The launching of Russia's first Sputnik in 1957 marked the beginning of the crying towel stage of development in the field of teaching. Neglected during the first years of this new era because of the government's preoccupation with science, English teachers are now demanding an equal part of the government's favors. In its bid for support, the National Council of Teachers of English has attempted to evaluate the current status of English teaching in its recent book, The National Interest and the Teaching of English. One of the book's primary purposes, according to its authors, is to "inform Congress...of the compelling need for an extension of the National Defense Education Act of 1958 to include English and the humanities. Unfortunately, Congress will probably not be moved to such action.

Most Congressmen will be grateful for time-saving summaries and data tables that have made it easier to find the phase that interests them most--financial assistance. However, many of the council's proposals will not appeal to their generosity or tempt them to support extension of the NDEA. Many unpalatable recommendations are aimed at education-conscious foundations which have attitudes different from constituent-conscious Congressmen. This conflict has resulted in contradictions which reveal a fundamental uncertainty among members of the National Council themselves.

The National Interest and the Teaching of English in an attempt to appeal to different groups, has sacrificed coherency, but more important, it has not defined its principles. In the first thirteen pages there are thirty-six recommendations for improvements in the teaching of English (and almost as many reminders of the need for financial assistance). Part two discusses the nature of the national problem that is going to cost so much. Finally, pages and pages of figures, graphs and commentary tell their dismal story of the "status of English teaching today." In short, the report is arranged backwards!

Parts one and two (regardless of the order in which they are read) present a comprehensive and consistent synthesis of the trouble and a feasible approach to its cure. The urgent need is to get more teachers capable of fusing the three elements of English--language, literature and composition--into a structured unity with linguistics as the matrix. The economic waste caused by the present situation (e.g., funds and personnel for remedial English courses in colleges) is of equal interest to government and private interests but for different reasons. Congress hopes that direct aid to colleges to finance better training programs will yield better teaching methods. The foundations would rather pursue programs to test new teaching techniques and revise current curriculum. Most of the National Council of English Teachers' proposals if given adequate private backing by corporations and foundations would by-pass the plodding federal-state-city-school gamut of obstacles to autonomous innovation.

A national institute program for secondary and elementary school teachers acknowledges the fact that quantity will replace quality as long as enrollment continues to increase at the present rate. Summer conclaves and "follow-up seminars" throughout the school year would train top teachers in local school districts as leaders who would be given time off from regular duties to assist fellow teachers in applying new methods of English instruction.

The real drawing card in luring corporations such as General Electric into the problem is the recommendation for more experiments in mechanical school-marming. Television, teaching machines and airplanes (which now broadcast course material to over one million children in four Mid-western states) may be regarded as a way to allow a science major's fellowship to help the less fortunate English major. These mechanical innovations along with new human innovations such as team-teaching offer important steps toward solving the problem.

However, after reading the section on the state of the English problem today it seems that the proposals of the first part were made for some other country. Perhaps this part is best kept the furthest away from any Congressman's sight. In three sub sections there are three notions of a proper unifying concept. Stress is placed successively on language, literature and then composition. There is also a head-in-the-sand-type request for a 1 to 25 student-teacher ratio in teaching composition. After a fine beginning there is this general lack of enthusiasm, focus and the failure to present firm principles and standards.

The Council's efforts may have local effects and jar awake many of the right people. Regional and national institutes will be on the upswing this summer and many colleges are voluntarily raising undergraduate requirements in English. However, this publication is the Council's best attempt to date, to get English teachers their share of large-scale assistance.