Page images

you do seem to draw some sort of line at the high school level, and I am not quite sure how you arrive at that.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Well, these are for individuals and not for institutions. Lines have been drawn, sir. I mean, for example, that bus transportation for children attending private schools has been declared constitutional. A number of States have the provision of schoolbooks to pupils in private schools out of public funds. You have loans for mathematics and science and languages to private and church schools under the NDEA. There is the school lunch program. There are lines that are drawn all the time in law and in government. You gentlemen are drawing lines every time you pass a bill. Every time you sit down here and mark up a bill and put amendments, you are drawing a line. We will be submitting briefs to the Senate, and as requested by Congressman Thompson, and copies to you, in which this whole subject will be gone into very thoroughly, sir, and you will receive this brief, but lines are always drawn in society and law. That is why you often have 5-to-4 decisions.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Assuming that all of this legal research that so many agencies are now engaged in ultimately shows that there is no constitutional conflict in a loan program to private schools, assuming it is clearly established that there is no conflict, would it be your impression then that any loan program should go either to this bill or to the other bill? It would seem to me if we are dealing with loans here and we are dealing with church-operated schools here, that if in its final wisdom Congress decides to deal with this subject, it would appear that it should be in this particular program merely extending it to the secondary level while at this moment the bill deals primarily with higher education.

Mrs. GREEN. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. Secretary, you said that you were furnishing a brief on this whole question. I wonder if I might ask you to include one other thing: Maybe you are already considering it. In Oregon 2 years ago there was some discussion by educational leaders in both the public and the private schools about the possibility of closing the doors of all of the parochial schools from the first to the eighth grade level. There was some question of closing the high schools because they simply did not have the funds, the private high schools. In the brief that you are preparing, would you also include the Federal impact if suddenly all of the private colleges closed their doors, and what kind of consideration the Department would give? In other words, what I am saying is, are our national needs dependent upon the private colleges and universities of this country, and to what extent, and in what real trouble would we be if we did not have their services?

Mr. RIBICOFF. The brief we are supplying is a legal brief. That stands over here. What you are asking for is factual information which we will supply to you by indicating the private colleges, the number of students they take, the overall college and university population, and we will submit this for your hearing records. This will be submitted to you, Madam Chairman.

Mrs. GREEN. Thank you.


(The document follows:)


In the fall of 1960 the Nation's 1,325 privately controlled institutions of higher education accommodated 1,474,317 degree-credit students, or approximately 41 percent of the total. To expand the 703 public institutions sufficiently to accommodate these students would require, first of all, a capital investment of about $5 billion, $2.5 to $3 billion for academic facilities and about $2.3 billion for residential facilities, assuming that only one-third of the students would have to be housed.

Second, to the annual current operating budgets of the public institutions, now approximately $3 billion, would have to be added about $2 billion. Not all of this would have to come from tax sources, but it is safe to say that tax revenues for the support of higher education would have to be increased at least 67 percent. The increase could be held to this level only if nontax revenues of public institutions matched this rate. The taxload associated with the investment of $5 billion in physical facilities would depend, of course, on the length of time taken to amortize the necessary indebtedness. Amortized over a period of 35 years at 3.5 percent interest, it would amount to $250 million annually.

(An Office of Education Bulletin OE-52001, “Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Education, 1957–58,” furnishes further detail.)

It would be unrealistic to assess the value of the Nation's private and churchrelated institutions of higher education solely in terms of the share of the total enrollment that they accommodate, though this is itself substantial and significant. Many of the most important developments in higher education had their beginnings in the great private colleges and universities: the elective system at Harvard, the reorientation of liberal-general education at Columbia, the development of the divisional plan of organization at Chicago, and the vital contributions to the philosophy of education made by great educators at these and other great private institutions.

The innovations of these institutions are less important, however, than their collective part in the preserving an essential duality in the national approach to the problems of higher education. This duality produces a pooling of efforts, public and private, in behalf of worthy objectives and trends, and at the same time maintains essential checks and balances against a monopoly of higher education by either of these categories. Perhaps the most important of these checks and balances is the diversity of individual attitudes, purposes and convictions that characterizes the graduates of this Nation's broad assortment of institutions.

Because it depends substantially upon both public and private institutions of higher education, the United States can avoid many of the excesses and deficiencies that usually characterize either a completely government supported system of higher education or one that is supported solely by private interests.

Mr. Pucinski. Mr. Secretary, I have one more question here. Yesterday before the other commitee we had testimony that a youngster who completes 4 years of college in our country increases his earning capacity, aside from any cultural values or national values derived through educating this young person, this young person increases his earning capacity over a lifetime by some $250,000 or a quarter million dollars, roughly. Now, the question I have here is if we areand I think that every youngster in America should be given the opportunity to develop his talents to the fullest whether he is rich or poor, but I am wondering whether or not we are justified in submitting this scholarship program when we are going to bring these young people into an upper economic strata. Wouldn't we be wiser to extend the NDEA, the loan program, with some specific provisions that if this youngster upon graduation goes into the teaching profession where he will not have a chance to increase his earning capacity as much as he might in industry, or if he joins Government service or various other exclusions as we do now have, we would give him credit for a part of that loan? I am concerned about future generations.

On the basis of your own figure here, you show there is going to be a 3-million increase in colleges in the next 5 years. It is fair to assume that in the next 10 or 15 years we are going to have the same problem, and I am wondering if perhaps Congress shouldn't give some thought to building a revolving fund so future generations will also have access to a loan program just as this generation now has.

I am wondering if Congress, when we look at this bill, would you be violently opposed if we took your whole concept and merely extended it to a loan program? Now, we may give these children 20 years to pay it back. We may give them 30 years to pay it back. We may give them all sorts of favorable conditions under which this money might come back. I am wondering if the mouey shouldn't somehow come back to the Government to replenish this revolving fund for future generations. Would you have any comment on that?

Mr. RIBICOFF. No; I would say you make a point many make. I think it is a thoughtful point you make, sir. I still think that a scholarship program is worthwhile. I believe that not only are you helping the youngster, but I think you are helping the overall forward progress of this Nation by assuring that our brightest young men and women go to college, and we believe that this is important for our Nation's future. The point that you make is an interesting point, too. The NDEA and this sort of supplement one another. I think there is room for both

programs. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Secretary, the reason I ask this question is that we seem to think of the completion of a college education as an end in itself when actually the completion of this college education is the beginning of a new career for this youngster. We presume that he is going to improve himself and the community and the Nation when he completes that program.

Mrs. GREEN. I am sorry I am going to have to interrupt at this point. The House is in session. We are asking unanimous consent that we might meet this afternoon during general debate.

We will reassemble at 2 oclock. The first witness will be Mr. Fuller of the Council of State School Officers. We have other witnesses this afternoon. My apologies to the gentleman from New Jersey that he didn't get to ask his questions.

My thanks to you, Mr. Secretary, for your patience and for the very excellent information that you gave to the committee. We may at a future date call you back.

Mr. RIBICOFF. Any time you want me, I will be available.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I wonder if I might address an appeal to the Secretary to answer what might turn out to be a 60-page answer to my questions. I have had poor luck in following him around to get his views on matters that do interest me very much. I regret the time has run out. I hope you don't mind my addressing a letter directly to you and getting your response.

Mr. RIBICOFF. I may say I am pleased to hear from any Member of Congress personally. My office is open to you any time you want to come up and talk to me, sir, or write me a letter.

(Whereupon, at 11: 55 a.m., the subcommittee recessed until 2 p.m. of the same day.)

[ocr errors]


The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., upon the expiration of the recess.

Mrs. GREEN. The committee will come to order to resume the hearings and listen to testimony on the higher education bill.

The first witness this afternoon is certainly no stranger to the committee. He has been here many times.

We welcome here again Dr. Edgar Fuller, the executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Dr. Fuller, if you will come up. Do you have someone else that you want to sit with

you, Dr. Fuller? Mr. FULLER. I believe not.

Mrs. GREEN. We welcome you to the committee. We are interested in what you have to say in regard to this legislation.



Madam Chairman and members of the select committee, I am Edgar Fuller, executive secretary of the Council of Chief State School Officers, and I appear here today on behalf of the council in general support of major portions of H.R. 5266.

The members of the council are the State superintendents and State commissioners of education of the 50 States and the chief school officers of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, Guam, and American Samoa.

These chief State school officers are represented here today, Madam Chairman, because they are very much involved in most aspects of education covered in this bill.

As the constitutional or statutory chief officers for education in the States, they have direct responsibility for the operation of many institutions of higher education. For instance, they are the executive officers of State boards that operate teachers colleges in 10 States.

The chief State school officers have broad responsibilities for general supervision of education. In New York these cover all educational institutions. In at least 27 States the chief State school officers exercise general supervision over public junior colleges, which are covered by this bill, and are, at the same time, part of the State systems of public education.

The State officers are closely connected with community college developments, and are particularly involved in the development of new local 2- and 4-year colleges that will have a major role in meeting the needs of increased enrollments during the next decade. They also often serve as members of governing boards of colleges and universities.

The chief State school officers have other responsibilities that are directly affected by the programs of most institutions of higher education.

For instance, they certificate all public schoolteachers on behalf of the States, along with private schoolteachers in a few States. They are responsible for maintaining minimum standards of education established by the State for all children, and for assisting and encouraging the best possible education, especially in the public schools and other institutions over which they have general supervision.

The scholarship provisions of this bill apply almost entirely to students still in high school. It affects their schooling and guidance, even the testing and other activities of the State scholarship commission that would select the scholars under this bill are high school connected. The scholar, once selected, attends the college of his choice.

The chief State school officers cannot stand aside while important issues in education that so directly affect their responsibilities are being decided. Such issues, Madam Chairman, are in the bill before this select committee today.


Title I authorizes low cost Federal loans for construction of academic facilities in all types of institutions of higher educationpublic, private, nonprofit, and church connected.

The council supports this title to the extent indicated by the following statement of established policy, first adopted in 1948 and reaffirmed in succeeding years:

Federal and State financial assistance for education, whether for current expense, capital outlay, or school-connected auxiliary services should be restricted to tax-supported and publicly controlled school systems and institutions of higher education."

The loans for academic facilities authorized by title I would have beneficial results for public colleges and universities. Interest rates would be lower than could be obtained by many States and experience has demonstrated that approval of State borrowing for the construction of such facilities would be accelerated by Federal offers to supply the funds.

Similar benefits would accrue to both church controlled and other private nonprofit institutions.

The policies of the council, however, are not favorable toward public financing of nonpublic education at any level, nor do we believe there is any present national necessity for doing so.

And in the complex involvement of the Government in financing classrooms and laboratories for church-controlled educational institutions, which exist expressly in order that particular religious doctrines will pervade everything taught in them, a serious constitutional question under the first amendment is raised.

Government aid to church-controlled colleges and universities in the financing of classrooms and other facilities appears to involve different constitutional principles than those that apply to the college housing loan provisions of the Housing Act of 1950, under which Federal funds have been loaned to such institutions for student and faculty housing.

This is because student and faculty housing is closer to the constitutionally acceptable theory of benefit that inures to the individual rather than to the institution. It appears that neither case has yet been specifically decided by the Supreme Court, but Government fi

1 “Our System of Education," p. 29, National Council of Chief State School nfficers, 1951.

« PreviousContinue »