We are here to talk about a very large and important problem which continues to confront a relatively small number of students, some 15,000 to 20,000, who for a variety of reasons, choose to select a independent proprietary institution, rather than a public or nonprofit institution.

Accredited proprietary business schools are responsible members of the education and training community. These schools are actively solicited by Government, business, and industry to supply graduates and to carry out a host of training and educational programs under contract.

Earlier this morning there was some reference to the need for medical secretaries, legal secretaries, aides, clerical help of that type, and schools of our type have this opportunity for training of young

women.

Some of the examples of contract training include the MDTA. UBSA itself has contracted with HEW to carry out a second, a followon program for the training of some 600 enrollees in 10 States for institutional costs of about $471,000. We are just finishing our first program for 550 trainees.

Because of the specific vocational motivation of students in business schools our files amply reflect solicitation of our graduates by industry, many Federal agencies and the U.S. Civil Service Commission itself. The new junior Federal assistant position is but one example. We would be glad to supply copies.

The Pennsylvania State scholarship program provides ample precedent for inclusion of business school students in the opportunity grants

program.

Particularly we want to emphasize that it is aid to the student only which governs all of these programs involving accredited proprietary schools. We are not asking for aid to institutions.

Today, there are a variety of specialized Federal programs designed to aid students and in all of which the principle of eligibility to attend accredited proprietary schools is long established. We have attached as an exhibit a list of some 20 programs showing benefits to war orphans or social security dependents and other programs. However, we feel that needy students in accredited proprietary schools are discriminated against, because they are currently ineligible to participate in the three major programs designed for needy students; namely, the national defense student loans, educational opportunity grants, and work-study programs.

The only broad-based across-the-board program for which they are eligible today is the guaranteed loan program. It should be noted, however, that work-study and guaranteed loans, as Commissioner Howe pointed out to this subcommittee in these current hearings, are complementary programs.

Most students enrolled in accredited proprietary business; trade and technical schools "come from families of a lower income socioeconomic background." They have access only to this guaranteed loan program. However, that is primarily for the middle-class student. Our statement today is narrow in scope because of the limitations of time and our desire to spotlight the present exclusionary language of the educational opportunity grants, national defense student loans

and work-study programs. We endorse and support S. 3098 but would prefer to deal solely with the present denial of aid to needy students in accredited proprietary schools.

A small percentage of the total student population feel that they are better served by getting an education in their community at an accredited proprietary school. We have exhibits attached which support this through surveys and studies made by the Stanford Research Institute, which discussed the proprietary school operations, and gives evidence of the students' feelings toward choosing that type of a school over a public school.

In 1964 this committee took an important first step. The NDEA student loan program was made available for the first time to students in a limited number of nonprofit business schools accredited by the Accrediting Commission for Business Schools. In your Report No. 1275 of July 31, 1964, this committee said:

Accredited business schools generally fulfill the major requirements of collegiate education by offering a post-high-school program for high school graduates under quality standards of education. They provided terminal courses of study which produce qualified personnel available to industry and society. Approximately 20 percent of the students in accredited business schools have enrolled after having one or more semesters of study in 4-year colleges or universities. This amendment will make it possible for such students to continue their educational program in a terminal course at an accredited business college or technical institution. The potential skills and abilities of young people will be conserved rather than lost by means of this amendment.

We feel the trust reposed by this committee in business school accrediting procedures was well founded and has been honored. We now ask the committee to take the remaining logical step and make this same program available to needy students in accredited proprietary schools.

Senator MORSE. I am going to interrupt at that point, Professor Green. I find myself in sympathy with much of what you have said. I do think there is evidence of discrimination here, as you have pointed out. I want to assign to counsel of the committee, preparation of a memorandum.

IMPORTANCE OF STUDENT CHOICE

Counsel should take this testimony up to the present point. He may add to it as Mr. Green proceeds, but I want a memorandum from counsel advising the committee as to what changes may be made in the law to work out a program which is feasible at the present time, in bringing needed assistance to these young people in proprietary schools.

We say a great deal about how we are going to carry out an objective of educational opportunity for all young people, giving them the opportunity to develop their talents and their potential, but I think too often we overlook the matter of choice which the student is entitled to exercise, and sometimes they can best determine for themselves where their opportunities fall, and if they decide that their opportunities can be best satisfied by proprietary school education pro

grams.

I want to say to counsel, as he knows, these programs should be student oriented, student centered, but if the assistance goes to stu

dents in accredited proprietary schools, you are dealing with the school that has the competency to give the student the type of training that he seeks. Then I think it is only fair and right that the program be broadened as far as feasible, I will say something about the word "feasible," in a moment, to get underway with the type of program that President Green is talking about.

When I say feasible, President Green and Mr. Fulton, may I say I am including feasible from the standpoint of what you can get passed legislatively. You spoke about the step we took before. It was in the direction of what the chairman is talking about now. But certainly may I say to counsel I should think that in this bill we may be able to get language in it in which we can take a few steps to come to the assistance of these students. That is my general attitude about your testimony, but you go ahead and complete it now.

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Senator Morse. On the beginning of our printed testimony, in no way did we anticipate the gracious request you have made to counsel, but we have a suggested amendment of changing just four words at page 46, line 11, of S. 3098 which would allow just what you have suggested. We thank you very much.

We would like to make it very clear that we are not asking this committee to make a value judgment or a choice between the relative inerits of independent versus public education. All we are asking is that you open up an additional avenue of opportunity for some needy students who, from our experience, we know can be well served in accredited proprietary schools.

Your bill proposes to consolidate the administration of the three programs of financial aid to needy students which I have been discussing. Furthermore, under the proposed new definitions limited to part A in section 410, at page 46 of the bill, the measure already recognizes the needs of students in accredited proprietary schools insofar as it proposes to give them this freedom of opportunity with respect to the work-study program. We ask you to grant these students the same freedom of opportunity for the educational opportunity grants and the national defense student loans.

This provision is admirably drafted so that it can continue the distinction between aid to students-including those in accredited proprietary schools and aid to the institution itself. Clearly what we seek here is to aid students only.

Consistent with the purposes which I have just cited, what we urge today is that the definition at page 46 at line 11 be expanded, as suggested in our written statement and as illustrated in the attached exhibit.

In summary, we are asking this committee to open up access to educational opportunity grants, national defense student loans, and the work-study program for students in accredited proprietary schools. We feel this is completely consistent with the stated purposes of the measure itself, the testimony of the Commissioner of Education, and the education message of the President. We thank you for this opportunity to express our position.

Senator MORSE. I am the one who should do the thanking. Thank you very much for making this record. I am glad that you have given counsel for the committee an assignment to carry out, and I am sure that he will give us a very good report.

The record should show that Mr. L. Clay Spencer, president-elect of the association, is with us. Mr. Fulton or Mr. Spencer, do you wish to add anything to what President Green has said?

Mr. SPENCER. No. It was covered as far as we like. We appreciate your comments very much.

Mr. FULTON. Thank you, Senator Morse.

Senator MORSE. Thank you very much. The last witness will be Mr. George T. Cody, division of social studies, Cleveland public schools. I thank you for your patience. You have been patient all morning.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. CODY, DIVISION OF SOCIAL STUDIES, CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, CLEVELAND, OHIO

Mr. CODY. Thank you, Senator. At the time we talked, I was very interested in Senate Bill 1126, and also in Senate Bill 3098. I wanted to present some of the nitty-gritty problems as a schoolteacher, as someone who feels the effects ultimately of all Federal programs.

First of all, let me say this, if I may. I would like to make some general comments and then some comments regarding some of the problems that I have heard and have dealt with myself as a teacher, having an experience dealing with students, both in the inner city, having taught all levels of school, from the Hough area of Cleveland to the outlying areas.

Senator MORSE. Your formal statement is a very brief one, and I suggest you read it.

Mr. CODY. May I?

Senator MORSE. I think that is better than summarizing it.

Mr. CODY. All right.

My purpose in appearing before your subcommittee today is to express strong support for S. 3098 introduced on March 5, 1968. My oral presentation will be as brief as possible so as to permit ample time for me to answer questions raised by members of this subcommittee regarding my testimony on this piece of legislation or other matters of educational concern.

Specifically, my testimony will center upon title IV-student assistance or the "Educational Opportunity Act of 1968" (part C) and title IX-"The Networks for Knowledge Act of 1968" and some comments regarding congressional approval of the Education Professions. Development Act of 1967 (EDPA: Public Law 90-35).

EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1968

It is important for us to remember that one of the reasons why the Federal Government is involved in education is due to the fact that many State and local governments are unable to meet the educational demands placed upon them by its citizenry. One of the greatest demands of society and the Nation today is the need for a proper education. It is essential for the well-being of America's future and the future of the world that all economic barriers that prevent students from attending institutions of higher learning be removed.

It is through higher education that professional and technical, and skilled labor are trained. If our youth are not provided with these

necessary skills through adequate higher education they will be forced into the unskilled labor market where employment opportunities will be severely limited, and where many will become the objects of Government spending on all levels through relief programs, which we hopefully hope to eliminate.

In my judgment, the most exciting part of this act is the Statement of purpose and part C, section 441 (409)-Special services for disadvantaged students. It is truly a meaningful attempt to reach the human within American society. After all should this not be the purpose and essence of any program? Bearing these things in mind I strongly urge that this subcommittee and Congress adopt the Educational Opportunity Act of 1968.

NETWORKS FOR KNOWLEDGE ACT OF 1968

If recommended for approval by this subcommittee, and passed by the Congress, the "Networks for Knowledge Act of 1968" can serve as the needed vehicle for bringing about a major breakthrough in closing the communications gap among institutions of higher learning. For the first time State and local educational agencies should be able to turn to the Commissioner of Education and ask:

What is happening in colleges and universities around the country that we should know about that will help improve the quality of education in our school systems?

Eventually the left hand will know what the right is doing. New and exciting educational developments should be shared and made available to those desiring to know. Education has no boundaries. Because of its intent and potential significance for further meaningful educational developments the Networks for Knowledge Act of 1968 should become the law of the land.

Finally it is indeed both an honor and a privilege to present testimony before the Senate Education Subcommittee that was so instrumental in securing passage of what I feel will become a historic piece of legislation ranking with the National Defense Education Act of 1958, the Higher Education Acts of 1963 and 1965, and other related acts in terms of importance: The Educational Professions Development Act of 1967. I had some serious reservations, and quite frankly, I still do, as did Senator Peter Dominick (S. Rept. No. 363, pp. 7-9), about permitting title XI of NDEA to expire on June 30, 1968. This program, because of my experiences and in-depth involvement with the NDEA institute and scholarship programs in Cleveland, has proven to be an effective instrument to help promote professional growth in the teaching profession. However, after careful study, evaluation, and discussions with administrators of the provisions in part D in title V my apprehensions have been alleviated. I think the noncategorical approach will prove to be even more effective because it is more comprehensive. If the $117 million that has been authorized is appropriated, and I hope it is, and if local and State educational emphasis in administering the program is maintained this could well turn out to be the major turning point in education legislation in the United States. It is my strong belief that if something is educationally desirable it should be made administratively possible. Henry S. Čommager, at scholar and respected historian, has said:

93-989-68-pt. 4- -20