entitled "Why Toby Can't Go to College?" made available to us by the D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education. With the help of neighbors, husbands and school age children we distributed over 40,000 hand-bills. Later, with paper donated to us by a Washington, D.C. paper company and moonlight printing contributed by a Dunbar High School college preparatory student who learned printing in her father's basement printshop, we were able to distribute 30,000 UNIDOC-ACTION fact sheets. May I say that the 26 year old mother of 2 pre-school children volunteered her printing services after working 12 hours in a local printshop. She stated that her parents were not able to send her to college after high school graduation and that had there been a city college in 1957 she may have been able to support herself and two children in a more "lady-like" field. With the hope that our efforts would yield a better future for her children. She began hand setting the type at 11:00 P.M., printed 30,000 copies by 4:00 A.M., and reported to work at 7:30 A.M. Members of UNIDOC have spoken before church, civic, social and professional groups. We have also spoken before the D.C. Board of Education, and the Community Action Assembly for Better Public Schools. We would like to have stated in the record that the citizens of the District of Columbia are concerned about higher education and have resolved to urge the House of Representatives to pass the bill for a 4 year college and a 2 year junior college for the District of Columbia with an amendment calling for a full university which can confer Master's Degrees and Doctor of Philosophy degrees and which may be expanded to include schools of pharmacy, dentistry, medicine and law. Gentlemen, members of UNIDOC and the many friends we have made during the past 6 months feel that every effort should be exerted in appealing for a University Complex located on the National Training School Site. This is the only site in the District of Columbia which would allow for the expansion, which is inevitable, of a Washington City University. Thank you very much for allowing UNIDOC to make testimony to the fact that there is strong sentiment in the District of Columbia for tax supported higher education. Hon. JOHN DOWDY, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION, INC., Chairman, Subcommittee No. 4, Committee on District of Columbia, U.S. House of DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I submit herewith twenty-five copies of a statement on H.R. 16958, a bill now under consideration by your Subcommittee. I will appreciate it very much if you will make my statement a part of the record of the hearings on this important legislation. If our Association can provide information that will be helpful to you in formulating legislation, we will be most happy to have you call on us. Thank you very much. Sincerely yours, LOWELL A. BURKETT, Executive Director. STATEMENT OF LOWELL A. BURKETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VOCATIONAL ASSOCIATION Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Lowell A. Burkett, Executive Director of the American Vocational Association. We are a national professional association of teachers, supervisors, administrators, and others interested in the development of vocational-technical and practical arts education. We believe that vocational education is, and should continue to be, an important segment of both public and private education in America. Our Association exists to foster, promote, and strengthen these beliefs, and to provide those services which will aid in achieving for the American people a sound program of training for occupational competency. Before addressing myself to specific provisions of the bill now under consideration, H. R. 16958, I would like to set forth some very basic principles which we hope will be helpful to this Committee in establishing a publically supported vocational-technical school for the District of Columbia. First, I commend the Subcommittee for holding these hearings on what we believe is most important legislation. We hope that you will bring to passage legislation to provide more opportunities for vocational-technical education for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I am sure you have had witnesses attesting to the need for expansion of this type of education, and I only want to add our voice to theirs by emphasizing that our Nation's needs for skilled manpower will only be met by greatly expanding and improving vocational-technical education programs of all kinds and at all levels. Secondly, we would point out that vocational-technical education is a specific kind of education in that it is designed for the purpose of preparing individuals for employment. Good programs are characterized by the fact that the teacher knows first-hand the skills that he or she is teaching, and in addition, the vocational teacher has expertise in techniques and methods of teaching. Equipment should be up to date, and should be of the type that will be used by the student when placed in a job. Adequate vocational counseling and testing are crucial to the success of individuals enrolled in vocational programs. Next, I would like to point out that good vocational-technical programs operate under a variety of administrative patterns and in many different types of educational institutions. All States have a State Board for Vocational Education responsible for administration of funds for the vocational programs: The Board of Education in the District of Columbia serves in this capacity. Ideally, there is much inter-action among other educational boards and agencies within a State; however, ultimate responsibility for vocational programs rests with the State Board for Vocational Education. Quality vocational-technical programs are provided in high schools (both vocational and comprehensive high schools), community and junior colleges, colleges and universities, area vocational schools, technical institutes, manpower skill centers, and in private schools and in industry. Good vocational programs will involve school and college administrators, representatives of business and labor, management, agriculture, and with other agencies and groups concerned with employment of people. It makes no difference which educational institution offers occupational training if the underlying philosophy is such that the program results in giving to the individuals the occupational skills and competencies they need. Mr. Chairman, we would raise some questions concerning the administrative provisions of H. R. 16958: 1. What relationship will be established between the Board of Higher Education, to be created under this Act, Section 3(a), with the already-established Board of Education? The presently existing board administers other Federal/ State funds for vocational-technical education to institutions within the District of Columbia. Would the presently existing Board of Education be by-passed in the proposal now under consideration? 2. What are the admission requirements for students to the vocational-technical education program of the proposed two-year program? 3. Section 2(b) provides for a "two-year program which is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor's degree or for a degree of association in arts." Is this in keeping with the presently existing vocational education Acts? 4. If the public community and vocational college proposed in this bill are located on the same campus, how will the determination for reimbursement be made on such matters as utilities, physical plant upkeep, supervision of students, to determine whether funds come from higher education acts or vocational education acts? 5. What representatives will compose the Board of Higher Education established in this proposed legislation? Will representatives from business, labor, management, and persons knowledgeable in the field of vocational education be represented? 6. Since the intent of a community college is different from a vocational school, how will this comparative analysis be made and evidenced to the students who enroll at the institution proposed in H.R. 16958? 7. Will all work done in pursuit of a vocational program be fully accredited toward a Bachelor's degree? 8. What safeguards have been built into this legislation that would prevent a duplication of effort by the existing Board of Education within the District of Columbia and the proposed Board of Higher Education in this bill? 9. Should a new agency or board be created to administer vocational education programs within the District of Columbia? 10. Will this institution be located in a strategic place so that the bulk of the population in the D.C. area will be able to take advantage of the education and training offered? 11. Has any consideration been given to the transportation problem confronting students? 12. To what extent do you invision that the institution proposed in HR 16958 will be involved in adult education? What about those without high school diplomas? What about high school students? Those who have college degrees but wish to upgrade themselves in current practices and techniques? These and other questions should be carefully considered by the Committee since the administration of such institutions with have a direct bearing on its effectiveness as an educational institution to meet the needs of all the people in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman we raise these questions not in opposition to the proposed legisistion but in an effort to encourage the Committee to study the administrative aspects of such an institution and clearly define the lines of authority as well as to work with or through existing agencies. I appreciate the opportunity of presenting these comments regarding H.R. 16958. STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON BRANCH OF AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN, SEPTEMBER 21, 1966 The Washington Branch of the American Association of University Women is keenly interested in higher education. For over three years our branch has studied and discussed the question "What kind of higher education for the District of Columbia?" We find that the present college facilities are inadequate for the needs of the community, and hence we strongly favor a four-year public Liberal Arts College and the two-year Community College as provided for by H.R. 16958 now being considered by your Committee. We concur in the view that Washington, D.C. has excellent higher education facilities, as provided by American University, Cathore University, Georgetown, George Washington and Howard, and the D.C. Teachers College. The fact re mains, however, that of the 4,154 publie high school students graduating in 1965 who had completed college preparatory courses, only 69 graduates entered George Washington University, and 51 entered American University. Howard, with its lower tuition fees attracted 381, 134 entered D.C. Teachers College for specialized teacher training. The other Washington colleges draw too small a number of local public high school graduates to consider 4 at Catholic University and 5 at Georgetown University). An informal check by our Branch with the staff in the counseling service of the local high schools indicates that an additional estimated 500 youth would have attended college in 1965 if a suitable low cost pubiie college were available. This does not include an estimate of graduates from local parochial and private high schools who might also have attended such a college; nor does it take into account the many young Government workers who come here from all parts of the country and might attend a public liberal arts college on a part-time basis. Figures compiled by the American Council on Education show that the cost of attending our local universities, with the exception of Howard, is more than the national average for private colleges and universities. To cite but one er ample of the increase in higher education cost in the District-- in 1936 the e of attending American University, tuition, board and room, was $1,280 Tow years later the cost was $2,350, an increase of nearly 84 per cent. Undemably, the cost of higher education is a very significant factor in keeping qualified cent dates from D.C. high schools from attending college. The U.S. Office of Education estimates that there will be over three million ligh school graduates in the United States in 1971 as compared with two milio Po hundred two thousand in 1964, and that nationally there will be a rà per we increase in college attendance by 1974. There will be no problem of exitope competing for students. The problem here, as elsewhere in the country wit to have enough facilities to care for all who should go to college 11 hungryMA D.C. needs the facilities to meet the local demand. As stated in the topove vi v President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the Proace ite bia ***. "None of the five universities in the District address part to District residents. None of them is in a position to extend any pin a vantages to residents of the District, and each feel it to have a manual rather than a local mission." These local colleges were Hamucal and mob national student body, restricting local enrollment to keep a wyspareupat buat any In considering the need for public higher education Pictime for the Party of Columbia, the proposal has been made that it would be able PA H Not more scholarships for D.C. graduates rather than maintain a college here. all youth who should go to college are necessarily scholarship material. believe that education today must be given to more than to those who can afford to pay for it. In advocating a liberal arts college, we stress that the arts and humanities are important. Young people entering the adult world today need a broad education. We know that there are shortages of teachers, librarians, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, welfare workers, and the medically-trained and for many others. Youth are trained for a national and international job market in our colleges in American today. A four-year Liberal Arts course is now a prerequisite for education for many professions. Adaptation to many new situations will be required by tomorrow's adults. We are equally aware of the need for a Community College where young people of the District can get technical education which will immediately prepare them for the increasing numbers of opportunities for the person with semi-professional training. While we would support any bill that provided for the type of education we have described above, since the District is not now in a position to elect a board, we prefer to see a bill which provides for a Board of Higher Education to be appointed by the judges. The need for a broadly based local public college seems clear to us. Young people who are moving from a culture with low educational expectation must have low cost locally available education in order to meet their level of motivation. They need an easily available education of high standard which will enrich not only their lives but contribute to their greater vocational development and fullfilment. The social and economic benefits of the fully developed potential of these young people are obvious to us, and, we hope, to the Congress. EVELYN MURRAY, Area Representative for Education. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, GENTLEMEN: The District of Columbia Education Association strongly urges that the members of this committee and the 89th Congress act favorably on H.R. 16958, a measure to authorize the establishment of a public community and vocational college and a public college of arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. Low tuition costs in state colleges and universities are available to young people living outside of the District of Columbia. It has been noted that the annual tuition charge for private colleges within the District of Columbia is more than $1,000. Seniors from four high schools stated that they could not afford to pay the $525.00 annual tuition charged by Howard University. The prohibitive cost of education in the established colleges in the Washington area presents a barrier to many of our city's youth. The present colleges and universities in Washington, D.C., also have student bodies which are national and international in scope and all of these institutions are over-crowded. These institutions, therefore, cannot meet the local needs of our high school graduates by enrolling all who are eligible to attend. The District of Columbia needs better facilities for higher education to meet the increasing demand. It needs to provide this higher education at a nominal cost. A two-year public community and vocational college and a four-year public college of arts and sciences are needed now to insure that all eligible young people may obtain the type of education which will insure a future free from economic need for themselves and to provide skilled employees and professionally competent personnel for our city and nation. We desire to end the waste of human potential in Washington, D.C. President Johnson stated that "Higher education should be made a universal opportunity for all young people-the Nation's Capital should set the pace, not lag behind. The Congress has abundantly demonstrated its concern with education and I hope that the proposed bill will receive its prompt and favorable consideration." Provisions in H.R. 16958 which provide for the transfer of the District of Columbia Teachers College and for the protection of the rights and benefits of the faculty at the time of transfer are satisfactory. The present District of Columbia Teachers College, with its able faculty, has been operating under great handicaps in its present obsolete buildings-both of which were erected more than fifty years ago. The present institution (and its two predecessors, Miner Normal School and Wilson Normal School) has proven its worth through its contribution to the thousands of young people who have received their higher education within its halls, whether in its two, three, or four year programs. The present college and its predecessors has been the major source for the recruitment of teachers for the classrooms of the D.C. public schools. More modern facilities and an expanded educational program are needed now for our future teachers if they are to be prepared adequately to meet the problems of a big city school system. It is hoped that the financial provisions contained in this act will be made available without delay so that the necessary site may be secured and construction of the colleges begun. It has been suggested that the site of the National Training School in N.E. Washington be considered as a possible location for the new colleges. Favorable action on H.R. 16958 will provide the same opportunities for higher learning to D.C. youth as are now provided within the respective states. The new facilities will open doors for training those who can best profit from higher education among our high school graduates. A four-year college of arts and sciences and a two-year community and vocational college for the District of Columbia are most urgently needed. Respectfully submitted. ELIZABETH D. GRIFFITH, Executive Secretary. Mr. Dowdy. If anybody has any statement that he would like to file, it will be made a part of the record if brought in this week. The hearings will be closed. (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned.) (Subsequently the following statements were received for the record:) AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE, INC., Washington, D.C., September 16, 1966. Hon. JOHN DOWDY, Chairman, House District Subcommittee No. 4, House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN DOWDY: The American Veterans Committee (AVC) appreciates this opportunity to file a statement of strong support for public higher education, both for a college of arts and sciences and one or more community colleges. May we call to your attention one aspect of our testimony of special interest to this organization and not generally presented by other organizations—the need and desire for higher education by our newest veterans, who in great numbers should turn to a public institution. Thank you for placing this statement in the committee's record of the public hearings and statements. Yours truly, FRANK E. G. WEIL, American Veterans Committee. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN VETERANS COMMITTEE (AVC) GENTLEMEN: The American Veterans Committee (AVC), the Washington, D.C., chapter, strongly endorses the proposed legislation to establish broad public higher education for the voteless citizens of the District of Columbia. Several years ago the National Board of AVC, meeting at a quarterly session in New York City, also endorsed the concept of a public university for the Nation's Capital. AVC holds no reservations now in supporting both the four-year liberal arts college and the community college, recognizing that the city will continue to have well prepared teachers from a division of the four-year liberal arts college. The American Veterans Committee (AVC), an organization of veterans of both World Wars and the Korean conflict, holds as its guiding principle-"Citizens First, Veterans Second." In the instance of broad public higher education, we conclude that both the citizen and the as will benefit greatly from |