Hearings

cation philosophy of S. 1021, but this is a bill for special purposes that we all recognize are in the national interest and, for want of a better term, we have called it National-Defense purposes.

Well, let me say that the taxpayers of the country, as a whole, have a right to look to the Congress to see to it that there is written into the legislation the safeguards and protections to see to it that the money goes for the purpose of the bill.

We have been using as an example this morning the whole matter of the difference between money for athletics and money for physical fitness which are separate and distinct objectives.

As Senator Clark said, in language that everybody can understand, there is a great difference between money for football teams and money for libraries. And I do think you people down in the Office of Education are going to have to give some thought about this matter and, therefore, your first term paper, as far as this seminar is concerned, is to prepare for us a brief of suggestions and recommendations on how you think we might write some safeguards into this bill that will guarantee the carrying out of its objectives.

Thank you very much, Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. Thank you, sir.

Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough?

Senator YARBOROUGH. No questions.
Senator MORSE. Senator Case?

Senator CASE. No questions.

Senator MORSE. Is there any other scheduled witness here? Will you come forward please?

Will you give your name and association to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF J. GRAHAM SULLIVAN, CHIEF, BUREAU OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT ADMINISTRATION, CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(The prepared statement of J. Graham Sullivan follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. GRAHAM SULLIVAN, CHIEF, BUREAU OF NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT ADMINISTRATION

Chairman Morse and members of the Senate Educational Subcommittee, first, I want to express our appreciation for the invitation to appear at this hearing in support of S. 1726, National Defense Education Act Amendments of 1961.

Before referring specifically to the bill itself, I want to make two brief statements with reference to our position in California about Federal aid.

First, it is our judgment that there should not be any question of general aid versus special-purpose aid, such as the National Defense Education Act, for each serves a different purpose-general aid to meet the overall increased costs of education, and special purpose aid to stimulate research, experimentation, program evaluation, and development. Both are important to the improvement of the quality of instruction.

Second, we in California, from our experience with the National Defense Education Act, the various programs of vocational education, and others, do not have fear of Federal control. It is true that Congress in any legislation providing Federal funds to States, and the U.S. Office of Education in administering programs outlined in the legislation, must set certain guidelines, establish certain minimum standards to be met, and ask for certain reporting on funds and activities. This, however, need not be control.

With reference to Senate bill 1726, the amendments contained therein appear to us in most instances to have eliminated those provisions of the act which have 69660-61-11

created problems at the local and State level. I refer particularly to the following:

1. Lifting the ceiling for student loan funds to any one institution from $250,000 to $500,000.

2. The provision authorizing the U.S. Commissioner to reallocate unused funds to States where such funds are needed. In our own State, for example, funds requested in projects submitted to the State department_of education meeting the standards set forth in the act, in the U.S. Office Regulations, and in our State plans, were double the amount of Federal funds available.

3. The extension of the act for another 3 years.

4. The change in the language which will permit us in California to provide testing, counseling and guidance for all grades 7 and 8.

5. The elimination of fixed amounts to be appropriated under titles VII and VIII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

The only proposal for further amendment we at this time would ask be considered relates to certain language in the formulas used for allocations to the States. The present act uses the language "school-age population." It would be more equitable to all States to use instead "public school population," the present language in Senate bill 1021.

To conclude my presentation and to support our position in favor of Senate bill 1726 and an extension of National Defense Education Act, I now submit statements bringing to your attention our appraisal of what NDEA has meant to California during the past 21⁄2 years. The need for brevity will not make it possible to relate in detail all the positive outcomes nor to document with exact facts and figures the conclusions. However, such documentation could be made available by most of the States and local school districts throughout the Nation. In summary, the National Defense Education Act has

1. Stimulated school districts to carefully appraise their present instructional programs, to identify weaknesses and new needs, and to move forward with new programs. In California, 3,500 such new programs are underway. Enrollments in science, mathematics, and foreign language have greatly increased: 58.4 percent in science, 44.7 percent in modern foreign language, and 44.2 percent in mathematics.

2. Encouraged greater cooperative effort among local school districts and Intermediate units, and provided for better articulation of instruction at the several levels within the total public school program.

3. Provided the vehicle for closer cooperative planning between the public schools and the teacher-training institutions.

4. Provided Federal funds matched by State funds to support extensive inservice education programs and workshops for teachers, curriculum directors, and administrators, acquainting them with the new content, new methods, new materials, and new media essential to quality instruction. It is estimated that in excess of 10,000 teachers, curriculum directors, and administrators will have been involved in such programs during this school year in California.

5. Provided the resources for State departments of education to make available to local school districts the leadership talent of the Nation in the areas of mathematics, science, and modern foreign languages. Such talent has been employed by State departments of education on both a full-time and part-time basis to work with State department staffs and local school personnel. They have come from universities, colleges, government, industry, and commerce.

6. Made it possible for school districts to increase the number of counselors and other guidance personnel and to support an overall guidance program that will give greater assurance that we are identifying the talent of the Nation and guiding them into educational pursuits that will enable them to realize their maximum potential and make their maximum contribution to society.

7. Encouraged research in new media such as television, both open and closed circuit, teaching machines, and new electronic devices. Many of the problems facing education in the next decade will be answered in part or in full by the results of such research.

8. Led to new developments and expansion in programs preparing much needed manpower for technical fields of employment. As we move into increased automation, these developments will become increasingly significant.

9. Demonstrated that there can be Federal aid without Federal control. The relationship between the U.S. Office of Education and State departments of education has been a very healthy one, with cooperative planning and implementation of the provisions of the act present at all times.

10. Finally, provided funds to local school districts for the purchase of much-needed equipment and materials. This is referred to last purposely, for it is in fact the least significant contribution of National Defense Education Act. The intent of the National Defense Education Act, again, was to improve the quality of instruction, not to buy equipment. The process which a district goes through in order to determine how it may best improve instruction is much more important. The identification of the equipment needed is only a final step and would make no real contribution to instruction without the former.

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, Senator Yarborough, Senator Case, and Senator Clark, first my name is J. Graham Sullivan, from the State Department of Education for the State of California.

Senator MORSE. I should have recognized you. I am sorry. Thank you for coming.

Mr. SULLIVAN. And I do appreciate this opportunity to appear, and particularly to appear before our showing on the schedule, which will enable me to return to my own State this evening instead of tomorrow night.

Before referring specifically to the bill itself, I want to make two brief statements with reference to our position in California about Federal aid.

First, it is our judgment that there should not be any question of general aid versus special purpose aid, such as the National Defense Education Act, for each serves a different purpose.

General aid is to meet the overall increased costs of education; and special purpose aid, to stimulate research, and experimentation, program evaluation, and development; and both are important to the improvement of the quality of instruction.

Second, we in California from our experience with the National Defense Education Act, the various programs of vocational education, and others, do not have fear of Federal control. It is true that Congress in any legislation providing Federal funds to States, and the U.S. Office of Education in administering programs outlined in the legislation must set certain guidelines, establish certain minimum standards to be met, and ask for certain reporting on funds and activities. This, however, need not be control.

With reference to Senate bill 1726, the amendments contained. therein appear to us in most instances to have eliminated those provisions of the act which have created problems at the local and State level.

And, Mr. Chairman, if I might, rather than refer to my second page where I specifically point out some of the provisions that are of particular interest to us, I would like to take this minute or two for this page to make some comments in support of other statements which have been made.

Senator MORSE. Your entire statement as submitted will be included in the record.

Mr. SULLIVAN. May I first make a statement in support of Senator Yarborough's position with reference to the inclusion of the junior colleges in the title III section of the National Defense Education Act?

created problems at the local and State level. I refer particularly to the f lowing:

1. Lifting the ceiling for student loan funds to any one institution fro $250,000 to $500,000.

2. The provision authorizing the U.S. Commissioner to reallocate unus funds to States where such funds are needed. In our own State, for e ample, funds requested in projects submitted to the State department education meeting the standards set forth in the act, in the U.S. Offi Regulations, and in our State plans, were double the amount of Feder funds available.

3. The extension of the act for another 3 years.

4. The change in the language which will permit us in California to pr vide testing, counseling and guidance for all grades 7 and 8.

5. The elimination of fixed amounts to be appropriated under titles V and VIII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958.

The only proposal for further amendment we at this time would ask be co sidered relates to certain language in the formulas used for allocations to th States. The present act uses the language "school-age population." It woul be more equitable to all States to use instead "public school population," th present language in Senate bill 1021.

To conclude my presentation and to support our position in favor of Senat bill 1726 and an extension of National Defense Education Act, I now submi statements bringing to your attention our appraisal of what NDEA has mean to California during the past 21⁄2 years. The need for brevity will not make i possible to relate in detail all the positive outcomes nor to document with exac facts and figures the conclusions. However, such documentation could be mad available by most of the States and local school districts throughout the Nation In summary, the National Defense Education Act has

1. Stimulated school districts to carefully appraise their present instruc tional programs, to identify weaknesses and new needs, and to move for ward with new programs. In California, 3,500 such new programs are underway. Enrollments in science, mathematics, and foreign language have greatly increased: 58.4 percent in science, 44.7 percent in modern foreign language, and 44.2 percent in mathematics.