As

District of Columbia Teachers College has accomplished for many years. citizens, we concur in much of the testimony already presented to the committee. The need of this city and of its citizens for a 4-year college and a community college is obvious, in fact was obvious in 1945 when the citizens here first began the consideration of the junior college. As veterans, we have long recognized the need for the broader institution, and we particularly call to the attention of the committee the need of many new veterans-those who have served since 1955, especially in the Vietnam conflict, those now who can profit from new legislation. The Nation has genuinely appreciated the services of the men and women in the Armed Forces and has sought through the two GI bills to help the veteran return to civilian life. AVC, once again, commends the work of Senator Ralph Yarborough and other Senators who worked hard for passage of the cold war GI bill. A major interest of the Nation in the veteran has been to provide for his education. After World War II many veterans received substantial aid to continue and complete their education.

AVC points out the obvious: many veterans, aided by the new GI bill, will be seeking a college education. In this city alone, we believe that likely thousands of veterans may seek a public education, a public college, either liberal arts or community college. They would seek a public college for several reasons. First, many veterans are very familiar with public institutions and public services. Second, the cost of attending a public institution has always and will continue to be lower than the expense of a private institution. Third, the veteran will receive aid to his college through a subsistence allowance but will not have his tuition paid.

The Veterans' Administration estimates that hundreds of thousands of veterans over the Nation and in the District of Columbia more than 25,000 are eligible for some benefits. Of this number in this city, possibly as many as 7,000 might be interested in college-level education. We judge that a large proportion of the latter number might be interested in public colleges.

We have recently talked a great deal about the "disadvantaged." Rightly So. And there is a place for the able, disadvantaged in our colleges, both public and private. A public program is the answer for those who cannot afford the tuition of Georgetown University and American University or even Howard University. In some respects the veteran returning to civilian life after service in Germany or the Dominican Republic, Vietnam or duty in our own country— this man or woman generally has some disadvantages as he faces readjustment. The relatively low cost of public higher education, the atmosphere of public education, the curriculum that such colleges will provide are more likely to aid the "disadvantaged" veteran to readjust to civilian life and to continue his education.

With respect to the particulars of the legislation, AVC notes with strong agreement the authorization for a board of public higher education. This is good; in fact, the present college should have a separate board and should be tied into the public school system and school board. Nominations for the board might come from both the Commissioners and the District court judges. Having been motivated, together with a dozen other community organizations, to urge the integration of the then existing separate teachers colleges, we have long studied the force of race in education and in the city. We have noted the number of barriers to quality education in the District of Columbia. Can the number and proportion of Negroes likely to benefit from better education and a public college program have been factors blocking both for so long? We don't know. We earnestly hope, however, that considerations of race will not block the authorization for the two public colleges and know that racial considerations have no force in the Senate.

We have appreciated this opportunity to present the views of the American Veterans' Committee.

Senator MORSE. The next witness will be Mr. Darnley Howard, education chairman, Federation of Civic Associations.

Mr. Howard, I am glad to have you. You may proceed in your

own way.

STATEMENT OF DARNLEY M. HOWARD, CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION COMMITTEE, FEDERATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, INC.

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you very much, Senator. We are happy for this opportunity to appear.

The Federation of Civic Associations is very grateful for the opportunity to testify before you today. We are a federation of civic groups having 45 member associations, representing every region of the District of Columbia.

A public college established to satisfy the academic needs of the people of the District of Columbia at nominal cost to the student does not now exist except in the area of undergraduate teacher education.

The Federation of Civic Associations has long felt that the District. of Columbia should have publicly supported institutions of higher learning. Virtually every State in the Union and the great majority of metropolitan areas within these States do have publicly supported colleges.

On today's labor market the minimum requirement for a position of professional standing is a bachelor's degree, and many skilled subprofessional positions require at least 2 years of college. At the same time, semiskilled and unskilled jobs are less in demand each year. This situation makes it mandatory that a person pursue his education as far as his ability permits, toward the end that he is prepared to perform a useful service which will be of value to the economy and the community.

A public college should have a strong evening program. Such a program would provide adults already employed or in business with an opportunity to prepare themselves for better positions and an opportunity for self-improvement in both the practical and the cultural realms.

The college program should contain a graduate school for teachers, the need for which has been demonstrated, and other graduate level programs as the need arises.

A realization of the ambitions of young people and adults is attainable only if employment opportunity can be matched with adequate educational preparation. We believe that publicly supported junior and 4-year colleges, in keeping with the recommendations of section III of a report to the President "Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia," will be a major contribution toward adequate educational opportunity for Washington and, like all schools, a priceless investment for the future.

Senate bills S. 1612, by Senator Bible, and S. 293, by Senator Morse et al., both provide for a 2-year program, a 4-year program in the arts and sciences which would include teacher training, a master's degree program in the arts and sciences, and courses on an individual noncredit basis. Programs of this type will, to a large degree, satisfy the needs of the District of Columbia in the area of public higher education as outlined briefly in this statement and as presented in detail in the President's report. The Federation of Civic Associations wholeheartedly endorses the education programs which both bills would provide.

The bills differ, however, in the method used to select the nominating committee and the Board of Higher Education. S. 293 stipulates

that the nominating committee and the Board would be selected by the U.S. district court. This Board of Higher Education would, we assume, be the vehicle through which public expression and desires would be transmitted to the college administration in the same way as with the regular board of education.

Our experience indicates that the court discharges these duties such as Board appointments, without enthusiasm. We have seen that this method can produce a board that is aloof, indifferent, and unresponsive. The Federation of Civic Associations, therefore, supports S. 1612 as far as method of selection of a nominating committee and Board of Higher Education is concerned, in the hope and belief that a Board can be chosen which is sensitive to the needs of the community. I might digress a moment here to say that we are actually in favor of an elected board, but in choosing the alternatives between these two about his point you were here this morning.

Senator MORSE. I noticed when we had a discussion with Mr. Turner about this point you were here this morning.

I quite agree with you that I don't think the Federal court is very enthusiastic about this assignment and also as a lawyer with all the work these judges have to do I have reservations in placing the additional burden on them.

If the District Commissioners were elected officials, I would be less hesitant to place the appointment in the District Commissioners.

If you had home rule and you wanted to decide that the Board of Higher Education should be appointed by your mayor with the confirmation of your council, that is a democratic process, too. To date my mind is still open on the question. I am rather hesitant about favoring the Board of Education being appointed by the District Commissioners, which is no reflection on them. I am talking about procedure. I am talking about the degree to which they represent a democratic process. So I am leaning, as I said this morning, in favor of an amendment to the bill that would provide for an elected board of education.

Mr. HOWARD. The federation also supports S. 1612 in the area of fiscal responsibility. We agree that staff salaries, retirement, et cetera, should be the responsibility of the Board. We agree that gifts, grants, et cetera, should be accepted by the Board, subject to the District of Columbia Commissioners' approval and administered by the Board. Finally, we feel that S. 1612 should be modified so that revenue from tuition, fees, et cetera, would go into a fund administered by the Board and not into the general fund of the District.

In other words, we feel that the effectiveness of the Board and the college administration will be directly proportional to its financial independence.

Finally, the two bills under discussion do not provide for a site for the proposed college. Our association would like to urge that the site on which the present National Training School is located at Bladensburg and South Dakota Streets NE. be chosen for the community college. We feel that this location permits ready access by public transportation and is one of the last areas in Washington with enough open space to plan and build, without compromise, a complete educational complex.

60-755-66- -18

May I digress for just a moment to say we realize this site is under discussion for lots of other things, and we feel most importantly that some good available site should be chosen and we feel also that as a second choice to us that the National Bureau of Standards site would also be acceptable. I personally am familiar with those grounds and they would be acceptable to us.

Senator, I would like to close by saying that the Federation of Civic Associations is very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today and to present our views supporting public higher education for the District of Columbia.

Thank you.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Howard, I am very grateful on behalf of the committee that you appeared before us and that you pointed out these potential college sites. Although it is not final, we felt this was pretty much an administrative problem that ought to be left to those responsible for the development of the institutions once the legislation is passed. We believed that it is the type of administrative detail that the Congress shouldn't burden itself with.

This is probably a step toward the right of self-determination in the District of Columbia, but that doesn't mean that we have foreclosed the consideration of a site as a possible amendment to the bill. I want to thank you very much.

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you.

Senator MORSE. We are privileged to have the Right Reverend Monsignor Joseph A. Gorham, professor, School of Education, Catholic University, as our next witness.

Monsignor, you are familiar with our procedure. You may take the chair and proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF RT. REV. MSGR. JOSEPH A. GORHAM, REPRESENTING THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Monsignor GORHAM. Senator Morse, it goes without saying that opportunities for education beyond high school in the District of Columbia need to be enlarged. The increasing number of young people who complete high school in the District year after year bespeaks this need sufficiently well by itself. Moreover, these young people, as American citizens, should be afforded the same opportunities for higher education as are afforded the young American citizens living in the States through the systems of higher education of the respective States.

The problem involved in expanding higher educational opportunities in the District, as I see it, lies in finding the most comprehensive and most satisfactory answer to the following three-point question: (1) Is it necessary to establish new publicly supported institutions of the liberal-arts-college type to satisfy any part of this need?

(2) Is it necessary to establish new publicly supported institutions of types other than liberal arts colleges which offer opportunities for education beyond the high school?

(3) Should not some of the satisfaction of the need under discussion be sought through expansion of opportunities for the District's youth to enroll in private institutions of higher education now existing in the District?

My answer to each part of this question is "Yes." I do not mean by this, however, that fulfillment of any provision implied in any one of these three points should negate the other two, or even one of the other two.

In my statement I have some statistics which I took from the records of the colleges in the District.

Compared with any State, the District is small, territorially. It is richly endowed with institutions of higher education. The 1964-65 U.S. Office of Education Directory, Higher Education, lists 27 institutions in the District. Ten of the institutions listed are not open to all students since they are seminaries or schools in departments of the Federal Government.

Four of the remaining 17 institutions are special professional or semiprofessional schools; 4 are junior colleges; and the other 9 are regular 4-year colleges, 5 of them being integral parts of universities. Only 1 of the 17 institutions open to students in general is completely publicly supported; 2 institutions, Howard University and Gallaudet College, are supported in part by public funds.

The array of programs and courses offered by the private universities and colleges in the District is very extensive. Opportunities for participation in the programs offered by the five universities have been enhanced in recent years through the now well-known consortium. To construct and put into effective operation in entirely new institutions the quality programs which have taken decades and centuries to build in existing colleges would be a long, hard, and costly task. Until a quality 4-year college is firmly established, simple wisdom and the wisdom of experience indicate that it would be good for the District community educationally, socially, and economically, that provisions, in the form of scholarships, for example, especially in fields of study not commonly offered in colleges which are not parts of universities with broad study offerings, be made for District students to attend the private colleges here, whose quality is recognized and highly regarded. According to statistics taken from a report to the District School Board recently and published in the Sunday Star, March 20, on page E-10, of the 4,085 students who graduated from District high schools in June 1965, 2,032 or near 50 percent, entered 4-year colleges; and 819, or 20 percent entered 4-year colleges located in the District. Fifty-one percent of the graduates who entered 4-year colleges anywhere entered colleges located in the District. Only 6 percent, 103 graduates of those entering college, however, entered one or another of the four completely private colleges in the District. This percentage is low. There are all kinds of reasons for it, which we need not now go into. However, one of the reasons is the cost of tuition and other necessary charges in the private colleges.

It may well be that careful studies, which I presume are being made, of needs and of existing opportunities at the junior-college level may reveal the need of one or two public junior colleges in the District. If one is built, it should be both preparatory and terminal. If two are built, there should be one of each type. Arrangements could be made with 4-year colleges for the transfer of students from the preparatory junior college. In the terminal junior college program care should be taken to provide courses which would prepare young people for the