Page images


[blocks in formation]

Indiana: The current feeling within the State is that a 1202 commission is X
unnecessary as the Commission for Higher Education now performs the
specified functions. If it can be shown that such a commission would be
to the advantage of the State, then a 1202 commission would be con-

lowa: A special higher education study committee was formed to study all
segments of postsecondary education in the State. The committee moved
ahead in anticipation of the guidelines and had a first draft of a minimal
1202 commission bill (parts of which the regents had objection to).
Following receipt of the Ottina letter the chairman of the committee
introduced the bill personally and on his own. It is now in committee and
unlikely to pass.

Kansas: The board of regents were waiting for the final guidelines before X
initiating action. The facilities commission had drafted a bill designating
the 1202 commission, but it has not been introduced.

Kentucky: The State is still waiting for final guidelines and there has been X
no official action to date.

Louisiana: The Governor has signed Executive Order No. 2 designating the
coordinating council for higher education as the 1202 commission.
Maine: Even before receipt of the Ottina letter, the Governor and the chair- X
man of the senate education committee had decided not to create a 1202
commission. If the guidelines are released, they probably will not imple-
ment the commission unless substantial Federal funds are involved,
although it is recognized that there is a need for coordination and planning
in the State. However, an executive order has been developed in the event
it is necessary for the Governor to imulement the commission.
Maryland: In October 1973 the Governor by executive order designed the
Council for Higher Education as the 1202 commission. No legislation has
been proposed as yet.

Massachusetts: The State was waiting for the release of the final guide- X
lines before development and action. No further discussions have been
held since receipt of the Ottina letter.

Michigan: No development of a 1202 commission has taken place. The X
Governor, by letter, had indicated that the delay is appreciated in Michi-
gan because it will allow more time to the State to review the established
educational systems and planning capabilities.

Minnesota: All activities and discussions concerning the development of a X
1202 commission have been postponed. The Governor has written the
Minnesota congressional delegation indicating his concern.
Mississippi: Although the Governor by executive order designated the
State building commission as the 1202 commission, the general consensus
was that it could not qualify. House bill 819, to create a separate agency
to function as the 1202 commission, was passed in the house before re-
ceipt of the Ottina letter, but later died in senate committee.
Misscuri: The former Governor by executive order designated the Com-
mission on Higher Education (to become the department of higher educa-
tion on July 1) as the 1202 commission and the present Governor concurs.
2 measures have been introduced designating the 1202 Commission: in
the house a bill designates the Commission on Higher Education; in the
s enate a measure designates the department of administration. Neither
measure has been passed at the present time.
Montana: A bill was introduced in the house creating a blue-ribbon com-
mission to study all postsecondary education in the State. 1 section
indicated that the membership should satisfy the requirements for the
1202 commissions and in effect designated the study commission as the
1202. Funds for the study were appropriated by the State legislature.
The measure passed and has been signed by the Governor.
Nebraska: A measure, presently in committee, was introduced creating a
statewide coordinating agency to serve also as the 1202 commission.
Following the receipt of the Ottina letter, the higher education segments
in the State indicated opposition and because of this delay of the guide-
lines, passage of the bill is doubtful.

Nevada: The Governor had made a decision as to the structure of the 1202 X
commission and has indicated he would designate the board of regents
and add 3 members to the board to meet the requirements. As of the
present date, no action has been taken.

New Hampshire: A measure has been drafted (and will be introduced with-
in a week) which creates a State commission on postsecondary education.
The 21-member commission will be based on the preliminary 1202 com-
mission guidelines.

New Jersey: A memorandum was prepared by the chancellor of higher edu- X
cation recommending that the board of higher education be expanded to
include representatives from vocational-technical and proprietary schools.
No action has resulted or will result pending release of the final guidelines.
New Mexico: Legislation was proposed and passed, and has been signed by
the Governor, designating the board of educational finance as the 1202





[blocks in formation]





[blocks in formation]

North Carolina: No action has taken place as the State was waiting for X
release of the final guidelines. No further action is contemplated at this
time beyond the existing statutes.

North Dakota: Legislation was introduced to establish a new 1202 com- X
mission, but although it passed one house it was killed in the other. The
bill would have repealed the facilities commission enabling statute and
created a new 11-member agency. No further action has taken place.
Ohio: No formal action has been initiated but the Governor can designate X
the 1202 commission by executive order. The board of regents has pro-
posed that it be the basis for the 1202 with augmentation to meet the

Oklahoma: The Governor by executive order has designated the State
regents for higher education as the 1202 commission.
Oregon: The Governor by executive order designated the educational
coordinating council to serve as the 1202 commission and no further action
is contemplated at the present time. The council has taken action to
review and comment on grants for programs under the fund for the
improvement of postsecondary education, if the U.S. Commissioner
returns them for such review.

Pennsylvania: No formal action has taken place. It is anticipated the board X
of education (or its council on higher education) would be designated the
1202 commission and that 5 new public members would be added to the
board, providing the guidelines are released.

Rhode Island: No decision has been made as yet as to a designation of a 1202 commission, but a percentage of funds from the facilities commission administrative budget are being held for the development of a 1202. Plans to change the composition of the regents are being discussed by the Governor and legislature. Release of the final guidelines could well affect how such a change would be structured.

South Carolina: Although much discussion has been and still continues to be held concerning which agency would serve as the 1202 commission, no action has resulted.

South Dakota: The legislature has approved a reorganization of State government into 6 new agencies, including a statewide coordinating commission, effective July 1, 1973. The structure of the commission is specified to meet the 1202 requirements.

Tennessee: No action has taken place pending release of the final guidelines, although dicussions have been held concerning the designation of the 1202 commission..




Texas: The former Governor by executive order designated the coordinating
board, Texas College and University System, the 1202 commission and the
new Governor has concurred. If needed, the membership of the board will
be adjusted by legislative action when the guidelines are released.
Utah: No action has been developed as it was the opinion that the initial
guidelines would have prevented the board of higher education from
qualiying. Consideration has been given to the board serving as a basis
for the 1202 commission and augmented to serve as the 1202.
Vermont: Many meetings have been held to discuss the 1202 commissions X
among all segments of postsecondary education and the Governor had
almost decided on the composition and structure, including problems
concerning private and community colleges. Since receipt of the Ottina
letter, no action has been taken and all future meetings have been

Virginia: The Governor by executive order designated the State council of
higher education as the 1202 commission and no further action has been

Washington: The Governor by executive order designated the council on higher education as the 1202 commission. Confirming legislation had been planned, but following receipt of the Ottina letter, this has been delayed.


West Virginia: The State is waiting for the final guidelines before submitting X
legislation to have the board of regents augmented to serve as the 1202

Wisconsin: The Governor had recommended some changes in the member- X
ship of the facilities commission (higher educational aids board), but did
not designate any agency as the 1202 commission. No further action as
of the present date.

Wyoming: Legislation has been passed and signed into law reorganizing
the higher education council. The 9-member council is designated as the
1202 commission in the act.

[blocks in formation]

Source: Telephone survey, Mar. 28-30, 1973; N. M. Berve, Education Commission of the States Higher Education Services.

Mr. ANDREWS. This may not be a fair question because you are not, I guess, necessarily presumed to have this information, but to such extent as you do, do you know of associations of institutions of higher education anywhere in the country or administrative heads or others who have any different view than that which Dr. Friday and you have essentially stated this morning?

Mr. HILL. I would assume, Mr. Chairman, there are such people. But I think, if I may pick up a strand of the testimony that President Friday offered here, the amount of water that has gone over this dam on under that bridge, the number of meetings, the great amount of effort that has been expended to bring these diverse groups together at 1 Dupont Circle and other places has been perhaps more significant than anything I have seen in 25 years of coming down here. I think higher education generally taken in any form supports this.

I think you could find an individual somewhere who longs for the good old days when we didn't have to plan this way, but he will come with it after a time, as his feet are put to the fire.

Mr. ANDREWS. Maybe I should attempt to not only thank you for that, but ask you that in a little different way. Whom do you know of who has issued statements or otherwise indicated support for the proposition which you and Dr. Friday make here, that is asking the Office to come forward with its alleged present draft. We have statements, I believe, have we not, from the American Council-is someone here today from the land-grant group?

Yes, sir, and then there is the American Association of State Colleges and Universities. The Association of State Colleges and Universities is distinguishable, is it not, from the American Association of Colleges and Universities?

Mr. HILL. Yes, it is.

Mr. ANDREWS. What other associations do we have within the country that represent any substantial number of institutions of higher education.

Mr. HILL. There are, I think-probably Dr. Millard could answer that as well as anyone, but there are a number of organizations of institutions.

Mr. MILLARD. At 1 Dupont Circle there are the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Land Grant Association, the Higher Education Branch of American Catholic Education Association (I think that is the title), the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, the American Association of Colleges (which represents the largest proportion of private institutions), the Association of American Universities, (Dr. Kidd, who is the executive secretary of that, is in the room today) and the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges which did testify on Monday.

Others that represent segments of national higher educational organizations are: the American Association of University Professors, the National Commission on Accrediting, the Small College Association, Association of American Small Colleges, and Council for Advancement of Small Colleges.

Dr. Vascall is the chairman of that. Almost everything else is a segmental group. These are the major national higher educational

organizations. There is in addition to that--and Dr. Hill is representing them-also the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association, and there are certain other agencies that represent aspects of State planning. These would include the State student assistance officers, the Higher Education Facilities Commissions Group which I believe did testify on Monday, the Guaranteed Loan Association and the State Association of Directors of Community Colleges. These do not have Washington offices as such.

Mr. ANDREWS. Do you know whether any of these associations or groups to whom you have referred have expressed themselves in contrast in general to what we have heard this morning?

Mr. MILLARD. There is and has been real discussion in relation to the possible composition and that sort of thing. I would not be correct to say that everyone feels that there is a single form that ought to be adopted in all of the States. There is difference of opinion in relation as to whether the implementing aspects, planning and coordination, necessarily go together. But I think that in terms of the recognitionand again I could be wrong on this-in terms of the recognition of the importance of comprehensive planning that involves the total postsecondary educational communities. I think you would find relatively few people who would disagree in principle.

Mr. ANDREWS. Dr. Hill, may I divert a little from the central theme here? I noticed in a portion of your statement

While in most instances these State agencies are primarily responsible for public postsecondary education, in a number of States they have some responsibility for taking private higher education into account in the planning process and in more than a few cases their responsibility extends to providing State funding to private institutions.

Relatively beside the central point of what is being said here. I would be interested in knowing approximately what number of States appropriate public funds for private institutions.

Mr. MILLARD. I think I can give you some information on this. There are at least two States in which there are direct grants to private institutions, New York and Illinois. These are to institutions. The aid to private higher education varies from State to State, both in its form and in what can be done in light of the constitution of each State. There are some States such as New York and Illinois where there are direct grants to the private institutions; under the Bundy plan in New York and a plan that was developed by a special commission in Illinois. It is a considerable amount of money in both cases. In addition to this there are some States in which there are contracts with private institutions for particular services.

Where, for example, the Constitution prohibits direct aid to the institution, the State may in some cases still contract for a particular kind of service which the private institution offers.

Mr. ANDREWS. That sometimes is in another State.

Mr. MILLARD. Sometimes this is in another State. I am not including that at this point.

Mr. ANDREWS. Maybe a veterinary school for example.

Mr. MILLARD. Under the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and the New England Board of Higher Education there are certain regional arrangements like this. I am talking about ar

rangements within particular States as they relate to their own private higher education institutions. Then there are a large number of States as a matter of fact, I think at the present time there are 36, 34 of which are funding, that do give aid to students who go to private institutions.

Mr. ANDREWS. Is that student only from the State where in the public funds are appropriated or for all students

Mr. MILLARD. In almost every case it is for students who are residents of that State, but there is one variant in this. The variant is in a few States and there are not very many of these-in a few States the student may take his funds out of State. Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut are cases in point. In most States the funds must be used within the State at private institutions located there.

Mr. ANDREWS. How old is this concept? Was the origin of this in the 1960's?

Mr. MILLARD. In the case of New York, as it relates at least to funds for students in private institutions, it goes back at least into the mid1950's. The primary development has come in the 1960's. In some cases in the late 1960's. I am not sure of my figures on this, but if I remember correctly, as late as 1967 or 1968, there were not more than about 20 States. Since 1968 this has increased to the 36.

Now two of those 36 are not funded at the present time, because there are court cases pending as to constitutionality.

Mr. HILL. May I comment further? I think important to what you are considering here today is the fact that when States establish a central planning agency for higher education it is a public body, and its relationship to public institutions is quite direct. But in many States, including my own, the statutes make it very clear that in planning for the public institutions you must take into full account the independent sector and what their plans are.

We have structured our planning very carefully and worked very diligently to make certain that that is the case.

Beyond that I think there is a growing concern that, in order to avoid duplication and to make maximum use of the resources that are in the independent institutions and particularly at the time when enrollments tend to be stabilizing, planning at the State level has to make every effort to find new ways of using those resources within the constitution of that State.

Mr. ANDREWS. It just seems to me that as the public sector, through whatever level of Government, more and more involves itself with the total of higher education, commissions such as are apparently contemplated by 1202 become more and more necessary for reasons stated in the bill itself.

Apparently that is a national viable, and I might even say preponderant theory now. It is of fruition-some 36 to 38 States are doing this. I might add I was one of these in our State who had great fear of that. I was afraid it might tend to dilute quality education throughout the State wherever it might have been in existence when this process began and I think it is a door-opening sort of process that I am afraid the State legislatures are going to be forced really, once this theory becomes operative, to look at where we can educate the most children with the least dollars. It used to cost $1,000 to send a child

« PreviousContinue »