Mrs. PELISSIER. We thank you for this opportunity to present this statement, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. In your last paragraph on page 4, you refer to the programs in other departments. Is your organization concerned about the possible imbalance that the Federal Government is creating by the programs that we already have and that we contemplate enlarging? Mrs. PELISSIER. Yes, we are, and I think at the time when the National Defense Education Act, which we supported-I recall our national president sent telegrams to the officials and Members of Congress saying that we supported the help to science and mathematicsbut we were concerned at that time, and we still are, about the humanities and other areas of education; as an organization, we have been much concerned about general education and a proper balance. Mrs. GREEN. You refer in your statement to the number of school dropouts, and the ones who are not trained. Would you be in a position to say whether or not your organization would support even a more extended and expansive program for vocational education than is contemplated in H.R. 3000? I think now of some of the bills that are before Congress, the youth employment, the manpower retraining law which we passed last year, the National Service Corps bill. It seems to me that one of the most effective ways of meeting the problem which we have tried to meet in each one of these bills would be through an extensive vocational educational program. What would your organization think? Mrs. PELISSIER. I think we would be in position to do that. We know the dimensions of the problem, and we would be interested in supporting legislation which would help to do something about curing it. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Perkins? Mr. PERKINS. No questions. I think you made an excellent statement. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Frelinghuysen? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I, too, have enjoyed this testimony. I am not clear, however, whether your organization is supporting H.R. 3000 or whether it is not. In the statement which you submitted, the education resolution adopted by the AAUW says that they approve the overall approach on need, taken by the President, and your statement says on page 3 that the association is pleased that an overall picture of the needs has been presented. Does it follow from that that you are in favor of H.R. 3000? Mrs. PELISSIER. We are supporting the principles which are embodied in H.R. 3000. Now, if you are asking me whether we are committed to support a bill which has everything in one bill or whether we would support separate bills for separate items, I could say that we will support any legislation which embodies the principles which are in our legislative program. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. What disturbs me, quite frankly, is your statement on page 3 that you would be opposed to certain programs which are presently underway-and I refer specifically to the Federal impact 94173 0-63- 67 programs-if we did not do something to provide aid to the districts which are not impacted. Failing to extend an ongoing, popular, proven program, because we could not get agreement about what should be put into a new program would seem to me to be an invitation to real trouble. I would think one might easily argue that you would be deteriorating rather than progressing. You are not exactly improving the educational system if you give less Federal assistance, rather than more. Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, we would hope, Mr. Frelinghuysen, that assistance would be given to all pupils. If this does not come out in the legislation, then we would support, as we have previously supported, the impacted areas programs, but we have always said in our support that we felt that this was only taking care of part of the problem. What we would like to see, and what our organization has supported for years, is a general program of Federal aid which would take care of all public school pupils. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am not quite sure of your reasoning with respect to the importance of moving on a broad front, or, as you put it, making a frontal attack on educational problems. You point out that existing programs have resulted in an imbalance, and the chairman has questioned you on this point. I don't see how providing additional assistance, much of which is categorical, is necessarily going to overcome the imbalance. It certainly does not answer the question that you, yourself, posed, it seems to me. The question is, Will these programs administered by different agencies be coordinated into an effective whole? You are surely not arguing that H.R. 3000 makes an attempt to coordinate anything into an effective whole. Mrs. PELISSIER. No; we are not, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, are we not, perhaps compounding the confusion, and competition, and imbalance, which you deplore, by adding new programs and not making any attempt to coordinate them? Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, we had hoped that there would be some means of coordinating. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You mean, if the situation gets bad enough, we will have to do something about it? Mrs. PELISSIER. No; we hope that something can be done about it. As you say, we deplore the fact that there might be too much duplication and so many categorical programs. We would rather see a frontal attack of something, a unified program which would prevent this imbalance. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. But you are not arguing that H.R. 3000 is a frontal attack which will prevent imbalance; are you? Mrs. PELISSIER. It is certainly not a perfect one. For instance, I think I can say in one of the titles of H.R. 3000 the teachers institutes. we are pleased to see that now, instead of being limited to teachers of science and language, I believe that now teachers of English may participate,and teachers in other areas of the humanities. We think that that is a step forward, and we are certainly in full support of that. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, it broadens certain programs, but it does not attempt and you point this out-to do anything about the programs of the National Science Foundation, or those run by the Commerce Department or the Agriculture Department. It does not affect in any way the teaching facilities in medicine, dentistry, and related health professions. All of these areas are completely beyond the scope of this bill. Therefore I am not sure why you think that this bill is a frontal attack on those activities in which the Federal Government is presently engaged. Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, other titles, for instance, the expansion of graduate school facilities, presumably, would help to correct this imbalance. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. At the same time, any correction of the imbalance may be more than offset by the proposed increase in the National Science Foundation program. Our committee has no jurisdiction over this, nor have we-so far as I know-even taken a look at what the President has proposed, but the expansion in this bill may not correct any imbalance, particularly if at the same time we are increasing the existing programs in other departments. Mrs. PELISSIER. We hope that it will do something to correct it. I can't predict. I am just-we are pleased to see the concern of members of this committee that there is an imbalance, and that steps should be taken to correct it. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. My point is that I think we have to take a look at the steps and you seem to feel-and I may be misquoting you that any action is better than none, although it isn't necessarily going to be corrective action. Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, we feel that there are certain fields in which the need for action is very dramatic and very necessary. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. You certainly would differentiate between types of needs. You would agree that priorities of need may be one of the things that we should be establishing. You expressed the fear in referring to some basic parts that they may be ignored, and that would seem to indicate that you are in favor of establishing priority. Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, we have for many years urged Federal aid on the elementary and secondary level and, certainly, we think that is one of the basic parts of this bill. That tends to be one of the least popular parts of it, and Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. It is one that we have operated on for a long time without results, unfortunately. I regret very much that we have not been able to develop a formula, but prospects do not look good, in my opinion, for action in this area. One final point: You mentioned that you are in favor of adequate library resources. Well, I, for one, of course, am in favor of adequate library resources for this country, but I am interested in your association's view as to what the Federal responsibility is to meet that need. Have you taken a look at how big the need is, and have you tried to define just what the Federal Government should do to meet that need? Mrs. PELISSIER. Are you talking now, Mr. Frelinghuysen, in terms of public libraries or also in terms of university libraries? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would be delighted to talk to you on both. If you specialized in one rather than another, I would like to get your views on the one. Mrs. PELISSIER. Well, we have supported the Library Services Act, and I recall in Virginia, I was very pleased to see what was happening in my own State, because in the areas in which the demonstration libraries were established, it was very gratifying to see the way in which the people of the community took over this library, and then the Federal Government could retire from that. I think that our feeling is that it is one important stimulus to a community to have this Federal aid in the beginning, but we do not look upon it as a continuing need, or that the Federal Government should always take over. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Have you any idea how big the need is? Mrs. PELISSIER. I cannot give you any figures right now, Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Carey? Mr. CAREY. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Congressman Brown? Mr. BROWN. No questions. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Pelissier. Mrs. PELISSIER. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Barry Morris, the chairman of the legislation committee for the department of audiovisual instruction of the National Education Association is the next witness. Mr. Morris. LEGISLATIVE STATEMENTS OF BARRY MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, Mrs. GREEN. Mr. Morris, will you introduce the people who are with you? Mr. MORRIS. Yes: I will. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Barry Morris, assistant superintendent for finance, Fairfax County Schools, Va., and chairman of the legislative committee of the department of audiovisual instruction, a department of the National Education Association. It is in this latter capacity that I appear before you today. On my right is Dr. William H. Allen, who is president-elect of our organization, and Dr. Robert Snyder, who is assistant executive secretary for the department of audiovisual instruction. I would like, in the interests of saving your time, to summarize our statement. We have filed the complete statement with you, and I would like to excerpt a few of the essential points which I believe may summarize our position. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you, if you will do that. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY BARRY MORRIS, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF AUDIOVISUAL INSTRUCTION, NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Barry Morris, Assistant Superintendent for Finance, Fairfax County Schools, Fairfax, Va. I am also chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association, and it is in this capacity that I appear before you today. On behalf of the 6,000 members of our department, I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for this opportunity to relate the policies of our organization to this comprehensive education proposal. The department of audiovisual instruction was founded in 1923 when two established, national organizations combined to become a department of the National Education Association. Like other departments of the NEA, we have our own constitution, our own governing bodies, elected officers, committees, conventions, and publications. Our 6,000 members are the audiovisual directors in the schools and colleges of America. They also include audiovisual instruction specialists in religious education, the Armed Forces, business, and industry. To a considerable degree our organization is a federation of educational media specialists including educators who are particularly concerned with such things as instructional motion pictures, educational television, language laboratories, programed instruction, audio recordings, and the instructional use of computers. The term, "audiovisual instruction," has been in use, particularly among educators, for more than a quarter of a century. Today, however, this term is often used interchangeably with such terms as "educational media," "new educational media," and "instructional technology." By whatever designation, this rapidly growing aspect of education can perhaps best be characterized by its interest in the application of technological developments to the teaching-learning process. For the past several years our department has officially endorsed the major principles embodied in H.R. 3000, and we want to go on record today as urging the passage of this legislation. We would, however, like to point out some inconsistencies and omissions in this bill which will weaken substantially the intent of this legislation if enacted in its present form. Title III, part D, of this bill extends title VII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 for 2 more years, and thus further encourages programs of research, development, evaluation, and demonstration of improved instructional practices and materials in elementary and secondary education. Since its inception in 1958, title VII of the NDEA will have obligated $19.8 million by the end of fiscal year 1963 for new educational media research and demonstration. A major finding of these more than 200 research projects has been that there is much in the field of new educational media that should be applied now to the solution of many contemporary problems in education. We wholeheartedly support this extension of the research and dissemination program and we urge that provision be made to insure that the fruits of this program do not become merely a part of the professional literature. To be really effective in improving American education, these findings and these dissemination efforts must be followed up with programs of implementation in our schools. The improved methods and media of instruction must be applied in practice, and we feel that any extension of Federal support for eduction should provide for this. America cannot afford the traditional 50-year lag between research and practice in our schools. H.R. 3000 provides support for school libraries and for training library personnel. This is laudable but is not sufficient. To bring to our schools and colleges the material resources and the trained personnel needed for effective use of modern educational media, requires specialists in audiovisual communication as well as in library science. It requires programed learning materals, electronic recording equipment, visual projection systems, special facilities for control, transmission, exhibit, and manipulation of a variety of materials used by teachers for teachng and by students in learning-individually and in groups. A library is a place for the systematic storage and retrieval of information. It serves a basic and extensive function in education, but if storage is to be worthwhile, information must first be recorded; and if retrieval is to be effective, we |