HIGHER EDUCATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1976 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 2261, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Brademas presiding. Members present: Representatives Brademas, Chisholm, Mottl, Hall, Quie, and Buchanan. Mr. BRADEMAS. The Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education will come to order for the purpose of further consideration of legislation affecting postsecondary education. The Chair would observe that the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of this subcommittee, is also a member of the important Budget Committee of the House and must be attending a meeting of that committee this morning and has asked that I preside, which I am very pleased to do. We shall look forward first to hearing from Mr. Newton Cattell, STATEMENT OF NEWTON CATTELL, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL RELA- Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I would 65-609--76-32 I tion Act. The responsibilities that are assigned to the council in section 111 of the act relate to advising the commissioner in the preparation of general regulations and with respect to policy matters arising in the administration of this title and to review the administration and effectiveness of all federally supported extension and continuing education programs, to make recommendations with respect thereto, including recommendations for changes in the provisions of this title and other Federal laws relating to extension and continuing education activities. Our testimony that we would like to present this morning and have become a part of the record I believe has been made available to you, but we also would like to have two of our members report to you very briefly in connection with several of the significant points of that testimony. First of all, perhaps I should introduce some of the other members of the council who are here this morning. In addition to the two members of the council who will be speaking, we have Dr. Allen Commander, who is the vice president for public affairs of the University of Houston, Tex.; Dr. Charles McDougall, who is the Deputy Administrator of Operations of the Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Weston Clark, who is Training Specialist, Procurement and Management Assistance for the Small Business Administration; and Preston Valien from the U.S. Office of Education. First of all, we would like to have Mrs. Crassweller, who is one of our most active members of the council speak to you this morning in connection with some of the outstanding features of the title and the record of its performance. Mrs. CRASSWELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I would like to add my thanks to you for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you today to testify on behalf of title I of the Higher Education Act. As you know, on March 31 of this year the members of the National Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing Education submitted to you the results of our evaluation of title I. Today, I would like to share with you some of the highlights and conclusions of this evaluation. First of all, title I's focus is problem solving. The resources of colleges and universities are being used to generate local responses to local problems. Because of this local orientation of the program, we have found that program diversity and flexibility are strong characteristics of the program. Our evaluation cites many examples to show that problems like drug abuse, law enforcement, housing, land use, and environmental protection are best handled at the local level. I have two charts that I would like to show to you today. The first chart identifies the problem areas that were being addressed by title I projects in 1974. I am going to give you just a moment to look at the chart. Reading from right to left you can see the Mr. BRADEMAS. If you will allow me to interrupt, would it be helpful if we put it on the easel? Mrs. CRASSWELLER. You can see-I am going from right to left-you can see the breakdown: Public administration, women, elderly, youth, community education, others and basic ethnic problems, and a wide variety of other programs as well. Second: Another major focus of title I is to encourage and support the participation of educational institutions in local problem-solving efforts. Since the inception of the program, one-half of the Nation's colleges and universities have participated in title I projects. The second chart I would like to show you today identifies the kinds of institutions involved in the program. You will note that large State and land-grant institutions have always played an important role in the program. But you will also note that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of smaller 2-year institutions in the program. Our research demonstrates clearly that many of these smaller institutions participated in community service and continuing education activities for the first time as a result of title I. Our research also shows that many larger institutions expanded their activities in this area and in new ways-as a result of title I. Third: Title I is essentially an urban program. Over the last 8 years, 60 percent of title I funds have supported projects in urban and suburban areas; 10 percent of the funds have supported rural projects and the remaining 30 percent have supported regional and statewide projects. A supplementary study by the council also indicated that 71 percent of the projects considered outstanding by State agencies were urban projects. Fourth: Title I is also a cooperative program. No successful project could occur without strong local participation. One measure of local responsiveness to the program is the local willingness to match the Federal dollar requirement. All of our information indicates that local institutions have consistently overmatched the Federal requirement. I would like to refer you to pages 38 through 70 of our ninth annual report "Equity of Access" and pages 49 through 82 of our evaluation report for a breakdown. In still another study by the council of 85 projects, we could not help but note that 60 of these 85 projects had been generated by institutional faculty, with the remaining 25 projects being generated jointly by institutions and local communities. Perhaps this does suggest the need for a more concerted effort to involve community groups in the initiation and development of projects. Fifth: Because of the mechanics of problem solving, time is an important factor in achieving successes. When local institutions are involved in these problems, often for the first time, this statement may be even truer. In an examination, for instance, of 25 1972 projects, where it was determined that a successful impact had been achieved, the average duration of the project was 3 years. When urban problems are the specific focus of the projects, the projects may last longer, some up to 5 years. Sixth: Finally, Mr. Chairman, when the Congress asked the council to undertake this evaluation of title I, the Congress expressed a special interest in the means by which successful projects could be expanded and replicated. The council has recommended to you five major ways to do this. Briefly, they are: (1) Demonstration projects funded under section 106 of the act; (2) authority to expand and replicate successful USOC continuing education programs; (3) an improved technical assistance role for the national title I office; (4) improved State planning and evaluation procedures; and, (5) better coordination with other community service and continuing education programs within the Office of Education. Mr. Chairman, our council has a very positive view of the title I program. Through this testimony, and with the materials we have and will submit to your committee, we hope we will succeed in communicating that view to you. Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much. Mr. HUNTER. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Newton O. Cattell, director of Federal relations for Penn State University and chairman of the National Advisory Council on Extension and Continuing Education. Mr. CATTELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe our testimony has been introduced for the record. I want to present you with some highlights of it. I have some spontaneous comments that I would like to read because if I ad lib them, they would go on longer than my written testimony. If I may, very quickly. Title I has been the law of the land for 10 years. Our council has exercised its legislated responsibility to advise the commissioner on "policy matters arising in the administration of this title" also for 10 years. Because of the recently completed evaluation that Mrs. Crassweller reviewed for you, we know more about the program than we ever knew before. Our council is convinced that our major recommendation must be enacted into law. If we fail to convince you and your colleagues that we must change the administrative climate for title I, we will have failed to discharge our responsibilities to the law, to our colleagues in postsecondary institutions, and to the people of American communities who should be served better by title I. In preparing our testimony for this subcommittee, we had three considerations in mind. First of all: The title I program is successful. We have evidence of of that and we are making no recommendations that would alter the substance of the program itself. Second: The title I program will thrive only when the administrative climate is changed from one of malign neglect to one of active support. It is time for title I of the Higher Education Act to become a true continuing education title-not just a community service title. I am going to hope you agree with our first consideration-that we should not change the community-service program itself. Therefore, I will concentrate my remarks on the second two: administration and the law. I want to summarize the administrative problem we hope to correct: Each year the administration proposes to the Congress that the program authorized by title I be discontinued. Coincidental with the submission of its budget proposal, the administration begins taking the steps necessary to termintae the program. This, despite the evi |