STATEMENT OF MISS MATTIE A. PINETTE, PRESIDENT, WASHINGTON BRANCH, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN

Senator MORSE. Are your associates with you?

Miss PINETTE. Unfortunately, they could not come.

The head of our education committee, Miss Evelyn Murray, had to be out of town on official business so I am substituting for her. I want to thank you for the opportunity to express the views of the Washington branch of the American Association of University Women with respect to the bills being considered by your committee.

This is a very short statement because we left the justification for the 2-year community college to other organizations who have appeared before your group and who are to follow.

For nearly 3 years our local branch of the AAUW has studied and discussed the question "What kind of higher education for the District of Columbia? Our conclusion is that the facilities available are inadequate and hence we strongly favor the accredited 4-year liberal arts college and the 2-year community college provided for in the District of Columbia college bills now being considered by your committee.

We wholeheartedly concur in the view that Washington, D.C., is blessed with excellent higher education facilities, as provided by American University, Catholic University, Georgetown, George Washington, and Howard. The fact remains, however that of the 4,154 public high school students graduating in 1965 who had completed college preparatory courses, only 69 graduates entered George Washington University, and 51 entered American University. Howard, with its lower tuition fees because 55 percent of its operating funds comes from the Federal Government, attracted 381. The other Washington colleges draw too small a number of local public high school graduates to consider.

An informal check by our branch with the staff in the counseling service of the local high schools indicates that an additional estimated 500 youth would have attended college in 1965 if a suitable low-cost public college were available.

This does not include an estimate of graduates from local parochial high schools who might also have attended such a college; nor does it take into account the many young Government workers who come here from all parts of the country who might attend a public liberal arts college on a part-time basis.

Figures compiled by the American Council on Education show that the cost of attending our local universities, with the exception of Howard, is more than the national average for 99 private colleges and universities.

To cite but one example of the increase in higher education cost in the District-in 1956 the cost of attending American University, tuition, board and room, was $1,280. Ten years later the cost is $2,350, an increase of nearly 55 percent. Undeniably, the cost of higher education is a very significant factor in keeping qualified college candidates outside our college doors.

The U.S. Office of Education estimates that there will be over 3 million high school graduates in the United States in 1971 as compared with 2,302,000 in 1964, and that nationally there will be a 75-percent

increase in college attendance by 1974. There will be no problem of colleges competing for students. The problem here, as elsewhere in the country will be, Will we have enough facilities to care for all who should go to college? Washington, D.C., should have the facilities to meet the local demand. As stated in the report of the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia

None of the five universities in the District addresses itself primarily to District residents. None of them is in a position to extend any tuition advantages to residents of the District, and each feels itself to have a national, rather than a local mission.

Local colleges serve a national and international student bodythere are nearly 4,000 foreign students in the District-restricting local enrollment to keep a geographical balance.

In considering the need for public higher education facilities for the District of Columbia, the proposal has been made that it would be desirable to finance more scholarships for District of Columbia graduates rather than maintain a college here. Not all youth who should go to college are necessarily scholarship material as has been pointed out by the chairman and many who testified before me. Many of us would not have a college education if we had depended on qualifying for a scholarship. We believe that education today must be given to more than to those who can afford to pay for it.

The need for a broadly based local public college seems clear to us. Young people who are moving from a culture with low educational expectation must have low-cost locally available education in order to meet their level of motivation. They need an easily available education of high standard which will enrich not only their lives but contribute to their greater vocational development and fulfillment. The social and economic benefits of the fully developed potential of these young people are obvious to us, and, we hope, to the Congress.

Senator MORSE. I want to express to the American Association of University Women, Washington branch, the committee's appreciation for the statement. It builds up the evidence as to how broad and how deep the public support is for this legislation. It is very important in getting legislation through the Congress. I want to thank you very much indeed.

Miss PINETTE. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Dr. John D. Holden, past president, Adult Education Association of U.S.A., and present Director of the Graduate School, Department of Agriculture, representing Adult Education Association of Greater Washington.

We are delighted to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN B. HOLDEN, PAST PRESIDENT, ADULT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES, AND PRESENT DIRECTOR OF GRADUATE SCHOOL, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTING ADULT EDUCATION ASSOCIATION OF GREATER WASHINGTON

Dr. HOLDEN. I am John B. Holden, Director of the Graduate School of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am the immediate past president of the Adult Education Association of the United States, and

am here today representing the Adult Education Association of Greater Washington.

Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying that personally and on behalf of the Adult Education Association of Greater Washington, I strongly endorse S. 1612 and its proposal to establish a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

At this time rather than to read the testimony that has been prepared, with your permission, I would like to use a crutch and to express three concepts.

Senator MORSE. The full statement will be inserted in the hearing record at this point and I thank you for it.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN HOLDEN

I am John B. Holden, Director of the Graduate School of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I am the immediate past president of the Adult Education Association of the United States, and am here today representing the Adult Education Association of Greater Washington.

Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, by saying that personally and on behalf of the Adult Education Association of Greater Washington, I strongly endorse S. 1612 and its proposal to establish a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

Other witnesses before this committee have, I believe, made an impressive case for the need for these institutions. It has been been shown that there is no broadly based, publicly supported accredited institution of higher learning in the District. It has been shown that the District's five private colleges are national and international-not local-in their focus, and that excepting Howard University, their tuitions are often prohibitive to the average citizen.

It has been shown that although the District has a larger population than 11 of the 50 States, all of the States maintain broadly based publicly supported institutions. The District has only the District of Columbia Teachers College, which has a limited focus and has limited accreditation. .

This means that thousands of men and women in the District are denied the opportunity to develop useful skills and knowledge to their capacity. It means a tragic and unnecessary waste of their talents. It means a loss in economic productivity. And it means increased social costs.

I speak for S. 1612 as this legislation relates to my own field-adult education. In adult education, our concern is for the following people:

(1) The functionally illiterate adult, some 10 million in the Nation, an estimated 100,000 in the District of Columbia;

(2) Those who do not finish high school, currently about 50 million in the Nation, an estimated 200,000 in the District;

(3) Those who have dropped out or been pushed out of college, now estimated at about half the college enrollees;

(4) Men and women in the above groups and those who want to learn how to be better consumers, better parents, better citizens, better employees; who want to study science, music, art, literature, and public affairs. In short, people, who in one way or another want to improve the quality of their lives, the purpose of all education;

(5) Those in the professions-doctors, lawyers, teachers, accountants, scientists, and others-who must return to their studies to keep abreast of new knowledge.

The numbers of people involved, the dimensions of the task are so large that we cannot envision any one institution serving all of the needs.

The public schools can be strengthened to carry a large share of the responsibility for education of adults who are not functionally illiterate. I would suggest that the high school dropouts can also best be handled by the public schools, though perhaps not exclusively.

The fifth group the professionals-will, where possible, want to return to the universities on a part-time basis for their seminars and refresher courses.

It is in the third and fourth areas of concern-the vocational and technical training, and continuing education for people who want to enrich the quality

60-755 0-66- -11

of their lives-that community colleges are most urgently needed in the District of Columbia.

I use the commonly accepted definition of community college as a locally controlled, public, 2-year institution of higher education which offers broad comprehension programs for persons of posthigh school age, programs in occupational, technical, and semiprofessional training. Such a college is: (1) for students planning to enter a vocation as well as (2) for those who desire the first and second year academic courses in order to transfer to 4-year colleges, and (3) for those adults who wish to continue their education during the day or evening on either a full- or part-time basis.

Let's look at the first area of concern-vocational training and retraining. The District faces shortages of skills for which demand is building up nationwide. An example that immediately comes to mind is the demand for people in the health services and that means not only doctors and dentists and professional nurses, the hospital administrators and others in management—it means people in the supporting services, the practical nurses and nurse's aids, the medical technicians, the officer workers, the maintenance workers, and the orderlies.

Another demand is for skilled people in contract construction who are needed in the rebuilding of the city and its suburbs and who must be trained in work such as blueprint reading and drafting, surveying, and the handling of new tools and materials.

The technicians who will backstop the professionals in the important new tasks associated with the control of environmental pollution, landscaping and ornamental horticulture are still to be trained.

The people who will fill an increasing number of jobs associated with the construction of the new subway and other developments in transportation will need to be trained.

One of the shortages Washington businessmen recognize now is that of people trained to staff our big apartment developments from management jobs to maintenance and well qualified applicants for jobs in hotels, restaurants, and retail firms of all kinds.

A shortage that those of us in education see with special concern is for people in the whole spectrum of services related to teaching at every level of our schools and colleges.

Now the important thing about the community college is that it is the center where training for all of theses occupations can be offered to young people entering into the various fields of work. And it goes beyond that. It can be the center for the continuing retraining which has become an essential part of a highly technological way of life. The growth of knowledge and the inventiveness of our society requires that every worker must be retrained-five or six times, significantly, to make a full contribution to the economy.

Now let's turn to the other area of concern that the community college is particularly well designed to serve continuing education for people who want to enrich the quality of their lives.

For a great many people living in the District of Columbia—and certainly for those who stand to benefit most from this type of program-the courses that will help them cope with the complex life of the city; courses that give them an understanding of democratic government and need to participate in that government; courses in not only the economics of family budgeting but in the economics of municipal government; courses in child care, good family relationships, home maintenance, and community development.

Along with a curriculum that covers the practical side of education related to job development and coping with problems of city life, the community college will offer the whole spectrum of courses that open pathways to knowledge about our civilization and illuminate those pathways. These are courses that will be taken by young people who are on their way to degrees, by older people who may or may not hope for a degree, and by people who enroll for the pleasure of learning.

All of these services in vocational and technical training and in learning for the pleasure of learning would be publicly supported in the community college and made accessible to all people. The college would reflect our knowledge today that this type of investment is the most productive, economically and socially, known to man. It would represent a sensible approach to a tragic and wasteful condition that now prevails in the District of Columbia.

The situation in Washington is an ironic one. A person growing up here, if he reads the papers or listens to the radio, will be continually exhorted to get all the education he can. But the fact is that the low-income population of

Washington does not have the higher educational or continuing educational opportunities which would be available in virtually any other large American city. Thus, their freedom of occupational choice is severely restricted and cultural participation is limited and they can be easily cheated and they are more likely to become delinquent.

Of a group of high school graduates not planning to attend college and tested by the District of Columbia Employment Service, about 25 percent showed potential for further school training. Ten percent showed superior ability. Certainly some of these young people would have chosen to attend a free or lowcost college if one were available. According to the Department of Guidance and Placement Graduation Follow-up Survey, there were 3,508 students graduated from District of Columbia public schools in 1964. A total of 3,387 graduates were located, and among these students, 1,680 (49.6 percent) were found to have continued their education on a full-time basis; 220 (6.5 percent) continued on a part-time basis, and 1,486 (43.9 percent) did not continue their education. Of the 1,680 who continued their education, 75 percent attended 4-year colleges; 4.2 percent attended junior colleges; 1.2 percent were in nurses training; 12.6 percent received special education; 5.5 percent attended District of Columbia day or evening classes; 1.4 percent attended preparatory schools; and 0.1 percent attended out-of-town high schools. Therefore, 61.5 percent attended schools in the Washington metropolitan area and 38 percent attended schools outside of the Washington area.

In this survey, it was also found that 33.2 percent of these 3,387 students reached (or 1,124) were employed-12.2 percent in Government, full time; 16 percent in private industry, full time; 0.6 percent in Government part time; and 4.4 percent in private industry part time. The remaining 362 students were found to be in the military (4.4 percent); neither employed nor in school (5.3 percent); illness, death, or emigration accounted for the final 1 percent. Overall, the employment rate among District males aged 18 to 24 was recently found to be 77 percent, as compared with a national urban average of 80.3 percent-a comparison that looks even worse when we consider the Washington area's generally favorable employment picture. Thus, a pool of unskilled, unemployed young men is building up. But now are our schools preparing us for the future? Not very well. For one example, a recent area skills survey noted that Washington needs 1,530 new engineers each year, that area colleges grant about 540 engineering degrees each year-and many of the recipients are not from the District and do not plan to work here-and that only some 170 area residents enter the engineering force here each year. To a shameful extent Washington area has been forced by a lack of adequate educational facilities to function as an underdeveloped area that must import skilled workers from other, more favored parts of the Nation.

The importance of education has been dramatically stated by economists who have studied the spectacular rise in American per capita from the First World War to the present. This growth is unique in economic history; it cannot be explained in conventional terms. One economist, Theodore W. Schultz, noted that the rate of increase of man-hours worked and of tangible capital, taken together, amounted to only 32 percent of the rate at which the American economy grew from 1919 to 1957 (the last year with data available). What, Dr. Schultz and other economists ask, has given America an unparalleled rate of economic growth-three times as large as the increase of capital and labor?

The answer, economists say, must be explained in terms of "human capital" and "human investment." If workers are better clothed, better housed, better fed, better cared for medically, and better educated-they will be more productive. Washington Economist Philip S. Brown estimates that education is responsible for "40 to 45 percent of the gain in output of goods and services between 1929 and 1957." Education, in short, is the largest single form of investment in people—and in a more prosperous nation.

And, as an adult educator, I must say that the great investments this Nation has made in recent years in the education of the young have not been even nearly matched by efforts to educate older persons. Yet if we do not educate the illiterate and semiliterate parent, we run a strong risk that backward home environments will snuff out the spark of learning that is instilled in the young. The war on poverty's Operation Headstart recognized this when it took steps to involve impoverished parents in its preschool program for the young. To educate the young while ignoring the older is a tragic mistake.

As we contemplate a community college for the District, it may be helpful to