AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Hon. WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: During the course of our testimony before your subcommittee on July 14, you asked us to comment on the testimony presented the previous day by President Bill J. Priest representing the American Association of Junior Colleges. Since the record of the hearings closes on July 21, we are able to give you only a partial response at this time. With your permission we should like to study the broad questions you asked and submit a memorandum to you later. We agree with your view that the recent unity among the various components of higher education has contributed to the passage of important legislation. All of us should have an overriding concern with providing the best possible educational experience for the nation's youth. While divisive issues may from time to time arise, they are relatively minor alongside the need for educational cooperation and joint dedication to mutual goals. We have not had an opportunity to study the proposal for a Community College act. In general, the position of the American Council on Education has been to support higher education acts which provide participation opportunities for all institutions, both public and private, and at the junior college, senior college, and university levels. We have always supported inclusion of junior colleges in bills which, when introduced, failed to include them. We would want also to weigh very carefully the implications of an act limited to community colleges before giving it our support. We have some reservations about President Priest's suggestion to alter the present formula in the Higher Education Facilities Act which sets aside 22 per cent of available construction funds for junior colleges. We question whether a rigid formula of this kind is necessary or desirable, but we are not aware that it has so far led to any inequities. However, unless the data available to us are wrong, we do not presently see any justification for increasing the earmarked percentage. It is true that junior college enrollments are increasing rapidly, but we can see no sign that they are growing any faster proportionately than are enrollments in four-year institutions and in universities. Figures taken from the Office of Education publication Opening Fall Enrollment 1965 show that only 12.6 per cent of all full-time degree students are in junior colleges and that only 19 per cent of all college students are in junior colleges. This proportion has not changed greatly, for increased junior college attendance has led in turn to an increased demand for expansion in senior institutions to accommodate junior college graduates. At the moment, therefore, we question altering the present formula, although we agree that the matter warrants further study. We hope that prior to the opening of the next Congress, we may communicate further with you on this whole subject. Sincerely yours, JOHN F. MORSE, Director of the Commission. AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: During the course of our testimony before your subcommittee on July 14, I gathered that you would welcome additional comments from us on both the desirable Federal matching share for academic facilities and the level of construction we view to be essential if we are to meet future enrollment demands. You will understand that we have two problems in supplying an answer. First, we lack data from the Office of Education, which in the past we have counted on for an annual survey of facilities needs. Second, a decision on what the Federal matching formula should be will inevitably affect the size of the required Federal authorization. We now have in draft form a study conducted for our Commission on Federal Relations on needed construction of college housing in the decade ahead. In conducting this study we have had to run our own projections of enrollment. Although these projections have not been subjected to independent scrutiny, we have reasonable confidence in their accuracy. It is on these figures that we base the remainder of this letter. We believe that total enrollment in higher education institutions will increase at the rate of 500,000 students per year through 1974. We believe that full-time enrollment will increase at the rate of 350,000 students per year through 1974. From these it is possible to project need for academic facilities. A rock-bottom estimate of construction figures suggests that we need 250 square feet of instructional space per student. A rock-bottom estimate of the cost of providing these facilities is $30 per square foot. If we assume that we need only take care of full-time enrollment and that part-time enrollment will simply fill unoccupied space evenings, weekends, and summers, then the minimum annual construction needs will be $2.625 billion per year in new starts. The level of Federal support for construction proposed by the Administration, and supported in our testimony, will probably just about meet this figure for the coming year. We say this because it is our impression that, at present, Federal funds represent not 33% per cent but closer to 20 per cent of the funding of approved projects. If this is the case, $453 million for Title I and $60 million for Title II will stimulate funds to start $2.565 billion in facilities construction during the next fiscal year. However, we believe that this is a starvation diet that cannot forever sustain life. If we assume that we must provide space for a 500,000 enrollment increase per year and that a more realistic cost factor is $35 per square foot, then the annual construction needs will total $4.375 billion per year. Staggering though this sum may be, we do think it may be realistic. It is at this point that a determination of the Federal matching percentage becomes essential. Quite clearly States and private sources cannot meet 80 per cent of these figures. Matching money at that rate has been available largely because so far Federal appropriations have been relatively small. If these appropriations are stepped up to meet real need, the Federal matching share will have to be stepped up commensurately. We recognize apologetically that our figures have a wide spread. It appears to us, however, that there will be a need for new construction starts each year for the next ten years of somewhere between $3 and $4 billion. We have no way of estimating what the capacity for providing non-Federal matching money may be, but we are certain that it is closer to 50 per cent than it is to the current 80 per cent level. We reiterate our plea that a large proportion of the $7 million which it is proposed be appropriated for the State commissions be used for a careful and prompt State by State survey of projected facilities needs. If we can be provided with harder data than are now available to us, we should be in a better position next year to present to your committee more satisfactory testimony. Sincerely yours, JOHN F. MORSE, Director of the Commission. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES AND Land-GranT COLLEGES, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C., July 19, 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In response to your request for additional statements on specific points related to the Higher Education Amendments of 1966, made in connection with the testimony of Dr. Robert Kerley, who appeared as a witness for the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges as well as for the American Council on Education, I submit the following material. I am authorized by Mr. Allan Ostar, Executive Director of the Association of State Colleges and Universities, to say that these comments also reflect his views. FEDERAL PROPORTION OF MATCHING FACILITIES GRANTS As noted in the testimony presented by Mr. Kerley for President Babbidge, the National Association of State Universities and the Association of State Colleges and Universities "strongly recommend that the Federal portion of matching grants be raised up to 75 per cent of the cost of such facilities.” Our position on this subject (adopted by the two Associations jointly) further is that "Funding authorization and appropriations should be increased in order to reflect the increased Federal percentage participation, and the expanded program of badly needed facilities construction this will make possible. The grant program should continue to be based on the premise that substantial expansion of enrollment capacity within the context of maintenance of quality of instruction is the fundamental justification for this program of facilities aid." We have maintained from the outset of the facilities program that the Federal participation should be at least on a 50-50 matching basis. Experience since then has convinced us that the "ceiling" on Federal participation should be set as high as 75 per cent-not that the Federal share of the cost should be 75 per cent in all instances, but that it might go that high in special cases in which state commissions find justification for it. It seems clear that there are a good many instances in which institutions desire to expand and would be capable of accommodating increased enrollments, but find it impossible both to raise the capital needed for Federal matching and the funds needed for enrollment expansion. FACILITIES NEEDS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The dilemma faced by higher education organizations in responding to the proper request of yourself and other Senators for adequate current and future statements of facilities needs may be briefly summarized as follows: Some years ago the U.S. Office of Education made a comprehensive survey of existing facilities and future projections, and stated that it would in the future keep these up to date by annual requests to colleges and universities for revised statements as to current facilities and projections. In view of this plan and program, the various educational groups either dropped their existing survey programs, or failed to establish them. I can testify, on the basis of experience, that it is a highly technical, costly, and time-consuming operation, which ought to be performed in one place by one organization for the information of all concerned. The U.S. Office of Education, however, abandoned the annual survey some time ago-without advance discussion with, or notification to educational groups. State Commissions do not have such information, in general. Their problem has been one of the rationing of inadequate funds for matching, and they have, therefore, in general discouraged the submission of applications substantially in excess of funds available for matching, put limitations on the dollar amount going to any one institution, and in other ways-as is natural-endeavored to make manageable the difficult problem of decision. The U.S. Office of Education now has also proposed a program of assistance to state commissions and other appropriate groups in making really comprehensive need assessments and projections. This is fine, but until the figures are available, we must rely on enrollment projections (which are low, because they do not take into account a number of factors, including the effects of the GI bill and other student-aid measures). We are caught in a “statistical gap". COMMENT ON TESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF JUNIOR COLLEGES Testimony presented by the American Association of Junior Colleges, on which you requested comment, raised two points: 1. It was suggested that the committee consider revising the present 22 per cent allocation for facilities grants to public two-year colleges, on the ground that approximately one third of first-time-entering students in higher education are, according to the latest figures, enrolled in two-year colleges. Facilities for college undergraduates must, of course, be provided for sophomores, juniors and seniors, as well as for freshmen. At the junior and senior level, when many students enter into specialized scientific, professional, and other fields, costs of necessary facilities are likely to be substantially higher, on the average, than those for freshmen and sophomore students. The fall 1965 enrollment figures of the U.S. Office of Education indicate that approximately 19 per cent of all students enrolled in higher education are attending junior colleges. U.S. Office of Education enrollment projections for the fall of 1966 are for a slight drop in freshmen enrollments and a substantial increase in total enrollments, due to the fact that fewer young people graduated from high school this spring than in recent years when freshmen enrollments increased sharply. Neither the current enrollments, nor the projections for the immediate future would indicate justification for an increase in the percentage allocated by law for the use of junior colleges, as contrasted to other institutions of higher education. There is a great deal to be said for the principle that state commissions should be free to recommend use of facilities grants on the basis of the needs of a particular state for expansion of higher education facilities, at whatever level. The same testimony suggests that Congress should "look beyond categorical aid programs" and that "the area of greatest college need is funds for operation costs". With this general statement both the National Association of State Universities and the Association of State Colleges and Universities are in agreement. In a joint statement of Recommendations for National Action Affecting Higher Education, issued in January of this year, the two above associations, under the heading "Support for Colleges and Universities as Institutions", stated, after discussing the problem of rising charges to students: "The real need is to treat the disease rather than its symptoms by increased support for our colleges and universities, both public and private channels, to enable them to keep down the charges to students and their families." In the same statement the two Associations proposed "A New Program of Institutional Support in the Sciences". Such a program would provide aid to all institutions of higher education for the purpose of supporting and developing institutional programs of instruction and research in the sciences, including the social sciences. Its general principles are embodied in HR 13786, introduced by Representative George P. Miller of California, Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics. The American Association of Junior Colleges suggests in its testimony that it is preparing a proposal for a "Community College Act" which would provide support for college operating costs on a per-student basis, at the junior college level. The National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and the Association of State Colleges and Universities are fully aware that there are a variety of possible approaches toward provision of institutional support from public funds for colleges and universities. The need for strengthening the capacity of institutions of higher education to carry on a major function common to them all-that of high quality undergraduate instruction-would appear to be widely shared by all types of institutions at all levels of post high school instruction. Sound educational policy would indicate that a program or programs should be devised which would permit institutions at all levels to take part, in appropriate ways. We stand ready at any time to discuss, with other educational organizations, or with representatives of the Administration or the Congress, the basis on which a program or programs can be formulated which will win wide support, whether based on the need for strengthening instruction in the natural and social sciences, or for general non-categorical operating support, or both. Sincerely RUSSELL I. THACKREY, (Cc: Presidents Babbidge, Henry, Shannon, Jensen; Vice-President Kerley.) Senator MORSE. I am going to take a recess for 5 minutes before I hear Dean Roberts. I answer a call to make a quorum. (Short recess.) Senator MORSE. Our last witness will be Dean Roberts of the American Association of University Women. I want Dean Roberts to know I am delighted to have her here with us. I know she will be helpfu to us in many ways. I know Dean Roberts has been working in connection with title III of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at Stillman College in Alabama. She has had 2 or 3 years' experience there and I hope she will bring to bear upon her testimony some of her experiences at Stillman. You may proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF DEAN EUNICE ROBERTS, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, BLOOMINGTON, IND., REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN; ACCOMPANIED BY ALISON BELL, STAFF ASSOCIATE FOR LEGISLATION, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN Dr. ROBERTS. Thank you, Senator Morse. Senator MORSE. Your associate Mrs. Bell, ought to come forward and be with you at the table. Dr. ROBERTS. Before I begin the formal statement I must say I have not personally been working with the program at Stillman College but only sitting on an administrative committee that hears weekly reports about what our colleagues have been doing. So I know a good deal about it from that point of view. Senator Morse, you have a statement which I know some of you have not had prior to this morning. I don't like to read the statement, but I think it might be useful to read a part of it. Senator MORSE. It is not a long statement. I think you ought to read it all. Dr. ROBERTS. All right. I shall read it all. I warn you that I want to interpolate from time to time. Senator MORSE. That is all right. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN Dr. ROBERTS. For the purpose of the record, then, we give some information about the American Association of University Women, an organization of 171,000 members plus, and organized into 1,594 branches in all the States and the District of Columbia and Guam. It establishes its legislative program through study by committees, preparing recommendations which then are presented to the membership in different ways different years, for comment, and which finally are voted on by the national convention. The most recent convention of the association was held in June 1965 and by an overwhelming majority adopted the following legislative program for the 1965–67 biennium. This will be reviewed by the national convention in 1967 again. Support of a constructive educational policy, under existing constitutional provisions. We favor such objectives as A balanced educational program of quality at all levels. levels. Adequate financial support under State and local control for public education at all levels, with consideration of the problems of school districts where large tracts of land are under governmental jurisdiction. |