professional student a solid foundation for undertaking professional training.

Some have asked the question: "Why cannot the community college be started, and later expanded into a 4-year college?" The answer, clearly, is that the missions are different, and that, therefore, the standards are different. They cannot be combined without sacrificing the specific objectives peculiar to each.

It may well be that the scarcity of suitable sites in the District of Columbia will require that the two institutions be located physically on neighboring campuses. Indeed, this might permit efficient sharing of certain facilities and staff required by each school. The campuses, administrations, purposes and functions of each institution should remain essentially separate, however, in order to preserve the quite different character of each.

EDUCATION AND THE WAR ON POVERTY

The District of Columbia is now embarked on an antipoverty program designed to overcome the longstanding deprivations of a substantial number of its citizens. We believe that these important programs will inevitably fall short of their goals unless post high school and college education is made readily available to all who can profit.

What is often described as a lack of motivation among low-income families and individuals may often be explained by their rational skepticism about the reality of their access to the doors of opportunity. The hope engendered by the new programs in economic opportunity can be easily dashed if the door to higher education is not really open.

PROVISIONS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE

In the creation of the new system of higher education for the District of Columbia, the Commission on Human Resources wishes to emphasize certain provisions we deem of special importance.

An independent Board of Higher Education for Washington is essential to plan and supervise all new institutions of higher education, and to assume responsibility for the transfer of District of Columbia Teachers' College to a full-scale liberal arts college.

The new Board of Higher Education should be charged with the responsibility for consulting with business, Government, industry and labor in order to keep course offerings up to date and relevant to the needs of the community for educated personnel.

This is a point I think has not been particularly mentioned that we deem important. In the new college in northern Virginia, there are many advisory committees advising on curriculums. We would like to see this Board really charged with this responsibility.

This was emphasized to the Commission in our work with the skilled survey, when we went into the scarcities in the various technical and professional fields. The Board of Trade and other business groups realized this too as we analyzed and thought about the results of that scale survey which now, incidentally, is about to be updated. It was published in 1963. Work is underway now to update it. We believe tuition should be free, and fees minimal for District residents attending any publicly supported institutions of higher education.

I might say I have kept in touch with the College Board Scholarship Service in New York City which is the board that awards the scholarships to the students who score well in the college board examinations and this year they are figuring in round numbers a thousand dollars for the cost of the commuting student in addition to the tuition. That is for food, clothing, shelter, books (which are very expensive), and transportation which is very expensive. So that in round figures is a thousand dollars. Someone has to bear that. Even with the work-study program with loans and scholarships there will be many who will find it hard to cover even the commuting cost.

There is in the Nation's Capital City today a widely shared and deepening desire to make evident and real in daily living our dedication to the most vital and penetrating principles of a democratic society. The fulfillment of such high principles must rest upon an educated and productive citizenry.

For these reasons, we recommend that two publicly supported institutions of higher learning be created with the utmost feasible dispatch: A 2-year community college open to all high school graduates and others who can qualify for particular courses of study, with a strong component of technical education; and

A 4-year college of liberal arts and sciences open to all young people and adults who meet reasonable admission standards and offering as broad a range of courses as those found in any high-quality liberal arts college in the United States.

We concur in the findings of the President's Commission on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, and would add that our own studies and deliberation over the past 6 years have led us to feel the urgency of fulfilling the recommendations we have set forth in this

position paper.

National concern for well-educated and skilled workers has been steadily rising in recent years, both for the large numbers of recent high school graduates and for those individuals who want and need to learn new skills, or to increase their level of attainment. The Commission on Human Resources believes that the urgency of providing publicly supported higher education for the citizens of the District of Columbia cannot be too heavily underscored.

The District of Columbia is asking only for the right enjoyed by every State of the Union-the right to offer, largely from its own resources, public higher education to its residents.

I am sorry Mr. Lebowitz could not be here. He happens to be a member of the board of the new college in the Virgin Islands. In that capacity, going down there frequently he has kept in touch withand he often uses the term-development of human resources.

It is a thrilling story, what is happening there in that new college. With a population of about 40,000 in the Virgin Islands, 1,000 persons, many of them adults, are benefiting from that college through one course or more or through a full college schedule. And Mr. Lebowitz had hoped to add that from his own experience.

Also he is a businessman, looking at this from a businessman's point of view, and I am sure he would have added more from the standpoint of the economic outlook.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Mrs. Stone, I want to thank you and Mr. Lebowitz,

but I hope you will express to each member of the Commission on Human Resources my appreciation for this very helpful statement.

I am not prepared nor ready now to express disagreement with any of your recommendations. I do think I ought to make this observation. From the standpoint of my responsibility of carrying a bill through the Senate, as well as through the full committee, I think we would have to have a study made to obtain further evidence to support the suggestion that tuition should be free. It is a legislative problem. I think you will run into pretty strong opinion in the Senate that the student recipients of the program should pay something. I do not know what the facts are but I think we should take judicial notice that in our States generally our community colleges and our 4-year colleges require some tuition, far below that of private colleges where a larger amount of cost is to be paid by the student. But there is a psychological factor here too that we have to face up to and that is the feeling on the part of many legislators that young people who are going to be the recipients of the many opportunities that college education will provide them should be expected to make some contribution toward the cost of that education but not a contribution that will close the doors to them.

We have to find that balance. It seems to me that is the arithmetic of the situation. Then, too, there is something to be said I think for the point of view that something of such value should not be obtained for nothing. We worked so hard in the Senate for our student work program, for our student loan program, for our scholarship program that I think we would have a very hard time in the District of Columbia selling a tuition-free program when out through the country our education legislation has provided these financial aids to students.

But at the same time I am not dismissing your recommendation without more argument and data in support of your recommendation, because I am going to have to present it in the markup session of the committee. It is not in your statement.

Mrs. STONE. I think we could supply it.

Senator MORSE. I think it is fair to you to say I don't think there is a chance of getting that written in the bill without any more evidence than we have. I have many reservations of my own on it. I do not want a financial barrier set up that would deny to any young man or woman the opportunity to go to college, to a vocational traning program, or to attend the community college program. I do think, however, that we can work out a reasonable cost figure here that will be within the ability of these students to pay or to borrow and repay.

I have helped many a college student find the loans that could keep them in college. There is something that can be said for that, too. So I am not dismissing your recommendation. I am just raising a caveat on it.

Mrs. STONE. We realize this would be perhaps the most controversial aspect of our presentation. We know there are many public institutions of distinction that are tuition free, although there are some fees. And I think we would be happy to furnish the data on this. I realize it is a point that needs a great deal of consideration. I would also like to observe, Senator Morse, that I am sure you have noticed this is a metropolitan group, trying to look at things from a metropolitan point of view. We hope this is our unique contribu

tion; that although we include citizens from Maryland and Virginia, we are interested in the District of Columbia.

We are all from all three geographic areas and more and more we believe that people should come in to testify looking at the region as a whole.

Senator MORSE. You have some very good precedents, Mrs. Stone. New York City is a good example, where they have a free tuition program in some of their educational institutions.

Mrs. STONE. California.

Senator MORSE. California. You make a case for it. I may be a little too concerned about my job, but I do not want to lose the program over the question of tuition.

Mrs. STONE. Maybe at least it will keep the tuition very reasonable. Senator MORSE. Thank you very much indeed.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Rev. C. Stewart McKenzie, representing Washington City Presbytery of the United Presbyterian Church.

I want you to know I am delighted to have you, Reverend McKenzie. You may proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF REV. C. STEWART MCKENZIE, REPRESENTING WASHINGTON CITY PRESBYTERY OF THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Reverend MCKENZIE. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to make this brief statement. As I waited yesterday, I recalled with some interest the fact that many years ago I sat in a similar position when you were interested, not in a national problem, but in a local school to which our children, yours and mine, went. It was one of the few educational meetings on a PTA level that was stimulating.

Senator MORSE. You helped me sell the pies and cookies at the bake sales.

Reverend MCKENZIE. I remember it with pleasure.

Senator MORSE. We are delighted to have you with us.

Mr. Chairman and the members of the subcommittee, the Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., and in the immediately surrounding districts, is deeply concerned with the proposed establishment of a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

The Presbytery of Washington City-and I might note this is only one of two jurisdictions impinging of the Washington area, the larger of the two-the governing body of our church in this area, representing 71 churches and 40,000 adult members, has twice taken action to indicate its interest in these vital projects for the education of our citizens. On June 8, 1965, by a unanimous vote, the Presbytery asked to be heard by your committee and expressed its support of Senate bill 293—or a closely similar bill.

Again on February 8, 1966, the Presbytery enthusiastically endorsed the action of the Council of Churches in seeking the establishment of publicly supported schools of higher education proposed in the bills before you.

Others, I am sure, will furnish detailed material that will substantially demonstrate the necessity for the institutions. We, as a

church, are concerned with the need for public education which is, first, available, and secondly, within the financial reach of all of our citizens.

We believe that the presently existing private institutions, excellent as they are, cannot provide for all who want and need higher eduaction. These schools can hardly be expected to care for the increasing number of District citizens who cannot possibly meet the ever-rising costs. of private institutions. As a relatively affluent citizen of the District myself, I find these costs an almost overwhelming burden.

The existing Teachers College, despite heroic efforts by its staff, is severely limited by its facilities and by the changing educational situation. I might say in an aside that I feel that this institution deserves a great deal more credit than it gets. A number of people from my church that attended there would never have been able to obtain their education otherwise. Another one went on to be a Fulbright scholar, got her Ph. D. and taught at George Washington University since.

Of even greater concern to us is the imperative need for equipping large numbers of our fellow citizens for our highly technical society, who have been deprived of education by economic, racial, and social handicaps. Such public institutions as have been proposed would go a long way to providing leadership for our people in the District of Columbia, equipping and training men and women for the complicated task of our society and readying those so educated for enjoying some of the fruits of the larger life that many of us now know.

The Presbyterians have a long history of interest in education. They were among the first in colonial days to establish their own primary and secondary schools.

They were early supporters of the movement to public education, willingly surrendering their own institutions to establish public schools. I once served a church which had its own school system and turned it over to the public education system of the county in which it was located, Maryland. They still have many colleges of their own, but they are at the same time ardent supporters of public higher education. They heartily support this proposal to bring to the District of Columbia, the last of the major governmental jurisdictions in our Nation without a publicly supported general college, the proposed community college and 4-year liberal arts college.

Senator MORSE. Reverend McKenzie, I appreciate the statement very much. It is so important that we build up a record in these hearings that shows what I am convinced is a very broad and deep public support in the District of Columbia for the bills, and to bring in through you this group of citizenry I think greatly adds support to our objective. I want to thank you very much.

Reverend MCKENZIE. Thank

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Miss Mattie A. Pinette, president, Washington branch, American Association of University Women; accompanied by Mrs. Alfred Gallucci, chairman, legislative committee, Washington branch, American Association of University Women; and Mrs. Dorothy Shaed Proctor, implementation chairman of education, Antidote to Poverty Committee, Washington branch, American Association of University Women. I am delighted to have you with us.