I find it very difficult to understand how sincere and well-intentioned people and they are sincere and well-intentioned-do not want to give support to the programs that you and I and others have fought for these many years to give full citizenship benefits to the people in this District. I am at a loss to understand how they hold that point of view with such vital statistics as you have embedded in that sentence. That sentence tells the story, and no one would fight harder to see to it that the people in those 11 States enjoy all the benefits, too, that I think Americans should be allowed. I am always at a loss to understand why they should be denied to the people here. And so I wanted to stress that, because I think it bears on what our problem is. Reverend HEWLETT. Thank you, sir.

It is very obvious that the young people of the District do not have an equal opportunity for higher education enjoyed by those in the various States when it comes to the availability of publicly supported colleges and universities. Many capable and deserving youth in the District of Columbia are denied the opportunity for the fullest development of their intellectual capacities because of conditions beyond their immediate control. Tuition charges in local institutions, except Howard University, are beyond the means of a large number of high school graduates. The President's Committee reported that 1,837 of the graduates of the public high schools entered local universities from 1960 to 1963, and that 60 percent of this number went to Howard where tuition charges are lower.

It is of interest to note that in the State universities and land-grant colleges the out-of-State tuition this year is up 19.9 percent from a median of $612 to $734. Median room costs rose 5.1 percent and median board costs rose 2.3 percent. Last year only nine State institutions charged nonresidents $900 or more, and of these only four charged more than $1,000. This year there are 20 State institutions with out-of-State tuition exceeding $900 and seven of these are now charging more than $1,000. Out-of-State tuition was raised this year at 59 institutions. The trend in cost of higher education in publicly supported institutions is upward. Private institutions have been forced to increase tuition and fee charges during the past several years in greater amounts than have the public colleges. For many students these charges are prohibitive.

It is evident that the increased costs of attending State and private institutions are and will continue to be a problem for high school graduates in the District of Columbia who may desire to attend these institutions. Both the increased costs and the problem of obtaining admission to out-of-State institutions that are becoming more and more overcrowded have a direct bearing on the need for the District to face up to its responsibilities in the education of its own residents. The Honorable Congressman Carlton Sickles recently told a group of educators:

Last year 100,000 extremely able high school graduates failed to go to college largely because of financial reasons.

The per capita expenditure of higher education in the District of Columbia is $1.22 (exclusive of the two laboratory schools, the cost of which should logically be charged against elementary education). Mr. Chairman, may I say this figure differs from one that was quoted earlier, because I have indicated the reason here. The figure quoted

earlier included the per capita expenditure for the two laboratory schools as well as teachers college. When we take the two laboratory schools out, which are properly the responsibility of public education, elementary education, it leaves the per capita expenditure for higher education in the District of Columbia at $1.22, compared with the $21.23 spent in our neighboring State of Maryland, and the $19.40 spent in our neighboring State of Virginia. The average national per capita expenditure is $28.87.

All of the States are and have been for years spending considerable sums in capital outlays to expand higher education. Our present college buildings (formerly Miner and Wilson Teachers Colleges) were built more than 35 years ago. Since that time the District has not spent a penny on capital outlay except the normal maintenance expenses on these two buildings. In comparison, during 1963-64 Virginia and Maryland spent more than $20 million and $16 million respectively.

Our present plight does not allow us to make application for funds under title VII of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which doubled grants from $230 million to $460 million for undergraduate facilities this year.

The estimated cost of a new building or buildings for the college of arts and sciences would be from $10 million to $11 million for a student body of 2,000 undergraduate students and for about 500 graduate and in-service teachers. It is not likely that more than 2,000 students would be on the campus at any one time. This does not include the cost of a site. The cost of furnishings and equipment would amount to another $900,000.

The annual operating cost of the college is estimated to be $3 million for the first year, increasing some each year until it reaches a maximum of $4,500,000 by the opening of the fourth or fifth year. This will cover both day and evening undergraduate and graduate

programs.

In my testimony today I have attempted to emphasize the evidence which has convinced the members of the Board of Education that the conclusions of the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia are inescapable. The need for the establishment of a public community college and a public 4-year college of arts and sciences is urgent. I shall leave it to others to testify about the types of curriculums and programs of study that should be provided in these colleges. The plea of the Board of Education is that you act and act immediately to provide for the establishment of these two colleges and provide the youth of the District of Columbia with the same opportunities for postsecondary school education that have been provided for the youth of the 50 States of the United States of America for

many years.

Although you know, sir, the need is great in the District of Columbia for public higher education, I cannot refrain from attempting to share with you the profound concern of the Board of Education for immediate legislation that would give to the youth of this city their birthright-public higher education.

Thank you kindly, sir.

Senator MORSE. That is a very fine statement, Reverend Hewlett. On behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much. I do not have any questions.

Dr. Hansen?

Dr. HANSEN. I am not making a statement this morning. Dr. Carr is making a statement.

Senator MORSE. Dr. Carr, I will be pleased to hear you now.

But, Dr. Hansen, it will be helpful to this committee I know you will follow our hearing anyway-if from time to time you will supply a memorandum to the committee that you would like to have me put in the hearing record, commenting upon the statements and evidence that is put in the record by others. Without calling you back constantly, I would like to have you from time to time file a memorandum with the committee, made available to any witness that has an opposite point of view, and then we will call you back for a final bit of testimony where you can summarize your point of view in regard to the full record.

Dr. HANSEN. I appreciate that very much. May I say one thing this morning, that as we build in the direction of a community college and a 4-year program, let us keep in mind that the teachers college is performing an admirable function now. It has a staff of great competence, the student body is among the finest, I think, in the city, and it is an effective institution. So I should like to make that one point for the record that we build on the strength and expand the program and understanding that we have to keep this institution going in one form or the other, no matter what the destiny of this bill is, so that we do have a growing, dynamic kind of institution in the existing organization of the teachers college.

Senator MORSE. Let there be no room for doubt as to the chairman's position about the teachers college. As Dr. Carr knows, I think that the teachers college and its staff and its president deserve the gratitude of this entire community. It is certainly not contemplated that the teachers college will in any way be eliminated, but will be strengthened and perform a vital part of the new college that is contemplated under this bill. I would consider it to be the department of education of the new college, as we refer to departments of education in other institutions.

I am sure that Dr. Carr will be the first to admit that the school has not received the support that members of this committee think it should have received and I am sure that he knows it deserves to have received, and I think that the best way to strengthen the teachers college is to go ahead and make it an integral part of the new college we contemplate by these bills.

Dr. Carr, I will be delighted to hear you.

STATEMENT OF PAUL O. CARR, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEACHERS COLLEGE

Dr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify in support of the two new colleges as proposed by the President's Committee on Public Higher Education. Both the community college and the college of arts and sciences are needed in the District of Columbia, and in my testimony this morning I shall attempt to avoid, to the extent possible, repeating what the other witnesses have said or emphasized.

That is a rather difficult thing, I know, because so many fine and persuasive things have already been said, but I see no need to continue

to emphasize the need for the two colleges; I think that has been pretty well established.

We know that there is a lag in the District in providing public higher educational opportunities for the youth and adults, and we know that the District has considerable resources.

I shall, in a few minutes at my disposal, report the reactions of the faculty of the teachers college and give something about the types of program that should, in our judgment, characterize the proposed institutions.

We are aware, however, that the Board of Higher Education may have other ideas but we believe in general the suggestions made here would be followed.

My statement has been made available to you, I believe. Therefore, I shall not read all of this but just refer to certain parts of it for emphasis.

Senator MORSE. The full statement will be inserted in the record at this point.

(Statement follows:)

STATEMENT OF PAUL O. CARR, PRESIDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEACHERS COLLEGE, IN SUPPORT OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Other witnesses appearing before this committee have testified with reference to the urgent need for the establishment of a public community college and a public 4-year college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. Statistics have been presented that show that the District lags far behind the 50 States in providing educational opportunities beyond the secondary level for its citizens. It is evident from the testimony presented that the District can well afford to construct and operate both institutions. It is also evident that many of the young people of the District will be unable to achieve completely their educational and occupational potentials until these institutions are established. In my testimony today I shall report the reactions of the administrative staff and faculty of the District of Columbia Teachers College with reference to the proposed legislation. I shall also report their conclusions with reference to the types of educational programs that should characterize each of the proposed institutions.

On January 5, 1966, the faculty of the District of Columbia Teachers College voted unanimously in favor of the creation of a comprehensive community (or junior) college and of a college of liberal arts and sciences as recommended by the President's Committee on Public Higher Education and as provided for in the bills currently before this Senate committee. The faculty favored the recommention to merge the District of Columbia Teachers College into the new college of arts and sciences. They believe that the present program of teacher education would be strengthened by placing it in a liberal arts setting where those preparing to teach would be in close association and in academic competition with those preparing for other professions.

I am here today to testify in favor of the creation of the two new colleges referred to above and which are provided for in S. 293, a bill 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. A community the size of the District of Columbia with 4,000 to 5,000 graduates of the public high schools annually and with from 1,200 to 1,500 graduates of the private and parochial high schools should, without question, have publicly supported higher education which includes more than teacher education.

At the beginning of my testimony, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my enthusiastic support of the concept of a Board of Higher Education with so much freedom to organize and administer the proposed colleges. This is a very commendable feature of the bill and a condition which is essential for the healthy growth of the two colleges. In studying the provisions of S. 293 I am concerned, however, about one thing. Does this bill as it is written protect the tenure rights, retirement benefits earned to date, and the health and insurance benefits

of the faculty of the District of Columbia Teachers College? If the Teachers College is merged into the college of arts and sciences under a Board of Higher Education, what will be the status of the faculty, exclusive of the laboratory schools? They will no longer be under the Board of Education and no provision is made for them to be covered by the present District of Columbia Teachers' Salary Act, as amended. On behalf of the faculty of the Teachers College, I am requesting an examination of the provisions of S. 293 in regard to pay scales, tenure rights, retirement benefits, and health and life insurance benefits. The faculty should not lose any benefits now enjoyed as employees of the Board of Education if and when they come under the Board of Higher Education.

COMMUNITY (OR JUNIOR) COLLEGE

First, I should like to state my belief that the recommendation of the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia for two separate institutions is educationally sound. A community college has very different purposes from those which should give direction to a 4-year college of arts and sciences. Each type college has its own basic philosophy which determines its objectives and curriculums.

The community college should be established with a definite purpose in view at its opening and this basic purpose should underlie the formulation of all policies concerning the organization of basic facilities and curriculums. This institution should be established and the curriculums developed with the understanding that it is to remain a 2-year community college and that it will continue to serve youth and adults who have a need for and an interest in its curriculums. Admissions

The community college would be organized and administered to accommodate persons with a wide range of abilities, educational backgrounds, and career goals. No one with the ability to profit from education beyond high school should be excluded. Students would be admitted to a particular curriculum. They should be qualified to pursue successfully the curriculum chosen. The educational goal of the student would determine the high school preparation or the work experience required for admission to a curriculum. The 4-year college of arts and sciences should establish and maintain admission requirements far more rigid than those proposed here for the community college.

Recognition of individual differences

The implementation of a more liberal admission policy for the community college will undoubtedly result in a student body less capable in the traditional academic areas. The acceptance of this fact should not mean that attendance at this college will involve the stigmatization of those who are admitted to it for their postsecondary school education. The recognition of individual differences in interests and capabilities has been responsible for the establishments of our vocational high schools. We should recognize that individual differences in interests and capabilities continue beyond the secondary school level. Community colleges are designed primarily to provide postsecondary school education for those who are interested in pursuing various careers in business and in other semiprofessional areas. If the community college does not provide opportunities for these individuals to prepare themselves for positions of a managerial, technical, or semiprofessional type, there is little excuse for its existence. Few people with a background of information in the field of higher education would ever attempt to justify the existence of a public community college just to provide the first 2 years of general education to prepare a student for transfer to a 4-year college or university. Transfer curriculums will, however, be provided. Curriculums

Technical education, at the subprofessional level, is a major employment need in the District of Columbia, as elsewhere; therefore, 2-year occupational curriculums in the community college would be geared to local employment needs and their completion would provide the base for the economic improvement of many young men and women in the District now untrained for productive careers. Every effort would be made to establish curriculums in keeping with the 1963 "Area Skill Survey" and of subsequent surveys of the educational needs in the District.