HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1966

WEDNESDAY, JULY 13, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Senator Wayne Morse (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Morse, Yarborough, Kennedy of New York, Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Javits.

Committee staff members present: Charles Lee, professional staff member; and Roy H. Millenson, minority clerk.

Senator MORSE. The hearing will come to order.

ARGENTINE GUESTS

The subcommittee is honored to have in attendance this morning a group of nine students from Argentina who are on an exchange program sponsored by the U.S. State Department. I want to welcome the students to this hearing.

May I say to counsel for the subcommittee that they have translator equipment which I assure them they can use without in any way disturbing the hearing so that they will understand what the witnesses are saying. I am happy to welcome these students not only to our hearing, but to our country.

Our first witness this morning will be Dr. B. J. Priest, president of the Dallas County Junior College, Dallas, Tex., and president of the American Association of Junior Colleges.

Dr. Priest, we are delighted to have you here. I think you are familiar with the procedure of the subcommittee. You may proceed in your own way, either by reading your statement or summarizing your statement, whichever meets with your preference.

STATEMENT OF BILL J. PRIEST, PRESIDENT, DALLAS COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS, TEX., AND REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES

Mr. PRIEST Thank you, Senator Morse.

I believe in the interest of time that I will not read the whole statement, but will take excerpts from it and then, of course, be available. if there are any questions.

Senator MORSE. The Chair rules that the entire statement will be printed at this point in the record.

Mr. PRIEST. Thank you, sir.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Priest follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL J. PRIEST, PRESIDENT, DALLAS COUNTY JUNIOR COLLEGE DISTRICT, DALLAS, TEX., AND REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES

THE ASSOCIATION'S POSITION ON H.R. 14644 AND S. 3047

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill J. Priest, President of Dallas County Junior College District, Dallas, Texas. I am currently President of the American Association of Junior Colleges and I am here today on behalf of the Association. I am also past President of the California Junior College Association. We appreciate your invitation to appear before this Subcommittee.

The American Association of Junior Colleges strongly supports H.R. 14644. We feel, however, that total funds for academic facilities should be increased as soon as possible. Funds presently available are far below the level of need. Further, these funds tend to go for a relatively few projects at a small number of colleges in each state, through a competitive point system. Many colleges, both four-year and two-year, have received little or no assistance from this program and cannot hope to do so until substantially greater funds are available.

We also believe that Congress should review the present formula under which 22 per cent of available funds go to public junior colleges. At one time this 22 per cent figure was closer to the proportion of all entering freshmen who attend two-year colleges; today, about one-third of all entering students attend two-year colleges, and this figure is rising rapidly. It will soon be over 50 per cent. Junior colleges have become the shock troops of American higher education, bearing an ever-increasing part of the responsibility for educating both young people and adults. We believe that they need additional federal help in working toward the generally accepted American goal-universal educational opportunity beyond the high school for every qualified person, both adolescent and adult.

Let me cite some statistics about the remarkable-almost frightening-growth of the American junior college. There are now about 1,250,000 students enrolled at about 800 junior colleges, of which about 500 are public. The rate of growth is about 200,000 students per year-a growth rate which will mean a doubling to about 2,500,000 junior college students in about five years. In California, with the nation's most developed junior college system, about one 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 6,500,000 junior college students in the United States by 1975. This gives some idea of the explosive growth of the junior college idea.

About 50 new junior colleges are opening each year, and as of June 1966 we have information that about 190 new colleges are in various stages of planning. It appears very likely that there will be about 1,000 junior colleges in 1970, and possibly 1,000 public junior colleges by 1975.

Many states, including some of the largest, are developing junior college systems which are close to providing the first two years of college-level education within commuting distance of almost the entire population.

California now provides junior college education within commuting distance of 90 per cent of its population. Within a few years, it expects to extend this system to the entire state.

Florida now offers junior college education to 80 per cent of its population. This will be increased to 95 per cent or more when the present authorized system of colleges is developed.

Illinois: only four of the 102 Illinois counties are not covered at present by an existing junior college district, or included in proposals for districts. Nineteen institutions are now in various stages of establishment.

New York: 85 per cent of the population resides within commuting distance of a public junior college, and more colleges are being planned. Eight are now in process.

Michigan: There are 24 community junior colleges established, or about to be established. Ten more are in the process of being established.

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