creation of a higher education system in terms of sheer human and educational necessity, but there are additional sound management and fiscal reasons that argue for positive action on S. 1612 at this time. The institutions to be created by this legislation will be eligible for substantial Federal financial aid. The Higher Education Act of 1965, providing for three separate grant programs makes the point with sufficient emphasis.

Included in this single important act are three separate grant programs that can be utilized as a source of financial aid for District public higher education. In short, the material inducements are without parallel in the history of American education.

Before we can respond to this opportunity, however, we must first have a viable system of public higher education.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the more specific community roles that the two proposed institutions would assume.

It has come to be well recognized that the institution in American higher education deemed best able to carry the burden of extending general education beyond the high school level is the comprehensive community college. This concept is highly relevant to the District of Columbia.

A District community college will serve as a frame of academic reference for students who do not now even consider education beyond high school. Its mere existence will generate hope and incentive for the average student. And it is the student of average ability and background that is now being neglected and who is so desperately in need of help.

It is important also to emphasize that a community college, together with a constantly improving vocational educational system, will help meet the consistent and growing demand for technical and semiprofessional manpower which is so important in our technically oriented

economy.

We do not feel that either a community college or an improved vocational education system alone can meet the demand. Rather, a blending and coordination of the two programs would be the ideal. The two institutions could, for instance, share a common site (or at least an adjacent one), integrate resources such as equipment, develop joint teaching agreements and a coordinated curriculum-for example, vocational training in drafting at the secondary school level, leading to a community college course in designing, culminating in a 4-year course in architecture-all of which should reap educational benefits as well as savings in expenditures and operating costs.

A study by the National Science Foundation, for example, forecasts that, while the civilian economy will need many more engineers than were thought 5 years ago to be necessary, we also face an acute shortage in the ranks of the skilled craftsmen and technicians.

Thus a high school diploma has now become less a terminal and more a preparation and opportunity for further study and training.

By the same token, the economy will provide fewer and fewer opportunities for young people who approach the world of work with limited educational achievements.

We are building massive problems for the future-in welfare, unemployment, poverty and crime-unless we provide a maximum of oppor

tunity for the youth of today to achieve the highest level of education of which they are capable.

The President's Committee has made clear that the purpose of a District of Columbia community college is the following:

To educate and train the large number and great variety of technicians and other skilled persons on whom a highly industrialized and rapidly changing society depends;

To prepare students for further formal education in 4-year colleges and universities;

To offer opportunities for adults to repair their cultural and educational deficiencies, to redirect their abilities and to improve their knowledge and competence;

To provide through education and community life the knowledge and the ideas on which active, informed and responsible citizenship is of necessity based; and

To enrich the personal lives of students through both formal and informal contacts with art and literature, artists and writers-indeed, with all those sources of human greatness.

With reference to the establishment of a college of liberal arts and science, the President's Committee has spoken with equal clarity. The report states that the District "*** should have a completely new physical and educational setting for the vital function of teacher educations."

The President's Committee could not be more correct when it stated that

the young people of the District should have the opportunity now enjoyed by the young people in all the States to attend a publicly supported institution offering a liberal education at least through the baccalaureate degree.

We believe the mission of the District of Columbia 4-year college should include the offering of adequate and qualified course study to be used by those students desiring a postbaccalaureate education.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we require a master's degree of our permanent teachers in the secondary schools in the District. Emphasis in teacher education will be directed to meet our ever increasing demands for highly qualified teachers.

The 4-year college would also supplement the District of Columbia General Hospital School of Nursing in offering postgraduate courses to nurses a profession critically needed and in short supply in the District of Columbia.

While the President's Committee made estimates of the expected initial size of the student body of both public institutions of higher learning, these estimates are naturally subject to the constant growth and changing environmental factors that have so long been difficult factors in future planning here in the District.

On the basis of the Committee's report and peripheral studies, it is anticipated that the community college will have an annual entering class of about 1,400 students during the early years of its operation, and on a 2-year basis, a total student body of approximately 2,500 students.

With reference to the 4-year college, the Committee states that there are at least 600 secondary school graduates each year who are—

*** college-able but who can afford to continue in school only in a publicly supported institution.

This estimate would mean planning for approximately a 2,000-student body by the time the college is in full 4-year operation.

Each freshman class would include between 300 and 400 college-able graduates of the District's public high schools (other than those preparing to teach) who would not go to college under existing circumstances, but who would seize the opportunity to do so if there were publicly supported college of arts and science in the District.

The most recent study of the District high school graduates furnishes dramatic support for the idea expressed by the Committee. It indicates there are 2,000 students who do not get into any college leading to a degree or a certificate.

Added to this number are from 200 to 250 students annually interested in a career in teaching or some other educational work. A small number of annual graduates from the District private and parochial schools augment the number to the 600 annual total.

Certainly efforts directed to the establishment of a public higher education system in the District of Columbia of the magnitude and quality now proposed necessitate the most careful and the most detailed planning.

The manifold construction possibilities for such schools, the space needs, site selections, and a myriad of other considerations must all be resolved before higher learning can become a reality for District students.

The Office of Education, however, has already reviewed the President's Committee report and in conjunction with established standards and norms for institutions of higher learning has come to tentative space and cost figures which give some indication of the total extent of the program evisioned in the bills.

While it is most difficult to offer precise figures or even reasonable estimates of the total effort now proposed, the Office of Education does feel that the general costs of construction for a community college in the District of Columbia at this time capable of adequately accommodating 2,500 students will be in the neighborhood of $6 million; a 4-year college capable of accommodating 2,000 will require an expenditure of some $10 million. To these figures must be added site acquisition costs and equipment charges, all quite speculative at this time.

The equipment costs estimated for the two colleges are $90,000

each.

Expenditures of some $16 million are therefore estimated for construction of the facilities. Studies indicate that operating costs may be in the area of $6 to $8 million annually. Construction financing will be obtained through the standard borrowing practices for such institutions. All operating costs not covered by existing Federal programs and tuition fees will be included in our annual District budget.

In regard to tuition fees, we believe that these fees should be established at a level that will permit the greatest number of District residents to take advantage of these facilities. Nonresidents, of course, will pay higher fees.

In regard to the actual location of the facilities, it is impracticable at this time to determine sites with any degree of certainty.

The National Capital Planning Commission is giving thought to

this problem and, in collaboration with the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Higher Education, will develop final site requirements for the facilities. The District Government does not own or control a suitable site at this time. NCPC's "1965/1985 Proposed Physical Development Policies for Washington, D.C." dated September 1965, page 51, addresses this problem and reads as follows:

Each of these institutions should have its own campus, physically separated from the other, so that it can fulfill its distinct purpose. Each should occupy a prominent site, helping to create an image of quality public higher education with strong community orientation. Each should have access to rapid transit since both student bodies will commute from home rather than live on campus. Two outstanding potential locations are: A portion of the Soldiers' Home grounds between North Capitol and Harewood Road, north of Irving Street; and the Naval Receiving Station site, along the southern bank of the Anacostia River between the South Capitol Street and 11th Street Bridges.

The National Bureau of Standards on Connecticut Avenue NW., has also been mentioned as a possible construction site.

It is anticipated as you know that one of the termini of the proposed subway in the city will be at Van Ness Street which is just opposite the Bureau of Standards site.

We feel that if the Congress approves the construction of the two colleges, such approval will greatly expedite the site selection process. The administration bill recognized the imponderables and uncertainties that accompany any discussion of the actual construction of a community college and a 4-year college in the District. Consequently, the President wisely calls for the creation of a Board of Higher Education to develop detailed plans and to establish, organize, and operate in the District of Columbia a public community college and a public liberal arts college.

This Board will have as its mission the analysis and study of the many suggestions that will doubtlessly be made as to physical location and building construction design, and spatial requirements deemed necessary for the two colleges. Included in the Board's responsibilities would be a particular need for coordinating with the Board of Education all matters relating to vocational education.

After a thorough review of the proposals and suggestions, the Board will then make final construction recommendations subject, of course, to the ultimate approval of the Congress through the appropriation of funds in the normal District budgetary process.

Let me end my statement by recalling President Johnson's words in this message to Congress which accompanied this bill, and I quote: If our society is to move higher, higher education must be made a universal opportunity for all young people. The Nation's Capital should set the pace, not lag behind.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the favorable attention of this committee to S. 1612 will finally remove the illusory quality which has so long accompanied any discussion of higher education for young people in this city.

This bill will provide the mechanisms for the creation of a system of higher learning for the youth of the District of Columbia. The investment in these two institutions will benefit all who strive to make Washington a city of pride, advantage, and productivity.

Mr. Chairman, this is an opportunity to make a contribution that will benefit thousands of young people in this city. I hope the com

mittee and the Congress will give the District this opportunity by enacting S. 1612.

Senator MORSE. Commissioner Tobriner, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this very carefully prepared statement. It is excellent. I am not concerned about the problems that are going to have to be worked out by the usual legislative pattern of compromise. As far as the chairman is concerned he does not propose to let the objectives suffer because of any differences of opinion that may exist in regard to any proposed administrative setup.

These problems just have to be worked out in the interest of seeing to it that a higher education program is developed in the District. I am sure that will be possible. I quite agree with you that we will have to delay, until there is legislation passed, even any tentative understanding in regard to site location.

I would like to have included in the hearing record at this point a listing of possible sites for consideration. (The information requested follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OWNED PROPERTIES SUFFICIENTLY LARGE TO ACCOMMODATE AN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING INCLUDING PERTINENT FACTS CONCERNING EACH OF THEM

Blue Plains, D.C.

Located at the District line and the Potomac River opposite the city of Alexandria, Va., contains 333 acres and is occupied by the District of Columbia Village and Junior Village of the Department of Public Welfare; the Fire Department Training School; the Water Pollution Control Plant of the Department of Sanitary Engineering and a site for a training facility for the Metropolitan Police Department proposed in the 1967 budget estimates. The site is bisected by the Anacostia Freeway, a portion of the Interstate Highway System which is a limited acess highway. Remaining areas not developed or committed are filled land along Oxon Run considered unsuitable for erection of building structures and an area near the Nichols Avenue border where the terrain is too steep for development.

Featherstone Farm

Located at the confluence of Neabsco Creek and the Potomac River in Fairfax County, Va., about 25 miles from the center of Washington. This tract contains approximately 350 acres of which about 250 acres is marshland. It was purchased as an emergency land fill for garbage disposal from the District of Columbia in the event of interruption to normal procedures and is still being held for that purpose. It is not served by a public road and is bisected by the main line of the R.F. & P. Railroad from Washington.

Site of the former National Training School for Girls at Muirkirk, Md.

This property which contains 143 acres is located on the old WashingtonBaltimore Pike near Beltsville, Md. It is near U.S. Route No. 1 to Baltimore and the main line of the B. & O. Railroad. The terrain is quite satisfactory having a gentle slope from west to east. It is adjacent to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Experimental Station at Beltsville. This property is not being used by the District at this time but is simply being held for such need as may arise in the general expansion of District of Columbia government activities.

Senator MORSE. There are those that are proposing, Mr. Commissioner, that maybe we ought to proceed with building a junior college and then later consider the 4-year college, which concerns me very much from many standpoints.