TABLE B.-How States would fare under National Education Improvement Act of 1963 (for fiscal year ending June 30, 1964. Includes only those programs with specific State allotment formulas) $19, 445, 688 35, 761,277 19, 547, 599 3,767, 653 $8, 147, 622 5, 404, 035 18, 373, 719 4, 156, 950 20, 618, 472 11, 306, 904 3,076, 143 2, 161, 614 58,529, 856 19, 371, 387 10, 226, 097 8,313,900 8,646, 456 9, 644, 124 3,408, 699 16,378, 383 29, 680, 623 36, 498, 021 13, 967, 352 3,990, 672 19, 205, 109 2,244, 753 5, 570, 313 1, 912, 197 2,826, 726 35, 749, 770 2,993, 004 111, 323, 121 12, 221, 433 1, 579, 641 46, 890, 396 Nebraska.. Nevada.. New Hampshire.. New Jersey. New Mexico. New York.. North Carolina. North Dakota Ohio. 19, 329, 888 5, 247, 993 53, 929, 449 26,650, 242 4, 271, 384 40, 323, 412 57, 393, 672 6, 566, 984 7,815, 066 5,573, 244 Oregon. 8, 590, 277 7, 565, 649 1,024, 628 Pennsylvania. 48, 964, 581 54, 456, 045 5,491, 464 4, 156, 950 South Carolina.. 14, 700, 789 4,326, 767 20, 846, 841 48, 409, 855 5,935, 723 2,630, 455 19, 933, 327 12,955, 996 10, 625, 561 18, 902, 605 5, 320, 896 1,829, 058 10, 059, 819 36, 331, 743 3, 242, 421 29, 311 9,379, 893 2,497, 709 10,787, 022 12, 078, 112 2,693, 302 Wyoming. 1,895, 696 1, 330, 224 District of Columbia plus outlying parts of the 4,972, 109 United States.. Total 831, 390, 000 831, 390, 000 Source of data: Col: 1, Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, cols. 2, 3, and 4 computed by Chamber of Commerce of the United States. TABLE C.-1st year new obligational authority and 1st year estimated expenditures for the National Education Improvement Act of 1963 [In thousands of dollars] 1. Student loans. 2. Student loan insurance. 3. Student work-study programs.. 4. Graduate fellowships.. 5. Higher education facilities.. 6. Public community college academic facilities. 7. College-level technical education... 8. College and university libraries. 9. Graduate schools. 10. Modern foreign language training and research. 11. Institutes for advanced study for teachers.. 12. Teacher preparation programs.. 13. Specialized training for teachers and related educational personnel. 14. Educational research and demonstration.. 15. State statistical services... 16. Public elementary and secondary education. 17. Science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction equipment 1 18. Guidance, counseling, and testing. 19. Federally affected areas 1. 20. Vocational education. 21. Education of handicapped children. 22. General university extension education. 23. Adult basic education... 24. Public community libraries.. Total, National Education Improvement Act of 1963.. 1 No increase in obligational authority is requested for these programs over the amounts already in the budget. The President's budget requests $57,750,000 for the science, mathematics, and modern foreign language instruction programs. The President's budget also indicates that a later request will be submitted for $254,188,000 for the federally affected areas program. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR CONGRESSMAN POWELL: For many years the NAM has contributed to the record of both the House and Senate committees considering various proposals for Federal aid to education. H.R. 3000, "a bill to strengthen and improve educational quality and educational opportunities in the Nation," attempts to embody under its seven titles, numerous proposals which have been made over the years for Federal Government aid to, and participation in, the educational process at all levels, elementary school through graduate programs. The NAM is a voluntary organization made up of more than 16,000 companies in all industries and in all parts of the Nation. While we are not specifically a spokesman for either small business or large business, the fact is that more than 80 percent of the association's members employ fewer than 500 workers and 28 percent employ fewer than 50. The association's policies are formulated by its members, and more than 3,000 individual representatives of member companies participate in the policyforming process. For these reasons I can assure you that this statement reflects the views of a broad and representative cross section of manufacturing industry. In registering the association's opposition to H.R. 3000 now before the House Committee on Education and Labor, I respectfully call your attention to the testimony made on behalf of the National Association of Manufacturers with respect to H.R. 10180 before the General Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor, April 16, 1962, and to the statement of the National Association of Manufacturers with respect to H.R. 10145 as submitted to the Select Subcommittee on Education of the House Education and Labor Committee on March 14, 1962. The association has always been committed to improving educational opportunities, standards, and facilities. The contribution of our member companies to this goal through scholarships, direct aid to institutions, special programs for teachers, tuition payments for employees, has gained national recognition. Individuals associated with our member companies are active on local school boards, in parent-teachers organizations, as trustees of private schools and colleges, and in alumni affairs. Also, as both business and individual taxpayers our members participate in the support of public education. It is thus as citizens, taxpayers, parents, alumni, school board members, trustees of educational institutions, as well as businessmen, that our members bring their attitudes to bear on the question of Federal aid to education. On the other hand, the association has been and continues to be opposed to programs for Federal aid to education. The philosophy upon which this opposition to central government aid to education is based, was described and documented in a statement filed by the National Association of Manufacturers with the Senate Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on August 24, 1961. We believe that the framework of education in this country should be the exclusive responsibility of the States and should be free of Federal intervention. In our opinion, neither the provision of education, the promotion of educational content, nor financial participation in State or local school systems is the business of the Federal Government. The present bill before your committee, H.R. 3000, cannot be supported by the National Association of Manufacturers since its effect, if not its purpose is to introduce Federal Government aid, supervision, and/or control at all levels of the educational system. No new evidence has been adduced to demonstrate the need for Federal Government participation in the educational process. Recognizing the inherent weakness in the case for Federal Government aid to education, the sponsors of H.R. 3000 submitted it as providing for a "transitional role" for the Federal Government. In his message on education, January 29, 1963, President Kennedy expressed this rationale as follows: "I do not say that the Federal Government should take over responsibility for education. That is neither desirable nor feasible. Instead its participation should be selective. stimulative and, where possible, transitional." Despite this statement, the provisions of H.R. 3000 are such as to open the door for a broad educational program at all levels initiated under the central supervision of the Federal Government. This real effect of the bill becomes clear when the specific provisions are examined. Throughout the various titles, the establishment of criteria for aid, and the determination of need, are made the responsibility of the Federal Office of Education. Disclaimers to the contrary, the machinery for Central Government supervision and control is evidently to be established by the provisions of H.R. 3000. In virtually every sec tion, eligible students, teachers, or institutions must be so determined by the Office of Education. In some sections of the bill, control is spelled out specifically. So, for instance, in title IV, State plans for "strengthening elementary and secondary education," must be submitted to the Federal Commissioner of Education for approval. Numerous specific approvals by the Federal Commissioner of Education are spelled out throughout this portion of the bill. Under title V, part A, which concerns vocational education, it is additionally specified that State plans must "conform with the requirements of the Vocational Education Act of 1946 and supplementary vocational educational acts." Determination of such conformity is by the Commissioner of Education. Under title VII, there is a provision for the interchange of personnel between the Federal Office of Education and State educational agencies, which also authorizes the Federal Commissioner of Education to establish advisory councils to advise and consult with him. (Section 706.) This section sets up machinery by which State officers and employees may be assigned to the Federal Office of Education for periods of up to 2 years and Federal officers and employees may be assigned to State education offices as well. It would be extremely naive to suppose that such an arrangement would not result in a blurring of the local identification and responsibilities of State education departments and the superimposing of federally determined policy guides of all kinds. Finally, a particular objection to this omnibus education bill is the fiscal irresponsibility which is built into its provisions. Virtually every specific proposal for aid which is detailed in the bill authorizes a specific dollar allotment for fiscal year 1964 and "necessary sums for the next 2 years." The bill thus provides for open-end financing. It is impossible to make an accurate estimate of its cost beyond 1964. In a period when the President of the United States has called attention to the need for holding down Government expenditures and when we are already running an exceptionally high and indeterminately growing deficit; this lack of responsibility is difficult to accept. A peculiar evidence of both the authoritarian or paternalistic approach, and the general lack of fiscal responsibility which characterize this bill appears in title I, part B. Where the establishment of a maximum interest rate on student loans is made the prerogative of the Commissioner of Education, although the revolving funds from which the loans are to be paid and which itself is to be repaid to the Treasury, must be repaid at an interest rate established by the Treasury. Because the emergency character of our educational needs has not been proved; because the need for Federal Government action has not been proved, because Federal aid must involve the establishment of criteria in educational activities, and therefore conformity and control by the Federal Government, and because of the open-end financing provided for in this bill, I urge you to report unfavorably on H.R. 3000. May I respectfully request that this letter be incorporated in the record of the hearings being held by your committee. Your courtesy in this regard will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, W. P. GULLANDER. NORTHERN VIRGINIA COUNCIL FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 5, 1963. The Northern Virginia Council for the Social Sciences, an affiliate of the National Council for Social Studies, strongly urges the passage of H.R. 3000. We, like other numerous organizations and individuals do not merely desire the best possible education for our use in today's world but would like to see it become a reality, which we feel can only be done through the administration of the Federal Government or the people as a whole. The advancement of the United States to the position of a world power rests to a great extent, upon our technological and scientific development. We must not forget, however, that we are the leader of the free world; as Dr. Haefner of Iowa University has said, "There is not a single issue which threatens world peace, as I see it, whose ultimate solution hinges upon science and technology as much as it depends upon social sciences and humanities. Our innermost problem is man's inability to live with men. It is precisely because technology has outstripped the social sciences that the problem exists." There is indeed a heavy responsibility which rests upon the shoulders of the social science teachers; yet glaring weaknesses are obvious in this area. One study indicates that, "the general apathy of young people toward public problems, low interest in Government as a career, and general lack of interest in voting, the lack of understanding of peoples of other lands and cultures may be cited as ample evidence of poorly organized or poorly taught brand of citizenship as it is offered through the country *** the time has come for a revision on a national scale by the best colleges and school experts we have ***” Another study reports that, "the preparation of the majority of social science teachers for developing student understanding of rights and responsibilities and in the training of students in analytical and reflective skills is grossly inadequate." The public in general seems to exhibit a lack of understanding and consideration of the basic ideals upon which our Government was founded. This has been shown many ways, but perhaps most dramatically in the relative ease with which so many of our soldiers in Korea succumbed to subversive persuasion. What are the reasons for these weaknesses and what can be done? For a teacher to be prepared in all fields of social science is a virtual impossibility. Even to be well prepared in one field requires more hours of college or university training than many teachers can afford. Again, even with a thorough grounding in his field, it is extremely difficult for a teacher to maintain a high degree of knowledge and understanding in this rapidly changing world. It is because of this that a few enlightened communities have provided sabbatical leave funds, when they can afford it. Even in such communities, however, the funds seldom suffice. Grants for social studies teachers in the secondary schools are pitifully few. How can teachers who have been out of school themselves for a long time, who find it necessary to supplement school salaries with one or two evening or summer jobs, expect or be expected to attend regular or summer institutes for new methods of teaching and information? They cannot, and outside assistance is urgently needed. Curriculum changes are also overdue in the social science field. A teacher may be called upon to teach a course that was never offered in college. Obviously inservice training is an answer. Compounding these problems is also the lack of attention that has been given to school facilities and materials-overcrowded classrooms, inadequate texts and audio-visual aids are too often the case. Can we honestly say that each individual is being given equal preparation and opportunity so that he will be able to accept and handle the responsibilities of an American citizen? We, as social science teachers are eager to attack the problems within our field but we cannot do it alone. Up until now, social science teachers have not received help directly from the Federal Government except through the research program of the Cooperative Research Act nor do we feel that all communities can handle these problems adequately. To quote an able statesman, “* * * the education of our use in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important, and what duty more pressing on its legislature, than to patronize a plan for communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of our country?" So spoke George Washington. Respectfully submitted. DAVID A. TURNER, President. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS, Hon. ADAM CLAYTON POWELL, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, DEAR MR. POWELL: You will perhaps recall that on several occasions in the past I have written to you on behalf of this association and of its member schools urging that favorable consideration be given to amendments to certain features of the National Defense Education Act which have a particular bearing on independent schools and their teachers. I write now with respect to House bill 3000. Representing, as we do, only one segment of education, elementary and secondary independent schools, we can speak specifically only about those provisions of the bill which are directly applicable to these schools and their teachers. At the same time, we realize, of course, that all levels and kinds of education are in need of improvement and support and we are in favor of the comprehensive approach now being taken to strengthen education through H.R. 3000. We note with real approval the sections of H.R. 3000 which include teachers in nonpublic secondary and elementary schools in the loan forgiveness feature of the bill (title 1, sec. 105) and in the provisions for stipends for attendance at the summer institutes (title III, secs. 301-304). This association has through formal vote of its board of directors repeatedly expressed the view that the original provisions of the NDEA discriminated against these teachers and prevented them from participation in important and worthwhile programs, and we are grateful that the discrimination has been removed in H.R. 3000. Recognizing that the bill may be subject to considerable amendment as a result of the committee's consideration of it, we earnestly hope that these provisions will not be revised in any way which would alter the equal treatment afforded in the bill as it now stands. |