Child Development and you could have a National Foundation for Career Education, or a Foundation for Elementary and Secondary Education at least logically.

I am not talking about the physical problem, that is another problem and a serious problem, but at least logically, given your analysis I think it would be appropriate to have all these foundations.

Dr. MARLAND. I understand your question, it is a very searching question and one I respect. My answer can be quite brief. You ask why not a national foundation for any components of education as we now are constructing it. Our reasoning is this. Historically throughout the United States, there has been a relatively coherent system for education at the elementary and secondary level. It is a sharply defined and politically, economically, and geographically established system. It is in place. Some parts are good, some parts not so good, but it is there. You have now, in NIE, an instrument for reaching that through developmental work. You have the resources of the Office of Education to reach it; it's there and in place and it is reasonably simple and understandable.

On the other hand, at the higher education level we have nothing remotely approaching the system now in place for elementary and secondary education. You have none of the political framework, you have none of the economic framework, you have none of the geographic framework, you have none of the historic arrangements that have established and held these institutions over time. We have a wide variety of higher education institutions, approaching quite different goals, operating under quite different philosophies, dealing with quite different patrons and quite different resources, ranging all the way from very exclusive and high-cost institutions, privately endowed, to the other extreme with which you are well familiar.

I would say higher education has no network. It has 23 different associations engaging the higher education community, all of whom at the moment either are competing with each other or collaborating hesitantly, if at all, and engaged in different pursuits in a different time frame and in widely different goals and objectives. Now I would say therefore that creation of a Foundation for Higher Education, exclusively aimed at higher education would for the first time provide a centrally established resource to bring the many parts of higher education together in common.

It would give higher education a centralness, a resource on which it can draw so it can reform itself and respond to the needs of this Nation over the next 10 or 20 years. To establish a counterpart for, say career education, et cetera, would be unnecessary because a system is now there and the heart of it lies in elementary and secondary schools already established and understood.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Let me make two comments on that. First of all I urge you to read the new Newman report which I have read with great benefit. One of the central thrusts of the Newman report is the growing homogenization of American higher education. So Newman makes precisely the opposite point from the one which you have just sought to make in responding to my question, for you said that one reason we need a Foundation for Higher Education is that, unlike elementary and secondary education, higher education is so diverse, so plural. Dr. MARLAND. Which I encourage.

65-510-71- -10

Mr. BRADEMAS. I do as well, but the whole point of the Newman report is that we are moving in precisely the opposite direction, that is, away from diversity in higher education and toward uniformity. Second, I realize that there are different associations and organizations speaking for higher education, but, as you know as well as I, there are a lot of different organizations and associations representing elementary and secondary education, too. So, I don't quite understand your citing historical origins or present diversity as a rationale for your proposed National Foundation for Higher Education.

William N. Cannon, vice president of the University of Chicago, and I discussed this question last week when Frank Newman told us about his report. Mr. Cannon gave me exactly the answer you gave. I said, Bill Cannon, are you seriously telling me that the only reason that we ought to stimulate change in higher education, as distinguished from seeking to stimulate change in elementary and secondary education, is that higher education is today characterized by diversity while elementary and secondary education is not?

Mr. Cannon also went on to argue in effect, even as you do today, that because something is already in place, in this case-in your view and his-elementary and secondary education, it ought not to be changed or, in any event, was not the appropriate target for change. That higher education is all of this argument was by way of trying to explain why we should have a Foundation for Higher Education but not for elementary-secondary education I find the reasoning very faulty. Dr. MARLAND. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief comment on this? I think the element of consistency between these points is in the heterogeniety of higher education, but at the same time a tendency the Newman report pointed out, to gravitate toward certain common denominators. There is a need for a single entity that can relate to the whole of higher education for the purpose of encouraging the reverse of that process and of supporting new modes and new institutions.

It is the creation of a place to which one can come, people who want to innovate and reform can come and if they have a well conceived project get help to put it into effect. So it is a pragmatic conclusion, essentially, that the history of higher education gives you a different existing pattern which requires a different source of support for the people in it who want change.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I won't trouble you longer on this question. I simply observe that the answer you have given me in justifying the foundation in one area-higher education-as against a foundation in the other. I think you will find in rereading the record, is to cite both the historical fact and the present situation that there is a great heterogeneity in higher education which does not exist in elementary and secondary education.

I simply think there is another point of view that. I may say respectfully, says that this description may not be altogether accurate just looking at the facts. You are one of the great school superintendents in the country, Dr. Marland, and what you did in Pittsburgh, for instance, in giving leadership to help make it possible for public and parochial schools to live side by side and in common cooperation is not what you find in every big school system in this country.

Dr. MARLAND. That is where technical assistance and leadership come in. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. That is not my point at all, as I am sure you appreciate. You have justified a case for a National Foundation for Higher Education but not one for elementary and secondary, for instance, not on the grounds that reform is more pressing and urgent in higher education that it is in elementary and secondary but, rather on a recitation of the proposition that the existing higher education system is more diverse than is our elementary and secondary education system.

Now this is a big country, and there are all kinds of elementary and secondary schools in it as well as all kinds of colleges and universities. So I would hope you could come up with a much stronger argument for your case than this one.

Dr. MARLAND. I may not have made the argument well but I think I failed to emphasize that you have 50 centers for reform, if you will, hopefully for research and development.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would hope not.

Dr. MARLAND. This is the fact as it is, Mr. Chairman, the Constitution as you well know establishes the State as the responsible agency of political government for the control of the schools. Our effort for elementary and secondary education, which is a charge to the States, is through the States, as distinct from higher education. Each State has its own research and development headquarters, each State has its own network to its school systems. The universities have nothing of that kind, in fact they find ways (and quite properly) to continuously differ. In the elementary and secondary schools you have 50 centers for R. & D. in charge of reform and

Mr. BRADEMAS. Smile when you say that, Dr. Marland.

year

1971

You don't really expect me to take seriously the proposition that each of the 50 States in the United States of America in the has its own center of research and development in education? Dr. MARLAND. Modest though it may be, Mr. Chairman, and widely variable indeed. I would have to say that a few States have superb centers for R. & D. Some have extremely weak centers but nonetheless they are there and they are real and we have to deal with them. NIE would use this very vehicle, as the Secretary has stated, for delivering through these systems the product from a higher level of R. & D., if you will, into the classrooms. There is no such network, no such vehicle, no such delivery system for higher education, and we propose to create one.

Secretary RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, along this line you can look at it in the context of the ways through which the Federal Government supports education.

Take, for example, the proposal we are now in the process of drafting for education special revenue sharing that would take a lot of existing categorical grants programs and reduce them to five major headings. The assumption here is that we are dealing with this developed governmental system for the provision of elementary and secondary education that the Commissioner has referred to, so that you can, therefore, divide the money into big chunks and rely primarily on this system to use the money.

We are groping still with how best to design a Federal role for the institutional support of higher education. But in the meanwhile, lacking this structure through which Federal funds can for the most part

be disseminated, be distributed, we think that we ought to create a vehicle to distribute money on an institutional-by-institutional basis where the institution itself is interested in bringing about change. So it seems to me you can't look at this distinction in terms of what has developed in fact in the way of distributing support that the Federal Government can use.

It exists to a far greater extent than elementary and secondary education because this has largely been a public responsibility for 150 years. Whereas, in the case of higher education, while it has become increasingly a public responsibility in the last decade or two, we still do not have this institutional matrix through which to distribute Federal support.

I think this is another way of maknig the same point. We will be returning to it, of course, in hearings on the foundation.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Yes; gentlemen, I thank all of you very much indeed. If I have been somewhat aggressive in my questions, I hope you will appreciate it is really a better understanding.

The Chair would like to announce that on Friday of this week we shall be at Princeton University visiting, in connection with this legislation, the Educational Testing Service, and that on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, we shall be in New York City meeting Mayor Lindsay and Chancellor Scribner and Frank Keppel and Harold Howe II, Robert Dentler and other educational authorities. We hope to pursue with these gentlemen some of the questions we have been pursuing with you and we are very grateful indeed to you for having come today and for having been so generous with your time and your views.

Secretary RICHARDSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity.

(Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the Select Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Education and Labor, adjourned subject to call of the Chair.)

TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 1971

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SELECT SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

New York, N.Y.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, at the Center for Urban Education, 105 Madison Avenue, New York City, N.Y., Hon. John Brademas (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Brademas, Scheuer, and Hansen.

Staff members present: Jack G. Duncan, subcommittee counsel; David Lloyd-Jones, staff; Martin LaVor, minority legislative associate; Christina Orth, assistant clerk.

Mr. BRADEMAS. The meeting will come to order.

We are very pleased to accept the gracious hospitality of our friends here in New York, and in particular, of Dr. Dentler and the Center for Urban Education.

We are meeting here in New York City today for the further consideration of the bills H.R. 33 and H.R. 3606, to establish a National Institute of Education.

The Chair might just make, for the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the purpose of this legislation, a short opening

comment.

On the 3d of March 1970, President Nixon, in his message on educational reform, proposed the establishment of a National Institute of Education in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which would serve as a focal point for research, demonstration, and innovation at every level of American education.

This proposal of the President represents, the Chair believes, one of the most promising enterprises in American education to come from an American President in some time.

The Chairman makes that observation as a Democrat-and adds that he joined a number of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to introduce the bill to establish this Institute.

The administration, a year, or more, commissioned Dr. Roger Levien, of the Rand Corp., to make a study of the structure and purposes of the proposed NIE.

The study is about ready to appear in final form, and on Tuesday next in Washington, the subcommittee will be hearing from Dr. Løvien. In the meantime, our subcommittee has been hearing, both in Washington and elsewhere in the country, the views of leading authorities on education.

We are very pleased today to hear from three, not only nationally but internationally known, experts in American education.