« PreviousContinue »
Mr. BREIT. Well, under the present title I program, we have used no money for school construction. It has all been for mostly personnel, and we could use twice the amount that we are getting.
Chairman PERKINs. If you had another billion dollars, in addition to the funds now available under title I of ESEA, how would you recommend to the Con that the extra million dollars from the Federal level be expended?
Mr. BREIT. Well, I think the first emphasis and concentration should be on program, and then insofar as you need facilities to—
Chairman PERKINs. I did not get the first part of the answer.
Mr. BREIT. I would say the emphasis on the use of funds should be on the program for the children, and then if you need facilities to augment that program, to implement it, there should be this privilege and opportunity to use some of the money in that direction, but I think the focal points should be on programs and services to children, as your first use of the funds.
Chairman PERKINs. Go ahead.
Mr. HAzLETT. Well, most of our schools for the disadvantaged are also among our more crowded schools. It would be desirable if we could have funds to be replace outworn buildings, and also provide more classrooms to reduce the class size in the area being served.
However, I would consider that secondary to program development.
Chairman PERKINs. Yes.
Mr. STAPLETON. My reaction to this would be that p development obviously comes first. However, I am made mindful of the fact that we cannot separate a quality program or qualitative program from the various components that make up a quality program, which would be personnel.
airman PERKINs. I am sorry. Restate that.
Mr. STAPLETON. I was just stating that I personally feel that obviously one would make program the priority, but I find it hard to distinguish between program development or a quality program and the various components or ingredients that go into making that program, starting with, of course, quality teaching or quality personnel, quality material support, quality conditions of work, quality facilities.
I am made aware of the fact, also, however, that there is a subtle area, and as a curriculum and instructions person charged with that specific job, I feel that we need program money which would get at methodology, and this type of thing, as opposed to buildings, but I would not make it an either/or situation.
Chairman PERKINs. I think I will recess. I know some of you want to leave pretty soon, and the other members, it would appear, have had the opportunity, and we have an important bill on the floor this afternoon, and perhaps they will not be back, but let me thank all of you for coming here today, and helping the committee.
Your testimony has been most helpful. And certainly, it has gone a long ways, in my judgment, to pointing up the need for the Teacher Corps. And the city superintendents, by and large, have endorsed the Teacher Corps. This did not occur 2 years ago. Of course, there are some amendments to it, in the proposal this year.
It makes me feel that our hearings have been very constructive. Not only that, but the operation of the Elementary-Secondary Act in general. You people, you educators, have come before use with illustrations, and have evaluated the different titles, which to my way of thinking will go a long ways relieving the Congress of much criticism, because many programs have been criticized that evidence shows are operating very effectively in the country today.
I want to thank you all for coming. Thank you very much.
Mr. BREIT. †. you.
Chairman PERKINs. I hope that it will not be the last time. I know some of you have been before the committee before, and I hope you will continue to help us in the future.
Mr. JoHNson. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m., the committee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.)
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION
AMENDMENTS OF 1967
FRIDAY, MARCH 10, 1967
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Perkins, Green, Dent, Brademas, Erlenborn, Scherle, Dellenback, Esch, and Steiger.
Staff members present: Robert E. McCord, senior specialist; H. D. Reed, Jr., general counsel; William D. Gaul, associate general counsel; Benjamin F. Reeves, editor; and Louise M. Dargans, research assistant.
Chairman PERKINS. The committee will be in order.
A quorum is present. This morning I will ask the members to refrain from questions until all the witnesses have made their statements.
First I will call on Sister Miriam J. Farrell, supervisor, archdiocesan schools, Gilroy, Calif. STATEMENT OF SISTER MIRIAM J. FARRELL, SUPERVISOR,
ARCHDIOCESAN SCHOOLS, GILROY, CALIF. Chairman PERKINS. You may proceed with your statement at this time, Sister.
Sister FARRELL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me identify myself. I am Sister Miriam Joseph Farrell, a member of the Sisters of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose headquarters are in San Francisco, Calif. I have been supervisor of elementary schools in the archdiocese of San Francisco, Calif. Currently I am supervisor principal in Gilroy, Calif., and member of a commission, set up by my religious community for the study of our role in education.
I have been involved with ESEA-Public Law 89-10-as a member of the Advisory Committee on Supplementary Educational Centers and Service-title III-established pursuant to section 306 of Public Law 89-10 and I have participated with my public school counterparts in Gilroy, Calif.-a rural area south of San Francisco in implementing both title I and title II.
As a member of the title III advisory committee, may I take this opportunity to present the following observations:
Because of staff and budget limitations, the division of plans and supplementary centers has not been able to achieve a satisfactory response to the request of the advisory committee relative to site visitations to determine reliability and validity of project requests, and postapproval visits to determine the effectiveness of the project. That the State role in title III continue to be that of advisory to the U.S. Commissioner of Education. The need for support and development of education centers, each serving its own region and forming one link in a nationwide network of centers. It is a distinct pleasure for me to appear before you this morning to discuss and support the administration's legislative proposals as embodied in the $o, and Secondary j Act Amendments of 1967, H.R. 6230. Before I enter into that discussion and express that support, however, I should like to commend this committee for its very positive contribution to the entire spectrum of American education as evidenced in the historic Public Law 89–10. Further, I want to assure you that from my experience what you envisioned is being fulfilled—not perfectly, but in significant strides. It was to be expected that legislation as revolutionary and of such magnitude as ESEA would meet with problems. However, if the spirit that initiated it prevails, it cannot but be an effective vehicle in improving all of American education. One factor in the successful implementation of ESEA is the staff of the U.S. Office of Education. The people I have had the privilege to work with in that Office have been both highly competent and genuinely professional. Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to address myself to H.R. 6230, a bill to strengthen and improve programs of assistance for elementary and secondary education. In general, on the basis of experience, the proposals it embodies reflect a necessary evolution of Public Law 89–10 in the pursuance of both quality education and educational opportunities. I would strongly support the extension and expansion of the National Teacher Corps program for the following reasons: The unprecedented shortage of teachers, especially in urban slums and depressed rural areas, is a matter of record. We need trained, creative, committed teachers to work with the disadvantaged. The concept of teacher-intern is realistic. Our present culture is such that this type of dedication can be made attractive to young people who impound a vast reservoir of talent and willingness to serve. My current experience in a migratory area applauds your extension of this program to migrant groups. This would not only benefit the children of migratory workers. It would enable the local school system—in this instance, the Gilroy Unified District—to improve its stability and its effectiveness in the education of the children of the permanent community. I would likewise support the amending of title W (ESEA) to include statewide educational planning. §. education and the needs of children necessitate rational and complete planning.
The coordination this implies would, hopefully, improve present programs and develop new ones. Planning is one aspect of education that is best carried out within a State-local relationship. The Federal Government is hereby fulfilling its role by assisting all educational agencies in developing comprehensive systems of both planning and evaluation.
I have highlighted specifically the National Teacher Corps and comprehensive planning. I would like to, generally, support H.R. 6230's proposals regarding innovation in vocational education and expanded educational opportunities for handicapped children.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have kept this testimony relatively concise and to points within my competence. I stand ready to attempt to answer any questions you might want to put to me.
Let me assure you of my vital and compelling interest in our Nation's education needs, and of my awareness that congressional action is needed to keep American education moving forward.
Thank you, gentlemen, for this opportunity:
Chairman PERKINS. Thank you very much, Sister Farrell, for an excellent statement. We will refrain from asking questions until we hear from all the witnesses in order to conserve time.
Our next witness is Dr. Andrew P. Torrence, dean of academic affairs, Tuskegee Institute, Tuskegee, Ala. STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW P. TORRENCE, DEAN OF ACADEMIC
AFFAIRS, TUSKEGEE INSTITUTE, TUSKEGEE, ALA. Mr. TORRENCE. Mr. Chairman, members of the House Education and Labor Committee, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, whose underlying purpose is to strengthen and improve the Nation's schools at the precollege level, is one of the most significant pieces of education legislation ever passed by the Congress of the United States.
The need for this legislation is patently obvious, and the best efforts of all Americans are required if its necessary and wide-ranging programs are to succeed.
Most important to supplying the adequately trained manpower which our Nation needs for an ever-changing and complex society is the further strengthening of the foundation of education at the elementary and secondary levels.
In a 4-year study of some 10,000 high school graduates, Leland Medsker and James Trent of the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education found that nearly 40 percent of the students clearly possessing college ability—upper two-fifths of their high school graduating classes did not enter college.
Their study raises this point: While we continue to expand the opportunities for higher education, what can we do to devote further attention to an exploration of the question of the motivation of young people who might now go to college but who chose, for a variety of reasons, not to?
Obviously, one of the answers lies in better teaching and counselingand of students in the precollege years and the provision of the breadth