million over a 4-year period. In 1961 the Senate approved Federal aid to education and authorized an expenditure of $2,500 million over a 3-year period. Since that time educational needs have increased rather than decreased.

Another shibboleth that is raised against Federal aid is Federal control. The National Education Improvement Act of 1963 specifically prohibits Federal control. Title V, section 9, states as follows: "Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, official or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration or personnel of any educational institution or school system." The whole history of Federal aid to education since 1862 when the Land Grant Act was enacted, and before that shows that Federal control is just a bugaboo for people who either do not believe in Federal aid or in education. Again I say, it is hard to distinguish.

To return to the question of the choice between the trip to the moon and the money to be spent for education, I of course agree that a choice need not be made, and that this Nation is wealthy enough to do both. So long as it is necessary for us to make fabulous expenditures for defense, however, we cannot do both with a balanced budget. ADA believes that $4 billion a year for the purposes of education would be money well spent and would bring dividends both in human resources and cash resources. We are more concerned with balancing tuman needs than balanced budgets. The dividends in human resources which would result from affording to each child the equal opportunity to achieve his maximum potential are obvious. The dividends in cash resources would come from tremendously increased employment in the building of schools and the employment of teachers, and the resultant increase in taxable incomes of a vast number of people, as well as the reduction, as I pointed out before, of unemploytent, particularly that caused by automation, the reduction of the cost of relief rolls and the reduction of the cost of delinquency and crime.

Let us examine for a moment the question of the increase in our national debt. Senator Taft in 1938 stated that if the national debt went over $5 billion there would be a terrible calamity. We would all go broke and it would spell America's end. Recently a Senator from one of the States on the very day when the Federal Government was pouring millions into that State for roads, airports, welfare, and farm subsidies, stated that if the Federal Government advances Federal aid to education, however, it would destroy private initiative. This seems completely inconsistent.

Today we have a national debt of $300 billion and, I submit, that if the cost of education over the next 5 years by the Federal Government should increase our national debt by $20 billion this would indeed be a good investment. Since 1946 the gross national product has increased almost 30 percent and the population of the country has increased about the same. Since that same year, 1946, the national debt, despite the large deficit in the Eisenhower administration, has increased no more than 16 percent. On the other hand, the corporate indebtedness of the corporations of the United States have increased 300 percent. If A.T. & T. can owe $8 billion in bond issue because it believes that the installation of added equipment will bring it greater dividends, it is ridiculous that the U.S. Government cannot increase its indebtedness by $20 billion to increase its dividends from education. While I mention only A.T. & T., few, if any, of the leading corporations of the United States balance their budgets: that is, they have bond issues for what they call capital improvements that they hope will bring larger dividends. Certainly the money spent on education by the United States is a capital improvement and will bring, as heretofore stated, great dividends.

If I have made out a case for education one may ask, Why Federal aid? Why not let the States and local governments supply these vast funds? The answer is simple. The States and local governments are already overburdened. Seventy-five percent of the taxes today are collected by the Federal Government. This reminds me of the story about Willie Sutton, the bank robber. He was asked why he robbed banks. His answer was simple. He said, "That is where the money is." And so today when in recent elections in Nassau and Westchester Counties 26 educational budgets were defeated and numerous bond nes are constantly defeated throughout the country, as was recently the $500 million bond issue in the State of New York, the man who votes against the school bond issue and the school budget does so because he feels he is already overburdened with taxes and he sees no reason why if 75 percent of his tax money goes to the National Government, the National Government

should not supply a substantial part of the funds needed for education. As a result, there is outrageous neglect of the financial needs of education not only in the poorer communities and sections of the country, but even in New York City, the richest and most influential city in the world, in the richest State in the Nation. New York City has an excellent board of education under the presidency of Max J. Rubin. It also has Calvin Gross, a fine superintendent of schools. Many good things are accomplished in New York City's vast school system. However, because of lack of funds there are tremendous deficiencies Two recent surveys, one by the New York State Education Department, and another by Mark C. Schinnerer, for the board of education, clearly show that in order to reduce the number of overcrowded classes, and to provide for sufficient guidance, and to adequately staff the libraries, and to replace 13.500 substitute teachers with permanent teachers, and to increase the salaries of teachers so as to get better teachers, to supply adequate textbooks and instruction materials, and for better maintenance of the school buildings, a least $200 million should be added to the budget. In other words, the present budget of approximately $560 million should be increased by at least $200 million to supply only the minimum services and facilities required for what the State itself considers an adequate school system. Although 27,000 children will be added to the school system next September, the actual State aid to be given to the school system of New York City for the next school year, after providing for mandatory salary increases for presently employed teachers, will be less than that given the previous year. Thus, the legislature in the richest State has once again completely disregarded the minimum financial needs for the education of the children of the city of New York.

ADA would be remiss if it did not state its feelings about aid to federally impacted areas. We recognize that emergency situations necessitate special aid. We believe that the Federal aid for impacted areas program has mushroomed to a large extent into a substitute for any real and purposeful aid to elementary and secondary education program. Therefore, we suggest Federal aid for impacted areas only if such aid is made part of a general aid to elementary and secondary education program.

The fact that Congress each year sweeps Federal aid to education "under the rug" especially aid to elementary and secondary education-is certainly not inspiring to the taxpayer to increase his local tax burden or to the State to increase its taxes for education on its citizens. Leadership should come from Congress and the Federal Government in this important field of national preservation. It is certain that if this Nation continues to neglect educational needs, within 10 years we will be a second-class Nation. The need for financial support of education is our most important domestic problem today, and is vital to the maintenance and improvement of our position in the world tomorrow. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Karelsen, for your statement. I regret that our time is up, but if the other witnesses will stay, I will explain an embarrassing position. I was committed to be some place else at 12 o'clock, but I am willing to stay 6 minutes for the other witnesses.

The first witness is Mr. James Miller, representing the National Council of Teachers of English, professor of English at the University of Chicago, and he is allocated 4 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JAMES E. MILLER, PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

Senator YARBOROUGH. Mr. Miller has sent word to the committee that 4 minutes is all he needs.

I welcome you, Mr. Miller. My belief is that English is a subject that needs more emphasis in school than any other. Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Senator.

I think you have the statement in your hands that has been drawn. up and appended-a statement from the National Council of Teachers of English, supporting all phases of the education bill. Appended to it is a statement from Mr. Warner G. Rice, who is chairman of the English Department, University of Michigan, and also a chairman of the National Organization of English Teachers.

I would like those two statements entered in the record if possible. Senator YARBOROUGH. Those statements will be printed in the record.

(The statements referred to follow :)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES E. MILLER, JR., PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, AND EDITOR OF COLLEGE ENGLISH

Speaking for the National Council of Teachers of English, I appreciate this opportunity to testify in support of Senate bill 580, the National Education Improvement Act of 1963. At the invitation of Senator Morse, chairman of the Subcommittee on Education, Prof. Warner G. Rice, chairman of the Department of English at the University of Michigan and chairman of the Organizing Committee of the Association of Chairmen of College and University Departments of English, has written an additional statement. It is attached to the formal statement from the National Council of Teachers of English, for study by members of the subcommittee and for inclusion in the record of these hearings.

Although the hearings are specifically concerned with titles I, III, and IV of S. 580, the national council affirms its support for activities provided under other titles. Problems in education have not only a present but also a history. If by some great national effort and a concurrent miracle we could solve the problem of school dropouts, we would still have on the fringes of the labor market that one-third of the total high school population that dropped out of school in 1962, as well as all those who left school in previous years. If a dramatic breakthrough in research were to solve the problem of teaching all children to read and to write, we would still have the existing tens of millions of functional illiterates who become a greater problem for society as industry shifts further to automation. Increased efforts for vocational education and continuing education are essential. We especially endorse those provisions calling for expanded school and public library services.

Provisions of title I for expanded opportunities in higher education present efforts to secure greater numbers of well-educated teachers and scholars in all academic fields. Additional fellowships for graduate study and for summer ssions will encourage many to seek advanced training. The student loan features of NDEA, with the forgiveness features, should be continued and extended. The provisions of this title can provide material support to those students who might not otherwise be able to continue their education and can thereby relieve the critical shortage of scholars, researchers, and teachers.

The NDEA provisions for purchase of equipment for science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction have proved their effectiveness. These provisions should be continued and extended to include English and English as a second language so that school districts may obtain the tape recorders, language laboratory facilities, recordings, and teaching machines required for modern teaching. Teachers of English as a second language require the same equipment for successful teaching as do teachers of modern foreign languages. The demands for specialized equipment in regular English classes are less well known, but are particularly pressing in metropolitan schools faced with the problem of teaching the standard English dialect to large numbers of educationally disadvantaged young people.

Throughout the National Education Improvement Act of 1963, provision is made to continue and expand the National Defense Education Act. To these provisions the National Council of Teachers of English gives its strong support. Title VII of S. 580 proposes amendments to several definitions in the existing National Defense Education Act. In addition to these changes the National Council of Teachers of English urges the word "foreign" be dropped from the phrase "modern foreign languages." With such a change, the teaching of English and the teaching of English as a second language would fall within the existing provisions of NDEA.

In 1961 the national council studied the acade ration of English teachers. Results of this stu Interest and the Teaching of English," distribut Congress and included in the proceedings of the SeL cation. The council has undertaken this year a natio. tinuing education of teachers of English. Although the preparation, the principal part of this statement is base revealed by this new survey. The council plans to publish of the survey later this year and will make the report avai Members of Congress.

Copies of a comprehensive questionnaire were sent to a rando 10,000 secondary and 10,000 elementary schools across the count. principal of each school NCTE sent three copies of the questionna. covering letter that asked the principal's cooperation in requesting three with different teaching assignments and varying degrees of experience to plete the questionnaire. This present report on the inservice education secondary school teachers of English summarizes information received during the first 6 weeks. By that time 7,417 completed questionnaires had come from every State of the Union, from teachers in all sizes of schools, from teachers in all secondary grades, from teachers with no experience and teachers with more than 20 years' experience-probably the most comprehensive cross section of secondary teachers of English in any national survey in recent years.

For those seeking to improve the quality of English teaching, both the earlier study into the preparation of teachers and the present survey of their inservice education point up three related problems: The number of English teachers now in service who fail to meet even minimum certification requirements and those who have satisfied such requirements with neither a major nor a minor in English; the number of teachers who have completed English majors in programs which did not offer needed work in language study and composition: and present programs of teacher preparation that continue to recommend for certification teachers who have not had such work.

Efforts to strengthen the preparation of teachers now in service would be a permanent necessity unless changes are made in preservice programs as well. To concentrate energies on preservice programs would be to leave relatively unaffected the 90,000 teachers of English now in secondary schools and the hundreds of thousands of elementary school teachers responsible for instruction in language arts. Although one can discuss them separately, the three problems are bound together.

Fact Sheet No. 12, title III, part B, included in the relevant materials for the Subcommittee on Education, states that 5.5 percent of the total teaching staff of the Nation fails to meet certification requirements. However, 7.5 percent of the teachers of English responding to the recent NCTE survey report that they do not meet full certification requirements. In addition, 16 percent of those who are now fully certified taught 3 or more years before satisfying certification. requirements. Of the total group, only 50 percent have a major in English An additional 17 percent have a major that included some work in English or in related fields such as speech or journalism. Thirty-three percent report no English in their major programs.

Against this background of the preservice preparation of teachers, the nature of their course work since certification becomes significant. The average teacher in this survey has taught approximately 10 years. During that time, he has taken an average of 18 semester hours of work in all fields, or an average of fewer than 2 semester hours per year of teaching. Since most college course carry three semester hours of credit, a reasonable interpretation is that ever on the average teachers do not complete one course per year. But lest average conceal the range, it should also be noted that over 30 percent have either n taken any work in English since certification, or not any for over 10 years For education courses the figure is 27 percent. On the other hand, nearly hal of the teachers have taken one or more such courses in the last 2 years. The implication is that some teachers take such courses regularly, while others neve take them.

One might conclude that despite statistical reports and current concern with the quality of education, the reason for spotty or minimal formal study after certification is that many teachers feel well enough prepared by preservice edu cation and experience. But this is clearly not the case. In the teaching of composition, for example, 62 percent of the teachers report that they are only