Page images
PDF
EPUB

form, proposed by Senator Prouty, of Vermont. It was quite apparent that the practical politicians felt that the issue involved was one which could be easily misunderstood in an election year by those who had not thought through the whole question.

I believe the time has come now to take a firm stand and to allow the matter to come to a vote. There is ample evidence of the way the educational community looks at this question. All the principal national educational organizations have gone on record as advocating repeal. These include the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Colleges, the Association of American Universities, the Association of American University Professors, the Association of Graduate Schools, the Association for Higher Education of the National Education Association, the Association of Land-Grant Colleges, and State Universities Association. In addition, more than 100 of the leading colleges and universities of the Nation have taken the trouble to record themselves as opposing the disclaimer affidavit requirement. About 30 of them have refused to participate in the National Defense Education Act loan program, either in whole or in part. These institutions are widely representative of the best in American higher education. Small and large, rich and poor, eastern, western, public and private, they feel a common necessity to resist this unnecessary and impractical encroachment upon their relationship with their students. Fortunately, American political leadership has taken the attitude that this issue rises beyond mere partisanship. The repeal effort was backed by President Eisenhower and Secretary Flemming, by Vice President Nixon and other members of the last administration. It is backed by President Kennedy and Secretary Ribicoff. The movement for repeal was further enforced in recent weeks by the report and recommendations of President Kennedy's Task Force Committee on Education.

I should like to call your attention to the proposed program of Federal action to strengthen education which was issued last month by the American Council on Education. The American Council on Education has a total membership of 1,209 including more than 1,000 educational institutions and 144 educational organizations. In discussing the program of the National Defense Education Act, the council urged especially the elimination of the discriminatory affidavit requirement for those receiving fellowships or allowances.

I wish you to know how sincerely I believe that the presence of this affidavit requirement creates a serious condition of misunderstanding and distrust on the part of students and college teachers toward the Government's program in education. It is for this reason that I wish to lend every effort I can spare to making repeal effective. I would not want you to think, however, that this is my sole interest in legislative matters connected with higher education in the United States. There is a great deal which the Congress ought to do to help American higher education, and I recommend to your attention the American Council on Education program. The council is not asking assistance to pay faculty salaries or for aid in meeting general operating expenses. They feel that the Federal Government can best help the colleges and universities by financial assistance in matters of housing and academic facilities, in special programs which help to increase the number of teachers, improve the quality of teaching and research, and assist students of limited means to find a way to attend college. All those concerned for the needs of American education will be grateful to you and your committee for your favorable attention to these matters which are of such immediate importance to the Nation.

Sincerely yours,

NATHAN M. PUSEY.

Hon. EDITH GREEN,

ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE ADMISSIONS COUNSELORS,
Evanston, Ill., March 14, 1961.

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR MRS. GREEN: I am writing to you in support of H.R. 5266, the college academic facilities and scholarship bill.

I write as a financial-aid officer of long experience. It was my good fortune, when I was a director of admissions and financial aid at Columbia University in New York, to work very closely with the State department of education on the State scholarship program, the regents teaching fellowship program, and the

67829-61-14

New York State loan program. I am firmly convinced from my experience there and here in Illinois with the Illinois State Scholarship Commission that major scholarship programs are handled much more efficiently on a statewide level than in each individual college or institution. Those of us who are active in the financial-aid field know full well that only several hundred of the many thousands of institutions of higher education in our country have developed sophisticated techniques of measuring need and awarding financial aid. Due to the multiple-application phenomenon, if each college or university were measuring the need and handling the award of aids, the same job would be done needlessly many times over with great waste of money and confusion. I strongly urge that the much-needed scholarship grants be handled by State boards, using experienced financial-aid officers within each State.

I strongly support the entire bill which is before your subcommittee, and I offer my personal assistance and the assistance of the association I am affiliated with in any way that you desire.

I am sending separately several pieces of literature about our association for the information of you personally and your colleagues on the committee. If I can be of further help to you, please let me know.

Sincerely,

JOE JEFFERSON, Executive Secretary.

CONCORD COLLEGE, Athens, W. Va., March 14, 1961.

Re H.R. 5266, S. 1241.
Hon. EDITH GREEN,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

MY DEAR CONGRESSWOMAN GREEN: I am writing to you both as president of Concord College and as president of the West Virginia Council of State College and University Presidents to urge that H.R. 5266 and S. 1241 include a provision for the support of construction of academic facilities at colleges and universities by means of Federal matching grants.

In the main, new academic buildings at the 11 State-supported institutions of higher learning in West Virginia currently are financed by means of a pay-asyou-go capital improvements fund created by the 1959 West Virginia Legislature and yielding only about $1.5 million annually. The 1961 legislature, just adjourned, was requested to convert this fund to a bonding program and to grant authority to the governing boards to use the proceeds from the sale of bonds to match any Federal grants that may be made available for the construction of academic buildings. The legislature did not act, deciding "to wait and see what the Federal Government provides with respect to matching grants."

If the Federal Government provides matching grants for academic buildings, I am convinced that the West Virginia Legislature, perhaps in special session before the next regular session in January of 1962, will authorize a bond issue of from $20 million to $30 million for academic buildings which, with Federal 50-50 matching grants would permit a $40 million to $60 million construction program at our State-supported institutions of higher learning in West Virginia. Without Federal matching grants it appears unlikely that West Virginia will be able to undertake the construction of new academic buildings on the scale required to alleviate our great backlog of urgent needs.

I trust that this letter will be helpful to you and your colleagues in the Congress in your consideration of H.R. 5266 and S. 1241.

Respectfully yours,

JOSEPH F. MARSH.

Mrs. GREEN. Our first witness this morning is a Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Ullman, of Oregon, who also has introduced legislation, H.R. 16, a bill which would set up a 5-year program of Federal aid to establish and expand the public junior colleges.

Congressman Ullman, we are very happy to welcome you to this committee room again and we are anxious to hear your suggestions on Federal aid for higher education.

Just before you begin, Congressman Ullman, we also have with us this morning a Member of the Parliament from Italy, Miss Maria Badaloni. She is also the Under Secretary of Education in Rome. We are delighted that she has taken the time to come to this committee hearing.

With her is her secretary, Miss Marcella Venier.

Congressman Ullman, you may proceed as you wish.

STATEMENT OF HON. AL ULLMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. ULLMAN. Madam Chairman, I consider it a real privilege to appear before this fine committee. There is no one more dedicated to the cause of education than the chairlady, and no one whose judgment I would respect more on this very important issue that faces America today. I think the importance of it is well illustrated by the emphasis that the President places upon it. I want to say that I concur very strongly with the President's position and with his message. I think he states accurately the crisis we are facing in American education today.

I would ask, Madam Chairman, that I might incorporate a statement in the record, and also some letters which I have received subsequent to the letters that I inserted in the hearing in the last Congress.

Mrs. GREEN. Without objection, it will be so ordered. (The statements referred to follow :)

STATEMENT OF HON. AL ULLMAN A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

THE SPECIAL AND ESSENTIAL ROLE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Madam Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee on behalf of my bill, H.R. 16, which would provide a 5-year program of assistance to the States in expanding their community junior college facilities. My proposal, I believe, is directly related to the emerging need for the community college in American higher education.

This need is based upon the following major considerations: (1) The economic advantages to students—the public junior college represents a means of providing post-high-school education and training to a large number of students at a nominal cost; (2) the enrollment pressures on colleges and universities—as President Kennedy pointed out in his education message: "Too many academic institutions cannot afford the cost of, or find room for, the growing numbers of students seeking admission"; (3) student motivation toward post-high-school study-the accessibility of public junior colleges can do much to encourage the Nation's high school students to desire to increase their level of educational attainment; (4) national manpower needs-the Nation requires more technicians, more persons educated beyond the high school in order to meet the demands for an increasing supply of trained persons necessary for the Nation's security and economic growth.

We already know of the greatly increased numbers of American high school graduates attending 2-year institutions. Approximately 1 out of every 4 firstyear college students was enrolled in a junior college, according to a recent survey. There are today over 650 of these 2-year colleges serving about 815,000 students. Some 712,000 of this total were enrolled in public junior colleges at little or no tuition cost. As you know, many of these students would not otherwise be able to enjoy the benefits which higher education can provide.

Within the next 10 years, some experts predict that junior colleges should be able to "accommodate" at least 2 million students. In fact, post-secondary institutions as a whole must be prepared to enroll up to 50 percent of the college

age population by 1970. In terms of sheer numbers, then, the increase in 2-year institutions will obviously help to ease the burdens of an upsurge in the collegeage population and the accompanying demands on 4-year and 2-year institutions alike.

At the recent annual convention of the American Association of Junior Colleges, Secretary Abraham Ribicoff called the rapid expansion of 2-year junior colleges "imperative" if higher education is to be able to meet increases in enrollments. Secretary Ribicoff emphasized that the establishment of new junior college facilities "will also help take some of the pressure off colleges and universities while they reappraise their future role, and should help them to concentrate on upper level training, graduate work, and research." He further pointed out that many communities can find the junior colleges "the firm, inexpensive and accepted-stepping stone in a 4-year program."

There is little question about the value of this particular feature of junior colleges among those who have studied the current and projected needs in higher education. However, I think the Secretary would agree with me on another point also: The implications of our 2-year institutions are considerably more far-reaching than their obvious usefulness in "accommodating" large numbers of college-age youth at the higher education level. This is not just a simple matter of finding more space for more students. Community colleges are, indeed, achieving a substantial and essential role in the further democratization of higher education.

As a people, Americans have committed themselves to the concept of universal public education and have, in turn, accepted the resultant responsibilities for making educational opportunities available to all. The responsibility for public support at the elementary and secondary level is clear cut and enjoys longstanding recognition. At the higher education level, the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School officially described the American ideal in education in the following way: "Every individual regardless of race, creed, or color or national origin, shall have the opportunity to develop his or her best self, to continue appropriate education up to his or her personal point of optimum development." To my way of thinking, this ideal is accompanied by an implicit endorsement of the development of the community college movement.

Already the 2-year college movement is growing faster than any other phase of American education. But I firmly believe that, unless further appropriate

steps are taken in this direction, the Nation would be falling far short of its goal. The local communities and States are doing a significant job in the field, but whe have evidence that much more remains to be done.

I am acutely aware, as you are, of the unmet educational needs of our young people and of the urgency of assistance from the national level. With this in mind, I have introduced again this year my proposal to provide a 5-year program of assistance to the States in expanding their community junior college facilities. Since I introduced my first community college bill in 1958, I have followed closely and with concern the developments in this field. I have noted also the recommendations of those with special knowledge of its needs and problems. Dr. James B. Conant, for example, has pointed to the need for more 2-year community colleges so that advanced education may be widely available throughout the Nation. I share Dr. Conant's concern; and because I agree that community junior colleges furnish a significant means of achieving our national educational goals, I continue to press for Federal action in this field.

The bill which I have again introduced this year would provide financial assistance to participating States for the initial establishment and the expansion of existing community junior colleges. It combines a flat grant with a matching fund grant, the latter to be allocated among the various States on the basis of their secondary school enrollment-which is a measure of the need for higher education facilities. No issue of Federal control is involved since participating States will plan the program of expansion for their own junior college systems. The bill requires that consideration be given to areas remote geographically from other State colleges and universities, and exhibiting a desire for junior college facilities together with an effort commensurate with their financial abilities. Within these broad guidelines, the planning of the program would rest with the States. The actual administration of the colleges established, of course, would continue to be in accordance with the laws of each State.

In my opinion, we are reaching a period in our national life when some measure of education beyond the high school-whether designed to provide vocational or technical training or to prepare for further higher education-will become as essential and widespread as the high school diploma. As Dr. Conant

aptly observes: "A modern industrial nation needs more than a few brains; it has to uplift talents at every level. It cannot afford technological unemployables-spiritually, politically, or economically." And to be honest, we must admit that a great variety of talents are yet to be "uplifted” in America today. For the most part, I refer to the highly diversified talents of those high school graduates who, because of circumstances and individual limitations-whether economic, geographic, or academic, are unable to pursue education at a 4-year college or university.

It is significant to note the impetus which the President's Commission on National Goals has recently given to the community college movement. Among the national goals recognized in the field of education, the Commission urged that: "Two-year colleges would be within commuting distance of most high school graduates."

One of the country's most respected educational leaders, Dr. John W. Gardner (president of the Carnegie Corp. and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching), prepared the recommendations for our "national goal in education" after consulting with a group of 40 leading educators and with the advice of a distinguished panel composed of Arthur S. Adams (then president of the American Council on Education), John H. Fischer (dean of Teachers College, Columbia University, and vice chairman, Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association), and Devereux C. Josephs (director, New York Life Insurance Co., formerly Chairman, President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School).

The consensus of opinion was that the needed 2-year institutions should offer 2-year terminal programs; offer transfer programs for those who wish to complete a 4-year program; serve as technical institutes, meeting local needs for subprofessional and vocational educational education; and offer continuing education to adults. Dr. Gardner further observed that the States should expect these institutions to handle a "substantial percentage of the future college population (perhaps 50 percent of all who enter college for the first time)."

My colleagues are already aware of the many overall advantages of community junior colleges and of what makes them so desirable to so many students-their low or nonexistent tuition fees, proximity to the homes of students, responsiveness to individual and local needs, flexible programs, and adult education programs. Yet I believe that one fact deserves reemphasizing at this point. The junior college holds a distinct but certainly not separate place in the total picture of American higher education. Rather than a mere temporary expedient or last resort, educational experts and State officials look upon junior colleges as tailormade institutions designed to serve a broader cross-section of the population than ever before. Practical and functional though the community college idea may be, it is rooted deeply in the very philosophy of the democratic way of life, and is, in every sense, a uniquely American institution.

Community colleges, then, do far more than merely ease the pressure on 4-year institutions. These publicly supported 2-year colleges provide educational opportunities where none existed before and thus enrich the lives of those whom they serve. More students now need more education, and our society demands more highly trained individuals. In the community-college movement, both the individual student and the society in which he lives can achieve mutually beneficial results.

Certainly, no single pattern of higher education can be expected to meet the needs of the wide range of abilities and motivations in the college-age population. Diverse needs and talents call for highly diverse programs, and this is why the role of the community college is such a crucial one.

All our young people deserve an opportunity to develop their academic and vocational talents, ieadership, and a sense of responsibility in accordance with their own interests and abilities. It would be a mistake to think of all those who do not attend 4-year institutions immediately after high school as incapable of or disinterested in meeting the challenges of higher education. In fact, about onethird of those who enter junior college continue with further education. Of all those who graduate from junior college, about 60 percent go on to 4-year institutions. This is all the more reason for encouraging still more students to attend a community college.

As Chancellor Lawrence Kimpton, of the University of Chicago, observed before the American Association of Land Grant Colleges and State Universities: "The State owes to everyone the opportunity to receive all the education he has the ability and will to acquire, and any other view of education is debasing and

« PreviousContinue »