A four-year college of liberal arts and sciences open to all young people and adults who meet reasonable admission standards and offering as broad a range of courses as those found in any high-quality liberal arts college in the United States. We concur in the findings of the President's Commission on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, and would add that our own studies and deliberation over the past six years have led us to feel the urgency of fulfilling the recommendations we have set forth in this position paper. National concern for well-educated and skilled workers has been steadily rising in recent years, both for the large numbers of recent high school graduates and for those individuals who want and need to learn new skills, or to increase their level of attainment. The Commission on Human Resources believes that the urgency of providing publicly-supported higher education for the citizens of the District of Columbia cannot be too heavily underscored. The District of Columbia is asking only for the right enjoyed by every state of the union-the right to offer, largely from its own resources, public higher education to its residents. Mr. Mortimer C. Lebowitz, Chairman Dr. Simon Auster Dr. Philip Stoddard Brown Mr. Irving Berman Rev. David Colwell Mrs. George Eddy Mr. Walter Lewis Mr. Grayson McGuire Mrs. Rufus E. Miles, Jr. Mrs. Josephine Piccolo Mrs. Joy Simonson Dr. Arthur Sloan Mrs. Kathryn H. Stone, Director Mr. Robert Weston Mrs. Alan Willcox Mr. DOWDY. We will include, in addition, a statement by the Honorable Claude Pepper. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CLAUDE PEPPER (DFLA.), REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA THE NEED FOR PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES IN D.C. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those urging immediate approval of a bill which would establish two clearly needed public institutions of higher education for the residents of the District of Columbiaa two-year community college and a four-year liberal arts college. The need for both of these institutions has been very definitely established. Two years ago, in June 1964, a special President's Committee of distinguished educators reported their findings and recommendations after conducting a thorough study of the District's needs in higher education. Their recommendations are embodied in the bills now before this Committee. They have received virtual unanimous endorsement from professional educators, businessmen, labor leaders, and civic leaders, from civic administrators, numerous of our distinguished colleagues here in the House and in the Senate, religious leaders, parents, and from the students themselves. A survey of the press or a reading of the proceedings of the hearings on this proposal before the Senate District Committee cast no doubts about the needs or desirability of founding both colleges. They merely fill one with a sense of urgency to help see that Congress establish them without further delay. I will reiterate some of the commonly cited, but convincing statistics that speak for the pressing need for more public higher education facilities in the District of Columbia. Only 56% of the District's public high school graduates go on to post-secondary schooling. This is true for a variety of reasons. First of all, tuition fees at the city's private institutions are higher than many able students can afford. The 1960 census revealed that 40% of the District's families have incomes under $5,000 per year; yet annual rates for tuition and fees at the five largest universities in town range from $560 at Howard University to $1,550 at Georgetown University. Secondly, the existing colleges in Washington operate, with reason, under nationally-oriented admissions policies. This is true also of Howard University, which admits a majority of District students who enter a local university from the 68-614-665 public high schools. In 1963, only 26% of all the undergraduates in the District of Columbia were residents of the city. A third reason why so few Washington high school graduates continue their education is the lack of diversity among programs offered. Not only are many four-year and professional courses beyond the financial reach of many students; but many others, who desire and need semi-professional and technical training or remedial work as preparation for a four-year institution, have no opportunity for such schooling at a price they can afford, in a location they can reach, These are just three of many reasons why over forty percent of District public high school graduates are unable to continue their education beyond the secondary level. More high quality, low-cost diversified post-secondary educational opportunities are needed in this city not only by these young graduates. They are needed as higher, encouraging, attainable goals for those who drop out before they earn their high school diploma. They are needed as well by those adults who wish to upgrade their work skills or take part in a class for personal enrichment and enjoyment. At a time when the economic as well as personal necessity for continuing education is clearly recognized throughout the United States, the District of Columbia invests but a paltry sum to provide such opportunities for its residents. Although the District can boast of a higher per capita income than any state, it spends by far the least amount per capita on higher education-a mere $2.26 or 6/100 of a percent of per capita personal income. The national average expenditure per capita is $28.87. The state of Delaware, which in 1964 enjoyed a per capita income level second only to the District, expended on higher education $37.29 per person. The District of Columbia is one of very few cities of its size and make-up which provides virtually no public higher education. All 50 States-11 of which have populations smaller than the District-support public institutions of higher education. The State of Vermont, for example, with a population half the size of D.C., supports 5 public institutions, including a community college, three 4-year schools, and a university. Clearly more facilities for public higher education in the Nation's Capital must be provided. Clearly, expenditures for such opportunities should be allowed a larger percentage of the total budget. As to which opportunities should be provided-I can only lend my support to the original recommendations of the President's Committee. A look at trends around the nation and at the needs of the city of Washington indicate that a community college is absolutely required. Junior colleges have proven to be invaluable for opening doors to full-time or advanced study, for those with limited funds or needing further preparation for four-year college work. They have proven invaluable as well for training people in a variety of skilled and semiprofessional occupations, and for continuing adult education. The District of Columbia, dominated as it is by governmental occupations, needs particularly large numbers of people skilled in clerical and managerial skills, as well as technicians in the engineering and health sciences, in mechanics, and construction jobs which require some post-secondary training. While the average per capita income in the District of Columbia is high, large numbers of its residents are cut off from the jobs which offer adequate or substantial salaries because they lack education. Until low-cost higher educational opportunities are provided, these people will be unable to compete for the good jobs in the area where they live and pay their taxes. While the community college, which should serve 2500 to 3000 students a year, is desperately needed, a four-year liberal arts college should also be established. The President's Committee found that in addition to the few students who attend the inadequately housed and funded teachers' college in the Districtthe only publicly controlled institution of higher learning each year about 350400 high school graduated capable of entering immediately a four-year institution fail to go on, mainly because of a lack of funds. For these students a lowcost high-level academic program should be available. A small liberal arts college, according to those who studied the alternatives most closely, is the best way to provide this opportunity. The college would become also another location for free or inexpensive adult extension courses-a program for which the city certainly has a crying need. Mr. Chairman, I represent a state-Florida-where enlightened legislators have both comprehended the economic and moral necessity to provide highlevel, diversified public higher educational facilities for a mushrooming population and have taken the required steps to make such opportunities available. Between 1955 and 1965, Florida expanded its community college population by 100,000 students, and by 1970 95% of the state's population will live within commuting distance of a community college. At the same time we are greatly expanding our state university and graduate professional school facilities. All of this is being done at moderate expense-in 1963-64 the per capita expenditure for public higher education was less than one-tenth of one percent of the per capita personal income-about $20 per person, considerably under the national average expenditure for this growing public need. Surely we in Congress cannot face up to this embarrassing situation in our National Capital any longer. The cost of the two proposed new institutions would be modest. The need for them-so carefully calculated by the President's Committee has, if anything, probably been underestimated, if the District's experience proves to be similar to that of other comparable cities or most states. To delay any longer in enacting this legislation would be only to compound the economic and social problems already created for many of the District's residents, who are without recourse to higher educational facilities which fit their needs and their pocketbooks. I hope that the Committee and then the Congress will no longer delay taking positive action on this vitally needed and widely supported measure. Mr. Dowdy. Also, we will insert a statement of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington, and a letter to Chairman McMillan from Congressman Sickles, with enclosures. (The documents referred to follow:) COUNCIL OF CHURCHES OF GREATER WASHINGTON, Washington, D.C., January 10, 1966. To: The Governing Committee of the Institute of Church and Society. I. THE ISSUES In reporting my findings on this subject I should commence by stating that I began my investigation of it with considerable skepticism. Although normally an advocate of the maximum education for the maximum number of people, I had serious doubts about several aspects of the problem. For example, was there a real need? Almost everyone "knows" that today anyone who wants a college education can get one-this is the first and most common argument raised against any need for Federal assistance to education, as I well knew, having put the question to a number of heterogeneous groups in the past few years. Were there really young people in the District who needed post-high school training and could not obtain it, by one means or another? Did they really constitute any sizable group, and were they "college potential"? And what about the existing educational institutions at the college level and beyond? There were five well-esteemed and growing universities within the limits of the District-American, Catholic, Georgetown, George Washington and Howard. I knew they had recently established a consortium to provide a unified approach to some of their common problems couldn't they collectively or individually meet whatever need existed? And what would be their attitude toward the establishment of a publicly-supported college system in their midst? Lastly, with the recent closing of the First Session of the 89th Congress-the "Education Congress"-hadn't most of the needs in this area been met or at least well attacked by legislation enacted within the past 12 months-did the need, even if it had been real until this year, still exist? A second major question raised in my mind was whether or not the issue of public education was a valid one for Church participation. Clearly, education was a great secular issue of far-reaching implications, and there were a number of good reasons why individual citizens might be urged to support this proposal, assuming that the need existed, such as: the place of the District in shaping the national image before the world; the optimum use of human resources; upgrading the Nation's "human capital"; and cutting the crime rate. But was it proper issue for the Church to engage- one on which the Council should take a formal position? After all, there was mounting evidence that auto seat belts save lives and thereby prevent much human suffering and loss; yet the Institute had declined to take a position on proposed legislation to make them compulsory, on the ground that there was not a valid moral issue involved. Was providing higher education to those who had no easy access to it a real moral issue on which the Council should take a stand, and, if so, could it claim a high enough priority on a long list to justify any concentrated expenditure at this time of the Council's always limited resources? These were the questions which were foremost in my mind as I set out to explore this issue, and they have remained at the center of my thinking as I have gotten deeper into it during recent weeks, with the limited time I have had to devote to it. The remainder of this report will consist of factual information and my conclusions, which I submit for the consideration of the Governing Committee and, if the Governing Committee should so decide, of the Board of Directors of the Council. II. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPOSAL In investigating these issues I quickly learned that whether the problem was real or not, it was one which had been competently and thoroughly investigated. Similar proposals had been suggested and considered by various groups and organizations, including Congressional committees, since at least 1957. In September 1963 President Kennedy appointed a seven-member committee of impressive qualifications to study the specific question involved here—the need for a public system of higher education in the District of Columbia. This Committee made a thorough and detailed investigation of the issue, including public meetings, private discussions with many interested parties and organizations, and extensive staff studies of specific problems involved. Because my report will refer often to the Report of this Committee, I believe it is pertinent to list here the names and positions of its members: Dr. Francis S. Chase, Chairman, Dean, Graduate School of Education, University of Chicago. Dr. James R. Killian, Jr., Chairman of the Corporation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. Thomas R. McConnell, Chairman, Center for Study of Higher Education, University of California (Berkeley). Mrs. Agnes Meyer, Civic Leader and Author, Washington, D.C. Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, President, Texas Southern University. Dr. George N. Shuster, Former President, Hunter College, Assistant to the President, University of Notre Dame. Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Former Director, Office of Science and Technology, Dean of Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dr. James H. Case, Jr., Executive Director. In June 1964 this Committee unanimously recommended to President Johnson: 1. The immediate creation of a comprehensive, publicly supported, community (or junior) college; 2. The immediate creation of a college of liberal arts and sciences, also publicly supported, authorized to confer both the baccalaureate and master's degrees, and to absorb the existing D.C. Teachers College. The Committee also recommended a system of noncompetitive scholarships for local graduates of community colleges and the early development in the District of a center or centers for high-level graduate and post-doctoral studies; these latter proposals will not be discussed here. On March 18, 1965, President Johnson sent to Congress H.R. 7395, “A Bill to establish a Board of Higher Education to plan, establish, organize and operate a public community college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia, and for other purposes." This bill would establish a Board of Higher Education of 9 to 15 members (with a resident majority) to be appointed by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia. The Board would be authorized to develop detailed plans for and to establish, organize and operate in the District of Columbia: (1) a public college, offering a program in the arts and sciences up through the master's degree, and (2) a public community college, including programs of vocational study, leading to the associate of arts degree. A number of local organizations have pledged their support to this legislation, and the D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education, Inc., has been leading this support. The consortium of local universities has yet to determine a public position on the matter, but at least two of the five university presidents are reported to be prepared to support it, and there is reason to believe support will be forthcoming from the other universities in the near future. No hearings have been held on H.R. 7395 to date, but it is expected that both houses of Congress will hold hearings early in the next session. III. REPORT ON THE ISSUES A. THE NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE The Report of the President's Committee points out the general need of our society, in an age of increasing technology, for increasingly higher skills and training and the growing acute shortage of skilled craftsmen and technicians of all kinds. Experience throughout the country has proven the growing effectiveness and popularity of the two-year community college as the ideal mechanism to solve this problem. With the flexibility which it offers, it can not only satisfy the technofogical need but also give sufficient attention to liberal educational requirements to prepare its graduates for well-rounded community participation. Similarly, the Committee noted the decreasing opportunities for young people 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." This view is supported by the Skill Survey of the Washington Metropolitan Area, prepared in 1963 by the U.S. Employment Service for the District of Columbia, which stated, "The labor market cannot absorb any increase in unskiled labor," and added, "The more education and training a young person has, the better job he can expect to get. Some training past the high school level is desired by most employers." In a more definitive vein Roscoe Drummond summed up the present situation in his syndicated column of December 5 with the comment: "For the first time since the industrial revolution there are more jobs in the U.S. looking for workers than there are workers to fill them. . . "What we now have in the U.S., on the basis of the latest studies, is this: "Nearly three million jobs seeking and searching for qualified workers. "Nearly three million unemployed, most of whom are not qualified-do not have the work skills-to take the jobs that are open. This is the gap which the community college is ideally equipped to fill, and it is a deficiency which is going to become increasingly serious in the Washington area if such an institution is not established immediately. In defining the nature of the community college whose establishment it was supporting, the Report listed its purposes, which included training for responsible citizenship, enrichment of the personal lives of the students, adult education, and preparation of students for further university education. The Committee further commented, "While technical education, broadly conceived, is a unique function of the proposed community college, the committee strongly believes that it should be a comprehensive, not a technical institute." Assuming the establishment of the type of institution it envisioned, with tuition and fees maintained at a nominal level for District residents, the Committee summed up its studies of the need in the following terms: An "The studies by the Committee establish that there will be no lack of applicants for admission. For example, answers to a questionnaire addressed in 1962 to seniors in the District's public high schools indicated that more than 55 percent (1,782 students) would be interested in a local public community college if one were available. A still larger percentage-72, or 2,350 students-indicated that in the event they were not accepted for admission to the college or university of their choice, they would apply for admission to a public community college if it existed. swers to the Committee's questionnaire in January 1964 indicated that about 720 of the seniors who do not plan to continue their education would change their plans and attend a public community college if one were available. Taking everything into account, the Committee envisages an annual entering class of about 1,400 students during the early years of the community college. The number will grow steadily." These estimates are probably conservative. There would be a number of nonresident students willing and anxious to pay reasonable tuition fees for the opportunity the college would present. As the Report notes, there is a need among the District's suburban neighbors-especially in Virginia-for educational services of the type the college would offer. A recent article in the Reader's Digest entitled "Junior Colleges-Hope For the Future" commented: "The United States has 710 junior colleges, with 20 to 30 new ones opening each year. As soon as the new schools open, they are swamped with applications |