varying degrees of Federal control, provided a considerable amount of controversy. The issues implicit in that dispute provide the focus for this inquiry. These changes in the distribution of responsibility for education have been accompanied in the later years by a revolution in fiscal policy. The Federal Government has assumed sources of tax funds formerly available to States and localities. Whereas 20 years ago State and local government tax collections constituted three-fourths of all tax collections in the United States, today the Federal Government receives and dispenses three-fourths of the total. While stemming from circumstances outside of the educational system, this trend in the Nation's fiscal structure has necessarily materially affected the general redistribution of educational responsibility.' In its report to the President, dated June 20, 1955, the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, made the following recommendation respecting the continuation of State responsibility for education: The Commission recommends that responsibility for providing general public education continue to rest squarely upon the States and their political subdivisions. The Commission does not recommend a general program of Federal financial assistance to elementary and secondary education, believing that the States have the capacity to meet their educational requirements. However, where, upon a clear factual finding of need and lack of resources, it is demonstrated that one or more States do not have sufficient tax resources to support an adequate school system, the National Government, through some appropriate means, would be justified in assisting such States temporarily in financing the construction of school facilities-exercising particular caution to avoid interference by the National Government in educational processes or programs. The following members of the Commission dissented to this recommendation: Senators Hubert H. Humphrey and Wayne Morse and Representative John D. Dingell. Their dissenting statement reads as follows: We see no objection in principle and no sound reason to fear Federal aid for school construction or for the support of general elementary and secondary education. We believe that the needs of the Nation for an educated citizenry and the just claims of every child to a fair chance to get an adequate education outweight the arguments in favor of complete State and local support for education. Congress recognized the interest of the National Government in the problems of school construction by passing Public Law 815 in 1950. Pursuant to the authority of this act, the Office of Education conducted a comprehensive survey concluding that there was a nationwide need for 312,000 additional classrooms in 1952 to house nearly 9 million pupils at a cost of about $10.6 billion. Moreover, in the next 5 years, it is estimated that approximately 720,000 public elementary and secondary classrooms and related facilities will be needed at an estimated cost of about $28 billion. We agree with the Commission's recognition of the paramount importance of education to the national interest. In view of this importance, we do not feel that the solution to the urgent education needs should be postponed until the States correct their economic and constitutional limitations. We do not believe the Commission is justified in establishing a more rigid standard for a Federal grant-in-aid program in education than it has applied to other programs of lesser importance to the national interest. In provisions for secondary vocational courses basic to professional training in science, engineering, and some other fields, Federal, State, and local relationships have been particularly close. All three levels of government have contributed to the program of vocational education carried out under the Smith-Hughes and George-Barden acts. This program started out with State-local matching of Federal funds, but the State-local percentage of support has markedly in Study Committee Report on Federal Responsibility in the Feld of Education submitted to the Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, June 1955, p. 16. Report of the Commission, p. 194. Ibid., pp. 195, 196. creased. In fiscal 1956 the State-local contribution, for the country as a whole, was $4.30 for each dollar of Federal funds-$2.44 of the $4.30 was local money and $1.86 was State money. Thus, in 1956, this job might be considered as having been done financially by the local, State, and Federal governments in the order of $2.44, $1.86, and $1, respectively." 10 Basic in the philosophy of vocational education is the belief that it should be founded upon a job analysis of the occupations in which the training is to be given. The States and communities have together set up machinery for making such analyses responsive to changes in occupational trends. Generally State and local people connected with. vocational education have shown sensitivity to the changing needs for manpower in the various fields in which training is given. An evidence of such sensitivity has been the increasing use of advisory groups including representatives of management and labor. D. HIGHER EDUCATION 1. The States and higher education Generally the colonial governments and early State governments nurtured the private colleges within their jurisdictions. However, the constitutions of some of the States provided for institutions of higher education, which these States soon established. Each of two State universities has claimed, on different grounds, to be the oldest in the United States. The University of Georgia was chartered in 1785, but it did not open until 1800. The University of North Carolina was chartered in 1789 and opened in 1795.11 Grants of land from the Federal Government aided the establishment of many of the 21 State universities which antedate the Civil war.12 All of the State-supported institutions of higher education grew slowly. Most of them did not receive very encourging support from State legislatures until after the Civil War. The devastation from invasion and the travails of reconstruction in the South delayed the growth of the institutions in that area, but generally the universities began to flourish with the return of peace. About 1885 the State universities began turning their attention to serving and advancing the welfare of the State. By 1900 they were becoming truly service institutions in a democratic society. Since then enrollments at the State universities have grown by leaps and bounds. The States have put many millions of dollars into these institutions believing in them as the creators of advanced public opinion and as training schools for the future leaders of the State." The land-grant college movement initiated by the Morrill Act of 1862 brought higher education closer to the needs of the people. In 19 Data compiled in the U. S. Office of Education from the annual reports of State board for vocational education. Figures do not generally include overhead costs such as those for equipment, heat, light, etc. 11 The "University of the State of New York" was established in 1784 as a supervisory body for all education in that State, private and public. The State Education Department is a part of this organization. New York has no single institution designated as its university. The Encyclopedia Americana, 1952, vol. XXV, pp. 525-526. 13 American Council on Education. American Universities and Colleges, 1956, p. 14. 13 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1952, vol. 7, p. 995. an address delivered in Washington on April 4, 1957, President Eisenhower referred to the State and local support and direction of these institutions. He said: *** I remind you that the great colleges and universities that sprang up under Lincoln's college land-grant bill were not Federal projects. By no means. Most of the capital and organization for these institutions was provided by the States themselves. At present, the land-grant colleges and universities receive most of their support and all of their direction from local citizens." Public provision for the training of teachers in secondary-level academies began with the founding by Massachusetts of a State Normal School in 1839. Other States also established such institutions. In 1855 the State University of Iowa established the first chair of education still in existence.15 Generally the teachers' colleges of today developed out of the old normal schools. 10 16 Little attention was given to technical education until after the Civil War. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology opened in 1865. After the launching of the land-grant college program the States began establishing institutions or new departments in existing institutions in the several branches of engineering. Recognizing the increasing importance of education in all fields, some States have established professional schools of medicine and institutions for training in other professional fields besides those already mentioned. Besides providing for a variety of public institutions of higher education, the States have granted private colleges and universities a number of privileges and exemptions. State financing and administration of higher education has been an evolving process. In recent years changes in State government organization and machinery have markedly affected higher education in most of the States. Generally there has been a tendency toward a closer relationship of the State institutions of higher education to the State government, with more centralized financial supervision. 2. Local administration of higher education Local government administration of higher education in the United States began modestly, with municipal institutions. Only 2 of the 20 municipally controlled colleges and universities now in operation were established prior to 1860. The oldest is the College of Charleston, in Charleston, S. C. Chartered in 1785 as a private institution, it became a municipal institution in 1837. The second oldest is City College, which was founded in 1849-the first of four units of the college of the city of New York. By providing free or low-cost higher education to local residents, municipal colleges and universities have enabled many persons to obtain academic degrees who might not otherwise have been able to do so. In 1892 a new idea in education was introduced at the University of Chicago with organization of the Liberal Arts College into an upper and lower division. In 1896 the lower division was given the name 14 Text of President's address to the National Education Association. New York Times, April 5, 1957, p. 16. 15 The Council of State Governments. Higher Education in the Forty-eight States, 1952, pp. 16-17. 16 Encyclopaedia Americana, 1952, vol. 9, p. 623. "Junior College". This term came into widespread use when the California Legislature authorized the establishment of junior colleges in the public-school system. One of the most important developments in education in the 20th century has been the growth of public junior colleges throughout the Nation. This development has been largely in response to the demands of modern technology. It has been stimulated also by a growing public respect for education beyond the high school. These and other influences have increased the demand for local provision of education at least at the junior-college level. The increase in numbers of junior colleges within the last few decades has been phenomenal. In 1915 there were only 19 public institutions of this kind, with a total enrollment of 592 students. By 1927 there were 136 public junior colleges enrolling 20,145 persons. The American Association of Junior Colleges has currently listed 363 public junior colleges with a combined enrollment of 683,129 students."7 While some of these institutions are maintained by the States, the majority are operated by cities and school districts in close connection with the public high schools. Over half of the State legislatures have passed laws affecting public junior colleges. Some of these measures have provided specifically for local administration of these institutions, and the legislation in most of the other States generally implies local administration of the junior colleges. In at least 13 States-Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Texas, and Washington-public junior colleges are supported in part from "State aid", that is from State sources of revenue. Generally States have established certain prerequisites for the receipt of this assistance. In some cases the requirements are minor, such as the submission of an annual report to the State superintendent of public instruction or the average daily attendance of a specified number of students taking college-grade courses. Such requirements, of course, represent some measure of State control over the institutions. Most junior colleges have a stated philosophy of seeking to bring free, or practically free education to the students they enroll. The common practice is nevertheless to charge students tuition or general fees. State laws are generally silent on this matter or else are permissive to the charging of student fees. However, in spite of charging such fees the public junior colleges, like the municipal degreegranting institutions, probably are providing post-secondary education to many young people who would be unable to live away from home or for other reasons would not live away from home, to obtain it. By adjusting their program to local needs and to the needs of the large percentage of their students who will terminate their higher education locally, and by emphasizing vocational education, America's locally controlled junior colleges are making a major contribution to the development of technical and professional manpower. 3. Intergovernmental relations Generally the municipal degree-granting colleges and universities have been administered by the municipalities quite independently of State authority. 17 American Association of Junior Colleges, Junior College Directory, 1957, p. 4. U. S. Office of Education figures are lower, making certain exclusions. The variations of State-local relationships in the financing and control of public junior colleges have been highlighted in the preceding historical sketch. The following list of types of special legislation affecting junior colleges that have been enacted by 20 States will further illustrate the variety of such relationships between the State and local governments.18 Established specific, State-controlled, junior Arkansas, New Mexico, New colleges. Authorized junior colleges to be established as a part of, or to become part of, the State university or State system of higher education. Authorized establishment of specific, local public junior colleges. Converted a 4-year university to a quasi-public junior college. Appropriated State funds to support a speci fic private institution. York, North Dakota, Okla- Georgia, Louisiana, Montana, Indiana. Maine. Appropriated a special fund in budget of Maryland. purposes. Established area college centers to meet emergency need for education of veterans. Pennsylvania. Authorized counties to provide physical Wisconsin. plant facilities for State university exten sion centers. In many instances public degree-granting colleges and universities in different States have entered into bilaterial agreements for the establishment of stronger academic programs. Several interstate compacts have also been formed for this purpose. The first of these was the Southern Regional Board compact of 1948. Some of the Federal-State relationships in higher education have been pointed out in the preceding chapter dealing with the history of Federal participation in manpower development. Generally FederalState-local relations in this field have been on the basis of the principle of Federal aid. On the other hand, the Federal Government has been largely dependent upon the State and local governments to make provisions for the training of scientific, engineering, and other professional manpower adequate for the national needs. Throughout the history of the country there has been little shifting of responsibility for public higher education among the several levels of Government. That responsibility has been continuously discharged principally by the State and local governments, and principally remains in them. 18 Bogne, Jesse P. (editor). Amercan Junior Colleges. American Council on Education, 1956, p. 28. |