part of those connected with action programs, will facilitate effective cooperation, will tend to forestall unreasonable requests from the sponsors of action programs, and will define their duties for those who administer the College's services. Variations in Federal Control The trends in Federal relations to the States as exemplified in the acts affecting the land-grant institutions are: 1. An increase in the measure of control. 2. Lack of consistency among the several measures. The increase in Federal control is shown in the restrictions carried by the successive acts and in the powers placed in the hands of Federal authorities having responsibility for the administration of the several acts. In the discussion of the specific acts it has been pointed out that the Second Morrill Act contained restrictions on curriculum offerings that did not obtain under the First Morrill Act. The Hatch Act introduced a new feature in providing for annual grants for maintenance instead of lump sums of money or of grants of land for endowment as had been the practice of the Federal Government in previous aid to the States. This Act also placed greater discretionary powers in the hands of the Federal administrative authorities than had been the case under the First Morrill Act. The Adams Act made a more rigid definition of research and introduced a further element of Federal control by providing for the "proper administration" of the law by the Secretary of Agriculture. This is done through the Office of Experiment Stations by approving the "projects" in advance of the expenditure of the Federal funds. The activities coming within the purposes of the SmithLever Act and the methods of carrying them out are defined as "... the giving of instruction and practical demonstrations in agriculture and home economics to persons not attending or resident in said colleges in the several communities, and imparting to such persons information on said subjects through field demonstrations, publications, and other 7 Sec. 4. 127403°-39- -8 wise...." In addition certain limitations and restrictions of a negative character are made. A further measure of Federal control is exerted through the provision that "... this work shall be carried on in such manner as may be mutually agreed upon by the Secretary of Agriculture and the State agricultural college or colleges receiving the benefits of this Act." This provision opens the way for a large measure of control by the Federal Government, as its representatives have the responsibility for deciding whether or not the projects proposed by a State are acceptable. When the CapperKetcham Act was passed, a requirement was made that ". . . at least 80 per centum of all appropriations under this Act shall be utilized for the payment of salaries of extension agents in counties of the several States..." 10 This restricted the States not only as to the type of work but defined still further the methods by which the work was to be done. The inconsistencies among the several acts are numerous. Provisions having to do with the financial records create a great deal of unnecessary work in the financial offices of the land-grant institutions and the United States Department of Agriculture. In general it may be said that there are fewest specific controls exercised in those measures relating to resident instruction. They are most evident in the measures affecting extension. The experiment station acts occupy an intermediate position. The different bases for grants and the different degrees of control to be found in the series of acts relating to extension, resident instruction, and experiment stations not infrequently create embarrassment in the administration of a land-grant institution, since all of the acts come under a single administration within each State. Evidences have not been lacking on this point, especially during the depression, when it has been easier for the Federal Government to secure funds than it has for some of the State governments. Differences have resulted in some cases in the necessity for reduction in the salaries of staff members employed in one branch of the service when comparable reductions in salaries of their colleagues in other branches were not made. Sec. 2. • Sec. 2. 10 Sec. 1. The interactions of resident instruction, research, and extension are so numerous and frequently so subtle that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the objective data to show conclusively that any one of the three degrees of control exercised through the administration of the acts relating to resident instruction, research, and extension is the best. It is the judgment of the writers that, from the point of view of the State, resident instruction is administered as effectively as extension work, in spite of the much greater measure of control found in the series of extension acts than in the Morrill Acts and the supplementary legislation. In the development of legislation affecting education it is important to bear in mind that a large measure of prescription in law has a tendency to restrict innovation, and that innovation has been an important element in educational progress. The discussion may be extended beyond the boundaries of the individual State to consider the possible effect of Federal control in the regional coordination of effort in instruction, research, and extension. In this respect more progress has undoubtedly been made in research than in either of the other activities. As previously indicated, it seems likely that under the provision of the Bankhead-Jones Act a still larger measure of coordination will be developed. It should be borne in mind, however, that the plan of regional cooperation among experiment stations was started several years ago in New England on State initiative. It is not intended to deny the interest of the United States Department of Agriculture in the development of regional cooperation in research but only to show that it had its origin in State action. There is additional evidence on this point in the extent to which cooperation has been developed among higher institutions in curricular offerings, a tendency which promises to develop even further in the future. The increasing complexity both of research and of instruction at the graduate level is a force for cooperation. But of much more fundamental importance than the rapidity and extent to which coordination and cooperation may be secured through a supervisory oversight by the Federal Government is the question of whether or not to incur the dangers inherent in it. Are they not too great a price to pay for the degree of acceleration of cooperative effort that may result? The writers are of the opinion that the net conclusion of the experience of the United States in the development of education points clearly toward no more Federal regulation or control than is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the legislation with due recognition of the rights of minority groups, and that these purposes should be stated in large terms. Uniform Allotments to States In a preceding section data have been submitted that show certain inequalities resulting from the uniform allotments made to the States in connection with the several extension acts. It is true that there is a minimum overhead expense called for in the administration of an extension program in a State, but the presence in each act of provisions for minimum allotment has resulted in disparities that cannot be justified. At the first opportunity inequalities should be corrected. Clarification of State and Federal Relations The experience of the several States and the Federal Government in cooperative educational effort now extends over three-quarters of a century. As has been pointed out, the several acts vary considerably in their provisions and in the degree of control exercised by the Federal Government. It is suggested that before any additional grants are made, or the funds available under existing legislation increased, an exhaustive analysis should be made of the experiences of the States and Federal Government under the existing legislation as a basis for the clarification of future relationships. The present bases of determining policies are characterized too largely by opportunism and immediacy. Additional Grants The benefits that have flowed from Federal aid to landgrant colleges and universities are unquestioned. The United States has the most effective program of education in the technical fields represented by agriculture, engineering, and home economics to be found in any country and the series of acts affecting these institutions has played a large part in their growth. The results justify the view that further grants should be made if State interests and control are preserved. An analysis of the grants that have been made for the different purposes indicates the desirability of increasing the grants especially for resident instruction in all three types of work and for research in the field of engineering. Influence of the Land-Grant In 1887 a permanent organization of the land-grant institutions was effected." It bore the name Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations until 1920, when it was changed to the Association of LandGrant Colleges and Universities. In any adequate evaluation of the relationship of the Federal Government to the land-grant institutions, cognizance must be taken of this organization. It has furnished a forum in which many of the problems of Federal and State relationships involved in the administration of the land-grant program have been frankly discussed by the authorities from the United States Department of Agriculture and representatives of the land-grant institutions. Problems of relationship have been worked out through memorandums of understanding, especially in extension and experiment station activities. The existence of this powerful organization has undoubtedly been of great value in preserving for the States a much greater measure of responsibility and authority than they would otherwise have been able to retain. In addition to the influence of the Association in the interpretation of legislation after it is enacted, there has been marked cooperation between the Department of Agriculture and the Association in securing additional grants for the development of research, extension, and instruction. Ample evidence of this cooperation is to be found in the Congres 11 True, A History of Agricultural Education, p. 210. |