and actions will tend to be prompt, wise, and sufficient. If, however, the educaSonal data is inaccurate, tardy, or incomplete, education will suffer from inacCe, confusion, and errors of judgment.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF STATE STATISTICAL SERVICES

State responsibility for public education is written into the very structure of American Government. State departments of education, therefore, occupy a rategic position in the structure of American education. Since the operational responsibility for public education is vested in the respective States, the State department of education becomes the focal point in meeting local, State, and National needs for educational information.

Virtually all basic data regarding elementary education, secondary education, and other education normally conducted by State and local school systems origiates in one source the local school system. State education agencies have primary responsibilities and functions in the development and operation of ervices to produce data regarding elementary and secondary education and other education normally conducted by school systems and institutions and to maintain it for convenient use by those who do research or prepare end-product information.

By law and custom the State education departments have the authority and the interest to plan and control methods of recording, reporting, and consolidatng educational data. Their own large and growing needs for educational infornation increase the validity of their role. A program of information services which adequately meets their needs for data will in so doing largely meet national needs as well. The effectiveness of any endeavor to develop a modern ystem of information services in education will largely depend on the part played by the State education agencies.

Thus, the State department of education, as the official State educational agency, rests squarely between the Federal Government and the local school unit in the process of obtaining and providing adequate and timely information about education. This is not to deny the Federal Government's need for educational information. The role of the Federal Government historically has been one of leadership, coordination, and data gathering. The proper fulfillment of that role was never more urgent.

Regardless of anything that may be done to insure the comparability of data riginating in the 40,000 operating school districts of the United States (and much remains to be done), the individualities and peculiarities of State laws done will preclude the advisability of the Federal Government attempting to collect any appreciable amount of basic data directly from local schools or school districts. Furthermore, many of the national needs can be satisfied by summarized data provided by the State educational agency, and in the process of summarization the data can be verified much more effectively than it could by a recipient as far removed from the source as is the Federal Government from the local district.

Recognition of the importance of the State educational agency is, therefore, not merely the result of an ethical or philosophical conjuration-it is dictated by sheer practicality and expediency if the national needs are to be met.

STATE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION RECOGNIZE AND ACCEPT THEIR ROLE

Chief State school officers and their staffs, recognizing the strategic place of the State education agency in the complex of educational statistics, have also recognized and accepted the concomitant responsibilities. They recognize that an educational statistic does not exist in a vacuum-that it is about somethingabout pupils, about teachers, about classrooms, about dollars. They have also recognized that, if these statistics are to be of anything more than casual interest, terminology, definitions, and measures must be standardized so they will mean the same from district to district within a State and from State to State within the Nation.

During the past decade the Council of Chief State School Officers and other national organizations have cooperated with the Office of Education in developing precedent-making procedures for insuring desirable uniformity in defining, recording, and reporting basic educational data. This project has resulted in the publication of national handbooks on State educational information, financial accounting, and property accounting; further handbooks on pupil accounting, staff accounting, and educational program accounting are now in the process of

development. This development should be vigorously expanded and expedited and, once the development in a given area has been completed, every possible effort should be made toward supporting the implementation process.

PRESENT ACT AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

No attempt will be made here to present in statistical detail the accomplish ments under section 1009, title X, of the current act. Such documentation is abundantly available and has been or will be presented to the committee by official governmental agencies. The enthusiastic support of the State education agencies attests to the value of this program. Although it represents a rela tively small financial portion of the total National Defense Education Act, its impact has been far out of proportion to the Federal funds expended. It has presented few, if any, administrative problems. It has been administered with commonsense and discretion, with a minimum of reporting and a maximum effort directed toward cooperative achievement of the objectives of the program In fact, a very important outcome of this program thus far has been a climate of teamwork and cooperation between the State education agencies and Office of Education personnel. Technical and consultative assistance from the Office of Education staff members has been invaluable in such areas as program evalu ation, automatic data-processing systems and procedures, accounting techniques data analysis and interpretation, and methods for dissemination of educational information.

The Council of Chief State School Officers endorses and supports the major changes proposed by S. 1726 for section 1009, title X, of the National Defense Education Act:

1. The program should be made permanent

The compelling national interest in adequate, comparable, and timely in formation about education is well established. The States share in this in terest--they share it because they are a part of the Nation and they also share it because they need such information for sound decisionmaking at the State and local levels. However, the development of an adeqaute inventory of sound educational information must depend upon the extension and maintenance of cooperative relationships which have been developed thus far among the local State, and Federal levels of government. To realize the ultimate achievement of the program objectives, this cooperative relationship must be established on a permanent basis. The demands of the Congress of the United States and other agencies of the Federal Government for educational information—both the volume of the information requested and the efforts required to provide the information in comparable form with nationally developed standards-have added to the financial burdens of the States. The principle of fairness, there fore, demands that the Federal Government share this burden. State educa tion agencies are willing and able to comply with reasonable requests for fur nishing information to the Federal Government but they must be assured of the continuing support of the Federal Government in order to make the long range plans and commitments necessary to meeting these needs.

2. Federal matching funds should be increased, with provision for a base allot ment to each State, plus an additional allotment which recognizes variation in statistical volume among the several States

The present annual matching allotment of $50,000 per State is obviously inadequate to provide a permanent intercommunicating system of educationa information such as proposed in this bill. More and more local school districts are utilizing machine systems for the recording and processing of data at the source; these systems range from the standard punchcard equipment to sophisti cated computer operations in some of the larger cities. This development, in turn, requires trained personnel and expensive equipment at the State level in order to realize the potentialities for rapid transmittal of data in machine usa ble form.

The total cost of an adequate statistical services program in any given State would depend somewhat upon the volume of educational statistics generated in that State. The school age population is a logical measure of that volume. The base allotment of $25,000 in matching funds would help to support the over head of a minimal operation in each State, regardless of population. The addi tional matching allotment of 10 cents per child of school age would provide the financial assistance necessary to handle the statistical volume created by the State's population.

1. The emphasis should be changed from support of “new, added, or expanded programs" only to both improvement and sharing in the support of an ongoing program

Just as this program should become permanent, rather than temporary in nature, the emphasis should be placed upon sharing the support for the total statistical services program. It is the total program to which we must look for the quality and quantity of information needed at all governmental levels. Improvement still is, and always will be, both necessary and desirable, but it cannot be said that an item of information needed at the national level results aly from improvements in a State statistical services program; its source lies in the total program and the proposal to support the program in its totality is commendable.

Senator MORSE. I want to say, as usual you have presented a very scholarly statement to us, and it will be very helpful. I am glad that you have spent time in this statement pointing out the inseparability of the interrelationship among these three bills that the Congress is going to have to consider. I, for a long time, have felt that what we do with this bill really is determined in no small measure by what we do with the 1021 bill.

Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not believe I have any questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CASE. No questions.

Senator MORSE. Again, thank you very much.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I am impressed by the recommendation that the council in Santa Fe recommended that English be included along with foreign languages. I agree with that.

Mr. FULLER. We considered this at very great length. We recommended that title III of the National Defense Education Act be broadened. We recommended the inclusion of English, history, geography, economics, and government, because the maps, charts, globes, and supplies of library books and other printed material that could be used in those fields would help to balance the widespread criticism of the imbalance of title III.

Senator MORSE. You should not have made that statement, because all you do is tempt me, and I am not going to yield to temptationYou tempt me to reinforce you. I only want to, in one quick, broad brush-stroke way, say that I am glad that you suggested those other subject matters. In fact, you mentioned history and let me say if there is anything that American young people need it is some knowledge of American history. I am not so sure that that is not about as important in the defense of this Republic as some of these other Courses that we think they ought to be taught in order to strengthen the defense of America under the National Defense Education Act. But I will quit. You have made the points. I just say "Amen." I thank you very much indeed.

Our next witness will be Mr. George Hecht, chairman of the American Parents Committee, Inc.

Mr. Hecht, we are very happy to have you with us. Proceed, within the time limitation, in your own way.

TESTIMONY OF GEORGE J. HECHT, CHAIRMAN, THE AMERICAN PARENTS COMMITTEE, INC., AND PUBLISHER, PARENTS MAG AZINE

Mr. HECHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I am George J. Hecht, chairman, American Parents Committee and publisher of Parents magazine.

I appreciate the opportunity to express to your committee and to the Congress my strong personal support and the support of the American Parents Committee for S. 1726 which will, if enacted, extend and improve the National Defense Education Act. Most of the members of this committee know that we worked very hard in 1958 tc get this legislation through the Congress, particularly through the House of Representatives. Some of my proudest possessions are six letters framed on my office wall from the top legislative executives of the National Education Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the American Personnel & Guidance Association, as well as from Senator Lister Hill and Representative Carl Elliott, which express appreciation of the leading role that my organization and I were able to play in getting this bill enacted.

The accomplishments under the NDEA, during the short time it has been in operation, have fulfilled our hopes and expectations. The program lifted the level of special areas of education during a period when educational systems in general have been swamped by the great burden of increased enrollments and insufficient finances. The fact that 200,000 students have been able to finish college because college loans were available would almost in itself justify passage of the act. Added to that accomplishment the program has produced several thousand scholars with doctoral degrees able to fill the great need for professors in the Nation's colleges. The reports indicate that much progress has been made in counseling, testing, and guidance to help the youth of the Nation find the best field in which to develop their potentialities. Progress has been made in teaching languages and in the other special areas. Detailed facts and figures on all of these accomplishments are already a part of your record.

Our purpose is to endorse heartily the President's proposals and to tell this committee that we will work hard for the passage of the bill before you. We are happy that the bill would make permanent the program providing for student loans, that providing for graduate fellowships and those providing for language development and for the improvement of educational statistics. Frankly, from a layman's point of view, we wonder why all of the National Defense Education Act would not be renewed on a permanent basis. However, we join the President in hoping that this Congress will pass legislation providing general Federal aid to undergird the Nation's entire system of elementary and secondary education. In that light, we can understand and respect the President's wishes that some part of the National Defense Education Act be renewed for only a 3-year term; and at the end of that term, be reevaluated in relation to the general Fedcral aid program which he hopes will be passed.

We oppose the new provision in title III of the bill to include education in physical fitness as one of the purposes for which Federal funds may be used. While we recognize the need for increased funds to im

prove the health of the boys and girls of the United States, we do not believe provision for such funds should be included in the National Defense Education Act. The purpose of this act is to provide additional support for those areas of education in greatest need and those particularly essential for the Nation's defense, such as science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. However, to make this money available for footballs, baseball diamonds, and other physical education equipment, we believe would be an unwise diversion of funds so badly needed in other more vital educational areas. We have heard that it has been suggested that the renewal of the National Defense Education Act be merged with other pending education bills. We would like to register our opposition to that strategy because we fear that many needs of education will not get sufficient attention in a combined bill and that the final legislation will be far too narrow and insufficient.

Mr. HECHT. And Mr. Chairman, may I also put into the record a fine editorial from the New York Times that I read in this morning's edition on the subject of the National Defense Education Act and I will not take time to read it.

Senator MORSE. The editorial will be included in the record. (The editorial referred to follows:)

[From the New York Times, May 12, 1961]

FEDERAL AID TO THE SCHOOLS

The urgent necessity that Congress approve pending legislation for direct Federal aid to the public schools was reiterated in these columns yesterday. There is no domestic question of greater importance; and a bill along the general lines of the one approved yesterday by a 12-to-2 vote of the Senate Labor Committee ought (with some changes) be enacted into law. It makes substantial Federal funds available to the States for school construction and teachers' salaries, or both; and it is not encumbered by bitterly controversial provisions concerning segregation or Federal aid to private and parochial schools. Quite distinct from the proposals for direct Federal grants to the schools for salaries and construction is another area of Federal aid to education that is also being currently considered by the Congress. This involves broadening the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which has been providing some help to institutions of higher learning and also has been affording emergency aid to the schools for specific purposes, notably the study of science, mathematics, and foreign languages. It has authorized grants to the public schools and loans to nonpublic ones.

The most serious, recurrent criticism of this law is that, because it was a direct response to the first Soviet sputnik, it is too narrowly conceived. Science, mathematics, and foreign languages had long been dangerously neglected and could stand an emergency blood transfusion; but the long-range need is a strong and balanced curriculum rather than a specialized crash program. We urge extension of the National Defense Education Act beyond the immediately critical subjects, especially with a view toward improving the teaching of English, history, geography, and economics; and we would limit the program to public schools.

In higher education, the National Defense Education Act is mainly important because of its program of student loans. This program is sound, educationally and financially. It underlines the personal investment value of higher education. It should be continued.

Unfortunately, this successful scheme has been marred from its beginning by a thoroughly objectional clause: a provision requiring a disclaimer of "belief" in ideas considered subversive. This requirement has kept some of the Nation's leading universities, including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, outside the program in protest. It is discriminatory, ineffective, and strengthens the hands of those who warn against the dangers of Government control through Federal aid. It should be removed from the act.