« PreviousContinue »
The first issue paper was published and distributed to thousands of institutions and other concerned parties. We understand that several hundred responses to this preliminary report were returned. The substance of the paper aside, the officials in OE responsible for the decision to consult widely with the communities affected by the new law deserve high commendation. We hope this becomes a standard practice. The final version of the guidelines has not been published however, we understand it to be highly responsive to the critical comments received from the post-secondary education community and is more in keeping with what the Congress intended. I would imagine that the interested committees of the Congress and their supporting staffs had much to do with bringing about the changes in the issue paper, since it is likely that had the Congress anticipated the December publication by the OE it either would not have passed the law allowing thhe establishment of the 1202 Commissions, or, more likely, would have elaborated upon its intent in the law itself and in its committee reports so that the OE could not possibly misconstrue that intent. It is appropriate, too, I believe, to commend Dr. Joseph Cosand, the former Associate Commissioner for Higher Education, and Dr. Jack Phillips, the former Director of the Task Force responsible for the guidelines for the 1202 Commissions, for their candid and receptive approach to all parties concerned, most of all for adhering to what the law states rather than following a path that would grant a segment of an executive agency more unauthorized power. Many states, either on their own initiative or in anticipation of the requirement of having a 1202 Commission, are moving ahead in their plans. It may well be too late to correct the impressions given in the December issue paper, since so much time has passed without a more accurate paper being published. The situation is comparable to having a libelous story printed on page one with a retraction weeks later on page fifty-five. We would submit respectfully that before final guidelines are published it may be necessary for the Congress to amend Section 1202 to clarify its intent to the point where no state would feel obliged to establish a commission unsuited to the state's special circumstances.
It is necessary, in discussing the 1202 Commissions, to discuss the Federal programs for which they were to provide planning. Of particular import is Title X, both Part A, the community college section, and Part B, the occupational education section. When Title X was first proposed three years ago, in what was known as the Williams Bill, after its principal Senate sponsor, it was viewed as a junior college bill. Among its chief objectives was to make certain that nowhere in the United States would there be large numbers of persons wishing to partake of post-secondary education and training who would be deprived of that for lack of an institution nearby. This objective made it clear, ultimately, that the bill should be aimed not at a type of institution but rather at the type of services and activities offered by institutions. Since a large number of public four-year institutions, themselves or their branch campuses, offer two-year occupational education programs, the eligibility to participate in the new program was to be based on the community orientation of the institution rather than how many years of education it might offer. Thus, the definition of "community college" includes scores of institutions in the two Associations I represent today. In fact, should appropriations be made for Title X and allocated among the states, our institutions would be among the principal participants in the expansion of communityoriented education. We would add one note, however. When the bill was first drafted, among its major emphases was establishing new institutions-to respond to the huge growth of enrollments in the 1960's. Today, however, enrollments appear to be leveling off, and in fact, in many instances are dropping. This is true for junior colleges as it is for other institutions. Therefore, the emphasis of Title X should turn from the establishment of new institutions to the support of existing institutions that wish to expand their course offerings and programs to meet community needs except in geographical areas clearly in need of new institutions.
Our associations are on record along with most of our higher education colleagues calling for substantial funding for both parts of Title X, along with funding for all legislation enacted by the Congress. However, the document in which that request was made last summer was deemed wholly unrealistic by the Administration. More regrettable is the apparent acceptance by the Congress, not of the $268.7 billion ceiling for total expenditures for FY 1974 which we feel may
well be imperative to help control inflation, but of the separate ceilings established by the Administration for individual categories of programs. In our view, the national needs for education and social services far exceed the budget proposed by the Administration. Were the Congress prepared to reorient priorities and made additional funds available for education, we would join in supporting funding for Title X. However, if the Congress abides generally with the Administration's budget request, and established and proved programs are cut back and even eliminated as a result of a shortage of available dollars, we would find it hard to justify funding new programs the objectives of which are valid, but no more so than programs that are not receiving funding. In a better of all possible worlds, we would join our colleagues from the junior colleges in calling for funding of Title X now. In the world in which the Administration has certain powers, we feel that Title X must be held lower on the scale of priorities. This is especially true when inadequate funding exists today for student aid, and grossly inadequate requests for funding have been made by the Administration for both FY 1973 and 1974.
In summary, we believe it would be useful for the Office of Education to disseminate the revised issue paper. This would give the entire post-secondary education community the opportunity to discuss with OE officials the manner in which they propose carrying out the intentions of the Congress without feeling the pressures that were present previously. At the same time, we believe the funding of the Commissions ought to wait until the Congress decides the priority of Title X.
We are grateful for the opportunity to appear before your committee Mr. Chairman, to present our views. We will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you.
Mr. HOLMES. We first ought to point out in relationship to the planning function that the public universities and colleges of the Nation do, in fact, have community college-type community-related programs and we are vitally affected by those aspects of planning which do, in fact, call for filling educational gaps around all the States.
We ran a study sometime ago and made an estimate that around 25 percent of our colleges and universities offer programs at less than the baccalaureate level. So we have a very real stake as regional, State, and national institutions in the planning which is done.
In our conclusion to my statement we do say we believe it would be useful for the Office of Education to disseminate the revised issue paper. This would give the entire postsecondary education community the opportunity to discuss with Office of Education officials the manner in which they propose carrying out the intentions of the Congress without feeling the pressures that we did previously.
At the same time we believe the funding of the commissions ought to wait until the Congress decides the priority of title X. And, in fact, in a broader sense the funding of all of the amendments.
In balance there is a serious funding problem that we see on our campuses now and there is an urgent need to resolve these funding priorities. The supplemental opportunity grants present serious problems to individual students. We are in transition. The signals do have to be straightened out on a national basis, but the mere admission of a basic opportunity program is of such magnitude that it cannot possibly get off the ground nationally. The need, therefore to have supplemental educational opportunity grant as a funding priority is paramount. We have on our campus, for example, 30 young men and women who should be coming to our school this summer. We cannot tell them that we have funds for them because we don't know what the picture is. This is serious to those students. I firmly believe this picture is multiplied throughout all of the campuses in the Nation.
The need for these funds in terms of a priority basis is paramount. The direct student loan program is terribly important.
One thing may not be understood. There is a feeling that the repayment of loans will replenish the direct student loan pot so that it can be reloaned. But in institutions such as ours and in some of your institutions in North Carolina when a student is on a national direct student loan, formerly the national defense student loan, if he goes to a deprived school district and teaches, he receives 100 percent forgiveness of his loan.
He does not have to repay anything. So our loan funds that are coming in are quite reduced.
We believe that after the basic priorities that Congress passed as law are met, that the title X provisions as you are currently rethinking them, would then be well considered. I have indicated that timing is a problem particularly on the student grant provisions of the legislation and appropriations. The priorities are a problem and we are reassured that you are having hearings here at this point in time not only to look at the 1202 program, but the 1202 program in relationship to other priorities and also to establish a record of congressional intent in relationship to the 1202 commissions.
Finally, the question did come up as to the attitudes of other institutions. I would be remiss in saying that I believe all of the institutions within the two associations that I am representing here today would buy the general principle. But I think there would be considerable discussion on what constitutes planning and what constitutes the administration of an institution and who, in fact, controls the destiny of the institution.
And it is for this reason that I think I would speak for my colleagues such as the president of the University of Maryland, Wilson Elkins, when I say it is extremely important to keep these guidelines flexible and sensitive to the local situation in each State. There is in the administration of an institution a tremendous efficiency which comes from the freedom to administer as differentiated from being a partner in a total planning effort.
It is for this reason the flexibility in congressional intent, as I understand it, is good and it is for this reason that the point-bypoint prescription of the characteristics of planning commissions can create problems, because what seems to be timely today by way of prescription of a specific solution to a problem for each State, tomorrow can in itself become a problem. Therefore, the generality, the broad goals of the 1202 commissions in trying to fill the gaps, in trying to improve the quality are good.
By the same token anything which suggests there ought to be an additional control of institutions ought to be looked at very carefully. Thank you.
Mr. ANDREWs. You make me think I am back in the general assembly. We went through all of that, whether it be coordinating board or coordinated planning or what.
Mr. HOLMES. I would like to introduce Jerry Roschwalb, who is at legislative associate of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and will be joining the land-grant group in a fulltime capacity.
Mr. ANDREWS. Would you care to add anything? We welcome you here.
Mr. HOLMES. No.
Mr. ANDREWS. Are there any others who have anything for the good of the cause?
Mr. HARRISON. In your concluding remarks, Dr. Holmes, you have emphasized we are certainly a long way from any agreement on what the guidelines and final regulations should say.
Mr. HOLMES. That's right.
Mr. HARRISON. But you do agree with the other witnesses we have had before us that the revised issues paper ought to be disseminated? Mr. HOLMES. Very definitely.
Mr. HARRISON. It is suggested that its release at this time would confuse higher educators because they would have two sets of guidelines and they would not be able to distinguish between them. Would you have any problems with that?
Mr. HOLMES. No. I think in the first place it would only add to existing confusion. In a second place our business, the business of higher education is being able to deal with different points of view. It is much better to have the information out and discussed.
Mr. HARRISON. You think you could cope?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes.
Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you very much again for coming.
We will be meeting here tomorrow again in the same room.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene on the following day, Thursday, April 12, 1973.]
STATE POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION COMMISSIONS
THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1973
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James G. O'Hara, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives O'Hara, Dellenback, Erlenborn, Kemp, and Huber.
Staff present: Jim Harrison, subcommittee staff director, Elnora Teets, clerk, Rosanne Aceto, assistant clerk, William Cable, counsel, full committee, and Dr. Robert Andringa, minority staff director.
Mr. O'HARA. The Special Subcommittee on Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, will come to order.
Before proceeding with our witnesses today, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the room of Dr. Christian Schwarz-Schilling, who is a member of the Legislature of the State of Hesse in the West German Republic and who is chairman of its Education Committee. I hope that Dr. Schwarz-Schilling will give us some advice on how to conduct this subcommittee after he has watched us in operation today.
On March 29 this subcommittee invited Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Casper Weinberger to testify in these hearings or to send someone empowered to speak for him at these hearings having to do with the creation of 1202 commissions.
He has chosen to send a gentleman who is a familiar figure at the witness table and will no doubt become more so in the future.
The Department's position on the issues before us will be presented by Dr. John R. Ottina, Commissioner-designate of the U.S. Office of Education, who is accompanied today by Peter P. Muirhead, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education, and John D. Phillips, Chairman of the Task Force on State Postsecondary Education Commissions, which prepared the paper which we are going to be discussing today.
Before proceeding further, I should mention to and about Mr. Phillips that his name has been mentioned a great many times in the preceding days in these hearings. In every case the mention was a laudatory one.
The higher education community, Mr. Phillips, is filled with people who think you have done a superb job on the two drafts of the section 1202 issues paper.