« PreviousContinue »
I see no reason and have no basis for challenging the Committee's facts, reasoning or conclusions. The need could hardly be more real or more self-evident, and I suspect that 10 years from now the Committee's report will appear extremely conservative.
C. The adequacy of existing higher educational resources
The District has remarkable intellectual, human and cultural resources merely by dint of its being the National Capital and 1 of the Nation's 10 largest cities. It also has the five universities mentioned previously and District of Columbia Teachers College. Yet the President's Committee was moved to comment:
"All other American cities of the size and importance of the District-and virtually every European capital-have more extensive programs of graduate, professional and postdoctoral study and research than are available in the Capital of the United States. All our major cities have provisions for the education of teachers greatly superior to those found here. And all of them also have a wider range of opportunities for post high school education, both vocational and general."
Nevertheless, at the undergraduate level the District does appear to be particularly well endowed. The Committee acknowledged this wealth and summarized its irrelevance to the present problem in four brief sentences:
"The District has an impressive array of privately controlled post high school educational institutions. Its resources in this respect are exceeded in scope and diversity by only a few cities in the Nation. For valid reasons, however, 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."
As mentioned previously, even Howard, which with its lower student costs attracted, from 1960 through 1963, 63 percent of all District public school graduates who entered District universities, considers its major mission to be national in scope and more recently international.
How obsolete and inadequate the District's higher education facilities and program are was given emphasis by a recent article in U.S. News & World Report of May 17, 1965, which reported that in 1930 an eighth-grade education perpared a person for 58 percent of the jobs in the United States; it is estimated that by 1970 the equivalent figure will be 6 percent. In 1930, only 10 percent of all jobs required any education or training beyond the high school level; by 1970, 68 percent of all jobs will demand more than a high school education.
In 1913 the 2 buildings of D.C. Teachers College were built-a mile apart-to serve the higher educational needs of the District's 360,000 inhabitants. Fiftytwo years later, the District's population has more than doubled; the educational requirements of the economy are immensely increased; and the District is the Capital City of history's wealthiest and most powerful Nation; yet those two old buildings still stand as its only public facilities for higher education.
The extent to which young people of the District are in fact deprived of equal opportunity for a higher education shows up startlingly in the statistics on expenditures in this field. The District has a larger population than 11 of the 50 States. The following table lists the capital outlays for institutions of higher education in 1963-64 of those 11 States, along with Maryland, Virginia, and the District:
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Governmental Finances in 1963-64." Nor, unhappily, does the District fare any better in a relative listing of the total per capita expenditures on (public) higher education of the individual States. The national average of such expenditures was $28.87 in 1963-64; Massachusetts with its plethora of well-endowed private colleges and universities was the second lowest, with a per capita expenditure of $9.87; 6 States spent over
$50, and the 11 small-population States ranged from Alaska's high of $94.69 to New Hampshire's low of $23.71. The District of Columbia spent $2.26:
Per capita expenditures on higher education, 1963-64
In summary, two main points emerge from any examination of these facts: First, of the 50 States and the District of Columbia only the District fails to offer its young people the opportunity to attend a publicly supported institution offering a liberal education at least through the baccalaureate degree. And, secondly, the District desperately needs a totally new educational setting for the preparation of teachers for its public school system.
D. Effect of the Higher Education Act of 1965
In discussing the educational needs of the District, at least passing consideration must be given to the Higher Education Act of 1965. This legislation has been highly and justly praised as a momentous step forward in the educational history of the United States. It will meet many of the widely felt deficiencies of the country's existing system of higher education.
At the same time, it is self-evident that even this legislation cannot be a cureall for every existing need. Specifically, the act comprises a Federal program directed to educational needs which are broadly evident on a nationwide basis. It was framed to supplement the relatively adequate and rapidly expanding existing systems of higher education in the 50 States across the Nation, and although it included the District of Columbia, it made no attempt to address the District's special deficiencies. Title IV of the act was especially designed to assist needy but worthy students to gain access to those existing systems of education by making available a broad program of loans and scholarships.
The act was not designed to provide the basis for an entire public-private system of education where many of the basic components of such a system were missing, as in the District of Columbia. While it will make it possible for an exceptional few of the graduates of the District of Columbia public high schools to continue their education where this would otherwise have been impossible, it leaves a serious void in the educational opportunities available to the great majority of these graduates. Few of the District of Columbia students who most need assistance can afford to go away to school, and the local universities have neither the facilities, nor the inclination to satisfy this local need. As described previously, they are increasingly emphasizing a program of geographical diversification in their selection of students for admission, and their existing and planned capacities will be fully taxed in serving their national and international commitments.
IV. IS THIS A PROPER ISSUE FOR THE COUNCIL OF CHURCHES?
In etermining whether this issue is one on which it is proper for the Council of Churches of Greater Washington to take a position, it is perhaps adequate to rephrase the question in the light of the previous discussion: Is it morally defensible to deny the youth of the District of Columbia equal access to higher educational opportunities, when such opportunities are available to the youth of every State in the Union?
In his special message on education in 1962, President John F. Kennedy defined education as "both the foundation and the unifying force of our democratic way of life *** the mainspring of our economic and social progress" and added, "It is the highest expression of achievement in our society, ennobling and enriching human life." In a society where inadequate educational opportunity can increasingly deny to the underprivileged any real opportunity for self-improvement and even the hope of becoming participating and contributing members of that society, can the church, having noted the need, pass by on the other side? The issue, fortunately, is no longer debatable for the Council of Churches, because the statements of basic policy included in the "Strategy for Working on the Problems of Metropolitan Washington" approved by the Governing Council of the Urban Institute on January 5, 1965, and by the board of directors of the
council on January 8, 1965, are clearly applicable. In approving that strategy statement the board concluded:
"The concern of the church for people makes it an inclusive community. Therefore, in keeping with its evangelistic mission, the church is concerned about these problems because these problems involve people. In keeping with the teachings of its faith, the church should be the saving community at work saving people."
In the same statement the board further concluded:
"It is the nature of the church to be concerned about the whole person and the whole community. Consequently, to be true to its own nature, the church must focus on causal factors as well as on symptoms. The church should provide leadership for problem prevention as well as providing ameliorative services for those in need."
A. Is now the time?
If this issue is, indeed, the proper concern of the church and of the council, does it justify the concentrated effort of the council-the expenditure of its limited resources at the present time? It is the thesis of this report that it does, for the following reasons:
1. It is suggested that a public system of higher education might very well prove to be one of the most creative and uplifting forces in the future growth of the metropolitan area. It is unfortunate that extensive quotation from the report of the President's Committee is not practical here, because its address to this specific question is superb. A few selected quotations can perhaps convey the message:
"The most urgent educational need in the District of Columbia is hope. The public school system is overwhelmingly college-oriented, yet there is no low-cost general college to which its graduates can go."
"For thousands of these children and adolescents, school has no meaning in terms of opportunity. It is more in the nature of a sentence passed upon them to be served until age 16. For they have become convinced, largely through the experience of parents, of older brothers and sisters, and of others known to them in their community, that they can look forward to no real part in today's society, let alone to any share in that society's affluence. Thus, too many of them drop out of school as soon as they are able and try, usually without marked success, to compete for a living. Without skills, they are too often unsalable by—and hence useless to the community."
"Knowledge that these [publicly supported] institutions are available will often help to provide motivation when children first enter school. And with motivation, school can become a very different experience. No longer a dreary succession of meaningless lessons and of senseless disciplinary rules, it represents the chance for self-betterment."
"Higher education for those to whom it was previously inaccessible produces consequences far beyond their own use of it. Availability makes a crucial difference in the motivation for learning at all levels and for all ages, generating hope and self-esteem among individuals and groups previously relegated to inferior status. Presenting models of successful escape from degrading conditions and providing trained leadership for those still struggling to emerge from an unfavorable background, higher education offers the best hope for community progress in our cities' battles against poverty, sickness, unemployment, and crime."
2. If the analysis summarized in these quotations is correct, then it is urgent that action be taken at the earliest possible time, before the multiplying problems of the urban society become overwhelming. But an attack on the specific problem under consideration is especially urgent now because of the existence of a conjunction of advantages which may not coalesce again for 20 years-the momentum of the report of the President's Committee, the President's message to Congress submitting legislation to solve the problem, and the pressure of White House support addressed to the most education-minded Congress in history.
3. Under these circumstances a rare opportunity is offered to the Council of Churches, for seldom does the church find such favorable conditions for the exercise of its leadership to help create a self-sustaining and permanent institu
tion devoted to goals consonant with its own. These transient conditions provide an opening for the most efficient possible use of the church's resources, and justify a maximum effort to mobilize and apply those resources.
It is therefore suggested that if the Governing Committee of the Institute of Church and Society concurs with the conclusions of this report, it either approve or adopt it and forward it to the board of directors of the council for consideration at its meeting on January 14 with the following recommendations:
1. That the board of directors vote to put the council of churches publicly on record in strong support of the establishment in the District of Columbia, as soon as possible, of both a public community college and a public college of the arts and sciences, as recommended by the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia, and as proposed by H.R. 7395, the President's legislative submission to the Congress.
2. That the board of directors authorize the institute of church and society to develop a program to make the council's position known and to mobilize the moral resources of the council and the member churches of the Washington area to support and assist the enactment of H.R. 7395 in the 2d session of the 89th Congress. Respectfully submitted.
M. C. MAPES, Jr.
Unanimously approved by the board of directors of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington, Friday, January 14, 1966.
VIRGIL E. LOWDER, Executive Director. Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mr. William K. Norwood.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. NORWOOD, CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am William K. Norwood representing the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia in my capacity as chairman of its education committee. The federation consists of 40 member bodies with a total membership of approximately 20,000.
I am here to indicate the support of the federation for the principles involved in S. 293 and S. 1612, both of which would provide a 4-year liberal arts college and a 2-year community college for the District of Columbia. The federation has supported facilities for higher education for the District ever since the first congressional bill was introduced covering this matter.
I am a member of the executive board of the association and I am also on the board of directors of the District of Columbia Citizens for Higher Education. And while I am not officially a spokesman for these two organizations, both of them are solidly in back of the principles of these bills.
It is difficult to justify denying these facilities to the District with its population of over 800,000, which places it population wise above 11 other States which now provide their citizens with opportunities for this higher education.
The private colleges of our area do not have adequate facilities to serve all those youths who would like to go beyond the high school level, and if they did, the cost of this education would place it beyond the reach of a large proportion of them.
A recent skill survey prepared by the U.S. Employment Service for the District of Columbia highlights the needs for advanced educational facilities. Washington has, and probably will continue to have, the tightest labor market in the country. Technical skills, which could be met in large part by the proposed community college, are in especially short supply.
There is no nearby reservoir from which these skills can be secured and it is these same skills that are in short supply in the Nation as a whole. This situation has been accentuated by the rapid growth of research and development firms in this area requiring a sharp increase in those trained as scientists, engineers, and technicians.
Poverty and the high cost of other schools and colleges have been major obstacles to our youth in securing an education which would fit them to fill these jobs, thus easing labor shortages and welfare problems.
As between S. 293 and S. 1612, we favor the provisions in S. 293 relating to the Board of Higher Education and the Board of Higher Education nomination committee. We feel that the appointment of the Board and of the nominating committee by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would insure less politics and more objectivity than would appointment by the District Commissioners. S. 1612 puts too much authority in the hands of the Commissioners who would be subject to partisan pressures and influence.
I would like to mention I am in complete agreement with one of yesterday's speakers who said these opportunities in the District of Columbia would tend to reduce dropouts. Nothing serves as much as an incentive as knowing you will be able to continue to do something which can be looked forward to, knowing there is something ahead. I would also like to interject a bit of personal experience. For about 2 years I worked as a job development consultant for the United Planning Organization, and in connection with my visits to employers in the District and in nearby suburban areas there was driven home very definitely to me the need for training beyond that given by our schools, particularly what would be furnished by our community college.
Let me assure you, there is nothing that makes an impression on you more than a personal experience like that, rather than just reading statistics of the reports that somebody else may furnish.
Gentlemen, we citizens of the District of Columbia strongly urge you to use your influence to secure for us the much-needed facilities for higher education as provided for in these bills.
I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Federation of Citizens Associations.
Senator Morse, I would especially like to thank you for your efforts in our behalf.
Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, I would like to characterize your statement as real basic grassroots support. That is what we need and I wish you would take back to the Federation of Citizens Association, my thanks for the help they have given us, not only on this matter but a good many other matters that come before this subcommittee and the full District of Columbia Senate Committee.
The next witness will be Mr. John Jacob, director of education and youth incentive, Washington Urban League, Inc.
60-755 0-66— -13