Page images

lege preparatory course, there is a good high school. Almost no attention was paid to vocational education or even commercial education.

The very districts that talked most about the quality of their own schools, that look down on neighboring schools were the ones that paid no attention to anything except a percentage of their college bound.

Senator CLARK. I think Harvard President James B. Conant gave us a pretty good outline of what is needed in that regard, with particular applicability to States like Pennsylvania, where we have so many kinds of school districts and we have a little bit of everything. Miss Roor. Pennsylvania has made strides in recent years in education for the physically and mentally handicapped. It was one of Governor Leader's contributions. Today we need to start with the emotionally disturbed and socially maladjusted. Therefore, we are interested in "research and demonstration projects in education of handicapped children."

I understand from the bill that handicapped is now defined-it is not as broad as the definition of exceptional children in Pennsylvania law, but broader than the old definition of the physically and mentally handicapped.


As someone who works on questions of retirement, group insurance, health benefits, and sick leave, I was intrigued by the details outlined for personnel that might be interchanged with State personnel. The interchange is an excellent idea and I can see why the detailed protection of fringe benefits is an essential to such an interchange.

Although the federation does not fear Federal control, it is wise to repeat the prohibition as is done at the end of S. 580.

The Federal Government has, over many years, greatly stimulated education in the United States. This is nothing new. S. 580 can be an effective continuation of that historic contribution. Its ideas are sound, comprehensive, and keyed to the current urgencies.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Miss Root, for your usual splendid contribution to the thinking of this subcommittee.

Senator Randolph has a conflict in schedule and must go to the White House. I was going to ask you, Miss Pincus, if you would stand aside very briefly so Dr. Alfred T. Hill could be heard now and we will come back to you.

Dr. Hill, would you come forward, please?


Senator RANDOLPH. I should like to say for the record that I recall the testimony in 1961 by both Miss Root and Miss Pincus and I am very happy to be here today to share their thinking on this important subject.

Mr. Chairman, you are very gracious in allowing me to be here at the table in the capacity of introducing Dr. Hill, although he will, of course, present himself in the capacity in which he appears.

May I say in passing, Mr. Chairman, how gratified I am that the subcommittee has the opportunity today to hear Dr. Hill, and that

it also plans to take testimony tomorrow from Mr. Fred Eberle, who is the very able acting State director for vocational education for the State of West Virginia.

I very much regret that a confier of schedules which I cannot modify will prevent my hearing Mr. Eterle in person but I know he will understand that I am safeguarding the interests of West Virginia in doing so. I mention this only, that you will understand how gratified I am that I could be here to listen to the testimony of Dr. Hill.

It has been my good fortune to know him for many years and to work with him. In my membership on the Advisory Committee for the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges, I have been very much impressed with the scope and the caliber of work of the association and of its leadership under Dr. Hill.

Dr. Hill. I believe that your testimony is of such a nature to have it included in the hearing record.

Dr. HILL. Yes, Senator Randolph, I would like to have it included. Senator CLARK. Printed in full.

Senator RANDOLPH. It will be printed in full in the hearing record for today.

Dr. HILL. Yes: I would.

Senator RANDOLPH. Then if you would make comment on particular points.

Dr. HILL. I appreciate that.

Senator RANDOLPH. If you will introduce your associate?

Dr. HILL. Yes. My associate is Mr. Richard M. Witter, staff associate with me in the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges. (The prepared statement of Alfred T. Hill follows:)


Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Alfred T. Hill, executive secretary of the Council for the Advancement of Small Colleges (CASC). I am here as the official representative of this group and have been invited to give testimony on the National Education Improvement Act of 1963. I shall confine my remarks to those portions of the bill dealing with institutions of higher education. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee, and I wish to express my special gratitude to Senator Jennings Randolph, of West Virginia. Senator Randolph, as an alumnus and trustee of Salem College and in his capacity as a member of the board of advisers of CASC, has been very helpful to this association and its members on numerous occasions.

Throughout this testimony I shall substitute the phrase "Federal investment in education" in place of "Federal aid to education." I do so in the hope that I can set a new style. I object to the connotation of the word “aid." It smacks too much of charity and implies that the recipient could not survive without it. I have never heard anyone suggest the phrase "education aid to the Federal Government," but where would our Government be today if it were not for the scientists, economists, linguists, astronauts, engineers, statisticians, teachers, chaplains, and hundreds of other experts and leaders in all field who have been trained in the more than 2,000 institutions of higher education in the United States?

The council (CASC) is a voluntary organization of 67 non-tax-supported colleges of arts and sciences. They are located in 30 States from Maine to California. The membership includes 49 Protestant colleges, 7 Catholic colleges, and 11 independent colleges. The average enrollment is 610 students: the total is 41.192. The average cost to the student for board, room, and tuition is $1,300considerably below the national average for private colleges. The average value of plant and endowment is $2 million-exactly double what is was 7 years

The council was founded in April 1956, with an original list of 52 charter members. Since its founding date the council has had 95 members at one time or another. Its present membership of 67 is the largest at any one time. The purpose of the council is to help its members to reach certain goals collectively faster than they could individually. These goals include regional accreditation, expansion of enrollment, raising of academic standards, improvement of faculty qualifications and salaries, strengthening of financial resources, and development of physical plant.

The CASO program is directed from a central office in Washington, D.C., and is based upon four activities: research, coordination, public relations, and fund raising. The operating cost of the council is approximately $150,000 a year. Annual membership dues are $300.

These small colleges have constituted a relatively untapped resource in higher education for two reasons: they lacked regional accreditation which was an obstacle to raising money, and they were too small (average enrollment 350 in 1956-57) to be operated efficiently and economically on a financial basis. CASC as an association has been dedicated to helping these colleges by means of a bootstrap operation to overcome these two major obstacles to progress.

Evidence of success is to be seen: by the fact that 45 of the 52 charter members (all nonregionally accredited in 1956) have now been accepted into membership by their respective regional associations; by the fact that a recent 6-year study showed these colleges to have increased in enrollment by 48 percent compared to a national average of 32 percent (24 colleges have doubled and 5 have tripled); by the fact that library holdings have increased by 57.5 percent; library operating expenses by 100 percent; faculty salaries by 41.4 percent; average dollar value in gift support by 73 percent; and average book value of plant by 63 percent. Between 1959 and 1962, 41 CASC colleges erected 99 new buildings at a total cost of $23,802,358. Between 1962 and 1972, 59 members estimate they will construct 309 additional buildings at a cost of $91,254,360. This physical and quantitative expansion to date has been accompanied by an improvement in academic standards.

I have taken this much time to describe CASC because it is a young organization and not well known at this level of Government. However, its importance should not be measured by the number of its members or by their size individually. This organization is important because on a small scale it represents a cross section of a large and influential segment of American higher education. These little colleges scattered throughout all parts of the country are "listening posts" because they are close to opinion makers in a variety of religious, racial, and regional constituencies. The significance of these small colleges lies in that: (1) they are providing an education at the grassroots to several thousand students many of whom would probably not go to college anywhere if it were not for these institutions; (2) they are able, ready, and willing to expand and improve to meet the current qualitative and quantitative crisis in education, all they need is a little help; (3) about 75 percent of them have strong teacher education programs and are sending their graduates into schools in their areas by the hundreds every year; (4) they are an economic as well as a cultural asset to their local communities; (5) through their religious commitments, their community relations, and the variety of their programs, they are preserving the cherished American tradition of diversity and independence in education; (6) a day when billions of both public and private dollars are being poured into science, engineering, vocationalism, militarism, and materialism, these colleges are unusually well qualified to balance this technological explosion with the wisdom and sense of values inherent in the humanities and the liberal arts; (7) at a time when the large prestige institutions are forced to turn away four out of five freshmen applicants every fall for lack of space, many of these small colleges still have room for more students; (8) with admissions standards becoming increasingly competitive some of these little colleges will still take a second look at the "average" or "C" high school student if he shows evidence of good character, serious purpose, and a willingness to work; and (9) because in a day of rather free and easy campus customs, the students in these colleges are quite likely to lean toward conservatism in their dress and conduct and in their attitudes on politics, economics, and religion.

When we look at the giants of higher education in America today, it is easy to forget how they looked yesterday. Therefore, let me call your attention to the following quotation:

"The academical buildings consist of 3 colleges, of 4 stories, each containing $2 rooms; a chapel, containing in the third story a philosophical chamber and rooms for the philosophical apparatus, *** The number of books in the library is about 7,000 volumes. Few libraries are, probably, more valuable in proportion to their size. The situation of the academical buildings is uncommonly pleasant, fronting the green on the northwestern side, upon a handsome elevation, with a spacious yard before them. The buildings are plain; but so arranged to strike the eye with pleasure.

"At the same time you are to be informed that *** college has never received any very considerable benefactions except from the legislature * * * Everything of this nature, which has been done here, has been done by men of moderate fortunes. Upwards of 200 youths are in this seminary continually receiving benefits from the efficacy of a moderate sum, for the real value of which millions would be a cheap price.

"TIMOTHY DWIGHT, President of Yale College (1812)."

Dr. Harold B. Gores, president of the Educational Facilities Laboratories of the Ford Foundation, has said that the small colleges were fortunate because they were "broke." This meant they could not buy their way out of their difficulties, they had to invent their way out. This, in turn, put a premium on brains, courage, and initiative. He demonstrated his approval by support for a CASC workshop. I might add by way of contrast, however, that in a prestige conscious society its poverty is not the most attractive selling point of the small college. The story of the members of CASC will be told by radio as a public service program by the American Broadcasting Co. at 3:30 Sunday afternoon during a 13 week series starting June 23. The title of the program will be "Presenting the Small College." I mention this as evidence of the fact that the council is doing everything it can to make known to the high school seniors and their parents the availability of these and similar small colleges across the country. This is a part of our effort to help meet the emergency in higher education and is consistent with a precedent established by CASC when it published a 16-page New York Times Sunday supplement in October 1959.

The CASC colleges have benefited from Federal investment in higher education in three main areas. First, 26 (39 percent) current members have borrowed $17,463,000 through the college housing program to construct dormitories. Five more have submitted their applications and $3,239,000 has been reserved for them, bringing the total for all practical purposes, to 31 (46 percent) colleges and the money to $20,702,000. (Twelve past members have borrowed $9,012,000.) Second, 62 (92 percent) of the present members are participating in the NDEA student loan program with funds amounting to $4,505,816. (Twenty-four past members have participated to the extent of $1,896,402.) Third, many CASC colleges have operated special projects or programs financed by the National Science Foundation. CASC has enjoyed recognition in the form of letters or telegrams from three former U.S. Presidents and President Kennedy and has benefited by cordial relations with the U.S. Office of Education and other Government offices.

At the same time, while the member colleges have been receiving this investment from the Federal Government, the council itself has received over $760,000 in contributions from such well known private foundations and corporations as United States Steel, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, Esso, Union Carbide, Sears-Roebuck, Olin, IBM, Shell, Texaco, General Foods, and others to total some 85 donors. In addition to contributing to CASC these and hundreds of other corporations have contributed to the colleges individually. I mention this to illustrate the point that the private sector of the economy has been taking an active interest in these colleges and in the work of their self-help, service organization.

I am aware of the testimony presented during the last 6 months by a number of the large and influential educational associations on H.R. 3000 and S. 580. They have done a fine job in presenting the case for higher education as a whole. However, I am speaking as a voice for the small college as such.

In the October 1962 newsletter1 I reviewed the impact of "Federal Investment Education" for the CASC membership (exhibit A). In the March 1963 newsbetter1 I discussed bill H.R. 3000 (exhibit B). At a meeting in Washington on

newsletters of October 1962 and May 1963 (exhibit C) carry letters from President

May 7, 1963, the CASC directors received a briefing from Commissioner Francis Keppel and the next day kept appointments with 12 of their Representatives and Senators to discuss the current legislation on education. When I received an invitation to testify, I polled the membership of the council by telegram in order to bring you an expression of their opinions on S. 580. The results received by letters, telegrams, and telephone calls from 95 percent of the membership (63 colleges) are as follows:

Opinions were given upon the broad subject of "Federal Investment in Higher Education" and with special reference to bill S. 580; 49 percent were in favor of the bill; 31 percent in doubt or with divided opinions; and 20 percent in opposition. There was a surprisingly even distribution of opinion among the colleges by type of control, geographic location, size of enrollment, cost to students, and accreditation.

What this means to me is that the differences of opinion are highly individualized, perfectly sincere, and based upon a genuine concern for three things: the good of each responding college, the best interests of higher education, and honest political convictions regarding the welfare of the Nation. Those in favor of the bill outnumber those in doubt by more than 11⁄2 to 1 and those in opposition by more than 2 to 1. It seems reasonable, therefore, to say that the majority of CASC members favor some sort of Federal legislation which would increase its "Investment in Higher Education." (I may add parenthetically that in my 7 years of experience in dealing with these college presidents I have never known them to express a unanimous opinion on any one subject except that they have always needed more money.)

I believe it is safe, therefore, to say that CASC as an association would approve the position taken by the leading educational associations in their support of the comprehensive approach to educational legislation.

However, I feel it is important for me to reflect the difference of opinion within the CASC membership because they are very real and very deep.

As I have reviewed the expressions of opinion from CASC presidents received recently by letter, telegram, and telephone I have been impressed by several frequently recurring ideas. I shall summarize these as "for" and "against" S.


FOR S. 580

(a) It is essential for the welfare of the Nation.

(b) There has been very little interference in educational policy as far as the individual institution is concerned. This is particularly true of construction loans and student loans.

(c) Loans are better than grants because when the financial obligation has been paid there is no remaining moral obligation. (Church-related colleges.) (d) Grants are better than loans because small colleges are too weak financially to handle loans-either Government or private. (Independent colleges.)

AGAINST 8. 580

(a) Federal aid should be used only as a last and desperate resort—“Only survival is more important than socialization."

(b) The separation of church and state must be preserved at all costs.

(c) The more you allow the Government to do for you, the less the Government will allow you to do for yourself.

(d) The bookkeeping, the red tape, and the delays of dealing with the Government make Federal aid impractical for the small college.

(e) Federal loans are not as economical as private loans. We can build faster, better, and cheaper with our local, private resources.

(f) Federal aid will paralyze educational freedom.

The fears of many of these presidents would appear to be justified at least in one instance by the language of the bill: "The Commissioner shall not approve any application for a grant under this part unless the applicant agrees to provide programs of college-level technical education meeting the standards of content, scope, and quality prescribed by the Commissioner with the advice of the advisory committee established under section 243." (Title II, pt. C, sec. 242 (c)1.) I suggest that the committee modify the language of this passage.

The president of one of our strong church-related colleges has explained his concern over Government grants and the church-state issue clearly in this way. He says he has no hesitation about accepting a loan because it is strictly a business proposition. You borrow the money, pay the interest, pay the principal

« PreviousContinue »