Summary of graduate follow-up survey, senior high school, class of 1965-Continued

NOTE 1.-Eleven boys and 8 girls reported they were employed and attending school full-time or part-
time.
NOTE 2.-One boy and twenty-eight girls reported they were married.
NOTE 3.-Six and nine tenths percent of the graduates located were in the honors program.

Summary of graduate follow-up survey, senior high school, class of 1965-Continued REGULAR PROGRAM (COLLEGE PREPARATORY)-Continued

NOTE 1.-Fifteen boys and twenty-one girls reported they were employed and attending school full-time or part-time.

NOTE 2.-Sixteen boys and fifty girls reported they were married.
NOTE 3.-Forty-two and one tenth percent of the graduates located were in the regular program (college
preparatory).
GENERAL PROGRAM

Summary of graduate follow-up survey, senior high school, class of 1965-Continued

NOTE 1.-Thirty-three boys and sixty-four girls reported they were employed and attending school fulltime or part-time.

NOTE 2.-Four boys and sixty-five girls reported they were married.

NOTE 3.-Forty-four and three tenths percent of the graduates located were in the general program.

Summary of graduate follow-up survey, senior high school, class of 1965—Continued SPECIAL ACADEMIC PROGRAM-Continued

NOTE 1.-One boy and five girls reported they were employed and attending school full-time or part-time. NOTE 2.-One boy and nineteen girls reported they were married.

NOTE 3.-Six and seven tenths percent of the graduates located were in the special academic program.

EXHIBIT C

Number of graduates available for employment and percentage of placement of vocational high schools 1960–1964

Hon. JOHN DOWDY,
House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, FRANKLIN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1966.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOWDY: Please recall that during my recent testimony before your Committee holding hearings on Public Higher Education for the District of Columbia I promised to provide you certain additional information.

Specifically, I offered to analyze the "per capita amounts" spent on public higher education in the District of Columbia to determine whether the amount of $2.26 was based alone on expenditure on the District of Columbia Teachers College or also included expenditure on Howard University (or, indeed, Gallaudet College).

Please be advised that the per capita expenditure of $2.26 is solely money spent by the local government, that is, the District government for the District of Columbia Teachers College. It does not include expenditures on any other institution of higher learning in Washington, D.C. The other institutions, named above, are classified insofar as this matter is concerned, as receiving funds from the Federal government and not from the local government.

The source of our information is Governmental Finance in 1963-64, Table 21, "Per Capita Amounts of Selected Items of State and Local Finances, by States, 1963-64," page 46 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, May 1965); and telephone conversations with personnel in the Governments Division of the Bureau of the Census.

May I take this opportunity to thank you for holding the hearing and for attention to the statements in behalf of public higher education in the District of Columbia. I shall be pleased, of course, to furnish any additional information you may require.

Yours truly,

CARL F. HANSEN, Superintendent of Schools.

68-614 0-66 -12