demands as have been responsible for the successful development of the Agricultural Extension Service.

The findings of my study have been supplemented by a questionnaire sent out in October 1947 to all major public institutions and a selected group of private colleges known to have an interest in workers' education. The returns from this questionnaire are presented below.

I would like to call attention to the fact that the returns are incomplete and do not include some of the institutions with the most extensive programs, such as the University of Michigan and the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell.

You will see by reference to these figures that, in the 17 public, 4 private, and 5 Catholic schools which replied there were some 55 students enrolled on a full-time resident basis, some 1,490 students in resident institutes, some 1,522 in week-end institutes and conferences, 171 in summer schools, 3,084 in evening extension classes, with a total of nearly 8,000 students participating in the workers' education program in this group of institutions.

Students enrolled in various types of programs, 1946-47

More significant, perhaps, than the existing enrollment, however, is the report which these institutions gave of the demands they had received which they were unable to meet.

Fourteen institutions, eleven of which had programs and three of which had no programs, reported requests for labor extension services which they were unable to fill. You will find that the list includes the Universities of Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Penn State, Marshall College, the University of Missouri, University of Ohio, Texas A. and M., Universities of Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, Chicago, Yale, and University of Scranton, which is a pretty widely distributed list.

The requests ranged from 1, the University of Missouri, to 23 at the University of Wisconsin, with a large number of workers involved. Requests for labor education services which universities reported they were unable to fill

My study was conducted under the guidance and auspices of an advisory committee composed of distinguished leaders in education and labor.

MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE STUDY OF LABOR EDUCATION IN UNIVERSITIES

E. Wight Bakke, director, Yale Labor and Management Center. Phillips Bradley, director, University of Illinois Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations.

Harry J. Carman, mediator and arbitrator, professor at Columbia.
Eleanor G. Colt, director, American Labor Education Service.
John D. Connors, director, workers' education bureau, AFL.
Nelson H. Cruikshank, director, social-insurance activities, AFL.

Ernestine L. Friedman, National Committee for the Extension of Labor Education.

George T. Guernsey, assistant director of education, CIO.

J. B. S. Hardman, president, American Labor Press Associates; chairman, Inter-Union Institute; editor, Labor and Nation.

Lucile Kohn, board member, American Labor Education Service.
Edward C. Lindeman, New York School of Social Research.

Helen Lockwood, professor, department of English literature, Vassar College. Gladys L. Palmer, professor of economics, University of Pennsylvania.

Leo Perlis, director, National CIO Community Service Committee.

Lois MacDonald, professor of economics, New York University.

Mary M. Raphael, member of special services committee.

Ira De A. Reid, professor of sociology, University of Atlanta, Georgia.
Lawrence Rogin, education director, Textile Workers' Union of America, CIO.
Rexford Schnaitter, board member, Wisconsin University School for Workers.
Paul H. Sheats, economist, University of California.
Margaret E. Smith, member of special services committee,

Hilda W. Smith, chairman, National Committee for the Extension of Labor Education.

Mark Starr, education director, International Ladies Garment Workers, AFL. Willard S. Townsend, president, United Transport Service Employees, CIO. Theresa Wolfson, professor of economics, Brooklyn College.

At the close of the study the members of this committee subscribed to a series of conclusions and recommendations which have very direct bearing on the bill for a Labor Extension Service.

This advisory committee concluded that the growth of university labor education programs was—

a development of importance both to the labor movement and to the universities. This development merits the continued evaluation and cooperation of all persons who are interested in the future of labor and in the effectiveness of education in our society.

The proposed labor extension bill is based upon a recognition of this importance.

The advisory committee concluded that:

Since the task of workers' education is so extensive and complex, experimentation in types of programs should be continued and extended.

The labor extension bill provides scope, both with respect to type of program and content, through the range of activities suggested in section 2 and through the opportunity for each State to work out plans which seem to suit its particular needs and situation.

The advisory committee found that:

It is also clear that since the usual academic standards are not applicable to the informal type of education suitable to workers' education, other standards are needel by which to measure the quality of the work and the qualifications and success of the personnel.

It noted further that:

The need for materials suitable for use in workers' education classes stands out clearly.

The Labor Extension Division in the Department of Labor which the bill would set up to administer the service would serve a very real function in helping to develop standards based on studies of local practice and in the preparation of materials.

I wish to pause on this point because there has been discussion earlier today of standards in terms of control. I see the Labor Extension Division as performing a service function, not as a means of control. Institutions need help in working out standards and materials. The Labor Extension Division will be in a position to render such assitance. This is the function with respect to standards-service, not control.

The limited service provided by the Division of Labor Standards of the Department of Labor has already proved its usefulness in these respects. When I made my study, practically everyone whom I interviewed, in universities and in educational departments of unions, mentioned the grievance procedure manual and the shop stewards' manual prepared by the Division of Labor Standards as examples of the kind of materials that were badly needed and expressed the hope that means might be found for the preparation of similar materials on other subjects.

The advisory committee concluded that:

There is an obvious need for a teacher-training program in the field of workers" education.

There is room for a careful appraisal of techniques developed in the past with a view to their applicability to the conditions of labor today and for further experimentation in methods and techniques.

And:

Experience suggests that in some cases, especially mass-education programs,. education should be taken to the workers, rather than the workers brought to the educational institution.

Labor education experience has established the validity of educational methods which were first adopted out of the necessity of teaching mature and experienced adults who had little or no formal education-frequently of immigrant background-and often with limited ability to read and write, especially in English. In these circumstances, it was necessary to meet students where they were, to use their own experience as teaching material, and to depend on discussion and workshop methods, visual materials, dramatizations, and practical projects. From necessity it has become a matter of accepted educational principle to focus workers' education activity on problems that are real and immediate, to seek to develop the worker's ability to analyze and interpret his own experience and problems through the study and analysis of experiences which are close to him.

Labor education is not remote from the daily life of the individual in the shop and in the community. Rather, it is a means by which. he may learn to function more effectively in these relationships. The fundamental educational principle of meeting people where they are and teaching in terms of experience and around problems which are immediate and real is recognized outside of as well as within the field of workers' education today. It is the basic reason for a workers" education program as such, in order to meet needs in terms of the experience of the group.

The labor extension bill provides that State plans shall include conveniently located centers and shall show evidence of requests. In these two provisions, and in the tenor of the remainder, the principle of meeting people where they are is recognized.

The advisory committee to my study was not unanimous on the question of joint labor-management programs. The majority of the committee members felt that workers have special educational needs and that actual learning situations in classes or workshop projects are likely to be better if workers are not confronted with the superior educational background of management representatives or deflected by conflict with them. Others felt that workers must learn to deal with management, the classroom is a good place to practice, and the presence of both groups in class can create a stimulating situation. On closer analysis it appears that members of the committee were in agreement that union officials, especially upper level officials, with considerable responsibility for dealing with management, were the ones more likely to profit from joint labor-management classes, while rank and file groups were less likely to find joint classes or institutes profitable. This conclusion tallied with my own observation in the course of my study. I noted, however, even at Harvard, where those who were enrolled in the tradeunion fellowship program were from higher union levels than in other programs studied, and where some joint work with management repre

sentatives was conducted at the business school, that the majority of the classes were for the trade-union group alone, and the value of the joint classes was largely dependent on the ability of the labor group to work through problems by itself before and after the joint classes with management.

The overwhelming need, quantitatively, is for labor education as such. This is the need represented by the large numbers of workers mentioned in the study of seven unions cited above-the needs of local officials, shop stewards, committee members, as well as rank-and-file workers.

The labor extension bill, in section 6, recognizes labor-management institutes. In terms of meeting the need, this should represent a very small fragment of the total program.

With respect to the planning and guidance of programs, the advisory committee to my study concluded:

* *

In the matter of program planning and administration, it is clear that labor education under university auspices should be a joint venture of the labor movement and the educational agency. It is not something to be handed out on a take-it-or-leave-it basis by university or other educational body *. At this time no general rule for the forms of labor-university cooperation can be laid down * * *. Whatever the specific form, the complete acceptance and cooperation of workers can be expected only when they have the opportunity to take part in the basic planning of the program.

This principle of joint planning by labor and educational institutions is the principle which is written into the labor extension bill at both the national and the State levels. Final decision, of course, must rest with the educational institution. No college or university worthy of the name can abdicate its ultimate responsibility for its curriculum, or abandon the principles of scientific inquiry and academic freedom. While providing for joint planning, the labor extension bill provides no infringement of the university's ultimate responsibility for and control of its own affairs. As a university teacher I could not support the bill if this were not so.

In reviewing the labor extension bill in the light of my study and experience, and, in the light of the conclusions of the advisory committee for that study, I can only conclude that it provides a program which is well designed to meet a real, important, and recognized need.

In arriving at this conclusion, I have, of course, been thinking as a teacher, taking for granted the value of education. Before concluding, I should perhaps state what seems to me completely obvious. Those who are informed and have understanding can discuss. Those who are uninformed and lack understanding can only shout, pound the table, or threaten. Collective bargaining implies ability to bargain, not merely to engage in a contest of strength. Moreover, labor is called on increasingly to participate in community affairs, on boards of community councils, community chests, school boards, and city councils. In order to function responsibly whether in industrial relations or community affairs, workers must have knowledge and understanding. As Father McGowan of the National Catholic Welfare Conference put it in a statement to the Senate committee in support of the labor extension bill:

Even more important than the workers' right to such a service is the right of the community to the fullest possible training of all its people in the arts of successful social living.