I would like to have your comments on some of my tentative concerns about it.

I think from the standpoint of cost, the greatest economy in the administrative setup as well as for the development of a well-balanced educational program; that we will suffer great losses if we proceed on the so-called installment plan of junior colleges first and then postpone a 4-year college until sometime later. When you have been around here as long as I have you know the strategy used if the object is to prevent a program from culminating into fruition.

I also know that if you have a sound goal it is best to proceed to adopt it in one bold stroke rather than to run the risk of dilatory tactics that flow from delay.

Do you know of any good reason why we should not come to a single judgment on the educational setup that the District of Columbia needs and proceed to implement it as a totality rather than make a step by step approach to it?

Mr. TOBRINER. Not one single reason, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me we should strike for everything we need at one time.

Senator MORSE. It seems to me if we are going to have and we should have a Board of Higher Education-then that Board can save us a lot of money. This can also be just as wasteful as the waste of money, and they can save us what would otherwise be a great deal of educational waste if they could proceed to set up a single educational system that covers all these needs; the community college need, the Vocational education need, the teacher's training need, and the 4year liberal arts course needs, rather than to set up what would be, I think, a wasteful and costly administrative setup, segment by segment over a period of years, assuming we went ahead over a period of years, to accomplish the total program. Do you agree with that? Mr. TOBRINER. I agree, sir,

Senator MORSE. As I made clear yesterday, I want to make clear this morning, that I completely agree that we must not only preserve but we must develop our teacher's training program in the District of Columbia and I contemplate it as a school or department of education within the 4-year liberal arts college.

Mr. TOBRINER. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the day of the normal school or the teachers' college is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Senator MORSE. Particularly as you point out in your statement that we wisely require a master's degree in the District of Columbia. If you are going to have a meaningful master's degree, that in turn is going to have to be educationally integrated into the curriculum of the 4-year college.

You just do not put future teachers off in the school of education and do all their training there. You have them register for a good many courses outside the college of education; in the humanities and sciences and other divisions of the liberal arts college. I think that the 4-year college is pretty vital also to the continuation of our teachers training.

Mr. TOBRINER. I think it is absolutely essential. Without it we have no possibility of continuing teachers training here. Particularly in view of the physical characteristics of the present teachers college and the fact it is possible it may lose its accreditation the next time around because of those facilities.

Senator MORSE. I am not ready to even make a tentative judgment on the next point that I raise. I am greatly impressed by what the President's Committee says about the matter and I think the presumption should favor the Committee's report until it can be overcome by adequate evidence and data to the contrary and that is the point as to the separation of administrative setup among the three possible institutions; vocational education program, a community college program-which seems to be referred to in this discussion as the junior college program-the 4-year liberal arts college program.

I think and the staff knows-that we need to bring together any additional information that is not covered in the report to the President's Committee as to the administrative setup being developed in some of the States in the country where this whole community college program is going forward in almost prairie fire speed. I think the research will show that in some areas they are combining the 4year liberal arts course with the 2-year junior college course and with the vocational education departments in one institution. I think we need to look into it from several standpoints: One, whether or not it will result in such economy to justify it money wise; two, whether or not it results in a better integrated educational program because there are transfers, so I understand, back and forth coursewise among all three educational programs and the trend seems to be to have the so-called community college in many places develop into a 4-year program.

I just do not want to dismiss summarily the possibility of such an integrated institution, but it may very well be because of special circumstances here in the District of Columbia that can be shown to exist that we should have three separate sites, but as of now the chairman would like to say, as far as he is concerned, he is openminded about the matter.

It may very well be that the stronger educational case, as far as the educational program is concerned-as possible administrative savings are concerned would justify a central institution where we would have a common administration, where there would be an interchange of faculty on the same campus, where students, for example in a freshman class in the so-called junior college could be registered in the humanities and the social sciences as the students in the 4-year college. I can see a whole myriad of possible interrelationships and academic interchanges that might be beneficial, both moneywise and educationalwise.

Mr. TOBRINER. A possible middle ground on those two opinions might be to locate these two colleges-while they had separate facilities would be to locate them close to each other so that common facilities such as a library, such as business administration, might well be shared and the transfer of students that you speak about might be more easily effectuated; that is, the physical intercourse between the two colleges.

Senator MORSE. Exactly, I think there could be a whole series of interchange accommodations that could be worked out if we had them pretty much in one general location. I am not recommending it. I am just raising these problems for other witnesses to consider and for you and the Board of Commissioners to give further consideration to, as to how to proceed with the hearings on this subject.

I want you to know you filled me with great enthusiasm with the contribution you made this morning and I want to thank you very much.

Commissioner Duke, do you have a statement?

Mr. DUKE. No; I would be delighted to provide any information you might require but I do obviously support the statement made by Commissioner Tobriner.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Lowe, do you have a statement?

Mr. Lowe. Thank you, no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. TOBRINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORSE. I am very pleased to call as the next witness, because I know how important it is for him to get back to his duties, the president of George Washington University, Dr. Elliott. Dr. Elliott, this is the first time I have had the pleasure of having you before my committee and I am looking forward to having you before the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare at a later date. I want to take a second or two to welcome you before this committee, not only before this committee, but to welcome you to the great opportunity that is yours in the District of Columbia and to tell you how fortunate I think we are to have you as the new president of George Washington University. I want you to know if at any time this subcommittee or the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare can be of any assistance to you in supplying you with any information in our files or any other service, we are at your service.

STATEMENT OF DR. LLOYD H. ELLIOTT, PRESIDENT, GEORGE

WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Dr. ELLIOTT. Thank you, Senator.

Senator MORSE. We are delighted to have you testify here this morning. You may proceed in your own way.

Dr. ELLIOTT. I shall not burden you with a lengthy statement. The question of how best to expand and strengthen the program of public higher education for the District of Columbia has received the careful attention of a number of able researchers and the results are in your hands.

My own testimony, therefore, rests on the simple premise that the citizens of the District of Columbia should be given equal opportunity for public higher education to that offered the residents of the 50 States. To do less for each District citizen is to deny equal privilege, benefit, and challenge of individual development and social responsibility.

Most States now offer a wide range of such opportunity, usually at low cost, and of good quality. The well-being of the individual, and of the Nation, requires that each citizen be provided the climate for self-realization.

Education has become the path to self-respect and self-support for an increasingly large number of our people. In my opinion public higher education in the Nation's Capital lags behind that to be found in any of the 50 States.

I urge, therefore, the establishment of a 2-year public community college and a 4-year public college of arts and sciences, the latter to

absorb ultimately the present District of Columbia Teachers College, in the District of Columbia. This would be a timely investment and one that is long overdue.

As the president of a private university located in the District of Columbia, may I add that it does not seem feasible for the Congress to expect that the private institutions will, or can, meet the objectives and responsibilities of the proposed public colleges.

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. In summary, I endorse the establishment of a public college of arts and sciences to provide a 4-year program in the liberal arts and sciences acceptable for a bachelor's degree, including, but not limited to, courses in teacher education, and such additional programs of study as may be acceptable for a master's degree; and the establishment of a public community college which is designed to prepare a student at the semiprofessional level in business and technological fields and to provide courses on an individual, noncredit basis for persons desiring to further their education without seeking a degree.

Thank you. This is the extent of my prepared statement.

Senator MORSE. President Elliott, I think your statement deserves the description that you give to it. I think it is a statement of outstanding educational statemanship and I want to commend you for it. While you are on the witness stand, I want to make only this very brief comment. This chairman, both in connection with his work on this committee and his chairmanship of the Senate Subcommittee on Education, would have the educators of private universities across this country know, if they do not already know, in the work we have already done in our committee and the legislation that we have already succeeded in passing, that I think it is of great important that the Government of the United States cooperate and support to the maximum extent possible within whatever constitutional limitation may exist, the educational needs of all private and public institutions of higher learning in this country.

We should never take our eyes off the student. If we can only get people to understand that it is the student we are aiding and the institution that serves him is in fact secondary to the student but vital to his training, much of the emotional controversy over aid to institutions of higher learning in my opinion will vanish.

As you know very well, Dr. Elliott, it has been necessary for us to make a so-called back-door approach thus far and I have been perfectly willing to go in the back door on categorical use, on the grants to private institutions for specific purposes on a contract basis. All of these are legal, all legitimate. I am going to continue to support that approach until we can at long last get a judicial clarification. I think this will come within the next few years or maybe sooner than we think, of the constitutional limitation that may exist in regard to a front-door approach to aid to private educational institutions.

I have never been able to understand all the excitement about aiding the student because he is going to a private school. I think we have demonstrated it can be done within the bounds of the Constitution.

Now, here we are trying to work out such a program for the benefit of the students but I think there is a reciprocity due us too. I think we have got to maintain the unity among the educators of this country at all levels, higher education, secondary schools, and elementary schools.

I mentioned yesterday and I am going to mention it again; we were very much concerned back in 1962 because we were not doing very well with educational programs here in the Congress, so President Kennedy called then Secretary Ribicoff of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare-now the Senator from Connecticut-and your chairman down to the White House and we had a long heart-toheart talk as to what the trouble was. Both Secretary Ribicoff and your chairman pointed out to the President that the educators were not united. They were all going in separate directions, interested. only in their special, selfish academic interest. That is human. They, like all the rest of us, have our frailties. So we said, "Mr. President, someway, somehow, we have to get unity among these educators or you are not going to be able to get the educational legislation that we need to serve the youth of this country."

The President agreed that Secretary Ribicoff would speak to certain educational groups. I would do the hatchet job, pleading for unity. I want to say, to the everlasting credit of the educators, I could not have received a more courteous reception. They knew what my job was. You may have been there, at the American Educational Council in Chicago. I made the plea that they bury their differences and get united behind a united educational program.

I talked to the top officials of the National Education Association and simply said, "We cannot possibly get legislation through unless you will support higher education legislation." As I already said to the college administrators, "You cannot get higher education through unless you are willing to support elementary and secondary education." We got that unity to the everlasting credit of the educators of this country.

I think that unity among the educators is what has given us the great steps forward in education since the first year of the Kennedy administration. I think you may be aware of the fact there was some concern among the educators at all levels about President Kennedy's omnibus education bill containing 24 sections. I introduced it at the request of the President. I held hearings on it at his request. It became perfectly obvious to me although I am not a higher mathematician-I can count noses-and I said, "Mr. President, we do not have the votes for the total package now, but we have the votes for important segments of it. If you will authorize me to handle it section by section, I will give you my assurance" as I said yesterday— "that during your first term of office we will get votes on the 24 sections." I am sure that we would have, if the great tragedy had not befallen the Nation with his assassination. We got quite a few even before his unfortunate death.

President Johnson made the great statement that our job is to continue the program that President Kennedy started. We did continue

60-755-66--10