teachers will be safeguarded by the change in the language we have suggested. Before I conclude, I am glad to say we concur with the school administration in its recommendation that the laboratory schools be transferred and be put under the jurisdiction of the boards of higher education, rather than left under the Board of Education. There is no need to elaborate the testimony that Dr. Hansen gave on that. Gentlemen of the committee, that finishes our testimony, and we are glad of the opportunity to present it to this committee. Mr. DOWDY. Thank you, sir. (The above-referred to prepared statement of Mr. Goodloe follows:) STATEMENT Of Don B. GooDLOE FOR THE TEACHERS' UNION OF WASHINGTON, D.C. LOCAL 6 OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO I am Don B. Goodloe, Legislative Representative of Teachers' Union Number 6 of the American Federation of Teachers. On this occasion, I am glad to have the privilege of testifying in favor of House Bill 16958 introduced into the 89th Congress for the purpose of establishing a public community college, a vocational college and a college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. For a long time, the District of Columbia has needed such institutions of higher learning. Many people throughout our country think that the citizens of their capital are well provided with opportunities for securing higher education. To be sure, there are several universities of high standing here, as well as a Teachers College designed to prepare young people for serving in the public schools of the District of Columbia. There is, nevertheless, a glaring defect in the educational system functioning in the capital of this nation. It is as follows. There is no institution in Washington, D.C. of university rank, containing a liberal arts college supported by the Government of the District of Columbia. We think we should take a little time and make this fact plain. We have, for instance, Georgetown University and George Washington University; but they are private institutions. There is Howard University, which obtains support from the Federal Government. Strictly speaking, however, it is not a national university in the sense that similar institutions are maintained by our states. The Teachers College is supported by the District; but it is not a liberal arts college. In fact, its loss of accreditation has become well known in all parts of the nation; and the deplorable conditions under which it operates in two antiquated, substandard plants are a disgrace so the city, which should serve as an example to the Great Society. Such a situation is unparalleled elsewhere in the United States. Here is a community with a population greater than that of some states-in fact, with more inhabitants than some sovereign nations, without a publicly supported institution of higher learning, with all the departments and facilities that should be included therein. Up to this point, we have stressed the importance of making liberal and professional education available to all of our citizens, in a publicly supported liberal arts college or university. There are, however, other inadequacies in the educacational system of the District of Columbia; and HR 16958 would do away with two of them. We refer to the lack of a public community college in the District and to the fact that out city does not have an institution of higher vocational education. These provisions of the bill will be discussed in the order mentioned. In particular, we are gratified to find that establishment of a "public community college" is a part of this proposed legislation. That is, an institution of higher learning which is organized and administered principally to provide a two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree or for a degree of associate in arts, which program shall include, but shall not be limited to, courses of a scientific, technological or vocational type, which might be useful to young people finishing the junior college, whether their formal education continues beyond that point or not. Before going into detail about the advantages that have come from the establishment of junior or community colleges throughout out country, we should point out there are several of them in the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washington itself already has four private two-year colleges. There are also quite a few of these community colleges in the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia. We shall not take up the time of the Committee mentioning all of them; but we hope that a copy of the Washington Star, printed April 18, 1965, will be incorporated into the record as verification of our statement. Our purpose in so doing is to show that this bill does not propose some untried educational experiment but is introduced with the intention of including the capital of the United States in a program which is being tried successfully over the nation and has become a part of the school system functioning in our metropolitan area. Now, let us discuss the benefits that have come from these two-year schools of higher education. First, this program is very advantageous as a "terminal study program," which leads to the degree of Arts, Science, Business Administration, Education or Engineering. This group may include young people with high school diplomas, who have no intense academic interest in one subject but are not satisfied with what they have learned in high school. In other words, they would like to get as much general education as they think would be valuable to them. For a second and rapidly increasing group of students, the junior college offers the opportunity to live at home for two more years while preparing to transfer to a four-year college or university. In case such individuals stick to their studies and maintain a creditable academic record, they should have little difficulty in switching so as to complete a four-year college course. There are, moreover, no statistics to indicate that their performance in college is inferior to that of young men and women in the same college who took the first two years there. The advantages from this two-year course of training are even greater for those who do not continue their work through a four-year college or enter the professions. The latest statistics available, moreover, show that the majority do not go further with their former education, whatever their original ambitions or intentions may have been. The junior college provides liberal education for many young people who will never be able to obtain the higher academic degrees but are able to acquire knowledge themselves through all the modern media available for communication of advanced information to all interested people. At the same time the community college is able to give a thorough vocational training and thus fit the students to earn a living. In view of the fact that a steadily increasing proportion of jobs in business and industry will probably be filled by individuals with technical and semi-professional training, the education thus made possible during these two years will provide an unequalled opportunity to combine cultural and utilitarian advantages for young Americans in the hard and rapidly changing life that lies ahead of them. We are now glad to point out the advantages of the vocational college which would be established by this beneficial legislation. The underprivileged citizens of this community are unable to pay for a technical or vocational education which would qualify them for better paying occupations. They are, accordingly compelled to remain in unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, whatever their ability to prepare for more remunerative employment may be. This has become a vicious circle. Such workers are in poorly paid jobs because they have not been financially able to prepare themselves for better work and remaining where they will be unable to better their condition by improved education. Setting up a publicly supported and tuition-free vocational college will provide the opportunity for people in the low income groups to secure employment with better compensation and thus add to the financial resources of the community. The greatest employment here and elsewhere in the United States is greatest among unskilled workers. On the other hand, there is a manpower shortage in some of our skilled occupations. Free public vocational education would thus better the financial condition of many wage earners and enable them to contribute more to the public and private sectors of the economy. It would, moreover, in some cases, result in some individuals getting off public welfare and consequently reducing the cost of our government. In fact, we can think of nothing that would do more to improve the economic prospects of many Washingtonians than making various kinds of free public education available to them. That is what would be done by H.R. 16958. Young people with ambitions to enter the professions and the higher echelons of business and government would not be hampered by inability to pay for the training required. Boys and girls without ambition to enter such fields of endeavor would, however, be able to qualify for attractive work in clerical occupations. Preparation for employment in service of the government would thus be made possible for many young people. There is no need to say more about the lucrative fields that would be opened to numbers of citizens by a vocational college. The Washington Teachers' Union, therefore, strongly urges a favorable report on this bill and its enactment by the 89th Congress. There are, however, some amendments to this excellent bill, which we propose for consideration by the Committee. They will be explained in the following paragraphs. In Section 4, at the bottom of page 6, Board of Higher Education is authorized to establish leave and retirement systems for officers and employees comparable to systems in like institutions of higher education. Some of these systems may be better than those now in existence for employees of our school system; but all of them are not necessarily so. We think, therefore, that there would be a possibility of the Board of Higher Education setting up a retirement system inferior to that under which the educational employees of the D.C. School System are now covered. Consequently, the Union suggests that, instead of saying that the systems should be comparable to those in like institutions of higher education, it would be better to require that they should be comparable to those already in effect in the Washington Public School System. We realize that employees of the Teachers College at the time of the transfer of control would have the choice of remaining under the retirement system then affecting them. The teachers, furthermore appreciate this right. Still, this provision does not safeguard the interests of those employed after the change of jurisdiction. Local 6, accordingly, supports the amendment suggested in the last sentence of the preceding paragraph. In subsection (b) of Section 7 on Page 11, it is stated that "nothing in the amendment made by this section shall be construed as affecting the validity of any license issued by the Board of Education prior to the date of the enactment of this Act." If license in this section is used in its broadest sense, it means the employee's appointment to his teaching position, and his tenure of office is therefore safeguarded. If, however, it can be construed to cover only licenses in particular areas after the date of appointment, the security of officers and teachers after their transfer is not guaranteed. Specifically, we refer to the licenses granted to counselors, when they enter upon their new duties. In fact, a teacher in the elementary schools gets a new license upon starting to work in secondary school areas. Our suggestion, consequently, is that this subsection should say not only that the validity of a license previously issued would not be affected, but also that no benefits which shall have accrued prior to the enactment of this act would be affected. Respectfully submitted. DON B. GOODLOE. Mr. DOWDY. I believe we have another witness who wanted to say something. Mrs. ARTHUR STROUT. I would like to submit a statement on behalf of the Americans for Democratic Action. Mr. DOWDY. It will be inserted in the record. (The above-referred-to document follows:) STATEMENT OF GREATER WASHINGTON CHAPTER AMERICANS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACTION ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA We, of the Greater Washington Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action, are grateful for this opportunity to present to this committee our views on higher education in the District of Columbia. One of the realities of contemporary life is that prosperity and a high level of education go together. If we would like to see young people become self-reliant, all of them must have an opportunity to have a much higher level of formal education than was the case in past years. The very livability of our city then is tied to the quality and quantity of education that can be provided here. As other communities have found, if all segments are to be upward bound, then the whole community must share the cost of this education. Thus, higher education should be tuition free. In another sense, sharing this burden is not a cost, but a highly potent investment, a necessary investment for any community today. In Washington, D.C., the nation's Capital, where so much land is owned by the Federal Government, the real tax base must be the income of its people. The size of this income is directly related to the level of their general abilities and specific skills. The vicious cycle of poverty can only be broken by education. We of the Washington Chapter of Americans for Democratic Action would like to go on record as being strongly in favor of H. R. 16958 which proposes the establishment here of a four-year liberal arts college and a two-year junior college. We think that each institution should have its own collegiate board and its own campus. The recently vacated campus of the National Bureau of Standards would make an ideal campus for one of the colleges. The other campus should be located in some section of the city where there exist at present no other institutions of higher learning. A certain extra amount of land should be acquired now to be available for future expansion of the two-year junior college. These institutions should be tuition-free and should offer such programs of study and professional training, including teacher education and post-high school vocational education, as determined by its collegiate board to be relevant to the needs of the young people of this city. It is our commitment to the future. Thank you. Mrs. ARTHUR STROUT. Mr. DOWDY. I have several communications that have been received during the past several days, and they will be made a part of the record. (The above-referred-to documents follow:) GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, Hon. JOHN DOWDY, Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C., September 13, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOWDY: I hereby request that my statement enclosed re H.R. 16958 be included in the record. Respectfully yours, J. C. TURNER, President. STATEMENT OF J. C. TURNER, PRESIDENT OF THE GREATER WASHINGTON CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, AFL-CIO, IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 16958, FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD. The Greater Washington Central Labor Council, which has consistently over a long period of time supported measures providing for better educational opportunities for citizens of the District of Columbia, now supports H. R. 16958, to provide a two-year community college and a four-year public liberal arts college. I strongly urge that the sub-committee support this legislation and recommend its passage by the House. Passage of this legislation will provide opportunity for those desiring to develop their skills, to obtain the necessary in order to compete in today's job market and to be better prepared to earn a living. It also will enable those who desire to enter other fields of endeavor to obtain the training and education necessary for them. Both the community college and the public liberal arts college will give citizens of the District the same or comparable opportunities that others enjoy in the various states. Both are imperative in connection with the elimination of poverty and for participation in the Great Society. I sincerely believe that these schools would function better on separate campuses. STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY ALEXANDER, CHAIRMAN, UNIDOC (UNIVERSITY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) COMMITTEE During the spring and summer months of the year 1966, a group of housewives and mothers who realize the need for higher education from the attaining of certificates in the vocational and technical fields to the conferring of the PhD degree worked diligently for a Washington City University. We have dedicated ourselves to developing citizen support for the establishment of a University in the District of Columbia; hence, we are known by the organizational nameUNIDOC. With no treasury, we began by mailing 1,000 letters to responsible citizens in the District of Columbia. We asked for their support and included a leaflet entitled "Why Toby Can't Go to College?" made available to us by the D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education. With the help of neighbors, husbands and school age children we distributed over 40,000 hand-bills. Later, with paper donated to us by a Washington, D.C. paper company and moonlight printing contributed by a Dunbar High School college preparatory student who learned printing in her father's basement printshop, we were able to distribute 30,000 UNIDOC-ACTION fact sheets. May I say that the 26 year old mother of 2 pre-school children volunteered her printing services after working 12 hours in a local printshop. She stated that her parents were not able to send her to college after high school graduation and that had there been a city college in 1957 she may have been able to support herself and two children in a more "lady-like" field. With the hope that our efforts would yield a better future for her children. She began hand setting the type at 11:00 P.M., printed 30,000 copies by 4:00 A. M., and reported to work at 7:30 A.M. Members of UNIDOC have spoken before church, civic, social and professional groups. We have also spoken before the D.C. Board of Education, and the Community Action Assembly for Better Public Schools. We would like to have stated in the record that the citizens of the District of Columbia are concerned about higher education and have resolved to urge the House of Representatives to pass the bill for a 4 year college and a 2 year junior college for the District of Columbia with an amendment calling for a full university which can confer Master's Degrees and Doctor of Philosophy degrees and which may be expanded to include schools of pharmacy, dentistry, medicine and law. Gentlemen, members of UNIDOC and the many friends we have made during the past 6 months feel that every effort should be exerted in appealing for a University Complex located on the National Training School Site. This is the only site in the District of Columbia which would allow for the expansion, which is inevitable, of a Washington City University. Thank you very much for allowing UNIDOC to make testimony to the fact that there is strong sentiment in the District of Columbia for tax supported higher education. Hon. JOHN DOWDY, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, Committee on District of Columbia, U.S. House of DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I submit herewith twenty-five copies of a statement on H.R. 16958, a bill now under consideration by your Subcommittee. I will appreciate it very much if you will make my statement a part of the record of the hearings on this important legislation. If our Association can provide information that will be helpful to you in formulating legislation, we will be most happy to have you call on us. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, LOWELL A. BURKETT, Executive Director. STATEMENT OF LOWELL A. BURKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Lowell A. Burkett, Executive Director of the American Vocational Association. We are a national professional association of teachers, supervisors, administrators, and others interested in the development of vocational-technical and practical arts education. We believe that vocational education is, and should continue to be, an important segment of both public and private education in America. Our Association exists to foster, promote, and strengthen these beliefs, and to provide those services which will aid in achieving for the American people a sound program of training for occupational competency. Before addressing myself to specific provisions of the bill now under consideration, H.R. 16958, I would like to set forth some very basic principles which we hope will be helpful to this Committee in establishing a publically supported vocational-technical school for the District of Columbia. First, I commend the Subcommittee for holding these hearings on what we believe is most important legislation. We hope that you will bring to passage |