\ H . 'L' 'i ‘ 7300 A279 I Floyd Wesley Reeves ABSTRACT FLOYD WESLEY REEVES: PIONEER IN SHAPING FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN SUPPORT OF ADULT EDUCATION BY Carl T. Pacacha This research is a study of the contributions of one man, Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves, to the formulation of a national public policy toward education. National committees directed by Dr. Reeves made recommendations which were incorporated into federal legislation for education. Among the many committees were the Advisory Committee on Education and the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel. Par- ticular attention was devoted to his role in formulat- ing proposed federal legislation for education during the decade 1935-1945. One of his unique contributions related especially to federal involvement in the educa- tion of adults. As a pioneer in federal legislation for education, Dr. Reeves drafted pr0posals contained in one major law, the "GI Bill," and developed other Proposals which were incorporated into other laws enacted over a period of three decades, 1938-1968. The effect .‘ ‘n '0 I‘ . n 3‘ Ann; U. “RV-4 '- . '5 1.- ua: “6.“; F.--; r.— ‘ i;"‘fiu 3 V I -‘=U““e tu"; . ‘ f‘ U'~‘-'. - ‘J‘NL I ‘. n""u~ "macr'v s,‘ Dv- V "b n V tue "‘a l " , ‘yfis v.‘ W § .' -v Cm Ntflv Carl T. Pacacha of these enactments on education is pervasive; each level of education--elementary, secondary, higher, and adult-- has benefited. This study investigated: (1) the emergence of Dr. Reeves as a spokesman for education during the period, 1935-1945, (2) recommendations of the President's Advisory Committee on Education (which he headed) for improving the quality of schools, (3) the proposed Federal Aid to Education Act of 1939, which embodied many of the recom- mendations of this committee, (4) the work of the Confer- ence on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, 1942-43, (5) preposals of the Conference (which he headed) which resulted in the GI Bill of Rights, and (6) major recommendations contained in the Advisory Committee Report of 1938, which were enacted over the next three decades. Data was gathered chiefly from recorded inter- views with Dr. Reeves, from his personal accounts, ad- dresses, publications, and correspondence, from interviews and correspondence with associates and government officials, from government documents, from minutes and published reports of the Avisory Committee and Conference on Postwar Readjustment, and the legis- lative history (bills, committee reports, Congressional Record, etc.) of federal enactments in support of adult education. . . pa~nn n; .ua v“ 8 . n p.- opflb A in.“ nu.‘ o'u-a 5 .m: S. 0' ‘ . ~ '1 ...e u 1' c. ‘ “"I' Grid: 5 .z..A" ~«--u.u . In.” “' (ID In"? ‘4' " f G“‘ o: I" (I) r?- O (D l). 1 u l f Carl T. Pacacha Employing the "great man" theory pf history, __ H...“ A _____,- __—_. which posits that certain individuals possess qualities that make them capable of serving great social purposes, this study investigated the role played by Dr. Reeves in the develOpment of national policy for education. The study sought to determine: (1) the process by which national educational policy evolves, and (2) the role of educators themselves in influencing that policy. By virtue of his leadership ability and the operative social forces of a given period, Dr. Reeves had a marked influ- ence on the course and outcome of national educational policy. During time of depression, war and national transition, he developed a master plan for education. The most significant contribution of Dr. Reeves toward the development of a national educational policy was that he sketched in broad strokes plans which have led to a vast, new chapter in the federal government's relationship to education. While he made major contri- butions to the develOpment of federal support for educa- tion generally, through the confluence of his own per- sonal convictions and the impingement of major social forces of the period, adult edu ' “QEEEEEWEE§M£££§L_. ang,ma;or\realization of his effort. WW" _——_.._...u. m...# ".m- Dr. Reeves develOped a master plan for education during periods of national stress. He had the capacity to work with individuals and agencies and effect consensus .;b' A. . ,. “‘chu. 9... "' . v:.: C . u 2‘: :.‘l|v’ “zva ' U.» {u 9 H) n. (I) ’A u.‘: c Carl T. Pacacha and coordination of effort. He demonstrated courage and perserverance through the long, tedious process of en- acting legislation. Possessing creativity, flexibility and imagination, Dr. Reeves was able to convert apparent obstacles to a platform of seizing opportunity for national policy. He had the capacity to merge his "blue- print" for education with the strongly held plans of others to advance his interests while serving the inter- ests of potential antagonists. In addition to his bold plans, he had some critical and innovative ideas that were incorporated into later legislation: impacted areas, child benefit theory, and equality for Negro- Americans. Dr. Reeves emphasized problems in rural America, where many educational problems originate. This study makes no claim that Dr. Reeves and his colleagues were solely responsible for the legisla- tion that evolved from 1938-68. There were many social forces which necessitated, and many creative leaders who designed and promoted increased aid for education. Evi- dence has been discovered to suggest that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other educational legislation were facilitated by the Advisory Committee Report. In the process of conducting this study it be- came clearly evident that Dr. Reeves made many other contributions to education and which deserve to be .. . pants. 1“ =uiUQeH I ’_.A 53313 I! - I‘D.” soibuv 5:: leai v- \ HI I. 1:an v“ ug‘iu'. J ' l D!!! ‘H "" ‘AA u . ‘ T" V‘nn- v. “"VIQA. i." “'Y P“ ; ""‘Uuau ‘Q - h s . U‘.c . “a .‘5 ‘5. ' i 5 N . ‘us‘ “ f . .. 3‘ ~‘ ‘ ~ Carl T. Pacacha studied. Six have been identified: (1) role in shaping social policy in the Tennessee Valley Authority, (2) in- fluence in establishing continuing education programs for leadership in metropolitan government, (3) influence on higher education, (4) contributions to general educa- tion in colleges and universities, (5) role in the growth of Michigan State University, (6) contribution to inter- national education. Results of this research should contribute to an increased awareness of the contributions of Dr. Reeves / in influencing the provisions of federal legislation for, I 3 adult‘education. In doing so it should illuminate the strategic significance of one man's work in influencing public policy. On the basis of the evidence discovered, this study demonstrates that a man who possessed a burning commitment to federal aid to education, and who performed with excellence in strategic governmental positions dur- ing times of national crises, has had a significant in- fluence on the character and availability of education in America over the past thirty years. Through his zeal and ability in enlisting others in resolving major educa- tional problems, he was able to promote, and to a certain degree, implement the American ideal of equality of edu- cational Opportunity for children, older youth, and adults. "We I All is V“ J at I... C . 3:. by} u Vin 5.11 V ‘0}! Fr! 1““ hry‘.: :“ ‘9 an ———r Carl T. Pacacha Educational problems brought about by social change require the intervention of a perceptive leader who can facilitate the solution of these problems. He can bring about significant change through his mental and moral qualities, his talent and knowledge, his re- soluteness and courage. The professional educator who possesses these unique qualities of leadership, useful precisely at a given time, can significantly influence the course of education. FLOYD WESLEY REEVES: PIONEER IN SHAPING FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN SUPPORT OF ADULT EDUCATION BY Carl T. Pacacha A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1970 “4 ,.. .. 7 a" I“ .- .. v’ a \ 3' w ‘ L. C°pyright by CARL THOMAS PACACHA 1971 Q In "."' “'5 J‘v» . "W‘n- “ r.:'.:bE a A, ‘n‘ .v‘ I‘ 5‘ . . a». . ‘ nub..“‘ A - ‘ SA, h: .u‘ .‘~ 9 .Av~. ~ s5.h" :.‘ v. 4'! ”rs.‘ "v u :s‘ d‘g‘. . V 4"... fl.“ I. ~ .~“ ~ ‘ *t ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is deeply indebted to the chairman of his Doctoral Committee, Professor Russell J. Kleis. The careful and wise guidance he provided as well as his generosity with his precious time, are particularly ap- preciated. Grateful acknowledgment is also due the members of the Doctoral Committee: Drs. Clyde Campbell, Albert Levak, Richard Featherstone, Jay Artis and George Johnson, for their support and encouragement. He wishes to express appreciation to Miss Betty Hopkins, documents librarian at Wayne State University, for her valuable services. To Mom and Tut,who were denied an adequate formal education, he is deeply grateful. Their in- spiration and guidance were ever present. Most importantly, the writer wishes to express gratitude to his wife Joan for her quiet encouragement and support. He also wishes to thank Susan and Janet, his two children, for their patience and understanding while Daddy was "going to school." ii R. '-a‘ ,- bo:~'u€‘ . Y m;- ‘U ... ‘v m. ‘eo UT. s‘.. E ‘5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. THE PROFESSIONAL LEADER AND THE SHAPING OF FEDERAL POLICY ON EDUCATION . . . . . . . . The Shaping of Federal Educational Policy . The Individual Leader in the Shaping of Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Role of Floyd Wesley Reeves . . . . . . Purpose and Plan of the Study . . . . . . . Overview of the Dissertation . . . . . . . II. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AID TO EDUCATION To 1935 O I I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O The Federal Involvement in Education to 1900 O O O I O O O I O O, O O I O O I O 0 Federal Policy, 1900-1935 . . . . . . . . . III. FLOYD WESLEY REEVES, EDUCATOR: A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Uncommon Student . . . . . . . . . . . . An Uncommon Professor . . . . . . . . . . . An Uncommon Public Servant . . . . . . . . An Uncommon Vision of Adult Education . . . Uncommon Tasks Undertaken . . . . . . . . . An Uncommon Man: Author, Teacher, Prophet, Pioneer 0 O 0 O O O I O O O I I O O O I 0 IV. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION . . . . . The Report of the Advisory Committee on Education 0 O O I O O I I O O O O O O I 0 iii Page 11 13 15 16 24 33 33 37 4O 43 45 58 64 83 .II «0‘ A ”“3 Uer o Chapter Provisions for Children and Youth . . . . A Recommended Program of General Federal Aid for Elementary and secondary Education 0 O O I O O O O O O O 0 O 0 Supplementary Special Aid . . . . . . . Provisions for Adult Education . . . . Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for the Improvement of Vocational Education . . . . . . . . Educational Services for Adults . . . . Recommended Educational Services for Adults 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Work Camps and Work Projects . . . . . Recommendations for Work Camps and Work PrOjeCtS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Rural Library Service . . . . . . . . . Recommended Library Services . . . . . Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Higher Education . Related Areas of Education . . . . . . V. FROM WHITE HOUSE TO CAPITOL HILL . . . . . The Controversial Committee Report . . . The President's Dilemma . . . . . . . . . Congress: The Whirlpool of Social Forces Hearings on S. 1305 . . . . . . . . . . . Federal Legislation in 1938-1939 and Operative Social Forces . . . . . . . . iv Page 90 90 92 93 94 96 97 97 98 100 101 102 103 103 104 114 115 126 132 145 148 icagter m H"; 'L. On ‘9. . ‘sl Chapter Page VI. THE GI BILL OF RIGHTS: INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CHANGE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 154 A Review of Veterans' Benefits . . . . . . . 158 The Framing of Demobilization Plans . . . . 161 Demobilization and Readjustment: The Conference's PrOposals for Veterans' Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 179 The Osborn Committee Report . . . . . . . . 187 The President Coordinates His Plan . . . . . 190 Congressional Action on the GI Bill . . . . 191 The "GI Bill of Rights" . . . . . . . . . . 193 The Influence of the GI Bill on Adult Education I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19 7 VII. THREE DECADES ON THE AGENDA OF CONGRESS . . . 208 The Period 1940-1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 Postwar Struggle for Federal Aid, 1946- 1961 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 227 Current Educational Legislation . . . . . . 237 Current Legislation and Social Imperatives . 248 VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 252 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 APPENDICES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 88 LI ST OF TABLES Table Page 1. PrOposed grants for adult education distributed among the States and other areas in propor- tion to adult population . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Amount of existing and proposed Federal grants for educational services . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Provisions of proposed new Federal grants to the States for educational services . . . . . . . 107 Manpower estimates, December, 1939, December, 1940, December, 1943 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Current expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36 . . . 85 2. Current expenditures per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36 . . . 86 3. Number of children 5-17 years of age per 1,000 adults 20-64 years of age, by size of com- munity, 1930 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 87 4. Demobilization of World War II veterans and number in training under Servicemen's Re- adjustment kt I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 200 5. Per cent of World War II veterans in each state who had entered training under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act by November 30, 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 6. Veterans Utilizing various types of educational benefits I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 204 vii CHAPTER I THE PROFESSIONAL LEADER AND THE SHAPING OF FEDERAL POLICY ON EDUCATION Federal policy is rapidly becoming a dominant force in determining the character and availability of education for both children and adults in the United States. With the advent of great social changes in America and the world, concern for education has expanded, gradually at first and then quite dramatically, from state and local arenas to become a major item of national policy. The well-being and security of the nation are being seen as inextricably tied to education. Important policy decisions are being made now that will shape edu- cation for years to come. It becomes imperative that educators understand more fully: l. the process by which national educational policy evolves, and 2. the role of educators themselves in influenc- ing that policy. It has been the purpose of this study to investi- gate the involvement of one professional education leader, Floyd Wesley Reeves, in the formulation of federal policy in support of adult education, to examine the roles he Apun‘. '; mam.» . » : . . .' V Mr D“! ..n: . ‘ P F ares; '1‘ :.y. u A...A _ fl‘ . Vluév‘.: . ”F i . , U, . _ ‘ ‘hlflfi‘ "va‘ filled, the strategies he employed, the forces he en- countered, the influence he appears to have exerted, and the implications of his experiences for the involvement of professional adult educators in shaping federal edu- cational policy. The Shaping of Federal Educational Policy The establishing of educational policy, in the United States, especially with respect to elementary and secondary education, has traditionally been con- fined to the state and local levels. The concept of state responsibility and local control has prevailed. Local tax support has provided the financial base for school Operation. However, local school districts have increasingly had to depend upon the state for additional apprOpriations and within the decade of the 1960's federal grants have become essential components of many local school budgets. The financial needs of adult and higher educa- tion institutions have also greatly increased in recent years. With larger enrollments, an increased sense of social significance, and an increased demand for ser- vices, adult and higher education have had to look to the national treasury for needed support. Often and .c‘um- .- ml" . ‘P' ~o. '.‘;v~b .l .‘boa 5.. . , M «II- ”FA b"-“ssu 99' ‘ . vuaa.“.; ".;~~ , - tg" c increasingly financial resources for adult education1 have been provided from federal sources. Legislation i3" support of adult education is not always highly visible. It is frequently incorporated with that supporting child- ren and youth education, or in enactments not pOpularly identified as "education" legislation at all. The education of children and that of adults are interdependent. One measure of the effectiveness of childhood education is the extent to which education is continued in some form or another in later life. On the other hand, well-develOped programs of adult education have an important effect upon school attendance and per- formance of children. A program of adult education that effectively enlists the interests of parents usually con- tributes to a heightened interest in education for all in the community. Such interdependency appears to have been acknowledged by Congress in enacting such recent legislation as the Economic Opportunity Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 1Within the present context adult education in— cludes all the planned and organized educational endea- vors that are sponsored by public and private agencies for older youth and adults for whom education is no longer their principal occupation. Adult education pro- grams include provision for civic, general, and vocational education, in addition to citizenship education for aliens, basic education, and library and counseling ser- vices for out-of-school youth and adults. The various programs of education for veterans are specifically in- cluded. IA. () f 3 ()1 Ii. . .v‘:""1r~ 0“ .‘V. .- Federal policy for education evolves out of basic societal forces, such as population mobility, technologi- cal advancement, war, and depression. These forces are not local in character; they are national and internationa in scope. To meet the problems created by these social forces, local communities or special interest groups traditionally undertake to effect change in educational policy. Many communities and interest groups are likely to undertake such efforts simultaneously. The efforts are often taken up by privately or publicly sponsored task forces, such as the Conant study of high schools or a Presidential advisory committee. Such "antecedent move- ments"1 develOp porposals which commonly generate con- flict and political action among community or special interest groups. As articulators of social concerns, local, state, and national interest groups (often al- ready formed) coalesce to champion their cause2 and to seek national political resolution of the policy issues. 1Roald F. Campbell, Luvern L. Cunningham and Roderick F. McPhee, The Organization and Control of American Education (Columbus: Charles E. Merrilleooks, Inc.,’1965), p. 37. 2Philip Meranto, The Politics of FederalAid to Education in 1965 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, I967), CHapter I. "‘~: in ooovb by any" V ::..E.S LINK-u . " E CEBU». ‘ . PIA’ A‘I 354-1 g. u a I. I III-In ‘ x .. b tau“: 5? u." v- J. “'G' an i “7"" r, turd-sen . IQ?“ «~85 p... A . R 'VuITt ‘ A‘ Q \ H anus . E Schattschneiderl contends that politicized con- flict is never confined to the original combatants. Ob- servers enter the conflict and as more and more peOple become involved, the issues become more complex. As the scape of the conflict is enlarged from the local center it tends to move to the national capital, where it may or may not be resolved. Proposed legislation is advanced; proponents and opponents contend; and relevant social forces contend in a swirl of activity surrounding and converging upon the President and the Congress. Deci- sions determining the outcome of the conflict are made at the vortex of the struggle, in the committee and floor votes of the federal Congress. Through such a process, often requiring many years to be completed, prOposals are modified and adopted by the dominant group and are incorporated into national policy for education. This process is depicted in the following paradigm: A Flow Chart on Policy Formation in Education2 I II III IV Basic Forces Antecedent Political Formal Movements Action Enactment Social, econ- Usually na- By organiza- May be at omic, politi- tional in tions usually local, state cal, and tech- scope, such interrelated and national 1 Elmer Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1960), Chapter I. 2Campbell, et. a1., op. cit., p. 37. an flflif“ no.4»: VG I urn IVOVES, Q “2“ AF ". udb.vot‘¢ Q ~ - . nAy‘qvos a “used“... ‘ff‘l ‘. run“: I I (L (D I nological forces, usually national or worldwide in scape II III as the Nation- at local, a1 Manpower Commission, Rockefeller Bros. study, Conant studies, etc. state, and na- tional levels, such as U. 8. Chamber of Commerce, AFL- CIO, and NBA IV levels; and through 1e- gislative, judicial, and execu- tive agencies. The role of the individual leader in such a com- plex, long-range, amorphous process is not easy to under- stand. Can one man, operating as a professional or political leader, significantly influence the process and its outcome? If so, what is the nature of the in- fluence and by what strategies and under what conditions is it most likely to be effective? This study has sought new insight into those questions by examining selected leadership roles of Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves. The Individual Leader in the Shaping of Federal Policy A number of scholars have formulated "great man" theories of leadership. The social determinists' theory appears to offer an apprOpriate conceptual model for or- ganizing and presenting the development of federal legis- lation for adult education. According to that theory, great men, by virtue of particular traits of character which make them most capable of serving great social needs of their times, play a significant part in histori- cal development. The fact that great men can and do make \‘I‘A I to: 1'qu IAfl| Jv-Vnal :Ava ...v.es bi» ‘ ‘ n ‘ ”A‘F“ I ”if.“ ‘ history is dependent on the social setting, on the major social forces Operative. In addition to the social forces and conditions at work--they are always at work-- the articulation of goals and formulating of means re— quire the great man to initiate, organize, and lead. The unique talent of a man and the social forces of a given period combine to produce the historic step. For a man who possesses a particular kind of talent to influence greatly the course of events, two conditions are needed: First, this talent must make him more conformable to the social needs of the given epoch than anyone else. Second, the existing social order must not bar the road to the person possessing the talent whichlis needed and useful preCisely at the given time. Such a man in a democracy is a pioneer in the sense that he sees further than others and his will to action is stronger. His knowledge of what must be done to achieve what he sees is more certain. As a result he usually finds himself in a minority. His sense of purpose causes him to fight for his view. A loyalty to the democratic ideal compels him to make this view the common ideal of the majority. lGeorgi Plekhanov, in Theories of History, edited by Patrick Gardiner (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959), pp. 160-161. The Role of Floyd Wesley Reeves On September 19, 1936, Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves was appointed by President Roosevelt to direct a study of vocational education programs financed by the federal government. The study group, known as the President's National Committee on Vocational Education, was to pre- sent recommendations on the need for an expanded program of federal aid to vocational education. After careful study the Committee decided that it could not adequately study vocational education separate from the whole of education and requested that the President authorize the more complete study they deemed to be necessary. The President had given much thought to the gen- eral relationship of the federal government to education (a number of general education bills were pending in Congress) and directed on April 19, 1937, that the Com- mittee enlarge its study to include the total subject of the federal relationship to state and local conduct of education. The enlarged committee was renamed the Ad- visory Committee on Education. Dr. Reeves and his collea- gues set out to study the broader problems facing Ameri- can education. The Advisory Committee Report was submitted to the President, who forwarded it to Congress on February 23, 1938. With slight modification the Report's contents were incorporated into Senate bill 1305. (Federal Aid . raw-- .u ~Udbu . . ‘ -:~uen ~ um; I g . II-Cl 0: y _ n ”I. we- Vu’ ‘ a. V-Fh. ‘5 '7‘“ ‘3‘)..‘5 “Or; 5"“6: 4"", u "‘u" (“Ar '- "war I § to Education Act of 1939). Although the proposals con- tained in the Bill were not enacted in 1939, many of them were eventually passed during the next three decades. Some of the provisions later included in the GI Bill were suggested by the Advisory Committee. Servicemen returned to civilian life by the mil- lions at the close of World War II. Though many of them left as youths, they returned as men and women. After having been trained to function successfully in war, they needed a similar form of preparation to function well in peacetime. In 1942 Dr. Reeves became chairman of the Confer- ence on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel. Because of the realization that unprepared- ness for peace could bring calamity as great as unpre- paredness for war, the Conference set out to consider the reorientation of veterans and civilians to peacetime living. Many of the proposals of the Conference were in- corporated in the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944,1 commonly referred to as the "GI Bill." The GI Bill was popularly conceived as a program designed to assist in the readjustment of veterans. In the fullest sense the provisions set forth in the Bill were not merely repayment of a debt to individuals; they 1?. L. 78-346. pun-6a; 6- ““:3 how. '(va bu. WW 5.... I. p ':OA fun .5IVQI-II ;,.'..' bi‘.t e . "activit- i "fln‘. vya‘. P: 10 went beyond that both in intent and in outcomes. They constituted a national program to equalize educational opportunity, a dream long held by architects of social reform. The Bill represents a great advancement for adult education in the United States and for the prin- ciple that the education of a citizen should be deter- mined by ability, and not be his economic or social station. Traditionally, education in America had been an activity reserved largely for the more affluent. The cost of education, especially higher education, had pre- cluded many indiViduals from achieving it. By its pro- visions that any young man or woman inducted into military service before reaching the age of 25 years was presumed to have had his or her education inter- rupted, that every veteran with a discharge other than dishonorable was entitled to at least one year of fur- ther education, and that older veterans could quite readily qualify for educational benefits beyond the one year minimum, the GI Bill assured to these veterans as adults a level of education that had been neither avail- able to nor desired by many of them as youths. Dr. Reeves' leadership in the shaping of federal policy was especially active during a time of national depression and transition, the period of 1935-1945. Conditions were such that a perceptive and powerful man 3% nee: ' \ .9... P. .. '«obfl “- 23 req. 8‘ 31:5, J. “Lube vii .bu .. 1 ‘”'3r;. 0’. ‘4‘“ q - I A "a. Nbuvv ,. 0:. f... be. H. 11 was needed to articulate goals and propose means by which American education might become adequate to the new requirements upon it. Dr. Reeves was an instrument of historical forces; the meaning of his acts on behalf of federal aid to adult education must be comprehended primarily in terms of historical trends that have com- menced in the past, encompass the present, and point to the future. Appointed to direct the work of national commit- tees, Dr. Reeves responded to a social imperative of his time--the improvement of the American education enterprise, and within it, adult education. Dr. Cyril Houle, eminent adult educator and former student of Dr. Reeves, comments about his mentor as a pioneer: He had a capacity to come to the right decision on the basis of insufficient evidence . . . the basis of all innovative leadership, for the pioneer must act before all the data are in . . . I was constantly astounded by Dr. Reeves' Tapacity to do just that-- and then be proved right. Purpose and Plan of the Study This study sought to determine the extent and nature of the influence of Dr. Reeves on national policy in support of adult education. Specifically, it has sought answers to the following questions: leril Houle, letter to Carl Pacacha, June 20, 1969. 12 1. What factors led to the emergence of Dr. Reeves as a policy designer for education during the period, 1935-1945? 2. What were Dr. Reeves' special contributions as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education and of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel? 3. What was the role of Dr. Reeves in advancing proposals of the Advisory Committee from the time they were submitted to the President until the Federal Aid to Education Act of 1939 was finally defeated in Congress? 4. What was the role of Dr. Reeves in advancing the proposals of the Conference on Postwar Readjust- ment of Civilian and Military Personnel from the time they were submitted to the President until they were enacted? 5. What linkages can be identified between the pro- posals of the Advisory Committee on Education and the Conference and the provision in later federal legislation, 1940-1968? 6. What role, if any, did Dr. Reeves play with re- spect to the 1940-1968 developments? The basic problem of this study, then, is to determine what influence Dr. Floyd Reeves has had upon the enactment and the provisions of federal legislation in support of adult education. Answers to these questions should lead to a better understanding of the role of one man in influenc- ing federal policy toward adult education as it has evolved over the past thirty years. As an exemplar of educators who have helped shape national policy for edu- cation, Dr. Reeves' life and work are richly instructive. Not only were his contributions significant in their own y-nlo. “an" 9'} N 1" 5V:&u - bans? .‘ "RSIC work an. II; “I built ‘ gr Vb “I \uuazl‘. I (n a“: b ~‘c: ‘ V .9 O 13 right; they also offer unique opportunity for educators to gain new insight into the shaping of federal policy toward education. Overview of the Dissertation This chapter has identified a conceptual frame- work and specific questions which form a construct for chapters to follow. The remainder of this work focuses on Dr. Floyd Reeves and his pioneering role in shaping federal policy in support of adult education. In Chap- ter II a review of the history of federal involvement in education is presented. A biographical sketch of Dr. Reeves is presented in Chapter III. It highlights those events in his life which prepared him for the leadership responsibilities he was to undertake in Washington. Chapter IV discusses the influence of Dr. Reeves as chairman of the Adivsory Committee on Educa- tion and presents the recommendations of the Committee. Chapter V provides information about the subsequent actions taken in Congress with respect to the proposals of the Advisory Committee and Dr. Reeves' efforts on be- half of them. Chapter VI relates the influence of Dr. Reeves as chairman of the Conference on Postwar Readjust- ment of Civilian and Military Personnel and its recom— mendations for postwar readjustment. Chapter VII traces the recommendations of the Advisory Committee from the :me th eventua‘ ,. u:roev l 504‘: v A. 14 time they were rejected in Congress in 1939 until the eventual enactment of many of them several decades later. Chapter VIII contains: (1) a summary of the contribu- tions of Dr. Reeves toward a national policy of federal aid to adult education, and (2) conclusions as to the role of educators in the continued struggle to shape federal policy relating to education in general and adult education in particular. CHAPTER II THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AID TO EDUCATION TO 1935 The earliest leaders of our nation viewed educa- tion as a matter with which they might appropriately be concerned. Provision of federal support for education was among the earliest public policy decisions in the emerging republic. The Ordinance of 1785 allocated federally owned land for public education. Additional legislation, though infrequent, has contributed signifi- cantly to the support of education for both youth and adults. Since World War II the federal interest has grown enormously. The greatest advance came in the 1960's, when more than sixty federal education-related laws were enacted. Among them were the Higher Education Act with its provision for community services and con- tinuing education, the Economic Opportunity Act with provision for adult basic education, and the historic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was amended at the end of one year to incorporate the Adult Educa- tion Act of 1966. 15 5."? $J’ I‘d ‘ 1 ’2," fir' nuu Us. 5. :xcreas- is ex;e [9—] 16 The United States Office of Education distributed $713,700, 127 in the fiscal year 1959.1 In 1968 the USOE had appropriated to it $4,141,629,455,2 a 480 per cent increase for the nine-year period. The federal interest is expected to heighten in future years. United States Commissioner of Education James Allen predicted, in 1969, that the federal share of total school costs would in- crease from that year's level of 7.3 per cent to 25 to 30 per cent by 1980.3 Clearly the federal government is now making and will continue to make major invest- ments in education. The Federal Involvement in Education to 1900 It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the exact point at which the national government first became interested in aiding education. A very early suggestion that the national government aid education was made in the proposals of Colonel Timothy Pickering for the settlement of the Ohio territory in 1783. Article 7 of these proposals states: 1Charles A. Quattlebaum, Federal Educational Policies, Programs and Prgposals, Part II (Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government PrintIfig Office, 1960), p. 372. 2United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Annual Report (Washington: U. S. Govern- ment Printing OffiCe, 1967), p. 177. 3James Allen, "News Front," Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 51 (September, 1969), p. 54. all of ' as 1 est: m. 6‘.‘ wk ' “NINA . 4 ~ . “=9 ...._ "IV 5... . sent ex' I'M-I ..:,’ tc “'0 For ”“ bv‘ia ‘ I GH“A .‘ 5“. .5" Q. \ 0 ,. 'i.' e“ 17 all the surplus lands shall be the common property of the State and be diSposed of for the common good; as for laying out roads, creating public buildings, establishing schools and academies . . .1 Though Pickering's preposals were not put into effect at the time, his thinking was similar enough to the senti- ment expressed in the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787 to suggest that his proposals may have influenced the Continental Congress in its deliberations. The initial precedents for national support for education were the reservation for the schools of the sixteenth section of every township, provided for in 2 the Ordinance of 1785, and the establishment and en- couragement of schools and the means of education as assured in the Northwest Territory Ordinance of 1787.3 Henry Taylor contends that While it is maintained by some that these measures were considered primarily as means of attracting settlers rather than as educational advances, the strength of the precedents for public education thereby established cannot be denied. 1As quoted in Ellwood P. Cubberly, State School Administration: A Textbook of Principles (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1927), p. 19. 2A8 appeared in Francis N. Thorpe, The Federal and Stgte Constitutions, Vol. II of 7 volumes (Washing- ton: Government PrInting Office, 1909), p. 961. 3Ordinance of 1787, 1 Stat. 50-53 (1739). 4Henry C. Taylor, The Educational Significance gf the Early Federal Land Ordinances (New York: TeaEhers College, Columbia UnIversity, 1922), p, 115, l 60 AI IOU“ 1 ex: a1 e fed litjenfi Perm; er “II B nu 3. I “I9 I”. 'U I I .P Du b 18 President George Washington showed great interest in promoting education and federal support on its behalf. Because of his concern for political intelligence as a national safeguard and as a means of diminishing sec- tional rivalry, he advocated the establishment of a national university. Land grants were continued in the Statehood Acts, 1 Thus Con- starting with the Ohio Enabling Act of 1802. gress confirmed the validity of the Ordinances drafted under the Continental Congress. Sidney Tiedt indicates the extensive scope of these and later land grants: "A total acreage of 98.5 million acres has been granted by the federal government to states for public schools."2 The next significant development in federal com- mitment to education came with the enactment of the Morrill Act of 1862.3 Each state received 30,000 acres of public land for each of its members in Congress for the purpose of establishing a land-grant college. In the case of certain Eastern states where no available public land remained, scrip was issued. George Works and Barton Morgan state three purposes of the legislation: lchic Enabling Act, 2 Stat. 173-175 (1850). 2Sidney W. Tiedt, The Role of the FederalGovern- ment in Education (New York: Oxford University Press, I966), p. 17. 3Morrill Act, 12 Stat. 503-505 (1862). t.‘ _ linen): "F'o‘fi‘h :V‘Nlo 19 l. A protest against the then characteristic domin- ance of the classics in higher education. 2. A desire to develop, at the college level, in- struction relating to the practical activities of life. 3. An attempt to offer to those belonging to the industrial classes preparation for the 'profes- sions'of life.1 This Act was an important develOpment in adult education as the land-grant colleges not only provided education for degree-seeking students, but were later to provide an extensive cooperative extension service, a major national effort in education for adults and out-of-school youth. The 1860's were notable for other legislation re- lating to adult education. The United States Department of Agriculture2 was established in 1862 for the purpose of regulatory, scientific and educational work for the improvement of agriculture. The Freedmen's Bureau3 was established in 1865 to assist freed slaves who entered upon their new life with few advantages of any kind. Most of them had no education except the lore of the plantation and a very ‘ 1George A. Works and Barton Morgan, The Land Egant Colleges, Staff Study No. 10, prepared for the Advisory Committee on Education (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 11. 2U. S. Department of Agriculture, 12 Stat. 387- 388 (1862). 3 Freedmen's Bureau, 13 Stat. 507-509 (1965). . v '5'"? .e: b.‘ 20 restricted vocational training. The Bureau assumed the guardianship of the emancipated race and undertook to play a determining role in the process of reorganizing Southern society. An important function of the Bureau was that of education for both youth and adults, par— ticularly literacy education. In 1867 the United States Office of Education1 was established within the Department of Interior. Tiedt states the purposes of the Office as: . . . the collection and diffusion of information about education and the encouragement of education. These purposes were to be effected through the col- lection and publishing of educational research, and through the administration of funds and various programs. The Hoar bill,3 introduced in 1870, was designed to establish a national system of education. Although defeated, the bill was significant for its purpose of compelling, by national authority, the establishment of a thorough and efficient system of public instruction throughout the nation. The President would have been granted the authority to determine if a satisfactory school system were in operation in each state. If a state were delinquent, the President could have desig- nated a federal superintendent of schools for that state. 10. S. Office of Education, 15 Stat. 106 (1867). 2Tiedt, op. cit., p. 19. 3H. R. 1326, introduced February 25, 1870. ‘P'fi A :thOL: n t ‘ v 5.. . Eta! b; ... .. c There 1.; :15 t0 Eerce b {j (I, (D ‘14 U) n ‘ V J" H . e (y A ‘ l. "4.3:; 21 The bill would have provided for federal financing of schools. Gordon Lee, reporting on the public response to the Hoar proposal, states, "The reaction of the coun- try to the suggestion of a national system of common schools, though of small prOportions, was almost univers- ally unfavorable."1 Even though the extreme policies underlying the Hoar bill had apparently been discredited and discarded, the need for educational improvement grew more intense. There was revived the earlier idea of providing general aid to all the states from the sale of public land. The Perce bill2 of 1872 would have provided funds for teach- ers' salaries and the maintenance of institutions for the training of common school teachers in addition to its general aid for common schools. Lee indicates that this bill to apply the pro- ceeds of public land sales to education was significant for several reasons: 1. It introduced the concept of devoting the public domain to common school education. 2. The consideration of this pr0posa1 served to crystallize Congressional sentiment with regard to the basic issue of federal aid and to sharpen markedly the political alignments on this issue. 1Gordon Canfield Lee, The Struggle for Federal Aid (New York: Bureau of PublICations, TeaChers College, Cqumbia University, 1949), pp. 43-44. 2 H. R. 1043, 42nd Cong. (1872). 22 3. No more able Congressional debate on the rela- tion of the Federal government to education had yet been held, nor was its equal to occur until 1884. 4. The Perce bill was the last prOposal dealing with Federal aid to the common schools to re- ceive serious consideration on the floor of the House of Reprisentatives until the Curtis-Tillman bill of 1925. The Burnside bill2 of 1879 had as its purpose the application of proceeds from the sale of public lands to support national colleges for the advancement of scientific and industrial education. Both the Perce and Burnside bills, although defeated, prOposed a new principle of permitting the use of federal funds in states which maintained separate school systems for the different races and both proposed federal support for education of persons beyond high school age and engaged in professional life--a form of adult education. A totally new concept in federal aid legislation commenced with the Blair bills3 presented from 1884-1890. These bills proposed the direct apprOpriation of money from the national treasury to the states; and they are recognized by some authorities as the real beginnings of current activity in this matter. Except in the case lLee, op. cit., p. 81. 2S. 133, 46th Cong. (1879). 3S. 185, S. 194, S. 371, S. 398, s. 3241, 48th- , . :1 :93“: N. [\‘I :r "bun. vs ’38 b 3:. 53:65 ..,I “Y4 soul {4“ ~‘flfi‘ - , 'n haw-.5 "a «QC,- '5‘. H‘- .F. . ‘ ‘In - Lugoy‘cl - ‘““‘ P . . . £ \ e | .1 8 "*~10 23 of teacher training, each state was to be given discre- tionary authority over funds. Other important measures in the bills provided for distribution of funds based on rates of illiteracy, the incorporation of the "match- ing" principle, and the exclusion of denominational schools from the benefits of the legislation. Although the defeat of the Blair proposals can be attributed to political, regional, and religious differences, Lee surmises that To many, maintenance of local prerogative loomed far larger than educational improvement; to many more, independence from federal control was essential to that improvement.1 It was not until 1918 that another bill to aid common schools was introduced. However, "categorical" aid, including aid to adult education, was already being pro- vided by that date. After the establishment of land-grant colleges, the need for research in agriculture became imperative. The Hatch Act2 of 1887 made experiment station work an integral part of the land-grant operation. Money, not land payments, was appropriated for the support of such stations; the funds were to be utilized for one purpose only, namely research; and only the productive phase of lLee, op. cit., p. 165. 2Hatch Act, 24 Stat. 173-175 (1887). no.1” I u "UIA +;OH he "VIM g. ‘0‘ ‘ 0"?" n ..“ M' W)... New» {—f H— I y‘ .1 o D U) ('9 . LIL; _L..'_ _ I l rh’t‘! I ' v41 If! .n, H ' 5 24 agriculture was to be investigated. This Act became the basis of later adult education programs within the land-grant college system. Federal Poligyi_l900-l935 In 1905 the federal government took another step toward support of adult education. To strenghten the nation's basic industry-agriculture, through adult educa- tion of farmers, the Office of Farm Management was created within the United States Department of Agriculture. The following account describes the work of the Office: Studies were made of farming conditions and practices in various sections of the country, especially among the most successful farms. On the basis of these, plans were drawn up to put into operation more ef- ficient systems of farm management. Information was made available to producers through summarizing pub- lications. In certain areas, especially where single- crop farming prevailed, systems of diversification were started. The aim of these farms . . . was to attract attention of local farmers to profits that might be received by changing production practices. By 1914 agriculture faced mounting problems which would require the additional attention of the federal government. Increased urbanization, mechanization and complicated marketing and crop production problems de- manded attention if farming were to remain a viable 1Gladys L. Baker, et al., The First 100 Years of The United Statesipepartment of Agriculture (Washington: USDA, 1963). P. 45. 25 industry. For these reasons the Smith-Lever Act1 of 1914 was passed. The Act created an agricultural extension service in each of the land-grant colleges for the pur- pose of "disseminating among the people useful and prac- tical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics." Section 2 of the Act indicates the emphasis placed on adult education through the extention service: . . . c00perative agricultural extension work shall consist of 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, publication, and otherwise . . .2 The increasing industrialization of the United States led to the increased demand for adequately trained workers. To promote vocational education among youth and adults in public schools below the college level the Smith-Hughes Act of 19173 was enacted. The Act placed emphasis upon adult education through evening industrial schools. Only instruction supplemental to daily employ- ment was permitted. Funds were provided for program and teacher training in agriculture, home economics, and trades and industries. 1P. L. 63-94. 2Ihid. 3P. L. 64‘3470 i3 SECS: ' a ' 7': hr; aEieovr‘ guacies 'VI‘U tr VeVle ‘ . I .l I: . V‘ a.“ 1' Z‘QICCSE ‘ e a; . ... 19135. Km...’ H- r») :1.d 9‘ I I ‘ tree 51 i a h. n £4:::eb 26 Following World War I another attempt was made to secure federal aid for general education. The effort developed primarily as a result of the educational inade- quacies revealed by the war and a general desire to im- prove the quality of education. In 1918 the Smith-Towner billl prOposed to provide funds to the states for the purpose of equalizing educational opportunity, especially in regard to literacy and Americanization programs, physical and health education, and teacher training. The bill failed to reach the floor of either house of Congress. Because of conflicting views as to the role the federal government should take in educational matters, the National Advisory Committee on Education was appointed by President Hoover in 1929 to formulate a federal educa- tional policy. The Advisory Committee Report2 recommen- ded that all levels of government cooperate in adminis- tering federal aid to education, with the local government maintaining dominant control. However, the Report called for a five-year postponement of federal aid to the states (except existing aid) until the results of finance sur- veys could determine the desirability and need for 1s. 4185, 75th Cong. (1918). 2National Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, Federgl Relations to Education, Part I, Committee Findings and Recommendations (WaShington: National Capital Press, Inc., 1931). IESBIE. I'm-7:! v Swank C fic, cc] "3 531. 27 federal subventions. Harry Zeitlin, commenting on the Committee's dilatory action, states that "Lack of speci- fic, concrete recommendations made the task of creating a bill extremely difficult."1 The Great Depression, beginning in most rural areas about 1920 and spreading nationwide by 1932, struck at the heart of American education. The public educa- tional system comprised 127,000 separate and independent school districts,2 offering routine instruction which in many ways was irrelevant to youth and adults. Many of these districts were reduced to a marginal or sub- marginal basis. Even at the peak of prosperity these units had found it difficult to provide meagre programs; during the Great Depression they could not survive with- out outside help. The worst educational conditions were to be found in the rural areas. It is significant that of the total number of children in public schools in 1934, 49.3 per cent lived in rural areas.3 lHarry Zeitlin, Federal Relation§_in Americangdu- cation, 1933-1943: A Study of New Deal Efforts and Inno- vations, Pubiished Dissertation from Columbia University (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1967), p. 257. 2The Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), p. 6. 3Katherine M. Cook, "Review of Conditions and DevelOpments in Education in Rural and Sparsely Settled Areas," Chapter V in Biennial Survey of Education, 1934- 1936 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937), pp. 45-46, 49-50. » v u LL. v . E» v ul1l. Ldllnn .OW‘ A g . C I 1 fly 0» r; n u 9 u a. . - a x - . e (um -«1 .1 .5“ r. «L .1. 5 2w 5 5 ad 0 .9 r 1w 1. E N. . v o 0.. be use .wk h“ . .w A: u . ed 11‘ T hi .fi 2. a. e a 5. ad . A a: r v?! A A v ilk v e i .s a». he a.» 1. I... . It no a. v v t .. a no .1.“ To .9 ed 1 t t a. v u...- nt e a,» flu . n: A L «\w u .s I .I J. "1" th 5 ,. e. 28 Evidences of educational difficulties revealed by the Great Depression included widespread curtailment of school terms, elimination of entire sections of the curriculum, increased crowding of schools, provision of fewer teachers, and the diminution of salaries of those teachers remaining. In higher education a parallel deterioration occurred: Enrollment dropped almost nine per cent between 1931-1932 and 1933-1934, faculty salaries were substantially reduced, income from gifts, endowments, and similar sources was lost, and building and re- search programs were curtailed or suspended. Following the precedent set by earlier federal legislation for education, the New Deal2 created educa— tional programs, but did so not for educational reasons only. InStead, federal assistance to education was viewed chiefly as a means of providing economic relief for youth and adults and for aiding the nation's re- covery. Among the depression-inspired education pro- grams were included: 1Walter S. Deffenbaugh, "Effects of the Depres- sion Upon Elementary and Secondary Schools and Upon Colleges and Universities," Chapter VI in Biennial Survey of Education, 1934-1936 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937), pp. 45-46, 49-50. 2The term New Deal referred to the total pro- gram of President Roosevelt in dealing with problems of the Great Depression. In his inaugural address on March 4, 1933, he gave hOpe to a disillusioned and depressed America. He promised a "new deal" for the "forgotten man"--a promise that he attempted to carry out in the legislation of the next several years. 29 Civil Works Administration1 (CWA) established within the Federal Emergency Relief Administra- tion in 1933. CWA tackled a variety of jobs: road construction, playgrounds, school construc- tion. Fifty-thousand teachers were employed in country schools or city adult education programs. Public Works Administration2 (PWA) established in 1933 under the National Industrial Recovery Act, Title II, to aid in construction of public works, schools, and colleges. Between 1933- 1939 PWA built seventy per cent of the new educa— tional buildings in America. Civilian Conservation Corps3 (CCC) established in 1933 to provide employment and vocational train- ing for older unemployed young men through development of natural resources. CCC included an adult education component for the men after the work day was completed. Tennessee Valley Authority4 (TVA) established in 1933 for the purposes of flood control, navigation, reforestation, electrical power, national defense, and the agricultural and industrial development of the Tennessee Valley. TVA sponsored extensive adult education programs, which aided in the development and conservation of human resources. Works Progress Administrations (WPA) established in 1935 to distribute relief and support a number of educational projects, including literacy edua- tion, high school diploma programs for adults, and the hiring of unemployed teachers and other professionals. National Youth Administration6 (NYA) established within WPA in 1935 to provide relief and employment 1CWA established within FERA by Executive Order No. 6420-3, November 9, 1933. 6,1935. 26: 1935. 2P. L. 73.670 3p. L. 75-163. 48. L. 73-17. 5WPA established by Executive Order No. 7034, May 6NYA established by Executive Order NO. 7086, June asath .h" wwever rh E? ‘ rh *TJ 30 to individuals 16-25 years of age. Education, guidance, and placement were important aspects of the program for both in-school and out-of- school youth and young adults. These New Deal programs caused apprehension among state and local education authorities as they were established largely apart from traditional institutions of education. Educators viewed these parallel programs as a threat to public education. Popular sentiment, however, reinforced the New Deal belief that its programs fulfilled human and educational needs for millions of Americans. There were rather continuous efforts to promote federal aid to general elementary and secondary education during the 1930's. Primarily because of the plight of rural education, eleven bills were drafted to provide funds for general education. Zeitlin, studying the fail- ure of enactment of these bills, contends that . . . it would seem likely that if the New Deal Ad- ministration had indicated at this point its desire for the passage of legislation calling for direct Federal aid, there would have been a ood chance for affirmative Congressional action. There remained a great need for adult education programs and facilities during the Depression. Unemploy- ment, migration, and occupational shifts made the voca- tional retraining of adult workers a problem of major lZeitlin, op. cit., p. 257. Iran Y? haul! .v 0 I ' A .‘F a «slut H Ecnfir own/v. . an...“ . at IU‘.. . '7‘"; Inf». 0 ‘0 U¢a C85 'Cr ly‘e I? ‘u 214 A; ‘ d t h “:9 t ‘. 3 '(I (If) ( WW 31 prOportions. Illiteracy was another problem that de- manded attention. The Advisory Committee on Education Report Of 1938 focuses on the educational needs Of adults: The 75,000,000 persons who constitute the adult pOp- ulation Of the United States today were in most cases given only limited educational Opportunities in childhood. Over 36,000,000 of them did not fin- ish elementary school; at least 3,000,000 are com- pletely illiterate. Among the 4,300,000 resident aliens, large numbers are in need of elementary education, and almost all need further training in American principles and practices in order to become citizens. President Roosevelt, like several Of his prede- cessors, was concerned about educational problems and the federal Government's responsibility toward resolving them. He, too, appointed a committee of eminent national leaders--the Advisory Committee on Education--to study the federal Government's relationship to education. During the decade 1936-1945 intensive efforts were made to secure federal aid for education. It was in this period that Dr. Reeves directed the activities of the Advisory Committee on Education and the Confer- ence on Postwar Readjustment Of Civilian and Military Personnel. The recommendations Of the Advisory Committee were eventually enacted over the next three decades 1938-1968. The prOposals of the Conference on Postwar 1The Advisory Committee on Education, Op. cit., p. 86. 32 Readjustment led to the enactment Of the historic GI Bill of Rights. This review Of federal involvement in support of general and adult education, from the begin- nings Of the republic to 1935, reveals that: 1. Federal interest in education extends throughout the history of the nation, antedating the forma- tion Of the Union in 1789. Federal activity in education parallels the de- velopment Of the nation; as societal needs arose, the federal government has frequently attempted to assist in meeting these needs through support Of education. Early attempts to provide federal aid to educa- tion has been largely financed through land- grants or funds from the sale Of public lands. Attempts to Obtain federal aid for general edu- cation have not been as successful as attempts to fund special areas of education, e.g., agri- cultural education, vocational education, adult education. Education has been viewed increasingly as a national responsibility, with a corresponding trend toward providing aid to general education and the promotion of equality Of educational Opportunity. Federal support for adult education has grown through legislation enacted in periods Of national stress, e.g., Civil War, Great Depres- sion, World War II. ie' 001 caple VI. zk' ‘ ," \- 40V KnA S's;- \ as a Cl \ .. Q» at CHAPTER III FLOYD WESLEY REEVES, EDUCATOR: A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Floyd Reeves was born on November 16, 1890, in Castalia, South Dakota, son of Charles and Ella Reeves. As a child and as a youth he had a strong thirst for knowledge, but little Opportunity to secure it through schooling. An Uncommon Student Possessing unusual competence and initiative, he completed high school after only one full year of attend- ance and taking examinations in subjects studied inde- pendently. When not in school, Floyd worked on his parents' ranch, or farm, where the corn harvest was Often not completed until Christmas. In college he continued the practice Of "writing Off" by examination such subjects as advanced algebra, solid geometry, and trigonometry. At the age Of seventeen (more than three years before his first full year in high school), he taught in a rural elementary school a few miles from his home near St. Lawrence, South Dakota at a salary of $280 for the year. 33 . cry. y... “Honk ' a he had ‘6'! 1', =‘viue 1 u- 01 ‘9 .0. to 34 In the fall Of 1910 he entered Miller High School, pas- sed several courses by examination and graduated in the Spring Of 1911. During most years prior to that time he had attended school only a few months each year and some years not at all. He earned his B.S. Degree from Huron College, South Dakota in less than three years, graduating in 1915. He excelled in forensics, winning the $50 prize for debate in each of his three years at Huron. He graduated with high academic standing. Floyd Reeves' mother, well educated and articu- late, encouraged him tO consider either medicine, law, or theology as a career. It was during high school that he cast his lot with education, a choice that was to prove fortuitous for Dr. Reeves, the education profes- sion, and the nation. President Harry Morehouse Gagel Of Huron College had a profound influence on the young student, dissuad- ing him from studying speech or law and suggesting that educational administration Offered him a brighter Op- portunity. In a letter three decades later Floyd Reeves expressed his gratitude to Dr. Gage for this early counsel: 1During 1912-13 Dr. Gage was dean Of Huron Col- lege and Reeves' teacher Of psychology. Later he served as President of the College. He held important Offices in the North Central Association Of Colleges and Second- ary Schools and the American Association Of Colleges. In addition, Dr. Gage served as president Of three other colleges. .NJ1 I \ H1' 8 q H here t‘ t .G . . iv v. O C vb .w .1“ .T. a I rue. riv .ru n.1,. +5 +v «Hi 5 s 0.: h . mu. . 35 I Often think Of how different my experiences would probably have been had you not asked me into your Office one day in 1915 to suggest that I consider entering the field of educational administration, instead of teaching public speaking. Time magazine capsuled the early education of Floyd Reeves as follows: Floyd Wesley Reeves, born on a South Dakota ranch staked out by his father not far from Custer's last stand, Spent his boyhood tending cattle instead of going to school. He went through Robinson's gem- plete Arithmetic by himself, read Tennyson, Words- worth, Shakespeare and Horatio Alger, began to teach in a country school at 17. Three years later he went to high school, finished it in a year, and then got a degree from Huron College in two and a half years.2 After graduating from Huron College, Floyd Reeves became principal Of a Huron elementary school. It was here that Dr. Reeves made his first major contribution to adult education. He established a night school for adults which was one Of the first in the state and served as a model for other districts. Even at this early date, he was cognizant of ed- ucational develOpments in Washington. His program Of vocational education was the first in South Dakota es- tablished under the Smith-Hughes Act in its first year of Operation. lFloyd Wesley Reeves' letter to Dr. Harry More- house Gage, 1400 Second Avenue, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, August 28, 1946. 2Time, Vol. 33 (May 29, 1939), p. 59. eat of Dakota, ‘ f‘ \A‘re‘V 5,. N U“ ‘ .4, 4. §.L‘}‘L‘ "I‘m-«1,. ‘ t‘v; M 5‘ ..‘b ‘ "-C ,v§ «A. I . ‘y- 1““ “.1 ~\ 36 Because he wanted to acquire a broader educational background, Mr. Reeves accepted positions as superintend- ent Of schools first in Gregory and then in Winner, South Dakota, from 1917-1922. During the summer of 1916 Mr. Reeves studied sociology and educational administration at the University of Wisconsin. Under the tutelage Of Dr. Edward Ross, noted sociologist, he learned that professional educators had much to gain from the behavioral sciences. The principles acquired at Wisconsin were to be applied throughout his educational and governmental experiences. After leaving Wisconsin, he went to the University Of Chicago on the recommendation Of Dr. Ross. The Univer- sity was then the center Of sociological study in America. While there he Obtained a fellowship to study under the direction Of W. I. Thomas, another eminent sociologist. Dr. Thomas, cognizant of the young student's promise, invited him to be a staff member and personal assistant. While at the University of Chicago, he met another prominent educator who was to have a marked influence on his career. Dr. Charles H. Judd, director Of the school Of education in the division of social sciences, en- couraged him in the study of educational psychology. Mr. Reeves was particularly interested in instruments Of educational measurement, which he refined "H." 4 o‘rYf‘ ....vu“" L b Illi- :1 .8 ‘4‘ Pay h ‘Fs w 37 through usage in the public schools. He received his M.S. in the field of educational psychology in 1921. He distinguished himself as a doctoral student at the University Of Chicago. He graduated Magna Cum Laude in 1925 and his dissertation, "The Political Unit Of School Finance in Illinois,"1 was published in 1924 prior to the oral examination. Because the study had implications for the social sciences in general, it was accepted by three departments at the university: politi- cal science, education, and economics. Mr. Reeves re- quested that his degree be granted in educational administration. The research, a study Of the financing Of schools in the state, cited the educational inequali- ties among and within counties due to disparities in taxation policy. One major conclusion was that a re- liance on the prOperty tax was inadequate; the income of a taxpayer would be a more reliable indicator of ability tO pay than the property tax alone. An Uncommon Professor During his two years (1923-24) at Transylvania College, Mr. Reeves served as professor of education. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, The Political Unit Of Public School Finance in IllinOis (New York: The Mac- Millan Company, 1924). 38 In addition, he served progressively as Director of the Graduate School of Education, Dean of the Liberal Arts College and Acting President Of a university complex consisting of Transylvania College, the graduate school Of education, the graduate college Of the Bible and a junior college for young women. This university complex operated under three separate boards Of trustees. Dr. Reeves was instrumental in securing a single board to govern the university complex. The first of his many notable studies was con- ducted for the Efficiency Commission of the state Of Kentucky. The investigation cited the need for the creation of a state board of education to have adminis- trative control Of all educational agencies, the con- solidation Of small school districts, and a revised plan for financial support of schools. In the report Of the Commission Reeves presented a basic principle Of school finance which he was to re-emphasize in later educational studies: . . . districts . . . should receive aid in inverse proportion to their 'ability' to support schools as shown by their true valuations per teacher or per child Of school age, and in direct proportion to the amount of effort they make to support schools as shown by their true tax rates. 1The Government Of Kentucky, Re ort Of the Effi- giengijommissipn Of Kentucky, Vol. II Frankfort: THe State Journal Company, January 1, 1924), p. 273. Reeves che:( 553' of the :any 5 Lecal tuticr. :hEse a“ " 1‘... “V 39 Upon completion of his doctorate in 1925, Dr. Reeves moved from Transylvania College to the University Of Kentucky. There he served as head of the Department Of Educational Administration and organizer and director of the Bureau Of School Service. The Bureau conducted many studies Of education in institutions ranging from local schools through college in Kentucky and in insti- tutions Of higher education throughout the nation. These investigations covered a wide range of educational subjects, including accreditation, instruction, and finance. Dr. Reeves was a champion Of federal aid to edu- cation. From his many studies of education he concluded that because Of the concentration Of money and produc- tion capacity in large industrial centers, small rural school districts, rural counties, whole states in many instances, and even entire regions Of the nation did not possess the economic potential necessary to equitably support quality education and other social services out Of local and state revenues. Much of the national wealth and income was so concentrated in certain cities and states as to preclude equitable taxation except by the federal government. Similarly, if the taxing power of the state was to be equitably exercised, it must be in- creasingly administered by the state governments rather am 0‘8 Peeves t;(l 3v H, U.. K: - I“. “‘7- be. , h . ‘ s 40 than delegated to the smaller political units. Dr. Reeves summarizes: I believe that this idea of necessary financial aid coming from the larger taxing jurisdiction to the smaller governmental unit, applicable to all three levels Of government, and preserving a very large measure Of local autonomy and field for local ini- tiative, is a mpst important principle Of democratic administration. Returning to the University of Chicago in 1929, Dr. Reeves assumed the position of professor Of education. For the next four years he was director of the University Of Chicago Survey,2 a monumental work that investigated the major aspects Of the university, including its fac- ulty, administration, and extension service. The twelve- volume study was published and distributed throughout the nation. It led, over the next several years, to a restructuring of the University of Chicago, and is gen- erally credited with significant influence upon the structure and administrative patterns in many other colleges and universities. An Uncommon Public Servant The educational accomplishments Of Dr. Reeves soon gained national acclaim. He became known as a lFloyd Wesley Reeves, class lecture notes titled, "Principles Of Democratic Administration," dated November 10, 1965, p. 13. 2The University Of Chicago Survey, Volume I—XII (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 1933). IAN iv) v arr~ Vfibu. 41 spokesman for education; his Opinions and recommenda- tions on volatile issues were weighed carefully by both antagonists and protagonists. Dr. Reeves' first assignment with the federal government was as a staff member of President Hoover's White House Conference on Child Health and Protection, 1929-1930. He served on the technical advisory sub- committee on school health surveys. In his letter Of appreciation to Dr. Reeves for having participated in the Conference, President Hoover stated: I wish to express to you my personal thanks for your attendance at the White House Conference on Child Health and Protection. Your cooperation was an im- portant part in making it what I feel to be a long step forward in the high service of the children Of our country. Its findings are truly The Child- ren's Charter. I am glad Of this Opportunity to extend to you the greetings Of the season. When President Roosevelt assumed Office, he found the nation in great difficulty. He immediately seized upon the Opportunity to reshape many elements Of American life. He believed that education was one Of the important means Of achieving change. The Great Depression had caused serious social disorganization in America. One particularly hard-hit region was the poverty-stricken valley of the Tennessee River. Unemployment had become a way Of life for 1President Herbert Hoover, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, December, 1930. 42 millions. Many youth and adults were denied an educa- tion as schools were hard-pressed to provide even a mini- mal educational program for children. While conducting a study of Antioch College in 1926, Dr. Reeves had begun an association with Dr. Arthur Morgan, president of the college. That association was to lead eventually to Dr. Reeves' involvement and major contributions within the federal government under Presi- dent Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was Dr. Morgan, who, as chairman Of the Board of Directors Of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933, suggested to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Dr. Reeves would make a valuable con- tribution in goVernment service. Not only had there been waste Of human resources in the Tennessee Valley, but destruction of natural re- sources as well. The long misuse Of forests and land led to serious floods and erosion. After seventeen years of debate on the efficacy of a program for the region, Congress established the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933. The controversy centered on what was to be done with the government nitrate plant and Wilson Dam at Muscle Shoals, Alabama. These projects, built under the National Defense Act Of 1916, were not completed in time for use in World War I, when it was feared that America's nitrate supply might be cut Off from Chile. The TVA 43 Act transferred the Wilson Dam and nitrate plant from the War Department to the TVA. The new corporation represented a major change in national policy. Before, responsibility for the various projects (agriculture, navigation, conservation) in the valley were divided among various departments Of govern- ment. TVA was placed under one agency responsible for the coordination of all projects. The TVA was an attempt to get man and nature working together to restore life to a seven-state region. The conservation Of human re- sources, as well as natural ones, became a major goal Of the TVA. An Uncommon Vision Of Adult Education In 1933 Dr. Reeves.with the approval Of President Roosevelt, was appointed as Director of Personnel and Training and also as Director Of Social and Economic Research and Planning, Tennessee Valley Authority. This assignment was the beginning Of a long relationship be- tween the President and Dr. Reeves. With the TVA Dr. Reeves supervised the hiring Of more than 30,000 workmen who were employed in shifts Of five-and-one-half hours, thus making it possible for them to participate in adult education programs, contributing to the total change Of Ipeople. Many Of the workers were secured through the (Zivil Works Administration (CWA), a temporary work . II II I I o. . ..: v :4 . L . .: .. l4). ||v|q|s . 0v . . at V; a.» L.» e e t A» .C 0 LL v“ Am a.» w . a . .1. AC .11 t.» o nL «d e p a .11 (a . n1... .1 .1 LL . l t e . .1 «A Wu J. u .nu “J. D» a.“ re mu. 3.. I. a e 3 . r. o .h . in we AU .5 Cu .. o v o n o AU hum L H :u re O ‘3“ AI... 9 N N15 at h I...» .I u e \V :3 6.1- s e a.» H.“ H 5 4‘ ,5 e h c J .flu .. .4 ..4 t 5 .PB .9» a3 44 relief program, which Dr. Reeves also directed in 1934. After Dr. Reeves was detailed to the CWA, he established offices in each of the eleven Southeastern states. During that year he divided his time equally between the TVA and CWA . Education of youth and adults became a major function of the TVA as communities were built to accom- modate the ingress of workers into the valley. Schools had to be established and staffed. Adult education, especially literacy education and library services, was of paramount importance in the total development of the area. With abundant leisure presenting a major oppor- tunity, Dr. Reeves developed an adult education program for workers and their families. The program gave special emphasis to develOping skills which workers could utilize when no longer employed by the TVA. Additional adult edu- cation offerings included basic education, leadership training, homemaking, agriculture, and a variety of trades. After leaving the TVA in 1935, Dr. Reeves returned to the University of Chicago. In collaboration with Thomas Fansler and Cyril Houle, Dr. Reeves conducted a major study of adult education in New York, 1937—1938. Their study, reported under the title Adult Education,1 L lFloyd W. Reeves, Thomas Fansler and Cyril O. Houle, fidult Education. The Regents' Inquiry into the Character and Cost of Public Education in the State of New York (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938). 45 was one of ten concurrent investigations sponsored by the Regent's Inquiry into the Character and Cost of Pub- lic Education in the state of New York. The major con- clusion of the study was that adult education should be placed on a parity with elementary, secondary, and higher. education in the state. The problems confronting education were not en- demic to New York. During the Great Depression exigent problems faced all of American education--programs were emasculated or curtailed; many children, older youth, and adults faced the bleak prospects of inactivity and unemployment. Uncommon Tasks Undertaken By 1936 many educational and political leaders were convinced of the need to develop a national policy in support of education. While the educational programs established in the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration and National Youth Administration were commendable, the President believed that much more could be done. The controversy over vocational education in general, and the recently-enacted George-Deen voca- tional education act in particular, prompted the President to take action. President Roosevelt that year appointed Dr. Reeves to head the National Committee on Vocational Education. Because Dr. Reeves believed that vocational 46 education could not be studied apart from general educa- tion, he requested that the President enlarge the scope of the committee and its study to include all of educa- tion. The President agreed and the Committee became known as the Advisory Committee on Education. As chair- man of the Advisory Committee, Dr. Reeves was much con- cerned about the need for federal support, educational organization, and adult education. The report of the Advisory Committee contained many recommendations which were embodied in the Federal Aid to Education Act of 1939. Although the proposed act was defeated, its major prOposals served as a basis for the rethinking of education which occurred after World War II and subsequently. Paul T. David, secretary of the Advisory Committee, comments on Dr. Reeves' con- tribution as chairman of the Committee: He was the presiding genius of the whole affair. I have no reason to think that any other person then living ciuld have done more with the assignment, or as much. Dr. Reeves was a member of the President's Com- mittee on Administrative Management in 1937. He and Paul T. David collaborated on the report of the Committee, 1Paul T. David, letter to Carl Pacacha, July 7, 1969. ill a: a v n u s a Q AF! '1. a!“ II.“ 47 Personnel Administration in the Federal Service,1 which was a study of personnel utilization in the executive branch. The New York Herald Tribune stated that The report is the first of a series in support of a five-point program as recommended to Congress in January. The five major recommendations were to provide the President with six administrative assist- ants; strengthen and develOp the managerial agencies under the President dealing with budgeting, planning and personnel; extend the merit system and reorgan- ize and improve the civil service administration; reorganize the executive branch by placing all in- dependent agencies within one of twelve executive departments, and establish an independent post- audit of all fiscal transactions to enable Congress to hold the executive strictly accountable.2 The report, which proposed a unified service of personnel administration, contributed to improved prac- tices of recruitment, placement, training, and morale- building. It concluded: Major benefits may be expected from the proposed reorganization soon after it is begun if the work of reorganization is done carefully. The full bene- fits may not be realized for many years to come, but they can be of very great importance to the future of the Federal Government and the Nation. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves and Paul T. David, Personnel Administration in the Federal Service, Study No. l on Administrative Management in the Government of the United States, the President's Committee on Administrative Management, Louis J. Brownlow, chairman (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1937). 2New York Herald Tribune, "Roosevelt Body Asks Expansion of Merit System," June 28, 1937. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves and Paul T. David, op. cit., p. 9. 48 From 1939-1942 Dr. Reeves was Director of the American Youth Commission of the American Council on Education. The American Council on Education represents higher education in the United States and is interested in adult education and out-of-school youth, as well as in-school students. With four million youth and young adults unemployed during those years, the Commission sought to alleviate problems of youth brought about by depression and industrialization. Composed of leading educators and laymen, the Commission had been studying every phase of the youth problem for six years. Their report, Youth and the Future,1 identified problems fac- ing youth and presented recommendations for the solution of youth problems. Regarding the various means of sup- porting education, the Commission suggests: "In deal- ing with a problem, such as the operation of public schools, . . . the use of federal grants is the appro- priate method."2 The American Youth Commission was among the first to recognize the seriousness of the young adult problem. As director of the Commission, Dr. Reeves studied the problems of youth, especially as they re- lated to education and work relief programs. The 1American Youth Commission, American Council on Education, Youth and the Future (Washington: American Council on Education, 1942f. 2 Ibid., p. 234. 5‘ (U (I) ) {ECO} (J‘i /U H’ 49 Washington Post comments about one of the Commission's recommendations : The recommendation that the CCC and NYA be merged comes direct from the proverbial 'feedbox' . . . Reeves has studied Government reorganization and has helped draft reports on the subject to the President. Therefore1 the merger suggestion takes on an official color. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt also had a keen interest inn the problems of youth. She and Dr. Reeves often con- ssulted about these matters. Writing in her daily column 'VMy Day," she remarks about the work of Dr. Reeves with the Commission: I had an opportunity yesterday morning to talk to Dr. Reeves, who is carrying on the work of the youth commission so ably begun by Dr. Rainey. They have done a most wonderful piece of research work and I am most anxious to know what conclusions they will come to as a result of their findings. Their sug- gestion for the use of facts which they have dis- covered will be valuable to every community. In a letter to Dr. Reeves in 1939, Mrs. Roosevelt stated: Thank you very much for sending me an advance copy of the statement of the American Youth Commission on Employment. You have done a wonderful job in getting the Commis- sion to make these recommendations. I shall ook forward to seeing the two further statements. lJerry Kluttz in the Washington Post, February 6, 1940. zEleanor Roosevelt, "My Day," in the Chicago Daily News, October 12, 1939. 3Eleanor Roosevelt, personal letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, November 27, 1939. JflIIJiu n . ~F‘ ~ u I ruse .C e a» .1. Cl C. .C Iv: .x .1: L r; v. 5‘ 1 a nu «1» I... u. .3 rl ya ..~ I . fig 9 -nk. a» Au 6 a he .C. n» .G .1 \ Ct\ .. . C» :4. C .I e :hU a. ._ TN 10 Jn uW Tu haw t \d Va 50 In her memoirs, Mrs. Roosevelt reflects: . . . I stOpped in for a talk with Floyd Reeves, Director of the American Youth Commission, a non— partisan prestigious body . . . The Commission's efforts to improve job, health, and school oppor- tunities of young people were carefully researched and thoughtlthrough. They carried weight in Washington. Dr. Reeves was a member of the White House Con- ference on Children in a Democracy, 1939-1940. The Con- ference addressed itself to the interests of all the Cfllildren of the nation and to every aspect of child welfare, including home life, national security, and education . As United States' participation in World War II became more involved, the nation experienced staggering manpower problems. With millions of young men and WOmen being called into the armed forces, American in- dustries, businesses, and farms were in great need of “’0 xkers . Dr. Reeves, too, became more identified with the Welreffort. In 1940 he was appointed as Director of Labor Supply under Sidney Hillman.2 lJoesph P. Lash, Eleanor Roosevlet, a Friend's b’lemoir (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1964), p. 24. 2Hillman's office first operated as a part of 'the Advisory Commission for the Council of National ‘Defense and later as a part of the Office of Production Management, which was established under the co-director- ship of William Knudsen and Sidney Hillman. 51 This position included the securing and training of workers through the schools, the NYA, the CCC, the WPA and private industry. Dr. Reeves was well-suited for this role by virtue of having supervised the enlisting and training of thousands of workers for the TVA and its important work. Sidney Hillman, director of the Office of Pro- duction Management, wrote Dr. Reeves when the latter resigned in 1941 because of his work with the American Youth Commission. It is with the deepest reluctance that I accept this decision on your part. Your contribution, during the first year of the defense program, in formulat- ing and directing the recruitment, training, and placement of defense workers has not only been ex- traordinarily efficient and successful but also has laid a firm groundwork for meeting this great prob- lem in the future. In view of your unique experience in, and knowledge of this field, I am taking this opportunity to urge, even to insist, that you continue in a consultant capacity on my staff and be available to participate in developing policies which relate to the defense labor supply program. Time magazine also comments on his accomplish- ments in his capacity with the Office of Production Management: "Major credit for the work so far done goes to quiet, wiry, little Floyd Wesley Reeves."2 lSidney Hillman, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, June 24, 1941. 2Time, Vol. 37 (June 16, 1941), p. 42. 52 Even while our country was engaged in the greatest war in her history, plans were being made for the postwar readjustment of service personnel at the conclusion of the war. Dr. Reeves became chairman of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, 1943-1943. The task of the Conference was to provide a plan for the reorientation of both veterans and civilians engaged in war activities into civilian life. Many of the Conference's proposals were incorporated into the GI Bill of Rights, providing for American veterans a program of educational and other benefits that exceeded all pre- vious programs. General Lewis B. Hershey, former member of the Conference, reflects on Dr. Reeves' leadership: I think that Dr. Reeves in his role as chairman . . ., demonstrated great capacity, as a well from which ideas flowed. I would rate him high in his ability to articulafe ideas advanced by other members of the Conference. The "inner circle" of the White House contained such figures as Adolph Berle, Bernard Baruch, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others. Dr. Reeves was also a member of this coterie. His principal role was that of liaison for President Roosevelt in educational matters. The President and Mrs. Roosevelt had a fondness for Dr. Reeves; it was not uncommon for the educator and the l 20, 1969. Lewis B. Hershey, letter to Carl Pacacha, August up)“ ‘VUU a 3M: ”Vu- "A v A: 0N4- '.'. H.33l V- ‘ 5N i 4 the g 53 :Emaosevelts to discuss educational matters while lunching ‘tragether. The following letter from Dr. Reeves to Mrs. Roosevelt exemplifies the fine relationship with the Ifikoosevelts: Your letter of July 20 from Hyde Park was waiting for me when I reached the office on my return from Chicago and the West Coast. I appreciate very much the opportunity to see the President at seven p.m. Wednesday, tomorrow, and will be delighted to stay to dinner as you suggest. I shall have a brief statement ready for the President. In the rush of travel and an even dozen lectures dur- ing the last few days, I have neglected to write to you about my stay at Campobello. I want you to know how very much I enjoyed the days there. The visit was one of the most enjoyable experiences I have ever had, and your cordial hospitality will be long re- membered. Other officials in the federal government had a Inigh regard for Dr. Reeves. Aubrey Williams, director of tJIe National Youth Administration, stated in a letter to the educator: I am sitting here on New Year's Day thinking of the people who have made a real contribution to the future of our Nation and I find myself placing you in the forefront. I am sure your taking the Youth Commission job and what you latterly have done has made a real dent in the national thinking. v- lFloyd Wesley Reeves, letters to Eleanor Roose- elt, July 22, 1941. 54 I just want to tell you how much I think you mean to the whole (and important problem of young people) democratic state. After the death of the President in 1945, Dr. Reeves was requested to supply an account of his rela- tzionship to the President by the Franklin Delano Roose- velt Foundation. Grace Tully, executive secretary of the Ekaundation and former secretary to President Roosevelt, states in her letter of request: You played an important role in the events of the era which began in 1933, and also a versatile one . . As a leading educator you were in a strategic posi- tion to observe and evaluate the effect of the Roosevelt Administration policies upon our country's educational system. You have much to contribute to the comprehensive historical record of this era . . . Throughout this busy period of your life, President Roosevelt placed high value on your advice and counsel.2 Dr. Reeves was also deeply involved in activities CxE professional associations of educators. In collabora- txion with Dr. George Counts, Dr. Reeves sought to unite tfile National Education Association and American Federa- tion of Teachers during the middle 1940's. Both held dilal memberships for eight years in the two major pro- feSsional education organizations. They believed that educators must be engaged in shaping policies that affect \ J_ 1Aubrey Williams, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, anuary 1, 1940 . J. 2Grace Tully, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, “1;; 20, 1948. 3 ”a “I SL3.“ .1. b“ a. Micki 55 education, and that the best way to achieve this was through united political action. Dr. Reeves emphasizes this point: If I had a choice to give up participation in any pressure group or give up casting the ballot, I'd give up the ballot, providing, of course, I wanted my influence to have any effect. Dr. Reeves was the first chairman of the Commis- sion on Educational Reconstruction of the AFT 1944-1948. The purposes of the Commission were to develop plans for the solution of postwar educational problems, to increase financial support for education, and to develop a state- ment of goals for American education. The Commission's provocative report,2 published in 1948, offered a chal- lenging approach to educational problems. The study ex- Posed the major deficiencies in American education and Outlined a program for the newly emergent atomic age, including a vast program of federal aid. Even while in Washington, Dr. Reeves continued to conduct surveys of state educational systems and in- stzitutions. In 1948 he headed the New York State Tem- Porary Commission on the Need for a State University, \ lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "Pressure Group Most Potent POWer in Getting Things Done," Missouri Sunday News and L‘eader, February 17, 1946. 1: 2American Federation of Teachers, Federal Aid and Fhe Crisis inflAmerican Education (Chicago: American Eeration of Teachers, 1948) . h . nth 4 *ué (n a- 1 U) 23:. ,. . \m a»; 56 which resulted in the establishment of a state university system in New York. In 1943 Dr. Reeves joined Michigan State College (since 1955, Michigan State University) as consultant to its President, Dr. John Hannah. In this capacity he as- sisted in the planning of the Basic College and reorgani- zation of the Divisions of Liberal Arts and Applied Science. These contributions were consistent with his belief in the need of a liberally educated man for a democratic society. Victor Noll comments about these developments: "Both were given much of their impetus by Floyd W. Reeves . "l The international significance of atomic energy as a military weapon and its potential peacetime uses were readily apparent in 1945. One of the major prob- lems in this relatively new area of science was the lack of trained personnel. The national welfare and security demanded a continuous pursuit for researchers. Under the sponsorship of the Atomic Energy Com- mission and in cooperation with the TVA, the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies was developed in 1945 to meet this problem. In the early development of the Institute, Dr. Reeves served as a consultant. Gordon \ M lVictor N. Noll, The Preparation of Teachers at fiEichigan State University (East Lansing: College of Ilication, 1968), p. HT. 57 Clapp, general manager of the TVA, wrote Dr. Reeves in regard to this contribution: Your week with us was extremely helpful from our point of view. Your counsel and the proposals de- veloped clarified everyone's thinking greatly, and we feel that we can prompt [sic) next steps with assurance that we know where this business ought to wind up eventually.l The following letter to Dr. Reeves from David Igj.1ienthal, chairman of the AEC, illuminates the gravity of the Reeves' assignment with the Institute: You have undoubtedly seen newspaper reports or ex- cerpts concerning the enclosed document. I hope, however, you will find time to read the entire text, which presents a program for the international con- trol of atomic energy. It was developed and written by a Board of Consultants to the State Department, of which I served as Chairman. The subject matter of this report is, obviously, of the utmost gravity and importance. The hope of find- ing a way of meeting this problem of atomic energy lies, first of all, in securing thorough-going and critical public discussion of a specific prOposal for dealing with it; it is for this reason that I send the report to you and urge its reading. There is, in my opinion, a considerable element of time urgency about this whole matteré as I think a reading of the report will indicate. A number of advisory positions with foreign gov- eI‘nments were also held by Dr. Reeves. In 1949 he served as chairman of the UNESCO Consultative Educational Mission \ J 1Gordon Clapp, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, uly 8, 1946. M. 2David Lilienthal, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, ay 6, 1946. ts 58 1:c> the Phillipines. That group studied elementary educa- t:onn, teacher training, and adult education. The report1 c>i§ the Mission was published in Spanish, French, and lariglish. Vitaliano Bernadino, UNESCO official, commented 11£>on the significance of the.Mission and of Dr. Reeves' role in it: The importance that UNESCO attaches to the present mission may be judged from the caliber of the men that compose it. The mission is headed by Dr. Floyd W. Reeves . . . An internationally recognized author- ity on school administration in the United States, he has had extensive experience in educational sur- veys, planning, and reconstruction. Etrh. Reeves also served as a consultant to the governments Of Puerto Rico, South Vietnam, Thailand and Pakistan. An Uncommon Man: Author, Teacher Prophet, Pioneer He was a staunch foe of discrimination in educa- tion. For three years, 1953-1956, he served on the Com- Inisttee on Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education of the American Council on Education. In spite of increas- ing enrollments in higher education, the Committee 1UNESCO, Report of the Mission to the Phillipines, July 28, 1949, Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman, Dr. Viriato COmacho, Dr. Paul Hanna, Dr. A. C. Lewis. I 2Vitaliana Bernardino, "UCEMP, A Project in Anternational Cooperation," Educational Newsletter, Pril, 1949, p. 11. 59 indicated that financial handicaps and discrimination because of race, religion and national origin continued t:c> exist. The Committee attempted to identify such 1>airriers and worked toward their reduction and eventual elimination. Addressing a national conference on dis- crimination in college admissions in 1950, Dr. Reeves stated: "Bias against minorities falls most heavily on the best qualified applicants."1 Professional writing was another major educational Eicrtivity of Dr. Reeves. He is author or co-author of 75 books and has written more than 400 articles for jour- rials.2 While he wrote on a wide variety of educational ‘ttbzpics, much of his writing concerned adult and higher education, and federal aid to education. Through his Writing, Dr. Reeves helped to focus national attention n. He holds honorary doctorates from four institu- tZiCDns: Albion College, Kent State University, Bethany College, and Temple University. As a teacher Dr. Reeves possessed the ability to bring out the full potential in his students. Among the \ f J“Floyd Wesley Reeves, Address to National Con- eI‘ence on Discimination in College Admissions, University Chicago, November 3, 1950. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, personal file. 60 list of his former students who have made major leader- ship contributions are: Gordon Clapp, manager and chair- man of the board, Tennessee Valley Authority, Maurice Seay, formerly director of education for the Kellogg Foundation, Henry Harmon, president of Drake University, Cyril Houle, professor of adult education at the Univer- sity of Chicago, Thomas Hamilton, president of the State University of New York and later president of the Univer- sity of Hawaii, David Henry, president of the University of Illinois, John Dale Russell, director of institutional research, New York University, and Francis Chase, Dean of Education, University of Chicago. George T. de Hueck, former student of the professor, writes about this in- fluence: You have taught more than you perhaps realize, and I suggest to you that your lessons taught a way of life as well as principles of, what you call, or- ganization and administration.1 Dr. Reeves was an educator, scholar, and most importantly, a humanitarian. He was interested in the welfare of people. The many and diverse public and governmental organizations he was associated with and the varied committees that he headed attest to his re- cord of public service. He possessed the uncommon ability to perceive complex educational problems and to 1George T. de Hueck, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, August 9, 1945. () 11‘ f) (1' 61 offer recommendations for their solution. His advice was constantly being sought on educational matters, as typified in the following from Dr. Robert Havighurst, distinguished educator: If you are in Chicago this weekend, and if you have the time to see me, I should like very much to ask your advice about some work in rural education, in which we are interested.1 In the years since 1950, the community college has come to represent one of the most rapid areas of expansion in education, having as its function a unify- ing role in the community. In 1947 Dr. Reeves perceived this development: The most significant development that I foresee in the coming years is the further extension upward of the common school to include at least two years of post-high school education for a majority of young men and women. . . This . . . education will be pro- vided by community institutions and will include both education for full-time students and a broad program of adult education. . . These community institutions will be peoples colleges.2 In 1931 Dr. Reeves made a characteristic predic- tion. Enclosed within the cornerstone of Judd Hall, the graduate education building at the University of Chicago, is a statement which he was requested to prepare for the dedicatory rite. It bears his forecast of major trends 1Robert Havighurst, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 29, 1939. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, "What Lies Ahead in Educa- tion?," School Management, March, 1947, pp. 3, 12-13. ‘Iuo .filo LL. 7|; 62 in American education during the century closing in 2031. It reads: It appears probable that during the century the school day and the school year will both be length- ened for the child below the age of eighteen years, and shortened for young men and women beyond eighteen years of age. A majority of men and women will par- ticipate in some form of adult education throughout life. There will be a tendency to make more exten- sive use of mass production methods in education. This will result in a more highly centralized educa- tional system. Educational centers will be estab- lished for the purpose of broadcasting lectures, music, art exhibits, and demonstrations of various kinds. Methods employed in broadcasting will in- clude the filmOphone and television. Travel will have an important place in formal school programs. Entire schools and other educational institutions will be transported by air to distant points, in order that pupils and students may obtain first hand information and make personal observations. Dr. Reeves' career in professional education has spanned nearly a half-century. In that time he has been a teacher, administrator, government servant, and con- sultant to administrators and policy makers in his own and many other countries. He has displayed a rare talent for analyzing problems of the present, predicting possi- bilities for the future and articulating policy alterna- tives for dealing with both. As a pioneer in shaping federal legislation in support of adult education, Dr. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, statement placed in cor- nerstone of Judd Hall, graduate education building, the University of Chicago, in 1931. 63 Reeves worked to resolve the pressing issues of the pre- sent within the framework of a long view,--and a world view,--of the role of education in serving individuals and the societies in which they live. m (I) L) ‘1 ‘t CHAPTER IV THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION The United States was locked in a serious eco- nomic depression in 1933. Factories, mills, and other hnisinesses throughout the country were either closed or Operating far below capacity. Millions of adults had lrbst their jobs, and many older youth were out of School and out of work. Many banks became insolvent, ‘aJld,others were in a precarious financial condition. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt assumed Office on March 4 of that year, he was faced with three major tasks: (1) Relief: Sixteen million unemployed and all their dependents were threatened with cold, hunger, and despair. (2) Recovery: Business, industry, and agriculture were prostrate and in dire need of getting back on their feet. (3) Reform: The evils which caused or worsened the depression needed to be remedied if the next generation was to be free from a like disaster. Solutions to the problems of the depression were Ilot easy. What helped one segment of the economy might lbe injurious to another. For example, farmers demanded ¥ 1David Muzzey and Arthur Link, Our Country's History (Boston: Ginn and Company, 1965), p. 549. 64 65 krigher prices for their food products to escape debt but fought the higher prices which manufacturers of farm iJmplements contended were essential to business recovery. hievertheless, the President and Congress were willing to t:ry something to alleviate the distressed state of Innerican economic and social life. Between 1933 and 1940 a stream of new laws was glassed to attack the problems of the depression. New agencies of government were created, including the Fwederal Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Chivilian Conservation Corps, among others. These New Deal programs represented an attempt on the part of the federal government to attack the depression on many fronts at once. They also represented major shifts on Political philosophy. President Roosevelt believed that the problems facing America were inextricably tied to education. He ‘Ziewed education as an agent of social change, capable <3f transforming America into a viable society. His ap- Pointment of the Advisory Committee on Education in 1936 ‘Was not an isolated event; it was an integral part of a comprehensive reform movement. Circumstances in the last 1930's were propitious for one who possessed vision and social skill to make 66 significant contributions to American society. Dr. Reeves trad.been involved in several of the New Deal programs, ruotable the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Federal Ennergency Relief Administration. His experience in these aigencies, his convictions concerning relations between education and public administration eminently qualified 11in1to serve as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education . During the depression public education in America knad.reached a state of deterioration that demanded im— mediate attention . During the 1932-33 school year, 81% of the children in white rural schools in Alabama were schoolless; Georgia closed more than a thousand schools with an enrollment of over 170,000 pupils; Dayton schools in early 1933 Opened only three days a week.1 The traditional high school curriculum was inade- Quate for many youth. Vocational education programs federally funded by the Smith-Hughes Act since 1917 were ill need of revision. A major deficiency in the Act was tfiiat requiring matching funds. Instead of equalizing educational opportunity, the Act tended to favor wealthy 33tates, which were more able to provide the matching funds. In addition, many believed there was too much emphasis on professional job preparation as compared 1William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin Delano Roose- yelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940. (New’York: Harper and Rowifl963), p. 21} 67 with non-professional training. While vocational train- ing in agriculture appeared satisfactory, job training in the trades and industry was irrelevant to many youth. Most of it did not provide adequate on-the-job experi- ence. There were cries from public educators that the federal government exerted too much control over the vocational programs. It was generally felt that these educational problems must not continue. President Roosevelt was much concerned about the state of education in general, and vocational education in particular. While governor of the state of New York (1929-1932), he had viewed with concern the vocational education program in his state (with the largest state Vocational education program in America). In spite of the effort exerted by the state and federal governments on behalf of vocational education, the program in New York did not meet the needs of either youth or adults. The President wished that vocational education in America be studied carefully by an impartial commit- tee- The immediate event leading up to the establish- ment of a study committee was the enactment of H. R. 12120, the George-Deen Act.:L Though the President signed the bill into law on June 8, 1936, he was far from sat- isfied that its purpose and provisions were all that 1H. R. 12120, introduced April 1, 1936, 74th Congress, 2nd Session, P. L. 74-673. 68 they should be. On the same date, he addressed identical letters to a number of Congressional members who had been instrumental in gaining passage of the Act, including Senator George and Congressman Deen. The text read as follows: I have approved H. R. 12120, a bill 'to provide for the further development of vocational education in the several states and territories,’ because of my deep interest in providing our young people with adequate opportunities for vocational training. So many citicisms have been directed at the bill in its present state, however, that it seems to be ad- visable, before the Act goes into effect on July first, 1937, that a disinterested group review its provisions in relation to the experience of the Government under the existing program of Federal aid for vocational education, and the relation of such training for general education and to prevailing economic and social conditions. Accordingly, I shall take steps in the immediate future for an appointment of such a group with in- structions to make studies and recommendations which will be available to Congress and the Executive at the beginning of the next session. Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins nominated and the President appointed Mrs. Clara Beyer, director of apprenticeship training, to chair a committee to in- vestigate the selection of an outstanding individual to direct an inquiry into vocational education in the United States. The committee informed the President that they 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to Senators Walter George (Georgia), and Ellison Smith (S. C.), and Repre- sentatives Vincent Palmisano (Md.), and Braswell Deen (Georgia). These four individuals were instrumental in the passage of H. R. 12120. 69 had canvassed the nation and selected the best man for the task--Dr. Floyd Wesley Reeves. On September 26, 1936, Dr. Reeves was appointed by President Roosevelt to a committee on the study of vocational education. In a second action the President requested him to serve as the committee's chairman. In the letter of appointment to the chairmanship, the Presi- dent stated: Supplementing the letter I sent to you asking you to serve as a member of the Committee on Vocational Education, I shall be very glad indeed if you will find it possible to serve as the Chairman of this Committee. The success of the work of the Committee will be greatly enhanced by your chairmanship. The study group, designated as the National Committee on Vocational Education, was to present recommendations on the need for an expanded program of federal aid to voca- tional education. The Committee, vocational at the be- ginning and more general after April, 1937, was concerned with education of all ages, youth and adult. While most of its recommendations pertained to the education of youth, important proposals relating to adult education were also included. 1Franklin Delano Roosevelt, letter to Dr. Reeves, September 26, 1936. OF 504, FDRL, Hyde Park, New York. 70 Dr. Reeves was well qualified to direct the study charged to the Committee. From 1924-1936 he had conducted or participated in conducting numerous studies in educa- tion. These investigations had covered a wide range of topics, e.g., accreditation, instruction, finance and administration. Dr. Reeves had remarked in 1930, . . . it has been my privilege to participate in surveys of more than one-hundred-and-fifty colleges, junior colleges, 0 O U 1 normal schools, and univerSities." He and members of the National Committee on Vo- cational Education were charged with a formidable task. Babbidge and Rosenweig, commenting on the problems of advisory committees, state: Governmental advisory committees in the field of edu- cation start out with so many disadvantages that the true wonder is that they are able to accomplish any- thing at all. The first problem is that of who is represented on the committee, and the committee can easily founder on that reef before the first meeting is held. There must be, in every group, representa- tives of public and private institutions, and the group must be balanced geographically and represent major religious and economic interests. The result is often a group that cannot reach agreement on any but the broadest principles of virtue, generally, and good education in particular. Even beyond this set of difficulties, however, there is the fact that advisory committees are by defini- tion impermanent beings without any self-sustaining powers that would provide the continuity and follow- through needed to translate advice into policy. lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "Critical and Constructive Suggestions from Surveys of Higher Education," Pennsylvania School Journal, Vol. 78, (March, 1930), p. 403. 71 Their recommendations are, after all, only that; to be accepted or rejected, pushed vigorously, mildly, or not at all, as the responsible officials see fit. All in all1 advisory bodies face a formidable set of obstacles. Chairman Reeves was cognizant of these problems in organizing the committee for action. The first major task, the selection of committee members, devolved upon Secretary Frances Perkins, Director Clara Beyer, and Oscar Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. They compiled a list of individuals who might make valuable contributions toward the develOpment of a sound program of vocational education. They agreed that it should be the prerogative of Dr. Reeves to reject any of their nominations. Because he had worked closely with many eminent vocational educators in the Tennessee Valley Authority, Dr. Reeves was conversant with the qualifica- tions of those nominated by Perkins, Beyer, and Chapman. Seventeen committee members2 were proposed by them, ap- proved by Dr. Reeves and appointed by President Roosevelt. Each of the members brought special expertise to the committee. For example, Edmund Brunner, Gordon Clapp, and George Googe had extensive experience in 1Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., and Robert Rosenweig, The Federal Interest in Higher Education (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962), pp. 82-83. 2For a complete list of committee members, see Appendix A. 72 adult education, Mordecai Ezekiel had been economic ad- viser to the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, and Alice Edwards Specialized in vocational education for the handicapped. Some committee members were chosen because of the influence they wielded in certain arenas. Dr. Reeves states: I had to have the most important man in the field of Catholic education. And that man was Monsignor Johnson, director of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. This organization has been the voice of the hierarchy. I chose Oscar Chapman because the United States Office of Education had been located in his department, that of the Interior. From labor I got Thomas Kennedy, who had been Lt. gover- nor of Pennsylvania. The budget of the Committee amounted to $200,000. The budget was administered through the National Youth Administration. Each member of the Committee was paid twenty-five dollars for each day of meeting, plus ex- penses. Dr. Reeves received $9,500 as director of studies for the Committee, in addition to the daily stipend as Committee member. Dr. Reeves had planned extensively for the work of the Committee: he consulted with the President; he presented committee members with an outline of the Com- mittee's broad purposes; he made the necessary budgetary arrangements for the work of the Committee. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, personal interview, Febru- ary 10, 1970. 73 The first several sessions of the Committee were devoted to basic operations such as: (l) purposes, (2) budget, (3) scope, (4) staff, and (5) the existing pro- gram of vocational education under the Smith-Hughes Act.l Dr. Reeves commented about these early sessions: The first thing the Committee did was meet and dis- cuss basic issues as to the purposes and sc0pe of the study. The second session I came in with recom- mendations relative to the selection of my assistants. The third meeting was devoted to two purposes: (1) a breakdown of the study into parts, and (2) recom- mendations pertaining to individuals who would head up parts of the study.2 The Committee adopted a number of principles which were to guide its work: 1. The welfare of society demands that opportunity be offered every individual for the well-rounded development of his capabilities along socially desirable lines. No clear line of demarcation can be drawn be- tween general education and vocational education. The major obligation of the public school in the field of vocational preparation is to train broadly for general occupational opportunity, rather than narrowly for specialized jobs. Vocational counsel, vocational training, and follow-up in employment, are inseparable parts of any well conceived plan of education. Training for occupational employment in any local center should be based upon the combined local and national picture of vocational oppor- tunity. 1Minutes of National Committee on Vocational Education, November 6 and 7, 1936. 2Floyd W. Reeves, interview with Carl Pacacha, February 20, 1969. 74 6. Preparation for a specific occupation, to be effective, should be given as closely as possible to the time of actual entry on employment. 7. It is socially and economically undesirable for immature youth to be gainfully employed in full- time occupations. 8. The desirability of the development of the work habit during youth should be recognized in plan- ning for educational programs and for the part- time occupations of young persons. 9. Training for public service occupations should be provided at public expense. 10. Three types of vocational training on the adult level are an obligation of society: (a) retrain- ing for those who have suffered loss of employment Opportunities through technological change and through loss of skill during unemployment; (b) training for those whom society failed to give adequate training in their youth; (c) training for those who will be enabled thereby to render more efficient service in their present or re- lated lines of work. 11. The provision, under governmental auspices, of training for the physically handicapped for gain- ful employment is socially and economically de- sirable. 12. The Federal Government has at least three re- sponsibilities in the field of education: (a) stimulation of State and local effort; (b) equalization of educational opportunity between states; (c) research and reporting of informa- tion. A conference committee of seven members was or- ganized to plan and expedite the work of the Committee. Cooperative arrangements were made between the Committee and a number of other organizations to facilitate the investigation. The Report of the Committee details those cooperative arrangements: 1Minutes of National Committee on Vocational Education, November 6 and 7, 1936. 75 [It involved] the Governors, the departments of edu- cation, and other branches of government in all 48 States; from the school and city officials of the District of Columbia; and from the Governor and the Commissioner of Education of Puerto Rico. At all stages of its work, the Committee has re- ceived much assistance from the American Youth Com- mission of the American Council on Education, which has been carrying on an extensive program of research in fields related to those with which the Committee has been concerned. The United States Office of Education has been of the greatest assistance throughout the course of the Committee's studies; it has furnished a very large part of the factual information needed by the Committee. The National Resources Committee has made its files of information available to the Committee, has cooperated on various joint studies, and has been most helpful at all times. Many other agencies of the Federal Government have assisted the Committee in important ways. Among these should be noted the Extension Service, the Forest Service, the Office of Experiment Stations, and the Soil Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture; the Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Lighthouses in the Department of Commerce; the Bureau of Reclamation, the Division of Territories and Island Possessions, the National Park Service, and the Office of Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior; the Bureau of Prisons in the Depart- ment of Justice; the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Children's Bureau, the Division of Labor Standards, and the United States Employment Service in the Department of Labor; the Office of Island Governments and the Bureau of Navigation in the Department of the Navy; the Office of Fiscal and Budget Affairs in the Department of State; the Bureau of the Public Health Service in the Department of the Treasury; the Office of The Adjutant General in the Department of War; the Civilian Conservation Corps; the National Youth Admin- istration; the Panama Canal; the Resettlement Adminis- tration; the Tennessee Valley Authority; the Veterans' Administration; and the Works Progress Administration. 1Report of the Advisory Committee on Education, Printed as House Document No. 529, and referred to the Committee on Education, February 23, 1938, 75th Congress, 3rd Session. (Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1938), VIII, IX. study 5. u ture' tive 0 relief Educat' the ii 933: D l Daus‘ OICES mittee 76 The Committee was organized into task forces to study seven major areas of vocational education: agri- culture, home economics, trades and industry, distribu- tive occupations, vocational rehabilitation, federal relief programs, and the Federal Board for Vocational Education.1 Major emphasis in the study would be in the first three areas. Dr. Lewis Smith, Dr. Barton Mor- gan, Dr. Walter Cocking, Mrs. Clara Brown, and Miss Anne Davis were hired as specialists to assist the task forces. The securing of personnel to assist the Com- mittee remained the prerogative of Dr. Reeves: It was agreed that the Chairman will continue to consult with the Conference Committee prior to all major appointments and on other appointments at his discretion, but shall otherwise have full authority to proceed with the selection and recommegdation for employment of other members of the staff. Dr. Reeves concluded that vocational education could not be studied apart from general education. He discussed this matter with the total Committee and they concurred unanimously. Dr. Reeves then met with the President on April 19, 1937, to request that the Com- mittee be authorized to enlarge the sc0pe of its work 1National Committee on Vocational Education, Minutes of November 7, 1936. 2Minutes of the Conference Committee, National Committee on Vocational Education, Third Meeting, Decem- ber 9, 1936. to inc he inf: It ,2 , U pe ,4 u wh tr 77 to include all of education. Dr. Reeves recalls that he informed the President: It is perfectly clear that we cannot study vocational education in any true sense without studying all as- pects of education, in school and out. Vocational education has become too fragmented; it contains a whole series of satellite curriculumsi agriculture, trades and industry, and professions. The President responded that he had given much thought to the general relationship of the federal government to education (a number of educational bills were pending in Congress) and directed that the Committee enlarge its study to includethe whole subject of the federal rela- tionship to the state and local conduct of education. In addition, he approved the employment of four addi- tional committee members as suggested by Dr. Reeves. The enlarged Committee2 was renamed the Advisory Commit- tee on Education. The President's letter to Dr. Reeves stated in part: Inasmuch as the Committee of which you are Chairman, appointed last Fall to study vocational training, is lFloyd W. Reeves, interview with Carl Pacacha, February 20, 1969. 2Four new members were added: Charles H. Judd, George F. Zook, Frank P. Graham, and Luther Gulick. Dr. Paul David, who had served as Director of the Studies under the National Committee on Vocational Education became the Assistant Director of Studies and Dr. Reeves the Director for the Advisory Committee on Education. Under the reorganization Dr. Reeves and Dr. David re- tained the positions as Chairman and Secretary, respec- tively. als tra you ext rel an‘ wil mit tional additic 78 also charged with considering the relation of such training to general education, it occurs to me that you already have considerable information at hand. I am, therefore, asking your Committee to give more extended consideration to the whole subject of Federal relationship to state and local conduct of education and to let me have a report. I appreciate that this will take more time than that alloted to your Com- mittee. The expanded purview of the study required addi- tional considerations in committee organization. In addition to a concentrated study of vocational education, other pertinent areas of education would have to be iden- tified and integrated into the Committee's work. Addi- tional consultants would have to be secured to assist in the study, and a synthesized report of the Committee's findings would have to be compiled and sent to the Presi— dent. An outline of suggested studies in education was developed and committee members and appropriate staff members assigned. Ten groups of studies were organized, with directors appointed as follows: I. Social, economic, and fiscal aspects of Federal aid to education, Newton Edwards and Paul Mort. II. The quality of the educational programs in the states, with special reference to major needs for reorganization of programs, Payson Smith. III. The organization and quality of the administra- tion of education in the states, Walter D. Cooking. 1President Roosevelt letter to Floyd W. Reeves, April 19, 1937, OF 405, FDRL, Hyde Park. | Ccmitt recommm assign; 1“ Pre 79 IV. The financing of education in the states, Paul Mort, Newton Edwards. V. Education in special Federal jurisdictions, Floyd Blauch. VI. Federal aid to vocational education, John Dale Russell. VII. New and emergency Federal education programs, Doak S. Campbell. VIII. Federal and state research, developmental and demonstration programs in education, Charles Judd. IX. Federal administrative organization for educa- tion, deferred study. (No direftor) X. Special studies, Leonard Power. In place of the conference committee an executive committee was formed to authorize expenditures, pass upon recommendations for appointment to major staff positions, assist the planning studies, review staff studies, assist in preparing the preliminary draft of the Committee re- port, and confer from time to time between meetings of the Committee on matters connected with progress of the studies.2 The principal research of the Committee was con- ducted by approximately eighty sub-committees, which were comprised of temporary appointees from the ranks of pro- fessional research workers with expertise in education, public administration and economics. The greater part of this sub-committee work was completed during the sum- mer of 1937. As time did not permit an extensive amount 1Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Education, May 13, 1937. 2Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Education, Minutes of Executive Committee, May 19, 1937. ..———L 80 of original research, such investigation was not attempted except where existing information appeared entirely in- adequate. The major function of the sub-committees was to collect, analyze and interpret available data. Ex- plaining this function to a group of educators in 1937, Dr. Reeves stated, Our objective is to organize effectively the results of professional thinking and the research studies that have already been completed. In other words, we intend to skim the cream off of the work that has already been done.1 Published materials were utilized to a great ex- tent; equally extensive use was made of unpublished in- formation in the possession of the United States Office of Education and other feceral agencies. Inquiries into many aspects of education were made through the use of questionnaires. This was particularly true in the case of vocational education. Field work was involved in some of the studies, particularly in regard to the study of state educational administration. Each state department of education was visited by at least one staff member for a period of from three days to a week. The staff studies resulted in numerous memoranda and reports which were presented to the Committee during lFloyd W. Reeves, "Purpose and Functions of the Advisory Committee on Education," Advance Text of an Address delivered before the general session of the National Education Association, June 28, 1937. 81 the fall of 1939. These materials were compiled in a series of nineteen monographsl published by the Commit- tee . In addition to the materials prepared by the staff, additional valuable information was solicited by the Committee from governmental agencies, groups, organ- izations, and persons concerned about education. Part of this information came as submitted statements which were reproduced and distributed to Committee members. Much of it was obtained through conferences at which representatives of organizations and agencies presented their views directly to the members of the Committee. After having accumulated the multifarious sub- committee reports, the Advisory Committee on Education set out to formulate its final report. The basic out- line of the report was developed by Dr. Reeves and respon— sibility for the drafting of the report was given to Paul David, secretary of the Committee. Dr. Reeves gave instructions to his staff, sometimes carefully prepared, and sometimes with immediacy. Dr. David notes: The final report had its genesis in some scribbled notes of Dr. Reeves on the back of an envelOpe. These contained the major tOpics that were to be treated in the report. 1For a complete list of the monographs, see Appendix A. 2Paul T. David, interview with Carl Pacacha, August 8, 1969. 82 On December 9-11, 1937, the Committee met for a general discussion of the preliminary report. At the last meet- ing of the total Committee, held on January 24, 1938, a final draft was agreed upon, with the executive board being granted the authority for editing and publication. In an unusual action the members of the Advisory Committee on Education adOpted a resolution that expres- sed to Dr. Reeves, Dr. David and the staff their deep appreciation for the effective manner in which they had carried on the work of the Committee. The resolution stated in part: Without this invaluable assistance it would have been quite impossible to complete a report which the Com- mittee believes will be a noteworthy contribution to the cause of education. The Committee then adjourned sine die, January 24, 1938.2 In the judgment of Dr. David, secretary of the Committee, Dr. Reeves was highly creative in this policy situation: He has extraordinary skill in dealing with other major participants in a policy situation. He can achieve great empathy even with people with whom he is in fundamental disagreement on substantive policy; frequently they are not aware of the disagreement until it comes to the final crunch where people have to be counted. He has great skill in extracting information from other people that will reveal their 1Minutes of the Advisory Committee on Education, January 24, 1938. 2Ibid. 83 views, motivation, and probable posture in an oncom- ing policy situation. Reeves is also a great admin- istrator in terms of how he handles his own time; he could always make time for his top priority jobs, and somehow or other he got everything else delegated that had to be delegated to give him time for what he had to do himself . . . As a Committee Chairman, Reeves was highly skillful as presiding officer. He did not inject many of his own ideas while the Committee was actually meeting, let the discussion run free, and produced summariz- ing comments that gave direction on many occasions. The Committee always had an agenda and documentation in front of it in which Reeves had already made his impact . . . He always did his substantive homework adequately; he had a very sharp awareness of limits within which other participants were thinking; he did what he could with them individually and privately in shift- ing and adjusting those limits, and then came up with his own prOposal of what to do. Frequently his pro- posals were innovative in the sense that he had in- vented some unsuspected formula for satisfying everyone while getting the major substance of what he wanted himself. The Report of the Advisory Committee on Education2 The most salient finding of the Committee was the great inequality of educational opportunity among the various regions of the country. This inequality was most pronounced in rural America, especially the seven- teen-state Southeast region. The major reason for this inequality was judged to be the manner in which public 1Paul T. David, letter to Carl Pacacha, July 7, 1969. 2Advisory Committee on Education, Report of, op. cit. 84 schools were financed. The vast majority of school funds were derived from the property tax. Consequently the fortunes of education were dependent largely upon the ability and willingness of property owners to pay taxes. The Report adds, "No other great social service is de- pendent so largely upon so unsatisfactory a tax base."1 Children and adults living in a school district with little property tax base received an inferior education, unless aid came from outside the district. There was a high correlation between expenditures per pupil and qual- ity of education. Great differences existed among states as to the amount of funds spent for education. Figures 1 and 2 present the differences in funds expended by states for education in the year 1935—1936. The amounts shown are average expenditures within the states and include state and local funds, and federal grants for vocational education. The range of expendi- tures between the highest and lowest states was striking; while New York and Nevada were providing expenditures of more than $120 per pupil, Arkansas and Mississippi were spending less than $30 per pupil. This great disparity was not due to the lack of interest or effort on the part of Arkansas and Mississippi lIbid., p. 12. 85 DOLLAns pea PU'IL 20 10 60 80 190 I20 ”(0 ‘7————- _ v x Y 1 N“- You. St" ml. 3. w Jury “can 'Iu-tfls “ )""""l I. inn no .‘l- u'II-s m...» l 3....l (wan-J- ..; (gm-m... «. .. -| ,. . I l l i I l I l ( uL-a lulu l I .Ntulh l)lL.1. “'rluhgh-u Sr. Hun'v lulu- .\I|lt La Ilu‘ml ==' == : E = . Avuuct 3714.50 '0‘. .‘UHI. “at; '3 Mn} ow. — U. his In) _ ____ _. U! ,__A_ luduna l uh Kin-u \‘mnum 3‘.th 5': - Mr“... 1 'I‘d'ull I i l “u: \ up” ' \I-mo ‘ i ll \u I “and. : ‘ 1 h inborn. luumom r f KIM-ark, . ’ Yugmm [ l } humour. Sun): (‘nrolms ’ North ( uolma (nu-gm .‘Lll-I'II‘ .‘quun'u‘q .\|k1ln.|- lllI « Figure l.--Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36. lIbid., p. 14. 86 \ ( vl NO .951 DC. DI- 090.5 D I 05 “no on! Cjnwuu us 10 s 'o (usnwmu '__ __ _—__..,‘__ Figure 2.--Current expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance in the various States, 1935-36. to provide higher quality education. On the contrary, they were putting forth the greater effort, . . . the productive workers of the Southeast carry a burden of child care and education about 80 per cent greater than that carried by the similar age group of adults in the Far West. In 9 states, of which 6 are in the Southeast, there were in 1930 over 600 children 5 to 17 years of age per 1000 adults 20 to 64. In 6 states--New York, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California--there were fewer than 400 children 5 to 17 years of age per 1000 adults 20 to 64 years of age.2 11bid., p. 15. 21bid., p. 16. 87 The difference was due largely to: (l) a lack of ability to support schools, and (2) the high ratio of children to adults due to the migration of single adults and small families to urban centers. Figure 3 presents the ratio of children to adults in rural and urban areas. f WPA I"; Figure 3.--Number of children 5-17 years of age per 1,000 adults 20-64 years of age, by size of community, 1930. Note:--Rura1-farm, 675, rural-nonfarm, 495; small urban, 413; large urban, 348.1 In each state the adult rural population was carrying an education load, in terms of number of child- ren to be educated, that far exceeded the load carried by the adult urban population. The heaviest load of all was carried by the rural farm pOpulation, with almost double the number of children in proportion to adults found in large cities. The farm population's burden was not only disproportionate, but: 1Ibid., p. 17. (Appearing as Figure 4 in Report) 88 . . . it must carry the load on a per capita income markedly less than that of the non-farm population. In 1930 the farm population was responsible for the care and education of 31 per cent of the children, but the farmers received only 9 per cent of the national income. The problem of inequality of educational opportunity was primarily one of rural-urban differences in educational load and financial resources. Approximately 20 per cent of school age children in the United States lived in states where an average expenditure of more than $75 per child could be provided for education, yet another 20 per cent lived in states where not more than $25 could be secured with average effort. Sixty per cent of children lived in states that could not provide $50 for schools without more than average effort. The financially able states were generally mak- ing less than average effort to support education while the less able states generally made a greater than aver- age effort to support education. The states of low ability spent a greater percentage of their income for schools but provided the poorest education. Many measures of educational service were highly correlated with variations in average expenditures among states. These included: teacher's salaries, length of school term, prOportion of young people of high school ¥ lIbid., p. 17. 89 age enrolled in high school, value of public school pro- perty, quality and amount of instructional materials and equipment and health and welfare services provided by schools. The egress of the rural population to the city during the decade 1920-1930 was dominated by youth under twenty-five years of age. The early depression years acted as a check on the movement from farm to city, but by 1935 the migration increased again. Because of tech- nological advances in agriculture, the egress to the city could be expected to continue. The problem became in- creasingly acute as youth educated in inferior schools moved to the city in search of economic opportunity. The Report argued that the inequalities that exist in American education cannot go unchallenged if American is to continue as the bulwark of democarcy. Millions of children are destined to receive an inferior education because of place of birth. The Report, citing the need for equalizing educational opportunity through- out the nation, states: If, for a long period of years, each succeeding gen- eration is drawn in disproportionately large numbers from those areas in which economic conditions are poorest, if the pOpulation reserves of the Nation continue to be recruited from economically under- privileged groups, and if the inability of the de- pressed economic areas and groups to provide prOper education for their children is not corrected from areas and groups more prosperous, the effect on 90 American civilization and representative political institutions may be disastrous. The Committee recommended that the allocation of funds among the states be made by means of a complex and objective formula based upon financial ability (determined by the Treasury Department), number of children of school age, 5-19 (determined by the Census Bureau), the ratio of enrollment in elementary and secondary schools, the spar- sity of population, and other related factors. The only exception to the above allocation of funds would be the flat-grant to each state department of education. The United States Commissioner of Education would be vested with the power to determine the allocation of proposed grants to the states. Provisions for Children and Youth ARecommended Program of General Federal Aid for Elementary and Secondary Education The Advisory Committee recommended a six-year program of general federal aid to elementary and second- ary schools, the largest single allocation in the Report. The program was to commence July 1, 1939, and include the following amounts:2 1Ibid., p. 23. 21bid., p. 31. 91 XEEE. Amount Year Amount 1939-40 $40 million 1942-43 $100 million 1940-41 $60 million 1943-44 $120 million 1941-43 $80 million 1944-45 $140 million The relatively small amounts were viewed by the Committee as a beginning, with the hope that substantial increases would be made after an evaluation of the pro- posed program's effectiveness. The funds were to be administered through existing state departments of educa- tion, in COOperation with the United States Office of Education. Allotments to local school districts would be determined by formulae based on objective data. Grants were recommended for a wide range of Operating and maintenance expenses of public elementary and secondary education, including: 1. The Operation Of school libraries, such libraries wherever feasible to be Open to public use. 2. Such health, welfare, and recreational activities for children and youth as are placed under the direction of elementary and secondary schools through community plans developed with the co- operation of other community medical, health, welfare, and recreational agencies and organiza- tions. 3. Preprimary training. 4. Services for handicapped pupils. 5. Educational and vocational guidance activities developed under community plans. 6. Vocational education, including supervision of club work and home projects. 7. Placement activities in cooperation with public employment services. 8. Technical and vocational institutes and other educational programs primarily for youth under 20 years of age that are operated as parts of 92 local secondary school systems, not including normal schools. 9. Part-time civic, general, and vocational adult educational and recreational activities under the auspices of school systems. 10. Provision for books and other reading and in- structional materials. 11. The transportation of pupils. 12. Scholarships.l The last three items were deemed to require special at- tention and funds were to be allocated separately. The Committee recommended that services such as reading materials, transportation, scholarships; and health and welfare services also be made available to non-public schools. The provision of such services was left to the discretion of the states. Each state would be responsible for submitting reports to the United States Office of Education relative to the distribution and use of federal funds. In addi- tion, the state would be required to report on the status of education in its schools. Supplementary Special Aid 1. Teacher preparation—~the amounts recommended are $2 million for the fiscal year 1939—1940 to $6 million for the years 1941-1945. The amount for each state is to be determined by the prOportion of general aid for elementary and secondary edu- cation. The provision of grants should be made available for the current operating and mainten- ance expenditures of the following types of publicly controlled institutions: (1) Separate teacher-preparation institutions of more than lIbid., pp. 33-34. 93 junior college grade, (2) Teacher-preparation divisions Operated as parts of colleges and universities, and (3) Other schools, colleges, and departments operated as parts of colleges and universities in which a substantial prOpor- tion of the students are preparing for elementary- and-secondary-school teaching and administration, student guidance, schpol library service, and educational research. 2. School construction--the amount of $20,000,000 is recommended for the fiscal year 1939-1940; it should be increased to $30,000,000 for the fol- lowing years through June 30, 1945. The fund should be available for not to exceed 50 per cent of the cost of construction and equipment of school buildings, exclusive of land. School buildings and equipment should be broadly defined; the policy of including facilities in school buildings for public libraries and commgnity- center activities should be encouraged. 3. State departments of education--the funds are intended to improve the educational administra- tion, research and coordinating functions of the states. They would not be used for salaries of department personnel. The Committee therefore recommends special Federal grants . . . as fol- lows: $1,000,000 during the fiscal year 1939- 40; $1,500,000 during the fiscal year 1940-41; and $2,000,000 during each of the succeeding fiscal years through 1944-45, by which time the grants should be reconsidered. A flat grant of $5,000 is recommended for each State each year; the remainder of the fund should be distributed on the same basis as the gengral aid to element- ary and secondary education. Provisions for Adult Education In the parlance of the Advisory Committee, adult education included programs of civic, general, vocational, and basic education for out-Of-school youth and adults. lIbid., p. 40. 21bid., p. 42. 31bid., p. 44. 94 Within the purview of this study, adult education in- cludes all commonly identified efforts of schools and colleges to provide education for out-Of-school youth and adults, plus such other efforts as library services, correspondence study, veterans' education, community ser- vice programs, in-service training in the vocations and professions, and adult guidance, counseling, and place- ment services. Vocational Education The major agency for the preparation of young people for a vocation was taken to be the public high school. The deficiencies of this school were great, particularly the education Offered to the vast majority of youth who did not go on to college. Even if adequate programs had been provided, existing facilities could not have accommodated the increased enrollments that would have resulted. The drOp-Out rate among high school students was great, ranging from 58 per cent to 75 per cent of first year enrollments.1 The two major causes of the high drop-out rate were seen as (l) poverty at home, and (2) inadequate high school programs of study. Though the schools could not be criticized for the loss of pupils because of poverty, they had to accept a major share of the responsibility for inadequate curricula. lIbid., p. 63. 95 The Advisory Committee cited the great need for improving vocational education programs. The basic statutes providing federal aid for vocational education needed revision so as to grant local districts more authority in devising their own programs. The provisions of the Smith-Hughes Act discouraged experimentation and innovation in vocational education programs. Federal funds were to be made availabe for a wide range of oc- cupational training, with stress on apprenticeship pro- grams and an occupational outlook service. The student aid program was to be continued. Because vocational education programs tended to produce a supply of workers without reference to demands for such labor, there were needed such services as guidance and placement. There was substantial evidence to indicate that some businesses and industries exploited youth in the in- plant training programs. Foremen were sometimes paid as teachers; beginning workers were classified as pupils long after they had mastered skills; and workers were paid low wages or none at all. The public schools were very deficient in provid- ing adult education programs in vocational education, particularly the retraining of adults. The present method of distributing federal funds was inadequate as: 96 the earmarking of funds did not take into ac- count changing economic and job requirements, which required flexibility in allocation of ap- propriations from one area of vocational educa- tion to another. discrimination existed in the distribution of funds to Negro schools in the South. the matching principle was inimical to equaliza- tion as most rural areas find it difficult or impossible to match. Recommendations for the Improve- ment Of Vocational Education 1. The student aid program of the National Youth Administration should be continued. Whereas aid for needy high school students 17 and 18 years of age should be continued as at present, aid for college yough and other students over 18 should be authorized on a work basis only. An occupational outlook service should be pro- vided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The initial appropriation of at least $50,000 should be provided for this service. Vocational guidance, counseling and placement should be provided in the United States Employ- ment Service, with an appropriation of $500,000 allocated. An apprOpriation of $135,000 should be provided for the stimulation of apprenticeship training. Work camps and projects provided by the Civilian Conservation Corps and National Youth Administra- tion should be continued through public agencies until the time that youth can be absorbed into regular employment. An attempt should be made to provide educational experiences in addition to work experience. Th? CCC should be placed under civilian control. lIbid., pp. 83-86. 97 Educational Services for Adults Education had been viewed by most individuals as an activity that ceased at the end of elementary school or upon receiving the high school diploma. It was read- ily apparent that industrialization, technology, and other rapid social and economic changes required an edu- cated citizenry. The need for education in America was great. Approximately one-half the adult population in the United States did not finish elementary school and approximately 4 per cent were completely illiterate.l The enrollment of adults into effective programs had an impact on all of education. It was reasonable to expect that an increased interest in learning among adults would produce an increased interest in learning by children and youth. Recommended Educational Services for Adults 1. Special Federal grants to the States should be provided for educational services to adults. The amounts recommended are: $5,000,000 during the fiscal year 1939-40; $10,000,000 during the fiscal year 1940-41; and $15,000,000 during each of the succeeding fiscal years through 1944-45. The grants should be allocated among the States in proportion to their respective total adult population. 2. The primary purpose of the grants should be to stimulate the States to make adequate provision for civic, general, and vocational part-time adult lIbid., p. 86. 98 educational activities, including workers' edu— cation, citizenship classes for aliens, and the teaching of illiterates. The grants should not be restricted to expendi- ture through the public schools; they should also be available for expenditure through the extension services of colleges and universities and through other appropriate nonprofit educa- tional agencies. The grants should be conditioned upon the desig- nation by each State of its department of educa- tion, or a board Of education controlling that department, as the agency to cooperate in the distribution of the grants. Distribution within States should be provided for through plans jointly agreed upon by the respective State and Federal administrative agencies. The plan for each State should be prepared with the assistance of a State council on adult education, on which each major type of adult education program in the State should be represented. Suitable provision should be made for audits and reports, and for an equitable distribution of the grants in those States maintaining separate schools and institutions for Negroes. If the general work-relief program of the Federal Government is continued, the continuation of the existing emergency adult education program is recommended. If the emergency adult education program is continued, there should be greatly increased emphasis upon cooperation with de- partments of education in the various States in the planning and administration of the program.1 Wprk Camps and Work Projects The Advisory Committee believed that useful work activities had to be provided by public agencies so that out-Of-school young people could have opportunities for lIbid-p pp. 88-89. 99 Table l.--Proposed grants for adult education distributed among the States and other areas in proportion to adult population. 1 1 i 1 51;". j 111311.10 ! 11140—41 [11911-42 | Twill ______________________ _. .......... ,,,,, , Mum“: $111.0mum 1 3151111111100 11111-111... __________________ _______ _, ______ . 1.13.11.» i IMJWI ‘ 2711.511: Arllunu _____________________ , _ .__ _______ ., ,_ ., , ., ,_ _‘ 113.7117 253. (MI 1 49.11:] _\rk;ul,~'1~ ____________________________ _ ._ _ ' “"1. HI? ' 132.214 198.331 (tum-mm ___________ ,,,,,,, ,_ ____________ _. _ ; 2511.11.15 ' 511.1111. 77:.111'. (211.144.. __________________________ , ............... __ , 1 42.113 1 «.2513 " 1211.35; ('nnnm-i H'ill ________________ ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,__ . _ _ . _ , l 0311,7051 133.12% 1 “£1,139: lh-1.1\\.1r0 _ _____ _ _______________ _ W 1 111.1121: 1 211.1111! : 311,151) l-‘|nr'.-i;1_, __ ____________________________________ -_.g 55.1111 ; 117.23.“ 175.213) «Hwy... , _____________________________________________ 1 111.2711; 1 2115.111: I 311:, 22.».- .m... ______________________________________________________ _ . 111.7115 3 11.1711 , 511.2115 11mm. _ _ ________________ , ________________________________ 3211.517 I 55.1w: ' 11711.1.” lH-HJHil . ________________ . _____________________________ . 1371,11‘43 ' '27”. 723 I 405, 2:13 1...». _. _________ . . _________________ . _______ _ ,,,,,, ,_ , i 1111,7311 T 2111.111; 3113.151.) K111~J~ ____________________ __ ,,,,, . _ .. .. ..... _ E 711.“! 172.1%." ! 2210. 4:32 Krhtvu-k} _____ _ ___________________ ,_ - ' 1111.17: I 1112.711 ‘ 2511,1111 I...111~1..:-..-. _________ - ._ ,. _ _ _ . ,, 1 77.11% 1.31.7341‘ 2:13.13; \l nm- ._ _________________ __ __ _____ . , - 3 :13. NH j 015.0432 1 95.41.13 M-mmn-l ........... ,, , ............................ . 0'17. lw ' 1:51.395 ' 211L597 \1.\.,.1,1_v...u< . _ 7. ................. _ ________ [ l\1,u':n i 3112.010 513.0110 ,\!:1‘I||L';||| __________________ ,, ____________________ .,.1 1'53?“ ' 3911,7110 1 5951.11.11) _\l:11m-w-i1 _ . ______ _ _______________________ _ I “HAM? ZULU?“ lill.‘.o:’.5 \l.~~:‘~11-pi ._ ,_ ____________________ | 7111.51; 111.1115} 211.9112 ,\L~~~m:r1 , __________________________________________ _. ‘ 1.33. W? 3011.396 4319.591 .\l.1.11'1. .......... . . ....................... -3 21.3.1: 1 4.1.1114 11.1.5111; \.-!-r.m... .................. | 5.1.11.1” 11:1,11141‘ 11.3.1”) \4'1111'1 _ _ ..... ., ,- _ _ __. -1.|l\.';‘ 5.11.1. .1249 .\'1-11 Il.1::111\l11rv. . , ....... _ _ ........... _ ITI.\|| 311.1.22- Fit-1'1.» x.“ Jomg. _____________________ -_ .? 1111.341: 33' In :mfl‘ .\1'\\ .\h'\11'u ______ _ _ _ ., ,_ .............. - 5 13.7'{ 310.311. 1 H":|-, X1111 Yurk . ............. _________ _ ....................... ‘ 5110.271 ‘ ‘,l".'5.."‘ . 1.1347, at; .\‘nrlh (‘.1ruhtm _______________________________ _- .......... ..1 10.7.1010 ' ‘..’ll..i1\ 311., 1.177 .\'urlh 11115.15 ............. . _______ . .......... ........... I 21.11. 41s. was . 721,251 «11.1.. ___.-_-_-___- ................. ---...-......_‘ 27:7“ ' 557.5111 5311.355 Uklnhuma ...................... ............................... I \T. T' I 175,811: I 2113,1113 Urn-1mm _ ................ .......................... 4!, ~79 1 5.5.7“ 2.2.1.37 P14115111 1:11;1..____.._ __________________________________ -_.-.. . 3" \W 1 710.6% I 1,143,547 lthmh- l~l mal __ . . ,. ., _______ . _. . ................ 3‘. In: :‘JL'ut ' 85.356 Stuth“HnH‘;.t ........ . _______ ,_ ”.1 .3“. ”7i “2 5.34 1 liiét’fih'l #u-mh lhknhl . . . .. ....... -. . . . . .. . . .. ...... 211.1“ : 712.32‘2 I 75, 343 I I‘IHIINN‘Q' ______ _ __ _-_ ,_ . _ _. ._ - . , . ,,, . .. , _' W171” 1 I‘M. ‘1'.’\ 1 28‘), 512 me _ _________ _ . _.. , - 2111.133? mums! (Imam 111m _ __. . ....... __.__.- .- _ .. ...... . ....... 15.1111! {1.112141 51.1112 \'o-rmnnl - _____________________ - ........................... 1.»? l 20 .71 44.11111 \ 1r1'mm ............... ....... _ _ ......... ..... was!” 1.2.1135 2115.557 \\";~11m-. 11m ___________________ - - . ............. _ mun-2 I 131111111 2111,1106 “m1 \ 21111.1 .......... . ....... ________ 61.277» 1 1‘.” 3'1” 153.525 “Nu-um -1 _ ._ .................... _- _ - 1111. 1112 25911121 , 3551.146 \Vsumm': _ ________ ._ . ..... _ . - _ 9.1111111 hum 27.11110 lh‘tru‘t ”H‘uhuul‘m .. . , . .- .- . . H- 23.933 : ”ukllil 6km!) .\l..~ka ......... _-.... .. ...... -- 2.12.31 1,554) 7.27.") 111111113111 Samoa . .......... - ...... 306i 1112i 9H (111nm . ___________________________________________________ 379 , I 1:35 1,737 ll:.1\ .111 .................... _________________________ H. 282 I 213.15! I 39. 7‘26 I'm-r15 Rm» _______________ _ _____________________ «1.533 93.01% ' 139.599 VII“ 1 Island“ .............................. ................ Nil 1 l. 7'22 I 2.553 ”-1 I \‘nnmvr .,1 :N'rs'nm '2" }""lf‘1'fit‘10'1tll‘l mw‘r in I‘WI is used. ‘ ”11‘ 2mm 1.~1nlaw-11111111111"! fur11wsut‘u'whnflliMans. 1Ibid., p. 147. (Appearing as Table 3 in Report.) 100 employment and education. It endorsed the existent fed- eral work camps of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the work projects of the National Youth Administration. The CCC, employing young men 17-26, was origin- ally established for purposes of relief and conservation. It soon became evident, however, that the education needs of the enrollees were great: it was found that 84 per cent of them had not completed high school, 44 per cent had not completed the elementary grades, and many were practically illiterate.l The Advisory Commit- tee concluded that although the educational achievements of the CCC had been creditable under the circumstances, the Corps would not realize its potential as an educa- tional enterprise until certain obstacles had been re- moved. The NYA was established to provide relief, edu- cation, and rehabilitation for young men and women, 16- 24. Most individuals did not leave home while enrolled in the program. They carried out a wide variety of conservation projects, including beautification and repairs. Recommendation for Work Camps and Work Projects l. The work camps of the CCC and work projects of the NYA should be continued for the time being 1Ibid., p. 76. 101 and efforts for their improvement be contin- ued. 2. Work camps should be located near existing edu- cational facilities and definite c00perative arrangements should be made. The youth engaged on work projects and living at home should also be stimulated to participate, on a voluntary basis, in part-time local educational programs when suitable programs can be arranged. 3. Because of the similarity in objectives and ac- tivities of the CCC and NYA, the Committee re- commends that they be placed under the direction of a single new agency, which might be appro- priately designated as the National Youth Ser- vice Administration. 4. The administration of the CCC camps should be placed entirely on a civilian basis. It is par- ticularly important that all personnel stationed in the camps be placed upon a civilian status, that educational factors be given major consid- eration in their selection, and that their tenure be placed upon a more regular basis. The camp directors should continue to have responsibility for educational leadership in camps, and only such personnel as are capable of providing co- Operative educational leadership should be selected or retained as camp directors. 5. The work projects program of the existing National Youth Administration should be continued along much the same lines as at present, with additional effort to increase the educational value of the projects and to stimulate the educational in- terests of the youth concerned. Some form of educational activity should be provided in con- nection with all work projects. Rural Library Service The best libraries were to be found in urban areas. In most rural areas public library service was not available. Not only was there a great need for lIbido' pp. 79-810 102 library services, but these services had to be brought into a closer relationship to the schools, particularly in rural areas. Recommended Library Services 1. Special Federal grants to the States were to be provided for the extension of library service to rural areas. The amounts recommended were $2,000,000 during the fiscal year 1939-40; $4,000,000 during the fiscal year 1940-41; and $6,000,000 during each of the succeeding fiscal years through 1944-45. These amounts should be allocated among the States in prOportion to their respective rural populations. The United States Office of Education should be designated as the Federal agency to allocate the library fund and to c00perate with the States in its administration. The grants to each State should be conditioned upon the establishment and maintenance of a State-wide library system through which free library service will be available to each in- habitant. It will be necessary for each State to designate or establish an administrative agency; the States should not be required to designate their departments of education, al- though it is to be hoped that most States will do so. Suitable provision should be made for joint plans to be prepared cooperatively by the State and Federal administrative agencies. The plan for each State should provide (a) for the main- tenance of a cooperative and integrated system of library service throughout the State; (b) for expenditure of the Federal funds within the State in such manner as to equalize opportunity for library service so far as feasible; (c) for suit- able cooperative arrangements with school systems, the Cooperative Agricultural Extension Service, and other apprOpriate agencies; (d) for the em- ployment of only qualified personnel; (e) for 103 audits and reports; and (f) for avoidance of any discrimination between faces in the services pro- vided by Federal funds. Higher Education In the perception of the Committee, higher educa- tion in America was characterized by internal conflict and lack of coordination of its many services. The fed- eral government should encourage a greater measure of cOOperation within states with respect to activities that receive federal subventions. While the federal govern- ment should not take action to force consolidation of higher education institutions in any state, it should avoid any action that might contribute to duplication of facilities or diffusion of resources. Recommendations for Higher Education 1. If the COOperative Agricultural Extension Service continues to be primarily an educational agency administered by the land-grant colleges, in- creasing attention should be given to the develop- ment of appropriate relationships between the Extension Service and the public school systems in the rural areas of the various States. 2. Attention should be given to the develOpment of increased cooperation between the Extension Ser- vice and the schools in providing adult education for agriculture and home making. In view of the established position of the Extension Service in the special type of education it provides for adults, public schools should seldom provide courses in agriculture and home making for adults 1Ibid., p. 91. 104 in farming areas without the sponsorship and active cooperation of the local representatives of the Extension Service. 3. The existing grants for instruction in the land- grant colleges and for the related activities of research and extension should be continued and the increases now authorized by law should be made. Whenever the legislation providing for these grants is reconsidered, careful attention should be given to the bases of allocation among the States and to the revision of the matching requirements that now exist in connection with certain of the funds. The land-grant colleges and the United States Department of Agriculture should give increased attention to a more equit- able distribution of the extension funds within states. 4. Attention should be given to a more equitable division of the Federal grants for agricultural research and extension between services for the two races in those States maintaining separate schools and institutions for Negroes. CoOperative arrangements between the land-grant institutions for white and the corresponding institutions for Negroes should be developed wherever practicable, in order that the special problems of all rural people may receive attention through constructive, realistic, and well-coordinated research. Related Areas of Education The Advisory Committee was also concerned with special problem areas of education: vocational rehabili- tation, the District of Columbia, the Indians, research and coordination of educational services. Recommendations l. A nation-wide survey should be made of the needs for vocational rehabilitation. In addition, the lIbid., p. 100. 105 Federal Vocational Rehabilitation Service should be expanded to cooperate with other Federal agencies concerned with health, welfare, and employment. 2. The District of Columbia, the territories, and outlying possessions should be included in any system of grants on the same basis as a state. 3. Special attention should be given to the educa- tional problems of Indians. 4. The United States Office of Education should in- crease its services of research and leadership. Its administrative responsibility toward schools should be confined to the administration of grants. Suggested appropriations for 1939-40 include $1,250,000, reaching $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1940-45. There should be cooperative long-range planning for education by federal, state, local, and private agencies. The land-grant colleges, colleges of education and state departments of education should be involved in this planning. 5. The various educational activities of federal agencies should be coordinated to avoid waste and duplication. The Advisory Committee Report represents a com- prehensive study of American education during the period of the 1930's. Tables 2 and 3 present the existing and proposed Federal grants for educational service, and the provisions of proposed new Federal grants. The major finding of this investigation was the inequality of educational opportunity among the various sections of the country. Urban center schools, although in need of improvement, were judged to offer the most effective education. There were great deficiencies in lIbid., pp. 101-124. 106 Table 2.--Amounts of existing and proposed Federal grants for educational services. 1111 (11111151111115 0! 1101141111, I . H.151 1011' 11.115 11‘.) ' 10:10 (0 1010 H l‘.Hl {LI 3 107121821 1 1013-“ I 1911» IS __ - _. . _ _ .- _ __ . _ _ _fi- _.___ 1' 1".~.111'1'.r.1.1~ 1 . , . ‘.'.-.v 11..11.1 1-«1111-1111111 _ $21.?“ $21. 7‘31 $21. 7%.) ' $2l. 75:3 $21.35 ‘ $3.785 $2l,7\‘5 \fm-Jl-HM r1‘.1€11‘11'1!1u111 11‘ HIP. : 11;1\~11-1H_\' l11111l11.'.1|1[11'1i. _ _ .. l.'1\‘1 l ”\1 1 UN! 1 l ‘1“ 1.11“ _ 1.05.1' 1.1133 Lyn} 31.11.! 113.1121“ ' ‘ I;.-.1.11-111 111.1.21111,1.11. .. . 7.11111 3.11111 11111 ."1. 03111 . 5.11.111 1 5.11111) 5.1111) \_.‘."r11111:11|r1111':111'l1 . . h ‘1.” 7.177 7.5”“ 7.711.! T. .3371 7.537 T..’1|‘.’ |’.\1111~11111~1'1- 11'1- . . 17.11.11. 15311.1 1x311 18. 11.1 1‘. 1.311 . 18.101 i 1313.131 ‘1111;111~\1,~111:u«.tr'.1.1._,__.. . 1.1111 7.1.1.1“ 51.1171 '.1. 72.1 51.771; 51.11221 51.573 I‘r11|---~1 l-"'o'1:\. 1.1-'.1-1.1l 1.11 111 1111111111111.1r}. 21111! - I ..-1.11111.1~.1-1111-~1111111 _ 111,1)1111 1.1111111) RI). 000 11111. 0011 V 120. 000 I 110. 000 I'1111r11\11! ;~!'1~1»'1111;11111111-‘11-111-1x 1 . 5111111111111-1la11'.111111:.1 ;-111\11:1'11~1 2.111111 1.1:4111 11.11110 11.111111 . 6.0001 11.000 12.-4":11111.1.(«111111111111.2111._'~111 ,‘ I I11'1l.'1H‘-‘..~Y 11-{r1-11r':1111/1111“ _ . _ -, . L'UJINI ‘ $11.01)!) ’ 3U.1HI) 30.Lll) i 30.0“) I 30.0“) .\1ir:1-.1.111':111111: 111' ‘1111‘ 1111-1111- . i ;1.1-:,: ..1f1~1l111:.1i.111 . ...... _ 1.111211 . 1.711“ 2.110111 2.111101 2.000! 2.000 l-T111111‘11m11'11~11."111-~f11r:11!11l1~ . - _ , 1111-11 ' 111111111 15.111111'. 15.111111’ 15.11011 . 131.1100 l.:hr..1\ 11‘. 1114111 r11r;1‘.;1r11:‘ . -. 2.11011 1.11111 ~ 11.111111 13,001) r (1.000 0.1100 (‘1111;11'r.1".' 1-1'11111';1111111;1I r1'~1'11’1'll. ' 1 1 l 1:1-111111..~:.1111111.).:1:1111.11.:111; __ 1.234) 3.001) 3.00!) 1 3.1101) 3.1!!) . 3.000 1.1100 'l111:1l 11r111-11~01l':rm11s_.-.___ _ . 1.2310 73.01111 113. .100 112.000 1112. 000 142,000 1 202,000 I 1Ibid., p. 125. (Appearing as Table l in Report) 107 A...» .32. .33? 3 3.77. sue.» .C./. .::: .223; 11:: 32.7. .35.: a... Ea. Auuommm CH N magma mm mcflummmmfiv 5.» 5:72."..27; _o E...::._:;.._. 25.1. .................. m...» 1 - ........ :./. 1-1 95:15:; ::_.4 32:31:... :27: E; T._ a. mom mmumum «nu op ........ 22:.:_;._: 2.2 75:: .2 32:2; 2:; :7. .................. .37. ..... . . 1. 1....../. .7; .3... .:..u 5 2:3:513; L.._:_:._:...._ 1.22.]. 5.3:. .: :ZCu C.:...uw ,:_...:Z..;.:. .5377. .2; E a. mucmnm amumpmm 3m: m _;-. ..... . if»? . 4.2.2.5.... J: E..:::.;.;. 35.1. _ ........... 2.6., _i:..7 -...mo.» _ _ .2: _FE _ .95 .5 39:22.3»; 3222:... 154.7 s»: Ea. .mNH .m ..wflnH _ c2253.... 3 32:723.... .257. we? CZ 721:; .55 Ca 15:22:??— :22"; it; 34.5: e5 Er. 4.3.5.3....6 .2: E51525 9.2.53... 2. .52... r a: u .....::.:..~ ..__.:::_....~ .::.Z;..:.. 1.1..» 7:3. 353.... Lita...‘ .5 5.225.211 .c :7..::::?.. 2:7. 3 13.5173. .9; 3 .655...” ..:;.L _ 135w _ .2: 5:33 ::::.::1_. _: «2:22: ........... 1 .3.» .75.... 5 ._..:._:_:.._ u:_:::_; 2:... _ 5.5:: _ :1: 1.2:: :5... t. 33.1. .3 154:7; £331. . a; . t. 7.75: _E.::;:..~ ...... 5:37. ..:::.:= 5.92.2.1"...1.7:: ::::.:._:.,.._: _ -723}? 7.7. C.,:::: 1.7. .2; E: :95...» .mmoa>nmm Hmcoflumospm mmomonm mo mcoflmfl>oum11.m manna rura Com: tun: COR: Th0: the 108 rural education. The recommendations of the Advisory Committee were an attempt to equalize educational oppor- tunity throughout the United States. One Committee member submitted a minority report containing supplementary and dissenting views. Mr. T. J. Thomas, although in accord with the major findings of the Report, dissented with the Committee, stating: I believe that no State is entitled to receive Feder- al aid until it has made a reasonable beginning in the work of equalizing educational opportunity with- in its own borders, even though to do so may require the amendment of State laws or even State constitu- tions. He also recommended a smaller program of grants on the assumption that the restoration of industry and employ- ment would preclude the necessity for large subventions. Thomas' minority report actually strengthened the major- ity one; it showed that there was Committee unanimity on the need for federal aid to education. In 1941, three years after the Report was made public, Dr. Reeves made these observations: The Advisory Committee did not recommend a special board for distributing the funds to the States. As I look back over the discussions within the commit- tee, I think that point was never raised. Person- ally, I favor such a provision very strongly. I believe this provision appears for the first time in a Federal-aid hill. [8. 1313] There was one other aspect of this situation to which the Advisory Committee did not give adequate lIbid., p. 142. w— -=&— ..-=r.l..:==. rfnrf-r-hH late: the e1: k 109 recognition. I suppose we did not have enough in- formation at that time to realize the importance of the problem. I refer to the problem of education of migratory workers. On the basis of the studies that have been made since the Committee reported, I realize how important it is that provision be made for educating the children of migratory workers. Commenting on the Report some three decades later, Dr. Reeves observed: It was more than a research report; it was a politi- cal report. It was to advise politicians not only what had to be done, but equally important what could realistically be accomplished. $300 million was not enough to meet the educational needs 05 the nation--but we didn't want to fight windmills. The completed Advisory Committee Report was pre- sented to the President on February 18, 1938. In a personal letter on the following day, Reeves noted: Yesterday morning at 9:30 I delivered the report to the President. He has taken it with him to Hyde Park to read over Washington's birthday. Wednesday it will be Sransmitted to Congress and released to the public. The President, in turn, forwarded the Report to the Congress of the United States without recommendation on February 23, 1938. His message read: 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, "Educational Finance Act of 1941," Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Commit- tee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, Seventy-seventh Congress, First Session (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941), April 28-30, p. 99. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, interview with Carl Pacacha, February 18, 1969. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, personal letter to his wife, Hazel, February 19, 1938. aid 1 tion Comm. The 1 eduC and stre Man; Opes the n; (I) p: and tie: atte 3 an 110 I transmit herewith, for the information of the Con- gress, report of the Advisory Committee on Education appointed by me in September, 1936 to study the ex- perience under the existing program of Federal aid for vocational education, the relation of such train- ing to general education and to prevailing economic and social conditions, and the extent of the need for an expanded program. In addition to provisions for general federal aid to elementary and secondary education, higher educa- tion, and related areas of education, the Advisory Committee Report stressed the need for adult education. The proposed programs for adults included vocational education, library services, and civic, general, basic and citizenship education. These provisions were strengthened in later federal enactments, notably the Manpower Development and Training Act, the Economic Opportunity Act, the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title III, as amended, the Library Services and Construction Act, and Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The report of the Advisory Committee on Educa- tion was significant for two reasons: (1) it focused attention on the most serious problems affecting Ameri- can education, and (2) it offered a program of action to deal with these problems. The Congressional Quarterly Service reports: ___ 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, Message of the President to the Congress: February 23: 1938- Pi a; 6L AU :1 Com. |_ 111 The report of the Advisory Committee on Education in 1938 documented what had long been suspected--that there was substantial inequality of educational Opportunity between the states. The significant contributions of the Advisory Committee can be summarized: 1. The Report of the Committee promptly became the leading document in its field among professional educators, replacing the previous proposals of the National Education Association. This re- source of information was cited often in later deliberations over federal aid to education. The Report of the Committee documented what had already been known--education in America had deteriorated in all areas of the country. The Report of the Committee called attention to the inequality of educational Opportunity in America. The Report of the Committee substantiated the need for federal aid to education. The Advisory Committee, as contrasted with what had been done in previous prOposals for educa- tion, called attention to the need for aiding the whole of education in attempting to achieve social change. The Advisory Committee prOposed funds for educa- tion on the basis of need, not on a matching fund basis, as had often been done previously in legislation for education. The Advisory Committee assigned a significant role to adult education. It viewed the education of children and adults as a continuous process. 1Congressional Quarterly Service, Federal Role in Education (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Ser- Vice, 1967), p. 17. Advi type 112 A summary of the major recommendations of the Advisory Committee included provisions for the following types of prOgrams: l3. 14. 15. General elementary and secondary education Adult education Higher education Textbooks and other instructional materials Vocational education Transportation of pupils Scholarships Teacher preparation School construction State departments of education Research Library services Work camps and work projects Selected aid to non-public schools Aid to federally impacted areas. Of the fifteen categories of services recommended by the Advisory Committee, more than one third (6) car- ried provision for adults and out-of-school youth. The Committee demonstrated its concern for adult education by including these provisions: vocational education, general adult education, in-service teacher preparation, university extension, library services, and work camps and V Comm: tion all ' atte ary, refe init 113 and work projects. To a large degree the Report of the Committee focused on adult education, as well as educa- tion of children and youth. Through its provisions for all types of educational programs, the Committee called attention to the inter-relatedness of elementary, second- ary, adult, and higher education. And it provided a reference document which would provide basic data for initiating or supporting federal legislation on behalf of education for youth and adults for three decades. idea came pro< lat: sta sio cei CHAPTER V FROM WHITE HOUSE TO CAPITOL HILL The chief executive often serves as a source of ideas for the programs which Congress considers. This came to be especially characteristic of the legislative process during the 1930's; almost all important legis- lation originated in the White House. Nelson Polsby1 states that a number of factors have led to the expan- sion of the presidential powers beyond the limits con- ceived by the authors of the Constitution: the emergence of America as a world power, the growth of the executive branch, the communications revolution, and the indus- trialization of American society. It is in Congress, however, where the nation's social forces converge with the turbulence of a whirl- pool at the foot of a waterfall. Vast and conflicting regional, economic, social, and political interests focus there from our country and abroad. Capitol Hill is the locus of thrust and counter thrust in the formu- lation of national policy. Almost never does a major lNelson Polsby, Congress and the Presidency. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), pp. 12-14. 114 new firs keep its agenl con: cm? a me On 3 re? Pa; Ste E l l I 115 new policy or program pass through the Congress when first introduced; rather initial "success" consists of keeping it afloat, having it seriously considered, having its merit agreed to rather broadly and keeping it on the agenda. Dr. Reeves did not act in a vacuum; his successes and failures were determined to a large extent by social forces Operative at the time: some recently born of depression, war, and political upheaval, and others old and persistent, in the form of sectional and religious interest, political philOSOphy, and ethnic or economic concern. Negotiating this maze of social currents and cross currents, Dr. Reeves concentrated upon one goal-- a national policy for education. The Advisory Committee on Education had been commissioned by the President; its report was received by him and forwarded to Congress. The Controversial Committee Report A general advance press release, an article of sixteen pages outlining the salient features of the Com- mittee's Report, was distributed to 850 general news- papers and 224 labor neWSpapers throughout the United States and to 122 correspondents and bureaus of press associations in Washington. A briefer release, stressing por bec ter to evil om die as CO; CO ed Pl 5: (I) 'r-( / . 116 the advantages to rural areas, was mailed to 152 weekly . 1 country newspapers and journals. Some of the larger newspapers, such as the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor, printed long stories produced by their own writers. The Times repro- duced the entire sixteen page release. In addition, radio news programs featured the Report. When the content of the Advisory Committee Re- port was made public on February 23, 1938, it soon became the center of intensive discussion in many quar- ters. The major findings of the Committee pertaining to educational needs were unchallenged: they had sub- stantiated the case for federal aid to education. Adult education, an important component of the Report, remained outside the arena of controversy; popular and legislative discussion was not on adult education. Such disagreement as resulted from discussion Of the Committee Report was concerned almost entirely with details of the plans re- commended by the Committee to effect improvement in education for children and youth. However, Dr. Reeves was concerned about the plight of adult education, non-existent in some school units and Operating on meager funds in many Others. Speaking in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, he had stated: 1Paul T. David, Secretary of the Advisory Commit- tee on Education, Memorandum to Committee Members, February 28, 1938. eral ment whi the res; Prir 117 Increased financial support for adult education is necessary today and . . . it should no longer be required to subsist on the margin of funds left over after the needs of other educational levels have been met. While adult education is voluntary, social and economic forces affecting the individual are strong and often make such education 'socially compulsory.‘ It is not confined to mature adults, but may include youths who have left the full-time school for a job . . .1 Newspaper editors were generally opposed to fed- eral aid in 1938 on the grounds that the federal govern- ment would usurp local control of education. One magazine which sampled press opinion found that 78 per cent of the editorials responded unfavorably and 22 per cent responded favorably to the Report.2 Those dissenting with the Report were concerned primarily with three issues: 1. federal control over education 2. separation of church and state 3. allotment of funds on the basis of need. The issue of Dr. Reeves and his colleagues-- federal aid to education--was obscured by these issues (which they did not raise). Their issue was not settled by Congress: instead the tangential questions of federal control, religion and allotment were debated in the halls 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, "More Attention to Educa- tion of Adults Urged," The Evenin News, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, September 23, I937, p. 7. 2United States News, Editorial, Vol. 6 (March 14, 1938), p. 6. of e Jers F4 1.\ 118 of Congress and across the land. Thus, the scope of the conflict had become enlarged; the real issue had become clouded; and the question of federal aid had become more complex. Typical of the trepidation over federal control of education was an editorial in the Patterson (New Jersey) News, stating in part: It is hardly open to doubt that extensive federal aid to weak school districts will be accompanied by federal control over curricula, teaching methods, and teachers' training. Just as federal aid to farmers has meant federal control over farm production, just as federal aid to state militias has meant federal control of or- ganization and training, so federal expenditures for education will carry an implication of bureau- cratic control over the substance of education. The St. Louis Post Dispatch made known its concern: Above and beyond the question of need, above and beyond the question of ability of the Treasury to stand this added drain, is the graver one as to whether the march toward Federal Empire is to be given this added impetus. The Washington Post on February 25 editorialized that Federal influence could not, in the long run, be suffi- ciently restrained: "Paying the piper, there is a strong probability that Congress would, sooner or later, try to call the tune."3 1Patterson News, Editorial, May 18, 1939. 28t. Louis Post Dispatch, Editorial, February 25, 1938. Washington Post, Editorial, February 25, 1938. 119 Dr. Reeves crossed and recrossed the nation in support of the Advisory Committee proposals. In speeches, periodicals, and seminars he stressed the need for fed- eral aid to education, while at the same time assuaging the deep concern over federal control, separation of church and state, and allocation of funds. Sympathizing with those concerned about federal domination of educa- tion, Dr. Reeves attempted to alleviate these fears: In no case should the federal government attempt to control or manage the schools. In no case should it determine the content of the educational program or the processes of education. These matters belong to the states and local communities. That provision in the Report which would permit states to utilize federal funds for special services in non-public schools generated a storm of protest. Con- tending that such aid was in direct violation of the principle of separation of church and state, the dis- senters hoped to influence public opinion. Though in favor of federal aid to public schools, Dr. George S. Counts, Professor of Education at Columbia University, contended: "I think that is a very dangerous and vicious recommendation. It seems to me that it is an entering wedge to destroy the public school system."2 A more lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "Reeves Warns of U.S. Con- trol," Chicago Daily News, July 23, 1938. 2George S. Counts, New York Times, February 26, 1938, L-l7. (It is interesting to point out that Counts reversed himself on federal aid to education for non- public schools in the early '40's. He joined Reeves on VOC Ge: der dec De the Co: Ree al PC a: P6 P2 120 vociferous opponent was Columbia University Professor George D. Strayer, who appeared repeatedly in public to denounce the Committee's recommendation that each state decide which schools should receive aid. The John Dewey Society and the Horace Mann League also Opposed the Report on this issue. Vigorously defending the Committee's position on non-public school aid, Dr. Reeves responded: The Advisory Committee did not recommend that the states make Federal funds available to children in private schools for any one of these services. [Transportation, textbooks, health and welfare ser- vices] It did recommend specifically that the states be not prohibited from determining the matter.1 Opposition to the Report also focused on the allotment of funds to states on the basis of need. This point was raised by newspapers in the wealthier Northern and Eastern states, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Samuel Rosenman, special assistant to President Roosevelt, reflects on the President's con— cern for inequality of educational opportunity: On his first trips to Warm Springs, Georgia, the President had been gravely disturbed by the poor educational facilities in many counties in the the Commission on Education Reconstruction of the Ameri- can Federation of Teachers in 1944 to champion federal aid for all children and adults.) lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "Educators Ask Federal Aid for Public Schools," Christian Science Monitor, March 1, 1939. r‘) (V! 121 South. In private conversation he often made it clear that he felt strongly that there was no reason why a child born in some county too poor to sustain a good school system should have to start life in competition with children from sections of the country that had fine schools. If the states were not themselves willing or able to provide enough money to help, he felt that the only way to equal- ize educational opportunities was through the re- sources and Treasury of the United States. The President himself attempted to justify the practice of upgrading education in poorer communities. Speaking at the National Education Association (a major proponent of federal aid) convention in New York City in 1938, he stated: . . . but we know that in many places local govern- ment unfortunately cannot adequately finance either the freedom or the facilities to learn. And there the Federal Government can properly supplement local resources . . . We know that the weakest educational link in the system lies in thoss communities which have the lowest taxable values. Although the President favored federal subven- tions for education, he knew that such aid was unlikely. Events at home and abroad dominated decisions; the New Deal legislative program would have to wait. Intra- party conflict, the hassle over Supreme Court packing, and an economic recession dominated much of the President's attention in 1938-39. In the off-year election of 1938 1Samuel Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), pp. 394-395. 2Franklin D. Roosevelt, Address to National Education Association, World's Fair Grounds, New York City, June 30, 1938. the do: omj Re) ch: New pox Cdl’ Cor VET 122 the electors, as they so often do in such elections, re- duced his support in the House of Representatives. The ominous world situation caused immediate concern. As Rexford Tugwell stated: "He would have to confirm the choice he had begun to make in 1938: sacrifice of the New Deal for foreign policy."1 Despite the negative Opinions regarding the Re- port, there were many who hailed it as the most signifi- cant educational plan yet devised for American education. Congressman Noah Mason, speaking at the same NEA con- vention, referred to the Report as . . . one of the most comprehensive reports ever made in the field of education in the United States. It is a beacon light that marks the way we have come, that illuminates the serious situation that confronts American education today and that points the way that education must travel from now on if substantial progress is to be made.2 The Nations' Schools warmly supported it: The recommendations of the committee were based on intensive research by a staff of specialists of unusual ability . . . The outstanding contribution of the report is its emphasis on improvement, its reasonable recommendations for progressive achieve- ment and its safeguarding of state and community control of education.3 1Rexford Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt (Gar- den City, 1957), p. 476. 2Noah Mason, "Teachers' Fight for U.S. Aid Urged," New York Times, June 28, 1938, p. 10. 3Nation's Schools, "Looking Forward," Vol. 21 (March, 1938), pp. 17-18. 123 The same publication also called the report one of the two most important reports ever made in this country on the problem of federal relations to education: the Hoover advisory committee's report of 1931 and the Roosevelt advisory committee's report of 1938. Both major professional organizations, the Na- tional Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, endorsed the Advisory Committee Report. More than any other single organization, the NEA had been the champion of federal support of education. In the voluminous literature it published, the NEA staunchly defended the Report and the need for federal aid. Offi- cial commendation of the Report came from the Legislative 2 The announce- Commission of the NBA on February 26, 1938. ment followed a two-day study of the Report, including a conference between President Roosevelt and officers of the organization. The American Federation of Teachers sent identical congratulatory telegrams to President Roosevelt and Dr. Reeves urging enactment of a program of federal aid to education, and adding: "The American Federation of Teachers extends its congratulations to the President's Advisory Committee on Education for its lNation's Schools, "Side Glances," Vol. 6 (June, 1938), p. 30 2National Education Association, Statement of the Legislative Commission, meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 26, 1938. 124 1 Thus the two most significant forward-looking report." education organizations in America had concurred with the Committee's findings and recommendations. Approval came from William Green, president of the American Federation of Labor: "In the main, Labor concurs in the Committee's findings and in sponsoring the bill to put them into effect."2 Time cited the Report's success in neutralizing Catholic opposition to federal aid: 'The momentous report,‘ submitted by a committee headed by University of Chicago's hard-working Floyd Wesley Reeves, removed two stumbling blocks to the Fletcher-Harrison bill: size of proposed appropri- ation and Catholic Opposition. This Opposition was not fully neutralized, how- ever. Many Catholic spokesmen expressed trepidation over federal control. In its editorial of April 2, 1938, America, a prominent Catholic weekly, issued this trench- ant assertion: How many years will pass before the political peda- gOgs at Washington completely control the schools in the states, once the subsidy system is installed? We think rather, that the term will be measured in lMary Foley Grossman, National Legislative Re- presentative, American Federation of Teachers, March 1, 1938. 2William Green, Federal Aid for Education, no date. 3Time, "Glaring Inequalities," Vol. 31 (March 7, 125 months. Washington has not COOperated with the states. . . COOperation belongs to the horse-and- buggy age1 Washington does not cooperate. It controls. Newsweek detailed the Committee's recommendations and presumed that the Report, rather than the pending Harrison-Fletcher bill, "will be the basis of the Admin- 2 istration's future educational legislation." School Executive stated about the Report: This report makes history, and if enacted into law, will be the culmination of a vigorous campaign for Federal aid that has extended over a period of twenty years. After the Report was made public, many educators and Congressmen believed that President Roosevelt would publicly endorse attempts to gain federal aid to educa- tion. Senator Pat Harrison (D-Miss.) had tried unsuc- cessfully in 1937 to promote federal legislation for education. On January 5, 1937, Senators Harrison and Black and Congressman Fletcher co-sponsored S. 419, which would have provided federal funds for education. This bill, endorsed by the NEA, would have provided appropriations on the basis of population in each state. lAmerica, "Federal School Funds," Vol. 58 (April 2, I93§), p. 613. 2Newsweek, "President's Committee Urges Subsidy to Modernize the Country Schoolhouse," Vol. 11 (March 7, 1938), p. 25. 3 School Executive, Vol. 57 (April, 1938), p. 339. EO‘ Ha as 5*. f3 126 However, the bill languished in the Senate. Senator Harrison was undaunted, however, stating: In view of this report, it is hoped that the Presi- dent will put his stamp of approval on the legisla- tion and that this Congress . . . can take it up for consideration. The report of the advisory committee certainly simplifies the matter.1 The Advisory Committee Report became the center of attention to those sponsors of pending legislation for education: Senators Pat Harrison and Elbert Thomas, and Congressman Brooks Fletcher. They viewed the Report as a powerful instrument of support for the cause and the specific legislation they had been advocating. The President's Dilemma Following the release of the Advisory Committee Report, the legislative Commission of the NBA, in co- 0peration with representatives of the Advisory Committee and numerous national organizations, drafted a bill which was introduced as a substitute for S. 419. Dr. Reeves, Dr. Zook, and Dr. David of the Advisory Commit- tee attended the special meeting of the Legislative Commission on March 23 to explain the Report, answer questions, and participate in the drafting of the sub- stitute bill. lPat Harrison, New York Times, February 25, 1938, p. 19. 127 Dr. Reeves expressed some concern as to whether any proposed legislation were consonant with the Presi- dent's budget. He proceeded to dispatch a letter to the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget David Bell: We have been requested by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor to assist in draft- ing a bill which will place in legislative form re- commendations contained in the report of the Advisory Committee, which, as you know, was transmitted to Congress by the President on February 23. In view of the instructions contained in Budget Circular No. 344, November 15, 1937, we should be glad to be advised as to the attitude we should take and the procedure we should follow in connec- tion with legislation to carry out the Committee's recommendations, and in particular, whether any statement should be made as to the position of the President other than that expressed in his message to Cpngress transmitting the report of the Commit- tee. Bell's reply2 was that Reeves and any other Committee member should act as private citizens in the drafting process, and not to indicate the relation of the prOposed legislation to the program of the President. This action of the Bureau of the Budget was highly significant. The Bureau is the President in the "institutionalized presidency" sense. When the Bureau of the Budget director stated that Reeves was "not to 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, letter to David Bell, Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget, March 11, 1938. 2David W. Bell, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 18, 1938. 128 indicate the relation of the proposed legislation to the program of the President," that was much more reliable than if the President had stated it himself. That is because the President might have had to say something nice for public consumption; the Bureau was the President doing, not saying. The budget, according to David E. Bell, President Kennedy's first Director of the Bureau of the Budget, is . . . a major means for unifying and setting forth an over-all executive program. . . [It] reflects [the President's] judgment on the relative priority of different Federal activities. Thus, the President's budget necessarily reflects his policy judgments and the Congress in acting on the President's budget necessarily reviews these policy judgments as to the relative importance of alternative uses of national resources. . . . The essential idea of the budget process is to permit a systematic consideration of our Government's program requirements in the light of available re- sources; to identify marginal choices and the judg- ment factors that bear on them; to balance competing requirements against each other; and, finally, to enable the President to decide upon priorities and present them to the Congress in the form of a co- herent work program and financial plan.1 Education was a major component of the New Deal. However, the disastrous Congressional elections and re- cession of 1938, the adverse effects of the Supreme Court packing attempt, and the ominous world situation caused the President to sacrifice his educational 1David E. Bell, in Nelson Polsby, op. cit., p. 83. 129 program (he had hoped temporarily) to preserve something more valuable--the national security. Faced with a dif- ficult decision, the President had established his priorities. The President did not put his weight behind the proposed legislation. Being a politically sensitive man, he knew any action on the part of Congress, Reeves, Harrison, Thomas, et al. would have to be unilateral; that is, without Presidential support. The ambivalent position of President Roosevelt toward publicly supporting the Advisory Committee Report and the subsequent legislative prOposals had a deleter- ious effect on attempts to secure federal aid in 1938 and later. The President's views on federal aid to education were influenced by some of the people very close to him and whose judgment he trusted. Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes exerted particular influ- ence. In a letter to Frances Perkins, Ickes had stated very shortly after the Committee report had been sub- mitted: It seems to me, in view of all the circumstances surrounding any proposed legislation dealing with the exceedingly complicated question of Federal financial support for education in the States, the looking toward radical revision in existing acts of Congress, we should not advise the President at this time to commit himself to the many specific recom- mendations of the Advisory Committee. 1Harold Ickes, letter to Frances Perkins, May 17, 1938. FDRL, OF 504. 130 The President's position first became apparent after the final draft of the Advisory Committee Report had been presented to him. In a memorandum to his secretary, Marvin McIntyre, the President issued these instructions: "It is OK to print this report but with no implication of Presidential approval."1 The President was flooded with correspondence in 1939 urging him to support federal aid to education. However, he eschewed support of the pending bills in Congress. The following are typical evasive replies to those requesting executive action: ". . . I shall give careful consideration to your recommendation that I send a message to the Congress urging enactment of S. 2 1305." Also, "Should this bill come to me for final approval you may rest assured that it will have my thoughtful consideration."3 Some believed that, in terms of President Roose- velt's own perception of how to move the country forward, he did not rely on public education as a major instrumen- tality. While he supported categorical programs of 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, memo to Marvin McIntyre, February 12, 1938, OF 504, FDRL. 2Franklin D. Roosevelt, telegram to Frank M. Dixon, Governor of Alabama, March 14, 1939, OF 107, FDRL. 3Franklin D. Roosevelt, telegram to Miguel A. Garcia Mendez, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Puerto Rico, April 29, 1939, OF 107, FDRL. 131 literacy, relief, and vocational education administered through federal agencies, he was not ready to accept a total financial package for public education. In retro- spect Dr. David states: I never had any reason to think that President Roose- velt was positively inclined to back the kind of program that Reeves was moving in the direction of. In fact, some people thought the Advisory Committee was created to filibuster federal aid to education. The White House was never excited about federal aid. I think this was a mistake. In fairness to the President, however, it can be stated that he at least did not take more drastic action, such as suppression of the Committee Report or the dissuasion of Congress from acting on federal aid. The Advisory Committee recommendation that each state determine which schools would be recipients of aid generated more intense reaction from two segments of American society. On the one hand were the implacable adherents to the principle of separation of church and state. On the other were Catholics and a smaller number of denominational school representatives who were certain that their schools would be excluded from federal funds. The President did not want to incur the wrath of the Catholics, a sizable voting bloc, which could spell defeat in the approaching election of 1940. Rather than 1Paul T. David, interview with Carl Pacacha, August 18, 1969. 132 commit this political blunder, he withheld support of the federal aid to education proposals. The President alluded to this political factor stated in a memorandum to Lauch- lin Currie, administrative assistant: In regard to your memorandum on . . . the subject of education bill, I think frankly that in view of the political situation--not the need--it is bes to defer any educational grant at this session. Thus, as of March 18, 1938, the President had officially abandoned Dr. Reeves, not only for the present, but in years to come. The preserverance of Dr. Reeves and the Bills' sponsors was a testimony to their singular purpose of upgrading education through federal interven- tion. Congress: The Whirlpool of Social Forces The new bill introduced on April 19, 1938, was known as the Harrison-Thomas-Fletcher bill. Senator Thomas commented about the new measure: The Senator from Mississippi and I have consulted with the Chairman, and Vice-Chairman, and the secre- tary of the Advisory Committee, and many other per- sons conversant with the recommendations of the Ad- visory Committee, and have had drafted an amendment to Senate bill 419.2 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, memo to Lauchlin Currie, February 10, 1940, OF 504, FDRL. 2Elbert Thomas, Congressional Record, Vol. 83, p. 7294, April 19, 1938, 75 Congress, Third Session. 133 On April 21 a companion bill was introduced in the House, H.R. 10340,1 by Congressman Brooks Fletcher of Ohio. Senator Harrison had agreed to adjust his bill to in- corporate the major provisions of the Advisory Committee Report, which he said "should be heartening to every American citizen who believes in Federal assistance to public education."2 The major change in the new bill was that of apportioning funds on an equalization basis (as recommended by the Advisory Committee), instead of apportioning funds on the basis of population 5-20 years of age. It retained provisions for civic, general and vocational adult educational services. Both Seantors Harrison and Thomas worked tire- lessly for the federal aid bill. Speaking in New York City, Senator Thomas pointed out: You have had before you for some time now the Harri- son-Black-Fletcher Bill, and the . . . substitute. You have before you the Reeves Report, which is the basis for the substitute . . . It is in keeping with the necessities of the times that we turn to Federal aid for education. 1H.R. 10340, introduced April 21, 1938, 75 Con- gress, Third Session. 2Pat Harrison, "Wider School Aid Rushed at Capital," New York Times, February 26, 1938, p. L-l9. 3Elbert Thomas, address at the National Educa- tion Association convention, New York City, June 27, 1938. 134 Senator Harrison made known his plans for federal aid: We are going to do everything possible to expedite passage of this legislation at this session of congress. [sic] The report of the advisory committee appointed by the President is fine, and I shall ad- vocate such changes in the bill already reported by the committee to carry out the committee's recommen- dations with reference to needs and the reduced annual appropriations. The Harrison-Thomas—Fletcher bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on April 19. This action was notable in that it marked the first time a standing committee of Congress had endorsed the principle of federal aid to general elementary and secondary education. Although the bill was brought to the Senate floor, it was not voted upon prior to adjournment. Senator Harrison pleaded in the Senate for action on his bill, as it had been introduced the previous year. He believed that the dilatory action of the Senate was unjust; his bill had not been allowed a fair test. Senator Alben Barkley, majority leader, did not think the time propitious for favorable action on the measure. Working closely with the President on legislative matters, Barkley was cognizant of the Chief Executive's desire to defer action on federal aid to education. David Truman, summarizing the close tie between the majority leader 1Pat Harrison, "U.S. Education Bill Spurred by Harrison," Jackson News, Mississippi, March 12, 1938. 135 and the President, holds that this tie is a condition associated with effective leadership: Elective leaders are, and probably must be, both the President's leaders and the party leaders . . . [In] order to be fully effective as leaders of the Con- gressional parties, they must above all be effective spokesman for the President; or at least, excepting the most unusual iircumstances, they must appear to be his spokesmen. Senator Barkley believed that the House was in no frame of mind to pass the bill and therefore it should not get in the way of bills that contained more promise of enact- ment. He added: I am sympathetic toward this measure and probably would vote for it, but we have reached the point of the session where we must drop some desirable bills so as to let others get through.2 Senator Harrison was furious at this turn of events. He wanted assurance from the Senate leadership that his bill would be considered early in the next ses- sion. Thomas supported this plea, contending that suf- ficient hearings had been held on the bill and no more were necessary. Because of the controversy generated by the bill, however, and the numerous suggestions made for its 1David Truman, The Congressional Party (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959), p. 29'. 2Senator Alben Barkley, "Senate Leaders Make Promise Contingent on Victory in Fall," Baltimore Sun, June 8, 1938. 136 improvement, it was apparent that revision of the bill was in order before its re-submission to the next Con- gress. The Senate Committee on Education and Labor con- curred on the need for revision. It was agreed that the bill would be re-introduced at the next session of Congress. At the time of adjournment of the 75th Con- gress, the bill was on the calendar of the Senate and lodged in the House Committee on Education. Even though the House Committee on Education took no action on the bill and the Senate did not vote on it, most supporters of the proposed legislation believed that substantial progress had been made toward its final enactment. The Executive Committee of the Legislative Com- mission of the NEA agreed unanimously to leave the matter of making a final draft of federal aid legislation to the chairman of the Advisory Committee on EduCation (Dr. Reeves). The Executive Committee of the Association itself adopted the following motion in regard to future federal aid legislation: The Executive Committee of the National Education Association approves the report of the Executive Committee of its Legislative Commission and gives full approval in proceeding as the Legislative Com- mission sees fit in conference with Dr. Reeves and the President's Advisory Committee on Education. 1National Education Association, Report of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Commission to the Executive Committee of the NEA, October 1, 1938. 137 The Congressional elections of 1938 proved a stinging defeat for the President. In addition to gain- ing six seats in the Senate, Republicans had won eighty more seats in the House of Representatives.1 In effect, the New Deal had run its course even though the President wished to push forward. Paul Conkin states that the "New Deal which began in a burst of energy simply 'petered out' in 1938 and 1939."2 The President relied on Dr. Reeves as a liaison with members of Congress interested in a federal aid program. To Reeves fell the task of coordinating a federal aid to education program. Retaining his optimism that Congress would soon act, Dr. Reeves proceeded to plan for the 1939 legislative session: I talked with the President today. Everything is OK for next year. He wanted me to help during the winter in putting the program through. He is for the program we recommended. Senator Harrison, Chairman Thomas, Congressman Larrabee and other members of Congress continued to press for a suitable bill for education. Chairman Thomas lRussell Kirk and James McClellan, The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft (New York: Fleet Press CorporatiOn, 1967), p. 42. 2Paul K. Conkin, FDR and_§he Origins of the Wel- fare State (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1967), p. 101. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, letter to his wife, Hazel, August 31, 1938. 138 requested that Dr. Reeves assist in the drafting of legislation. Dr. Reeves notes: Today I had a conference with Senators Thomas and Harrison. They say they are willing to follow my lead in legislative matters. During the latter months of 1938 two bills based pri- marily on the Report of the Advisory Committee were developed. H.R. 3517, a federal aid to education bill, was introduced in the House of Representatives by Con- gressman William Larrabee of Indiana, chairman of the Committee on Education, on January 31, 1939. On February 13, Senator Thomas introduced com- panion bill S. 1305 on behalf of Senator Harrison and himself. Both bills represented several years of study and deliberation. In addition to incorporating the major recommendations of the Advisory Commitee, these two bills contained features of S. 419, Senator Claude Pepper's bill providing for training of crippled child- ren, and provisions from earlier bills. The Senate bill was similar but not identical to the House bill. Both bills authorized appropriations to the states for the purposes and in the amounts recom- mended by the Advisory Committee. Each was in accord with the general intent of the Committee that public 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, letter to his wife, Hazel, December 31, 1938. 139 agencies administer all funds to elementary and secondary schools. However, both bills omitted the permissive provision whereby any state might have designated pri- vate schools to share in federal support, and prohibited states from expending any of their grants through private agencies. Two important changes (from S. 419) were made in S. 1305: first, the wording of the bill was modified to diminish the possibility of inference that the federal government was to control education in the various states, and second, reference to those eligible for funds was deleted and the matter was left entirely to the states.1 Dr. Reeves commented on the similarity of the Advisory Committee Report and S. 1305: . . . In its broad outline the bill follows the re- commendations of the Advisory Committee. It differs in some details, but the differences appear to be the reasonable result of the study and discussion which have gone on since the report was made public. The bill can probably be improved still further, but it has been perfected to a substantial degree by a large amount of careful and deliberate work. The Larrabee and Harrison-Thomas bills differed on two points. The Larrabee bill retained the permissive 1Congressional Record, Vol. 84: 980, 1345-47, 76th Congress, First Session, 1939. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, Testimony before a Sub- committee of the Committee of Education and Labor, U.S. Senate, 76th Congress, First Session on S. 1305, March 2, 3 and 10, 1939 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 30. 140 section under which a state might have chosen to channel selected benefits to students in non-public schools: Provided, that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prothit any State legislature, if it so desires and under such conditions as may determine consistent- ly with the constitution of such state, or the local jurisdictions of any state under such conditions as the State legislature may determine, from making available to children legally in attendance at non- public schools any services of health, welfare, books, reading materials, or transportation of pupils that may be made available through expenditure of Federal funds for children in attendance at public schools.1 The Senate bill sponsored by Harrison and Thomas did not include even that permissive provision. The "child benefit theory," as it came to be known, was a significant shift in attempts to provide educational services to non-public schools. This theory holds that educational services tation, and health services are of children, not the support of Dr. Reeves, concerned about the worked closely with Congressman concept in H.R. 3517. Although such as books, transpor- provided for the benefit a religious institution. welfare of all children, Larrabee to include this the theory was not im- plemented at this date, it did play a highly important role in the success of later legislation. states that 1 Congress, First Session. Philip Meranto H.R. 3517, introduced January 31, 1939, 76 141 The reasoning behind this principle may be traced to the case of Everson v. Board of Education [1947]. In this case a New Jersey law authorized school dis- tricts to pay transportation costs of children going to and from all non-profit schools, with the district reimbursing parents of children who use public trans- it. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the primary object of the law was public safety, not assistance to private education, and it therefore did not violate the First Amendment. This has come to be known as the 'child benefit' principle and was used repeatedly by groups in 1965 to justify their position. A second difference appeared in the proposed grants to the United States Office of Education for COOperative Educational Research and for Administration. The Larrabee bill stipulated the amounts recommended by the Advisory Committee-—$2,000,000 for the fiscal year 1940 and $3,000,000 for each of the succeeding five years. The Harrison-Thomas bill authorized 3 per cent of the other grants carried in the bill. This amounted to an authorization of slightly more than $2,000,000 for 1940, and the grant increased to approximately $6,000,000 for fiscal year 1945. Neither bill incorporated provisions for major changes in the administration of federal funds for voca- tional education, as proposed by the Advisory Committee. Some members in both the House and Senate expressed the Opinion that amendments of present vocational education 1Philip Meranto, The Politics of Federal Aid to Education in 1965 (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1967), p. 72. 142 acts should have been provided for through separate amend- atory legislation. In introducing the federal aid to education bill, Senator Thomas remarked: The bill as previously introduced has been the sub- ject of intensive discussion by citizens all over the country and by most of the groups and organiza- tions interested in public education. Many sugges- tions for revision were the result of this discussion. . . The suggestions for revision have been carefully considered and the bill has been thoroughly redrafted . . . The purpose of the bill, as set forth in the general statement of policy with which it begins, is to assist in equalizing educational Opportunities with- out Federal control over the educational policies of States and localities. The administrative fea- tures of the bill have been given careful attention with this prOposal in mind. Every effort has been made to avoid any necessity or even occasion for the intervention of Federal administrative officials. After the States have accepted the act, or the various parts, which are separable, and have com- piled with a limited number of specific provisions, the United States Commissioner of Education is directed to certify payment of the grants. He is not directed or authorized to approve or disapprove any plans of the States for the expenditure after they are made and to make an annual report setting forth in detail the extent to which each of the States has accomplished the equalization of educa- tional opportunity in comparison with previous years.1 Both the Harrison-Thomas and Larrabee bills pro- posed to implement many of the major recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Education. To carry out other lElbert Thomas, Congressional Record, Vol. 84, pp. 1345-47, 76 Congress, First Session, FEBruary 13, 1939. 143 recommendations of the Committee additional legislation and administrative action would have been necessary. S. 1305 was favorably reported to the Senate by the Committee on Education and Labor, April 3, 1939. In submitting its report, the Committee noted: The committee finds on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that, without a reasonable amount of Federal assistance to the States for the support of public education, there is not the faintest hOpe that any fair degree of equality of opportunity will or can exist in these United States. However, there was not unanimity in the Commit- tee's views. Senator Robert Taft dissented from the Committee stand on S. 1305. He objected to the bill on three grounds: (1) the likelihood of federal control, (2) the high expenses involved, and (3) an unfair method of distributing funds.2 In his minority report he de- cried the intervention of the federal government in local prerogatives, especially education: "If there is any activity in which the people are able to stand on their own feet, without being nursed from Washington, education is that activity."3 1Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Federal Assistance to the States for the Support of Public Educa— tion, Report of the Committee, April 3, 1939, Report No. 244, 76 Congress, First Session, p. 2. 2Robert Taft, Individual Views to Accompany S. 1305, from the Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 244, 76 Congress, Second Session, April 24, 1939, p. 2. 31bid., p. 2. 144 Senate committee members David Walsh and Victor Donahey also objected to the bill, stating that "it is no time, however meritorious the prOposal may be, to begin new and far-reaching financial undertakings."l Dr. Reeves promulgated the Report of the Advisory Committee and the pending legislation in Congress through professional writing and speaking. Writing in the American Teacher, he stated: The pending Harrison-Thomas-Larrabee bill does not provide an adequate program of federal aid but it does provide a financially and administratively feasible beginning along the line recommended by the President's Committee. I believe that the need for this legislation is steadily receiving more general recognition. Every practical friend of democracy who wishes to see established the condi- tions that are necessary if democracy is to continue should press earnestly for the enactment of this legislation. Speaking in Richmond, Virginia he contended: There appears to be but one remedy for the situation of unequal educational opportunity existing in Am ri- ca today. That remedy is federal aid to schools. 1David Walsh and Victor Donahey, Minority Views to Accompany S. 1305, from the Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 244, part 3, 76 Congress, Second Ses- sion, June 13, 1939. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, "The Problem of Federal Aid," American Teacher, Vol. 24 (April, 1940): P. 6. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, Address to American Associ- ation for the Advancement of Science, Richmond, Virginia, December 28, 1938. 145 Hearings on S. 1305 Hearings on S. 1305 were held before a sub- committee of the Committee on Education and Labor on March 2, 3 and 10, 1939. The Senate sub-committee mem- bers included Elbert Thomas, chairman, Lister Hill, William Borah, James Davis, and Josh Lee. The whole committee was invited to take part in the hearings as S. 1305, since having been reported on favorably in the previous session, it was the whole committee's bill. Dr. Reeves was the first witness before the sub- committee. In an unusual gesture, Chairman Thomas pre- faced the appearance of Dr. Reeves as follows: And may I say this in connection with Dr. Reeves' report? It is merely a humble opinion, but is a sincere one. I believe firmly that in the history of education in our country probably no more signifi- cant report, based as it was upon honest research and investigation dealing with the relationship of education and the Government, has come from any group of persons.1 After identifying himself, it was necessary for Dr. Reeves again to present a letter2 from the Director of the Bureau of the Budget relative to S. 1305. The letter appears as follows: lElbert Thomas, U.S. Senate, Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 76 Congress, First Session, on S. 1305, March 2, 3, and 10, 1939 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 222. 2David W. Bell, letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 1, 1939. 146 Bureau of the Budget Washington, March 1, 1939 My Dear Mr. Reeves: I have your letter of February 16, 1939, in which you state that the Senate Committee on Education and Labor has requested you to appear at a hearing scheduled tentatively for March 2, 1939, for the purpose of dis- cussing S. 1305, a bill to authorize appropriations to assist the States and territories in providing more ef- fective programs of public education and requesting to be advised as to the relation of the proposed legisla- tion to the program of the President. I have taken this matter up with the President and you are advised that the proposed legislation would not be in accord with his program. Very truly yours, D. W. Bell Acting Director In his fifty-nine page testimony1 Dr. Reeves cited the need for improving education and equalizing opportunity. He presented numerous exhibits dramatizing the need for federal subventions. Thirty-eight witnesses appeared to testify be- fore the sub-committee, most of whom favored federal aid to education. Notable advocates included John Studebaker, United States Commissioner of Education, Willard Givens, Executive Secretary of the NBA, and Irving Kuenzli, Secretary-Treasurer, American Federation of Teachers. In addition to Dr. Reeves, two other 10.8. Senate, Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 76 Congress, First Session, on S. 1305, March 2, 3, and 10, 1939 (Washing- ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939), p. 22. 147 members of the Advisory Committee testified: Frank Gra- ham and George Zook. The fact that the United States Commissioner of Education testified on behalf of the bill is evidence that the President favored federal aid to education. After the hearings on S. 1305 were concluded, pOpular discussion of federal aid to education waned because of discontent over New Deal measures and the international crisis. Chances for passage of any major proposal at this time were highly improbable. Newly- elected Senator Robert Taft noted in a letter to his "old friend" Herbert Hoover: "The Republicans are still in the minority, but I doubt very much if the President 1 could get anything extreme through the present Senate." A few weeks later, he wrote to Horace Taft: There is not much interesting about the Senate . . . We move very slowly, but I get the distinct impres- sion that the New Deal is on the defensive, and that their representatives in Congress are not very hops- ful about their ability to defend it successfully. 1Robert T. Taft, letter to Herbert Hoover, January 23, 1939. Robert A. Taft Papers, Library of Congress. 2 Robert A. Taft, letter.to Horace Taft, March 9: 1939. Robert A. Taft Papers, Library of Congress. 148 Federal Legislation in 1938-39 and Operative Social Forces In March, 1939 President Roosevelt directed his Democratic leaders in Congress to drop consideration of all but essential legislation and work for adjournment as early as June. As stated in the Washington Post: "His program calls for . . . scuttling of the Harrison public school assistance bill . . ."1 It was the Presi- dent's desire to avoid new taxes. Once again, attempts to gain federal aid for general elementary and secondary education had failed. It would not be until 1958 that broadly significant federal aid would be realized. Writing in her autobiography, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt reflects on legislation in 1938-1939: Only bills that were 'must' legislation got full ad- ministration support. In the first years these were largely economic and relief measures; later on they were measures for defense . . . Franklin frequently refrained from supporting causeg in which he believed, because of political realities. However, the Advisory Committee Report was not without significance. It remained an authoritative source of information and legislative proposals during 1Cecil B. Dickson, "Roosevelt Cuts Slate to Bare Essentials," Washington Post, March 28, 1939, p. 2. 2Eleanor Roosevelt, This I Remember (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949), p. 161. 149 at least the next twenty-five years. Proponents of federal aid have often cited its findings when attempting to substantiate their arguments. Failure to enact federal aid to education in 1939 can be attributed to a number of national and interna- tional influences, including the international crisis, economic recession, the Supreme Court battle, and a shift in political forces expressed through the 1938 Congres- sional election. When viewed in total, these influences constituted a serious threat to all major legislation for education. While the worst years of the Great De- pression were over, there had been a brief but alarming "recession" in 1937 and the federal government continued to Operate on a deficit budget in 1939, as it had for each of the previous eight years.1 The federal aid pro- gram prOposed by the Advisory Committee was small; how— ever, it was generally recognized that this beginning would eventually lead to a vast program of federal sub- ventions. President Roosevelt could not commit the Nation to such a comprehensive program without incurring fur- ther deficits. He wired Sidney Hall, Chairman of the 1United States Bureau of Census, Historical Statistics of United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960): P. 711. 150 Legislative Commission of the NEA, indicating that the problem at present was largely one of finance.1 The jobless and destitute still constituted the major social problem in America, and the President had already estab- lished his priorities. For any President there is the perennial problem of priorities and federal aid. Robert Bendiner, comment- ing on the ideal pattern that must exist if a federal aid bill is to be enacted, states: "The President would have to be for it in a broad and comprehensive way, and feverishly enough to give it a top priority in his pro— 2 gram." Dr. Reeves adds: President Roosevelt never did recommend to Congress that any part of the Advisory Committee Report be adOpted, but he did ask me on more than one occa- sion to see if I could get the Report or parts of it through Congress. He was afraid of the Report politically, eSpecially as it related to Catholics. The last message I got from him was the day he left for Warm Springs in 1945. Mrs. Roosevelt handed me the message in which the President wanted me to try to put through a program of federal aid in accord- ance with the Report. 1Franklin D. Roosevlet, telegram to Sidney Hall, March 16, 1938, OF 504, FDRL. 2Robert Bendiner, Obstacle Course on Capitol Hill (New York: McGraw-Hill BoOk Company, 1964), p. 192. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, personal interview with Carl Pacacha, February 20, 1969. 151 A second explication centers on the ominous world situation in early 1939. Adolph Hitler had assembled the German war machine and was ready to march against the eastern European countries. In the Far East, Japan had been waging war against her long-time enemy China. Both of these developments posed a serious threat to national security. The President became engrossed in world affairs. The Munich Pact of 1938 had convinced him that the for- eign situation was rapidly deteriorating, and that it was far more important than the impasse in which the New Deal legislation had bogged down. Mobilization had to be started immediately and vigorously. The clouds of war which helped to darken the path for Dr. Reeves and all other social reconstruction- ists actually portended forces which would, in five years, be turned to the advantage of supporters of equal-4 ity of opportunity and related social goals. The Ser- vicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (the GI Bill) became a major instrument for uplifting the well being of millions of young adults through education. Finally, there is palpable evidence to indicate that the "purge" conducted by the President on the re- surgent conservative forces in Congress in 1938-39 pre- cluded the possibility of a federal aid to education program. The attempt to remove those Congressmen who 152 Opposed the President's legislative program created a deep rift within the Democratic party; the attempt to liberalize the party had failed. Whereas in 1932 President Roosevelt had swept into office with many liberal legislators, the election of 1938 proved a political debacle: At the election Republicans in the House had increased from 88 to 170, and they had gained eight seats in the Senate. This was a serious setback. As a result, the possibilifies of transforming the party had dis- appeared. . . Rexford Tugwell concludes: Franklin's position, when the new Congress should meet, would be no better than during the disastrous two years just past. Very likely it would be worse. No Republican would vote for New Deal measures . . . He would be more handicapped than ever in both his objectives--the increase of well—being and the se- curity of the free world.2 If 1938 had been disappointing in domestig matters, 1939 promised to be downright disastrous. Samuel Rosenman summarizes the convergent social forces (operative at this time) which precluded the pas- sage of S. 1305: The President had come through a long series of set- backs in the domestic field in the last year and a half: the defeat of the Supreme Court bill, two defeats of the wages and hours bill before its final passage, the defeat of the reorganization bill, the 1937-1938 recession, the defeat in the purge, the 1Rexford Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt (Garden City: Doubleday and Company,.l957), p. 476. 21bid., p. 474. 3Ibid., p. 476. 153 loss of seats in the Congressional elections of 1938 . . . I do not know what course he would have taken in 1939 if events had not forced his major at— tention into international field. I know of his 1 feeling of frustration in pushing further reforms. In 1939 federal aid to general elementary, secondary, and adult education remained a political improbability. Dr. Reeves was successful in keeping federal aid to education on the agenda. He prepared a comprehensive plan and sold it to powerful groups. He got it debated in Washington and across the land. It was a constant source of ideas for a quarter-of-a-century. Although the prOposals of the Advisory Committee were not enacted in 1939, they were picked up and eventually incorporated in various federal aid to education laws over the next twenty-five years. Dr. Reeves had lost a skirmish, but the battle was far from over! 1Samuel Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), p. 181. CHAPTER VI THE GI BILL OF RIGHTS: INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CHANGE As World War II approached its close, there was much discussion of what to do for returning veterans. It was generally agreed that the federal government should provide retraining and rehabilitation to the disabled. There was less clarity of policy and tradi- tion concerning the readjustment of able-bodied service- men. It was traditional and appropriate that returning heroes should be given something of value--money or land or further education, or some combination of these. Would veterans whose education had been interrupted by military service return to schools, colleges and other educational institutions for the education needed in the peacetime economy? If not, could the economy re- assimilate several more millions of workers and do it while readjusting itself to the new patterns and levels of peacetime production? Out of this discussion came the educational pro- visions of the GI Bill. They came out because a small band of policy framers were influenced at this "ripe 154 155 moment" by a man who for the past two decades had been formulating a plan for national involvement in the educa- tion enterprise. It came out because that man, Floyd Wesley Reeves, was sufficiently perceptive and his plan was sufficiently comprehensive that he could adapt it to the needs of the nation as it turned from all-out war to all-out peacetime progress. The great social disruptions caused by World War II and Dr. Reeves' position in the federal government afforded him a unique Opportunity to shape a national policy in support of adult education. He possessed qualities of leadership which made him most capable of serving a great social need of his time, a national policy for education. The policy evolved by Dr. Reeves and his colleagues not only had a cushioning influence on the economy, but was a major social effort to uplift the education of almost a whole generation of individuals through the device of postwar readjustment. In 1944 President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI Bill of Rights). Alice Rivlin states, By far the most extensive venture into government aid for students in our history was the program of educational benefits for veterans which began I with the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. . . lAlice Rivlin, The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education (Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1961), p. 64. 156 The returning veteran constituted for adult edu- cation the greatest challenge in its history. He created a need for additional facilities and instructors, and the development of new prOgrams. The GI Bill comprised an entirely new approach to adult education, while at the same time absorbing much of the economic and social shock of readjustment at the end of World War II. It sparked the biggest home construction boom in the nation's history, and its loan program helped thousands start their own businesses. 1 (NRPB) The National Resources Planning Board had been created by President Roosevelt in 1939 as the planning arm of the Executive Office of the President, alongside the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Govern- ment Reports, and President's Administrative Assistants, and the Office of Emergency Management. For the next four years the NRPB had analyzed great masses of data and formulated plans regarding many important aspects of American life--education, population, technological 1The NRPB was created within the Executive Of- fice of the President by the President's Reorganization Plan No. I, effective July 1, 1939. It inherited and expanded the operations of the earlier national planning agencies: The National Planning Board (1933-34), which functioned within the Public Works Administration, the National Resources Board (1935-39). It also assumed the responsibility of the former Federal Employment Sta- bilization Board for advising the President concerning employment and business trends. The National Resources Planning Board was abolished by an act of Congress ap- proved June 26, 1943. 157 trends, natural resources, urbanism, regionalism, long- term relief policies, industrial trends, and the struc- ture of the American economy. The Board, under which the GI Bill was conceived, had as its chairman Frederic A. Delano, uncle of the President. It had as its task the social reconstruction of America. As a consultant to the NRPB since its inception, Dr. Reeves was concerned primarily with the educational aspects of national plan- ning. George Riley comments about the activities of Dr. Reeves as a member of the Board: 'Upbuilding America' is the plan advanced by Pro- fessor Luther Gulick and associates, including Professor Floyd W. Reeves, and others from the University of Chicago and elsewhere. These profes- sors are housed in the National Resources Planning Board where the promise is from 'all-out production for defense to all-out production for normal 1iving.‘ Professor Reeves (American Youth Commission) has the assignment of revising the nation's educational system. The Board plans large scale 'upbuilding' of America. One is reminded of Professor Rexford G. Tugwell's dream to make America over. Of greatest significance is the fact that the GI Bill, through its continuing education provisions, became the first major and sustained program of general assistance to students from all segments of society and from all economic levels. It was a great experiment in the equalization of educational opportunities. 1George D. Riley, "Postwar Jobs Galore but of Different Kind," Washington Times-Herald, November 16, 1941' A-ZO o 158 Before the war, admission to higher education institutions had depended heavily upon economic resources of students. The Bill greatly reduced the waste of talent due to inequality of educational opportunity among individuals of diverse socio-economic levels and from different areas of the country. Every veteran was given an Opportunity to compete for education and jobs on a new and higher level, without regard to his social or economic background. The view that education was an important "capital good" to the individual and a sound investment for society became the basis for this new and major social policy. The GI Bill was in major part an adult education act. This chapter focuses on the evolution of this his- toric law and those Advisory Committee recommendations that were incorporated in the Bill: higher education, adult education (as previously and narrowly concerned), vocational education, and counseling and guidance. A Review of Veterans' Benefits World War II began a new era in federal benefits for veterans. Both the scope and volume of benefits in- creased enormously, and the Veterans Administration be- came the third highest federal agency for Spending in the postwar period. The increase in benefits resulted in part because of the great number of veterans, and in 159 part because of the nature of benefits provided. With respect to the number of veterans, Some 16,535,000 persons were in the armed forces during World War II, more than in all other United States wars combined, including Korea. . . In addition to an extensive package of new bene- fits, Congress extended to World War II veterans basic- ally the same benefits given to veterans of previous wars. The four most important of these traditional benefits included: disability and death compensation, hospital care, pensions, and life insurance.2 The extension of traditional benefits to the huge World War II veteran crOp was enough in itself to enlarge greatly the federal veterans' programs. Thus, apprOpri- ations for compensation and pensions in 1940, the last prewar year, were 429 million dollars; in 1946, the first postwar year, the figure had risen to over 1.2 billion and by 1964 . . . the amount was in the neighborhood of 4 billion.3 The larger and socially more significant factor in the expansion of Veterans Administration activities and expenditures was the establishment of a new type of subvention--"readjustment benefits." While the principle 1Congress and the Nation, 1945-1963. A Review of Government andiPolitiCS in the Postwar Years. (Washing- ton: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), p. 1335. 2 Ibid., p. 1335. 31bid., p. 1335. 160 of readjustment benefits was not new--veterans of pre- vious wars had received substantial benefits from the federal government in cash and in land--benefits at the end of World War II assumed a new form. Instead of cash or land, education became the "capital stake" for vet- erans. Rivlin observes: ". . . the educational benefits of the GI Bill were the twentieth century equivalent of forty acres and a mule.1 These benefits were to aid the veteran, even if not disabled and poor, in making a successful reorientation to civilian life. Compensation was provided for educational, business, and other Oppor- tunities presumed to have been interrupted while the veteran was in service. Readjustment assistance had some precedent in the vocational rehabilitation program in the 1920's for service-disabled World War I veterans. These benefits included veterans' preference relating to federal em- ployment and bonus payments. It was not until the period Of World War II, however, that the Congress, with the strong endorsement of veterans' organizations, ini- tiated a substantial system of readjustment benefits. These were later extended to Korean veterans and a small number of peacetime "Cold War" veterans. 1Rivlin, op. cit., p. 66. 161 The first of these readjustment benefits was con- tained in the Selective Service Act of 1940,1 assuring draftees the right to their old jobs after discharge. In 1943 free vocational rehabilitation for service-dis- abled World War II veterans was granted by Congress.2 In 1944 three significant enactments occurred: 1. Veterans' Preference Act (granted preferred status for veterans in civil service jobs) P. L. 78-359. 2. Mustering-Out Pay Act (granted up to $300 mus- tering-out pay for World War II veterans) P. L. 78-225. 3. Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (GI Bill of Rights) P. L. 78-346. The Framing of Demobilization Plans Federal postwar economic planning can be said to have antedated America's entry into World War II. In 1939 President Roosevelt charged the National Resources Planning Board to coordinate defense and post-defense planning. The Board continued its work as the nation entered the war and for two years thereafter. Many believed that the cessation of hostilities would create serious social and economic disorganization. This "Depression Psychosis,"3 as John Kenneth Galbraith 1P. L. 76—783. 2P. L. 78-113. 3John Kenneth Galbraith, American Capitalism (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1952), Cahpter 6. lm“““ 162 had termed it, made it very important that the federal government carefully develOp postwar plans. The federal government, it was argued, could alleviate the public's concern about the future by establishing a special com- mittee to plan for the readjustment period. A confer- ence of responsible public officials appointed by the President could accomplish this task. The President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions acknowledges: The National Resources Planning Board was the first Federal agency to begin aggressive planning for World War II demgbilization and attendant problems of reconversion. Frederic Delano, chairman of the National Resources Planning Board, presented a preliminary plan to the President in 1942. It was Delano's desire that the President publicly announce the plan, for: Announcement of such a program will give assurance to young men interrupting their normal occupations or training that at the end of war service they will have substantial assistance in adjusting to and engaging upon their civil pursuits. The President replied that any publicity given at this time to future demobilization of men from the armed forces or industry would divert people's attention lPresident's Commission on Veterans' Pensions, The Historical Development of Veterans' Benefits in the United States, Staff Report No. 1, May 9, 1956, (Wash- ington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956), p. 52. 2Frederic Delano, letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, 163 from the winning of the war and would therefore be a mistake.1 There were ample reasons for the President not wishing to divert public attention from the war. The heavy sea losses in the Atlantic, the Japanese offensive in the Pacific--these and other military setbacks-- painted a gloomy picture of the war in 1942. If the tide of battle did not change, there would be no neces- a. .1 aim-‘11." I? .. I. sity for postwar planning! 2% The chief executive's views, however, were con- sonant with the NRPB relative to the necessity for planning for post-war readjustment. He judged that pre- liminary planning should proceed quietly and expressed his hope that a small group of people might . . . work on this in their spare time in order that they may be better prepared for an official study and report and recommendations later on. Thus, on July 6, 1942, the same day he formally rejected his uncle's proposal, President Roosevelt established the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel within the NRPB and appointed Dr. Floyd Reeves as its chairman. The President deemed Delano's plan as simply a reconversion plan. He had 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to Frederic Delano, July 6, 1942, OF lO92-D, FDRL. 21bid. 164 hOped for a more imaginative one. Thus, he rejected the one and commissioned the other, with Dr. Reeves in charge. Dr. Reeves was a logical choice to direct the Conference. In 1941 and 1942 he had urged publicly that the federal government commence plans for the postwar period. Speaking at the annual summer education colloquy at Stanford University, Dr. Reeves had emphasized the V necessity of postwar planning, predicting "an unemploy- I ment roll of 20,000,000 people after World War II ends, unless plans are made now to COpe with the problem."; Rather than working in their spare time, the Conference, consisting of twelve members (see Appendix B), met regularly during 1942-43. Although established under the aegis of the NRPB, the Conference worked as an in- dependent body. Its major purpose was to articulate plans for the rapid and orderly demobilization of per- sonnel from the armed services, consistent with the national security at the time. The stated assumption of the Conference was that unpreparedness for peace can bring calamity as great as unpreparedness for war. At the initial meeting of the Conference there was unanimity among the conferees as to the need for postwar planning.2 lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "NYA Director Says 20,000,000 May Be Jobless After War," Dallas Times-Herald, July 20, 1941. 2National Resources Planning Board, Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, 165 Because demobilization and readjustment involve many technical questions and detailed problems of man- agement, the Conference thought it desirable to formulate a set of objectives to guide its work. These included: 1. Military security. 2. Industrial security 3. Rapid and orderly military demobilization 4. Rapid and orderly industrial conversion 5. Full employment 6. Individual initiative and group effort.1 The size and character of the problem of postwar readjustment would be determined by the length of the war and the degree to which the United States became in- volved in it. The size of the problem can be indicated by comparing the manner in which individuals were occu- pied in time of peace as compared to time of war. Table 4 represents data on deployment of the labor force as of December, 1939 and December, 1940 and estimated deployment for December, 1943. The Table shows dramatically the changes that were anticipated at the end of four years of war and summary of first meeting, July 17, 1942, File 830.31, Record Group 187, National Archives. 1National Resources Planning Board, Report of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, titled Demobilization and Readjust- ment (Washington: Superintendent of Documents, 1943), p. 23. 166 Table 4.--Manpower estimates, December 1939, December, 1940, and December, 1943 (Millions).l Dec. Dec. Dec. 1939 1940 1943 Munitions industries 4.1 4.9 10.5 Essential nonagricultural industries 5.6 5.8 8.0 Agriculture 8.6 8.7 8.9 Other industries 26.5 26.9 23.4 Unemployed 8.7 7.1 1.0 Armed forces .4 .8 10.7 Total labor force plus armed forces 53.9 54.2 62.5 preparation for war. The munitions industry would have added over 6 million workers, well over a 100 per cent increase. Nonagricultural industries would have added approximately 2.4 million. Yet employment in other indus- tries would have diminished by approximately 3.1 million. The armed forces would have jumped to over 10 million and total labor force would have increased by 8.6 million persons. These changes and predicted changes demonstrated the extent to which Americans would be involved in the war. The conflict would involve a major integration and utilization of natural, economic and human resources. Americans were deeply concerned about demobiliza- tion and readjustment. Their trepidation was centered on 1Ibid., p. 11 (appears as Table l). 167 inflation, stagnation, and especially unemployment. It may well have been sharpened by their memories of the previous decade. Even though the Conference participants realized that employment opportunities would be reduced for a short time after the war, they believed that a high rate of employment would be possible because of withdrawal from the work force of such non-regular workers as the . - * WWW. g? :p-mr u l aged and women workers. To achieve this high employment ‘2 rate, however, would require careful planning before the conclusion of the war. The Optimism within the Confer- ence was generated by the further assumption that the federal government would foster a dynamic expansionary economy in the readjustment period. This economy would strive to utilize all of the nation's resources and productive capacity. It would seek the rapid conversion of war plants to peacetime use and the develOpment of private industry. In addition, further public works and services would, it was assumed, be necessary. A difficult question arose early in the delibera- tions: whether to recommend rapid discharge of servicemen at the conclusion of the war or to favor a "holding ac- tion" on their release until such time as they could be assimilated into the labor force. General Hines favored the latter action, stating, 168 In the long run it was both better socially and cheaper economically, to keep the men in service than to create a period of unemployment which would neces- sitate large expenditures for relief and welfare. Colonel Spaulding suggested that veterans receive a three— month furlough prior to being mustered out. This would give the veteran time to assess the employment market.2 A third alternative, and the one finally adopted, was advanced by Dr. Reeves and Leonard Outhwaite: discharge the men rapidly and make education available to ease their readjustment. Deadlocked on this important question, the Confer- ence consulted with the President in the hope of resolving its dilemma. President Roosevelt, however, was non- commital; he remained detached from the Conference and preserved his freedom to select among the options. He would receive the report of the Conference and determine his own course at the point of action. lFrank Hines, summary of first meeting, Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, July 17, 1942, File 830.31, Record Group 187, National Archives. (The "holding action" View was inserted into the presidential campaign of 1944. Presidential candidate Thomas Dewey, attributing the view to the Conference and not one of its members, misrepresented the final report of the Conference. While the opinion expressed by Hines was one option considered by the Conference, it was not the course finally adopted.) 2Francis Spaulding, Conference on Postwar Read- judgment . . , Summary of fifth meeting, September 10, 1942, RG 187, National Archives. 169 The Conference viewed the continued education of service personnel as essential. The members believed that demobilization afforded an Opportune and politically palatable instrument for getting it adopted and funded. Also, the President assumed responsibility to equalize educational opportunity by making benefits of the program available to men who had thought their education was completed. In a large sense, the war served as an ex- I ! g . cuse for giving a generation of young men and women a a" level of education which most of them would not have had if there had been no war. The Conference proposed to take a whole generation of peOple and uplift them through education. The Conference realized that the program of re- adjustment would be costly. However, it did not view cost as a paramount concern. A more important issue was the effectiveness with which personnel would be readjusted to civilian life. The central issue was the social sig- nificance of elevating the level of education for maximum numbers of men and women involved. The cost would be amply returned: Employment results in national income. Social secur- ity provisions stabilize purchasing power. Education. is of major importance because it will take a nation of educated citizens to know how to maintain the peace once military victory has been achieved. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, address delivered at the annual guidance conference, Purdue University, November 19, 1943. 170 Dr. Reeves and his colleagues were not concerned with reconversion alone, or with vocational education alone, but with seizing upon the rich opportunities to push a nation forward to a new height and breadth of education. The work of the Conference was a major social effort to give higher education to almost a whole gener- ation through the device of postwar readjustment. 'fi The group meetings of the Conference on Postwar Eff. mil-”Ann: 4 a Readjustment ended in November, 1942. Dr. Reeves directed the Conference secretary, Leonard Outhwaite, to draft a report. In its completed form the report presented a comprehensive readjustment plan for civilian and military personnel. Frank Sinclair notes: The national resources planning board . . ., presented a postwar manpower plan to President Roosevelt. It was devised by a committee headed by Dr. Floyd W. Reeves . . . It proposed mithods of orderly demobili- zation of the armed forces. In 1942 the NRPB had published a report which was to lead eventually to the Board's demise. Titled Security, Work, and Relief Policies,2 the report advocated a "cradle- to-the-grave" type of social welfare program. Some lFrank Sinclair, "Orderly Demobilization of U.S. Veterans, Plan" in GI Joe--What of His Future? (Milwaukee: Milwaukee Journal, 1944), p. 51. 2National Resources Planning Board, Security, Work, and Relief Policies, Report for 1943, Part 3, submitted to President Roosevelt, December 16, 1942. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943). 171 members of Congress took a dim view of the "grandiose" planning of the NRPB and other federal agencies.1 Sena- tor Robert Taft and Congressman Everett Dirksen, leading the Congressional dissenters, viewed the NRPB report as a typical New Deal Plan evolved by Brain Trusters, based on their spending and failing to realize that the best way to solve the demobilization problem was to help Ameri- 1 can industry. F Taft had been particularly critical of the New -"1 Deal. He believed that Americans had surrendered many individual rights and submitted temporarily to Fascist- like regulations. He believed that the President meant to embark upon a second New Deal, once hostilities had ceased. In 1943 Taft severely criticized the report: The New Deal platform . . . has been written in the reports of the National Resources Planning Board, the board of which Mr. Delano, the President's uncle, was chairman until it was abolished this spring by an indignant Congress. That report provides for the restoration of all the New Deal agencies--the WPA, the PWA, the CCC, the NYA, and all the others--except that all of them are to be federalized on a bigger and more elaborate scale. It provides Federal aid to education and the socialization of medicine. It provides for an increased Government regulation of everyone. . . Underlying the entire plan is the theory of unlimited Government spending . . . In all these vast reports of the National Resources Planning 1These individuals were successful in abolishing a number of federal agencies in 1942-43, including the NYA, CCC, WPA, FSA, and the NRPB. The NRPB was killed by the Independent Offices Appropriations Act, P.L. 90, June 26, 1943. The Act also stipulated that the Board's functions could not be transferred to any other agency. 172 Board there is not a word said as to how the programs are to be paid for. And these programs will cost more than 30,000,000,0001. . . It is the pattern for the totalitarian state. Realizing that the NRPB had fallen into disfavor with a significant number of Congressmen, President Roose- velt formed another study group to investigate the vast problem of demobilization. When the President approved the bill extending the Selective Service Act to young men 18 and 19 years of age on November 13, 1942, he stated: I am causing a study to be made by a committee of educators, under the auspices of the War and Navy Departments, for the taking of steps to enable the young men whose education has been interrupted to resume their schooling and afford equal opportunity for the training and education of young men of abil- ity after their service in the armed forces has come to an end. The committee3 of the War and Navy Departments was established only four months after the Reeves' com- mittee had begun its work. It was designated as the Armed Forces Committee on Post-War Educational Opportuni- ties for Service Personnel, and was headed by Brigadier General Frederick W. Osborn. The President directed the 1Robert A. Taft, "A 1944 Program for the Republi- cans," Saturday Evening Post, Vol. 216 (December 11, 1943), p. 50. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Press Release, November 13, 1942, OF 5182, FDRL. 3The Osborn Committee was originally titled the Committee on Post-War Educational Opportunities for Ser- vice Personnel. 173 Armed Forces Committee to correlate its activities with the related studies of the NRPB, which included the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Mili- tary Personnel,l which was already far advanced in its planning. The two committees correlated their activi- ties as the President had directed; two members of the Conference, Colonel Francis Spaulding and Lieutenant Commander Ralph Sentman, served as alternate chairman and alternate co-chairman of the Osborn committee. In addition to his position as alternate chairman, Spauld- ing served as director of studies. The President expected the Reeves and Osborn com- mittees to work in harmony. The two men--Reeves and Osborn--had worked together effectively as members of the President's Advisory Committee on Selective Service, established in 1940 to plan the procurement of manpower for national defense- Now they were to work on education. Thus, Dr. Reeves worked with and through three major groups, the NRPB, the Conference on Postwar Read- justment, and the Osborn committee to develop a national education policy. His role had been to pilot the Presi- dent's plan for providing equality of educational oppor- tunity. 1Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to General Osborn, February 19, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. 174 The appointment of the Osborn committee was an important develOpment in the enactment of a national policy toward education. Whereas the NRPB was a general policy recommending board, the Osborn committee was solely an educational policy group. The result was that the President's educational plan was extracted from the general social reconstructionist plan. The President had secretly hoped education, which he had to abandon in 1938-39, could win "on its own" under the new social conditions. The President's political skill had saved a vast educational plan. This critical plan, develOped by Reeves and others, was to affect the well- being of millions of young men and women. By mid 1943 the Allies had gained the offensive in the War. The President concluded that the time was prOpitious for directing public attention to the read- justment problem. Dr. Charles Merriam, vice-chairman of the NRPB, and several other members of the Board met with Presi- dent Roosevelt at the White House on June 30, 1943, to discuss the Conference report. Leonard Outhwaite, sec- retary of the Conference, related in a letter to Dr. Reeves what transpired at that meeting: I have just had a talk with Dr. Merriam and he reports as follows: They saw the President this afternoon. 175 At first the President seemed disinclined to approve the publication of a report at this time. Dr. Merriam then pointed out that the subjects dealt with were receiving attention in various quarters and were often discussed in the newspapers; they were also re- ceiving attention in various states; the states were wondering what the plans of the Federal Government might be; the report of the Osborn Committee was more or less dependent upon this report and it would be advisable if this more general report appeared first. Dr. Merriam also said that he had, without revealing the source of the suggestions, discussed the main provisions for veterans with a number of men who were in the services or who had been the services. He was able to report that these men had been very pleased by the recommendations. He then showed the President the galley of the intro- duction which summarized the provisions for veterans and some of the other provisions. At this point the President seemed very favorably impressed. It was Dr. Merriam's impression that the report might be published sometime within the month, but no final decision was taken. The President asked, however, that page proof be made ready as soon as possible. A copy of the galley was left with the President. Dr. Merriam said in closing that if the President desired further information or discussion on the report you could come on from Chicago for this pur- pose. The President then directed that the report be published immediately (a night job). In a letter to Dr. Reeves several weeks later, Outhwaite stated: . . . I am informed by Mrs. McNickle that we will have printed copies of the Report by Friday of this week. 1Leonard Outhwaite, letter to Dr. Reeves, June 30, 1943. 176 General Hines has had a talk with Steve Early [Presi- dential aide] about the Report. The White House has asked that the Report should still be regarded as secret and not discussed and I have notified all our members--in fact all who hold copies of the Report. Two days prior to the public release of the re- port of the Conference, on July 30, 1943, the President, in a radio address to the nation, first made public the plans for demobilization: Among many other things, we are today, laying plans for the return to civilian life of our gallant men and women in the armed services. They must not be demobilized into an environment of inflation and unemployment, to a place on a bread line, or on a corner selling apples. We must, this time, have plans ready, instead of waiting to do a hasty, in- efficient, and ill-considered job at the last mo- ment. The President's radio message immediately gener- ated a storm of protest by Republicans. Harrison Spangler, Republican National Committee Chairman, con- tended that the President was making a bold bid for the soldier vote in 1944. Mary Hornaday reports in the Christian Science Monitor: In the face of Republican charges that he was bidding for the soldier vote, President Roosevelt declared 1Leonard Outhwaite, letter to Dr. Reeves, July 19, 1943. 2Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Fireside Chat on the Progress of the War and Plans for Peace," in Samuel I. Rosenman's Victory and the Threshold of Peace, Published Papers and Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 326-36, Library of Con— gress. 177 today that recommendations for soldier demobilization in his Wednesday night speech came from an independent committee, headed by Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, of the National Resources Planning Board. . . . Mr. Roosevelt released the report of the . . . Board's committee on demobilization and readjustment, appointed in July, 1942. He took particular pains to point out that the committee was an independent body. He received the report three weeks ago and incorpora- ted its recommendations into his Wednesday night radio address. The President said he approved of the general objec- tives of the recommendations but would rely on Congress to work out the details as he has instructed it to do on other social security legislation. Asked point blank by a reporter if he would comment on Republican charges that he had launched a fourth- term campaign with his radio speech, the President recalled a comment from a member of his family who suggested that such charges would be made at this juncture even if he talked about the moon, since there would undoubtedly be spme young folks who would like to hear about the moon. The President made several important recommendations re- lating to the demobilization and readjustment of military personnel. These proposals were based on the report of the Conference; one of them was addressed to the provi- sion of educational opportunities for demobilized per- sonnel. Newsweek speculated that the Conference proposals would be highly acceptable to Congress: "For if ever a Presidential prOposal stood a chance of getting a warm welcome in Congress, this was it."2 lMary Hornaday, "Resources Group Drafted Roosevelt Soldier Plan," Christian Science Monitor, July 31, 1943, p. C—3o 2Newsweek, "FDR's Demobilization Plans Catch His Opponents Off Guard," August 9, 1943, p. 40. 178 The President requested that Dr. Reeves prepare to tour the country during the next year speaking on behalf of the Conference. Speaking on the National Broadcasting Company roundtable program on September 5, 1943, Dr. Reeves emphasized: When Johnny comes marching home, he is not going to want to come home to unemployment or relief or sell- ing apples on the street. He is going to want to come home to a job. Dr. Reeves warned against the encouragement of a "back to the land" movement for veterans after the war in an effort to facilitate the readjustment of veterans. Pointing out that in the past most nations encouraged demobilized men to return to the farms, Dr. Reeves stressed: Agriculture for many years has been an overmanned in- dustry. It would be disastrous if agriculture should be treated as a dumping ground for the industrial un- employed.2 On November 26, 1943, he urged: Free education should be made available to all veter- ans and some civilian workers at the close of the war . . . 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home," a radio discussion by S. H. Nerlove, Floyd Reeves, and Ralph Tyler, National Broadcasting Company, September 5, 1943. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, "Don't Send Vets to Farms, Educators Tell Conference," Chicago Daily News, April 11, 1944. 179 The present time is the time to plan post-war read- justment. It is a national problem that will tax all the resources of the people. It is so vast that the federal government must determine the policy and pro- vide the directive machinery . . . Three major purposes of such a program: equality of Opportunity for youths who could not afford to go to school; a needed increase in the number of educated persons; removal of thousands of youths from the labor market in time of stress. In a speech to the Illinois Adult Education Association on December 29, 1943, titled "Adult Educa- tion and Postwar America," Dr. Reeves predicted: The answer to the problem lies in reversing the trend in education. There must be more so-called liberal education and a different type of vocational educa- tion which will train people for service occupations in government, industry and distribution of goods. There is where adult education will have to operate-- to re-educate millions of adults now skilled in one kind of vacation for service in an entirely different vocation. Demobilization and Readjustment: The Conference's Prgposals for Veterans' Education Conference members decided that one of the best means of alleviating postwar problems would be the pro- vision of educational Opportunities to demobilized veterans and war workers. Large numbers of youth had 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, "Free Schooling for Vets Urged by Professor Reeves," Chicago Daily News, November 26, 1943. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, Address to Illinois Adult Education Association, Morrison Hotel, December 29, 1943. 180 drOpped out of school or college to enter the armed forces or to work in war industries and other occupations. Many of these individuals would desire to return to school when hostilities ceased. The Conference recognized the necessity of provid- ing for general, technical, and professional education. Proposal twelve is addressed to these services: For service men desiring to resume industrial or other employment, a program of vocational and job training designed to prepare them to reenter their old jobs or occupations or to find appropriate em- ployment in new ones. A program which will permit young ex-service men whose education on this account has been interrupted to re- sume their education and will afford equal opportunity for the education of other young ex-servicemen of ability following demobilization. The provision of training and educational opportuni- ties for men in foreign service and particularly for those who may for any reason be waiting for repatria- tion or demobilization. Proposal thirteen would encourage and enhance the voluntary education and training programs that were being offered by the United States Armed Forces Institute: The programs of the United States Armed Forces Insti- tute and other voluntary educational services of the armed forces should be continued and expanded as a necessary adjunct to the process of demobilization. It is recognized that these existing educational ser- vices will then be directed more toward preparing men for the resumption of civilian occupations than they are at present and that this will necessarily involve a redirection of their efforts and reorganization of their programs. The coordination of educational activities of the ious government agencies, such as Veterans Administration, fF'K7‘m-sm _,. J 181 United States Office of Education, Civil Service Commis- sion, and United States Employment Service were suggested in prOposals fourteen to seventeen: 14. Full use should be made of the records in service far the direction of educational programs and for the purpose of educational and vocational guidance. 15. As a policy, all training and educational programs r3: men in the armed forces prior to their release from active military duty should be carried out under the direction of the services, and the men during this period should be subject to such regulations, disci- plines, and controls as may seem necessary to the officers of these services. 16. Training and educational programs for those who have been demobilized should be subject to the direc— tion of civilian authority and carried out by the regularly constituted educational institutions, and during this period the men themselves should be free from the discipline and control of the armed services. 11. The training resources and particularly the op- portunities for observation and study that may be pro- vided in the country or region in which men find them- selves at the cessation of hostilities should be fully utilized. Foreign training is advocated not only be- cause it will prove useful to the men but also because men so trained will be an asset to the Nation. Cooperative programs for the utilization of these advantages and opportunities should be arrived at by agreement between the services and the authorities of the localities. Two of the most significant aspects of readjustment concerned education of veterans at the collegiate and professional level and of the non-collegiate level. The provision of such educational services to veterans would entail considerable advance planning by Federal and state governments and educational institutions. Standards of eligibility and the type of financial aid to students and institutions would need careful consideration. In 182 addition, administrative organization would be required to expedite the program. PrOposals eighteen to twenty were directed toward higher education: 18. Each institution of higher education participat- ing in the program should determine how many and what kind of demobilized personnel it can accommodate, the program which it can best offer, and the internal adjustments necessary. 19. The Federal Government should encourage national associations of educational institutions to develop a coordinated program for the education of demobilized service personnel. 20. The Federal Government should also undertake to provide such supplementary funds for the support of education as may be needed to make possible the pro- vision of a comprehensive educational program for demobilized service personnel. Proposals twenty-one through twenty-three deal with education at the non-collegiate level: 21. The Office of Education should make an inventory 5? the facilities for specialized secondary and voca- tional education which may be available for postwar training. 22. The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the United States Employment Service should provide information regarding the prospective employment requirements of postwar industries and the types of training best calculated to equip demobilized service men to avail themselves of these employment opportunities. 23.Industrial establishments which are to be restaffed for peacetime purposes should be encouraged to develop in-service training programs and to cooperate with educational institutions in developing apprenticeship programs. In admitting trainees, definite provision should be made for the inclusion of an apprOpriate quota of ex-service men. Proposals fifty to fifty-eight present the quali- fications and restrictions of education and training programs: 183 50. Training under the general plan should be Open t3 all ex-service men who are qualified for or who have received a discharge other than dishonorable from the armed services. '51. At any time during the 3-month period of "leave" or "furlough," or the ensuing 12 months during which men are eligible for unemployment compensation, they may elect to enter upon a program of training or edu- cation under this general plan. 52. When men enter upon such a course of training or Education, their rights to unemployment benefits would naturally cease. If, however, they enter upon courses of training or education or secure employment during the 3-month period when they are on leave or furlough, this should in no way prejudice their right to receive the payments under the plan for separation pay. 53, Under this plan, both general and vocational or professional education and training should be provided, but, vocational or professional training and education should not be provided in those fields or for those occupations in which the supply of trained personnel is already large enough to meet anticipated unemploy- ment demands. 54. Training and education under the general plan EHOuld begin at whatever level is appropriate for the individual concerned. The duration of the training period should not exceed one year. 55. A consulting service should be provided to ad- Vise, guide, and direct men to the courses of study appropriate to their individual needs. 56. The forms and methods of study and training under tfiis plan should be suited to the needs of those being demobilized from the services--that is to say, they are to be conducted as mature and adult undertakings even in cases where the subject matter is not of an advanced character, as judged by our usual academic standards. 51. Wherever necessary, special courses and methods of study should be developed in schools, colleges, and other institutions and agencies, including appren- ticeship and other types of training in business and industry. 58. Those eligible for training under this plan EHOuld receive free tuition and reasonable but modest allowances for maintenance of such character as will not serve to restrain them from accepting employment or induce them to continue in the education and train- ing program unless they have the serious intention to benefit from it. 184 The general education plan recommended by the Conference provided education and training benefits for one year. The one year would be a period to demonstrate to all of the veterans that they could and should con- tinue their education. This general plan, however, would not suffice for veterans who wished to pursue advanced education, or extended vocational education. With this in mind proposals fifty-nine to sixty-six were drafted: 59. The general educational plan should be supple- mented by provisions for more extended opportunities in the fields of higher education and of technical or professional education. 60. Any persons who are judged eligible for a dis- EHarge from the armed services other than dishonorable, and have served in the armed forces for at least 90 days, should be eligible to apply for such supplement- ary education. Selection from among those applying for supplementary education should be on a competitive basis. 61. The supplementary education should be made avail- able under a system of scholarships carrying with them reasonable maintenance allowances. 62. Scholarships should be administered in such a way as to encourage the education of men for technical and professional occupations in which there are likely to be shortages of adequately trained personnel. 63. No scholarships should be offered in fields in wfiich there is already an over-supply of trained per- sons or in which there is little likelihood of satis- factory and useful employment. 64. In order to provide equal Opportunities among EHOSe who are being discharged from the armed services at various times during the demobilization process, a number of scholarships in each field should be made available within determined time intervals, and the number of scholarships made available should be made proportional to the number of men being discharged from the services within these time intervals. 65. Any course of supplementary education provided to an individual should not exceed a 4-year period, including any education provided under the general educational plan. All courses of education should be accomplished within a period of 6 years following the termination of the present war, as declared. 185 66. Continuation of the student in his program even Efter selection has been made should depend upon his academic and general progress. Millions of workers who had been drawn into war- time employment had benefited by government education and training programs. Also millions of others had develOped special technical and vocational skills while in the armed forces. Because much of this education and train- ing was limited in scope, its application was judged to be not highly useful in peacetime. With advancing tech- nology and new occupational demands, old skills and narrow war-time skills would not be adequate. Proposal seventy-seven was an attempt to alleviate this situation: 11. The Federal Government should assist in providing an extension of educational services for workers dis- placed from employment because of demobilization and the termination of war contracts, to equip them for employment in peacetime industry. Training should be confined to occupations in which there is an unsup- plied demand for specially trained workers and to new trades and occupations developing in civilian industry. The Conference stressed that its plan was a na- tional minimum program of provision for the reestablish- xnent of servicemen and war workers in civilian life. States should be encouraged to supplement the federal Jbenefits. Proposals ninety and ninety-one are addressed to this minimum: 90. The program herein outlined is to be considered as the national minimum. Such benefits as may be ex- tended by the States should be considered in the light of provision by the Federal Government of this national minimum. 186 91. The Federal Government should assist the States 'EB the end that all activities be coordinated and that such actions as the States desire to take may be true additions to the Federal program rather than duplicate activities. Recognizing that many in the armed services would face serious problems of personal adjustment and to in- sure that maximum numbers of veterans become involved in education at the conclusion of the War, the Conference stressed the need for readjustment centers: 93. At the ports of debarkation that are also demobil- ization centers and at other demobilization centers, there should be created readjustment centers to pro- vide vocational and educational information and guidance for those being demobilized from the services. 94. Under such general conditions as the Army and the Navy may deem necessary, the personnel records and the records in the service should be made available for education, guidance, and placement purposes. 95. In the chief centers of war industry, readjustment EEnters should be established to assist civilian war workers. Such centers should have available the types of service which could be offered by government agencies. The final recommendation of the Conference calling for the establishment of an agency in the federal govern- ment to direct the program of retraining and readjustment of civilian and military personnel was implemented quickly. This agency, the Retraining and Re-employment .Administration, was established by executive order1 with Brigadier General Frank T. Hines placed in charge. 1Retraining and Re-employment Administration established by Executive Order No. 9427, February 24, 1944: 187 The Conference Report, the first comprehensive one of its kind, served as a guideline for state and local governments in developing readjustment programs. It not only launched a massive federal involvement, but a state one as well. Newsweek, referring to the com- prehensiveness of the report, stated: The most complete plan so far devised for cushioning the unavoidable shocks of demobilization and transi- tion to peace is a 96-point program submitted to the President by the National Resources Planning Board Conference on Postwir Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel. In 1943 Donald Davenport, Chief, Employment and Occupational Outlook Branch of the Bureau of Labor Sta- tistics, commented about Dr. Reeves' contribution to the Conference: Everyone seems highly pleased with the Report of the Committee. I am proud to have been permitted to play even a small role in it, and I want you to know that everyone who had anything to do with it acknowledges your leadership in carrying through a difficult task to a successful end. The Osborn Committee Report The report of the Armed Forces Committee,3 which ‘was limited entirely to the provision of educational lNewsweek, "Tremendous Skilled Labor Pool Faces De- :mobilization Planners," August 23, 1943, p. 57. 2Donald Davenport, Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, .August 29, 1943. 3Armed Forces Committee on Post-War Educational ()pportunities for Service Personnel, preliminary report of, .July 30, 1943. 188 opportunities for service personnel, was transmitted by the President to the Congress on October 27, 1943, accom- panied by a message from the President endorsing the major recommendations of the Committee. The educational provisions recommended by the Armed Services were almost identical to those of the Conference which Dr. Reeves had chaired. The Conference, of course, had also dealt with all aspects of demobiliza- tion and readjustment while the Armed Forces Committee dealt only with the educational provisions for service personnel. Both recommended the provisions of guidance services, educational benefits, and subsistance grants, and neither was restrictive as to the "interruption" concept. The Armed Forces Committee, however, exceeded the Conference in some of its recommendations. It, for ex- ample, specified the length of educational benefits and the amounts of financial aid that were to be provided: Specifically the Committee has concluded that the Federal Government should make it financially feasible for every man and woman who has served 6 months or more in the armed forces since September 16, 1940 (the date the Selective Service Act became effective) to have a maximum of 1 calendar year of education or training, beginning not later than 6 months after he leaves the service, if he wants it and is admitted to an approved educational institution. In addition, the Committee believes it should be made financially possible for a limited number of exceptionally able ex-service personnel (the number to be apportioned among the States according to the numbers of service personnel coming from these States) to carry on their 189 education for a period of l, 2, and in some instances as much as 3 additional years, provided-- 1. That completion of the courses they are taking will serve to meet recognized educational needs; 2. That by superior performance on a competitive basis they have demonstrated the likelihood that they will profit from these courses; and 3. That they continue to make satisfactory pro- gress in the courses and to give promise of future usefulness. During the first year after discharge the financial arrangements we have in mind would provide every ex- service person taking advantage of them as a full-time student, first, with his tuition and fees at an ap- proved institution of his choice to which he has secured admission; and second, a sum of $50 a month in the case of single persons, and $75 a month in the case of married men, with an allowance of $10 for each child, to meet living expenses while he or she is attending school. Ex-service personnel enrolling as part-time students under this plan should be allowed tuition and other school fees. For the limited number chosen, as a result of their special qualifications and accomplishments, to go ahead with additional years of education needed to bring the country back to a pre-war educational par, the financial arrangements would be the same, with the added provision of Federal loans to a maximum of $50 a month for those finding it impossible to meet their expenses with the grant provided. Both for students enrolled during their first year after discharge and for the smaller number selec- ted for advanced study, the Committee suggests that grants for maintenance should be paid directly to each student and that tuition fees should be paid to1 the institution in which the individual is enrolled. In addition, the Armed Forces Committee included in its Report an estimate of the number of service personnel that may wish to resume their education. The Report states that a 1Ibid., p. 9. 190 minimum of 1,000,000 may be expected to be interested in resuming interrupted courses of education or in applying to new educational courses abilities un- covered and develOped by their experience in the armed forces. The President Coordinates His Plan President Roosevelt began to plan his demobiliza- tion program for presentation to Congress. In order to assure Optimum correlation between the Reeves and Osborn Committees, the President wrote to Osborn: I hope to have a meeting with you and the chairman of the Conference which was set up the National 2 Resources Planning Board and which has reported. In a memorandum on the same day he informed Samuel I. Rosenman, special assistant: "We can tie this [Armed Forces Committee Report] in with the other report [Con- ference Report] and send them both to Congress when they return.3 On October 27, 1943, the President launched his program for veterans with a request to Congress for edu- cation benefits. His plea was based on the Conference report and the more recent report of the Armed Forces Committee. However, the President chose not to submit 1Ibid., p. 10. 2Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to General Osborn, August 4, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. 3Franklin D. Roosevelt, memorandum to Samuel I. Rosenman, August 4, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. 191 the Conference Report to Congress. He was cognizant that a demobilization plan prOposed by a general (Osborn) would be far more acceptable to Congress than one sub- mitted by a civilian. The appointment of the Osborn Committee appears to have been a stroke of administrative genius on the part of the President. Davis Ross states that Although the report of the PMC [Postwar Manpower Con- ference] contained educational recommendations that . . paralleled those of the special committee [Osborn], the President could cite the latter without incurring the certain resistence that would have 1 ensued if he had used the tarnished PMC's efforts. The aim of the proposals remained on target with the stigma cleverly removed. Congressional Action on the GI Bill S. 1767 was introduced on March 13, 1944, and sponsored by eighty-one senators. Senator Champ Clark of Missouri piloted the bill through the Senate. After a minimum discussion of the bill, it was passed by a vote of 50-0, with 46 senators not voting because of absenteeism. In the House, Congressman John Rankin moved that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole lDavis Bruce Ross, Preparing for Ulysses: The Federal Government and Nondisabled Wgrld War II Veterans, 1940-1946, Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, 1967, p. 125. 192 House on the State of the Union for a consideration of S. 1767. Congressman Rankin and Congresswoman Edith Rogers engineered the bill in the House. Concern over the bill centered on its cost, fed- eral control of education, and participating schools. Congressman Graham Barden, concerned over loss of state control of veterans' education, dissented with the Sen- ate version of the bill and instead introduced his own bill, H.R. 3846,1 which did not generate enough support for passage. Barden believed that S. 1767 would have invested the Veterans Administration with too much con- trol of veterans' education. He prOposed that the states and local communites administer the veterans' program. Congressman William Miller cited the efficacy of placing all veterans affairs under one head. He recalled that World War I veterans had been required to deal with four agencies to gain benefits. He believed the Barden bill unwisely gave to states the top leadership of veterans' education, thus establishing forty-eight dif- ferent educational programs. On May 18, 1944, the House passed the veterans' education bill. The vote was 388 in favor and none Opposing. 1H. R. 3846, introduced May 4, 1944, Seventy- eighth Congress, Second Session. 193 On June 12, 1944, a conference committee was es- tablished to adjust differences in the bill. A confer- ence report was agreed upon the same day. After the conference report was approved by both houses, the bill was sent to President Roosevelt, who signed it on June 22, 1944, to become Public Law 346 of the Seventy-eighth Congress. The "GI Bill of Rights" Public Law 346, Seventy-eighth Congress, entitled the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, was more commonly known as the "GI Bill of Rights." The educa— tional program of the Bill was administered by the Vet- erans Administration. One receiving benefits under the Bill must have had at least 90 days of active military or naval service exclusive of the time spent in the Army Specialized Training Program or the Navy College Training Program, or he must have been released from active duty because of service-connected disability. To qualify, the appli- cant must also have been discharged under conditions other than dishonorable. He must have initiated a course of study not later than two years after discharge, or termination of the war, whichever was later. Training must have been completed within seven years after the end of the war. 194 Under the provisions of the Bill the veteran could secure regular education or training in a program of his choice in any approved institution which would admit him, if it could be shown that his education was impeded, delayed, interrupted, or interfered with be- cause of his entrance into the service. Any individual under 25 years of age at the time he entered the service was assumed to have had his education interfered with and thus was eligible for benefits under the Act. While the GI Bill was viewed as an instrument for encouraging veterans to resume an interrupted educa- tion, the provisions and interpretation of the bill, in fact, attempted to move every GI, even those who never planned on college, to go to college. A veteran who had been in active service 90 days was entitled to one year of education or training. One who had served more than 90 days and had completed the first year of education satisfactorily (as determined by the institution) was entitled to continue for a period equal to the total period of his service up to a total of four calendar years. A veteran who had served 36 months would be entitled to one year plus 36 months, or a total of 48 months, the maximum permitted under the Act. The GI Bill also permitted veterans over 25 years of age whose education was not interrupted by military 195 service to enroll in a retraining program not to exceed one year. The program could be located in an educational institution or in industry. The benefits under the Act included tuition payments, cost of books, supplies, and equipment, not to exceed $500 for a school year. In addition to the above costs which were paid directly to the institution, the veteran was paid a subsistence allowance of $50 a month if without dependents, or $75 a month if with one or more dependents. Rexford Tugwell, aide to President Roosevelt at the time of passage of the GI Bill, reflects: The so-called GI Bill of Rights apparently originated with the National Resources Planning Board; but as long ago as 1942 Franklin had set up an educational commission to study and report. The final result, anyway, was a credit to all concerned. For almost a year before and for several months after passage of the GI Bill, Dr. Reeves traveled ex- tensively throughout the country to speak on behalf of the purposes to be served by the plan. He also was given a formal assignment to represent the President in develop- ing the detailed provisions of the bill itself. He re- fleets: The President asked me to be prepared to cover the country on a speaking tour during the next year and until the end of the war, whenever that might be. 1Rexford Tugwell, The Democratic Roosevelt (Garden City, 1957)! p0 6480 196 The White House made most of the arrangements for my speeches and conferences. In addition to my speeches and conferences, I was de- tailed by the Bureau of the Budget to the Office of the President to work with Senator Robert LaFollette, Chairman of a Sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, in drafting proposed legisla- tion to include all of the major recommendations of our Conference that would require Congressional action. Also, Mr. Roosevelt asked me to accept invitations from state legislative committees and governors to discuss those of our recommendations that would re- quire state action, and from heads of administrative agencies in the Federal Government, as requested. My records show that during the 18 months period from September, 1943, to February, 1945, I gave 177 addres- ses or held workshops or conferences with groups in 46 of the 48 states. Senator Robert [LaFollette] and I jointly prepared the Senate drafts of the GI Bill of Rights and of other bills in which the recommenda- tions of our Conference appeared. As Roosevelt had requested, I worked with LaFollette until legislation was enacted, and also worked frpm time to time with committee members of the House. Dr. Reeves reminisces about the early speaking engagements: My first addresses were delivered at Michigan State College [now Michigan State University] in the music auditorium. I was invited to speak by Dean of Men Mitchell. The President [Roosevelt] told me to expect invitations from groups--always regional groups-~such as chambers of commerce, universities, and state legislatures. At a major press seminar in Chicago, Dr. Reeves stated: 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, letter to Albert Lepawsky, Department of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, September 15, 1965. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, interview with Carl Pacacha, March 12, 1970. 197 In the past 18 months it has been my privilege to hold consultations with those in charge of the vocational rehabilitation or veterans' educational programs in about 100 institutions. I made visits to about 50 of these institutions and had an Opportunity to see the programs in operation. This group of institutions constitutes a cross-section of the colleges and universities of the nation. Geographically, the in- stitutions extend from the University of Utah in the West to institutions on the east coast, south to the Gulf of Mexico and north to Michigan. I have examined a fair cross-section of veterans programs as they now exist, because the 100 instutions care for something like 8 or 10 per cent of the total number of students in college and universities in this country.1 The Influence of the GI Bill on Adult Education The GI Bill is truly an adult education bill. Through the Bill, millions of service men and women en- rolled in higher education or specialty training. The Bill also provided for counseling, job placement, and retraining programs, enabling many to set a new course in their lives. Dr. Nathan M. Pusey, president of Harvard Univer- sity, says, In the crash period that followed World War II, our university enrollment of veterans ran as high as 9,000 in one year. . . a? able, mature, energetic, determined student body. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, "Educational Programs and the Veteran," Proceedings, Press Seminar on Demobiliza- tion and Veterans, Sponsored by the Public Administration Ciearing House, December 6-9, 1944, p. 65. 2Nathan M. Pusey, in "GI Bill Shows Profit for U.S." Detroit News, June 22, 1969, p. lO-G. 198 Dr. Edward B. Bunn, S. J., president of Georgetown. University, adds, I know of no direction in which government money has been spent more fruitfully for the training of future American citizens.1 The GI Bill was by far the most important of re- adjustment benefit laws. Not only did it provide the World War II veteran the basic traditional benefits granted to previous veterans, but added important social ones that helped to stimulate the economy against a possible postwar slump. The GI Bill contained four major benefits for veterans: 1. Title II--provided up to four years of college education (or similar training) at government expense, with the government paying for living allowances as well as costs of tuition, books, and fees. 2. Title III-provided Veterans Administration guar- anteed loans for the purpose of buying a home, farm, or business. 3. Title IV--provided special job placement services from the United States Employment Ser- Vice. 4. Title V --provided up to fifty-two weeks of un- employment insurance aE a maximum of twenty dollars a week. The education of returning veterans was viewed as a dual problem--enrolling as many veterans as possible into educational programs and "gearing-up" of American 1Edward B. Bunn, in "GI Bill Shows Profit for U.S.," Detroit News, June 22, 1969, p. lO-G. 2P. L. 78-346. 199 schools to meet the anticipated demands for services. Hudson, commenting on the dual problems states: Therein lies the challenge to educators--humanists and vocationists alike--to break the shackles of habit and precedent and to assume the full responsi- bility for offering education to the citizen wherever you may find him, and for creatin an intellectual climate in which he may function. A study of Figure I reveals the impact of the GI Bill on veterans' education and training for the first five years after its enactment. College enrollments reached the highest peak in December, 1947, almost 1,200,000. Enrollment in schools below college level had a rather steady increase, reaching almost 9 million in 1949. The number of on-farm trainees had gradually increased to about 300,000 in 1949. Job trainees reached a peak in January, 1947 but steadily declined for the next several years. Figure II shows the proportion of veterans of World War II in each state who entered training under the Bill. There was a variance of a low of from 28 per cent in the lowest state, New Jersey, to a high of 63 per cent in the highest state, Arkansas. A higher proportion of World War II veterans in the Southeastern states (see dotted area on map) were lRobert Hudson, "The Extension of the Campus," Adult Education Journal, Vol. 4 (April, 1945), p. 55. .uoduhoEumanmom momEOOa>nom Hops: mcfldflmua CH MOQEDZ com msmuoum> HH HMS came: «0 soapmNHHHQOEOQ .w .mfl mvma mva hwma wwma mwma vvma m n s o m n s o m b 2 o m h z o m n z o m n c \ \.\ \ \ \ lull. M‘x‘fi O \\ X \\\ \ x \ ooa \ x \ ..l -l. \ x \ com \) || .‘||\ ‘\.I\ i * \ \ ..,I-\ \u u... x. 8m x . . + \u 4 \z % x .I \ 006. x f .. K\oq omoaaoo soaom . Hoonom fi mucoppum xxxxxxx 2:. L mmocwmua Ehmmlco HmcowuoufiumcH IIIIIIII 4.8539 non loll?! com; mucoofim oumfloo IIIIII who 9:3 goo .mé "sum: .33 .m .nom is, no 33283 3582 8333554 so: emcee: up Joe opossusflpmom com: m.:wEw0H>Hom may Moons co “Homo“ EOHM wamu .CHGHMHu mam coaumoswm .H musmflm "muusom con? 201 .mvma .om Honao>oz an and ucoaumsnomom m.coEmOw>Hom man woman mcflcflmua wououcm no: on: oumuw sown cw mcmuouo> HH H03 OHHOS mo ucmu mom .m onsmflm .mmo .um .u>oo .m.o "sums .omaa .m .bom mHHMMHAN .mfiflHGUGNV m0 HOUMHH Imwcwficd Eoum caveman mm .uom uo>o Odo o.om ucmsmsnomom m .soEooC/uwm map a Honda mcflcwmuu one cow» “.5 om mops: flHHHHu Imosom do puOQOH Eoum :1 coxmu .H mm: “condom ..21.. mcfldflmna omnoucm ucoo mom .. Nomfi .. ”o. “~'MOHmH,.o o. . J ...... ................. s . .4...m§m.fl.a.l.....ul .......‘....Z.. s....’ .............. ...fiumm.m.mm o.mn ....su u ,.u. ...¢o .«qc mmH_uflumu 1.2.x. .x.m, . .4HHMW.JI .l.mona.a o’. . . o a . a I . .mmfl. . . ' .dsHVHO .. . s. I .. . ..1:...fi o.vv 34M N.wv mmz m.mm xdo m 202 in training than in any other major geographical area. Most of the veterans in this area were enrolled in schools below the collegiate level and in institutional on-farm training. The full impact of the GI Bill may never be known. Hines comments about the Bill: The law covering the rights and privileges of veterans is by all measures an outstanding piece of social' legislation. It provides the most extensive educa- tional Opportunitylon an adult level ever sponsored by any government. Rosenman, commenting upon the implications of the GI Bill for federal aid to education in other forms, adds: As a result of the widespread and successful use of Federal money for education by 61's, it is no longer considered unnatural for the Federal Government to give aid for education. I feel sure that without the break in long tradition which came with the GI Bill of Rights, the idea of Federal aid to education would never have progressed this far. Although the original GI Bill did not extend into the 1960's, the "Korean GI Bill" and "Cold War GI Bill" did that. A more current evaluation of the GI Bill shows that more than 10 million veterans have already taken 1Frank T. Hines, Press Seminar on Demobilization and Veterans, sponsored by the Public Administration Clearing House, Proceedings, Chicago, Illinois, December 6-9, 1944, p. 9. 2Samuel I. Rosenman, The Tide Turns (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 454. 203 advantage of the education and training provisions of the Bill (see Figure 3). The GI Bill was so popular that millions of vet- erans took advantage of its benefits. It provided for these adult education services: counseling and job placement, vocational education, higher education and correspondence study. The extent of the Bill can be seen in the following: As of November 30, 1963, a total of 7.8 million World War II veterans had completed training under the edu- cational benefits granted by the 1944 GI Bill [out of 18 million possible enrollees.] Eight million veterans were still in training.l The total cost from 1944- 1963 was 14.5 billions. Reporting on the impact of the GI Bill, Hugh McDonald states in the Detroit News: Among ex-servicemen who were educated under the GI Bill since 1944 are 441,000 engineers, 174,000 doctors and dentists, 156,000 scientists and 334,000 teachers.2 Senator Alan Cranston also states about the Bill's effect: The government has quadrupled returns on its invest- ment in GI education benefits from 11.3 million veterans who have participated since World War II. For example, a veteran with a college education today will earn $201,000 more in a lifetime than he would 1Congressional Quarterly Service, Congress and the Nation, 1945-1964. A Review of Government andiPOli- tics in the Postwar Years (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965), p. 1371. 2Hugh McDonald, "Student, Senator Share GI Bill Concern," Detroit News, February 22, 1970, p. lO-D. 204 .50 on sopflo omo ~GHH>HmH .Emumoum oco swap whoa Hows: momHOOO cosmudm Anson mom m usonmv mcmnouo> meow omsmoon mGEdHOO osu mo saw one can» mmoqm .omma zooms .aoflumoopm Hosmflm =.coflumosom mam Ucm smuouo> one: .omuoz ouomomum “mumDom Amosmmoosu :HV .muamocom Hmsoflumosom mo monks msoflnm> mCHNflHHuD msmnouo>lu.m madman a mmv.oa Nom.~ oom.h mo vao Hmuoa mmm.~ mam ooa.m «a mam Shoulosulco Odo nofluosuuso .moauconmm< vmm.v «mm oom.m om ova Ho>oa omoaaoo BOHOQ mHoosom mms.m GGH.H oom.~ mm «ma aoflumospm Hosmfis mo chHusuHumcH H03 HH was was HH Hos cmouom OHHOS cmoHOM nauoz wamuoe mama mcflcwmua coflumuflaflbmsom can coaumosom Hmcoflumoo> 205 if he had only a high school diploma. At the current rate of taxation, he will pay $37,975 on that addi- tional income, so that the government recovers its $4,680 investment many times over. Of greatest importance was the fact that the GI Bill pioneered the way for the later and current federal aid to education. Rosenman comments on the significance attached by President Roosevelt to the GI Bill: . . . he was . . . sure that even the most rabid Opponent of federal aid to education would not dare raise his voice against federal financial aid for educating GI's. He saw this proposal as a kind of entering wedge, feeling that if he could once get this piece of legislation on the books, it would be much easier thereafter to get more and more federal aid for all children in all states that could not provide decent educational facilities out of their own resources. Subsequent events have proven him right. The suc- cessful administration of the GI educational program has Broken down much of the resistance to federal aid. The Bill's immediate effect was to equalize edu- cational opportunity through a massive adult education effort. Just as the earlier Morrill Act and the more current community college movement tended to encourage a more heterogeneous collegiate population, the GI Bill is another attempt in the long struggle to provide edu- cation for all citizens, providing at the young adult lAlan Cranston, in Hugh McDonald, Ibid., p. lO-D. 2Samuel I. Rosenman, Working with Roosevelt (New York: Harper and Row, 1952), p. 395. 206 level a redress of inequalities in elementary, secondary, and higher education. The GI Bill included, for young adults, four of the programs recommended by the Advisory Committee on Education, with provisions for higher education, adult education (initially defined much more narrowly in the Advisory Committee Report), vocational education, and guidance and counseling. Convinced that federally assisted education was imperative to the nation's welfare, Dr. Reeves used the social crisis of war and its aftermath to promote his vision. The GI Bill was a significant development for education in particular. Through its liberal provisions, millions of Americans have gained an education that they normally would not have received. Although the Advisory Committee on Education had viewed adult education as a minor component, rather narrowly defined, the Conference on Postwar Readjustment considered adult education as a major enterprise, com- prehensively defined. The Conference viewed the continued education of adults as a major instrument for pushing the nation forward to a new level of equality of educa- tional opportunity. 207 Through the GI Bill, adult education became the precursor of the federal government entering the general field of education. The Bill opened the way for later proponents of federal aid to enact legislation. CHAPTER VII THREE DECADES ON THE AGENDA OF CONGRESS Attempts to secure federal aid to education have always required a long term effort. A proposal is first conceived, then widely debated and then placed on the agenda for legislative consideration. Once a proposal achieves the status of a bill, it may be en- acted promptly; it may be buried in any one of several committees; or it may stay on the agenda for decades. There was no federal aid program for general education before 1965 because proponents differed over the terms of the program. Eventual enactment of a program was not due to increased support for federal subventions, but a coalescing of proponents' views as to the terms of the aid. The influence of Dr. Reeves and his col- leagues can be seen in the vast array of educational bills and laws from 1938-1968. The Advisory Committee Report was a catalogue of proposals that received intermittent consideration over the next three decades. All of its recommendations were eventually enacted into one or more federal laws. The Report was a "blueprint" 208 209 for the future. A major purpose of this chapter is to observe how this blueprint was translated into public policy. In the GI Bill a massive package of legislation in support of adult education was enacted in 1944 while World War II was still being fought; in the 1950's and 1960's much of it was re-enacted and updated. Educational needs dramatized during the Depres- sion of the 1930's were seen and catalogues by the Advi- sory Committee. The proposals of the Advisory Committee dealt with 15 categories of concern: 1. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. General elementary and secondary education Adult education Higher education Textbooks and other instructional materials Vocational education Transportation of pupils Scholarships Teacher preparation School construction State departments of education Research Library services Work camps and experience Non-public schools Federally impacted areas. 210 Dr. David comments on the significance of the Advisory Committee Report in the early 1940's: During the War, I served in the Bureau of the Budget and for a time was somewhat involved in planning a postwar program of federal aid to education. The Committee Report was certainly a point of departure in that activity. Eventually, I suppose, it . . . had . . . much influence on the provisions written into the federal programs for education that were finally enacted. Persumably the influence arose mainly from the effect on professional thinking that resulted from the Committee Report and the various monographs as they were read and studied across the country and over the years by those most interested.1 The attempts to secure federal aid may be viewed as a continuum, beginning with Advisory Committee Report of 1938 and culminating with the Education Professions Development Act of 1967. Irving Kuenzli, president of the American Federation of Teachers, comments on these developments: Since this report [Advisory Committee Report] was presented to the President, bills have been intro- duced in Congress each year in an attempt to carry out the basic recommendations of the committee [Advi- sory Committee] . . . Since the Committee reported, the American Federation of Labor has consistently supported in Congress the adoption of a general pro- gram of federal aid. Dr. Floyd Reeves, Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee, has stated that the AFL has done more than any other group in the Nation to implement federal aid. 1Paul T. David, personal letter to Carl Pacacha, July 7, 1969. 2Irving Kuenzli, "Labor and Federal Aid to Educa- tion," a mimeographed resume of statements adopted at the annual conventions of the American Federation of Labor from 1938 to 1942 inclusive, 1942. 211 The primary purpose of the later federal aid was the reduction of inequalities of educational opportunity. This concern, stressed by the Advisory Committee, remained constant in the later bills. The Period 1940-1945 In 1940 the Congress established an Occupational Outlook Service in the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The service had been strongly recommended by the Advisory Committee in 1938. An occupational outlook service is needed that will provide a clear description of each of the major occupations or groups of minor occupations, the kind of life each occupation offers, the character of the preparation essential to enter it, the num- bers employed and the trend of employment, the num- ber of new employees taken each year, and the numbers of youth in each year of college or secondary school preparation who have the intention of entering the occupation if possible. Such information presented in its historical, geographical, and technological setting would go far toward providing individuals with a broad, objective and factual basis for making the choice of an occupation and deciding upon the kind of training to pursue . . . The Committee therefore recommends that the Bureau of Labor Statis- tics be assigned responsibility for carrying on an occupational outlook service. The establishment of the service had great signifi- cance for adult education as it has provided job forecasts for older youth and adults. With adequate information 1Advisory Committee on Education, Report of, op. cit., pp. 68-69. 212 about job prospects, individuals could plan wisely for the future. In his letter of transmittal in the first Occupational Outlook Handbook, Ewan Clague, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, credits this bill to the Advisory Committee: Young people, veterans, older workers who are choos- ing a career or course of training need current in- formation on employment trends and outlook in the various occupations. Recognizing this need, the Congress, on the recommendation of the Advisory Com- mittee on Education, provided for the establishment of an Occupational Outlook Service in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1940.1 Dr. Edmund deS. Brunner,former member of the Advisory Committee, reflects on this contribution: The creation of the Occupational Outlook Service which the late Dr. H. C. Taylor had strongly urged was a permanent contribution [of the Committee]. 2 I believe it is now in the Department of Labor . . . Dr. Reeves continued to write and speak publicly on the need for federal aid. Addressing the National Council of Education in Atlantic City in 1941, he reiter- ated the importance of adult education: . . . it falls upon adult education to do the job which for the most part, is not being done by secondary schools and other youth-serving agencies. lEwan Clague, letter to Maurice J. Tobin, Secre- tary of Labor in Occupational Outlook Handbook, Bulletin NO. 940, U.S. Department of Labor, in cooperation with The Veteran's Administration, September 1, 1948, p. II. 2Edmund deS. Brunner, personal letter to Carl Pacacha, June 14, 1969. 213 .'. . adult education should make vocational orien- tation a first order of business. No society can be regarded as healthy, and certainly no economy can be accepted as effective, which fails to induct its workers into the kind of work they are most clearly qualified to perform. This has always been true, but at no time in the nation's history has it been truer than it is today. In 1941 Senators Harrison and Thomas introduced a very broad support bill (S. 1313)2 drawn in keeping with the Advisory Committee recommendations. The bill, designed to assist states "in reducing inequalities of educational opportunity," would have provided 300 million dollars yearly for public schools, grades K-l4. One important provision of the bill would have given funds to assist states in providing school facilities in de- fense areas. Communities with populations swollen by increased military and defense workers were faced with severe problems in the education of youth and adults. S. 1313 would have provided federal support in eleven of the fifteen categories recommended by the Advisory Committee: general elementary and secondary education, adult education, vocational education, feder- ally impacted areas, library services, school construction, lFloyd Wesley Reeves, address to National Council of Education, Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 24, 1941. 2s. 1313, introduced April 7, 1941, 77th Congress, lst Session. 214 textbooks, student aid, state departments of education, research, and counseling and guidance. In his twenty-eight page testimony on S. 1313 be- fore the Senate Sub—committee on Education and Labor, Dr. Reeves stated: At the points that this bill diverts from the earlier bills I am convinced that this bill represents an im- provement and will come nearer to carrying out the recommendations of the Adivsory Committee than the earlier bills . . . this bill carries out many of the basic recommendations of the Committee. He added: The two reasons why federal aid is needed are, first to provide better school facilities for children and youth, and second, to provide related training in those vocational schools for the men who are working on the job in defense industries. The latter is one of the most important parts of the present defense training program. Although no additional data have been collected and no additional studies made by the Advisory Committee since 1938, there is no reason to believe that the conditions and needs portrayed by the Committee have changed for the better to any appreciable degree. For this reason, the findings and recommendations of the Advisory Committee are as applicable 50 the situ- ation today as they were three years ago. S. 1313 was favorably reported by the Committee on Education and Labor. However, no further action was taken on the bill as a whole. 1Floyd Wesley Reeves, Educational Finance Act of 1941, Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, 77th Congress, lst Session. (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 28-30L,pp. 96-124. 2 3 Ibid., p. 103 Ibid., p. 1060 215 The prOposal to provide funds for school construc- tion was taken out of the Harrison-Thomas bill, introduced as a separate bill, and enacted as the Lanham Act,1 popu- larly known as the "Federally Impacted Areas Act." The Lanham Act was an outgrowth of the Advisory Committee Report. Two years later Senator Thomas stated: ". . . a part of the recommendations of the [Advisory] Committee in regard to the defense areas has already become national policy."2 The concept of federally impacted areas has often been utilized by proponents of federal aid to keep a bill aloft. There is scarcely a Congressional district in America without such an area; almost every district bene- fits. Few Congressmen have risked the political conse- quences of voting against a bill containing this provision. The Lanham Act served as forerunner of the impacted area concept found in P.L. 815 and P.L. 874 passed in the early 1950's and in numerous other acts since then. Because of an acute teacher shortage due to the war effort, educational disparities were accentuated in 1942-43. The unfavorable trend of the war cast a pall over America in 1942. Many Americans were skeptical about the future. Contributing to these "dark days" lp.L. 77-137, June 20, 1941. 2Senator Elbert Thomas, Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 78th Congress, First Ses- sion, Vol. 89, No. 152 for October 13, 1943, p. 8398. 216 was the plight of American education, already weakened by a lengthy depression. Dr. Reeves, commenting on the need for change in education, stated to a Harvard Univer- sity audience: Concern for the future has led to a very wide-spread demand for changes in our secondary schools. It is not a patching and a pruning of defects that is being called for, but a root and branch reorientation of both curriculum and methods. He and Paul Hanna had written at almost the same time: One of our chief needs in the United States is to perfect an integrated system of free public education beginning with the nursery school and extending with- out break through junior college and to the various phases of adult education. Good programs at all levels are now in existence, but viewed as a whole our educational achievements have been markedly un- even. S. 637,3 introduced in 1943, proposed federal funds to assist the states "in reducing the inequalities of educational opportunities." It contained provisions in eight of the fifteen categories proposed by the Advi- sory Committee: general elementary and secondary educa- tion, adult education, higher education, vocational lFloyd Wesley Reeves, "Education for Today and Tomorrow," Inglis Lecture, Harvard University, February 11, 1942. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves and Paul R. Hanna, "Post-War Planning for Children and Youth," National Resources Development Report for 1942, NationaIFResources Planning anrd (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942), p. 126. 35. 637, introduced February 4, 1943, 78th Con- gress, lst Session. 217 education, teacher preparation and recruitment, guidance and counseling, textbooks, and library services. After extensive hearings, S. 637, also known as the Educational Finance Act of 1943, was the first general federal aid bill in fifty years to be debated and acted upon in the United States Senate. In his report on S. 637, Senator Lister Hill, co- sponsor of the measure, cited the Advisory Committee Report of 1938 as "the strongest possible case for federal aid to education."1 Senator Robert Taft added: In the National Resources Planning Board report for 1943 there is a long discussion recommending a very large extension of Federal aid to education. Inci- dentally, that report was written by Mr. Floyd W. Reeves, who is also chairman of the Advisory Commit- tee On Education, closely associated with the National Education Association, which I think prepared this bill. The Advisory Committee on Education certainly made the original recommendaEions for the extension of federal aid to education. Dr. Reeves, although in favor of S. 637, cited these deficiencies: My major objections to the Bill in its present form are that it provides no stimulation in the direction of securing a better organization of school districts, and it provides no guarantee that the funds will be lSenator Lister Hill, "Federal Assistance to the States in More Adequately Financing Public Education," Report to Accompany S. 637, Senate Committee on Education and Labor, 78th Congress, lst Session, Report No. 323, June 18, 1943, p. 12. 2Senator Robert Taft in Congressional Record, October 18, 1943, p. 8522. 218 distributed within the states in a manner that will reduce inequalities within states. Senator Hill commented on the linkage between the earlier bills (S. 419 and S. 1305) based on the Advisory Committee Report and S. 637: The bill now reported by the committee has been per- fected by careful study and deliberation not only in the present session of Congress but in previous ses- sions. Legislation somewhat similar in character has been considered by this committee in the Seventy- fifth Congress through S. 419, in the Seventy-sixth Congress through S. 1305, and in the Seventy—seventh Congress through 8. 1313. The need for such legis- lation has been widely discussed since 1937. Dr. Reeves maintained close ties with key members of Congress interested in federal subventions to educa- tion. As a member of the Committee on Rural Education, he alerted Congressmen to the need for resolving educa- tional problems as evidenced in this letter from Congress- man W. R. Poage of Texas: Your letter of the 20th relative to rural education. during the present emergency of our country has just reached my office. I can fully appreciate the prob- lems we are now facing relative to teacher shortage, farm labor shortage, transportation and other matters which affect rural education during war times, and I shall be happy to study your conference report, "The Rural Child in the War Emergency."3 lFloyd Wesley Reeves, memorandum to Charles W. Eliot, Director, National Resources Planning Board, March 6, 1943. 2Senator Lister Hill, op. cit., p. 13. 3Congressman W. R. Poage, letter to Dr. Reeves, November 23, 1942. 219 Dr. Reeves pressed especially for federal aid to adult education. In the National Resources Planning Board report for 1943, he wrote: Both general and vocational education should be avail- able to all adults and out-of school youth who wish to participate and who are qualified to benefit from additional education. Adult education should be pro- vided at all levels, from literacy education through education at college and university levels. Public schools, colleges, universities, and other public agencies should provide this program to the extent that the services offered by private agencies and institutions fail to meet the need. It is particu- larly important that out-of-school youth on public work programs, such as those which have been admin- istered during the past few years by the National Youth Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, receive training on the job and related edu- cation. No qualified out-of-school youth or adult should be barred by economic circumstances from participation in a needed program of adult education. This means that a large part of adult education must be free or available at low cost. Public libraries deserve support that will enable them adequately to fulfill their functions as major instruments of adult education. Thirty-five million Americans, most of whom reside in rural areas, have no library service. Correspondence study, forums, and educational broad- casting, both as part of the extension services of schools and colleges and under other auspices, should be expanded, along with other forms of adult educa- tion. Referring to the need for major overhaul in edu- cation in the 1940's, the New Republic cites the National Resources Planning Board Report: lFloyd Wesley Reeves, assisted by D. L. Harley, "Equal Access to Education," Ch. IX, National Resources Planning Board Report for 1943, National Resources De- velgpment, Part I. Post-War Plan and PrOgram (Washing- ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 194377 p. 70. 220 Such a view is taken by the NRPB report, in a section for which Dr. Floyd W. Reeves seems to be largely re- sponsible. It sees learning as a continuing process, that starts in the pre—school period and continues through adulthood.l Senator Hill, in his report accompanying S. 637, stated: The National Resources Planning Board, in its National Resources Planning Report for 1943 (Post-war Plan and Program) presented to the President a series of recom- mendations for post-war planning. The President has presented the report to Congress. Among the recom- mendations is one that calls for Federal assistance to the States in financing adequate public-school programs. 8. 637 was debated for four days, but, after the addition of an amendment requiring an equitable distribu- tion of state funds among segregated schools, it was re- committed as its Southern supporters deserted it. A House companion bill was never acted upon. Dr. Reeves continued to fight for federal aid to education. He was busily engaged in speaking engagements and writing on behalf of education. In October, 1943, he had sixteen speaking engagements.3 Because of the concern over demobilization of veterans and civilians at the close of World War II, 1New Republic, "Education Belongs to the People," (April 19, 1943), p. 530. 2Senator Lister Hill, op. cit., p. 12. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, personal file. S. 1946 and 221 1 was introduced in 1944 by Senator Walter George others To provide vocational training and retraining pro- grams for the occupational adjustment and readjust- ment of veterans returning from military service, workers demobilized from war production plants, and for other youth and for adults, that individuals and the Nation may attain economic stability and security, and to further extend the program of vocational edu- cation.2 This important adult education bill would have appropriated 97.5 million dollars annually and would have incorporated provisions in five of the fifteen categories recommended by the Advisory Committee: vocational educa- tion, adult education, teacher training, library services, and work experiences. In a letter to Paul T. David, formerly secretary to the Advisory Committee and then chief fiscal analyst in the Bureau of the Budget, Dr. Reeves commented about S. 1946: What we need most is aid to the states for both gen- eral and vocational education as recommended by the Advisory Committee on Education. If it is not in the cards to secure aid on that basis the next best plan would be to provide aid for both general and vocational education for grades seven through four- teen inclusive leaving it to the states to determine the extent to which the funds provided are used for vocational education. If legislation of that type cannot be obtained then I favor as many amendments Sec. 15. 1946, introduced on May 23, 1944, 78th Cong., Session. 2Ibid. 222 of the type you suggest as can be secured that are in the general direction of the desirable goal.1 In early 1944 legislators' attention was focused on the readjustment of veterans from the armed forces. The debate over the G. I. Bill pre-empted major consider- ation of other education bills. Although S. 1046 was not acted upon in either house of Congress, it was the precursor to the success- ful George-Barden Act of 1946, a similar vocational education bill. The defeat of S. 637 in 1944 was only temporary, and new federal aid legislation was introduced early in the next session of Congress. In 1945 several major bills were introduced. They included S. 181, known as the Education Finance Act of 19452 (and almost identical to s. 637) and s. 717,3 a broader, more expensive bill which also provided subventions for non-public schools. S. 181 authorized a permanent program (grades K-l4) of grants to needy states, beginning at 150 million dollars and going to 250 million in the third and suc- ceeding years. The purpose of the bill was to establish lFloyd Wesley Reeves, letter to Paul T. David, August 10, 1944. 2S. 181, introduced January 10, 1945, 79th Con- gress, lst Session. 38. 717, introduced March 8, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. 223 a minimum foundation program of education in all states. Senator Hill states about S. 181: When the new Congress convenes, it seems to me its first days should be distinguished by enactment of legislation as embodied in Senate bill 181. There is no reason for delay with further meetings. We have the facts. We know the need. We must have action.1 The bill would have provided funds for financing state systems of general elementary and secondary education, adult education, higher education, non-public schools, the hiring of additional teachers, and funds for teachers' salaries, library services, textbooks, guidance and counseling, and state departments of education (nine of the fifteen Advisory Committee categories). However, S. 181 was never acted upon. S. 717 authorized funds "to equalize educational Opportunities" in public and non-public schools. It would have provided 300 million dollars yearly for gen- eral elementary, secondary, and adult education, non- public schools, and teacher training; 100 million yearly for transportation, library facilities, textbooks, and instructional media; and 150 million yearly for assist- ance to needy students, ages 16-31 (the Bill embodied provisions in eight of the fifteen Advisory Committee categories). S. 717 also was not acted upon. lSenator Lister Hill, as quoted in Robert Bendiner, Obstacle Course on Capitol Hill (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964f, p. 81. 224 In testimony before the Senate Committee on Edu- cation and Labor, Dr. Reeves, acting as chairman of the Commission on Education Reconstruction of the AFT, stated: I have mentioned the reports of the Advisory Commit- tee on Education and the American Youth Commission because I served as chairman of the Advisory Commit- tee and as Director of the Youth Commission, and I believe that S. 717, if enacted, would provide a program of aid to education of children and youth that would be in general accord with the unanimous recommendations of both those groups . . . He added: We believe that the bill is sound in principle. We believe, however, that as a result of this hearing the bill can be improved in some of its details . . . we are happy to have an Opportunity to endorse this bill in principle. In a New York Times article dated August 20, 1946, Dr. Reeves reiterated: We should permit nothing to stand in the way of ob- taining legislation that would make possible the achievement in the field of education of America's dream, equality of Opportunity for all children, youth and adults, without regard to race, color, or creed.3 lFloyd Wesley Reeves, Hearings Before the Commit— tee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, 79th Congress, lst Session (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945), April 11-12, p. 461. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, ibid., p. 462. 3Floyd Wesley Reeves, "U. S. Education Aid Is Called Urgent," New York Times, August 20, 1946. 225 A significant development occurred in the sub- committee appointed to reconcile S. 181 and S. 717. Senator Robert Taft, a vigorous opponent of the 1943 federal aid bill, switched positions and added his name as co-sponsor of S. 181. Taft changed his position be- cause of testimony (some of which was presented by Dr. Reeves) given to the Senate committee indicating that in many states children and adults were not recieving basic education even though some poor states were spending a higher proportion of their tax resources on education than some of the wealthier states. He stated: Four years ago I Opposed the bill on this subject; but in the course of that debate it became so appar- ent that many children in the United States were left without education, and then it became apparent upon further study, that this was not the fault, necessar- ily, of the states where they lived, but rather the financial abilities of the states, that I could see no way of meeting the condition which now exists re- garding illiteracy in the United States and lack of education in the United States without some federal assistance, particularly for those states which are considered below the average wealth of the United States . . . I quite agree that the primary obliga- tion to educating children is in the states and local communities. Under our constitutional form of govern- ment, they have the primary obligation. I think the federal obligation is a secondary one. It is one to back up the states, if I may use that expression, where it is necessary to back up the states. . . . I have not been able to find that the Congress of the United States, when appealed to gn.a major question, is prepared to refuse to act. 1Senator Robert Taft, Federal Role in Eduggtion (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1967), p. 21. 226 Two other unsuccessful federal aid bills were introduced in 1945. S. 619,1 containing titles in four of the fifteen Advisory Committee categories and almost identical to S. 1946, would have provided vocational edu- cation and retraining for Older youth and adults, in- cluding persons demobilized from essential war work or from the armed forces. In addition, the bill would have provided funds for teacher training and work eXperience programs. H. R. 30022 came very close to covering all of the major categories of the Advisory Committee (twelve of fifteen): general elementary and secondary education, adult education, non-public schools, teachers' salaries, libraries, student aid for needy persons 14-20 years of age, guidance and counseling, textbooks, vocational edu- cation, teacher training, state departments, research, and school construction. Neither S. 619 nor H.R. 3002 was acted upon. The prOposals of the Advisory Committee were ob- scured during the war and its aftermath. Only remnants (some very important ones) could be attended to during the 1940's. 1S. 619, introduced February 26, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. 2H. R. 3002, introduced April 23, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. 227 Postwar Struggle for Federal Aid, 1946-1961 The postwar years in America were marked by a series of social forces which had a great impact on edu- cation. Any one of the forces would have produced anxiety and concern. Combined they constituted an ex- plosive admixture. These included the unanticipated in- crease in the birth rate, the knowledge explosion, segregation, poverty, and parochial schools.1 The attempt to secure federal aid for vocational education was successful in 1946. S. 619 was reintro- duced and enacted as the George-Barden Act.2 It signifi- cantly expanded the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917, providing grants to states for vocational education in agriculture, home economics, trades and industry, the distributive occupations, fishery trades, health occupations and highly skilled technicians. Provisions were also made for teacher training and salaries, and guidance and counseling. All of its provisions would have been appli- cable to older youth or adults. The Advisory Committee, originally charged with studying vocational education and determining the need for federal aid, included all of these programs of vo- cational education, except fishery trades and health occupations. lStephen Bailey and Edith Mosher. ESEA, The Of- fice Of Education Administers a Law (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968), pp. 4-10. 2p.L. 79-586, August 1, 1946. 228 Because millions of veterans and civilians were demobilized at the conclusion of World War II, adult education gained added significance in America. Dr. Reeves underscored the need for educational services for adults in a speech to the Governors' Conference on Rural Education: There is no aspect of education more important today than the education of adults. Our present genera- tion of adults has not been prepared for living in an atomic age . . . Adult Americans of this genera- tion must prepare themselves through education to carry the grave responiibilities that unsought have been placed upon them. Speaking in St. Paul, Minnesota, Dr. Reeves emphasized: Never has there been a time when Federal aid for education was so badly needed as it is today. We must not let the children down through our failure to agree upon a wise program of action. We should permit nothing to stand in the way of securing legislation that would make possible the achieve- ment in the field of education of America's dream-- equality of Opportunity for all children, youth and adults, without regard to race, color and creed. S. 2207,3 also introduced in 1946, proposed fed- eral funds beginning at 150 million dollars the first lFloyd Wesley Reeves, Address to Governors' Con- ference on Rural Education, January 19, 1946, Springfield, Illinois. 2Floyd Wesley Reeves, Address delivered before annual convention of AFT at St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 19, 1946. 3S. 2207, introduced May 16, 1946, 79th Congress, Second Session. 229 year and 300 million dollars thereafter. Sponsors of S. 2207 believed that the small initial expenditure, if enacted, could serve as a base from which later incre- ments could be made. This reasoning was consonant with that of the Advisory Committee, which also had recom- mended a small initial outlay of funds. S. 2207 would have provided for general elementary and secondary edu- cation, adult education, teachers' salaries, library services, textbooks, counseling and guidance, non-public schools, and state departments (eight of the fifteen Ad- visory Committee programs). The bill was not acted upon. In 1946 Senator James Murray introduced one of the most ambitious federal aid bills ever in Congress. 5. 2499,1 known as the Education DevelOpment Act of 1947, would have provided for a ten-year program of federal aid to education, beginning with 500 million dollars the first year and increasing to one billion dollars in the tenth year. It specified programs of general elementary and secondary education, adult education, higher educa- tion, non-public schools, vocational education, library services, student aid, school construction, research, counseling and guidance, textbooks, and state departments (twelve of fifteen Advisory Committee programs). Funds 1S. 2499, introduced July 31, 1946, 79th Congress, 2nd Session. 230 would have been allocated on the basis of financial need of each state. Senator Murray commented on his bill: In the past we have studied the problem of Federal aid to education on a piecemeal basis. The Education DevelOpment Bill, on the other hand, approaches the problem as a whole. Both S. 2499 and S. 2207 failed because of po- litical overtones--the Republican 80th Congress was re- luctant to present President Truman with an attractive school package, and a bitter religious controversy was beginning. In 1947 education reached a crisis--teachers were leaving the profession in record numbers because of low salaries--yet school enrollments were steadily rising. Many were concerned with not only the current deteriora- tion of education, but future prospects as well. The NEA, generally recognized as the "teachers' lobby," es- timated that the average teacher's salary in 1957-58 would be about $2,250, and that there would be about 450,000 more students but only about 7,000 more teachers.2 S. 472,3referred to as the Education Finance Act of 1948, would have authorized 300 million dollars yearly 1James E. Murray, Statement released to the press at noon, Wednesday, July 31, 1946. 2Congressional Quarterly Service, The Federal Role in Education (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1968), p. 18. 3s. 472, introduced January 31, 1947, 80th Con— gress, lst Session. 231 to assist states "in reducing the inequalities of educa- tional opportunities." Its purpose was to establish a minimum foundation program of education and required states to spend at least one per cent of their income on education. The bill would have provided for aid in five of the fifteen recommended categories of the Advi- sory Committee: general elementary and secondary educa- tion, non-public schools, guidance and counseling, text- books, and library services. The bill was reported out of committee and approved by the Senate on March 23, 1948. This bill achieved another milestone in the pro- gress of educational legislation. It was the first general education bill ever passed by the United States Senate. However, the bill was "pigeon-holed" in the House Committee on Education and Labor. Robert Bendiner states that the bill died "because a lackadaisical com- mittee just didn't feel up to either working out a com- promise or passing a bill along."l In 1949 Democrats were optimistic about federal aid; the precedent setting 8. 472 had achieved the dis- tinction of clearing the Senate vote. This, plus the recently-won majority in Congress was cause for Optimism. In addition, the war had dramatized the need for federal aid. The great number of rejections from military lRobert Bendiner, Op. cit., p. 90. 232 service because of illiteracy and the post-war teacher and classroom shortages were ample proof that the federal government should act. The emergent technological age also contributed to this Optimism. S. 246, known as the Education Finance Act of 1949, proposed funds to assist states "in reducing the inequalities of educational Opportunities." The bill would have authorized 300 million yearly for programs of general elementary and secondary education, non-public schools, textbooks, guidance and counseling, and library services (five of the fifteen recommended programs of the Advisory Committee). However, the House proved an obstacle. After Senate approval of the bill, Congressman Graham Barden, chairman of a sub-committee of the House Committee on Education and Labor, opposed the bill and instead intro- duced his own, H. R. 4643,1 referred to as the Public School Assistance Act of 1949. The Barden bill proposed 300 million dollars yearly for public elementary and secondary education, including provisions for guidance and counseling, textbooks, and library services (four of the fifteen Advisory Committee programs). Congressman John Lesinski, chairman of the full Committee on Education and Labor in the House, was 1H. R. 4643, introduced May 11, 1949, 31st Congress, lst Session. 233 enraged when he received the Barden bill from sub- committee. He, a devout Roman Catholic, believed it was an "anti-Catholic" bill and refused to report it from committee. Because Catholic groups violently attacked the Barden bill, it remained lodged in the full House committee. Barden and Lesinski had been brought into Open conflict over religion, one of three obstacles (religion, race and federal control) that had persistently plagued educational legislation. The religion question would require resolution before a broad program of federal subventions was realized . The 1940's involved valiant efforts to secure general support for education. However, these attempts were beaten down by two critical issues, race and re- ligion. Both issues had received attention of the Advisory Committee on Education. The thrust of federal aid proposals in the decade 1950-60 turned from general support for elementary, secondary, higher, and adult education to support for school construction. There were several reasons for this shift in emphasis. Metropolitanism, or exodus of city dwellers to suburbs, created a greater need for school buildings in the outlying areas. Also there had been a twenty-year construction lag between 1930—1950 due to depression and war. The post-war tide of children could 234 not be accommodated unless action were taken. This legis- lation, generally supported by the same groups that sup- ported general federal aid, was given top priority consideration. It was strongly believed by most of them, however, that construction funds should not be a substi- tute for general aid. Earl McGrath, then the United States Commissioner of Education, stated: I do not regard financial aid for school construction as in any sense a substitute for Federal financial aid for current expenses, particularly since such aid will be essential in attracting additional teach- ers to man the additional classrooms. Both types of Federal financial assistance to the states are desperately needed. The House Education and Labor Committee in 1950 resurrected the bill passed by the Senate in 1949 (S. 246). However, it was rejected by a single vote in com- mittee, ostensibly because of the heated church-state question, and an equalization principle (opposed by wealthier states) which would have given poorer states more funds. Bendiner comments on the unsuccessful attempts to gain federal aid in the post—war period: So it was that in the six years that followed the war, when the need was the most acute, at least thirty bills to provide general Federal aid to the schools were futilely introduced in six sessions of lEarl J. McGrath, Federal Aid to School Con- struction, House Committee on Education and Labor, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, 1950, p. 146. 235 three Congresses. Committees of both Houses held five separate hearings, at which an estimated 400 witnesses testified over periods totaling at least two solid months, their testimony running to some- thing like 4,000 printed pages. Two of those bills were overwhelmingly passed by the United States Senate. Yet at no time did the House Committee in charge of such measures see fit to allow the House of Representatives itself to vote on a single one of them. The 1950's was a time of conflict among the pro- ponents of various kinds of school bills. During the early and mid-fifties, the proposals of the Advisory Committee were temporarily shelved in favor of attempts to secure aid for school construction. It would not be until the spectacular Russian space achievement in 1957-- Sputnik--that educators and legislators would return to a consideration of the "defense oriented" Advisory Com- mittee prOposals. The new stress on aid to construction was endorsed by the newly-elected Eisenhower administration as they took office in 1953, partly out of a desire to avoid the religious issue, but largely out of concern for the "baby boom" and suburban sprawl of the 1950's. President Eisenhower proposed a school construction program in 1955 that many education groups called unsubstantial and re- strictive. lBendiner, op. cit., pp. 95-96. 236 The legislative prospects for federal aid were more bleak after the historic ruling of the Supreme Court (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas).1 A determined minority had still another reason to oppose federal aid; the high court's ruling would facilitate the integration of schools, which they opposed. The arena for the conflict shifted to the House of Representatives. The Senate, until this time the leader in seeking federal aid for education, abandoned the stage to the House because of the effect the Supreme Court decision had on Southern senators, many of whom believed that federal aid would force integration of the races. For the first time since 1934 the House Committee on Education and Labor approved a federal aid bill focused principally on elementary and secondary education. 1Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas 347 U.S. 483. During the turbulent reconstruction period following the Civil War, the Southern states generally established separate schools for Negroes and for whites. Negroes challenged this principle in the courts claiming that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extended equal protection to the laws to all its people. In 1896 the Supreme Court decided the issue for the time being. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson it maintained that segregated schools were permissable providing that the separate schools for Negroes were equally as good as the public schools provided for white children. In 1954 the Supreme Court overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas) by stating that segregation in public schools denies one equal protection under the laws. Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equality of educational opportunity. 237 Reported from the committee and debated in 1956, the Kelly bill (H. R. 7535)1 generated the first formal House floor debate on a federal aid bill for general elementary and secondary education in this century. H. R. 7535 would have required matching funds for public school construction. Support for the Kelly bill disintegrated on the House floor. A contributing factor to the demise of this bill was an accepted amendment offered by Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, which would have denied federal aid to states which failed to comply with desegregation. A secondary factor was opposition by Republicans who took advantage of the Powell amendment. Substantial debate over the Powell amendment occurred before the bill came to a vote. The NAACP supported the amendment while the NBA and AFL-CIO and the President Opposed it. The oppo- sition contended that the issues of segregation and school aid should be kept separate. Current Educational Legislation The Eisenhower position toward federal aid was revised in 1958. Although the administration recognized the need for school construction grants, it believed that local and state construction programs were remedying 1H. R. 7535, introduced July 21, 1955, 84th Congress, lst Session. 238 the situation. The launching of Sputnik by the Soviets in October 1957 dramatized to many the need to focus on other educational needs and deficiencies. The "American Dream," earlier threatened internally by depression, was threatened externally by Sputnik. Sputnik generated a new interest, a revival, of the Advisory Committee pro- posals of 1938. The immediate effect of this spectacular Soviet space achievement was the passage of the historic National Defense Education Act.1 Passage of NDEA followed in the wake of warnings that America was falling behind the Soviets in the scientific field. The Joint Atomic Energy Committee had stated that its program was in jeopardy unless something drastic was done immediately to expand educational programs for engineers and scien- tists. The committee contended that much of its poten- tial scientific and engineering manpower was wasted through the failure of qualified high school graduates to pursue higher education and of college students to finish their education. NDEA provided federal subventions for multifarious programs in general elementary and secondary education, including science education, mathematics.and foreign lan- guages. In essence the NDEA prOposals were a restatement of many of the Advisory Committee proposals under the 1P. L. 85-864. 239 banner of defense: student loans, non-public schools, teacher training, counseling and guidance, vocational' education, adult education, higher education, state de- partments and research (ten of the fifteen Advisory Com- mittee programs). An important aspect of the fellowship program is the upgrading of present teachers, not teachers-to-be. NDEA was also significant as Congress stated for the first time that it was a goal of national policy that no student of ability will be denied an Op- portunity for higher education because of financial need. It also demonstrated that federal aid to education is more likely to occur when the legislation has as its pur- pose the alleviation of a social crisis. In 1960 the House in a full floor vote passed H. R. 10128,1 a school aid bill for construction only. It marked the first time that a federal aid bill for elementary and secondary education had passed the House since the Blair bill of 1885. After approval of the bill by the Senate, the House Rules Committee refused to per- mit the appointment of conferees to a conference commit- tee, ostensibly because of some members' Opposition to the Powell anti-segregation amendment. PrOponents of federal aid were unable to generate enough pressure to 1H. R. 10128, introduced February 2, 1960, 86th Congress, 2nd Session. 240 force final action on the bill. Bendiner comments about the failure of H. R. 10128: And on September 1 Congress adjourned, a week before a record-breaking 37,600,000 children returned to school short of classrooms, classrooms short of teachers, and teachers short of money. After 1960 the emphasis in Congress shifted from aid proposals for teacher's salaries and school construc- tion to funds for the broad spectrum of education, in- cluding elementary, secondary, higher and adult education. This shift of emphasis was in the direction of the Advi- sory Committee proposals. Strongly supported by Presi- dent Kennedy, S. 10212 passed in the Senate on May 25, 1961. The bill, an omnibus school and college aid pro- posal, would have authorized grants for the operation, maintenance, and construction of public schools and col- lege classrooms, and for teachers' salaries. After pass- ing the Senate, the bill was killed by the House Rules Committee. The bill was a victim of several factors: determined and well-organized opposition of Republicans and Southern Democrats, the religious and racial contro- versies that had historically impeded school bills, and the absence of consistent, coordinated leadership. Senator 1Bendiner, op. cit., p. 171. 2S. 1021, introduced February 20, 1961, 87th Congress, lst Session. 241 Barry Goldwater, a strong opponent of federal aid, ex- pressed his views: It is my strong belief that most of these prOposals [education bills], including the bill, S. 1021, sponsored by the administration, are both unneces- sary and unsound. I am convinced that they represent another long step in the direction of reducing our state and local governments to mere subordinate, administrative divisions of the central government in Washington. I wish to make clear that I do not believe that we have an educational problem which requires anylform of Federal grant-in-aid program to the States. So bitter was the fight over this bill that it appeared that federal aid to education was dead for many years to come. After reviewing the recent attempts to secure federal aid for general elementary and secondary educa- tion, Bendiner writing in 1964 commented that only a miraculous set of circumstances could produce such an occurrence: From all that has gone before it can be said that the spontaneous arrangement of circumstances is possible--but only in the same way that it is pos- sible for pigments thrown at a canvas to shape them- selves into the 'Last Supper.‘ That is, it may happen, but it is not a good bet and to have to count on it for the success of legislation approaches the preposterous. lSenator Barry Goldwater, United States Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Public School Assistance Act of 1961, 87th Congress, lst Session, pp. 538-39. 2Bendiner, Op. cit., p. 192. 242 While the previous successful legislation of the 1960's had been welcomed by proponents of federal aid, there remained gloom as to the probable passage of aid for general education. Frank Munger and Richard Fenno had concluded in 1961: For close to a century the federal aid story has run on without a break, rather in the manner of a daytime television serial. There is no particular reason to assume the end is now in sight, and some good reasons to suspect that federal aid will not be approved with- in the immediate future. The Manpower DevelOpment and Training Act of 19622 represented a significant adult education develop- ment. The Act evolved from the critical need for trained personnel in vital occupational categories, including professional, scientific, technical, and apprenticeship. It also provides for adult education, testing, counsel- ing and guidance, work eXperiences, training allowances, research, and programs of retraining and skill develop- ment for workers displaced by technology. MDTA included six of the fifteen Advisory Committee programs. 3 The Vocational Education Act of 1963 also con- tains important provisions for adult education, such as: 1Frank J. Munger and Richard F. Fenno, Jr., National Politics and Federal Aid toEducation (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, I961), p. I70. 29. L. 87-415, March 15, 1962. 3p. L. 88-210, December 18, 1963. 243 . . . to maintain, extend and improve existing pro- grams of vocational education, to develOp new programs of vocational education . . . so that persons of all ages . . . those in high school, those who have com- pleted or discontinued their formal education, and are preparing to enter the labor market, those who have already entered the labor market but need to upgrade their skills or learn new ones . . . will have ready access to vocational training or retrain- ing which is of high quality.1 Funds are also provided for construction of area voca- tional school facilities, and corollary services such as teacher training, program evaluation and experimental programs, work-study, and school construction (seven of the fifteen Advisory Committee programs). The Library<§ervices and Construction Act of 19632 provides annual grants to improve library services in areas lacking these services, including construction, salaries, books, and instructional materials. The Advi- sory Committee had recommended federal funds for the improvement of library services. Stephan Bailey and Edith Mosher state that the Library Services and Construction Act (and other legis- lation of the 1960's) helped to break . . . the logjam of educational measures that had piled up for nearly two decades. Educational re- formers, both in and out of government, tasted suc- cess; and success begets success. If elementary and secondary education was still caught in an eddy, other big timber had successfully been pried loose 1Ibid. 2p. L. 88-269, February 11, 1964. 244 and was coursing down the mainstream of legislative enactment and administrative implementation. The major purpose of the Economic Opportunity Act of 19642 is to eliminate the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty in America. The major titles of the Act are heavily oriented toward adult education, providing programs for older youth 16-21, a work-study program for needy students, and urban and community action programs. Title III provides for special pro- grams to combat poverty in rural areas, a major concern of the Advisory Committee in 1938. Of the fifteen programs recommended by the Advisory Committee in 1938, five are contained in EOA. The Civil Rights Act of 19643 enforces the con- stitutional right to vote and provides relief against discrimination in public facilities and public education. The Advisory Committee had voiced concern over discrimin— ation in education in 1938, stating that ". . . Negro schools are only about half as well supported as white lStephan K. Bailey and Edith K. Mosher, op. cit., p. 27. 2P. L. 88-452, August 20, 1964. 3P. L. 88-352, July 2, 1964. 245 schools,"1 and added, ". . . several millions of the children in the United States will continue to be largely denied the educational Opportunities that should be re- garded as their birthright."2 In 1965 Congress passed the most extensive educa- tional bill ever. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 19653 includes provisions for programs of general elementary and secondary education, adult basic education (Title III, as amended), the education of children of low-income families, school library resources, textbooks, supplemental educational centers, teacher training, re- search, and state departments of education. Three titles of the bill include provision for non-public schools, a prerequisite in its passage. In ESEA are nine of the fifteen Advisory Committee programs. Proponents of ESEA relied heavily on the child benefit theory in guiding the bill toward passage. They stated the bill aided the child, not the school or reli- gion. In 1939 Dr. Reeves and Congressman Larrabee had cited this concept in their bill in an attempt to gain its passage. ESEA was passed amid a swirl of social forces and cognate develOpments. Bailey and Mosher com- ment on these influences: 1Advisory Committee on Education, Report of, gp. Cit.’ P. 7. 2 3 Ibid., p. 31. P. L. 89-10, April 11, 1965. 246 Explosive postwar demands; inadequate institutional, human, and financial resources at all levels of gov- ernment; a series cf expediential, if sometimes heroic, responses and political inventions born of frustration--all of these had combined to set the stage for a new legislative breakthrough. President Johnson was enthusiastic about signing ESEA, and emphasized his satisfaction with the new legis- lation and its supporters by commenting: As President, I believe deeply that no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the future of our Nation . . . I predict that all of those of both parties of Congress who supported the enactment of legislation will be remembered in history as men and women who began a new day of greatness in American society.2 The Higher Education Act of 19653 also stresses adult education programs. Under Title I of this act col- leges and universities are encouraged to strengthen and expand their community service and continuing education programs. Other provisions in the Act include non-public institutions, library services, student assistance, re- search, teacher preparation, guidance and counseling, and a National Teacher Corps. This Act incorporates seven of fifteen Advisory Committee programs. 1Stephan Bailey and Edith Mosher, op. cit., pp. 35-36. 2President Lyndon Johnson, The New York Times, April 10, 1965, pp. 1, 22. 3p. L. 89-329. 247 The Education Professions DevelOpment Act,1 passed in 1967, has as its purpose the improvement of the quality of teaching and to help alleviate critical shortages of adequately trained educational personnel. The essential function of this Act is to bring together and coordinate in—service and other training programs for educators-— from the many other acts previously enacted. The Act provides for five distinct programs: 1. Teacher Corps 2. Attracting and qualifying teachers to meet criti- cal shortages. 3. Fellowships for teachers. 4. In-service training for personnel not in higher education. 5. In-service training for personnel in higher education. The Advisory Committee had emphasized the need for im- proved preparation of teachers and envisioned a type of teacher preparation programs as embodied in EPDA. There are many linkages between current federal legislation for education and the Advisory Committee on Education Report of 1938. All of the major educational programs of the Committee have been enacted. The Occupa- tion Outlook Service and school construction programs were enacted within several years of the Advisory Committee P. L. 90-350 248 Report; its other recommendations were gradually included in legislation over the next thirty years. While many of the educational services recommended by the Committee evolved slowly, the need for them remained constant. Current Legislation and Social Imperatives Beginning with the National Defense Education Act in 1958 and continuing through the 60's much legis- lation has passed. Why such a flurry of educational laws in a relatively short period of time? How was the ESEA able to succeed after so many years of failure? What circumstances facilitated the passage of this legislation? A number of social and political changes in America were contributing factors toward passage of these bills: 1. The rediscovery of poverty. 2. Metropolitanization and itI effects on education. 3. The ClVll rights movement. These social imperatives amply justified the proposals advanced by proponents of federal aid to education. Public and legislative attention was centered on the disadvantaged student, the poverty-stricken family and the urban school crisis. 1Philip Meranto, op. cit. 249 Although poverty had always been a social prob- lem in America, it changed form in the twentieth century. While earlier poverty was due largely to immigration, time and the next generation tended to resolve the prob- lems of immigrants. Poverty in mid-century America, however, was characterized by displaced workers, the aged, and unskilled workers. These "internal aliens,"1 as Philip Meranto had coined them, harbored disillusion- ment toward the future. The low self-esteem of these individuals was passed on from generation to generation. The relationship between poverty and lack of education substantiated the need for massive federal aid programs. Metropolitanization has had a serious impact on education. The ingress of rural folk into the large cities, with the attendant problems of segregation and white egress, contributed to the "social dynamite"2 building in our cities. The civil rights movement also contributed to the passage of federal aid to education laws. The 1954 Supreme Court decision banning segregation gave impetus to Negro demands for quality education. A number of changes in the political arena en- hanced the prospects for passage of federal aid to 1Ibid., Chapter II. 2James B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961), p. 2. 250 education. Chief among these was the ascendancy of Lyndon B. Johnson to the presidency. Considering educa- tion as the cornerstone of his "Great Society" program, the new president displayed a missionary zeal for aid to education. His vast experience in working with Congress sped the passage of educational bills. Alteration in the makeup of Congress aided chances for the passage of federal aid to education. In the 1964 election the Democratic party gained two seats in the Senate and 38 in the House,1 assuring a plurality in each chamber. Three cognate develOpments in Congress before 1965 paved the way for passage of ESEA and other legis- lation: 1. Revision of the party ratio in the House Commit- tee on Education and Labor gave the Democrats controlling voice in the committee in 1958. 2. Shift from Graham Barden to Adam Clayton Powell as chairman of this committee in 1961. 3. Temporary expansion of the House Rules Committee in 1961 and its permanent expansion in 1963. Historically, the House Rules Committee has been the graveyard for education bills. It has often refused to permit important bills to be considered in the House. Bendiner states: 1Stephan Bailey and Edith K. Mosher, ESEA, The Office of Education Administers a Law (Syracuse University Press, 1965), pp. 37-8. 2Meranto, op. cit., Ch. 5. 251 . . . the fact remains that the Rules Committee is a first-class hazard to any measure. The annals of Congress are filled with instances of historic legislation smothered in Rules for years before finally being blasted out by extraordinary pressure. Unlike the Senate, the House has found it difficult to reach a consensus on the efficacy of federal aid. Con- flicts are prolonged as most fundamental philosophical battles and divisions occur. The Advisory Committee on Education pioneered many of the ideas contained in the current federal legis- lation for education. The proposals in 1938 would have achieved many of the same purposes that are inherent in present laws. Several decades before these educational services were being provided the Advisory Committee substantiated their need. lBendiner, op. cit., pp. 22-23. CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This study has sought to identify the contribu- tions of one man toward the enactment of federal policy in support of adult education. Dr. Reeves was able to identify important emerging educational issues and to provide leadership to a group of respected and competent representatives of major segments of the education pro- fession and other concerned groups in developing educa- tional plans. The most significant contribution of Dr. Reeves was that he sketched in broad strokes plans which have contributed greatly to a vast new chapter in the federal government's relationship to education. He made major contributions to the develOpment of federal support for education generally. Through the confluence of his own professional convictions and the impingement of major social forces of the period, it was on adult education where the first and major legislative fruits of his efforts were born. Dr. Reeves was a major figure in a long-term effort to establish national policy in support of educa- tion. He was able to identify and surmount the perennial 252 253 problems of Presidential advisory committees cited by Babbidge and Rosenweig and noted in Chapter IV.1 He had the capacity to enlist individuals with diverse points of view and achieve consensus among them in developing master plans for education. National policy is becoming increasingly impor- tant in the provision of educational services for child- ren and adults in America. The need for these services has been brought about by vast social changes and an in- creased awareness of education's social significance. Education is being viewed as an important means of re- solving national social problems. National policy of federal support for education began early and slowly in America. Early support was almost exclusively categorical in nature, designed to meet specific needs, e.g., agricultural, vocational, and literacy education. In recent years, however, federal support has shifted from its original categorical nature to that of general aid. The federal interest in educa- tion promises to become even more intense. The establishment of federal educational policy in America often requires a long-term effort. This ‘policy evolves out of basic societal forces, such as de- pression, war, industrialization, and technological lSee pp. 70, 71. 254 change. To resolve the problems created by these social forces, local communities and special interest groups attempt to influence educational policy. Their efforts are often bolstered by task forces (such as the White House Conference on Education or the Rockefeller Study) which develop proposals that stir political conflict among special interest groups. As the conflict is en- larged, it moves from local centers to the national capi- tal, where decisions determining the outcome of the conflict are made. Proposed legislation is advanced, the various interest groups clash over its merit, com- promises are reached, and national policy is enacted. Such a process often requires many years to complete. Dr. Reeves served as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Education, 1936-39, and the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, 1942-43. Although the report of the Advisory Committee was not immediately and fully implemented by Congress, it remained an important source of information, serving as a basis from which later legislative proposals evolved. Many of the ninety-six prOposals of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment were incorporated into the GI Bill, which provided educational benefits for millions of men and women who would not have otherwise continued their education. The extension through federal action of adult and higher education to the World War II generation of 255 Americans has made a profound contribution to the growth of college and university education and the extension of continuing education in the quarter century which has followed. Dr. Reeves, born and raised in South Dakota, at- tended school sporadically throughout his youth. Because of his responsibilities on the family farm, he was denied many formal educational experiences. Having a strong thirst for knowledge, however, he pursued much of his education in independent study. After excelling as a student at both Huron Col- lege and the University of Chicago, Dr. Reeves gained valuable experience as teacher and administrator at Transylvania College. Later, at the University of Ken- tucky, he made extensive studies in public and private education. This early research experience prepared him for important work he was to undertake with colleges and universities, with policy innovators in higher education and with state and national governments in this and other nations. Dr. Reeves held many important positions with the Unified States government, including adviser, administra- tor, and researcher. His contributions helped transform the Tennessee River Valley into a viable demonstration of social and economic restoration with federal support and encouragement. Later, in collaboration with Paul T. David, 256 he devised a plan for restructuring the massive executive branch of government. As director of labor supply, Dr. Reeves contributed to the war effort through his recruit- ing and training programs. As a consultant to many New Deal programs, he influenced both the purpose and organi- zation of these programs. In 1936 President Roosevelt appointed Dr. Reeves chairman of the National Committee on Vocational Educa- tion. The Committee's purpose was to study the experience under the existing program of federal aid for vocational education and the extent of need for an expanded program. Because he believed that vocational education should not be dealt with apart from general education, Dr. Reeves suggested that the Committee should give more extended consideration to the whole subject of federal relation- ship to state and local conduct of education. The Presi- dent accepted his suggestion and revised the responsibility of the Committee and extended its timetable of operation. The enlarged Committee became known as the Advi- sory Committee on Education. After nearly two years of intensive study, the Committee submitted its Report to the President who promptly published it and transmitted it to the Congress. The Report,containing many proposals for federal aid to education, became the leading document in its field, and served as a basis for the rethinking of (education which occurred during the next three decades. 257 While they were not enacted into law immediately and in their original forms, all of the major proposals of the Advisory Committee have, in essence, been enacted. Dr. Reeves' contributions to the work of the Advisory Committee on Education were both significant and instructive: 1. He was able to work effectively with National leaders to develop imaginative plans for education. The Committee was comprised of thoughtful and influential persons with highly diverse backgrounds and even more diverse Opinions. His particular genius was the cap- turing of the major contributions of these disparate minds and molding them into a "master plan" for federal engagement in the educational enterprise, which repre- sented well-nigh unanimous consensus. 2. Since he had served as director of numerous studies of education prior to 1936, Dr. Reeves was able to contribute directly to the Advisory Committee through his experience, his work and ideas, and indirectly through access of others to his published findings and recommend- ations. In many of these studies he had urged the re- structuring of the organization and financing of educa- tion in America. 3. Dr. Reeves was able, in his numerous positions with government and higher education policy groups, to discover the largest possible area of consensus. 258 Colleagues of widely diverse opinions came to respect Dr. Reeves. Dr. Cyril Houle, staff member of the Advisory Committee, expresses well this special competence of his mentor: At that time I perceived of Mr. Reeves as being the guide and balance wheel of the Committee. . . He seemed to be able to draw together the ideas of diverse people and to work out a program for action which would move national policy forward but would not be too visioniry to stalemate all hope of fur- ther development. 4. As chairman of the Advisory Committee, he had final responsibility for selection of the seventeen orig- inal Committee members, and after the expansion of the Committee, sole responsibility for the selection of the four new members and numerous staff personnel. His selection of individuals eminent in their field was of crucial importance to the Advisory Committee. 5. Dr. Reeves was responsible for enlarging the pur- view of the study from vocational education only to that of all of the federal government's involvement in educa- tion. This was a significant turn of events for the Committee, as all of education needed reform, not only vocational education. Dr. Reeves viewed education as a whole, with the education of older youth and adults on a parity with that provided children. leril Houle, letter to Carl Pacacha, June 20, 1969. 259 6. Dr. Reeves had access to the executive office of the federal government. By working closely with the President on matters pertaining to the Committee, he was able to influence the views of the President as to how education might be integrated within the larger frame- work of government planning. The President viewed education as an instrument of social change. With Dr. Reeves, an educator—innovator, as his "social engineer" the President hoped to provide equality of educational Opportunity for all individuals, and thus to employ it in achieving his larger plans for social change. 7. Dr. Reeves organized and maintained general supervision over the work of approximately eighty in- vestigative teams serving the Advisory Committee. He assisted the teams in determining assignments, making cooperative arrangements with governmental and non- governmental agencies and officials, and in analyzing research data. 8. He engaged with leaders of the Congress in a collaborative effort to translate the proposals of the Committee into bills for Congressional action. In per- forming this function he served as liaison between the executive office and Congress, and among members of Congress. 9. In the process of his work with Congressmen, he promoted a very new and important concept--the child 260 benefit theory--a concept that was later given legal sanction. The concept was later to prove decisive in successful enactment of more general federal aid to edu- cation. 10. Dr. Reeves was interested in securing education for all children, older youth, and adults. He promoted equality of educational opportunity through the Advisory Committee Report, its monographs, public speaking engage- ments and professional writing. 11. Dr. Reeves, in collaboration with the National Education Association and other organizations, engendered popular and institutional support for legislative pro- posals designed to translate the Advisory Committee recom- mendations into law. Chairman Reeves coordinated the work of the Committee with that of other organizations to broaden the base of political support for the legis- lation. 12. He advanced federal legislation for education through professional writing and speaking engagements. He attempted to appeal to particular publics, such as the American Federation of Teachers and newspaper editors in enlisting support for the Advisory Committee recommend- ations. He had stressed the need for federal subventions by citing inequalities, deficiencies, and discriminations in existing educational programs. 261 As the United States approached the end of World War II, plans were made for the successful return of veterans into society at the conclusion of hostilities. Under the direction of Dr. Reeves, the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel utilized a time of national crisis to develop a daring plan of adult education to facilitate and ease the re— entry of servicemen into a non-military society. Dr. Reeves was convinced of the efficacy of education as a major vehicle for reconversion of the economy and re- habilitation of millions of men and women who had served in the armed forces. The Conference developed ninety- six proposals, many of which dealt with continuing educa- tion. Shortly after the Conference concluded its work, the GI Bill was drafted. It translated many of the ninety-six prOposals of the Conference into law and gave access to education to many older youth and adults. It inducted into the vocations and professions, including education, a generally more mature group of men and women from more heterogeneous social and economic strata than had previously come from higher educational insti- tutions. The GI Bill encouraged the development and ex- pansion of educational programs in colleges and 'universities, public evening schools, and proprietary schools. 262 With respect to the Conference, Dr. Reeves' con- tributions were not unlike those made with and through the Advisory Committee in its attempt to develop a national policy for education: 1. He seized upon a politically expedient vehicle, repatriation of veterans and readjustment of the economy, to introduce a major social innovation--federal support for continuing education for a whole generation of young adult Americans. Whereas he and his social reformer colleagues on the Advisory Committee had originally seen adult education not as the principal component of a fed- erally supported educational program, but only a small part of it, the social forces involved in the war and its aftermath produced a situation in which adult education became the foundation on which a more general structure of federal support for education was later to be erected. He was a man who had a plan ready when social and politi- cal forces became ready to receive it; and he had the unique ability to adapt his plan to the social realities of the day. 2. Dr. Reeves drew upon his vast experience in pre- vious educational and governmental studies, thus providing creative leadership to the Conference. 3. Dr. Reeves was able to work effectively with a group of Conference members, national leaders who viewed demobilization problems from very different points of view, 263 and to focus their attention on education as a vehicle for the successful readjustment of military personnel. 4. He worked closely with the President in drafting a postwar readjustment plan. The President was faced with a galaxy of problems including war, education, political reverses and economic readjustment. Dr. Reeves was able to demonstrate the significant role of continu- ing education in alleviating these complex problems. 5. He worked closely with Senator Robert LaFollette in develOping the GI Bill in Congress; he interpreted the intent of the many Conference proposals and assisted in the drafting of the GI Bill. 6. Dr. Reeves promoted the work of the Conference through public addresses, conferences, and professional writing. He emphasized the need for extensive planning prior to the termination of the war. After passage of the GI Bill, Dr. Reeves represented the President in assisting the various states and educational institutions in establishing and implementing programs for veterans in accord with provisions of the new law. Dr. Reeves was not always successful in advancing the concept of federal aid to education. The failure of Congress to enact general aid to education in 1939 was a temporary "hold" on such legislation. There were repeated deferments of passage of federal legislation to support the general program during the 1940's and 1950's. Dr. 264 Reeves was not dissuaded, however. He continued to press for federal aid and was successful with the enactment of the occupational outlook service (1940), the Lanham Act (1941), and the GI Bill of Rights (1944). Gradually the federal aid "logjam" was broken; the National Defense Education Act in 1958 was a significant development. This near-omnibus bill incorporated many of the prOposals of the Advisory Committee and other groups. In the 1960's there was a proliferation of federal aid legislation, which incorporated, in their essence, all of the major proposals of the Advisory Committee on Education. Dr. Reeves maintained, before policy makers and public, a master plan for education during periods of national stress. He had the capacity to work with in- dividuals and agencies to effect consensus and coordina- tion of effort. He demonstrated courage and perseverance through the long, tedious process of enacting legislation. Possessing creativity, flexibility and imagination, Dr. Reeves was able to convert apparent obstacles to a plat- form from which to advance his prOposals for national policy. He had the capacity to merge his "blueprint" for education with the strongly held plans of others to advance his interests while serving the interests of potential antagonists. In addition to his broad plans, he promoted critical and innovative ideas of a very specific kind that were incorporated into later 265 legislation: impacted areas, child benefit theory, and equality for Negro-Americans. Dr. Reeves emphasized problems in rural America, where many educational and social problems of the urban community have their basic origins. Dr. Reeves was a pioneer in federal legislation in support of adult education. He was a creative man who knew how to transform a group of individuals into a policy-shaping body. He utilized his unique qualities of leadership during times of national stress, depres- sion and war (and its aftermath). His contributions are lasting evidence of one who believed in and dedicated himself to the concept of a federally supported program of education for all children, older youth and adults. As an examplar of educators who have helped shape national policy for education, Dr. Reeves' life and work are richly instructive. Not only were his con- tributions significant in their own right, they also offer unique opportunity for educators to understand more fully: l. The process by which national educational policy evolves, and 2. The role of educators themselves in influencing that policy. On the basis of the evidence discovered, this study demonstrates that a man who possessed a burning commdtment to federal aid to education, and who performed 266 with excellence in strategic governmental positions dur- ing times of national crises, has had a significant in- fluence on the character and availability of education at all levels in America over the past thirty years. Through his zeal and ability in enlisting others in re- solving major educational problems, he was able to pro- mote the American ideal of equality of educational opportunity for children, older youth, and adults. Educational problems brought about by social change require the intervention of a perceptive leader who can facilitate the solution of these problems. He can bring about desirable change through his mental and moral qualities, his talent and knowledge, his resolute- ness and courage. The professional educator (as demon- strated by Dr. Reeves) who possesses these unique qualities of leadership useful precisely at a given time can significantly influence the course of education and of national policy with respect to it. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bills, Laws, Statutes and Executive Orders Ordinance of 1787, l Stat. 50-53 (1789). Ohio Enabling Act, 2 Stat. 173-175 (1850). U. S. Department of Agriculture, 12 Stat. 387-388 (1862). Morrill Act, 12 Stat. 503-505 (1862). Freedmen's Bureau, 13 Stat. 507-509 (1865). U. S. Office of Education, 15 Stat. 106 (1867). H. R. 1326, introduced February 25, 1870. H. R. 1043, 42nd Cong. (1872). S. 133, 46th Cong. (1879). Hatch Act, 24 Stat. 173-175 (1887). S. 185, S. 194, S. 371, S. 398, S. 3241, 48th-515t Congs. (1884-1890). P. L. 63-94. P. L. 64-347. P. L. 73-17. P. L. 73-67. P. L. 75-163. P. L. 76-783. S. 4185, 75th Cong. (1918). CWA established within FERA by Executive Order NO. 6420-B, November 9, 1933. 267 268 NYA established by Executive Order NO. 7086, June 26, 1935. WPA established by Executive Order No. 7034, May 6, 1935. H. H. H. S. S. P. R. 12120, introduced April 1, 1936, 74th Congress, 2nd Session, P. L. 74-673. R. 10340, introduced April 21, 1938, 75th Congress, 3rd Session. R. 3517, introduced January 31, 1939, 76th Congress, lst Session. 1313, introduced April 7, 1941, 77th Congress, lst Session . 637, introduced February 4, 1943, 78th Congress, lst Session. L. 77-137, June 20, 1941. Retraining and Re-employment Administration established S. by Executive Order No. 9427, February 24, 1944. 181, introduced January 10, 1945, 79th Congress, First Session. L. 78-113. L. 78-346. R. 3846, introduced May 4, 1944, 78th Congress, 2nd Session. 1946, introduced on May 23, 1944, 78th Congress, 2nd Session. 619, introduced February 26, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. 717, introduced March 8, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. R. 3002, introduced April 23, 1945, 79th Congress, lst Session. 2207, introduced May 16, 1946, 79th Congress, Second Session. P. P. P. 269 2499, introduced July 31, 1946, 79th Congress, 2nd Session. 472, introduced January 31, 1947, 80th Congress, lst Session. R. 4643, introduced May 11, 1949, Blst Congress, lst Session. R. 7535, introduced July 21, 1955, 84th Congress, lst Session. R. 10128, introduced February 2, 1960, 86th Congress, 2nd Session. L. 85-864. 1021, introduced February 20, 1961, 87th Congress, lst Session. L. 87-415, March 15, 1962. L. 88-210, December 18, 1963. L. 88-269, February 11, 1964. L. 88-352, July 2, 1964. L. 88-452, August 20, 1964. L. 89-10, April 11, 1965. L. 89-329. L. 90-35. General Bibliography .Advisory Committee on Education, Minutes of Executive Committee, May 19, 1937. .Advisory Committee on Education, Minutes of the Commit- tee, May 13, 1937. Advisory Committee on Education, Minutes of the Committee, January 24, 1938. 270 Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19387. Allen, James. "News Front." Phi Delta Kappan. Vol. 51, September 1969, p. 54. America. "Federal School Funds," Vol. 58. April 2, 1938, p. 613. American Federation of Teachers. Federal Aid and the Crisis in American Education. Chicago: American Federation of Teachers, 1948. American Youth Commission, American Council on Education. Youth and the Future. Washington: American Council on EducatiOn, 1942. Armed Forces Committee on Post-War Educational Opportu- nities for Service Personnel. Preliminary Report. July 30, 1943. Babbidge, Homer D., Jr., and Rosenweig, Robert. The Federal Interest in Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962. Bailey, Stephan and Mosher, Edith. ESEA, The Office of Education Administers a Law. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1968. Baker, Gladys L., et al. The First 100 Years of the United States Department of Agricuiture. Wash- ington: USDA, 1963. Barkley, Senator Alben. "Senate Leaders Make Promise Contingent on Victory in Fall." Baltimore Sun. June 8, 1938. Bell, David E. In Congress and the Presidengy, by Nelson Polsby. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Bell, David W. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 18, 1938. Bell, David W. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 1, 1939. Bendiner, Robert. Obstacle Course on Capitol Hill. New York: McGraw-HiliiBook Company, 1964. 271 Bernadino, Vitaliano. "UCEMP, A Project in International COOperation." Educational Newsletter. April, 1949. Brunner, Edmund deS. Personal letter to Carl Pacacha, June 14, 1969. Bunn, Edward B. in "GI Bill Shows Profit for U.S." Detroit News, June 22, 1969, p. lO-G. Campbell, Roald F.; Cunningham, Luvern L.; and McPhee, Roderick F. The Organization and Control of American Education. Columbus: CHarIes E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1965. Clague, Ewan. Letter to Maurice J. Tobin, Secretary of Labor, in Occupational Outlogk Handbook, Bulletin No. 940, U.S. Department of Labor, in cooperation with the Veteran's Administration, September 1, 1948. Clapp, Gordon. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, July 8, 1946. Conant, James B. Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1961. Congress and the Nation, 1945-1964. A Review of Govern- ment and Politics in the Postwar Years. Washing- ton: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965. Congressional Quarterly Service. The Federal Role in Education. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1968. Congressional Quarterly Service. Congress andthe Nation, 1945-1964. A Review of Government and Politics in the Postwar Years. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1965. Congressional Quarterly Service. Federal Role in Educa- tion. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1967. Conkin, Paul K. FDR and the Qrigins gf the Welfare State. New York: Thomas Y. CrowelI Company, 1967. Congressional,Record. Vol. 84:980, 1345-47, 76th Con- gress, lst Session, 1939. 272 Cook, Katherine M. "Review of Conditions and Developments in Education in Rural and Sparsely Settled Areas." Chapter V in Biennial Survey of'Education, 1934- 1936. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937. Counts, George S. New York Times. February 26, 1938, 1.0-'17 e Cranston, Alan. In Hugh McDonald, "Student, Senator Share GI Bill Concern." Detroit News, February 22' 1970' 1.0-De Cubberly, Ellwood P. State School Administration: A Textbook of Principles. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin, 1927. Davenport, Donald. Letter to Floyd Reeves, August 29, 1943. David, Paul T. Letter to Carl Pacacha, July 7, 1969. David, Paul T. Secretary of the Advisory Committee on Education, Memorandum to Committee Members, February 28, 1938. David, Paul T. Interview with Carl Pacacha, August 8, 1969. Deffenbaugh, Walter S. "Effects of the Depression Upon Elementary and Secondary Schools and Upon Col- leges and Universities." Chapter VI in Biennial Survey of Education, 1934-1936. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937. Delano, Frederic. Letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 1, 1942, OF 1092-D, FDRL. Dickson, Cecil B. "Roosevelt Cuts Slate to Bare Essen- tialsJ' Washington Post. March 28, 1939. Galbraith, John Kenneth. American Capitalism. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1952, Chapter 6. Goldwater, Barry. United States Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Public School Assistance Act of 1961. 87th Congress, lst Session. Government of Kentucky. Report of the Efficiency Commis- sion of Kentucky. Vol. II. Frankfort: The State Journal Company, January 1, 1924. 273 Green, William. Federal Aid for Education, no date. Grossman, Mary Foley. National Legislative Representa- tive, American Federation of Teachers, March 1, 1938. Harrison, Pat. New York Times. February 25, 1938, p. 19. Harrison, Pat. "U.S. Education Bill Spurred by Harrison." Jackson News (Mississippi), March 12, 1938. Harrison, Pat. "Wider School Aid Rushed at Capital." New York Times. February 25, 1938, p. L-l9. Havinghurst, Robert. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, March 28, 1939. Hershey, Lewis B. Letter to Carl Pacacha, August 20, 1969. Hill, Lister. "Federal Assistance to the States in More Adequately Financing Public Education." Report to Accompany S. 637, Senate Committee on Educa- tion and Labor, 78th Congress, lst Session, Report No. 323, June 18, 1943. Hill, Lister, in Obstacle Course on Capitol Hill by Robert Bendiner. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1964. Hillman, Sidney. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, June 24, 1941. Hines, Frank T. Press Seminar on Demobilization and Veterans, sponsored by the Public Administration Clearing House, Proceedings. Chicago, Illinois: December 6-9, 1944. Hines, Frank. Summary of first meeting, Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, July 17, 1942, File 830.31, Record Group 187, National Archives. Hoover, President Herbert. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves. December, 1930. Hornaday, Mary. "Resources Group Drafted Roosevelt Soldier Plan." Christian Science Monitor. July 31, 1943. Houle, Cyril. Letter to Carl Pacacha, June 20, 1969. 274 Hudson, Robert. "The Extension of the Campus." Adult Education Journal. Vol. 4, April, 1945. Hueck, George T. de. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, August 9, 1945. Ickes, Harold. Letter to Frances Perkins, May 17, 1938. FDRL, File 504. Johnson, Lyndon B. The New York Times. April 10, 1965. Kirk, Russell and McClellan, James. The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft. New York: Fleet Press Corporation, 1967? Kluttz, Jerry. In the Washington Post. February 6, 1940. Kuenzli, Irving. "Labor and Federal Aid to Education." A mimeographed resume of statements adopted at the annual conventions of the American Federation of Labor from 1938 to 1942 inclusive, 1942. Lash, Joseph P. Eleanor Roosevelt, A Friend's Memoir. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1964. Lee, Gordon Canfield. The Struggle for Federal Aid. New York: Bureau of Pubiications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1949. Leuchtenburg, William E. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932-1940. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Lilienthal, David. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, May 6, 1946. Mason, Noah. "Teachers' Fight for U.S. Aid Urged," New York Times, June 28, 1938. McDonald, Hugh. "Student, Senator Share GI Bill Concern." Detroit News, February 22, 1970. McGrath, Earl J. Federal Aid to School Construction. House Committee on Education and Labor, Blst Congress, 2nd Session, 1950. Meranto, Philip. The Politics of Federal Aid toEducation in 1965. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1967. 275 Murray, James E. Statement released to the press at noon, Wednesday, July 21, 1946. Munger, Frank J. and Fenno, Richard F., Jr. National Politics and Federal Aid to Education. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1961. Muzzey, David and Link, Arthur. Our Country's History. Boston: Ginn and Company, 1965. Nation's Schools. "Looking Forward," Vol. 21, 1938. Nation's Schools. "Side Glances," Vol. 6, June 1938. National Advisory Committee on Education, Report of the Committee, Federal Relations to Education, Part I, Committee Findings and Recommendations. Washing- ton: National Capital Press, Inc., 1931. National Committee on Vocational Education, Minutes of Committee, November 7, 1936. National Committee on Vocational Education, Minutes of Committee, November 6 and 7, 1936. National Committee on Focational Education, Minutes of the Conference Committee. Third meeting, December 9, 1936. National Education Association, Report of the Executive Committee of the Legislative Commission to the Executive Committee of the NEA, October 1, 1938. National Education Association, Statement of the Legis- lative Commission, meeting in Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 26, 1938. National Resources Planning Board, Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, summary of first meeting. July 17, 1942, File 830.31. Record Group 197, National Archives. National Resources Planning Board, Report of the Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel, titled Demobilization and Readjustment. Washington: Superintendent of Documents, 1943. National Resources Planning Board. Security, Work and Relief Policies. Report for 1943, Part 3, sub- mitted to President Roosevelt December 16, 1942. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943. 276 New Republic. "Education Belongs to the People." April 19, 1943. New York Herald Tribune. "Roosevelt Body Asks Expansion of Merit System." June 28, 1937. Newsweek. "Tremendous Skilled Labor Pool Faces Demobili- zation Planners." August 23, 1943. Newsweek. "FDR's Demobilization Plans Catch His Opponents Off Guard." August 9, 1943. Newsweek. "President's Committee Urges Subsidy to Modern- ize the Country School house," Vol. 11. March 7, 1938. Noll, Victor H. The Preparation of Teachers at Michigan State University. East Lansing: College of Education, 1968. Outhwaite, Leonard. Letter to Dr. Reeves, July 19, 1943. Outhwaite, Leonard. Letter to Dr. Reeves. June 30, 1943. Patterson News. Editorial, May 18, 1939. Plekhanov, Georgi. In Theories of History. Edited by Patrick Gardiner. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Poage, Congressman W. R. Letter to Dr. Reeves, November 23, 1942. Polsby, Nelson. Congress and the Presidency. Englewood Cliffs: Printice-Hall, Inc., 1964. President's Commission on Veterans' Pensions. The His- torical Development of Veterans' Benefits in the United States. Staff Report, No. 1, May 9,71956. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1956. Pusey, Nathan M. In "GI Bill Shows Profit for U.S." Detroit News. June 22, 1969. Quattlebaum, Charles A. Federal Educational Policies, Programs and PrOposals. Part II. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960. Reeves, Floyd Wesley. The Political Unit of Public School Finance in Illinois. New York: THe Mc- Millan Company, 1924. 277 Reeves, Floyd Wesley. "Critical and Constructive Sug- gestions from Surveys of Higher Education." Pennsylvania School Journal, Vol. 78, March, 1930. . Statement placed in cornerstone of Judd Hall, graduate education building, the University of Chicago, in 1931. Reeves, Floyd Wesley and David, Paul T. Personnel Admin- istration in the Federal Service. Study No. 1 on Administrative Management in the Government of the United States, the President's Committee on Administrative Management, Louis J. Brownlow, chairman. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1937. Reeves, Floyd W. "Purpose and Functions of the Advisory Committee on Education." Advance Text of an Address delivered before the general session of the National Education Association. June 28, 1937. . "More Attention to Education of Adults Urged." The Evening News. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Sep- tember 237—1937. Reeves, Floyd W., Fansler, Thomas and Houle, Cyril 0. Adult Education. The Regents' Inquiry into the Character and Cost of Public Education in the State of New York. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1938. Reeves, Floyd Wesley. Personal letter to his wife Hazel, February 19, 1938. . Letter to David W. Bell, Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget, March 11, 1938. . "Reeves Warns of U.S. Control." Chicago Daily News, July 23, 1938. . Letter to his wife Hazel, August 31, 1938. . Letter to his wife Hazel, December 31, 1938. . Address to American Association for the Advance- ment of Science. Richmond, Virginia, December 28, 1938. . "Educators Ask Federal Aid for Public Schools." Christian Science Monitor. March 1, 1939. 278 . Testimony before a Subcommittee of the Commit- tee of Education and Labor, U.S. Senate, 76th Congress, lst Session on S. 1305, March 2, 3 and 10, 1939. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939. . "The Problem of Federal Aid." American Teacher. Vol. 24, April, 1940. . Address to National Council of Education, Atlantic City, New Jersey, February 24, 1941. . Educational Finance Act of 1941, Hearings be- fore a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, 77th Congress, lst Session. Washington: U.S. Government Print- ing Office, April 28-30. . "NYA Director Says 20,000,000 May Be Jobless After War." Dallas Times-Herald. July 20, 1941. . Letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, July 22, 1941. and Hanna, Paul R. "Post-War Planning for Child- ren and Youth." National Resources Development Report for 1942. National Resources Planning Board. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942. . "Education for Today and Tomorrow." Inglis Lecture, Harvard University, February 11, 1942. . Memorandum to Charles W. Eliot, Director, National Resources Planning Board, March 6, 1943. , assisted by D. L. Harley. "Equal Access to Education." Ch. IX, National Resources Planning Board Report for 1943, National Resources Develop- ment, Part I. Post-war Plan and Program. Washing- ton: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943. . "When Johnny Comes Marching Home." A radio discussion by S. H. Nerlove, Floyd Reeves, and Ralph Tyler, National Broadcasting Company, Sep- tember 5, 1943. . Address delivered at the annual guidance con- ference. Purdue University, November 19, 1943. . "Free Schooling for Vets Urged by Professor Reeves." Chicago Daily News, November 26, 1943. 279 . Address to Illinois Adult Education Association, Morrison Hotel, December 29, 1943. . "Don't Send Vets to Farms, Educators Tell Conference." Chicago Daily News. April 11, 1944. . Letter to Paul T. David, August 10, 1944. . "Educational Programs and the Veteran." £525 ceedings, Press Seminar on Demobilization and Veterans. Sponsored by the Public Administration Clearing House, December 6-9, 1944. . Hearings Before the Committee on Education and Labor, United States Senate, 79th Congress, lst Session. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April 11-12, 1945. . Address to Governors' Conference on Rural Education, January 19, 1946, Springfield, Illinois. . "Pressure Group Most Potent Power in Getting Things Done." Missouri Sunday News and Leader. February 19, 1946. . Address delivered before annual convention of AFT at St. Paul, Minnesota, on August 19, 1946. . "U.S. Education Aid is Called Urgent." New York Times, August 20, 1946. . Letter to Dr. Harry Morehouse Gage, 1400 Second Avenue, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, August 28, 1946. . "What Lies Ahead in Education?" School Manage- ment, March, 1947. . Address to National Conference on Discrimina- tion in College Admissions. University of Chicago, November 3, 1950. . Letter to Albert Lepawsky, Department of Politi- cal Science, University of California, Berkeley, California, September 15, 1965. . Class lecture notes titled, "Principles of Democratic Administration," November 10, 1965. . Interview with Carl Pacacha, February 18, 1969. 280 . Interview with Carl Pacacha, February 20, 1969. . Interview with Carl Pacacha, February 10, 1970. . Interview with Carl Pacacha, March 12, 1970. Riley, George D. "Postwar Jobs Galore but of Different Kind." Washington Times-Herald, November 16, 1941, A-ZO e Rivlin, Alice. The Role of the Federal Government in Financing Higher Education. Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1961. Roosevelt, Eleanor. "My Day." The Chicago Daily News, October 12, 1939. . Personal Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, November 27, 1939. . This I Remember. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano. Letter to Dr. Reeves, Septem- ber 26, 1936, OF 504, FDRL, Hyde Park, New York. . Letter to Floyd W. Reeves, April 19, 1937, OF 405, FDRL, Hyde Park. . Address to National Education Association, World's Fair Grounds, New York City, June 30, 1938. . "Fireside Chat on the Progress of the War and Plans for Peace." in Samuel I. Rosenman's Victory and the Threshold of Peace. Published Papers an Addresses of Franklin Roosevelt. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. . Letter to Frederic Delano, July 6, 1942, OF 1092-D, FDRL. . Letter to General Osborn, February 19, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. . Letter to General Osborn, August 4, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. 281 . Letter to Senators Walter George (Georgia), and Ellison Smith (S. C.), and Representatives Vincent Palmisano (Md.), and Braswell Deen (Georgia). . Memo to Lauchlin Currie, February 10, 1940, OF 504 , FDRL. . Memorandum to Samuel I. Rosenman, August 4, 1943, OF 5182, FDRL. . Memo to Marvin McIntyre, February 12, 1938, OF 504, FDRL. . Message of the President to the Congress, February 23, 1938. . Press Release, November 13, 1942, OF 5182, FDRL. . Telegram to Frank M. Dixon, Governor of Alabama, March 14, 1939, OF 107, FDRL. . Telegram to Miguel A. Garcia Mendez, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Puerto Rico, April 29, 1939, OF 107, FDRL. . Telegram to Sidney Hall, March 16, 1938, OF 504, FDRL. Rosenman, Samuel I. The Tide Turns. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940. . Working with Roosevelt. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. Ross, Davis Bruce. Preparing for Ulysses: The Federal Government and Nondisabled World War II Veterans, 1940-1946. Unpublished Dissertation, Columbia University, 1967. St. Louis Post Dispgtch. Editorial, February 25, 1938. Schattschneider, Elmer. The Semisovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1960. School Executive. Vol. 57 April, 1938. Sinclair, Frank. "Orderly Demobilization of U.S. Veterans, Plan." GI Joe--What of His Future? Milwaukee: Milwaukee Journal, 1944. 282 Spaulding, Francis. Conference on Postwar Readjustment of Civilian and Military Personnel. Summary of fifth meeting, September 10, 1942, RG 187, Na- tional Archives. Taft, Robert A. Congressional Record, October 18, 1943. . Federal Role in Education. Washington: Con- gressional Quarterly Service, 1967. . Individual Views to Accompny S. 1305, from the Committee on Education and Labor, Report No. 244, 76th Congress, 2nd Session, April 24, 1939. . Letter to Herbert Hoover, January 23, 1939. Robert A. Taft Papers, Library of Congress. . Letter to Horace Taft, March 9, 1939. Robert A. Taft Papers, Library of Congress. . "A 1944 Program for the Republicans." Saturday Evening Post. Vol. 216, December 11, 1943. Taylor, Henry C. The Educational Significance of the Early Federal Land Ordinances. New York: Teach- ers College, Columbia University, 1922. Thomas, Elbert. Address at the National Education Associa- tion convention, New York City, June 27, 1938. . Congressional Record. Proceedings and Debates of the 78tH’Congress, lst Session, Vol. 89, No. 152 for October 13, 1943. . Congressional Record. Vol. 83, p. 7294, April 19, 1938, 75th Congress, 3rd Session. . Congressional Record. Vol. 84, pp. 1345-47, 76th Congress, lst Session, February 13, 1939. . U.S. Senate, Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 76th Con- gress, lst Sesseion, on S. 1305, March 2, 3, and 10, 1939. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939. Thorpe, Francis N. The Federal and State Constitutions Vol. II of 7 volumes. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909. 283 Tiedt, Sidney W. The Role of the Federal Government in Education. New York: Oxford University Press, I966. Time. "Glaring Inequalities." Vol. 31, March 7, 1938. Time. Vol. 33, May 29, 1939. Time. Vol. 37, June 16, 1941. Truman, David. The Congressional Party. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1959. Tugwell, Rexford. The Democratic Roosevelt. Garden City: Doubleday and Company, 1957. Tully, Grace. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, July 20, 1948. UNESCO, Report of the Mission to the Phillipines, July 28, 1949. Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman, Dr. Viriato Comacho,Dr. Paul Hanna, and Dr. A. C. Lewis. United States Bureau of Census. Historical Statistics of United States, ColoniaI—Times to 1957. Wash- ington: United States Government Printing Office, 1960. United States Department of Health, Education, and Wel- fare, Annual Report. Washington: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1967. United States News. Editorial, Vol. 6, March 14, 1938. U.S. Senate Committee on Education and Labor. Federal Assistance to the States for the Suppgrt of Pub- iic Education. Report of the Committee, Apriii 3, 1939, Report No. 244, 76th Congress, lst Ses- SlOn. U.S. Senate, Hearings before a Sub-committee of the Committee on Education and Labor, 76th Congress, lst Session, on S. 1305, March 2, 3, and 10, 1939. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939. University of Chicago Survey, Volume I-XII. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933. 284 Walsh, David and Donahey, Victor. Minority Views to Accompany S. 1305, from the Committee on Educa- tion and Labor, Report No. 244, Part 3, 76th Congress, 2nd Session, June 13, 1939. Washington Post. Editorial, February 25, 1938. Williams, Aubrey. Letter to Floyd Wesley Reeves, January 1, 1940. Works, George A. and Morgan, Barton. The Land Grant Colleges. Staff Study No. 10, prepared for the Advisory Committee on Education. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1939. Zeitlin, Harry. Federal Relations in American Education, 1933-1943: A Study of New Deal Efforts and Innovations. PubliShed Dissertation from Colum- bia University. Ann Arbor: University Micro- films, 1967. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Floyd Reeves, Chairman. Edmund deS. Brunner, Professor of Rural Sociology, Teachers College, Columbia University. Frank P. Graham, President of the University of North Carolina. Luther Gulick, Director of the Institute of Public Admin- istration and Eaton Professor of Municipal Science and Administration at Columbia University. George Johnson, Director of the Department of Education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Charles H. Judd, Chairman of the Department of Education of the University of Chicago. Arthur B. Moehlman, Professor Educational Administration and Supervision, University of Michigan. George F. Zook, President of the American Council on Education. The five laymen in the government service are: Oscar L. Chapman, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Gordon R. Clapp, Director of Personnel, Tennessee Valley Authority. Ernest G. Draper, Assistant Secretary of Commerce. Mordecai Ezekiel, Economic Adviser to the Secretary of Agriculture. Katherine F. Lenroot, Chief of the Children's Bureau in the Department of Labor. 285 286 The other nine laymen are: W. Rowland Allen, Personnel Director of Ayres Department Store, Indianapolis, Indiana. Elisabeth Christman, Secretary-Treasurer of the National Women's Trade Union League. Alice L. Edwards, home economist, consultant to the Re- settlement Administration and to the Regents' Inquiry into Education in New York State. Henry Esberg of New York City, a businessman who has maintained an active interest in the field of vocational rehabilitation for many years. (Deceased September 22, 1937). George L. Googe, Chairman of the Southern Organizing Committee of the American Federation of Labor. Thomas Kennedy, Secretary-Treasurer of the United Mine Workers of America, and Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania. Henry C. Taylor, a nationally known agricultural econo- mist, formerly Chief of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and now Director of the Farm Foundation of Chicago. T. J. Thomas of Chicago, President of the Valier Coal Company. John H. Zink, a Baltimore contractor who is President of the Heating, Piping, and Air Conditioning Con- tractors National Association. Staff Studies of the Advisory Committee a. Education in the Forty-eight States. Payson Smith, Frank W. Wright, and assodiates. b. Organization and Administration of Public Education. Walter D. Cooking and’Charies H. Gilmore. c. State Personnel Administration: With Special Refer- ence to Departments of Education. Katherine Frederic. 287 Federal Aid and the Tax Problem. Clarence Heer. Principles and Methods of Distributing Federal Aid for Education. Paui R. Mort, Eugene S. LawIer, and Associates. The Extent of Equalization Secured through State School Funds. Newton Edwards and Herman G. RiCHey. Selected Legal Problems in ProvidingpFederal Aid for Education. Robert R. Hamilton. Vocational Education. John Dale Russell and associ- ates. Vocational Rehabilitation of the PhysicallyiDisabled. Lloyd E. Blauch. The Land-Grant Colleges. George A. Works and Barton Morgan. Library Service. Carleton B. Joeckel. Special Problems of Negro Education. Doxey A. Wil- kerson. The National Youth Administration. Palmer 0. Johnson and Oswald L. Harvey. Educational Activities of the Works Progress Admin- istration. Doak S. Campbell, Frederick H. Bair and Oswald L. Harvey. Research in the United States Office of Education. Charles H. Judd. APPENDIX B MEMBERS OF CONFERENCE ON POSTWAR READJUSTMENT OF CIVILIAN AND MILITARY PERSONNEL On July 6, 1942, President Roosevelt authorized the appointment of an informal conference on post-war readjustment of civilian and military personnel. This conference was made up of the following groups, in which there are found widely ranging types of experience and interest. Dr. Floyd W. Reeves, National Resources Planning Board, Chairman. Dr. Francis J. Brown, Education Adviser, Joint Army-Navy Committee on Welfare and Recreation. Dr. Edward C. Elliott, Chief, Professional and Technical Employment and Training Division, War Manpower Commission. Dr. William Haber, Director, Bureau of Program Require- ments, War Manpower Commission. Brigadier General Frank T. Hines, Administrator, Veterans Administration. Major General Lewis B. Hershey, Director, Bureau of Selective Service, War Manpower Commission. Dr. A. F. Hinrichs, Acting Commissioner of Labor Statis- tics, Department of Labor. Lieutenant Commander Ralph A. Sentman, U.S.N. (Ret.), Officer in Charge of Educational Services Section, Training Division, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Navy Department. 288 289 Colonel Francis T. Spaulding, Chief, Education Branch, Special Service Division, War Department. Mr. Howard R. Tolley, Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agriculture. Dr. Thomas J. Woofter, Jr., Director of Research, Federal Security Agency. Mr. Leonard Outhwaite, National Resources Planning Board, Secretary. APPENDIX C TH E WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 19 , 1936 W dear Dr. Reevee: At the tine I apprmd H. B. 12120, which authorizee additional appropriatione for Federal aid for vocational educa- tion in the eeveral Statee and Territories, I indicated my belief that before the act goee into effect on July 1, 1957, the whole eubject ehould be reviewed by a dieintereeted group. It ie w thought that ouch a group ehould etndy the experience under the exieting program of Federal aid for vocational educa- tion, the relation of ouch training to general education and to prevailing econaic and eocial conditione. and the extent of the need for an expanded program. I take pleaeure in inviting you to accept nemberehip on a comittee to make euch etudiee and to develop recomnda- tion which will be available to the Congreee and to the Execu- tive. The eervicee of the eeveral Federal departmente will be available to thie co-ittee. Traveling emeneee incurred by unbere in attending co—ittee meetinge will be not by the Gov- .mnte I hope that it will be poeeible for you to eerve in thie capacity and to aeeiet in the develcpnnt of a eound baeie for a program of vocational education which will be of mximm benefit to thoee affected. Very einoerely youra, Dr. Floyd Reevee, Profeeeor of Education, Univereity of Chicago, Chicago, 1111301.. I TH E WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Hyde Park, New York, September 26, 1936. My dear Dr. Reeves: Sapplementing the letter I sent to you ask- ing you to serve as a member of the Committee on Voca- tional Education, I shall be very glad indeed if you will find it possible to serve as the Chairman of this Committee. The success of the work of the Committee will be greatly enhanced by your chairmanship. Very sincerely yours, ,-: / 4.2;. , ’ . a- ”I. ,, I. ' I / lfitq/llj-“J/I‘ 5‘4-9{(J.{ a.“ Dr. Floyd Reeves, Commercial National Bank Building, Washington, D. C. TH E WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON November 16, 1936 by dear Mr. Reeves; Attached is a copy of a letter I have sent to Mr. Chester C. Davis in answer to his suggestion that the Committee on Vocational Education be enlarged to in- clude representatives of southern agriculture, agricul- tural colleges, and vocational home economics. I wish you would get in touch with Cully A. Cobb at your earliest convenience. Very sincerely yours, 0/ honorable Floyd Reeves, Chairman, President's Committee on Vocational Education, 730 Jackson Place, Northwest, Washington, D. C. Enclosure. ‘Nllla AN Cm syn us Em-cavnw “Hannah‘s. II (7. SENT FOR THE INFQRMATION OF '\.. I ,. 'fw" I ’3 ._ v . '.-‘ x? c/ 1’!" 25"“ * " w 35. 19370 Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt The lhite Houee fl hehington Iv dear Mr. President: In accordance with a re which ie enclosed herewith, the noting the Executive Couitt Committee on Education, wi . of the oe-ittee'e action eervice ae chair“ of t Reevee be deeignated ae D committee, with oonpeneation . per annua for the «nice. - very inceraly, COPY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION Room 7129, North Interior Building Washington, D. C. Telephone: District 1820, Extension 4178 May 22, 1937 Dr. George F. Zook, President American Council on Education 744 Jackson Place washington, D. 0. My dear Dr. Zook: This is to certify that the following appears in the minutes of the Executive Committee of the Advisony Committee on Education for the meeting held May 18, 1937: Hgved, gecgnded,_and cargiggp that Dr. Zook be chairman of a special committee of the Executive Committee, appointed by him, to take up with the President by memorandum or conference the matter of Mr. Reeves' service as Director of Studies and his compensation at the rate of $9,500 per annum for time actually devoted to such service. Very truly yours, PAUL T. DAVID Secretary THE WHITE HOUSE WAS H INGTON April 19. 1937 My dear Dr. Reeves: I have been giving thought to the general system of the relationship of the Federal Government to education. many bills are now pending in Congress all of which seek to a greater or less degree to aid the Federal Government in future extensive programs costing very large sums of money. Ina-such as the Omittee of which you are Chaimn, ap- pointed last Fall to study vocational training, is also charged with considering the relation of such training to general education. it occurs to me that you already have considerable information at hand. I am, therefore, asking your Omittee to give more extended consideration to the whole subject of Federal relationship to state and local conduct of ehcation and to let me have a report. I ap- preciate that this will take more time than that allotted to your CMEtOCe Hey I suggest to you that in the conduct of this study, your Comittee should consider among other things the definite danger that an entering wedge of Federal expenditure in any system of taxing to states or localities might easily expand in a very short time to the point where the treasury would be gravely embarrassed and financial burdens now resting on the states and localities would tend to be cast on the Federal Government. Very sincerely yours, ’" [Au/,5; MwJ—\ Dr. Floyd I. Reeves, Chairman, President's Comittee on Vocational Education, Washington Auditorium, Washington, D. C. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON 2.12.3: 13, 1'9 35; ly'dear Ir. Reeves: Your letter of may twelfth has been received. Thc President has asked :6 to 0:- press hi; appreciati)n of your friendly thought in sending him the copy of the report of the Committee in cloth binding. Very sincerely yours, Maw .\ LI. :1. Leila-11d PP {ATE SECRETARY Floyd W. Reeves, Esq., Chairman, The Advisory Committee on Education, North Interior Building, Washington, D. C. \- 'I emu-{LB "i lay 12 , 1938 ly deer Ir. Egggiggggl le hove obteined e eeell eupply of oopiee of the report of the Coulittee in cloth binding. It occure to he that you light like to hove ouch e copy, and I on lending 1t herewith. Sincerely yours, Floyd l. Reeves Choir-an The President The mite House leehington, D. C. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE June 2, 1938 Mr. Floyd W. Reeves, Chairman The Advisory Committee on Education North Interior Building Washington, D. C. Doar‘Mr. Reeves: I greatly appreciate your thoughtful- ness in sending me the report of your Committee which was transmitted to the President in Febru- ary. This was received a few days ago in.my absence. Kind personal regards. Very truly yours, L \>AgKSLL&Ifi3, ‘\‘*L*JL“~XLL‘¥1J¢ David E. Liilenthal Director THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON January 4, 1940 My deir Dr. Reeves: Please accept my thanks for your letter of DECember tuenty-ninth and for the nineteen staff studies repared for The Advisory Committee on EduCution, and comprising an examinativn into the status and problems of education in the United States. This is truly a monumental tork. The titles of the studies alone reflect the breadth and scope of the many-sideoness of the tork non brought to completion. In exprGSsing my appreciation of the services of the members of The Advisory Committee may I ask you also to extend my thanks to the able corps of exper s -- both men and women -- tho cooperated in the grepuration of the studies now available in convenient form to all vho are interested in the vital problem of American edic.tlon. Very s;ncerely yours, Dr. Floyd L. Reeves, Chairman, The Advisory Committee on aducution, (AL Jackson Place, hashington, D. C. "("4‘. J) r‘ —' ‘T-‘ September 26, 1936 My dear Mr. President: Your letter of September 19, requesting me to accept membership on a committee to make studies of voca- tional education, was forwarded from my Chicago office and reached me after a few days delay. I shall of course be delighted to accept membership on the committee. I am leaving Washington tomorrow for Saranac Inn, New York, to attend an educational conference, but will be at the Washington office of the President's Committee on Administrative Management after next Thursday, October 1. With appreciation of the honor conferred by this appointment, I am Yours respectfully, Floyd W. Reeves University of Chicago The President The White House Washington, D.C. ._ we} October 2, 1936. My dear Mr. President: Upon my return to Washington, I find your supplemental letter of September 26, requesting me to serve as chairman of your committee on vocational education. I am happy to accept the responsibility, and welcome this Opportunity to assist in connec- tion with a problem that seems to me to be of vital importance to American education. Yours respectfully, Floyd W. Reeves University of Chicago The President, The White House, Washington, D.C. EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD WASHINGTON. D. C. July 2 191.3. Dr. Floyd W. Peeves, Graduate Education Building, University Of ”biases, Chicago, Illinois. My dear Doctor Reeves: As the active planning work Of the National Resources Iflanning Board came to an end with the closing Of the fiscal year on June 30, under the orders Of the Congress that hereafter we shall devote our— selves to winding up our affairs, I want to express the personal appreciation Of my colleagues and myself for your personal contribup tion, services and leadership as Chairman of the Conference on Post- war Adjustment of Personnel. A copy of the formal vote of the Board is enclosed herewith. While the termination of the work Of the Board is a great dis- appointment to all Of us, we can be happy in looking back at the record of accomplishment during the ten years of the Board's activity. We can truly say that the record will speak for itself. Sincerely yours, Iéé2255:;zf‘z"'¢51;::;giph317Q;::T .w..u. Frederic A. Delano encl . Chairman. e nfllwu x .1! . I 1...: .42! .I’ aeumxxc Cotasueum .Hafiaaoa cacao: touueawq «oofiam .3 moaasno Edi , 323% .m Omaoou 52.8: .m mer—95 .§h§ {didam 3 :eELuecb aocm m é oaamowhm .cofioez one oce .mcowwoa .moosem .moaowasooa mo muaomuo wcficcsao :fi dwcmsoomoamzmw.EOflosEHUEOOO sapwood .zoasomoa wcficcsaa EH mucoscwfimwm educamwfio do oocssaomaOQ Andreasm cos O>fiooowmo one now .mooOOfiEsOo tempo so Eamon owscfisao cos .mEOHmwaEEOO wcficcsadddcofime.wOOOONEEOO Hmowccooo m.OasOm one so Oo>aom use women on» no“: empeooaooo o>ms on; I acoscao>oc assocom one mofimeso can moans“ soon I mowocows cos momaamfiooqm one On use .anfim one Ea one :Oowcfizwmz Ea human one do madness ozu.R.OasOm one do :ansaooanas cos madame one afiamosao OH REED; QRVOQ E: .nvon Jemima 9.55 to 20h0z~mm<§ 5: GAME .OZthmt than wk~ .2. a¢_h=ouxu EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT NATIONAL RESOURCES PLANNING BOARD WASHINGTON. D. C. The President The White Bouee. Hy deer Mr. PresidentI We have the honor to transmit herewith a Report on Demobilization and Readjustment of pereonnel, prepared by the informal Conference which use eet up by the Doerd laet summer in accordance with your authorisa- tion. the members of the Conference, including authorities from the armed forces. Veterans' Adminietretion, Ihnpower Commission, and other related agencies, have agreed unanimouely on these proposals for the orderly handling of the demobilization and readjustment of men coming out of the armed {creee and from mer it"stry. In the introduction to the report we have selected the items of primary significance and indicated our concurrence with the reconvenda- tions of the Conference. Sincerely yours. Frederic A. Delano Chairman Charles E. lorrie- Ceorge P. yhntie 33°10 APARTMENT G-A ze waeumoron comm: wast Kw YORK II. N. Y. October 24, 1946 I Dear Dr. Reeves: Many thanks for your letter. I cculd not be at the board meetins because of the United Nations Assembly. You are so near Hyde Park I do hope you will come dean for lunch over a weekend. I'm usually there Saturday and Sunday, but while the United Nations meet- ings are on. I can never be sure of Saturday, If you come by train to Poughp keepsie, I can have you met at the station. Very sincerely yours, a I. am