funds, as you well know, is funneled through the State department of education. Mr. TAFT. At the present time, the university then is not controlling the content, scope, and quality of the program? Dr. HARRIS. Of vocational education. Mr. TAFT. Yes. Dr. HARRIS. No. Mr. TAFT. That is what I wanted to know. You don't feel, then, that you would be giving up anything in turning this content, scope, and quality and so forth in vocational education, insofar as these funds are concerned, over to the Commissioner as provided in the bill? Dr. HARRIS. Well, I haven't been discussing vocational education as such this morning. I have been talking about semiprofessional and technical education at the college level. The entire area of vocational education hasn't been under discussion this morning, and it was not my intent to discuss it. Mr. TAFT. Perhaps I am in error in expanding it into that field. Let's talk about the technical. Dr. HARRIS. At the college level, semiprofessional technical education as defined in this bill? Mr. TAFT. Yes. Dr. HARRIS. Then what is your question, specifically? Mr. TAFT. Do you feel that the authority given the Commissioner, under this bill, to determine content, scope, and quality would interfere with the determination of that content, scope, and quality by the university administering the program? Dr. HARRIS. Well, the university doesn't administer the program. But let me answer your question. I do have a feeling that perhaps this committee and various other committees of Congress may want to look pretty carefully into this particular recommendation with regard to the technical education bill. I notice title II, section B, the community college section of this, where it is stipulated that those funds would be funneled through a State department or some cognizant State agency whereas, in the technical education section of the bill, no such State agency is mentioned. I would urge this committee and other committees who study it to think that problem through rather carefully. I think there are some advantages, perhaps, to funneling such funds as might become available under the technical education section of this bill also through the cognizant State agency. But far be it from me to tell this committee or the Congress how it should be done. I merely say that I would urge you to give some consideration to that manner of distribution rather than the setting up of a commission here which would deal directly with every technical institute or every community college or every such institution all over the United States with regard to distribution of such funds as might become available. Mr. TAFT. It is true, is it not, that some States have set up their own programs for going into this area? Dr. HARRIS. Yes. Mr. TAFT. And prescribing their own standards and their own programs? Dr. HARRIS. I think there is some argument to the point that you raise, that, for one thing, a greater sense of State responsibility could result, and I have forgotten who it was who was addressing that point a moment ago, but I am in favor of this. A greater sense of State responsibility might result from this, if the Federal funds were made available for the technical education section in the same manner in which they are stipulated to be made available for the community college section. Mr. TAFT. Thank you. Mrs. GREEN. My apologies to the gentleman from Ohio. I had no intention of depriving him of his chance to direct questions to the witnesses. May I also say that if the recommendations in the bill which his father introduced in the late 1940's, had been favorably acted upon by Congress, we would not have quite such an urgent need for a crash program in 1963. The gentleman from Minnesota directed a question to you, Dr. Wilson, in regard to the priorities and the needs of higher education, Without any objection from the commitee, I would like to have unanimous consent to insert in the record, following that question, the study which was done by the American College on Education. I have forgotten the exact title of that. It was sent to our offices about 2. weeks ago. Dr. WILSON. You mean the American Council's proposal? Mrs. GREEN. Yes. Dr. WILSON. Yes; we would appreciate very much having that. It is entitled "The American Council on Education Proposes a Fed-eral Program to Develop Higher Education as a National Resource, and the short title is "Higher Education as a National Resource." Mrs. GREEN. Dr. Wolfe said that this request was made the first day, when I was not here. If it was not, then it will become part of the. record. Mr. Low, in regard to libraries, we hear a great deal about the explosion of knowledge. Somewhere I have read that technical information materials double every 10 years, I believe, and that general library materials double every 25 years. Is this an accurate statement? Mr. Low. The implication is not wholly accurate. That is a geometrical rate of progression that ultimately would not hold, but it has held during the period since the end of the First World War. Obviously, you can't keep up that kind of progression. But it is true for the period that we have just gone through, of the tremendous explosion of knowledge that has been coming about, and the tremendous amount of materials that libraries have had to consider in attempting to acquire a reasonable portion. Mrs. GREEN. In view of this tremendous increase, a question to Dr. Heard and to Mr. Low. I believe, at Vanderbilt University, you have a cooperative research library, with four other colleges in your area. Does this offer possibilities in other areas of the country, that if colleges who were in the same geographical area pooled their resources, they might have a better research library, especially at the graduate level, than any one of the universities might have by itself? Dr. HEARD. I think this is unquestionably true. The experience is: the university center, as we call it in Nashville, in which three institu 94173-63-38 tions take part-Vanderbilt, Peabody College for Teachers, and Starret College has been very successful, and unquestionably the resources available to the three institutions are much greater than they otherwise would have been. The benefits from this kind of cooperative approach are not confined to institutions that are adjacent to each other, as is true in Nashville. We have found in North Carolina-the proximity of Duke University to the university at Chapel Hill being 12 miles-we have found that joint library development there, cooperative library development, has been very effective, and there has been some division of work in the development of research materials. There is very felicitous and swift interchange from one library to the other. Now, the one thing I think we have to keep alert to is to permit flexibility in the kind of cooperative relationships that can be developed. My observation is that each of these situations is unique. It is very difficult to anticipate a pattern of collaboration that would work effectively in all such situations. In some cases you may have to set up separate institutions; in others a simple working relationship among institutions already there would be best. I have, and will deliver to your office, a copy of the trust indenture that sets up the joint university library in Nashville. That will show you the formal organization of that arrangement, which may be of some interest. Mrs. GREEN. Thank you very much. We have 3 minutes before the House is in session. Does any member of the committee have a burning question which he would like to direct to one of the members of the panel? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I have no burning questions. Mrs. GREEN. Do you have a question? Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I hate to waste even 3 minutes, Madam Chairman, if you would grant me the time. Mrs. GREEN. Proceed. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to ask Dr. Heard about the graduate programs which he feels are so urgently needed. Dr. Heard, you mentioned that a grant program in your opinion is necessary to increase adequately the supply of skilled personnel. I thoroughly agree that grants are necessary, and I would hope that we would get them. What I would like to know is how adequate you think the proposed grants would be in meeting the problem which you have sketched in your testimony. Also do you consider that the development of grants is going to result in a transitional program with the Federal Government phasing out, or do you anticipate what Mr. Low evidently anticipates, that the Federal program is going to be the first step in an ever-increasing and ever-continuing Federal program? Dr. HEARD. Well, I suppose your experience is that it is difficult for Federal programs ever to phase out. I suppose that is evident. With the present proposal in this section of the bill-$40 million the first year and unspecified sums subsequently-I don't know what this might be. Let's say it is $200 or $250 million that might eventually under this proposal be made available. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is that what you anticipate would be a reasonable Federal contribution? Dr. HEARD. Well, I am trying to guess at what might result from this bill. Now, let's hold that figure for a moment, a quarter of a billion dollars. If you try to estimate what the needs will be for just plant construction, for space, I suppose that as good a guess as any is that you are talking about $1 and $2 billion. The best figures I can locate refer to the costs of space per graduate student, an additional graduate student, to be in the neighborhood of $7,500 to $10,000. This includes hopefully an estimate for all kinds of space that would be needed. Well, I don't know how many graduate students we would count on adding, but if you add 100,000 or 200,000 graduate students you are talking about $1 or $2 billion in additional construction costs in the next 10 or 12 years maybe. And if the Federal sum here were a quarter of a billion, and if that was a matching sum, that brings you to a half billion dollars. So there is probably some gap there. Now, how much of that could we expect to get from other sources, State, local government, and private sources, I don't know, but I think this would be a very helpful and useful starter. It would certainly stimulate, I think, the flow of funds for these purposes from other sources. I really am not sure whether it would be sufficient in the end. Mrs. GREEN. I would like to direct two questions. If they could be in writing, then the answers will be made a part of the record. One, concerning the projected enrollment figures. Are the figures that we have projecting an enrollment increase from the present 42 million students to 7 million accurate? And then for those of you who represent private colleges, or I would say all of you, representing private and tax supported colleges, if loans only are provided, will this result in an increase in tuition and fees from students? What are the tuition costs now, what are the projected tuition costs, and would grants make a difference in the charges to the students? Because we are concerned about the needy students who can't now go. Is there any other question from the committee? If not, I would ask unanimous consent the statement by Mrs. Charles Hymes, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, be made a part of the record. (The statement follows:) STATEMENT BY MRS. CHARLES HYMES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN, INC. I am Mrs. Charles Hymes, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, which is an organization of 123,000 American women belonging to 329 affiliated groups in every part of the country. Most of us are mothers and grandmothersall of us are keenly concerned with giving our own and every American youngster the best possible start in life. This has been one of the major objectives of our organization throughout its 70-year history-a history of day-to-day activity by our members to help meet human needs through direct service and informed social action. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee today to express the support of the National Council of Jewish Women for the comprehensive program of Federal aid to education proposed in the National Education Improvement Act of 1963. For nearly two decades our organization has pressed for significant Federal assistance to public education, as essential to meet in creasingly complex education needs and to equalize educational opportunity for all American youngsters. We hope this committee will give favorable consideration to the comprehensive program of Federal aid provided in H.R. 3000 "to meet selected and urgent neds of American education on all levels." Since the major experience and interest of our organization, has been in the area of public elementary and secondary education; this statement will be directed to the need for Federal aid on this level of schooling, which has been a primary concern of council for many years. The position or resolution of the National Council of Jewish Women on education, which directs our efforts in this area, stresses the importance of the Nation's public schools as the place where the all-important foundation of the future is built-for every child and for the entire Nation. Stating our belief "that American democracy depends on a strong system of public education," we pledge ourselves "to promote improved educational standards and expanded educational opportunities in order to develop the highest potential of the individual in our society; (and) to work for a higher level of financial support for public education by supporting adequate expenditures *** by State and local governments * * * Federal aid to public education (and) by urging reappraisal of the basis of financing public education with a view to providing the increased financial support needed to meet modern educational needs." There is no need to repeat here the facts about the growing proportions and increasing complexity of the job which our public schools must do in the years just ahead. These have been pointed up by the President in his message to Congress and by many others who have made a close study of the problem. And they lead to the same conclusion which we have come to as a result of the efforts by our members in many communities for greater local and State support of their public schools, as well as our study of the problem in its national dimensions. This conclusion is: The States and localities alone cannot continue to carry the financial burden of modern education. We agree wholeheartedly with the President when he says: "The Federal Government * * has clearly not met its responsibilities in education." We in the National Council of Jewish Women are not experts in financing or taxation problems. But we are deeply concerned about the inadequacies and shortages we have found in our public school systems. Looking into the problem of how the cost of public education is paid for today, we have found these (to us) startling facts: Over half the revenue for public schools comes from the localities, about 40 percent is paid by the States, and only 4 cents of the public education dollar comes from the Federal Government. Yet over two-thirds of all the taxes we pay is collected by the Federal Government. The limited tax sources of States and localities obviously cannot continue to provide the money we must have to pay for the rising costs of education. It becomes ever more clear to us that only with significant Federal assistance can our public schools move toward closing the gap between the enormous tasks they must do and the inadequate job they can now afford to do. I would like to give some examples of activity by local units of the National Council of Jewish Women in various parts of the country to improve the public schooling offered to the children of the communities where they live. Through these activities, our members strive to make some contribution to strengthening their public schools. At the same time, this firsthand knowledge of school problems and of gaps which we try to help fill graphically points up for us the inescapable and mounting need for greater nationwide support to improve American public schools. In recent years a number of our local groups have directed their efforts particularly to help raise the educational level of children of deprived income and family background. To mention a few examples of such activity: Council volunteers in several communities in New York's Westchester County are offering tutoring services in the public schools to help some of these children keep up with their school work and to raise their reading level. In Louisville, volunteers are working in the classrooms of one school in a low-income area as tutors in remedial reading. Council members here in Washington serve in a project called Adopt-A-School as volunteer teacher's aids who conduct reading hours, arts and crafts and dramatic groups, assist in the school library and on field trips. Tutoring services and study centers are made available in other communities by council groups during afterschool hours for children who cannot get the help they need with their homework or have no quiet place to study in their noisy, overcrowded homes. |