I think you know the feelings of gratitude that I hold toward you for your educational statesmanship, and for the presentation of your points of view before this subcommittee.

I am delighted to have you with us again, and to have your associates with us.

You may proceed in your own way to make your record. I give you my assurance again, as has been demonstrated in the past, that every point of view which you present will be thoroughly considered and evaluated. I have not changed in any way my desire to be of the maximum help to the private schools in this country that I can, consistent with my convictions and consistent with my obligations as chairman of this subcommittee.

I hope we can do more for you this time than we did last.

Any help you can give me which will make it possible for me to present a case, I will appreciate very much.

You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENTS OF RT. REV. MSGR. F. G. HOCHWALT, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NCWC, AND VERY REV. MSGR. JOHN B. MCDOWELL, SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS FOR THE DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH; ACCOMPANIED BY BERNARD POWERS, TEACHER IN THE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL SYSTEM; WILLIAM CONSEDINE, COUNSEL; HARMON BURNS, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL; AND RICHARD KELLEY, ASSOCIATE COUNSEL

Monsignor HOCHWALT. Mr. Senator, we are very delighted to be here. We thank you for those kind words of welcome. I am especially appreciative of the words of tribute to my associates. With you, I do appreciate the splendid cooperation they have given to your committee and to my own immediate office staff.

I am tremendously impressed by the long hours they spend giving these particular questions their care and consideration, and the good advice and counsel which is forthcoming to me, as it is to your com

mittee.

So, with you, I am agreed they have made a tremendous contri

bution.

You are familiar with my position, as you have said.

My name is Frederick G. Hochwalt. I am director of the Department of Education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, and have been for the past 20 years.

I

appreciate this opportunity to present to you some observations on S. 580, with special reference to titles II and IV of this measure which is proposed as a means to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation.

Although emphasis is to be placed on these two titles, my invitation to appear before you states also that I should feel free to comment on such other portions of the measure as my colleagues and I wish to discuss. I shall try to keep my comments relatively brief, although a bill of such importance to education bears serious implications for millions of citizens. It is my assumption that other hearings will provide adequate opportunity to deal in depth with important proposals which are now found combined rather than separated in this six-title measure.

As well intentioned as are the goals of S. 580, the measure in its present form presents serious problems to us-one might even say a dilemma. It appears that we are to choose S. 580 in its entirety, or because of misgivings or disagreements with certain parts of the measure, be forced to reject it in its entirety.

Although my organization is not an outright proponent of Federal aid to education, it is our ideal and desire to see that equity is estab lished if Federal aid to education legislation is considered desirable and necessary by the American people. Therefore, it is hardly a fair or desirable choice to anyone who has mixed or varied convictions about these broad legislative proposals to be forced to make an "all or none" decision.

The benefits in title I are well conceived and would certainly bring to individuals in higher education highly desirable outcomes. We are very much in sympathy with the refinements of part A, which, on the basis of title II of the National Defense Education Act, would extend the forgiveness of loans to all teachers, regardless of the school in which they eventually teach. Parts B, C, and D are likewise thoughtful projections of means of assistance to students ranging from insurance through work study to graduate fellowships, the latter similiar to title IV of the National Defense Education Act.

American higher education, both public and private, has almost unanimously looked with favor upon title I.

PRIVATE JUNIOR COLLEGES

Title II, with reference to the expansion and improvement of higher education, has likewise received some degree of acceptance. For our own part, if title II is to be enacted, we would respectfully call attention to part B dealing with the plight of junior colleges. The author ization of $50 million in fiscal year 1964 and such sums as are necessary for 2 succeeding years limits the grants to States to construct public community junior colleges. To us, this seems to limit need lessly, without any real apparent reason, the requirements of the 21 junior colleges within our own system. We question the discrimina tion against these 21 institutions by the exclusion from construction grants to the degree that they perform the same public service as public junior colleges and, since we do not discriminate against senio colleges in this proposed legislation, we feel that junior colleges unde our auspices should be accorded equal and fair treatment.

May I make a brief reference to the provisions of title III. Th proposed assistance to teacher institutes, teacher preparation pro grams, teachers and related personnel requiring specialized training as well as the suggested amendments to the Cooperative Researc Act, and to title VII of the National Defense Education Act, are wel conceived and should prove immensely helpful to all of us intereste in the improvement of educational quality.

The grants provided in part B of title V for the expansion an improvement of special education for handicapped children const tute a proposal that is meritorious, indeed, and touches the hearts o all concerned with these young people, their teachers, and their need

TITLE IV DIFFICULTIES

Title IV, of course, presents the real and basic difficulty in S. 580 s an omnibus approach to American education. This title purports to strengthen elementary and secondary education, and yet its idealism s considerably tarnished in part A by the limitation of assistance to public schools only and in part B by limiting grants to public schools for purchase of equipment needed in science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction. Part C, dealing with guidance counseling and testing, which is an amendment to title V of the National Defense Education Act, extends counseling and guidance under the National Defense Education Act for 2 years and increases the fiscal authorization of $17.5 billion for the fiscal year 1964 and succeeding years. Here, again, the private school suffers, since provision for testing alone is set up without reference to the necessary accompanying helps to the guidance and counseling programs in private nonprofit schools.

It seems to us, too, that part D is in need of further study. Private schools, although equally affected by increased enrollment and muchneeded expenditures, have gained nothing from Federal assistance to the impacted areas and, hence, it is time to consider a gradual phasing out of this program and a restudy of the values contributed. If they are still valid, then the question ought to be raised of how the private nonprofit school could be included in such legislation if its continuation is deemed necessary.

Thus, educators and citizens who propose title IV as a means of strengthening elementary and secondary education seem to have overlooked the continuing and historical contribution of the nonpublic school and its potential for the future good of America.

CONTRIBUTION OF NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS

The nonpublic school system has always been an integral part of America's educational program. It not only established the first schools of our land, but educated the majority of its citizens until the middle of the last century. Today, in partnership with the public school, it plays an essential role in our national educational effect.

The contribution of the nonpublic school to the American way of life has always been evident to educators. Within the past 5 years the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare acknowledged this contribution in its publication, "The State and the Nonpublic School": Nonpublic educational institutions are and have always been a significant part of the Nation's total educational resources. These institutions serve millions of American youth and adults each year. They play an enormous role in transmitting our cultural heritage and enriching it. They make contributions to all levels of education and in all areas. They exert a tremendous influence on fashloning the American way of life.

Even more recently, the Heald Commission in reporting to Governor Rockefeller on the status of higher education in New York State commented:

Private institutions of higher learning have important and unique functions to perform. They give American education a diversity and scope not possible in

tax-supported institutions alone, and they have an opportunity to emphasize, if they wish, individualistic patterns of thought, courses of social action, or political or religious activity. In New York State, private colleges and universities have performed this function with great competency in the past.

What can be said of higher education can also be said of elementary and secondary education in nonpublic schools. Their contribution is one of the brightest pages in our history.

Following sputnik, criticism of our schools, both public and nonpublic, was bandied about freely. Some was constructive; much was not. It is to the credit of the educators that they accepted this criticism intelligently and maturedly went about the task of seeking means to improve the educational standard of our country.

All agree a beginning has been made, but much remains to be done. Not only in the area of science, but in practically every academic field there is vast room for improvement. All agree that the Nation's welfare and progress have a deep investment in that improvement. If education does not equip all our children to meet the demands of modern times, then the Nation will shortly become bankrupt.

President Kennedy put it succinctly in the opening paragraph of his 1961 educational message to Congress:

Our progress as a nation, can be no swifter than our progress in education. Our requirements for world leadership, our hopes for economic growth, and the demands of citizenship itself *** require the maximum development of every young American's capacity.

Numerous other authorities, in the fields of education and government, have also pointed out the peril to our national interests if all schoolchildren are not given the opportunity to develop fully according to their abilities.

Let me quote just two:

Admiral Rickover in the opening chapter of his book, "Education and Freedom," asserted:

***Only massive upgrading of the scholastic standards of our schools will guarantee the future prosperity and freedom of the Republic.

Our complicated nuclear reactors are but the forerunners of many more projects of even greater complexity, requiring more people with good education and strong motivation. I speak out because I must. Because in my work I have had a glimpse of the future. The future belongs to the best educated nation. Let it be ours.

Dr. John W. Gardner, president of Carnegie Corp. of New York and Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching, wrote the following in "Goals for Americans," the report of the President's Commission on National Goals:

We must raise standards in every phase of our national life. Education is no exception. We must do a better job. And the concern for educational quality must be widely shared. It has been fashionable to blame educators for every shortcoming of our schools, but educators cannot maintain standards of excellence in a community that cares more about a marching band and a winning basketball team than it does about teachers' salaries.

American education can be as good as the American people want it to be, and no better.

And in striving for excellence, we must never forget that American education has a clear mission to accomplish with every single child who walks into

the school. Modern life has pressed some urgent and sharply defined tasks on education, tasks of producing certain specially needed kinds of educated talent. For the sake of our future we had better succeed in these tasks but they cannot and should not crowd out the great basic goals of our educational system: to foster individual fulfillment and to nurture the free, rational, and responsible men and women without whom our kind of society cannot endure. Our schools must prepare all young people, whatever their talents, for the serious business of being free men and women.

FEDERAL AID TO ALL CHILDREN

Many solutions have been offered as the means of upgrading educational standards. One proposes that the Federal Government can best provide the needed assistance, impetus, and encouragement.

I am not here today to discuss the merits or demerits of Federal aid to education as a national policy. That will be decided by the people and their elected representatives. I am here, however, to make one point clear. It is simply this-if the Congress concludes that the educational standards of the country demand an upgrading, and that this must come about by Federal aid and encouragement, then the general welfare of the country and the national interest dictate that all children receive this help and encouragement.

To deny Federal help to nonpublic school students would jeopardize the national interest and severely hurt the educational effort of the American people-an effort which up to now has made up what we

are.

If the future of our country as a world leader lies in our schools, then how can we safely exclude from assistance a school system educating 5,253,791 students at the elementary and secondary levels?

These are figures for 1960, 1961, and they are commensurately larger, as you know well, Mr. Chairman.

ENROLLMENT COMPARISONS

Think of the number of students whose educational standards could be upgraded if included in a general educational program. Do you realize that the Catholic school system in New York State is larger than the public school system in 34 States and in the District of Columbia; that the Catholic school system in Pennsylvania is larger than the public school system in 26 States and the District of Columbia?

Look at it from another point of view. In 8 States the Catholic school population comprises 20 percent or more of the total school population and these, for the most part, are the most populous States. In 19 States it is more than 15 percent of the total school population. In certain cities the contribution of nonpublic schools is even more dramatic. For instance, in Buffalo the percent of children in Catholic schools is 37.6; in Chicago, 32.9 percent; in Boston, 31.8 percent; Cincinnati, 27.9 percent; Cleveland, 25.9 percent; St. Louis, 25.4 percent. We have tables in this chart furnished for the members of the subcommittee which bear these out particularly.