We congratulate the administration and the Congress on the positive and constructive attitude demonstrated in the President's letter to the Senate and House on this subject, and in the bills which have been introduced in both Houses of Congress. We are in hearty accord with nearly all of the provisions of this legislation. On one or two points, however, we must dissent, and we wish to offer a few suggestions for additional amendments.

TITLE II. LOANS TO STUDENTS IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

We are gratified to note that S. 1726 would make the student loan program permanent, and provide that there be continuing Federal appropriations sufficient to enable the institutions to maintain the student loan funds at a level adequate to meet all legitimate demands.

While we regard raising the ceiling on annual Federal contributions to a single institutional loan fund from $250,000 to $500,000 also as a constructive change, we do not believe it goes far enough. It is our recommendation that a ceiling restriction on the legitimate needs of students in a given institution be eliminated. We can find no reason to discriminate against the individual student in any given institution because the college or university is large, or small, or middle size.

The proposed extension of the teacher forgiveness feature in the loan program to college teachers is one which, as you may well have expected, we applaud with enthusiasm. It is our belief that all reasonable encouragement of individuals to become well prepared teachers in the schools and colleges of this country is not only justified, but imperative in view of our current teacher shortages at all levels. We would urge that this encouragement of teaching excellence be extended also to the teachers in private nonprofit schools as well. It will not surprise you, I am sure, to know that the development of efficient procedures for collecting these student loans are giving the college business officers concern. The task is complex, and expensive. We offer one suggestion which it is believed would help in reducing the length and machinery of collection. We suggest that, by whatever means seems appropriate, a minimum annual repayment of a given amount-perhaps $50, plus interest-be required of each student borrower. This would reduce the cost of collecting relatively small amounts, and work no hardship on the borrowers.

TITLE IV. NATIONAL DEFENSE FELLOWSHIPS

No section of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 has greater present and potential importance to higher education than title IV, which provides a program of graduate fellowships. All the major educational organizations agree that provision of qualified faculty members in substantially greater numbers is a central need which must be met if institutions of higher learning are to fulfill their essential functions in the future.

The American Council on Education therefore is in full agreement with proposals in S. 1726 that the graduate fellowship program be made permanent, that the number of fellowships awarded annually be increased from 1,500 to 5,000, that the Commissioner be given authority to fill vacancies when fellowship holders drop out of graduate school, and that flat sums be paid the institutions on behalf of graduate fellows in order to remove the administrative burden of determining instructional costs.

We are disturbed, however, by the indefinite provision in the bill for selecting recipients for fellowships other than those awarded under the conditions of the existing program. No restriction is placed on the Commissioner of Education in the proposed new subsection (b) of section 402 (lines 8-13 on p. 10 of the bill), except that preference shall be given to persons interested in teaching in elementary or secondary schools as well as in institutions of higher education. Secretary Ribicoff, in his letter to the President with regard to this bill, stated that the fellowships awarded under this new authority would go "to persons selected by the Commissioner for study in any graduate programs in any institutions of higher education."

You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that when the National Defense Education Act of 1958 was under consideration, one of the major objectives was to design a fellowship program which would avoid the defects of both Federal and private programs then in existence. Most of these programs provided for selection of graduate fellows by a central board, after which the recipients were free to apply for graduate instruction to institutions of their own choice. The result was that a

69660-61-26

and willing to undertake specialized training in guidance and counseling at institutions of higher learning. This has been strongly recommended by the college groups. Since this is in effect the establishment of graduate fellowships, it would seem only consistent, in accordance with provisions made in other sections under this act, that payments in addition to tuition be made directly to the institutions.

Additional improvements under this title which we recommend, and for which we ask your consideration, are the following:

1. The institute program should be extended to include counseling and guidance personnel in the colleges, as well as in the elementary and secondary schools as now provided. Capable personnel in counseling and guidance are in short supply in higher education, both for service as counselors and as trainers of counselors, and the need for first-rate performance in this area is widely recognized.

2. Stipends now paid only to public school enrollees in the institutes should be paid to all enrollees. Since individuals from nonpublic schools are permitted to attend, we believe they should be accorded equal treatment.

3. Further research should be authorized in more effective ways to identify and counsel able youth. Basic research is needed in this area to go along with the improved opportunities for special training.

TITLE VI: LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

We are pleased to note that the language development program of modern language centers and institutes under title VI has been made permanent in S. 1726. The results of this program, in our judgment, have been excellent. The American Council is now engaged in an inventory of the language and area centers established under title VI (A) of the NDEA. Although it will be some months before the final report of this inventory is ready, we can now say, on the basis of visits by members of the council's inventory staff to each of the 46 centers established by title VI (A), that rarely has a small amount of money been so well and productively invested. It is in these centers that our colleges and universities are training a cadre of specialists in rare and critical languages. Here is a genuinely cooperative venture, with the Federal Government and the institutions sharing the cost on a 50-50 basis and with each institution in full control of the operation on its campus. Indeed, it is clearly and immediately evident from the preliminary findings of the council's inventory that there is no Federal control over the operation of the language and area

centers.

I hardly need to emphasize that, with the increasing demand for persons who can speak one or more of the languages of the African or Asian regions, the title VI center program must be sustained and expanded to involve more institutions, and extended downward to involve more undergraduate students. If, for instance, we are to succeed with programs such as the Peace Corps, we need more undergraduate study of Hindi, Swahili, and Yoruba. The title VI centers are training the persons who will teach undergraduates those languages and others just as critically in demand.

Moreover, though it may seem odd to speak of English as a foreign language, we need to expand training programs for teachers of English as a second language. The proposed amendments to title VI will help to train teachers for elementary and secondary schools attended by American children for whom English is not the home language. Again, we might cite the Peace Corps as an example of a program which is creating a demand for persons who can teach English as a second language, a demand greater than the immediately foreseeable supply. With assistance under the title VI program, colleges and universities could expand their programs for training the specialists who will teach the teachers of English as a second language. The committee might wish to consider amendments for this purpose.

The council notes with approval the authorization to use NDEA funds to send language teachers to study in the country where a language is spoken.

We recommend further that in all types of training under this title, stipends now paid to enrollees from public schools only, be paid to all enrollees. Only in this way, we believe, can the maximum benefits of this valuable program be

achieved.

Among the amendments proposed in the bill, we especially commend the one for expansion of the program of institutes to include English as well as modern foreign languages. This is in accord with our recent recommendation that the

L

tes fese levelopments and recPersons of the NEA or other HAPPENED AUROKzon at postsecondary TE & FOL sallei reinicians in De Morgen serences, health

that the wommendations which I 1 part moderate the news of higher educaLeman Camel on Sutestzon and the three issue 2 Is Is escmong Other major orURAIA NA viršel with is de naag nonchs to deterar renverst.28 in what soonid je in v strengthen the en des There are been most numberless surveys, and legs in these matters, and on the most icons of gher earning have been putted. In the offer recommendations only on matters which we wet ami relative importance and on whch there is either nitree, and indeed the entire Congress, are seeking to maximum usefulness, both to our individual in the Nation, it is our hope that these recommendauniversities will merit your careful consideration.

I we

<ring consensus.

Thank you for this opportunity. If there are questions, I shall be happy to respond.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Dr. Knowles, referring to the change that you have proposed in the National Defense Education Act relating to the 2,000 fellowships a year that the Commissioner could award, would the main change be that fellowships be awarded to fill existing vacancies in the program of graduate instruction, provided it was of such high quality as to merit approval of the Commission, only where there are vacancies with no requirement of increased faculty or facilities, if that could be done?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. That is not required in the act as drafted at this time.

Mr. KNOWLES. That is right.

Senator YARBOROUGH. But the Commissioner could put them anywhere now. He could put a thousand, if he wanted to, in one college. Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. I do not mean he would do that, but I am just using that as an illustration.

Mr. KNOWLES. I understand.

Senator YARBOROUGH. Do you think if this amendment you have suggested were added, and the 2,000 were so distributed, that that would carry out the purpose expressed in the 1958 hearings and in the 1958 act of seeing that these fellowships were distributed somewhat in accordance with existing graduate facilities, and would tend to keep all the graduate students from going to a few name institutions? Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.

Senator YARBOROUGH. You think your language would be sufficient to do that?

Mr. KNOWLES. Yes, indeed; we do. This is the position of the council, and we feel this would accomplish what we have stated here. Senator YARBOROUGH. Thank you very much.

Senator CASE. I have no questions.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, Dr. Knowles.

The next witness will be Mr. Edmon Low, president, and librarian, Oklahoma State University Library.

We are very happy to have you with us. I have a suspicion before I hear you that we are with you, but we are very glad to have your testimony.

STATEMENT OF EDMON LOW, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE & RESEARCH LIBRARIES, AND LIBRARIAN, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

Mr. Low. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very encouraging, indeed. It is a pleasure to appear before a sympathetic group. My name is Edmon Low. I am librarian of Oklahoma State University and president of the Association of College & Research Libraries, a division of the American Library Association, which has a total membership of more than 25,000. The Association of College & Research Libraries represents the college, university, and research libraries of the United States.