Page 8

The

challenged seriously for new knowledge and its applications, universities have been recognized as a national resource. success of this was demonstrated by the major contributions during World War II, in our search for new medical and health advances, and in the exploration of outer space. I am confident that we will make the same demands on higher education to produce knowledge and applications to meet the energy needs

of our society. We should not delay in moving on this involvement.

I hope that you will amend S. 991 to mandate participation of the Department of Energy in the Interagency Committee.

State

Mr. Chairman, the members of SHEEO believe strongly that the most productive public policy relating to higher education now and in the future will come from a recognized and nurtured partnership between federal and state governments. governments will continue to have the special role of providing and monitoring our collegiate institutions, public, independent, and non-traditional. There will continue to be many tough and

distasteful decisions to be made in the era of change and

adjustment into which we are moving. We will not ask that the federal government exempt us from making those decisions.

We recognize the different roles appropriate for the federal and state governments. Congress has assisted higher education and the students and publics it serves in many ways. You even strengthened the role of our state agencies with the establishment of 1202 Commissions. We believe that the states have met their obligations with the planning and coordination of programs in a way appropriate to the partnership you have encouraged.

Page 9

As you noted in your article in Change Magazine,

Chairman Ribicoff, the creation of a Department of Education will be both symbol and reality. For education, in which Americans have believed so firmly and with such proven results, the reality of institutionally strengthened leadership is obviously needed today.

There could be no better time for

the symbolism.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Dr. Robinson?

Dr. ROBINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Donald L. Robinson, Chairman of the Task Force on a Separate Department of Education, established by the American Association of University Professors.

Our association, which represents 80,000 faculty members, is already on record in support of legislation creating a new and separate Cabinet-level Department of Education.

It is my purpose today to reaffirm our commitment.

Our association supports the establishment of a new Department of Education for two fundamental reasons. First, we believe that the appropriate time has arrived for more effective coordination of Federal education programs. Hundreds of Federal education programs affecting almost all Americans have been created as a result of congressional action. Billions of dollars are appropriated each year by Congress for those education programs. The appropriations are spent by almost every department and agency of the Federal Government. We agree with the late Senator Hubert Humphrey that it is necessary to have "a more efficient mechanism for the coordination of these numerous programs in a sensible, workable, and effective framework.” We believe that a Department of Education will provide the framework necessary for effective coordination of all Federal education programs.

Second, we believe that the establishment of a new Department. of Education will strengthen the national commitment to education. The present period is one of conflicting priorities in a society acutely aware of its limited resources.

It is essential to recognize that education is a major source of national benefit and is a primary component of a national policy designed to assist those who wish to enter the mainstream of American society.

As President Carter has pointed out, by 1980 80 percent of all jobs will require education beyond the high school level. We believe that a separate Department of Education will focus sharply on the educational needs of people in the context of a rapidly changing society and economy.

It is that intensive concentration on education as a national resource which makes a Department of Education both desirable and

necessary.

What are the assumptions upon which legislation should be written? Basically we think there are four considerations.

First, most of the major education programs of the Federal Government should be brought together under a single agency which must be held accountable for both budget and program.

Second, the new Department of Education should have the full authority to coordinate all Federal education-related programs through an effective interagency body operating at the Cabinet level. Third, the purpose of the new Department should be to stimulate improvement in the quality of educational instruction, scholarship, creative artistry, and the management of educational programs and institutions.

Fourth, the new Department should recognize and strengthen the Federal-State-local partnership in education. The uniqueness of that partnership should include the pluralism of American education, the existence of strong and autonomous colleges and universities committed to sound governance and academic freedom, and sensitivity to the educational needs of many different types of students.

At the present time, AAUP is not committed to any single piece of legislation, or to any particular proposal specifying the programs and agencies to be included in a new Department of Education. We will want to comment on the administration's proposal when it is presented to this committee in April.

In the meantime, we would prefer to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the programs included in the several bills currently under consideration by this committee.

In particular, we want to match the programs to their relationships with the classrooms, students, teachers, and research. We are inclined toward a Department of Education which is much broader in scope. than the current Education Division of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

We are more certain, however, about one aspect of the structure of the new Department. We believe that the legislation should be revised to provide for three or four Under Secretaries to administer the programs in basic education, higher education, vocational education, and for intergovernmental relations.

I would welcome your questions and I hope we can be of further assistance as you continue your deliberations.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Thank you. I have a few questions I think could be answered by either one or all of you.

There are some in the higher education community, and you are all part of it, who tell us that they don't have very much communication with the HEW Education Division at the present time and that many of their interests really lie elsewhere in the Federal Government. I mean your interests are different than HEW.

If this is the case, would a Department of Education be more useful to the higher education establishment than what we have at the present time?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Senator, if I could comment on that, I think that is where the importance of FICE comes in and the authority it has to coordinate programs throughout the Federal Government.

It is true that the higher education community has had more interest in other programs elsewhere in the Government than in the Education Division. But at the same time the need to coordinate the relationships across the Government still remains very acute, and, as I said, we identified as one of our guiding principles in reorganization. Let me just cite an example I think symbolizes the need for not only upgrading the structures but for better coordinating the whole Federal effort.

Two years ago the previous administration in its budget request to the Congress proposed the elimination of the GI bill and for elimination of educational benefits under social security.

Now it so happens that at that time those two programs were the largest, the two largest Federal programs for aid to students. At one fell swoop the budget proposed to eliminate that.

So we looked over the budget for the Office of Education and found no increase. Student aid was held level. We called the Commissioner of Education and asked him how this could be justified, cutting out the two largest student aid programs that the Federal Government operates without any increase in existing programs. His answer was, "I didn't realize those recommendations were in the budget."

Now I might say that almost the same thing happened last year with the present administration. There was a proposal for phaseout of the GI bill and reduction of educational benefits under social security, without any kind of increase in the student aid programs which would adjust to those reductions.

So I think that is one comment on the need for better coordination of programs which are outside of the Department.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Does anyone else want to make a comment ? Dr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ally myself with the comments made by Mr. Saunders. We could come up with numerous examples of problems that are created for higher education.

For example, in the State of Ohio, our most rapidly growing part of the higher education budget deals with the education of persons engaged in the health professions. There is a variety of issues that are raised by Federal legislation and Federal programs dealing with health that impact the institutions of higher education in Ohio.

We need the advantage of having someone such as a Secretary of Education who would be willing to discuss with the Secretary of Health and Welfare the results of some of those activities, and we think that it is imperative that we find strength of leadership working with all of the agencies of the Government.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Dr. Howe, Dr. Robinson, would you like to comment?

Dr. Howe. I would like to give one more brief example just to demonstrate what the gentlemen have been saying. That is, our institutions, at least 950 of them, are what we call comprehensive community colleges, which means they have a rather extensive, maybe 25 percent to 75 percent, head count enrollment in occupational education.

Most of the funding for those programs comes from the Department of Labor or through revenue sharing down to the State vocational departments.

In the case of an administrator or president or any functionary in a community college it is necessary to deal with the Department of Labor with regard to funding for the occupational portion of the program and, with a mixed student body, also with HEW.

It seems to me there might be a slight imbalance if one is communicating with a Cabinet-level department and also with the Office of Commissioner of Education. Probably the funding needs are very similar.

Chairman RIBICOFF. Do you want to comment?