I

We are in accord with the proposals set forth in title X regarding the develop4nt of a sound statistical nationwide program. We note with interest the recmendation that there be established the "National Advisory Committee to rake recommendations to the Commissioner of Education for the award of grants designed to improve instruction in specific subject matter areas."

We recommend strongly that there be statutory provision that such an advisory committee shall include not less than two classroom teachers. We believe that teachers should be called upon to discuss teaching. We beeve better teachers would be developed if teachers helped shape such programs. Similarly, we believe that the recommendation for studies to strengthen educaal administration should include not less than two classroom teachers. Today, every wise and experienced school educational administrator favors a proTam of cooperative supervision. Administration should not be so completely divorced from supervision and performance as to ignore the contribution which every good school system is made in the field of administration through teacher organizations and those elected to speak for them.

With these special observations and recommendations we urge the immediate enactment of legislation providing for the extension of the National Defense Edvation Act as presented in S. 1726. This is in itself an essential piece of emergency legislation and should on its own merits be adopted at the earliest possible moment.

Miss BORCHARDT. I am Selma M. Borchardt, vice president and Washington representative of the American Federation of Teachers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO. We are the largest entirely voluntary organization of classroom teachers.

We thank you for the privilege of allowing us to appear and wish to submit a brief statement in support of this legislation.

We wish at the outset, to associate ourselves with our parent body the AFL-CIO, whose statement will be presented to you tomorrow by Mr. Peter Schoemann, chairman of the Committee on Education of the AFL-CIO.

And, Senator, I hope when he testifies that you give him an opportunity to tell you of the wonderful plan that his own union has in which a man becomes a journeyman plumber and at the same time. gets his degree in engineering.

They have worked that out with some of the universities, and I think that is an ideal for which we should all strive, to be practical and theoretically united in that way. And Mr. Schoemann is, himself, a scholar and proud of the achievements of his union and properly so. We as the organization of professional teachers, in the AFL-CIO have, of course, a special interest in this program. First, we ask that the program of loans and grants for scholarships and fellowships be continued.

We think of this as an emergency defense measure, and, therefore, are asking that both provisions for loans and grants be continued because it is a matter of national defense to continue every possible approach to encourage serious study.

In title III we are in accord with the recommendation that the present programs in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages be continued.

We are pleased to see that the program is to be expanded to include English and school library services. We would ask specifically that to the list of new subjects there be added the social sciences.

We think that recognition at this time is of particular importance for we want to have the schools teach the differences, not indoctrination, sir, but by careful objective consideration, to teach the pupils to know the differences between the democratic process and the authoritarian process for that is the defense which we want.

69660-61-15

We hold that today when teaching the social sciences is in itself basic to the maintenance of our democratic Government that a National Defense Education Act must provide for programs through which to give a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of the socioeconomic developments for good and evil in the world today. We are in accord with the recommendations regarding provisions for graduate fellowships.

In regard to title V, dealing with guidance and counseling we would point out that the need today is probably more for developing an evaluation and improvement in existing programs, that is programs of guidance and counseling, than merely in the expansion of such programs. We are keenly sensitive to the inadequacies of many of the guidance programs and of many of the counselors. They need guidance themselves locally in very many cases.

We would therefore ask that provision be made for

continuing critical analysis and study of current theories and practices related to counseling and guidance and that such studies be made to include examinations into the use of standardized mental aptitude, and achievement tests, especially in their relation to socioeconomic environmental factors of children and vouth; that such studies further analyze and evaluate the training of counselors to equip them to understand and interpret the relation of industry, labor, and agriculture as they pertain to the opportunities and limitations which the youth must face in seeking his job opportunities.

Senator, I cannot emphasize too strongly the tragic importance that is attached in far too many schools to the IQ, the failure to recognize that the IQ is slided to the knowledge of language. There is no balance in it.

It is just that those who have worked in that field, have used that approach, and to think that the child, who has not been brought up with the knowledge of the world about him as has the child who can pick up a magazine in his home and turn on the television or have his mother read a book and so on, knows this not because he has a higher IQ but because he has a richer opportunity to acquire facts.

Counseling which ignores the study of the use of the tests is, in itself, perpetuating an intolerable undemocratic situation and that is why we would like specific recognition in this for study of evaluation of tests and testing especially in relation to environmental conditions.

We recommend in relation to title VII inclusion not only of the recommendations made by the representative of the AFL-CIO regarding the need for reserving opportunities for the further development of educational media, but we would ask further that studies be made in direct and close cooperation with classroom teachers of methods through which additional educational media, particularly in the field of television, may be best developed to supplement regular class teaching.

There is a growing alarm that a program of pseudoeconomy may lead some communities to reduce teaching personnel and attempt to supplant good teaching by certain educational media.

The danger is very real, and therefore we would like a recognition of using these media to supplement and not as a threat to supplant teaching.

In relation to title VIII dealing with area vocational programs, we are in complete accord as professional teachers with the recommenda

tions of the AFL-CIO regarding the necessary change in language referring to the training of highly skilled technicians.

Obviously, those who prepared the report as well as those who prepared the language for the Bush amendment were not professionally trained educators. Had they been they would not have failed to recognize that "learning on the job" and "learning by doing" applies in practice as well as in any theoretical book on teaching methods. Surely, in a national defense program we as a nation want to avail ourselves of the knowledge, wisdom, and experience of the expert, particularly of the expert who has worked and will continue to work in his specialized field."

We submit our position as professional teachers in support of the statement which will be more adequately presented by Mr. Schoemann, chairman of the Committee on Education of the AFL-CIO, tomorrow. You have probably heard of our determination to get rid of the Bush amendment. It is a very unfortunate part of the law as it now stands.

We are in accord with the proposals set forth in title X regarding the development of a sound statistical nationwide program. That is, there should be a much-better coordinated program for gathering and interpreting statistics data in and through the Office of Education, and we are happy to see such a provision included here.

We note with interest the recommendation that there be established the

National Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the Commissioner of Education for the award of grants designed to improve instruction in specific subject matter areas.

That is a good recommendation.

We recommend strongly that there be statutory provision that such an advisory committee shall include not less than two classroom teachers.

Senator, do you realize that the committee that prepared this report had not one teacher on it, and then we find an appeal that we must raise the status of the teachers.

What does that mean?

When we say anything dealing with teaching we couldn't sink to the level of asking a question of just the teachers to comment or advise.

Do you realize that on the task force on education there wasn't one classroom teacher from any level? We think unless there is explicit provision for recognition of classroom teachers in a committee, which is to discuss teaching, that there will not be teachers added, I don't think. There should be, and we say there should be two, one to make a motion and one to second it, at least, to get a question before an advisory board.

We believe that teachers should be called upon to discuss teaching. We believe better teachers would be developed if teachers helped shape such programs.

Similarly, we believe that the recommendation for studies to strengthen educational administration should include not less than two classroom teachers. Today, every wise and experienced school educational administrator favors a program of cooperative supervision.

The authoritarian approach is no longer tolerated in most of the classrooms. Administration should not be so completely divorced from supervision and performance as to ignore the contribution which in every good school system is made in the field of administration through teacher organizations and those elected to speak for them.

With these special observations and recommendations we urge the immediate enactment of legislation providing for the extension of the National Defense Education Act as presented in S. 1726. This is in itself an essential piece of emergency legislation and should on its own merits be adopted at the earliest possible moment.

Senator MORSE. Miss Borchardt

Miss BORCHARDT. Senator, you have always been most patient and most kind and your own record, as one who has worked in the field of cooperative administrative procedures as well as one who has worked in the idea of bringing about industry-labor relations, would recognize the essential need for having all of the elements that contribute to an education program represented in planning to improve it.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Miss Borchardt, we appreciate very much this statement.

It is of the same high quality as your statement on Senate bill 1021 and I am sure your statement on the higher education will be of the same high quality in the near future when you appear before us again to testify on that bill.

I will see to it that the various recommendations that you make in this statement are very carefully considered by the subcommittee in executive session.

Thank you very, very much.

Miss BORCHARDT. Thank you, Senator.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. FIDLER, GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

Senator MORSE. The next witness is Dr. William P. Fidler, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors. Dr. Fidler, we are delighted to have you. You may proceed in your

own way.

Dr. FIDLER. Thank you, Senator Morse.

(The prepared statement of Dr. William P. Fidler follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. FIDLER, GENERAL SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS

May I introduce myself as William P. Fidler, the general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, the national professional organization of college and university faculty members of all disciplines? We are particularly grateful for this opportunity to appear before your committee, because we know and appreciate how limited is the time that is available, and how pressing and difficult the task is that is before you.

Paradoxically, perhaps, it is exactly because we do deeply appreciate this, that we were constrained to request this opportunity to appear directly before you. For we want very much to indicate how strong and clear is our concern with respect to one of the basic issues presented by the bill (S. 1726) presently under consideration.

I have specific reference to the disclaimer affidavit requirement of the National Defense Education Act as presently in force. This association, as does also the community of higher education generally, strongly opposes this requirement as

being undesirable in principle, inconsistent with the basic objectives and constitutional concepts of our American heritage, productive of distrust of Government aids, and unfair to our young people who make up our college and university student community. I cannot tell you how heartwarming it was to the association to find that S. 1726, through its section 9(c), would delete this requirement from the National Defense Education Act. On behalf of the association, I want very much to indicate our deep gratitude to the sponsors of the bill, and to indicate to your committee and the Congress generally, our unreserved support of the provisions of this section. It is our hope that they will be enacted in the form as presently stated in the bill.

I believe the basic reasons for the deep concern of the academic profession with respect to the disclaimer affidavit requirement have been indicated to the Congress over the past several years, and I would not want to press this matter in view of the limitations of time. But I hope I can obtain at this time the permission of your committee to have placed in the full record and for your consideration, a copy of the letter sent by the association to the then members of your committee as its first formal protest against the affidavit, and the several resolutions adopted by the annual meetings of the association, including the one adopted at the meeting in Boston just several weeks ago. I should like also to offer in this connection, the letter of June 14, 1960, of Prof. Bentley Glass to Governor Tawes of Maryland which sets forth clearly and luminously, and much better than I can, the mistaken nature of test-oath laws, no matter how sincere the objectives of their sponsors.

Also, I should like to develop two special points in the time available to me. With respect to the first, I quote an excerpt from a speech made recently by Dean Erwin N. Griswold, of the Harvard Law School, as printed in the January 23, 1961, issue of the Washington Post:

"Academic freedom and civil liberties are woven deeply into the fabric of our constitutional history. At the present time, all is relatively quiet on the academic front, though we are not doing too well in the field of civil liberties. But the memory of attacks on academic freedom is still with us, and has surely left its scars and its effects.

"Perhaps the immediacy of this background has made us very much aware of the problems as well as the opportunities which are bound to come with increased public support for education.

"Where this takes the form of outright grants, without conditions, there are problems enough, but perhaps they can be safely surmounted. But the risk, where money is offered, is that there will be strings attached.

"I do not argue that the imposition of any condition is unacceptable, but the universities may be right in worrying that once they agree to accept money 'on condition,' they have thereby surrendered a principle and it then becomes difficult to draw the line when an important academic freedom or right is threatened. "This question has been recently presented under the loan provisions of the National Defense Education Act. Congress has determined that these loans, which the universities must administer and partially finance, can be granted only to students who file an affidavit of disbelief reminiscent of the test oaths whose baneful influence darken many pages of our history.

"The affidavit in question is not of itself a major matter, but colleges and universities may rightly think of it as an entering wedge. It is not a question of power, but of wisdom.

"If the Government can appropriately impose such a condition, it can attach further strings to further grants. The time to preserve freedom is at the point where it is first impaired."

The other point I would like to make is this: I know there are many groups and individuals who also out of a sense of principle favor the retention of the disclaimer affidavit requirement. I can tell you in all sincerity that the association recognizes and respects the honest difference of opinion and judgment involved. But I do not think it unfair to suggest the special significance and force of the striking sense of agreement among those groups and individuals who are perhaps in the best position to observe and evaluate the effects, implications, and results in actual fact of the disclaimer affidavit requirement. Thus, within the educational world itself-as indicated by positions already taken by the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges, the American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and State Universities, the State Universities Association, the Association of American Law Schools, the National Education Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Student Association, and the many individual institu