20
CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972* David Lewis Feldman This paper examines the policy-making process which led to passage of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Among other innovations, the 1972 HEA established the Basic Educational Op- portunity Grant (BEOG) Program designed to make standardized assistance available to students from low-income families. In so doing, it firmly estab- lished the precedent of "voucher" aid, and it cen- tralized the process by which financial need is determined. For these reasons alone, the 1972 HEA may be "...the most significant piece of higher education legislation since the Land Grant College Act signed over a century before."l It is my contention that the 1972 HEA was the product of extraordinary compromise between pro- ponents of an aid program benefiting the needy student as a free agent and advocates of a program designed primarily to relieve the financial plight of the nation's colleges and universities; especially those with modest enrollments and limited sources of revenue. By and large, post-1958 financial aid programs were designed to equalize educational opportunities by providing large categorical groups with loans and grants.2 Because these eligible students and their families composed a large and powerful Congressional constituency, and because the institutions they were likely to attend were larger, comprehensive colleges and universities, these policies could be characterized 127

CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

CONGRESS A N D DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF

THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972*

David Lewis Feldman

This paper examines the policy-making process which led to passage of the Higher Education Amendments of 1972. Among other innovations, the 1972 HEA established the Basic Educational Op- portunity Grant (BEOG) Program designed to make standardized assistance available to students from low-income families. In so doing, it firmly estab- lished the precedent of "voucher" aid, and it cen- tralized the process by which financial need is determined. For these reasons alone, the 1972 HEA may be "...the most significant piece of higher education legislation since the Land Grant College Act signed over a century before."l

It is my contention that the 1972 HEA was the product of extraordinary compromise between pro- ponents of an aid program benefiting the needy student as a free agent and advocates of a program designed primarily to relieve the financial plight of the nation's colleges and universities; especially those with modest enrollments and limited sources of revenue.

By and large, post-1958 financial aid programs were designed to equalize educational opportunities by providing large categorical groups with loans and grants.2 Because these eligible students and their families composed a large and powerful Congressional constituency, and because the institutions they were likely to attend were larger, comprehensive colleges and universities, these policies could be characterized

127

Page 2: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

as "distributive policies,'f or, in other words, forms of direct patronage to specific clientele.

Moreover, consistent with more familiar pat- terns of distributive policy such as water resources de~elopment,~ or, in the past, tariff policies,4 the changes in aid policy heralded by the 1972 HEA were characterized principally by the dominance of flsub- system" interactions insulated from broad public debate.5 Furthermore, they were also characterized by huge proposed subsidies from the federal treasury, active executive agency advocacy on behalf of their adoption, and significant compromises extended to propitious opposition groups.

This paper examines the subsystem policy- making process through an analysis of House and Senate subcommittee hearings between 1966 and 1971. The focus of this examination is three-fold: (1) policy differences between groups and among legisla- tors, (2) oversight concerns and general administra- tive-I islative relationships as related to the tone of deba t8 and (3) measurable perceptions of the sa- lience of specific issues to policy-makers as expressed through content analysis of the hearings.

The Subsystem Process

The responsibility for formulating aid programs and for first-line oversight of OE for the period under study lay in the Subcommittee on Education of the House Education and Labor Committee and the Special Subcommittee on Education of the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee. The role of parent committee chairs in shaping aid policies-- was negligible. In the House, Carl Perkins of Kentucky, successor to the controversial Adam Clayton Powell, had his legislative powers curtailed by the Education and Labor Committee in 1966. One consequence of this was that Education Subcommittee head Edith Green of Oregon found herself in a uniquely powerful

128

Page 3: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

position to shape financial aid policy.

In the Senate, Labor and Public Welfare Chair- man Lister Hill concentrated upon health policy, deferring to Subcommittee heads Wayne Morse (1966- 1968) and Claiborne Pell (1969 and after) in educa- tion. Although Hill was a subcommittee member, he rarely exercised his prerogative to question witnesses.

House subcommitte head Green was perhaps the best friend American Higher Education had in Con- gress as attested to by her 14 honorary Ph.D.'s.7 Her major concerns were to insure that minority interests were represented on the subcommittee, and that contemplated shifts in aid policy fairly assess the needs of middle as well as lower income students. She preferred "voucher" assistance but was open to proposals for institutional aid. As work on the 1972 HEA progressed, Green reversed her position when it became apparent that the educational "establishment" was having second thoughts about voucher aid. Fi- nally, like most subcommittee heads, her interests were largely reflected by career experience. She was a former schoolteacher and a past public relations director for the Oregon Educational Association.8

This link between interest and career experi- ence also characterized the other subcommittee members. John Brademas of Indiana, the ranking Democrat behind Green, and John Dellenbeck, the ranking Republican, had many ties to higher educa- tion. Additionally, subcommittee staff in the House were as actively committed to higher education as were subcommittee members.

In the Senate, Wayne Morse had been a staunch supporter of higher education since passa e of the National Defense Education Act of 1 9 5 8 3 He had been a law professor before entering the Senate. His successor, Claiborne Pell, was a relative newcomer to the field of education policy when he became chair in

129

Page 4: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

1969. His chief interest was foreign policy-he had a master's degree in international relations and served in the foreign service.1° When Morse's 1968 defeat propelled Pel1 into the Education Subcommittee chairmanship, however, his accommodation of OE officials led him to become the principal Senate sponsor of the 1972 HEA and landed him substantial support from Rhode Island educators in his 1972 re- election contest with John Chafee; a race he handily won.11

By far, however, the dominant personality on the subcommittee was Ralph Yarborough of Texas. The principal author of the acclaimed oil and gas ?3onus Royalty Trust Fund" for support of Texas land-grant universities, Yarborough was a leading advocate of higher education throughout his political career. H e often rescued the testimony of witnesses from hostile questioning during hearings.lZ

The presence of subcommittee staff was di- rectly apparent during hearings. Staff members not only substituted for Senators during the latter's absence, but, according to Stephen Bailey, fre uently acted as %urrogatetl Senators for Education. 19

A content analysis of subcommittee hearings for the years 1966 through 1971 was conducted. After passage of the 1965 HEA, hearings were held to

'modify aid programs as recommended by OE. In 1970, President Nixon introduced proposals for a state "incentive" grant program, a "Basic Grant" program to be directly managed by OE, and a modified loan program for middle income students. Upon passage, these proposals became the 1972 Higher Education Amendments.

130

Page 5: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

1. Attitudes Exib i ted Tomrd OE OFficislm As Ar t icu le ted in Categories o f OversiRht Concerns: % total r t a t w n t a +

Rsfarancablaoialatnrr

( A ) compliment o f o r r i c i a l f o r fo l lowing previous

(6) compliment or o f f i c i a l for act ing i n tke

(c) wmpl iment or o f f i c i a l for set is factory

( 0 ) other favorable references-to cendor, brevity,

(€1 ind i rect c r i t i c i m o f o f f i c i a l throuph

d i rec t i ve o f committee.

"pub1 i c in terest .I'

response to an inquiry.

incisivenesa, promptners, elc.

, c r i t i c i s m or the President.

(F) c r i t i c i s m o f o f f i c i a l for alleeed substantive Tlaw i n testimony.

(GI c r i t i c i s m or o r f i c i a l for f r i l u r e to f o l i o w previous d i rec t i ve or request of cornittee.

rpdz H -

-

14

14

-

57

14

m0 H S

m S H -

5

16

5

5

47

21

1911 H S

25

5a

25

Total - ti s -

3.5

8. I

3.4

5.6

11.8

7

* parcentages for any eiven year may not add up to 100% due to rounding. "H" i s House, "S" Senate.

Source for these sampled references include: U.5. House o r Representatives SubcomnlttaaMEducatlan ' , Conunittee on Education end Labor, 1966, 1967, 1468, 1970, 1971. U.S. Senate ' * Subcoanittee on €&cation, b i t t e e on Labor end Publ ic Welfare, I&, 1967, 19-471.

haLpra fhn Also,

Page 6: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

Figure 1 examines responses to administrative testimony. There was considerable divergence of opinion between House and Senate members toward the value of that testimony. Far more substantive criticisms of administrative policy appeared on the House side than in the Senate. In addition, there were more favorable references to administrative perfor- mance in the Senate; supporting the contention of Norman Thomas that OE generally receives more program support in the Senate.14 It also reflects the aforementioned influence of Senators Pel1 and Yarborough on the tone of the hearings.

Exemplary of this higher level of support was an incident during the 1968 hearings. At the conclusion of an OE presentation urging adjustments to aid policies, Senator Morse thanked the witnesses for the brevity and clarity of their presentations and then forecasted: "...we will continue to work with you in the future because your performance is very good."l5

The paucity of Senate criticisms of OE was also paralleled by a greater amount of disapprobation directed at the President-denoted by item "E." Figure I1 examines the substantive policy concerns of subcommittee members. Item I'D," which specifically catalogues responses to loan policies, suggests that House subcommittee members were more uniformly concerned with program cost than were their Senate counterparts.

The effects of increased aid upon educational quality was cited by both sides. Only one comment was gleaned from either subcommittee, however, on the relationship between the sudden influx of assisted students and a lessening of admission standards. Several Senate subcommittee members expressed ap- prehension at the "specter" of unrestricted institu- tional- assistance.16

The most profound issue separating t h e Senate

132

Page 7: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

and House on program cost, however, revolved around differing conceptions of 'cost-effectiveness.' House subcommittee members were apprehensive about in- stitutional assistance because they believed it would lead to soaring costs and the need for bureaucratic controls to insure against abuse. In the Senate, the only comparable concern was expressed during the 1971 hearings in reference to the proposed "Basic Grant." There were several comments to the effect that some students might "waste" such outright "gift" aid, or even engage in "theft"; a reaction which helps to- account for some of the support expressed for institutional aid.

With this notable exception, Senate subcom- mittee members otherwise exhibited little concern about program costs and urged OE to do the same. Typical of this stance was the following comment made by Senator Yarborough during the 1966 hear- ings. Summing up the subcommittee's reactions to an OE presentation, Yarborough lashed out at officials for their supposed lack of aggressiveness: rryou must try to be more militant in your justifications," he urged. l7

Figure I1 also reveals that both chambers were concerned with "affirmative actign" issues. On the House side, this is at least partly attributable to the role of Edith Green as advocate for minorities. Oftentimes, she would interrupt a witness to inquire as to the number of women faculty, students, and staff at the witness's institution.

Figure I11 examines the articulated concerns of principal groups represented at the hearings. It reveals that although most groups preferred institu- tional aid, high support for student assistance was also apparent. Only one interest group expressed concern over the cost of aid programs, however-the American Council on Education. Most likely, this reflects ACE'S long-cultivated image of responsibility

133

Page 8: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

+ u. Substant ive Pol i cy Concerns Art iculatad by Leeislatore by Category8 $ o f tots1 eta tment r

H S Ii 2; I I

II

2i

3:

s 11 7.3

13

6.2

27

12.4

26

7.8

- 6

12

30

18

30

3

S 22

13

4.6

11

4.6

17

7.2

H 8

I 1

5

24

16

30

5

( A ) concern w i t h " i ns t i t u t ional" aid.

(I31 concern for needy etudenls expressed through preference for categorical grents.

(C) concern expreseed for privacy of a id applicant and(') family and/or federal 'control ' o f colleges.

(D) (D) cancsrn over negative e f fec ts of loan prourams-- student debt, defaulto, lack o f lender incentive.

(€1 ( E l concern wi th propran coats, i n general, VS. program b e d i is.

( F )

(8)

(f) concern wi th effects o f a i d progrwne upon

(6) concern that aid programs address broad minor i ty

sducel ional standards.

group and/or 'laffirmet ive action" issues.

9

-

50

9

23

12

26

5

14

5

21

17

t i 12

12

9

17

14

26

9

S 15

23

-

-

23

23

15

-~

percentages for any given year m y not add up l o I& bscaure o f rovdine. "li" i n lbuae, "So' Senate.

Source i s s m m so for Figure 1.

Page 9: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

figure 111. Subelantive P o l i c y Concornr k l i c u l a l d , by Ooupr by Category1 % o f totel ehtemente

BElersncsbErrrrrpa

(A) concern w i lh " i n s t i t u t i o n a l " aid.

(8) concern for needy atudenls expreeeed throuph

(C) concern expressed f o r pr ivacy o f a i d appl icant and

preference for c a t e p r i c a l pretilr.

fami ly and/or federa l ' con t ro l ' o f oollepes.

(U) concern over nepetive e f f e c t e o f loan p rowma- - r l u d e n l debl, de feu l l s , lack o f lender incentive.

(L) concern w i t h propram costs , in general, VB.

proqrarn benef i la .

( f ) concern w i l h e f f e c l e o f a i d proprame upon edttca t iona I s landards.

(6) concern I t m l a i d proprama address broad m i n o r i t y Eroup and/or " a f f i rma l i ve ection" issues.

UM H S 33

6

11

28

6

I I

6

-

1 39

n

6

24

- -

3

146114hB S 1

26

21

3

I I

4

23

6

L4111 S

_IpzL S

Total

S 38

19

7

10

In r(

.B c3

16

6

* percenlagee fo r any Riven year may no1 edd up to IOU$ because o f rounding. "H" i s Ibuee, "S" Senate.

Source i e eama aa for F i p r e a I and II.

Page 10: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

which, as we have previously noted, requircs the appearance of philosophical detachment and im- purtiulity before Congress.

Opposition to the effects of loan programs (item "D") was exhibited chiefly by bankers. The greater degree of concern expressed over this issue on the House side may reflect the greater representation of these groups a t House hearings-shown in Figure IV.

Figure IV. Representation of Interest Croups by Category Before House and Senate Education Subcommittees: 1966-1971.

--

Type of Group Number of Appearances

House Senate

American Council on Educatton

Representatives of large and well-funded private schools

Representatives of smaller and lesser-funded schools

Bankers and Lending Institutions

State agencies of higher education

Chief Executive Officers of large, vell-funded schools

Chief Executive Officers of small, lesser-funded schools

Admissions, Financial Aid Officers, etc.

Other (librarians, individual scholars, etc. 1

7 5

7 6

17 10

20 7

4 5

15 13

2 6

14 7

12 6 ~

.source is s a m a3 for Figures I, 11, 111.

Although accessibility does not automatically translate into influence, the greater frequency of appearance of bankers at House subcommittee hear- ings suggests a greater sensitivity towards (or perhaps a greater political dependence upon) these groups.

136

Page 11: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

On the other hand, it is significant that the least represented group in both chambers was the category "Chief Executive Officers of Small Schools."

Figure V examines the association between the policy concerns of legislators and groups. The extremely high correlation between the articulated concerns of Senators and group spokespersons-so high as to be suspect-suggests a conscious attempt by each side to accommodate the concerns of the other. I t also reflects the degree to which the Senate actively pushed for higher education prqgrams re- gardless of cost.

Correlat ion Coefficients For Substantive "* Policy bncerns o f Legislators and Croups'

a. EiausE nf eErlL.-+m+*b U l l e m l 4 4 s b h Y c * (NI2 (N13

A 18 B 26 C 15 D 49 E 26 F 54 G 18

71 49 17 35

4 33 17

'Spearman's rho .43

l i tem l e t t e r re fers to same categories as on Figures I , 1 1 , 1 1 1 .

2Aesponses are ci ted references in henrings between 1966-1971.

'Same as S.

A B C D

15 10 1 7

26 15 5 7

E 3 1 F 10 10 G 5 4

+Spearman's rho .81

1, 2, 3 are same as 1,2,and 3 above.

137

Page 12: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

Sub-system Compromise and Policv Outcomes

Most observers agree that the 1972 HEA con- stituted one of the greatest compromise measures i n the history of American higher education. One analyst has somewhat cynically characterized it as ''a pot- pourri which tried to help the Indians, the minorities, and make the rich richer in its emphasis on loans to needy students."l* On a less cynical note, however, this same observer conceded that "the unique con- tribution of the act. ..is that it states that every American is equally entitled to post-secondary edu- cation;"19 by no means an insignificant contribution.

In what specific respects do the policies of this act reflect sub-system compromises? In the first place, the fundamental schism which the HEA was intended to bridge was a question of policy direction: should federal aid efforts concentrate upon assisting institutions or students? As I have shown, and as has been confirmed by other observers, the HEA was a categorical defeat for those who principally wanted institutional aid. 2o

Despite th is fact, however, three specific policy outcomes contained in the act nevertheless constitu- ted peace offerings to t h e advocates of institutional aid born in committee. These outcomes included: two distinct forms of direct institutional relief, a com- promise formula for the funding of the Basic Grant program, and a $50 million "incentive grant" program to assist states in developing their own student grant programs.

The two forms of institutional relief were the "Strengthening Developing Institutions" program, mi- ginally begun under Title I11 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (and expanded under the 1972 act),21 and a so-called ?'cost of instruction" allowance designed to compensate colleges for the costs allegedly in-

138

Page 13: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

curred in teaching disadvantaged students-whose sudden influx was assumed to follow the creation of the Basic Grant program.22

The Developing Institutions' program was a concession to smaller colleges unable to afford programs to recruit and retain minorities or to enhance such students' basic skills. I t was also designed to upgrade faculty quality. The greatest beneficiaries of the program have been traditionally black colleges which, even before 1972, came to depend upon such funds as essential components of their operating budgets.

Described by one set of critics as a "highly politicized program, plagued b mismanagement at campus and federal levels,"22 it remains popular among recipient schools. The fact that it has been continued, moreover, points to the fact that the program conformed in many respects to a "distribu- tive" politics model of sub-system compromise. Al- though the program is controversial because of its blatantly candid "subsidy" characteristics, it had to be included in the HEA to mitigate criticisms from less affluent schools. 24

The other direct-assistance program included in the act, although also designed as a concession to many of these same schools, existed only on paper. The "cost of instruction" allowance was almost struck from the HEA in conference but survived in the final bill signed by President Nixon. Although it proposed a complex formula for the awarding of funds to colleges based upon an institution's aid recipient enrollment, Congress has never funded the pro- gram.25 In essence, its establishment symbolizes Congress's reluctance toward moving away from Voucherff aid on the one hand, yet its fear of displeasing any single group on the other.

A similar, though somewhat contrasting, fate

139

Page 14: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

has befallen the Basic Grant--renamed "Pel1 Grants" in honor of the principal Senate sponsor of the 1972 H E A . Although the Nixon administration was f i rmly committed to full-funding of the program,26 a num- ber of adjustments to the program-worked out after its authorization--assured priority funding of the other campus-based programs favored by financially- pressed schools.

In the House, efforts to make these adjustments were led principally by Congresswoman Green before passage of the HEA. During floor debate preceding authorization, Green introduced several letters from higher education officials into the Congressional Record which were critical of the act. Most of these m r o m small colleges in the Midwest and South, and they protested the lack of ade uate institutional assistance available from HEW.2f Green, whose subcommittee favorably reported the HEA to the full Education and Labor Committee, actually voted against the Amendments. Further underscoring her frustration, she subsequently resigned as subcommit- tee head to join the subcommittee of Labor and HEW of the House Appropriations Committee-a position she used to block funding efforts for the HEA.

During the 1973 Appropriations Subcommittee hearings, Green said her change of heart was attri- butable to the fact that several groups initially supportive of the act now opposed it due to fears that non-Basic Grant programs would be phased out of existence. Among the groups cited were the Ameri- can Council on Education, The National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, and the Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Partly through Green's efforts, the committee voted not to appropriate funds for the BEOG program until the three primary campus-based programs-work- study, National Direct Student Loans, and Supple- mental Education Grants-were first funded at "threshold" levels.

140

Page 15: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

These efforts were also favorably received by bankers whom, we should recall, were heavily repre- sented on the enigmatic OE "Financial Aid Advisory Com mi t tee," and who also testified at subcommittee hearings in both chambers. As previously noted, the House Subcommittee was especially receptive to their demands for loan program reform.

All of these compromises signalled a funda- mental shift in attitude toward higher education which is only now being fully appreciated. More than anything, the 1972 HEA underscores the degree to which higher education in America has become a "service" industry with a broadly-based clientele and a diverse number of "suppliers1' who compete for consumer at ten tion.

As noted in the Carnegie Councils' 1975 report entitled The Federal -- Role in Post-Secondary Educa- tion. thefederal government has committed itself to " - aid policies that treat students as free agents who seek their own educational services.29 Although the rationale behind this policy is the assumption that the choices of most students will happily converge with the interests of the greatest number of schools, this "voting by feet113o may heighten competition for students among schools and lead increasingly to resource disparities among colleges for research funds and general institutional support. In conclusion, although such an outcome converges all too well with the 17distributive11 outlook of Congress and with the political realities of subsystem compromise, it is less certain that it realistically confronts the difficult financial choices higher education will face in the decade of the 1980's.

lRepresentative John Brademas, cited in John Beckler, "The Disemboweling of Aid to Higher Edu- cation," College Management (8) 1973: 14.

141

Page 16: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

2What is being suggested, therefore, is that they were intended to be distributive policies. For t h e original definition of this concept, see Theodore Lowi, "American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory," World Politics (16) 1964: 677-715.

3Woter projects as the classic case of 'distri- butive' politics is reiterated by Henry C. Hart, "To ward A Political Science of Water Resources Decisions," in Man and Water: The Social Sciences in - the M a n a g e m e K o f - W x R e x u r K e d i t e d by Douglas James (Exington: University of Kentucky Press, 19741, p. 127. Also, see William B. Lord, "Water Resources Planning: Conflict Management," Water Spectrum, July, 1980: 2.

4See Lowi, "American Business...t1

5J. Leiper Freeman, The Political Process: Executive Bureau-LegislativeTommittee R m s ( N e w k : Random House, 19651, 6-12.

6The intimate relationship between oversight and policy is most succinctly art iculated by Morris S. Ogul, Congress Oversees the Bureaucracy: Studies in Legislative Su ervision (Pittsburgh: University of P i c

that members of Congress react toward policy issues within the jurisdiction of their committees in a 'rational' way which is revealed by their a t t i tudes and comments is argued by Seymour Scher, "Conditions for Legislative Control," Journal - of Politics 25 (Au-

tsburgh Press, --e-T- 1976 pp. 3-26 especially. The notion

gust, 1963): 526-551.

7See Congressional Directory, 1966.

8Ibid.

gNorman Thomas, Education in National Politics ( N e w York: David McKay, 1971),p. 132.

142

Page 17: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

1OThe - Almanac o f American Politics, Michael Barone, et. al., editors m o r k : E.P. Dutton, 1975), p. 763-4.

12Congressional Directory, 1968.

13Stephen K. Bailey, Education Interest Groups -- in the Nation's Capital (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1975), p. 63.

' 14Thomas, Education - in National Politics, pp. 115ff.

15See, U.S. Senate, Education Legislation, 1968, 90th Congress, 2nd session, Subcommittee on Educa- tion of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

p. 840.

16See Thomas, p. 115.

ITSee, U.S. Senate, Higher Education Amend- ments of 1966, Subcommittee on Education- Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 89th Con- gress, 2nd session, p. 257.

l80liver J. Caldwell, "American Higher Educa- tion and t h e Federal Government," in Money, Marbles, or Chalk: Student Financial Support in Higher - Edu- cation, edited by Roland King, et. a c (Carbondale: SIU Press, 1975), p. 32.

---

--

20Chester E. Finn, Jr., Scholars, Dollars and Bureaucrats (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1 9 7 8 ) x 61.

143

Page 18: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

ZlDavid W. Breneman and Susan C. Nelson, "Education and Training," in Set t ing National Pri- orities: A enda for the ' ~ O ' S , edited by Joseph A. -+--- Pechman Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 19801, p. 243.

-

22Finn, Scholars ..., p. 126.

23See Breneman and Nelson, ftEducation and Training," p. 243.

241bid. Also see John Phillips, "Don't Forget the 'Student' in Student Assistance,I1 in Formulatin

Alternatives, edited by John F. Hughes and Olive Mills (Washington, D.C.:

Ye- Polic in Post-Secondary Education: --- The __lfp Search or

ACE, 19751, p. 145.

25Finn, Scholars ..., p. 127.

26See Joseph Boyd, "State Programs of Finan- cial Aid," in Money, Marbles, or Chalk: Student Financial Support in Higher Education, edited by Roland Keene, et. a r (Carbondale : SIU Press, 19751, p. 43 especially.

- -

27See Con ressional Record, June 7, 8, 1972,

28See, U.S. House of Representatives, De- partments of Labor and HEW Appropriations -- for lm Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor and HEW of the Appropriations Commit tee , 93rd Congress, 1st session, part I, p. 109.

pp. 19937, 20279, -g-28- 20 2.

----

29The Federal Role in Post-Secondary Educa- tion: U n m s h e d B u s i n F ( N T w York: Carnegie Coun- cil on Higher Education, 1975), pp. 1-9 especially.

30An expression which cogently summarizes t h e outcome of "voucher aid." Quoted from Joan S. Stark, The Many Faces of Educational Consumerism (Lex- ington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 19771, p. 32. - --

. 144

Page 19: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

SOURCES FOR ANALYSES OF HEARINGS

The principal sources c i t e d for conten t analyses of Congressional hearings a r e as follows:

House of Representat ives , U.S. Hearings -- Before t h e Subcommit tee on Education, C o m m i t t e e on Education and L a b o r , 89 th Congress, 2nd seG sion, on H R T 3 l n n d 13239, March 10, 11, 14 , 16,17, 1966.

. Hearings Before t h e Subcommit tee on Education, C o m m i t t e e on Education and Labor, 90th Congress, 1st s e s s i o x par t I1 on HR 6232 and 6265, April, May, August, 1967.

--

--

. Hearings Before the Subcommit tee o n Education, C o m m i t t e e o n Education and LaTor, 90th Congress, 2nd seF sion, on HR 15067, February, 1968, p a r t s I and 11.

--

. Hearings Before t h e Subcommittee on Education, C o m m i t t e e on Education -- and L a b o r , o n g r e s s , 1st sessiox on HR 16098, December, 1969, January, Feb- ruary, March, 1970, p a r t s I and 11.

. Hearings Before t h e

--

v -- S u b c o m v a t i o n , C o m m i t t e e on Education andTa- Congress, 1st s e c -- sion, on HR 32, 5191; 5192, 5193, 7248, par t I , March, 1971.

Senate, U.S. Higher Education Amendments -- of 1966, Subcommit tee on Education, C o m m i t t e e on La- bor and Public Welfare, 89th Congress, 2nd session, on S 3047 and HR 14644, Ju ly , 1966.

145

Page 20: CONGRESS AND DISTRIBUTIVE POLICY IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE CASE OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1972

. Education Legisla- tion, 1967, Subcommittee on Education, Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress, 1st session, on S 1125 and HK 7819.

. Education Legislation, - 1968, Subcommittee on Education, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 90th Congress, 2nd session, on S 3098 and S 3099.

--

. Higher Education Amendments of 1970, 92nd Congress, 1st ses-

- sion, Subcommittee on Education of the Com- mittee on Labor and Public Welfare, on S 659, March, April, May, 1971.

--

146