3.

A national fellowship program to encourage
highly qualified young graduate students
and instructors in large universities to
augment the teaching resources of small
colleges.

4. The development of joint programs to make
more efficient use of available facilities
and faculty.

Secretary Celebrezze of the DHEW and Commissioner Keppel both gave testimony in support of the Title III legislation. Both linked the passage of the bill with the higher education needs of the country. The Commissioner's statement provided a general view of the contents of the bill outlined against a background of a description of developing institutions.

Commissioner Keppel and many others also testified
Essentially three

in favor of cooperative arrangments.

points of view were presented.

1.

2.

3.

Arrangements between small colleges and
major institutions for the mutual enhance-
ment of each advanced by Broadus Butler's
testimony and supported by Congresswoman
Edith Green.

Arrangements between junior and senior
peer institutions of strong and stronger
quality implicit in the testimony of
Admiral Rickover and explicit in the testi-
mony of Stanley Salwak and Newman Hall.

Arrangements among weaker peer institutions
sharing special strengths through the con-
cept of clustering supported by the testimony
of Salwak, George Beadle and Rickover. 16

While the testimony probably strengthened the

resolve of the legislation framers to keep the provision for cooperative arrangements as a part of the package, it did not lead to the specification of a desired type of arrangement.

For current policy purposes, it is, perhaps, useful to indicate that a central aspect of the cooperative arrangement concept was the notion of "mutual enhancement" between or among the participants in the cooperative venture. The point is presented in capsule by Lawrence Howard as follows:

For cooperation to endure it was necessary that
both parties be able to clearly identify
meaningful outcomes, going to the heart of the
educational enterprise, and tending toward

institutional interdependence. If relationships
could be conceived in this way, interinstitutional
cooperation would have relevance for innovation,
for gains in the quality of both participants,
for overcoming isolation, mitigating the struggle,
and as a consequence would add new resources to
higher education. 17

Since teaching fellowships and faculty development mechanisms were included under cooperative arrangements, the most difficult problems remaining for the framers of the Title III legislation were a more lucid scheme for defining developing institutions, and a more practical scheme for determining which colleges were legitimately a part of this group for the purpose of receiving federal

assistance. The inclusion of junior or community colleges as developing institutions was a part of this issue.

Congresswoman Green felt that the legislation referred specifically to the Black colleges in the South. Others generally resorted to the stratagem of describing As indicated above, Butler's description

institutions.

dealt with certain inabilities and disabilities; Commissioner Keppel's statement listed five characteristics of a developing institution which, in summary, were (1) poor financial support, (2) extensive dropout rate and substandard courses of study, (3) slim course offerings, (4) poor libraries and other instructional supports, and (5) weak faculties (Commissioner Keppel's statement in Butler files). A clear cut definition of "developing institutions" was no less baffling to other principals. Some decided to simply rely on the flexibility allowed the Commissioner to determine by rule and regulation which institution would qualify. Others took refuge in "119 the key terms "desire and potential. Still others relied on an Advisory Council which they assumed would play a large role in the identification and selection of developing institutions to fund.

The original bill did not include junior colleges. This was the position of the Office of Education. presentatives of ACE, AAC, AHE and the AAJC all testified

Re

18

in favor of the inclusion of junior and community colleges. Led by Elvis Stahr, Jr. and Elbert Fretwell, Jr. most of the entire higher education establishment-in the private sector-- lined up behind the inclusion of two-year institutions. Although the reasoning at times seemed specious, it satisfied the Senate Subcommittee on Education. The Senate Report offered this justification:

This bill as introduced limited participation
under Title III to degree-granting 4-year colleges.
While the committee recognized the need of sub-
stantial assistance to 4-year colleges which are
struggling to maintain and develop their own.
quality, it was felt that the similar needs of
our smaller junior colleges and technical
institutions should be given equal emphasis.
The committee is keenly aware of the progress
which junior colleges and technical institu-
tions are making to provide educational
opportunity to an ever-larger number of our
Nation's youth. Some of these 2-year

institutions are making remarkable efforts
to improve their programs, and it would in the
committee's view, be unfair to exclude such
institutions from eligibility for financial
assistance under Title III.

In order to assure that adequate funds are
available for both 4-year and 2-year category,
instead of taking away from the requested
authorization for 4-year colleges, the committee
recommends an authorization for Title III nearly
double the original request, but the total
authorized for this title is only a modest
investment in terms of the return which the
Nation can expect in improved educational
quality. 20

When the bill went to the Conference Committee, the

Senate version relating to junior colleges was retained.

The provision for an Advisory Council rounded out the bill.

Evolution of the Title III Legislation

A brief, but sharply focused, account of how the Title III program evolved from a relatively miniscule operation in 1966 to the largest federal aid program for colleges and universities should be a most useful device for developing a perspective and illuminating the current status of the program for policy considerations. A clear understanding of the evolution of the legislation itself is basic to achieving this purpose.

As enacted

STRENGTHENING DEVELOPING INSTI

TIONS legislation was as follows:

Sec. 301. (a) The purpose of this title is to assist in raising the academic quality of colleges which have the desire and potential to make a substantial contribution to the higher education resources of our Nation but which for financial and other reasons are struggling for survival and are isolated from the main currents of academic life, and to do so by enabling the Commissioner to establish a national teaching fellow program and to encourage and assist in the establishment of cooperative arrangements under which these colleges may draw on the talent and experience of our finest colleges and universities, and on the educational resources of business and industry, in their effort to improve their academic quality.

(b) (1) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $55,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, to carry out the provisions of this title.