« PreviousContinue »
the opportunity to do so if the District established a publicly supported college of arts and sciences.
Adding to these the graduates of parochial and private secondary schools and some 200 to 250 students interested in preparing to teach, the Committee concluded that the college should be prepared to admit, at the beginning, at least 600 entering students from the District.
On this basis, and assuming normal attrition and some admissions with advanced standing from the public community college, it would be reasonable to expect a total enrollment of perhaps 2,000 in the 4th year of the college operation.
The college should therefore be planned to meet the needs of District students for liberal education, while providing also preparation for teaching, counseling, and other educational functions. It should grant both baccalaureate and master's degrees, particularly since the master's degree is required for permanent teaching appointments in the District's secondary schools.
SOME NEXT STEPS
Authorization of the Board and the two public colleges is, of course, only the first step in meeting the higher educational needs of the District. Following such authorization there will have to be further intensive study and planning leading to the actual establishment and operation of the new institutions.
The first step would be the early appointment of the president and one or more administrative officers of each of the colleges. This step is, we believe, basic to effective, orderly, and early implementation of the new institutions.
For each college, the president and his staff should prepare the plans and budgets for consideration by the Board of Higher Education. Participation by the chief executive officer who will actually guide each of the institutions is vital to each of the following:
Planning the academic program of each institution.
Development of admissions policies and, based upon these, more refined enrollment estimates.
Preparation of an organization plan and a staffing pattern, and initial recruitment of key staff and faculty.
Specification of the needed physical facilities, based upon the academic program and upon corresponding enrollment estimates. Selection of sites for the new institutions (one or both might well, of course, get underway initially in temporary space, either rented or borrowed.)
Preparation of a capital budget and of an initial operating budget.
One very important consideration in connection with the operating budget is the matter of student tuition and fees. The President's Committee recommended a policy of maintaining low student charges. Using national averages it is possible to arrive at estimates of operating costs.
The mean educational and general current expenditure per student in publicly controlled institutions of higher education in 1963-64 was $1,456. Separating the 4-year and 2-year publicly controlled institutions, the figures for 1963-64 are $1,596 per student for 4-year public institutions and $682 per student for 2-year public institutions, and
the trend would indicate expenditures in 1965-66 of $1,675 and $715 respectively.
Income from student tuition and fees in 1963-64 nationwide amounted to 14.4 percent of current educational and general expenditures in public higher education institutions in the United States. If students paid the national average for public institutions of oneseventh of educational and general expenses, the student 4-year cost for the college of arts and sciences would be approximately $960, which would be $240 per year, and the 2-year cost for the community college would be approximately $400.
I respectfully call to your attention the information appearing previously in my testimony concerning tuition charges in the District of Columbia.
The U.S. Department of Commerce figures on direct expenditures of State and local governments for education, by per capita income for 1962, show a national per capita personal income of $2,367; for the District of Columbia, $3,211.
In this same year, the District of Columbia had a higher per capita income than any State in the country. For the Nation as a whole, the amount per capita devoted to direct general expenditures for education was $117.97. For the District of Columbia, it was $74.07. Expenditures per capita for higher education as a percentage of personal income per capita were 4.99 percent for the Nation and 2.30 percent for the District of Columbia.
Let me emphasize the point that nationwide the average State contribution per capita for higher education in 1963-64 was $28.87. In the District of Columbia the contribution to higher education per capita was $2.26. I might add that in the neighboring States of Maryland the comparable figure was $2.23, and in Virginia it was $19.40. Senator MORSE. Could I ask one question about another figure? I think these figures you have on pages 14 and 15 of your statement are of vital importance to this hearing. You have a U.S. Department of Commerce figure on direct expenditures of State and local government for education per capita in an amount in percent of per capita incomes for 1962; national per capita personal income of $2,366, and for the District of Columbia, $3,219?
Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.
Senator MORSE. Do you have any figures since 1962?
Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think we have figures we can present for the record.
(Information requested follows:)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
Comparison by State of personal income per capita and expenditure for higher education per capita
Senator MORSE. I would like to have the committee staff cooperate with you if you do not have the figures. Maybe you can obtain them if they are not now in existence. Do you suppose this difference may be due to the fact that there is such a substantial amount of Federal employment in the District? Are the Federal figures included in that average?
Mr. MUIRHEAD. Oh, yes. These are the figures for personal incomes in the District including people who are employed by the Federal Government and are residing in the District.
Senator MORSE. This gives the District of Columbia a very high percentage of Federal payroll incorporated in any calculation of per capita area; does it not?
Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.
Senator MORSE. You check me on this because I was not aware of this very interesting figure. As far as the children of the Federal employees are concerned, whose average annual incomes would be substantially higher than the $3,219, it would be reasonable to expect that the larger percentage of their children would go to other institutions of higher learning, either in or outside of the District of Columbia and that on the average the students that would go to the community college that we seek to establish by this bill would come from families who are below the $3,219 average?
Mr. MUIRHEAD. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that would be a very reasonable assumption and to back it up we already discussed, if you recall, the number of high school graduates going on to college from the high schools of the District. We find that in those high schools in areas of the District with high incomes, there is a high percentage of their students going on. If I recall, a high school that was located in an area of incomes above $10,000, 78 percent of the high school graduates went on; but in areas where incomes were less than $5,000, the percentage of high school graduates going on was as low as 1 percent in one of the high schools.
Senator MORSE. That is the point I wanted to make certain that we are dealing here with facts. I am interested in nothing but facts. An average of $3,219 is an average figure and you and I know that average figures have to be analyzed very carefully. Yet with an average of $3,219 there are a great many in the District that earn less than $3,219, and it is their children that this chairman is particularly concerned about in connection with this legislation.
Counsel for the subcommittee has handed me a note pointing out that the Bureau of Labor statistics survey of 1962-and the figures are that old-show that one-fifth of the District of Columbia population earns less than $3,000 a year. So we have a substantial body of our population that are in very low income brackets.
In fact in our education hearings of the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the $3,000 figure is classified as a poverty figure. But these figures, to me, are very helpful, and I appreciate very much your submitting them. (At this point Senator Yarborough entered the room.)
Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough, would you like to testify now or would you like to hear the page and one-half of the witness's statement before you begin?
Senator YARBOROUGH. Were it not for the full session of the Appro
priations Committee meeting this morning on foreign aid I would like to stay here for the entire morning. However, I would like to stay to hear Dr. Muirhead conclude his prepared statement then if you might give me an opportunity to make a brief statement before his questioning, I would appreciate it.
Senator MORSE. You proceed and finish reading your statement. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Going on among the 51 jurisdictions, direct general expenditures for education were the lowest in the District of Columbia in terms of amount per capita and percent of per capita income in 1962. With your permission we will try to bring those figures a little more up to date.
Any concern about ability of the District of Columbia to pay should be allayed by these comparative figures. Accesss to Federal assistance through the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the student loan and work-study programs, and the developing institutions and library titles of the Higher Education Act of 1965 should hasten the implementation of the programs provided in this bill.
It has been suggested that it would be more economical for the District of Columbia to provide scholarships for needy students, enabling them to attend existing institutions, rather than to establish two new institutions. The arguments pro and con parallel those on the issue, rent rather than build. Available evidence indicates that the landlord will increasingly have the advantage in terms of supply and demand.
Furthermore, a scholarship fund cannot offer the student a stable, solid resource such as that represented by the institutions here proposed.
Senator MORSE. I want to interrupt. I think there is another argument against that argument. That is the need across the country for more school construction. Again we will put the exact figure in but this figure has stood up in all the rebuttal arguments before the Subcommittee on Education. It was first used in our hearings in 1962. The figure used then was that by 1980 in order to meet the knocks on the doors of the colleges and universities of qualified students that is students capable of doing satisfactory work-we would have to double the size of every university and college, public and private, and build a thousand new ones with an average student population of 2,000.
So as far as this chairman is concerned I have never in all the hearings that I have conducted found an answer to the physical need offset by the argument that scholarships and loans will answer those knocks on the doors. If you have not got the physical facilities into which those students can walk, you are going to have to deny an education to tens of thousands of students.
Therefore, let it be understood early so that future witnesses can direct themselves to my point of view, for my mind will always change if somebody can give me facts that will show me that my thinking is in error, but that argument is going to have to be answered as far as this chairman is concerned.
I am not going to sacrifice the need for a community college in the District of Columbia with the argument "We will just give them scholarships." When you give them scholarships you still have a backlog of other students that are not going to get the scholarships.