the trend would indicate expenditures in 1965-66 of $1,675 and $715 respectively.

Income from student tuition and fees in 1963-64 nationwide amounted to 14.4 percent of current educational and general expenditures in public higher education institutions in the United States. If students paid the national average for public institutions of oneseventh of educational and general expenses, the student 4-year cost for the college of arts and sciences would be approximately $960, which would be $240 per year, and the 2-year cost for the community college would be approximately $400.

I respectfully call to your attention the information appearing previously in my testimony concerning tuition charges in the District of Columbia.

The U.S. Department of Commerce figures on direct expenditures of State and local governments for education, by per capita income for 1962, show a national per capita personal income of $2,367; for the District of Columbia, $3,211.

In this same year, the District of Columbia had a higher per capita income than any State in the country. For the Nation as a whole, the amount per capita devoted to direct general expenditures for education was $117.97. For the District of Columbia, it was $74.07. Expenditures per capita for higher education as a percentage of personal income per capita were 4.99 percent for the Nation and 2.30 percent for the District of Columbia.

Let me emphasize the point that nationwide the average State contribution per capita for higher education in 1963-64 was $28.87. In the District of Columbia the contribution to higher education per capita was $2.26. I might add that in the neighboring States of Maryland the comparable figure was $2.23, and in Virginia it was $19.40.

Senator MORSE. Could I ask one question about another figure? I think these figures you have on pages 14 and 15 of your statement are of vital importance to this hearing. You have a U.S. Department of Commerce figure on direct expenditures of State and local government for education per capita in an amount in percent of per capita incomes for 1962; national per capita personal income of $2,366, and for the District of Columbia, $3,219?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.

Senator MORSE. Do you have any figures since 1962?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. I think we have figures we can present for the

record.

(Information requested follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION Comparison by State of personal income per capita and expenditure for higher education per capita

1 Survey of Current Business July 1965, vol. 45, No. 7. Table 2, p. 11, U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Business Economics.

2 Governmental Finances in 1963-64, May 1965. G-GF 64 No. 1. Table 21, p. 46, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

Senator MORSE. I would like to have the committee staff cooperate with you if you do not have the figures. Maybe you can obtain them if they are not now in existence. Do you suppose this difference may be due to the fact that there is such a substantial amount of Federal employment in the District? Are the Federal figures included in that average?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Oh, yes. These are the figures for personal incomes in the District including people who are employed by the Federal Government and are residing in the District.

Senator MORSE. This gives the District of Columbia a very high percentage of Federal payroll incorporated in any calculation of per capita area; does it not?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. Yes.

Senator MORSE. You check me on this because I was not aware of this very interesting figure. As far as the children of the Federal employees are concerned, whose average annual incomes would be substantially higher than the $3,219, it would be reasonable to expect that the larger percentage of their children would go to other institutions of higher learning, either in or outside of the District of Columbia and that on the average the students that would go to the community college that we seek to establish by this bill would come from families who are below the $3,219 average?

Mr. MUIRHEAD. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that would be a very reasonable assumption and to back it up we already discussed, if you recall, the number of high school graduates going on to college from the high schools of the District. We find that in those high schools in areas of the District with high incomes, there is a high percentage of their students going on. If I recall, a high school that was located in an area of incomes above $10,000, 78 percent of the high school graduates went on; but in areas where incomes were less than $5,000, the percentage of high school graduates going on was as low as 1 percent in one of the high schools.

Senator MORSE. That is the point I wanted to make certain that we are dealing here with facts. I am interested in nothing but facts. An average of $3,219 is an average figure and you and I know that average figures have to be analyzed very carefully. Yet with an average of $3,219 there are a great many in the District that earn less than $3,219, and it is their children that this chairman is particularly concerned about in connection with this legislation.

Counsel for the subcommittee has handed me a note pointing out that the Bureau of Labor statistics survey of 1962-and the figures are that old-show that one-fifth of the District of Columbia population earns less than $3,000 a year. So we have a substantial body of our population that are in very low income brackets.

In fact in our education hearings of the Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the $3,000 figure is classified as a poverty figure. But these figures, to me, are very helpful, and I appreciate very much your submitting them. (At this point Senator Yarborough entered the room.)

Senator MORSE. Senator Yarborough, would you like to testify now or would you like to hear the page and one-half of the witness's statement before you begin?

Senator YARBOROUGH. Were it not for the full session of the Appro

stitute, and a recognized authority on science and technical education; Dr. Thomas R. McConnell, chairman, the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of California, whose experience in education includes the chancellorship of the University of Buffalo, and whose studies in the field of higher education are known internationally; Mrs. Agnes Meyer, civic leader and author, whose concern for the disadvantaged and for the advancement of education have made her a national leader, and who brought to the committee an intimate knowledge of the District of Columbia; Dr. Samuel M. Nabrit, president of Texas Southern University, who has had wide experience and national influence in many aspects of higher education, and who is a brother of President Nabrit of Howard University; Dr. George N. Shuster, assistant to the president of the University of Notre Dame, who as former president of Hunter College had firsthand experience with contributions of a public college to urban life; and Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, dean of science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and former Director, Office of Science and Technology. I should like to add, this is truly a blue-ribbon committee. Senator MORSE. It surely is.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The members met frequently, weighed carefully the needs to be met, and analyzed critically all available and relevant information before reaching the recommendations to which this bill seeks to give effect.

The committee study, among other issues, presents higher educational opportunities available to residents of the District, employment opportunities in the District, socioeconomic factors, and the numbers of District secondary school students who could reasonably be expected to attend publicly supported institutions of higher education in the District if such institutions were to be established.

Based upon its studies and upon discussions with representatives of higher educational institutions in the District and with a number of District organizations and civic leaders, the committee recommended the establishment of both the community college and the college of arts and sciences which would be authorized by the bill now before this committee.

It further recommended that public higher education in the District of Columbia be placed under the new and separate Board of Higher Education created by this bill.

ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD

The bill provides for a Board of Higher Education of from 9 to 15 members, appointed by the Commissioners of the District, after consideration by the Commissioners of the recommendations of a nominating committee. In State and municipal colleges and universities, the methods of selection of the majority of the members of boards of control in 1960 were as follows, and I have a table that can be inserted in the record.

Senator MORSE. The table will be inserted into the hearing record at this point.

(The document to be furnished follows:)

1 Appointed by U.S. circuit court judge, by city board of education, by city commissioner and board of education.

Source: Walter Crosby Eells, "Boards of Control of Universities and Colleges," Educational Records XL11 (October 1961), 338.

Mr. MUIRHEAD. The unique character of the government of the District of Columbia makes it difficult to draw on the experiences and practices in other jurisdictions for guidelines to the method of constituting the Board of Higher Education. The President's Committee recommended appointment by the Board of Commissioners from a panel prepared by a nominating committee appointed by the Board of Commissioners.

There are three major reasons for establishing a separate Board for the administration of higher education in the District.

First, the planning and establishment of the two new colleges is an enormous challenge. It will require the full effort of the dedicated citizens who will serve on the Board of Higher Education during the formative years of the new institutions. To impose this task on the present Board of Education, responsible as it is for the task of administering a huge elementary-secondary school system, would make it impossible for the new colleges to receive the attention they will require.

Secondly, experience throughout the country points up the advantages of separating the responsibility for institutions of higher education from the responsibility for the elementary and secondary schools.

In an institution of higher education, the Board generally should leave the establishment of academic standards, the planning of curriculums and the methods of teaching largely in the hands of the faculty, with the president giving guidance. The Board's main responsibilities will be for the finances of the institutions, overall planning and policies, and for the appointment of its chief administrative officers.

Both the programs and the methods of operation of institutions of higher education differ so much from those of a public school system that a separate Board has been found to be highly desirable.

Finally, it is vital that the governing board for the two new colleges be both broadly representative of the District and knowledgeable of the goals and nature of higher education, with the members selected for the wisdom and skill they can bring to strengthening and guiding the new colleges.