the local junior colleges, 73 percent of the branches and extension centers, and 100 percent of all "other" 2-year colleges. Thus, the expected finding that locally controlled institutions carry a greater obligation for local financial effort is supported; the finding that in four States a local area fiscal requirement for buildings to be used by branches of 4-year colleges, however, is less expected. The pattern now being followed in New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in this regard represents a plan to coordinate local interest and support for 2-year colleges controlled by distant 4-year institutions.

CONCLUSION

In general, there are only two sources of capital funds utilized by 2-year colleges-the State and the local area. Generalizing on the basis of the total of 26 States which provide some capital funds for at least one type of 2-year college, it may be said that, with but few exceptions, the State either supplies all of the capital funds or none at all. Those States which provide 100 percent of the capital funds do so for either State junior colleges, technical institutes, or 2-year branches or extension centers of a 4-year college or university-all three types being generally without local control. The one exception is Florida which provides 100 percent subsidization of capital outlay for its system of local junior colleges.

When the 2-year college is controlled by a local board, the general rule, based on the practice of 27 of the 32 States which have general enabling legislation for locally controlled colleges, is that the local area provides all of the capital funds. In only six States are capital costs of the local 2-year colleges shared by the local area with the State, and only rarely are funds from the local area provided for 2-year colleges other than those under local control. The main exceptions are in the cases of the branches in New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Virginia shows evidence of a similar plan in that the local area must provide the site and site improvements for the branch 2-year colleges in that State.

A number of unusual provisions which are found in capital support patterns can be identified. In Florida, for example, the local area may contribute capital outlay funds if it is able and willing. In Washington State the general practice is that portions of new construction not approved for matching of local funds by the State may be built at the expense of the local district. As has been noted, tuition funds are not generally used for capital construction. Only one exception to this principle was found in this study; in one of

the Ohio extension centers, 5 percent of the capital outlay funds was received from student tuition. In North Carolina the matching basis is carried out in theory only; due to limitations imposed by the law, the local contributions exceed the State amounts. In Virginia "evidence of local interest in the establishment is expected to be shown in a tangible way through the provisions of site and site improvement." Finally, in the case of the Wisconsin extension centers, 100 percent of the capital outlay funds come from the local area except for capital equipment which is provided out of State funds.

CHAPTER IV

Some Unanswered Questions

AT THE BEGINNING of this report, attention was called to

the current high interest in establishing 2-year colleges and to the recurrent question regarding the manner in which these institutions can be financed. The summarized findings presented at the close of chapters II and III cast light on a factual answer to the question, at least as shown by the present practices in the 42 States in which publicly controlled 2-year colleges are now operating.

Beyond the rim of understanding provided by information about what is now done in financing public 2-year colleges, however, rise some observations and questions of importance. They are important because they bear not only on the issue of financial support, but also, indirectly, on broader questions concerning the fundamental place and character of the public 2-year college in the United States.

The wide variation of practices in financing public 2-year colleges is truly indicative of the uncrystalized nature of these institutions. In each State in which such institutions are to be found, a de facto support pattern is in effect, sometimes on a temporary basis and often with a minimum of planning. In States where there has been conscious and deliberate planning, the evidence shows clearly that the development of public 2-year colleges has been more rapid and their security more assured. In many States, general dissatisfaction with the present legal bases for establish-' ing, controlling, and financing these institutions exists. This was evident, for example, in the 1961 conference financed by the Lilly Foundation and sponsored jointly by the American Association of Junior Colleges and the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley. The three main topics of discussion were: (1) surveys as an approach to establishing legal bases for public 2-year colleges; (2) legal bases for financing public 2-year colleges; and (3) legal bases for control of public 2-year colleges.1

1 Establishing Legal Bases for Public Community-Junior Colleges. A conference sponsored by the American Association of Junior Colleges and the Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California. October 20-21, 1961. Chicago, Ill.

One clear trend identified in this study did not appear in earlier studies on financing 2-year colleges.2 This was the recognition of a partnership of the State, the locality, and the student sharing in current operational costs and of the State and the locality sharing costs for capital construction. Even here, the trend is not evident in all States. Moreover, such critical issues in the economics of local-State governmental relations as the capacity of local jurisdictions to carry additional tax burdens may well forestall the pattern in some States. Thus, for example, Massachusetts has turned wholly to State and student sources for financing its relatively new statewide system of regional community colleges.

Several other questions which relate directly or indirectly to financing the 2-year college may be posed. Briefly, they are stated and commented on below:

Should Public 2-Year Colleges Be Tuition-Free?

Some nations, such as New Zealand and Russia, make all public higher education through the graduate level free to the student. In the United States, of course, this is a matter of State rather than Federal determination. Across the Nation, there is considerable divergence of opinion on the extent to which free education should be available beyond the public high school level. Some States, such as California, Kansas, and Mississippi, have made the public junior college "tuition free." Others give support to this idea even to the extent of making it a legal provision, but, in practice, depart from the idea and have the students contribute to the support of the institution by requiring payment of "general fees" or other charges. Still other States forthrightly charge relatively high tuition of students attending 2-year colleges.

When a public 2-year college charges high tuition, the question might well be raised regarding the institution's responsibility for providing funds for scholarships and grants in aid. A similar question might be asked in terms of the institution's responsibility for providing some financial assistance for textbooks, as well as for specific laboratory, library, or other fees. These two questions are especially important in situations where the combined tuition and fees are so large as to impose a serious handicap to the students' attendance at college.

2 For example, S. V. Martorana and D. G. Morrison. Patterns of Organization and Support in Public 2-Year Colleges. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Washington, D.C., 1959. Leland Medsker. "Financing Public Junior College Operation." The Public Junior College, Chapter XIII. Fifty-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.