have been able to acquire laboratory and other special equipment, audiovisual materials and equipment, and printed materials (other than textbooks) for classroom use; and such schools have been able to effect minor remodeling of laboratory or other space.

Up to one-half of these costs could be paid from title III funds. We must emphasize, however, that these provisions for improving science, mathematics, and modern language instruction-and now physical fitness-are directed at only one part of our American educational enterprise our public elementary and secondary schools.

As to the imbalances which were found to exist in the private school portion of American education, no comparable correction resulted from the National Defense Education Act. For private schools, instead of providing half the funds needed for improving instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, the 1958 act, as does S. 1726, provided only for loans of less than 10 years.

This actually has brought to the private school administrator no new opportunity. He has now only a chance to add to his debts at an interest rate not significantly lower than generally prevailing rates. The change proposed in the interest formula under S. 1726, according to our information, will aggravate the situation.

That is, that the interest rate would be less favorable under the new formula.

Faced with the necessity of budgeting for interest and debt retirement payments, the private school administrator understandingly saw little help to be gained from the loan provisions of section 305 of the act. No wonder section 305 proved of little help to him in realizing the desires of the Congress to improve the teaching of the critically important subjects of science, mathematics, and modern foreign lan

guages.

Senator, in our own national self-interest, if we are to find an effective way to strengthen the teaching of those areas deemed critical to national defense, we must find ways other than confronting the private school administrator with debts which must soon be repaid. For experience has now clearly demonstrated that for one-seventh of American youth, the objectives of the Congress have not been substantially advanced by the loan provisions of section 305.

As far as laboratory equipment and nontextbook teaching materials go-the latter frequently becoming swiftly antiquated the same financial assistance must be extended to the private schools as has proved successful in public schools-up to half of the cost of new equipment and supplies to be defrayed from title III funds. As for minor remodeling of laboratory or other space used for such equipment in teaching the subjects critical to the national defense, the same matching grants as provided for public schools are urged.

II. Concerning title V, "Guidance. Counseling, and Testing: Identification and Encouragement for Able Students," section 503 (a) (2) dealing with the counseling aspects of State plans and section 504 (b) dealing with payments to private schools for testing:

Section 503 (a) of the 1958 act and S. 1726 provides for public school students:

1. A program of testing to identify students with outstanding aptitudes and ability.

2. A program of guidance and counseling students to advise them concerning suitable courses of study and to encourage students of outstanding aptitude and ability to take the courses necessary for subsequent college work.

Section 504(b) provides payments by the Commission to cover one-half the cost of testing students in private schools in a manner comparable to State programs for public school youth, that is the testing is comparable.

In our opinion, these provisions for testing all youth, those in public and private schools, so as to identify the talented among them, has proved genuinely successful in the operation of the 1958 act to date.

It is our opinion, however, that the second phase of section 503, that of guiding and counseling able youth, once they are identified by testing, is equally important to the national defense as is their identification. The national welfare demands that this counseling, like the testing, be extended equally to youth in public and private schools.

To this end, we urge that a paragraph be added to section 504 (b) to provide for counseling of private school youth in the same manner that this section provides for testing students in private schools.

We can only wholeheartedly concur with Secretary Ribicoff in his letter to the President on April 21, 1961, when he stated:

Nevertheless, the dropping out of talented young people before completion of secondary school continues to preclude entrance into college for significant numbers of them. The Nation cannot afford to sustain these losses. Intensified efforts must be made through enlarged and improved programs of testing, counseling, and guidance, to retain our youth in the educational stream until they have attained their optimum level of formal instruction.

We would specify further only that the Nation cannot afford to sustain these losses either in public or private schools. To the first step of the National Defense Act of 1958-identifying all the Nation's talented youth-should be added the necessary and complementary second step, presently provided only for youth in public schools— counseling all those identified so that none is lost to the Nation's pool of technically skilled persons as we face the years ahead.

Basically this is the reasoning behind all four of the changes in the act of 1958 which Dr. Conley and I have urged upon you:

1. That teachers in all schools may benefit from the forgiveness feature of the loan program.

2. That personnel in all schools be equally encouraged to attend NDEA institutes.

3. That students in all schools receive the same benefits of equipment and teaching materials in science, mathematics, modern languages, and any other subjects deemed critical to the national defense by Congress.

4. That students in all schools receive the same counseling and encouragement to make the most of their talents in the national interest, just as all now receive the benefits of the same provisions for testing.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. That is all I have. I have no questions to ask because I think you have put your problem before the committee and we shall have to resolve that problem in the committee.

Thank you very much, Dean McCoy.

Dr. McCoy. Thank you, Senator.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Raymond McCoy follows:)

TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND F. McCOY ON S. 1726 AND RELATED AMENDMENTS I am Raymond F. McCoy, dean of the graduate school and chairman of the department of education of Xavier University, Cincinnati, Ohio. I have been asked to appear before you today by the National Catholic Welfare Conference to supplement the presentation just completed by Dr. William H. Conley.

I shall specifically address myself to two items in S. 1726 which, in my opinion, inadequately implement the findings of the Congress "that the security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women." These two items concern loans to nonprofit private schools for instructional equipment and facilities; and provisions for counseling students.

I. Concerning title III-"Financial Assistance for Strengthening Science, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Language, and Physical Fitness Instruction," section 305, loans to nonprofit private schools:

*

Title III of the NDEA of 1958 and of S. 1726 gives major implementation to the 1958 findings of the Congress that there are required "programs that *** will correct as rapidly as possible the existing imbalances in our educational programs which have led to an insufficient proportion of our population educated in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages *." S. 1726 would add physical fitness as a fourth area of imbalance. Under the 1958 act, a truly impressive start has been made toward rectifying the imbalances noted by Congress in those schools, chiefly public, which could participate in State programs. Such schools have been able to acquire laboratory and other special equipment, audiovisual materials and equipment, and printed materials (other than textbooks) for classroom use; and such schools have been able to effect minor remodeling of laboratory or other space. Up to one-half of these costs could be paid from title III funds. We must emphasize, however, that these provisions for improving science, mathematics, and modern language instruction (and now physical fitness) are directed at only one part of our American educational enterprise—our public elementary and secondary schools.

As to the imbalances which were found to exist in the private school portion of American education, no comparable correction resulted from the National Defense Education Act. For private schools, instead of providing half the funds needed for improving instruction in science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages, the 1958 act, as does S. 1726, provided only for loans of less than 10 years. This actually has brought to the private school administrator no new opportunity. He has now only a chance to add to his debts at an interest rate not significantly lower than generally prevailing rates. The change proposed in the interest formula under S. 1726, according to our information, will aggravate the situation.

Faced with the necessity of budgeting for interest and debt retirement payments, the private school administrator understandingly saw little help to be gained from the loan provisions of section 305 of the act. No wonder section 305 proved of little help to him in realizing the desires of the Congress to improve the teaching of the critically important subjects of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages.

Senator, in our own national self-interest, if we are to find an effective way to strengthen the teaching of those areas deemed critical to national defense, we must find ways other than confronting the private school administrator with debts which must soon be repaid. For experience has now clearly demonstrated that for one-seventh of American youth, the objectives of the Congerss have not been substantially advanced by the loan provisions of section 305.

As far as laboratory equipment and nontextbook teaching materials go (the latter frequently becoming swiftly antiquated), the same financial assistance must be extended to the private schools as has proved successful in public schools-up to half of the cost of new equipment and supplies to be defrayed from title III funds. As for minor remodeling of laboratory or other space used for such equipment in teaching the subjects critical to the national defense, the same matching grants as provided for public schools are urged.

II. Concerning "Title V-Guidance, Counseling, and Testing; Identification and Encouragement of Able Students," section 503 (a) (2) dealing with the counseling aspects of State plans and section 504(b) dealing with payments to private schools for testing:

Section 503 (a) of the 1958 act and S. 1726 provides for public school students: 1. A program of testing to identify students with outstanding aptitudes and ability.

2. A program of guidance and counseling students to advise them concerning suitable courses of study and to encourage students of outstanding aptitude and ability to take the courses necessary for subsequent college work.

Section 504 (b) provides payments by the Commissioner to cover one-half the cost of testing students in private schools in a manner comparable to State programs for public school youth, that is the testing is comparable. In our opinion, these provisions for testing all youth, those in public and private schools, so as to identify the talented among them, has proved genuinely successful in the operation of the 1958 act to date.

It is our opinion, however, that the second phase of section 503, that of guiding and counseling able youth, once they are identified by testing, is equally important to the national defense as is their identification. The national welfare demands that this counseling, like the testing, be extended equally to youth in public and private schools.

To this end, we urge that a paragraph be added to section 504 (b) to provide for counseling of private school youth in the same manner that this section provides for testing students in private schools.

We can only wholeheartedly concur with Secretary Ribicoff in his letter to the President on April 21, 1961, when he stated:

"Nevertheless, the dropping out of talented young people before completion of secondary school continues to preclude entrance into college for significant numbers of them. The Nation cannot afford to sustain these losses. Intensified efforts must be made through enlarged and improved programs of testing, counseling, and guidance, to retain our youth in the educational stream until they have attained their optimum level of formal instruction."

We would specify further only that the Nation cannot afford to sustain these losses either in public or private schools. To the first step of the National Defense Act of 1958-identifying all the Nation's talented youth-should be added the necessary and complementary second step, presently provided only for youth in public schools-counseling all those identified so that none is lost to the Nation's pool of technically skilled persons as we face the years ahead. Basically this is the reasoning behind all four of the changes in the act of 1958 which Dr. Conley and I have urged upon you:

1. That teachers in all schools may benefit from the forgiveness features of the loan program.

2. That personnel in all schools be equally encouraged to attend NDEA institutes.

3. That students in all schools receive the same benefits of equipment and teaching materials in science, mathematics, modern languages, and any other subjects deemed critical to the national defense by Congress.

4. That students in all schools receive the same counseling and encouragement to make the most of their talents in the national interest, just as all now receive the benefits of the same provisions for testing.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. I want to insert in the record at this time the statement by Senator Wallace F. Bennett in support of S. 622, to remove discrimination against private school teachers.

(The complete statement of Senator Wallace F. Bennett is as follows:)

STATEMENT BY SENATOR WALLACE F. BENNETT

Mr. Chairman, on January 26, 1961, I introduced a bill to give teachers in private schools benefits comparable to those given public school teachers under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. In other words, it would remove the discrimination against private schools which is inherent in the existing act. I have drafted my bill in such a way as to limit it to nonprofit institutions.

Under the provisions of section 205(b)3 of title II, a student who has obtained a loan can obtain forgiveness of 50 percent of that loan if he or she goes into public school teaching. The obvious reason for this provision in the original act was to encourage students to become schoolteachers. It seems only fair that the same opportunity should be granted to those who go into private schools. I am aware of the fact that the vast majority of our school training is handled in public schools. In fact, of the 1,574,000 elementary and secondary schoolteachers in America today, 1,366,884 are in public schools and 207,116 in private schools. In other words, 87 percent of our teachers are on the public payrolls.

However, private schools also perform an important public service, and there is no reason why those who are employed in such institutions should not receive the same advantages that the public schoolteachers do.

Since the Defense Education Act only began in 1958, there are no adequate figures available as yet to show what percent of those receiving loans go into school teaching. Most of the loan recipients are still in school. However, of 120,000 loan recipients last year, 52,000 indicated that they intend to become schoolteachers. When, and if, they do, they will be eligible for a cancellation of half of their loan payment. I do not have the figures which indicate the percentage who would go into private versus public schoolteaching, but if we assume that the ratio is the same as the present ratio for those engaged in private and public schoolteaching, we can guess that approximately 6,800 students receiving loans last year would potentially benefit from my bill, whereas they are now excluded from this section of the act.

In the interest of fairness, I think there is no question but what these changes should be made. These loans are granted to all needy students who can qualify, regardless of whether or not they are going into teaching, and whether they go into public or private teaching. There is no reason why a mathematics student who obtains teaching employment in a privately supported institution should be discriminated against in obtaining his partial loan cancellation when a colleague may have obtained his job in a public school and received such a benefit.

Concerning my amendments to titles V and VI of the National Defense Education Act, the Commissioner of Education is authorized to arrange, through institutions of higher learning, institutes to train teachers in the fields of guidance, counseling, and testing in the case of title V and language development in the case of title VI. Under the provisions of the act, teachers from public schools who attend these institutes may receive up to $75 per week while in attendance, plus $15 per week for each dependent for the period of his attendance.

Again, there is no reason why a public schoolteacher is in any different circumstances than a private teacher in attending these institutes. It is interesting to note that the number of private schoolteachers who attend the institutes is very small compared to the public schoolteachers attending. For example, since the program began, only 140 private schooolteachers attended the Counseling and guidance institutes, while 5,730 public school enrolees attended. This is a ratio of only 2 percent private-to-public schoolteachers, whereas as I indicated earlier, private schoolteachers make up 13 percent of the total elementary and secondary teaching staff. The reason is obvious. The public schoolteachers get a stipend and the private schoolteachers do not.

I think the discrimination contained in the act is obvious, and I hope that Congress will correct this discrimination this year. I urge the committee to favorably report S. 622 to the Senate.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Dr. C. Stanley Lowell, associate director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Dr. Lowell?

Dr. LOWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.