2. That the Board of Directors authorize the Institute of Church and Society to develop a program to make the Council's position known and to mobilize the moral resources of the Council and the member churches of the Washington Area to support and assist the enactment of H. R. 7395 in the Second Session of the 89th Congress. Respectfully submitted. M. C. MAPES, Jr. Unanimously approved by the Board of Directors of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington, Friday, January 14, 1966. VIRGIL E. LOWDER, Executive Director. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Hon. JOHN L. MCMILLAN, Chairman, District of Columbia Committee, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to bring the enclosed letters to the attention of the District of Columbia Committee, so that their views may be taken into consideration when hearings on this legislation are held. Very sincerely, CARLTON R. SICKLES, M.C. SILVER SPRING UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, Representative CARLTON R. SICKLES, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. SICKLES: At its April 19th meeting the Session of the Silver Spring United Presbyterian Church voted, without dissent, to express its support for the establishment of a public four-year liberal arts college and a public two-year community college for the District of Columbia. Specifically we understand that Senate bills S293 and S1612, and House Resolution H. R. 7395 provide for such public institutions. In taking this action the Session endorsed the prior resolution of the Presbytery of Washington City on this subject and is urging the members of the Silver Spring United Presbyterian Church to add their individual support to this attempt to fill an important need of the citizens of the District of Columbia. With this letter we urge your support. Sincerely, TRACY K. BOYER. Hon. CARLTON L. SICKLES, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. ADELPHI, MD., May 6, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN SICKLES: The following resolution has been passed by the Executive Board and the members of the United Church Women of Northern Prince George's County Council and want it on record that such resolution has been sent to you. Resolution That the United Church Women of NPGCC whole heartedly support the action of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington in vigorous support of pending legislation now before the Senate and House of Representatives on the establishment of a publicly supported community (junior) college and a four year college of liberal arts and sciences in the District of Columbia. Sincerely yours, Mrs. RICHARD L. WALKER, Secretary, Northern Prince George's County Council, United Church Women. Mr. DOWDY. We will have another hearing as soon as possible. This hearing is now adjourned. (Thereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.) AUTHORIZING A PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, AND A PUBLIC VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1966 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Dowdy presiding. Present: Representatives Dowdy and Nelsen. Also present: James T. Clark, clerk; Hayden S. Garber, counsel; Donald Tubridy, minority clerk; and Leonard O. Hilder, investigator. Mr. DowDY. The committee will come to order. We will proceed with the continuation of the hearings on the bills to establish a public community and vocational college. First we want to make a part of the record a statement of our colleague, Mr. Mathias. He sends word he could not be here today but wanted his statement to be put in the record. (The prepared statement of Mr. Mathias follows:) STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES MCC. MATHIAS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to express to you my full support of H.R. 16958, to authorize establishment of a public community and vocational college, and a public college of the arts and sciences, in the District of Columbia. In the early days of our Republic, many leading Americans predicted that the new National Capital would become not only the proud seat of the Federal Government, but also the cultural capital of the United States. As we know too well, this prediction has been only partially fulfilled. Today the District of Columbia, rather than leading the Nation in offering educational enrichment, actually lags behind most States and most cities of comparable size. It is regrettable that, in a decade in which Congress and the executive branch are fully committed to spurring the growth of higher education, the District of Columbia still lacks an adequate public college or university. Hence, I am very pleased that this subcommittee has taken this initiative, and hope that we will act this year to end the denial of full public higher education to the citizens of Washington. On June 27, 1966, to express my strong support for the creation of a Board of Higher Education, I introduced H.R. 15966, a bill based on the 1964 recommendations of the President's Committee on Public Higher Education in the District of Columbia, and first introduced in the House on April 13, 1965, by Congressman Multer of New York. 71 I am not, however, wedded to the language of that bill. After reviewing H.R. 16958, I find that it clearly implements the principles shared with earlier legislation, and, with one proviso, give it my support. At present all of the 50 States, plus Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, have public institutions of higher education offering baccalaureate degrees. Washington alone does not. We are all aware of the great inadequacies of the District's only public college, District of Columbia Teachers College, and we are also aware of the important contributions which an expanded and rejuvenated teachers' college could make as an integral part of a comprehensive liberal arts college. Both my bill and H.R. 16958 accordingly would incorporate the present the present District of Columbia Teachers College into a new 4-year college, at great potential benefit both to prospective teachers and to students of the arts and sciences. A comprehensive public community college is essential to fill the needs for advanced technical training, preparation for continuing undergraduate education, and adult education and retraining. Each of these needs is growing in the District as the demand for skilled employees continues to rise, and as more and more jobs in the Washington employment market require not only specialized technical knowledge, but also basic abilities in reading, mathematics, and communications. The great success of public community colleges in Maryland and other States has proved beyond a doubt the merits of institutions which can provide, to full-time and part-time students alike, the advanced vocational training and strengthened education they demand. Mr. Chairman, I have only one reservation concerning H.R. 16958. This relates to point (1) of section 4, which provides that both colleges shall be located on the same campus. While the advantages of physical integration of the two colleges, in terms of facilities, personnel, and programs, are obvious, I am not certain that there is an appropriate site in the District which could embrace both colleges, including adequate campus open space, without even initial crowding. Since vacant acreage in Washington is so scarce, since the demand for land for housing is so great, and since the need for future expansion of both colleges cannot be overlooked, I would prefer to leave the site question open, and solicit recommendations from the Board of Higher Education after a full survey of the possibilities has been made. The need for public higher education in Washington today is incontestable. Far too many young men and women of the District have no chance for education beyond high school, simply because they cannot afford the tuition and fees charged at private institutions. in the District or at public institutions in surrounding States. Also, the competition for admission to these colleges is so tremendous that many average Washington high-school graduates could not gain entrance even if they could afford to pay. The establishment of public institutions in Washington would fill this gap, and would provide District residents with the higher educational opportunities enjoyed by their counterparts in every State. A public 4-year college and community college, cooperating closely with each other and buttressed by the wealth of talent available in our metropolitan area, would enhance our capital city and enrich the lives of its citizens. As the President's Committee so wisely declared, "The most urgent educational need in the District of Columbia is hope." By approving H.R. 16958 this year, this committee and this Congress can provide that hope. Mr. Dowdy. The first witness on my list is President Robert L. McKee of the Northern Virginia Community College representing the American Association of Junior Colleges. STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. MCKEE, PRESIDENT, NORTHERN VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE Mr. McKEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe you have a copy of my testimony. Mr. DowDY. Yes, we have a copy, and if you wish I will make it a part of the record, and you can brief it for us. Mr. MCKEE. Yes. I think it might save time. I could summarize some of the main points and then, if you have some questions, answer them. The first part of the testimony deals with the comparisons between northern Virginia and the District of Columbia in the way of a need for higher education. It is particularly interesting to note that the situation in the District of Columbia today, as far as the higher education needs go, is very similar to that 3 years ago in northern Virginia where there was something like a million population and no community college and no public senior institution. Today we have a community college in its second year of operation, and a university, George Mason University, in its third year of operation. The enrollment and growth have been fantastic in both these institutions, and the long-range plans for both of them envision five campuses for the community college and one very large campus for the university. The total land is something like 1,000 acres devoted to these two institutions. The community college in its first year of operation served 1,800 students. After just a summer to establish the college, something like 100 days to create the college from zero, no staff, no institution, and so forth, and then in the second year we are expanding the first campus, building a second one, and planning three additional campuses, which gives you a little idea of the dynamics and the need for this type of an institution in northern Virginia. It is also interesting to note that 80 percent of the enrollment, 80 percent of our staffing, deals with the occupational programs, the vocational, technical, semiprofessional type programs. Twenty percent of the institution's enrollment is involved in the transfer-university parallel-type program. This is quite different from many of the community colleges in the Nation. In fact, our focus is almost the reverse, where we are trading on the occupational programs rather than concentrating on the liberal arts academic transfer program. We started with rented quarters and, at the same time, started to build a second campus, a permanent campus, and I would think that maybe most of my testimony here might deal more with what could happen here in the District of Columbia under the proposed legislation. I think both bills are very similar, and I believe that the intent is quite clear, and I might talk a little bit about what type of an institution could the District of Columbia have under the proposed legislation. In doing so, I would like to take just a moment to review the time schedule of Northern Virginia Community College, because I think it has some interesting relationships with what might be a potential time schedule for the District of Columbia. I believe it would be possible, actually, to have a community college in operation here in the District of Columbia a year from today in rented quarters while, at the same time, simultaneously building a permanent campus, and to review the time schedule that allowed us to do about the same thing in northern Virginia in 1964, when the general assembly passed legislation establishing a technical college system in the State of Virginia. In January, the seven jurisdictions petitioned for a college in northern Virginia. In February 1965 the technical college was approved. In March 1965 the board of trustees was appointed. April 1965 the president was appointed. May 1965 the president took office; and then from June to September of 1965, this is a period during which the college was established, the staffing, the faculty, the curriculum, the publishing of brochures, catalogs, interviewing of students and remodeling of rented quarters, all were done in 3 months. Classes began September 1965 with 1,000 students, 7 occupational programs. This is something double what we had expected to open with in the way of enrollment. In November, 6 weeks later, we dedicated the college; Governor Harrison dedicated the college in November 1965. December 1965 was the second quarter and our enrollment almost doubled again in the second quarter, and we remodeled again to take care of the enrollment. In March 1966 legislation was passed in the general assembly changing the technical colleges to community colleges. A comprehensive system of community colleges was established in March in the general assembly, in March 1966. Also in March we purchased a 77-acre tract for $1 million, and this was our second campus, and also, at the same time, in May, April-May, we established and approved a master plan which allowed us to expand the present rented campus, construct a $12 million second campus to serve 4,000 full-time day students and 8,000 part-time students for a total of 12,000 students in the second campus and then the master plan calls for the purchase of sites and establishing three additional campuses, making a total of five. During the summer, June, July and August, there was extensive work done in the curriculum development, in the expansion of the first campus, and starting to break ground for the construction of the second campus. In September 1966, today, we are enrolling approximately 2,500 students. We would expect to serve about 3,300 students during this year. This is in the second year of operation. Mr. DOWDY. As I understand your testimony, this is a vocational junior college. Mr. McKEE. Yes. Mr. DOWDY. That is about what it amounts to. |