I have here a letter from the American Association of Junior Colleges, and I would like to ask your permission at this time to submit this as part of the record. Senator MORSE. It will be inserted at this point in the record. Mr. KNOWLES. Thank you. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. WAYNE MORSE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, Chairman, Education Subcommitttee, Washington D.C., May 9, 1961. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Attached hereto is a copy of "A Statement of Views of the National Defense Education Act of 1958" by the American Association of Junior Colleges along with a copy of a resolution passed by the American Council on Education regarding college level technician education programs. We respectfully request that we be allowed to have these entered in the record for the consideration of your committee. These two statements supplement the testimony given by a representative of the American Council on Education who also will speak in behalf of the American Association of Junior Colleges. While consideration should certainly be given to a comprehensive review of Vocational and technical education in this country, as requested by President Kennedy, it is our opinion that there should be no delay in the consideration of legislation aimed at providing support immediately for college level technician training programs. As indicated in the attached statement, junior colleges in a number of States curently are discriminated against in the operation of title VIII of NDEA as it is operated presently. What we seek at this time is an amendment to the NDEA either as part of title VIII, title III, or a separate and new title to correct this discriminatory action. The Nation cannot afford to neglect training manpower to fill the growing need for technicians in both engineering and nonengineering fields. We urgently request that your committee consider amending the NDEA to meet our manpower training needs. This association would certainly endorse S. 1562 introduced by Senator Benjamin Smith of Massachusetts as a sound approach to the problems mentioned in this letter. The title of that bill is "Title IIIA-Financial Assistance for Strengthening Science, Mathematics, Modern Foreign Language, and Technical Instruction in Public Community Colleges." We appreciate having the opportunity of presenting these views to you and your committee. Respectfully, WILLIAM G. SHANNON, Assistant Executive Director. A STATEMENT OF VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT OF 1958 BY THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES The National Defense Education Act has made possible considerable achievements in American education. It has focused national attention on critical needs and has provided financial support on an unprecedented scale for a number of essential programs. However, a review of the act's operation reveals the need for certain changes in the language and the scope of the act itself to enable the NDEA program to fulfill its stated purposes more effectively. Limitations and ambiguities written into the act prevent institutions in some States from contributing their best efforts under the NDEA program in the national interest. This is particularly true where junior and community colleges are concerned. A. THE ROLE OF THE JUNIOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE Federal legislation which does not make clear the eligibility of junior and community colleges per se to share in the benefits of legislation results in dis crimination against institutions in some States. The place of the junior college in State plans of education varies according to historical developments in the respective States. In 11 States junior and community colleges have developed as part of the local public school systems and, as such, may participate in certain NDEA-supported programs in accordance with the provisions of the act. However, in about 20 other States, with more than 120 junior colleges enrolling approximately 135,000 students, NDEA funds are not available to junior colleges. In these States the public junior community colleges have not been declared part of the secondary school systems and consequently cannot receive NDEA support. Recommendation I Federal legislation aimed at strengthening educational programs which are offered in junior and community colleges and technical institutes should state specifically the eligibility of those institutions. Recommendation II Junior colleges and other institutions of higher education should be eligible to participate in programs of all titles of NDEA. Recommendation III States should be required to develop State plans to insure the equitable distribution of Federal moneys; and direct dealing of the institutions with the Federal Government for receipt and handling of moneys (under a State plan) should be supported. B. TECHNICIAN TRAINING The junior college, along with the technical institute, has been given increasing responsibility in the training and retraining of technicians as well as in other programs. Title VIII of NDEA stipulates that funds shall be appropriated for the training of individuals to fit them for useful employment as "highly skilled technicians." Yet this same title states that programs receiving these Federal funds must be "less than college grade." This phrase causes difficulties in the junior and community colleges and the technical institutes in many States. Basically, training for technicians calls for college-level (postsecondary) programs as compared with the training of craftsmen or journeymen which does not require this level of preparation. In many States, junior and community colleges are legally defined as institutions of higher education and are not able to classify pertinent programs as "less than college grade." Thus, while programs in one State may be supported with NDEA funds, these same programs in another State cannot be so supported. A difficulty arises in trying to include on a national scale the "training of highly skilled technicians" under the area vocational programs covered under the Vocational Education Act. Support for both the education of technicians and the training of craftsmen is required. However, the mixing of the two types of programs under NDEA title VIII has caused confusion and has kept needed support from legitimate programs. Recommendation IV Title VIII should be amended-or a new title should be written-to provide NDEA support for the education of highly skilled technicians under a program separate from those under the Vocational Education Act, where this latter act's provisions have not served this purpose. Flexibility should be allowed so that each State will be able to establish its own appropriate State plan for the administration of technician programs under either present title VIII or the new or amended title. Recommendation V In any program aimed at supporting the training of technicians funds should be available for non-engineering-related programs (such as in the biological sciences and health fields) as well as engineering-related ones. Recommendation VI C. AFFIDAVIT The act should be revised to eliminate the requirement that students receiving loans sign affidavits. The association supports the position of the American Council on Education in this matter. EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON RELATIONSHIPS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO THE FED ERAL GOVERNMENT, APRIL 13, 1961 Subject: College level technician education. The committee received recommendations for Federal assistance under the National Defense Education Act to 2-year institutions which are bona fide parts of higher education from three groups, as the result of a request made by President Adams at the time of the seminar group meeting on December 10, 1960, for a unified recommendation from higher education, if feasible. Differing proposals, not necessarily in conflict, were presented in a letter from President Eric A. Walker, of Pennsylvania State University, who also is president of the American Society for Engineering Education; and in personal presentations by President Karl O. Werwath, Milwaukee School of Engineering, and William G. Shannon, assistant executive director, American Association of Junior Colleges. In executive session the committee, finding reason for satisfaction in the relative lack of disagreement among the three groups, voted unanimously to approve such steps as may seem practical to remove ambiguities in the present NDEA, and the following general statement: "During the coming decade the fastest growth will occur among professional and technical occupations, especially engineers, scientists, and technicians. Junior colleges, technical institutes, and other institutions of higher education will be assuming increased responsibility for the education and training of technicians. "The American Council on Education recognizes these developments and recommends that support be given through the provisions of the NDEA or other Federal legislation for the strengthening of technician education at postsecondary levels to train individuals for useful employment as highly skilled technicians in recognized occupations related to engineering, the biological sciences, health services, or other areas requiring scientific knowledge." Mr. KNOWLES. We also have suggestions to make concerning title V, which deals with guidance, counseling, and testing; title VI, which would extend and expand the language development program; title VII, which would extend the program of research and experimentation in special educational media; and three other titles, which I shall discuss at greater length because of their special importance. We are gratified to note that S. 1726 would make the title II student loan program permanent and provide that there be continuing Federal appropriations sufficient to enable the institutions to maintain these loan funds at a level adequate to meet legitimate demands. As student enrollments increase, and the costs of higher education continue to rise, the importance of this program will become more and more evident. By permitting each institution to set up a revolving fund, this bill will provide additional benefits to students from year to year, while at the same time decreasing the necessary appropriation of additional funds by the Congress. 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. We are in full agreement with proposals in S. 1726 that this program be expanded, improved, and made permanent. 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. Secre tary 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 small number of well-known graduate schools, most of which were already filled to capacity, were flooded with additional applications, while other graduate schools with excellent but less well-known programs had large numbers of vacancies. The Congress, therefore, stated in the original act that the graduate fellowship program would have the objective of increasing the facilities available in the Nation for the graduate training of college or university level teachers and of promoting a wider geographical distribution of such facilities throughout the Nation. The mechanism by which this objective was achieved was to have the Commissioner of Education set quotas for programs at the graduate schools, and then to permit the schools themselves to select and recommend candidates for their fellowships under their own recruiting plans. It seems clear, however, that under S. 1726 the Commissioner would be under no compulsion to follow this pattern. Indeed, the statement by Secretary Ribicoff mentioned above would suggest the intent to depart from it. Consequently, we recommend that the expanded fellowship program be divided into three parts: A. One program, providing additional fellowships each year for up to 2,500 students, would be identical with the existing program, as provided in S. 1726. B. Another program, providing approximately 2,000 fellowships each year, plus any not used in the quotas for programs A and C, would be allocated to graduate schools under quotas to fill existing vacancies in programs of graduate instruction approved by the Commissioner, with no requirement of increased faculty or facilities. C. An experimental program would provide a minimum of 500 1-year fellowships each year for college teachers who are within 1 year of completing the requirements for the doctorate. As the need for this program decreases in future years, the unused fellowships should be reallocated to program B. Even if the Commissioner of Education intends to use the authority that would be granted him under S. 1726 for precisely these purposes, we do not believe that policies of such great importance to higher education should be left entirely to his discretion. We strongly recommend, therefore, that these three types of fellowship programs be written into the law. Senator MORSE. May I interrupt just a moment. I would like to have the attention of the representatives of the Office of Education. I would like to have a memorandum setting forth the Office's comments upon the proposals of the witness for amendments to the act, as set forth in his testimony. Mr. KNOWLES. Mr. Chairman, as I am sure you and your colleagues are aware, one of the most serious deterrents to effective and equitable administration, both of the student loan program and of the graduate fellowship program, has been the presence in title X of the National Defense Education Act of a requirement that students applying for such benefits must subscribe to a disclaimer affidavit as well as to an affirmative oath of allegiance to the Constitution.. The colleges and universities are gratified to note that in S. 1726, section 1001 (f) of the original act has been amended so as to limit the oath required of students to the simple oath of allegiance. Requirement of an additional disclaimer affidavit has troubled the consciences not only of students, but of members of the faculty, administrators, and trustees as well. The results has been a loss of benefits to students on a number of campuses, and a general feeling among educators that the requirement involves an unnecessary and unproductive intrusion of government into the relations between institutions of higher learning and their students. Opposition to the disclaimer affidavit is nonpartisan. Both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy have made strong public statements to the effect that the affirmative loyalty oath is adequate to meet all legitimate objectives. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendations in the comprehensive written statement to which I referred earlier, representing the carefully considered judgment of institutions of higher learning throughout the country, will merit your careful consideration. We appreciate the privilege of presenting them to you. If there are questions, I shall be happy to respond to the best of my ability. Senator MORSE. Dr. Knowles, the committee is indebted to you for your testimony. (The prepared statement of Asa S. Knowles follows:) STATEMENT BY ASA S. KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, THE ASSOCIATION FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, NEA, THE AssoCIATION OF AMERICAN COLLEGES Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I am Asa S. Knowles, president of Northeastern University, Boston. I represent the American Council on Education, an organization with a membership of 146 educational organizations and 1,065 institutions, among them nearly all the accredited universities, colleges, and junior colleges in the United States. On this occasion I have the pleasure of speaking also for three constituent member organizations of the council-the American Association of Junior Colleges, the Association for Higher Education, NEA, and the Association of American Colleges. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on the proposed legislation, S. 1726, to extend and improve the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The organizations which I represent strongly approve the extension of the NDEA. There can be no question as to the substantial contribution which the programs under this act have made in the last 3 years to the quality of education and the broadened opportunity for education in the United States. In the face of increasing demands both for excellence of educational product and for opportunity to greater numbers, those of us in the colleges and universities would find it unthinkable that we should give up the splendid advances which the NDEA thus far has made possible. |