junior colleges as the law now stands. It was amended and the law does contain a provision that 22 percent of the funds will be made. available for junior colleges. With that type of program, I can report to you, however, that in the first year in which the program operated we had a total of 98 institutions receiving assistance and of that 98 we had 43 of the institutions that were predominantly Negro colleges. That amounted to about 60 percent of the money. We are about to announce and will announce probably this week the program for this year which amounts to $30 million and that will provide you with information, the first announcement will cover $22 million rather than the $30 million and 244 institutions will be 4-year institutions and 81 2-year institutions making a total of 325 institutions. Of that amount of money, and also not only the cooperative institutions, there will be over 1,200 fellowships supported under that. Again, there is an emphasis on the predominantly Negro colleges. I have some figures here on that, I think, telling precisely the amount of money that will go to predominantly Negro colleges. Of the programs that will be supported, 72 of the institutions will be predominantly Negro colleges and they will have grants totaling about 50 percent of the amount of money that is being distributed at this time, the $22 million. Mr. QUIE. Could you put that information in the table in the record? Mr. QUIE. Also how many of the junior colleges are newly established and how many are now started. Will some of them be 4-year institutions or are all of the 4-year institutions ones that have been established for some time and the emphasis is on upgrading them? Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes, yes. Well, the law makes provision the institution has to be in operation for 5 years. The developing institutions program is not directed at providing help to starting institutions. This applies to all institutions. Mr. Howe. They have to be accredited or give other evidence relating to accreditation. Mrs. GREEN. On that, did we change the three college, three letters for accreditation? Mr. MUIRHEAD. We have not changed it, Mrs. Green. We have before you a proposal that would tend to bring hopefully some order out of chaos that exists now. Mrs. GREEN. Is this in the bill? Mr. Howe. Yes; we have a provision in the bill. Mrs. GREEN. What is it? Mr. Howe. What we are saying is that there should be an opportunity for new institutions, which can receive from an accrediting association a promise of reasonable assurance that they will meet their standards, to participate in the higher education programs. They do not have an opportunity at the present time. In some of the higher education programs one of the provisions, the one you mentioned, is that the institution can become eligible if they have three letters from institutions that are accredited. We would prefer, and I think you would agree, that we move to some sort of uniformity in accreditation and that we place the responsibility on the 1 accrediting associations. The proposal you have before you, if it is enacted, would mean in effect institutions which are not accredited per se, could receive a provision of reasonable assurance from accrediting associations and would be eligible under that particular restriction. Mr. QUIE. Do the cooperating institutions have to be accredited? Mr. Howe. Yes. The cooperating institution has to meet the accreditation standards in the bill. In almost every instance, as you would expect, Mr. Quie, the cooperating institution, being a major institution, has a longstanding of accreditation. Mr. QUIE. On page 18 of the Commissioner's statement, it says, "115 developing institutions and 16 cooperative and nine business institutes." Are they developing business institutes or developing business entities? Mr. Howe. The developing institutions law makes it possible for us to deal not only with institutions of higher education but with other institutions or other associations. For example, the association of small colleges would submit a proposal on behalf of a group of their clients. Mr. QUIE. The business entities are associations of colleges rather than IBM, General Electric, or anybody else who is in the business of manufacturing educational material? Mr. Howe. That is right. Mr. QUIE. It seems odd you call them "business entities"? Mr. Howe. It seems odd to me. Mr. QUIE. I will ask the Commissioner; who used the term? Mr. QUIE. Let me ask one other question, which refers to the bottom of the paragraph on page 18 for developing institutions. In Florida there is an interinstitutional program on Asian studies. If you said this could be used, and Paul Miller was going to use his money, which I hope he finally receives from the Appropriation Committees of the Congress, for the institutional five-college program on Asian studies, I wouldn't be surprised at all, but to find it under title III of the Higher Education Act, it seems there would be programs you need other than this. Am I wrong or is this something needed to develop the strength of some colleges in Florida? Mr. Howe. That is a perfectly normal part of college education, to have an interest in one aspect or another of international studies. It is a reasonable way to strengthen an institution to add to its capability in that area, so I don't see or don't say it should be outside of the concern of title III. I think as long as the institutions are those which would be eligible under title III, whatever aspects of their program seem to them as important to build up, as long as they are significant aspects of higher education, which international education certainly is, it would be perfectly reasonable to have this. Mr. QUIE. I would assume those five colleges are strong in every other way but in their Asian study department. Therefore, in order to develop strength, we have to improve them? Mr. Howe. I would suggest they probably are not, but it seemed to them this is the element they wish to strengthen. Mr. QUIE. It does not seem to me to be a very wise priority. Suppose the whole institution is weakened one way or another. Is this the way they are going to strengthen it, by improving their aid and studies? As far as I am concerned I favor this, since we are going to be involved in Asia now and for a long time in the future. But the question is should it be done with title III. Mr. Howe. I think you are answering your question in saying the Government should support the Asian studies, as being an important part, but an institution with several hundred or thousand youngsters. where it can't provide any opportunity in his area is missing a significant part of higher education. Mr. QUIE. Yet, is this the purpose of title III? Mr. Howe. I don't think title III tried to address itself to one area of the curriculum over another. I think it addressed itself to a variety of different approaches by institutions to improve their services. Mrs. GREEN. Would you yield? To help understand this, you say you have established a project in Oregon that is to improve instruction in five or six different areas. Is this to improve the University of Oregon to bring people to the University of Oregon from developing institutions? Mr. HowE. We work both ways actually. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Well, quite obviously, it is not aimed at strengthening the University of Oregon, but the program to assist the developing institutions may be carried on either on the campus of the cooperating institution or on their own campus, or the campus of the individual institution. I am not on top of the particular details of this program, Mrs. Green, but it is typical of types of programs involving major universities in which they may bring staff from the developing institutions to their own campus or may share with the developing institutions some of their own staff. Mrs. GREEN. Could you provide, not for the record, but could you provide me the names of the people who are in this project in Oregon for intensive faculty work sessions and where they come from? Mr. MUIRHEAD. By all means. Mr. QUIE. Could you also submit for the record the names of the institutions that are developing institutions and the length of time that they have been in operation and what makes them a developing insitution rather than a developed one? Mr. HowE. Mr. Quie, by saying "names of institutions that are developing institutions," you mean those to which we are making grants? Mr. QUIE. That is right. Mr. Howe. We would be hard put to draw a clear line, I think, looking at all 2,000 institutions. Mr. QUIE. I won't ask you to do that, just the ones you have funded, the 115 you mentioned here. Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes; and we will be pleased to provide for the record also the number we are funding imminently, which will be this week. Mr. QUIE. That is all the questions I have. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY AS A DEVELOPING INSTITUTION (TITLE III HIGHER EDUCATION ACT) In order to be considered for support under Title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965, Strengthening Developing Institutions, an institution of higher education must first meet the basic requirements as set forth in Section 302 of the Act, "Definition of 'Developing Institution.'" It must be "a public or nonprofit educational institution in any State which(a) admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a secondary school, or the recognized equivalent of such certificate; (b) is legally authorized to provide, and provides within the State, an educational program for which it awards a bachelor's degree, or provides not less that a two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree, or offers a two-year program in engineering, mathematics, or the physical or biological sciences which is designed to prepare the student to work as a technician and at a semiprofessional level in engineering, scientific, or other technological fields which require the understanding and application of basic engineering, scientific, or mathematical principles of knowledge; (c) is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association determined by the Commissioner to be reliable authority as to the quality of training offered or is, according to such an agency or association, making reasonable progress toward accreditation; (d) has met the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) during the five academic years preceding the academic year for which it seeks assistance under this title; (e) is making a reasonable effort to improve the quality of its teaching and administrative staffs and of its student services; (f) is, for financial or other reasons, struggling for survival and is isolated from the main currents of academic life; (g) meets such other requirements as the Commissioner may prescribe by regulation; and (h) is not an institution, or department or branch of an institution, whose program is specifically for the education of students to prepare them to become ministers of religion or to enter upon some other religious vocation or to prepare them to teach theological subjects." A majority of these items are clear-cut and may be readily applied to applicant institutions. However, such requirements as "is making a reasonable effort to improve the quality of its teaching and administrative staffs and of its students services" and “is, for financial or other reasons, struggling for survival and is isolated from the main currents of academic life" are less tangible, requiring a degree of subjective analysis and judgment. In its first two years of operation, the division of College Support has relied heavily upon the advice and assistance of its Advisory Council. The Council has provided guidance in the establishment of guidelines. It has seemed wise to avoid a strict definition of developing institutions which might preclude assistance to a number of institutions defining themselves as developing. The data accumulating from this source have proved to be invaluable in establishing more objective characteristics for the judgmental aspects of the law. As our experience develops, we see emerging a profile which begins to distinguish a developing institution from all others. For example, these institutions bear the following range of characteristics within the categories utilized by accrediting associations as indices to quality. 1. Enrollment Mean average, 1,089. Moving toward the acceptable 1,500 level. 2. Endowment income ог annual Mean average, $125,000. Moving toward State appropriations. 3. Tuition 4. Educational and general expenditures. 5. Educational and general expenditures for student. 6. Faculty $900,000. Mean average, $556. Moving toward $1,500. Mean average, $1,141,000. Moving toward $2,107,400. Mean average, $1,048. Moving toward $1,740. Mean average, 66. Moving toward 98. 7. Percent of faculty holding the Mean average, 26 percent. Moving toward doctorate. 8. Student-faculty ratio___ 9. Library volumes___. 52 percent. Mean average, 20. Moving toward 12. Mean average, 51,000. Moving toward 157,000. This profile could be interpreted, on the other hand, by stating what appears to be the emerging criteria for determining eligibility as a developing institution. 1. Extreme financial limitations such as salaries of less than $6,000, unrestricted endowment less than $3 million, percentage cost of instruction per student less than 45 percent and expenditures for library less than 5 percent. 2. High faculty-student ratio. 3. Limited library holdings (one-third of the generally accepted minimum requirements). 4. Low percentage (less than one-third) of faculty holding Ph.D degrees. 5. High percentage of students (two-thirds) on scholarships and grants in aid. 6. Poor physical facilities-lack of funds for upkeep and maintenance. 7. Poorly prepared students. 8. Cultural, social, professional, and academic isolation. 9. Little or no foundation, alumni, or corporate support. 10. Little or no sponsored research. No faculty publications. 11. Program offerings and counseling services out of step with new opportunities in careers and vocational occupations. 12. Degree of concern for the development of remedial or corrective programs. 13. Dearth of faculty with scholarly backgrounds and achievements accompanied by inability to attract highly accomplished faculty due to poor institutional incentive. 14. Inadequate development offices and limited capacity for long-range planning. Hopefully, at the end of a three-year period, the program shall have matured sufficiently to have developed more objective guidelines for the appraisal of basic institutional strength within the universe of developing institutions. (Commissioner Howe submitted the following material:) Developing Institutions-Title III, The Higher Education Act of 1965 (P.L 89-329). Alabama: California-Continued College of Notre Dame Pacific Oaks College San Francisco College for Women San Joaquin Delta College Southern California College Westmont College Colorado: Fort Lewis College Loretto Heights College Connecticut: New Haven College District of Columbia: Immaculate Col- Florida: Bethune-Cookman College Brevard Junior College Central Florida Junior College tute Florida A&M University Florida Memorial College Indian River Junior College Junior College of Broward County |