council on January 8, 1965, are clearly applicable. In approving that strategy statement the board concluded:

"The concern of the church for people makes it an inclusive community. Therefore, in keeping with its evangelistic mission, the church is concerned about these problems because these problems involve people. In keeping with the teachings of its faith, the church should be the saving community at work saving people."

In the same statement the board further concluded:

"It is the nature of the church to be concerned about the whole person and the whole community. Consequently, to be true to its own nature, the church must focus on causal factors as well as on symptoms. The church should provide leadership for problem prevention as well as providing ameliorative services for those in need."

A. Is now the time?

If this issue is, indeed, the proper concern of the church and of the council, does it justify the concentrated effort of the council-the expenditure of its limited resources at the present time? It is the thesis of this report that it does, for the following reasons:

1. It is suggested that a public system of higher education might very well prove to be one of the most creative and uplifting forces in the future growth of the metropolitan area. It is unfortunate that extensive quotation from the report of the President's Committee is not practical here, because its address to this specific question is superb. A few selected quotations can perhaps convey the message:

"The most urgent educational need in the District of Columbia is hope. The public school system is overwhelmingly college-oriented, yet there is no low-cost general college to which its graduates can go."

"For thousands of these children and adolescents, school has no meaning in terms of opportunity. It is more in the nature of a sentence passed upon them to be served until age 16. For they have become convinced, largely through the experience of parents, of older brothers and sisters, and of others known to them in their community, that they can look forward to no real part in today's society, let alone to any share in that society's affluence. Thus, too many of them drop out of school as soon as they are able and try, usually without marked success, to compete for a living. Without skills, they are too often unsalable by—and hence useless to the community."

"Knowledge that these [publicly supported] institutions are available will often help to provide motivation when children first enter school. And with motivation, school can become a very different experience. No longer a dreary succession of meaningless lessons and of senseless disciplinary rules, it represents the chance for self-betterment."

"Higher education for those to whom it was previously inaccessible produces consequences far beyond their own use of it. Availability makes a crucial difference in the motivation for learning at all levels and for all ages, generating hope and self-esteem among individuals and groups previously relegated to inferior status. Presenting models of successful escape from degrading conditions and providing trained leadership for those still struggling to emerge from an unfavorable background, higher education offers the best hope for community progress in our cities' battles against poverty, sickness, unemployment, and crime."

2. If the analysis summarized in these quotations is correct, then it is urgent that action be taken at the earliest possible time, before the multiplying problems of the urban society become overwhelming. But an attack on the specific problem under consideration is especially urgent now because of the existence of a conjunction of advantages which may not coalesce again for 20 years-the momentum of the report of the President's Committee, the President's message to Congress submitting legislation to solve the problem, and the pressure of White House support addressed to the most education-minded Congress in history.

3. Under these circumstances a rare opportunity is offered to the Council of Churches, for seldom does the church find such favorable conditions for the exercise of its leadership to help create a self-sustaining and permanent institu

tion devoted to goals consonant with its own. These transient conditions provide an opening for the most efficient possible use of the church's resources, and justify a maximum effort to mobilize and apply those resources.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is therefore suggested that if the Governing Committee of the Institute of Church and Society concurs with the conclusions of this report, it either approve or adopt it and forward it to the board of directors of the council for consideration at its meeting on January 14 with the following recommendations:

1. That the board of directors vote to put the council of churches publicly on record in strong support of the establishment in the District of Columbia, as soon as possible, of both a public community college and a public college of the arts and sciences, as recommended by the President's Committee on Higher Education in the District of Columbia, and as proposed by H.R. 7395, the President's legislative submission to the Congress.

2. That the board of directors authorize the institute of church and society to develop a program to make the council's position known and to mobilize the moral resources of the council and the member churches of the Washington area to support and assist the enactment of H.R. 7395 in the 2d session of the 89th Congress. Respectfully submitted.

M. C. MAPES, Jr.

Unanimously approved by the board of directors of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington, Friday, January 14, 1966.

VIRGIL E. LOWDER, Executive Director. Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mr. William K. Norwood.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM K. NORWOOD, CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CITIZENS' ASSOCIATIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am William K. Norwood representing the Federation of Citizens Associations of the District of Columbia in my capacity as chairman of its education committee. The federation consists of 40 member bodies with a total membership of approximately 20,000.

I am here to indicate the support of the federation for the principles involved in S. 293 and S. 1612, both of which would provide a 4-year liberal arts college and a 2-year community college for the District of Columbia. The federation has supported facilities for higher education for the District ever since the first congressional bill was introduced covering this matter.

I am a member of the executive board of the association and I am also on the board of directors of the District of Columbia Citizens for Higher Education. And while I am not officially a spokesman for these two organizations, both of them are solidly in back of the principles of these bills.

It is difficult to justify denying these facilities to the District with its population of over 800,000, which places it population wise above 11 other States which now provide their citizens with opportunities for this higher education.

The private colleges of our area do not have adequate facilities to serve all those youths who would like to go beyond the high school level, and if they did, the cost of this education would place it beyond the reach of a large proportion of them.

A recent skill survey prepared by the U.S. Employment Service for the District of Columbia highlights the needs for advanced educational facilities. Washington has, and probably will continue to have, the tightest labor market in the country. Technical skills, which could be met in large part by the proposed community college, are in especially short supply.

There is no nearby reservoir from which these skills can be secured and it is these same skills that are in short supply in the Nation as a whole. This situation has been accentuated by the rapid growth of research and development firms in this area requiring a sharp increase in those trained as scientists, engineers, and technicians.

Poverty and the high cost of other schools and colleges have been major obstacles to our youth in securing an education which would fit them to fill these jobs, thus easing labor shortages and welfare problems.

As between S. 293 and S. 1612, we favor the provisions in S. 293 relating to the Board of Higher Education and the Board of Higher Education nomination committee. We feel that the appointment of the Board and of the nominating committee by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia would insure less politics and more objectivity than would appointment by the District Commissioners. S. 1612 puts too much authority in the hands of the Commissioners who would be subject to partisan pressures and influence.

I would like to mention I am in complete agreement with one of yesterday's speakers who said these opportunities in the District of Columbia would tend to reduce dropouts. Nothing serves as much as an incentive as knowing you will be able to continue to do something which can be looked forward to, knowing there is something ahead.

I would also like to interject a bit of personal experience. For about 2 years I worked as a job development consultant for the United Planning Organization, and in connection with my visits to employers in the District and in nearby suburban areas there was driven home very definitely to me the need for training beyond that given by our schools, particularly what would be furnished by our community college.

Let me assure you, there is nothing that makes an impression on you more than a personal experience like that, rather than just reading statistics of the reports that somebody else may furnish.

Gentlemen, we citizens of the District of Columbia strongly urge you to use your influence to secure for us the much-needed facilities for higher education as provided for in these bills.

I appreciate this opportunity to present the views of the Federation of Citizens Associations.

Senator Morse, I would especially like to thank you for your efforts in our behalf.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much, I would like to characterize your statement as real basic grassroots support. That is what we need and I wish you would take back to the Federation of Citizens Association, my thanks for the help they have given us, not only on this matter but a good many other matters that come before this subcommittee and the full District of Columbia Senate Committee.

The next witness will be Mr. John Jacob, director of education and youth incentive, Washington Urban League, Inc.

60-755 0-66- -13

STATEMENT OF JOHN JACOB, DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH INCENTIVE, WASHINGTON URBAN LEAGUE, INC.

Mr. JACOB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, my name is John E. Jacobs, director of education and youth incentives for the Washington Urban League. The Washington Urban League is a community planning and social service agency which for more than 28 years has worked to improve the employment, housing, education, health and welfare opportunities available to minority groups in our community.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to testify in support of the need for public institutions of higher education in Washington, D.C.

The Washington Urban League views public education as the cornerstone of progress in our community. We, therefore, would like to reaffirm publicly our full support for publicly supported higher educational institutions for the District of Columbia.

We feel that this need has been long neglected in our community and has many damaging effects. In 1963-64 alone, we saw 4,975 youths drop out of our public schools, the year before, 4,179 youths dropped out. In both of those years, the largest group of dropouts was because of "lack of interest." What then is "lack of interest?" The President's Committee on Public Higher Education found a definition when it stated:

The most urgent educational need in the District of Columbia is hope. The public school system is overwhelmingly college oriented, yet there is no low-cost general college to which its graduates can go. Like every American city today, Washington has its share of families-more than a sixth of the population— who live in poverty and who generally suffer the attendant evils of cultural deprivation and the stifling environment of the slums.

Yet, unlike more and more American cities, Washington is without a single publicly supported institution for education at any level beyond high schoolexcepting only a teacher-training institution to help these thousands of persons overcome their handicaps and realize their full potential.

For thousands of these children and adolescents, school has no meaning in terms of opportunity. It is more in the nature of a sentence pasesd upon them to be served until age 16. For they have become convinced, largely through the experience of parents, of older brothers and sisters, and of others know to them in their community, that they can look forward to no real part in today's society, let alone to any share in that society's affluence.

Thus too many of them drop out of school as soon as they are able and try, usually without marked success to compete for a living. Without skills, they are too often unusable by, and hence useless to, the community.

But, if we solved the dropout problem in the District tomorrow, we would still be faced with a major educational problem. According to a report by Forest Bogan in the Monthly Labor Review, the unemployment rate nationally for Negro high school graduates is 16.1 percent. These figures clearly illustrate that a high school education may be enough for many youngsters. A high school diploma can become, in fact, "a passport to nowhere."

In Washington, the lack of public colleges through which excellence in intellectual and technical skills can be pursued only enhances this community's inability to reduce unemployment and eradicate poverty.

The Washington Urban League greets with enthusiasm both Senate bills S. 293 and S. 1613, which propose to establish a Board of Higher Education, the first step in the creation of new institutions of learning. Although the two bills are similar in most respects, the Washington Urban League would prefer passage of S. 1612. We prefer the latter bill, Mr. Chairman, because it better embodies a basic concept of the Urban League: the need for public institutions sensitively to reflect the needs and be responsible to the control of local citizens. S. 293 would have Board members appointed by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, whereas S. 1612 places this responsibility on the District Commissioners.

While the District Commissioners also are appointed officials, we feel that they better reflect and respond to the voice of local residents. In addition, under the latter arrangement, these powers could be more easily transferred to our local government, when soon, we hope our community regains self-government.

The challenge through both bills, however, is to create institutions of excellence. We hope that the Board of Higher Education will be guided by a vision of building a system of the highest quality-spacious and stimulating in its physical plant, providing the highest quality of instruction, a vehicle for the most impoverished to enter its doors to find lifetime opportunity.

Excellence, we repeat, must be the foundation upon which Washington must build its public institutions for higher learning. The Washington Urban League urges immediate and positive action by Congress to establish publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MORSE. That was a fine statement. We will be delighted to have it in the hearing record. Thank you.

The next witness will be Mrs. Arthur E. Strout, chairman, education committee, Americans for Democratic Action.

STATEMENT OF MRS. ARTHUR E. STROUT, CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION

Mrs. STROUT. We, of the Greater Washington chapter of Americans for Democratic Action, are grateful for this opportunity to present to this committee our views of higher education in the District of Columbia.

We see no reason for taking up the time of this committee to emphasize the importance of higher education in present-day America. The Congress has given abundant evidence through its legislative action that it fully recognizes that importance.

We do not want to underline some of the severe barriers to higher education for the young people who live in the Nation's Capital.

Washington has a number of excellent colleges and universities, but these institutions do not primarily serve the young people of this city. Total undergraduate enrollment in institutions of higher education in the District of Columbia was 30,661 in 1963. Of these students, 22,726 were residents of other places than Washington.