SCHOOL SUPPORT IN FEDERALLY AFFECTED AREAS

After the close of the Second World War, the overwhelming need for new schools across the Nation made it imperative for Congress to take ameliorative action. Therefore, the 81st Congress in 1950 enacted Public Laws 815 and 874 to provide Federal assistance for the construction, maintenance, and operation of schools in districts where school facilities had become overburdened with an inrush of new children as a result of activities in Federal installations.

Congress established three criteria for construction assistance: school districts were to be reimbursed on a pupil cost basis when (1) the parents of such children both work and live in Federal property (95-percent reimbursement); (2) the parents of such children live or work on Federal property (50-percent reimbursement); (3) the parents of such children work on Federal defense contracts in the school district (45-percent reimbursement). Similarly Public Law 874 authorizes payments for current expenses for children in terms of the local share of the cost per pupil for children living on Federal property with parent employed thereon and one-half local share for children where parents work on Federal property.

In addition to providing for the construction of school facilities, Congress also made provision for children living on Federal property who are unable to attend local schools as a result of State rulings that local or State funds may not be expended for free public education for such children. If the Commissioner of Education determines that suitable free public education is not available for these children, the Commissioner is authorized to construct the necessary educational facilities. Furthermore, title V of Public Law 86-449 enacted in 1960, authorizes provision of minimum facilities for a temporary period to children whose parents are members of the Armed Forces on active duty when the schools which these children ordinarily attend are closed by official action by State or local authorities. This was promulgated to provide schooling to children deprived of their educational rights as a result of official action by State or local governments involved with problems attendant upon integration of the public school systems.

The estimated costs of the school construction program in 1962 were: $54,850,000 in annual appropriations and $1,080,827,000 in cumulative appropriations. No specific matching requirements are contained in the law. Funds appropriated for operation of such schools reached $231,293,000 in 1962.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION GRANTS TO STATES

The Smith-Hughes Act, enacted in 1917, provides for grants to States for vocational training in agriculture, trade, and industry, home economics, and most important, the training of teachers who could instruct in these subjects. Other supplementary legislation, principally the George-Barden Act of 1946, has extended vocational training to practical nursing, training in the fishery trades and industry, and "training for the highly skilled technical occupations essential for national defense." Further legislation, embodied in the area Vocational Education Act of 1958 (title VIII of the NDEA, 1958) provides for education in skilled trades important to the national

defense. The Area Redevelopment Act, which became law May 1, 1961, provided assistance to unemployed and to unemployed and underemployed individuals residing in redevelopment areas.

Vocational courses are offered during regular school hours and also at night for both employed or unemployed youth and adults who wish to take advantage of these opportunities.

Expenditures from funds appropriated by the Federal Government for vocational education must be matched dollar for dollar by either State or local funds, or both. No matching is required, however, for funds appropriated under the Area Redevelopment Act. The minimum allotment to a State under each program is $10,000. In fiscal year 1962, Congress appropriated $53,619,101, including funds appropriated under title VIII of the National Defense Education Act, plus an estimated $2,881,000 authorized under Public Law 87-27the Area Redevelopment Act for retraining programs in economically depressed areas of the United States.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCHOOL LUNCH AND MILK PROGRAMS

The years of the great depression witnessed attempts by Congress to alleviate undernourishment among the Nation's many schoolchildren while at the same time disposing of surplus agricultural commodities without dumping them on the market, thereby lowering prices for the already economically underprivileged farmers of America. In 1935, the Congress enacted Public Law 320, authorizing purchases of surplus food by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for distribution. to nonprofit school lunch programs, charitable institutions, and families receiving welfare assistance.

In 1940, funds were made available to the Department of Agriculture for the school milk program and in 1943 the indemnity plan was enacted. Finally, these provisions were consolidated into the National School Lunch Act of 1946, Public Law 396, 79th Congress, the purpose of which was:

To safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's
children and to encourage the domestic consumption of
nutritious agricultural commodities and other food by
assisting the States through grants-in-aid and other means
in providing adequate supply of foods and other facilities
for the establishment, maintenance, operation, and expan-
sion of nonprofit school lunch programs.

Children between 4 and 17 years of age may benefit from this act, which apportions funds according to the number of children of this age group in each State and the variations of per capita income. Between 1950 and 1960, a total of $2,034,586,671 was spent on this program.

The Agricultural Act of 1954 implemented the school lunch program by authorizing payments to nonprofit primary and secondary schools for bulk purchases of fluid milk. Administered by the Commodity Credit Corporation, school milk purchases were not to exceed $50 million annually. Increased by Congress to $60 million in 1956, $75 million in 1957 and 1958, the total appropriation in 1961 reached $95 million. In 1962, the $95 million figure climbed to $105 million.

83921-62- -2

In addition, legislation in 1957 and 1958 broadened the scope of the program to include all nonprofit nursery schools, childcare centers, settlement houses, summer camps, and similar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children.

OVERALL METHODOLOGY

It was the hope of the subcommittee that much of the necessary information and statistics needed for this investigation might be secured from the U.S. Office of Education and other existing Federal agencies. However, after initial investigation of the records and files of the Office of Education proceeded and, after conference with the Commissioner of Education and his staff, it became evident that such statistics were not available because all racial desegregation data no longer appeared in statistics gathered by this agency.

However, the Office of Education assigned three professional staff members to work with the subcommittee staff during the course of this study. In turn, these persons acted as liaison with the divisions. and departments to be contacted.

The Census Bureau made available such pertinent materials as population data, levels of population density by scholastic breakdown, and location of the various school districts concerned. From the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights the subcommittee received valuable suggestions in the form of procedural methods. The Defense Department placed at the disposal of the subcommittee the talents of 10 of its top professional men representing all branches of the military. As a result of conferences with representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation, the committee determined that because so few Negroes were affected, and because these programs were so recent, the activities of these agencies should be excluded from the area of the subcommittee's report.

Accordingly, the basic method utilized for the final assimilation of data to comply with the directive of the chairman of the subcommittee. was in the nature of direct questionnaires to educational institutions, school systems, and agencies involved in the study, at both State and local levels. These instruments are described more fully under "Findings of Research." Other research techniques are discussed at the appropriate sections of the report:

FINDINGS OF RESEARCH INVESTIGATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The information and data presented in this section reports the status of desegregation in institutions of higher education and public schools participating in federally assisted education programs. The reports also give the extent of Negro participation in these programs. Each of the programs studied is presented in a separate report. The data tables are preceded in each instance by a discussion in explanation of the findings, the frame of reference, method of research, and a brief summary with highlights.

The data presented in the reports has been compiled from (1) primary reference sources, (2) official reports and statements by the administering agency, and (3) information obtained from survey questionnaires. Where the data obtained lent itself to graphic illustration, such illustrations have been made.

A discussion of the information and data presented in this section and the meaning of the findings to the subcommittee will be found in another section of the report in which recommendations are made.

The appendix contains related information and data which might not be readily available to the reader. Also found in the appendix are (1) a definition of the terms used in research reports, (2) the survey questionnaires, (3) a discussion on the difficulties in obtaining enrollment figures by race, and (4) official statements by Government agencies.

HIGHER EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE PARTICIPATION IN FEDERALLY SPONSORED EDUCATION PROGRAMS

This report is concerned with the total extent of university and college participation in federally sponsored higher education programs. The data presented in table I illustrates for each of the States the total number of colleges and universities participating in federally sponsored higher education programs. The data, also, illustrates the number of institutions in each State participating in a given number of these programs. The primary source for the data presented in table I has been cited in full. It is the purpose of this report to present for the reader an overview of the broad scope of college and university participation in federally sponsored higher education.

programs.

Table I has been compiled from information presented by the U.S. Office of Education in the report "A Survey of Federal Programs in Higher Education: Appendix II, University and College Participation in Federally Sponsored Programs, August 1961."

The Office of Education reports four major categories of federally sponsored higher education programs. The categories and the groupings of programs within each category follow:

I. Student aids:

Loans.
Scholarships.

Science education institutes.

Counseling and guidance institutes.
Language centers and institutes.
Curriculum improvement projects.

Training programs in health professions and public
health.

Training programs in vocational rehabilitation.

Land-grant college programs.

ROTC programs.

Armed Forces institute programs.

b. Research programs-contracts and grants for research in—

Agriculture.

Biological sciences.

Clinical medicine and health.

Engineering.

Mathematics.

Modern foreign languages.

Physical sciences.

Social sciences.

III. Facilities and equipment:

Grants for construction of research laboratories or facilities.
Grants for research equipment and facilities.

Loans for college housing.

Surplus property transfer.

IV. International programs:

a. Student aid:

Financial assistance to foreign visitors, e.g., fellow

ships.

Lectureships.

b. Educational programs:

Technical assistance.

Student faculty exchange.

The following Federal departments and agencies are reported to be the principal sponsors of the above programs in higher education.