(b) Pennsylvania State University cut the number of admissions of graduates of Woodrow Wilson High School from the usual 12 to 15 students down to only 2 for this last year, because of the need to accommodate applicants from the State of Pennsylvania. Other out-of-State high schools were cut in admissions in a similar manner;

(c) Cornell University has recently announced that admissions of new students for 1966 will be reduced by 25 percent of the number admitted in the freshman class of 1965.

Thus, each year, unless a local high school graduate elects to follow a teacher-training course in the District of Columbia Teachers College, he will find it more and more difficult to gain admission to a Statesupported university at reasonable cost.

All of the colleges and universities in the District of Columbia (except the District of Columbia Teachers College) are privately controlled, have student fees which are beyond the means of many of our young people, and have admission policies which would exclude many of our local high school graduates who might wish to continue in school beyond the 12th grade.

May I add at this point, sir, since the testimony of last week before your committee the public press carried announcements that both George Washington University and American University were increasing tuition fees beginning next fall by $150 a year, so that the figures you were given should be increased by those amounts to represent the full tuition fees.

This spokesman has, ever since 1953, called the attention of the District of Columbia Commissioners and various committees of the U.S. Congress to the statistics published annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under the titles of "Compendium of State Finances" and "Compendium of Large City Finances." These publications for fiscal 1964 show, among other facts, that

(a) The District of Columbia has a population which exceeds that of 11 of the 50 States.

(b) The District of Columbia spent $2.26 per capita on institutions of higher education, as compared with the national average of $28.87. (Maryland spent $21.33; Virginia, $19.40; six States over $50; only one State, Massachusetts, spent less than $10 ($9.87).

This spokesman questions the accuracy of the figure for the District of Columbia, since some costs have been assigned to the District of Columbia Teachers College which should be assigned to the costs of operating the elementary schools.

That leads to the cost of the two laboratory schools, the cost over and above that as a regular elementary school should be assigned to the regular teachers college. If that correction were made, a more accurate figure would be $1.25 per capita.

Of the 11 States with a smaller population than the District of Columbia, the largest amount spent on higher education was by Alaska ($13,200,000), and the smallest amount was by Wyoming ($1,900,000).

Other data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that the District of Columbia has a per capita income greater than that of all the States save that of Nevada; and that the District of Columbia spends a smaller percentage of its per capita income on education than of the 50 States.

any

These figures show clearly that the District of Columbia can afford to support a public university for its residents.

May I point out that the testimony presented by Dr. Muirhead last week before you I think greatly underestimates that anticipated enrollment in a 4-year liberal arts and sciences college. He indicated that

he felt that had it been in operation for 2 or 3 years, it would have an enrollment of approximately 2,000 students. He neglected to consider the figures given by Senator Yarborough and by some other witnesses today as to the number of veterans who were now eligible under the new veterans benefit laws just passed by the Congress ranging from 25,000 to 27,000 in the District who would be eligible for those benefits, many of whom might be interested in this institution.

There is another aspect that no witness has heretofore touched upon. Many families of relatively modest means, not at the poverty level but somewhat above, are not to a point where they can send their children to private institutions, have seen fit although employed in the District to take up residence in neighboring counties of Maryland or Virginia so their young children could qualify as residents of Maryland or Virginia universities.

It is my belief that if these institutions under the present bills are authorized and established, that many of these families would find it desirable to move back into the District to the ultimate benefit of the District, as well as to themselves. I think that would again greatly increase the potential number of students who might attend these institutions.

Senator Gruening mentioned this afternoon the large increased enrollment in junior colleges in the State of Alaska. There are 31 junior colleges at the present time in the State of Florida; every one of them has started out and within 2 or 3 years has greatly exceeded their anticipated enrollment. The seven State-supported universities in Florida have all in 3 years more than doubled the anticipated enrollment. So, I think Mr. Muirhead's figures are a gross understatement of the enrollment to be expected in the colleges once established.

Now, in view of many criticisms of the method of appointing the present Board of Education, this spokesman would like to suggest the following change in S. 293 which he believes in certain respects to be a better bill than S. 1612:

That the Board of Education should consist of 21 members, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States; 9 of whom shall be appointed by the District of Columbia Commissioners; and 3 of whom shall be elected by and from the graduates of the University of the District of Columbia.

All of the members appointed by the President of the United States and by the District of Columbia Commissioners shall have been residents of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than 5 years immediately prior to their appointments and shall be ineligible to continue in office should they cease to be residents of the District of Columbia.

The three alumni members of the Board of Higher Education shall have held a degree from the University of the District of Columbia or from the District of Columbia Teachers College or its predecessor institutions for at least 5 years prior to election.

The terms of office of the first Board of Higher Education shall be: For onethird of the Board, 2 years; for one-third of the Board, 4 years; and for onethird of the Board, 6 years. Thereafter, the terms for all members of the Board shall be for 6 years, provided that any member of the Board shall be eligible for reappointment.

The idea of a term of 6 years seems to be a desirable one in view of the fact that it takes some time for Board members to begin to be well enough acquainted to furnish useful services to the Board and then the Board should have the benefit of that experience over a long enough time to make it worthwhile for a person to serve as a member.

Then we would like to suggest some additional amendments to S. 293 as follows:

That in S. 293, section 3(a), page 3, line 9: Delete the period and add: "Provided further, That no member shall be a member of the administrative staff or of the faculty or of the board of trustees of any other institution of higher education located in the District of Columbia."

Those would be disqualifications of some individuals on the Board of Education. That would avoid any conflict of interest on the part of the members of that Board.

Secondly, to amend section 3 (b), page 4, lines 5, 6: Change "not less than four", to "all", and add at the end of the sentence, line 8, "Provided further, That no member shall be a member of the administrative staff or of the faculty or of the board of trustees of any other institution of higher education located in the District of Columbia."

Section 4(a), page 5, line 11: Following the word "Education", add: "and not more than one year following the date of approval of this Act."

That was to insure the fairly rapid transfer of the District of Columbia Teachers College into the new institution.

In section 4 (a), page 5, line 19: Change period to a comma, and add “Provided, That the personnel so transferred shall suffer no loss of current salary or of increases thereto provided by existing law, nor any loss of rights or benefits (such as leave of absence, sick leave, pension, term life insurance, and health insurance, et cetera) now provided by existing law."

There needs to be some grandfather clause to protect those in Teachers College that might be transferred to the new institution.

Section 4(b), page 5, line 24: Add "Provided, That the professional personnel of the laboratory schools may hold, if qualified, academic rank of assistant professor, or higher, in the faculty of the College of Education, and that any excess of salary due thereto over that of the regular position as teacher shall be paid from the appropriation for the University of the District of Columbia."

That refers to the use of those elementary schools to be used as laboratory schools.

Section 5(a): Add new subsection 3: "to prepare plans for the establishment of any other institution of higher education which the needs of the community from time to time warrant." Renumber the other subsections of section 5(a).

Section 5(a), old subsection 5: Insert a clause protecting tenure, salary, and all other rights and benefits of employees. Other than professional employees. Section 5(a), old subsection 6: Change "four" to "six."

Section 5(b): Delete entire section.

Neither S. 293 nor S. 1612 has satisfactory provisions for the financial autonomy of the University of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I have on the basis of 26 years of service as a professor of chemistry and science education in the Wilson Teachers College and the District of Columbia Teachers College and being acutely aware of the many frustrations which those institutions have suffered over the years, prepared a number of additional amendments which we think would make this fill a much more effective institution of higher education and I would like to have the pleasure of submitting those for consideration by your staff prior to the close of next Tuesday.

Senator MORSE. Counsel is instructed to review them and prepare a memorandum for the members of the committee.

60-755-66- -21

Mr. HAWORTH. I have just one copy here so I will get them in before next Tuesday afternoon, the closing date.

Now, the next section is marked with an asterisk which means the others were my own suggestions but this one is one which has been approved by the board of managers of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers:

That a new section (a) be added: "The Attorney General is authorized and directed to convey to the District of Columbia all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to that tract of land situated along the east side of Bladensburg Road, Northeast, Washington, District of Columbia (now used as a site for the National Training School for Boys), together with all improvements thereon, for use by it exclusively in carrying out the provisions of this Act, provided that should Congress authorize the construction of a consolidated vocational school, this school may also be constructed on this site."

We have given consideration to a number of criteria with respect to a selection of a site. We note there is no provision for that in the bill and we also listened to your-not included but there is this in the National Training School for Boys site which may disappear from availability in the interval between the enactment of this law and the appointment and operation of the Board of Higher Education to take action in the matter. So we have given consideration in our recommendation to the following criteria which may be of interest to you.

1. That the site to be used as the site for the University of the District of Columbia should be large enought to permit the location of the many buildings which will be necessary for a program of publicly supported higher education.

A university in the District of Columbia or even a 4-year liberal arts and sciences course with a graduate program would have to be a multibuilding program for the anticipated enrollment.

2. It must be accessible by various existing or possible modes of transportation.

3. It must involve a minimum of dislocation of homes or places of business.

4. It must involve a minimum cost of construction of buildings or remodeling of existing buildings.

5. It must be located so as to involve the minimum of noise from traffic or airplanes.

6. It must be harmonious with the neighborhood in which it is located.

7. It should contribute something of architectural significance to the neighborhood in which it is to be located.

We think that in considering those seven criteria the National Training School for Boys site is by far the most desired site mentioned, as stated by one of the witnesses this morning, Mr. Howard, and you, yourself, in the opening of the sessions last week mentioned the possibility of the Bureau of Standards site. We feel that that is too limited in area to afford the growth that would take place in this institution.

You may recall that the local newspapers last fall carried a series of articles about all of the local privatey controlled universities and colleges and every one of them had practically utilized every available

square foot on the present campus and was spreading outside spilling over into the neighboring residential communities. It ought to be possible to have a site where expansion could take place without having to do that sort of thing. The Bureau of Standards would not be large enough for that purpose.

Secondly, many of the buildings in the Bureau of Standards are made up of relatively small individual research laboratory rooms which would be too small for classroom use without removing a great many partitions and the cost of remodeling, removing laboratory furniture and apparatus and piping, and so on, and construction walls to make the rooms large enough would be probably as expensive or more expensive than building a new building on an unimproved site designed specifically for college use at the beginning.

So we just feel that the Bureau of Standards site leaves much to be desired from those two aspects of it. Some other sites that might be available in terms of area would involve the dislocation of places of business or of private homes so that families would have to be moved out and we think in view of the tremendous housing shortage in the District we ought to take every means possible to avoid that thing from happening.

So we feel that all of these criteria taken together point the finger to the National Training School for Boys site as one and we hope that your committee will see fit to include this provision or something equivalent to it in the bill before it is reported out to the Senate.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Haworth, I am very glad to have this statement on the school site problem. I don't know what the committee is going to do but there has been sufficient testimony in the hearings as you know, that I think we are going to have to grapple with it and decide what our policy should be; whether or not we should take it upon ourselves to be the selector of the site or whether we should deal with people possibly better qualified. It is a highly technical matter and cause for an expertise that I do not think we on the committee possess. For example, the points that you have just now made in regard to the Bureau of Standards site which needs to be gone into by whoever is going to make the site selection. We are neither an architect nor one that possesses the necessary qualifications to select site X over site Y. On the other hand, we could function as intelligent jurors. It may be that there is another avenue that we might pursue and that is to seek to provide for whatever understanding we might reach with the executive branch of the Government or, if necessary, by way of a resolution to place a hold order on the National Training School area, the Bureau of Standards area, or any other area that we might give consideration to with the understanding that they would not be disposed of until there was a final selection made for the university site.

Mr. HAWORTH. Something of that sort would be highly desirable, Senator, because otherwise that site at the Training School is likely to slip away from all concerned, and once it is gone it cannot be retrieved with any great degree of success.

Then the last section of amendments to S. 293 that we propose is one about which there is some legitimate question.

There is authorized to be appropriated from funds available to the District of Columbia, the sum of $15 million for plans, specifications, and beginning of construction of buildings necessary to carry on the purposes of the University of the District of Columbia.