title III, specifically encourages the improvement of education in the sciences, in mathematics, in languages. While the act was being put into effect in 1958, a major change in the curriculum in high school physics was being introduced by a gifted team of scientists and educators known as the Physical Sciences Study Committee, operating out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This group not only rewrote the physics curriculum in the light of the new scientific knowledge and discoveries that are typical of the atomic era-they also developed and produced a full range of instructional materials designed to help teachers and students make prompt and effective use of the new course of study. The PSSC group wrote a brand new textbook for this curriculum. They also wrote and caused to be published a number of significant monographs. They wrote specifications for a new and remarkable array of laboratory devices. They produced a large number of educational films. The value of these materials (the development of which was heavily supported by National Science Foundation grants) is fully realized when they are used as an integrated team of teaching tools. The films alone do not teach the new physics, although they perform, properly, certain tasks best assigned to visual aids. Each of the several units is an essential part of the new course.

Yet under the present title III of NDEA which S. 580 would continue unchanged the textbook is excluded, as would be the programed learning materials now being developed to accelerate further the use of this new curriculum if used as textbooks.

A similar situation exists in the biology field, where a number of groups supported by the National Science Foundation are developing text materials as well as visual aids. Several teams in chemistry-one of them led by Dr. Glenn Seaborg― are also developing combinations of traditional and new instructional media.

In mathematics and languages, where the newer media are somewhat limited in number and availability, a great deal is now being done in the field of programed learning or teaching machines. Here again, especially in languages, there is a vital need to match the printed materials-texts and/or programed learning materials-with such tools as tapes, films, language laboratories, and the like. Yet here again the language of title III at present tends to discourage or delay the full application of the total scope of these vital and newly developed programs.

The limitations of title VII to research in and dissemination of knowledge about the newer educational media has the further effect of diminishing a potentially valuable range of useful research projects that might well contribute to wider understanding of these new developments.

Increasingly, as scholars and scientists and educators pool their efforts to overcome some of our most serious educational deficiencies they come up with solutions that require a major effort to integrate all the tools that can be demonstrated to deal effectively with their problems. Just as a truly effective military defense will include land, sea, and air forces and a wide range of weapons, so does a truly effective attack on the problems of learning in a modern society require the combined effectiveness and scope of all the techniques of communication. We feel that these trends toward rapid curriculum change hold great promise for students and teachers, today and tomorrow. We believe that the suggested revisions in the act will make it possible to accelerate this important develop ment.

We recognize that there have been great shortages of information, equipment, and materials in the new media areas-educational films, filmstrips, recordings, and laboratory equipment. We know that the act has contributed in an im portant manner to the wider availability and use of these devices and facilities It seems reasonable to us that this tendency will continue, and we applaud it and want to encourage it. Yet it is equally true that in a growing number of in

INTENSIFIED SOVIET CHALLENGE

The Engineering Manpower Commission of the Engineer's Joint Council has noted that some experts believe that the best ratio is four technicians for every engineer but even a conservative evaluation calls for at least two technicians Working with the engineer. Right now, however, the ratio is precisely the opposite: one technician for every two engineers.

I might here note that the Soviet Union is now producing two to three times as many engineers as we are in the United States. If this trend continues over the long run-and apparently no drastic change in the next 5 to 10 years is likely because engineering college enrollments have been decreasing at the rate of 2 or 3 percent per year of the last 6 years-we must face the prospect of an intensified Soviet technological challenge.

This then is another reason it is important to get as much out of our professional engineers as possible by enabling them to have the assistance of the qualified engineering technicians.

Let me here quote from the excellent and extremely useful Manpower Report of the President which was issued in March 1963 by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Says the Manpower Report: "The extremely rapid growth in technician occupations is another noteworthy trend, which is expected to continue. Although the shortages of engineers and scientists-and the consequent need to relieve these professional workers of the tasks which can be performed by less highly trained persons-have helped to increase employment of technicians in the past two decades, the growth of these occupations has a more fundamental cause. It is due basically to the increasing complexity of modern technology, which has created a need for workers who have some basic knowledge and also specialized training in some aspect of technology.

"In 1950" (the Manpower Report continues), "the number of technicians working with engineers and scientists was about 775,000, according to a rough estimite. It is estimated that during the next 10 to 15 years, demand will increase at least as fast in these occupations as in engineering and the sciences, leading possibly to a doubling in requirements by 1975."

A SPECIFIC REVIEW

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to review somewhat more specifically some of the reasons we need to educate far more semiprofessional technicians *ban we are today producing.

1. Research and development.-The greatly enhanced role of research and development in the American economy has caused increased demands, not only for tists and engineers, but for technicians as well. Earlier this month, the National Science Foundation publication entitled, "Federal Funds for Science XI," notes that "the fiscal year 1963 Federal estimates for research and developent and R. & D. plant represent the largest outlays for any 1 year of the Na's history. These expenditures were expected to more than triple the R. & D. lays made by the Government during the entire 5 years of World War II." For 1963, the Federal Government is expected to obligate over $14.4 billion for earch and development and R. & D. plant, and to expand $12.3 billion. The conclusion should be obvious: More R. & D. means more technicians. 2. Defense.—I think no great array of statistics is necessary to prove the rgument that our vast defense efforts mean we have a far greater demand for cientific and technical skills in this area, both for direct military activity as well as for supporting and related civilian activity. Defense, too, means we need more technicians.

GOALS IN SPACE

3. Space. I have already recited to you Secretary Wirtz' warning that for the hievement of our ambitious goals in space, we shall need a substantial increase technical manpower.

Congress has appropriated vast funds for these new space programs, but the thorization and appropriation of dollars are no guarantee at all that the ained manpower necessary to perform these programs will automatically be thcoming. We are going to have to start thinking in manpower budgets as ell as dollar budgets.

I anda har s ame is I see a me T PET DIE NASA, in its own ahonore 1 1 2 1 * #gowning technicians. And the sundenes if emoans a mr me rei my become even more To vien la rimer Š jerrent af NASA funds are al

The mucnson saoci je “es Vanemt nere pennorns as well as scientists mi mchers fengo weer de cat mus in space which the Vazon has set the set firmia de seuns if de President and Congress.

4. Cinom mé png — De septieAs I Shan hinstry and technology are under reason ie de aerensei fenumi ir ranks

As i ndeari enten de Fetal & veamet ia tiday the main source of financial siccars for reser of fetaloment a the United States. As Prendent Kennett hus weed the jefense que and maltezergy activities để the meaty DW ESC DO valis if the trained people available for exploring our genie mi pad Sacers Certainly their brilliance and tuent bus puud of moisome? I de 1798. ut the fact is that we have paid a prve for these TENTLTS 27 KILT thing the amet of our scarce scientific and engopering resernes via net idevise be available to the civilan seetor of the American 200cm.

Today, the number of somcsts and engineers engized in civilian-oriented technology in Westm Enige ind England wabized is greater than that in the United States. The is it least te of the reasons the rate of increase of our gross pacinal product per worker is sustantially less than the rate of increase of almost all other ininstrüülized nations in the world.

To enable our cridally stem suppit of engineers and scientists to make a greater contribution to the divlin endomy, we at back up our professionals with more semiprofessical technicia

HIGHER OR VOCATIONAL EDUCATION?

There is another question with respect to technical education about which I should like to make a comment. Should the education of semiprofessional technicians be administered and operated as part of higher education, or can such technicians be adequately trained in adequate numbers through programs of Vocational-technical education?

Members of our advisory group emphatically and unanmously agree and President Kennedy's education proposal also embodies that conclusion that the education of the kind of high level, semiprofessional technicians the Nation needs. the kind of technician I have here been discussing, must be provided by collegelevel programs.

Why do we need to establish new programs of technical education? In the first place, as Mr. Wirtz said. "We cannot depend upon existing limited training programs to contribute enough semiprofessional workers to meet our requirement. In the past, we have been able to get by with workers who get their skills informally. Today, only a small portion of them receive formal training for jobs in educational institutions which have programs designed for these types of positions. However, as the tasks these persons are called up on to perform become more complex and require more mathematics and technical theory, formal training will increasingly be necessary."

DUPONT ENGINEER TESTIFIES

Let me tell you what I heard from the assistant chief engineer of the Du Pont Co., in Wilmington, Del. He wrote:

"Professional engineers simply cannot contribute their maximum in talent and skill to our increasingly complex technology unless their efforts are supported by the necessary engineering technicians who are graduates of at least 2 years college-level training in curriculums accredited by the Engineers' Council for Professional Developmet or an equivalent agency."