encouraging better attitudes toward school, better performance, and generally improved conditions.

6. The establishment of the public liberal arts college in the District does not appear to us to threaten in any way the progress of our own college. Three-quarters of our students come from outside the Washington metropolitan area and live on campus. Were any sacrifice. asked of us through the loss of some students, it would be made willingly for the attainment of the goal of educational opportunities for the deserving youth of the District Columbia.

The need is urgent for both a 2-year community college and a 4-year liberal arts college. While the offerings of the community college in technical and vocational training will respond to the most practical and compelling needs, failure to provide more advanced training, not only in teacher education, but also, in the liberal arts and sciences, would be to deny the aspirations of those young men and women who recognize within themselves a potential for the attainment of high goals. Limitation of opportunities for education is limitation on the ability to rise above an unfavorable environment and to overcome the effects of cultural deprivation.

In regard to the implementation of the plan for a 4-year college, it has been suggested that the liberal arts college can be brought into being by the expansion of District of Columbia Teachers College, which even now includes in its program courses in the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences. There are, moreover, faculty members qualified to teach in these areas. Additional courses and faculty could be added.

I have, however, serious misgivings about this procedure. It would be preferable, it seems to me, to set up first, under expert guidance, a strong liberal arts college, staffed with faculty whose experience has been in liberal arts colleges, incorporating the District of Columbia Teachers College into this structure as a department of education. The newly organized departments would necessarily have a smaller enrollment than that of teacher education in the beginning. It seems desirable, therefore, to give special attention to developing the departments of the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences with a view to eventually attaining a reasonably well-balanced enrollment in all the disciplines.

At a time when interinstitutional cooperation is seen as a logical and desirable practice, if not a necessity, it occurs to me that existing colleges and universities can be of assistance in the implementation of plans for the new colleges and their subsequent development, and that ways in which cooperation can be effected ought to be considered. Such cooperation can be beneficial not only to the new colleges but to the existing colleges who participate.

Apropos of the mention of interinstitutional cooperation, it seems proper to suggest that the contemplated colleges be located within reasonably close proximity to each other so that if cooperation in some areas seem desirable at any time such a course would be convenient. In view of the heavy capital and operating expenses entailed in establishing the colleges, it seems reasonable that economy ought to be practiced wherever such measures do not interfere with effectively attaining the goals of each separate institution.

What I have said repeats what has been reiterated by many. This seems unavoidable. I look upon this occasion, therefore, not so much as an opportunity to make an original contribution as an opportunity to make known the views of an administrator of a local private college, and to dispel any suspicion of indifference toward, or even hostility to, the proposal to establish the public colleges in the District.

In closing I emphasize my interest in and my strong support of the bill to authorize the establishment of a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. Thank you, very much, Senators.

Senator MORSE. Sister Dolores, it is a very well-reasoned statement and I am very glad to have it. I want to make this comment upon the observation you made concerning the setup for the teachers college: Early in these hearings, the chairman registered a reservation in regard to how best to handle the teachers college needs. The record will speak for itself, but in essence I said that I thought consideration ought to be given to the development of a strong school of education within a liberal arts college and I set forth some of my reasons at that time. They are very similar to the observations that you made this morning. I just want the hearing record to show that as far as this chairman is concerned the provision of the bill in regard to teachers training is still undecided as far as I am concerned. I want the best possible teacher training setup that we can have. I think, as you point out, it is so important that those that are going to go into the teaching profession should have available to them at all times a strong liberal arts college where there can be a crossing over from the school of education to the humanities, to the social sciences, to the sciences and all the other parts of the curriculum of a strong liberal arts college.

I may be dead wrong, and it is only by way of a study of the record that I can come to a final conclusion, but I think I owe it to the interested parties in the field of education for them to know that I am troubled by this matter.

Thank you, very much.

Sister DOLORES. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Carl J. Megel, Washington representative of the American Federation of Teachers.

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

Mr. MEGEL. Thank you, Senator.
Senator MORSE. We are very glad to have you

with us.

Mr. MEGEL. We are certainly delighted to have the opportunity once again to testify on behalf of this legislation and on behalf of other legislation which you have so wonderfully presented and we are garteful to you for all your efforts in education over the past years.

In the interest of time, I will ask you to refer only to page 3 of my statement because perhaps I have some information here that has not yet been presented.

Senator MORSE. The Chair rules that your statement will be inserted in the hearing record at the conclusion of your testimony. Mr. MEGEL. Thank you, sir.

We have made a survey of the six larger institutions. We did not include the last 2, for no reason at all but to show the larger institutions and their enrollment and the number of freshmen from graduating classes of the District of Columbia who enrolled in these institutions in September; the table shows that in September 1965 in these 6 institutions 5,063 freshmen enrolled. Of this number, only 684 were members of the District's 1965 high school graduating class, representing 11/10 percent of the total freshmen enrolled in these institutions.

There were, however, a total of 4,160 students graduated from the Washington, D.C., public high schools in 1965. Of this number, only 684 enrolled in colleges and universities within the District of Columbia, which represents 164/10 percent of the total 1965 Washington, D.C., graduating class. We have no way of knowing how many of these 4,160 high school graduates entered institutions of higher education in other localities and some of the smaller institutions. We suspect that this number was minimal.

We do know, however, that across the Nation 54 percent of all 1965 high school graduates entered a college or university in September 1965. The low percentage in Washington, D.C., is due to two things only inadequate facilities and the high cost of education.

Referring now to page 5, we have in support of the legislation the following proposals to make:

First, give full assurance of low-cost or tuition-free educational opportunity.

Second, in view of the experience in Philadelphia and other cities where judges appointed the board of education, we would sincerely urge that this procedure have a terminal date, at which time more satisfactory methods be provided.

Third, we support the merger of the District of Columbia Teachers College with the new institution of higher education.

But, fourth, in any such merger we would seek an assurance that the rights and tenures of teachers be safeguarded as outlined in the Salary Act of 1955.

Fifth, we would oppose leaving laboratory schools under the control and management of the Board of Education as distinct from the Board of Higher Education. A close relationship should exist between the laboratory schools and, particularly, the teacher training institution. Sixth, we respectfully urge that in vesting the Board of Higher Education with authority to set up retirement and leave regulations that they be directed to provide the safeguards now contained in Public Law 262, enacted by the 87th Congress.

Seventh, that enactment of this legislation contain assured appropriations to guarantee that the new institutions will become an educational showpiece, not only in operational material, but in their ability to employ competent, qualified, well-paid personnel. Unless this is done, there can be no guarantee that the institution will be an improvement upon the disreputable facilities now in existence at the District of Columbia Teachers College.

Senator, we compliment you and your colleagues for this legislation and we sincerely and wholeheartedly support its enactment with the recommendations that we have made.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much for your statement. I shall examine very carefully the reservations which you make in your statement, many of which I find myself tentatively in agreement with. Thank you very much.

Mr. MEGEL. Thank you.
(The statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Carl J. Megel. I am the Washington representative of the American Federation of Teachers, a national organization of more than 115,000 classroom teachers, affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Our organization embraces nearly 600 teacher locals, including locals in Alaska, Hawaii, and Canal Zone, and the Department of Defense oversea dependents' schools.

Representing the American Federation of Teachers, I am privileged to appear before this committee in support of S. 293, the District of Columbia Public Higher Education Act.

In supporting this legislation, I do so not only with the support of the executive council of the American Federation of Teachers, but also through mandate of the American Federation of Teachers' National Convention, which unanimously approved by convention resolution the establishment of higher education facilities in the District of Columbia.

We commend Senator Morse and the cosponsors for the introduction of this legislation which, when enacted, will provide, "a public community college and a 4-year public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia."

George Washington advocated federally financed higher education for the District of Columbia. We think the more than 170-year delay in fulfilling his recommendation is much too long.

If a university for Washington, D.C., was desirable in George Washington's time, its existence today is an absolute essential. Even now technology has made advanced education a necessity. It is estimated that if the university were to open in September 1966, its first graduating class would find that 70 percent of all job specifications require 2 or more years of college or university training. This fact alone predicates speediest action possible.

Each day's delay in establishing a 4-year institution of higher education constitutes a serious loss, not only for the community and the Nation, but especially for the disadvantaged younger generation of the District of Columbia. Washington, D.C., high school graduates have traditionally been required to move out of their area to receive benefits of higher education, or to accept the advantages offered by the six major academic institutions within the District. These institutions are American University, Catholic University, Georgetown University, George Washington University, Howard University, and the Washington, D.C., Teachers College.

We made a check of these six institutions to determine the enrollment in the freshman class for September 1965, and to determine the number of the District's 1965 public high school graduates who are enrolled as freshmen in these respective universities and colleges.

The following table shows the results of the comparison between the number of freshmen who are enrolled in these institutions and the number of these enrolled freshmen who are graduates of the District's public schools.

This table shows that in September 1965 there were 5,063 freshmen enrolled in these 6 institutions.

Of this number only 684 were members of the District's 1965 high school graduating classes--which represents 11.4 percent of the total freshmen enrollment in these institutions.

There were, however, a total of 4,160 students graduated from all Washington, D.C., public high schools in 1965. Of this number only 684 enrolled in colleges and universities within the District of Columbia-which represents 16.4 percent of the total 1965 Washington, D.C., graduating class.

We have no way of knowing how many of these 4,160 high school graduates entered institutions of higher education in other localities. We suspect that this number was minimal.

We do know, however, that across this Nation 54 percent of all 1965 high school graduates entered a college or university in September 1965.

The low percentage of Washington, D.C., high school graduates who enrolled in institutions in higher learning in 1965 can be directly attributed to two things: 1. Inadequate facilities, and

2. The high cost of higher education.

Practically every other community in the United States offers its high school graduates the opportunity of higher education in a publicly supported institution. This is not true in Washington, D.C.

Only those Washington, D.C., parents who are financially able to afford higher education in private institutions can offer these advantages to their children. Otherwise, they have the choice of moving into a district where there is an institution of higher education which is publicly supported or requiring their young high school graduates to forego higher education.

In conclusion, we heartily support the proposed legislation, but respectfully request serious consideration of the following inclusions:

First, give full assurance of low cost or tuition-free educational opportunity. Second, in view of the experience in Philadelphia and other cities where judges appointed the board of education, we would sincerely urge that this procedure have a terminal date, at which time more satisfactory methods be provided.

Third, we support the merger of the District of Columbia Teachers College with the new institution of higher education.

Fourth, in any such merger we would seek an assurance that the rights and tenures of teachers be safeguarded as outlined in the Salary Act of 1955.

Fifth, we would oppose leaving laboratory schools under the control and management of the Board of Education as distinct from the Board of Higher Education. A close relationship should exist between the laboratory schools and, particularly, the teacher training institution.

Sixth, we respectfully urge that in vesting the Board of Higher Education with authority to set up retirement and leave regulations that they be directed to provide the safeguards now contained in Public Law 262, enacted by the 87th Congress.

Seventh, that enactment of this legislation contain assured appropriations to guarantee that the new institutions will become an educational showpiece, not only in operational material, but in their ability to employ competent, qualified, well-paid personnel. Unless this is done, there can be no guarantee that the institution will be an improvement upon the disreputable facilities now in existence at the District of Columbia Teachers College.

We are grateful for the opportunity to make this presentation, and we commend the committee for its efforts. We wholeheartedly support the intent of the legislation and urgently request serious consideration of our recommendations. Senator MORSE. While Mr. Megel was testifying I was urged further to get to an emergency meeting. I now announce that the hearing will recess until 2:30 this afternoon. We will finish the testimony of the remaining witnesses so that I can close the public hearings today and will close the hearing record at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, March 29.

I want counsel to notify the previous witnesses that I am closing it. That gives them this weekend, Monday and Tuesday to prepare any rebuttal statement or any additional statement that they want to put in the hearing record. Be sure to have the District Commissioners notified in case they want to file any supplemental statement, although