which you have continued to show interest in and support of public education throughout America. Senator MORSE. I want you to extend to Dr. Rafferty my compliTell him how much I appreciate the cooperation we have always received from him. Mr. SULLIVAN. That we will do, sir. I want to preface, before I go ahead, and indicate as I make this presentation I am talking primarily about titles III and IV in S. 580. În the prepared statement no reference has been made to vocational education or to title II, part C, which has to do with the technical education program. We do want it to be made a matter of record that we are strongly supporting those sections of S. 580. But it is not in my official statement here. All of that which I said 2 years ago to the committee about the importance of extending Public Law 864, the National Defense Education Act, of the 85th Congress could be said today, for the benefits of such legislation still pertain in our State. However, in the interests of time, I am going to limit my remarks to three main areas: CONTINUING NEED FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT First, a brief answer to the question, "Is there a continuing need for the kind of financial assistance provided under the National Defense Education Act and contained in S. 580?" Secondly, statements from school district administrators reporting what assistance under provisions of the National Defense Education Act has meant to them; that is why we invited Dr. George McMullen from Los Angeles to be with us, also. Finally, our position on certain provisions in S. 580. With reference to the question "Is there a continuing need for the kind of financial assistance provided under the National Defense Education Act," I submit the following: First, figures show that the requests for National Defense Education Act funds in our State have far exceeded the allocation made to California by the U.S. Office of Education each year, and the gap has widened each year. The above applies to titles III, V, and VIII. However, let me illustrate by title III. Attached to this statement is a chart showing the trend since 1958, and you will note that the trend is up, not down. This year in title III-A, and we had our deadline about a month ago for 1963, 1964 funds, California will receive an allocation of $2,670,000. Our requests from local school districts for funds exceed $5 million. (The chart referred to follows:) Mr. SULLIVAN. As I report these figures to you, I want to make it clear that in California, as stated in our State plan, we do not use National Defense Education Act funds as support money for traditional, ongoing programs. We approve release of funds to local districts only after receiving from them a carefully planned new program, designed for the improvement of instruction. This has been our interpretation of Congress' original intent-improvement of edu cation, increased depth, better quality, and higher standards. And might I report to you, as I indicated $5 million, that this represents 1,410 individual projects from local school districts, under the provisions of title III only. Secondly, in answer to the question "Is there a continuing need?" once we embark on a program to bring about educational change, a cumulative effect is created. As we improve the degree of content competency of a first-grader, we call upon the second-grade program for even a greater change; and as we go up through the third. fourth, fifth, sixth and on up through all grade levels, change be comes mandatory and the cumulative process continues. It is our position that, since we have initiated this process of change, we cannot now deprive any levels in our educational system of the resources necessary to meet their responsibilities to accommodate these changes. This principle, we think, applies all the way through the university and college level. To illustrate, we now have junior high schools using PSSC physics in the eighth grade. This, then, demands major changes in our physics program in our senior high schools. In the same way, motivated certainly in part by the National Defense Education Act, it is mandatory in California that we begin teaching, by 1965, a modern foreign language beginning at the sixth grade level. It becomes obvious that this makes new demands on the high school program. Well, it is clear to us in California that there is a continuing need. for the full potential of new programs of instructions cannot be reached in a year or 2 years, or 4 years or 6 years. Improvement is a continuous process; first, research, followed by new program design; followed by evaluation, followed by changes in original design, and again evaluation. REPORT OF LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS ON NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT BENEFITS Next, a brief report to you as to what local school districts say about the National Defense Education Act. We do this, Senator, not in a statistical form. We felt that reac tions from local school districts would transmit to you some of the feeling of excitement and enthusiasm which you in Congress made possible for us as a result of the National Defense Education Act And I just hope we can convey to you some of that attitude which is present among our local school districts in California. In California we felt that we had a responsibility to you, the Con gress of the United States, to our own legislature, and to the peo ple of California, to make an evaluation of how effectively Nationa Defense Education Act money has been used, and whether or no the objectives of the legislation had been achieved. About a year and a half ago, we undertook a statewide evaluation developing evaluative instruments to identify changes that had come about in our instructional program, and the extent to which the National Defense Education Act had been a factor in bringing about these changes. We recognize many things would have happened without the National Defense Education Act, but we also recognize the National Defense Education Act as an important force. The study is now complete and ready for publication. I hold a copy of the manuscript in my hand. A copy has already been forwarded to the U.S. Office of Education staff for their use. We do have a brief here, Senator. Senator MORSE. The brief of the statewide evaluation will be included in the record at the close of your testimony, and the analysis will be filed as an appendix to the hearings for accessibility to the members of the committee and staff. Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, sir. The findings of this study have indicated that the act has been outstandingly successful in doing what it was designed to do. Since the act became operative in 1958, it has witnessed an increased emphasis placed upon subject areas identified in the act; the time devoted to these subject areas in the public schools of the State has increased; more content has been added to the courses within these subject areas; greater attention has been given to the individual needs of the students, which has permitted both the more able and the slower students to move at their own pace; the abilities of the teachers of these subjects have improved; the total counseling and guidance program has been strengthened; and the purposes of instruction within all areas have changed to reflect more closely the needs of the contemporary world. One extremely significant finding of the study was the report from school districts generally that not only had National Defense Education Act funds assisted the instructional areas identified in the act, but that at the same time they had served as an effective force in awakening teachers and administrators as to the opportunities for curriculum improvement in all areas of the school program. This point of view will be noted in some statements I will now present to you. A moderately wealthy school district in Los Angeles County states: We have been trying to get a language laboratory for 10 years. The National Defense Education Act made this possible. A large unified school district in the San Francisco Bay area said: The National Defense Education Act motivated us to evaluate our science program, to establish new courses, to develop new plans, and to carry these plans forward. Another school districts reports: The impact of the National Defense Education Act in our district has not been limited to science, mathematics, and foreign language. It has developed a climate for quality. It has had a wholesome effect on our entire curriculum. It has created a rising tide of professional interest in all subject areas. The president of a large junior college, referring to a specific project, states: A chief advantage of this project and its creation because of National Defense Education Act assistance has been the concomitant air of excitement and creativ ity that has resulted. Our people suddenly see that there are other ways of doing things than those used traditionally and they are eager to develop new projects. To me, perhaps the greatest single contribution of the National Defense Education Act has been its stimulation of activity. The superintendent of a high school in a remote area of the Trinity Mountains summarized the importance of the National Defense Education Act in this fashion: Before our participation in a title III, National Defense Education Act project. the teaching of languages in the traditional manner seemed quite satisfactory. The knowledge that assistance in developing language facilities was available through the National Defense Education Act initiated an investigation of the needed improvements. Each new concept led to another until a totally different language program seemed not only desirable but necessary. Other comments, particularly with reference to title V of the National Defense Education Act: We were so involved in the everyday activities in a small high school that we had no opportunity to counsel as we should. Before the National Defense Education Act I used to think we were doing a good job. Now as I look back on it I realize that we were not. Having so much to do hampered our entire program. With National Defense Education Act project funds, we provide direction and counsel never before possible. There is little doubt but what the National Defense Education Act has had a positive effect in assisting in the growth and effectiveness of the guidance program. Besides providing money for salaries, materials and consultant services, the program has been a means for inservice growth of those counselors and administrators involved. The National Defense Education Act has stimulated the more rapid expansion of guidance, and we are quite certain that without National Defense Education Act assistance, we would not have the growing program which we now have. In the last 5-year period, suspensions dropped from 23 to 7 per year, and dropouts for poor attendance and lack of interest declined from 44 to 24. During this same period the total school enrollment increased by some 300. Indicating, in their judgment, the use of National Defense Education Act funds for counseling and guidance has reduced their dropout immeasurably. Counseling at Linden High School before National Defense Education Act aid was a rather hit and miss proposition. Attempts were made, and a minimum was accomplished. However, lack of time, materials and equipment prevented any extensive work with students. National Defense Education Act really put our counseling program "on its feet." We feel we have made much progress and have arrived at the place where the program is firmly established and is going forward. BENEFIT PER PUPIL COST LOW Now, may I interject here. When we report this to you, it has happened in California, with an expenditure under title III of 89 cents per student; under title V about a dollar per student; and under title VIII probably about a dollar per student. So whatever influence the National Defense Education Act has, Federal funds in California, we are talking about 89 cents per student in title III. about a dollar in title V, and about a dollar in title VIII. Again, I want to place emphasis on this, Senator. With reference to certain of the provisions of titles III and IV of S. 580, I wish to make the following statements: All of the provisions in title III broadening the teacher institute programs, both short term and academic year programs, we strongly support, for our need in California for preparation of new teachers |