all the junior colleges, some 69 or 72 of those. But they are apparently thinking in terms of some different means of doing this. I would simply say generally that I think it is very timely that the District might have some additional training opportunities for both non-high-school graduates, as Mr. McKee testified, as well as high school graduates. Mr. NELSEN. Now, there have been suggestions made that vocational education systems should be geared to training people to hold Les jobs that exist in the area. I am not in agreement with that for this reason: individuals have varying aptitudes and if their aptitudes are developed, jobs are available in other areas. It seems logical to me to find out the aptitude, to develop it, and jobs will be found somewhere. Have you any observation on that? Mr. ARNOLD. Well, I would agree with your observations about this. In fact, the Vocational Education Act of 1963 which the Congress enacted does provide for what you are talking about. It does not confine or limit the employment opportunities to those in the area which the school has built to serve them. But, in fact, in the regulations that are drawn on that act, there is a charge placed on the State to make known the labor force needs in the whole State as well as in a region or, in fact, for jobs that might be a national clearance as exposed by the U.S. Employment Service, and that is a pattern. Now, it is a fact, however, that, we will say, particularly in the large metropolitan areas, the employment opportunities are so varied and numerous that frequently the offerings are geared to the job opportunities in that area. That seems to be a national thing. But I think even in those situations when the offerings are examined they are generally geared to nationwide needs. Electronics is a good example. I think there is scarcely a good vocational or technical school of any kind in the country that does not have a good basic electronics program. Mr. NELSEN. Under the laws under which Federal funds are distributed for vocational education, does the District of Columbia in all cases receive an equal amount of Federal funds with the States? Mr. ARNOLD. Yes. The District really participates as a State in all the vocational education acts. Mr. NELSEN. You will recall the vocational rehabilitation bill that Chairman McMillan and I introduced, which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. In this particular field, we found that the District of Columbia did not, under present law, get equal treatment, so we thought that this was an area that needed correction. Well, the bill was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, but no bill has been reported to this date. It is a very desirable bill, and I regret that it has been delayed. It seems to me that the elected school board idea which, I think, is a good one, should be handled separately and not tied onto something else to the detriment of an objective with a higher priority. The reason I asked the question is because I know in this other area the District of Columbia is treated on an equal basis with the States. Mr. ARNOLD. In general, the District of Columbia is treated just as the other States and territories. Its Board is recognized as the equivalent of a State board for vocational education, which is required in all of the acts. The District over the years has secured funds the basis of a minimum allotment. The Smith-Hughes, Georg Barden, and in fact, the Vocational Education Act, established minimums in the event that the formula or the formulas that were used to allot the funds were not sufficient to bring up the allotment to the District or to any other territory, Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands. So I think in some instances in certain areas-agri culture is an example-the District received a minimum sum which was provided for in the law. But in all other respects, the District participates in the Vocational Education Acts just as a State does. Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. But I do want to make the observation that during every session, I think we pour out millions of dollars, in many cases wasted. But here in the Nation's Capital, we should have the best_transportation, we should have the best education and educational facilities, and we should have it available. I hope that this committee will find the answers and get on with the job. I live a long way from the District of Columbia. Minnesota is far away, but this is my Nation's Capital, and I am vitally interested in it. I think dollars spent here are well spent, provided we do the job as we ought to I thank the gentleman for his statement Mr. Chairman, has the Budget Bureau or the administration any Mr. DOWDY. This proposed legislation is over at the Budget Mr. Dowdy. Did you have anything to say? Mr. CORNELSEN. No, sir. Mr. DowDY. If not, thank you. We have a number of other witnesses here. I want to try to hear all of you. Is Dr. Hauck here? You may come on around. You have with you Mr. Weston. Dr. HAUCK. I would prefer to have Mr. Weston proceed first. STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WESTON, CHAIRMAN, HIGHER EDU- Mr. WESTON. I am Robert M. Weston, chairman of the Higher Education Committee, D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education, Inc. Dr. Arthur Hauck, our committee's vice chairman, has two hats in this proceeding. Of course, he is president emeritus of the University of Maine, and our permanent resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. NELSEL. Mr. Hauck, I understand, has a Minnesota background, at least, Minnesota connections, which makes him quite special, I just want you to note, Mr. Chairman. Dr. HAUCK. Thank you. Mr. WESTON. I want to save some of my time for Dr. Hauck's other hat, that is to say, representing two nationwide associations of educators. Mr. Dowdy. Your statement will be made a part of the record. Par Mr. WESTON. Thank you, sir. I have submitted a copy to the Smithreporter already, sir. the f (The prepared statement of Mr. Weston follows:) STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. WESTON, CHAIRMAN, HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE, Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to appear before your distinguished forum to urge IME the immediate passage of H.R. 16958. We have a united community backing this legislation, and backing the work of your Committee to get the bill enacted repesinto law. Accompanying me is Dr. Arthur A. Hauck, President Emeritus of the University of Maine and now a permanent resident of the District of Columbia. Dr. Hauck is Vice-Chairman of our Committee and his tireless efforts to promote passage of public college legislation for Washington are well-known to many of our ComAmittee. Te We start on the solid basis of the testimony given before Senator Morse's Committee on March 14, 15 and 24, 1966. Over 50 organizations, mainly those primarily interested in education and in higher education, testified at those hearings. The testimony massively supports legislation providing for a public four-year college of liberal arts and a public junior college for D. C. and for a Board of Higher Education to administer post-high school education. This includes the program for technical and vocational training which is also the subject of special consideration in Congressman Nelsen's H.R. 16958. Your Committee is well aware of the compelling statistics and the human considerations brought out in the Senate hearings, which apply equally to Congressman Nelsen's bill as to S. 293 now pending before the Senate, and repetition is unnecessary and undesirable at this late hour of the 89th Congress. There are one or two matters which have occurred since the time of the Senate hearings which should be noted. First, I would submit and ask to be incorporated in the record two very short memoranda prepared by Dr. Hauck. These memoranda "thumbnail" certain points backing up public higher education for D.C. Second, religious leaders of the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant faiths during the intervening months have diligently supported the public college legislation; based on the ecumenical accord reached at the White House on February 10, 1966, to the effect that deprivation of the opportunity for post-high school education at public expense is a moral injustice to D.C. young people. Third, on July 13, 1966, the Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade announced that, after full deliberation and consultation with the private universities in the area, it not only fully supports the creation of both the vocational and junior college proposal, but also the new four-year public college which will absorb D.C. Teachers College within its Department of Education. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to find that a close study of H.R. 16958 and S. 293 reveals no substantial differences between the approach and desires of your Committee and the Senate Committee. The textual differences between S. 293 and H.R. 16958 are slight. The report on S. 293 issued August 31, 1966 shows that you Committee is already coordinating with the Senate Committee on textual changes. Mr. Chairman, your Committee recognizes that the needs of our young people for opportunity as granted in this legislation are urgent needs of the present generation of young people, as well as of the future. With enactment of this legislation by this Congress, we can have programs under way by the beginning of the second semester in February 1967. We expect the same massive acceptance of this opportunity in the new public colleges of D.C. that has been experienced elsewhere all over the nation. We would expect an immediate improvement in the climate of D.C. human relationships. We are heartened by the demonstrated fact of your interest and concern, and we are confident that the District will be a better place for all of us--parents, teachers, young people, ordinary citizens as you work towards the enactment of H.R. 16958 at this session. PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Publicly Supported Colleges and Universities A. In the United States: The 1964-65 Education Directory of the U.S. Office of Education lists 784 public colleges and universities, 426 under state control and 359 under city or district control. In the 17 largest cities of the Nation which Washington is one, there are a total of 37 multi-purpose p colleges and universities. The 1966 Directory of the American Association of Junior Colle lists 500 public junior colleges and 37 more to be opened by next B. In the District of Columbia: There is only one publicly supported college in Washington, D.C., D.C. Teachers College limited to those who plan to become teache There is no public comprehensive community (or junior) college. Where Do Students Go to College? A. In the United States: According to the U.S. Office of Education figures in 1963, 64 ̃ (1,727,840) of all full time undergraduate students were enrolled public colleges and universities, 57% (1,533,640) in their own states and 7% in out of state public institutions. B. In the District of Columbia: In the fall of 1963, 7% (580) of the District residents enrolled as fall time undergraduates were attending a public institution in their ow: community, the D.C. Teachers College. Twenty-two percent were attending public colleges and universities as out of state students Seventy-one percent were attending private institutions either in or outside the District. Who Goes to College? A. In the Nation as a whole, 51% of all 1962-63 high school graduates went to college in the fall of 1963 (U.S. Office of Education figures). B. In the District of Columbia: The Guidance Division, Personnel Department, D.C. Public Schools has furnished the following information about the 1965 graduates of the District public high schools. Of the 4,131 graduates, 3,085 were located and it was found that 1,623 were attending a four year college and 98 a junior college, a total of 42%. This low percentage, as compared with the national average of 51%, is even more significant when considered in connection with the high drop out rate in the District's public high schools. Figures compiled by the Office of Institutional Research, National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, show that 72.7% of the ninth graders who enrolled in the Nation's high schools in the fall of 1959-60 stayed on to graduate in 1963. The corresponding percentage for the District ninth graders was 58.8%, a drop-out percentage for the District of 41.2% as compared to 27.3% for the Nation as a whole. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITIZENS FOR BETTER PUBLIC EDUCATION, INC. MEMORANDUM ON PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION, D.C. Three Congressional bills, S. 293, S. 1612 and H.R. 7395, (also H.R. 14769) almost identical, propose "to establish 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." In 1963 President Kennedy appointed a committee to examine and report on the issue, "Should the District of Columbia have publicly supported institutions of higher learning beyond the secondary school level?" The bills incorporate the most urgent recommendations the Committee submitted to President Johnson in June, 1964. These recom mendations are: "1. The immediate creation of a comprehensive community (or junior) college, publicly supported, that will put within reach of all high-school graduates opportunities for technical and vocational training and for general education leading both to greater personal and civic effectiveness and to further study in a 4-year college or university for those who qualify and seek it. 2. The immediate creation of a college of liberal arts and sciences, also publicly supported, authorized to confer both the baccalaureate and the master's degrees, with a special concern with teacher education (a function it should assume from the D.C. Teachers College) and prepared to offer specialized courses of study as need and feasibility are established." A look at the present situation with respect to higher education in the District offers convincing proof that both of the recommended colleges should be established as soon as feasible. 1. Washington offers fewer opportunities for low cost higher education than does any state or large city in the United States. In the 17 largest cities of the nation there are a total of 37 multi-purpose public colleges or universities, an average of 2 per city. Every state supports at least one university. The 799 public universities and colleges in the United States include a 4-year college or arts and sciences in Guam, a territory with a population of about 70,000. In Washington college-able young people who cannot afford the tuition costs at private institutions or out-of-town public institutions are limited to a program of teacher education in the D.C. Teachers College. This college has long been handicapped by lack of adequate financial support. Recommendations made in the Strayer Report, (The Report of a Survey of the Public Schools of the District of Columbia, 1949,) 17 years ago urged broadening the scope of the college and expending $10,000,000 upon new plant facilities. These recommendations have not been followed. Annual appropriations for the college have not even provided money for proper maintenance. The recommendation that D.C. Teachers College be converted to a college of liberal arts and sciences, multi-purpose institution, is in line with an educational development that has become almost universal. Former teachers colleges are now comprehensive colleges or universities. 2. The private colleges and universities in the District of Columbia are not meeting nor can they be expected to meet the higher education needs of Washington young men and women. President Elliott of George Washington University recently stated: "Private institutions are committed primarily to providing the most promising student a superior academic education within certain highly specialized areas. Costs, programs of study, and admission standards of private institutions are all barriers to the assumption of the responsibility of public education in the District by the private institutions of the area. Many deserving applicants will be denied the opportunity to study beyond the high school years unless the public colleges are established.' The private institutions attract students from many states and many foreign countries. (4,000 overseas students are now enrolled.) It is understandable that the private colleges and universities should not wish to become more local in character, particularly in the area of graduate education. About one-half of the students registered at the five largest local universities are taking graduate or professional courses. 3. There is no public community college in Washington. In 1949, the Strayer Report recommended that the District meet more adequately "the life needs of youth" by providing facilities for post-high school education. The following quotation is taken from page 560 of the Report. "In the fall of 1947 the President's Commission on Higher Education recommended that steps be taken 'to make education through the fourteenth grade available in the same way that high school education is now available.' Similar recommendations had been made earlier by other educational agencies and organizations, such as the American Youth Commission and the Educational Policies Commission. In the District of Columbia the movement toward extended secondary education was given emphasis by the report of the Public Schools Subcommittee on Junior Colleges of the Board of Trade, which was issued in December, 1944." Nothing was done about this recommendation although experience throughout the country has strikingly demonstrated the value of offering opportunities to young people to acquire skills and training needed for an ever increasing number of occupations. In 1948, junior colleges enrolled 300,000 students. Now there are 800 community colleges, more than 500 of them publicly supported, with enrollment totalling 1,160,000 students this year. About 50 more public colleges will open next fall. The people of the District of Columbia are well able to pay for increased opportunities for higher education. With a per capita income higher than in any state, $3,544.00*, the District spends least per capita on higher education, about $1.25 per capita. This year median per capita appropriations of state tax funds in the 40 states for operating expenses of higher education was $16.59. At the hearings before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate District Committee, the people of Washington indicated their earnest desire for the enhancement of public higher education. Representatives of more than 50 organizations and many individuals urged passage of the proposed legislation. ARTHUR A. HAUCK. *July 1965 issue of Survey of Current Business, Office of Business Economics, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 68-614-66- -8 |