Only 7,935 or approximately 25 percent of the enrolled undergraduates came from Washington. In no one of the 50 States is the proportion of out-of-State students to residents as high as in the District of Columbia. Massachusetts, with Harvard and MIT drawing students from all over the Nation, still has an undergraduate enrollment in its institutions of higher education consisting of 65.9 percent residents of the State. The result is that great numbers of young people are deprived of the higher education they deserve. It is instructive to compare the District of Columbia with such a State as California which has wisely looked to its needs in higher education. In California, 3 percent of the total population of the State is enrolled in institutions of higher education within the State. In the District of Columbia, only 1.4 percent of the population is enrolled in any institution of higher education within the District. California undergraduates are equal to 60 percent of the total 18to 21-year-old population in the States. District of Columbia undergraduates are equal to only 21 percent of the 18- to 21-year-old population. These figures include all residents of the State or District_attending college anywhere, either at home or away from home. One could estimate from these figures that approximately three-fifths of the California college age group continue their education beyond high school, but only one-fifth of the young people in Washington do so. The reasons that relatively few Washington young people enter college are not hard to find. Figures of the College Entrance Examination Board indicates that, even to live at home and commute daily to class, it costs $1,880 a year to attend American University, $1,960 to attend Georgetown University, $1,740 to attend George Washington University and $1,800 to attend Catholic University. Only at Howard is it possible to attend college while living at home for less than $1,000 a year. To attend college outside of the District is even more costly, involving heavy out-of-State tuitions and the expense of living away from home. In the Cardoza area there is now underway a massive effort to raise the educational sights of young people from low-income families. To these young people we only say that however high they may raise their sights, there is no available higher education which is within their means. There has been much talk in recent years about the easy availability of scholarships. We do not wish to deny the value of scholarship programs, but we do think that it is important to realize that they do not meet the problem we are describing. Largest and best known of the Nation's scholarship programs is the national merit scholarship program. In the 1964-65 school year, 28 Washington public high school graduates were merit finalists. This is an impressive number until one discovers that out of the 28 finalists, 23 were graduates of Wilson High School which serves an area having an average family income of over $10,000. Anacostia High School had one finalist; Čardoza, one; Coolidge, two; Roosevelt, none; Spingarn, none; and Western, two. Put in another way, a student graduating from Wilson High School has 1 chance in 16 of winning a merit scholarship; a student graduating from Cardoza has 1 chance in 250 of winning one. Clearly the only answer is to make publicly supported higher education the rightful heritage of every qualified young person in the District of Columbia. We believe that we can turn to good advantage the fact that we are starting at the very beginning. Unlike most of the 50 States we do not need to contend with a century of tradition in shaping a plan for higher education geared to the needs of the mid-20th century. Americans for Democratic Action, at its convention in 1964, adopted a resolution stating: An adequate number of public, free tuition institutions of higher education should be built to serve all those qualified students seeking public assistance. The view that 12 years should no longer be regarded as the limit of free public education has similarly been supported by, among others, the AFL-CIO, the National Education Association, and Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz. We, therefore, urge this committee to include in the language of its resolution a stipulation that both the proposed community college and the 4-year university provide tuition-free higher education to qualified young people from the District. Since we are starting afresh, we are in an excellent position to start right, and we believe that starting right means recognizing that free public education is as valid a concept in higher education as it is in elementary and secondary education. Senator MORSE. Mrs. Strout, you have submitted an excellent statement with a good deal of data in it that we need. I want to thank you for it very much. Our next witness will be Kenneth C. Kennedy, chairman of the Congress of Community Organizations. Is Mr. Kennedy here? Mr. Kennedy, I am very pleased to have you. I have a copy of your statement. You may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN, THE Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Due to the lateness of the hour I will attempt to summarize my statement. Senator MORSE. Mr. Kennedy's entire statement will be inserted in the record at this point and he will proceed to summarize it. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF KENNETH C. KENNEDY, CHAIRMAN, THE CONGRESS OF COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS REGARDING S. 293 AND S. 1612 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, at the outset, we strongly urge that serious consideration be given to the basic need for publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia. The opportunity to appear before your committee to express our views on this subject is both welcome and appreciated. Certainly we understand the need for immediate action in the creation of a junior college as well as a 4-year college of liberal arts. We give full and wholehearted support for the immediate development of such institutions for higher learning. But the fact remains, these should be the foundation on which we should build our edifice; namely, a university of the District of Columbia. Statistics indicate that there are 710 junior colleges in the United States at present, with 20 to 30 new ones opening each year. As soon as the new colleges open they are besieged with applicants. Miami Dade Junior College, opened in 1960, presently has an enrollment of 14,000 students. Cuyahoga Community College of Cleveland, opened in 1963, and 8,500 enrolled during that fall semester. Obviously, the demand for the junior college is very much the mode of the day. But there is need for more extensive publicly supported higher education in our Nations Capital. Analysis of the legislation before the committee lead us to the conclusion that it should be broadened to include the university concept, with adequate appropriation for financing such a concept. It is shocking to learn that per capita expenditures for higher education in the District lag far behind the Nation. The national average in 1963-64 was $28.87, in the District it was $2.26. The latter figure is questioned by some experts on higher education who say it is less. In 11 States with less population than the District, capital outlays were from $30 million in Virginia, the highest, to Wyoming with $1,900,000. But what of the District of Columbia? The answer, not a single penny. In short, the youth of our city have been deprived of an equal opportunity for higher education to an alarming extent. Is it any wonder that crime rates soar? In 1930 an eighth-grade education prepared a person for 58 percent of the jobs in the country; it is estimated that by 1970 the equivalent figure will be 6 percent. American education has become significant and full of meaning because of the diverse development of public and private institutions existing side by side. Government grants, court decisions, and foundation grants have encouraged the support for public institutions in all 50 States. The proper development of higher public education will complement rather than compete with the five privately endowed universities in the city. Here, for example, Howard University is an independent institution, national and international in its outlook and teaching. Its relations to the District are no more local than are the relations of Georgetown, George Washington, Catholic, or American Universities. It is high time that the citizens of the District have equal treatment in education as other citizens throughout the country. In the District we are confined for higher education purposes to a dilapidated, outmoded, and physically dangerous plant threatened with withdrawal of accreditation known as the District of Columbia Teachers College. Put another way, the District, with the second highest per capita income in the Nation, has the lowest per capita expenditure on higher education. In view of the overwhelming amount of undisputed evidence on the lag in publicly supported higher education in our Nation's Capital, it is indeed difficult to understand the reasoning of the supporters of less than the university concept for the District of Columbia. Do the public officials and other supporters of higher education for the District reason that the young people who reside in the Capital of the greatest Nation in the world should not be accorded an equal opportunity for publicly supported higher education with other young people in the Nation? The Congress of Community Organizations unequivocally supports legislation that embraces the university concept. With respect to bills S. 293 and S. 1612 now before your committee, the Congress of Community Organizations urge that the changes and amendments suggested in the testimony before this committee on behalf of the District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers be incorporated in the final passage of legislation on this subject. The final point that we wish the committee to consider is the site for the proposed institution. We strongly recommend that the present site of the National Training School for Boys be turned over to the Government of the District of Columbia to be used exclusively for higher educational purposes, including a city university and the proposed vocational training school. Many of us in the Congress of Community Organizations are residents in the area near the training school site. This is a low-density community, 90 percent of which is composed of single-family detached homes. Most of the residents of the area own their homes. According to the National Capital Planning Commission's proposed 1965-85 plan, our community is one of the lowest density areas in the city. To permit this site to be used for other projects currently under consideration will change the residential character of this area which police statistics reveal to be one of the lowest crime areas in the city; a fact in which we take pride. Congress only recently prohibited chanceries from locating in residential communities in the District. We find it most difficult to understand how a proposal for an industrial complex such as the Government Printing Office with all the hazards of traffic, and other implications not conducive to residential community living, can seriously be considered. Likewise, the use of this land for low-income housing will do little more than create another ghetto. This, too, will change the residential character of this relatively crime-free community. In addition, the National Capital Housing Authority has finalized plans to begin immediate construction of 156 3-, 4-, 5-, and 6-bedroom units to accommodate 964 persons only a few blocks from the training school site. We believe this number of public housing units more than sufficient to be placed in any low-density community. Similar projects have not been seriously considered for any other low-density community in the city. Why further impose on the tax-paying property owners of our area, by erecting more high-density housing, or an industrial complex at the training school site? On the other hand, the training school site is the last large unincumbered land in the District available for developing a modern city university that may be expanded as the need and population growth demands. This site is located at one of the gateways to the city and could serve as a proper and fitting landmark for visitors to our great Capital City. Such a monument (the university) located on the training school site would be totally consistent with the beautification legislation recently enacted by Congress, and would also blend with the plans of Mrs. Lyndon Johnson for making our Nation's Capital a more beautiful city. Finally, the Congress of Community Organizations is supported by publicspirited groups who, we believe, numerically represent more than one-half of the city population. In the absence of self-government for ourselves, we appeal to your distinguished committee and the Congress to heed our views. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONGRESS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS, February 23, 1966. Re S. 293 and S. 1612, relating to a publicly supported program of higher education in the District of Columbia. COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GENTLEMEN: The District of Columbia Congress of Parents and Teachers, with a membership of over 50,000 persons, has a very immediate and direct concern with the purposes of S. 293 and S. 1612, relating to a program of publicly supported higher education in the District of Columbia. In our action program, approved at our annual convention, we have a section which reads as follows: "PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA "1. We support a program of higher education, at public expense and under public control, including a junior college, a college of liberal arts and sciences, a college of education, a graduate school, and such other programs as the needs of the community may indicate as desirable. "2. We believe that the program of higher education should be under the control of a Board of Higher Education, the composition and method of appointment or election to be considered at a later date. "3. We are opposed to any program of subsidies for higher education in privately controlled colleges and universities. "4. We support a program of higher education with no tuition fees for residents of the District of Columbia. "5. We support the maximum of institutional self-control over the finances of the program of higher education. "6. We support an admission policy on the part of the District of Columbia institution of higher education which shall be flexible and appropriate to the various programs concerned. "7. We support a program of cooperation between the District of Columbia institution of higher education and the District of Columbia public schools and the other colleges and universities of the metropolitan area." In accordance with the first item in our action program listed above, we recommend that the bills under consideration be amended to provide for the establishment of a University of the District of Columbia. There is a need for such an institution: Every one of the 50 States and many of the larger cities maintain at least one publicly supported and publicly controlled university. The young people of the District of Columbia are the only persons in this country who do not have such a facility for higher education available to them. Each year, both private and State-supported universities are adopting more restrictive policies with regard to the admission of non-State residents. Examples: (a) The University of Maryland is decreasing the number of nonresidents (especially women) to be admitted and is increasing the cutoff point in class rank of high school graduates; (b) Pennsylvania State University cut the number of admissions of graduates of Woodrow Wilson High School from the usual 12 to 15 students down to only 2, because of the need to accommodate applicants from the State of Pennsylvania. Other out-of-State high schools were cut in admissions in a similar manner; (c) Cornell University has recently announced that admissions of new students for 1966 will be reduced by 25 percent of the number admitted in 1965. Thus, each year, unless a local high school graduate elects to follow a teachertraining course in the District of Columbia Teachers College, he will find it more and more difficult to gain admission to a State-supported university at reasonable cost. All of the colleges and universities in the District of Columbia (except the District of Columbia Teachers College) are privately controlled, have student fees which are beyond the means of many of our young people, and have admission policies which would exclude many of our local high school graduates who might wish to continue in school beyond the 12th grade. The District of Columbia can afford a university: This spokesman has, ever since 1953, called the attention of the District of Columbia Commissioners and various committees of the U.S. Congress to the statistics published annually by the U.S. Bureau of the Census under the titles of "Compendium of State Finances" and "Compendium of Large City Finances." These publications for fiscal 1964 show, among other facts, that— (a) The District of Columbia has a population which exceeds that of 11 of the 50 States. (b) The District of Columbia spent $2.26 per capita on institution of higher education, as compared with the national average of $28.87. (Maryland spent $21.23; Virginia, $19.40; six States over $50; only one State, Massachusetts, spent less than $10 ($9.87).) This spokesman questions the accuracy of the figure for the District of Columbia, since some costs have been assigned to the District of Columbia Teachers College which should be assigned to the costs of operating the elementary schools. A more accurate figure would probably be about $1.25 per capita. Of the 11 States with a smaller population than the District of Columbia, the largest amount spent on higher education was by Alaska ($13,200,000), and the smallest amount was by Wyoming ($1,900,000). Other data released by the U.S. Department of Commerce show that the District of Columbia has a per capita income greater than that of all the States save that of Nevada; and that the District of Columbia spends a smaller percentage of its per capita income on education than any of the 50 States. These figures show clearly that the District of Columbia can afford to support a public university for its residents. In view of many criticisms of the method of appointing the present Board of Education, this spokesman would like to suggest the following change in S. 293 (which he believes in certain respects to be a better bill than S. 1612) : That the Board of Higher Education should consist of 21 members, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States, 9 of whom shall be appointed by the District of Columbia Commissioners; and 3 of whom shall be elected by and from the graduates of the University of the District of Columbia. All of the members appointed by the President of the United States and by the District of Columbia Commissioners shall have been residents of the District of Columbia for a period of not less than 5 years immediately prior to their appointments and shall be ineligible to continue in office should they cease to be residence of the District of Columbia. The three alumni members of the Board of Higher Education shall have held a degree from the University of the District of |