Then I think again, to the very lasting wisdom of the Congress, they have now put into place a series of 1,202 planning commissions in the States. I would expect that as those commissions address themselves to the problem of postsecondary education planning, we would have as many different strategies as we do States, but hopefully in some small measure the work of this commission may give them at least a beachhead on which to build their planning strategy by having them identify objectives and throw against those objectives a number of different strategies so almost indirectly we are coming to a national strategy of encouraging diversity.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Martin.

Mr. MARTIN. I would like to reinforce what you said as to the diversity. Certainly the leadership of State government in this field is the basic arena of action and I think this is the commitment of State government to postsecondary education manifested every day. I suspect that some incentive would be appropriate to build any incentives to encourage State activity in this area.

I think the demonstration of their commitment is unmistakable. Within the last 2 years, student enrollment has increased. So has the State appropriations. They have increased remarkably and faster than inflation. In many cases they have reduced the tuition price in State universities as the increase in actual number of dollars charged a student occurs at a rate lower than inflation.

Many States have in the past 2 years, reduced the real price to students at State universities and they have also put in many States. rather sharply increasing amounts of money into portable loans to students going to private institutions.

So, I think their commitment is strong and you can reinforce that. I don't think you could trap them into supporting postsecondary edu

cation.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Leonard.

Mr. LEONARD. We tend to occasionally get preoccupied with the low income student. It is very important but even in our conversation this morning, it seems to reflect toward this. As we try to change and bring in new structures and help certain groups, I think we have to constantly look at and I think we have failed in some ways to look at, to improve the programs to work better for these other groups of students. That is a very realistic problem that tends to get overlooked. Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. LAWRENCE. Some of us have been addressing the differences between State and Federal initiative. At the moment we are preparing comments for you at a later session on the basis of the following criteria. We are making the assumption that Federal initiatives should not be designed to thwart the efforts of States as to their educational system.

Second, we make the assumption that the Federal Government. has no intention in its financing plans of encouraging the State to decrease its support but rather we would like the State to increase it or at least maintain it.

Third, the Federal objective which seems to be the most prominent as we look at the legislation and I recognize you to say there is a single Federal objective, is not very realistic nor are objectives, but the Federal objectives which seem most important are student access and equality of opportunity.

Given these kinds of criteria we have asked ourselves is it possible to come up with some kind of financing proposal while encouraging the States to maintain their effort in supporting postsecondary education, in the meantime taking into consideration the way things are done in different areas.

We need to look at several of these kinds of alternatives. This was the purpose of the Newman task force, other than just increasing student aid and tuition.

There are some disadvantages to that approach we would like to

overcome.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you very much.

I could question you gentlemen for another couple of hours but Mrs. Mink, I believe, has some plans for us shortly after 12 o'clock having to do with elementary and secondary education.

Mr. DELLENBACK. It is not a social engagement.

Mr. O'HARA. Mr. Dellenback.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I would make just a couple of comments. Like the chairman, we could go on with this for quite some time. I would say the definition we used as to access being different from participation is a statistical analyzation.

What percentage of those groups are involved in postsecondary education? I would say we could have equal access but unequal participation for the sexes and also the minorities. This is one thing we must concern ourselves with-a program or series of programs which deal with access where we say in accordance with a person's needs and motivation they have access, choice, and equal opportunity. Then we must have another series of programs which deal with motivation. One of the things George pointed out very clearly; namely, parental participation, is more important than family income. If we build our program just on the basis of needs and dollars, we may not be bringing about any sort of a real melting together of the Nation in this particular regard.

So this just helps to emphasize the complexity of the problem. We have to sort out what the information tells us. We have to have clearly in mind what goals we are reaching for. We must have in mind the variety of tools we can use. Then we have to combine the facts with the goals and with the potential tools.

There is also a very important factor which was not true to the same degree 10 years ago, and that is a limitation of resources. We no longer have all the dollars we want for postsecondary.

Peter, you remember when you could say, "These funds are for higher education," and the covers were open much more so than now. Today, we have to be balancing off priorities. We have here the Commission's report on the 380 different Federal programs involved. That is certainly diversity. I don't think it is well-organized diversity or a diversity which gives proper weight to a need to establish priorities. Mr. O'HARA. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment? Mr. DELLENBACK. Yes.

Mr. O'HARA. You made just a brilliant statement of the nature of the problem we face. With respect to those 180 programs, I would like to add a comment. Rather than diversity, we have created a smorgasbord. We have taken Congress out of the policymaking functions because when you have all those different programs and obviously

you are not going to fund all of them, then you give somebody else the choice, to wit, the Bureau of Budget and the administration. Then when the Congress acts they get the choice of which ones they will fund. Then the Congress finds it is out of the policymaking business.

Mr. DELLENBACK. Am I correct that our staff was merely trying to get the information and put it together rather than to do any analysis of it independently? What was the source of the data we put together in this? Did we go to OMB, OE, or a variety of sources?

Mr. MARTIN. From the various obvious sources, the staff members responsible for the project went to each agency as time permitted, sat down with them and went over the material previously sent to them so they had a chance to verify the contents.

I am not sure whether 100 percent of the agencies were advised on sight, but most of them were.

Mr. DELLENBACK. So it was a blend of information given to us, some of it put in as given to us and some of it verified, modified, and corroborated.

I think it is important to note for the hearing record that your testimony today has been a very valuable addition to the Commission's report. One of the battles we fought within the Commission was to be sure that we came up with a consensus when we struggled among ourselves over what the objectives were. As we marched down the line. we came to the conclusion we were not going to be recommending specific programs as a Commission. That decision presented some difficulties for some members of the Commission.

I just want the record to be clear that what we have had today is an input from the panel, both with the Commission reporting, and in some instances, individual recommendations. Those who should read the testimony of the witnesses should bear this in mind. When some of the recommendations were made, you have clearly demonstrated them as being your own input.

I will end with you, Mr. Chairman. I think it would be well to have your answer for the record. You indicate the Commission attempted to use the framework and data, then you say we find evidence already that these approaches are being seriously attempted and we are pleased.

I, for one, would like to know what evidence we have that the approach is being seriously attempted. Do we have examples where States are doing these things? Are there specific situations where the work of the Commission is bearing fruit?

Mr. LEONARD. On page 231 of the Commission report on a page and a half is the analytical framework on which the Commission hammered hard. It doesn't have to do with models or data, just on logic. How you enter new, considering a problem, then taking all the steps and alternatives you go down through it. On this particular point it appears with the final assistance of this Commission, with the assistance of the Office of Education and 20-some associations, the educational commission of the States volunteering as a coordinating agency, there will be a series of conferences on the idea of how to logically approach this problem, how you finance education.

Using some of the results as demonstrative on how things should be considered and how you arrive at answers is being well received on this basis. I personally have been contacted as have a number of members

of the Commission have to appear at the start of the 1202 programs. To this extent, the Commission reporting is being picked up.

On the question of specific findings, I would ask Dan to comment on that.

Mr. MARTIN. I hope I am not speaking out of turn for the people who might not wish things to be known at the moment. You find there are people being employed on staffs of centers of higher education and institutions specifically instructing them to get busy in policy analysis. I am encouraged by the action of ACE to coordinate the efforts of the centers in policy groups around the Nation.

They have already convened one meeting. The thrust of policy analysis has been given recognition and I think it is important to recognize the data base established by the national Commission is in operation and the Office of Education has cooperated with us to make it available. There are people using it and getting benefit from it.

Also, with regard to the costing procedures recommended by the Commission, it is safe to say this thing is sitting rather dormant by either the Office of Education or Congress, but on the other hand, the institutions seem to be taking it quite seriously because the information exchange project is now moving into its final pilot phase and the current indication of the survey indicates many institutions will be utilizing these procedures which are more economical than those suggested by the Commission, bringing about what I think is order out of chaos in the incompatibility of data.

Finally, I think you should not; a version of the model is being used in a pilot test in a developmental way with four States at the current time. This is being done in conjunction with the National Center for Higher Education Management and I trust the States don't mind. their names being revealed. They are Massachusetts, Colorado, Maryland, and Washington.

Mr. DELLENBACK. I think among the things the Commission wishes to emphasize is its clear interest on postsecondary as opposed to traditional higher education. It has attempted to apply systems to what so often has been intuition or flying by the seat of the pants or some personal subjective judgment on something, and we can't afford that kind of approach any more.

It has been good to have you with us.

Mr. LEONARD. I think the fact the Commission came out with that systematic approach rather than coming down hard on some specific policy recommendation it might have made, such a large contribution is due largely as a result of the hard work and leadership Mr. Dellenback and Mr. Brademas put in on the Commission.

Mr. O'HARA. I appreciate your comment.

Gentlemen, we very much appreciate your having come before us. There are other things I wanted to talk to Mr. Weathersby and Mr. Lawrence about, assumptions in the model as to the equivalent of the decrease or grant in aid. I wanted to ask if they were aware of the little experiment conducted in Wisconsin where they dropped their tuitions and produced rather considerable increases in enrollment. In any event. I am sure you are, or soon will be.

Mr. MARTIN. That is one of the questions I was raising, that the conditions might be different.

Mr. O'HARA. I thank you very much. I assure you we will consider this most valuable study and look forward to getting staff reports. We will now stand in adjournment.

[Whereupon at 12:08 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to call of the Chair.]

EDUCATION COMMISSION OF THE STATES,

Denver, Colo., March 1974.

DEAR COLLEAGUE: As you know, the National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education has just released its completed report. This report presents a comprehensive and exhaustive interpretation of the financial support, categories of support and an analysis of the categories of recipients of dollars for postsecondary education in the United States. Questions such as where the money comes from, under what circumstances, who receives it and what are some of the results are questions with which the commission dealt.

In addition, the National Commission developed and tested a framework to analyze alternative proposed methods for financing postsecondary education.

The full report of the commission runs to 442 pages. No official executive summary exists. In light of the commitment of the Education Commission of the States by Governor Dunn, who served as a member of the National Commission on the Financing of Postsecondary Education, and Governor Askew, our current chairman, to help in the distribution of the report and communication and understanding of its results, we have asked Dr. Ben Lawrence, executive director of the National Commission to prepare a summary analysis of its high points and findings. We are pleased to be able to send you Dr. Lawrence's prospectus on the report.

We would like to express our appreciation to Dr. Lawrence for preparing the perspective and hope it will be helpful to you and others in understanding the report's significance. If you need additional copies, they may be obtained from the Educational Commission of the States at $2 per copy.

Cordially,

Enclosure.

RICHARD M. MILLARD, Director, Higher Education Services.