have a choice of a minimum-cost city college, but there is also the additional choice of a State university.

As we in the District are so well aware, and as the President's Committee stated and documented in its report, the talents of many students from low-income families are now being wasted because they cannot afford the cost of higher education. Today in the District of Columbia thousands of such students are forced to accept the fact that they cannot meet the cost of higher eudcation. A system of low-cost, public higher education will lower financial barriers and offer educational opportunities to every student who can benefit from it.

As I have stated, D.C. Teachers College is extended to its limits. Howard University, which is a federally sponsored national university, simply does not have the physical space for additional students. Moreover, its mission is being expanded to the education of foreign students, particularly from the underdeveloped countries.

The facilities of the private institutions are equally overburdened. Moreover, they are too expensive for students from most of our medium and low-income families. Tuition now averages $1,450 per year in our four private universities. Five years ago average tuition in these same schools was approximately $900.

In addition, the private universities, under the pressure of greatly increased enrollment demands, have become much more selective in their admission standards. Today the "C" student from the District has no hope of being admitted to any of the city's private universities, yet this student especially needs further education and training to equip him to earn a living in this era. The plain facts are that the average District high school graduate does not and cannot expect to enter the private universities. In 1964 only 129 city high school graduates were admitted to the four private universities.

The evidence is unmistakable that economic factors do indeed discourage District high school graduates from seeking higher education. The President's Committee noted that the

percentage of graduates of the several District public high schools who enter college upon graduation varies directly with the median family income of the families in the area which the school serves. The high schools serving areas where family income is below $5,000 have the lowest percentages ranging from 16.6 to 26.9.

This statistic is even more meaningful when it is realized that 73.7 percent of the graduates from the one city high school-the school which serves the area where family income is above $10,000-do go to college. Incidentally, roughly 40 percent of the families of the District had an income of less than $5,000 in 1960.

Of the students from low-income families I have just referred to, it is significant that 95 percent of the graduates who did attend a local university enrolled at Howard which is incapable of coping with the present as well as the ever expanding numbers of "college-able" high school graduates in this city.

In recent months the Congress has enacted truly historic assistance. and development programs for every level of American education. The District qualifies as a State for the grant programs under the various acts for facilities, equipment, teacher training and operations. As these acts apply to student assistance for higher education, these programs are clearly intended to ameliorate the economic and cultural

handicaps that exist in such unfortunate and classic abundance in the District of Columbia.

Title IV of the 1965 Higher Education Act, for example, establishes a scholarship program for economically deprived students in schools of higher education. Grants from $200 to $1,000 per academic year are now available.

Also included under this Act is a system of guaranteed low-interest loans for students in community colleges and four-year institutions. A reduced interest feature for students from low-income families makes this program particularly attractive to young District residents. This same Act provides an additional source of income through a cooperative work-study program for students from low-income families to begin or complete a higher education program in either a two or a four-year institution.

The National Defense Education Act student loan program is another source of funds for students to continue or complete programs in an "institution of higher education." Amendments in 1964 and 1965 added flexibility and made this Act potentially more valuable to District students.

A separate loan program under the 1965 Vocational Student Loan Assistance Act makes loans available to students enrolled in business, trade, technical, and vocational schools. The value of these programs to the community and vocational college, which is designed to stress technical aspects, is obvious.

These are the major student assistance programs which are now nominally available to District students. But for a student actually to receive assistance under any of these programs, he must be enrolled or accepted in an institution of higher education.

The pertinent fact is that each of these programs is administered by the institutions of higher education. For a student to benefit from any of these enlightened programs, there must exist educational facilities in which he can enroll. Such facilities do not exist in the District of Columbia.

At present a student from a low-income family who wishes to attend a public community college must leave the city and enroll in another State if he is to take advantage of the low-interest student loan program. Distance alone can and usually does make such action impractical.

A public community and vocational college and a public liberal arts institution are basic to this city's ability to utilize adequately the educational opportunities that a wise Congress has created. If we fail to provide sufficient educational facilities, we will, in large measure be repealing the Federal student assistance programs as they apply to the District of Columbia.

At this poont, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the more specific community roles that the two proposed institutions would assume.

It has come to be well recognized that the institution in American Higher Education deemed best able to carry the burden of extending general education beyond the high school level is the comprehensive community college. This concept is highly relevant to the District of Columbia. A District community college will serve as a frame of academic reference for students who do not now even consider education beyond high school. Its mere existence will generate hope

and incentive for the average student. And it is the student of average ability and background that is now being neglected and who is so desperately in need of help. The incentive inherent in the vocational training opportunities should reduce our high dropout rate of 34 percent between the 9th and 12th grades.

It is important also to emphasize that a community college, together with a constantly improving vocational education system, will help meet the consistent and growing demand for vocational, technical and semi-professional manpower which is so important in our technically oriented economy.

A study by the National Science Foundation, for example, forecasts that, while the civilian economy will need many more engineers than were thought five years ago to be necessary, we also face an acute shortage in the ranks of the skilled craftsmen and technicians. Thus a high school diploma has now become less a terminal point and more a preparation and opportunity for further study and training. It is more a transitional step to the practical preparation for employment. To illustrate, the relative steps could lead to three levels of employment, namely, the vocational training as a draftsman, the community college training as a designer, or to the profession of architect in the four-year programs.

The economy of today is providing fewer and fewer opportunities for young people who approach the world of work with limited educational achievements. We are building massive problems for the future in welfare, unemployment, poverty and crime-unless we provide a maximum of opportunity for the youth of today to achieve the highest level of education of which they are capable.

The President's Committee has made clear that the purpose of a District of Columbia community college is the following:

(a) to educate and train the large number and great variety of technicians and other skilled persons on whom a highly industrialized and rapidly changing society depends;

(b) to prepare students for further formal education in four-year colleges and universities;

(c) to offer opportunities for adults to repair their cultural and educational deficiencies, to redirect their abilities and to improve their knowledge and competence;

(d) to provide through education and community life the knowledge and the ideas on which active, informed and responsible citizenship is of necessity based; and

(e) to enrich the personal lives of students through both formal and informal contacts with art and literature, artists and writers-indeed, with all those sources of human greatness.

H.R. 16958, as we interpret it, would expand this scope of a community college to meet technical and vocational needs above those provided by our high schools. This area of need was so well presented by Dr. Duane R. Lund to your Committee this past May. I had the privilege of hearing that presentation.

With reference to the establishment of a college of liberal arts and science, the President's Committee has spoken with equal clarity. The report states that the District:

*** should have a completely new physical and educational setting for the vital function of teacher education.

The President's Committee could not be more correct when it stated that

the young people of the District should have the opportunity now enjoyed by the young people in all the States to attend a publicly supported institution offering a liberal education at least through the baccalaureate degree.

We believe the mission of the District of Columbia four-year college should include the offering of adequate and qualified course study to be used by those students desiring post-baccalaureate education. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we require a master's degree of our permanent teachers in the secondary schools in the District. Emphasis in teacher education will be directed to meet our ever increasing demands for highly qualified teachers. The four-year college would also supplement the D.C. General Hospital School of Nursing in offering post-graduate courses to nurses a profession critically needed and in short supply in the District of Columbia.

While the President's Committee made estimates of the expected initial size of the student body of both public institutions of higher learning, these estimates are naturally subject to the constant growth and changing environmental factors that have so long been difficult factors in future planning here in the District.

On the basis of the Committee's report and peripheral studies, it is anticipated that the community college will have an annual entering class of about 1,400 students during the early years of its operation, and on a two-year basis a total student body of approximately 2,500 students. With reference to the four-year college, the Committee states that there are at least 600 District secondary school graduates each year who are

*** college-able but who can afford to continue in school only in a publicly supported institution.

This estimate would mean planning for approximately a 2,000 student body by the time the college is in full four-year operation. Each freshman class would include between 300 and 400 college-able graduates of the District's public high schools (other than those preparing to teach) who would not go to college under existing circumstances, but who would seize the opportunity to do so if there were a publicly supported college of arts and science in the District.

The most recent study of the District high school graduates furnishes dramatic support for the idea expressed by the Committee. It indicates there are 2,000 students who do not get into any college leading to a degree or a certificate. Added to this number are 200 to 250 students annually interested in a career in teaching or some other educational work. A small number of annual graduates from the District private and parochial schools augment the number to the 600 annual total.

Certainly, efforts directed to the establishment of a public higher education system in the District of Columbia of the magnitude and quality now proposed necessitate the most careful and the most detailed planning. The manifold construction possibilities for such schools, the space needs, site selections, and a myriad of other considerations must all be resolved before higher learning can become a reality for District students. It is more difficult to offer precise figures or even good estimates of the total effort now proposed. However, based upon the Office of Education's established standards and

norms for institutions of higher learning, we feel that $20 million for construction contained in H.R. 16958 will be adequate. We base this upon the hope that surplus Federal land will be available for the site. The $20 million would not include the cost of site acquisition in addition to construction.

In addition spatial requirements could cost some $5 million, we believe.

The long range economic returns will offset these costs many fold. In fact the economic returns to the city, above the social benefits, are among the highest from our resources. To illustrate, the lifetime earnings of a man who has completed four or more years of college will exceed by at least $180,000 those of a person whose studies end in high school. The earnings of the graduate of the vocational or technical school will have substantially increased although to a less spectacular degree. These increased earnings result in larger tax returns as contrasted to using tax revenues for welfare programs to otherwise assist these people.

In regard to the actual location of the facilities, it is impracticable at this time to determine sites with any degree of certainty. The National Capital Planning Commission is giving thought to this problem, and, in collaboration with the Board of Commissioners and the Board of Higher Education, will develop final site requirements for the facilities. Incidentally, we have a map showing some of the possible sites under consideration.

We recognize the imponderables and uncertainties that accompany any discussion of the actual construction of a community and vocational college and a four-year college in the District. Consequently, the Board of Higher Education would develop plans and establish, organize and operate in the District of Columbia a public community and vocational college and a public liberal arts college. This Board will have as its mission the analysis and study of the many suggestions that will doubtlessly be made as to physical location and building construction design, and spatial requirements deemed necessary for the two colleges.

Included in the Board's responsibilities would be a particular need for coordinating with the Board of Education the transfer of the Teachers College and all matters relating to vocational education.

The Commissioners believe strongly that the vocational-technicaloccupational program as developed for the District of Columbia by Odell-MacConnell Associates would be a key fact in providing for both high school and post-high age students as well as adults. We anticipate that the Board of Education and the Board of Higher Education will work together to coordinate these programs.

Let me end my statement by recalling President Johnson's words in his message to Congress which accompanied this bill, and I quote: If our society is to move higher, higher education must be made a universal opportunity for all young people. The Nation's Capital should set the pace, not lag behind.

I was encouraged to hear Congressman Nelsen mention this morning that this should be the showcase of the Nation. I think our Board of Commissioners would strongly support that statement because we think so, too.

This bill will provide the mechanisms for the creation of a system of higher learning for the youth of the District of Columbia. The