I note, however, that title IV, which permits summer institutes for schoolteachers, does not go as far. Of the humanities subjects taught in high schools, only foreign languages and mathematics are helped. It seems to me that the subjects of English, history, Latin, and music are equally in need of such assistance, and I should very much hope that if and when the National Defense Education Act is extended, it will be found possible to broaden title IV so that it may, through subsidized summer institutes, assist our teachers of English, history, Latin, music, and art as well as the teachers of other subjects. Sincerely yours, JOHN H. KENT, Professor of Classics. Hon. WINSTON L. PROUTY, THE CLASSICAL ASSOCIATION OF NEW ENGLAND, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR PROUTY: Not long ago I took occasion to write you regarding a matter that was of personal concern to me, the proposed legislation for assistance to older citizens, but confined to those on social security. I am grateful for your kind response and for your own position on the questions at issue. This present letter I have been commissioned to write; and as a member of the Classical Association and a teacher of the classics for more than 40 years, I am in full sympathy with the resolution mentioned below, and on broader grounds than pure self-interest. At the 55th annual meeting of the Classical Association of New England, held at Holy Cross College, Worcester, Mass., on April 7, 1961, the membership voted unanimously to go on record as favoring the inclusion of the humanities in general and of the classical languages in particular in titles III and VI of the National Defense Education Act. The association, which numbers 930 members from all the New England States, believes that the present form of the act is heavily overbalanced in favor of the sciences and modern languages, and that the National Defense Education Act should strive for a better balance by giving strong support to all the humanities. Naturally a classical group has sincere and firm belief in the study of Latin and Greek. Such study is a valuable introduction to general language study; and Latin, in particular, is a sound basis for a better understanding of various modern languages. In fact, the study of Latin and Greek is a prime means for attaining a firsthand knowledge of our humanistic traditions. As the Classical Association of New England representative for the State of Vermont I am writing to inform you of the Classical Association's resolution and to seek your support. It seems only fair that classical teachers should also have some opportunity and advantage under the act. I hope you will see fit to consider the argument and to endorse the validity of the reasoning. I shall certainly appreciate any effort you may make in behalf of this matter. Very truly yours, HOWARD T. SMITH. PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRANCIS PARKMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, 1 am Francis Parkman, executive secretary of the National Council of Independent Schools. On behalf of the executive committee and the membership of the National Council of Independent Schools, we respectfully submit the following statement on S. 1726. THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS The National Council of Independent Schools is a voluntary membership organization, with 31 member associations and about 500 member schools, 95 percent of which are incorporated not for profit. The membership includes elementary and secondary schools of all types and sizes, in 39 States and the District of Columbia. Their enrollment is approximately 165,000 students. Though this number is only a small fraction of the students in elementary and secondary schools, it constitutes a much larger fraction of the college-bound population, as over 90 percent of the graduates of these schools go on to higher education. There are approximately 15,000 teachers employed in these schools. Three hundred and eighty-two of our members, over 75 percent, are nonsectarian. There are about 65 member schools of the Protestant Episcopal affiliation, about 30 with Roman Catholic affiliation, 16 with Friends affiliation, and 14 with other Protestant connections. GENERAL COMMENT ON NATIONAL DEFENSE EDUCATION ACT AND S. 1726 While endorsing in general the National Defense Education Act itself, as well as the changes in it proposed by Senator Hill in S. 1726, we wish : 1. To point out as strongly as we can certain provisions of the original act which we believe are discriminatory in their treatment of teachers in schools other than public schools; 2. To reiterate the request we have made on several occasions in the past both to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and to the appropriate legislative committees to have these provisions amended; 3. To ask that S. 1726 be so revised as to include these changes. In section 101 of title I of the National Defense Education Act, the Congress **** declares that the security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women." This section further states that it is the "purpose of this act to provide substantial assistance in various forms to individuals, and to States and their subdivisions, in order to insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States." It is clear that the teachers in the independent schools are contributing substantially to the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of the thousands of young people they are teaching, and that teachers in independent schools are entitled as individuals to the same assistance that is provided for other teachers. We believe that to exclude them from professional benefits of the act is both discriminatory against them and contrary to the stated purpose of the act. * SPECIFIC PROVISIONS RECOMMENDED The specific provisions of the National Defense Education Act which so discriminate and which we seek to have amended are described below. In each instance we refer to the existing portions of the National Defense Education Act and then to the pertinent parts of S. 1726. 1. Section 205(b)3 of title II This provision of title II, authorizing loans for college students, states that "not to exceed 50 per centum of any such loan (plus interest) shall be canceled for service as a full-time teacher in a public elementary or secondary school in a State ***." The effect of limiting the forgiveness feature to public school teachers is to discriminate against all other branches of the teaching profession as well as to discourage entry into the profession except through the public school. Many teachers go from public to private school teaching and vice versa and some from college to schoolteaching and vice versa. If any are to have encouragement from the Federal Government, all should have it. Senate bill S. 1726 on page 3, lines 13 to 17, would amend section 205(b)3 of title II by adding the words "in an elementary or secondary school overseas of the Armed Forces of the United States, or an institution of higher education" after "in a State". We endorse this change as far as it goes, but would add further the words "or in a private nonprofit elementary or secondary school" following the words "in a public elementary or secondary school". 2. National Defense Education Act, title V, part B, section 511 This provision of title V authorizing appropriations for institutes for counseling and guidance and for payment of stipends to public school personnel attending such institutes, excludes private school personnel from such assistance. On the assumption that better guidance will serve the general purpose of increasing the trained resources of the Nation, we believe that to provide assistance to guidance personnel in one sort of school and not in another is dicriminatory and contrary to the purpose of the act. We would point out that for many years National Science Foundation Institutes provided stipends for private schoolteachers on exactly the same basis as for public schoolteachers. Senate bill S. 1726, on page 16, lines 21 through 23, would amend section 511 by striking from the second sentence the words "public secondary school" and inserting in lieu thereof "public elementary or secondary school". We endorse this change, as far as it goes, but would add further to the new wording the words "or a private nonprofit elementary or secondary school”. We endorse also the wording of the new section 511(b) proposed in S. 1726 on page 17, which provides assistance for personnel preparing to engage in counseling and guidance in elementary and secondary schools on a nondiscriminatory basis. 3. National Defense Education Act, title VI, part B, section 611 The current section 611 authorizing appropriations for foreign-language institutes and for payment of stipends to public schoolteachers attending such institutes, excludes private schoolteachers from such assistance. If more and better language teaching is in the national interest, we believe that assistance to language teachers in one branch of education and not the other again is discriminatory and contrary to the purpose of the act. We would point out that the private schools have long devoted a substantial portion of their curriculum to foreign languages, and a recent study made by the Modern Language Association found that 822 percent of the students in the Nation's independent secondary schools were enrolled in foreign-language courses, as opposed to 25 percent in the country's public high schools. In the year 1960, over 60 schools in the national council's membership were teaching Russian. Senate bill S. 1726, page 18, lines 14 through 16, would insert in the second sentence of section 611 after the words "any modern foreign language" the words "or English". We endorse this change, but would add further after the words "in a public elementary or secondary school" the words "or in a private nonprofit elementary or secondary school". We endorse wholeheartedly the new section 612, part B, title VI, entitled "Foreign Study" as proposed in S. 1726, page 18, which provides for assistance for foreign study for all elementary or secondary schools on a nondiscriminatory basis. We wish to add, in further support of the changes we have recommended, the following comments: 1. In response to a request from the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress last fall, we made a survey of a cross-section of our member schools on the subject of the National Defense Education Act. Of about 100 schools (of 200 questioned) which replied to a question asking if their teachers had attended National Defense Education Act institutes, more than 80 said they had not, and 50 percent of these gave as the reason the fact that their teachers were not eligible for stipends. This, in our opinion, clearly supports the view that the exclusion of private schoolteachers from the stipends provided for the institutes tends to discourage in this branch of education the very sort of improved guidance and teaching which the act is designed to encourage. 2. Our proposals to include private schoolteachers on the same basis as public schoolteachers have been independently advanced by the American Council on Education and were included in the recommendations of the consultants to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on National Defense Education Act. In addition, it is our understanding that individual bills setting forth these changes have been introduced in the Senate by Senators Bennett (S. 622), Bush (S. 1227), and Humphrey (S. 1271). We appreciate the opportunity to present our views and respectfully recommend them to the committee for serious consideration. THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF EVANGELICALS, Senator WAYNE MORSE of Oregon, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Education Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We appreciate this opportunity to respond to the current proposal to amend the Defense Education Act so as to allow further Federal assistance to private and parochial schools. This course of action has been proposed presumably because it is believed that there is some precedent for loans to private and parochial schools in the Defense Education Act. The current law, which allows for Federal assistance in providing nonpublic schools with laboratory equipment and visual aids in mathematics, and languages, would be extended to provide for new classrooms to be used in teaching science, mathematics and languages. When the Defense Education Act was originally under consideration we were concerned about establishing a precedent in Federal aid to church-related schools. Now we find that the provisions already included in the act are used as the very precedent upon which the Government is being asked to move into the construction of classrooms in private and parochial schools. There is no doubt about the desirability of strong educational programs in science, mathematics, and languages. However in the present situation the strengthening of these subjects appears to be a pretext for allowing the Federal Government to enter upon a program of financial assistance for construction of classrooms in private and parochial schools. When the means of strengthening education in these subjects within the private and parochial schools of the Nation conflicts with the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, the net effect will be a serious loss rather than a gain, and we strongly oppose any such move. (See our statement before the Senate Subcommittee on Education at its hearings March 20, 1961). Once the Government begins building classrooms in church schools it makes little difference which particular classrooms are built with Government funds, inasmuch as the practical effect for any given school would be general assistance to a construction program. We doubt that any such system of assistance could be effectively policed so as to prevent this from being a practical result. In addition, there would undoubtedly be subsequent demands to open the law further to general school construction on the ground that education in any subject, even in ethics and religion, aids the national defense. Such a course of action could be the point from which the Nation would move into general involvement in a pluralistic pattern of competing educational systems at the primary and secondary level. This could eventually prove to be a costly and perhaps disastrous step backward, and we believe it would be a serious mistake. Whether this move were to be made in terms of grants or loans does not seem to us to be the essential question, because in either case the result would be much the same. While grants may be more openly in conflict with the constitutional principle, loans would likewise be a form of Government financial assistance to church institutions. Otherwise, there would be no point in the legislation. Thus we would oppose either loans or grants for classroom construction or other general assistance to private and parochial schools, and we hope that you and your colleagues will weigh seriously all the implications along either of these courses of legislation. Sincerely yours, JAMES DEFOREST MURCH, Chairman, Committee on Evangelical Action. PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. CARR, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION STATEMENT BY NEA ON EXTENSION OF NDEA, S. 1726 My DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On behalf of the National Education Association I wish to acknowledge with thanks, the opportunity to file this statement on S. 1726, the proposed extension of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. For the record, our association has more than 750,000 members professionally engaged in American education. Accordingly, it has taken an active and continuing interest in the improvement of American education. Our resolutions, over the years, continue to call upon the local, State, and Federal Government units to strengthen the schools. The highest priority now resides in the passage of the legislation proposed in Senate bill 1021. The National Education Association has been on record by overwhelming votes in its annual representative assembly for the past several years in behalf of such legislation. While the National Education Association recognizes the constructive results of the National Defense Education Act, it urges that action should be taken in both Houses on the broad legislation incorporated in S. 1021 before any action is taken on the extension or expansion of the National Defense Education Act. Unfortunately the NEA Legislative Commission has not had enough time to evaluate carefully all of the new features proposed in S. 1726. At a later date, and in view of the actions that may be taken on S. 1021, I hope to be able to express the attitude of the association with regard to S. 1726. Since the NDEA does not expire, under legislation already approved, until June 1962, there should be ample opportunity for careful deliberation. The National Education Association urges the Congress to make its No. 1 priority legislation based on these principles. 1. Federal financial support to public schools. 2. Federal financial support to underwrite the total program of public education as determined by State and local authorities. 3. Federal financial support distributed on the basis of an objective formula in order to achieve equity, to avoid Federal control, and to recognize the constitutional responsibilities of the States for education. These principles are involved in S. 1021. The association therefore urges the Senate to speed the passage of this bill. о |