Senator MORSE. Our next witness will be Mr. Carl J. Megel, Washington representative of the American Federation of Teachers. He is accompanied by Dr. Israel Kugler, president of the United Federation of College Teachers, New York State AFT Council. We are delighted to have both of you gentlemen with us. Dr. Megel is an old friend of this committee. He has been before us before.

Proceed in your own way, both of you. Your statements are short. Why don't you read them?

STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO; ACCOMPANIED BY ISRAEL KUGLER, PRESIDENT, UNITED FEDERATION OF COLLEGE TEACHERS, NEW YORK STATE AFT COUNCIL

Mr. MEGEL. Mr. Chairman, in view of the time, I want to say before I proceed that it is a great pleasure for me to appear before this subcommittee. I have said many, many times that Senator Morse is the greatest friend of American education in America. I cherish as a rare privilege, during the time I was president of the American Federation of Teachers, in behalf of that organization at our convention in Philadelphia in 1961, to have presented to Senator Morse a citation for meritorious service to American education. It was a great privilege, and I cherish it as a high point in my career.

Senator MORSE. You are very kind, but anything I accept, I accept on behalf of this entire subcommittee. The subcommittee is responsible for the progress we have made in education legislation. But really the thanks should go the other way. In behalf of the subcommittee I do thank you for the great help you have been to us.

Mr. MEGEL. Mr. Chairman, my name is Carl J. Megel. I am the director of legislation of the American Federation of Teachers, a national, professional union of more than 150,000 classroom teachers affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Our organization embraces more than 760 teacher locals, 82 of which are college, university, and junior college locals. Appearing with me this morning is Dr. Israel Kugler, president of the United Federation of College Teachers, New York, Local 1460 of the American Federation of Teachers, to supplement my remarks.

Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Kugler must get a plane back to New York, I am at this time stating that we support this legislation, and ask that my statement be inserted in the record. May I now present Dr. Kugler and ask him to present his views.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Megel follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL J. MEGEL, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Carl J. Megel, I am the Director of Legislation of the American Federation of Teachers, a national, professional union of more than 150,000 classroom teachers affiliated with the AFL-CIO.

Our organization embraces more than 760 teachers locals, 82 of which are college, university, and junior college locals. Appearing with me this morning is Dr. Israel Kugler, President of the United Federation of College Teachers, New York, Local 1460 of the American Federation of Teachers, to supplement my remarks.

We are here this morning to testify in support of S. 3098, a bill cited as the "Higher Education Amendments of 1968." We do so, however, with mixed emotions.

While we support the general provision of the bill, we regret that it does not contain the higher education expansion that is so necessary. Throughout our Nation, today, irresistible forces are producing social, moral, economic, and political changes which almost defy human comprehension. In the absence of ready-made answers as to how to cope with these forces, education is most frequently espoused as the solution. Accordingly, education assumes a new sense of urgency and with this the need for a new basis for evaluation. In this context, the proposed legislation fails to meet the emergency.

It calls for re-enactment and extension of existing higher education aid programs which are due to expire in the near future. The Educational Opportunities Act of 1968 calls for a consolidation of existing student loan, scholarship grant, and work-study-aid programs designed to help college students pay for the cost of their education.

In this connection, the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders in the education section of its report recommended:

1. Re-orientation of vocational education, emphasizing work experience, training and the involvement of business and industry; and

2. Expansion of opportunities for higher education through increased Federal assistance to disadvantaged students.

We concur with these recommendations. The increasing cost of higher education is readily apparent. The student loan programs should be liberalized and supplemented with a grant-in-aid program to disadvantaged students with ability. Unless we do so we will develop a nation in which only the children from affluent homes will receive an advanced education.

Additionally, the proposals to increase assistance for graduate students and to establish a "Network for Knowledge" to encourage colleges and universities to share facilities and information are both worthy programs.

The proposal to provide $15 million for tutoring and counseling the illprepared and economically deprived students in order that they may avoid dropping out is also to be commended. The Upward Bound program of the Office of Economic Opportunity has given many of these deprived young men and women inspiration to attend a college or university. Sustaining efforts to keep them in the institution of higher education are essential and worthy. Yet, none of these programs begin to provide for today's needs. While most of the proposals provide advancement, a reduction of $500 million in funds for construction of higher educational facilities is most regrettable. The goal of eliminating all financial barriers to a college education should receive priority as this higher education legislation is prepared. However, we must have quality facilities ready for these students when they enroll. We consider it to be highly impractical to enlist and encourage higher education enrollment if inadequate facilities exist, which would only further deteriorate educational opportunities. We strongly urge the restoration of the cut in funds for construction.

Perhaps the most optimistic note in this year's higher education legislation is the President's proposal to develop a long-range plan for general aid to higher education. He has asked the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to complete such a plan within the year, and we in the American Federa tion of Teachers heartily endorse this proposal to develop a new strategy for aid to higher education.

For many years the American Federation of Teachers has supported Federal aid to education at all levels in order to raise the quality of education and to make it a top national priority. The consolidation of the various programs into one act will be helpful. However, the President's program which emphasizes loans to students, construction of facilities, and research grants mainly to graduate schools must be supplemented with increased aid to the undergraduate and non-scientific graduate areas which will generally go towards the improvement of curriculums, faculties, quality of texts and materials.

Most of us generally agree that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's Title I formula for grants to the states to raise the general standards and quality of education has been successful. Perhaps, a somewhat similar plan for aid to higher educational institutions would be equally successful.

Many small but potentially good colleges and universities need money. However, they are often left out. The humanities, the arts, the social studies are areas that would certainly be strengthened by a general Federal aid program.

In addition, we also endorse the other objectives of a new strategy for aid to higher education which would:

1. Eliminate race and income barriers to college;

2. Preserve the independence of private and public institutions;

3. Ensure that states and private givers continue to bear a fair share of support for higher education; and most of all

4. Encourage efficient and effective use of the nation's education resources. We are pleased to have the opportunity to appear before this Committee. We commend your efforts to advance educational opportunities in our nation. We are here again today to place strong emphasis upon further expansion to meet America's present and future educational needs.

Mr. MEGEL. We are delighted with the new ideas that are proposed in this legislation. We support the expansion of the various programs, and the consolidation of the student aid program. These are helpful. We must assure that all students with ability can obtain a college education.

The network for knowledge, the tutorial programs, the long-range planning are excellent, but none of these proposals begins to meet today's needs. Especially do we deplore the reduction in the funds for higher education construction facilities.

It is unwise to encourage young people to go into colleges and universities, if we do not have facilities to provide for quality education when they arrive. Now, Dr. Kugler, who is very close to this problem in New York, can expand upon it. I would like to have him do it in his own way.

Senator MORSE. He may, but I want to put your full statement in the record first. I understand the statement and I want every word in the record. Thank you very much for it.

Dr. Kugler, you may proceed in your own way.

JOHN DEWEY AWARD

Dr. KUGLER. Thank you, Senator Morse. I would like to also preface my brief remarks by reminding you of our elation in granting you the John Dewey Award a few years ago before the 50,000 teachers of New York City.

Senator MORSE. You are very kind to me, and I appreciate it very much.

Dr. KUGLER. I, myself, have not only the 20 years of experience in teaching at City University, in New York University, from the community college to the graduate level, but, in my activities in the United Federation of College Teachers, I have a knowledge of acquaintance with the day-to-day problems that do affect college teachers.

And so I come to you this morning entirely in accord with the worthwhile objectives in the bill, but I do say that the basic problemand I think that your remarks in that lecture before the law seminar backed this up-that the basic problem lies in the fact that the bill does not constitute meaningful planning in terms of funding and execution of adequate resources, facilities, and staff to meet the burgeoning enrollment implicit in the new ideal of universal higher education.

I may remind the Senator that it was under President Truman's administration that there was a Commission on Higher Education that proclaimed that ideal well over two decades ago, and we are far from realizing that ideal.

We need a reordering of priorities, in order to implement these worthwhile objectives, and I know what happens when you jam thousands of students into inadequate facilities.

"OPERATION SHOEHORN"

At the City University of New York, the administration euphemistically called it "Operation Shoehorn." It meant that even today we have "briefcase professors" without desks or offices. We have professors without secretaries or telephones. We have physics labs in subbasements. We have chemistry laboratories in subbasements. And this was the scene where Dr. Jonas Salk got his undergraduate education.

We see more and more the mass lecture, the depersonalization, the lack of the transactional process between student and teacher, the neglect of the undergraduate.

To emphasize enrollment opportunities and to neglect the human and material resources which would assure a quality education, is to compound the current cultural lag of societal dislocation in higher education.

When this was brought to the attention of Commissioner Howe by Mrs. Green, he said, "Well, that will only increase the gap by 2 years between facilities and enrollment." This may be a national statistic, but it is a current disaster in terms of actual practice.

To read the daily newspapers, "The Chronicle of Higher Education," you see a rollcall of States, and their inability to meet their current needs of higher education. For example, in our own State, Mayor Lindsay of New York City said that if he was not going to get adequate State aid, that he was going to cut the budget of the City University of New York by $30 million, and in translating that, he said that would mean we would not be permitted to allow any more students to come into the City University. We would have to increase workloads, which are already very burdened.

On the State level, Governor Rockefeller cut $50 million from the requests for the State University. I saw a table of figures, where various colleges throughout the country asked for certain funds, in terms of what they needed for facilities. What they were granted was $320 million less than what they required.

FREE TUITION PROPOSAL

Now, we are extremely pleased with the objectives of this bill. All of them, I think, are extremely worth while. In particular we, as a Socially responsible organization of professional educators, are concerned about the opportunities for the disadvantaged youth. And I would like to raise the sights, perhaps, of this committee to think about some particular proposals.

I would like to have an appropriation of Federal funds to match whatever resources States and cities have, so that all public colleges and universities can have a tuition-free status.

If I may say so, free tuition is merely the surface of the iceberg of educational costs. It was estimated, for example, that in 1967 the total budget for an individual student ranges from $1,215 a year for a community college student to $1,671 for a 4-year undergraduate college student. And if we were to remove, at least in the public in

93-939 -68-pt. 4-19

stitutions, the cost of tuition, we would permit many more families to envisage the hope that their sons and daughters can make it in higher education.

For our very poor, for our disadvantaged, I would propose that we have an appropriation so that all high school graduates from our poverty areas would receive stipends equal to the Federal minimum wage of $1.60 an hour. Now, these high school graduates are not always the best material for work-study programs. As you yourself mentioned, Senator Morse, when you were a student you would have been a better student, had you had the time to devote yourself to the law studies, completely free from the burden of outside employment. When we get students with academic deficiencies, from povertystricken areas, we find that most of them cannot afford to spend any time in work-study programs. They need to devote most of their time to studies, to being in contact with tutors, remedial programs and the like.

"SEEK"

We have in New York City a program called SEEK. This is an acronym for the search for education, enlightenment and knowledge. I am happy to say that this program was initiated by our organization, and it was taken over by the City University. It is the only program, to my knowledge, where high school graduates from poverty areas, who don't have academic diplomas, who may have vocational high school diplomas and general diplomas, and high school equivalency, receive some modest stipend, so that their families can permit them to go to college, instead of going to the streets unskilled, and compound the hopelessness that afflicts our ghettos. I was at a meeting of parents of these children, and what a wonderful thing it was to listen to their feelings of aspiration. When these students return to the ghetto, they become new culture heros, rivals to the mugger, the addict, and the other individuals who are ruthless and objects of social disorder.

Certainly, when we think about the costs-the social costs that represent the alternative-in welfare rolls, in prisons, and in all sorts of rehabilitation-it is much better to do this on a preventive basis than to meet those social costs and destruction later on.

In connection with that, the SEEK program, the City University needs $10 million for that program. The Governor was not willing to give more than four. And yet for all of that, in the appropriate title in that bill before you, there is only for this year an appropriation of $15 million for the entire country. I think it is absolutely shameful. And so, with those two proposals, I think that perhaps we can set the sights of the committee on what we have to do. We need planning, but more than that, we need execution of these plans, and we need the funds to do it. We have to reorder our priorities, in order to accom plish this.

I plead with the members of the committee who I know are very sympathetic to this, that the college teachers in our organization and throughout the country are very eager to see that these objectives are fulfilled, not in some distant, long-range plan for the distant future, but as quickly as possible, and not in any haphazard manner. I think we have to devote and concentrate our resources on this,