STATEMENT OF DR. GLENN A. GOERKE, STATE DIRECTOR, CONTINUING EDUCATION, FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF REGENTS, OFFICE OF CONTINUING EDUCATION, STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF FLORIDA; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT J. PITCHELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION Mr. GIBBONS. We are glad to have you here, sir. Anytime we have a face from Florida I am happy to see them. We particularly welcome

you.

Dr. GOERKE. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I am Glenn A. Goerke, State director of continuing education, Florida Board of Regents Office for Continuing Education, State University System of Florida.

I have with me Robert J. Pitchell, executive director of the National University Extension Association, a man with broad experience in education and government. He has served in education on the facutlies of Indiana and Purdue Universities, and as president of Roosevelt University; and in government as director of the Indiana Tax Study Commission, as deputy administrator of the Federal Extension Service and as a senior member of the staff of Senator Birch Bayh.

Dr. Pitchell and I are appearing before you on behalf of the 129 U.S. member institutions of the National University Extension Association who represent the leading institutions of higher education with extension and continuing education programs in 49 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

I am pleased to provide a list of member institutions for the record. (The list follows:)

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY EXTENSION ASSOCIATION, MEMBERSHIP Roster

Dr. GOERKE. On behalf of our members, I wish to thank the committee and its gracious chairman for the privilege of testifying with regard to two amendments to the Higher Education Act which are embodied in H.R. 6232, the Higher Education Amendments of 1967.

I refer specifically to the amendments to title I and title V of the act. The deep and abiding interest of member institutions in title I of the Higher Education Act is exemplified by the fact that 105 members received title I grants under the 1966 and 1967 appropriations, out of 122 who were eligible. Over 64 percent of funds allocated during fiscal year 1966 were received by member institutions.

Because of our interest in title I, we would like to go on record in support of the administration's amendments.

We are especially interested in maintaining the matching requirements in the 75-25 formula. One of the great boons of this act is the opportunity it provides many public and private community colleges to develop community service-oriented extension and continuing education programs for their constituents.

Many of these schools were without the necessary staff resources and facilities for developing title I programs as intended under the act. Many were unable to be funded during the first 2 fiscal years because only $20 million of the $75 million authorized were appropriated. The schools which could least afford it would be hurt the hardest by a change in the matching requirement to a 50-50 formula.

In the well-established schools, continuing education programs have traditionally been self-supporting. At the University of California, for example, which has the largest budget in the Nation for general extension, State funds account for only 7 percent of the budget.

The managers of extension divisions have usually had to restrict themselves to self-supporting programs. The limited experience under title I during the 10 months it has been operating in the field has not enabled these schools to develop the necessary sources of funds to assume the burden of 50 percent financing.

We, therefore, urge you to give favorable consideration to extending the 75-25 matching requirement for at least through fiscal year 1969.

The amendment also provides for extending authorization through fiscal year 1972. In reviewing the implementation of many new Federal education programs, many of us are learning anew what we have always known: There is no such thing as instant education.

This is true at every level of education and is accentuated where we are dealing with the more complex processes of community development. Public officials, such as the honorable members of this committee, have often been acutely aware of the difficulty of educating the public regarding the complexities of many public issues and political proc

esses.

The problem is essentially the same for educators, although in many instances they cannot gain easy access to adequate media coverage. Extension of the authorization is necessary for another practical reason. Good administration is usually half the solution to any organizational goal. One of the more important elements of good administration is a reasonable degree of predictability regarding income.

General Motors could not run efficiently or effectively if its car sales were to fluctuate wildly and unpredictably each year. Universities are not exempt from this requirement. Professional staff cannot be hired or retained, space cannot be allocated economically, and program problems cannot be resolved with maximum benefit to the community if

longer range planning than is currently assured is not available to Federal and university administrators.

We, therefore, urge you to give the most sympathetic consideration to the administration's request for extension of the authorization through fiscal year 1972.

The member institutions of the National University Extension Association are aware that a major purpose of title I is to bring about community change as a part of the process of solving serious or persistent community problems.

Many of these problems are regional-Appalachia is a noteworthy example, or cut across State lines-as in the transportation problems of Metropolitan New York or Metropolitan Washington.

Administratively, it is far more efficient to attempt to organize solutions to these area problems with direct project funding from Washington, provided, of course, that some imaginative and ingenious State and local administrators have not worked out effective solutions on their own.

Under the existing statute solutions to regional problems through direct funding are not possible. The existing statute also inhibits innovative and experimental programs. It is likely that if research funds were available, we could readily demonstrate the truth of the proposition that the possibility of innovative, experimental programs being approved is in inverse ratio to the number of layers of bureaucracy and the size of the committees through which approval must be obtained.

The State agency system and its advisory committee are beneficial to the program in most respects but they have not produced the experimental projects this program deserves and needs.

Not every community needs highly innovative or experimental projects in any given year of course; but many do, especially where community problems have been most persistent.

Where community leaders and their local institutions of higher education are willing to undertake such projects, they should be allowed to do so with a minimum of screening except to insure that the purposes of the act will be achieved.

For these reasons, we believe that the administration has wisely requested authorization for allocation of up to 10 percent of appropriated funds to the Commissioner for grants or contracts with institutions of higher education to carry out innovative, experimental and regional projects. We hope the committee will also review this request sympathetically.

We have a word of caution regarding grants and contracts under this section (107) which we will refer to at the end of our comments on title V.

The amendment to title V is a piece of legislation the education profession has long awaited. It represents a bold, imaginative and sound response to the growing needs for recruitment into the profession and the continuing retraining of those who are careerists in education.

Those of us in the field of higher adult education are deeply aware of the need for lifelong learning no matter what one's profession is; and we recognize this need for ourselves as well as for others.

This amendment will enable us to expand and intensify our efforts in this area. Up to now budgets for this purpose in our institutions of higher education have been nonexistent in many cases.

Professional training programs in most member institutions are limited to selection of a few senior people to attend the annual conference of the association and a larger number to attend a regional meeting once a year.

We can expect no more when students are unwilling or unable to pay the full cost of adult education coursework and public funds are not made available for this purpose.

As excited as we are at the prospects for the education professions in the United States and more specifically to the higher adult education movement by the passage of the Education Professions Development Act, we would like to share with the members of this committee our deep concern with the provisions of titles I and V amendments which authorize the Commissioner to contract with private organizations to carry out many of the key programs thereunder. We refer specifically to section 107 of title I and section 532 (a) of title V.

It is our understanding that the Commissioner has asked for this authorization so that he may have maximum flexibility for carrying out the purposes of the act. We will support all efforts to achieve this goal.

But we do not believe that contracts with profitmaking enterprises to conduct preservice or inservice training programs for professional and paraprofessional staff in the education professions are likely to produce the desired effects.

On the contrary, they will have many undesirable results.

It would be proper for you to ask: What is the nature of this issue and how might it be resolved?

This matter was thoroughly discussed at the association's annual conference in Ann Arbor, Mich., last week. Representatives of member institutions expressed strong feelings on the subject. They agreed that the problem centered on the following points:

1. There is no evidence that private profitmaking organizations are capable of organizing effective education programs at an economical cost. We are not referring to inservice training programs which corporations organize for their own personnel.

As a general rule, one can say that no one is more capable of conducting a true inservice training program for a given organization than its own staff.

Nor are we referring to "canned" programs such as the one-shot deals offered by specialist companies in the fields of public speaking, business management, and foreign languages.

We believe it is imperative that the record in this regard be reviewed carefully and objectively.

2. Experience on many of our campuses reveals that most private contractors find it necessary to raid university campuses to get professional staff after contracts are received.

In many cases, we find these contractors using the ingenious technique of hiring faculty on a part-time basis only for the period of the contract. The faculty member receives marginal rates on an overload basis from the contractor and the university pays the basic costs of