use of child development specialists in the elementary schools. I hope that this will extend in most of the States to the nursery school and kindergarten levels. It is my belief that a great deal can and must be done in the age period, 4 through about 8 or 9 years. If it is at all possible, I think it would be useful to be more specific in your statement to include nursery school and kindergarten, Your title III with regard to training represents an excellent statement, and I hope that it will help secure the kinds of persons needed in this work. I wish that the qualifications included in the instruction and training not be as precisely stated as you have on page 16 of the bill. I believe people should come to this problem from many different fields, including social work, sociology, psychology, and education. It would be well to state the goals to be sought in the develop ment of these workers and not to specify the particular types of courses and competence that a training program should emphasize. It would be most unfortunate if these specifications resulted in too limited a range of training and competence. Rather, there should be a variety of ways in which the child development specialists should be trained and there should be competition among the different training programs to provide the best qualified persons for this work. I most heartly favor your bill H.R. 11322. I find that the provisions of this bill are, in general, compatible with the views I have expressed in the book, "Stability and Change in Human Characteristics." Especially in the last chapter of the book, I have stated a number of needs and emphases which are consistent with the provisions in your bill. I wish you success in getting this bill passed, and I am sorry that I cannot be in Washington to testify. Thank you for the invitation to appear at the hearings. Sincerely, BENJAMIN S. BLOOM, Representative CARL D. PERKINS, THE UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING, Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. PERKINS: I understand that in the near future your committee will begin hearings on proposals for elementary and preschool child development specialists, with basic concern being focused on Congressman Gibbons' bill, No. H.R. 11322 and various other versions of the same legislation. I have studied Congressman Gibbons' bill and feel that he is recognizing an urgent need in our public schools. I do feel, however, that there are some aspects of the bill which do need some more careful attention before it could be enacted into law. I hope you will not consider me presumptuous to comment on some of these points. First of all I feel that the bill does need within it some broad definition of the "child development specialist." As I read the bill, I believe it is designed to cover child development specialists of various fields of specialization such as guidance, school social work, school psychometrist, school psychologist, etc. Unless a definition is stated which does define the scope of this particular job, however, I feel we might face some real problems of special groups attempting to get a definition of the term too specifically narrowed to one area of specialization. I feel the general proposals of the bill are sweeping enough and extensive enough to provide preparation in many of these areas and to encourage the development of some combination type programs in some schools. The second point which concerns me is the scope of elementary school program which is covered by the bill; namely kindergarten through grade 3. If the bill is enacted in this form, I think it will serve primarily as a preparation program for personnel in larger city schools and will be not only detrimental, but perhaps damaging, in drawing away available personnel from medium-size and smaller schools such as those most frequently found in areas like the Rocky Mountain region. In most of the schools of this size an elementary specialist in any of the child development fields normally serves as a consultant for the whole scope of elementary school service from kindergarten through grade 6. Should this new bill be limited just to kindergarten through grade 3, we would leave a real gap at the fourth, fifth, and sixth grade levels in terms of specific preparation or coverage under any existing programs other than the guidance institute section of NDEA. This section, in turn, seems to be limited in support, since there have been no increase in funds provided for it in the last two amendments to the act, and many people seem to feel that there would be no further extensions of title V-B. Another aspect which might be recognized somehow in the legislation would be the recognition that many small schools utilize school counselors, guidance consultants, psychologists, and others to serve the entire grade range from kindergarten through 12. Very often these people have their basic preparation in secondary school service, with supplementary preparation at the elementary level. Some provisions for summer institutes and for supervised-in-service practicum experience or internships for some of these people to broaden the scope of their qualifications to include the lower elementary grades might be an excellent way to expand this type of service to many of the students in sparsely populated portions of the country. I am sure that many of us in counselor education programs would feel that such an addition to the Gibbons' bill would make it much more workable and would meet some of the needs for these specialists much more quickly than the straight fellowship provision as written in the original bill. I hope these comments may be of some value to you, and would be happy to expand on any of them if you would wish further comments from me. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LYLE L. MILLER, Department Head, Guidance and Counselor Education, and Director, 1965-66 Academic Year NDEA Counseling and Guidance Institute. GEORGE PEABODY COLLEGE FOR TEACHERS, Mr. CARL D. PERKINS, Chairman, General Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. PERKINS: I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on H.R. 11322, the Elementary and Preschool Child Development Act. Let me say first that I am writing as an individual and not as a representative of an organization. I am a psychologist who has long been interested in children. I am principal investigator for Project Re-ED, an NIMH-supported program to develop a new pattern of residential care for emotionally disturbed children. I am also director of the John F. Kennedy Center for Research on Education and Human Development at Peabody College, a center concerned primarily with research on children. I strongly support the proposed legislation. It remedies a crucial deficiency in current strategies for identifying and assisting children who are in trouble. At the present time we wait until problems have developed to the point that children are disruptive of school or are so handicapped by emotional difficulties that they cannot function effectively. Intervention at this late date is more costly and probably less effective. The proposed legislation would make it possible to discover difficulties at their incipient stages and to give assistance at a time when it is most likely to be effective. I would urge that the ratio of child development specialists to children be studied in the light of the need to have a worker assigned to a specific school. If the ratios are such that a worker has to serve two or more schools, his effectiveness will be seriously impaired. Experience with other programs indicates that a "floater" never develops the identification and the intimate knowledge of children that will be necessary for a child development specialist to do his job well. The success of the program will depend almost entirely on the adequacy of selection procedures and on the quality of training programs. Once the child development specialist is on the job, he will work with minimum supervision. Safeguards need to be erected against hastily mounted training programs in institutions of marginal quality. I would urge that arrangements be made for some 10 or 12 selected institutions to devise model selection and training programs to serve as an example for universities that would join the effort at a later phase. I would suggest a conference of the directors of the several training programs to encourage the development of functional uniformities and planned diversities. With adequate models available, it might be possible to achieve and sustain high standards of selection and training in the total program effort.. A problem of major concern will be the provision of supervision for the child development specialists. In some few fortunate circumstances they may work in a school system that has a pupil personnel program sufficiently strong to provide leadership by school psychologists and other highly trained specialists. However, this cannot be relied upon because such people are in very short supply. I think the training programs should put very heavy emphasis on the responsibility of the child development specialist to obtain local consultation from psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, curriculum specialists, and others when faced with a problem that exceeds his professional capacity. A sensitivity to limits of competence should be a major characteristic of the child development specialist, to be achieved through training programs. I would hope, then, that the law would provide him with funds to obtain local consultation. On such a basis, the child development specialist could avail himself of the best professional talent in his community, talent that would ordinarily not be available to him through staff consultation or supervision. In the interest of the children of America, I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. I am sending an identical letter to Congressman Gibbons. Your DEAR MR. PERKINS: Thank you for your considerate reply to my wire. letter arrived while I was working away from the office and this is the first opportunity I have had to reply to you. I have several doubts about the wisdom or feasibility of proposed H.R. 11322 concerned with the provisions of child development specialists. The child development specialist appears to be essentially an elementary guidance person or the counterpart of the very good elementary school principal. The bill assumes that the child development specialist employed and controlled by State and Federal agencies is the answer to problems now being found among young children in both public and private schools. Even if enough such superhuman persons could be located or trained, I doubt if we would make more than a dent in the many problems which young children, their families, and teachers face in today's world. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act allows for strengthening State departments of education through personnel and other resources. Along with Vocational, OEO and Head Start funds, the development of programs for young children with staff and some orientation training are made possible-particularly for those in the "disadvantaged" categories. Funds are needed to extend and broaden such places and services to help assure better quality planning for more children in, or not yet in, school and to alleviate more of the existing problems. For example, only half of our States provide funds for kindergarten education and several States have no public school kindergartens-to say nothing of prekindergarten programs and services which, with quality planning, can contribute to realizing children's potential. Additional problems include class size, with teachers responsible for as may as 25 to 50 children in each of two sessions (or more) daily; adequate or acceptable space to house groups of young children; mature persons adequately oriented and educated to direct young children's programs and to coordinate the assistance of aids and volunteers. If the sums of money envisioned for H.R. 11322 could be made available by the Congress, I feel they might better be used to assist school personnel or the local educational agencies to carry out the responsibilities intended for the child development specialists. Some possible ideas which come to mind are funds for inservice training of teachers through workshops, seminars, and other funds for substitutes, aids, volunteers (and for training and their orientation) in order that teachers have time, help, and greater flexibility in studying the needs and behavior problems of children, in planning more appropriate programs for individual children, in working more closely with parents of the children; funds for staff, space, and facilities to reduce class size drastically, particularly in programs for primary age children and younger; funds for consultant, supervisory or coordinating staff (such as assistant principals, child development personnel or other) as needed locally to help assure more sensitive planning for children. It seems to me there should be ways and the funds to enable constructive and more flexible planning locally to meet the needs of young children—rather than to sink large funds of money into the wide-scale employment of a specific group of people at the State level. The Congress is to be commended for its increasing interest in education and the purposeful attempts you are making to provide constructive planning for children during these young, very crucial years. Sincerely, HARRIET C. NASH, Consultant, Early Childhood and Parent Education. STATEMENT BY FRANK CAPLAN, PRESIDENT OF CREATIVE PLAYTHINGS, INC., AND THE LEARNING CENTER, INC., PRINCETON, N.J. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Mr. Frank Caplan, acting secretary of the National Council for the Early Years. The national council has its headquarters in Washington, D.C. and was formed by citizens interested in early childhood education who attended the White House Conference on Education in July 1965. The organization was formed for the express purpose of focusing attention on legislation affecting early childhood education being proposed at the local, State and Federal levels of our government. May I add my own voice in representing a growing membership of educators, parents, pediatricians, psychologists, and representatives of other disciplines interested in young children in praising the work of the 89th Congress and particularly the members of this subcommittee for the leadership it has shown in providing American education with the concrete support resulting from the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In representing the National Council for the Early Years during these present hearings on H.R. 11322 I would like to refer for just a minute to the former hearings which lead to the ultimate passing of the Education Act of 1965. Testimony which was given at that time by Benjamin Bloom of the University of Chicago and myself, among others, began to focus the attention of Members of Congress on the importance of a child's early years. The intent of Congress to support the development of early childhood programs was ultimately made crystal clear in the language of the final version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by specifically pointing out to superintendents of schools throughout the country that preschool programs could be financed under title I of the bill. I would like to state again that the National Council for the Early Years praises Congress for drawing specific attention to the importance of these preschool programs. There is no doubt in any of our minds that our ultimate success in finding answers to the important questions now facing us concerning the education of culturally deprived children is to be found in our ability to reach children while they are very young and to develop educational programs of substance for these children. We have seen a very dramatic phenomena take place during this past summer. Educators, representatives of the disciplines, volunteers, and community leaders have mobilized, under the auspices of the Office of Economic Opportunity, to engage over half a million young children in early childhood programs not available as recently as a year ago. Thousands of centers were opened, staffed and equipped within a few weeks' time. College campuses, the country over, became early childhood centers overnight for the training of personnel to work with the deprived. Perhaps for the first time in the history of early childhood education in this country, openminded people approached problems across disciplines. This has been good for the individual child in his center and it has been good for teacher education because we now face problems for which answers do not presently exist. 57-877-66- -16 It is obvious that the Nation has shown a desire and an ability to act. The question now is: can we achieve quality as well as quantity in our approach? You have before you the beginnings of another piece of legislation which is directed toward achieving quality, for it proposes development and financing of a training program for early childhood specialists and child development experts. Dr. Keith Osborn of Merrill Palmer, Mrs. Charlotte Winsor of Bank Street College and other learned early childhood educators have offered testimony concerning the role to be played by these specialists. May I add my own words to theirs in stressing the need for a long-range training program. One of the greatest deficiencies we now face is lack of leadership. Nearly half the States still do not have publically financed kindergarten programs. Over half of our State departments of education do not have departments of early childhood education. Our traditional course of action, in view of these facts, has been to divert educators from other levels to direct early childhood programs. We have just come through a summer where we have seen secondary school principals become administrative directors of Head Start centers. I do not mean to detract from the fine jobs these individuals have done; rather I mean to emphasize the paucity of trained early childhood specialists. Members of this committee will need to consider many approaches to helping the country salvage its manpower through preventive education just as the medical profession has tended to emphasize detection of disease in its early stages. H.R. 11322 represents a step in this direction. It also indicates a determination on the part of this committee to provide for a comprehensive training program for specialists in early childhood education. This is the best guarantee that the work thus far completed will be perpetuated beyond the demonstration stage of our ability to mobilize large numbers of children in a hurry. It is my belief and the belief of the members of the National Council for the Early Years that an equally impressive demonstration can be accomplished in the development of a strong early childhood curriculum. This will be, by far, more difficult and ultimately more costly than the program we have just experienced. Our organization urges you to consider including into the bill a $25 million provision for research and program development for early childhood education. This could be achieved by the establishment in the Office of Education of an Early Years Research Council whose job would be to set up 10 to 20 regional interdisciplinary teams of specialists, curriculum leaders, industrial design workers, that would periodically review the challenge of early childhood environments and its program in light of new technological developments. It would actually examine the on-going curriculum of the preschools and kindergartens (I hestitate to use the word "curriculum" for such a self-choice environment) and it would provide guidelines, teacher training manuals and equipment recommendations for enriching the programs and environment of these important years. Much mention has been made by experts like Dr. Lourie and others that emotional disturbances and will to learn are discernible in the first year of life. We in the national council feel that provision should be made in this bill for a grant to the Children's Bureau for a sum not less than $50 million for an extensive parent education program to make the home equally educationally inviting as is our nurseries and kindergartens. A child's first teacher is the parent and his first schoolroom is his bedroom, kitchen, and basement playroom. The kind of touch, taste, and manipulation environment that parents plan, the studied approach to the will and enthusiasm of children—all these have a profound influence on the will to learn and creativity of a child. Making provision for local community early years workshops where parents can share experiences and learn of better ways of handling very young children is imperative if we are to tackle their educational and behavior difficulties. It will take courage to face our present inadequacies. It will require gigantic funding. But it will save hundreds of thousands of children from dropping out of school before they reach the first grade. This last statement may shock you, but I firmly believe that a child has learned some of the most fundamental things he will ever know before his seventh birthday. If we do not reach him during these early years, we have lost him. If we do not reach him with the most able educators and child development specialists, we can produce, we may add to his already existing problems. Congress and education face a harsh reality. Early childhood education has been the weak link in our Nation's educational system. It will require massive support to strengthen the field. The National Council for the Early Years intends to use every means at its disposal to focus public support upon the program which members of this com |