IV National Capital Affairs. We should like to note, however, two studies published shortly after our report was completed. Man, Education and Work, issued by the American Council on Education, and Technical Education in the Junior College, issued by the American Association of Junior Colleges, are in accord with many of our conclusions and recommendations. We have not felt competent to include in our Report any specific recommendations on the location of either of the two new institutions we have proposed. We recognize that it will not be easy to provide the central and readily accessible location which is necessary to insure that the institutions are available to the greatest number of students. We hope, however, that this problem will become a matter of immediate concern, and that notwithstanding possible delays in its solution the organization of the two colleges, and indeed the operation of at least the community (or junior) college, will begin even while problems of ultimate location are being settled. The need for each of the colleges is urgent. Neither should be required to await a protracted period of site search and construction. Finally, we should like to express our appreciation for the unstinting cooperation we have received from Francis Keppel, the Commissioner of Education, and from R. Earl Iffert, of his office; for the constant and often decisive assistance given us by Charles A. Horsky, your Advisor for National Capital Affairs; and, of course, for the diligent and effective aid rendered to the Committee at all stages of its work by its Executive Director, James H. Case, Jr. We have enjoyed the assignment. We trust that our recommendations will provide a helpful basis for further action by you and by the Congress. Respectfully, THE PRESIDENT, FRANCIS S. CHASE, Page TABLE OF CONTENTS I. The Committee's Assignment and Procedures___ II. The Educational Problems of the District of B. The educational resources and deficiencies C. The basic educational need of the district___ ricula___. C. Noncompetitive scholarships in special cur- 1. The need__. 2. The recommendation_ D. High-level graduate study and research___ 32 32 33 (V) PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I. THE COMMITTEE'S ASSIGNMENT AND PROCEDURES The 1963 message from the late President Kennedy transmitting to Congress the District of Columbia budget stated his concern that "in the Nation's Capital general education beyond the secondary level is not available at a nominal cost, as it is in many major cities and in the States." The evidence of his concern was the appointment of this Committee, with the request that it examine and report on the following issues: Should the District of Columbia have publicly supported institutions of higher learning beyond the secondary school level? If so, what type or types of institutions should be established, from junior colleges through graduate centers, and what relationship should any such institution bear to the existing public school system and to the existing universities-particularly Howard, which derives a considerable part of its income from Federal appropriations? Collateral issues which are relevant are the extent to which the unsurpassed resources present in the Federal agencies and their employees can be used or useful; the extent to which any institution should be available to nonresidents of the District, and the manner in which the District can best take advantage in the field of higher education of the opportunities afforded by Federal aid-to-education programs and of new measures which might be enacted. While every large urban center reflects the characteristics, challenges and potentialities of the entire Nation, an educational structure for the District at the post-high school level (1) must reflect also the special social, economic, cultural, and educational characteristics of the District itself. Hence, as the Committee immediately recognized, the proper discharge of its assignment required specific information on educational conditions in the District. Early meetings with representatives of the five privately controlled universities in the District, of D.C. Teachers College, and of the public school system of the District greatly aided the Committee in identifying the areas in which it should seek further information. Some materials were ready at hand, but several areas required intensive investigation by the Committee. The following studies have therefore been made by or under the supervision of the Committee's staff: 1. An inquiry into the needs for post-high school education in the District, with special reference to the characteristics of the population to be served and its undeveloped potentials. 2. A comparison of the general characteristics and the educational resources of the District with those of other selected urban centers in the United States. 3. An inventory and analysis of the institutions now offering post-high school educational services in the District, with special attention to the roles of the D.C. Teachers College and the five privately controlled universities in serving the District's needs. 4. An appraisal of the resources of these six institutions for training elementary and secondary school teachers and for offering courses for the upgrading and intellectual advancement of teachers. 5. An analysis of the employment needs of the District, their relation to existing unemployment, especially among young people, and the potentially available supply of persons who might be trained in the skills demanded by prospective employers. The Committee also sought data on two other subjects: (1) estimates of the number of District secondary school students who could reasonably be expected to pursue their studies in publicly supported institutions of higher education if such institutions were to be established, and (2) local opinion on the District's needs for such institutions. In pursuit of the first objective, a questionnaire was distributed to and answered by a 10 percent random sample of secondary school seniors living in the District and attending the District's public, private and parochial schools. Further information was obtained on this subject by an analysis conducted with the cooperation of officials of the District's senior public high schools, showing the "college-able" graduates of the class of 1963 who did not enter 4-year colleges full time in the fall of 1963 and the reasons for their failure to do so. To obtain knowledge of local opinion, a wide selection of District organizations and civic leaders was invited to comment on a number of general and specific questions relating to the problems before the Committee. The Committee also announced publicly that it would welcome written comments on the same problems from other members of the community. Furthermore, to the extent permitted by its schedule, Committee members, both at official meetings and individually, have discussed the problems with a considerable number of persons in the District. Apart from studies and investigations essentially related to the District, the Committee commissioned several information papers by persons with expert knowledge in specific fields. Papers were written for the Committee by Dr. S. V. Martorana, of the New York State Department of Education and formerly of the U.S. Office of Education, on "The Community College"; by Professor Donald Maley, head of the Industrial Education Department of the University of Maryland, on "Post-High School Technical and Vocational Education"; by Judge Mary Conway Kohler, now a member of the Board of Education, New York City, on "Post-High School Education for Those with Underdeveloped Potential"; and by Dr. Ethel Venables, Nuffield Research Unit, University of Birmingham (England), on "The Pool of Talent for Technical Education and its Identification." The Committee feels confident that, from all of these sources, it has acquired a sound and adequate basis for its recommendations, and believes that further investigation and documentation would only provide confirmation of its conclusions. 3 |