properly was the first one. And there was one of the components in the list which was the financing.

The conference of 1965 was supposed to involve 500 people and it wound up with 750 because there were certain pressures brought to get certain people invited. You know how that goes. So we expanded it to some degree. But there was only about 21/2 months preparation for it and it had no grassroots involvement in advance at all. It was just 750 people picked sort of at random from around the United States, with ethnic backgrounds and various things, geographic and so forth. And, as was said by Mrs. Davenport, here was very little, if any, followup. This was nice and we all went down to the White House and had a cup of punch and went home. In fact, they didn't event print a report on it.

I felt rather strongly about this and I went to the Senate committee and they did, as a Senate document, produce this compilation of papers which was developed for the conference and has been useful in colleges and universities.

As far as the impact on the thinking of the American people, it was not nearly as successful as the one in 1955.

Mr. QUIE. Did financing the schools dominate the conference or was it one of the six?

Mrs. GEREAU. In my opinion, it did not dominate it, but it would be reasonable to say that it did dominate as far as the press is concerned; there were political reasons.

Mr. QUIE. I recall that it dominated the press and the two factors were Federal aid and aid to nonpublic schools.

Mr. GEREAU. And these were hot issues and the press overplayed them. But as a participant in that, I really feel that the discussions themselves were not overdominated that way, but that was more glamorous and more exciting and more controversial than what really was going on. I think a lot of the focus on education for the handicapped started in the 1955 conference. Because, as you recall-you were fairly new here then or were you here then?

Mr. QUIE. In 1955, I wasn't here then. I was in the State senate at that time and we produced our work on the handicapped after the White House Conference.

Mrs. GEREAU. Well, a lot of the focus at the White House Conference was this idea that is pretty generally acceptable now that the responsibility was to educate all children and not the ones that fit the "normal pattern." The focus on that, for example, I think did grow in the public mind out of this 1955 White House Conference. I think more emphasis on practical vocational education was discussed there and the attempt to lead people to believe that everybody isn't going to go to college and that is not the only way to be a successful adult and so forth.

I think a lot of that kind of discussion influenced people. And I think our committee went back to the State and became quite active for several years, not particularly under the title of White House Conference Committee, but the same people who were involved, the businessmen and labor people and so forth became a very effective force and helped change the pattern of education in Montana.

Mr. QUIE. We have two factors that will be different than the previous White House conferences. One of them is that there has been a

substantial increase in expenditures for education and perhaps the conferees will look more realistically on how the money is used. The second one is that we are now coming into a period where supposedly we will have an excess of teachers in the next decade. I say supposedly because there are needs for teachers of the handicapped and vocational education which haven't been met, and we haven't figured out what the optimum class size is. But looking at the past with the 25 pupil class, it looks like a surplus and we better take a look at how we are going to handle this.

а

Mrs. GEREAU. I think there are two points I would like to make. One is officially there is a shortage still of good people, NEA says. There are a lot of people who are holding jobs on substandard credentials that should be replaced by ones that are fully qualified. And, again, in some situations, particularly in urban centers, they could lower the class size. There is still a shortage of qualified people in physical sciences and natural sciences and in girl's physical education, certainly. There is technically an oversupply of elementary and junior high general practitioners.

Mr. QUIE. I recognize that. But that is what the White House Conference is going to come out with.

Mrs. GEREAU. The problems are different now from what they were in 1955.

Mr. QUIE. Which I think is of the utmost importance because we have got a decade to work with the new phenomenon and it is better that we approach it and go through a study and then propose a bill.

Mrs. GEREAU. We think that Mr. Erlenborn and the other sponsors of the bill are right that the Conference should be in 1972 instead of 1975, because time moves faster now than it used to. And waiting until 1975 is disastrous because we need to do it now. But not with only 3 months; we need a year's lead time as this bill contemplates.

Mr. QUIE. I appreciate your experience in the last two conferences and it has been tremendously beneficial as we approach this one. Thank you very much.

Mr. CAREY (presiding). Mr. Erlenborn?

Mr. ERLENBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think your testimony, not only because of its indication of the support of the National Education Association but also because of your personal experience in the two conferences, is quite valuable. Am I correct in my impression from several things you have said that you feel that the pattern of the 1955 conference and the pattern that would be established by this bill is much preferable over the 1965 conference? Mrs. GEREAU. Definitely. I would not want to say that the 1965 conference wasn't beneficial, but it didn't have near the far-reaching impact on the American public as the one in 1955. To be fair, it was not intended to. It was done in 3 months instead of 16 or 18 months and it did not involve grass-roots participation and the climate was different, right after ESEA-there were a lot of things.

May I go off the record for a minute?

Mr. CAREY. Off the record. (Discussion off record.)

Mr. CAREY. On the record.

Mr. ERLENRORN. Back on the record, might I suggest that there are some who say that we have established a pattern now of having a White House Conference on Education every 10 years and it ought to be in the mid-decade, 1955, 1965 and now wait until 1975. I think you have indicated that you feel 1965 conference was not of the type and structure to satisfy the need and we should not wait until 1975 for the next conference. Would that be fair to say?

Mrs. GEREAU. That would be the position of the National Education Association. As I said to Mr. Quie, time moves faster now than it did and we have really not had a conference that involved the grass-roots people of the type that Mrs. Davenport described so well since 1955. And we believe that three decades of precedents isn't that much of a tradition. The White House Conference on Children and Youth started in 1910, 1920, 1930 etc.; that is pretty well ground in. But perhaps it is of special value to break the pattern of having them every 10 years and have them in 1972 and have it be the kind of precedent, if you will, that is established that a President calls a White House Conference at the time that the Congress thinks it appropriate to do so and not get frozen into this sort of protocol tradition type of thing.

Mr. ERLENBORN. Maybe we here on the Education and Labor Committee and in Congress sometimes feel that the problems of education can be understood and solved at this level. I personally feel that much of the impetus and much of the understanding of the problem of education and solutions to problems must come from the local level.

Do you feel that the structure of the 1955 conference was such that it involved people at the local level and did a great deal within the States to revise the educational system? I am thinking of things such as reduction of the number of school districts, changes in State support levels for education and so forth. Can you draw the conclusion that the 1955 conference was helpful in solving some of these problems at the local level because of the citizen participation?

Mrs. GEREAU. Definitely; and I can speak best from personal experience. It had a great impact on Montana. Some of the delegates that came to the national conference were leaders in the State legislature. They had their vision broadened a little bit. It resulted in more attention to the problems of the handicapped which are very difficult to handle in the sparsely settled areas. It helped tremendously in improving our State financial structure of more equitable distribution from the local property tax and a little bit more on to the State. It, I think, helped people realize that teaching wasn't something that just anybody could do; that it was something that required some skills and just loving children wasn't alone a qualification. I am sure that is true in other States. I think it did have an impact.

The most dramatic impact was that the conference came out about 80 percent to Federal aid for education, which had not been said by that kind of body before, and I think it did have an impact on the Congress.

Mr. CAREY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Gereau.

Our next witness is Mr. Stan C. Broadway, president of the National Council of Higher Education Loan Programs.

It is a pleasure to welcome you before the subcommittee, Mr. Broadway.

STATEMENT OF STAN C. BROADWAY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN PROGRAMS

Mr. BROADWAY. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is a pleasure for me to have the privilege of representing the council before this committee concerning H.R. 17772, a bill to authorize a White House Conference on Education in 1972. The scope of this particular bill is of such a broad nature that one might legitimately ask the question of why our group has been asked to appear before you. The council is composed of the directors of 24 State and private nonprofit agencies which administer the guaranteed loan program in their States. You are familiar with that program and I shall not describe it for you. During fiscal 1970 over $826 million in student loans was made available, 57 percent of which was guaranteed by the agencies which comprise the council.

The brevity of our testimony before you this morning does not reflect, in any way, upon the importance we assign to this legislation. Leaders in a broad spectrum of disciplines believe that the time has come for a national assessment of the role of education in American life. There was a time when the educational process was primarily a local, statewide or even a regional function, but our society has grown incredibly complex. Clearcut boundaries of authority and responsibility have become indistinguishable. Many have turned increasingly toward Washington for leadership. We believe that the emphasis that a White House conference could place upon education might redirect that emphasis back to the State level which we think would be appropriate.

A recent issue of the Saturday Review noted that there are more than 62 million Americans engaged in the Nation's educational enterprise. They note that costs have risen by 160 percent during the past decade, reaching an estimated $70 billion in 1970-71. Certainly the enormity of this undertaking and the staggering costs in economic terms alone would justify a nationwide effort such as you describe in this bill.

The council is particularly interested in those aspects of such a study which would increase access to postsecondary education for larger numbers of Americans. That is the overriding goal of our programs and one that we are dedicated to. We have sought your assistance and understanding on numerous occasions and we have always found you responsive.

In summary, we join the sponsors of this bill in supporting a White House conference for the following reasons:

First, a White House conference would provide the national emphasis which we believe is necessary to revitalize our educational endeavors. It would involve a broad spectrum of the American culture— local, State and national and serve to reach a more basic understanding of the role of education. This is particularly true, I might add, with respect to goals in higher education. For example, in my own State we have been involved in higher education since the last quarter of the 18th century, but it was only a couple of years ago that we got around to writing the goals, specifically defining the goals for what we wanted to do with the educational system.

Second, a White House conference could coordinate on a national scale a reevaluation and, if need be, a redirection of our education effort.

Third, a White House conference would provide the proper impetus for reviewing the respective roles each segment of governmental activity should play in the educational process and activities.

Fourth, a White House conference would attempt to infuse the concept of State level planning in education. Our particular interest is in higher education, or to be more exact, postsecondary education. All but one State have statewide coordinating or governing bodies generally responsible for the planning and coordination of higher education efforts within those States.

In many cases the way in which Federal programs are created, funded and administered has more actual control over the planning of higher educational activities within the State than some of these coordinating or governing groups. The point is that as a generalization, Federal efforts in post secondary education have largely ignored the planning efforts at the State level. We believe a conference of the type proposed in H.R. 17772 would provide the proper spark for review of that process and infuse state planning into it.

The fifth point, a White House Conference would also highlight the concept of equal access to post secondary education. Members of our council are engaged in making it financially possible for students to pursue their educational goals and aspirations to the fullest extent of their motivations and capabilities. The President, members of this committee and Members of Congress in general have all stated that every American should have the right to pursue those educational goals to the fullest extent possible.

We have come a good distance in this country in a reasonably short period of time from the red schoolhouse to an educational establishment expending $70 billion per year. We feel, as apparently do members of this committee and those who have testified before you this morning, that the time is appropriate for a National Conference on Education.

We appreciate the privilege of sharing our views with you.
Mr. CAREY. Thank you, Mr. Broadway.

I trust that you did observe and hear the recommendation of the previous witness, Mrs. Gereau. How do you feel about the physical makeup of the planning committee of the conference, the council that plans the conference? Do you have any recommendations on that? Mr. BROADWAY. I think I agree with everything that she has stated. I particularly would stress the importance of including the concept of financing of higher education as a part of this bill. I think the broadest involvement that you can achieve both at the local and State level would provide the kind of emphasis that the White House Conference should take as its primary goal.

Mr. CAREY. Mr. Broadway, I am going to reserve to the gentleman from Minnesota the opportunity, which I know he will avail himself, to discuss this matter of State planning versus national planning which he is well informed on.

But do you see the White House Conference as a means of broadening and bringing into early action more response and more advocacy by those who are really in the national field of education in the States,