Page images

Mr. QUIE. Yes, but there will still be opportunity for the States to develop their own patterns; there is enough flexibility for them to develop their own pattern?

Mr. WHEELER. Right.

Mr. QUIE. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much.

I was introduced to note that we could replace all of the academic housing and office facilities of every institution of higher learning in America, State universities, private colleges, community colleges, et cetera, and we could replace all of them, everything, for $69 billion, which is less than last year's defense expenditures.

Mr. HUBER. That would be a depreciated figure, I assume.

Mr. WHEELER. No, sir, this is a replacement cost figure.

Mr. O'HARA. It sort of gives you the idea of the dimensions of the defense budget.

Mr. O'HARA. Our final Witnesses today will be representing the American Association of Junior and Community Colleges. They are Dr. Edmund Gleazer, president of the association, who is a former college president, president of Graceland College in Iowa; and Mr. Fred Wellman, executive secretary of the Illinois Junior College Board in Springfield, Ill.; accompanied by Mr. Frank Mensel, vice president. of the association; and Dr. William Flanagan, who is president of the Rhode Island State Junior Colleges.

Gentlemen, if you can come forward and take your places at the witness table. I understand. Dr. Gleazer, you and Dr. Wellman have statements, and then all four of you will be available to respond to questions, is that correct?

Dr. GLEAZER. Yes, sir.


Dr. GLEAZER. Mr. Chairman, we want to begin by expressing our great appreciation-the thanks of the Nation's community and junior colleges to the Congress and this committee for what you have tried to do for higher education in the education amendments of 1972.

To bring to reality the larger promise and vision of postsecondary opportunity and services, which this legislation embodies, will require great resolve and perseverance on many sides, from the campus to the Congress, and steadfast cooperation among the various agencies and institutions on the postsecondary scene in every State.

Still we very much believe the potential rewards for learners, for higher education, and for the Nation as a whole will be well worth the effort.

Not only does Public Law 92-318 reorder Federal student financial assistance, hopefully to bring college services within reach of those

who in the past have been widely locked out of the system by financial hardship: it charts for higher education still another larger challenge, which is to build programs that are more relevant to the nontraditional students and programs that not only provide more learning options for the student but at the same time serve broader national needs. These are directions in which the community college has been moving for some time. We are pleased that they are reaffirmed and intensified in national policy, by the 1972 amendments.

Mr. Chairman, we have read with great interest your own recent statements making clear that the first order of business in national policy for higher education is to get as much as possible of the 1972 legislation implemented and funded. We couldn't agree more.

For example, the entitlement principle in student aid, which now takes the form of the basic educational opportunity grants, is an approach that the Congress, the administration, and the higher education community all worked for. To work well, BOG will have to be well funded. In the face of agonizing budget pressures, the administration has recognized this, and made requests that would get BOG off to a good start in the next 2 academic years.

If BOG does run well, we believe it will change, expand, and strengthen higher education. It will change the colleges' constituency. It will alter the programing. It can bring the outputs of higher education into better balance within the economy and the job opportunities of the next decade. It could bring more balance and harmony to the whole system.

We are convinced that it will smooth the road for the transfer student, and that every segment of postsecondary training will benefit. In sum, student aid thus has to stand as our biggest priority.

Those are some of our general reactions to this great bill. We have some very specific concerns about getting key parts of it moving. Certainly the Office of Education could have moved faster in developing the regulations and specifications to carry out every part of the act. We know that tens of thousands of students will suffer because progress has been so slow on regulations for the student aid programs. Obviously the colleges will suffer too. With the current school year soon to close without either the program or the funding really in place, colleges likely face a nightmarish summer trying to keep their students informed on what to expect. The enrollment slippage could be another severe economic setback to the colleges come September. We don't, of course, mean to belabor the point because we are fully aware of your own deep concern on this issue.

We are equally concerned over the fact that no regulations are forthcoming for title X. Higher education and the States would benefit enormously if such regulations were already published.

Some States are going ahead to organize their 1202 commissions, with or without Federal help. They are guided by the simple fact that title X is the law of the land.

If cost-effectiveness and accountability are what Congress and the administration want from higher education these days, and this obviously is the case, then the States ought to be encouraged to do more in planning and coordination.

We discount the argument that publication of the 1202 regulations, or the title X regulations, would fan false hopes for Federal support. If any enterprise has come to grasp the sobering realities of unfunded programs, it is education over the span of the last 5 years. Still we know a lot of work has gone into these title X and 1202 regulations—a lot of it solicited from our ranks-and they ought to be released. They could be a very useful touchstone or guide to institutional and State planners, if nothing else.

We have a long way to go yet both in making higher education more accessible to the general population and in providing the kinds of postsecondary services that will meet the broad and changing demand. Access to colleges has not changed materially from the picture given by Warren Willingham in his study of 3 years ago, and there are still large sections in various States which have no free-access higher education. Too, the simple availability of college services won't help a lot of people unless the programing is restructured.

Title X offers the steps, and the support, to help close both the availability and the programing gaps. We would like, with your permission, to include at this point in the record two resolutions that AACJC's Commission on Governmental Affairs adopted at our 1973 National Convention.

Mr. O'HARA. Without objection they will be entered into the record at this point.

[The resolutions referred to follow:]


Whereas, more than 50% of the students enrolled in the two-year colleges could be eligible for the Basic Educational Opportunity Grants provided by the Education Amendments of 1972;

Whereas, the community and junior colleges now serve almost 50% of the Blacks enrolled in college programs and serve an equal or greater percentage of the Chicanos:

Whereas, the community colleges serve equally the students pursuing both career and traditional studies;

Whereas, some 70% of the students attending the community colleges come from family incomes that average $10,000 or less annually;

Now therefore be it Resolved That, on behalf of the nation's two-year colleges, the Commission on Governmental Affairs of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges asserts vigorous support of the Student Financial Assistance Programs provided in the Education Amendments of 1972, and commends the Congress and the Administration for their support of these programs. Be it further Resolved That the same Commission urges Congress to adopt the President's requests for funding the Basic Grants at $622 million for the current fiscal year (to aid students enrolling in the coming academic year) and $959 million for the following year; and further urges that Congress, while heeding the 1972 Amendments and the requirement that existing programs be funded first. continue the funding of these programs as nearly as possible at the FY 1972 levels to ensure the orderly transition of student aid from the grant to the entitlement base.


Whereas, the Educational Amendments of 1972 have been acclaimed as landmark legislation in fostering democratization of post-secondary education by assuring access for every citizen;

Whereas, the goals of the career education concept charted by the Nixon Administration are encompassed in the Act within Title X ;

Whereas, the Congress has made clear its intent to foster continuity and articulation of the diverse educational delivery systems within each of the fifty states; Whereas, Title X would bring stronger planning of education to achieve longrange efficiency, effectiveness, and economy, as well as to harmonize national and state priorities;

Whereas, Title X would assure community-oriented and consumer-oriented post-secondary education; and

Whereas, Title X would also assure comprehensive post-secondary education within the reach of citizens regardless of residence;

Be it Resolved That the Commission on Governmental Affairs of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges urges Congress to implement Title X of the Educational Amendments of 1972 by appropriating for fiscal year 1973 $15 million for the planning functions and the establishment of the 1202 Commissions; and,

Be it further Resolved That the Commission on Governmental Affairs, AACJC, calls for the U.S. Office of Education to expedite appropriate guidelines and regulations to implement Title X, so that states can begin immediate preparation for the better utilization of federal support to colleges and students.

Be it further Resolved That the same Commission asks the Congress to provide at least $100 million in FY 1974 support for Title X-$50 million for Part A, and $50 million for Part B.

Dr. GLEAZER. Our highest concern is the student. We want him to have more learning options. We want him to have the fullest measure of academic credit and the highest degree of mobility with what he earns. The policies of the 1972 amendments which seek to rally State agencies and institutions around the educational consumer, and to bring their programs into greater harmony, are very much in the public interest, and in higher education's interest as well. In most States, we must help the community colleges and the State vocational agencies see the importance of working more closely, and get the universities to be more supportive of both. I think the committee might like to look at a survey which has just been done by John C. Mundt, director of Washington State Board for Community College Education and his staff. It gives a graphic picture of where the community colleges and vocational education are working well together, and where they are not. The programs in title X would bring much greater harmony.

That is the statement. There is also attached to the statement an exhibit from John C. Mundt, Mr. Chairman, and that concludes my remarks.

I would be glad to respond to your questions.

Mr. O'HARA. Without objection the material attached to the statement will be entered at the conclusion of your statement. [The material referred to follows:]



1. What is the relationship between vocational-technical institutes and the community college system?

2. Are we correct in assuming that the vocational-technical schools serving post-secondary students in your state have become a part of the community college system?

3. Are they separate?

[blocks in formation]

1 Technically, do not have voc-tech institutes, Regional Occupational Centers.

2 Community colleges have option of identifying as voc-tech institutes, none have chosen to do so.

3 Wisconsin has a vocational-technical system and a university system.


1. What is the relationship between vocational-technical institutes and the community college system?

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »