Hon. WAYNE MORSE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You will perhaps recall that on several occasions in the past I have written to you on behalf of this association and of its member schools urging that favorable consideration be given to amendments to certain features of the National Defense Education Act which have a particular bearing on independent schools and their teachers. I write now with respect to Senate bill 580. Representing, as we do, only one segment of education, elementary and secondary independent schools, we can speak specifically only about those provisions of the bill which are directly applicable to these schools and their teachers. At the same time, we realize, of course, that all levels and kinds of education are in need of improvement and support and we are in favor of the comprehensive approach now being taken to strengthen education through S. 580. We note with real approval the sections of S. 580 which include teachers in nonpublic secondary and elementary schools in the loan forgiveness feature of the bill (title 1, sec. 105) and in the provisions for stipends for attendance at the summer institutes (title III, secs. 301-304). This association has through formal vote of its board of directors repeatedly expressed the view that the original provisions of the National Defense Education Act discriminated against these teachers and prevented them from participation in important and worthwhile programs, and we are grateful that the discrimination has been removed in S. 580. Recognizing that the bill may be subject to considerable amendment as a result of the committee's consideration of it, we earnestly hope that these provisions will not be revised in any way which would alter the equal treatment afforded in the bill as it now stands. We note also that part B of title IV of S. 580 extends those sections of the National Defense Education Act which provided loan funds for equipment and minor remodeling of facilities for the teaching of science, mathematics, and modern foreign languages. While our association has taken no official position on this provision of the National Defense Education Act, in view of a substantial difference of opinion within the membership, we recognize that some schools have made good use of the loan provision, even though the available funds have not been fully requested. We believe more use would have been made had the original wording of the provisions of the National Defense Education Act been somewhat less restrictive. The phrase "minor remodeling" was so narrow, and so narrowly interpreted, that it amounted in fact to limiting a possible loan to equipment only, and in many cases new and additional equipment could not be made use of effectively without substantial remodeling or actual additions to existing facilities. Furthermore the interest rate was subject to fluctuation, and interest rates were, when the act first became effective, high enough so as to provide little or no advantage over those of other sources. This fact, coupled with a 10-year limit on loans was, in our opinion, a negative factor in the use made of the borrowing provision. We believe some liberalizing of the terminology coupled with a firm interest rate and a longer loan period would make this provision of considerably wider interest and effect. We appreciate the opportunity we have had in the past to present our views to your committee. May we ask that this letter be considered as a part of the record of the hearings on S. 580? Cordially yours, FRANCIS PARKMAN, President. SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: In the copy of Higher Education and National Affairs, November 7, I noted your interest in the student loan program and that you had inserted certain information in the Congressional Record as of October 10 in I should like to call to your attention two mimeographed copies of information which I have circulated over the past 2 or 3 years in an attempt to bring a little more order out of the present chaotic loan condition. I believe that if you will read them in chronological order, you will find these suggestions to be worth consideration. Note that the first piece of information was written on November 18, 1960, and circulated then. On July 6, 1962, I wrote a letter to my own Congressman, the Honorable Paul C. Jones, setting forth suggestions which in a measure reiterated statements made in the correspondence of November 18, 1960. On July 16, 1962, I mimeographed another letter which I sent along with my letter to Congressman Jones of July 6 to every Senator and Representative in Missouri and all of the States surrounding Missouri. If you will read one of the articles in the October issue of College and Univer sity Business, you will find the same complaint reiterated by the officials of several different colleges including the University of Indiana. Knowing that you are a former college teacher yourself and that you are guided by humanitarian impulses, I submit to you that some of the best teaching we can do would be to set this loan program up on a businesslike basis and insist that the people who borrow this money meet the conditions under which the loans were made and that they either earn the reduction in the loan by teaching or pay it back in good faith. The program cannot be operated as it is now set up. Different Congressmen and Senators have sent this material on to the Office of Education and I have had correspondence with those officials. Like many Government employees, they feel called on to defend the status quo rather than to seek to remedy an obvious fault. I hope that the next Congress will bring some change in this program. Very sincerely yours, Enclosures. MARK SCULLY, President. SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE, Re student loan program, National Defense Education Act. From: Mark Scully, president, Southeast Missouri State College, Cape Girar deau. Mo. To Whom It May Concern: (1) The college student loan program, if continued in the present manner, increases the clerical load and responsibility for collection on each participating college every year. It has already reached almost unmanageable proportions. (2) Schools and colleges have no revenue to finance the clerical work necessary in connection with this program. (3) In the average small bank, an additional note clerk is employed for every 250 to 300 notes made by the bank. A college of our size (enrollment of 2,700) will make about 300 loans a year. This would entail an additional clerk each year. (4) I believe heartily in the student loan program. It does enormous good and will benefit America tremendously. I further believe that the actual lending process should be carried on by the colleges. They can do the best job of lending. (5) I believe these loans should be assigned to acceptable banks for service and collection. These banks may be in the community where the college is located, but preferably they should be banks in the communities from which the student comes so that the task of collection may be dispersed. The collecting banks should be reimbursed about 1 percent for the collection service. If neces sary, the present 3-percent rate paid by students on these notes should be increased to 4 percent. (6) Students should be required to make small annual payments on every loan from the very first. This will keep fresh in ther minds that this is a loan and that it has to be repaid. It will be a way of keeping the student and the SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE, Re National Defense Education Act student loan program. Hon. PAUL C. JONES, Member of Congress, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. MY DEAR FRIEND: From time to time I have talked with you about the absolute necessity of some change in the present student loan plan operated by the U.S. Government. As the plan now stands, you will recall that we are asked to put 10 percent of our requested lending capital into a kitty. We have no place to get this 10 percent except out of the fees of other students. The Government then lets us have 90 percent. The interest rate on this money is 3 percent and the interest does not start until 1 year after a student graduates from college and begins his work. He then has 10 years to repay the loan. If he teaches, 10 percent of the loan is forgiven for each year up to 5 years which, in reality, makes the loan a 50-percent scholarship. No money is provided the colleges to do the clerical work or service these loans, and they are piling up here on us at the rate of more than 300 a year. I have urged you and other Congressmen and Senators to take a more realistic approach to this problem and to solve it in a way similar to the approach taken by the United Student Aid Fund with the ideas as shown on the enclosed leaflet. I like this approach--not completely, but almost so. We are participating in the United Student Aid Fund to the extent of $25.000 credit for this year. We have put up $1,000 which makes available $12,500 credit for our students. The Voelker Foundation has put up another $1,000 for us so that we have $25,000 credit. (1) You will note that the student goes to his hometown bank, states his need, and fills out an application for a loan. (2) The school he is attending certifies to the bank that he is a student in good standing and has completed at least the freshman year. Most school people believe that freshmen should not be allowed to borrow money and that they should not be allowed to borrow it until they have established the fact that they can do college work-their second year, in effect. (3) The bank decides to make the loan and sends a copy of the application to the United Student Aid Fund in Indianapolis where a foundation has been established to serve as collateral for the loan. When the United Student Aid Fund office has endorsed the note and returned it to the bank, the bank issues the check and is guaranteed against loss, but the collection job is the job of the hometown bank. (4) The student attends school and repays the note to his bank in monthly installments beginning at the end of the 5th month after graduation. The interest rate is 6 percent. I think perhaps this is too high. I see no reason why a bank should earn 6 percent on a guaranteed investment. This might well be loaned at 4 or 42 percent and still be attractive to the banks. This plan has a great deal of merit and I wish you would talk to your colleagues about it. I believe that if you would get Mr. Clarence Cannon to sit down and hear you through, you could interest him. There is no sense in continuing to shovel out money in a matter of this kind when it can be handled in a much more sensible way. With every good wish to you, I am, MARK SCULLY, President. SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE COLLEGE, The National Defense Education Act student loan program has become increasingly burdensome. It could be handled much more effectively and efficiently if private banks were allowed to make loans along the lines suggested in the enclosed letter to my own Congressman, the Honorable Paul C. Jones, with the Government guaranteeing the loan on a plan similar to FHA operations. Please take the time to read my letter to Congressman Jones and know that every college in America is faced with this problem. The collection of these loans will be an impossible task for colleges and universities. It must be corrected. Very sincerely yours, ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES, Hon. SENATOR WAYNE MORSE. February 18, 1963. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: On December 11, 1962, I wrote to you expressing strong support by the Association of University Evening Colleges for legislation provid ing Federal aid to higher education. Particular emphasis was placed upon the need for assistance to part-time students in evening colleges. The Association of University Evening Colleges has a membership of 144 colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, offering evening college programs leading to degrees. In addition to these institutions, our membership includes some 75 administrators of university evening college programs. In studying the preliminary draft of the proposed National Education Im provement Act of 1963, we note that provision is being made in title I for student loan funds. However, we are disappointed to find that such loan funds would be limited sclely to full-time students. These limitations are harshly discrimicatory against part-time students pursuing their college careers in the evening while being gainfully employed during the day. At present more than 350,000 undergraduates, and over 40,000 graduate students are enrolled in part-time programs. Though generally employed full time, many of these students are still in need of loans to meet educational expenses. Cognizance should be taken of the rich source of manpower potential represented by the evening student population. May we respectfully suggest that provision be made in the proposed bill for an equitable formula for the treatment of part-time students so that they might qualify for the loan insurance program offered to full-time students. We urge you to exercise you good offices in amending the pending legislation along the lines outlined above. Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Education, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The Association of University Evening Colleges, at its annual convention held November 4 through 8, adopted the attached resolution. On behalf of our association, may I respectfully express the hope that, when efforts are again made to introduce legislation involving Federal aid to higher education, specific attention will be given to programs of collegiate education for adults, particularly with reference to part-time students attending evening colleges. For your information, I am enclosing a small brochure which describes the aims and purposes of our association; I am also enclosing a roster of our membership. Our national organization offers its full resources, and stands ready to assist in any way possible in achieving legislation designed to further educational opportunities for part-time evening students. Please do not hesitate to call upon us. Respectively, EDWIN H. SPENGLER, Executive Secretary. RESOLUTION OF ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES Whereas a 30-percent increase of college population is anticipated within the next 5 years; and Whereas academic facilities are now hopelessly inadequate to accommodate this anticipated growth of student enrollment; and Whereas it is in the national interest to provide every American the oppor tunity for the best education commensurate with his abilities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Federal Government include in its program of Federal aid to higher education the following: (1) Establishment of a Federal Higher Education Assistance Corpora terms and conditions at least as favorable as those provided for in title II of the National Defense Education Act. Moreover, these loans should be made available to part-time students on a reasonably proportionate ratio to full-time students. (2) Amendment of title II of the National Defense Education Act to extend all of its provisions for student loans to part-time students on a formula reasonably proportionate to that applied to full-time students. Be it further resolved, That the Association of University Evening Colleges endorses the position of leading college and university educators and other associations of higher education, and urges that the Federal Government provide longterm, low-interest loans at least in the amount of $600 million to both public and private colleges for the construction and modernization of classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and other academic facilities. Resolved, further, That copies of this resolution be sent to the President of the United States, to the Senate Subcommittee on Education, to the House Committee on Education and Labor, and to the U.S. Office of Education. Adopted this 5th day of November 1962 in the city of Miami Beach, State of Florida. EDWIN H. SPENGLER Association of University Evening Colleges. ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES UNIVERSITY EVENING COLLEGES Evening colleges are an essential part of the system of higher education in the United States. Designed primarily for adults employed during the day, who seek to continue their formal education at night, the university evening colleges have gradually expanded their facilities to meet the needs of a heterogeneous student body. In addition to offering complete programs of evening instruction in a variety of curriculums leading to associate, baccalaureate, and graduate degrees, many of these schools conduct forums, institutes, short courses, and noncredit programs in response to the demands of a serious and mature citizenry. By serving the requirements of adult students who wish to resume or continue their studies, the evening colleges are making an invaluable contribution to contemporary American culture while, at the same time, widening the scope and enhancing the intellectual mission of the universities of which they are a part. The awareness of the importance and value of continuing education, coupled with the steadily rising percentage of the population which falls within the age group of 21 and over, has emphasized the need for programs of higher education for adults. The lengthening lifespan favors a limitless pursuit of learning a privilege which was not possible for previous generations. Technological advancements and change in almost all fields of endeavor necessitate a widening of horizons for people already employed. Some progress is being made in guiding the adult in his efforts to achieve a larger measure of cultural self-development. This is being accomplished by improving the quality of existing institutions, and through the establishment of additional evening schools and colleges. AUEC-AIMS AND PURPOSES The Association of University Evening Colleges was founded in 1939 to provide a forum for administrators of university evening college programs, and to focus public attention on, and encourage acceptance and understanding of the aims of collegiate evening education. The primary concern of the association is with the collegiate education of adults as a basic function and responsibility of institutions of higher learning. AUEC promotes high standards of professional excellence; stimulates faculty leadership in constructive support of evening college objectives; sponsors research on evening college problems; and cooperates with other groups and organizations in |