CHAPTER 2 State-Wide Planning for Postwar Higher Education CHA HAPTER 1 sketched the first of at least three sets of variables with which a college reckons when developing its postwar plans; namely, the importance of relating educational programs to prevailing regional, national, and international movements and policies. The second and third sets of external variables with which a college must reckon in determining its postwar course of action commonly stem from conditions and agencies within the State. These predispose a college to develop its program with an eye to its charter and its cooperative relationships in the State or service area, and further impel it to shape programs to the requirements of an established clientele. These two sets of forces often make conflicting demands on an institution. For example, if a college serves only its traditional clientele, it may lose its relative importance in the service area; but if it turns wholeheartedly to serving newer needs, especially if it is a privately supported college, it may weaken both its prestige and its sources of support. The need for articulation and coordination of effort emphasizes the crucial importance of tax-supported and privately supported colleges working cooperatively with other State agencies in formulating a program of higher education needs of the State and service area, and of reaching some statesman-like agreements for meeting them. Educators long accustomed to independent institutional action and to planning the functions of a college from a local perspective find it difficult to determine the role of their own college in terms of the educational services a State or region may require. Voluntary State-wide planning is not likely to come to full fruition until the vision and social alertness of faculties are so increased that they see higher education in a given area as an indivisible task which is organically related to elementary and secondary school work and to the whole economic and cultural fabric. This kind of readiness is seldom generated apart from actual work on problems which transcend institutional and local interest. Such activities usually produce a great conviction about the possibilities of education as a means of advancing individual and national welfare. Broad-gauged planning usually flows from a philosophy which recognizes that the reconstruction of school and of society goes hand in hand. It requires a pragmatic and experimental temper which looks on change as an opportunity to use education for enriching living and the means of making a living. With such an outlook planning for the future of an individual college moves out of the "patchwork" stage and takes on new perspectives. State-wide Planning by Voluntary Groups Initiating and perfecting machinery through which schools and colleges may join voluntarily in responsible postwar planning has proven to be a difficult task. Organizing for work that may lead to action on problems of articulation, admission, curriculum, administration, and the like differs. markedly from planning a professional meeting to discuss problems in these areas. In most of the States no one agency feels authorized to take the lead. The chief State school officer and the officers of the State teachers association usually feel authorized to do no more than organize a body to plan for the postwar needs of public elementary and secondary schools. No State has an official that can speak for all the colleges, and in only a few States is there a voluntary association that represents all of the institutions of higher education. The more common picture is an association of private colleges, an association of junior colleges, an association or council of tax-supported colleges, or some combination of the three groups. There is usually some liaison between the three types of college organizations, but only the most tenuous connections exist between college and public-school organizations. Occasionally there is overt hostility between the precollegiate and collegiate organizations over the division of tax revenues; professional differences are no less marked between tax-supported and privately supported colleges on matters of educational policy. In addition to its work with individual colleges and legally authorized State bodies for postwar planning in education during 1944-45, the staff of the Higher Education Division of the U. S. Office of Education participated in the State-wide planning activities of voluntary State-wide groups in 28 States. As an outside agency that had no authority and no stake in the competitive situation, an important service of the Federal Office was often that of discovering what individual or agency might feasibly convene a representative planning body; frequently it was that of acting as a catalytic agent at initial and subsequent meetings of these bodies. In the States represented in the Southern Association of Colleges, for example, the president and executive committee of that Association appointed State chairmen who selected a postwar planning committee considered to be representative of all levels and types of educational agencies. In Iowa, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State University President took joint responsibility for the formation of a planning committee and for conducting the conference. In Ohio, to cite a final example of how planning was initiated, leadership came from the Ohio College Association which has in its membership the 45 private and public colleges of the State. Some of the salient features of the voluntary State conferences are illustrated by the plans of Rhode Island and Ohio. In Rhode Island, the chief State school officer invited 4 superintendents to sit with him as a conference planning committee. Sessions were held for 3 days and in addition to participants from all of the colleges and 26 of the 39 towns and cities, 10 lay organizations were represented. Chief among them were the Veterans Administration, Selective Service, American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the American Federation of Labor, and members of the Governor's Council. The nature of the conference is indicated by excerpts from the final report: The forenoon of each day was devoted to prepared papers and statements. Afternoons were given to discussions by the entire group. Evenings were given to committee work. It was the firm conviction of the Director of Education and his organizing committee that those participating should come away from the conference with something specific and tangible as a result of their cooperation, and with some things which could be used as a guide in carrying out the program in the days and months ahead. To this end they appointed five committees in general areas of conference interest and requested that each committee bring in a report which would be considered by the entire conference. The committee topics were: Counseling and guidance, evaluation of credits, trade education, secondary school program, and refresher and adult retraining programs. In contrast, the leadership and focus of the Ohio conference came from the colleges of the State. In April 1944, the executive committee and the postwar plans committee of the Ohio College Association (45 public and private institutions) explored the need for a State-wide conference and developed the following plan: A. A conference of 2 days duration to be held early in October 1944. It is to be open to the teaching and administrative staffs of the colleges, and the full membership of postwar planning committees will be urged to attend. Representatives of relevant pre-collegiate agencies of education may be invited to participate. B. Leadership for the conference, under direction from the Association's postwar planning committee, shall be delegated to a series of committees that will gather information and develop proposals for the consideration of the conference in eight areas selected by the planning committee. C. The planning committee submitted to each president the following list of problem areas with the request that he suggest specific problems under each that he wished to have studied by the committee for that area: (1) What have we learned from training programs for the Armed Forces that is likely to be useful in planning curriculum, methods, and administration for returning veterans and war workers? (2) What are the State's likely needs for adult education through part-time, extension, and correspondence classes? What do we have to learn from ESMWT and similar programs that would be helpful in such work? (3) What changes should we plan for in the nature and organization of general or (4) What plans should we devise for admission and the granting of advanced (6) How shall we handle personal, religious, and educational counseling and (7) What bill of particulars can we develop with the help of graduate school offi cials as to the nature of preparation we desire in prospective college teachers? (8) What postwar conditions are likely to have a significant influence on problems: of college finance and control? D. Each president was asked to nominate to the general planning committee the members of his staff especially competent and willing to serve on any one of the eight areas of postwar problems. From these nominations the planning committee is to select an area committee of from five to seven persons and after convening it, leave it to select its own chairman and formulate its own issues and working procedures. E. On May 16-17 members of the eight committees will meet with the general planning committee and such college presidents as wish to attend a conference to demarcate the field and let each committee know what the others propose to do in preparation for the October conference. This meeting is calculated to increase the understanding and zeal of the committees for the general purposes of the project. F. The purpose of these committees is to mature proposals and supply data for seminar type discussions. It is not expected that the committee will prepare a definitive report for presentation to general sessions. Such a report should come out of the seminar discussions of the October meeting. Each of the eight areas may decide to conduct several separate seminars on major problems in its area. G. The only formal address of the conference will be a keynote speech at the opening session. On the final day of the conference there will be one or more general sessions to provide an opportunity for each discussion group to share the gist of its findings and suggestions with all conference participants. During the period of these conferences the Ohio College Association initiated and financed a State-wide study of needs and facilities in higher education. The study attempted to predict the postwar demands for higher education in Ohio, and presented an analysis of the facilities available and planned for the near future. More specifically, the study was limited to the following topics: A. Maximum enrollments which Ohio colleges are able and willing to accept in postwar times. B. The past, present, and estimated future enrollments in Ohio colleges. C. Collection and tabulation of information regarding plans and practices in specific colleges. Phases covered are: 1. Studies of postwar needs and facilities under way in Ohio colleges in 1944 2. Programs of acceleration in Ohio colleges 3. Institutional facilities available for guidance and personnel work 4. Financial assistance given students 5. Expenses of attending Ohio colleges 6. Present housing facilities for Ohio college students 7. Curricula in Ohio colleges 8. Extension and correspondence courses offered 9. Types of vocations for which Ohio colleges prepare students. Prof. Earl W. Anderson of Ohio State University, who conducted the study for the Association, has made a preliminary mimeographed report that provides the colleges of the State valuable information for individual and interinstitutional planning. State-wide Planning by Legally Authorized Bodies Postwar planning of the nature of that already described has also been carried on in at least a dozen States under the auspices of State planning boards, governor's committees on postwar planning, State boards of education, and State boards of regents for higher education. Planning under these and similar auspices is usually limited to tax-supported institutions, especially to the State public school system, and differs from that already sketched in stressing more specific recommendations for building program improvement and extension, for modifications in administrative organization and control, and for an allocation of instructional functions to assure the variety of program needed and to prevent undesirable duplication of effort. From a December 1944 survey of the status of postwar public works projects the Council of State Governments estimates that nearly 13 billion dollars will be required to bring the 60,000 State and local plans to reality. Of this sum 11⁄2 billion dollars is for 6,000 educational projects, most for tax-supported systems of elementary and secondary schools, but including a number of college projects. Only 647 of the educational projects requiring $110,000,000 are in the completed plans stage. The number of projects and the amount of money involved increased as the projects pass into the design stage and preliminary idea level of planning. Two-thirds of the plans for potential construction reported by the Federal Works Agency were from five States: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, and Ohio. It was not possible to separate the Federal Works Agency data to show the proportion of projects and money for education that were earmarked for colleges. But from other sources data are available to show allocations in a few States. For example, the chief State school officer reports "the State of California has set aside in excess of $100,000,000 for a State building construction program. Of this amount there has been allocated to the State colleges (not including the University of California which has a separate allocation of $27,000,000) and State special schools in excess of $11,000,000. Plans for buildings are being prepared by the State Division of Architecture. The plans include special emphasis upon vocational education." The Chancellor of the Oklahoma System of Higher |