STUDY OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION INTRODUCTION The study of the U.S. Office of Education developed out of a deep interest concerning Federal aid to education and the associated interrelationships of the U.S. Office of Education with the educational community. With the recent enactments of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the continued expansion of the role of the Federal Government in the education arena, certain questions developed among those keenly interested in quality and equality of educational opportunity. The following is a description and summary of activities, and the research design used by the Special Subcommittee on Education in its study of the U.S. Office of Education and the administration of Federal aid to education programs. The special subcommittee has functioned in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation; the subcommittee's primary concern was to view objectively the U.S. Office of Education's role in the administration of Federal programs and its relationships with the educational community and with the Congress in the drafting of legislation and drawing of guidelines. I. BACKGROUND A brief historical survey provides us with a macroview of the enactments of the Federal Government which relate to education. In 1785 the passage of the Northwest Ordinance provided aid to territories and later to States for education, by endowment of schools with public lands. The stipulation was "*** there shall be reserved the lot #16 of every township for the maintenance of public schools within said township." The passage of the Northwest Ordinance was the first attempt on the part of the Federal Government to concern itself with education. In 1862 the passage of the Morrill Land Act granted to each State an amount of 30,000 acres of public land for each Member of Congress for the support of a college which would have as its primary purpose the teaching of "such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanical arts ***." Five years later, in 1867, the Office of Education, functioning as a Federal Department of Education, was created. Fifty years later the Smith-Hughes Act provided grants for promoting vocational training in the public schools and encouraged special education for teachers of vocational subjects. In 1941, Congress enacted the Lanham Act, which provided Federal assistance for school building aid in local communities critically affected by Federal activities. The National Defense Education Act in 1958 authorized funds to strengthen crucial areas in education. This broad-based legislation cut across many interdisciplinary offerings at the college and university level and in the public elementary and secondary sectors of the educational community. The 89th Congress has been hailed as the most significant educational Congress in the history of the Federal Government's participation in educational matters; the significance of this statement is readily seen after reviewing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and the Higher Education Act of 1965. TABLE 1.-Employment figures by 10-year increments from 1939 to 1959 and each year since 1960 to 1966, U.S. Office of Education Year: Number of employees TABLE 2.-Appropriation growth since 1867 by 10-year increments to 1957 and each year from 1960 to 1966, U.S. Office of Education Fiscal year: Appropriation 1867_ $18, 592 The above tables indicate the size and scope of the present responsibility of the U.S. Office of Education in its effort to manage educational programs, meet the demands for educational leadership, and carry out its original charter; namely, that of providing information relating to the existing state of education to the Congress, to the State school systems at all levels, and to the people of the United States. As would be expected, considerable change has occurred within the Office due to the impact of the new legislative thrust enacted by previous Congresses and especially the 89th Congress. These new and expanded programs have resulted in new relationships between the U.S. Office of Education and the educational community. Without any change in its initial charter the Office has been charged with a leadership role to improve the quality of education and the equality of educational opportunity at all levels. These changes in mission have resulted in modification of administrative philosophy which emphasize program and professional management. The U.S. Office of Education was reorganized in 1962 and heavily reorganized in mid 1965 as a result of "The Recommendations of the White House Task Force on Education, June 14, 1965." Concurrent with the reorganizations, the U.S. Office of Education has had to adapt itself to the requirements of its new role and relationship to a significant collection of institutions in the educational community. In attempting to encourage the varied and diverse national resources toward attainment of common goals, the Office has also been faced with the necessity to respect local autonomy in institutions of higher education and in State and local school districts. Major phases of legislation had to be implemented on a narrow time schedule which did not coincide with the academic year. Lastly, the U.S. Office of Education has had the responsibility of monitoring programs, coordinating their actions with other Federal programs, and now is even attempting cost-benefit analysis for dollars spent in a sphere which philosophically has resisted the imposition of performance measurement standards since its inception. The Special Subcommittee on Education has attempted to focus its study of the U.S. Office of Education with the above in mind; that is, the recent reorganization of the USOE, the new programs and the expanded older programs, the magnitude of which could strain and tax any organization, and the highly complex public and private environment within which the U.S. Office of Education has found itself over the years. The subcommittee study began with a major assumption that the national interest in education requires a sensitive and deep concern ranging from manpower needs to social and political considerations predicated on a large-scale attempt to improve the quality and quantity of education throughout the Nation. This was undertaken with full appreciation of certain fundamental tenets: 1. That education is a primary responsibility of State and local districts. 2. That equality of educational opportunity should not neglect the pursuit of excellence. 3. That local citizens should continue and exemplify in spirit and action the locus of responsibility for educational decisions II. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ACTIVITIES A. PHASE 1 The Special Subcommittee on Education's research design incorporates three distinct phases of activities. The first phase was concerned with a "mapping" of the operation of the U.S. Office of Education. Intensive study has been given to the administration of all current programs; the processing of applications from institutions of higher education, State departments of education and local school systems, and the advising of applicants as to policy changes; the surveillance of data concerning the effectiveness of federally funded programs; the identification of the needs and practices of the educational community and the comparison of this information with administrative policy; the use of advisers and consultants; and, lastly, legislative planning goals and policy formulation. A historical description of the responsibilities, growth, and changes within the Office has been prepared and a systematic comparison of guidelines and regulations as to legislative intent in selected major acts 72-545-67 each stratum. In general those systems with the largest enrollment were selected with certainty. At the time of the preliminary report we have received an excellent response from local school administrators. On December 20 there was a followup letter mailed to local school superintendents who had not responded to the questionnaire. Student financial aid questionnaire The sample design provided for the stratification of 1,898 institutions of higher education in the United States which participated in Federal student financial aid programs during fiscal year 1966. The analysis of the various cuts will be by nine U.S. Office of Education regions, by public or private, and by type of institution. The breakdown by type of institution is universities, liberal arts and teacher colleges, junior colleges, and all other types of institutions in higher education. A random sample of institutions with varying degrees of probability was then selected for each stratum. Independent school questionnaire The sample design provided for stratification of the 19,290 nonpublic schools in the United States by States. A systematic random sample using the same sampling rate was then selected from each State. A final analysis will consider regional and national estimates and the sample design will reflect this need and will be accomplished by collapsing the States into regional levels. Chief State school officer questionnaire The universe of 56 chief State school officers was small enough not to require a stratified sample. Consequently, the universe population was used in the survey. State commissions on higher education facilities questionnaire The universe of 56 commissions on higher education facilities was small enough to allow the entire universe to be contacted by survey techniques. Progress report on returned questionnaires At the time of this report by the Special Subcommittee on Education to the House of Representatives the returns on the above questionnaires are as follows: 1. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 72 percent. 4. Chief State school officer questionnaire, 66 percent. 5. Higher education facilities commissions, 82 percent. As noted in the above, the sampling techniques will allow the Special Subcommittee on Education to make generalizations from the sample to the universe population. The Library of Congress Data Processing Division has been most generous with its assistance in processing the questionnaires for the study. The subcommittee and staff are presently working closely with the Library of Congress Data Processing Office in its key-punch operation, to facilitate the data retrieval and eventual analysis of the questionnaires. In developing the questionnaires certain items in each questionnaire are common to the other four questionnaires. The commonalty of items and their analysis will assist the Special Subcommittee on Education in reaching decisions for possible future recommendations as they relate to Federal enactments affecting the educational communities. Ultimately, the data retrieval from the questionnaires will fall into two major products: (1) percentage responses; and (2) the free text narrations provided by respondents to the questionnaire. The data and information provided by the questionnaires, plus testimony presented during public and informal hearings conducted by the Special Subcommittee on Education and contacts made by members of the Special Subcommittee with presidents of colleges and universities, chief State school officers, local school superintendents, representatives of educational associations and organizations, and others in the educational community, will provide a complete and comprehensive view of the U.S. Office of Education's administration and program management of the various legislative enactments. C. PHASE 3 The third phase of the research design is presently underway. It involves the collation and thorough analysis of information received with a view to preparing and publishing in a final report the findings of the study and evaluation. The final report containing the subcommittee findings and recommendations will be based on a review of 19 days of public hearings, information received and analyzed from the respondents to the more than 6,000 questionnaires, a review and analysis of hundreds of letters from persons in the educational community, and extensive interviews and conversations with officials of the U.S. Office of Education and the recipients of Federal aid to education programs. SPECIAL REMARKS At this time, the Special Subcommittee on Education would like to extend sincere appreciation to Secretary John Gardner, Commissioner Harold Howe II, and the many other officials of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for their cooperation. and assistance in this study. Further, our expression of appreciation goes to Dr. Quincy Mumford, Librarian, Library of Congress, and to George Perreault and the staff of the Library's Data Processing Office and to Robert L. Chartrand, Information Sciences Specialist of the Science Policy Research Division of the Legislative Reference Service for the technical assistance rendered to the subcommittee in the processing of the questionnaires. Also, the Special Subcommittee is aware and appreciative of the time devoted by the educational community in assisting this committee in its challenging endeavor; for, without this spirit of cooperation and enthusiastic support, the study would not have been possible. |