on a board already heavily committed to the grave responsibilities for the proper administration of a huge public school system would almost ensure that those problems would not and could not get the attention they will deserve and require.

More basically, however, general experience throughout the United States has again and again pointed up the advantages of separating completely the responsibility for the public schools from the responsibility for institutions of higher education. The structure and procedures of institutions at the two levels and hence the role of the governing board in each case-are very different. In an institution of higher learning, the faculty has far greater responsibility and authority than does the teaching staff of an elementary school or a high school. The board of trustees of a college or university wisely leaves the establishment and maintenance of academic standards, the design of curricula and the methods of teaching in the hands of the faculty, with the president giving assistance and guidance. Responsibility for the finances of the institution, the appointment of its chief administrative officers, and such major decisions as the addition or (less frequently) the abandonment of special schools or academic divisions within the institution, are the main duties of such a board. But so long as the presiding officer of the faculty-the president-enjoys the confidence of his board and his faculty, he and his teaching colleagues accept great responsibility and enjoy relative autonomy.

This is not the modus operandi of a public school system, and most school boards familiar with the practices of the latter would find it not only strange but profoundly disquieting. The District Board of Education is not essentially different from most. No disparagement is intended in stating the belief of the Committee that, inevitably, a single board cannot easily or effectively accommodate to two such completely different systems of instituitional governance or accept the diverse roles that follow.

There will, of course, be problems that relate to both boards, and the need for liaison at both the policy and the operational levels is obvious. While there are many devices to facilitate the required cooperation between boards, only one condition is essential: a genuine willingness to work in concert. Where such a spirit exists, cooperation at the ad

ministrative staff level, which is generally the most necessary and effective level, is relatively easy, and occasional policy problems involving both boards can readily be dealt with by either informal discussion or by a request more formally made by a representative of one board to appear before the other.

The Committee is also of the opinion that a method of selecting the Board of Higher Education different from that used for the selection of the Board of Education would be desirable. This country has a strong tradition that the boards governing its public schools should be composed predominantly of laymen and should be genuinely representative of the community served by the school system. In practice, most school boards are elected, and while this procedure may create problems from time to time, it has led to an active and wholesome participation in school affairs by parents of schoolchildren and by many citizens who have a disinterested concern for the welfare of the community. The tradition itself has grown naturally because, at one time or another, the public schools affect virtually every citizen in every community. With this concern has also grown a considerable degree of understanding of the issues involved.

In the realm of higher education-even publicly supported higher education-no such tradition has as yet been created. It may also be said that the conditions of widespread concern and of understanding of the issues are less notably present regarding the procedures and results of higher education. Special care must be taken, therefore, to find persons of the highest degree of knowledgeability to preside over the affairs of all our institutions of higher learning, and particularly of the two new colleges recommended for the District.

The Committee suggests that the Board of Higher Education for the District of Columbia should be an appointive, rather than an elective, board. Its membership should not be smaller than 9 nor larger than 15. A majority of its members should be persons who have resided in the District for a minimum of 6 or 7 years. Terms of office should be for a period of 4 to 6 years and should be so arranged that the term of some members expires each year. The members should be selected essentially for the wisdom and skill they can contribute to guarding, guiding and strengthening the new institutions. They should also be broadly representa

tive of the District and its highest interests. They should be removable only for cause.

The appointive power, the Committee believes, should be in the Board of Commissioners. The Committee suggests, however, that serious consideration be given to a procedure under which the Board of Commissioners would appoint a Nominating Committee of outstanding District residents. The Nominating Committee (whose members would themselves be ineligible for nomination) would then submit a panel of nominees for Board vacancies, with at least three names for each vacancy. The Board of Commissioners would then make its appointments exclusively from that panel.

The Committee is well aware that no system of making appointments can be fully protected from the possibility of abuse. The procedure it has suggested is no exception, but it does put real responsibility upon the highest officials of the District, while giving an important advisory function to other representative leaders of the community.

C. Prompt Planning and Preliminary Organization

Finally, the Committee recommends that the Board of Commissioners provide as soon as possible for preliminary planning and site selection and for estimates of the expenditures that will be needed in establishing and operating the two institutions. This planning should of course explore the possibilities for both interim and permanent locations and establish as definitely as possible the amounts of Federal aid that may become available to the District for the two proposed institutions under such recent laws as titles I, II and III of the Higher Education Act of 1963 and Public Law 88-210.

The Committee believes that it is of great importance that the Board of Higher Education be appointed at the earliest possible time so that it may undertake promptly the general supervision of the organization of the two colleges. This undertaking will require that the Board immediately appoint the two presidents and, with their advice, the directors of the two Divisions of Institutional Research and Evaluation. They, in turn, will be able to start the all-important process of recruiting faculties and planning programs.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR GALE MCGEE ON S. 293

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to submit this statement to the committee on a matter which I think is of utmost importance to the future of education in the Nation's Capital.

As a sponsor of S. 293, introduced by the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Morse, and as one who has spent almost 25 years in the educational field, I want to strongly state my belief that the money we spend to improve education is by far the best investment we could possibly make for the future of this city and of the Nation.

I am sure the committee has at hand the studies made by people who have investigated the existing facilities and I shall not attempt to duplicate these reports but merely state my conviction that it is patently obvious that the District of Columbia has not the facilities for higher education to meet the needs of the young people of the city.

It is true, Mr. Chairman, that there are a number of colleges and universities in and about Washington, but these, except for two instances, are private institutions which necessarily have high tuition fees beyond the scope of a great many of the District's young people. The crux of the problem is that we are not now providing higher educational facilities for the people who need them the most, the children from low-income families. It is this reservoir of potential that, if wasted, can result in not only personal tragedy but in community decline. I have always believed that the Capital City of the world's strongest and richest democracy should reflect in every way the advantages that the democratic way of life can bring to its citizens. Yet, because of its unique "stepchild of the Congress" relationship, we find the District in many ways, including education, to be lagging sadly behind the national average. I believe that this bill represents a badly needed step in the direction of improving the educational opportunities for District young people, and I hope that it will receive rapid and favorable consideration by this committee and the Congress.

Senator MORSE. We are very honored to have Senator Smith with us this morning.

We are delighted to have you and we want you to know, and I want this audience to know, the great help you have been to this committee and to the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee as we have worked together trying to help solve the educational crises in this country.

It is a great honor for me to present you this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. MARGARET CHASE SMITH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MAINE

Senator SMITH. Thank you. I remember most pleasantly my earlier days in the Senate when I, too, was a member of the District of Columbia Committee. Perhaps that was one reason why I have been more interested in District of Columbia problems than I would otherwise have been.

During the past few years, facilities for higher education have been greatly augmented everywhere in the United States. The encouragement and financial support given by the Congress and by State and local governments have made possible this desirable educational development. Practically all existing public colleges and universities have been strengthened and enlarged.

Numerous publicly supported teachers colleges have become State liberal arts colleges or universities. Funds in unprecedented amounts have been appropriated for capital expenditures and for the higher operating costs occasioned by larger enrollments.

Regrettably, it is only in the District of Columbia that there have been no programs for expanding and strengthening public higher edu

cation. Many well-qualified graduates of District of Columbia secondary schools continue to be denied the opportunity for further study because they cannot afford to pay the tuition fees necessarily charged by private colleges and universities.

Washington's only publicly supported and operated higher institution is the District of Columbia Teachers College, but it can accommodate only about 1,000 students and admits only those young men and women who plan to become teachers.

Because of this limitation, there are, annually, hundreds of qualified graduates of District high schools who find no opportunity to prepare for careers other than teaching.

Secondary school graduates who need a year or two of post-highschool training to prepare themselves for the many jobs in business, industry, or Government, are similarly handicapped. There is no public 2-year community college in the District of Columbia.

I sincerely believe that the young people of the District of Columbia, who are qualified by character and ability for post-high-school education, merit opportunities for higher education comparable to those now available to young Americans in all our States and in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

The implementation of recommendations submitted to the President by a distinguished committee appointed to study the needs of public higher education in the District of Columbia, would provide a modest beginning toward the achievement of that goal. And this I understand is the purpose of S. 293, which authorizes the establishment of a Board of Higher Education "to plan, establish, organize and operate a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia."

I hope the bill will receive favorable consideration.
Senator MORSE. Thank you very much.

I want to say, Senator Smith, this committee does not do anything without the support of the Senate, and one of the reasons we have the support of the Senate is because of your interest in young people and their educational training.

Thank you very much.

Our next witness will be Hon. Peter C. Muirhead, Associate Commissioner of U.S. Education and Director of the Bureau of Higher Education, accompanied by Dr. Francis S. Chase, Chairman of the President's Committee on Public Higher Education.

I want to say on behalf of the whole committee that it appreciates very much the leadership that you have given to the cause that we start hearings on this morning, and I particularly want to thank you for the material that you have made available to this committee. To you, Dr. Chase, I think the entire community is greatly indebted for the very objective work and the careful research that you have devoted yourself to in presenting for the benefit of this committee, what I think will be some of the basic facts that we are going to need in order to come to an intelligent and enlightened decision on these bills.

As was true in past legislation that I have sponsored, so it is true of this legislation, I am perfectly willing to consider any reasonable amendments to it that the facts may show are necessary. However, I do want to make clear at the outset of the hearing that I believe that this is the year that we need to pass legislation that will start