FEDERAL AID TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND ITS
INFLUENCE UPON RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR
EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, 1969-1971
CHARLES RICHARD PAULSON
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
_ ~I~ _________~__1___1 __ _1_
The writer wishes to acknowledge the efforts of the
many persons who took an interest in the preparation of
An expression of deep appreciation is extended to
Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, chairman, and to the other
members of the committee, Dr. Dayton Y. Roberts and Dr.
Irving J. Goffman.
A special word of thanks is also extended to the
staff of the U.S. Office of Education and the staff of
Senator Lawton Chiles for assistance in collecting data
for this study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES ...................
I INTRODUCTION ................
The Problem . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . .
Delimitations . . . . . .
Justification for the Study . . .
Definition of Terms . . . . . .
Review of Related Literature . . . .
Study Design ..............
Data Collection . . . . . .
Data Treatment .............
Organization of the Research Report . .
NOTES. . . . . . . . . . .
II THE DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL POLICY FOR POST-
SECONDARY EDUCATION . . . . .
History of Federal Support of Higher
Education Through World War II . . .
The Founding Fathers' Concept of Federal
Role . . . . . . . .
The Federal Role Through the Land Grant
Colleges and Universities . . .
Federal Cooperation with Institutions
of Higher Education in Response to
Crises . . . . . . . .
The Experience of the Second World War .
Characteristics of Federal Aid Programs
Through World War II . . . . .
Trends in Federal Policy for Post-
Secondary Education Since 1947 . . .. .32
Presidential Commissions and Task Forces . 33
The President's Commission on Higher
Education (1947) . . . . . . 33
Post-secondary education defined as
investment ............... 35
The need for extending equality of
opportunity for post-secondary
education. . . . . . . .. 36
The Federal role recommended by the
Commission .............. 37
Proposed role for community colleges .39
Reaction to the recommendations of
the Commission ............ 40
The President's Committee on Education
Beyond the High School (1956) . . .. .41
Reaction to the Committee's Proposals. .. 44
President's Task Force on Higher
Education (1970) . . . . . .. 45
The Proposals of Non-Government Commissions. 47
The Educational Policies Commission. . 47
The Carnegie Commission: Open Door
Colleges ................ 49
Interest in a Comprehensive Policy, the
Educational Commission of the States .50
The American Council on Education. ... .51
U. S. Department of Health,Education and
Welfare, Office of Education . . .. .52
The Federal Role Defined in Legislation in
Support of Higher Education . . ... .53
The NDEA, a Turning Point in Public
Policy .. . . ...... . .53
The Higher Education Facilities Act. .. 55
Vocational Education Act of 1963 .... .57
Higher Education Act . . . . ... 58
The Administration's Program (1970) .. 60
Congressional Intent in Extending
Equality of Opportunity. . . . ... 62
Summary Observation. . . . . .. 65
NOTES ..................... 67
III LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PROVISION OF THE
SELECTED AID PROGRAMS. . . . . . 71
Manpower Development and Training Act--
Public Law 87-415. . . . . . .. .71
Manpower Development and Training Act,
Title 1--Manpower Requirements and
Utilization . . . . . . 72
Manpower Development and Training Act,
Title II--Training and Skill Develop-
ment Programs. . . . . . ... 74
Manpower Development and Training Act,
Title III--Miscellaneous . . . .. .77
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963--
Public Law 88-204. . . . . . .. .78
Higher Education Facilities Act, Title I--
Grants for Construction of Under-
graduate Facilities . . . . .. 82
Vocational Education Act of 1963--Public
Law 88-210 and the Vocational Amendments
of 1968. . . . . . . . .. .84
Vocational Education Act of 1963 ... .84
Vocational Education Amendments of 1968. 88
Nurse Training Act of 1964 and Allied Health
Professions Act of 1966--Public Laws
88-581 and 89-751. . . . . . ... 88
Nurse Training Act of 1964--Public Law
88-581 . . . . . . . . 89
Allied Health Professions Act of 1966--
Public Law 89-751. . . . . ... 92
Allied Health Professions Act,
Construction Grants . . . . ... .92
Allied Health Professions Act, Grants to
Improve the Quality of Training
Centers . . . . . . . ... 93
Allied Health Professions Act, Loan
Funds for Health Professions Student
Loans ... .. ............ 95
Allied Health Professions Act, Loan
Funds for Schools of Nursing . . .. .96
Allied Health Professions Act,
Opportunity Grants . . . . .. 97
Higher Education Act of 1965--Public
Law-89-329 ................ 98
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title I--
Community Service and Continuing
Education Programs .. . . .... .98
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III--
Strengthening Developing Institutions. 100
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV--
Student Assistance . . . . .. 104
The Education Professions Development Act--
Public Law 90-34 . . . . . ... .106
MOTES ..................... 108
IV RELATIONSHIPS OF INCOME AND ENROLLMENT OF
FEDERAL ALLOTMENTS ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . 110
Categories and Codes of the Variables. . 111
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title I--
Community Service and Continuing
Education Programs . . . . . 118
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title III--
Strengthening Developing Institutions. 119
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963,
Title I . . . . . . .. 119
Vocational Education Act of 1963 ... . 121
Education Professions Development Act. . 122
Manpower Development and Training Act. . 123
Nurse Training Act of 1964, Special
Projects Grants, as Amended by the
Allied Health Professions Act. ... .123
Nurse Training Act of 1964, Nursing
Student Loans, as Amended by the
Allied Health Professions Act. . . 124
Nurse Training Act of 1964, Nursing
Scholarships . . . . . . .. 125
Allied Health Professions Act, Basic
Improvement Grants .. . ..... .126
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV--
Educational Opportunity Grants ... .127
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV--
Work Study Grants. . . . . ... 127
V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS. ... .128
Conclusions. . . . . . . . ... 130
Common Intent Among Programs of Aid to .
Community Colleges . . . . ... 131
Factors Determining Allocations . .
Equalization of Federal Aid Programs
to Community Colleges . . .
The Relationship Between Allotments and
Implications . . . . . . .
A FEDERAL FUNDS OBLIGATED TO COMMUNITY
COLLEGES, BY STATE . . . . . .
Higher Education Act, Title I . . .
Higher Education Act: Strengthening
Developing Institutions . . . .
Higher Education Act: Personnel
Development . . . . . . .
Higher Education Facilities Act, Title I .
Vocational Education Act of 1963 . . .
Education Professions Development Act-
Title V-E, Training Institutes . . .
Manpower Development Training Act . .
Nursing Special Project Grants . . .
Nursing Student Loans. .. .. .
Nursing Scholarship. ... . . ..
Allied Health Professions Basic Improve-
ment Grants. . . .. .. .
Higher Education Act: Educational
Opportunity Grants . . . . . .
Higher Education Act: College Work Study
Grants . . .. .... ......
B ADVISORY COMMISSIONS ON HIGHER EDUCATION .
President's Commission on Higher Education
The President's Committee on Education
Beyond the High School . . . . .
The Educational Policies Commission .
President's Task Force on Priorities in
Higher Education . . . . . .
C STATE ENROLLMENTS IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
OCTOBER, 1971 . . . . . . .
D PER CAPITAL PERSONAL INCOME, 1971 . . .
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETC . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES
1 CORRELATION OF STATE PER CAPITAL INCOME (Y)
AND EXPENDITURES PER STUDENT ENROLLED IN
COMMUNITY COLLEGES (X ) FOR TWELVE
FEDERAL PROGRAMS . . . . . . 115
2 CORRELATION OF STATE ENROLLMENT (E) AND
STATE ALLOTMENTS (X ) FOR COMMUNITY
COLLEGES IN TWELVE FEDERAL PROGRAMS. ... . 117
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
FEDERAL AID TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND ITS
IMPLUENCE UPON RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR
EQUALIZATION OF EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY, 1969-1971
Charles Richard Paulson
Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration
The primary problem was to determine whether twelve
programs of Federal aid to community colleges have an
equalizing or disequalizing impact upon the financial
abilities of the States to support post-secondary education;
and whether Federal allotments to the States under those
programs are directly related to statewide enrollments.
Equalization, in this study, was defined as a provision in
an aid program to community colleges which gives statutory
recognition to underlying differences in the relative
capacities of the States for financial support of post-
secondary education, and directs allocation in such a
manner as to cause allotments to vary inversely with the
financial capacity of the States. The result of equaliza-
tion would be to reduce the differentials in financial
capacity to support post-secondary education.
__ __ _______i_______W_____rnv______r____l~
Allotments were examined under each of the Federal
aid programs to each of the States, which constituted the
whole universe as defined for this study. Thus no sampling
techniques were appropriate.
Funds allocated were treated as per state allotments
and also as per student allotments. State per capital
income served as the financial ability indicator. Product-
moment correlations were performed to determine the
correlations between allocations per student in community
colleges and state per capital income under each aid program;
and the correlations between statewide enrollment and per
state allocations under each aid program.
Through content assessment the data collected about
each program, especially the legislation establishing the
programs, were used to determine the intent of each program
and the procedures for allocating funds. Analysis of
coefficients provided a description of the equalizing or
disequalizing tendencies of the separate programs and
description of the relation between enrollment and alloca-
tions under each of the programs.
Conclusions and Implications
Several conclusions of this study are summarized:
1. Other variables and the provisions of allocation
formulas operate, in most of the programs
considered, to override equalizing provisions.
Only two of twelve programs equalized to a
2. Allocation procedures for Federal aid programs
may not produce the results intended. The
distribution of benefits reflects only to a
limited degree the stated intent of increasing
opportunity for the economically disadvantaged.
3. Categorical aid generally does not provide
specific or consistent equalization of differences
in financial capacity to support post-secondary
4. Federal aid programs which are more general in
nature appear to equalize opportunities for post-
secondary education to a greater degree.
Federal support of higher education was established
early in the history of the United States. Subsequent
legislation, especially in the last decades, brought the
magnitude of the Federal role to such a substantial level
that determination of priorities among the possible public
policies has very significant implications for the develop-
ment of technology and social patterns.
Kenneth Ashworth notes the rapid increase in Federal
Federal expenditures in higher education increased
between 1956 and 1966 by 434 percent from $655
million to $3.4 billion . federal expenditures
in higher education will further increase. . .
Too many of us are acting as if federal participa-
tion in higher learning were still an uncertain
experiment, instead 2f the stable and growing
reality which it is.
The role of the Federal Government in the support of
higher education relative to that of other sources of
revenue is noted by the Carnegie Commission on Higher
Private funds are presently providing some 50
percent of the total revenue of colleges and
universities with the federal government provid-
ing approximately 20 percent, and the state and
local governments providing approximately 30
The constitutionality of such participation has been
clearly established. "President Buchanan in 1857 vetoed the
first version of the Morrill Act because he thought it was
unconstitutional, but five years later this view was wholly
discarded when Congress again passed the Act and it was
signed into law by President Lincoln."3 M. M. Chambers
explained that Federal activities in the education field,
which have grown over the years, were performed under
expanding interpretations of the general welfare clause:
The constitution itself, limiting the powers of
the Federal government and maximizing those of
the states (tenth Amendment), makes no mention of
education. From this it can be reasoned that it
was intended to be exclusively a state responsi-
bility; but the evolution of society has long since
brought the view that there can and indeed must be
Federal participation in its financial support,
and that this can be soundly warranted under the
Preamble clause . "to provide for the general
The first efforts of the Federal Government to assist
the states in the support of higher education were in the
form of land grants, as in the Ordinance of 1862; but
assistance in this century has been largely through monetary
aid. Present Federal programs are frequently categorical
aid, that is, they involve expenditures under specific
legislation in an attempt to solve specific problems and
meet needs of national interest which have been identified
by Congress. Various authors have recommended the establish-
ment of an overall and ongoing Federal policy. Kenneth
Ashworth listed the range of goals on which such an overall
and ongoing policy could be based: These bases for Federal
- -I --T~Pi-~YZ~;l~a~?~-~-~-i~~*l-----P1__~_ .~_~__I_ ~
policy are the extension of equality of educational
opportunity, the improvement and maintenance of quality
and excellence in education, public service and research.5
One of the goals, the deliberate extension of
equality of educational opportunity, has been incorporated
into the philosophy of the community college movement in
this country. However, support of equalization of opportu-
nity requires a long term and encompassing commitment; and
requires care to ensure that the mechanisms and practices
involved in funding programs do, in fact, further the
intent of the programs.
In any discussion of equalization, various definitions
arise. Equalization may be defined as an allocation of a
uniform amount of Federal aid to each state. It may mean
an equal allocation per person. Alternatively, equaliza-
tion may mean allocation designed to raise the educational
level of individuals in each state to a national standard.
It is often assumed that increases in financial support of
education can raise the quality of educational output.
Under such an assumption the following will serve as the
definition of equalization for purposes of this study:
Equalization is a provision in a grant program,
either in the allocation or matching, or both,
which gives some statutory recognition to
underlying differences in the States' relative
capacities to raise funds from their own
resources for financing a joint Federal-State
program, in order to achieve more uniform
standards throughout the Nation.6
According to a report by the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, there-does seem to be an
inverse relation between per capital income and the
distribution of all Federal grants. In other words, the
poorer states are receiving greater shares of Federal
grants per capital than are the wealthier states.7 However,
the relation is small and not clearly of statistical
This investigation will examine the intent of
specific legislation for support of higher education with
regard to equalization of educational opportunities; and
the extent to which funding for community colleges under
the programs is consistent with the given intent.
Statement of the Problem
The primary problem is to determine the relationships,
if any,that exist between the level of expenditures to the
community colleges, by State, under selected Federal pro-
grams and the level of per capital income; and the level of
enrollment in the respective States.
The secondary problems are listed below:
1. What is the intent of the respective programs,
in terms of the provisions authorized in the
legislation, especially procedures for allocating
2. How do those procedures contribute to tendencies
to equalize or disequalize in relation to the
financial abilities of the states?
3. To what extent is there an equalizing (inverse)
or disequalizing (direct) relation between the
allocation of funds per community college
student enrolled and the amount of per capital
4. In respect to each separate program, to what
extent is there a direct or an inverse relation
between the level of Federal expenditure to the
respective state and the level of enrollment by
The study includes the delimitations given below:
1. The study, and its conclusions, was restricted to
the following Federal programs as extant in 1971:
the Higher Education Act of 1965; the Higher
Education Facilities Act; the National Defense
Education Act; the Adult Education Act of 1966;
the Manpower Development Training Act; Vocational
Education Act of 1963; Nurses' Training Act of
1964 and Allied Health Professions' Act of 1966.
2. The data are based on comparisons among the States
and for the states in total. It does not dis-
criminate among counties, community college
districts, municipalities or other subdivisions
of individual states.
The following limitations obtain:
1. Personal income is considered to be the most
useful and reliable measure of wealth for study-
ing the relative financial abilities of the
states to support education and the data are
regularly available for individual states.8
2. The data in the study does not reveal the dis-
tribution of family incomes represented in the
respective state enrollments. If enrollments in
some states include a greater proportion of
persons from low income families, the equalizing
impact of Federal funds would be increased.
Although we do not have data to ascertain the
distributions, we assume the distributions to be
similar in all states.
Justification for the Study
This study is an examination of the impact of Federal
programs for the support of community colleges. It parallels
similar research of the National Education Finance Project,
which examined the impact of selected Federal programs for
support of elementary and secondary schools. The intent of
those studies was outlined by Bedenbaugh:
This study was one of several designed as part of
the National Education Finance Project. . .
A major purpose of the NEFP is the conceptualization
of alternative models for financing public education
in the United States.9
The need for more information in order to conceptualize
alternatives for funding and distributing funds in programs
to support higher education is indicated by Howard Bowen:
The present system of higher education is
admittedly complex . partly to the historic
fact that colleges and universities have been
free, and pressed by financial need to obtain
money wherever it could be found. The result is
a variegated, perhaps a bit tattered, crazy quilt
of financial devices and practices. It is hard to
explain this financial system in terms of principles
. The policy problem before the nation at this
time is to modify these complex financial devices
in ways that will help attain the several broad
objectives we hold for higher education.10
In addition to the direct effect of the devices or
formulas used to support particular programs there are
indirect effects. Federal taxation and expenditure for
support of higher education alters the allocation of other
goods and services, and the distribution of wealth. The
nature of the indirect effects will be influenced by the
specific funding formula.
This study, together with other studies, such as
those of the National Education Finance Project, will con-
tribute to the body of information and principles from which
models of education finance can be constructed.
The basic assumptions involved in the study are listed
1. The amount of personal income is a reliable indica-
tor of the relative financial ability among states
to support higher education.
2. There is a high degree of homogeneity among
states in their needs for higher education.
3. An increase in financial resources available
for higher education does in fact increase the
educational opportunity and attainment; and that
equalization of resources will contribute to the
equalization of educational achievement.
4. The distribution of family incomes represented in
the respective state enrollments are similar.
Definition of Terms
Disequalization A taxation or distribution program which
increases the differences in resources available to
the respective states for the financing of education.
Equalization A provision in a taxation or distribution
program which gives some statutory recognition to
underlying differences in the states' relative
capacities to raise funds from their own resources
for financing a joint Federal-State program.
Higher Education The term higher education, as used by the
President's Commission on Higher Education, included
other forms of post-secondary education than tradi-
tional college and university curricula. In the
legislation higher education and post-secondary
education are used interchangeably. In this paper
higher education is broadly construed and is
synonymous with post-secondary education.
National Income The aggregate earnings of labor and
property which arise from the current production
of goods and services by the nation's economy.
Per Capita Personal Income For a nation this is total
national personal income divided by the number in
the population; and for a state the total state
personal income divided by the state's population.
Personal Income Income payments to individuals or the
current income received by persons from all sources,
inclusive of transfers from government and exclusive
of transfers among persons. While not a fully
comprehensive measure it is used here as an approxima-
tion. Further, the Federal legislation being
considered in this study uses this measure when
wealth is to be a factor in allocation to the States,
thus the particular measure is most closely related
with the Federal policy being considered.
Review of Related Literature
The review of literature, which is extended in Chapter
II, identified the trend in enrollment; the demand for public
policy concerning higher education. The need to identify
the practices and policies that constitute Federal policy is
stated by Ashworth:
As long as the magnitude of involvement of the
Federal government in higher education was
relatively small, the impact of its programs on
the colleges and universities, and the conflicts
and inconsistencies among such programs were not
sufficiently significant to cause major concern.
However, with the marked growth in federal programs
in recent years, and the need for an increasing
commitment of federal funds to higher education
in the years ahead, all parties concerned must
become aware of the policy conflicts that arise.
When such conflicts are resolved we need to know
what compromises and sacrifices in goals and
values are made. . The value of such under-
standing is not limited to the branches and
agencies of the Federal government and the
universities and colleges. . The issues the
states encounter are in many cases similar to
those the federal government faces vis-a-vis the
The trends and growing need are reflected in enroll-
ment increases, which are outlined by Ashworth:
Studies of future financial needs of public and
private higher education have also intensified
this interest with their conclusion that there
is no turning back from large scale federal
subsidies to higher education. . .
Number Enrolled 18-21 Age
Year (Higher Education) Population
1870 52,000 1.68
1890 157,000 3.04
1918 441,000 6.00
1936 1,208,000 12.50
1947 2,338,000 25.20
1967 6,964,000 51.10
The ratio of total higher education enrollment to the
college age population (eighteen to twenty-one years)
has doubled on the average every twenty years since
1870. In less than 100 years (1870-1967) the per-
centage grew from 1.68 to over 50 percent, a numerical
increase of from 52,000 to 6,964,000. . It is
estimated that the 1975-76 school year the total
credit enrollment in higher education will exceed
In addition, post secondary enrollment of persons over
21 has increased. The increasing role of the community
college has been noted by many authors. The Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, among others, has projected
the role of the community college:
There is little doubt that community college
enrollment will continue to grow rapidly in the
1970s and although enrollment may level off or
decline in the 1980s for demographic reasons,
it seems probable that by the year 2000,
community college enrollment will be substantially
above its present level and will account for an
even higher proportion of undergraduate enroll-
ment than it does today. Community colleges will
be both more numerous and more broadly distributed
geographically . and by 1980 at least 40
percent of all undergraduates should be in community
It is important to note that the enrollment increase
reflects not only a growth in the age group in the popula-
tion, but is a function of change in the population. There
is a clear increase in the portion of the population which
persists through high school. For every 1,000 children
entering the fifth grade in 1942-43 only 505 graduated in
1950; while for every 1,000 entering in 1959-60, an estimated
721 graduated in 1967.14
The increase in the portion of the population which
persists through more years of public school is augmented
by an increase in the portion who enroll in post-secondary
education. This shift is documented by Willingham, and
illustrated in the table below:
First Time Ratio of FTE
Number of Enrollment FTE to High School
Year Colleges (Higher Education) Graduates
1948 1,808 617,000 .52
1958 1,903 862,000 (+40%) .57
1968 2,491 1,908,000 (+121%) .70
The ratio of .70 in 1968 is highly significant
since it suggests that a much higher percentage
of students are continuing their education after
secondary school than has been typical for the
past 80 years.15
Federal experience in financial support of higher
education from the early land grants to the present Federal
programs clearly establishes constitutionality. With few
exceptions Federal legislation for financial support of
higher education has encountered few constitutional
challenges. Chambers,16 Alexander,17 and others have noted
the extension of Federal participation under the general
While the legal basis for Federal participation is
clearly established, questions arise about the manner in
which expenditures are made. Although not specifically
addressed to higher education the cases of Serrano v.
Priest and Rodriguez v. San Antonio Ind. School District
identify some important questions, which are pointed out by
By establishing that "wealth is a suspect classifica-
tion" and education is a "f-tdamental interest," the
court brought the case within the strict scrutiny
test. . This standard requires the state to show
a "compelling state interest" to justify a suspect
classification. .. It tenfd to place the burden
of proof on the legislature."
The U. S. Supreme Court, in Rodriguez v. San Antonio
Ind. School District, stated that education is not a funda-
mental interest which is guaranteed under the U. S.
Constitution (although it may be under some state constitu-
tions). But while not a constitutional obligation, the
Federal Government has expressed a policy in numerous acts
which provide Federal support for higher education.
The fact is that the federal government has assumed
the responsibility for financing a portion of the
educational program . the federal government
does not have a constitutional obligation to equalize
among school districts or among states, but where it
has assumed the responsibility for providing
assistance to a certain type of child, it must
treat them all equally regardless of where they are
located or what their economic circumstances might
The role of the Federal Government in higher education
must be determined by the purpose of that education.
Several authors, government agencies and quasi-public
agencies have sought to identify, rationalize, or advocate
various public stances for the Federal Government in respect
to equalization. It may be argued that categorical grants
insure the national defense. It may also be argued that the
advantage of Federal support would occur through education
and development of the citizenry.
Many commissions and agencies have joined in the
evaluation of educational needs and the proper Federal role
to meet those needs. Among them are the Eisenhower Commis-
sion, the Educational Policies Commission and the Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education. A trend in recommendations
for a Federal role is clear. The report of the President's
Commission of Higher Education in 1947 indicated a concern
for extending the opportunity for higher learning to a
greater portion of the population. This concern is made
clear in a quotation selected from the Report of the
President's Commission on Higher Education, 1947:
We shall have to educate more of our people at
each level of the educational program, and we
shall have to devise patterns of education that
will prepare them more effectively than in the
past for responsible roles in modern society.
The time has come to make education through the
fourteenth grade available in the same way that
high school education is now available.
The time has come to provide financial assistance
to competent students in the tenth through
fourteenth grades who would not be able to
continue their education without such assistance.
The Federal Government assumes responsibility for
supplementing State and local efforts in military
defense against the Nation's enemies without;
surely it may as justifiably assume responsibility
for supplementing State and local efforts against
educational deficiencies and inequalities that
are democracy's enemies within.20
The President's Committee on Education Beyond the
High School, in its Second Report to the President, indi-
cated a continuing concern for educational opportunity.
This concern was expressed by the Committee within the
constraints that Federal aid could most constructively be
limited to capital expenditures; addressed to a clear need
of a temporary nature: and be organized in such a way that
they would not detract from State and local autonomy. The
Committee, among other things, recommended
That long-term Federal loans at low interest for
the construction of income-producing facilities
(such as dining halls and dormitories) continue
to be made available to educational institutions.
The Committee recommends that Federal grants-in-aid
on a matching basis, be made available, through
procedures similar to those provided by Hill-Burton
Act, to assist as many types of nonprofit higher
education institutions as possible to construct
needed non-income producing facilities.
The Federal government should provide leadership,
. But it should do those things only by methods
which strengthen State and local effort and re-
sponsibility and, in the case of direct financial
assistance, only through programs which are
periodically reviewed and which are promptly
terminated when no longer clearly justifiable.
Finally, the Federal government should studiously
avoid programs and policies which would carry the
threat of either control or other adverse effects
upon the educational institutions.21
A trend toward the general acceptance of extending
higher education to a larger portion of the population and
Federal assumption of increasing responsibility for financial
support is outlined by Willingham:
More than 20 years ago the Truman Commission (1947)
declared "The time has come to make education
through the 14th grade available in the same way
that high school education is now available."
This prophetic statement stirred up enough excite-
ment to require a lengthy rebuttal to critics. On
the other hand similar sentiments expressed during
the past ten years by such public groups as the
Eisenhower Commission (1960), the Educational
Policies Commission (1964), and the Carnegie
Commission (1968) have been accepted without a
ripple. Furthermore the Higher Education
Facilities Act of 1963, and the Higher Education
Act (1965), and the political acceptability of
substantially broadened opportunity for higher
In a doctoral dissertation which examined the policy-
making role of the Federal Government, Bennion23 focused on
the mechanisms and decision-making processes involved in
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Among
the conclusions reported were: (1) There will be a much
greater interdependence among the three levels of government
than there has been in the past. (2) The categorical
nature of the aid establishes the Federal Government as a
policy maker in education. And (3) the persons or agencies
responsible for administering the Act become part of the
policy making process.
Bedenbaugh24 studied the equalization effect of ten
federal programs for aid to elementary and secondary schools.
He concluded that some of the programs equalized, some did
not and some were not consistent. His conclusions include:
(1) Allocation procedures for various aid programs may not
produce the kinds of benefits and results intended. (2)
There is a considerable amount of duplication. (3) Categor-
ical aid does not lend itself to specific and/or consistent
recognition of differences in relative ability. A better
solution to financial equalization may be found in a program
offering a more general kind of financial assistance.
The overall equalizing effect of Federal programs was
studied by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations.25 The study compared 1961 per capital incomes
with fiscal 1962 distributions of $7 billion in Federal
grants. The study concluded that there appears to be some
equalizing tendency, but not a statistically significant
one. The Commission suggests further that the total Federal
grant package requires the poorer states to devote a larger
share of their fiscal capacities than wealthier states in
meeting required matching provisions.
_ ~" -I------------------------
The study will be an investigation across the fifty
States, and the District of Columbia, which within the
definition of the study is the total population; thus no
sampling technique is considered. The Federal aid programs
examined were selected because of all Federal programs for
higher education they involve the most significant alloca-
tions for community colleges.
The study will investigate the relation between the
expenditures under the Federal aid programs and the wealth
of the respective states; and the relation between the level
of expenditures under the Federal aid programs and the level
of enrollment in the respective states. Per capital personal
income will be used as a measure of relative financial
ability of the states. It is assumed that personal income
will be a proxy for fiscal capacity.
The legislation and public documents pertaining to
each of the Federal programs will be examined to determine
if the law expresses intent to equalize or disequalize.
The level of expenditure per state will be examined for
equalizing or disequalizing (inverse or direct) relation
with the level of per capital income by state for each of
the programs for 1971. And the level of expenditure per
state will be examined for correlation with the level of
enrollment by state for each of the fourteen programs for
Coefficients of correlation will be determined
through a product-moment method of correlation. The
possible correlation scores will fall between positive
1.00 and negative 1.00. Positive 1.00 would represent the
most extreme disequalizing relation, and negative 1.00 the
most extreme equalizing relation. Zero indicates no
relation inverse or direct.
The product-moment correlations were determined by a
computer program which was run at the University of Florida
Computer Center. The program used was BMD 02D with Trans-
generation which was developed at the Health Sciences
Computing Facility, University of California at Los Angeles,
revised May 5, 1969.
A null hypothesis will be used to test the significance
of each coefficient. The null hypothesis, for each Federal
program, was that there is no significant difference
between the determined correlation score and zero correla-
tion. The criteria for significance was set at the .05 level.
The alternative hypothesis was that there is a
significant difference between a zero correlation and the
determined correlation score. The alternative may take two
forms. If the relation is negative, then an equalizing
relation is inferred; and if the relation is positive, a
disequalizing relation is inferred.
The first kind of data included the legislation it-
self and public documents which pertain to particular
Federal programs. The intent, the mechanisms and the
funding formula for each individual program were identified.
In order to derive the coefficients of correlation,
specific data were required on per capital income, expenditures
by program, and community college enrollment. Sources for
that material included the Survey of Current Business, the
United States Office of Education and the American Associa-
tion of Junior Colleges.
The information gathered about the intent and the
mechanisms for funding were used to describe each aid
program. The impact of funding formulas and the various
mechanisms in regard to achieving the intent of the legisla-
tion involved was examined.
Data was used as collected and published for per
capital income by the Survey of Current Business; for
expenditures by information secured directly from the
United States Office of Education; and for enrollment from
the Junior College Directory published by the American
Association of Junior and Community Colleges. Definitions
in the study were made to conform with those under which
the above data were collected and published.
Organization of the Research Report
The study is reported in five chapters.
Chapter I contains an Introduction, Statement of the
Problem, Delimitation and Limitations of the Study, Justifica-
tion for the Study, Assumptions, Definitions and a
Description of Procedures.
Chapter II reports a search of Federal legislation,
policy statements, public documents, commission reports and
the reports of quasi-public agencies. The report traces
the exploration of policy alternatives, the identification
of the national interest, and the development of Federal
public policy in regard to extending the opportunities for
Chapter III presents the legislation and funding
mechanisms of each of the Federal programs considered in
Chapter IV reports the coefficients of correlation and
indicates equalization relations. Each is reported separate-
ly, and the impact of the combined programs is concluded.
Chapter V presents a review of alternative goals and
Federal policies which have been posed; the possible goals
involved in extending opportunity in higher education; and
recommended guidelines for policy which is consistent with
the goals expressed.
1. Kenneth Ashworth, Scholars and Statesmen (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1972), p. 6.
2. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Institutional Aid (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1972),
3. M. M. Chambers, Higher Education: Who Pays? Who
Gains? (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers &
Pu;ishers, Inc., 1968), p. 233.
4. Ibid., p. 233.
5. Ashworth, p. 3.
6. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations,
The Role of Equalization in Federal Grants (Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, January, 1964), p. 48.
7. Ibid., p. 27.
8. Roe L. Johns and Edgar L. Morphet, Financing the
Public Schools (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1960), p. 55.
9. Edgar Bedenbaugh, Extent of Financial Equalization
Among the States from Ten Progra:s of Federal Aid to
Education (Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, 1970), p. 8.
10. Howard R. Bowen, "Financing the Aims of American
Higher Education," Financing Hioher Education: Alternatives
for the Federal Government, Ed. Mel Orwig (Iowa City, Iowa:
The American College Testing Program, 1971), p. 155.
11. Ashworth, p. 4.
12. Ibid., p. 5.
13. Carneige Commission on Higher Education, The Oen
Door Colleges (New York: McGraw-Bill Book Co., 1970), p. 6.
14. Kenneth A. Simon and Grant W. Vance, Digest of
Educational Statistics (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1971), p. 7.
15. Warren Willingham, Universal Access to Higher
Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1971), p. 15.
16. Chambers, p. 233.
17. Kern Alexander and Forbis Jordan, Constitutional
Reform of School Finance (Gainesville, Fla.: National
Education Finance Project, November, 1972), p. 76.
18. Ibid., p. 76.
19. Ibid., pp. 87-88.
20. President's Commission on Higher Education, Higher
Education for American Democracy (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1947).
21. The President's Committee on Education, Second
Report to the President (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1957).
22. Willingham, p. 16.
23. John W. Bennion, The Formation of Federal
Educational Policy in the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State
24. Bedenbaugh, 219 pp.
25. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, Report of the Commission, The Role of Equaliza-
tion in Federal Grants (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1964), p. 63.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF FEDERAL POLICY FOR POST-SECONDARY
History of Federal Support of Higher
Education Through World War II
The Founding Fathers' Concept of Federal Role
Federal support of education appeared early in the
history of the Nation. Authority to legislate on matters
of education was not among the enumerated powers in the
Constitution; and therefore was reserved to the States
under the Tenth Amendment. However, Congress has enacted
many laws affecting education and providing support for all
levels of education. And Federal support for education was
evidenced early in the history of the Nation, before adop-
tion of the Constitution. The Congress of the Confederation
passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, providing for the
reservation of public land for the endowment of seminaries
of learning in the territories under Federal control.
The authors of the Constitution continued support of
education. It is not clear, as is commonly supposed, that
the founders intended to assign responsibility for education
to the States rather than to the Federal Government.
Babbidge and Rosenzweig call attention to a different
The plain fact of the matter is that, at the time of
the creation of the new Constitution, there was no
such thing as state responsibility for education.
In higher education, responsibility was almost
exclusively in the hands of religious bodies and
private citizens . The nonpublic flavor of
education at the time has prompted one historian
to observe that a proposal for a Federal.or State
responsibility would have elicited a question of
which church should control it.1
Thomas Jefferson supported the proposal of a National
University which was made during the writing of the Constitu-
tion, and later proposed that the Federal Government assume
some responsibility for the support of higher education.
In his message to the Congress of 1806, Jefferson proposed
that for the disposal of surplus Federal monies the great
purposes of public education, roads, rivers and canals be
added to the enumeration of federal powers. President
Jefferson was referring to a shift from private to public
rather than from state to federal, a point made clear in
Education is here placed among the articles of
public care, not that it would be proposed to take
its ordinary branches out of the hands of private
enterprise, which manages so much better all the
concerns to which it is equal; but a public in-
stitution alone can supply those sciences which
though rarely called for, are yet necessary to
complete the circle, all the parts which contribute
to the improvement of the country and some to its
Clearly his proposal was not that the Federal Government
should assume responsibility given to the states; but rather
responsibility should be complementary to private (mainly
church supported at that time) education. And clearly he
proposed a complementary role for the benefit of the Nation
as a whole.
That need for government involvement to provide those
"parts' which would otherwise not be provided was perceived
by other founders. Establishment of a National University
was discussed during the writing of the Constitution. The
proposed location was the District of Columbia. Therefore,
at least some delegates felt, no further constitutional
provision was necessary to empower the Federal Government to
establish it at a later time. Babbidge and Rosenzweig
indicate that support among national leaders continued:
Persistantly during the first quarter century of
the newly reorganized Government, the several
Presidents urged upon the Congress the creation
of a National University. George Washington even
willed 50 shares of stock in the Potomac Canal
Company for the purpose . For our purpose
it is important only to note the early and
persistent notion that a Federal institution was
necessary to "complete the circle" of higher
learning in the United States.3
The notion of a National University was extended to
the concept of a system of higher education. The American
Philosophical Society conducted a contest in 1796, offering
a prize for the best plan of education for the new Nation.
Babbidge and Rosenzweig identified two characteristics which
they had in common and which gave the plans significance:
First they all proceeded from the assumption that
broad education was essential to the successful
operation of the new Nation. Further the authors
argued that the government of free people had a
stake in, a degree of responsibility for, the
provision of such education.
Some of the functions which Americans expected of
education in the young republic are identified by Henry
No wonder education so quickly became the American
religion; no wonder all the Founding Fathers were
educators--Franklin, Washington, John Adams, John
Dickenson, Noah Webster, and, above all, Thomas
Jefferson. Education was to be the instrument of
change, change of nature (Science was to make
that possible) and of human nature . .
American schools were, and are, required to do a
hundred and one things not expected of European
schools; . .
What America recognized almost by instinct, and
what Europe is only slowly coming to recognize,
is the immense range and variety of abilities
necessary for the efficient functioning of
modern society, and the potential role of
schools and universities in providing these
Those purposes of education are appropriate to and
can only be implemented through a broad base in the popula-
tion. The base in the early Republic was broad relative
to historical experience and has continued to increase to
the point where society expects universal elementary and
secondary education. And the base of higher education has
broadened. In respect to the current question of extending
opportunity for post-secondary education Commager concludes:
The extension of schooling to the age of twenty is
consistent with the American tradition, and with
American faith in the Sovereign effect of education
in our kind of society. It is, too, consistent
with the demands of the new economy and technology
which the next generation will have to confront.6
The Federal Role Through the Land Grant Colleges
The need for higher education was viewed as the need
to train persons for specific roles and to promote
scientific inquiry into the solution of specific problems.
Thus the role of both state and local government was
addressed toward specific problems rather than toward the
character of the population which universal opportunity
for higher education would affect. However, the demand
for more utilitarian higher-education available to larger
portions of the population increased during the nineteenth
century. Babbidge and Rosenzweig offer a conclusion for
support of the Land Grant Act:
It was failure of the existing institutions,
largely under private or religious control, but
including State universities, to respond to
popular will and wishes that led to the most
noted and significant Federal action in the
field of higher action during the nineteenth
century. The so-called land-grant colleges
were brought into being to provide a form of
higher education not systematically viewed by
established institutions and not available
under circumstances that made it available to
large numbers of people.7
This bold action is of special interest in defining
the Federal role, because it required Congress to act on
a dramatic scale in an area which, in the handsight of
constitutional doctrine, might have been presumed to fall
outside the scope of authority of the Federal Government.
Indeed, in 1857 President Buchanan vetoed the first
version of the Morrill Land-Grant Act because he thought it
was unconstitutional; but this view was wholly discarded
when the Act was passed by Congress again and President
Lincoln signed the bill into law in 1862.8 M. M. Chambers
concludes that Federal participation has definitely been
accepted as being warranted under the Preamble clause which
states that one of the major purposes of the Federal Union
as being to provide for the general welfare. The Act was
so well accepted that in 1890 a second act was passed which
extended the provision of the first, and under the terms
of the second act annual appropriations are made for instruc-
tional purposes, and not limited to capital expenditures.
Other legislation followed requiring Federal support of
higher education, including the Smith-Lever and Smith-Hughes
Federal Cooperation with Institutions of Higher Education
in Response to Crises
In response to the need which arose with the First
World War institutions of higher education carried on
federally supported research. In addition they operated
training programs for military personnel, and conducted
manpower studies and training programs.
The Depression of the 1930's also brought the
cooperation of the Federal Government and the institutions
of higher education to meet immediate needs. The Federal
program of most importance to higher education was the
student work program of the National Youth Administration.
During the first year and one-half of operation 1,466 of
1,700 eligible colleges participated. The portion of
students aided ran as high as 12 percent of the enrollment
The experience of Federal support during the depression
is of interest to present public policy. One area of
continuing concern is the amount of control which might
follow as a result of Federal support programs. In respect
to that question, Axt writing in 1952 concluded:
The result was a growing opinion that the Federal
government could promote the general welfare of
higher education without undesirable by-products
by aiding individual students, an opinion which
was strengthened by the veterans educational
The Experience of the Second World War
The Second World War called forth two major Federal
programs which have drastically affected higher education
in America. The "G. I. Bill of Rights" was addressed to
the problem of economic transition of veterans, and the
great complex of federally sponsored research at universi-
ties was addressed to developing certain specific kinds of
industrial and military capacity.
The experience of the Second World War clearly
identified at least one specific conclusion. There remained
no doubt that there was a clear national interest in the
development of capacity of higher education. Babbidge and
Rosenzweig said of the time:
Indeed, one of the major findings of World War II
was the recognition on the part of those responsible
for the national defense that highly trained manpower
in fields only remotely related (in the =rblic mind)
to the national defense were in fact essential to
that national defense. It has been observed that
World War II was the "first war in human history to
be affected decisively by weapons unknown at the
outbreak of hostilities." . much credit had
to be given to nonuniformed scientists, drawn
largely from the Nation's colleges and universities
. The defense of the Nation against an enemy
being clearly no great argument to persuade . .
the public generally that the Federal Government
had a legitimate interest in the training of
all persons whose skills bore in any way upon
the nation defense effort."
And since industrial and technological capacity has become
identified as a major measure of military capacity, at
least in the long run, that conclusion applies to a great
segment of all vocations and professions.
Characteristics of Federal Aid Programs Through
World War II
The two most consistent characteristics of Federal
support programs through the Second World War were the
categorical nature of grants addressed to immediate
problems and the lack of a public policy which could serve
as a means of coordinating efforts under various individual
programs. The nature of Federal aid was in the form of
categorical grants aimed at solving immediate problems.
The role of higher education in most of these programs was
incidental and involved insofar as higher education was a
vehicle for advancing other factors. The basic motivations
are suggested by Rivlin:
The original grants to the new states for the
establishment of state universities was prompted
by congressional desire to dispose of public
lands on favorable terms . The Morril
Act . was primarily a measure to encourage
scientific agriculture . .
During the 1930's the Federal financing of
buildings or public institutions of higher
education was part of a much larger program of
public works designed to promote economic
recovery by getting men to work . more
recently, the principle objective of federal
financing . has been to get the research
done in the interest of health and national
defense . Even the National Youth Adminis-
tration and the G. I. Bill of Rights . .
were temporary measures to aid recovery from
the Depression and readjustment from war.
They were abandoned when those emergencies
Since the goals for the programs were not established
prior to immediate crises, but in response to immediate
problems, federal policy for higher education was neither
comprehensive nor systematic. The National Advisory
Committee on Education, which was appointed in 1931 by
President Hoover concluded:
The Federal Government has no inclusive and
consistent public policy . in the field of
education. Whatever particular policies it
seems to be pursuing are often inconsistent
with each other, sometimes in conflict. They
suggest a haphazard development, wherein
policies of far reaching effect have been set
up as mere incidents of some special attempt
to induce an immediate and particular
Without a comprehensive forward looking and
coherent public policy in regard to education,
the present educational situation in the 14
Federal Government can not be greatly improved.
It is of interest here to note that the Committee on Higher
Education appointed by President Eisenhower made the above
quote in the beginning of its report and identified the
lack of a consistent and comprehensive policy as a continu-
ing problem in public policy toward education.
The main characteristicsof the Federal experience in
public policy for higher education through the Second World
World War were clear and consistent. They include:
1. Federal responsibility was established, from the
founding of the Nation, for providing those "parts"
of higher education not readily provided by
private and state systems.
2. The role of the Federal Government was comple-
mentary, first to private education and then to
state systems of higher education.
3. Federal aid was categorical, given to aid the
solution of immediate problems.
4. The support of higher education was mainly
incidental, and advanced insofar as its
development advanced other goals, rather than
being developed prior to the emergence of a
5. Many and diverse programs were supported with
neither a comprehensive policy nor an integrating
Trends in Federal Policy for Post-Secondary
Education Since 1947
Several trends in Federal policy for post-secondary
education have emerged in the decades since 1947. These
1. There has been an increase in the magnitude of
Federal support, and in its continuing share of
support for post-secondary education.
2. There has been a shift from categorical aid
given in times of crisis, to continuing aid,
to maintain desired capacities throughout the
3. There has been an increase in the effort to
extend equality of opportunity for post-
secondary education by removal of economic
barriers, and of barriers of race, religion
4. There has been an increase in the variety and
diversity of programs giving rise to the concept
of diverse post-secondary level education rather
than a limited scope of traditional higher
5. There have been attempts to coordinate the
various federal, state and institutional programs.
6. There has been an increase in the acceptance of
Federal support of private institutions of higher
7. There has been an increase, as implied by ex-
tension of equality of opportunity, to raise the
minimum level of education through the whole
population, rather than programs to fill
immediate manpower needs for specific purposes.
Presidential Commissions and Task Forces
The President's Commission on Higher Education (1947)
In 1946, President Truman appointed a Commission on
Higher Education to inquire into the proper role of the
Federal Government in assisting higher education. George
Zook, at the time President of the American Council on
Education, was appointed chairman. The President charged
the Commission with an examination of the functions of
higher education in our democracy. His letter charged the
Committee, in part, as follows:
Among the more specific questions with which I
hope this Commission will concern itself are:
ways and means of expanding educational
opportunities for all young people; the
adequacy of curricula, particularly in the
field of international affairs and social
understanding; the desirability of establish-
ing a series of intermediate technical
institutes; the financial structure of higher
education with particular reference to the
requirements for the rapid expansion of
physical facilities. These topics of inquiry
are merely suggestive and not intended to
limit in any way the scope of the Commission's
The Commission in discussing the implementation of
its goals dealt rather specifically with three concepts.
First the Commission identified higher education as an
investment with benefits which would accrue to the whole
public. Second the Commission identified barriers to
equality of opportunity for higher education, and proposed
means toward eliminating them. And the Commission clearly
defined a specific role for the Federal Government as a
partner with responsibility for support of higher education;
the Commission further proposed a definite role for an
expanded system of community colleges.
Post-secondary education defined as investment
The Commission defined higher education as an invest-
ment with returns to the Nation as a whole, which would
make higher education an interest of the Nation, not only
in times of crisis, but as a continuing interest. The
Higher education is an investment in the social
welfare, better living standards, better health,
and less crime. It is an investment in higher
production, increasing income, and greater
efficiency in agriculture, industry, and govern-
ment. It is an investment in a bulwark against
garbled information, half truths, and untruths;
against ignorance and intolerance. It is an
investment in human talent, better human rela-
tionships, democracy and peace.
The Commission felt that for the greatest benefit to
both the individual and the Nation each person should be
educated to the limit of his potential. Based upon testing
during the Second World War the Commission concluded that
at least 49 percent of the age group had the capacity to
complete grades thirteen and fourteen, either in a college
or a junior college. Perhaps one-third of the age groups
should, the Commission felt, continue on to a baccalaureate
degree. On that basis the Commission projected an enrollment
of 4.6 million. This was more than twice the enrollment of
1950, and at that time less than half of the age group
completed high school. The expectations of the Commission
were far from the experience of the public and proved to
be most controversial. And many persons in the educational
community were concerned that enrollments of such magnitude
were not consistent with maintaining high standards of
The need for extending equality of opportunity for
The Commission asserted that one of the gravest
charges against the American society was that of failing to
provide a reasonable equality of educational opportunity
for its youth. The loss was not only that of the individ-
ual; in addition to the deprivation of the individual, the
Commission felt, the Nation was deprived of potential
leadership and competencies which it sorely needed. One
of the first barriers cited by the Commission was that of
financial need. The Commission argued against the avail-
ability of higher education as a function of wealth:
The democratic community cannot tolerate a society
based upon education of the well-to-do alone. If
college opportunities are restricted to those of
higher income brackets, the way is open to the
creation and perpetuation of a class society which
has no place in the American way of life.17
Equal opportunity, as the Commission defined it did not
mean identical education, but that education be available
for all persons up to the limit of their potential.
Likewise the Commission argued against discrimination
in the admission of college students on the basis of race,
creed, color, sex, national origin or ancestry as an anti-
democratic practice, which creates serious inequalities in
higher education. In order to extend educational opportunity
and remove barriers of both financial and personal charac-
teristics the Commission recommended the removal of all
devices for restriction of admission, and proposed grants
and fellowships (not loans) based on individual need. The
Commission plan proposed support for about 20 percent of
the non-veteran enrollment which the Commission had projected
to be 4.6 million if its recommendations were followed.
The Federal role recommended by the Commission
The Commission made rather specific observations and
recommendations for Federal responsibility and the role of
the Federal Government in the federal system. The Commission
noted the long Federal experience in response to specific
problems, at specific times, and recommended a shift toward
increased responsibility for general and continuing aid to
education in order to insure the provisions of higher
education as an integral and continuing factor of the
American society. The Commission concluded:
For more than a century and a half the Federal
Government has encouraged and supported specific
fields of higher education. In times of national
emergency it has expanded its support to give
heightened recognition of the indispensable
services which can be rendered to the Nation by
colleges and universities. But aid for a few
specific needs and temporary action in times of
crisis are not enough. The time has come when the
Federal Government must concern itself with the
total and long-tire needs for higher education.
Higher education is no less important to the
nation in calmer tines than in periods of
The Commission recommended several steps to be put
into effect in order to meet the needs and demands for
1. Public education through the fourteenth year of
schooling be made available, tuition free, to
all Americans able and willing to receive it,
regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or
economic and social status . .
2. Student fees in publicly controlled institutions
be reduced. .
3. Immediate steps be taken to establish a national
program of Federally financed scholarships and
fellowships as a means of removing further the
economic barrier and enabling our most competent
and gifted youth to obtain for themselves and
for society the maximum benefits to be gained
from higher education.
4. Federal aid for the current operating costs of
higher education be provided, beginning with an
annual appropriation of $53,000,000 in 1948-49 and
increasing annually by $53,000,000 through 1952-
5. Federal aid for capital outlay be provided
through an annual appropriation of $216,000,000.
Beginning with the fiscal year 1948-49 . .
6. Adult education be extended and expanded, and
the colleges and universities assume responsi-
bility for much of this development.
The Commission clearly held that the communities'
wealth, or lack of wealth, should not determine access to
higher education for the individual. The Commission
defined the community as the "family writ large" and
advocated a program of equalization, with a role for both
the Federal Government and the various state governments:
The wide variation in the ability of the various
States to support higher education makes a program
of equalization imperative if a defensible minimum
program of education is to be provided on a Nation-
Under the plan envisioned the Federal Government would
contribute one-third of the total amount of the expansion.
In order that each State shoulder its fair share, the
Commission recommended that the Statesshare in appropria-
tions to be apportioned among the States on an equalized
basis according to an objective formula. Geographic
barriers were to be further removed by requiring all states
to remove out-of-state restrictions and fees.
Proposed role for community colleges
The proposed increase in enrollment would of course
create a need for more capacity. In addition,the greater
range of students would require a greater range of curricula.
And the Commission felt that the demands of technology and
social systems required more diverse offerings at the post-
secondary level. The Commission proposed that an expanded
system of community colleges would best meet the need for
more capacity and diversity. The conditions of low tuition
and location in commuting distance of many students would
bring the prospect of attendance within the horizons of
many persons who were then capable but not attending. They
were to offer a wider range of programs, including both
transfer and terminal occupational training.
This Commission recommends as an important element
in equalization, the establishment of free, public,
community colleges which would offer courses in
general education, both terminal and having transfer
value, vocational courses suitably related to local
needs, and adult education programs of varied
--~- -~--- -~s~----P---~--~n~-urr-r~a_-*-------. ~
Reaction to the recommendations of the Commission
The report of the Commission met with public debate.
It was, to that time, the most comprehensive planning for
higher education, and spelled out more specifically than
ever before a permanent and substantial role for the Federal
Government. A role which was to be based on continuing
needs of the technology and society. Axt, writing in 1952,
gave a summary which concluded limited immediate impact:
The first large-scale venture in "planning" the
future policy of the Federal Government toward
higher education, the President's Commission,
was not a striking success. In general its
proposals were not accepted by the educational
community, much less put into operation. The
lack of acceptance resulted partly from the
fact that the Commission did not adequately
represent the major types of higher institutions.
The major criticisms was that the President's
Commission projected an expansion of enrollment
that many believed to be incompatible with high
standards of education.22
And Babbidge and Rosenzweig, writing in 1962, con-
cluded that the impact of the President's Commission on
Federal activities was not great.23
But the decade of the 1960's found experience more
consistent with the proposals of the Commission. It is
interesting to consider current experience 25 years after
the report. The evaluation of half (49%) of the age
population would be able to benefit from grades thirteen
and fourteen, while one-third would be capable of upper
division work, which met such strong opposition then, would
not be extreme in the light of current experience. Sub-
sequent legislation has provided substantial support for
~C___I_ __~______ _~_
diverse programs. And the community college expansion has,
to a considerable extent, occurred, although not heavily
supported by the Federal Government.
The general acceptance of universal post-secondary
education as a social norm has not been achieved, but a
substantial segment of the population accepts it as
a possibility or goal for themselves and their families.
The increased acceptance of this principle from the time
of the Commission's Report to the present is outlined by
More than 20 years ago the Truman Commission
(1947) declared, "The time has come to make
education through the 14th grade available in
the same way that high school education is now
available." This prophetic statement stirred
up enough excitement to require lengthy re-
buttal to the critics. On the other hand similar
sentiments expressed during the past ten years
by such public groups as the Eisenhower
Commission (1957), the Educational Policies
Commission (1964), and the Carnegie Commission
(1968) have been accepted without a ripple.
Furthermore the Higher Education Facilities
Act (1963), and the Higher Education Act (1965),
and the Higher Education Amendments (1968)
represent concrete evidence of the political
acceptability of substantially broadened
opportunity for higher education.
The President's Committee on Education Beyond the
High School (1956)
The next Federal attempt to evaluate the whole of the
Federal role was the President's Committee on Education
Beyond the High School. This Committee, headed by Deveraux
C. Josephs, Chairman of the Board of the New York Life
Insurance Company, showed a generally more conservative
approach in assessing the Federal role than did the Zook
Commission. As a result, its recommendations were on the
whole less sweeping, and perhaps more attainable.
However, the Committee's evaluation of its own role
attest to a continuing perception of the role of the
Federal Government as being one of continuing support for
higher education, as a permanent part of American life,
rather than an agency to turn to in times of crises as
they arose. The Committee said of its role:
In the light of the serious national and inter-
national problems that require the United States
to be educated to its full capacity, the
occasional appointment of temporary committees
is inadequate to deal with the needs for national
leadership and coordinated Federal activity in
the field of post-high school education. The
Committee believes that in addition to those
permanent and temporary committees now operating,
permanent machinery should be created, . to
keep under continuous scrutiny all Federal pro-
grams affecting education beyond the high school
and to advise the President an the heads of
appropriate agencies thereto.
The Committee compared the needs of higher education
to the needs of industries of national scope for which
efficient federal services are required. The Committee
again observed the lack of a comprehensive policy, and
especially the lack of a systematic information service:
Post high school education is local in effect and
national in consequences. In this respect it does
not differ from agriculture or commerce and
industry. The farmers and business men are much
better served by their government, nor would they
tolerate the deficiencies in information and
planning assistance that are experienced by the
educational community--which includes all citizens:
educators, students, parents and employers.27
_ ai --__ -~-..--.~----1____11~_1
The Committee suggested that the system of post-secondary
education was ill equipped to meet the growing pressure.
The Committee referred to an increase in the demand for
First the impact of the greatly increased birth
rates of the past 15 years will shortly involve
institutions beyond the high school. They are
already at the highest enrollment peak in history
because of growing proportions of the population
seeking education beyond the high school.
Second there are rapidly increasing demands
throughout our expanding economy for men and
women with education and training beyond the
The Committee envisioned a much more modest role for
the Federal Government than the Zook Commission, although
the Committee recognized the efforts of several Federal
agencies and expressed concern that the various programs be
coordinated. On the role of the Federal Government the
The Committee believes that the role of the
Federal Government in higher education should
be definitely residual. Certainly the Federal
Government should in no way assume powers of
control, but it nevertheless has important
obligations and responsibilities in this area.
Over the past 100 years many Federal programs
have evolved . There is little evidence that
any of these has led to undue Federal interference.
But there is a striking lack of coordination and
consistency among them. These numerous activities
are authorized by a wide variety of separate
pieces of legislation and their administration is
scattered across many separate Federal agencies
with no mechanism for effective coordination or
even for taking inventory.29
The Committee recommended a role for the two-year
colleges to meet the demands for increased higher education
capacity, and correctly perceived that while meeting the
demands of increased enrollment the two-year colleges
would accelerate enrollments. The Committee recommended:
Communities or groups of communities faced with
an impending shortage of higher education
capacity will do well to consider the new two-
year colleges as part of the solution .
New community colleges, however, should not be
viewed as a panacea for relieving pressures
upon existing four-year institutions. On the
contrary, they are bound to accelerate the
overall increase in enrollments, the demand
for teachers and the need for funds.30
Reaction to the Committee's Proposals
No coordinating body, as the Committee recommended
was established. However, the National Defense Education
Act was passed the following year. The Act included pro-
visions for securing information concerning all specialized
scholarships, fellowships and educational programs adminis-
tered under any department or agency of the Federal
Many of the recommendations of this Committee, and
of the earlier Zook Commission were carried out in the
immediate following years. Much of the success may be
attributed to external factors, which happened quite apart
from the Report of the Committee. Within six months after
the Committee's Report the first Russian satellite, Sputnik,
went into orbit and American higher education became a
matter of national concern. Support of Federal programs
was suddenly thrust forward, and the Committee's Report
provided some direction for those efforts.
President's Task Force on Higher Education (1970)
The President's Task Force clearly outlines what it
proposes as priorities for the present and the future in
higher education. President Nixon appointed a Task Force
on Higher Education and asked for a statement on priorities
for higher education, and further requested that the Task
Force suggest ways in which the Federal Government might
assist in achieving those priorities. The question of
whether the Federal Government is to have a role has largely
been settled as most policy groups currently consider
mainly how rather than whether. The Task Force indicated
the fundamental assumptions which they share; outlined
priorities and made recommendations. The assumptions, in
part, are given below:
1 . only through higher education can
individuals fulfill many of their personal
aspirations, and only through higher educa-
tion can the nation achieve many of its
fundamental national goals--intellectual,
cultural, scientific, and economic. Among
the first priorities for a government
concerned with individual and national
development must be a preservation and
strengthening of this prime national asset.
2. . existing American institutional
patterns for education beyond the high
school do not provide sufficient quantity
and variety of educational opportunities
for the quantity and variety of persons in
our society needing and expecting such
Based on their assumptions and recommendationsthe
Task Force determined immediate Federal priorities,
continuing priorities and institutional priorities, as
are listed below:
The following are, in our opinion, the most
immediate Federal priorities:
I. Financial Aid for Disadvantaged Students.
II. Support of Health Care Professional Education.
III. Increased Tax Incentives for Support of Higher
We believe the following are continuing Federal
I. The Expansion of Opportunities for Post-High-
II. The Support of High Quality Graduate and
We believe four areas constitute the highest
institutional priorities for our colleges and
I. Clarification of Institutional Purposes.
II. Improvement of the Quality of the Curriculum
and Method of Teaching.
III. More Efficient Use of Resources.
IV. Clarification of Institutional Governance.32
Although the Task Force advocated extension of educa-
tional opportunity, the report went on to emphasize that
not all individuals should be encouraged to seek the same
post-high-school educational goals. The Task Force urged
provision of a variety of programs and opposition to
pressures that encourage the pursuit of status rather of
substance. A clear role was proposed for the system of
community colleges. The Task Force recommended in regard
to community colleges:
We believe the expansion of post-secondary education
should take place largely in the two-year colleges
and equivalent programs that combine a variety of
educational and occupational options. These two
year colleges should accept the major responsibility
for increasing access to post high school education
and also for offering remedial and compensatory
education Many of these should be located in urban
The responsibility of the Federal Government was also spelled
Aid to student: The major program of financial aid
to economically disadvantaged students as an
Immediate Federal Priority must be continued for
many years to come. In addition we urge the
establishment of a national loan fund to enable
other students to spread the cost of education
over a period of time.
Support for Two-Year Colleges: Where local funds
are inadequate, federal funds should be made
available to public and private organizations to
create and expand two-year institutions which serve
the comprehensive purposes described above. Such
support should also be made available to four
year institutions that offer comprehensive two-
year programs. In addition, where local funds
are inadequate, special federal programs should
provide funds to support operating costs. . .34
The Proposals of Non-Government Commissions
The Educational Policies Commission
The Education Policies Commission published Universal
Opportunity for Education Beyond the High School, in 1964,
in which the Commission reaffirmed the basic goals of the
Zook Commission on Higher Education of 1947. The Commission
Each state . should develop a plan for expansion
of its entire system of higher education . ex-
panding universal opportunities in general education
for at least two years beyond the high school.
Federal funds should he appropriated in support
of these state plans.35
The Commission concluded that there are both idealis-
tic and practical reasons for insuring that persons have
an opportunity to achieve the mental development that will
free their minds. The Commission said:
A man is free, then, in the degree to which he has
a rational grasp of himself, his surroundings,
and the relations between himself and his surround-
ings. The main restrictions to freedom are
prejudice and ignorance . The rational
dimension has always been an integral part of
the ideal of freedom. But today . the ideal
is increasingly a practical necessity for both
individual and society.
The ability to keep a job in a rapidly developing
technology or make the decisions required of
responsible citizenship and parenthood increasingly
requires an advanced command of rational processes.36
Therefore the Commission reaffirmed a public policy to
promote universalization of educational opportunity beyond
the high school.
As the Commission wrote the Nation continued to move
in extending educational achievement. The portion of the
age group graduating from high school was increasing at an
annual rate of 1.5 percent; and the portion of high school
graduates enrolling beyond the high school had been in-
creasing at an annual rate of 1 percent. In 1963 about
58 percent of high school graduates enrolled for degree
credit. The Educational Policies Commission concluded that
such enrollment increases were in the public interest:
The clear requirement is for a public policy that
the thirteenth and fourteenth years of education
in public colleges be free of cost to the student,
because it is in the interest of the nation.
The Commission, noting that universal education has
always meant public education, advocated that the major
share of the increase in cost of increased enrollments
beyond the high school should come from the Federal Govern-
ment. The Commission, indicating cognizance of a feeling
that the individuals who benefited should pay for the
priviledge of their education either immediately or
through a loan plan, unequivocally asserted that society
as a whole gained more benefits than it incurred costs in
the support of higher education:
This additional education serves not only the
individual but society in general . .
Moreover a person who earned more income also
pays more tax, and a proportionately greater
share as his income rises. In other words,
most people whose incomes rise as a result of
advanced education do pay the cost of that
education in higher taxes. The Veterans
Administration has suggested that the G. I.
Bill of Rights . ended up costing the
people nothing; the beneficiaries have paid
back in increasing taxes more than they
received in benefits.38
The Carnegie Commission: Open Door Colleges
The Carnegie Commission, noting the inequality of
educational opportunity, recommended federal financial
support and at the same time advocated autonomy for
community colleges in their decision making. The Commission
said, in regard to inequality of opportunity and need:
The need for financial support for community
colleges is critical. . Furthermore, the
development of community colleges has lagged
in low-income states and in some of the states
with sparce populations, or no provisions for
state financial support of community colleges.39
Open Door Colleges continued and identified specific
areas of need which should be underwritten by the Federal
The Commission recommends that the federal
government assist community colleges by
providing (1) funds for state planning; (2)
start-up grants for new campuses; (3)
construction funds; (4) cost-of-education
allowances for low-income students attending
the colleges; (5) grants, work-study
opportunities, and loans for the colleges;
and (6) an expanded program of federal
training grants to stimulate expansion and
improvement of graduate education programs
for community college teachers, counselors and
administrators--all as recommended in its
report on federal aid as revised in June, 1970.40
But while recommending Federal aid, the Commission
clearly argued for a system which would retain local
autonomy for the community colleges:
In general the federal governments role should
be confined to the provision of limited
financial support, as recommended above,
including the stimulation of planning by the
states through planning grants. The states
should undertake the responsibility for the
development of state plans, adequate financial
support, and a set of general state criteria
and standards for the community colleges.
However, within a framework of state planning
and guidance, local community college districts
should have the responsibility for detailed
policy decisions in their districts.41
Interest in a Comprehensive Policy, the Educational
commission of the States
The Educational Commission of the States was formed
as a result of grants through the Carnegie and Danforth
Foundation. Political and educational leaders of several
states joined together in an effort to support public
policy toward education which would best serve the Nation.
Leaders and interest groups from local and state levels
were brought together at a national level in an attempt to
solve problems which prevailed across political jurisdic-
tions, and obtain out of the myriad of interests, as the
name would suggest, one nationwide policy. This repeats
a need identified in every President's commission or
committee or task force on higher education.
The American Council on Education
In 1967, in The Federal Investment in Higher Education:
The Need for a Sustained Commitment, the American Council on
Education stressed the need for a federal commitment, gave
a note of caution of uneven and unsustained support and
recommended that support of institutions be increased,
especially as the institutions sustained increased financial
burdens with increased enrollments. Part of the increased
enrollments were attributed to Federal support of students
and thus, the Council felt that institutions should be
supported accordingly if quality was to be maintained.
The Council wrote:
. each program contributes to the strengthening
of our colleges and universities. The strengthening
has, however, been uneven. Many institutions with
a potential for making major contributions to young
people . have virtually been by-passed. Even
in strong universities imbalances have been
created. . .
We recommend that the next major step forward in
the federal effort to strengthen higher education
by the support of institutions as institutions.42
The Council repeated the position in 1969 in Federal
Programs for Higher Education. And again in 1971 the
Council encouraged more Federal support and urged
especially institutional support. The Council stressed
the financial burdens for institutions were increasing by
Federal support of students who in turn were not paying
the full cost of the programs in which they enrolled,
encouraged by federal financial support. The Council
expressed its position:
In his 1970 higher education message to the
Congress, President Nixon stated as a national
goal that "no qualified student who wants to go
to college should be barred by lack of money."
The Council supports this goal wholeheartedly. . .
The president has proposed to expand federal assistance
and direct it to the least affluent in our society.
If his program succeeds, he expects that over the
next four years a million students who would not
otherwise have done so will present themselves to
institutions of higher learning. . .
If the government adds to those strains by providing
aid only to students, the predictable result will
be disappointment or lowered quality for hundreds
of thousands of young people.23
U. S. Department of Health.Education and Welfare,
Office of Education
The Office of Education in 1971, in Report on Higher
Education, published a report which also encouraged in-
creased federal support, and flexibility such as was not
available in categorical grants. The Office recommended:
We also recommend that both the state and federal
governments provide funds to the institutions
(both public and private) in the form of grants
that accompany certain categories of students.
All institutions need some flexible funding,
some means of responding to new ideas or differing'
circumstances. . .
Providing funding through grants accompanying
students . has the advantage of encouraging
a sense of competition and a willingness to
change as society changes. . .
The trend toward centralization and bureaucracy
became evident during the 1960s, when state and
federal funding grew at the greatest rate ever.
We believe that the time to reverse the present
trend toward centralization is now or the chance
will be lost for a long time.44
The Federal Role Defined in Legislation in Support of
The NDEA, a Turning Point in Public Policy
Alice Rivlin, in 1961, identified the National
Defense Education Act (1958) as a major turning point in
American public policy concerning post-secondary education.
Rivlin marks the Act as an explicit shift to general and
continuing aid. She writes:
The National Defense Education Act may represent
the beginning of a new era of explicit recognition
of higher education as a legitimate area of federal
concern. To be sure . there is considerable
verbiage about "national security". . Neverthe-
less the Act comes close to being an out-and-out
education measure than any previous legislation.
The provision for the student loan program seems
to indicate congressional acceptance of the idea
that it is in the national interest for the
federal government to help undergraduates finance
their education on a continuing basis. . The
efficacy of the measure may be questioned, but the
intent if the National Defense Education Act
clearly was to use Federal resources to strengthen
higher education generally. This recognition of
higher education as a national concern may well
turn ut to be the most important feature of the
That was a distinct change in explicit Federal policy.
The Act clearly defines it to be a national interest that
every person be educated to the limit of his potential.
And education in general, or in many areas, is supported
rather than programs of support for explicit programs
aimed at specific manpower needs. Babbidge and Rosenzweig
agreed with Rivlin, as they wrote of the shift in policy:
Even accepting the term "national defense" at its
face value, this statement stands as a firm
declaration of a broad principle that is at least
90 degrees and closer to 180 degrees from previous
Government policy. One of America's great social
contributions has been a workable system of public
education open to all citizens. Under State
authority this system has been carried forward
by means of State colleges and universities. But
the Congress of the United States had never before
declared it to be a goal of national policy that
"no student of ability will be denied an
opportunity for higher education because of
The National Defense Education Act represented a
major shift in the Governments attitude toward student
financial assistance. The Act represents the first major
step toward the positive position that the national well-
being requires that every individual have an opportunity
for the most advanced training of which he is capable.
Although the specific terms of the Act fall short of its
philosophical commitment, it is of interest here. Title I
of the Act is devoted to a declaration of policy. It
states, in part:
The Congress hereby finds and declares that the
security of the Nation requires the fullest
development of the mental resources and technical
skills of its young men and women. The present
emergency demands that additional and more adequate
educational opportunities be made available.
We must increase our efforts to identify and
educate more of the talent of our Nation. This
requires programs which will give assurance that
no student of ability will be denied an opportunity
for higher education because of financial need . .
To meet the present educational emergency requires
additional effort at all levels of government.
It is therefore the purpose of this Act to provide
substantial assistance in various forms to
individuals and to States and their subdivisions,
in order to insure trained manpower of sufficient
qualityand quantity to meet the national defense
needs of the United States.47
The Higher Education Facilities Act
At the beginning of the decade of the 1960s the
condition of inadequate facilities of higher education was
brought to the attention of the Congress. President Kennedy
had frequently urged upon Congress the necessity of Federal
aid for higher education. In one of his Messages to
Congress, on February 20, 1961 (one month after inauguration),
The national interest requires an educational system
on the college level sufficiently financed and
equipped to provide every student with adequate
physical facilities to meet his instructional,
research and residential needs.48
The Eighty-seventh and Eighty-eighthCongress held a
long series of hearings and as a result passed Public Law
88-204, the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963. The
Act provided for both grants and loans to be made available
at both the undergraduate and graduate level. The Act was
narrower than some critics would have desired, as the
grants and loans were made available only for designated
academic facilities and for the purposes given in the Act.
The development of another aspect of Federal policy
at the post-secondary level was becoming apparent. The
Act provided assistance to both public and nonpublic
institutions. There were prohibitions against the use of
such funds for sectarian instruction or religious worship,
but aid for education purposes to private institutions
became a precedent.
There were also equalization provisions in the
funding formula, at least partially adjusting for differ-
ences in personal income. The share for each state was
determined, in part, by the ratio of the states personal
income to that of the mean per capital income for the fifty
The Act was established to be administered by the
U. S. Office of Education. The Office was prohibited, by
provisions of the Act, from exercising any control over
curriculum or methods of instruction.
M. M. Chambers makes two points of criticism which
bear on the development of public policy. He reiterates
the criticism of specific, categorical grants and notes
the skewness which favors certain portions of the
curriculum. He writes:
The restriction to buildings for a specific purpose
is rather unrealistic and a trifle absurd--a fruit
of the excitement of "Sputnik" and the international
arms race. Few college buildings are used for
precisely the same purposes throughout their
useful lives, as the institution grows and the older
buildings become obsolete as new ones are added . .
In the realm of academic facilities, the attempt to
skew the nationwide picture in favor of facilities
for mathematics, engineering, science, and modern
foreign languages is an unnecessary encroachment
upon the control of the institute gns and a
disturber of their morale ..
The author continues and notes that the skewing in favor of
certain disciplines occurred in the early years of the
National Defense Education Act, and was a prominent feature
of research grants from Federal agencies such as the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Department of Defense, and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Experience, however, directed Federal policy to
broader and more general support of post-secondary education.
Under the NDEA Congress later determined that reading,
writing and other skills necessary to the national interest
were lacking. The NDEA was extended to support history,
civics, geography, English, economics and industrial arts.
Also in following years other acts were passed adding to
the comprehensiveness of Federal support.
Vocational Education Act of 1963
President Kennedy directed the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare to convene an advisory body drawn
from the education profession, labor, industry, and
agriculture, as well as the lay public. The Panel re-
commended that the local-state-Federal partnership increase
__ __ ________li__l__________li_____:___l___
support for (1) high school students preparing to enter
the labor market or become homemakers; (2) youth with
special needs who have academic, socioeconomic, or other
handicaps that can prevent them from succeeding the usual
high school program; (3) youth or adults who have completed
or left high school; (4) youth and adults who need train-
ing or retraining to achieve employment stability; and
(5) adequate services to assure quality in all vocational
and technical programs.50
The result of the subsequent legislation redirected
vocational education programs from preparation for specific
occupations to any occupation not requiring a baccalaureate
degree. And special emphasis was placed on programs to
help groups of people with specific needs, rather than
programs directed at supplying skills and manpower needs
for specific occupations or industries.
Five years later (1968) the Vocational Amendments
of 1968 merged all programs into one act. And most im-
portant for policy, the Act replaced occupational oriented
categories with categories of people, with programs aimed at
the needs of those groups of people.
Higher Education Act
The Higher Education Act of 1965 was a very compre-
hensive act. A list of the Titles indicates the breadth of
of the legislation and the comprehensiveness of the Act.
The Titles include: Community Services; Library Assistance;
Library Training and Research; Strengthening Developing
Institutions; Student Assistance (opportunity grants,
loans, work study programs); Teacher Programs (National
Teachers Corp, fellowships); Financial Assistance for the
Improvement of Undergraduate Instruction; as well as other
The effect of this and other legislation is indicated
The Higher Education Act of 1965 provided for
Economic Opportunity Grants to needy students--
the first general program of federal scholarships
to undergraduates. The Economic Opportunities
Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Guaranteed
Student Loan Program have moved to lower the
financial barriers which had kept many needy
people out of college.51
The aims of this Act, with those of other legisla-
tion, were incorporated into the Higher Education Amendments
of 1968. The acceptance of Federal responsibility to
extending opportunity is clearly indicated in Title V of
the Higher Education Amendments, which requires the
President to submit to the Congress proposals relative to
the feasibility of making available post-secondary educa-
tion to all persons who are willing and able to benefit.
Indeed, Rivlin's observation of a turning point were
borne out by events of the sixties, which have been
identified as a "Growing Federal Presence":
To turn to the federal level, perhaps the best way
to describe the situation is in terms of the growing
federal presence. In the decade of the 60's,
actually beginning with the National Education
Defense Act of 1958, more postsecondary and higher
education legislation was enacted than in the
entire previous history of the country. While
the main focus of most of the legislation of the
60's tended to be on the baccalaureate, professional
and graduate education, the community colleges were
not overlooked. They received possible or actual
support under a series of acts including the
Manpower Development and Training Act of 1963, the
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the
Vocational Education Act of 1963, the National
Education Amendments of 1964, the Higher Education
Act of 1965, the Vocational Amendments of 1968,
the Education Professions Development Act of 1968,
Sand a series of health education acts . .
And yet all of these tend to fall into the back-
ground in relation to the potential impact, if
funded, of the Education Amendments of 1972.
The current amendments constitute a whole new
ball game and underline as never before the
necessity for a real institutional-state-federal
partnership if the intents of the Act are in
fact to lead to a revitalized postsecondary
educational system in the country.52
Some of the provisions of the Education Amendments
of 1972 are of special interest in considering the develop-
ment of public policy. Among its aims the Act makes
provisions in financial assistance which would, as expressed
in the Act, move in the direction of insuring educational
opportunity for all students by removing racial and
cultural barriers and providing aid for the economically
disadvantaged. The Act makes claim to general support of
post-secondary education. The Federal Government places
itself as an agent of change. And in regard to community
colleges, Title X specifically provides for their support,
their development and their expansion.
The Administration's Program (1970)
President Nixon's Message to the Congress on Higher
Education, March, 1970, had as its intent progress toward
universal opportunity. And while there is current con-
troversy over the actual effect of budget decisions and
Federal appropriation, the principles in the Message are
clear. The issue of universal education is relevant,
especially, to two groups: young persons from poor
families and young persons whose natural endowment or
cultural development is such that traditional forms of
education available to them are ineffective. The
President's Message was clear to these groups:
No qualified student who wants to go to college
should be barred by lack of money. That has long
been a great American goal: I propose that we
achieve it now.
Something is basically unequal about opportunity
for higher education when a young person whose
family earns more than $15,000 a year is nine
times more likely to attend college than a young
person whose family earns less than $3,000.
Something is basically wrong with Federal policy
toward Higher Education when it has failed to
correct this inequity, and when Government
programs spending $5.3 billion have largely
been disjointed, illdirected and without a
coherent long-range plan.
Something is wrong with our higher education
policy when-on the threshold of a decade in
which enrollments will increase almost 50%-not
nearly enough attention is focused on the 2-
year community colleges so important to the
careers of so many young people.53
The President continued, and reaffirmed proposals
that Federal aid shift from categorical aid to aid of a
For three decades now the Federal Government has
been hiring universities to do the work it
wanted done. In far the greatest measure, this
work has been in the national interest . .
But the time has come for the Federal Govern-
ment to help academic communities to pursue
excellence and reform in fields of their own
And to secure coherence in policy, and comprehensive
planning for a system of higher education, a goal often
posed by policy makers in higher education, the President
proposed the National Foundation for Higher Education.
That agency was to be independent of the Federal Government
but chartered by it.
Congressional Intent in Extending Equality of Opportunity
The manner of funding, at least at the community
college level, has clearly shifted from narrow categorical
funding to broad funding of institutions and funding of
students, through institutions, with provision for a wide
range of individual choice of program. This change
coincides with a change in the perception of the Nation's
interest in-Federal aid. The language of the legislation
involved refers less to specific national interests and
more frequently to demands of the economy and demands of
social justice for an increase in higher education across
the population as a whole. The incorporation of programs
in the Higher Education Amendments of 1968 and of 1972
indicates an interest in securing a comprehensive Federal
program. Such programs as Talent Search and Upward Bound
indicate an intent to extend opportunity to persons who
would otherwise not secure further education. That interest
is specifically expressed in the last Title of the Educa-
tional Amendments of 1968:
Sec. 508. On or before December 31, 1969, the
President shall submit to the Congress proposals
relative to the feasibility of making available
a post-secondary education to all young Americans
who qualify and seek it.55
The intent of Congress was further clarified in the
Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Among its many
provision the Act states support of universal accessibility
and the role of the community colleges in accessibility.
Among other things, Title X states:
Sec. 1001. (a) Each State Commission (established
or designated under section 1202) of each State
which desires to receive assistance under this
subpart shall develop a statewide plan for the
expansion or improvement of postsecondary educa-
tion programs in community colleges or both.
Such plan shall among other things--
(1) designate areas, if any, of the State in which
residents do not have access to at least two years
of tuition-free or low-tuition postsecondary
education within reasonable distance;
(2) set forth a comprehensive statewide plan for
the establishment, or expansion, and improvement
of community colleges, or both, which would
achieve the goal of making available, to all
residents of the State an opportunity to attend a
community college (as defined in section 1018);
(3) establish priorities for the use of Federal and
non-Federal financial and other resources which would
be necessary to achieve the goal set forth in
Although controversy subsequently arose over the establish-
ment of the 1202 commissions, the intent to increase the
accessibility of higher education is clear, at least
through the community college level.
The intent to encourage comprehensive Federal support
is implied in the Higher Education Amendments of 1972, which
established an independent agency within the executive
branch which was to conduct a study and then be terminated.
The objectives of the National Commission on the Financing
of Postsecondary Education are given in Title VI:
Sec. 140. (a) (1) It is the purpose of this
section to authorize a study of the impact of past,
present, and anticipated private, local, State,
and Federal support for postsecondary education,
the appropriate role for the States in support of
higher education (including the application of
State law upon postsecondary educational opportu-
nities), alternative student assistance programs,
and the potential Federal, State, and private
participation in such programs.
(2) In order to give the States and the Nation the
information needed to assess the dimensions of,
and extent of, the financial crisis confronting
the Nation's postsecondary institutions such study
shall determine the need, the desirability, the
form, and the level of additional governmental
and private assistance. Such study shall include
at least (A) an analysis of the existing programs
of aid to institutions of higher education, various
alternative proposals presented to the Congress to
provide assistance to institutions of higher
education, as well as other viable alternatives
which, in the judgment of the Commission, merit
inclusion in such a study; (B) the costs, advantages
and disadvantages, and the extent to which each
proposal would preserve the diversity and inde-
pendence of such institutions; and (C) the extent
to which each would advance the national goal of
making postsecondary education accessible to all
individuals including returning veterans, having
the desire and ability to continue their education.57
Paragraph (C) in the Section above clearly states the
national goal of making post-secondary education accessible
to all individuals who have the desire and ability to
continue their education.
Thomas Jefferson identified the public interest in
supporting higher education as providing those parts, not
normally provided by private higher education, necessary to
complete the circle. And while he thought those areas to
be only certain sciences, Jefferson felt that they were
necessary to the well-being of the Nation. Such education
was restricted to a limited portion of the population which
either trained for a profession or was educated to provide
The purposes for which the Federal Government supported
higher education increased as the Nation developed. As
Commager noted, education became the religion of the early
Nation. Education was expected to meet an immense variety
of needs. The first experience of Federal support for
higher education was incidental to other problems and
provided categorically. Higher education was supported in
the interest of making agriculture more scientific,
alleviating depressions and providing the manpower skills
and research and development which were necessary to the
Nation's war effort. Nonetheless higher education enroll-
President Truman's Commission on Higher Education
identified higher education as an investment in social
welfare, better living standards, better health and less
crime. In fact the Commission declared that the advances
of technology and the demands of the political and social
systems required free public higher education through
grade fourteen, as was provided at the high school level.
Legislation, beginning with the National Defense
Education Act, identified an interest in developing the
capacity of individuals as a National resource, rather than
providing education incidentally to meet manpower and skill
needs for specific problems. Thus individuals were
supported in educational programs of their own choice.
And while the curricula supported in the original legisla-
tion were limited, subsequent legislation provided support
for an increasing variety of curricula.
Along with the increase in diversity of support there
developed an increasing demand for equality of opportunity.
Legislation in civil rights and support programs for higher
.education specifically stated an intent to increase
equality of opportunity and prevent discrimination.
President Nixon stated that no qualified student who wants
to go to college should be barred by lack of money. (See
Note number 53.) That policy which was also stated by
President Truman has since that time been supported with
varying amounts of financial support. But generally the
public support and subsequent financial support have been
increasing. And while the current public statements and
legislative intent do not support universal higher education,
there is support for extending equality of opportunity for
higher education, and for increasing the range and variety
1. Homer D. Babbidge and Robert M. Rosenzweig,
The Federal Interest in Higher Education (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962), p. 3.
2. Ibid., p. 4.
3. Ibid., p. 5.
4. Ibid., p. 7.
5. Henry Steele Commager, "Social, Political,
Economic and Personal Consequences," Universal Hioher
Education, Ed. Earl J. McGrath (New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 1966), pp. 4-6.
6. Ibid., p. 16.
7. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, p. 9.
8. M. M. Chambers, Higher Education Who Pays?
Who Gains? (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printers
& Publishers, Inc., 1968), p. 233.
9. Ibid., p. 233.
10. Richard G. Axt, The Federal Government and
Financing Higher Education (New York; Columbia University
Press, 1952), p. 81.
11. Ibid., p. 81.
12. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, p. 15.
13. Alice Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government
in Financing Higher Education (Washington, D. C.: The
Brookings Institution, 1961), pp. 118-119.
14. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, pp. 83-84.
15. Axt, p. 190.
16. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. V.
Financing Higher Education (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 3.
17. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. II.
Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity
Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office,
1947), p. 23.
18. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Higher Education for American Democracy, Vol. I.
Establishing the Goals (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1947), p. 54.
19. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Vol. V., pp. 5-6.
20. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Vol. V., p. 38.
21. President's Commission on Higher Education,
Vol. II., p. 69.
22. Art, pp. 211-212.
23. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, p. 80.
24. Warren Willingham, Universal Access to Higher
Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971), p. 16.
25. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, p. 80.
26. The President's Committee on Education Beyond
the High School, Second Report to the President (Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1957), p. 25.
27. Ibid., p. 15.
28. Ibid., p. ix.
29. Ibid., p. 15.
30. Ibid., p. 12.
31. President's Task Force on Higher Education,
Priorities in Higher Education (Washington, D. C.: U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1970), p. 2.
32. Ibid., Introduction
33. Ibid., p. 9.
34. Ibid., pp. 10-11.
35. Education Policies Commission, Universal
Opportunity for Education Beyond the High Schoo ashington,
D. C.: National Education Association, 1964), p. 33.
36. Ibid., pp. 1-2.
37. Ibid., p. 27.
38. Ibid., p. 27.
39. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Open Door Colleges (Highstown, N. J.: McGraw Hill Book
CO., 1970), p. 41.
40. Ibid., p. 44.
41. Ibid., p. 47.
42. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
Institutional Aid (New York: McGraw Hill Book Co., 1972),
43. Ibid., pp. 133-134.
44. Ibid., p. 128.
45. Rivlin, p. 119.
46. Babbidge and Rosenzweig, p. 51.
47. Ibid., p. 50.
48. Lu Hsien, Federal Role in Education (New York:
American Press Publications, Inc., 1965), p. 190.
49. Chambers, p. 238.
50. Edgar Hugh Bedenbaugh, Extent of Financial
Equalization Among the States from Ten Programs of Federal
dto Education (Dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, 1970), p. 64.
51. Ronald A. Wolk, Alternative Methods of Federal
Funding for Higher Education (Berkeley, Calif.: Carnegie
Commission on Higher Education, 1968), p. 3.
52. Richard M. Millard, "The Necessity of Coordinating
State and Federal Support for Community Colleges," Agenda
for National Action (Washington, D. C.: American Association
of Community and Junior Colleges, 1972), p. 120.
53. Daniel P. Moynihan, "On Universal Higher
Education," Higher Education for Everybody? Ed. W. Todd
Furniss (Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education,
1971), p. 243.
54. Ibid., p. 248.
55. United States, Statutes at Large, Vol. LXXXII,
56. United States, Public Law 92-318, Education
Amendments of 1972 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1972), p. 77.
57. Ibid., p. 47.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND PROVISION OF THE
SELECTED AID PROGRAMS
There are many issues in the enactment of legislation
for Federal aid to education. There is the question of
whether to provide aid; and if so in what amount and under
what conditions. Each program, as well as providing for
aid to education, addresses other questions. There may be
unexpected and unintended effects. The purpose of this
chapter is to provide basic information concerning the
legislative intent of the programs under consideration.
Manpower Development and Training Act--
Publ.ic Law 87-415
Congress determined that there was a need for more
and better trained personnel in many vital occupation
areas, that there were persons unemployed and underemployed
for lack of adequate and appropriate training and that dis-
location in the economy due to technological change caused
persons to be displaced and to have obsolete skills.
Therefore Congress, on March 15, 1962, passed the Manpower
Development and Training Act. The Department of Labor and
the Department of Health, Education and Welfare were both
given responsibilities. In the Department of Labor a
I_ ___ ~_1 rZ~ ___110____~_____1_____
specific office was established. The Office of Manpower,
Automation and Training was set up in 1962 for this
The Statement of Findings and Purpose of the Act
again clearly defined a national interest and stated: "It
is in the national interest that current and prospective
manpower shortages be identified and that persons who can
be qualified for these positions through education and
training be sought out and trained in order that the Nation
may meet the staffing requirements of the struggle for
freedom."I The national need is further defined in Title I
of the Act.
Manpower Development and Training Act, Title I--
Manpower Requirements and Utilization
The interest of the Nation, the problem involved and
the intent of the Act are made clear in the Statement of
Findings and Purpose of the Act. The Statement is given
Sec. 101. The Congress finds that there is
critical need for more and better trained
personnel in many vital occupational
categories, including professional,
scientific, technical, and apprenticeable
categories; that even in periods of high
unemployment, many employment opportunities
remain unfilled because of the shortages of
qualified personnel; and that it is in the
national interest that current and prospective
manpower shortages be identified and that
persons who can be qualified for these
positions through education and training be
sought out and trained, in order that the
Nation may meet the staffing requirements
of the struggle for freedom. The Congress
further finds that the skills of many persons
have been rendered obsolete by dislocations in
the economy arising from automation or other
technological developments, foreign competition,
relocation of industry, shifts in market demands,
and other changes in the structure of the
economy; that Government leadership is necessary
to insure that the benefits of automation do not
become burdens of widespread unemployment; that
the problem of assuring sufficient employment
opportunities will be compounded by the extra-
ordinarily rapid growth of the labor force in the
next decade, particularly by the entrance of
young people into the labor force, that improved
planning and expanded efforts will be required
to assure that men, women, and young people will
be trained and available to meet shifting employ-
ment needs; that many persons now unemployed or
underemployed, in order to become qualified for
reemployment or full employment must be assisted
in providing themselves with skills which are or
will be in demand in the labor market; that the
skills of many persons now employed are inadequate
to enable them to make their maximum contribution
to the Nation's economy; and that it is in the
national interest that the opportunity to acquire
new skills be afforded to these people in order
to alleviate the hardships of unemployment,
reduce the costs of unemployment compensation and
public assistance, and to increase the Nation's
productivity and its capacity to meet the require-
ments of the space age. It is therefore the
purpose of this Act to require the Federal
Government to appraise the manpower requirements
and resources of the Nation, and to develop and
apply the information and methods needed to deal
with the problems of unemployment resulting from
automation and technological changes and other
types of persistent unemployment.
The following sections of Article I specifically
required appraisal of the manpower requirements of the
Nation. Section 102 required the Secretary of Labor to
evaluate the impact of, and benefits and problems created
by automation and technological progress. The Secretary
was required by the Act to study factors which affect the
mobility of labor, methods of promoting effective
utilization, and methods of providing work experience and
training opportunities. The Act further specified that the
Secretary of Labor is to make such reports and recommendations
to the President as he deems appropriate pertaining to
manpower requirements, resources and training; and that the
President shall transmit to the Congress within sixty days
after the beginning of each regular session a report per-
taining to manpower requirements, resources, utilization
Manpower Development and Training Act, Title II--
Training and Skill Develcm.ent Programs
While Title I provided for evaluation of needs, Title
II specified .responsibility for developing programs and
providing allowances to persons selected under this Act.
General responsibility was specified in the Act:
Sec. 201. In carrying out the purposes of this
Act, the Secretary of Labor shall determine the
skill requirements of the economy, develop policies
for the adequate occupational development and maximum
utilization of the skills of the Nation's workers,
promote and encourage the development of broad and
diversified training programs, including on-the-job
training, designed to qualify for e-ployment the
many persons who cannot reasonably be expected to
secure full-time employment without such training,
and to equip the Nation's workers with the new and
improved skills that are or will be required.3
The Secretary of Labor was charged in the Act with
providing a program for testing, counseling and selection
for training persons who could not reasonably be expected
to secure appropriate full-time employment without such
training. Priority was given first to the unemployed and
-- 1=-1--91 ___-_TI
thento others who could benefit. Also priority was given
for programs that would lead to employment within the
market area. Only cases in which training could reasonably
be expected to lead to employment were to be approved.
The Secretary of Labor was authorized to enter into
contracts with the States to reimburse them for payments
under provision of the Act. Payments to each individual
were set to not exceed fifty-two weeks and not to exceed
the average weekly unemployment compensation in that State
(except that if an individual were eligible for unemploy-
ment compensation which would exceed that amount payment
to that individual could be increased to the amount of the
unemployment compensation for which he would be eligible).
Later amendments increased that limit by $10.00 per week.
In addition subsistence allowances were set for those who
would be forced by the training to reside or commute from
The main intent was addressed to those who had been
employed for at least three years. But provisions were
added for training persons nineteen through twenty-two
years old for whom such training would be necessary to
secure appropriate employment.
The Secretary was charged in the Act with appointing
a National Advisory Committee. The Committee was to assist
in the organization of labor-management-public committees
designed to further the purposes of the Act.
Part B of Title II specifies the responsibility of
the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
Sec. 231. The Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare shall, pursuant to the provisions of
this title, enter into agreements with States
under which the appropriate State vocational
education agencies will undertake to provide
training needed to equip persons referred to
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by
the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 202,
for the occupations specified in the referrals.
Such State agencies shall provide for such train-
ing through public education agencies or institutions
or, if facilities or services of such agencies or
institutions are not adequate for the purpose,
through arrangements with private educational or
training institutions. The State agency shall be
paid 50 per centum of the cost to the State of
carrying out the agreement, except that for the
period ending June 30, 1964 the State agency shall
be paid 100 per centum of the cost of the State
of carrying out the agreement with respect to
unemployed persons. Such agreements shall contain
such other provisions as will promote effective
administration (including provision (1) for reports
on the attendance and performance of trainees, (2)
for immediate certification to the Secretary of
Labor by the responsible training agency with
respect to each person referred for training who
does not have a satisfactory attendance record or
is not making satisfactory progress in such train-
ing absent good cause, and (3) for continuous
supervision of the training programs conducted
under the agreement to insure the quality and
adequacy of the training provided), protect the
United States against loss, and assure that the
functions and duties to be carried out by such
State agency are performed in such fashion as will
carry out the purposes of this title. In the case
of any State which does not enter into an agreement
under this section, and in the case of any training
which the State agency does not provide under such
an agreement, the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare may provide the needed training by
agreement or contract with public or private
educational or training institutions.4
Manpower Development and Training Act, Title III--
The Act did not specify an objective formula for
apportionment of benefits. The Act did, however, provide
guidelines and require that apportionment be made in a
uniform manner. The factors specified for consideration
were cited in Title III of this Act.
Sec. 301. For the purpose of effecting an equitable
apportionment of Federal expenditures among the
States in carrying out the programs authorized
under title II of this Act, the Secretary of Labor
and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
shall make such apportionment in accordance with
uniform standards and in arriving at such standards
shall consider only the following factors: (1)
the proportion which the labor force of a State
bears to the total labor force of the United States,
(2) the proportion which the unemployed in a State
during the preceding calendar year bears to the
total number of unemployed in the United Sates in
the preceding calendar year, (3) the lack of
appropriate full-time employment in the State, (4)
the proportion which the insured unemployed within
a State bears to the total number of insured employed
within such State, and (5) the average weekly un-
employment compensation benefits paid by the State.
The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare are authorized to make re-
apportionments from time to time where the total
amounts apportioned under this section have not
been fully obligated in a particular State, or
where the State or appropriate agencies in the State
have not entered into the necessary agreements, and
the Secretaries find that any other State is in need
of additional funds to carry out the programs
authorized by this Act.5
Both the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare were charged with the responsibility
of preparing an annual report. In the last year of the
original Act Congress passed Public Law 88-214 which amended
and extended the Manpower Development and Training Act; and
subsequent amendments further extended the life of the Act.
Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963--
Public Law 88-204
The extent of opportunity and the quality of education
ene examined at length by the Administration and the
Congress in the early years of the decade of the 1960's.
President Kennedy frequently urged Congress to increase
Federal aid for higher education. In a message to Congress
on February 20, 1961, he stated:
Our colleges and Universities represent our
ultimate educational resource. In these institu-
tions are produced the leaders and other trained
persons whom we need to carry forward our highly
developed civilization. If the colleges and
universities fail to do their job, there is no
substitute to fulfill their responsibility . .
The national interest requires an educational
system on the college level sufficiently financed
and equipped to provide every student with
adequate physical facilities to meet his instruc-
tional, research and residential needs.6
After two years of hearings and debate on various
educational proposals the President's Science Advisory
Committee summarized the conclusions:
1. Colleges and universities of all types face
constantly increasing enrollments to the
extent that they cannot provide the necessary
classrooms, laboratories and libraries they
need for students currently enrolled.
2. The pressure of new knowledge on colleges and
universities requires even newer and more
expensive research facilities and equipment.
3. The population of 18-22 year-old group will
total 17.8 million by 1970 and the college
enrollment will rise to 7 million by that time.
4. Expenditures of institutions of higher education
for physical plant have increased from $84
million in 1940 to $1,192 million in 1960. . .
5. Neither the institutions nor the state and
local governments can afford to increase
their expenditures to the total amount of
$3 billion needed in time to provide for
immediate enrollment increases.
6. The shortage of funds has caused many institu-
tions to steadily raise their tuition and other
charges . which in turn, have prevented in
each year about 100,000 youths of high ability
from attending colleges.
7. Between 1960 and 1970 this country needs
approximately 170,000 scientists and engineers,
150,000 social workers, 1,090,000 teachers, . .
9,600 physicians, but the facilities of present
colleges and universities are far behind the
capacity of meeting those demands.
8. The intellect of the young people is a natural
resource that must be developed and used to the
fullest, and higher education is a means to
develop this resource. In an economic sense,
it is to produce capital in the form of improved
intellectual equipment for future service in the
society. Thus, expenditures on higher education
are investments. Achieving quality may be
costly, but falling short of it will be even
In view of these facts and needs, Congress passed
Public Law 88-204, the Higher Education Facilities Act of
1963, in which it declared that this and future generations
of American youth be assured ample opportunity for the
fullest development of their intellectual capacities, and
that these needs are so great and these steps so urgent
that it is incumbent upon the nation to take positive and
immediate action to meet these needs through assistance to
institutions of higher education.
The Higher Education Facilities Act was passed to
authorize assistance to public and other nonprofit institu-
tions of higher education in financing the construction,
rehabilitation or improvement of needed academic and
related facilities in undergraduate and graduate institu-
tions. Thus both private and public institutions were
eligible, as were undergraduate and graduate institutions.
The national interest was reiterated in Section 2--
Findings and Declaration of Policy--Public Law 88-204:
Sec. 2. The Congress hereby finds that the
security and welfare of the United States
require that this and future generations of
American youth be assured ample opportunity for
fullest development of their intellectual
capacities, and that his opportunity will be
jeopardized unless the Nation's colleges and
universities are encouraged and assisted to a
higher education. The Congress further finds
and declares that these needs are so great and
these steps so urgent that it is incumbent upon
the Nation to take positive and immediate action
to meet these needs through assistance to institu-
tions of higher education, including graduate and
undergraduate institutions, junior and community
colleges, and technical institutes, in providing
certain academic facilities.8
However, despite a claim for national interest, the
role of the Federal Government was specifically restrained.
The last section of the Higher Education Facilities Act
Sec. 407. No department, agency, officer, or
employee of the United States shall, under
authority of this Act, exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over, or impose any
requirements or conditions with respect to, the
personnel, curriculum, methods of instruction,
or administration of any educational institution.9
The Higher Education Facilities Act is given in four
titles which are summarized below; and then are listed
separately with their specific provisions. The summary is
Higher Education Facilities Act Authorizes a
5-year program of grants to institutions of
higher education for the construction of academic
facilities. Provides for the allotment of 22
percent of such funds to the States for the
construction of public community colleges and
technical institutions in accordance with a
formula based on high school graduates and per
capital income. Provides for the allotment of
the remaining funds one-half on the basis of the
relative number of students enrolled in institu-
tions of higher education and the other half on
the relative number enrolled in high schools.
Makes funds available for development costs.
Limits the Federal share of costs to 33 1/3
percent (40 percent for community colleges).
Requires States to submit a plan for participa-
tion in the grant program. Sets forth the
requirements for such plans including assignment
of priorities, hearings as to priority assignment,
and necessary fiscal controls. Requires grants
be for the construction of structures designed
for instruction or research in the sciences,
mathematics, foreign languages, or engineering,
or for use as a library.
Sets the period of Federal interest in projects
aided at 20 years and permits recovery of funds
if the facility ceases to be used in accordance
with the program within that period.
Authorizes a 5-year program of Federal grants
for the construction of graduate academic facili-
ties. Limits such grants to 33 1/3 percent of the
costs. Provides for the appointment of an Advisory
Committee to provide advice with respect to applica-
tions for grants and in the preparation of
regulations and criteria for awarding such grants.
Authorizes a 5-year program of loans to institu-
tions of higher education for the construction of
academic facilities. Requires loans to be repaid
within 50 years. Sets the interest rate at 1/4
of 1 percent above the rate paid on public debt
obligations. Requires 25 percent of the cost to be
financed by non-Federal sources.
Requires compliance with the prevailing wage and
hour laws (Davis-Bacon Act) for projects assisted
hereunder. Prohibits Federal interference with the
personnel, curriculum methods of instruction, or
administration of any educational institution
Higher Education Facilities Act, Title I--
Grants for Construction of Undergraduate Facilities
Under Title I, Federal grants are provided on an
objective formula matching basis. The Congress authorized
to be appropriated the sum of $230 million for ti3 first
three years of the Act, which was to extend for five years.
The last two years were to be funded as subsequent sessions
of Congress would determine, and as subsequent amendments
would provide. Allotments were set into two parts. Twenty-
two percent to be allotted among the States for use in
providing academic facilities for public community colleges
and technical institutes. The remainder of the funds
appropriated were to be allotted among the States for use in
providing facilities for institutions of higher education
other than public community colleges and public technical
The formula for allotment among the States for
community colleges and technical institutes differs from
that for other higher education institutions. For community
colleges and technical institutes the formula was based on
two factors: (1) the number of high school graduates of
the State, and (2) the State's allotment ratio. The allot-
ment ratio was set at 1.00 less the product of (A) .50 and
(B) the quotient obtained by dividing the income per person
for the State by the income per person for all the States,
as given below:
per capital income
State's allotment ratio = 1.00 .50 x pr api tacome
for the 50 states
The Act states that the Commission shall allot to each
State for each fiscal year an amount which bears the same
ratio to the funds being allotted as the product of (1) and
(2) given above in this paragraph, except that the ratio in
no case shall be less than 33 1/3 or more than 66 2/3. Thus,
at least up to the limits prescribed, the higher the portion
of the population graduating from high school or the lower
the state per capital income the greater would be the share
for a particular state.
Allotments to States for institutions of higher educa-
tion other than community colleges and technical institutes
are determined by a formula with different factors: enroll-
ment in institutions of higher education and enrollment in
grades nine through twelve. The Act provides: (1) one-half
shall be allotted by the Commissioner among the States so
that the allotment to each State bears the same ratio to
such one-half as the number of students enrolled in the
institutions of higher education in such State bears to the
total number of students enrolled in such institutions in
all the States; and (2) the remaining one-half shall be
allotted by him among the States so that the allotment to
each State will bear the same ratio to such remainder as
the number of students enrolled in grades nine through
twelve of schools in such State bears to the total number
of students in such grades in schools in all the States.
Thus for institutions of higher education, other than
community colleges and technical institutes, the higher the
portion of the age group enrolled in high school and the
higher the enrollment in institutions of higher education
the greater be that States share of the total allocation.
Any State desiring to participate in the grant program
was required by the legislation to designate, or establish,
a State agency, broadly representative of the public and of
institutions of higher education including junior colleges
and technical institutes. And the Act required the Commis-
sioner to approve the State plan before allotments be
approved for that State.
Vocational Education Act of 1963--Public Law 88-210
and the Vocational Amendments of 1968
Vocational Education Act of 1963
Public Law 88-210 encompassed several areas of concern
for secondary and post-secondary education. The Act amended
and extended the Vocational Education Acts, the National
Defense Act, Public Laws 815 and 873 and the Manpower
Development and Training Act of 1962.
A panel of consultants reported prior to the 1963 Act
that low enrollments in urban areas were especially disturb-
ing and that Vocational education was neither retraining
dropouts nor preparing them for employment.11 The Voca-
tional Education Act of 1963 directed emphasis away from
occupational categories to groups of people. And as the
Manpower Development and Training Act, the intent was to
provide programs to address the needs of specifically
identified groups of people, rather than to fill particular
manpower needs. The intent is summarized in the Vocational
and Technical Education Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1969:
The Vocational Education Act of 1963 set a new
pattern for Federal support of public vocational
education and made training for "gainful employ-
ment" a goal of all programs it supported. The
intent was to modernize and redirect the entire
vocational system, put resources within reach of
all persons in all communities, and offer train-
ing for job entry or career advancement in
virtually every occupation below the professional
or 4-year degree level.12
This clearly reiterates a public policy of declaring a
national interest in advancing the occupational opportunities
of individuals and of insuring opportunity for all persons.
Part A, of three parts, in Public Law 88-210 is
identified as the Vocational Education Act of 1963. The
purpose of that part is summarized in the Declaration of
Sec. 1. It is the purpose of this part to
authorize Federal grants to States to assist
them to maintain, extend, and improve existing
programs of vocational education, to develop
new programs of vocational education, and to
provide part-time employment for youths who
need the earnings from such employment to
continue their vocational training on a full-
time basis, so that persons of all ages in
all communities of the State--those in high
school, those who have completed or discon-
tinued their formal education and are preparing
to enter the labor market, those who have
already entered the labor market but need to
upgrade their skills or learn new ones, and
those with special educational handicaps--will
have ready access to vocational training or
retraining which is of high quality, which is
realistic in the light of actual or anticipated
opportunities for gainful employment, and which
is suited to their needs, interests, and ability
to benefit from such training.
The Act authorized appropriations of 560,000,000,
$118,000,000 and $177,000,000 a year for the first three
fiscal years respectively and $225,000,000 for each year
thereafter (an amount which Congress increased each year
from 1965 to 1969). The Act specified a formula for
allotting forthcoming appropriations to the States. The
factors were (1) an allotment ratio determined by per
capital income, and (2) the number of individuals in the
The allotment for any State was set at 1.00 less the
product of (A) .50 and (B) the quotient obtained by divid-
ing the per capital income for the State by the per capital
income for all the States, as given below:
per capital income
State's allotment ratio = 1.00 .50 x fr te sta me
per capital income
for the 50 states
The portion for any state would be fixed by the same ratio
to the funds appropriated as the ratio of the product of
the State's allotment ratio times the population in its
target group would bear to the sum of all such products.
The age groups and portions are fixed in the Act:
Sec. 3. (a) Ninety per centum of the sums
appropriated pursuant to section 2 shall be
allotted among the States on the basis of the
number of persons in the various age groups
needing vocational education and the per
capital income in the respective States as
follows: The Commissioner shall allot to
each State for each fiscal year--
(1) An amount which bears the same ratio to 50
per centum of the sums so appropriated for such
year, as the product of the population aged
fifteen to nineteen, inclusive, in the State in
the preceding fiscal year and the State's allot-
ment ratio bears to the sum of the corresponding
products for all the States; plus
(2) An amount which bears the same ratio to 20 per
centism of the sums so appropriated for such year,
as the product of the population aged twenty to
twenty-four, inclusive, in the State in the
preceding fiscal year and the State's allotment
ratio bears to the sum of the corresponding
products for all the States; plus
(3) An amount which bears the same ratio to 15 per
centum of the sums so appropriated for such year,
as the product of the population aged twenty-five
to sixty-five, inclusive, in the State in the
preceding fiscal year and the State's allotment
ratio bears to the sum of the corresponding
products for all the States; plus
(4) An amount which bears the same ratio to 5 per
centum of the sums so appropriated for such year,
as the sum of the amounts allotted to the State
under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) for such year
bears to the sum of the amounts allotted to all
the States under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) for
As in the Higher Education Facilities Act, the higher the
population in the target age group or the lower the state
per capital income the greater the share for a particular
This Act also included a Federal control disclaimer.
Section 16 of the Act follows:
Nothing contained in this part shall be construed
to authorize any department, agency, officer, or
employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the
curriculum, program of instruction, administration,
or personnel of any educational institution or
Vocational Education Amendments of 1968
The Amendments of 1968 extended and amended the
Vocational Education Act of 1963. The Amendments authorized
appropriations of $565 million and $675 million for fiscal
years 1970 and 1971; and $750 million for 1971 and 1972.
The allotment among the States was to be on the same basis
as the allotment given in the 1963 Act; except that the
factor for adjusting for the level of per capital income was
limited. The Amendments provided that no State should
have an allotment ratio of higher than .60 or lower than
Provisions were made regarding the distribution among
communities within a State. The Amendments provided that
Federal funds allocated to local education agencies could
require matching with local expenditures only to the extent
that the same considerations would be required throughout the
State. As an exception it was provided that no local
educational agency which was making a reasonable tax
effort would be denied funds for the establishment of new
vocational programs solely because the local education
agency is unable to pay the non-Federal share of the cost of
Nurse Training Act of 1964 and Allied Health
Professions Act of 1966--Public Laws 88-581 and 89-751
Both the Nurse Training Act and the Allied Health Pro-
fessions Act were passed as amendments to and extensions of