PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DR. FRANCIS S. CHASE, Chairman, Dean, Graduate School of Education, DR. JAMES R. KILLIAN, JR., Chairman of the Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DR. THOMAS R. MCCONNELL Chairman, Center for Study of Higher Education, MRS. AGNES MEYER Civil Leader and Author, Washington, D.C. DR. SAMUEL M. NABRIT President, Texas Southern University DR. GEORGE N. SHUSTER Former President, Hunter College, Assistant to the President, University of Notre Dame DR. JEROME B. WIESNER Former Director, Office of Science and Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DR. JAMES H. CASE, Jr., Executive Director Washington, D.C., June 1964. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: We have the honor to submit to you the final report of the Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, created by the late President Kennedy on September 23, 1963. The members of the Committee wish to express their appreciation of the opportunity to address themselves to the problems involved in this assignment. Education at all levels throughout the United States is a matter of primary importance, and education in the District of Columbia, the capital of this nation, is preeminently so. That both you and President Kennedy have been concerned with the educational needs of the District has been at once a recognition of the seriousness of the problem and an encouragement to the Committee. . While we recognize that as nonresidents of the District (with one exception) we are able to present to you recommendations free of any suspicion of local bias, we also appreciate that we have had the duty to exercise more than ordinary care in determining the facts upon which alone sound conclusions can be based. To the best of our ability we have done so. Moreover, it is encouraging to find that our conclusions correspond with the views expressed to us by many citizens of the District. Community organizations and leading citizens alike have urged upon us the need in the District for two publicly supported institutions of education at the post-high school level, and have stressed their belief that D.C. Teachers College should be replaced by a new institution. Most of these favor the establishment of a new Board of Higher Education for such new institutions as are to be created. While we did not feel bound by their views, we are gratified to know that the institutions which we propose will have this support from District residents. We have not burdened the report with extensive documentation. Rather, we have directed that appendices, containing staff analyses as well as original reports and other documentary material, be filed in the office of your Advisor for (III) IV National Capital Affairs. We should like to note, however, two studies published shortly after our report was completed. Man, Education and Work, issued by the American Council on Education, and Technical Education in the Junior College, issued by the American Association of Junior Colleges, are in accord with many of our conclusions and recommendations. We have not felt competent to include in our Report any specific recommendations on the location of either of the two new institutions we have proposed. We recognize that it will not be easy to provide the central and readily accessible location which is necessary to insure that the institutions are available to the greatest number of students. We hope, however, that this problem will become a matter of immediate concern, and that notwithstanding possible delays in its solution the organization of the two colleges, and indeed the operation of at least the community (or junior) college, will begin even while problems of ultimate location are being settled. The need for each of the colleges is urgent. Neither should be required to await a protracted period of site search and construction. Finally, we should like to express our appreciation for the unstinting cooperation we have received from Francis Keppel, the Commissioner of Education, and from R. Earl Iffert, of his office; for the constant and often decisive assistance given us by Charles A. Horsky, your Advisor for National Capital Affairs; and, of course, for the diligent and effective aid rendered to the Committee at all stages of its work by its Executive Director, James H. Case, Jr. We have enjoyed the assignment. We trust that our recommendations will provide a helpful basis for further action by you and by the Congress. Respectfully, THE PRESIDENT, FRANCIS S. CHASE, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page C. The basic educational need of the district.. III. The Committee's Recommendations.. 2. The nature and purposes of the college of 3. The student body of the college of arts C. Noncompetitive scholarships in special cur- IV. The Organization and Relationships of District A. Separate organization and administration of the two proposed institutions.. 32 33 40 (V) PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. THE COMMITTEE'S ASSIGNMENT AND PROCEDURES The 1963 message from the late President Kennedy transmitting to Congress the District of Columbia budget stated his concern that "in the Nation's Capital general education beyond the secondary level is not available at a nominal cost, as it is in many major cities and in the States." The evidence of his concern was the appointment of this Committee, with the request that it examine and report on the following issues: Should the District of Columbia have publicly supported institutions of higher learning beyond the secondary school level? If so, what type or types of institutions should be established, from junior colleges through graduate centers, and what relationship should any such institution bear to the existing public school system and to the existing universities particularly Howard, which derives a considerable part of its income from Federal appropriations? Collateral issues which are relevant are the extent to which the unsurpassed resources present in the Federal agencies and their employees can be used or useful; the extent to which any institution should be available to nonresidents of the District, and the manner in which the District can best take advantage in the field of higher education of the opportunities afforded by Federal aid-to-education programs and of new measures which might be enacted. While every large urban center reflects the characteristics, challenges and potentialities of the entire Nation, an educational structure for the District at the post-high school level (1) |