In addition to supporting this legislation, we stand ready to assist in the development of the programs of the two colleges by calling upon the resources and experience of our members. We can make available all the knowledge acquired in the development of similar institutions throughout the country.

We appreciate much this opportunity to present our convictions and our recommendations.

Thank you very much. I would like to submit the following resolution for the hearing record:

RESOLUTION OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Whereas we are convinced that public colleges and universities provide opportunities for young people not available in other institutions; and

Whereas public higher education in Washington, D.C., is now restricted to teacher education, and the young people of the Nation's Capital are therefore denied the wider opportunities available in every one of the States; and

Whereas the situation in Washington is unique in that a greater variety of opportunity for higher education in a public college can be made available only by act of Congress; and

Whereas we believe that the people served by our State colleges and universities would want the young people of Washington to have opportunities similar to their own: Be it

Resolved, That this Association of State Colleges & Universities give strong support to the establishment of both public community college and college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia as soon as possible as recommended by the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia and as proposed in S. 293 and S. 1612 and H.R. 7395; and

That the officers of this association bring this action effectively to the attention of the appropriate committees in both Houses of the Congress.

Senator MORSE. President Hawkins, I consider your statement a very powerul one. In support not only of the legislation, but in support of the great objectives that we ought to all have in mind as we face up to our responsibilities. That means supplying these young people with an educational opportunity.

Thank you very much. It is going to have, I think, a very great influence on the committee.

Our next witness is Dr. Gladys T. Peterson, vice chairman, Citizens Council for the District of Columbia.

Doctor, we are very glad to have you. You have been here so you know our procedure. Just proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF GLADYS T. PETERSON, VICE CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS COUNCIL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mrs. PETERSON. Thank you, Senator. Thank you very much, Senator, for permitting the citizens council to be represented here.

We have a statement which was originally prepared, but so much of the material has been covered that I am asking if I may in the interest of time give a digest of this material. We would like the original included.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Peterson's statement will be printed in full in the record at this point and she may now proceed to summarize it.

(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF DR. GLADYS T. PETERSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, my name is Dr. Gladys T. Peterson. I am the chairman of the Health, Education, and Welfare Subcommittee of the Citizens Council for the District of Columbia, an advisory council to the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. I appear on behalf of the council to present testimony urgently requesting the early passage of legislation in this Congress authorizing publicly supported higher education for the citizens of the District of Columbia. The council, consisting of 25 members appointed by the Commissioners, is representative of the citizens of the District of Columbia on the bases of geographical areas, active interest in community development, and is nonpartisan in functioning although partisan in its representation of both Republicans and Democrats. Business, professional, and labor segments of the community are also represented in the council which is truly a cross-section of all the citizens of the District of Columbia. They have concerned themselves with many problems in education and spent their entire session on February 11 in consideration of higher public education for the District of Columbia and directed my appearance here today. Our appointment by the Commissioners in no way affects our autonomy or freedom to act and speak in the best interest of the citizens of Washington.

The needs for legislation to provide for public higher education in the District of Columbia are highly economic, significantly comparative, essentially basic, and gravely urgent.

HIGHLY ECONOMIC

The skill survey of Washington metropolitan area, U.S. Employment Service, 1963, warned, "The labor market cannot absorb any increase in unskilled labor. Some training past the high school level is desired by most employers."

Although the public school system in this governmental city is overwhelmingly college oriented, there is no low-cost general college to which its graduates can go. Statistics have shown that there is a direct correlation between median family income and the number of graduates going to college. Where the family median income is above $10,000, nearly 75 percent of the high school graduates go to college; where the median income is below $5,000 (and these are the families of crowded and deprived areas) barely 20 percent of the high school graduates can even economically attempt college to get that "training past the high school level desired by most employers."

The one institution offering low-cost higher education to District citizens is the District of Columbia Teachers College which offers only the B.S. and specializes only in teacher training. Even as a single-purpose school, the facilities are inadequate, and because many students do not wish to major in education, this college does not appeal to the ablest students from the District schools. Yet the demand for teachers, here and elsewhere, continues to expand. This situation does not exist in most other American cities which provide one or more public junior colleges or 4-year liberal arts and sciences colleges. Other major cities have provisions for teacher education greatly superior to those found here and also have a wider range of opportunities for post-high-school education, both vocational and general. Today Washington, D.C., is the only major city in the entire United States where a high school graduate has no publicly supported higher education institution, a junior college or 4-year liberal arts college, to which he can turn for inexpensive higher education. This is a very real economic disadvantage suffered by our residents.

This disadvantage is the gap which the junior college is ideally equipped to fill-a college which includes technical and scientific education as well as cultural enrichment of the personal lives of students, adult education, and experiences motivating students for further university education.

SIGNIFICANTLY COMPARATIVE

In the Higher Education Facilities Act, 1963, it is stated, "The Congress hereby finds that the security and welfare of the United States require this and future generations of American youth be assured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities." Yet, all American cities of the size and importance of Washington, D.C., and virtually all European capitals have

more extensive study programs than are available in this, the Capital of the United States.

Consider for example the opportunities for American youth in eight cities comparable to Washington, D.C., in size :

The disadvantage in the lack of opportunity for the District of Columbia high school graduates is not merely a discrimination against the District of Columbia youth, but is a complete deprivation and denial of the chance for "the fullest development of their intellectual capacities."

Consider again the capital outlays for higher education in 1963-64 in the 11 of the 50 States which have a smaller population that does the District of Columbia. Maryland and Virginia are included for information because of their close proximity.

1963-64 capital outlay in millions of dollars

Moreover, Washington, with a higher per capita income than any of the States, spends the least amount of money per person, $1.22, on higher education a year. The expenditure in Maryland is $21.23 and in Virginia $19.40.

There are high school graduates in Washington, D.C., as in other communities who are able to profit by a general college education but who cannot do so because of its cost. They deserve an opportunity for a post high school education equal to that available to their fellow high school students throughout the United States.

ESSENTIALLY BASIC

The substantial portion of Washington's school population and young adults now denied, largely because of the meagerness of their own financial and cultural background, all sense of participation in the society for which they are unprepared and hence largely unneeded and unwanted are at present in need of hope. For thousands of adolescents, school has no meaning in terms of opportunity. Their education is more in the nature of a sentence passed upon them to be served until age 16 with no forward look for a real part in today's society or a share in that society's affluence. Because of this, too many of them drop out of school without skills and are often unusable by and useless to the business or industrial community.

Studies by the Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia have revealed the following data concerning high school graduates if they had the hope of public higher education:

1. 55 percent of local graduates would be interested in a local public junior college.

2. 72 percent of local graduates indicated that if they were not accepted in the colleges of their choice, they would apply to the community college. 3. 24 percent of those who had never given thought to continuing their education would change their plans if a public community college were available.

The availability of a publicly supported college would be a basic motivation for high school youth to avail themselves of the chance at self-betterment. In addition, the new opportunity for admission to a public college of arts and sciences would offer a new horizon of higher education to District of Columbia high school graduates who are now deprived of it.

At present the private educational resources for higher trict are unable to serve the deprived youth of the area.

education in the DisHoward University,

lowest in tuition cost, is national in outlook and considers its mission to be international. Because of its lower tuition, it attracts almost two-thirds of those local graduates who are able to attend college from the families where the income is lowest. Private college tuition is as follows:

These schools will accept high school graduates, but they are not inclined to encourage local students for all of them wish to maintain their national identity. These colleges are not geared to bring hope or assistance to the disadvantaged.

GRAVELY URGENT

Because of the inadequacies of the DCTC plant, its accreditation by the National Council for Accreditation of Teachers Education was withdrawn in 1962. Because of continuing inadequacies, it is very probable that the college will lose its accreditation by the Middle States Association for Accrediting of Colleges and Secondary Schools in the fall of 1971. The same two buildings which served a population of 360,000 inhabitants in 1913 are still trying 53 years later to serve the District's population of 802,000 despite the immense increase in the educational requirements of our economy today. A new plan for public higher education on a broader scale is needed now.

The college of liberal arts and sciences should be designed to meet the needs of District students for liberal education while also emphasizing preparation for classroom teaching and training of special educational personel. It should provide new opportunities for higher education for young people of the District who do not aspire to a teaching career. It should provide for upper division work and graduate study through the master's degree. It should be completely complementary to and cooperative with the community college, and it should be planned now.

It is imperative that the public junior college and the liberal arts college be established before the complete loss of the DCTC so as to incorporate the present public college into the future plans.

It is imperative, too, to consider the consequences of failure to provide public higher education opportunities. Without such opportunities, the unemployed number of the unskilled will be higher; welfare and relief needs will become greater; the potential income to provide additional purchasing power will be curtailed; and the added economic stability which makes possible a lower tax base will be lacking. The DCTC must be incorporated in a liberal arts college, and plans made for making public higher education opportunities good business now.

The Citizens Council for the District of Columbia supports the two bills, S. 293 and S. 1612, which are identical except for the method of selection of the Board of Higher Education. It has been the desire of many citizens organizations to change the present policy of appointing the Board of Education by the District of Columbia judges, and many have hoped for the election of a school board or the appointment of the board by the Commissioners. Indeed, in the appointment of recreation board members, recommendations are made to the Commissioners from organizations, civic and citizens associations, and individual citizens.

The Citizens Council heartily endorses bills S. 293 and S. 1612 with special thanks and commendation to Senators Morse and Bible for their excellent leadership. However, we respectfully desire only a reconsideration in conference of the section in the bills concerning the method of establishing a Board of Higher Education. We pray for early legislation which will create a Board of Public Higher Education this year to begin its planning activities, and that it will provide, as nearly as possible, the best method of appointment of such a Board.

Mrs. PETERSON. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, my name is Dr. Gladys T. Peterson. I am the chairman of the Health, Education, and Welfare Subcommittee of the Citizens Council for the District of Columbia, an

advisory council to the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia.

The Council has directed my appearance here today to speak on four aspects of the need for legislation to provide for public higher education in the District of Columbia.

These needs, as the Council sees them, are, first, highly economic in their effect upon the District of Columbia residents.

Second, they are significantly comparative in relation to other cities of similar importance.

Third, they are essentially basic to youth welfare.

And, fourth, they are graphically urgent in this immediate situation. First, the needs are highly economic because the U.S. Employment Service Skill Survey of 1963 found not only that the labor market here cannot absorb any increase in unskilled labor, but also that most employers here desire some training past high school level.

Yet, there is no low-cost general college education available in the District of Columbia. Moreover, in families where the median income is about $10,000, 75 percent of those graduates go to college, but where the median income is $5,000, barely 20 percent of the graduates even attempt college.

This leaves 80 percent of the already deprived registrants to enter a labor market which cannot absorb them. Then, too, the single-purpose District of Columbia Teachers College is the only public institution which offers low-cost higher education. No opportunity is available to students who have neither the desire nor the aptitude to major in education.

Thus, Washington, D.C., poses a real economic disadvantage to its citizens by failing to provide for them publicly supported higher education through which they can acquire marketable skills.

Second, the council feels that these needs for higher education, the publicly supported higher education, are significantly comparative. In the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963 it is stated:

The Congress finds that the security and welfare of the United States require this and future generations of American youth be assured ample opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities.

Yet most American citizens of the size and importance of Washington, D.C., and virtually all European capitals have more extensive publicly supported higher study programs than are available in this, the Capital of the United States.

Indeed, there are eight cities almost exactly comparable in size which provide low-cost or free tuition in publicly supported junior and 4-year colleges right now.

They are Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Miami, Newark, and St. Louis. The capital outlay for higher education in 1963 in the 11 States which have a smaller population than Washington, D.C., in millions of dollars, range from Alaska, $13.2 million to Wyoming's $1.9 million, but the District of Columbia, zero.

Even our neighboring States, Maryland and Virginia, provide respectively $16.5 million and $20.1 million, but the District of Columbia, nothing. This disadvantage to District of Columbia youth is a complete denial of that chance for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities, which is available to their fellow high school students residing in comparable locations elsewhere in the United States.