Page images
PDF
EPUB

hands of people that sit here that are the beneficiaries of the GI bill, you would be surprised at the number of hands that would come up. Those former GI's, now doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen, and dentists, in all walks of American life, would not be occupying their present positions had the American people not invested the funds for the GI bill in them. That first GI bill has already more than repaid its cost by increased tax dollars that the recipients of it have been able to pay as a result of their increased earnings over what they otherwise would not have been able to earn.

The entire Senate of the United States has never failed me as chairman of the Committee on Education, since we first started to put through the Kennedy omnibus bill of 1962. In fact, I remember when we first offered that bill. It had 24 sections, and I told the President, after it had been introduced and we started the hearings that I did not think there was any chance of passing it as an omnibus bill. I said, "Mr. President, if you will let me submit it section by section or sections by sections, I will give you my assurance that during your first term in office I will get a vote on each one of the 24 sections."

He did not live to see the vote on all 24 sections, but last year we completed the last vote on the last section. Some of them were changed somewhat but none in principle, and that great educational program constitutes a breakthrough in educational legislation in this country which is greater than all, greater in import, in quality and in quantity than Federal legislation for the entire preceding 100 years.

For the 100 years before the breakthrough on the President Kennedy bill we had passed very little legislation in the field of education and that is why a great educational crisis has developed in this country. Starting with that Kennedy program, followed by the Johnson program, we are on our way, in my judgment, to meeting the educational crises that have plagued this Republic for too long a period of time. As far as this chairman is concerned, the legislation that we start hearings on this morning is an integral and important part of that overall educational program that was envisioned in the first place by President Kennedy and continued by President Johnson.

With that as an introductory statement, I call upon Mr. Muirhead and Dr. Chase to lead off as our next witnesses.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER C. MUIRHEAD, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF U.S. EDUCATION, AND DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Thank you. I am privileged to appear before you in support of the legislation which is now before the committee, S. 293 and S. 1612. Mr. Chairman, it is a particular privilege to appear before you in support of this legislation because you have so effectively championed the cause of young people all over the Nation. I can speak with particular grace on that point because I have worked very closely with you in your dynamic leadership in extending educational opportunities to young people across the Nation.

Senator MORSE. May I interrupt to say that without your help and the help of Dr. Keppel, Dr. Halperin, Mr. Cohen, Secretary Celebrezze, and Secretary Ribicoff, we simply could not have passed this legislation. You have supplied us with the facts and data essential to us.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think it is particularly significant that you now turn your hand and heart to lend that same leadership to help the young people in the Nation's Capital.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should now like to put into the record the statement which I have.

The President has consistently called upon the Nation to continue its historic commitment to the improvement of American education. In several messages on education, he has pointed out that higher education is no longer a luxury, but a necessity-that higher, education should be made a universal opportunity for all young people. The magnificent response of this Congress will resound to the benefit of the Nation and our youth for generations to come.

The special communication from the President accompanying S. 1612 asks that the youth of our Nation's Capital be given a chance to do their best. It is my honor to speak for the President in soliciting your support and enactment of this bill. I should say there it is my honor to speak for the President in concurring in your support for this legislation.

Such action would be a further manifestation of the fierce commitment of this Congress to the principle of extending educational opportunity to all who desire it and can benefit from it.

All of our States (and most of our larger cities) have established systems of publicly supported institutions of higher education to provide educational opportunities to their residents at nominal cost. The District of Columbia is the sole exception; its citizens do not have access to the national pattern of public 4-year colleges and junior or community colleges other than the limited teacher training opportunities offered by the District of Columbia Teachers College.

The bill before you today would extend to the citizens of the District the benefits of publicly controlled and publicly supported higher education. It would create a Board of Higher Education which would plan, establish, and govern the operations of a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia.

With your permission I would like to give the background of this proposal and to discuss briefly the major provisions of the bill.

BACKGROUND OF THE PROPOSAL

In June 1964, the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia presented its report to the President. The Committee was chaired by Dr. Francis S. Chase, then dean of the Graduate School of Education of the University of Chicago and an outstanding leader in the field of higher education representing a wealth of experience and knowledge of administration and research. We are privileged to have Dr. Chase with us this morning.

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

It may be worth noting that these recommendations have the unqualified endorsement of all members of the committee which included such experienced and thoughtful scholars in the field of higher education as Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., chairman of the Corporation of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, former president of that in

stitute, and a recognized authority on science and technical education; Dr. Thomas R. McConnell, chairman, the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of California, whose experience in education includes the chancellorship of the University of Buffalo, and whose studies in the field of higher education are known internationally; Mrs. Agnes Meyer, civic leader and author, whose concern for the disadvantaged and for the advancement of education have made her a national leader, and who brought to the committee an intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia; Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, president of Texas Southern University, who has had wide experience and national influence in many aspects of higher education, and who is a brother of President Nabrit of Howard University; Dr. George N. Shuster, assistant to the president of the University of Notre Dame, who as former president of Hunter College had firsthand experience with contributions of a public college to urban life; and Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, dean of science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and former Director, Office of Science and Technology. I should like to add, this is truly a blue-ribbon committee. Senator MORSE. It surely is.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The members met frequently, weighed carefully the needs to be met, and analyzed critically all available and relevant information before reaching the recommendations to which this bill seeks to give effect.

The committee study, among other issues, presents higher educational opportunities available to residents of the District, employment opportunities in the District, socioeconomic factors, and the numbers of District secondary school students who could reasonably be expected to attend publicly supported institutions of higher education in the District if such institutions were to be established.

Based upon its studies and upon discussions with representatives of higher educational institutions in the District and with a number of District organizations and civic leaders, the committee recommended the establishment of both the community college and the college of arts and sciences which would be authorized by the bill now before this committee.

It further recommended that public higher education in the District of Columbia be placed under the new and separate Board of Higher Education created by this bill.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD

The bill provides for a Board of Higher Education of from 9 to 15 members, appointed by the Commissioners of the District, after consideration by the Commissioners of the recommendations of a nominating committee. In State and municipal colleges and universities, the methods of selection of the majority of the members of boards of control in 1960 were as follows, and I have a table that can be inserted in the record.

Senator MORSE. The table will be inserted into the hearing record at this point.

(The document to be furnished follows:)

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

1 Appointed by U.S. circuit court judge, by city board of education, by city commissioner and board of education.

Source: Walter Crosby Eells, "Boards of Control of Universities and Colleges," Educational Records XL11 (October 1961), 338.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The unique character of the government of the District of Columbia makes it difficult to draw on the experiences and practices in other jurisdictions for guidelines to the method of constituting the Board of Higher Education. The President's Committee recommended appointment by the Board of Commissioners from a panel prepared by a nominating committee appointed by the Board of Commissioners.

There are three major reasons for establishing a separate Board for the administration of higher education in the District.

First, the planning and establishment of the two new colleges is an enormous challenge. It will require the full effort of the dedicated citizens who will serve on the Board of Higher Education during the formative years of the new institutions. To impose this task on the present Board of Education, responsible as it is for the task of administering a huge elementary-secondary school system, would make it impossible for the new colleges to receive the attention they will require.

Secondly, experience throughout the country points up the advantages of separating the responsibility for institutions of higher education from the responsibility for the elementary and secondary schools.

In an institution of higher education, the Board generally should leave the establishment of academic standards, the planning of curriculums and the methods of teaching largely in the hands of the faculty, with the president giving guidance. The Board's main responsibilities will be for the finances of the institutions, overall planning and policies, and for the appointment of its chief administrative officers.

Both the programs and the methods of operation of institutions of higher education differ so much from those of a public school system that a separate Board has been found to be highly desirable.

Finally, it is vital that the governing board for the two new colleges be both broadly representative of the District and knowledgeable of the goals and nature of higher education, with the members selected for the wisdom and skill they can bring to strengthening and guiding the new colleges.

A WORD ABOUT OVERALL NEED FOR THE COLLEGES

The need for the two colleges can be considered from three vantage points: Opportunities offered in other cities of comparable size, present higher educational opportunities in the District, and the need for additional opportunity to attend college for the graduates of the District's high schools.

Studies in the economics of higher education make it abundantly clear that returns on investment in education are surer and higher than on any other investment the individual and the community can make, a point the chairman has just made. Some of the returns to be considered are: higher cultural level, lower crime rate, higher personal income, lower welfare costs, higher consumption of goods, better business environment, more attractive city, better popular image, more and better professional and technical employees, and possibly most important of all it provides an opportunity for the enrichment of the individual.

The President's Committee examined the provision of public higher education in each of 16 cities in the United States that are comparable to Washington in size and found that almost without exception each has recognized the need for public colleges as well as private institutions of higher education. Five of these cities have local, public community colleges with low tuition ($250 a year or less) and a sixth is organizing such a college. Seven of these cities have the advantage of State-supported colleges or universities with overall costs (including room and board as well as tuition) of less than $750 a year, and six additional cities are in States where the overall costs of attending State institutions are about $750 but below $1,000.

In nearby Montgomery County, Md., a second community college campus opened last fall; Prince Georges County in Maryland and northern Virginia have established community facilities for assisting in meeting the needs for higher education. These facilities are in addition to those which are publicly supported as State colleges and universities.

In addition to 15 privately controlled colleges and universities in Baltimore, there are 5 institutions of higher education under public control that serve the needs of a portion of the population.

Community colleges over the Nation are opening up at a rate approaching 25 per year. In the District of Columbia, on the other hand, there is only one institution of higher education under public control, the District of Columbia Teachers College, and it is a special-purpose institution with inadequate facilities and resources.

Howard University receives considerable support from the Congress, but it is under private control and its mission has been that of service nationally and internationally with a high percentage of foreign student enrollment.

In the fall of 1963, only about one-half of the high school graduates living in the District of Columbia who started to college that year entered an institution of higher education in the District of Columbia, and only 26 percent of all undergraduates enrolled in District of Columbia institutions were District of Columbia residents. The comparable average for all States was 78 percent, with 26 the lowest and 94 the highest.

« PreviousContinue »