Higher Education Amendments of 1966

Pennsylvania: This state is planning about 30 junior colleges. The first opened at Harrisburg in 1964, and four others in 1965. Twelve more are in various stages of development.

New Jersey: Fourteen junior colleges will open in the near future, four of them this fall. Seventeen of the state's 21 counties have taken some steps to establish such colleges.

These seven states represent about 80,000,000 people, or about 40 per cent of the nation's population. When one adds the many junior colleges being established in most other states-in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, and Washington, to name only a few-it is apparent that junior colleges are rapidly developing a nationwide system offering higher education at relatively low cost to the student. To take one other example, many large cities-the urban and metropolitan areas where so many low income people and members of minority groups are concentrated-are also developing junior college systems, in many cases very recently. Since 1960, public junior colleges have been established for the first time in such cities as the following:

Many educational authorities are now urging the nation to provide universal opportunity through the junior college. This was the position of the Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association two years ago. More recently, the President's special national commission on technology and automation came to the same conclusion, calling for "a nationwide system of free public education through two years beyond the high school," with emphasis on the junior college.

The cost of this rapidly growing educational system is a severe drain upon the resources of state and local governments, already pressed for funds for every other need. Facilities costs, costs for construction and equipment, are especially high, and growing every year. Some states now estimate that it costs at least $3,000 per student for construction and equipment at a junior college; in other states, costs are now $4,000 per student or more. This is in addition to operating costs which today may run from $800 to $1,200 per student per year.

If junior colleges provide for 200,000 additional students per year, and if costs range from $3,000 to $4,000 per student for construction and equipment, the dimensions of the problem are quite clear. Allowing for a certain number of part-time and evening students, it is still reasonable to assume that facilities and equipment for all these new and expanding colleges could cost the nation from $350,000,000 per year to $450,000,000 per year.

The present authorizations in the higher Education Facilities Act amendments, H.R. 14644, call for about $100,000,000 for public junior colleges in the fiscal year 1967, $154,000,000 in 1968, and $198,000,00 in fiscal 1969. These sums, obviously, will meet only a fraction of the need.

The state of California alone estimates that it needs at least $67 million a year for construction for junior colleges, for each of the next ten years. In other words, this state alone could use over half of the funds authorized for the nation in the current fiscal year.

Our Association is very much aware that the four-year colleges and universities also need funds for construction. An increase in the percentage formula for junior colleges should probably be accompanied by an increase in the total funds available for all colleges.

I will touch only briefly on other aspects of this legislation. We assume that the Senate will probably agree with the House in rejecting the proposal to shift most of the NDEA student loan program to private or state financing, the proposal which is still embodied in S. 3047. We feel that the case was very well made in the House that such a shift would cripple very seriously the operation of the whole student loan program. If similar changes are contemplated again in 1967, we hope that they will be very carefully reviewed by the administration and by Congress, with an opportunity for the educational community to present its view before legislation is filed.

We also support the continuation of the Developing Colleges program, though we have misgivings about the decrease in funds authorized to $30,000,000. In

this program as in the Facilities Act, 22 per cent of all funds are set aside for junior colleges. In the first year of operation, total appropriations for all colleges were limited to $5,000,000, although $55,000,000 was authorized. These funds were spread over so many institutions that many received very little. The list of awards indicates that many colleges received only a few thousand dollars, to provide perhaps two or three teaching fellows or for some equally modest purpose. Many developing institutions need much more they need the services of senior, experienced faculty and administrators on loan from other colleges, as well as assistance in upgrading their curricula, teaching methods, laboratories, libraries, and so on. Certainly the proposed $30.000.000 will go farther than $5,000,000-but much remains to be done. We hope that this program will continue to grow, and that its continuation will be authorized for more than one year at a time.

The Higher Education Amendment Act will undoubtedly help American higher education, but our Association believes that Congress should now look further. Specifically, we believe that Congress should look beyond categorical aid programs-federal aid for restricted purposes, such as certain areas of research, special programs in adult education, small sums for developing colleges, and so on.

There are understandable historical reasons why these categorical aid programs developed as they did. However, there have been a number of unfortunate consequences. The fact that funds have been available primarily for special purposes, combined with the limited amounts available, means that many colleges have received relatively little federal help of any kind, except for student aid. In addition to facilties, one of the areas of greatest college need is funds for operating costs-especially for undergraduate instruction, the college's principal reason for being in most cases. Relatively little federal money is available for this purpose.

Categorical aid programs have led some institutions to a distortion of purpose, a neglect of undergraduate instruction because of an emphasis on special programs tailored to federal aid. Further, given the maze of federal regulations and guidelines and the many federal and state officials who must be dealt with, many colleges have not had the staff or expertise to follow federal programs and to prepare applications. This is especially true of many junior colleges and smaller four-year colleges. Thus, to some extent categorical aid programs have been self-defeating-they have not provided the basic support for instruction which strengthens the whole college.

Our Association believes that one answer to this problem is for the federal government to provide general rather than categorical aid to colleges, support for the operating costs of college education, on a per-student basis. We are preparing a proposal for a so-called "Community College Act," which would achieve this purpose on the junior college level, and we hope to present this idea to the appropriate committees of Congress, at a future time.

Mr. PRIEST. My name is Bill Priest. I am past president of the California Junior College Association. I am currently president of the American Association of Junior Colleges, and my bread and butter job is that of president of the Dallas County Junior College District. My appearance here this morning is to support H.R. 14644. We are very enthusiastic about this. However, we have misgivings about one particular point and I will dwell on that, although my paper is broader in its coverage on this particular point.

REVIEW 22 PERCENT JUNIOR COLLEGE FORMULA

We believe that Congress should review the present formula under which 22 percent of available funds go to public junior colleges. At one time this 22-percent figure was probably close to the proportion of all entering freshmen who attend 2-year colleges, but at present we have evidence that not less than one-third of all entering students are attending 2-year colleges and, therefore, we suggest that this 22

percent is no longer a valid figure and that the distribution should be based on the relationship of freshmen in junior colleges and 4-year colleges rather than an obsolete figure.

JUNIOR COLLEGE MOVEMENT

The junior-college movement, of course, is undergoing meteoric growth at this time. There are now about 1,250,000 students enrolled in 800 junior colleges of the Nation, about 500 of which are public. The present growth is proceeding at about 200,000 students per year. This, projected 5 years, would double the number of students in junior colleges in the Nation.

In California, which has at the present time the Nation's most developed junior college system, about 1 person in 34 in the State is a junior college student.

If the country as a whole offered the same opportunities as California, there would be six and a half million junior-college students in the United States by 1975. This, I think, dramatically portrays the explosive growth taking place in the junior college movement. About 50 new junior colleges are opening each year, and as of this time we have information that 190 new colleges are in different stages of development. This, of course, varies based on the legal provisions in the States where the institutions are forming. We believe that with this trend continuing in 1970, there will be no less than 1,000 junior colleges in the Nation, and that by 1975, there will be approximately 1,000 public junior colleges.

The junior colleges are community institutions. They are distributed to give maximum service to the distribution of people.

In the case of California, 90 percent of the people in the State are within commuting distance of a community college.

As you look around the Nation, Florida has approximately 80 percent of its population within commuting distance.

In the case of Illinois, only 4 of the 102 Illinois counties are not covered at present by either an existing junior college or one that is in the process of being formed.

In New York, 85 percent of the population resides within commuting distance. And you go on down the line, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, all States in which the junior colleges are currently flourishing.

And then in other States they are moving to the front very rapidly. I refer to Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, where a whole pattern was created virtually overnight; likewise in Alabama, Texas, currently with 32, will have 40 in another 3 years, Minnesota, Iowa, Oregon, the State of Washington undergoing a major study with expansion in that area.

This, I think, indicates the nature of the community college movement on a nationwide basis.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN CITIES

One other dimension of this which I believe the committee will be interested in is the recent tendency for the community colleges to take hold in the big cities of the Nation. Since 1960, the following cities,

which did not have junior colleges, either have or are in the process of developing junior colleges: Boston, Miami, Minneapolis, Portland, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Fort Worth, Philadelphia, Spokane, St. Louis, Seattle, Cleveland, and Dayton.

We have seen from authoritative sources considerable interest and official announcements regarding the importance to the Nation of providing 2 years of training beyond high school for those young men and women who are capable of profiting by such training. The junior college, we believe, is in an admirable position to supply this very fundamental need to the Nation.

With reference to cost. I would like to make a point or two.

JUNIOR COLLEGE COSTS

At present, depending on the area, building costs, and certain other variables, it costs somewhere between $3,000 and $4,000 per student station to build a junior college. This would, of course, include purchasing the property, building the facility, and equipping it.

EXPENDITURES REQUIRED

Simple mathematics would tell us that with 200,000 additional students per year and a range in price of from $3,000 to $4,000 per student station, that there will be a need for an expenditure between $350 and $450 million per year for the next 5 years.

Now, the allocation made, of course, covers only a small fraction of this, and so we do feel that the allocation is inadequate when you look at the magnitude of the job and the straight economics of solving the problem.

I think, sir, that I will stop at this point, however, as I say, there are additional data which I think generally support what I have said and expand a little beyond it.

(The information requested follows:)

MEMORANDUM FROM DR. BILL J. PRIEST, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

When I testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Education on July 13, you asked that I supply additional information related to your suggestion that the 22 per cent formula for public junior colleges, in the Higher Education Facilities Act, be increased. You also asked for information on the proposed "Community College Act."

COMMUNITY COLLEGE ACT

On the latter proposal, we plan to have a general statement available within a short time. The basic suggestion is for general aid to higher educational institutions on a per-student basis, to help meet the needs of undergraduate instruction. As you are aware, limited federal funds are available for facilities and for other special purposes, but relatively little federal assistance goes for undergraduate instruction either at two-year or four-year colleges. While we have talked in terms of a "Community College Act" as a way to universalize educational opportunity, the proposal need not necessarily be limited in this way; it could include aid to all colleges. I would rather delay further comment until our statement is ready.

THE TWENTY-TWO PERCENT FIGURE

As for the proposal to increase the 22 per cent figure, our estimate of present junior college enrollments as a percentage of all undergraduate enrollments, as of fall 1965, was about 23 to 25 per cent, and rising each year. In some states,

it is much higher. Thus the 22 per cent figure, if justified on that basis, is already outdated. Since construction is for the future, and most college buildings authorized now will not be completed for two years or more, an increase in the percentage now would bring it closer to the actual enrollment figure over the next two to four years. The fact that one-third of entering students now attend twoyear colleges now is another indication of growth patterns over the next few years, as junior colleges continue to expand at a more rapid rate than four-year colleges.

I believe, however, that the case for additional junior college funds should be put primarily in terms of the most effective way to move toward universal educational opportunity. Junior Colleges already provide the nucleus for a nationwide system of postsecondary education, usually at low cost to the student, and within commuting distance of a good part of the population. Their programs in vocational-occupational fields, and in adult education, serve large sectors of the community which are not reached by most four-year colleges and universities. Junior colleges in many states have undertaken MDTA programs, are beginning work in the anti-poverty field, and have shown a special interest in the education of lowincome people, minority group members, and the underprivileged in general.

It is my understanding that Congress originally set aside facilities funds for junior colleges because of a belief that such institutions have a special and highly important part to play in the American educational system. I believe that this special role, and not enrollment statistics alone, should be the basis for Congressional policy. In other words, a sum of say $500,000 for a building at a residential, high-tuition university, while worthwhile in itself, may not do as much good for the nation in terms of educational need and opportunity as the same $500,000 used at a commuting, low-tuition junior college.

The special dependence on most public junior colleges on financial support from already over-burdened local tax resources, and to some extent state tax resources, is another justification for strong federal support.

Please let us know if we can furnish more information on this subject. We appreciate very much your interest in the junior college.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Priest, I appreciate the statement very much. I want to say that I may be guilty of before-the-fact plagiarism for the statement sets out a good many of the arguments that I have been making for the past several years as chairman of this subcommittee in urging greater support for junior colleges.

I have sometimes put it this way, and your statement would seem to indicate that I certainly haven't been engaged in any overstatement, that within 10 years I am satisfied that there will be more students going to so-called junior colleges and community colleges across the land than going to the standard universities and colleges. I think this is an inevitable trend.

Books

Higher Education Amendments of 1966: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on ...