Mrs. SHAW. Yes. Mrs. GREEN. I thank you very much, Mrs. Shaw. You have been extremely helpful to our committee. Mrs. SHAW. Thank you very much for hearing me. (Mrs. Shaw's prepared statement follows:) STATEMENT BY DAISY K. SHAW, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATIONAL AND VOCATIONAL GUIDANCE OF NEW YORK CITY AND PAST PRESIDENT OF THE DIRECTORS OF GUIDANCE OF LARGE CITY SCHOOL SYSTEMS OF THE AMERICAN PERSONNEL AND GUIDANCE ASSOCIATION Representative Green, Distinguished Members of the Committee, it is a great privilege for me to testify before you today with regard to Section 805 (Prohibition of Discrimination) of H.R. 16098, the "Omnibus Postsecondary Education Act of 1970." Although women represent a majority of 51% of our population, they suffer from many of the same barriers to economic and social progress as do the minority groups in our society. They are paid less than men for comparable work, are often consigned to menial or routine jobs, are passed over for promotion, have a higher unemployment rate than men, and are grossly under-represented in decisionmaking posts in politics, business and the professions. These facts are all well documented in numerous reports published by the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Women's Bureau and various commissions and task forces. Now, as never before, discrimination against women calls for strong new legislative action as well as vigorous enforcement of existing statutes. However, legislative remedies alone are not enough. What is needed is a thoroughgoing reappraisal of the education and guidance of our youth to determine what factors in our own methods of child-rearing and schooling are contributing to this tragic and senseless underutilization of American women. For, as long as women perceive themselves as inferior, and as long as men cast them in subservient roles, legislation alone, though helpful, will not produce any substantive change in the status of American women. Fifty years after women's suffrage was won in the United States, we find only one woman in the Senate and ten women in the House of Representatives. How do perceptions of sex roles develop? There is an old popular song of the forties that starts: "You have to be taught before it's too late, before you are six or seven or eight . . ." From their earliest years children are introduced to picture books which practically condition them to accept males as the commanding, dominant figures in their lives. In a fascinating article published recently in the Children's Section of the New York Times Book Review, Elizabeth Fisher found that there were five times as many males in the titles of picture books as females and that even animals in books are male for the most part. Furthermore, says Miss Fisher, even when females are depicted their activities are quite limited. "They do not drive cars. Though children see their mothers driving all the time, not a single description or picture of a woman driver could I find. In the world today women are executives, stockbrokers, taxidrivers, steelworkers; in picture books these are non-existent... Though there have been women doctors in this country for over a hundred years, and pediatrics is one of their preferred specialties, there is not a single woman doctor to be found. Women are nurses. librarians, teachers... but the principal is always male...." Let us move from the pre-school years to the kindergarten. Here little girls are still encouraged to "play house" in the homemaking corner, while little boys ar building, fire-fighting, or policing. If one examines the primers used in the first three grades of elementary school, one searches in vain for a woman depicted as a worker (except for the omnipresent teacher and an occasional nurse, waitress, or secretary). Even the most up-to-date basal readers, issued in endless series by the leading publishers, are still presenting Dick and Jane types having endless fun, while Mommy waits innocuously at the garden gate or in the apartment to welcome Daddy home from a hard day at the office. (By contrast, the wicked queens of the old fairy tales at least displayed some executive talent.) It is true that there has been an effort during the past few years on the part of some publishers to update reading material used in the elementary schools. However, these changes have been largely confined to pre senting a more balanced view of ethnic diversity in the urban environment. With a few outstanding exceptions, as in the Bank Street readers, women are still being portrayed in the same old stereotyped roles. Rarely do we find a story about a working mother, although 35.3% of all mothers with children under 18 were in the labor force (as of 1967). Children who read stories depicting idyllic family scenes must feel somewhat deprived if their own Mommies are out working rather than baking a cake at home. Thus. we continue to nurture the "feminine mystique", the image of women developed during the Victorian era, which limited the culturally approved role to that of wife and mother. These subtle concepts, imprinted on children's minds in the early school years, are reinforced during adolescence by the communications media. Girls are constantly reminded of the need to be attractive, so that they can acquire a mate who will provide them with all the material comforts. Labor-saving de vices are advertised as easing the lot of the housewife rather than that of the working woman, or man, for that matter). Plenty of men use laundromats, but you never see one proclaiming that his wash is "brighter than bright". With the constant and prolonged emphasis on the need to please rather than the need to be someone, it is small wonder that many girls choose easier or less time-consuming courses of study than boys and frequently give more attention to the social rather than the intellectual aspects of college life. (There has been some deviation from this trend in the recent past, it should be noted.) Women themselves sometimes help to perpetuate sex-related career stereotypes. For example, note this recent release from a Woman's Program Newsletter: "Attention, all bosses! If you've been looking for a way to express special appreciation to your secretary, here's a suggestion from the State Commerce Department Woman's Program-how about saluting her during Secretaries Week, April 21-26, with the State flower to brighten her desk?" How can it escape even a women executive that the "boss" is "he" and the "Secretary" is "she"? American girls who are now in school will constitute 40% of the future labor force in our economy. Whatever their reasons for working-whether to support themselves or their dependents, to supplement family earnings, to achieve wealth or status, or to seek self-fulfillment-they will need special help from counselors in career-planning. For most girls, work will be supplemental to their major responsibilities of wife and mother during a significant portion of their lives. Their career patterns will include various combinations of work, school, and marriage. Their ability to carry out their dual role successfully will be complicated by two factors: the discontinuity of their attachment to the labor force and the occupational concentration of "women's" jobs. The sex label would seem to be a cultural rather than a biological factor in the labor market. The concentration of women in clerical occupations, teaching, nursing, sales, and service occupations is based on cultural factors and societal expectations rather than on sex-linked characteristics or aptitudes. The broadening career opportunities which should be opened to women place upon counselors a special responsibility to raise the aspirations of girls, to assist them in achieving a satisfactory identity both as women and as workers, and to help replace past occupational stereotypes. Counselors must be continually alert to the changing values of the society for which young people are being prepared. While training for a career continues to play a central role in the education of boys, the importance of career planning for girls is less clearly understood. As the role expectations of American women continue to change in this era of technological progress and automation, counselors are faced with an important question: "Should counseling be different for girls than for boys?" Thirty years ago it would not have been uncommon for a well-meaning teacher to say to a girl: "Your work in physics is excellent, but you may as well be practical. In a few years you'll be married and raising a family. Why go into a field which requires so many years of preparation?" To another he might have said: "Your grades are high enough to get you into a pre-medical course, but you know what chance a girl has of getting into medical school. Besides, it would take you nine or ten years before you would be ready for private practice. Why not go into nursing instead? It's a wonderful profession now, and when you are married, you'll be able to give the best of care to your family." And to a third: "Why don't you take a business course? You'll only be working a few years anyway before you have a home and family." The "self-image" of the individual girl is strongly influenced by society's expectation of her role. Although labor market analysts estimate that nine out of every ten girls in school today become workers at some time in their lives, many girls are still indoctrinated with the idea that work will be an optional, incidental part of their lives, if indeed they will ever work at all. Your action to assure equal opportunity for women through Section 805 of the "Omnibus Postsecondary Education Act of 1970" will encourage the full utilization of our human resources. May I respectfully offer for your consider ation several other recommendations directed toward the same objective: 1. The formation of a commission to study the educational needs of girls with special reference to current practices in pre-school and early childhood education, the adequacy and relevance of the curriculum in the light of expanded opportunities for women, and the provision of guidance and counseling for both girls and boys in elementary and secondary schools. 2. Authorization of grants to establish guidance institutes (on the NDEA model) for the in-service training of school counselors in the special guidance needs of girls. 3. Support for increased appropriations for guidance and counseling so that both girls and boys will receive adequate educational and career guidance from qualified, professionally trained counselors. A few weeks ago, I represented our Association before Senator Magnuson's Appropriations Sub-Committee to request an additional appropriation of $217,500,000 under Title III for guidance and counseling. At the present time, the House figure for guidance is $17,000,000; the Senate figure is $24,500,000. While even the latter figure falls far short of the actual need, it is our fervent hope that your colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee will support the higher figure. There is great interest in the development of innovative programs in education. The greatest innovation of all would be to provide enough counselors to enable us to reach our young people, so that we could help them cope with the multiple problems which they encounter today. The pupil who comes from a disadvantaged environment plagued by discrimination, marginal subsistence, and disruption of normal family relationships, is least prepared to take advantage of cultural and educational opportunities. In a recently completed survey conducted by our Association, we found the following average counselor-pupil ratios: City population: 10,000-250,000 250,000-500,000 500,000-1,000,000 1,000,000 and over.... Average C-P ratio 1-751 1-857 1-815 1-750 The professionally trained counselor is uniquely qualified to work with the individual student, to encourage educational achievement and career development and to maximize human potential. To accomplish this, the counselor must have a realistic caseload. Ten years ago, accepted professional standards called for a Counselor-Pupil ratio of 1 to 250 in the secondary schools. An even lower ratio is required for students with special needs. Today we recognize that girls must be prepared for their dual role as homemakers and as workers. The new life pattern of the modern woman will include school, work and/or marriage, home and a career. The two periods when women are most likely to work are during their early twenties and again starting in their early or mid-forties until the age of retirement. Career exploration and planning for girls has equal importance with career exploration and planning for boys. Girls must be encouraged to select careers which will challenge their abilities and bring them self-fulfillment. At the same time, neither boys nor girls should be restricted to stereotyped choices based on traditional male or female role models. We are not advocating special counselors for girls, but rather are underscoring the need for adequate guidance for girls and boys. The lack of expert counseling can have devasting results for both, but girls are at a special disadvantage because they are so often frozen into stereotyped roles by social expectations. (Boys are also confronted by subtle psychological barriers when they seek to enter fields which are traditionally feminine, e. g., nursing, early childhood edu cation, dancing, secretarial work.) What we seek is an open society, one which offers equal opportunity and freedom of choice to all. If many, or even most, women should eventually select careers as homemakers, nurses or office workers, it should be as a result of personal decisions, reached after careful consideration of all options, not because they feel restricted to "women's jobs." In the same spirit, those girls who opt for business, politics or the professions should meet with no obstacles to self-realization. In summary, we plead for good guidance for all, with special attention to the disadvantaged in our society-both the disadvantaged minorities and the disadvantaged majority our girls. (The following letter was submitted for the record.) Representative EDITH GREEN, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Special Subcommittee on Education, Washington, D.C. DEAR MRS. GREEN: This is in response to an inquiry about the counselorpupil ratio in our public schools, which was transmitted to me through the office of your counsel, Mr. Harry Hogan. In speaking before your Committee, I alluded to the fact that the counselor-pupil ratio in special Title I programs, such as College Bound, College Discovery and Development and similar programs, was excellent, averaging one counselor to 100 pupils, whereas the counselor-pupil ratio for the general population of high school students was totally inadequate. Following are the statistics showing the ratio of full-time guidance counselors to pupils in Title I programs as compared with the regular programs in the New York City high schools: The Title I programs referred to above have been cited as "exemplary." Indeed, they have produced the most encouraging results. For example, in the College Discovery and Development program, which provided one counselor to every 100 students as well as other educational services, 95% of the class graduating in June 1968 and 93% of the class graduating in June 1969 were admitted to degree-granting institutions. These disadvantaged students, most of whom would have become high school dropouts without this special help, were able to overcome their academic lacks because of the individual attention which they received in this program. The problem is that special programs of this type reach only about 5% of our high school population, the remaining 95% among whom a majority need the same kind of help, do not have access to the services of full-time, professionally trained counselors. Let me cite an example in a typical high school with such a program. In Brandeis High School which has a population of 5,264, there are three counselors serving 300 pupils in the College Bound program, while the remainder of the school population, 4,964 students are served by only three other counselors, in a ratio of 1 to 1,600. The fact is, however, that the 4,900 students are just as disadvantaged as the 300 in the special program and yet do not receive the help they need. Over and over again, we hear the same plea from students: "There is no one whom we can talk to. The counselors do not have enough time for us." The counselor-pupil ratio in our elemenatry and junior high schools varies from about 1 to 850 to 1 to 1,600. In a recent survey completed by the school authorities in Milwaukee, the following data regarding the counselor-pupil ratios for 20 large cities were shown: Except for the affluent suburbs, the lack of guidance and counseling in most of our large cities is woefully apparent. As you know, although guidance and counseling had its origins in the first decade of the century, its real growth took place in the 1950's and 1960's, largely as a result of the impetus provided by "seed money" through NDEA and similar programs. Today, a good many counseling programs are funded under Title I and other Titles, but the "seed money" concept no longer works for the simple reason that cities and municipalities lack the funds to replicate these exemplary programs. What is most urgently needed, if we are to provide every American boy and girl with adequate counseling, is general support for counseling services rather than funds for pilot projects. It has been demonstrated over and over again, in every part of the country, that when intensive counseling services are provided, pupils make dramatic advances. I would therefore urge your support of full funding for guidance and counseling services for all pupils in elementary and secondary schools. We know that you are a staunch friend of the guidance profession and we appreciate your continuing efforts in behalf of educational improvements. Very sincerely yours, DAISY K. SHAW, Director. Mrs. GREEN. I am going to ask the next three witnesses to come to the table at once and present their statements and then give us a chance to direct the same questions to all three: Virginia R. Allan, chairman, the President's Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities; Daisy Fields, president of the Federally Employed Women; and Dr. Victoria Schuck, professor of political science, Mount Holyoke College. Shall we start out with Miss Allan, chairman of the President's Task Force on Women's Rights and Responsibilities? And let us find out how much progress we have made, if we may. STATEMENT OF MISS VIRGINIA R. ALLAN, CHAIRMAN, THE PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Miss ALLAN. Thank you. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of H.R. 16098, section 805, pertaining to discrimination against women. Mrs. GREEN. May I say we are very, very pleased to have you, too. Miss ALLAN. Thank you very much, Mrs. Green. I am strongly in favor of amending title VI to include women under that guarantee iscrimination in all Federal programs and activities; of ex |