for professional presentations and communication by all department personnel, both within the department and in the field, has been observed. 8. The availability of title III consultants and their activities involving other sections of the State Department of Education has brought about establishment of an instructional services section charged with the responsibility of coordinating and integrating the consultative services offered to school districts. Within this section, in addition to subject area and instructional materials consultants under title III, have been placed the consultant on school libraries, the consultant on the education of able and gifted children, the consultants on guidance, counseling, and testing (title V-A, NDEA), and the consultants on health and physical education. Wherever possible and practicable, the consultants in various areas interact and cooperate to aid school districts to improve and strengthen instruction, using not only title III and V-A of NDEA, but other programs, funds, and facilities as tools for this overall purpose of better education in a better environment. We hope this information will be of value to you and your subcommittee in your consideration of the extension and broadening of the present National Defense Education Act. We appreciate the opportunity to submit these facts and findings for the record during hearings on S. 1726, and stand ready to furnish any additional information or statistics which would be helpful to your subcommittee in its consideration of what we consider the most influential and significant educational legislation ever enacted by the Congress. Sincerely yours, LEON P. MINEAR, Superintendent Public Instruction. By JOSEPH I. HALL, Director of Instructional Services, and Coordinator of Titles III and V-A, NDEA. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, STATE OF OREGON, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Salem, Oreg., April 17, 1961. U. S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: It was a great satisfaction to me to understand from friends in Washington that you took a personal interest in seeing that audiovisual equipment and materials were definitely specified as items which can be purchased under S. 1201 now in consideration. You may recall that in the year preceding the passage of the original National Defense Education Act, I was fortunate enough to be able to work with those who concerned themselves about the problems of modern education and saw this legislation as a tool to meet some of those problems. Since that time, I have had the further opportunity of serving in Oregon as NDEA title III acquisitions coordinator in the State department of education, working directly with Dr. Joseph I. Hall, who is the NDEA Administrator for this State, and in that position, serving as reviewing authority for every title III project for the acquisition of equipment to improve instruction in science, mathematics, and foreign languages. At the same time, I have also been carrying responsibilities as instructional materials consultant for the department. This dual experience has given me a most illuminating viewpoint on the workings of title III of NDEA at the State level, an experience which can best be described in the old Oregon story of the man who rode a log truck down the mountain when the brakes failed: "It was a great ride, but I would never do it again." In all seriousness, my experience has shown me that title III of the National Defense Education Act when used in a flexible manner and with understanding of the educational problems already existing in a State, can go a long way toward creating a new climate in education and bringing about a tremendous stimulation and strengthening of instruction through much improved teaching equipment and tools of all kinds. This has been particularly important in Oregon in the audiovisual field, and I would hazard a guess that we have probably made advances in 2 years equivalent to what would have been accomplished during a decade otherwise. That is why I was particularly appreciative of your understanding and support of recent testimony before your subcommittee by Mr. Don White, executive secretary of the National Audio-Visual Association of Fairfax, Va. I had the exciting experience of serving with Mr. White as director of information for NDEA during 2 years in Washington just prior to NDEA's passage. Brief reference to our NDEA title III work in Oregon may be in point here: We are just completing evaluation and approval of 1961-62 fiscal year projects, which were received in this office on March 1. Within another 10 days or 2 weeks we will have completed this processing for more than 450 1961-62 projects. bringing our total projects handled in four fiscal periods to more than 1,500, all of which has been accomplished in just over 2 calendar years. This represents $4 million of joint Federal and local expenditures in Oregon. Having waded through every one of those 1,500 projects, my major impression is that the title III section of the National Defense Education Act has given school districts a tremendous opportunity to make a real leap forward in the areas of science, mathematics, and foreign languages, and that almost without exception every Oregon school district participating has found it a most worthwhile effort, resulting not only in acquisition of major items of equipment not otherwise available, but also in most valuable stimulation and reexamination of instructional programs at the local level. It also appears that in many cases, especially in the larger districts, stimulation and reevaluation has brought about a parallel interest in and efforts for similar advancement in curriculum areas not now covered by title III. It is an uninformed school superintendent indeed who does not realize that advancing in one area of the curriculum will require additional effort in other areas, and it is a most naive assumption that truly professionally minded superintendents will not plan a balanced approach, even while taking heavy advantage of support in the title III curriculum areas. Our experience in Oregon so far certainly indicates that where good in-service aid has been available to teachers, acquisitions under title III have been used to much greater advantage than where such aid has not been available. It would certainly be a most important strengthening of title III if additional funds could be made available under part B to allow some aid to local districts through provision of extended in-service work by skilled consultants at the district level to supplement, broaden, support, and strengthen the work already commenced in this area by special consultants available from the State department level. Work in Oregon's title III program has been a most stimulating experience, and I look forward to the great promise of additional educational progress which can be seen with the extension and the broadening of this title of NDEA. If I can be of service to you in any way, please let me know. Sincerely yours, HENRY C. RUARK, Jr.. Coordinator of Acquisitions. Senator MORSE. I also wish to include at this point in the record a letter from Senator Jackson to our chairman, Senator Hill, enclosing a copy of a letter he has received from Dr. Charles E. Odegaard, president of the University of Washington. (The letter referred to is as follows:) U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, May 11, 1961. Hon. LISTER HILL, Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am enclosing a copy of a letter I have received from Dr. Charles E. Odegaard, president of the University of Washington, in support of an amendment to the National Defense Education Act contained in S. 1726. It is my understanding that hearings will be held on this bill May 12 and 13, and I would appreciate your including Dr. Odegaard's views in the record of the hearings on this measure. Sincerely yours, HENRY M. JACKSON, UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: I am pleased to report that the program of student loans under the National Defense Education Act has been of real value to us in assisting financially needy students to begin or continue their educational programs at the University of Washington. Continuation of the program is strongly urged. We believe, however, that the allowed Federal capital contribution of $250,000 to any one institution in any 1 year for student loans has been a serious limitation to the University of Washington. In our opinion, the program would be improved significantly through the removal of this limitation. The 1960-61 request of the university was approved for $337,500; consequently, the statutory limitation was responsible for the university losing $87,500 which was definitely needed to aid deserving and talented students. Funds for student loans under the National Defense Education Act were fully committed by March 1. 1961. It is estimated that funds for an additional 200 loans are needed and should have been available for such students. The national defense student loan program has not caused other university loan funds to go unused. On the contrary, we have experienced a marked increase in the demand for and use of these funds. Although we have expanded our regular university loan funds by approximately $30,000 since July 1, 1960, it is expected that these funds will be fully expended before the close of the fiscal year. The University of Washington's application to participate in the national defense student loan program for 1961-62 requests a Federal capital contribution of $443,700. Because of a predicted enrollment of 19,500 for next year, an increase in resident tuition and fees from $213 to $300, and rising living costs, the university's needs will be well above the present limit. In order for us to adequately serve our students in need of financial assistance, we urge the elimination of the $250,000 limitation on Federal capital contributions. This limitation, it appears to us, is highly inequitable, not only to the institutions affected by the limitation but to the students of those institutions. Your support of an amendment to remove the $250,000 limitation will be very much appreciated by the university and the students it serves. Sincerely yours, CHARLES E. ODEGAARD, President. Senator MORSE. I will keep this record, as I say, open until 5 p.m., Monday next, for the receiving of any rebuttal or supplemental material. I, however, instruct the staff to proceed to get the record in order so that all of the record, except the supplemental material, can go down to the Government Printing Office on Monday. The Chair hopes to have an executive session of this committee on Tuesday or at least by Wednesday of next week, to mark up the bill and make a report, we hope, of a revised bill to the full committee early next week. In closing these hearings, the chairman wishes to thank all the members of the subcommittee for their splendid cooperation which they extended at all times to the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman also wishes to express his appreciation to Senator Lister Hill, of Alabama, chairman of the full committee, for his unfailing cooperation with the subcommittee. We have been able to expedite our work in connection with the hearings on this bill because of the great help that we have received from the chairman of the full committee. I also wish to thank sincerely the members of the staff of the committee, particularly Mr. John Forsythe, general counsel to the com mittee; Charles Lee, consultant to the committee; Michael J. Bernstein, minority counsel; Raymond D. Hurley, associate minority counsel; Samuel V. Merrick, counsel; Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Crawford C. Heerlein, assistant chief clerk; Margaret Porcher, Helyn Eagle, Kathryn Fletcher, Lucille Gould, Vivien_Harman, and Marjorie Whittaker, clerical assistants; and Stephen J. Coffey, printing assistant. During my more than sixteen years in the Senate, I have worked on many Senate committees. I wish to say that the cooperative spirit of the staff of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare is not surpassed by any committee on the Hill. Again, I extend to them my sincere thanks. Do you have anything further, Senator Case? Senator MORSE. Then we will close the hearings and stand in adjournment. (Whereupon, at 1:15 o'clock the hearings were adjourned.) (The following statements, letters and telegrams were ordered inserted by the chairman:) Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. SENATE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the opportunity to submit a statement to the Subcommittee on Education concerning S. 1726, a bill to extend and improve the National Defense Education Act. I should like to suggest one area in which I believe the program can be strengthened; that is, the extension of the grants available under title III to include institutions of higher learning. As you know, a provision for this purpose was in the original Hill-Elliott bill of 1958, but it was deleted before passage of the act. The contribution of title III to the educational effort at the elementary and secondary levels is widely acknowledged. The purpose of title III is to strengthen instruction in science, mathematics, and modern languages. It makes available a limited amount of financial assistance for the purchase of equipment and for remodeling. During the first full year of operation, 1960, over 48,000 local projects were developed in the areas of science, mathematics, and modern languages. The response of the schools to these grants illustrates an important fact about the educational process. The possibility of obtaining equipment raises the broader issues of the improvement of the curriculum and the teaching staff. It would seem advisable to take steps to stimulate a similar improvement beyond the 12th grade, when the student undertakes the professional studies which will lead him into research or teaching. Obsolete and inadequate equipment at this level can weaken the careful preparation previously made. Likewise, it is the colleges which train the teachers who will later be responsible for advancing the program at the elementary and secondary levels. There is need at the college level for properly equipped laboratories, language aids and modern teaching devices. Moreover, the colleges are finding it more difficult to improve standards and methods as they attempt to provide for increased enrollments. The special stimulus in the categories of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages is not provided for in either the general education bill or the higher education bill. The latter measures are concerned with construction, salaries, and loans. They do not directly affect instructional aids. As we know, the problems raised in the areas of instructional aids are different from those raised in construction. The special limited nature of the National Defense Education Act makes it consistent with the principle of local autonomy in educational matters. There are about 2,000 institutions in the Nation-including universities, land-grant colleges, teachers colleges, liberal arts colleges and junior and community colleges where credits may be earned toward a bachelor's degree. I would suggest that a formula be designed whereby all these colleges could qualify under the act, provided they meet standards as an accredited institution of higher learning. Perhaps the standards used for the G.I. bill might be applied to this program. The Federal Government would make grants for the purposes of title III on a matching basis. Sincerely yours, EUGENE J. MCCARTHY. WASHINGTON, D.C., May 12, 1961. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Subcommittee on Education, House Labor and Public Welfare Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Would like to have following statement included in record of Senate hearings on National Defense Education Act: American Association of University Women appreciates opportunity present statement on behalf Federal financial support for education. AAUW among supporters NDEA when originally proposed. In opinion of association titles of NDEA should certainly be extended as a supplement to proposals carried in S. 1021 and S. 1241. Believe NDEA has provided essential service to Nation by making college education possible to increased number able students through titles II and IV. Pleased disclaimer affidavit has been deleted from S. 1726 and that language and statistical programs may be made permanent. However, believe marrying of S. 1726, S. 1241, and S. 1021 first rumored publicly in New York Times April 27 and Wall Street Journal April 28 would act to detriment of all three programs and in fact jeopardize enactment by introducing the church-state and integration issues. In face persistent rumor that S. 1726 is to be amended to S. 1021 during floor action on the latter AAUW urges presentation of S. 1726 as separate legislation. Believe S. 1726 can be enacted on its own merit as a measure in the interest of the national defense. MY DEAR MR. MORSE: The guidance advisory committee of the State department of education urges the passage of Senate bill 1726, which includes the continuation of title V-A of the National Defense Education Act. The tremendous growth and impetus given the guidance movement in Oregon during the past 3 years as a direct result of the stimulative aspects of title V-A cannot be overemphasized. In the 92 participating secondary schools, title V-A, NDEA, will provide 337 additional periods of counseling time daily during the 1961-62 school year. During the time that title V-A has been in effect in Oregon, the pupil-counselor ratio in the participating schools has been reduced from an average of the equivalent of one full-time counselor for every 600 students to an average of one full-time counselor for every 400 students. The training level of counselors has been raised substantially during the same period with the result that Oregon now employs better trained counselors who devote more time to counseling. However, nearly two-thirds of the secondary schools in Oregon have not yet participated in the program because of the shortage of Federal funds. Even though the Oregon plan provided for 60 percent local funds to match 40 percent Federal funds, the amount of Federal money has been substantially oversub |