Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1

I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

OCR

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: Issue Papers - Education (1 of 2)
Box: P30
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
AID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION
Feb. 1974
California's Financial Support for Public Education
(1966-67 to Proposed 1974-75 Budget)
1/Budget
Budget
State Support
% Envollment
Year 1966-67
Year 74-75 (Est)
Has Increased
Has Increased in
(Prior Admin.)
(Reagan Admin.)
in 8 Years
8 Years (FTE or ADA)
State Colleges
$ 167.7
$ 480.2
$--Up 312.5
(Universities)3/
Million
Million
Million
Up 78.4%
%-Up 163.6%
U.C. System3/
$ 240.1
$ 493.2
$--Up 253.1
Million
Million
Million
Up 43.9%
%--Up 105.4%
Junior Colleges4
$ 74.4
$ 314.8
$--Up 240.4
Million
Million
Million
Up 83.5%
%--Up 323%
State Student
$
4.7
$ 43.0
$--Up 38.3
Scholarships &
Million
Million
Million
Loans, including
%--Up 914.9%
Administration
State Funds for
$1.231
$2.691 1
$--Up 1.459
Public Schools
Billion
Billion
Billion
(K-145/
Up 10.6%
%--Up 118%
State General
$1.154
$2.371
$--Up 1.217
Funds for Public
Billion
Billion
Billion
Up 5.0%
School Education
%--Up 105%
(K-12)6/
1/ 1966-67 was the final budget year of the previous administration.
2/ All figures are those proposed in the 1974-75 Governor's Budget.
3/ Figures for U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increases
for 1974-75.
4/ 1974-75 figures for Community Colleges include funds for the Board of Governors of the Community
Colleges.
5/ Figures include both State Operations and Local Assistance budgets for Education, K-14, all funds.
6/ Figures include both State Operations and Local Assistance budgets for Education, K-12, General
Fund costs only.
1973
AID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION
California's Financial Support for Public Education
(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)
(a) Budget
Budget*
State Support
% Enrollment***
Year 1966-67
Year 73-74 (Est)
Has Increased
Has Increased in
(Prior Admin.)
(Reagan Admin.)
in 7 Years
7 Years
State Colleges
$167.7
$442.1
$--Up $274.4
(Universities)
Million
Million
Million
Up 81.2%
%--163.6
Junior Colleges****
$ 74.4
$219.3
$--Up $144.9
Million
Million
Million
Up 78.8%
%--Up 195%
U.C System
$240.1
$429.6**
$--Up $189.5
Million
Million
Million
Up 38.6%
%--Up 78.9%
State Student
$ 4.7
$ 38.6
$--Up $ 33.9
Scholarships &
Million
Million
Million
Loans, including
%--Up 721.3%
Administration
State Funds for
$1.218
$2.446
$--Up $1.228
Public Schools
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 11.1%
(K-14)
%--Up 102%
State General +
$1.140++
$2.199
$--Up $1.059
Funds for Public
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 5.7%
School Education
%--Up 92.9%
(K-12)
*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.
**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.
***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.
+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).
++K-12 General Fund costs only;
a-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.
****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.
AID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION
California's Financial Support for Public Education
(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)
(a) Budget
Budget*
State Support
% Enrollment***
Year 1966-67
Year 73-74 (Est)
Has Increased
Has Increased in
(Prior Admin.)
(Reagan Admin.)
in 7 Years
7 Years
State Colleges
$167.7
$442.1
$--Up $274.4
(Universities)
Million
Million
Million
Up 81.2%
%--163.6
Junior Colleges****
74.4
$219.3
$--Up $144.9
Million
Million
Million
Up 78.8%
%--Up 195%
U.C System
$240.1
$429.6**
$--Up $189.5
Million
Million
Million
Up 38.6%
%--Up 78.9%
State Student
$ 4.7
$ 38.6
$--Up $ 33.9
Scholarships &
Million
Million
Million
Loans, including
%--Up 721.3%
Administration
State Funds for
$1.218
$2.446
$--Up $1.228
Public Schools
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 11.1%
(K-14)
%--Up 102%
State General +
$1.140++
$2.199
$--Up $1.059
Funds for Public
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 5.7%
School Education
%--Up 92.9%
(K-12)
*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.
**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.
***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.
+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).
++K-12 General Fund costs only;
a-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.
****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.
AID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION
California's Financial Support for Public Education
(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)
(a) Budget
Budget*
State Support
% Enrollment***
Year 1966-67
Year 73-74 (Est)
Has Increased
Has Increased in
(Prior Admin.)
(Reagan Admin.)
in 7 Years
7 Years
State Colleges
$167.7
$442.1
$--Up $274.4
(Universities)
Million
Million
Million
Up 81.2%
%--163.6
Junior Colleges****
74.4
$219.3
$--Up $144.9
Million
Million
Million
Up 78.8%
%--Up 195%
U.C System
$240.1
$429.6**
$--Up $189.5
Million
Million
Million
Up 38.6%
%--Up 78.9%
State Student
$ 4.7
$ 38.6
$--Up $ 33.9
Scholarships &
Million
Million
Million
Loans, including
%--Up 721.3%
Administration
State Funds for
$1.218
$2.446
$--Up $1.228
Public Schools
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 11.1%
(K-14)
%--Up 102%
State General +
$1.140++
$2.199
$--Up $1.059
Funds for Public
Billion
Billion
Million
Up 5.7%
School Education
%--Up 92.9%
(K-12)
*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.
**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.
***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.
+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).
++K-12 General Fund costs only;
a-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.
****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.
State of California
Edus
Memorandum
To
:
Ed Gray
Date : March 20, 1973
Subject: Attached chart
From :
Alex C Sherriffs
This is a page from the Ford Foundation Program for Research
in University Administration report, An Economic Theory of
Ph.D. Production: The Case at Berkeley, by David W. Breneman.
It indicates how many graduate years are involved in getting
a Ph.D. at Berkeley. You will note that Entomology requires
a modest 5.02 years on the average (making nine years of col-
lege education), where Philosophy requires 18.78 years on the
average (making 22.78 years of college education). There is
not only dollar waste involved here, there is human waste.
ACS: sd
Attachment
TABLE III: SEVEN YEAR ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE TOTALS,
lity
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, 1961-67*
COLUMN A
COLUMN B
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
a
Degrees per
Student Years
DEPARTMENT
Degrees
Student Years
Student Year
per Degree
Awarded
(Col A/Col B)
(Col B/Col A)
Entomology
79
397
.198
5.02
Chemistry
335
1802
.185
5.38
Chemical Eng.
75
404
.185
5.39
Electrical Eng.
175
1032
.169
5.90
Civil Eng.
129
763
.169
5.91
Physics
380
2438
.155
6.42
Zoology
94
634
.148
6.74
Botany
52
352
.147
6.77
Geology
37
270
.137
7.30
29
Biochemistry
63
469
.134
7.44
Geography
21
158
.132
7.52
Mechanical Eng.
94
716
.131
7.62
Psychology
162
1238
.130
7.64
Astronomy
32
246
.130
7.69
Spanish
18
150
.120
8.33
ions
History
177
1517
.116
8.57
of
Math
194
1680
.115
8.66
Classics
13
118
.110
9.08
German
24
219
.109
9.12
Bacteriology
17
157
.108
9.24
Economics
137
1316
.104
9.61
es
Anthropology
69
720
.095
10.43
Political Sci.
96
1026
.093
10.69
at
Physiology
24
267.
.089
11.12
ish
English
105
1374
.076
13.09
Sociology
57
753
.075
13.21
French
28
374
.074
13.36
Philosophy
27
507
.053
18.78
id
a
Enrollment figures are understated for those departments that require doc-
toral students to first earn the M.A. degree - those student years are not
recorded. Enrollments include both degree and non-degree winners.
*Source: Office of Institutional Research, University of California, Berkeley.
A 6-YEAR ASSESSMENT
Changing University
a Look at Reagan Era
BY WILLIAM TROMBLEY
Times Education Writer
For six years Gov. Reagan has
Gov. Reagan came into office at
feuded with the state's higher edu-
cation community, especially with
the end of a golden period in Califor-
the University of California. The
nia higher education. For 2 decade
governor contends that his policies
there had been remarkable, seem-
have helped restore order to the
ingly unlimited growth.
troubled campuses and that his lean
budgets have not damaged educa-
The University of California added
tion quality.
three new campuses (Irvine, San
But in the universities and col-
Diego and Santa Cruz), trans-
leges it is widely believed that Rea-
formed Davis and Santa Barbara
gan's budget policies and frequently
Effective Campaign
from small campuses with limited
Barsh attacks have been damaging
Reagan campaigned effectively in
missions into large, general univer-
to the institutions and have under-
the fall of 1966 on a promise to clean
sities and added to the already con-
mined public confidence in tax-sup-
up "the mess at Berkeley," though it
siderable reputations of UC Berke-
ported higher education. The accom-
was not clear what action he would
ley and UCLA.
panying article, by a senior Times
take to do SO.
Three expensive new medical
education writer who has reported
(At one point the candidate pro-
schools were started - at Davis,
on higher education in California for
posed an investigation by a blue-rib-
Ivine and San Diego. Research insti-
seven years, attempts to assess Rea.
bon committee headed by former
tutes spouted on all campuses, large-
gan's impact.
CIA Director John McCone, but he
ly financed by the whopping federal
dropped this idea after being elect-
grants which became available in
Signs of Trouble in 1960s
ed.)
the sciences and engineering, and to
a lesser extent in the social sciences,
"If you look at the policies that be-
"What's the 30-second answer to
in the '50s and '60s.
gan to bubble up in the early 1960s
the 'mess at Berkeley' thing?" an an-
you could see signs of financial trou-
guished Tom Braden, the liberal
A growth plan was approved
ble," said Prof. Neil J. Smelser, a UC
Democrat who headed the State
which envisioned three more new
Berkeley sociologist who has just
Board of Education under former
campuses and a total enrollment of
completed a study of California
Gov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, asked
300,000 by the end of the century.
higher education in the '60s.
this reporter during a chance encoun-
The state colleges added six new
"There was already talk of tuition,
ter at the Oakland Airport during
campuses and made the sometimes
and the university's change from
the 1966 campaign.
difficult transition from teachers'
the semester to the quarter system
"Reagan is killing us on television
colleges to liberal arts institutions.
was more to save money than any-
with that line."
The number of two-year community
thing else."
The Democrats never found the
colleges leaped from 60 in 1955 to 76
The experts who drew up Califor-
answer.
a decade later.
nia's Master Plan for Higher Educa-
Student attitudes were changing,
Bond Issues Approved
tion in 1959 believed that the state
too. The large, impersonal campuses
Enrollment boomed and financial
could pay the bill for a continuing
which California built to satisfy the
support seemed to be solid. Taxpay-
rapid expansion. But, according to
college-going urge of its young citi-
ers approved one bond issue after
Smelser, "that rosy view was just not
zens (and their families) bred alien-
another, local and statewide, for
realistic. The signs of financial
ation and discontent in a significant
stress were already there three or
segment of students,
construction of new college and uni-
versity facilities. UC and the state
four years before Reagan came in."
For some of the brighter high
school graduates it became fashiona-
colleges received most of their oper-
ating budget requests from the state
ble not to go to college, at least not
for a year or two. As draft calls
each year.
Alan Post, the state's respected
dwindled, this trend accelerated.
The emphasis was on quantity-
legislative analyst, agrees.
providing for the seemingly endless
Please Turn to Page 3, Col. 1
"The state was going to have to
stream of California youngsters
pull back," Post said. "The state ex-
seeking higher education-but qual-
panded its services rapidly because
ity was not slighted.
of a surplus of funds in the postwar
Nobel Prize winners dotted the
boom, but by the mid-'60s taxes
University of California faculty-10
were at the limit and the Democrats
at Berkeley. two at UC San Diego,
were employing every trick they
another at UCLA-and UC annually
could think of to balance the budget.
harvested a bumper crop of young
This was not a problem Reagan
scholars from the nation's best grad-
created, it was a situation he inherit-
uate schools.
ed."
Faculty quality was more uneven
in the state college system, but
In the meantime, other events
there, too, the lure of good salaries,
were weakening the strong position
warm climate and a higher-educa-
higher education once held in the
state.
tion boom attracted many able
professors. But all of this was
Student protest. beginning with
drawing to a close in the mid-'60s,
the Free Speech Movement at UC
with or without Ronald Reagan.
Berkeley in 1964 and continuing
California's tax base could not
with powerful demonstrations
support the ever-expanding higher
against the Vietnam war, aroused
education budgets at a time when
hostility among many taxpayers.
welfare and health care costs also
The public was not sure whether
were mounting rapidly.
to blame "a handful of troublemak-
ers" or "spineless administrators" or
"left-wing faculty members," but
they were determined to blame
someone.
The hapless Democrats, who held
the governorship and controlled the
Legislature when the turmoil began,
became convenient targets.
Universities Under Reagan---an Era of
Continued from First Page
The job market tightened. Even
teaching jobs became scarce. Why
go to college, some young people
asked, if you could not get a job
Change
when you graduated?
Why pay for a college education,
their parents asked, when the unem-
Reagan has been stingy with state
ployment rate for college graduates
funds for organized university re-
had risen to 8% while it remained at
search.
5% or 6% for those who did not at-
He seems to have a much greater
tend college?
appreciation for four-year undergra-
Other strange, silent changes were
duate colleges than for complex uni-
taking place. California's birth rate
versities which specialize in re-
was declining and immigration to
search and graduate training.
the Golden State, a statistic which
A high state official recalls that at
had streaked upward on the demo-
a meeting to discuss new facilities
graphic charts for years, was slow-
for a UC campus held early in the
first Reagan Administration the
ing to a crawl.
It is clear now that the mid-'60s
governor said:
"My idea. of higher education is
enrollment projections for the Uni-
four years on a campus with red
versity of California and the Califor-
brick walls and you leave with a
nia state colleges were too high. and
tear in your eye."
the growth plans based on these
projections were unrealistic.
Huge and Complicated
Even Clark Kerr, architect of the
This does not describe the Univer-
university's growth plans as its
sity of California, a huge, complicat-
president from 1958 to 1966, agrees
Clark Kerr
ed, expensive, sometimes cold and
photo
the plans were too ambitious.
impersonal institution which has as
"Had I stayed as president I would
Long-Range Impact
its main goal high-quality research
have had to trim back." said Kerr,
Few of the university's leaders
and the training of the very best
who is now chairman of the Carne-
will say SO publicly, for fear of budg-
graduate students-not the second-
gie Commission on Higher Educa-
etary reprisals, but most of them be-
best or the 10th-best but the very
tion.
lieve the long-range psychological
best.
"The demographic changes must
impact of Reagan's actions and
Reagan attended a "tear in your
have been among the biggest in the
statements will prove to be more da-
eye" school himself--Eureka Col-
history of the world. The recession
maging to the university than his
lege, a small liberal arts institution
played a part too."
fiscal policies.
150 miles southwest of Chicago. And
Serious Money Problems
They believe that the academic
the Eureka College model seems to
environment has deteriorated due to
have stayed with him for 40 years.
Even Ronald Reagan's severest
This attitude accounts for much of
the politization of the university
critics agree that the new governor
and of higher education in general.
inherited serious financial problems
the governor's hostility toward the
Many faculty members have lost
and a changing higher education
University of California, in the opin-
pride in their work and faith in
ion of Richard Peairs, West Coast di-
picture when he took office in Jan-
themselves. They are no longer
rector of the American Assn. of Uni-
uary, 1967.
thought to be distinguished men and
versity Professors.
Some even concede that Reagan's
women who constitute a valuable as-
"I believe the man is honestly mo-
tight budgets have forced adminis-
set to the state but instead are de-
tivated but his experience in higher
trators in both the university and
nounced as tax eaters who do not
education is very much conditioned
the state colleges to become better
produce enough.
by his own undergraduate career at
managers and more realistic plan-
a time and in a place that had very
ners.
To some extent the professors
little to do with the modern higher-
But few forgive Reagan the harsh
have themselves to blame. During
education community," said Peairs.
political rhetoric with which he has
the lush '60s too many, especially in
"Not only is the University of Cali-
attacked the higher education com-
the sciences and engineering,
fornia not Eureka College-even
munity, especially the University of
shirked their teaching responsibili-
Eureka College isn't Eureka College
California. These attacks have da-
ties to pursue research activities.
anymore."
maged morale in the colleges and
Research and advanced graduate
Reagan has dealt somewhat more
universities, especially among the
training. which are the unique re-
sympathetically with the state col-
faculty, and they have persuaded a
sponsibility of the university and its
leges than with U.C.
part of the public that tax dollars
most important function. became for
When he took office, he said in a
spent on higher education are a
some faculty members the only con-
recent interview. the state colleges
waste.
cern. The fewer students they could
were "poor relations" of the univer-
In recent Interviews one UC ad-
teach the better, at whatever level.
sity. "They had been far below in ev-
ministrator spoke of Reagan's
It was much more exciting and
ery instance
We did set out to
"strident and rhetorical statements"
glamorous to be hopping jets to
try and bring the state college SVS-
about the university. and another
Washington twice a month than to
tem to what we felt was a more fair
talked about his "punitive style."
be doing a solid job of teaching and
level."
They have in mind his 1966 cam-
research on one's own campus.
A Change of Name
paign against the "mess at Berke-
ley," the dismissal of President
A Seller's Market
The governor supported legisla-
Kerr, the 1970 threat to deal with
It was a seller's market for acade-
tion to change the system's name to
mic talent and for some professors,
California State University and Col-
Isla Vista rioting through a "blood-
bath," the many statements and sug-
loyalty to a particular campus wilt-
leges, in the face of fierce opposition
ed in the face of tempting offers
from UC.
gestions that UC professors do not
spend enough time in the classroom
from other aspiring institutions.
He has reduced slightly the faculty
salary gap between the two systems.
and live too high on the hog.
But the failings of the university
His dealings with Chancellor Glenn
"Some of these things (budget cuts)
professors have been exaggerated
S. Dumke and the Board of Trustees
would have happened, whoever the
by Gov. Reagan, who not only has
are far more cordial than his spiky
governor was, but perhaps they
claimed they do not teach enough
relations with President Charles J.
wouldn't have been done in such a
but that much of what they do teach
Hitch and the Board of Regents.
hostile way," Prof. Smelser said.
is left-wing propaganda.
The governor's men have kind
"You can cut the budget without
The governor claims to have great
words for Dumke.
suggesting that the faculty is made
respect for the University of Califor-
"You've got to respect him." said
up of loafers and subversives."
iia's research accomplishments but
Finance Director Verne Orr. "He
there is little evidence of this,
wants money as much as the unver-
He is proud enough of the labora-
sity but he's willing to admit it
tories UC operates for the Atomic
when his figures are off.
Energy Commission and of such ac-
tivities as the submarine warfare
and moon rock research under way
at UC San Diego, but all of this is fi-
nanced 100% by the federal govern-
ment,
"11's a different kind of contronta-
meetings
tion on every issue. One (the State
"In that situation Reagan was able
cause the people elected
University and Colleges) is coopera-
to paint a picture of a university
him to do so, but his pre-
tive. When they're asked to take an-
that most of us didn't recognize but
sence frequently turns the
other look at their enrollments or
apparently was believed by many
meetings into confronta-
consider some commendations in an
people."
tions which damage the
audit report, they do it.
Whatever the reasons for the hos-
university's position as a
"The other (UC) appears to us to
tility toward the university and its
nonpolitical institution.
he constantly inflating their figures
faculty, it has taken a psychological
Reagan also contends
and when they're wrong they won't
toll which cannot be measured for
that he has insulated UC
admit it."
many years
and the state colleges from
But when all the words of praise
The attacks have been accompa-
the political fires by ap-
have been spoken and the hard
nied by the increased politicization.
pointing regents and trus-
hudget negotiating has begun, the
The governor says it is not his
tees "who have too much
State University and Colleges do not
fault.
character to inject polities
fare much better than the Universi-
"I've leaned over backwards to
or to take orders from
ty of California.
take any politics out of the adminis-
someone in the governor's
Student-faculty ratios in the state
tration of the university." he said,
office. I never told any of
college system have risen steadily.
"and I think in all fairness it has to
them what to do or how to
In the last three years expenditures
be admitted that this was not true of
vote or anything of the
per student have dorpped about 5%
my predecessors."
kind. I just appointed
while the faculty teaching load has
But the facts indicate otherwise.
what I think are some
increased by 12%.
First, Reagan made higher educa-
pretty distinguished and
Faculty Leaves Curtailed
tion-the "mess at Berkeley" ma-
solid citizens."
A reduced teaching schedule for
jor issue in the '66 campaign.
The Good Ones
Next Kerr, the former UC pres-
professors who handle mostly grad-
There have been some
ident and a prominent liberal, was
uate students (the colleges offer
fired at the first regents meeting
good appointments - re-
master's degrees but no Ph.D.s) has
Reagan attended after his election.
gents William French
been eliminated and there is only
Smith, Robert 0. Reynolds
enough money to finance about 8%
Please Turn to Page 22, Col. 1
and H. R. Haldeman, who
or 9% of the sabbatical leaves
served a short term before
professors have earned.
22 Sec. A-Sun., Jan. 7, 1973
Yes Ingeles Times
becoming President Nix-
"Reagan is our best organizer,"
on's chief of staff: trustees
said Bud Hutchinson, executive sec-
Karl L. Wente, Dr. Wil-
retary of the United Professors of
California, which has about 3,200
Reagan Era Marked
liam McColl (who resigned
to run for Congress) and
members among the 15,000 profes-
W. 0. Weissich; and
sors in the college system and is
Lorenzo N. Hoopes and
pressing for collective bargaining.
by College Changes
Patterson N. Hyndman,
Reagan's policies also have been
members of the Coordinat-
helpful to the state's private colleges
ing Council for Higher
and universities.
Continued from Third Page
Education.
He has increased funding for state
While the governor did
But the governor also
scholarships from $6 million to $40
not initiate this action, it
has named several zealous
million in six years, a boon because
was triggered by his elec-
conservatives who have
about half of the state scholarship
tion,
attempted to use the
winners elect to attend private in-
Reagan has consistently
governing boards as grind-
stitutions,
used the Board of Regents
stones for their ideological
Reagan also has supported grad-
as a forum for personal
axes.
uate fellowships and opportunity
publicity.
Little has been done to
grants for low-income and minority
The governor of Califor-
extend membership to
students, program: S which feed
nia also is the ex officio
minority races or to wom-
about $2 million a year into the pri-
president of the Board of
en.
vate sector.
Regents, but past gover-
Political appointments
A new program this year provides
have been made. Gov. Rea-
about $600.000 to the Stanford, USC
nors rarely attended board
and Loma Linda medical schools to
meetings.
gan did not begin the prac-
train additional doctors. Next year
Realizing that a conflict
tice - several of Pat
of interest existed be-
Brown's political ap-
funding for this program will be
tween the governor, re-
pointees were disastrous
doubled and there is talk of state
sponsible for all of the
mistakes --- but he did not
support for private institutions in
state's expenditures, and
TROUBLE SPOT -
end it, either.
other specialized fields.
president of the Board of
Charles J. Hitch suc-
Taken as a whole, the
Indirectly Reagan has aided pri-
Regents, pressing the uni-
ceeded Clark Kerr as
governor's higher educa-
vate higher education by imposing
versity's annual budget re-
the president of UC.
tion appointments have
tuition at UC and by cutting back on
quest, past governors
(P) photo
been disappointing.
construction on both UC and state
avoided most of the meet-
The governor, holding
university campuses, giving private
ings.
press conferences before
The appointees' impact
institutions a better chance to com-
But Reagan seldom
and after a meeting. usual-
on the institutions they
pete for prospective students.
misses a regents meeting,
ly manages to dominate
govern cannot be judged
and when he is there the
TV coverage of the event.
Some believe Reagan is hostile to
for years. just as it will be
the University of California because
business of education fre-
Charles Hitch. the quiet-
a long time before the true
some of his strongest political back-
quently gives way to the
ly competent but colorless
effects of the politicization
ers in Southern California are USC
politics of confrontation.
economist who replaced
of California higher educa-
The governor's op-
Kerr as UC president, is
men who believe UC offers unfair
tion become clear, but it is
pouents on the board at-
no match for the governor
competition for private schools,
a simpler matter to mea-
tempt to score debating
on the television screen.
sure the results of some of
Others think the Eureka College
points. Once Democrat
Reagan's constant atten-
background is responsible for these
Gov. Reagan's other high-
Fred Dutton, a Brown ap-
dance at regents meetings
er-education policies.
views, while still others believe the
governor drew an early bead on the
pointee, goaded Reagan
has helped him win the
budget and tuition battles
90% of Requests
university because he was con-
into calling him a "lying
son of a bitch."
(after turning down the
Generally speaking
vinced Clark Kerr worked covertly
to defeat him in 1966, (Kerr denies
Reagan's allies and an-
governor's request for tui-
Reagan has been granting
tion in his first year, the
UC and the State Univer-
Unis.)
pointees among the re-
gents rally to the gover-
regents capitulated and
sity and Colleges about
Some see the governor's actions as
nor's defense. even when
voted in a $800 "education
90% of their operating
an inevitable part of recent history.
they privately disagree
fee" for all students a year
budget requests, con-
The Vietnam war radicalized R
with his positions.
later, but in the process
pared to the 95% or more
generation of kids and at the same
the board has been turned
they received from former
time it conservatized a whole gener-
Extensive Coverage
into a political arena.
Gov. Brown.
ation of older people who saw what
A Reagan appearance is
Former UC San Diego
This seems a slight dif-
was going on-the protests, the long
covered by swarms of tele-
Chancellor William J. Me-
ference but it means lar-
hair, the 'counterculture' - and
didn't like it," said Roy G. D'An-
vision reporters who ordi-
Gill described R $
ger classes, higher stu-
narily ignore the Board of
meetings as "theatrical en-
dent-faculty ratios, fewer
drade, gist. a UC San Diego anthropolo-
Regents.
terprises" in a parting shot
dollars spent per student,
before be left the state to
heavier teaching loads,
become president of Co-
crowded libraries, duty
lumbia University.
buildings and few, if any,
new programs.
Hitch
called
the
hudgets
of
the
hearted affairs
Continued from 2nd Page
University of New 1
irnished
our
past
Cal Poly as a peaceful, rur-
campuses-have not 1
compromised
doing much hiring.
al campus populated by
When such an ins
ident-faculty ratio
contented students.
tion does tempt a.
general
UC
Legislative analyst Post
professor, "the unive
(excluding the
said, "I think the state uni-
is still able to come
rancisco
Medical
versity has reached a
with an offer that
has increased
meet the individ
16
to
1
six
point where any increase
needs." according to ]
to
about
18.5 to 1
in class size or faculty
Neil Smelser.
the
state
colleges
teaching load would mean
$11,200 to $27,800
in
those
same
a real deterioration."
been
from
16.3
Both Yale and the
Many in the system be-
to
1.
versity of Chicago are
increase
has
been
lieve the process of deteri-
trying to lure one pi
damaging to
oration already has begun.
inent sociologist a
UC campuses.
Nothing is more impor-
from Berkeley, and
Classes
tant to a university than
vard and Princeton ar
its library. And the Uni-
ter another. But
UC Irvine opened
versity of California li-
chances are they'll
he
student-faculty
braries are in real trouble.
stay," Smelser said, in
a
low
10
to
1
and
planners thought
Fewer books are being
because UC has sweet
about 15 years in
purchased, those which
the pot for both.
reach
the
univer-
are purchased remain un-
Even though Califo
average
of
17
cataloged for months or
faculty members
or
years, library hours have
without any salary
has
been
hir-
been curtailed because of
crease from 1970 to
20
to
30
new
a shortage of personnel.
(once the governor's
each year, in-
theft and vandalism have
the other time the Leg
the planned 70 or
increased sharply.
ture's) salaries have
the result that the
4.1 Million Volumes
HAULED AWAY-Campus police of UC Berkeley
fallen too far behind
faculty
ratio
al-
"The library is an abso-
remove demonstrators during sit-in in Student Union.
competition.
shot
to
20
to
1,
photo
lute disaster," said Charles
(UC professors earn {
in the UC system.
Muscatine, a UC Berkeley
$11,200 to $27,800;
are
crowded
and
expert in medieval French
on the Berkeley faculty,
men at the UC San Diego
range in the Califo
udents cannot get
and English literature.
said the library already is
Medical School have ac-
State University and
they need to
"New books, cataloging,
shared by 80 many people
cepted jobs at Harvard be-
leges is from $10,53
especially in the
maintenance, security -
that "you never expect to
cause the money is not
$20,664.)
even
though
lab
you name it, it's a sham-
find a book on the shelf
available to complete the
A raise averaging 9
are
offered
day
bles."
and there is heavy loss
research programs they
the current year he
seven days a
Muscatine is not talking
due to theft. damage and
came to San Diego to do.
as did the fact t
about the corner branch of
vandalism. The library is
A prominent member of
some professors rece
university's res-
the public library but
very, very bad in terms of
the Berkeley English de-
merit increases and
college exper-
about a 4.1 million-volume
everyday use."
partment has resigned to
motion raises even in
UC Santa Cruz is
by a shortage
library, the second largest
A few hundred feet from
become a lecturer at Ox-
years when there wer
Construction
university library in the
the Berkeley library
ford University, at a sub-
across-the-board incre
of
country and one of the
stands additional evidence
stantial cut in pay.
seventh
and
Another explanation
great cultural assets of the
of Reagan budget cutting
There has been a trickle
colleges has been
the absence of facult
-vacant laboratories in
the addition of fu-
state and the nation.
of first-rate people away
signations came from
the Life Sciences Build-
is in doubt
A year ago Department
from the university. but
unexpected source-(
of Finance auditors sug-
ing, shut down because
basically the governor is
Kerr.
supply of new
the ventilation was inade-
members has
gested that UC sell its rare
correct.
quate and there was no
Negative Noises
size as high as
book collections to pro-
Resignations of tenured
duce revenue for the hard-
money for repairs.
The Berkeley campus
UC faculty members
"Reagan has been a
is exactly the
mass educational
pressed state treasury, a
reached 3% in 1965 and
restrained with the £
UC
Santa
Cruz
proposal SO ludicrous to
has been given $150,000 to
1966, in the wake of the
ty on the political si
many that it damaged the
$300,000 a year for main-
to prevent.
tenance when it should be
free speech protests at
said Kerr.
credibility of other, more
Berkeley, but they have
"He wasn't restra
Isn't
There'
sensible recommendations
spending 10 times that
dropped steadily since
with the students-u
rowded
classes
are
the auditors made after a
amount. As a result, build-
then and now amount to
in
lengthy inspection of uni-
ings and grounds are
gas in Berkeley and
problem
the
less than 1% per year.
that-but he was with
niversity and Col-
versity operations.
going to seed.
These figures do not
faculty. A couple of
However, the Reagan
Rebuttal Provided
take into account the num-
rious academic free
top
official,
"We
Administration is deter-
"We're kind of sliding
ber of sought-after scho-
cases could have b
considerably
re-
mined to make further
downhill slowly," said a
our large institu-
lars or promising young
the place apart."
cuts in library spending.
Berkeley official. "It hap-
ability to offer to
people who decided not to
There have been
Reagan View
pens on all public campus-
the opportu-
come to the University of
close calls. Reagan apr
es, but it's a shame to see it
close work with
Once all eight UC gener-
California because of what
tees on the Board of
here. This was such a pret-
ructor."
al campuses planned to
they judged to be an unfa-
gents once blocked roi
ty place and so well kept
Board of Trustees
have extensive research II-
vorable political climate.
promotions for a Berl
up."
two years ago braries. When John S. Gal-
UC Berkeley economist
history professor who
If class size is increasing,
student body braith was chancellor at
Roy Radner said four se-
been close to campus
teaching loads are heavier,
at Cal Poly San UC San Diego he made
nior persons have turned
cals and a UCLA phi
the libraries are a mess
complained such an issue of the need
down his department's of-
and the buildings are fall-
phy professor who
had little opportu- for a great research libra-
fer since 1969, "giving as
ing apart, then surely
ported Angela Davis.
talk to his profes- ry that a bishop prayed for
their reason the political
there were 40 it at Galbraith's inaugura-
professors must be leaving
they withdrew their o
and financial situation the
the state in droves.
tions the next month.
tudents in all his tion.
university is in."
They are not, providing
There were nega
Galbraith is gone now
Gov. Reagan with a strong
But the fact remains
noises from the gover
it
to
do
all
over,
and SO is the notion of
rebuttal to criticism of his
that the flight of prom-
office when Rich
if I would go to eight great research libra-
budget trimming.
inent faculty, SO widely
Flacks, a founder of
Banke said. "It ries.
"I think we've done a
predicted when Reagan
dents for a Democratic
it-the quality
The Reagan Adminis-
good job with the univer-
took office, has not oc-
ciety, was appointed
tration believes that only
sity," he said. "In spite of
curred. Why not?
ciology professor at
stunned
the
trus-
Berkeley a nd UCLA
think
the annual crying that
For one thing, the
Santa Barbara, but n
like
to
of
should maintain large re-
takes place, we find that
academic job market has
tion was taken.
Turn
to
Pg.
23,
Col.
1
search libraries and that
few of the professors
tightened everywhere.
Another potentially
their collections should be
leave, fewer than were
The kinds of places that
rious fight was heade
shared not only by other
leaving before we got
might be attractive to the
when Michael Tiga
UC campuses but by the
here."
best members of the UC
leader of the student
10 state colleges.
There are some impor-
faculty-the Ivy League
during his undergrad
Henry Nash Smith, a re-
tant exceptions.
universities, a few Big 10
days at Berkeley at
nowned English scholar
Two department chair-
schools, two or three State
lawyer for the Chica
or Minnesota or a number
we're no longer threaten-
2* Los Angeles Times 23
of other places that are
ing to our neighbors."
Sun., Jan. 7, 1973-Sec. A
good but not extraordina-
Most people in the unl-
ry."
versity agree that Gov.
strike a balance between
This is where the story
Reagan should be con-
of the Reagan years ends,
cerned about expenditures
making sure public funds
are being spent wisely and
with the sense-intangi-
for public higher educa-
ble, hard to prove but un-
tion, but they think he has
destroying t h e delicate
academic environment a
yielding-that a great uni-
approached the problem
clumsily, to say the least.
great university or college
versity, the greatest this
should have."
country has put together
There is general agree-
with public funds, is slip-
ment with this statement
It is a trick Gov. Reagan
has not mastered.
ping down to the level of
by Alan Post:
mere adequacy.
"T h e governor must
The end result of the
know enough about high-
tight budgets, the denigra-
er education budgets to
tion of professors, the sus-
make intelligent policy de-
picion of motive and pur-
cisions. So must the Legis-
pose is a university which
lature.
is less than it was and
ESTEEM - Chancellor
"It is a difficult trick to
much. less than it might
Glenn S. Dumke is re-
have been.
spected by members of
Dean E. McHenry, a
Reagan Administration.
Times photo
University of California
teacher and administrator
resigned from the UCLA
for more than 30 years and
now chancellor at UC San-
law faculty shortly before
he was to be considered
ta Cruz, put it this way:
for a tenure appointment.
"We have been a kind of
Angela Davis' dismissal
British Empire but we've
had our day. Now we're
from the UCLA philoso-
more like the British Com-
phy department, a regents
monwealth. We're pretty
action which had Reagan's
much on the ball, we still
enthusiastic support, al-
do some things well, but
most provoked a major
rhubarb, but faculty sup-
port for Miss Davis disin-
tegrated after she was ar-
rested for alleged involve-
ment in a Marin County
courthouse shootout
which cost the life of a
judge. She was later ac-
quitted of the charge.
In the State University
and Colleges, Chancellor
Dumke, with the blessing
of the governor and the
Board of Trustees, has
fired several professors
with radical associations.
But some have won their
jobs back in court and
none of the others has be-
come a major rallying
point for protest.
There also is the plain
fact that professors, like
many other people. like to
live and work in California
and will remain until the
situation becomes intoler-
able.
Ship Analogy
"It's like getting the
Queen Mary into dock,"
said Prof. Henry Nash
Smith. -It took about a
dozen tugs several hours
to get that thing to move
at all, but once it started
the momentum was hard
to stop.
"Berkeley is something
like that. You have stimu-
lating and congenial col-
leagues and good graduate
students. These factors do
not alter as rapidly as does
the political climate or
even the salary scales.
They last for years. The
real damage done by Rea-
gan won't be seen for 15
years."
And Smith believes the
damage has been serious.
"We're not getting the
best young people any-
more,' he said. "I don't
think anything can change
that now. This university
is going to be like Illinois
SPENDING FOR UC
Student Must Come
First, Reagan Says
"It's a matter of degree. I just
think the university, and not on all
campuses, went a degree too far in
the emphasis on research. In other
words, for a university to continue
BY WILLIAM TROMBLEY
to claim the greatness the Universi-
Times Education Writer
ty of California claims, and I am pre-
In a recent interview with The
pared to say it's entitled to, it should
Times Gov. Regan talked about his
not claim it alone on the miracles of
six-year confrontation with the Uni-
research that result in some im-
versity of California:
provement for mankind but also
"When I came in, of course, it was
that greatness should be judged by
a most unusual situation
They
the output of educated students and
were well into the history of vi-
the quality of those students
olence and disruption on the cam-
Focus Is on the Student
puses, even to the point of a few
"I think the student is kind of like
murders and burning of buildings.
the infantryman. When I was a re-
"I had the terrible feeling that
serve officer in the cavalry I learned
somebody else was tearing down the
that the infantry is known as the
university and it was time for all of
'queen of battle' Every other
us to rally around and see what
branch, Air Force, Navy, cavalry ar-
could be done to preserve it.
tillery-everything is only there as
"I don't know how much an ad-
an auxiliary to enable the infantry-
ministration has to do with the
man, with a rifle in his hand, to OC-
change on this-whether what we are
cupy the enemy territory, to take it
seeing now is just a natural change
and occupy it. And sometimes I
and it (violence) had run its course.
think, isn't this in a sense true of the
I know that I was at odds at times
prestige of a university? The univer-
with the philosophy on the part of
sity is only prestigious SO you can
the university administration that
send your top students there
seemed to follow what I thought was
an appeasement pattern. I stre-
"I think it's a great university. I
nuously objected to this-it never
Gov. Reagon
think the very fact that prestigious
has won peace for anyone, whether
photo
faculty still want to come here and
a nation or a schoolroom."
that they're not running away in
The governor was asked why he
Blue-Pencils Restorations
droves indicates it. (But) I would
made the "mess at Berkeley' an
The Democratic Legislature re-
like from the university more of an
issue in his successful 1966 cam-
stored much of the governor's budg-
effort to see if we can't get more for
paign.
et cut, but Reagan blue-penciled the
the dollar than they've been inclined
restorations from the final budget.
to do. They're the ones with the
Birth of a Campaign Issue
Substantially the same pattern has
chip-on-the-shoulder attitude about
"I never brought up the universi-
been followed in subsequent years.
SO many things.
ty, but after several weeks of the
Reagan has trimmed the regents'
"At governors' conferences I hear
campaign I had to come back and
budget request and then has held
things that curdle my blood. I hear
say, 'Look, I don't care if I'm in the
firm in the face of legislative efforts
governors in some other states talk-
mountains, the desert, the biggest
to restore some of the cuts.
ing about hiring a president of a uni-
cities of this state, the first question
As far as the University of Califor-
versity, or a chancellor. And I mean
(is): What are you going to do about
nia is concerned the fiscal crisis has
they, individually, say this is who
Berkeley? And each time the ques-
lasted not one year but six.
it's going to be.
tion itself would get applause, so
Now a new debate has begun over
"Well, whether they believe it or
this was how the university got into
the 1973-74 budget. The regents are
not over there (at UC statewide
the campaign
asking for $438 million. a $53 million
headquarters in Berkeley), way
"Now the economics of the univer-
increase over the current school
down deep inside my greatest fear
sity came about after we got in here
year. Although the state treasury
has always been of government. I'm
and discovered what we were up
apparently will have a substantial
still afraid of it even though I'm a
against financially. In the period be-
surplus this year the Reagan Ad-
part of it. And I don't want that kind
tween the election and the inaugur-
ministration shows no signs of giv-
of thing done."
al, during which I think an incoming
ing much of it to the university.
administration expects to have some
The governor and his finance di-
briefing and all, our briefing was
rather incomplete. The outgoing fi-
rector, Verne Orr, have been ar-
nance director (Hale Champion) just
guing that the additional money
stood up and told US, "The state is
would not be needed if UC would
spending $1 million a day more than
stop padding its enrollment figures
it is taking in. Goodby, gentlemen.'
and would force its professors to do
Every day seemed to bring new
more teaching and less research.
problems
Said Reagan:
"I sent him (Finance Director
"I'm not attempting to set stan-
Gordon Paul Smith) over to the re-
gents to ask if they would help the
dards except based on the idea that
state in those dark days by making a
the customer is the young person
certain amount of the regents'
going to the university and we
funds, the endowment, available as
should constantly review to see if
a substitute for the general fund up
that customer is getting what he
went for or is
a
sort
of
sideline
here. And I promised that would
activity in the intellectual commu-
only be done on a one-year basis."
nity.
In February, 1967, the UC Board of
Regents agreed to reduce its operat-
ing budget request for the following
year by $13 million and also to turn
over almost $21 million in special
funds paid to UC by the federal
government for administering fed-
eral research contracts and grants.
"A LOT OF
'BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE'
NO ONE LEFT
TO DO THE CHORES"
Why are so many middle-class youths opting out of what they call "the rat race"?
What impels them to choose nonprofessional careers-often after expensive college
training? Is present-day higher education part of the answer? Trends that baffle many
parents are discussed by a prominent educator in a recent talk to college officials.
Excerpts from the text of a speech by Dr. Peter L. Berger,
really drop out to become sandal makers and the like, and
professor of sociology at Rutgers University, before the
the "halfway greeners," who go into such things as creative
American Association of State Colleges and Universities, at
advertising, social work or, alas, academic sociology-essential
Washington, D. C., on Nov. 13, 1972:
jobs will remain unfilled. This means new opportunities of
upward mobility for the children of the lower-middle and
I have been asked to deliver this address on the basis of an
blue-collar classes. Hence the formula: The more "greening"
article called "The Blueing of America" which I wrote to-
in the upper-middle class, the more "blueing" of the society
gether with Brigitte Berger and which was published in "The
as a whole
New Republic" in April, 1971.
It is important, I think, to differentiate between the
We wrote the article out of annoyance with the atrocious
"greening" effects in higher education and the political mood
nonsense that was being spouted at the time in connection
with which it was linked in the late 1960s-and, to a lessen-
with Charles Reich's "The Greening of America." We are
ing degree, is still linked. There is no intrinsic or necessary
somewhat surprised by the very strong interest-most of it
relationship between being on the left politically and feeling
favorable-which the article generated. Actually, we had
an affinity with the cultural style of "greening." At least in
thought that we were saying the obvious. Apparently what
this country, there are some good grounds for thinking that
was obvious to us was not so to a lot of other people. As
what looked like a radical political tide is ebbing.
sociologists, I suppose, we should have known this before.
By contrast, I believe, the "greening" syndrome in youth
The major thesis of our article was very simple: At the
culture and counterculture has much deeper roots and is
heart of the "greening" impulse is a re-
likely to be much more durable. Thus it
jection of the so-called Protestant ethic.
would be misleading to think that the
This ethic, however, in one form or an-
recent political calm on American cam-
other, is crucial to the continued exist-
puses indicates that the "greening" im-
ence of a technologically complex so-
pulse has had its day. Quite on the con-
ciety. If everybody in the society
trary: While the political radicalism of
"greened," one would have to have
the late 1960s may have had its day,
serious worries about the future viability
the "greening" phenomenon in American
of the society. There would then be a
academia is well on the way to being
lot of "beautiful people" doing what at
firmly institutionalized. To put it in a
least they themselves would consider
slightly oversimplified way: The "kids"
beautiful things, and there would be no
may have lowered their voices, but they
one left to do the chores necessary to
haven't cut their hair.
keep the society going.
The most visible signs of this institu-
Whatever data we have, however, in-
tionalization process are such things as
dicate that the "greening" phenomenon
student participation in academic deci-
is not evenly distributed throughout the
sion-making bodies and the abandon-
society; rather, it is strongly class-specific.
ment, in numerous areas, of the concept
The "greeners"-for reasons that I cannot
that colleges act in loco parentis [in
go into here, but which are not at all
place of a parent].
mysterious-are mainly the children of
The real effects of these changes have
the upper-middle class.
probably been exaggerated. The major
To the extent that "greening" means
result of student participation in aca-
a turning away from careers in the major
demic governance has been a prolifera-
economic, technological and bureau-
tion of committees which nobody but a
cratic occupations-we made a distinc-
-Larson Photo
skilled bureaucrat can understand and
tion between the full "greeners," who
Dr. Berger
which, therefore, have strengthened the
56
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972
afford a good many people engaged in nothing but such ac-
tivity. It still requires what John Kenneth Galbraith has called
the "technostructure"-tha is, a body of institutions and of
On many college campus-
personnel to run them-for the essential tasks of production
es today, Dr. Berger notes,
and administration. The personnel for the technostructure
"students sit under the
must be trained. If some of the schools that used to undertake
trees with their shoes off
this training become "greenhouses," other schools will have to
and engage in the not-so-
perform this function
arduous task of finding
I think that there will be institutions, or differentiated seg-
out who they really are."
ments of institutions, that will become "greenhouses" pure
and simple. I don't have to mention names to indicate that
But at other colleges
some such places exist already.
there remains "respect for
In these places, for four years or less, students sit under
hard intellectual labor."
the trees with their shoes off and engage in the not-so-arduous
task of finding out who they really are. Professors play a role
best described as "honorary youths." Administrators are kept
hand of administrators against both students and faculty.
busy convincing the available funding agencies that such an
As to the loco parentis business, I wonder if it means much
enterprise merits continuing subsidization. Instruction in any
more than students doing in the dorm what they used to do
objectively recognizable body of knowledge or skills is mini-
in the parking lot-an improvement in creature comforts, if
mal.
not in morality.
Graduates of these places either go on to some other pro-
The less visible-but much more consequential-change has
gram where they learn something besides their own identity,
been a pervasive softening of academic standards. The aboli-
or they go into jobs where it really doesn't matter that they
tion of required courses, the statistically demonstrable infla-
don't know anything specific. Both these options are quite tol-
tion of "A" and "B" grades, the spreading notion that schol-
erable as long as the number of people involved remains
arly capacity is, at best, one of very many qualities needed
within certain limits. The labor market is such that it may
in a college teacher, the rapid decline in the teaching of
actually be economically useful that a sizable number of
foreign languages-these and similar developments on the
young people simply sit under trees for a while before they
level of curriculum and faculty policy, including personnel
start competing or even training for jobs. And the so-called
policy, are where the long-range effects of "greening" must
tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy contain a
be sought.
(probably increasing) number of jobs for which no specific
The "greening" impulse in academia is deeply anti-intel-
knowledge is required and where the only required skill is
lectual. Colleges and universities are to become, essentially,
precisely "digging other people as real persons," or at least
places in which certain existential experiences are to be medi-
giving that impression.
ated. Students want to become personally moved, rather than
Thus I would have it very definitely understood that I'm
instructed by course materials; they want to relate to faculty
not in the business of knocking "greenhouses" as long as
on the level of personal encounter; they want the institution
there are not too many of them-and, I should add, as long
to provide whatever services are necessary for personal
as I'm not required to be in one myself.
growth. Conversely, they are opposed to whatever smacks
All this, however, still leaves unfulfilled some crucial re-
of intellectual discipline, objective standards and external
quirements of the technostructure. Some of these require-
regulation. Let me only mention the animus against special-
ments pertain to higher education at its most dizzyingly
ization and the popularity of pass/fail grades in this connec-
"highest." A technological society requires an ongoing re-
tion. If this impulse is traced to its final consequence, it
(continued on next page)
would entail the transformation of, at any rate, undergraduate
schools into what can most aptly be described as vast identity
workshops.
Now, as we all know, this impulse cannot work itself out
to its final consequence everywhere. Thus it runs up against
much stronger restraints in the natural sciences than in the
humanities and the social sciences, and for very good reasons:
The consequences of building, say, a medical curriculum on
student self-evaluation or pass/fail grading are patently more
ominous than doing so in sociology or in English literature.
But more significant for our present considerations is the
previously mentioned class location of the "greening" syn-
drome. The move toward the identity workshop has been
strongest in undergraduate institutions that cater largely to the
upper-middle class. While present there, too, to varying de-
grees, institutions drawing largely from populations of lower-
class levels have been much less ready to convert themselves
into youth-culture preserves, not to say-forgive me, but I
can't resist the temptation-"greenhouses."
I'm concerned with the sociological import of these changes.
Let me put it this way: As they themselves put it, the "green-
ors" are committed to a life style of playfulness. Fine. The
question is: Who will mind the store while they are playing?
If this seems too frivolous a formulation, let me say it in
"Students want to become personally moved, rather than in-
more-respectable social-scientific terms. Our society is affluent
structed; they want to relate to faculty on the level of per-
enough to afford a lot of nonproductive activity, and even to
sonal encounter; they are opposed to intellectual discipline."
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972
57
ON THE "BLUEING" OF AMERICA
the institutions represented here today would commonly be
designated as "major league."
[text continued from preceding page]
I further suspect that, to the professors if not the adminis-
trators of many of your institutions, the ivy-laden citadels of
search enterprise of immense scientific sophistication, both in
learning at the pinnacle of the Caplow-McGee hierarchy
pure and in applied research. There must be institutions
loom as objects of both envy and emulation.
that prepare people for this enterprise, especially but by no
To a degree, this is inevitable. In different fields, there
means exclusively in the natural sciences. While such training
will continue to be centers of major intellectual importance,
will probably have to reach into undergraduate curricula, its
in comparison with which other institutions will be, well,
continuing focus will in all likelihood continue to be on the
minor. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some of the basic
graduate level.
presuppositions of this entire status hierarchy must be ques-
Does this mean that the technostructure could afford all of
tioned, and that we're now at a very good time to question
undergraduate education going "green"? I think, quite em-
them.
phatically, that it means no such thing.
Let me put this bluntly, too. Some of the aforementioned
Indeed, one of the weaknesses in Galbraith's original con-
citadels of learning have become "Potemkin villages": Be-
cept of the technostructure was that it only seemed to refer to
hind the still-glittering façades of erstwhile excellence, there
people generally called intellectuals. The people he had in
has taken place a staggering process of intellectual rot.
mind were physicists, research engineers and heart surgeons,
The effects of this can be quite comic. In such places
as well as urban planners and Government experts on Latin-
it is possible to visit, say, the faculty club, and be surround-
American affairs.
ed by people who seem serenely confident that they are den-
Now, there can be no doubt that such occupations and
izens of-if you will excuse the unappetizing image-the in-
others like them are crucial to our kind of society, nor that
tellectual navel of the nation. The visitor is properly awed.
they will be filled with what, at least broadly, may be called
Subsequent research into what is actually going on in the
intellectuals. But for every research engineer who designs a
lecture halls and seminar rooms of the same institution makes
new passenger plane, there must be thousands of highly
the visitor wish for the satiric pen of an H. L. Mencken [late
trained individuals who keep that plane in the air once it's
editor and critic]. What is going on, many times, is literally
off the production line. For every heart surgeon, there must
beyond belief.
be thousands of medical technicians and, very importantly,
Those charged with responsibility for these august institu-
hospital administrators. And for every urban planner, there
tions face formidable problems of self-appraisal and recon-
must be a veritable host-perhaps less than we have now,
struction. Their problems do not concern me at the moment.
but still an awful lot-of dependable civil servants who keep
But for those at other institutions, it seems to me, the time
the vast machinery of municipal government going.
has arrived for healthy skepticism regarding the traditional
All these people must also be trained-and they cannot be
status hierarchy of American academia, and for a much great-
trained in a "greenhouse" atmosphere. If they were trained in
er measure of self-confidence about their own place in the
such an atmosphere, the results would soon be disastrous.
educational system of the society.
To bring this point home, all you have to do is to imagine
More specifically, the "greening" phenomenon, which has
an airline, a hospital or an urban sanitation department run
been primarily located in the "major league" institutions, is
by the values and mores of the youth culture. The vision is
not something to be emulated. I'm not thinking here of such
apocalyptic. But I don't think-pessimist though I am by
questions as whether coeds may entertain male visitors in
temperament and upbringing-that we
their dormitory rooms or whether, some-
need seriously worry. The vision won't
where on campus, there should be an
come to pass; rather, the society will
opportunity for students to go through
maintain or reconstruct the educational
"encounter experiences." I'm reasonably
mechanisms that it requires for its sur-
sure that there will be more of this
vival.
sort of thing in your institutions, as
The class-specific character of the
elsewhere, and I'm quite sanguine
"greening" syndrome will greatly assist
about it.
this process. Even if the whole of
What I have in mind are quite dif-
upper-middle-class youth "greened"-an
ferent things: structured curricula in-
unlikely prospect, incidentally-there
stead of the "cafeteria" style of educa-
would still be an enormous population
tion that is so often confused with in-
reservoir ready and even eager to enter
tellectual freedom; objective standards
these breaches in the occupational sys-
and criteria of evaluation instead of
tem.
the currently fashionable chaos of sub-
Consequently, the institutions of
jectivity; respect for hard intellectual
higher education that mainly cater to
labor instead of the cult of self-expres-
this population take on a strategic im-
sion and "creativity"; an understand-
portance, a public interest in the most
ing of the values of specialization in-
literal and urgent sense of the term-
stead of an orgy of "interdisciplinary"
which brings me directly to the institu-
chitchat.
tions represented by this meeting.
All these, I'm convinced, are badly
Some years ago, Theodore Caplow
in need of resurrection in "major
and Reece McGee, in their book "The
league" institutions-and I'm not at all
Academic Marketplace," described the
sure to what extent they can still be
status hierarchy of American colleges
resurrected in some of these places.
and universities by the terms "major
"For every heart surgeon, there must be
But it seems to me that your institu-
league," "minor league," "bush league"
thousands of technicians," says Dr.
tions are, perhaps paradoxically, in an
and "academic Siberia."
Berger. "If they were trained in a 'green-
excellent position to represent these
I rather question whether many of
house,' results would be disastrous."
educational principles with credibility.
58
U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972
7/72
EOP
STATE COLLEGES
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
$3,272,000
$1,654,000
$3,900,000
Funds as budgeted provide an average grant of $440 to 3,500 first
year students thus continuing the existing level, and an average
of $220 to continuing second year students plus tutorial and
administrative costs. This is in accordance with legislative
action. Additional legislative augmentations were not accepted
($1,176,000).
Increasing number of first year students from 3,500 to 4,130 and
extending awards to third and fourth year students.
State funds have never been used for students past the second
year of higher education.
UNIVERSITY
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
-0-
-0-
-0-
$1,500,000 was eliminated. The State has never provided funds
for University EOP. The Regents have substantial funds for use
at their discretion. Over $20,000,000 is utilized for student
financial aid, which includes $7 million in tuition deferrals and
waivers. There is considerable doubt whether the large class size
and the use of teaching assistants, which is so prevalent in
lower division in the University, is suitable in meeting the
instructional needs of EOP students.
COMMUNITY COLLEGES
1970-71
1971-72
1972-73
$4,350,000
$3,350,000
$4,850,000
Funds as budgeted provide an average grant of $200 to 9,700 first
year and renewal students. Increased funding of $1,500,000 was
authorized even though it has been recognized by all including
the Legislature that it is not possible to determine whether
award levels or support services are effective or adequate. There
has been no justification based on program effectiveness to
justify increased funding. Additional legislative augmentations
were not accepted ($1,750,000).
-2-
The Legislature also added restrictive language to the
appropriation for EOP for Community Colleges. The language would
have the Board of Governors allocate funds to the colleges on a
priority basis and only to programs which demonstrate their
effectiveness and have the most pressing need for student aid.
Although this language places conditions on the allocation of
funds, the Assembly would have included more restrictive language
which would have necessitated full justification for assistance
based on applicants before allocation of funds.
San Rafael, Calif.
Independent Journal
(Cir. D 41,002)
MAR 17 1972
SACRAMENTO SCENE
Board Appointment Counter
To Reagan Philosophy
By RUS WALTON
that Hubbard was a prominent partici-
Governor Reagan has just appointed a
pant and backer of Pasadena "civil
devout liberal to the State Board of
rights" demonstrations as far back as
Education and conservatives are up in
1965.
arms.
One 12-year member of the Pasadena
The liberal is Dr. David Allan Hub-
school board recalled that Dr. Hubbard
bard, 43, president of Fuller Theological
constantly badgered him, accusing him
Seminary in Pasadena.
of racism because of his opposition to
To a man, the Republican legislators
compulsory busing.
representing segments of the Pasadena
area expressed strong opposition to Hub-
IN 1969, as chairman of the Pasadena
bard's appointment. Among those legisla-
Urban Coalition, Dr. Hubbard presided
tors are some of the governor's staunch-
over "Operation Understanding, a work-
est supporters: Assemblyman John L.
shop on race relations. A feature of that
Collier, Frank Lanterman and Carlos J.
workshop, sponsored by the Ford Foun-
Moorhead, and State Sen. H. L. Richard-
dation and a black power group, was a
son.
hectic sensitivity training session for
Assemblyman Robert Burke, R-Hun-
community leaders.
tington Beach, also opposed Hubbard's
Dr. Hubbard chastised the Pasadena
appointment. Burke paid a personal call
Board of City Directors for failing to
on the governor to detail the theologian's
attend the workshop and its sensitivity
left-wing background. To no avail.
training session.
As a key speaker at the workshop,
PRIME MOVERS for Dr. Hubbard's
Hubbard selected Walter Bremond, for-
appointment were Rev. Donn Moomaw,
mer head of the militant Black Congress.
Reagan's personal pastor who recently
Two weeks earlier, Bremond had admit-
resigned from the education board, and
ted to a Los Angeles County Grand Jury
Dr. Alex Sherriffs, Reagan's special as-
that he had given an automobile to Ron
sistant for education.
Karenga, head of the black pressure
Republicans in the Pasadena area, who
group, US. The Bremond auto was used
have followed Dr. Hubbard's activities
as the get-away car for several US
since he joined Fuller seminary, are
members who shot and killed two Black
especially upset. They report that Hub-
Panthers at a UCLA rally.
bard was an early and active promoter of
compulsory crosstown busing to achieve
YEARS AGO the Fuller Theological
integration of the Pasadena school sys-
Seminary was world renowned as a solid,
tem.
fundamental bible school, famous for its
They also document their complaint
"Old Fashioned Revival" hours.
Since Dr. Hubbard's arrival, Fuller has
gone "modern" and left. Most of its old-
line faculty members have departed. The
school now boasts sensitivity sessions,
and group dynamics, for young people.
All of this information, fully document-
ed, was presented to Alex Sheriffs and to
Governor Reagan as soon as word got out
that Dr. Hubbard was being considered
for the State Board of Education.
It obviously had no impact.
WHAT IS INVOLVED here is not Dr.
Hubbard's right to be a liberal. He can
go as far left as he pleases.
The question is: why was he appointed
to such an important post by a govenor
who ran as the conservative alternative
to liberals such as Pat Brown and Jesse
Unruh?
Alex Sheriffs readily admitted his
avowed purpose to "put a liberal Repub-
lican on the board."
BURBANK OFFICE
COMMITTEES
3507 WEST MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD
EDUCATION
BURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91505
ELECTIONS AND
(213) 846-0643
Assembly
REAPPORTIONMENT
FINANCE AND INSURANCE
ANTELOPE VALLEY
LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA 93534
MEMBER
(805) 948-5582
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
California Legislature
EDUCATIONAL GOALS
SACRAMENTO ADDRESS
AND EVALUATION
STATE CAPITOL
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
95814
MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
(916) 445-8292
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
COMMISSION FOR ECONOMIC
NEWTON R. RUSSELL
DEVELOPMENT
ASSEMbLYMAN, SIXTY-SECOND DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
To:
ALL LEGISLATORS
From:
Assemblyman Newton R. Russell
Subject: A DEMONSTRATION-PRESENTATION OF PROJECT S.E.E.D.
(Ghetto 5th-6th Graders do high school algebra)
WHERE:
GOVERNOR REAGAN'S COUNCIL ROOM
4202
WHAT YOU WILL SEE: Mr. William Johntz, the founder of Project S.E.E.D,
will teach abstract high school level algebra to a
5-6 grade class from the Camellia School (Sacramento's
second lowest school socio-economically).
The children have been in Project SEED for only two weeks.
Following the demonstration with the children, Mr. Johntz
will discuss the theory, history, and achievements of
Project SEED.
WHY I URGE YOU TO ATTEND: Project SEED is an extremely remarkable national
education program in which ghetto children from
Nome, Alaska to Harlem do advanced mathematics
with great competence and joy. This success
improves their self-concept and consequently
their attitude and performance in non-math areas.
Their teachers are professional mathematicians
from major universities (PRINCETON, YALE, U.C., Etc.)
and research corporations (IBM, BELL TELEPHONE LABS,
PRUDENTIAL LIFE, Etc.)
Project SEED provides the first large scale new
career for unemployed defense and aerospace
engineers.
Though Project SEED is an extremely low-cost
project with excellent evaluation from Cal Tech
(3-year California Study) and the American
Institute of Research (11 city Michigan Study),
I still believe that the best way to understand
and believe this project is to see it.
WHEN: Thursday, April 27, 1972 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. First Demonstration
Thursday, May 4, 1972 - 10:00 to 12 Noon Second Demonstration
PLEASE ATTEND
NRR:ae
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SEED
(SPECIAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: Project SEED is a national program in which professional
mathematicians and scientists from major universities and research corporations
teach abstract, conceptually-oriented mathematics to full-sized classes of
disadvantaged elementary school children on a daily basis. The mathematics is
presented through the use of a Socratic group discovery format. The children
are in no way specially selected for the SEED classes.
Project SEED has more recently involved itself in secondary education
through a peer teaching component in which secondary students teach high school
and college level algebra, not only to their peers but also to university
students. The peer teaching component of Project SEED is presently operating
under a National Science Foundation grant.
HISTORY: Project SEED was started 9 years ago in Berkeley, California by its
present director, William F. Johntz. It has since spread to 15 states, reaching
approximately 6,000 students, most of whom are black children from urban poverty
backgrounds. Also involved are Eskimo, Indian, Mexican-American and Appalachian
white children. Negotiations are presently under way for the establishment of
projects in India, Mexico and various European countries.
MAJOR OBJECTIVE: The long range goal of Project SEED is to raise the achievement
level and consequently the self concept of the disadvantaged child by providing
him with success in a high status, abstract subject unrelated to his culture;
i.e., one not associated with failure by the disadvantaged as language arts and
the more familiar arithmetic tend to be. The simplistic remediation which
characterizes most compensatory education programs usually fails because it tends
to derrogate the disadvantaged child by concentrating on the areas in which he
has already failed. In Project SEED we have had tremendous success by imbedding
remedial arithmetic in the high school and college algebra which is new and fresh
for the child. It has been found, ironically, that the urban ghetto children who
are failing in almost everything else they do in school exhibit enormous competence
and joy in doing high school and college level algebra when it is taught by a
trained SEED specialist who loves and understands mathematics in depth. Mathematics,
as it is normally taught, has an almost 100 percent casualty rate for persons
from all socio-economic backgrounds because the people who teach mathematics at
the elementary level, due to no fault of their own, do not understand the mathe-
matics they are teaching and consequently do not like it themselves. The self-
concept enhancement which SEED students experience as a result of their mastery
of this high status subject improves their whole attitude and performance in
non-mathematical school areas.
JOB AND COLLEGE PREPARATIONS: The success that SEED students experience in mathe-
matics is, of course, the best possible preparation for obtaining jobs and getting
into college. The peer teaching component of SEED can be considered direct voca-
tional preparation for the profession of teaching.
A Brief Description of Project SEED
2
PROJECT SEED AS A NEW CAREER: Many professional scientists and mathematicians,
as well as some Labor Department officials, believe that Project SEED provides
the first serious new career for the tens of thousands of unemployed scientists,
mathematicians and engineers. See article in information packet.
UNIVERSITY INVOLVEMENT: Major universities have responded with unprecedented
enthusiasm and support for Project SEED. A version of Project SEED was incorpo-
rated in the University of California's statewide system (8 universities) as a
part of their Urban Crisis Program. Several universities, including Yale,
have provided released time to their mathematics faculty to teach in Project
SEED. University mathematicians from Asia, Europe and South America have
demonstrated the same kind of interest.
INDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT: Mathematicians, scientists, engineers and actuaries from
major industries such as IBM, Bell Laboratories, Prudential and New York Life
Insurance Companies are now teaching in Project SEED 4 or 5 days per week.
These corporations feel that Project SEED has profound implications in the areas
of research, management preparation, and relations with poverty communities,
public schools, legislators, etc. See information packet.
PROJECT SEED, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SOCIETY, IS BRINGING ON
A DAILY BASIS TOP LEVEL PROFESSIONALS FROM MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES
INTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN A NON-CONSULTIVE, NON-RESEARCH ROLE. THIS HAS THE
MOST PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION AT EVERY LEVEL - K THROUGH PH.D.
POVERTY COMMUNITY: The black and brown poverty community throughout the United
States has been enthusiastically supportive of Project SEED. Parents and
poverty leaders find Project SEED terribly appealing for 2 reasons: (1) The
achievement claims made by SEED for their children are supported by top quality
hard data. (2) Project SEED takes their children seriously in terms of the
highest aspirations of our society - preparation for college and high level
jobs. Jobs and college are the two most relevant considerations in the ghettoes
today.
LEGISLATORS: Project SEED has done demonstration-presentations for legislatures
in California, Michigan and New Jersey. Two statewide bills funding Project
SEED were passed in California and Michigan by legislators from both ends of
the political spectrum. Legislators are fascinated by the fact that Project SEED
brings "ivory tower intellectuals" directly into the "real world" of public schools.
TEACHER TRAINING: The regular classroom teacher is always present in the room
when the SEED mathematician is working with his or her class. Consequently, Project
SEED provides an ideal ongoing, daily inservice training program for teachers in
whose classes we are working. Regular teachers absorb the mathematics, the
methodology and new expectations for disadvantaged children far more readily when
A Brief Description of Project SEED
3
you are working in their own classroom. One day per week is also devoted by
the SEED specialist to working with other teachers in the school. The Cal Tech
study of the California SEED Project in more than 200 classes revealed a very,
very positive attitude toward SEED on the part of the teachers in whose classes we
were working. This is unusual with most specialist programs.
EVALUATION: Statewide evaluations in California and Michigan by the California
Institute of Technology and AIR, respectively, reveal that children in Project
SEED not only are able to perform abstract, conceptually oriented mathematics,
but also that their arithmetic computational skills have improved enormously.
Other evaluations in Berkeley and in Del Paso Heights, California, show signifi-
cant improvement by children in Project SEED classes in I.Q. scores and attitudes
toward self and school.
FUNDING: Funding and the consequent inability to do long range planning are
Project SEED's major problems as it completes its 9th successful year. Sources
of funding are fragmented and therefore inefficient. Financial support
presently comes from Title I and Title III of E.S.E.A., Model Cities, individual
school districts, state legislatures, corporations, and universities. There
needs to be a more inclusive, long range source of funding in order that the
thousands of top level man hours spent in seeking funds could be used to bring
the benefits of SEED to more children, teachers, universities, corporations, etc.
COST: Project SEED Inc., a non-profit corporation, has the extremely low cost
figure of $150 per child per year based on an assumed class size of 30. This is
far, far less than other compensatory education programs that even approach
Project SEED's level of proven success. There are 3 reasons that the SEED price
is so low: (1) Project SEED specialists work with the whole class. Most
successful compensatory education programs involve one adult working with a few
pupils. (2) Project SEED has no materials or gadgets to sell. We sell the
single-most important commodity in all of education - a highly skilled, sensitive
teacher who can reach children from even the most deprived backgrounds. (3) All
of the corporate people who work in SEED are volunteers. This helps to bring down
our national per child per year cost.
Algebra at Age 6?
They Love It.
IBM scientists, teaching
as volunteers in a San Jose elementary school,
report that disadvantaged youngsters are
enthusiastic about learning-amazingly-
abstract mathematics.
"What's another way to get a zero?" asks San Jose Research
Koehler, and Dr. Erich Sawatzky. Help in establishing the
Chemist Dr. William A. Lester, Jr., who teaches algebra
program also came from Dr. James D. Lyons, Dr. Hans
four times a week in San Jose's Olinder Elementary School.
Morawitz, Dr. Will Rudge, and Donald E. Schreiber.
Hands shoot up all over the first-grade classroom. "Plus
The Research Lab scientists started on this voluntary
three and minus three," a six-year-old answers.
project a little over a year ago when they were invited to
Dr. Lester adds the numbers into the "truth set" on the
Olinder School by the San Jose Unified School District,
blackboard and moves a drawing of a little boy, walking
which wanted to test this new system of teaching algebra.
toward a house full of candy and toys, one step closer to
There, they met William F. ("Bill") Johntz, a Berkeley
his goal. The first graders cheer and wait eagerly for the
high school mathematics teacher who travels the country
next problem.
urging school districts to teach algebra in their elementary
Dr. Lester is one of several scientists at the San Jose Re-
schools. He demonstrated his "discovery method" for teach-
search Lab who have left their offices at mid-morning four
ing algebra in elementary school, and the IBMers, along with
days a week during the past school year to drive 10 miles to
a few scientists and engineers from the nearby Lockheed
Olinder School near San Jose's central business district,
Aircraft Company, took on the project of teaching the
in a predominantly Mexican-American area. There they
subject to a few elementary grades at Olinder.
teach a 40-minute class in algebra to children ranging in age
Johntz's system has had amazing success. Called Project
from 6 to about 11-students who would ordinarily begin
SEED (Special Elementary Education for the Disadvan-
studying algebra in high school at the age of 14 or 15.
taged), it is a college preparatory math program now used
The IBM volunteers made up the time by working after
in more than 400 elementary classrooms across the country.
normal hours last year, but during the next school year the
Most of the SEED Project schools are in disadvantaged areas
Research Lab will allow the volunteers to use some IBM
where a high percentage of the students are non-white or
time to teach at Olinder School.
come from families on welfare.
"In view of the success of the program and the com-
"Project SEED is aimed at disadvantaged students for
mitment you've made, the San Jose Research Laboratory
several reasons," says Dr. Lester. "First, the casualty rate in
would now like to match your commitment and support
mathematics is nearly 100 percent for high school students
the program," Dr. Andrew H. Eschenfelder, lab director,
from poverty backgrounds. In a typical ghetto secondary
recently told the group.
school, less than one student in 30 succeeds in a college
"The best years for-learning abstract mathematics are
preparatory math program. This shouldn't be the case, since
SEPTEMBER 70
the early years of a student's education, not the ninth or
math is the most culture free subject; by that I mean, when
tenth grade," says Dr. Douglas McLean, another of the
they start out, poverty students don't have a disadvantage
IBM volunteers. "That idea still has to be proved to a lot of
in relation to students from higher income homes, as they
people, of course. We're trying to help prove it."
often do in English classes, for instance."
Other IBM scientists trying to prove this point include
The regular home room teacher remains in the class-
40
Dr. Paul S. Bagus, Dr. George Castro, Dr. Thomas R.
room to assist the volunteers during their Monday through
in San Jose
ond grade
A.
111111
first grade
teaching
Thursday 40-minute teaching sessions.
The Socratic, or "discovery method" is a general teaching
technique in Project SEED. A child is asked a question that
requires analysis. The reply is accepted without demurring,
and then the teacher asks: "Who disagrees?" If several
pupils disagree, the teacher asks for other possible an-
swers. Gradually, the correct answer emerges without any
of the children being told: "You're wrong!"
"A basic tenet of the discovery method of teaching is
eliminating what Bill Johntz calls failure symbols: text-
books, tests, and so on. This is possible because our algebra
classes are only part of the students' general mathematics
study," says Dr. Tom Koehler.
The SEED teachers have developed a number of devices
to hold the students' attention. Dr. Koehler, for instance,
plays "algebra tic-tac-toe" with his fifth grade class, which
is a combination of two regular fifth grade classes and totals
about 60 children. With one half of the class playing against
the other half, the object for the students is to figure out a
given mathematical equation, and use their understanding of
the equation to place X's and O's in the tic-tac-toe squares.
Teddie J. Thomas, resources teacher at Olinder Elemen-
tary, says it is a gratifying experience to watch these very
young students get excited about the theory of positive and
negative numbers; about filling in the variables in truth sets;
about the area of rectangles and right triangles; about linear
inequalities; and a hundred other complicated principles.
The problem with trying to spread this kind of training
throughout entire cities is the lack of money to hire teach-
ers who have the knowledge of higher mathematics, accord-
ing to Dr. McLean, who says: "How do you get Ph.D.'s to
teach elementary school classes? The money for salaries
isn't there. The answer that I see is professionals in indus-
IBMAGAZINE 41
try contributing their time and talents."
instructor went around the room in ran-
High-status areas, of course, require
The Common Language
dom order, asking probing questions, in-
highly trained teachers. Johntz believes
The instructor wrote a complicated
volving everyone. By the end of the
that, at a minimum, a SEED math teach-
algebraic formula on the blackboard and
hour, the students had talked their way
er should hold a college degree in math.
then turned to his class. "Give me a sen-
through exponentiation, roots and loga-
While a poorly schooled teacher can de-
tence that will check that," he said, as a
rithms-and, with a final exuberant
stroy a child's confidence by calling his
forest of hands shot into the air. One
burst of mental energy, had used logs to
answer wrong, the highly trained mathe-
student carefully presented a description
discover irrational numbers.
matician, through his deep understand-
and development of the equation. The
Ethnic: For the professionalism of its
ing of the structure of the subject, is able
others loudly disagreed, some of them
approach, the class could have been on
to explore the possible value of unex-
waving both hands like semaphores. The
the university level. But in fact the 24
pected responses.
students-most of them black or Mexican-
Cheerios: In the Del Paso Heights Dis-
American-were fifth and sixth graders
trict-the fourth poorest in California-
from the impoverished Del Paso Heights
Johntz's math specialists, several of
Elementary District in Sacramento, Calif.
whom work at IBM, have made their
Their average IQ, by standard testing
subject so popular that the SEED office
methods, was below 100. Yet they were
has become a hangout for students. They
working routinely with advanced mathe-
come in and try to teach math to the sec-
matics, clearly understanding what they
retary and anyone else who will listen.
were doing and loving every minute of it.
And some SEED students even substitute
While most ghetto classrooms around
the country remain tragic exhibits of
American society's failure to teach the
simplest material to the children of its
ethnic underclass, 700 elementary stu-
dents in the Del Paso Heights District
have been racing through advanced math
4,1970
as part of an exciting project called
SEED (for Special Elementary Educa-
tion for the Disadvantaged). SEED is the
brainchild of William Johntz, a lanky,
47-year-old former high-school teacher
who, like many educators concerned
about teaching ghetto kids, long ago con-
cluded that the schools were failing be-
cause they had not yet found a way
around using white middle-class methods
and language with poor, non-white stu-
dents. Johntz, however, took his analysis
a step farther. He reasoned that if lan-
guage skills, with their forbidding over-
tones of white culture, were a stumbling
block, then math, which is culturally
neutral, might be the right place to start.
Seven years ago, he began testing out
his theory by devoting his lunch hour to
teaching algebra to classes of black ele-
mentary-school students.
The experiment worked so well that
Johntz with class: Exuberance
Johntz now devotes all of his time to
selling his unique mixture of Socratic
as math teachers at nearby grade schools
method and serious math to school ad-
and junior highs.
ministrators, legislators and businessmen.
"I like the work," explains 12-year-old
Thanks to the undeniable success of both
Julius Humphrey, 'cause there ain't no
his method and his persistence, a score of
other kind of work like it." Christina Gon-
school districts in California, Alaska and
zales, 11, enjoys teaching too. "It builds
Michigan have publicly funded SEED
up your vocabulary," she told NEWS-
projects, and the program is rapidly
WEEK'S William J. Cook, "because of all
spreading elsewhere.
the words we use" (some of those words
Status: Wherever it is taught, SEED
are student-invented math symbols like
involves the same tough material-ab-
the "cheerio," which is an infinite num-
stract, conceptually oriented high-school
ber equal to all the breakfast-table
and college algebra. Anything simpler
Cheerios in the world).
or more verbally oriented, Johntz be-
But SEED math does not only teach
lieves, would fail for the same reasons
math lingo. Del Paso teachers have no-
other programs of compensatory educa-
ticed that SEED students have lost their
tion frequently strike out; they are so ob-
fear of the parts of speech. The program
viously rudimentary and so culturebound
also means more than just math to the
that they turn off even the lowest
young mathematicians who teach SEED
achievers among poor, non-white stu-
classes. George Drake, a 26-year-old
dents. "No black kid is going to feel bet-
doctoral candidate who helps instruct
ter about himself for winning a watermel-
the black and brown algebraic prodigies,
on-eating contest," Johntz argues. "If
puts it simply. "This is the first time," he
you're going to motivate kids, they've got
says, "that I've been able to apply math
to have success in a high-status area."
to anything socially useful."
de of California
Educ. School Finance
Memorandum
To
: Earl Coke
Ed Gray
Date : April 18, 1972
James Hall
John Kehoe
Ike Livermore
Bill Evans
Frank Walton
Mike Deaver
Verne Orr
Ken Hall
Subject: School Finance
Ed Thomas
Jim Dwight
Court Cases
Jerry Martin
Alex Sherriffs
From : Ed Meese
Attached for your information is a rundown and analysis of the
recent school finance court cases. In addition there is a
discussion of the various State proposals that have been advanced
to resolve the problems presented in the Serrano and similar cases.
This information was provided by the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations.
FEDERATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATORS
RM-425
1313 EAST Goth STREET CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60637
March 15, 1972
SCHOOL FINANCE, THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE COURTS
Recent judgments of both state and federal courts have held that a
state-local system of school finance violates the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if
school district property tax capacity is incorporated as a factor in the
system in such a manner as to result in substantial disparities in per
pupil expenditures among the school districts of the state.
This is a brief review of the current status of such litigation,
and also of meast es proposed or under study to revise school finance sys-
tems open to a similar challenge. It might be noted here that contrary to
the impression given by some of the initial comments on these cases, none
of the 1 question the validity of the property tax as an element, or even
as a major source, of revenue for school finance. The constitutional objec-
tion stems rather from the manner in which district property tax capacity is
taken into account in determining the amount available for expenditure per
pupil. Presumably, the same objection would be equally applicable to any
other measure of tax capacity on a district basis.
Background
Serrano et al. V. Priest et al., 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P. 2d 1241, de-
cided by the Supreme Court of California on August 30, 1971, was the first
of a series of cases holding that a state's school finance system is invalid
because it classifies eo cational opportunity in the public schools on the
basis of wealth. In California, the foundation program combines a qualifying
local property tax rate, a flat grant per pupil paid by the state to all
school districts, and equalization aid for those districts where the school
revenue produced by the qualifying local property tax rate and the flat
grant does not equal the state foundation minimum of $355 per elementary
student and $488 per high school student. Additional equalizing effect is
provided through supplemental programs to subsidize particularly poor school
districts and also, through special areawide foundation programs in districts
included in reorganization plans disapproved at an election. Any school, dis-
trict may raise additional revenues by further property ta: levies.
The court, taking note of the fact that there were substantial differ-
ences in the amount of assessed valuation per pupil, and in the level of ex-
penditures per pupil among the school districts of the state, said that, as
a practical matter, school districts with small tax bases "cannot levy taxes
at a rate sufficient to produce the revenue that more affluent districts reap
with minimal tax efforts.' The court then went on to hold that, education
is a "fundamental" interest and that, where the protection of a "fundamental"
interest is conditioned on wealth, the equal protection clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is violated.
While the deral ground of the decision has been emphasized in dis-
cussion of the Serrano case, it should be noted that the California Supreme
Court held that the same considerations were governing in respect to an alle-
gation of unconstitutionality under Article I, sections 11 and 21 of the Cal-
ifornia Constitution. The court stated that it had previously construed
these provisions as "substantially the equivalent" of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The relief sought included a request for an order directing defendant
state and local finance and school officials to reallocate school funds to
remedy the alleged invalidity of the system, and also retention of juris-
diction by the court so that it might provide the necessary restructuring,
if the defendant officials and the state legislature failed to act within
a reasonable time. There was no order for relief, however, and the case
was remanded for a trial on the merits.
The decision in the Serrano case was on the pleadings; all allega-
tions in the complaint were accepted as true for purposes of the proceedings.
The defendants demurred to the complaint, and it was sustained; the plain-
tiff failed to amend the complaint, and the action was then dismissed. The
supreme rourt reversed the order dismissing the complaint, and remanded the
case to the trial court, with directions to allow defendants a reasonable
time within which to answer the allegations in the complaint.
Subsequently, on October 21, 1971, the California Supreme Court issued
a modification of i 3 earlier opinion emphasizing that its decision was not
a final judgment on the merits, and pointing out for the benefit of the trial
court on remand that, if after further proceedings, the trial court should
enter final judgment determining tha the existing system of public school
financing is unconstitutional and invalidating the system in whole, or in
part, it might properly provide for the enforcement of the judgment in such
a way as to permit an orderly transition from an unconstitutional system.
The court also said:
Obviously, any judgment invalidating the existing system
of public school financing should make it clear that the
existing system is to remain operable until an appropri-
ate new system, which is not violative of equal protec-
tion of the laws, can be put into effect.
This modification was apparently intended to dispel any doubt about
the validity of property tax assessments for educational purposes pending
final disposition of the case.
Thus far, no answer has been filed, and no date has been set for the
trial of the Serrano case in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The
Attorney General of California has recently (January 1972) announced that
he would not seek review of the California Supreme Court's decision. Appar-
ently, this had been regarded as an alternative course of action in the pres-
ent posture of the case.
On October 12, 1971, the United States District Court, D. Minnesota
3d Div. in Van Dusartz et al. V. Hatfield et al. held the Minnesota public
school finance system unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The case was heard on
affidavits and a motion to dismiss. The opinion follows that in the Serrano
case very closely. The issue as stated by the court was whether pupils in
publicly financed elementary and secondary schools enjoy a right, under the
equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, to have the level
of spending for their education unaffected by variations in the taxable
wealth of their school district or their parents. "Plainly put, the rule
is that the level of spending for a child's education may not be a function
of wealth other than the wealth of the state as a whole." The Minnesota pub-
lic school finance system was substantially similar to that in California.
There was a qualifying tax rate supplemented by state grants to provide $404;
in addition, every district was guaranteed a minimum grant of $141 per pupil.
The Minnesota financing system under challenge had actually expired at the
time the district court heard the case, although a new financing program had
not yet been enacted by the legislature. The court retained jurisdiction of
the case, but deferred further action until after the adjournment of the legis-
lative session.
Van Dusartz was one of several cases filed in the United States District
-:-
Court in Minnesota. Some of them also raised questions under the constitu-
tion and laws of Minnesota. As to these cases, the District Court denied
the motions to dismiss the complaints, but postponed rulings on the other
issues presented in them. After the Minnesota legislature revised the pub-
lic school finance system, the other cases, save one, appear to have been
dismissed by stipulation. The e is one action still pending which, by
way of an amended complaint, raises questions about the effect of the Minne-
sota property classification system in relation to school finance.
On December 23, 1971, following a trial, a three-judge United States
District Court in San Antonio held that the Texas system of financing pub-
lic elementary and secondary education violates the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The case is Rod-
riguez et al. V. San Antonio Independent School District et al.
The system in Texas utilizes revenues from the Available School Fund
(allocated on a per capita basis) and the Minimum Foundation Program, of
which 20 percent is derived from the school districts of the state through
the Local Fund Assignment. An Economic Index 1 is used to determine each
district's share of the Local Fund Assignment. These funds may be supple-
mented by local lovies for school purposes.
The cour characterized the Texas system as one which assumes that
the value of property within the various districts will be sufficiently
equal to sustain comparable expenditures from one district to another. The
court said: "It makes education a function of the local property tax base.
The adverse effects of this erroneous assumption have been vividly demon-
strated at trial through the testimony and exhibits adduced by the plaintiffs. "
1 The accuracy of the Economic Index is involved in separate litigation, Fort
Worth Independent School District V. Edgar.
The court also disposed of contentions that federal funds should be consid-
ered in appraising educational opportunity on an overall basis by citing
decisions holding that federal educational funds designed to meet special
needs in disadvantaged schools cannot be employed as a substitute for state
aid, nor can state aid be reduced in districts receiving federal "impacted
areas" aid.
The order of the three-judge court enjoined the enforcement of the
provisions of the Texas Constitution and Statutes relating to the financing
of education, and ordered the Commissioner of Education and the members of
the State Board of Education to reallocate funds (including funds derived
from taxation of real property by school districts), available for support
of the school system, in such a manner as not to violate the equal protec-
tion clauses of both the Texas and Federal Constitutions. The court stayed
the mandate in the case for a period of two years, in order to afford the
defendants and the legislature an opportunity to take steps to change the
system, and in the event no action is taken in this period, the court said
it would take such step as may be necessary to implement the purpose and
spirit of its order.
A subsequent "clarification" of the court's original opinion made it
clear that any order issued shall have prospective application only, and
shall not become effective until the expiration of two years from December
23, 1971; and that any order shall in no way affect the validity of school
district debts or other obligations now outstanding, or incurred within the
two-year period, nor taxes levied or other sources of revenue to be used
for the payment of such debts or other obligations.
From a procedural standpoint, the Texas case is perhaps the most sig-
nificant of all, since it has been tried on its merits before a statutory
three-judge court whose decision may be appealed directly to the United
States Supreme Court.
On January 19 in Robinson et al. V. Cahill ct al., a New Jersey Su-
perior Court jud, held, after trial, that the state's system of financing
public school education was unconstitutional, and in violation of both the
New Jersey and Federal Constitutions. The urban municipalities of Jersey
City, Plainfield, Paterson and East Orange were among the plaintiffs in
the case. In an extensive opinion which covered a number of issues, in-
cluding the relationship between the level of expenditures and the quality
of education, and the meaning of the education clause in the New Jersey Con-
stitution, the court held that the present system discriminates against pu--
pils in districts with low property wealth, and against taxpayers by imposing
unequal burdens for a common state purpose. While the present system is un-
constitutional, the court said the present system will be continued in effect
until enjoined by the court. To allow time for legislative action, there will
be no injunction prior to January 1, 1974, but if a nondiscriminatory system
of taxation is not enacted by January 1, 1973, then from after that date, no
state money shall be distributed for "minimum support aid" or for the "save
harmless" p: ovisions of the present law. All funds thus set free shall be
distributed by state officials so as to raise guaranteed valuations under the
present law to the highest level that a proportionate distribution of funds
will permit. The court also stated that the order for judgment should in-
clude specific provisions to assure the validity and enforceability of past
and future acts and obligations incurred under existing laws, as long as
they remain operative.
At about the same time, a New York Supreme Court justice (trial court)
in Westchester County dismissed the complaint in Spano V. Board of Education,
167 New York Law Journal No. 16 (January 24, 1972) p. 21, a suit chal-
lenging the financing of public schools in that state. The action was
brought by a local resident who complained that he had to pay higher pro-
perty taxes for school support than residents in other districts of the
state. The court held that the complaint did not state a cause of action
under present United States Supreme Court rulings.
In declining to follow the Serrano decision, the judge indicated
that it was the better policy to rest his decision on current law, rather
than to anticipate some change or modification of earlier opinions by
the United States Su₁ eme Court.
Serrano-type suits or related actions are pending, or have been
decided, in 20 or more jurisdictions. It is likely that the next state
supreme court determination will be forthcoming from Michigan. The
supreme court of that state has agreed to take jurisdiction of an Ing-
ham County Circuit Court suit filed by the governor, attorney general,
state treasurer and other officials against the Bloomfield Hills, Dearborn
and Grosse Pointe public school systems to test the validity of public
school financing in Michigan. The superior court of Maricopa County, Ari-
zona, has held that a Serrano-type complaint states a cause of action
(Hollins et al. V. Shofstall et al., January 13, 1972); subsequently plain-
tiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no
genuine issue as to any of the material facts in the case.
Related issues in public school finance are involved in proceedings
pending or decided in several other states. These include Alabama, where a
three-judge United States District Court has directed the state commissioner
of revenue to equalize the assessment of all taxable property at its full
value within one year. One group of plaintiffs in this case alleged they
were deprived of school support funds because of underassessment of property
for state property tax purposes. Weissinger et al. V. Boswell, 330 F. Supp.
615 (1971).
In a case pending in Alaska, the plaintiffs contend that since the
state of Alaska pays all the costs for some schools operated directly by
the state, no local school district should be required to provide any local
funds for public education. Real Property Taxpayers' Association Inc. V.
State of Alasl , Docket No. 70-771, Alaska Court of Appeals.
In Florida, 1968 legislation included a provision known as the "Mil-
lage Rollback Law, which required a local L hool district to limit its ad
valorem taxes for school purposes to 10 mills as a condition of eligibility
for state aid payments. A three-judge United States District Court held the
provision unconstitutional (Hargrave V. Kirk, 313 F. Supp. 944), but the judg-
ment was vacated, and the case remanded by the United States Supreme Court on
the ground that a similar action challenging the validity of the rollback law
under the Florida constitution was pending in the courts of the state. Ask ew
et al. V. Hargrave et al., 401 U. S. 476 (1971).
On remand, the plaintiffs decided not to proceed further and the case
was subsequently dismissed by stipulation. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in
the state court case, School Board of Broward County V. Christian, decided
not to press the suit with the result that there has been no final adjudica-
tion of the legality of the rollback provision.
In Virginia, a United States District Court judge has ordered the
school systems of the city of Richmond and the neighboring counties of Hen-
rico and Chesterfield to consolidate. Bradley et al. V. School Board of the
City of Richmond et al., F. Supp. (January 10, 1972). While the
principal issue in this case is segregation, the order has far-reaching
financial implications because the court directed the State Board of
Education to submit a plan covering the financial operation of the com-
bined system within 60 days, and provided for the transfer of title to
the newly created consolidated school board in July 1972. The court's
order was subsequently stayed, pending an appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Wyoming Supreme Court, in a school district consolidation
case, suggested legislation imposing a state-wide equalizing property.
tax and announced it would retain jurisdiction of the proceeding until
the next session of the legislature. Sweetwater County Planning Commit-
tee etc. V. Hinkle et al. 491 P. 2d 1234. However, the court subse-
quently relinquished jurisdiction to permit the consolidation controversy
to be resolved under isting law. A United States District Court in the
District of Columbia held, in Hobson V. Hansen, that per pupil expenditures
in any single elementary school shall not deviate from the mean for all by
more than 5 percent except on the basis of adequate justification approved
in advance by the court.
Revision of School Finance
The issues involved in the Serrano-type cases have been discussed
for some years past in educational finance circles, and even prior to the
Serrano decision, revisions in educational finance programs have been under
study or enacted into law. The New Jersey Bateman Act which was under attack
in Robinson V. Cahill is one example. In fact, the court strongly suggested
that, (the minimum support and flat grant provisions aside) if the finance
support system established in the Bateman Act had been fully funded, its
decision might have been otherwise.
Iowa: under legislation adopted in Iowa in 1971, the foundation pro-
gram is based on the average per pupil expenditures state-wide modified by
a growth factor. Under this new plan, the state pays the difference between
the yield of a 20 mill foundation property tax plus miscellaneous district
revenues and 70 percent of the foundation program. The state payment will
rise one percent a year to a maximum of 80 percent of the foundation figure.
Locally, a maximum budget for each school district is set based on the dis-
trict cost per pupil for the preceding year plus a growth factor. The dif-
ference between this budget (subject to the maximum budget limitation) and
the amounts the school district will receive from the 20 mill foundation
tax, miscellaneous income and foundation aid, is the amount to be raised by
an additional property tax (subject to the district's maximum millage). A
school district may exceed its maximum budget only if the voters elect to
raise the additional revenue needed by a school district income tax. The
use of the property tax in financing school expenditures is thus restricted.
Minnesota: post-Van Dusartz legislation set a standard per pupil
cost for the state foundation program. Weighting factors are prescribed
to adapt th S standard to different school grades and exceptional re-
quirements. The state pays the difference between the yield of a quali-
fying tax rate and the foundation program. Any district may increase ex-
penditures (within existing rate ceilings) by 6 percent over the previous
year, and increases in excess of 6 percent may be authorized by the commis-
sioner of education. Excess levies not authorized by the commissioner are
penalized by a loss of 50¢ in state aid for each additional $1.00 of pro-
perty tax levied. Further adoption or broadening of sales or income
taxes by local governments was prohibited by other legislation. After
the enactment of the new school finance program, all but one of the suits
still pending after the Van Dusartz decision were dismissed presumably
because the new plan assures the funding of the basic program regardless
of district property tax resources.
Alabama: the legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment to
authorize classification of property for state and local property tax pur-
poses, and has enacted legislation providing for the reappraisal of pro-
perty in all counties of the state. This action is in partial response to
a federal court order, requiring the commissioner of revenue to equalize
all property tax assessments at full value within one year. The federal
court case was primarily concerned with the matter of unequal and discrimi-
natory property tax assessments, but school finances were also involved, be-
cause the yield of the state property tax was adversely affected by the low
county assessment levels.
Proposals for revisions in school finance systems have been intro-
duced in a number of the 1972 legislatures, but it is not unlikely that ma-
jor action in many states will await clarification of the constitutional is-
sues involved in the Serrano case. Special study commissions have been es-
tablished in some states and reports have already been issued by a few estab-
lished in prior years. The President's Commission on School Finance has also
submitted its report.
Study Commission Proposals
New York: in the three chapters of its proposed report which have
been published to date, the New York State Commission on the Quality Cost
and Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education (the Fleischmann Commis-
sion) has recommended full state funding of education cost, that is, that
the state take over the raising and distribution of all non-federal funds for
public schools. Educational expenditures would be "leveled up" to the per
pupil expenditure figure of the school district at the 65th percentile
(approximately $1,037) within three years. Expenditures of higher spending
districts would be frozen until expenditures in other districts had caught
up with them. The freeze would also act as a "save harmless" provision
with expenditures in excess of the property tax yield paid from state reve-
nues. Exceptional requirements for children with learning difficulties
would be subject to weighting factors. The property tax would be retained as
a state-wide levy to produce about the same amount of revenue presently
raised locally. A state tax rate of $2.04 per $100 would be made effective
over a five-year period, during which local property tax rates would be raised
or lowered 20 percent a year to arrive at the $2.04 standard. The Commission
also recommended that low income families paying more than 10 percent of in-
come in property taxes be permitted to credit the excess against the state
income tax. Renters would be entitled to a similar credit to the extent that
25 percent of rental payments exceeds 10 percent of income. Local options
for supplementary school levies would be prohibited. Funds in excess of those
produced by the $2.04 tax levy would come from general state sources. It was
estimated by the Commission that increases in costs of its program if enacted
in 1972-73 would be $125 million for "leveling up" to the 65th percentile,
$465 million for weighting factors for children with learning difficulties
and $125 million for property tax relief credits. The Commission also advo-
cated federal assistance for public education at a level equal to 25-30 per-
cent of total cost, compared with a current level of about 7 percent nation-
wide and 4 percent in New York.
New Jersey: the Governor's Tax Policy Committee report in New Jersey
included several recommendations on public school finance in its combination
package for the restructuring of the state's tax system. The Committee
recommended state fundin of substantially the full cost of public schools.
Local property taxes as a source of school support would be eliminated, ex-
cept for debt service and specially voted taxes for expenditures in excess
of the state funded program. A state-wide property tax of $1.00 per $100
of equalized value would be levied. School districts now spending more
money than what would be provided at the state support level would be per-
mitted to maintain present levels of expenditure. Local referendum approval
would be required for any districts seeking initially to increase spending
above state support levels. The basic expense cost per pupil would be de-
termined annually by the commissioner of education. This cost could not for
any year exceed a cost per pupil greater than 120 percent of the weighted
average expenditure by all school districts in the preceding year. Each
school district would be entitled to a distribution of its costs on a
weighted per pupil basis after taking into account basic inherent regional
cost differences. Local "leeway" expenditures, that is, expenditures in ex-
cess of the per pupil expenditures certified by the commissioner of education,
would be financed on a cost-sharing basis to achieve equalization. The state
would provide a district of average wealth with 50 percent of the cost of its
local leeway expenditures. For districts of greater or less wealth, the
state's share would vary inversely with the district's wealth per pupil. How-
ever, the state would not share in any cost per pupil exceeding 133 percent
of the current state certified program for the district, and the commissioner
of education would be authorized to prohibit >>penditures above that level.
Local property taxes for school purposes in New Jersey amount to about
$1.2 billion. At a $1.00 state rate, 519 districts would have tax reductions
totaling $561.3 million and 48 districts would have increases totaling $9 mil-
lion. The substitution of the $1.00 state levy for local property taxes for
school purposes would thus require about $555 million in replacement revenue.
Altogether about $600 million in non-property tax revenue would be needed to
support the proposed educational finance program in 1972-73.
Maryland: the Citizens Commission on Maryland Government, Incorpor-
ated has. issued a report which finds that the present state-aid formula
based on local property and income permits substantial disparities in local
school expenditures. The Commission recommended full state funding and the
elimination of all per pupil disparities to be phased out over a three-year
period so as to establish an equal per pupil expenditure in each of the
state's school districts at a level equal to that of the highest spending
district in 1970-71. A suit, Parker V. Mandel, challenging Maryland's school
finance system is pending in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Marylar!.
Massachusetts: prior tc the Serrano decision, the Special Commission
to Develop a Master Tax Plan had recommended that the Commonwealth assume a
major portion of all local government costs including education. The program
would be financed by a state-wide property tax which would replace some cur-
rent local levies. The Commission also recommended that a ceiling be im-
posed on the proportion of property taxes to total taxes raised by the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts and its local governments. Timilty V. Sargent et
al., a Serrano-type class action challenging the educational finance system
in Massachusetts, is pending in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Massachusetts.
Michigan: the governor of Michigan and several state officials have
joined as plaintiffs in an action against several Michigan school districts
-16-
to challenge the educational finance system in that state (Milliken
et al. V. Bloomfield Hills School District et al.). At the petition
of the governor and other plaintiffs, the state supreme court has acted
to expedite a hearing on the constitutional questions. At the same
time, the governor began a drive to place an education and property tax
reform constitutional amendment on the ballot in 1972. The amendment
proposed calls for the elimination of the property tax for school oper-
ating purposes plus a reduction in the overall mill limit.
The amendment would be a mandate to the legislature to replace
local school property taxes with general state taxes, and to distribute
funds so as to assure an equal and quality education for all students.
The legislature would be authorized to enact a state-wide property tax
on business property for school operating purposes, if other replacement
proposals fail of enaciment.
Oregon: the governor has announced that he will propose a plan
to provide state financing of public school costs to be financed by
a state-wide property tax and increases in personal and corporation
income taxes. No further details on the proposal are available at this
time. The Oregon perintendent of public instruction has issued a re-
port "A Statement on School Finance in Oregon, " in which he discusses
several alternative school finance proposals. One is to provide 100
percent state support financed by a state-wide property tax with a
combination of other revenues (similar to the governor's proposal);
another is to discontinue the use of the property tax as a source of
revenue for local school operations, and a third is to establish a
single state-wide educational finance district. This last mentioned
proposal is an expanded version of the plan in the Mann-Eymann bill in
the 1971 legislative session in Oregon.
Other states where special study commissions are reviewing school
finance problems include: Arizona; California, where the Board of Equali-
zation has ronewed its earlier recommendation for a state-wide property tax
for school support; also, an implementing constitutional amendment to author-
ize equalization adjustments based on the Board's findings on local assess-
ment levels; Florida; Illinois, where the governor is serving as chairman
of the commission; Kansas; Texas; Washington and Wisconsin.
President's Commission on School Finance: the major financial rec-
ommendation in the President's Commission report is that, the states assume
substantially full responsibility for public school costs within a five-year
transitional period. To aid the states in assuming this responsibility, the
Commission suggested incentive payments inv lving additional federal funds
of from $4.6 to $7.8 billion, depending on which of several alternative plans
was adopted. These payments would be one-shot affairs designed to assist the
states in the transitional period. The Commission's report strongly empha-
sized the point that education was basically a responsibility of the states,
and did not comment on recent proposals for replacement of substantial amounts
of local property taxes for schools by new federal revenues.
The President's Request to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations: on January 20, 1972 the President requested ACIR to examine the
impact on intergovernmental relations of a tax reform proposal, which would
replace residential school property taxes with a federal value added tax; to
examine whether a federal value added tax is the best substitute for residen-
tial school property taxes; how the regressive effects of a value added tax
might be mitigated; how renter relief might be achieved under a proposal
which replaces residential school property taxes, and the best means of in-
suring local autonomy for schools under a system of school finance in which
the states have primary financing responsibility.
For discussion purposes a value added tax at a rate somewhere between
2 and 3 percent with a yield, depending on the exact rate and coverage, of
about $15 billion has been assumed. Of this total, perhaps $3 billion might
be subject. to tax credits to mitigate the regressiveness of the value added
tax, leaving $12 billion available for distribution to the states to replace
residential property taxes levied for the support of public schools.
In connection with the President's request, the dvisory Commission
has also directed its staff to study whether public schools can be adequately
financed from existing state and local revenue sources, and also various as-
pects of the property tax as a major revenue source.
Some Tentative Comments
While the Secrano and other decisions may have come as a surprise to
many, the basic fact that substantial reliance on district property taxes
produces inequities in educational opportunity and the distribution of educa-
tional costs has long been recognized. So, regardless of the ultimate deci-
sion on the constitutional issue, it seems to be a practical certainty that
these cases will serve as catalysts for the revision of educational finance
programs. It is also likely that these changes will not take place overnight.
In spite of the great amount of discussion which the cases have prompted, it
is probable that in many jurisdictions major cha: ges will await the final de-
termination of the constitutional issues invol ed, with whatever guidelines
might be provided in the process.
It also remains to be seen whether the United States Supreme Court will
adopt the "fundamental" interest interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment
as applied to education in the Serrano, Van Dusartz and Rodriguez cases. It
has been noted that there is presently no United States Supreme Court case
directly in point. The California Supreme Court distinguished earlier (but
very recont) educational finance cases where the United States Supreme Court
had affirmed dismissal of the complaints. 2 The basis of the distinction was
that the issue in Serrano was different from that involved in the earlier
cases, but as the opinion in Spano V. Board of Education points out in some
detail, the record in the McInnis and Burruss cases made it "abundantly clear
that the United States Supreme Court was more than adequately alerted that
the issues to be reviewed were neither mundane nor insignificant.
It might also be noted that even if the Serrano principle is not sus-
tained on federal constitutional grounds, it might be upheld under comparable
state constitutional provisions or by interpretation of the education clause
of a state constitution, for example, as in Robinson V. Cahill.
Serrano and similar cases raise other points which merit careful con-
sideration. One is the extent to which governmental services related, for
example, to welfare, public safety or public health, might be judicially char-
acterized as involving "fundamental" interests within the meaning of the Ser-
rano principle, so that the extent and quality of service provided cannot be
made a function of district wealth. This is an issue with significant impli-
cations for state-local relationships everywhere. Consideration of this issue,
which some officials appear to regard as tantamount to opening a Pandora's box
of fiscal problem would be avoided to the extent that questions involving
educational opportunity and financing are decided by reference to specific
2
McInnis V. Shapiro, 293 F. Supp. 327 (N. D. Ill. 1968), aff'd memo sub nom.
McInnis V. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 322 (1969); Burruss V. Wilkerson, 310 F. Supp.
572 ( W. D. Va. 1969), aff'd memo 397 U. S. 44 (1970).
education clauses in state constitutions.
Another point to be considered in connection with Serrano is the ex-
tent to which it may involve the courts in many intricate questions of edu-
cation policy associated with financing programs. It has been suggested
that Serrano is much preferable from a judicial standpoint to McInnis or
Burruss, because it does not require judicial intrusion into education policy
and finance questions, but rather only a simple declaration that the system
is valid or invalid by reference to constitutional standards. The assump-
tion seems to be that the courts will at most lay down broad guidelines and
thus afford states and local governments wide latitude in formulating educa-
tional finance programs that fall within those guidelines. There is much to
be said for this approach. The difficulty is, though, whether the line can
be drawn at that point once the fundamental test of the equal protection
clause becomes the formal standard for the adjudication of controversies in
this area.
Recent state legislation and reports of study commissions indicate
that some extremely important and very practical problems, both transitional
and permanent, are involved in the equalization of educational opportunity
and the distribution of educational costs. The nature and variety of these
problems suggest that local solutions, based on local needs, conditions and
traditions, may in the long run be more conducive to improvement in educa-
tional achievements than any approach that might turn out to be based on na-
tional, judicially prescribed standards, assuming of course, in any event, the
elimination of the systematic and substantial disparities so common where edu-
cational opportunity is a function of district property tax resources.
Among the practical problems that face state and local officials in
the equalization of educational opportunity are: determination of the criteria
by reference to which adequate support levels are established, including
the hotly debated relationship between the level of expenditures and educa-
tional achievement; provision for special expenditures for disadvantaged
pupils, the definition and needs of which may vary greatly even among school
districts in the same state; devising a leveling up program which does not
also entail some leveling down; the allowance within limits and without pen-
alty of some flexibility of choice in the matter of expenditures in excess
of the support standard or even in excess of a "save harmless" budget of a
previous year, so as not to stifle experimentation and innovation; and last,
but by no means least, the details of the financing required, which in some.
cases may mean sul stantial shifts in tax burdens.
A Note on the Property Tax
Local property taxes account for a major proportion of public school
revenues -- approximately $23-24 billion out of a total of about $45 billion
in state and local funds. Dospite some early fears to the contrary, there
is nothing in any of the recently decided school finance cases to indicate
that the property tax has to be al andoned as a source of school revenue. Pro-
vided that the educational finance system is not so structured that educational
opportunity is a function of district tax resources, the property tax may be
utilized as a revenue source on the same scale as presently, or on a greater
or lesser scale as each state may elect. Even at the district level, there
would be no objection to the use of a qualifying property tax rate utilized as
one element of a state support program so structured that differences in dis-
trict property tax resources did not in fact result in marked disparities in
educational opportunity among those districts.
In view of the substantial amount of public school revenues derived from
-22-
property taxes, it is a fair assumption that in most states the property tax
will continue to have an important role in school finance. One way to avoid
the district disparity objection is to levy a state-wide property tax for
school support purposes, and either prohibit or restrict locally levied school
property taxes. Almost without exception, post-Serrano discussions about the
revision of state-local school finance systems have mentioned the possibility
of a state-wide property tax as a major element in the new system. In two
state reports just issued, the Fleischmann Commission in New York and the Gov-
ernor's Tax Policy Committee in New Jersey, a state-wide property tax has
been officially recommended as an element in the new educational finance pro-
grams proposed. The likelihood of similar recommendations in other states
prompts a few c ments on the subject of a new state-wide property tax.
In many states the reinstatement of a state property tax will be a
practically new venture and a number of legal and administrative problems
may be involved in the process.
In some states a constitutional amendment would be required to author-
ize a state property tax for state purposes. Even where a state property
tax is permitted, it would be desirable to provide specific constitutional
authority for legislative action permitting the appropriate administrative
agency to adjust the state tax rate inversely to the assessment level pre-
vailing on local districts. 3 This method may be preferable to the more cum-
bersome process of raising or lowering local assessment rolls. It would also
be desirable to permit the administrative agency to raise or lower the assess-
ment level on state-assessed property allocated to local assessment districts
so that the adjusted state tax rate will apply to state-assessed property in
3
This point and the one following are analyzed in a memorandum prepared by the
Division of Property Taxes, California State Board of Equalization.
the same manner as to locally-assessed property in that district. This
procedure, too, might require specific constitutional sanction.
Another series of questions arise in connection with the adminis-
trative organization and facilities available at the state level. Is there
a state agency authorized to supervise the administration of the property
tax by local assessors and to determine the assessment levels prevailing in
local assessment districts? If there is such an agency, are its statutory
powers adequate to do the job? Is the agency staffed to do the job? It
might be noted in this connection that both the Fleischmann Commission (New
York) and the Governor's Tax Policy Committee (No./ Jersey) recommended the
strengthening of property tax supervisory functions in their respective states.
Despite many st tements to the contrary, the fact is that property
tax administration has improved significantly in the last i o ades, al-
though progress along these lines has been uneven among the states. Also,
for purposes of grant distribution programs, it has been possible in some
states to make adminis' rative adjustments in the formula to take account of
differences in assessment levels, particularly where no state assessed pro-
perty need be taken into consideration. This avoids the necessity of making
adjustments in the assessment rolls, either in the aggregate or by classes
of property. Under these circumstances, there may be no incentive to main-
tain an effective equalization program. Where a state property tax is in-
volved however, direct equalizing action is required. Either the assessment
rolls must be equalized or the state agency must adjust the state tax rate
inversely to the local deviation from the prescribed assessment standard.
In order to achieve that objective, it is likely that in a number of states,
the machinery for supervising the administration of the property tax must
4
be reinforced and in some cases revitalized.
Practically everywhere, the adoption of a state property tax will
be considered in the context of widespread or what is generally assumed
to be widespread dissatisfaction with the property tax as a major revenue
source of state and local government.
If the state-wide property tax is designed to produce about the same
amount of revenue previously raised by local property taxes for educational
purposes, there may be a considerable shift in the property tax payments
among local districts in those states, perhaps most, where there is pres-
ently a wide range in nomimal property tax rates. The shock of this change
may be dampened by transitional provisions.
This shift will be compounded (possibly, under some circumstances,
tempered) where there are substantial intradistrict differences in assess-
ment levels, and also, where there are interdistrict differences in assess-
ment levels. When this is the situation, the implementation of a state pro-
party tax will require an administrative operation of considerable magnitude
and complexity, including, in many cases, extensive reappraisal work. Any
serious political objection to the tax shifts involved would constitute a
further complicating factor.
These side effects of the inauguz tion of a state property tax may
well prompt a drive for the adoption of a classified property tax, particu-
larly in re pect to residential property or owner-occupied residential pro-
perty plus agricultural land. The adoption of such a program might mitigate
the shift in tax burdens for owners of properties favorably classified, but
4
For an excellent series of recommendations for the improvement of the admin-
istration of the property tax to this end, see The Role of the States in
Strengthening Property Tax Administration, by the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations, Washington, D. C. 20575.
it would add another set of complications on the administrative side.
Legislative consideration of property tax problems pre-dating the Serrano
case plus these recent developments suggest that classification of real
property for ad valoren: tax purposes probably has more appeal today than
it has had for some years past.
School- Financing
GOVERNOR REAGAN'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Tion
Budget
Budget*
Increase in
% Increase of
Year 1966-67
Year 1972-73 (Est)
Six Years
Enrollment in Six Yrs.
$--UP $204.4
State Colleges
$167.7
$372.1
Million
UP 78.4%
(Universities)
Million
Million
%--UP 121.9%
$--UP $143.2
Junior Colleges
$ 71.2
$214.4++
Million
UP 82.1 %
Million
Million
%--UP 201.1%
$--UP $136
U. C. System
$240.1
$376.5**
Million
UP 35.4%
Million
Million
%--UP 56.8%
$--UP $23.5
Million
State Student
$ 4.7
$ 28.2
----
Scholarships &
Million
Million
%--UP 500%
Loans
$--UP $645
State Funds+ for
$1.232
$1.877
Million
Public Schools
Up 12.7%
Billion
Billion
(K-14)
%--UP 52.4%
*All figures as budgeted in 1972-73 Governor's budget; subject to revision by legislative action &
periodic re-estimates of enrollment growth, etc.
**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus proposed faculty salary increase for 72-73.
***72-73 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.
+Total school subventions includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, etc. Total
of NEW school funds supplied by State since 1967 is an annual net increase of $560 million.
++Does not include the Community College share of $42 million Teacher's Retirement or $65 million in
new aid.
Revised 1/12/72
Enrollment
1966-67
1972-73
%
Actual
Estimated
Increase
Public Schools (K-12) ADA
4,394,961
4,715,037
7.2%
Public Schools (13-14 Community
Colleges) (ADA)
341,985
622,973
82.1%
Total K-14 (ADA)
4,736,946
5,338,010
12.6%
State Colleges
130,468 FTE
232,700 FTE
78.4%
University of California
79,293 FTE
107,346 FTE
35.4%
January 18, 1972
Edine
BACKGROUND PAPER PREPARED BY GOVERNOR'S STAFF FOR THE GOVERNOR
NEA "STATISTICS"--
Adding Apples and Oranges?
Some confusion has been created by a National Education Association
report* purporting to show that California's contribution to public schools
has "slipped" to 31st in the nation.
Here
Attached is some material pointing out the background of this matter.
Basically, from the "estimates" and other information listed about this
latest NEA report and "rankings", it appears that they may have committed
the cardinal mathematical sin: adding apples and oranges and subtracting
grapefruit.
Their statistics are incomplete (in some states certain items of educa-
tional support are included and these same items are ommitted in the table
for California). This makes an accurate comparison impossible.
But this is the. essential point:
By some miracle of mathematics, California manages to pay virtually
the highest teacher salaries in the nation (3rd according to the latest
NEA "rankings"), educates more of its school age population in public school
than any other major state, provides more total state support than ever
before, yet annually finds itself accused of "slipping" in the amount of
its aid to public schools.
Here are some factual figures:
--In 1972-73, California has budgeted $1.877 billion for public schools
(K-14). This is about $645 million MORE in annual support for public
schools than the $1.232 billion the State provided in 1966-67, the final
year of the prior administration.
-Since 1967, the State has provided new money for schools four times total
ing an annual NET INCREASE of $560 million for the support of local schools
Yet the enrollment increased only 11.5 per cent between 1967 and 1971.
--This year's state budget includes roughly $222 million more money for
schools, including $135 million a year in teacher retirement funds (which
apparently was not attributed to California by the NEA).
--The State is putting in $65 million in 1972-73 of new money over and above
the existing formulas.
Points on NEA education "statistics":
--It is impossible to make a definitive comparison between California and
other states' contribution to education based on. the NEA statistics. Their
recent "rankings" of the states have not been based on actual financial
data from the State, but instead are based on NEA "estimates" or "trends".
*The NEA publication coincided with that organizations efforts to have the
federal government provide more funds for education.
2
Each state also has a different school financing structure and may or may
not include the same items in computing total school aid.
--The validity of the NEA statistics and "rankings" have been a matter of
some dispute for several years. Several states, including California, have
sought to encourage the NEA to use precise figures and for uniformity, to
count the same contributions in each state for more accurate comparability.
--A Finance Department analysis of a 1969 NEA report sent to the California
Association of School Administrators includes these comments:
"It is my observation that any of the tables reporting to rank the states
in order of expenditures are totally unreliable, as related to state and
local expenditures. The National Education Association picks up their
expenditure figures from a variety of sources
There is no uniformity in treatment among the states of most classification
accrual versus cash accounting, program definitions, reporting of state
expenditures, reporting or lack thereof of local expenditures, assignment
of overhead costs or lack thereof, inclusion or exclusion of state-run
schools, inclusion or exclusion of bond interest and redemption, defini-
tion of expenditures in connection of bond interest, and so forth among
the 50 states. These are but a few of the major problems and we know
there are many others.
It is suggested that you and your organization give serious consideration
toward exerting your influence through the National Education Association
to make this research document a meaningful publication. The publication
has a wide readership and is attributed a validity that it does not possess
Even the news media accepts its findings at face value."
--The NEA report "estimates that California will spend $835 per pupil dur-
ing the current school year". But this is only for what is labeled "cur-
rent expense of education" in the accounting procedures. Unfortunately,
the manner in which it is presented carries a strong implication that this
is the total cost of education, which it is not. In some states, it may
represent the total cost, and in others, such as California, it does not.
In California the total cost can be estimated at slightly more than $1,000
depending what is included. How wrong is NEA in other states as well?
--As reported in newspapers, NEA ranked California 22nd in expenditures
for 1969-70..' If this were the case, it is also worth noting that the Educa
tion Commission of the States reported that California was third in per
capita state and local tax burden for that same period. Last year's NEA
Rankings noted that California was third as well in the percentage increase
of public high school graduates in the five-year period ending in 1969-70.
Whatever else the NEA rankings of expenditures measure, they apparently
do not account for either the input from the taxpayers on one hand or the
output of the educational process on the other.
--New York State, for example, lists in its 1971-72 budget some $2.306 bil-
lion in general state support for public schools. But that amount included
$214.3 million for school building aid
20.0 million for textbooks
23.0 million for an item entitled "high tax aid"
For the same year, California budgeted $1,522.8 million for public schools
(K-12). But that figure did not include such monies as state contributions
for teacher retirement ($135 million in 1972-73), construction funds, debt
service ($65 million in 1972-73), or the $344 million the State spent for
ongoing tax relief programs, including $235 million for homeowner property
tax relief and $8.6. million for senior citizens tax relief. The money
California earmarks for homeowner tax relief may be comparable to New York's
"high tax aid" category.
If all those missing components were added, California's per pupil expendi-
ture would probably go up at least $100 more per pupil or even more if
state property tax relief financed is included.
--According to the NEA, New York will spend roughly $1,468 per pupil compare
to $835 they list for California. If these figures were accepted, Californi
would have to spend $633 more per pupil for the estimated 4,657,440 students
in K-12 during 1972-73 to match New York. That would amount to some $2.9
billion more dollars. Yet even using NEA statistics, New York is spending
only $1 billion more for school aid. Something obviously is missing from
their figures.
Education
School Financing
NEA "STATISTICS"-
Adding Apples and Oranges?
Some confusion has been created by a National Education Association
report* purporting to show that California's contribution to public schools
has "slipped" to 31st in the nation.
Attached is some material pointing out the background of this matter.
Basically, from the "estimates" and other information listed about this
latest NEA report and "rankings", it appears that they may have committed
the cardinal mathematical sin: adding apples and oranges and subtracting
grapefruit.
Their statistics are incomplete (in some states certain items of educa-
tional support are included and these same items are ommitted in the table
for California). This makes an accurate comparison impossible.
But this is the essential point:
By some miracle of mathematics, California manages to pay virtually
the highest teacher salaries in the nation (3rd according to the latest
NEA "rankings"), educates more of its school age population in public schools
than any other major state, provides more total state support than ever
before, yet annually finds itself accused of "slipping" in the amount of
its aid to public schools.
Here are some factual figures:
--In 1972-73, California has budgeted $1.877 billion for public schools
(K-14). This is about $645 million MORE in annual support for public
schools than the $1.232 billion the State provided in 1966-67, the final
year of the prior administration.
--Since 1967, the State has provided new money for schools four times total-
ing an annual NET INCREASE of $560 million for the support of local schools.
Yet the enrollment increased only 11.5 per cent between 1967 and 1971.
--This year's state budget includes roughly $222 million more money for
schools, including $135 million a year in teacher retirement funds (which
apparently was not attributed to California by the NEA).
--The State is putting in $65 million in 1972-73 of new money over and above
the existing formulas.
Points on NEA education "statistics":
--It is impossible to make a definitive comparison between California and
other states' contribution to education based on the NEA statistics. Their
recent "rankings" of the states have not been based on actual financial
data from the State, but instead are based on NEA "estimates" or "trends".
*The NEA publication coincided with that organizations efforts to have the
federal government provide more funds for education.
2
Each state also has a different school financing structure and may or may
not include the same items in computing total school aid.
--The validity of the NEA statistics and "rankings" have been a matter of
some dispute for several years. Several states, including California, have
sought to encourage the NEA to use precise figures and for uniformity, to
count the same contributions in each state for more accurate comparability.
-A Finance Department analysis of a 1969 NEA report sent to the California
Association of School Administrators includes these comments:
"It is my observation that any of the tables reporting to rank the states
in order of expenditures are totally unreliable, as related to state and
local expenditures. The National Education Association picks up their
expenditure figures from a variety of sources
There is no uniformity in treatment among the states of most classifications,
accrual versus cash accounting, program definitions, reporting of state
expenditures, reporting or lack thereof of local expenditures, assignment
of overhead costs or lack thereof, inclusion or exclusion of state-run
schools, inclusion or exclusion of bond interest and redemption, defini-
tion of expenditures in connection of bond interest, and so forth among
the 50 states. These are but a few of the major problems and we know
there are many others.
It is suggested that you and your organization give serious consideration
toward exerting your influence through the National Education Association
to make this research document a meaningful publication. The publication
has a wide readership and is attributed a validity that it does not possess.
Even the news media accepts its findings at face value."
--The NEA report "estimates that California will spend $835 per pupil dur-
ing the current school year". But this is only for what is labeled "cur-
rent expense of education" in the accounting procedures. Unfortunately,
the manner in which it is presented carries a strong implication that this
is the total cost of education, which it is not. In some states, it may
represent the total cost, and in others, such as California, it does not.
In California the total cost can be estimated at slightly more than $1,000
depending what is included. How wrong is NEA in other states as well?
--As reported in newspapers, NEA ranked California 22nd in expenditures
for 1969-70.' If this were the case, it is also worth noting that the Educa-
tion Commission of the States reported that California was third in per
capita state and local tax burden for that same period. Last year's NEA
Rankings noted that California was third as well in the percentage increase
of public high school graduates in the five-year period ending in 1969-70.
Whatever else the NEA rankings of expenditures measure, they apparently
do not account for either the input from the taxpayers on one hand or the
output of the educational process on the other.
--New York State, for example, lists in its 1971-72 budget some $2.306 bil-
lion in general state support for public schools. But that amount included:
3
$214.3 million for school building aid
20.0 million for textbooks
23.0 million for an item entitled "high tax aid"
For the same year, California budgeted $1,522.8 million for public schools
(K-12). But that figure did not include such monies as state contributions
for teacher retirement ($135 million in 1972-73), construction funds, debt
service ($65 million in 1972-73), or the $344 million the State spent for
ongoing tax relief programs, including $235 million for homeowner property
tax relief and $8.6. million for senior citizens tax relief. The money
California earmarks for homeowner tax relief may be comparable to New York's
"high tax aid" category.
If all those missing components were added, California's per pupil expendi-
ture would probably go up at least $100 more per pupil or even more if
state property tax relief financed is included.
--According to the NEA, New York will spend roughly $1,468 per pupil compared
to $835 they list for California. If these figures were accepted, California
would have to spend $633 more per pupil for the estimated 4,657,440 students
in K-12 during 1972-73 to match New York. That would amount to some $2.9
billion more dollars. Yet even using NEA statistics, New York is spending
only $1 billion more for school aid. Something obviously is missing from
their figures.
1/72
AUGUST 30, 1971
Franking
STATEMENT OF HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY, STATE CONTROLLER, RELATIVE TO THE CALIFORNIA
SUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDING CALIFORNIA'S SCHOOL FINANCING SYSTEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Although I have not had an opportunity to read the 63 page text of today's
decision by the State Supreme Court, it would appear that this historic decision
could result in increased educational opportunity for the majority of California's
school children and could benefit the great majority of property taxpayers in the
State.
For many years, I have fought to equalize the burden of financing our schools
and lessen the dependence of education opportunity upon the value of property in a
school district. Currently, one dollar of tax rate in Beverly Hills raises ten
times the dollars for schools as one dollar of tax rate in West Covina. It is
unjust to ask homeowners to pay heavy property taxes for schools when islands of
wealth in the state escape with a relatively light burden.
If this decision is ultimately applied and withstands appeal, I assume it will
force the adoption of a uniform statewide property tax for schools to replace the
present system with its wide variation as to tax rates. Further, it will
probably result in some shifting of the costs of school finance from the local to
the state level. I believe the average homeowner would definitely benefit if these reform
are enacted into law.
came School Known
For Further Information
Call Winifred L. Hepperle
Serrano V. Priest
(415) 557-2326
FOR SIMULTANEOUS RELEASE:
ON MONDAY, AUGUST 30 at 11:00 a.m.
IN SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES
AND SACRAMENTO
NEWS RELEASE # 111
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCING SYSTEM HELD
UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY SUPREME COURT
The California Supreme Court today held that the public school
financing system is unconstitutional because it discriminates against
the poor.
The 6-1 opinion written by Justice Raymond L. Sullivan states
that the educational funding scheme "makes the quality of a child's edu-
cation a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors. Recogniz-
ing as we must that the right to an education in our public schools is
a fundamental interest which cannot be conditioned on wealth, we can
discern no compelling state purpose necessitating the present method
of financing. We have concluded, therefore, that such a system cannot
withstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the equal pro-
tection clause."
The Legislature, under authority of the State Constitution,
presently authorizes local governing bodies to levy real property taxes
for educational needs. This dependence on local real property taxes
was pinpointed by the Court as the root of the constitutional defect
in the educational financing system. About 56 percent of school funds
derive from property taxes, 35 percent from State aid and the remainder
from federal and other sources. Thus, the Court notes, the amount a
school district can spend depends largely on its tax base, that is, the
assessed value of real property within its borders. These tax bases
vary widely throughout the state, ranging from a low of $103 per child
to a peak of $952,156--a ratio of nearly 1 to 10,000.
"Although the amount of money raised locally is also a func-
tion of the rate at which the residents of a district are willing to
tax themselves, as a practical matter districts with small tax bases
simply cannot levy taxes at a rate sufficient to produce the revenue
that more affluent districts reap with minimal tax efforts," the Court
declared. Thus, affluent districts can have their cake and eat it too:
they can provide a high quality education for their children while pay-
ing lower taxes. Poor districts by contrast, have no cake at all. If
The Court found that although distributions of state funds
partially alleviates these disparities there are still wide differentials
in per pupil expenditures among various school districts. These varia-
tions, the Court ruled, violate the equal protection clause of the Four-
teenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The 63-page decision contains an extensive analysis of the
role education plays in modern society. The Court stated, "We are con-
vinced that the distinctive and priceless function of education in our
society warrants, indeed compels, our treating it as a 'fundamental in-
terest. 111 In this context the Court referred to previous U.S. Supreme
Court decisions invalidating legislative classifications based on wealth
where other Fundamental interests" such as rights of criminal defendants
and voting rights, were involved.
The Court further ruled that the present financing scheme was
not necessary to maintain decision-making at the local level. Adminis-
trative control can still be left in the hands of the school districts,
the Court said, no matter how the state decides to finance its educa-
tional system. Also, the Cour pointed out that the present fiscal
Could not be consid
Jessary to promoting local financial
choices since "only a district with a large tax base will truly be able
to decide how much it really cares about education. The poor district
cannot freely choose to tax itself into an excellence which its tax
rolls cannot provide. II
Today's decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of Los
Angeles County public school children and their parents as a class ac-
tion against county and state officials. The parents and their children
sought a judicial declaration that the school financing system is un-
constitutional and an order directing the public officials to restruc-
ture the system to remedy the invalidity. The trial court had dismissed
the action on the ground that a valid legal claim was not presented.
By its action today the Supreme Court directed the lower court to hear
the parents' contentions and returned the case for trial.
Justice Marshall F. McComb dissented.
#
or to make a political
point thout telling the full
STOZY,
Edwi
School Financi
1. Those seeking more financial aid for public schools sometimes cite
the State School Fund apportionment totals (average daily attendance
allocations) --as if these were the only state funds allocated to public
education.
As Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post has observed, the school apportionment
funds is "an inaccurate picture of the state's effort regarding public
education because it does not reflect other educational expenditures
appropriated through budget action.'
2. These other funds are known as subventions and are appropriated to
provide additional financial support to public schools. The list includes
$91 million for teachers' retirement fund contributions in 1970-71, $21.3
million for free textbooks, $53.5 million for paying the debt service
(interest charges) on school construction bonds, etc. The combined total of
the basic average daily attendance funds and the other subventions make up the
State's Total Subventions to public schools and constitute the State's Share
of State-Local financing for education.
3. In 1966-67, the final budget year of the previous administration,
Total State Subventions for public schools K-14 amounted to $1.220 billion
(Table 14, Legislative Analyst's report). This represented a state share of
41.04% of total State-Local revenues.
4. The 1970-71 budget allocates approximately $1.753 billion in Total
State Subventions or $533 million more in annual aid this year than in
1966-67. This is a percentage increase of about 43% over four budget years.
5. In 67-68 the first year of the Reagan administration, Total School
Subventions were $1.441 billion in dollars and about 42.36% in percentage.
2.
For 1968-69, Total State Subventions for public schools amounted to
$1.504 billion, or about 41.92% of tdal State-Local spending for public
schools.
The State's percentage share of total State-Local school revenues for
1970-71 and 1969-70 cannot be determined finally until complete actual
spending figures by local districts are compiled. However, the State
Finance Department estimates that the State's overall percentage share of
State-Local school costs should be up a percentage point or two (to about
42 or 43%) in 1969-70 and 1970-71 because:
(a) Governor Reagan included $120 million of new school aid in his
1969-70 budget, the first time such an increase ever has been proposed in a
Gov ernor's original budget. The Governor also agreed to add certain other
fund surpluses to school aid. The final total amount of new state school
revenue as a result of those two actions amounted to an estimated $187 million
in Fiscal 1969-70.
(b) During 1970 Legislature, Governor Reagan proposed a cost-of-living
increase of new school revenue for 1970-71. The Legislature finally agreed
on a net of about $98 million of additional school funding for Fiscal 1970-71.
(c) Schools also received an infusion of new school support in 1967-68
through AB 272 (Unruh), the bill that became the concensus school finance
measure of 1967. Governor Reagan signed this measure. It was originally
figured to add about $145 million, but ultimately added about $211 million
to school aid funds.
HOWEVER, the money to pay for AB 272's increased school aid was possible
only because the Reagan administration sponsored SB 556, the 1967 tax bill to
correct the fiscal chaos that the previous administration had left in state
government. (Unruh voted for the tax bill).
*When
Jesse Unruh was Assembly Speaker and controlled a massive legislativo
majority, he often was listed as lead author on desirable bills which became
law.
3.
COMPLEX FORMULA
Governor Reagan feels (and many others share this view) that the
present complex formula for apportioning school funds is not equitable,
particularly for poorer districts. He also feels the burden of local
property tax payers is too high.
That is why in 1969, the Reagan administration proposed a major tax refor
program which would have resulted in the State assuming an estimated 80
percent of local school costs. The plan was defeated.
In 1970, his major tax reform program originally included a school
equalization formula which would have provided additional funds for about
80% of California's local school districts. Amendments offered by a Democrati
member of the Legislature resulted in the elimination of the school
equalization part of the 1970 tax reform program which finally lost by one
vote in the State Senate after gaining the support of 93 of the 119 members
(one vacancy) of the Legislature.
50-50 SHARING
Governor Reagan campaigned for and has worked to attain the goal of
having the State provide 50% of local public school costs. (The last time
the State's total share of public school subventions approached the 50%
level was in the mid-1950's during the Knight administration). The 50-50
ratio never was achieved during the eight years of the prior administration.
In 1958-59, the year the previous administration took office, total
school subventions were 45.8% As noted previously, the percentage was
41.04% in 1966-67, the final budget year of the prior administration.
Educ.
State of California
OF
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
SACRAMENTO 95814
RONALD REAGAN
GOVERNOR
December 1. 1970
TO: Cabinet & Senior Staff
FROM: Youth Affairs (Gary Hunt & Tom Baker)
RE: Attached survey
The attached survey was a random sample of 288 students
at California State College at Long Beach. It was administered
on two diffrent days and evenings. The survey was taken
by Mr. Terry Friedman.
The survey was taken in classroom settings, with sizes
ranging from ten to forty-five students. The students were
selected by a random number generating system program.
We would like to draw your attention to numbers 9 and 11.
We believe the high percentage of students voicing their approval
of their Student Presidents meeting with the Governor (83.5%)
not only speaks well of the Governor and the Presidents, but
also points out that the students believe this communication
link should be continued and expanded.
We also would draw your attention to number 15, which shows
the breakdown of age, ethnic background, financial responsibilities,
and other pertinent personal information of those students polled.
Number 15 also indicates that 84.2% of those polled were of
voting age.
1. Do you favor or oppose the serving of beer in the College Union?
Favor
62.8
Oppose
33.7
Don't Know
3.5
2. How often do you drink beer?
Often
17.5
Sometimes
42.5
Seldom
21.1
Never
18.9
3. When do you think Campus Police should be able to carry guns on campus?
At all times
36.5
During the day
0
During the evening
16.1
Only if a conflict on
36.5
campus warrants it
Never
10.9
4. Do you read the Forty-Niner newspaper?
Yes
93.7
No
6.3
5. If the answer is Yes answer this question. How often do you read the
Forty-Niner?
Every Issue
28.5
FrequentlyMost of the time 49.5
Sometimes
22.0
6. of what quality do you think the Forty-Hiner is?
Excellent
6.3
Good
38.3
Fair
39.3
Poor
14.0
Don' Know
2.1
7. What do you think is the prime function of the college campus?
Total
8. Function Is California State College Long Beach accomplishing this function?
Yes
No
Don't Know
49. 4Education
73.1
T4.2
12.7
3.5Career Preparation
90.0
10.0
0
23.2F Thinking, Learning
48.5
38.0
13.5
2.110 Give Degrees
84.0
16.0
0
9.8 Don't Know
32.1
7.2
60.7
4.6Social
53.8
46.2
0
2.8Provide Community Service
50.0
25.0
25.0
4.6Antagonistic Answer
76.9
23.1
0
9. Dr you favor or oppose the Student Advisory Council that will be meeting
with Covernor Reagan each month?
Favor
83.5
Oppose
11.2
Don't Know
5.3
10. Would you favor or oppose the employment of student assistants to the
Dean of Students on the state colleges? These students should be
directly involved in all administrative decisions regarding student
offairs and should be selected either by direct election or with the
consent of the student body.?
Favor
81.4
Oppose
16.8
Don't Know
1.8
II. Would you favor or oppose the Covernor appointing a student representative
to the Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents?
Favor
71.9
Oppose
27.0
Don't Know
1.1
12. Which figure below comes closest to the state expenditure per year per
student in the State College System?
$100
5.6
$500
20.0
$1000
24.2
$1500
26.0
$2000
18.2
Don't Know
6.0
13. If tuition is initiated in the State College System would you favor or
oppose a go now pay later plan, with twenty years to pay?
Favor
70.2
Oppose
27.7
Don't Know
2.1
14. What do you think the letters E.O.P. mean.
15. Do you favor or oppose E.O.P: funding on the State College compuses?
Total
Function
Yes
No
Don't Know
36.8 Educational Opportunity
79.8
T8.4
7.8
Program
8.1 Understanding of E.O.P.
78.3
8.7
13.0
12.3 Equal Opportunity Program
71.5
17.1
11.4
15.8 Economic Opportunity
71.4
17.6
11.0
Program
27.0 Don't Know
11.7
6.5
81.8
Age
Race
78
3.5
Caucasian
87.0
19-20
12.3
Mexican-Anerican
3.5
2/-22
50.5
Blach-(nfro-Anerican)
2.8
23-24
10.2
25-28
13.7
84.2%
Oriental
3.9
Other
2.8
Over 28
9.8
Marital Status
Units being attempted
Single
60.0
Under 10
14.1
Engaged
8.1
10 or over
85.9
Married
29.4
Divorced 2.5
Financial Support
Completely self-supporting
47.4
Parents paying all expenses
11.6
Parents sharing expenses with you
38.6
In school on full scholarship
in
In school on partial scholarship
2.1
Class Standing
Sex
Freshman
4.6
Male
59.7
Sophomore
3.5
Female
40.3
Junior
34.0
Senior
45.2
Graduate-Student
12.7
WIRE TO COMMUNITY COLIEGE PRESIDENTS
Edne
May 6, 1970
Straight wire
It is essential for our college and university faculties,
students and administrators to reflect on the grave
consequence of current events the consider their respon-
sibilities to themselves and to our society. In order
to afford them this opportunity, away from the highly
emotional conditions now prevailing on most campuses,
I have today asked President !fitch and Chancellor Dumke
to close the University and State College campuses for
two days and over the weekend.
President Hitch and Chancellor Dumke strongly concurred
in my recommendation, and accordingly have taken the
necessary action for implementation. All campus facili-
ties will be closed during this period.
I hope that this period will allow time for rational
reflection away from the emotional turmoil, and encourage.
all to disavow violence and mob action.
In this period of extraordinary circumstances I believe the
community colleges would find it wise to encourage similar
endeavors by their faculties and students.
RONALD REAGAN
Governor
cane
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT HITCH 5-6-70
At the request of Gov. Reagan, the University of California
will be closed from Thurs., May 7, through the weekend, UC President
Charles J. Hitch announced today (Wed., May 6).
Governor Reagan has asked that all college and university
campuses in the state be closed for this period to provide an
opportunity for rational reflection on the current tragedies on
the nation's campuses.
During the four-day shutdown, students are urged wherever
possible to return to their homes. A skeleton force of University
personnel will remain on hand for necessary hospital services,
maintenance and security. In general, the same facilities will
remain open as on a Sunday. The resident halls will be kept open
for those unable to leave. The UC campus will resume normal
operations on Monday.
"The chancellors and I earnestly request all students,
faculty and staff to observe this period of reflection. We very
much need to work and think together how best to help our society
and our nation," President Hitch said.
came
STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT HAYAKAWA:
5-6-70
In accordancd with a directive from Gov. R, S.F. State College,
along with all state colleges and universities, will be closed from
the end of the work today, May 6, until the beginning of the work
day, Monday, May 11, 1970.
The campus will not be available to student or faculty groups
for meetings or any other activities during this period.
Just before 11 this morning, we received word from the
chancellor's office that Gov. R was ordering state college and
univ. campuses closed for these four days. I have since talked
to the Gov. and understand his reasoning.
Too many innocent students are being led down the path of
anarchy. They need time away from the radical rhetoric to think
of their own lives, their families and their country's future.
Four days away from the campus should provide time for contemplation
and serious thought about the consequences of the violence that has
erupted in recent days.
When students return to classes on Monday, I hope they will be
able to distinguish between legitimate dissent and the movement led
by anarchists to use current emotions as a
cheap excuse to
destroy buildings, institutions and lives.
In the last few days, I believe that we at S.F. State College
have proved an important point for the entire nation. We have had
our rallies, speeches and marches. But we have also avoided violence
completely. Why? Primarily because the majority of students and
faculty at S.F. State College are decent, reasonable people. They
recognize that their rights to voice opinions, to attend classes,
and to go about their private business are protected, but that this
college will not tolerate disruption and violence perpetrated by the
few who have no respect for the rights of others.
These rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression
will continued, as always, to be protected.
# # #
To Fac and Staff:
In accordance with the above statement, the college will be
completedly closed to all faculty and staff employees except for
normal security and required maintenance functions for the period
starting 12:01 a.m. Thursday, May 7, through 11:59 p.m., Sunday,
May 10. Employees will not be disadvantaged pay-wise for their
scheduled duty tours (specific details will be published later).
Staff and faculty are expected to return to their normal work
status, effective Monday, May 11.
P.B.
June
file
/
California pays the nation's highest average salary for
elementary and secondary school teaching personnel.
During the 1968-69 school year, the average annual salary for
California's elementary and secondary school instructional staff was
$9,800 according to figures compiled by the National Education
Association. This is:
-Almost 20% higher than the national average of $8,194 for all the
50 states and the District of Columbia.
--$308 higher than the average salary paid in Michigan, the second-
place state.
$400 higher than the average instructional staff salary in New York,
the third-place state and the only other state with a population
comparable to California's.
The NEA survey also noted that the average annual salary for
elementary and secondary school instructional staff in California
rose 43.2% during the period 1959-60 to 1967-68.
Here are the top five states in average annual salaries for
elementary and secondary school instructional staff:
California
$9.800*
Michigan
9,492
New York
9,400
Illinois
9,300
Massachusetts
9,269
(*The average instructional staff salary for Alaska in 1968-69
is estimated at $10,887. However, the NEA notes that the purchasing
power of $1 in Alaska's four largest cities averages only about 75
cents compared with the average purchasing power of the dollar in the
areas covered by the Consumer Price Index of the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. For this reason, the NEA says Alaska's figures should be
AND
reduced by about one fourth to make its figures realistically
comparable to those from other states. On that basis, Alaska's
salary scale for 1968-69 is about $8,146 in U.S. dollar purchasing
value, well below the leading states in the continental U.S.)
(Source: Table 8-10 Economic Status of the Teaching Profession,
1968-69, National Education Association)
2 I I
State of California
Education
Memorandum
School Financing
To
Alex Sherriffs
Date : November 22, 1971
Subject Financial Support for
Public Education
From : Jerry Martin
Attached is a revised one-sheet chart showing the increased appropria-
tions for various segments of education during the Reagan Administration.
Please note that operational fund increase for public schools (K-14)
has increased four times faster than total enrollment and total school
subventions have increased a little more than three times faster than
enrollment.
Also, when the State assumes increased Teacher Retirement Fund obliga-
tion next year, these figures will be up substantially and will reflect
a more than half a billion increase of annual State support for K-14
since 1966-67, the last budget year of the prior administration.
The enrollment increase shown for U.C. system was the budget projection.
Actual enrollment this fall indicated this may be down somewhat, provid-
ing a larger spread between the increase in money (40.4%) and the increas
in enrollment.
CC: Ed Meese, Jim Jenkins, Rush Hill, Verne Orr, Jim Dwight, Ken Hall,
James Hall, Ike Livermore, Frank Walton, Earl Coke, Don Livingston,
Bob Keyes, Ned Hutchinson, Ed Gray, Paul Beck, Bill Stroebel,
George Steffes, Herb Ellingwood, Dick Turner, Bruce Nestande
A
GOVERNOR REAGAN'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
Budget
Budget
% Increase $
% Increase of
Year
Year (Est.)
--Five Years
Enrollment--Five Years
1966-67
1971-72
Direct 'Aid to
Public Schools
UP 44.2%
K-14
$1.049
$1.513.8 1
UP 11.4%
(School Apportion-
Billion
Billion
($464 Million)
ment Fund)
Total School
Subventions K-14
1
UP 35.9%
(Includes text books
$1.232
$1.673
UP 11.4%
Special Funds, etc.)
Billion
Billion
($441 Million)
Junior Colleges
$71.2*
$184.9
UP 159.7%
UP 64.4%
Million
Million
($113.7 Million)
State Colleges
$167.7
$315.8
2
UP 88.3%
UP 69.4%
Million
Million
($148.1 Million)
UC System
$240.1
2
$337
UP 40.4%
UP 33.4%
Million
Million
($96.9 Million)
State Scholarships
$4.7
$20
UP 325.4%
Million
Million
($15.3 Million)
1. This year, the State also agreed to appropriate approximately $135 Million a year, starting in
1972-73, to put State Teachers Retirement Fund on a sound, fiscal basis (AB 543--Barnes). This
increased annual contribution will substantially raise State's contribution to education in future
years. 2. Does not include approximately $39 Million in UC--State college capital outlay (bond
10-27-691 ed wined this
Educ.
to TIME mag in N.Y.
QUESTION: IS YOUR OFFICE INTERESTING IN A POLITICAL WAY WITH THE TRADIT-
IONAL ACADEMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE INDEPENDENCE THE UNIVERSITY ENJOYS IN SUCH
MATTERS.
ANSWER: "No, and under the Constitution of the State of California, It could
not.
"or course, as governor, I on A member of the university Board of
Regents, along with another 23 citizens of the state. Sixteen are appointed
members who serve 16-year terms, and eight, such as myself, serve in on ox-
officio capacity. When vacancies occur, it 1a the responsibility of the gov-
ernor to appoint successors to the non ex-officio posts.
"During my term in office, I have made only four appointments to the
board. It is very un likely, therefore, that -- even If I wished -- I could
exert political control over board members.
QUESTION: ARE THE REGENTS, AT YOUR URGINO, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONSIDER-
INO A PROFESSOR'S POLITICAL LEANINGS PERFORM GRANTING HIM TENUM.
ANSWER: "As D regent, and #: governor, 1 have never urged the adoption of
any sort of 'political test' in the hiring of faculty members. My concern,
however, is that'political tests" co, in fact, exist and 626 being Imposed
by certain members of the faculty on some of our compuses.
"At A recent meeting of the Board of Regents, I voted in favor of
$ resolution which reaffirmed the principle that such tests should have no
place in the running of the university.
"A test to Insure liberalism, or redicalism, 1= surely no better
then $ test to insure conservation. Neither 1s appropriate to & public
institution of higher learning. On the contrary, I believe that #: truly
professional ethic " regardless of personal bies ** should prevail in
every classroom.
2 -
QUESTION: DOES YOUR CRITICISM FROM TIME TO TIME OF 3 TUDENT RADICALS,
PERMISSIVE PROFESSORS AND TAX ADMINISTRATORS TEND 20 PARM THE UNIVERSITY
BY MAKING IT VULNERABLE 70 PUBLIC PRESSURE AND VOTER RESENTMENT, AS YOUR
CRITICS CHARGE.
ANSWER: "If anything Is harming the university, it is that administrators
and professors are ignoring the needa of the students. Their priority
lists are upside down, with students at the bottom. Unfortunately, too
many faculty members and administrators put the preservation of their own
establishment at the top of their priority list, at the expense of the
student -- the very person which education 10 all about. My oritioism
of the university 10 contered around faculty peglect of students. It's
no wonder they're upset.
QUESTION: IS THIS CRITICISM OF THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS UNTERIRABLE COM-
PONENTS AT TRAST A POLITICAL MECHANISM WHICH YOU THINK VILL IRIP YOU IN
THE NEXT STATE HIROTION,
ANSWER: "It 1s the duty of any governor to Insure that the number one
function of the state's public institutions of higher learning is to educate
students. I believe the vest majority of Celifornia citizens would agree
with m. If this is the case, then It is clear that it 10 not the governor
or the Board of Regents who consider-it a 'political mechanism' but rether
certain faculty members who have obosen to insert politics into the classroom.
QUESTION: FINALLY, AND YOU ALTERING BY YOUR ACTIVE CONCERN WITH THE UNIV-
ERSITY A TRADITION OF UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE FROM STATE MATTERS. IF so,
THIS HARM THE UNIVERSITY AS YOUR CRITICS CHARGE, OR HELP IT.
educate our young
ANSWER: "My sctivey-infadd-overridingygoncern infadd is that 100
people.
the
and If this insistence on putting the needs : of of students shood of
at the
the 'educational establishment'
inventied Politionl interference, then
S.F. EXAMINER Education writer, at his request (approved by
person---Governor.
Alex Sherriffs, John Kehoe and Ed Meese). Answers are Educ. in first
September 5, 1969
(Copied from TWX)
1. What does the Reagan administration plan to do to help
city schools?
As you know, we presented a comprehensive plan for overhauling
California's outmoded tax structure, including reform of the state's
overburdened and restrictive system of financing local school operations.
The subject has not yet, however, received action in the legislature.
Yet, the fact is that there must be better equalization of
financial support for our public schools if we are to provide equal
educational opportunities for all our children, whether they chance
to live in low-wealth or high wealth districts.
Under the tax reform program which we proposed, the state would
assume most of the basic foundation support for local school districts
by levying a one percent "educational opportunity tax" derived from
sources other than residential property. This would amount to about
80 percent of the residential property tax currently collected by
local school districts. The funds from both the statewide educational
opportunity taxes would permit the state to more than double its share
of school financing- to some $3 billion a year. It would mean that
each pupil in the state would receive from $500 to $725 per year
based on average daily attendance depending on grade level. This
contrasts with a current educational imbalance which makes available
as little as $289 per student in some districts and as much as
$2,662 per pupil in others.
"This is an imbalance which demands change, for I believe the
state has an obligation to make certain that every school child in
California no matter where he happens to live---has an equal
opportunity to realize his maximum potential.
"In connection with our efforts to correct this imbalance, I
have urged congress to consider and adopt legislation which would
allow California residents to claim a one percent credit on their
federal income tax bills to cover whatever additional state income
taxes they might owe as a result of the kind of tax reform program
we proposed for California. In effect, this would offset---indeed
eliminate any net increase in the combined tax bill of any
Californian on passage of our tax reform program and if the tax
credit were granted by the federal government.
"We intend to continue to push for meaningful reform in these
vital areas, including an overhaul in California's structure of
educational finance and implementation of the concept of federal
tax sharing a concept which has received the support of vice
president Spiro Agnew and Senator George Murphy.
"Incidentally, if our tax reform program were adopted, I
would insist that state funds for local school financing be
distributed on a no strings attached basis.
"Finally, let me point out again---as I did on signing the
current state budget las month that education received the
very highest priority for funds of any state agency or department.
In fact, in submitting our budget to the legislature last February,
I broke past precedent and requested $105 million in additional
aid to public schools. To this we were able to add $15 million
due to federal cancellation of the freeze on aid to families
with dependent children. And, to the $120 million, we agreed to
make available for one-time use any unanticipated revenues from
last year's budget.
"Just several days ago I had the pleasure of signing into law
a major bill in our administration's legislative program which will
extend, and promises to improve, California's compensatory education
for elementary school-age youngsters who live in disadvantaged areas.
"I strongly support the principle of dealing with educational
deficiencies at the earliest possible age. If we are to achieve
educational balance, we must support efforts which innovate valid
and meaningful programs from kindergarten through the sixth grade
level.
"The compensatory education bill will give our youngsters who,
through no fault of their own, happen to live in disadvantaged areas,
a better chance for a good start in school."
2. Do you feel that order has been restored on the Berkeley campus
as you promised in your campaign? To what extent? What more should be
done?
"As you know, it has been my desire, and remains my desire, to
see those values which prevailed just a few short years ago on the
Berkeley campus restored.
"As Governor, and as a Regent of the University, I have a unique
responsibility to represent the citizens of our state who are insisting
that the institutions of higher education they so generously support
function effectively and properly in educating their children.
"I also believe that I represent the majority of the people of
the state in defining education as the presentation of the truth
whatever it may be---and not the use of the classroom for propaganda
and indoctrination.
"Academic freedom is a privilege granted by the citizens of our
society to insure that faculty members may pursue the truth wherever
it might lead. But, when a professor no longer prizes this principle,
he betrays a trust we place in him and jeopardizes the academic
freedom of his colleagues as well.
2
"The point is: honesty in teaching in principle and in
practice is of greater importance to us and our youngsters than
the more visible signs of peace or disruption on campus. To be
sure, if all faculty members on campus valued honesty in their
classroom instruction, disruption would cease to be a problem.
"Another concern of both students and their parents is the
practice of faculty neglect of students in too many classrooms.
Campus disruptions have the effect of attracting the curiosity,
and unfortunately sometimes the naive fancy, of too many of our
normal youngsters out of a feeling of genuine frustration a
result of neglect in the classroom.
"The challenge, indeed the very real necessity of correcting
this all too frequent state of affairs, and for paying attention
to the educational experience of students will, in the long run,
be of infinitely greater significance than the order or disorder
of physical facilities.
"This, of course, is not to ignore the fact that in our
society the rights of personal freedom and protection of personal
property must be the rights of all.
"The capture of campus buildings and personnel, and attempts
to silence the opposition, are totalitarian tactics and are of as
much concern to the citizens of California as they are to me.
"We cannot derive much satisfaction from quiet on campus if,
on the same campus, indoctrination replaces integrity, frustration
breeds disorder, and vacillation encourages disruption.
"The fact is, the quiet of summer vacation is not a valid
indicator of some sort of change for the better.
"We know that during the summer many plans have been made for
causing serious disruption on campuses this fall, including Berkeley.
"We will know that order is restored when we see administrators
take courageous action and exert constructive leadership; when we
hear responsible faculty members speak out against their colleagues
who encourage and even participate in disorders; when students no
longer feel they're nameless, faceless numbers on an assembly line and
taught by teaching assistants hardly older than themselves; when
'publish or perish' ceases to overrule teaching as a career; when
professional ethics are restored to the classroom; and when student
members of the responsible, if silent, majority refuse to be taken
in by those few radicals and nonstudent activists who purvey violence
and contempt for the law as a way of life."
3. In the current Life magazine, a San Francisco state faculty member
says, in passing, that California's reputation among educators is
not good. Others have said the same thing. What do you think of
such allegations?
- 3
"For every faculty member who leaves California for whatever
reason to teach elsewhere, there are two waiting in the wings to
take his place.
"Competition in the educational marketplace, combined with
the traditional mobility of those in the profession naturally lend
themselves to such charges by persons who wish to mislead the
public for various reasons.
"However, the allegations they make are often designed to
exploit these two factors for personal aggrandizement.
"The competition for California educators by colleges and
universities around the country is well known. The lure of bonuses
and fringe benefits obviously attracts some California educators
to other states. This happens because of the high reputation of
our institutions. In addition, advancing educational systems
outside of California want to take advantage of the training
gained by young instructors and assistant professors in our
University and state college systems.
"On the other hand, I am not personally aware of any significant
number of Nobel Laureates which California holds proudly having
left the state. Nor am I aware of any recruitment problems for
professors at California institutions of public higher education
other than the problems resulting from a generalyshort supply.
"I do know of instances in which teachers have left our
institutions for another reason, however. They are simply fed
up with the violence and intimidation by radicals on our campuses
and feel compelled to either leave the profession altogether, or
to move to institutions not beset by such problems, campuses
where a peaceful and productive atmosphere prevails. "
4. Do you go along with those who say the California taxpayer is
paying too big an education bill?
"Education is the measure of what we are today and what our
society can and must be in the future. An educated citizenry
is the key to our progress as a state and nation. The extent to
which we continue to constructively build on and improve our
educational system will determine both the quality and preservation
of our way of life as a free people in the years to come.
"If we are spending too much for education, it is only in
the sense that we must continue to find new and better ways of
getting the greatest possible benefit from our investment.
"There is no wiser investment than that for education, but
we must make sure that every taxpayer dollar spent for this purpose
is spent wisely and efficiently for the rightthings.
- 4 -
"I believe these reflect the sentiments of the vast majority
of the people of California who ask only that their money not be
wasted that their long-term investment yield a good return."
5. What do you think should be done to students who go on strike
at state colleges and universities? What of those who break the
law in connection with demonstrations? What of faculty members in
the same two categories?
"If you mean 'students who go on strike' to be those who
choose to boycott class, then they themselves would be the
principal losers. One would presume that they are in school to
learn and benefit from their educational opportunity.
"I suppose that if they are willing to pay the price in
grades and not halt the educational process or infringe on the
rights of others who do wish to take advantage of their opportunities
as students, then there is little to be done. However, I
think
it would be an excellent way of flunking out of school.
"In entrusting their youngsters to faculty members, the
people of California have granted special privileges, including
tenure, to teachers. These privileges carry with them certain
responsibilities and obligations, particularly exemplary behavior
and respect for the laws of the state.
"There is no law in California giving public employees
(teachers) the right to strike. Striking by teachers has been
held to be grounds for dismissal.
"Faculty members who strike not only fail to display exemplary
behavior, they also ignore the public trust and privilege vested
in themby the citizens of the state, who, after all, pay their
salaries. To ignore the law shows contempt for both the institution
and the citizens of California.
"In the case of either students or faculty, I believe law
breakers should be arrested and punished appropriately if proved
guilty.
- 5 -
Given LIA Times mly.
9-17-69
Governor Reagan's office today expressed surprise at
recent criticism of the governor's decision to veto a bill
that would have doubled the cost of the state scholarship program.
"It is interesting to note that in the three years of the
Reagan administration the amount of money made available for
the program has more than doubled," - the governor's office
pointed out.
"In 1967 when Governor Reagan took office, the previous
administration had budgeted a little more than $5 million for
the scholarship program. The Reagan budget for the current
fiscal year allocates nearly $14 million for the scholarship
program.
"Critics have overlooked the fact that there have been
substantial increases in the state scholarship program.
"Budgeted figures show how the Reagan administration has
increased the amount of money available for scholarships:
Fiscal 1966-67 - $5,031,000
Fiscal 1967-68 - $6,453,000
Fiscal 1968-69 - $8,924,000
Fiscal 1969-70 - $13,931,000
State of California
Educ.
Memorandum
(EOP Funds)
To
:
Governor Ronald Reagan
Date : June 27, 1969
Educational Opportunity
Subject:
Programs (E.O.P.)
From :
John T. Kehoe
Educational Consultant
Soon you will be facing a budget from the Legislature which will
contain new funds for E.O.P. Probably no issue is more on the
minds of the under 30 crowd today than the question of providing
the so-called disadvantaged students with an opportunity to have
higher education exposure. The "bleeding hearts" believe that
the attempt must be made to recruit individuals from pool halls,
etc., who have failed to meet basic achievement standards for
admission into higher educational institutions or who have
dropped out of high school altogether.
This is not a State of California idea alone; the concept is
sweeping the country, probably out of tear of having to capit-
ulate under confrontation on the part of some states and some
institutions, and partly an extension of the so-called aggrieved
conscience of our times. In any event, this is an extremely
volatile issue. The Democrats are clearly lying in wait and
hoping that you will reject funding for E.O.P. The Unruh bill,
SB 2115, represents some three years of effort by Dr. Kenneth A.
Martyn who is Vice President for Academic Atfairs at California
State, Los Angeles, a consultant to the Joint Committee on Higher
Education and a close friend of the former speaker. This bill
offers a $16.5 million appropriation and is politically oriented
to attract those interested in seeing the major program at the
junior college level with experimentation in high school tutor-
ing and in allowing immediate opportunities in the state colleges
and universities.
Attached I have put together a briefing commentary for you giv-
ing history, etc. It is my recommendation that you find a way
to endorse the concept of E.O.P. I like the idea of accomplish-
ing this through a modest investment in junior college programs
along the lines of SB 164, but not at the $10 million level of
this bill. Additionally, I feel that the state colleges could
deter some of their enrichment or augmentation programs and
allow this money to be spent on E.O.P. at that level.
Governor Ronald Reagan
- 2 -
June 27, 1969
Thirdly, I believe that the state should encourage voluntary
programs on the part of the socially active students in our
colleges and universities to foster tutorial programs at the
high school level. These programs should be designed to offer
special tutoring to the high school students on oral and written
English, as well as counseling to motivate these students TO con-
tinue their education and strive for the highest level of achieve-
ment.
Fourth, the state colleges, universities, and community colleges
should be urged to collaborate on innovative programs in the
area of E.O.P. and not try to duplicate each other's efforts on
a fenced type of program. It is not only inefficient, it can
be costly.
Fifth, our higher education establishment should be urged to look
for new ways to establish admission standards so that the archaic
method of using intelligence tests, grade averages, etc., have a
compensating feature which would not allow a rigid hurale to be
jumped or to allow for exceptions to be made in admission stan-
dards which provide an injustice to those striving for achieve-
ment and an injustice to those who can't achieve in any case.
Governor Ronald Reagan
- 3 -
June 27, 1969
Briefing Commentary
E.O.P. - Educational Opportunity Programs
BACKGROUND: A prevailing national view among educators stresses
that higher education, particularly public higher education, has
a responsibility to give a chance to so-called "high risk" stu-
dents who lack money, have low standardized admission test scores,
erratic high school records, and an inability to overcome cultural,
geographical, racial, and motivational factors.
The Coordinating Council for Higher Education in 1968 recommended
that the Board of Trustees of the California State Colleges and
the Board of Regents of the University of California adopt
policies doubling their exemption provisions. The Board of Regents
established a program under firm controls to serve 1,948 students
during 1968-69 with expenditures totaling $3,761,000, of which
$821,000 was appropriated from the Regents' Opportunity Fund. One
million dollars came from a special allocation developed through
a University registration fee, paid for by students. The remain-
ing money has come from federal sources, foundation grants, and
private funds. No state revenue is applied to this program.
The Trustees of the California State Colleges have permitted pro-
grams to be established that have been extremely controversial
with poor control and inadequate funding. There has been close
to $1.2 million going into State College E.O.P. programs under
"bootlegged" positions.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTION: In 1968 legislation was signed into
law which permits the State Scholarship and Loan Commission to
establish a pilot program of one thousand $1,100 grants to dis-
advantaged students. This program is currently getting under way.
STATE SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN COMMISSION: For the coming fiscal
year, this Commission is proposing an expenditure of $14,017,590
for the Scholarship Program, Graduate Fellowship Program, and
Guaranteed Loan Program. One million dollars of this money is for
the College Opportunity Grant Program mentioned above. The esti-
mated expenditures for the present fiscal year for this agency
equals $8,918,621, or a substantial increase proposed for next
year to accommodate more students in the area of financial assis-
tance.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: For undergraduates in the University of
California a total of $10,464,384 has been spent for scholarships
and grants, loans, and college work study. For graduate students,
this figure amounts to $18,545,420, or a total of $29,009,804.
The California State Colleges, in the year 1967-68, has spent
$25,800,000 in financial aid for all students. This includes
state and federal funds and represents the latest data available.
Governor Ronald Reagan
- 4 -
June 27, 1969
SUMMARY: IN SUMMATION, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE E.O.P.
CONCEPT IT GOOD. IT IS FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS AND MUST BE PROPER-
LY STRUCTURED BY THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERTS. A POOR PROGRAM CAN
BECOME A BOON DOGGLE; FINANCIAL AID ALONE IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT
MUST BE A STRUCTURED PROGRAM WITH TUTORIAL PROGRAMS AND COUN-
SELING. A GOOD PROGRAM CAN BECOME BENEFICIAL TO SAVE WHOLE LIVES
WHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE WASTED ON WELFARE ROLES AND CRIME.
EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT MUST BE MOTIVATED TO USE THEIR GENIUS
IN INNOVATING NEW WAYS AND MEANS IN CONSTRUCTING PROGRAMS AND OF
ESTABLISHING ADMISSION STANDARDS.
AS MATTERS NOW STAND, BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
STARTS WORKING, THE BUDGET CONTAINS NO MONEY FOR E.O.P. FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OR FOR THE JUNIOR COLLEGE SYSTEM. THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET DOES HAVE A $600,000 ITEM FOR
URBAN RESEARCH AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS AND A CATEGORY KNOWN
AS URBAN CRISIS, BUT THIS DOES NOT RELATE TO E.O.P. THE ASSEMBLY
BUDGET CONTAINED A FORMULA FOR APPROPRIATING $2,350,000 TO THE
STATE COLLEGE TRUSTEES AFTER DELETING AUGMENTATION ITEMS FROM
THE BUDGET. ITEM 116.5 HAS SOME GOOD CONTROL LANGUAGE AND PRO-
VIDES NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION ABOVE YOUR BUDGET CEILING.
CC: Ed Meese
Mike Deaver
Paul Beck
Alex Sherriffs
Russ Walton
Bob Keyes
Sal Espana
Herb Ellingwood
JTK:gt

Page data

Page: 1
Source index: 0
Type: document
Media ID: 76058b56a4785aef
Size: unknown

Document data

ID: 118564808
Core: doc
Type: document

DTO data

{
    "id": "118564808",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Issue Papers - Education (1 of 2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Issue Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity

{
    "localId": "118564808",
    "label": "Issue Papers - Education (1 of 2)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808"
}

Document source metadata

{
    "id": "118564808",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Issue Papers - Education (1 of 2)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "Issue Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Document source extras

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564808",
    "naId": 118564808,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

Page context

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408628/40-840-7408628-P30-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "76058b56a4785aef",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: Issue Papers - Education (1 of 2)\nBox: P30\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nAID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION\nFeb. 1974\nCalifornia's Financial Support for Public Education\n(1966-67 to Proposed 1974-75 Budget)\n1/Budget\nBudget\nState Support\n% Envollment\nYear 1966-67\nYear 74-75 (Est)\nHas Increased\nHas Increased in\n(Prior Admin.)\n(Reagan Admin.)\nin 8 Years\n8 Years (FTE or ADA)\nState Colleges\n$ 167.7\n$ 480.2\n$--Up 312.5\n(Universities)3/\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 78.4%\n%-Up 163.6%\nU.C. System3/\n$ 240.1\n$ 493.2\n$--Up 253.1\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 43.9%\n%--Up 105.4%\nJunior Colleges4\n$ 74.4\n$ 314.8\n$--Up 240.4\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 83.5%\n%--Up 323%\nState Student\n$\n4.7\n$ 43.0\n$--Up 38.3\nScholarships &\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nLoans, including\n%--Up 914.9%\nAdministration\nState Funds for\n$1.231\n$2.691 1\n$--Up 1.459\nPublic Schools\nBillion\nBillion\nBillion\n(K-145/\nUp 10.6%\n%--Up 118%\nState General\n$1.154\n$2.371\n$--Up 1.217\nFunds for Public\nBillion\nBillion\nBillion\nUp 5.0%\nSchool Education\n%--Up 105%\n(K-12)6/\n1/ 1966-67 was the final budget year of the previous administration.\n2/ All figures are those proposed in the 1974-75 Governor's Budget.\n3/ Figures for U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increases\nfor 1974-75.\n4/ 1974-75 figures for Community Colleges include funds for the Board of Governors of the Community\nColleges.\n5/ Figures include both State Operations and Local Assistance budgets for Education, K-14, all funds.\n6/ Figures include both State Operations and Local Assistance budgets for Education, K-12, General\nFund costs only.\n1973\nAID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION\nCalifornia's Financial Support for Public Education\n(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)\n(a) Budget\nBudget*\nState Support\n% Enrollment***\nYear 1966-67\nYear 73-74 (Est)\nHas Increased\nHas Increased in\n(Prior Admin.)\n(Reagan Admin.)\nin 7 Years\n7 Years\nState Colleges\n$167.7\n$442.1\n$--Up $274.4\n(Universities)\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 81.2%\n%--163.6\nJunior Colleges****\n$ 74.4\n$219.3\n$--Up $144.9\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 78.8%\n%--Up 195%\nU.C System\n$240.1\n$429.6**\n$--Up $189.5\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 38.6%\n%--Up 78.9%\nState Student\n$ 4.7\n$ 38.6\n$--Up $ 33.9\nScholarships &\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nLoans, including\n%--Up 721.3%\nAdministration\nState Funds for\n$1.218\n$2.446\n$--Up $1.228\nPublic Schools\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 11.1%\n(K-14)\n%--Up 102%\nState General +\n$1.140++\n$2.199\n$--Up $1.059\nFunds for Public\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 5.7%\nSchool Education\n%--Up 92.9%\n(K-12)\n*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.\n**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.\n***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.\n+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).\n++K-12 General Fund costs only;\na-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.\n****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.\nAID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION\nCalifornia's Financial Support for Public Education\n(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)\n(a) Budget\nBudget*\nState Support\n% Enrollment***\nYear 1966-67\nYear 73-74 (Est)\nHas Increased\nHas Increased in\n(Prior Admin.)\n(Reagan Admin.)\nin 7 Years\n7 Years\nState Colleges\n$167.7\n$442.1\n$--Up $274.4\n(Universities)\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 81.2%\n%--163.6\nJunior Colleges****\n74.4\n$219.3\n$--Up $144.9\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 78.8%\n%--Up 195%\nU.C System\n$240.1\n$429.6**\n$--Up $189.5\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 38.6%\n%--Up 78.9%\nState Student\n$ 4.7\n$ 38.6\n$--Up $ 33.9\nScholarships &\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nLoans, including\n%--Up 721.3%\nAdministration\nState Funds for\n$1.218\n$2.446\n$--Up $1.228\nPublic Schools\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 11.1%\n(K-14)\n%--Up 102%\nState General +\n$1.140++\n$2.199\n$--Up $1.059\nFunds for Public\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 5.7%\nSchool Education\n%--Up 92.9%\n(K-12)\n*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.\n**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.\n***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.\n+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).\n++K-12 General Fund costs only;\na-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.\n****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.\nAID TO EDUCATION DURING GOVERNOR RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION\nCalifornia's Financial Support for Public Education\n(1966-67 and Present 1973-74 Bulget)\n(a) Budget\nBudget*\nState Support\n% Enrollment***\nYear 1966-67\nYear 73-74 (Est)\nHas Increased\nHas Increased in\n(Prior Admin.)\n(Reagan Admin.)\nin 7 Years\n7 Years\nState Colleges\n$167.7\n$442.1\n$--Up $274.4\n(Universities)\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 81.2%\n%--163.6\nJunior Colleges****\n74.4\n$219.3\n$--Up $144.9\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 78.8%\n%--Up 195%\nU.C System\n$240.1\n$429.6**\n$--Up $189.5\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nUp 38.6%\n%--Up 78.9%\nState Student\n$ 4.7\n$ 38.6\n$--Up $ 33.9\nScholarships &\nMillion\nMillion\nMillion\nLoans, including\n%--Up 721.3%\nAdministration\nState Funds for\n$1.218\n$2.446\n$--Up $1.228\nPublic Schools\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 11.1%\n(K-14)\n%--Up 102%\nState General +\n$1.140++\n$2.199\n$--Up $1.059\nFunds for Public\nBillion\nBillion\nMillion\nUp 5.7%\nSchool Education\n%--Up 92.9%\n(K-12)\n*All figures as proposed in 1973-74 Governor's Budget.\n**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus faculty salary increase for 73-74.\n***73-74 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.\n+Includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, (includes SB90).\n++K-12 General Fund costs only;\na-1966-67 was final budget year of the previous administration.\n****Includes funds for Board of Governors of Community Colleges.\nState of California\nEdus\nMemorandum\nTo\n:\nEd Gray\nDate : March 20, 1973\nSubject: Attached chart\nFrom :\nAlex C Sherriffs\nThis is a page from the Ford Foundation Program for Research\nin University Administration report, An Economic Theory of\nPh.D. Production: The Case at Berkeley, by David W. Breneman.\nIt indicates how many graduate years are involved in getting\na Ph.D. at Berkeley. You will note that Entomology requires\na modest 5.02 years on the average (making nine years of col-\nlege education), where Philosophy requires 18.78 years on the\naverage (making 22.78 years of college education). There is\nnot only dollar waste involved here, there is human waste.\nACS: sd\nAttachment\nTABLE III: SEVEN YEAR ENROLLMENT AND DEGREE TOTALS,\nlity\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, 1961-67*\nCOLUMN A\nCOLUMN B\nPh.D.\nPh.D.\na\nDegrees per\nStudent Years\nDEPARTMENT\nDegrees\nStudent Years\nStudent Year\nper Degree\nAwarded\n(Col A/Col B)\n(Col B/Col A)\nEntomology\n79\n397\n.198\n5.02\nChemistry\n335\n1802\n.185\n5.38\nChemical Eng.\n75\n404\n.185\n5.39\nElectrical Eng.\n175\n1032\n.169\n5.90\nCivil Eng.\n129\n763\n.169\n5.91\nPhysics\n380\n2438\n.155\n6.42\nZoology\n94\n634\n.148\n6.74\nBotany\n52\n352\n.147\n6.77\nGeology\n37\n270\n.137\n7.30\n29\nBiochemistry\n63\n469\n.134\n7.44\nGeography\n21\n158\n.132\n7.52\nMechanical Eng.\n94\n716\n.131\n7.62\nPsychology\n162\n1238\n.130\n7.64\nAstronomy\n32\n246\n.130\n7.69\nSpanish\n18\n150\n.120\n8.33\nions\nHistory\n177\n1517\n.116\n8.57\nof\nMath\n194\n1680\n.115\n8.66\nClassics\n13\n118\n.110\n9.08\nGerman\n24\n219\n.109\n9.12\nBacteriology\n17\n157\n.108\n9.24\nEconomics\n137\n1316\n.104\n9.61\nes\nAnthropology\n69\n720\n.095\n10.43\nPolitical Sci.\n96\n1026\n.093\n10.69\nat\nPhysiology\n24\n267.\n.089\n11.12\nish\nEnglish\n105\n1374\n.076\n13.09\nSociology\n57\n753\n.075\n13.21\nFrench\n28\n374\n.074\n13.36\nPhilosophy\n27\n507\n.053\n18.78\nid\na\nEnrollment figures are understated for those departments that require doc-\ntoral students to first earn the M.A. degree - those student years are not\nrecorded. Enrollments include both degree and non-degree winners.\n*Source: Office of Institutional Research, University of California, Berkeley.\nA 6-YEAR ASSESSMENT\nChanging University\na Look at Reagan Era\nBY WILLIAM TROMBLEY\nTimes Education Writer\nFor six years Gov. Reagan has\nGov. Reagan came into office at\nfeuded with the state's higher edu-\ncation community, especially with\nthe end of a golden period in Califor-\nthe University of California. The\nnia higher education. For 2 decade\ngovernor contends that his policies\nthere had been remarkable, seem-\nhave helped restore order to the\ningly unlimited growth.\ntroubled campuses and that his lean\nbudgets have not damaged educa-\nThe University of California added\ntion quality.\nthree new campuses (Irvine, San\nBut in the universities and col-\nDiego and Santa Cruz), trans-\nleges it is widely believed that Rea-\nformed Davis and Santa Barbara\ngan's budget policies and frequently\nEffective Campaign\nfrom small campuses with limited\nBarsh attacks have been damaging\nReagan campaigned effectively in\nmissions into large, general univer-\nto the institutions and have under-\nthe fall of 1966 on a promise to clean\nsities and added to the already con-\nmined public confidence in tax-sup-\nup \"the mess at Berkeley,\" though it\nsiderable reputations of UC Berke-\nported higher education. The accom-\nwas not clear what action he would\nley and UCLA.\npanying article, by a senior Times\ntake to do SO.\nThree expensive new medical\neducation writer who has reported\n(At one point the candidate pro-\nschools were started - at Davis,\non higher education in California for\nposed an investigation by a blue-rib-\nIvine and San Diego. Research insti-\nseven years, attempts to assess Rea.\nbon committee headed by former\ntutes spouted on all campuses, large-\ngan's impact.\nCIA Director John McCone, but he\nly financed by the whopping federal\ndropped this idea after being elect-\ngrants which became available in\nSigns of Trouble in 1960s\ned.)\nthe sciences and engineering, and to\na lesser extent in the social sciences,\n\"If you look at the policies that be-\n\"What's the 30-second answer to\nin the '50s and '60s.\ngan to bubble up in the early 1960s\nthe 'mess at Berkeley' thing?\" an an-\nyou could see signs of financial trou-\nguished Tom Braden, the liberal\nA growth plan was approved\nble,\" said Prof. Neil J. Smelser, a UC\nDemocrat who headed the State\nwhich envisioned three more new\nBerkeley sociologist who has just\nBoard of Education under former\ncampuses and a total enrollment of\ncompleted a study of California\nGov. Edmund G. (Pat) Brown, asked\n300,000 by the end of the century.\nhigher education in the '60s.\nthis reporter during a chance encoun-\nThe state colleges added six new\n\"There was already talk of tuition,\nter at the Oakland Airport during\ncampuses and made the sometimes\nand the university's change from\nthe 1966 campaign.\ndifficult transition from teachers'\nthe semester to the quarter system\n\"Reagan is killing us on television\ncolleges to liberal arts institutions.\nwas more to save money than any-\nwith that line.\"\nThe number of two-year community\nthing else.\"\nThe Democrats never found the\ncolleges leaped from 60 in 1955 to 76\nThe experts who drew up Califor-\nanswer.\na decade later.\nnia's Master Plan for Higher Educa-\nStudent attitudes were changing,\nBond Issues Approved\ntion in 1959 believed that the state\ntoo. The large, impersonal campuses\nEnrollment boomed and financial\ncould pay the bill for a continuing\nwhich California built to satisfy the\nsupport seemed to be solid. Taxpay-\nrapid expansion. But, according to\ncollege-going urge of its young citi-\ners approved one bond issue after\nSmelser, \"that rosy view was just not\nzens (and their families) bred alien-\nanother, local and statewide, for\nrealistic. The signs of financial\nation and discontent in a significant\nstress were already there three or\nsegment of students,\nconstruction of new college and uni-\nversity facilities. UC and the state\nfour years before Reagan came in.\"\nFor some of the brighter high\nschool graduates it became fashiona-\ncolleges received most of their oper-\nating budget requests from the state\nble not to go to college, at least not\nfor a year or two. As draft calls\neach year.\nAlan Post, the state's respected\ndwindled, this trend accelerated.\nThe emphasis was on quantity-\nlegislative analyst, agrees.\nproviding for the seemingly endless\nPlease Turn to Page 3, Col. 1\n\"The state was going to have to\nstream of California youngsters\npull back,\" Post said. \"The state ex-\nseeking higher education-but qual-\npanded its services rapidly because\nity was not slighted.\nof a surplus of funds in the postwar\nNobel Prize winners dotted the\nboom, but by the mid-'60s taxes\nUniversity of California faculty-10\nwere at the limit and the Democrats\nat Berkeley. two at UC San Diego,\nwere employing every trick they\nanother at UCLA-and UC annually\ncould think of to balance the budget.\nharvested a bumper crop of young\nThis was not a problem Reagan\nscholars from the nation's best grad-\ncreated, it was a situation he inherit-\nuate schools.\ned.\"\nFaculty quality was more uneven\nin the state college system, but\nIn the meantime, other events\nthere, too, the lure of good salaries,\nwere weakening the strong position\nwarm climate and a higher-educa-\nhigher education once held in the\nstate.\ntion boom attracted many able\nprofessors. But all of this was\nStudent protest. beginning with\ndrawing to a close in the mid-'60s,\nthe Free Speech Movement at UC\nwith or without Ronald Reagan.\nBerkeley in 1964 and continuing\nCalifornia's tax base could not\nwith powerful demonstrations\nsupport the ever-expanding higher\nagainst the Vietnam war, aroused\neducation budgets at a time when\nhostility among many taxpayers.\nwelfare and health care costs also\nThe public was not sure whether\nwere mounting rapidly.\nto blame \"a handful of troublemak-\ners\" or \"spineless administrators\" or\n\"left-wing faculty members,\" but\nthey were determined to blame\nsomeone.\nThe hapless Democrats, who held\nthe governorship and controlled the\nLegislature when the turmoil began,\nbecame convenient targets.\nUniversities Under Reagan---an Era of\nContinued from First Page\nThe job market tightened. Even\nteaching jobs became scarce. Why\ngo to college, some young people\nasked, if you could not get a job\nChange\nwhen you graduated?\nWhy pay for a college education,\ntheir parents asked, when the unem-\nReagan has been stingy with state\nployment rate for college graduates\nfunds for organized university re-\nhad risen to 8% while it remained at\nsearch.\n5% or 6% for those who did not at-\nHe seems to have a much greater\ntend college?\nappreciation for four-year undergra-\nOther strange, silent changes were\nduate colleges than for complex uni-\ntaking place. California's birth rate\nversities which specialize in re-\nwas declining and immigration to\nsearch and graduate training.\nthe Golden State, a statistic which\nA high state official recalls that at\nhad streaked upward on the demo-\na meeting to discuss new facilities\ngraphic charts for years, was slow-\nfor a UC campus held early in the\nfirst Reagan Administration the\ning to a crawl.\nIt is clear now that the mid-'60s\ngovernor said:\n\"My idea. of higher education is\nenrollment projections for the Uni-\nfour years on a campus with red\nversity of California and the Califor-\nbrick walls and you leave with a\nnia state colleges were too high. and\ntear in your eye.\"\nthe growth plans based on these\nprojections were unrealistic.\nHuge and Complicated\nEven Clark Kerr, architect of the\nThis does not describe the Univer-\nuniversity's growth plans as its\nsity of California, a huge, complicat-\npresident from 1958 to 1966, agrees\nClark Kerr\ned, expensive, sometimes cold and\nphoto\nthe plans were too ambitious.\nimpersonal institution which has as\n\"Had I stayed as president I would\nLong-Range Impact\nits main goal high-quality research\nhave had to trim back.\" said Kerr,\nFew of the university's leaders\nand the training of the very best\nwho is now chairman of the Carne-\nwill say SO publicly, for fear of budg-\ngraduate students-not the second-\ngie Commission on Higher Educa-\netary reprisals, but most of them be-\nbest or the 10th-best but the very\ntion.\nlieve the long-range psychological\nbest.\n\"The demographic changes must\nimpact of Reagan's actions and\nReagan attended a \"tear in your\nhave been among the biggest in the\nstatements will prove to be more da-\neye\" school himself--Eureka Col-\nhistory of the world. The recession\nmaging to the university than his\nlege, a small liberal arts institution\nplayed a part too.\"\nfiscal policies.\n150 miles southwest of Chicago. And\nSerious Money Problems\nThey believe that the academic\nthe Eureka College model seems to\nenvironment has deteriorated due to\nhave stayed with him for 40 years.\nEven Ronald Reagan's severest\nThis attitude accounts for much of\nthe politization of the university\ncritics agree that the new governor\nand of higher education in general.\ninherited serious financial problems\nthe governor's hostility toward the\nMany faculty members have lost\nand a changing higher education\nUniversity of California, in the opin-\npride in their work and faith in\nion of Richard Peairs, West Coast di-\npicture when he took office in Jan-\nthemselves. They are no longer\nrector of the American Assn. of Uni-\nuary, 1967.\nthought to be distinguished men and\nversity Professors.\nSome even concede that Reagan's\nwomen who constitute a valuable as-\n\"I believe the man is honestly mo-\ntight budgets have forced adminis-\nset to the state but instead are de-\ntivated but his experience in higher\ntrators in both the university and\nnounced as tax eaters who do not\neducation is very much conditioned\nthe state colleges to become better\nproduce enough.\nby his own undergraduate career at\nmanagers and more realistic plan-\na time and in a place that had very\nners.\nTo some extent the professors\nlittle to do with the modern higher-\nBut few forgive Reagan the harsh\nhave themselves to blame. During\neducation community,\" said Peairs.\npolitical rhetoric with which he has\nthe lush '60s too many, especially in\n\"Not only is the University of Cali-\nattacked the higher education com-\nthe sciences and engineering,\nfornia not Eureka College-even\nmunity, especially the University of\nshirked their teaching responsibili-\nEureka College isn't Eureka College\nCalifornia. These attacks have da-\nties to pursue research activities.\nanymore.\"\nmaged morale in the colleges and\nResearch and advanced graduate\nReagan has dealt somewhat more\nuniversities, especially among the\ntraining. which are the unique re-\nsympathetically with the state col-\nfaculty, and they have persuaded a\nsponsibility of the university and its\nleges than with U.C.\npart of the public that tax dollars\nmost important function. became for\nWhen he took office, he said in a\nspent on higher education are a\nsome faculty members the only con-\nrecent interview. the state colleges\nwaste.\ncern. The fewer students they could\nwere \"poor relations\" of the univer-\nIn recent Interviews one UC ad-\nteach the better, at whatever level.\nsity. \"They had been far below in ev-\nministrator spoke of Reagan's\nIt was much more exciting and\nery instance\nWe did set out to\n\"strident and rhetorical statements\"\nglamorous to be hopping jets to\ntry and bring the state college SVS-\nabout the university. and another\nWashington twice a month than to\ntem to what we felt was a more fair\ntalked about his \"punitive style.\"\nbe doing a solid job of teaching and\nlevel.\"\nThey have in mind his 1966 cam-\nresearch on one's own campus.\nA Change of Name\npaign against the \"mess at Berke-\nley,\" the dismissal of President\nA Seller's Market\nThe governor supported legisla-\nKerr, the 1970 threat to deal with\nIt was a seller's market for acade-\ntion to change the system's name to\nmic talent and for some professors,\nCalifornia State University and Col-\nIsla Vista rioting through a \"blood-\nbath,\" the many statements and sug-\nloyalty to a particular campus wilt-\nleges, in the face of fierce opposition\ned in the face of tempting offers\nfrom UC.\ngestions that UC professors do not\nspend enough time in the classroom\nfrom other aspiring institutions.\nHe has reduced slightly the faculty\nsalary gap between the two systems.\nand live too high on the hog.\nBut the failings of the university\nHis dealings with Chancellor Glenn\n\"Some of these things (budget cuts)\nprofessors have been exaggerated\nS. Dumke and the Board of Trustees\nwould have happened, whoever the\nby Gov. Reagan, who not only has\nare far more cordial than his spiky\ngovernor was, but perhaps they\nclaimed they do not teach enough\nrelations with President Charles J.\nwouldn't have been done in such a\nbut that much of what they do teach\nHitch and the Board of Regents.\nhostile way,\" Prof. Smelser said.\nis left-wing propaganda.\nThe governor's men have kind\n\"You can cut the budget without\nThe governor claims to have great\nwords for Dumke.\nsuggesting that the faculty is made\nrespect for the University of Califor-\n\"You've got to respect him.\" said\nup of loafers and subversives.\"\niia's research accomplishments but\nFinance Director Verne Orr. \"He\nthere is little evidence of this,\nwants money as much as the unver-\nHe is proud enough of the labora-\nsity but he's willing to admit it\ntories UC operates for the Atomic\nwhen his figures are off.\nEnergy Commission and of such ac-\ntivities as the submarine warfare\nand moon rock research under way\nat UC San Diego, but all of this is fi-\nnanced 100% by the federal govern-\nment,\n\"11's a different kind of contronta-\nmeetings\ntion on every issue. One (the State\n\"In that situation Reagan was able\ncause the people elected\nUniversity and Colleges) is coopera-\nto paint a picture of a university\nhim to do so, but his pre-\ntive. When they're asked to take an-\nthat most of us didn't recognize but\nsence frequently turns the\nother look at their enrollments or\napparently was believed by many\nmeetings into confronta-\nconsider some commendations in an\npeople.\"\ntions which damage the\naudit report, they do it.\nWhatever the reasons for the hos-\nuniversity's position as a\n\"The other (UC) appears to us to\ntility toward the university and its\nnonpolitical institution.\nhe constantly inflating their figures\nfaculty, it has taken a psychological\nReagan also contends\nand when they're wrong they won't\ntoll which cannot be measured for\nthat he has insulated UC\nadmit it.\"\nmany years\nand the state colleges from\nBut when all the words of praise\nThe attacks have been accompa-\nthe political fires by ap-\nhave been spoken and the hard\nnied by the increased politicization.\npointing regents and trus-\nhudget negotiating has begun, the\nThe governor says it is not his\ntees \"who have too much\nState University and Colleges do not\nfault.\ncharacter to inject polities\nfare much better than the Universi-\n\"I've leaned over backwards to\nor to take orders from\nty of California.\ntake any politics out of the adminis-\nsomeone in the governor's\nStudent-faculty ratios in the state\ntration of the university.\" he said,\noffice. I never told any of\ncollege system have risen steadily.\n\"and I think in all fairness it has to\nthem what to do or how to\nIn the last three years expenditures\nbe admitted that this was not true of\nvote or anything of the\nper student have dorpped about 5%\nmy predecessors.\"\nkind. I just appointed\nwhile the faculty teaching load has\nBut the facts indicate otherwise.\nwhat I think are some\nincreased by 12%.\nFirst, Reagan made higher educa-\npretty distinguished and\nFaculty Leaves Curtailed\ntion-the \"mess at Berkeley\" ma-\nsolid citizens.\"\nA reduced teaching schedule for\njor issue in the '66 campaign.\nThe Good Ones\nNext Kerr, the former UC pres-\nprofessors who handle mostly grad-\nThere have been some\nident and a prominent liberal, was\nuate students (the colleges offer\nfired at the first regents meeting\ngood appointments - re-\nmaster's degrees but no Ph.D.s) has\nReagan attended after his election.\ngents William French\nbeen eliminated and there is only\nSmith, Robert 0. Reynolds\nenough money to finance about 8%\nPlease Turn to Page 22, Col. 1\nand H. R. Haldeman, who\nor 9% of the sabbatical leaves\nserved a short term before\nprofessors have earned.\n22 Sec. A-Sun., Jan. 7, 1973\nYes Ingeles Times\nbecoming President Nix-\n\"Reagan is our best organizer,\"\non's chief of staff: trustees\nsaid Bud Hutchinson, executive sec-\nKarl L. Wente, Dr. Wil-\nretary of the United Professors of\nCalifornia, which has about 3,200\nReagan Era Marked\nliam McColl (who resigned\nto run for Congress) and\nmembers among the 15,000 profes-\nW. 0. Weissich; and\nsors in the college system and is\nLorenzo N. Hoopes and\npressing for collective bargaining.\nby College Changes\nPatterson N. Hyndman,\nReagan's policies also have been\nmembers of the Coordinat-\nhelpful to the state's private colleges\ning Council for Higher\nand universities.\nContinued from Third Page\nEducation.\nHe has increased funding for state\nWhile the governor did\nBut the governor also\nscholarships from $6 million to $40\nnot initiate this action, it\nhas named several zealous\nmillion in six years, a boon because\nwas triggered by his elec-\nconservatives who have\nabout half of the state scholarship\ntion,\nattempted to use the\nwinners elect to attend private in-\nReagan has consistently\ngoverning boards as grind-\nstitutions,\nused the Board of Regents\nstones for their ideological\nReagan also has supported grad-\nas a forum for personal\naxes.\nuate fellowships and opportunity\npublicity.\nLittle has been done to\ngrants for low-income and minority\nThe governor of Califor-\nextend membership to\nstudents, program: S which feed\nnia also is the ex officio\nminority races or to wom-\nabout $2 million a year into the pri-\npresident of the Board of\nen.\nvate sector.\nRegents, but past gover-\nPolitical appointments\nA new program this year provides\nhave been made. Gov. Rea-\nabout $600.000 to the Stanford, USC\nnors rarely attended board\nand Loma Linda medical schools to\nmeetings.\ngan did not begin the prac-\ntrain additional doctors. Next year\nRealizing that a conflict\ntice - several of Pat\nof interest existed be-\nBrown's political ap-\nfunding for this program will be\ntween the governor, re-\npointees were disastrous\ndoubled and there is talk of state\nsponsible for all of the\nmistakes --- but he did not\nsupport for private institutions in\nstate's expenditures, and\nTROUBLE SPOT -\nend it, either.\nother specialized fields.\npresident of the Board of\nCharles J. Hitch suc-\nTaken as a whole, the\nIndirectly Reagan has aided pri-\nRegents, pressing the uni-\nceeded Clark Kerr as\ngovernor's higher educa-\nvate higher education by imposing\nversity's annual budget re-\nthe president of UC.\ntion appointments have\ntuition at UC and by cutting back on\nquest, past governors\n(P) photo\nbeen disappointing.\nconstruction on both UC and state\navoided most of the meet-\nThe governor, holding\nuniversity campuses, giving private\nings.\npress conferences before\nThe appointees' impact\ninstitutions a better chance to com-\nBut Reagan seldom\nand after a meeting. usual-\non the institutions they\npete for prospective students.\nmisses a regents meeting,\nly manages to dominate\ngovern cannot be judged\nand when he is there the\nTV coverage of the event.\nSome believe Reagan is hostile to\nfor years. just as it will be\nthe University of California because\nbusiness of education fre-\nCharles Hitch. the quiet-\na long time before the true\nsome of his strongest political back-\nquently gives way to the\nly competent but colorless\neffects of the politicization\ners in Southern California are USC\npolitics of confrontation.\neconomist who replaced\nof California higher educa-\nThe governor's op-\nKerr as UC president, is\nmen who believe UC offers unfair\ntion become clear, but it is\npouents on the board at-\nno match for the governor\ncompetition for private schools,\na simpler matter to mea-\ntempt to score debating\non the television screen.\nsure the results of some of\nOthers think the Eureka College\npoints. Once Democrat\nReagan's constant atten-\nbackground is responsible for these\nGov. Reagan's other high-\nFred Dutton, a Brown ap-\ndance at regents meetings\ner-education policies.\nviews, while still others believe the\ngovernor drew an early bead on the\npointee, goaded Reagan\nhas helped him win the\nbudget and tuition battles\n90% of Requests\nuniversity because he was con-\ninto calling him a \"lying\nson of a bitch.\"\n(after turning down the\nGenerally speaking\nvinced Clark Kerr worked covertly\nto defeat him in 1966, (Kerr denies\nReagan's allies and an-\ngovernor's request for tui-\nReagan has been granting\ntion in his first year, the\nUC and the State Univer-\nUnis.)\npointees among the re-\ngents rally to the gover-\nregents capitulated and\nsity and Colleges about\nSome see the governor's actions as\nnor's defense. even when\nvoted in a $800 \"education\n90% of their operating\nan inevitable part of recent history.\nthey privately disagree\nfee\" for all students a year\nbudget requests, con-\nThe Vietnam war radicalized R\nwith his positions.\nlater, but in the process\npared to the 95% or more\ngeneration of kids and at the same\nthe board has been turned\nthey received from former\ntime it conservatized a whole gener-\nExtensive Coverage\ninto a political arena.\nGov. Brown.\nation of older people who saw what\nA Reagan appearance is\nFormer UC San Diego\nThis seems a slight dif-\nwas going on-the protests, the long\ncovered by swarms of tele-\nChancellor William J. Me-\nference but it means lar-\nhair, the 'counterculture' - and\ndidn't like it,\" said Roy G. D'An-\nvision reporters who ordi-\nGill described R $\nger classes, higher stu-\nnarily ignore the Board of\nmeetings as \"theatrical en-\ndent-faculty ratios, fewer\ndrade, gist. a UC San Diego anthropolo-\nRegents.\nterprises\" in a parting shot\ndollars spent per student,\nbefore be left the state to\nheavier teaching loads,\nbecome president of Co-\ncrowded libraries, duty\nlumbia University.\nbuildings and few, if any,\nnew programs.\nHitch\ncalled\nthe\nhudgets\nof\nthe\nhearted affairs\nContinued from 2nd Page\nUniversity of New 1\nirnished\nour\npast\nCal Poly as a peaceful, rur-\ncampuses-have not 1\ncompromised\ndoing much hiring.\nal campus populated by\nWhen such an ins\nident-faculty ratio\ncontented students.\ntion does tempt a.\ngeneral\nUC\nLegislative analyst Post\nprofessor, \"the unive\n(excluding the\nsaid, \"I think the state uni-\nis still able to come\nrancisco\nMedical\nversity has reached a\nwith an offer that\nhas increased\nmeet the individ\n16\nto\n1\nsix\npoint where any increase\nneeds.\" according to ]\nto\nabout\n18.5 to 1\nin class size or faculty\nNeil Smelser.\nthe\nstate\ncolleges\nteaching load would mean\n$11,200 to $27,800\nin\nthose\nsame\na real deterioration.\"\nbeen\nfrom\n16.3\nBoth Yale and the\nMany in the system be-\nto\n1.\nversity of Chicago are\nincrease\nhas\nbeen\nlieve the process of deteri-\ntrying to lure one pi\ndamaging to\noration already has begun.\ninent sociologist a\nUC campuses.\nNothing is more impor-\nfrom Berkeley, and\nClasses\ntant to a university than\nvard and Princeton ar\nits library. And the Uni-\nter another. But\nUC Irvine opened\nversity of California li-\nchances are they'll\nhe\nstudent-faculty\nbraries are in real trouble.\nstay,\" Smelser said, in\na\nlow\n10\nto\n1\nand\nplanners thought\nFewer books are being\nbecause UC has sweet\nabout 15 years in\npurchased, those which\nthe pot for both.\nreach\nthe\nuniver-\nare purchased remain un-\nEven though Califo\naverage\nof\n17\ncataloged for months or\nfaculty members\nor\nyears, library hours have\nwithout any salary\nhas\nbeen\nhir-\nbeen curtailed because of\ncrease from 1970 to\n20\nto\n30\nnew\na shortage of personnel.\n(once the governor's\neach year, in-\ntheft and vandalism have\nthe other time the Leg\nthe planned 70 or\nincreased sharply.\nture's) salaries have\nthe result that the\n4.1 Million Volumes\nHAULED AWAY-Campus police of UC Berkeley\nfallen too far behind\nfaculty\nratio\nal-\n\"The library is an abso-\nremove demonstrators during sit-in in Student Union.\ncompetition.\nshot\nto\n20\nto\n1,\nphoto\nlute disaster,\" said Charles\n(UC professors earn {\nin the UC system.\nMuscatine, a UC Berkeley\n$11,200 to $27,800;\nare\ncrowded\nand\nexpert in medieval French\non the Berkeley faculty,\nmen at the UC San Diego\nrange in the Califo\nudents cannot get\nand English literature.\nsaid the library already is\nMedical School have ac-\nState University and\nthey need to\n\"New books, cataloging,\nshared by 80 many people\ncepted jobs at Harvard be-\nleges is from $10,53\nespecially in the\nmaintenance, security -\nthat \"you never expect to\ncause the money is not\n$20,664.)\neven\nthough\nlab\nyou name it, it's a sham-\nfind a book on the shelf\navailable to complete the\nA raise averaging 9\nare\noffered\nday\nbles.\"\nand there is heavy loss\nresearch programs they\nthe current year he\nseven days a\nMuscatine is not talking\ndue to theft. damage and\ncame to San Diego to do.\nas did the fact t\nabout the corner branch of\nvandalism. The library is\nA prominent member of\nsome professors rece\nuniversity's res-\nthe public library but\nvery, very bad in terms of\nthe Berkeley English de-\nmerit increases and\ncollege exper-\nabout a 4.1 million-volume\neveryday use.\"\npartment has resigned to\nmotion raises even in\nUC Santa Cruz is\nby a shortage\nlibrary, the second largest\nA few hundred feet from\nbecome a lecturer at Ox-\nyears when there wer\nConstruction\nuniversity library in the\nthe Berkeley library\nford University, at a sub-\nacross-the-board incre\nof\ncountry and one of the\nstands additional evidence\nstantial cut in pay.\nseventh\nand\nAnother explanation\ngreat cultural assets of the\nof Reagan budget cutting\nThere has been a trickle\ncolleges has been\nthe absence of facult\n-vacant laboratories in\nthe addition of fu-\nstate and the nation.\nof first-rate people away\nsignations came from\nthe Life Sciences Build-\nis in doubt\nA year ago Department\nfrom the university. but\nunexpected source-(\nof Finance auditors sug-\ning, shut down because\nbasically the governor is\nKerr.\nsupply of new\nthe ventilation was inade-\nmembers has\ngested that UC sell its rare\ncorrect.\nquate and there was no\nNegative Noises\nsize as high as\nbook collections to pro-\nResignations of tenured\nduce revenue for the hard-\nmoney for repairs.\nThe Berkeley campus\nUC faculty members\n\"Reagan has been a\nis exactly the\nmass educational\npressed state treasury, a\nreached 3% in 1965 and\nrestrained with the £\nUC\nSanta\nCruz\nproposal SO ludicrous to\nhas been given $150,000 to\n1966, in the wake of the\nty on the political si\nmany that it damaged the\n$300,000 a year for main-\nto prevent.\ntenance when it should be\nfree speech protests at\nsaid Kerr.\ncredibility of other, more\nBerkeley, but they have\n\"He wasn't restra\nIsn't\nThere'\nsensible recommendations\nspending 10 times that\ndropped steadily since\nwith the students-u\nrowded\nclasses\nare\nthe auditors made after a\namount. As a result, build-\nthen and now amount to\nin\nlengthy inspection of uni-\nings and grounds are\ngas in Berkeley and\nproblem\nthe\nless than 1% per year.\nthat-but he was with\nniversity and Col-\nversity operations.\ngoing to seed.\nThese figures do not\nfaculty. A couple of\nHowever, the Reagan\nRebuttal Provided\ntake into account the num-\nrious academic free\ntop\nofficial,\n\"We\nAdministration is deter-\n\"We're kind of sliding\nber of sought-after scho-\ncases could have b\nconsiderably\nre-\nmined to make further\ndownhill slowly,\" said a\nour large institu-\nlars or promising young\nthe place apart.\"\ncuts in library spending.\nBerkeley official. \"It hap-\nability to offer to\npeople who decided not to\nThere have been\nReagan View\npens on all public campus-\nthe opportu-\ncome to the University of\nclose calls. Reagan apr\nes, but it's a shame to see it\nclose work with\nOnce all eight UC gener-\nCalifornia because of what\ntees on the Board of\nhere. This was such a pret-\nructor.\"\nal campuses planned to\nthey judged to be an unfa-\ngents once blocked roi\nty place and so well kept\nBoard of Trustees\nhave extensive research II-\nvorable political climate.\npromotions for a Berl\nup.\"\ntwo years ago braries. When John S. Gal-\nUC Berkeley economist\nhistory professor who\nIf class size is increasing,\nstudent body braith was chancellor at\nRoy Radner said four se-\nbeen close to campus\nteaching loads are heavier,\nat Cal Poly San UC San Diego he made\nnior persons have turned\ncals and a UCLA phi\nthe libraries are a mess\ncomplained such an issue of the need\ndown his department's of-\nand the buildings are fall-\nphy professor who\nhad little opportu- for a great research libra-\nfer since 1969, \"giving as\ning apart, then surely\nported Angela Davis.\ntalk to his profes- ry that a bishop prayed for\ntheir reason the political\nthere were 40 it at Galbraith's inaugura-\nprofessors must be leaving\nthey withdrew their o\nand financial situation the\nthe state in droves.\ntions the next month.\ntudents in all his tion.\nuniversity is in.\"\nThey are not, providing\nThere were nega\nGalbraith is gone now\nGov. Reagan with a strong\nBut the fact remains\nnoises from the gover\nit\nto\ndo\nall\nover,\nand SO is the notion of\nrebuttal to criticism of his\nthat the flight of prom-\noffice when Rich\nif I would go to eight great research libra-\nbudget trimming.\ninent faculty, SO widely\nFlacks, a founder of\nBanke said. \"It ries.\n\"I think we've done a\npredicted when Reagan\ndents for a Democratic\nit-the quality\nThe Reagan Adminis-\ngood job with the univer-\ntook office, has not oc-\nciety, was appointed\ntration believes that only\nsity,\" he said. \"In spite of\ncurred. Why not?\nciology professor at\nstunned\nthe\ntrus-\nBerkeley a nd UCLA\nthink\nthe annual crying that\nFor one thing, the\nSanta Barbara, but n\nlike\nto\nof\nshould maintain large re-\ntakes place, we find that\nacademic job market has\ntion was taken.\nTurn\nto\nPg.\n23,\nCol.\n1\nsearch libraries and that\nfew of the professors\ntightened everywhere.\nAnother potentially\ntheir collections should be\nleave, fewer than were\nThe kinds of places that\nrious fight was heade\nshared not only by other\nleaving before we got\nmight be attractive to the\nwhen Michael Tiga\nUC campuses but by the\nhere.\"\nbest members of the UC\nleader of the student\n10 state colleges.\nThere are some impor-\nfaculty-the Ivy League\nduring his undergrad\nHenry Nash Smith, a re-\ntant exceptions.\nuniversities, a few Big 10\ndays at Berkeley at\nnowned English scholar\nTwo department chair-\nschools, two or three State\nlawyer for the Chica\nor Minnesota or a number\nwe're no longer threaten-\n2* Los Angeles Times 23\nof other places that are\ning to our neighbors.\"\nSun., Jan. 7, 1973-Sec. A\ngood but not extraordina-\nMost people in the unl-\nry.\"\nversity agree that Gov.\nstrike a balance between\nThis is where the story\nReagan should be con-\nof the Reagan years ends,\ncerned about expenditures\nmaking sure public funds\nare being spent wisely and\nwith the sense-intangi-\nfor public higher educa-\nble, hard to prove but un-\ntion, but they think he has\ndestroying t h e delicate\nacademic environment a\nyielding-that a great uni-\napproached the problem\nclumsily, to say the least.\ngreat university or college\nversity, the greatest this\nshould have.\"\ncountry has put together\nThere is general agree-\nwith public funds, is slip-\nment with this statement\nIt is a trick Gov. Reagan\nhas not mastered.\nping down to the level of\nby Alan Post:\nmere adequacy.\n\"T h e governor must\nThe end result of the\nknow enough about high-\ntight budgets, the denigra-\ner education budgets to\ntion of professors, the sus-\nmake intelligent policy de-\npicion of motive and pur-\ncisions. So must the Legis-\npose is a university which\nlature.\nis less than it was and\nESTEEM - Chancellor\n\"It is a difficult trick to\nmuch. less than it might\nGlenn S. Dumke is re-\nhave been.\nspected by members of\nDean E. McHenry, a\nReagan Administration.\nTimes photo\nUniversity of California\nteacher and administrator\nresigned from the UCLA\nfor more than 30 years and\nnow chancellor at UC San-\nlaw faculty shortly before\nhe was to be considered\nta Cruz, put it this way:\nfor a tenure appointment.\n\"We have been a kind of\nAngela Davis' dismissal\nBritish Empire but we've\nhad our day. Now we're\nfrom the UCLA philoso-\nmore like the British Com-\nphy department, a regents\nmonwealth. We're pretty\naction which had Reagan's\nmuch on the ball, we still\nenthusiastic support, al-\ndo some things well, but\nmost provoked a major\nrhubarb, but faculty sup-\nport for Miss Davis disin-\ntegrated after she was ar-\nrested for alleged involve-\nment in a Marin County\ncourthouse shootout\nwhich cost the life of a\njudge. She was later ac-\nquitted of the charge.\nIn the State University\nand Colleges, Chancellor\nDumke, with the blessing\nof the governor and the\nBoard of Trustees, has\nfired several professors\nwith radical associations.\nBut some have won their\njobs back in court and\nnone of the others has be-\ncome a major rallying\npoint for protest.\nThere also is the plain\nfact that professors, like\nmany other people. like to\nlive and work in California\nand will remain until the\nsituation becomes intoler-\nable.\nShip Analogy\n\"It's like getting the\nQueen Mary into dock,\"\nsaid Prof. Henry Nash\nSmith. -It took about a\ndozen tugs several hours\nto get that thing to move\nat all, but once it started\nthe momentum was hard\nto stop.\n\"Berkeley is something\nlike that. You have stimu-\nlating and congenial col-\nleagues and good graduate\nstudents. These factors do\nnot alter as rapidly as does\nthe political climate or\neven the salary scales.\nThey last for years. The\nreal damage done by Rea-\ngan won't be seen for 15\nyears.\"\nAnd Smith believes the\ndamage has been serious.\n\"We're not getting the\nbest young people any-\nmore,' he said. \"I don't\nthink anything can change\nthat now. This university\nis going to be like Illinois\nSPENDING FOR UC\nStudent Must Come\nFirst, Reagan Says\n\"It's a matter of degree. I just\nthink the university, and not on all\ncampuses, went a degree too far in\nthe emphasis on research. In other\nwords, for a university to continue\nBY WILLIAM TROMBLEY\nto claim the greatness the Universi-\nTimes Education Writer\nty of California claims, and I am pre-\nIn a recent interview with The\npared to say it's entitled to, it should\nTimes Gov. Regan talked about his\nnot claim it alone on the miracles of\nsix-year confrontation with the Uni-\nresearch that result in some im-\nversity of California:\nprovement for mankind but also\n\"When I came in, of course, it was\nthat greatness should be judged by\na most unusual situation\nThey\nthe output of educated students and\nwere well into the history of vi-\nthe quality of those students\nolence and disruption on the cam-\nFocus Is on the Student\npuses, even to the point of a few\n\"I think the student is kind of like\nmurders and burning of buildings.\nthe infantryman. When I was a re-\n\"I had the terrible feeling that\nserve officer in the cavalry I learned\nsomebody else was tearing down the\nthat the infantry is known as the\nuniversity and it was time for all of\n'queen of battle' Every other\nus to rally around and see what\nbranch, Air Force, Navy, cavalry ar-\ncould be done to preserve it.\ntillery-everything is only there as\n\"I don't know how much an ad-\nan auxiliary to enable the infantry-\nministration has to do with the\nman, with a rifle in his hand, to OC-\nchange on this-whether what we are\ncupy the enemy territory, to take it\nseeing now is just a natural change\nand occupy it. And sometimes I\nand it (violence) had run its course.\nthink, isn't this in a sense true of the\nI know that I was at odds at times\nprestige of a university? The univer-\nwith the philosophy on the part of\nsity is only prestigious SO you can\nthe university administration that\nsend your top students there\nseemed to follow what I thought was\nan appeasement pattern. I stre-\n\"I think it's a great university. I\nnuously objected to this-it never\nGov. Reagon\nthink the very fact that prestigious\nhas won peace for anyone, whether\nphoto\nfaculty still want to come here and\na nation or a schoolroom.\"\nthat they're not running away in\nThe governor was asked why he\nBlue-Pencils Restorations\ndroves indicates it. (But) I would\nmade the \"mess at Berkeley' an\nThe Democratic Legislature re-\nlike from the university more of an\nissue in his successful 1966 cam-\nstored much of the governor's budg-\neffort to see if we can't get more for\npaign.\net cut, but Reagan blue-penciled the\nthe dollar than they've been inclined\nrestorations from the final budget.\nto do. They're the ones with the\nBirth of a Campaign Issue\nSubstantially the same pattern has\nchip-on-the-shoulder attitude about\n\"I never brought up the universi-\nbeen followed in subsequent years.\nSO many things.\nty, but after several weeks of the\nReagan has trimmed the regents'\n\"At governors' conferences I hear\ncampaign I had to come back and\nbudget request and then has held\nthings that curdle my blood. I hear\nsay, 'Look, I don't care if I'm in the\nfirm in the face of legislative efforts\ngovernors in some other states talk-\nmountains, the desert, the biggest\nto restore some of the cuts.\ning about hiring a president of a uni-\ncities of this state, the first question\nAs far as the University of Califor-\nversity, or a chancellor. And I mean\n(is): What are you going to do about\nnia is concerned the fiscal crisis has\nthey, individually, say this is who\nBerkeley? And each time the ques-\nlasted not one year but six.\nit's going to be.\ntion itself would get applause, so\nNow a new debate has begun over\n\"Well, whether they believe it or\nthis was how the university got into\nthe 1973-74 budget. The regents are\nnot over there (at UC statewide\nthe campaign\nasking for $438 million. a $53 million\nheadquarters in Berkeley), way\n\"Now the economics of the univer-\nincrease over the current school\ndown deep inside my greatest fear\nsity came about after we got in here\nyear. Although the state treasury\nhas always been of government. I'm\nand discovered what we were up\napparently will have a substantial\nstill afraid of it even though I'm a\nagainst financially. In the period be-\nsurplus this year the Reagan Ad-\npart of it. And I don't want that kind\ntween the election and the inaugur-\nministration shows no signs of giv-\nof thing done.\"\nal, during which I think an incoming\ning much of it to the university.\nadministration expects to have some\nThe governor and his finance di-\nbriefing and all, our briefing was\nrather incomplete. The outgoing fi-\nrector, Verne Orr, have been ar-\nnance director (Hale Champion) just\nguing that the additional money\nstood up and told US, \"The state is\nwould not be needed if UC would\nspending $1 million a day more than\nstop padding its enrollment figures\nit is taking in. Goodby, gentlemen.'\nand would force its professors to do\nEvery day seemed to bring new\nmore teaching and less research.\nproblems\nSaid Reagan:\n\"I sent him (Finance Director\n\"I'm not attempting to set stan-\nGordon Paul Smith) over to the re-\ngents to ask if they would help the\ndards except based on the idea that\nstate in those dark days by making a\nthe customer is the young person\ncertain amount of the regents'\ngoing to the university and we\nfunds, the endowment, available as\nshould constantly review to see if\na substitute for the general fund up\nthat customer is getting what he\nwent for or is\na\nsort\nof\nsideline\nhere. And I promised that would\nactivity in the intellectual commu-\nonly be done on a one-year basis.\"\nnity.\nIn February, 1967, the UC Board of\nRegents agreed to reduce its operat-\ning budget request for the following\nyear by $13 million and also to turn\nover almost $21 million in special\nfunds paid to UC by the federal\ngovernment for administering fed-\neral research contracts and grants.\n\"A LOT OF\n'BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE'\nNO ONE LEFT\nTO DO THE CHORES\"\nWhy are so many middle-class youths opting out of what they call \"the rat race\"?\nWhat impels them to choose nonprofessional careers-often after expensive college\ntraining? Is present-day higher education part of the answer? Trends that baffle many\nparents are discussed by a prominent educator in a recent talk to college officials.\nExcerpts from the text of a speech by Dr. Peter L. Berger,\nreally drop out to become sandal makers and the like, and\nprofessor of sociology at Rutgers University, before the\nthe \"halfway greeners,\" who go into such things as creative\nAmerican Association of State Colleges and Universities, at\nadvertising, social work or, alas, academic sociology-essential\nWashington, D. C., on Nov. 13, 1972:\njobs will remain unfilled. This means new opportunities of\nupward mobility for the children of the lower-middle and\nI have been asked to deliver this address on the basis of an\nblue-collar classes. Hence the formula: The more \"greening\"\narticle called \"The Blueing of America\" which I wrote to-\nin the upper-middle class, the more \"blueing\" of the society\ngether with Brigitte Berger and which was published in \"The\nas a whole\nNew Republic\" in April, 1971.\nIt is important, I think, to differentiate between the\nWe wrote the article out of annoyance with the atrocious\n\"greening\" effects in higher education and the political mood\nnonsense that was being spouted at the time in connection\nwith which it was linked in the late 1960s-and, to a lessen-\nwith Charles Reich's \"The Greening of America.\" We are\ning degree, is still linked. There is no intrinsic or necessary\nsomewhat surprised by the very strong interest-most of it\nrelationship between being on the left politically and feeling\nfavorable-which the article generated. Actually, we had\nan affinity with the cultural style of \"greening.\" At least in\nthought that we were saying the obvious. Apparently what\nthis country, there are some good grounds for thinking that\nwas obvious to us was not so to a lot of other people. As\nwhat looked like a radical political tide is ebbing.\nsociologists, I suppose, we should have known this before.\nBy contrast, I believe, the \"greening\" syndrome in youth\nThe major thesis of our article was very simple: At the\nculture and counterculture has much deeper roots and is\nheart of the \"greening\" impulse is a re-\nlikely to be much more durable. Thus it\njection of the so-called Protestant ethic.\nwould be misleading to think that the\nThis ethic, however, in one form or an-\nrecent political calm on American cam-\nother, is crucial to the continued exist-\npuses indicates that the \"greening\" im-\nence of a technologically complex so-\npulse has had its day. Quite on the con-\nciety. If everybody in the society\ntrary: While the political radicalism of\n\"greened,\" one would have to have\nthe late 1960s may have had its day,\nserious worries about the future viability\nthe \"greening\" phenomenon in American\nof the society. There would then be a\nacademia is well on the way to being\nlot of \"beautiful people\" doing what at\nfirmly institutionalized. To put it in a\nleast they themselves would consider\nslightly oversimplified way: The \"kids\"\nbeautiful things, and there would be no\nmay have lowered their voices, but they\none left to do the chores necessary to\nhaven't cut their hair.\nkeep the society going.\nThe most visible signs of this institu-\nWhatever data we have, however, in-\ntionalization process are such things as\ndicate that the \"greening\" phenomenon\nstudent participation in academic deci-\nis not evenly distributed throughout the\nsion-making bodies and the abandon-\nsociety; rather, it is strongly class-specific.\nment, in numerous areas, of the concept\nThe \"greeners\"-for reasons that I cannot\nthat colleges act in loco parentis [in\ngo into here, but which are not at all\nplace of a parent].\nmysterious-are mainly the children of\nThe real effects of these changes have\nthe upper-middle class.\nprobably been exaggerated. The major\nTo the extent that \"greening\" means\nresult of student participation in aca-\na turning away from careers in the major\ndemic governance has been a prolifera-\neconomic, technological and bureau-\ntion of committees which nobody but a\ncratic occupations-we made a distinc-\n-Larson Photo\nskilled bureaucrat can understand and\ntion between the full \"greeners,\" who\nDr. Berger\nwhich, therefore, have strengthened the\n56\nU.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972\nafford a good many people engaged in nothing but such ac-\ntivity. It still requires what John Kenneth Galbraith has called\nthe \"technostructure\"-tha is, a body of institutions and of\nOn many college campus-\npersonnel to run them-for the essential tasks of production\nes today, Dr. Berger notes,\nand administration. The personnel for the technostructure\n\"students sit under the\nmust be trained. If some of the schools that used to undertake\ntrees with their shoes off\nthis training become \"greenhouses,\" other schools will have to\nand engage in the not-so-\nperform this function\narduous task of finding\nI think that there will be institutions, or differentiated seg-\nout who they really are.\"\nments of institutions, that will become \"greenhouses\" pure\nand simple. I don't have to mention names to indicate that\nBut at other colleges\nsome such places exist already.\nthere remains \"respect for\nIn these places, for four years or less, students sit under\nhard intellectual labor.\"\nthe trees with their shoes off and engage in the not-so-arduous\ntask of finding out who they really are. Professors play a role\nbest described as \"honorary youths.\" Administrators are kept\nhand of administrators against both students and faculty.\nbusy convincing the available funding agencies that such an\nAs to the loco parentis business, I wonder if it means much\nenterprise merits continuing subsidization. Instruction in any\nmore than students doing in the dorm what they used to do\nobjectively recognizable body of knowledge or skills is mini-\nin the parking lot-an improvement in creature comforts, if\nmal.\nnot in morality.\nGraduates of these places either go on to some other pro-\nThe less visible-but much more consequential-change has\ngram where they learn something besides their own identity,\nbeen a pervasive softening of academic standards. The aboli-\nor they go into jobs where it really doesn't matter that they\ntion of required courses, the statistically demonstrable infla-\ndon't know anything specific. Both these options are quite tol-\ntion of \"A\" and \"B\" grades, the spreading notion that schol-\nerable as long as the number of people involved remains\narly capacity is, at best, one of very many qualities needed\nwithin certain limits. The labor market is such that it may\nin a college teacher, the rapid decline in the teaching of\nactually be economically useful that a sizable number of\nforeign languages-these and similar developments on the\nyoung people simply sit under trees for a while before they\nlevel of curriculum and faculty policy, including personnel\nstart competing or even training for jobs. And the so-called\npolicy, are where the long-range effects of \"greening\" must\ntertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy contain a\nbe sought.\n(probably increasing) number of jobs for which no specific\nThe \"greening\" impulse in academia is deeply anti-intel-\nknowledge is required and where the only required skill is\nlectual. Colleges and universities are to become, essentially,\nprecisely \"digging other people as real persons,\" or at least\nplaces in which certain existential experiences are to be medi-\ngiving that impression.\nated. Students want to become personally moved, rather than\nThus I would have it very definitely understood that I'm\ninstructed by course materials; they want to relate to faculty\nnot in the business of knocking \"greenhouses\" as long as\non the level of personal encounter; they want the institution\nthere are not too many of them-and, I should add, as long\nto provide whatever services are necessary for personal\nas I'm not required to be in one myself.\ngrowth. Conversely, they are opposed to whatever smacks\nAll this, however, still leaves unfulfilled some crucial re-\nof intellectual discipline, objective standards and external\nquirements of the technostructure. Some of these require-\nregulation. Let me only mention the animus against special-\nments pertain to higher education at its most dizzyingly\nization and the popularity of pass/fail grades in this connec-\n\"highest.\" A technological society requires an ongoing re-\ntion. If this impulse is traced to its final consequence, it\n(continued on next page)\nwould entail the transformation of, at any rate, undergraduate\nschools into what can most aptly be described as vast identity\nworkshops.\nNow, as we all know, this impulse cannot work itself out\nto its final consequence everywhere. Thus it runs up against\nmuch stronger restraints in the natural sciences than in the\nhumanities and the social sciences, and for very good reasons:\nThe consequences of building, say, a medical curriculum on\nstudent self-evaluation or pass/fail grading are patently more\nominous than doing so in sociology or in English literature.\nBut more significant for our present considerations is the\npreviously mentioned class location of the \"greening\" syn-\ndrome. The move toward the identity workshop has been\nstrongest in undergraduate institutions that cater largely to the\nupper-middle class. While present there, too, to varying de-\ngrees, institutions drawing largely from populations of lower-\nclass levels have been much less ready to convert themselves\ninto youth-culture preserves, not to say-forgive me, but I\ncan't resist the temptation-\"greenhouses.\"\nI'm concerned with the sociological import of these changes.\nLet me put it this way: As they themselves put it, the \"green-\nors\" are committed to a life style of playfulness. Fine. The\nquestion is: Who will mind the store while they are playing?\nIf this seems too frivolous a formulation, let me say it in\n\"Students want to become personally moved, rather than in-\nmore-respectable social-scientific terms. Our society is affluent\nstructed; they want to relate to faculty on the level of per-\nenough to afford a lot of nonproductive activity, and even to\nsonal encounter; they are opposed to intellectual discipline.\"\nU.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972\n57\nON THE \"BLUEING\" OF AMERICA\nthe institutions represented here today would commonly be\ndesignated as \"major league.\"\n[text continued from preceding page]\nI further suspect that, to the professors if not the adminis-\ntrators of many of your institutions, the ivy-laden citadels of\nsearch enterprise of immense scientific sophistication, both in\nlearning at the pinnacle of the Caplow-McGee hierarchy\npure and in applied research. There must be institutions\nloom as objects of both envy and emulation.\nthat prepare people for this enterprise, especially but by no\nTo a degree, this is inevitable. In different fields, there\nmeans exclusively in the natural sciences. While such training\nwill continue to be centers of major intellectual importance,\nwill probably have to reach into undergraduate curricula, its\nin comparison with which other institutions will be, well,\ncontinuing focus will in all likelihood continue to be on the\nminor. Nevertheless, it seems to me that some of the basic\ngraduate level.\npresuppositions of this entire status hierarchy must be ques-\nDoes this mean that the technostructure could afford all of\ntioned, and that we're now at a very good time to question\nundergraduate education going \"green\"? I think, quite em-\nthem.\nphatically, that it means no such thing.\nLet me put this bluntly, too. Some of the aforementioned\nIndeed, one of the weaknesses in Galbraith's original con-\ncitadels of learning have become \"Potemkin villages\": Be-\ncept of the technostructure was that it only seemed to refer to\nhind the still-glittering façades of erstwhile excellence, there\npeople generally called intellectuals. The people he had in\nhas taken place a staggering process of intellectual rot.\nmind were physicists, research engineers and heart surgeons,\nThe effects of this can be quite comic. In such places\nas well as urban planners and Government experts on Latin-\nit is possible to visit, say, the faculty club, and be surround-\nAmerican affairs.\ned by people who seem serenely confident that they are den-\nNow, there can be no doubt that such occupations and\nizens of-if you will excuse the unappetizing image-the in-\nothers like them are crucial to our kind of society, nor that\ntellectual navel of the nation. The visitor is properly awed.\nthey will be filled with what, at least broadly, may be called\nSubsequent research into what is actually going on in the\nintellectuals. But for every research engineer who designs a\nlecture halls and seminar rooms of the same institution makes\nnew passenger plane, there must be thousands of highly\nthe visitor wish for the satiric pen of an H. L. Mencken [late\ntrained individuals who keep that plane in the air once it's\neditor and critic]. What is going on, many times, is literally\noff the production line. For every heart surgeon, there must\nbeyond belief.\nbe thousands of medical technicians and, very importantly,\nThose charged with responsibility for these august institu-\nhospital administrators. And for every urban planner, there\ntions face formidable problems of self-appraisal and recon-\nmust be a veritable host-perhaps less than we have now,\nstruction. Their problems do not concern me at the moment.\nbut still an awful lot-of dependable civil servants who keep\nBut for those at other institutions, it seems to me, the time\nthe vast machinery of municipal government going.\nhas arrived for healthy skepticism regarding the traditional\nAll these people must also be trained-and they cannot be\nstatus hierarchy of American academia, and for a much great-\ntrained in a \"greenhouse\" atmosphere. If they were trained in\ner measure of self-confidence about their own place in the\nsuch an atmosphere, the results would soon be disastrous.\neducational system of the society.\nTo bring this point home, all you have to do is to imagine\nMore specifically, the \"greening\" phenomenon, which has\nan airline, a hospital or an urban sanitation department run\nbeen primarily located in the \"major league\" institutions, is\nby the values and mores of the youth culture. The vision is\nnot something to be emulated. I'm not thinking here of such\napocalyptic. But I don't think-pessimist though I am by\nquestions as whether coeds may entertain male visitors in\ntemperament and upbringing-that we\ntheir dormitory rooms or whether, some-\nneed seriously worry. The vision won't\nwhere on campus, there should be an\ncome to pass; rather, the society will\nopportunity for students to go through\nmaintain or reconstruct the educational\n\"encounter experiences.\" I'm reasonably\nmechanisms that it requires for its sur-\nsure that there will be more of this\nvival.\nsort of thing in your institutions, as\nThe class-specific character of the\nelsewhere, and I'm quite sanguine\n\"greening\" syndrome will greatly assist\nabout it.\nthis process. Even if the whole of\nWhat I have in mind are quite dif-\nupper-middle-class youth \"greened\"-an\nferent things: structured curricula in-\nunlikely prospect, incidentally-there\nstead of the \"cafeteria\" style of educa-\nwould still be an enormous population\ntion that is so often confused with in-\nreservoir ready and even eager to enter\ntellectual freedom; objective standards\nthese breaches in the occupational sys-\nand criteria of evaluation instead of\ntem.\nthe currently fashionable chaos of sub-\nConsequently, the institutions of\njectivity; respect for hard intellectual\nhigher education that mainly cater to\nlabor instead of the cult of self-expres-\nthis population take on a strategic im-\nsion and \"creativity\"; an understand-\nportance, a public interest in the most\ning of the values of specialization in-\nliteral and urgent sense of the term-\nstead of an orgy of \"interdisciplinary\"\nwhich brings me directly to the institu-\nchitchat.\ntions represented by this meeting.\nAll these, I'm convinced, are badly\nSome years ago, Theodore Caplow\nin need of resurrection in \"major\nand Reece McGee, in their book \"The\nleague\" institutions-and I'm not at all\nAcademic Marketplace,\" described the\nsure to what extent they can still be\nstatus hierarchy of American colleges\nresurrected in some of these places.\nand universities by the terms \"major\n\"For every heart surgeon, there must be\nBut it seems to me that your institu-\nleague,\" \"minor league,\" \"bush league\"\nthousands of technicians,\" says Dr.\ntions are, perhaps paradoxically, in an\nand \"academic Siberia.\"\nBerger. \"If they were trained in a 'green-\nexcellent position to represent these\nI rather question whether many of\nhouse,' results would be disastrous.\"\neducational principles with credibility.\n58\nU.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, Dec. 4, 1972\n7/72\nEOP\nSTATE COLLEGES\n1970-71\n1971-72\n1972-73\n$3,272,000\n$1,654,000\n$3,900,000\nFunds as budgeted provide an average grant of $440 to 3,500 first\nyear students thus continuing the existing level, and an average\nof $220 to continuing second year students plus tutorial and\nadministrative costs. This is in accordance with legislative\naction. Additional legislative augmentations were not accepted\n($1,176,000).\nIncreasing number of first year students from 3,500 to 4,130 and\nextending awards to third and fourth year students.\nState funds have never been used for students past the second\nyear of higher education.\nUNIVERSITY\n1970-71\n1971-72\n1972-73\n-0-\n-0-\n-0-\n$1,500,000 was eliminated. The State has never provided funds\nfor University EOP. The Regents have substantial funds for use\nat their discretion. Over $20,000,000 is utilized for student\nfinancial aid, which includes $7 million in tuition deferrals and\nwaivers. There is considerable doubt whether the large class size\nand the use of teaching assistants, which is so prevalent in\nlower division in the University, is suitable in meeting the\ninstructional needs of EOP students.\nCOMMUNITY COLLEGES\n1970-71\n1971-72\n1972-73\n$4,350,000\n$3,350,000\n$4,850,000\nFunds as budgeted provide an average grant of $200 to 9,700 first\nyear and renewal students. Increased funding of $1,500,000 was\nauthorized even though it has been recognized by all including\nthe Legislature that it is not possible to determine whether\naward levels or support services are effective or adequate. There\nhas been no justification based on program effectiveness to\njustify increased funding. Additional legislative augmentations\nwere not accepted ($1,750,000).\n-2-\nThe Legislature also added restrictive language to the\nappropriation for EOP for Community Colleges. The language would\nhave the Board of Governors allocate funds to the colleges on a\npriority basis and only to programs which demonstrate their\neffectiveness and have the most pressing need for student aid.\nAlthough this language places conditions on the allocation of\nfunds, the Assembly would have included more restrictive language\nwhich would have necessitated full justification for assistance\nbased on applicants before allocation of funds.\nSan Rafael, Calif.\nIndependent Journal\n(Cir. D 41,002)\nMAR 17 1972\nSACRAMENTO SCENE\nBoard Appointment Counter\nTo Reagan Philosophy\nBy RUS WALTON\nthat Hubbard was a prominent partici-\nGovernor Reagan has just appointed a\npant and backer of Pasadena \"civil\ndevout liberal to the State Board of\nrights\" demonstrations as far back as\nEducation and conservatives are up in\n1965.\narms.\nOne 12-year member of the Pasadena\nThe liberal is Dr. David Allan Hub-\nschool board recalled that Dr. Hubbard\nbard, 43, president of Fuller Theological\nconstantly badgered him, accusing him\nSeminary in Pasadena.\nof racism because of his opposition to\nTo a man, the Republican legislators\ncompulsory busing.\nrepresenting segments of the Pasadena\narea expressed strong opposition to Hub-\nIN 1969, as chairman of the Pasadena\nbard's appointment. Among those legisla-\nUrban Coalition, Dr. Hubbard presided\ntors are some of the governor's staunch-\nover \"Operation Understanding, a work-\nest supporters: Assemblyman John L.\nshop on race relations. A feature of that\nCollier, Frank Lanterman and Carlos J.\nworkshop, sponsored by the Ford Foun-\nMoorhead, and State Sen. H. L. Richard-\ndation and a black power group, was a\nson.\nhectic sensitivity training session for\nAssemblyman Robert Burke, R-Hun-\ncommunity leaders.\ntington Beach, also opposed Hubbard's\nDr. Hubbard chastised the Pasadena\nappointment. Burke paid a personal call\nBoard of City Directors for failing to\non the governor to detail the theologian's\nattend the workshop and its sensitivity\nleft-wing background. To no avail.\ntraining session.\nAs a key speaker at the workshop,\nPRIME MOVERS for Dr. Hubbard's\nHubbard selected Walter Bremond, for-\nappointment were Rev. Donn Moomaw,\nmer head of the militant Black Congress.\nReagan's personal pastor who recently\nTwo weeks earlier, Bremond had admit-\nresigned from the education board, and\nted to a Los Angeles County Grand Jury\nDr. Alex Sherriffs, Reagan's special as-\nthat he had given an automobile to Ron\nsistant for education.\nKarenga, head of the black pressure\nRepublicans in the Pasadena area, who\ngroup, US. The Bremond auto was used\nhave followed Dr. Hubbard's activities\nas the get-away car for several US\nsince he joined Fuller seminary, are\nmembers who shot and killed two Black\nespecially upset. They report that Hub-\nPanthers at a UCLA rally.\nbard was an early and active promoter of\ncompulsory crosstown busing to achieve\nYEARS AGO the Fuller Theological\nintegration of the Pasadena school sys-\nSeminary was world renowned as a solid,\ntem.\nfundamental bible school, famous for its\nThey also document their complaint\n\"Old Fashioned Revival\" hours.\nSince Dr. Hubbard's arrival, Fuller has\ngone \"modern\" and left. Most of its old-\nline faculty members have departed. The\nschool now boasts sensitivity sessions,\nand group dynamics, for young people.\nAll of this information, fully document-\ned, was presented to Alex Sheriffs and to\nGovernor Reagan as soon as word got out\nthat Dr. Hubbard was being considered\nfor the State Board of Education.\nIt obviously had no impact.\nWHAT IS INVOLVED here is not Dr.\nHubbard's right to be a liberal. He can\ngo as far left as he pleases.\nThe question is: why was he appointed\nto such an important post by a govenor\nwho ran as the conservative alternative\nto liberals such as Pat Brown and Jesse\nUnruh?\nAlex Sheriffs readily admitted his\navowed purpose to \"put a liberal Repub-\nlican on the board.\"\nBURBANK OFFICE\nCOMMITTEES\n3507 WEST MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD\nEDUCATION\nBURBANK, CALIFORNIA 91505\nELECTIONS AND\n(213) 846-0643\nAssembly\nREAPPORTIONMENT\nFINANCE AND INSURANCE\nANTELOPE VALLEY\nLANCASTER, CALIFORNIA 93534\nMEMBER\n(805) 948-5582\nJOINT COMMITTEE ON\nCalifornia Legislature\nEDUCATIONAL GOALS\nSACRAMENTO ADDRESS\nAND EVALUATION\nSTATE CAPITOL\nSELECT COMMITTEE ON\n95814\nMANPOWER DEVELOPMENT\n(916) 445-8292\nSELECT COMMITTEE ON\nINDUSTRIAL SAFETY\nCOMMISSION FOR ECONOMIC\nNEWTON R. RUSSELL\nDEVELOPMENT\nASSEMbLYMAN, SIXTY-SECOND DISTRICT\nCHAIRMAN\nGOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE\nTo:\nALL LEGISLATORS\nFrom:\nAssemblyman Newton R. Russell\nSubject: A DEMONSTRATION-PRESENTATION OF PROJECT S.E.E.D.\n(Ghetto 5th-6th Graders do high school algebra)\nWHERE:\nGOVERNOR REAGAN'S COUNCIL ROOM\n4202\nWHAT YOU WILL SEE: Mr. William Johntz, the founder of Project S.E.E.D,\nwill teach abstract high school level algebra to a\n5-6 grade class from the Camellia School (Sacramento's\nsecond lowest school socio-economically).\nThe children have been in Project SEED for only two weeks.\nFollowing the demonstration with the children, Mr. Johntz\nwill discuss the theory, history, and achievements of\nProject SEED.\nWHY I URGE YOU TO ATTEND: Project SEED is an extremely remarkable national\neducation program in which ghetto children from\nNome, Alaska to Harlem do advanced mathematics\nwith great competence and joy. This success\nimproves their self-concept and consequently\ntheir attitude and performance in non-math areas.\nTheir teachers are professional mathematicians\nfrom major universities (PRINCETON, YALE, U.C., Etc.)\nand research corporations (IBM, BELL TELEPHONE LABS,\nPRUDENTIAL LIFE, Etc.)\nProject SEED provides the first large scale new\ncareer for unemployed defense and aerospace\nengineers.\nThough Project SEED is an extremely low-cost\nproject with excellent evaluation from Cal Tech\n(3-year California Study) and the American\nInstitute of Research (11 city Michigan Study),\nI still believe that the best way to understand\nand believe this project is to see it.\nWHEN: Thursday, April 27, 1972 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. First Demonstration\nThursday, May 4, 1972 - 10:00 to 12 Noon Second Demonstration\nPLEASE ATTEND\nNRR:ae\nA BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SEED\n(SPECIAL ELEMENTARY EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED)\nGENERAL DESCRIPTION: Project SEED is a national program in which professional\nmathematicians and scientists from major universities and research corporations\nteach abstract, conceptually-oriented mathematics to full-sized classes of\ndisadvantaged elementary school children on a daily basis. The mathematics is\npresented through the use of a Socratic group discovery format. The children\nare in no way specially selected for the SEED classes.\nProject SEED has more recently involved itself in secondary education\nthrough a peer teaching component in which secondary students teach high school\nand college level algebra, not only to their peers but also to university\nstudents. The peer teaching component of Project SEED is presently operating\nunder a National Science Foundation grant.\nHISTORY: Project SEED was started 9 years ago in Berkeley, California by its\npresent director, William F. Johntz. It has since spread to 15 states, reaching\napproximately 6,000 students, most of whom are black children from urban poverty\nbackgrounds. Also involved are Eskimo, Indian, Mexican-American and Appalachian\nwhite children. Negotiations are presently under way for the establishment of\nprojects in India, Mexico and various European countries.\nMAJOR OBJECTIVE: The long range goal of Project SEED is to raise the achievement\nlevel and consequently the self concept of the disadvantaged child by providing\nhim with success in a high status, abstract subject unrelated to his culture;\ni.e., one not associated with failure by the disadvantaged as language arts and\nthe more familiar arithmetic tend to be. The simplistic remediation which\ncharacterizes most compensatory education programs usually fails because it tends\nto derrogate the disadvantaged child by concentrating on the areas in which he\nhas already failed. In Project SEED we have had tremendous success by imbedding\nremedial arithmetic in the high school and college algebra which is new and fresh\nfor the child. It has been found, ironically, that the urban ghetto children who\nare failing in almost everything else they do in school exhibit enormous competence\nand joy in doing high school and college level algebra when it is taught by a\ntrained SEED specialist who loves and understands mathematics in depth. Mathematics,\nas it is normally taught, has an almost 100 percent casualty rate for persons\nfrom all socio-economic backgrounds because the people who teach mathematics at\nthe elementary level, due to no fault of their own, do not understand the mathe-\nmatics they are teaching and consequently do not like it themselves. The self-\nconcept enhancement which SEED students experience as a result of their mastery\nof this high status subject improves their whole attitude and performance in\nnon-mathematical school areas.\nJOB AND COLLEGE PREPARATIONS: The success that SEED students experience in mathe-\nmatics is, of course, the best possible preparation for obtaining jobs and getting\ninto college. The peer teaching component of SEED can be considered direct voca-\ntional preparation for the profession of teaching.\nA Brief Description of Project SEED\n2\nPROJECT SEED AS A NEW CAREER: Many professional scientists and mathematicians,\nas well as some Labor Department officials, believe that Project SEED provides\nthe first serious new career for the tens of thousands of unemployed scientists,\nmathematicians and engineers. See article in information packet.\nUNIVERSITY INVOLVEMENT: Major universities have responded with unprecedented\nenthusiasm and support for Project SEED. A version of Project SEED was incorpo-\nrated in the University of California's statewide system (8 universities) as a\npart of their Urban Crisis Program. Several universities, including Yale,\nhave provided released time to their mathematics faculty to teach in Project\nSEED. University mathematicians from Asia, Europe and South America have\ndemonstrated the same kind of interest.\nINDUSTRY INVOLVEMENT: Mathematicians, scientists, engineers and actuaries from\nmajor industries such as IBM, Bell Laboratories, Prudential and New York Life\nInsurance Companies are now teaching in Project SEED 4 or 5 days per week.\nThese corporations feel that Project SEED has profound implications in the areas\nof research, management preparation, and relations with poverty communities,\npublic schools, legislators, etc. See information packet.\nPROJECT SEED, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF OUR SOCIETY, IS BRINGING ON\nA DAILY BASIS TOP LEVEL PROFESSIONALS FROM MAJOR CORPORATIONS AND UNIVERSITIES\nINTO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN A NON-CONSULTIVE, NON-RESEARCH ROLE. THIS HAS THE\nMOST PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION AT EVERY LEVEL - K THROUGH PH.D.\nPOVERTY COMMUNITY: The black and brown poverty community throughout the United\nStates has been enthusiastically supportive of Project SEED. Parents and\npoverty leaders find Project SEED terribly appealing for 2 reasons: (1) The\nachievement claims made by SEED for their children are supported by top quality\nhard data. (2) Project SEED takes their children seriously in terms of the\nhighest aspirations of our society - preparation for college and high level\njobs. Jobs and college are the two most relevant considerations in the ghettoes\ntoday.\nLEGISLATORS: Project SEED has done demonstration-presentations for legislatures\nin California, Michigan and New Jersey. Two statewide bills funding Project\nSEED were passed in California and Michigan by legislators from both ends of\nthe political spectrum. Legislators are fascinated by the fact that Project SEED\nbrings \"ivory tower intellectuals\" directly into the \"real world\" of public schools.\nTEACHER TRAINING: The regular classroom teacher is always present in the room\nwhen the SEED mathematician is working with his or her class. Consequently, Project\nSEED provides an ideal ongoing, daily inservice training program for teachers in\nwhose classes we are working. Regular teachers absorb the mathematics, the\nmethodology and new expectations for disadvantaged children far more readily when\nA Brief Description of Project SEED\n3\nyou are working in their own classroom. One day per week is also devoted by\nthe SEED specialist to working with other teachers in the school. The Cal Tech\nstudy of the California SEED Project in more than 200 classes revealed a very,\nvery positive attitude toward SEED on the part of the teachers in whose classes we\nwere working. This is unusual with most specialist programs.\nEVALUATION: Statewide evaluations in California and Michigan by the California\nInstitute of Technology and AIR, respectively, reveal that children in Project\nSEED not only are able to perform abstract, conceptually oriented mathematics,\nbut also that their arithmetic computational skills have improved enormously.\nOther evaluations in Berkeley and in Del Paso Heights, California, show signifi-\ncant improvement by children in Project SEED classes in I.Q. scores and attitudes\ntoward self and school.\nFUNDING: Funding and the consequent inability to do long range planning are\nProject SEED's major problems as it completes its 9th successful year. Sources\nof funding are fragmented and therefore inefficient. Financial support\npresently comes from Title I and Title III of E.S.E.A., Model Cities, individual\nschool districts, state legislatures, corporations, and universities. There\nneeds to be a more inclusive, long range source of funding in order that the\nthousands of top level man hours spent in seeking funds could be used to bring\nthe benefits of SEED to more children, teachers, universities, corporations, etc.\nCOST: Project SEED Inc., a non-profit corporation, has the extremely low cost\nfigure of $150 per child per year based on an assumed class size of 30. This is\nfar, far less than other compensatory education programs that even approach\nProject SEED's level of proven success. There are 3 reasons that the SEED price\nis so low: (1) Project SEED specialists work with the whole class. Most\nsuccessful compensatory education programs involve one adult working with a few\npupils. (2) Project SEED has no materials or gadgets to sell. We sell the\nsingle-most important commodity in all of education - a highly skilled, sensitive\nteacher who can reach children from even the most deprived backgrounds. (3) All\nof the corporate people who work in SEED are volunteers. This helps to bring down\nour national per child per year cost.\nAlgebra at Age 6?\nThey Love It.\nIBM scientists, teaching\nas volunteers in a San Jose elementary school,\nreport that disadvantaged youngsters are\nenthusiastic about learning-amazingly-\nabstract mathematics.\n\"What's another way to get a zero?\" asks San Jose Research\nKoehler, and Dr. Erich Sawatzky. Help in establishing the\nChemist Dr. William A. Lester, Jr., who teaches algebra\nprogram also came from Dr. James D. Lyons, Dr. Hans\nfour times a week in San Jose's Olinder Elementary School.\nMorawitz, Dr. Will Rudge, and Donald E. Schreiber.\nHands shoot up all over the first-grade classroom. \"Plus\nThe Research Lab scientists started on this voluntary\nthree and minus three,\" a six-year-old answers.\nproject a little over a year ago when they were invited to\nDr. Lester adds the numbers into the \"truth set\" on the\nOlinder School by the San Jose Unified School District,\nblackboard and moves a drawing of a little boy, walking\nwhich wanted to test this new system of teaching algebra.\ntoward a house full of candy and toys, one step closer to\nThere, they met William F. (\"Bill\") Johntz, a Berkeley\nhis goal. The first graders cheer and wait eagerly for the\nhigh school mathematics teacher who travels the country\nnext problem.\nurging school districts to teach algebra in their elementary\nDr. Lester is one of several scientists at the San Jose Re-\nschools. He demonstrated his \"discovery method\" for teach-\nsearch Lab who have left their offices at mid-morning four\ning algebra in elementary school, and the IBMers, along with\ndays a week during the past school year to drive 10 miles to\na few scientists and engineers from the nearby Lockheed\nOlinder School near San Jose's central business district,\nAircraft Company, took on the project of teaching the\nin a predominantly Mexican-American area. There they\nsubject to a few elementary grades at Olinder.\nteach a 40-minute class in algebra to children ranging in age\nJohntz's system has had amazing success. Called Project\nfrom 6 to about 11-students who would ordinarily begin\nSEED (Special Elementary Education for the Disadvan-\nstudying algebra in high school at the age of 14 or 15.\ntaged), it is a college preparatory math program now used\nThe IBM volunteers made up the time by working after\nin more than 400 elementary classrooms across the country.\nnormal hours last year, but during the next school year the\nMost of the SEED Project schools are in disadvantaged areas\nResearch Lab will allow the volunteers to use some IBM\nwhere a high percentage of the students are non-white or\ntime to teach at Olinder School.\ncome from families on welfare.\n\"In view of the success of the program and the com-\n\"Project SEED is aimed at disadvantaged students for\nmitment you've made, the San Jose Research Laboratory\nseveral reasons,\" says Dr. Lester. \"First, the casualty rate in\nwould now like to match your commitment and support\nmathematics is nearly 100 percent for high school students\nthe program,\" Dr. Andrew H. Eschenfelder, lab director,\nfrom poverty backgrounds. In a typical ghetto secondary\nrecently told the group.\nschool, less than one student in 30 succeeds in a college\n\"The best years for-learning abstract mathematics are\npreparatory math program. This shouldn't be the case, since\nSEPTEMBER 70\nthe early years of a student's education, not the ninth or\nmath is the most culture free subject; by that I mean, when\ntenth grade,\" says Dr. Douglas McLean, another of the\nthey start out, poverty students don't have a disadvantage\nIBM volunteers. \"That idea still has to be proved to a lot of\nin relation to students from higher income homes, as they\npeople, of course. We're trying to help prove it.\"\noften do in English classes, for instance.\"\nOther IBM scientists trying to prove this point include\nThe regular home room teacher remains in the class-\n40\nDr. Paul S. Bagus, Dr. George Castro, Dr. Thomas R.\nroom to assist the volunteers during their Monday through\nin San Jose\nond grade\nA.\n111111\nfirst grade\nteaching\nThursday 40-minute teaching sessions.\nThe Socratic, or \"discovery method\" is a general teaching\ntechnique in Project SEED. A child is asked a question that\nrequires analysis. The reply is accepted without demurring,\nand then the teacher asks: \"Who disagrees?\" If several\npupils disagree, the teacher asks for other possible an-\nswers. Gradually, the correct answer emerges without any\nof the children being told: \"You're wrong!\"\n\"A basic tenet of the discovery method of teaching is\neliminating what Bill Johntz calls failure symbols: text-\nbooks, tests, and so on. This is possible because our algebra\nclasses are only part of the students' general mathematics\nstudy,\" says Dr. Tom Koehler.\nThe SEED teachers have developed a number of devices\nto hold the students' attention. Dr. Koehler, for instance,\nplays \"algebra tic-tac-toe\" with his fifth grade class, which\nis a combination of two regular fifth grade classes and totals\nabout 60 children. With one half of the class playing against\nthe other half, the object for the students is to figure out a\ngiven mathematical equation, and use their understanding of\nthe equation to place X's and O's in the tic-tac-toe squares.\nTeddie J. Thomas, resources teacher at Olinder Elemen-\ntary, says it is a gratifying experience to watch these very\nyoung students get excited about the theory of positive and\nnegative numbers; about filling in the variables in truth sets;\nabout the area of rectangles and right triangles; about linear\ninequalities; and a hundred other complicated principles.\nThe problem with trying to spread this kind of training\nthroughout entire cities is the lack of money to hire teach-\ners who have the knowledge of higher mathematics, accord-\ning to Dr. McLean, who says: \"How do you get Ph.D.'s to\nteach elementary school classes? The money for salaries\nisn't there. The answer that I see is professionals in indus-\nIBMAGAZINE 41\ntry contributing their time and talents.\"\ninstructor went around the room in ran-\nHigh-status areas, of course, require\nThe Common Language\ndom order, asking probing questions, in-\nhighly trained teachers. Johntz believes\nThe instructor wrote a complicated\nvolving everyone. By the end of the\nthat, at a minimum, a SEED math teach-\nalgebraic formula on the blackboard and\nhour, the students had talked their way\ner should hold a college degree in math.\nthen turned to his class. \"Give me a sen-\nthrough exponentiation, roots and loga-\nWhile a poorly schooled teacher can de-\ntence that will check that,\" he said, as a\nrithms-and, with a final exuberant\nstroy a child's confidence by calling his\nforest of hands shot into the air. One\nburst of mental energy, had used logs to\nanswer wrong, the highly trained mathe-\nstudent carefully presented a description\ndiscover irrational numbers.\nmatician, through his deep understand-\nand development of the equation. The\nEthnic: For the professionalism of its\ning of the structure of the subject, is able\nothers loudly disagreed, some of them\napproach, the class could have been on\nto explore the possible value of unex-\nwaving both hands like semaphores. The\nthe university level. But in fact the 24\npected responses.\nstudents-most of them black or Mexican-\nCheerios: In the Del Paso Heights Dis-\nAmerican-were fifth and sixth graders\ntrict-the fourth poorest in California-\nfrom the impoverished Del Paso Heights\nJohntz's math specialists, several of\nElementary District in Sacramento, Calif.\nwhom work at IBM, have made their\nTheir average IQ, by standard testing\nsubject so popular that the SEED office\nmethods, was below 100. Yet they were\nhas become a hangout for students. They\nworking routinely with advanced mathe-\ncome in and try to teach math to the sec-\nmatics, clearly understanding what they\nretary and anyone else who will listen.\nwere doing and loving every minute of it.\nAnd some SEED students even substitute\nWhile most ghetto classrooms around\nthe country remain tragic exhibits of\nAmerican society's failure to teach the\nsimplest material to the children of its\nethnic underclass, 700 elementary stu-\ndents in the Del Paso Heights District\nhave been racing through advanced math\n4,1970\nas part of an exciting project called\nSEED (for Special Elementary Educa-\ntion for the Disadvantaged). SEED is the\nbrainchild of William Johntz, a lanky,\n47-year-old former high-school teacher\nwho, like many educators concerned\nabout teaching ghetto kids, long ago con-\ncluded that the schools were failing be-\ncause they had not yet found a way\naround using white middle-class methods\nand language with poor, non-white stu-\ndents. Johntz, however, took his analysis\na step farther. He reasoned that if lan-\nguage skills, with their forbidding over-\ntones of white culture, were a stumbling\nblock, then math, which is culturally\nneutral, might be the right place to start.\nSeven years ago, he began testing out\nhis theory by devoting his lunch hour to\nteaching algebra to classes of black ele-\nmentary-school students.\nThe experiment worked so well that\nJohntz with class: Exuberance\nJohntz now devotes all of his time to\nselling his unique mixture of Socratic\nas math teachers at nearby grade schools\nmethod and serious math to school ad-\nand junior highs.\nministrators, legislators and businessmen.\n\"I like the work,\" explains 12-year-old\nThanks to the undeniable success of both\nJulius Humphrey, 'cause there ain't no\nhis method and his persistence, a score of\nother kind of work like it.\" Christina Gon-\nschool districts in California, Alaska and\nzales, 11, enjoys teaching too. \"It builds\nMichigan have publicly funded SEED\nup your vocabulary,\" she told NEWS-\nprojects, and the program is rapidly\nWEEK'S William J. Cook, \"because of all\nspreading elsewhere.\nthe words we use\" (some of those words\nStatus: Wherever it is taught, SEED\nare student-invented math symbols like\ninvolves the same tough material-ab-\nthe \"cheerio,\" which is an infinite num-\nstract, conceptually oriented high-school\nber equal to all the breakfast-table\nand college algebra. Anything simpler\nCheerios in the world).\nor more verbally oriented, Johntz be-\nBut SEED math does not only teach\nlieves, would fail for the same reasons\nmath lingo. Del Paso teachers have no-\nother programs of compensatory educa-\nticed that SEED students have lost their\ntion frequently strike out; they are so ob-\nfear of the parts of speech. The program\nviously rudimentary and so culturebound\nalso means more than just math to the\nthat they turn off even the lowest\nyoung mathematicians who teach SEED\nachievers among poor, non-white stu-\nclasses. George Drake, a 26-year-old\ndents. \"No black kid is going to feel bet-\ndoctoral candidate who helps instruct\nter about himself for winning a watermel-\nthe black and brown algebraic prodigies,\non-eating contest,\" Johntz argues. \"If\nputs it simply. \"This is the first time,\" he\nyou're going to motivate kids, they've got\nsays, \"that I've been able to apply math\nto have success in a high-status area.\"\nto anything socially useful.\"\nde of California\nEduc. School Finance\nMemorandum\nTo\n: Earl Coke\nEd Gray\nDate : April 18, 1972\nJames Hall\nJohn Kehoe\nIke Livermore\nBill Evans\nFrank Walton\nMike Deaver\nVerne Orr\nKen Hall\nSubject: School Finance\nEd Thomas\nJim Dwight\nCourt Cases\nJerry Martin\nAlex Sherriffs\nFrom : Ed Meese\nAttached for your information is a rundown and analysis of the\nrecent school finance court cases. In addition there is a\ndiscussion of the various State proposals that have been advanced\nto resolve the problems presented in the Serrano and similar cases.\nThis information was provided by the Advisory Commission on\nIntergovernmental Relations.\nFEDERATION OF TAX ADMINISTRATORS\nRM-425\n1313 EAST Goth STREET CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60637\nMarch 15, 1972\nSCHOOL FINANCE, THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE COURTS\nRecent judgments of both state and federal courts have held that a\nstate-local system of school finance violates the equal protection clause\nof the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, if\nschool district property tax capacity is incorporated as a factor in the\nsystem in such a manner as to result in substantial disparities in per\npupil expenditures among the school districts of the state.\nThis is a brief review of the current status of such litigation,\nand also of meast es proposed or under study to revise school finance sys-\ntems open to a similar challenge. It might be noted here that contrary to\nthe impression given by some of the initial comments on these cases, none\nof the 1 question the validity of the property tax as an element, or even\nas a major source, of revenue for school finance. The constitutional objec-\ntion stems rather from the manner in which district property tax capacity is\ntaken into account in determining the amount available for expenditure per\npupil. Presumably, the same objection would be equally applicable to any\nother measure of tax capacity on a district basis.\nBackground\nSerrano et al. V. Priest et al., 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P. 2d 1241, de-\ncided by the Supreme Court of California on August 30, 1971, was the first\nof a series of cases holding that a state's school finance system is invalid\nbecause it classifies eo cational opportunity in the public schools on the\nbasis of wealth. In California, the foundation program combines a qualifying\nlocal property tax rate, a flat grant per pupil paid by the state to all\nschool districts, and equalization aid for those districts where the school\nrevenue produced by the qualifying local property tax rate and the flat\ngrant does not equal the state foundation minimum of $355 per elementary\nstudent and $488 per high school student. Additional equalizing effect is\nprovided through supplemental programs to subsidize particularly poor school\ndistricts and also, through special areawide foundation programs in districts\nincluded in reorganization plans disapproved at an election. Any school, dis-\ntrict may raise additional revenues by further property ta: levies.\nThe court, taking note of the fact that there were substantial differ-\nences in the amount of assessed valuation per pupil, and in the level of ex-\npenditures per pupil among the school districts of the state, said that, as\na practical matter, school districts with small tax bases \"cannot levy taxes\nat a rate sufficient to produce the revenue that more affluent districts reap\nwith minimal tax efforts.' The court then went on to hold that, education\nis a \"fundamental\" interest and that, where the protection of a \"fundamental\"\ninterest is conditioned on wealth, the equal protection clause of the Four-\nteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is violated.\nWhile the deral ground of the decision has been emphasized in dis-\ncussion of the Serrano case, it should be noted that the California Supreme\nCourt held that the same considerations were governing in respect to an alle-\ngation of unconstitutionality under Article I, sections 11 and 21 of the Cal-\nifornia Constitution. The court stated that it had previously construed\nthese provisions as \"substantially the equivalent\" of the equal protection\nclause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.\nThe relief sought included a request for an order directing defendant\nstate and local finance and school officials to reallocate school funds to\nremedy the alleged invalidity of the system, and also retention of juris-\ndiction by the court so that it might provide the necessary restructuring,\nif the defendant officials and the state legislature failed to act within\na reasonable time. There was no order for relief, however, and the case\nwas remanded for a trial on the merits.\nThe decision in the Serrano case was on the pleadings; all allega-\ntions in the complaint were accepted as true for purposes of the proceedings.\nThe defendants demurred to the complaint, and it was sustained; the plain-\ntiff failed to amend the complaint, and the action was then dismissed. The\nsupreme rourt reversed the order dismissing the complaint, and remanded the\ncase to the trial court, with directions to allow defendants a reasonable\ntime within which to answer the allegations in the complaint.\nSubsequently, on October 21, 1971, the California Supreme Court issued\na modification of i 3 earlier opinion emphasizing that its decision was not\na final judgment on the merits, and pointing out for the benefit of the trial\ncourt on remand that, if after further proceedings, the trial court should\nenter final judgment determining tha the existing system of public school\nfinancing is unconstitutional and invalidating the system in whole, or in\npart, it might properly provide for the enforcement of the judgment in such\na way as to permit an orderly transition from an unconstitutional system.\nThe court also said:\nObviously, any judgment invalidating the existing system\nof public school financing should make it clear that the\nexisting system is to remain operable until an appropri-\nate new system, which is not violative of equal protec-\ntion of the laws, can be put into effect.\nThis modification was apparently intended to dispel any doubt about\nthe validity of property tax assessments for educational purposes pending\nfinal disposition of the case.\nThus far, no answer has been filed, and no date has been set for the\ntrial of the Serrano case in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The\nAttorney General of California has recently (January 1972) announced that\nhe would not seek review of the California Supreme Court's decision. Appar-\nently, this had been regarded as an alternative course of action in the pres-\nent posture of the case.\nOn October 12, 1971, the United States District Court, D. Minnesota\n3d Div. in Van Dusartz et al. V. Hatfield et al. held the Minnesota public\nschool finance system unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of\nthe Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The case was heard on\naffidavits and a motion to dismiss. The opinion follows that in the Serrano\ncase very closely. The issue as stated by the court was whether pupils in\npublicly financed elementary and secondary schools enjoy a right, under the\nequal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, to have the level\nof spending for their education unaffected by variations in the taxable\nwealth of their school district or their parents. \"Plainly put, the rule\nis that the level of spending for a child's education may not be a function\nof wealth other than the wealth of the state as a whole.\" The Minnesota pub-\nlic school finance system was substantially similar to that in California.\nThere was a qualifying tax rate supplemented by state grants to provide $404;\nin addition, every district was guaranteed a minimum grant of $141 per pupil.\nThe Minnesota financing system under challenge had actually expired at the\ntime the district court heard the case, although a new financing program had\nnot yet been enacted by the legislature. The court retained jurisdiction of\nthe case, but deferred further action until after the adjournment of the legis-\nlative session.\nVan Dusartz was one of several cases filed in the United States District\n-:-\nCourt in Minnesota. Some of them also raised questions under the constitu-\ntion and laws of Minnesota. As to these cases, the District Court denied\nthe motions to dismiss the complaints, but postponed rulings on the other\nissues presented in them. After the Minnesota legislature revised the pub-\nlic school finance system, the other cases, save one, appear to have been\ndismissed by stipulation. The e is one action still pending which, by\nway of an amended complaint, raises questions about the effect of the Minne-\nsota property classification system in relation to school finance.\nOn December 23, 1971, following a trial, a three-judge United States\nDistrict Court in San Antonio held that the Texas system of financing pub-\nlic elementary and secondary education violates the equal protection clause\nof the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The case is Rod-\nriguez et al. V. San Antonio Independent School District et al.\nThe system in Texas utilizes revenues from the Available School Fund\n(allocated on a per capita basis) and the Minimum Foundation Program, of\nwhich 20 percent is derived from the school districts of the state through\nthe Local Fund Assignment. An Economic Index 1 is used to determine each\ndistrict's share of the Local Fund Assignment. These funds may be supple-\nmented by local lovies for school purposes.\nThe cour characterized the Texas system as one which assumes that\nthe value of property within the various districts will be sufficiently\nequal to sustain comparable expenditures from one district to another. The\ncourt said: \"It makes education a function of the local property tax base.\nThe adverse effects of this erroneous assumption have been vividly demon-\nstrated at trial through the testimony and exhibits adduced by the plaintiffs. \"\n1 The accuracy of the Economic Index is involved in separate litigation, Fort\nWorth Independent School District V. Edgar.\nThe court also disposed of contentions that federal funds should be consid-\nered in appraising educational opportunity on an overall basis by citing\ndecisions holding that federal educational funds designed to meet special\nneeds in disadvantaged schools cannot be employed as a substitute for state\naid, nor can state aid be reduced in districts receiving federal \"impacted\nareas\" aid.\nThe order of the three-judge court enjoined the enforcement of the\nprovisions of the Texas Constitution and Statutes relating to the financing\nof education, and ordered the Commissioner of Education and the members of\nthe State Board of Education to reallocate funds (including funds derived\nfrom taxation of real property by school districts), available for support\nof the school system, in such a manner as not to violate the equal protec-\ntion clauses of both the Texas and Federal Constitutions. The court stayed\nthe mandate in the case for a period of two years, in order to afford the\ndefendants and the legislature an opportunity to take steps to change the\nsystem, and in the event no action is taken in this period, the court said\nit would take such step as may be necessary to implement the purpose and\nspirit of its order.\nA subsequent \"clarification\" of the court's original opinion made it\nclear that any order issued shall have prospective application only, and\nshall not become effective until the expiration of two years from December\n23, 1971; and that any order shall in no way affect the validity of school\ndistrict debts or other obligations now outstanding, or incurred within the\ntwo-year period, nor taxes levied or other sources of revenue to be used\nfor the payment of such debts or other obligations.\nFrom a procedural standpoint, the Texas case is perhaps the most sig-\nnificant of all, since it has been tried on its merits before a statutory\nthree-judge court whose decision may be appealed directly to the United\nStates Supreme Court.\nOn January 19 in Robinson et al. V. Cahill ct al., a New Jersey Su-\nperior Court jud, held, after trial, that the state's system of financing\npublic school education was unconstitutional, and in violation of both the\nNew Jersey and Federal Constitutions. The urban municipalities of Jersey\nCity, Plainfield, Paterson and East Orange were among the plaintiffs in\nthe case. In an extensive opinion which covered a number of issues, in-\ncluding the relationship between the level of expenditures and the quality\nof education, and the meaning of the education clause in the New Jersey Con-\nstitution, the court held that the present system discriminates against pu--\npils in districts with low property wealth, and against taxpayers by imposing\nunequal burdens for a common state purpose. While the present system is un-\nconstitutional, the court said the present system will be continued in effect\nuntil enjoined by the court. To allow time for legislative action, there will\nbe no injunction prior to January 1, 1974, but if a nondiscriminatory system\nof taxation is not enacted by January 1, 1973, then from after that date, no\nstate money shall be distributed for \"minimum support aid\" or for the \"save\nharmless\" p: ovisions of the present law. All funds thus set free shall be\ndistributed by state officials so as to raise guaranteed valuations under the\npresent law to the highest level that a proportionate distribution of funds\nwill permit. The court also stated that the order for judgment should in-\nclude specific provisions to assure the validity and enforceability of past\nand future acts and obligations incurred under existing laws, as long as\nthey remain operative.\nAt about the same time, a New York Supreme Court justice (trial court)\nin Westchester County dismissed the complaint in Spano V. Board of Education,\n167 New York Law Journal No. 16 (January 24, 1972) p. 21, a suit chal-\nlenging the financing of public schools in that state. The action was\nbrought by a local resident who complained that he had to pay higher pro-\nperty taxes for school support than residents in other districts of the\nstate. The court held that the complaint did not state a cause of action\nunder present United States Supreme Court rulings.\nIn declining to follow the Serrano decision, the judge indicated\nthat it was the better policy to rest his decision on current law, rather\nthan to anticipate some change or modification of earlier opinions by\nthe United States Su₁ eme Court.\nSerrano-type suits or related actions are pending, or have been\ndecided, in 20 or more jurisdictions. It is likely that the next state\nsupreme court determination will be forthcoming from Michigan. The\nsupreme court of that state has agreed to take jurisdiction of an Ing-\nham County Circuit Court suit filed by the governor, attorney general,\nstate treasurer and other officials against the Bloomfield Hills, Dearborn\nand Grosse Pointe public school systems to test the validity of public\nschool financing in Michigan. The superior court of Maricopa County, Ari-\nzona, has held that a Serrano-type complaint states a cause of action\n(Hollins et al. V. Shofstall et al., January 13, 1972); subsequently plain-\ntiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that there is no\ngenuine issue as to any of the material facts in the case.\nRelated issues in public school finance are involved in proceedings\npending or decided in several other states. These include Alabama, where a\nthree-judge United States District Court has directed the state commissioner\nof revenue to equalize the assessment of all taxable property at its full\nvalue within one year. One group of plaintiffs in this case alleged they\nwere deprived of school support funds because of underassessment of property\nfor state property tax purposes. Weissinger et al. V. Boswell, 330 F. Supp.\n615 (1971).\nIn a case pending in Alaska, the plaintiffs contend that since the\nstate of Alaska pays all the costs for some schools operated directly by\nthe state, no local school district should be required to provide any local\nfunds for public education. Real Property Taxpayers' Association Inc. V.\nState of Alasl , Docket No. 70-771, Alaska Court of Appeals.\nIn Florida, 1968 legislation included a provision known as the \"Mil-\nlage Rollback Law, which required a local L hool district to limit its ad\nvalorem taxes for school purposes to 10 mills as a condition of eligibility\nfor state aid payments. A three-judge United States District Court held the\nprovision unconstitutional (Hargrave V. Kirk, 313 F. Supp. 944), but the judg-\nment was vacated, and the case remanded by the United States Supreme Court on\nthe ground that a similar action challenging the validity of the rollback law\nunder the Florida constitution was pending in the courts of the state. Ask ew\net al. V. Hargrave et al., 401 U. S. 476 (1971).\nOn remand, the plaintiffs decided not to proceed further and the case\nwas subsequently dismissed by stipulation. Thereafter, the plaintiffs in\nthe state court case, School Board of Broward County V. Christian, decided\nnot to press the suit with the result that there has been no final adjudica-\ntion of the legality of the rollback provision.\nIn Virginia, a United States District Court judge has ordered the\nschool systems of the city of Richmond and the neighboring counties of Hen-\nrico and Chesterfield to consolidate. Bradley et al. V. School Board of the\nCity of Richmond et al., F. Supp. (January 10, 1972). While the\nprincipal issue in this case is segregation, the order has far-reaching\nfinancial implications because the court directed the State Board of\nEducation to submit a plan covering the financial operation of the com-\nbined system within 60 days, and provided for the transfer of title to\nthe newly created consolidated school board in July 1972. The court's\norder was subsequently stayed, pending an appeal to the United States\nCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\nThe Wyoming Supreme Court, in a school district consolidation\ncase, suggested legislation imposing a state-wide equalizing property.\ntax and announced it would retain jurisdiction of the proceeding until\nthe next session of the legislature. Sweetwater County Planning Commit-\ntee etc. V. Hinkle et al. 491 P. 2d 1234. However, the court subse-\nquently relinquished jurisdiction to permit the consolidation controversy\nto be resolved under isting law. A United States District Court in the\nDistrict of Columbia held, in Hobson V. Hansen, that per pupil expenditures\nin any single elementary school shall not deviate from the mean for all by\nmore than 5 percent except on the basis of adequate justification approved\nin advance by the court.\nRevision of School Finance\nThe issues involved in the Serrano-type cases have been discussed\nfor some years past in educational finance circles, and even prior to the\nSerrano decision, revisions in educational finance programs have been under\nstudy or enacted into law. The New Jersey Bateman Act which was under attack\nin Robinson V. Cahill is one example. In fact, the court strongly suggested\nthat, (the minimum support and flat grant provisions aside) if the finance\nsupport system established in the Bateman Act had been fully funded, its\ndecision might have been otherwise.\nIowa: under legislation adopted in Iowa in 1971, the foundation pro-\ngram is based on the average per pupil expenditures state-wide modified by\na growth factor. Under this new plan, the state pays the difference between\nthe yield of a 20 mill foundation property tax plus miscellaneous district\nrevenues and 70 percent of the foundation program. The state payment will\nrise one percent a year to a maximum of 80 percent of the foundation figure.\nLocally, a maximum budget for each school district is set based on the dis-\ntrict cost per pupil for the preceding year plus a growth factor. The dif-\nference between this budget (subject to the maximum budget limitation) and\nthe amounts the school district will receive from the 20 mill foundation\ntax, miscellaneous income and foundation aid, is the amount to be raised by\nan additional property tax (subject to the district's maximum millage). A\nschool district may exceed its maximum budget only if the voters elect to\nraise the additional revenue needed by a school district income tax. The\nuse of the property tax in financing school expenditures is thus restricted.\nMinnesota: post-Van Dusartz legislation set a standard per pupil\ncost for the state foundation program. Weighting factors are prescribed\nto adapt th S standard to different school grades and exceptional re-\nquirements. The state pays the difference between the yield of a quali-\nfying tax rate and the foundation program. Any district may increase ex-\npenditures (within existing rate ceilings) by 6 percent over the previous\nyear, and increases in excess of 6 percent may be authorized by the commis-\nsioner of education. Excess levies not authorized by the commissioner are\npenalized by a loss of 50¢ in state aid for each additional $1.00 of pro-\nperty tax levied. Further adoption or broadening of sales or income\ntaxes by local governments was prohibited by other legislation. After\nthe enactment of the new school finance program, all but one of the suits\nstill pending after the Van Dusartz decision were dismissed presumably\nbecause the new plan assures the funding of the basic program regardless\nof district property tax resources.\nAlabama: the legislature has proposed a constitutional amendment to\nauthorize classification of property for state and local property tax pur-\nposes, and has enacted legislation providing for the reappraisal of pro-\nperty in all counties of the state. This action is in partial response to\na federal court order, requiring the commissioner of revenue to equalize\nall property tax assessments at full value within one year. The federal\ncourt case was primarily concerned with the matter of unequal and discrimi-\nnatory property tax assessments, but school finances were also involved, be-\ncause the yield of the state property tax was adversely affected by the low\ncounty assessment levels.\nProposals for revisions in school finance systems have been intro-\nduced in a number of the 1972 legislatures, but it is not unlikely that ma-\njor action in many states will await clarification of the constitutional is-\nsues involved in the Serrano case. Special study commissions have been es-\ntablished in some states and reports have already been issued by a few estab-\nlished in prior years. The President's Commission on School Finance has also\nsubmitted its report.\nStudy Commission Proposals\nNew York: in the three chapters of its proposed report which have\nbeen published to date, the New York State Commission on the Quality Cost\nand Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education (the Fleischmann Commis-\nsion) has recommended full state funding of education cost, that is, that\nthe state take over the raising and distribution of all non-federal funds for\npublic schools. Educational expenditures would be \"leveled up\" to the per\npupil expenditure figure of the school district at the 65th percentile\n(approximately $1,037) within three years. Expenditures of higher spending\ndistricts would be frozen until expenditures in other districts had caught\nup with them. The freeze would also act as a \"save harmless\" provision\nwith expenditures in excess of the property tax yield paid from state reve-\nnues. Exceptional requirements for children with learning difficulties\nwould be subject to weighting factors. The property tax would be retained as\na state-wide levy to produce about the same amount of revenue presently\nraised locally. A state tax rate of $2.04 per $100 would be made effective\nover a five-year period, during which local property tax rates would be raised\nor lowered 20 percent a year to arrive at the $2.04 standard. The Commission\nalso recommended that low income families paying more than 10 percent of in-\ncome in property taxes be permitted to credit the excess against the state\nincome tax. Renters would be entitled to a similar credit to the extent that\n25 percent of rental payments exceeds 10 percent of income. Local options\nfor supplementary school levies would be prohibited. Funds in excess of those\nproduced by the $2.04 tax levy would come from general state sources. It was\nestimated by the Commission that increases in costs of its program if enacted\nin 1972-73 would be $125 million for \"leveling up\" to the 65th percentile,\n$465 million for weighting factors for children with learning difficulties\nand $125 million for property tax relief credits. The Commission also advo-\ncated federal assistance for public education at a level equal to 25-30 per-\ncent of total cost, compared with a current level of about 7 percent nation-\nwide and 4 percent in New York.\nNew Jersey: the Governor's Tax Policy Committee report in New Jersey\nincluded several recommendations on public school finance in its combination\npackage for the restructuring of the state's tax system. The Committee\nrecommended state fundin of substantially the full cost of public schools.\nLocal property taxes as a source of school support would be eliminated, ex-\ncept for debt service and specially voted taxes for expenditures in excess\nof the state funded program. A state-wide property tax of $1.00 per $100\nof equalized value would be levied. School districts now spending more\nmoney than what would be provided at the state support level would be per-\nmitted to maintain present levels of expenditure. Local referendum approval\nwould be required for any districts seeking initially to increase spending\nabove state support levels. The basic expense cost per pupil would be de-\ntermined annually by the commissioner of education. This cost could not for\nany year exceed a cost per pupil greater than 120 percent of the weighted\naverage expenditure by all school districts in the preceding year. Each\nschool district would be entitled to a distribution of its costs on a\nweighted per pupil basis after taking into account basic inherent regional\ncost differences. Local \"leeway\" expenditures, that is, expenditures in ex-\ncess of the per pupil expenditures certified by the commissioner of education,\nwould be financed on a cost-sharing basis to achieve equalization. The state\nwould provide a district of average wealth with 50 percent of the cost of its\nlocal leeway expenditures. For districts of greater or less wealth, the\nstate's share would vary inversely with the district's wealth per pupil. How-\never, the state would not share in any cost per pupil exceeding 133 percent\nof the current state certified program for the district, and the commissioner\nof education would be authorized to prohibit >>penditures above that level.\nLocal property taxes for school purposes in New Jersey amount to about\n$1.2 billion. At a $1.00 state rate, 519 districts would have tax reductions\ntotaling $561.3 million and 48 districts would have increases totaling $9 mil-\nlion. The substitution of the $1.00 state levy for local property taxes for\nschool purposes would thus require about $555 million in replacement revenue.\nAltogether about $600 million in non-property tax revenue would be needed to\nsupport the proposed educational finance program in 1972-73.\nMaryland: the Citizens Commission on Maryland Government, Incorpor-\nated has. issued a report which finds that the present state-aid formula\nbased on local property and income permits substantial disparities in local\nschool expenditures. The Commission recommended full state funding and the\nelimination of all per pupil disparities to be phased out over a three-year\nperiod so as to establish an equal per pupil expenditure in each of the\nstate's school districts at a level equal to that of the highest spending\ndistrict in 1970-71. A suit, Parker V. Mandel, challenging Maryland's school\nfinance system is pending in the United States District Court for the Dis-\ntrict of Marylar!.\nMassachusetts: prior tc the Serrano decision, the Special Commission\nto Develop a Master Tax Plan had recommended that the Commonwealth assume a\nmajor portion of all local government costs including education. The program\nwould be financed by a state-wide property tax which would replace some cur-\nrent local levies. The Commission also recommended that a ceiling be im-\nposed on the proportion of property taxes to total taxes raised by the Com-\nmonwealth of Massachusetts and its local governments. Timilty V. Sargent et\nal., a Serrano-type class action challenging the educational finance system\nin Massachusetts, is pending in the United States District Court for the Dis-\ntrict of Massachusetts.\nMichigan: the governor of Michigan and several state officials have\njoined as plaintiffs in an action against several Michigan school districts\n-16-\nto challenge the educational finance system in that state (Milliken\net al. V. Bloomfield Hills School District et al.). At the petition\nof the governor and other plaintiffs, the state supreme court has acted\nto expedite a hearing on the constitutional questions. At the same\ntime, the governor began a drive to place an education and property tax\nreform constitutional amendment on the ballot in 1972. The amendment\nproposed calls for the elimination of the property tax for school oper-\nating purposes plus a reduction in the overall mill limit.\nThe amendment would be a mandate to the legislature to replace\nlocal school property taxes with general state taxes, and to distribute\nfunds so as to assure an equal and quality education for all students.\nThe legislature would be authorized to enact a state-wide property tax\non business property for school operating purposes, if other replacement\nproposals fail of enaciment.\nOregon: the governor has announced that he will propose a plan\nto provide state financing of public school costs to be financed by\na state-wide property tax and increases in personal and corporation\nincome taxes. No further details on the proposal are available at this\ntime. The Oregon perintendent of public instruction has issued a re-\nport \"A Statement on School Finance in Oregon, \" in which he discusses\nseveral alternative school finance proposals. One is to provide 100\npercent state support financed by a state-wide property tax with a\ncombination of other revenues (similar to the governor's proposal);\nanother is to discontinue the use of the property tax as a source of\nrevenue for local school operations, and a third is to establish a\nsingle state-wide educational finance district. This last mentioned\nproposal is an expanded version of the plan in the Mann-Eymann bill in\nthe 1971 legislative session in Oregon.\nOther states where special study commissions are reviewing school\nfinance problems include: Arizona; California, where the Board of Equali-\nzation has ronewed its earlier recommendation for a state-wide property tax\nfor school support; also, an implementing constitutional amendment to author-\nize equalization adjustments based on the Board's findings on local assess-\nment levels; Florida; Illinois, where the governor is serving as chairman\nof the commission; Kansas; Texas; Washington and Wisconsin.\nPresident's Commission on School Finance: the major financial rec-\nommendation in the President's Commission report is that, the states assume\nsubstantially full responsibility for public school costs within a five-year\ntransitional period. To aid the states in assuming this responsibility, the\nCommission suggested incentive payments inv lving additional federal funds\nof from $4.6 to $7.8 billion, depending on which of several alternative plans\nwas adopted. These payments would be one-shot affairs designed to assist the\nstates in the transitional period. The Commission's report strongly empha-\nsized the point that education was basically a responsibility of the states,\nand did not comment on recent proposals for replacement of substantial amounts\nof local property taxes for schools by new federal revenues.\nThe President's Request to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental\nRelations: on January 20, 1972 the President requested ACIR to examine the\nimpact on intergovernmental relations of a tax reform proposal, which would\nreplace residential school property taxes with a federal value added tax; to\nexamine whether a federal value added tax is the best substitute for residen-\ntial school property taxes; how the regressive effects of a value added tax\nmight be mitigated; how renter relief might be achieved under a proposal\nwhich replaces residential school property taxes, and the best means of in-\nsuring local autonomy for schools under a system of school finance in which\nthe states have primary financing responsibility.\nFor discussion purposes a value added tax at a rate somewhere between\n2 and 3 percent with a yield, depending on the exact rate and coverage, of\nabout $15 billion has been assumed. Of this total, perhaps $3 billion might\nbe subject. to tax credits to mitigate the regressiveness of the value added\ntax, leaving $12 billion available for distribution to the states to replace\nresidential property taxes levied for the support of public schools.\nIn connection with the President's request, the dvisory Commission\nhas also directed its staff to study whether public schools can be adequately\nfinanced from existing state and local revenue sources, and also various as-\npects of the property tax as a major revenue source.\nSome Tentative Comments\nWhile the Secrano and other decisions may have come as a surprise to\nmany, the basic fact that substantial reliance on district property taxes\nproduces inequities in educational opportunity and the distribution of educa-\ntional costs has long been recognized. So, regardless of the ultimate deci-\nsion on the constitutional issue, it seems to be a practical certainty that\nthese cases will serve as catalysts for the revision of educational finance\nprograms. It is also likely that these changes will not take place overnight.\nIn spite of the great amount of discussion which the cases have prompted, it\nis probable that in many jurisdictions major cha: ges will await the final de-\ntermination of the constitutional issues invol ed, with whatever guidelines\nmight be provided in the process.\nIt also remains to be seen whether the United States Supreme Court will\nadopt the \"fundamental\" interest interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment\nas applied to education in the Serrano, Van Dusartz and Rodriguez cases. It\nhas been noted that there is presently no United States Supreme Court case\ndirectly in point. The California Supreme Court distinguished earlier (but\nvery recont) educational finance cases where the United States Supreme Court\nhad affirmed dismissal of the complaints. 2 The basis of the distinction was\nthat the issue in Serrano was different from that involved in the earlier\ncases, but as the opinion in Spano V. Board of Education points out in some\ndetail, the record in the McInnis and Burruss cases made it \"abundantly clear\nthat the United States Supreme Court was more than adequately alerted that\nthe issues to be reviewed were neither mundane nor insignificant.\nIt might also be noted that even if the Serrano principle is not sus-\ntained on federal constitutional grounds, it might be upheld under comparable\nstate constitutional provisions or by interpretation of the education clause\nof a state constitution, for example, as in Robinson V. Cahill.\nSerrano and similar cases raise other points which merit careful con-\nsideration. One is the extent to which governmental services related, for\nexample, to welfare, public safety or public health, might be judicially char-\nacterized as involving \"fundamental\" interests within the meaning of the Ser-\nrano principle, so that the extent and quality of service provided cannot be\nmade a function of district wealth. This is an issue with significant impli-\ncations for state-local relationships everywhere. Consideration of this issue,\nwhich some officials appear to regard as tantamount to opening a Pandora's box\nof fiscal problem would be avoided to the extent that questions involving\neducational opportunity and financing are decided by reference to specific\n2\nMcInnis V. Shapiro, 293 F. Supp. 327 (N. D. Ill. 1968), aff'd memo sub nom.\nMcInnis V. Ogilvie, 394 U. S. 322 (1969); Burruss V. Wilkerson, 310 F. Supp.\n572 ( W. D. Va. 1969), aff'd memo 397 U. S. 44 (1970).\neducation clauses in state constitutions.\nAnother point to be considered in connection with Serrano is the ex-\ntent to which it may involve the courts in many intricate questions of edu-\ncation policy associated with financing programs. It has been suggested\nthat Serrano is much preferable from a judicial standpoint to McInnis or\nBurruss, because it does not require judicial intrusion into education policy\nand finance questions, but rather only a simple declaration that the system\nis valid or invalid by reference to constitutional standards. The assump-\ntion seems to be that the courts will at most lay down broad guidelines and\nthus afford states and local governments wide latitude in formulating educa-\ntional finance programs that fall within those guidelines. There is much to\nbe said for this approach. The difficulty is, though, whether the line can\nbe drawn at that point once the fundamental test of the equal protection\nclause becomes the formal standard for the adjudication of controversies in\nthis area.\nRecent state legislation and reports of study commissions indicate\nthat some extremely important and very practical problems, both transitional\nand permanent, are involved in the equalization of educational opportunity\nand the distribution of educational costs. The nature and variety of these\nproblems suggest that local solutions, based on local needs, conditions and\ntraditions, may in the long run be more conducive to improvement in educa-\ntional achievements than any approach that might turn out to be based on na-\ntional, judicially prescribed standards, assuming of course, in any event, the\nelimination of the systematic and substantial disparities so common where edu-\ncational opportunity is a function of district property tax resources.\nAmong the practical problems that face state and local officials in\nthe equalization of educational opportunity are: determination of the criteria\nby reference to which adequate support levels are established, including\nthe hotly debated relationship between the level of expenditures and educa-\ntional achievement; provision for special expenditures for disadvantaged\npupils, the definition and needs of which may vary greatly even among school\ndistricts in the same state; devising a leveling up program which does not\nalso entail some leveling down; the allowance within limits and without pen-\nalty of some flexibility of choice in the matter of expenditures in excess\nof the support standard or even in excess of a \"save harmless\" budget of a\nprevious year, so as not to stifle experimentation and innovation; and last,\nbut by no means least, the details of the financing required, which in some.\ncases may mean sul stantial shifts in tax burdens.\nA Note on the Property Tax\nLocal property taxes account for a major proportion of public school\nrevenues -- approximately $23-24 billion out of a total of about $45 billion\nin state and local funds. Dospite some early fears to the contrary, there\nis nothing in any of the recently decided school finance cases to indicate\nthat the property tax has to be al andoned as a source of school revenue. Pro-\nvided that the educational finance system is not so structured that educational\nopportunity is a function of district tax resources, the property tax may be\nutilized as a revenue source on the same scale as presently, or on a greater\nor lesser scale as each state may elect. Even at the district level, there\nwould be no objection to the use of a qualifying property tax rate utilized as\none element of a state support program so structured that differences in dis-\ntrict property tax resources did not in fact result in marked disparities in\neducational opportunity among those districts.\nIn view of the substantial amount of public school revenues derived from\n-22-\nproperty taxes, it is a fair assumption that in most states the property tax\nwill continue to have an important role in school finance. One way to avoid\nthe district disparity objection is to levy a state-wide property tax for\nschool support purposes, and either prohibit or restrict locally levied school\nproperty taxes. Almost without exception, post-Serrano discussions about the\nrevision of state-local school finance systems have mentioned the possibility\nof a state-wide property tax as a major element in the new system. In two\nstate reports just issued, the Fleischmann Commission in New York and the Gov-\nernor's Tax Policy Committee in New Jersey, a state-wide property tax has\nbeen officially recommended as an element in the new educational finance pro-\ngrams proposed. The likelihood of similar recommendations in other states\nprompts a few c ments on the subject of a new state-wide property tax.\nIn many states the reinstatement of a state property tax will be a\npractically new venture and a number of legal and administrative problems\nmay be involved in the process.\nIn some states a constitutional amendment would be required to author-\nize a state property tax for state purposes. Even where a state property\ntax is permitted, it would be desirable to provide specific constitutional\nauthority for legislative action permitting the appropriate administrative\nagency to adjust the state tax rate inversely to the assessment level pre-\nvailing on local districts. 3 This method may be preferable to the more cum-\nbersome process of raising or lowering local assessment rolls. It would also\nbe desirable to permit the administrative agency to raise or lower the assess-\nment level on state-assessed property allocated to local assessment districts\nso that the adjusted state tax rate will apply to state-assessed property in\n3\nThis point and the one following are analyzed in a memorandum prepared by the\nDivision of Property Taxes, California State Board of Equalization.\nthe same manner as to locally-assessed property in that district. This\nprocedure, too, might require specific constitutional sanction.\nAnother series of questions arise in connection with the adminis-\ntrative organization and facilities available at the state level. Is there\na state agency authorized to supervise the administration of the property\ntax by local assessors and to determine the assessment levels prevailing in\nlocal assessment districts? If there is such an agency, are its statutory\npowers adequate to do the job? Is the agency staffed to do the job? It\nmight be noted in this connection that both the Fleischmann Commission (New\nYork) and the Governor's Tax Policy Committee (No./ Jersey) recommended the\nstrengthening of property tax supervisory functions in their respective states.\nDespite many st tements to the contrary, the fact is that property\ntax administration has improved significantly in the last i o ades, al-\nthough progress along these lines has been uneven among the states. Also,\nfor purposes of grant distribution programs, it has been possible in some\nstates to make adminis' rative adjustments in the formula to take account of\ndifferences in assessment levels, particularly where no state assessed pro-\nperty need be taken into consideration. This avoids the necessity of making\nadjustments in the assessment rolls, either in the aggregate or by classes\nof property. Under these circumstances, there may be no incentive to main-\ntain an effective equalization program. Where a state property tax is in-\nvolved however, direct equalizing action is required. Either the assessment\nrolls must be equalized or the state agency must adjust the state tax rate\ninversely to the local deviation from the prescribed assessment standard.\nIn order to achieve that objective, it is likely that in a number of states,\nthe machinery for supervising the administration of the property tax must\n4\nbe reinforced and in some cases revitalized.\nPractically everywhere, the adoption of a state property tax will\nbe considered in the context of widespread or what is generally assumed\nto be widespread dissatisfaction with the property tax as a major revenue\nsource of state and local government.\nIf the state-wide property tax is designed to produce about the same\namount of revenue previously raised by local property taxes for educational\npurposes, there may be a considerable shift in the property tax payments\namong local districts in those states, perhaps most, where there is pres-\nently a wide range in nomimal property tax rates. The shock of this change\nmay be dampened by transitional provisions.\nThis shift will be compounded (possibly, under some circumstances,\ntempered) where there are substantial intradistrict differences in assess-\nment levels, and also, where there are interdistrict differences in assess-\nment levels. When this is the situation, the implementation of a state pro-\nparty tax will require an administrative operation of considerable magnitude\nand complexity, including, in many cases, extensive reappraisal work. Any\nserious political objection to the tax shifts involved would constitute a\nfurther complicating factor.\nThese side effects of the inauguz tion of a state property tax may\nwell prompt a drive for the adoption of a classified property tax, particu-\nlarly in re pect to residential property or owner-occupied residential pro-\nperty plus agricultural land. The adoption of such a program might mitigate\nthe shift in tax burdens for owners of properties favorably classified, but\n4\nFor an excellent series of recommendations for the improvement of the admin-\nistration of the property tax to this end, see The Role of the States in\nStrengthening Property Tax Administration, by the Advisory Commission on\nIntergovernmental Relations, Washington, D. C. 20575.\nit would add another set of complications on the administrative side.\nLegislative consideration of property tax problems pre-dating the Serrano\ncase plus these recent developments suggest that classification of real\nproperty for ad valoren: tax purposes probably has more appeal today than\nit has had for some years past.\nSchool- Financing\nGOVERNOR REAGAN'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION\nTion\nBudget\nBudget*\nIncrease in\n% Increase of\nYear 1966-67\nYear 1972-73 (Est)\nSix Years\nEnrollment in Six Yrs.\n$--UP $204.4\nState Colleges\n$167.7\n$372.1\nMillion\nUP 78.4%\n(Universities)\nMillion\nMillion\n%--UP 121.9%\n$--UP $143.2\nJunior Colleges\n$ 71.2\n$214.4++\nMillion\nUP 82.1 %\nMillion\nMillion\n%--UP 201.1%\n$--UP $136\nU. C. System\n$240.1\n$376.5**\nMillion\nUP 35.4%\nMillion\nMillion\n%--UP 56.8%\n$--UP $23.5\nMillion\nState Student\n$ 4.7\n$ 28.2\n----\nScholarships &\nMillion\nMillion\n%--UP 500%\nLoans\n$--UP $645\nState Funds+ for\n$1.232\n$1.877\nMillion\nPublic Schools\nUp 12.7%\nBillion\nBillion\n(K-14)\n%--UP 52.4%\n*All figures as budgeted in 1972-73 Governor's budget; subject to revision by legislative action &\nperiodic re-estimates of enrollment growth, etc.\n**U.C. and State Colleges include operational budget plus proposed faculty salary increase for 72-73.\n***72-73 FTE or ADA enrollment compared to 66-67.\n+Total school subventions includes textbooks, teacher retirement funds, special programs, etc. Total\nof NEW school funds supplied by State since 1967 is an annual net increase of $560 million.\n++Does not include the Community College share of $42 million Teacher's Retirement or $65 million in\nnew aid.\nRevised 1/12/72\nEnrollment\n1966-67\n1972-73\n%\nActual\nEstimated\nIncrease\nPublic Schools (K-12) ADA\n4,394,961\n4,715,037\n7.2%\nPublic Schools (13-14 Community\nColleges) (ADA)\n341,985\n622,973\n82.1%\nTotal K-14 (ADA)\n4,736,946\n5,338,010\n12.6%\nState Colleges\n130,468 FTE\n232,700 FTE\n78.4%\nUniversity of California\n79,293 FTE\n107,346 FTE\n35.4%\nJanuary 18, 1972\nEdine\nBACKGROUND PAPER PREPARED BY GOVERNOR'S STAFF FOR THE GOVERNOR\nNEA \"STATISTICS\"--\nAdding Apples and Oranges?\nSome confusion has been created by a National Education Association\nreport* purporting to show that California's contribution to public schools\nhas \"slipped\" to 31st in the nation.\nHere\nAttached is some material pointing out the background of this matter.\nBasically, from the \"estimates\" and other information listed about this\nlatest NEA report and \"rankings\", it appears that they may have committed\nthe cardinal mathematical sin: adding apples and oranges and subtracting\ngrapefruit.\nTheir statistics are incomplete (in some states certain items of educa-\ntional support are included and these same items are ommitted in the table\nfor California). This makes an accurate comparison impossible.\nBut this is the. essential point:\nBy some miracle of mathematics, California manages to pay virtually\nthe highest teacher salaries in the nation (3rd according to the latest\nNEA \"rankings\"), educates more of its school age population in public school\nthan any other major state, provides more total state support than ever\nbefore, yet annually finds itself accused of \"slipping\" in the amount of\nits aid to public schools.\nHere are some factual figures:\n--In 1972-73, California has budgeted $1.877 billion for public schools\n(K-14). This is about $645 million MORE in annual support for public\nschools than the $1.232 billion the State provided in 1966-67, the final\nyear of the prior administration.\n-Since 1967, the State has provided new money for schools four times total\ning an annual NET INCREASE of $560 million for the support of local schools\nYet the enrollment increased only 11.5 per cent between 1967 and 1971.\n--This year's state budget includes roughly $222 million more money for\nschools, including $135 million a year in teacher retirement funds (which\napparently was not attributed to California by the NEA).\n--The State is putting in $65 million in 1972-73 of new money over and above\nthe existing formulas.\nPoints on NEA education \"statistics\":\n--It is impossible to make a definitive comparison between California and\nother states' contribution to education based on. the NEA statistics. Their\nrecent \"rankings\" of the states have not been based on actual financial\ndata from the State, but instead are based on NEA \"estimates\" or \"trends\".\n*The NEA publication coincided with that organizations efforts to have the\nfederal government provide more funds for education.\n2\nEach state also has a different school financing structure and may or may\nnot include the same items in computing total school aid.\n--The validity of the NEA statistics and \"rankings\" have been a matter of\nsome dispute for several years. Several states, including California, have\nsought to encourage the NEA to use precise figures and for uniformity, to\ncount the same contributions in each state for more accurate comparability.\n--A Finance Department analysis of a 1969 NEA report sent to the California\nAssociation of School Administrators includes these comments:\n\"It is my observation that any of the tables reporting to rank the states\nin order of expenditures are totally unreliable, as related to state and\nlocal expenditures. The National Education Association picks up their\nexpenditure figures from a variety of sources\nThere is no uniformity in treatment among the states of most classification\naccrual versus cash accounting, program definitions, reporting of state\nexpenditures, reporting or lack thereof of local expenditures, assignment\nof overhead costs or lack thereof, inclusion or exclusion of state-run\nschools, inclusion or exclusion of bond interest and redemption, defini-\ntion of expenditures in connection of bond interest, and so forth among\nthe 50 states. These are but a few of the major problems and we know\nthere are many others.\nIt is suggested that you and your organization give serious consideration\ntoward exerting your influence through the National Education Association\nto make this research document a meaningful publication. The publication\nhas a wide readership and is attributed a validity that it does not possess\nEven the news media accepts its findings at face value.\"\n--The NEA report \"estimates that California will spend $835 per pupil dur-\ning the current school year\". But this is only for what is labeled \"cur-\nrent expense of education\" in the accounting procedures. Unfortunately,\nthe manner in which it is presented carries a strong implication that this\nis the total cost of education, which it is not. In some states, it may\nrepresent the total cost, and in others, such as California, it does not.\nIn California the total cost can be estimated at slightly more than $1,000\ndepending what is included. How wrong is NEA in other states as well?\n--As reported in newspapers, NEA ranked California 22nd in expenditures\nfor 1969-70..' If this were the case, it is also worth noting that the Educa\ntion Commission of the States reported that California was third in per\ncapita state and local tax burden for that same period. Last year's NEA\nRankings noted that California was third as well in the percentage increase\nof public high school graduates in the five-year period ending in 1969-70.\nWhatever else the NEA rankings of expenditures measure, they apparently\ndo not account for either the input from the taxpayers on one hand or the\noutput of the educational process on the other.\n--New York State, for example, lists in its 1971-72 budget some $2.306 bil-\nlion in general state support for public schools. But that amount included\n$214.3 million for school building aid\n20.0 million for textbooks\n23.0 million for an item entitled \"high tax aid\"\nFor the same year, California budgeted $1,522.8 million for public schools\n(K-12). But that figure did not include such monies as state contributions\nfor teacher retirement ($135 million in 1972-73), construction funds, debt\nservice ($65 million in 1972-73), or the $344 million the State spent for\nongoing tax relief programs, including $235 million for homeowner property\ntax relief and $8.6. million for senior citizens tax relief. The money\nCalifornia earmarks for homeowner tax relief may be comparable to New York's\n\"high tax aid\" category.\nIf all those missing components were added, California's per pupil expendi-\nture would probably go up at least $100 more per pupil or even more if\nstate property tax relief financed is included.\n--According to the NEA, New York will spend roughly $1,468 per pupil compare\nto $835 they list for California. If these figures were accepted, Californi\nwould have to spend $633 more per pupil for the estimated 4,657,440 students\nin K-12 during 1972-73 to match New York. That would amount to some $2.9\nbillion more dollars. Yet even using NEA statistics, New York is spending\nonly $1 billion more for school aid. Something obviously is missing from\ntheir figures.\nEducation\nSchool Financing\nNEA \"STATISTICS\"-\nAdding Apples and Oranges?\nSome confusion has been created by a National Education Association\nreport* purporting to show that California's contribution to public schools\nhas \"slipped\" to 31st in the nation.\nAttached is some material pointing out the background of this matter.\nBasically, from the \"estimates\" and other information listed about this\nlatest NEA report and \"rankings\", it appears that they may have committed\nthe cardinal mathematical sin: adding apples and oranges and subtracting\ngrapefruit.\nTheir statistics are incomplete (in some states certain items of educa-\ntional support are included and these same items are ommitted in the table\nfor California). This makes an accurate comparison impossible.\nBut this is the essential point:\nBy some miracle of mathematics, California manages to pay virtually\nthe highest teacher salaries in the nation (3rd according to the latest\nNEA \"rankings\"), educates more of its school age population in public schools\nthan any other major state, provides more total state support than ever\nbefore, yet annually finds itself accused of \"slipping\" in the amount of\nits aid to public schools.\nHere are some factual figures:\n--In 1972-73, California has budgeted $1.877 billion for public schools\n(K-14). This is about $645 million MORE in annual support for public\nschools than the $1.232 billion the State provided in 1966-67, the final\nyear of the prior administration.\n--Since 1967, the State has provided new money for schools four times total-\ning an annual NET INCREASE of $560 million for the support of local schools.\nYet the enrollment increased only 11.5 per cent between 1967 and 1971.\n--This year's state budget includes roughly $222 million more money for\nschools, including $135 million a year in teacher retirement funds (which\napparently was not attributed to California by the NEA).\n--The State is putting in $65 million in 1972-73 of new money over and above\nthe existing formulas.\nPoints on NEA education \"statistics\":\n--It is impossible to make a definitive comparison between California and\nother states' contribution to education based on the NEA statistics. Their\nrecent \"rankings\" of the states have not been based on actual financial\ndata from the State, but instead are based on NEA \"estimates\" or \"trends\".\n*The NEA publication coincided with that organizations efforts to have the\nfederal government provide more funds for education.\n2\nEach state also has a different school financing structure and may or may\nnot include the same items in computing total school aid.\n--The validity of the NEA statistics and \"rankings\" have been a matter of\nsome dispute for several years. Several states, including California, have\nsought to encourage the NEA to use precise figures and for uniformity, to\ncount the same contributions in each state for more accurate comparability.\n-A Finance Department analysis of a 1969 NEA report sent to the California\nAssociation of School Administrators includes these comments:\n\"It is my observation that any of the tables reporting to rank the states\nin order of expenditures are totally unreliable, as related to state and\nlocal expenditures. The National Education Association picks up their\nexpenditure figures from a variety of sources\nThere is no uniformity in treatment among the states of most classifications,\naccrual versus cash accounting, program definitions, reporting of state\nexpenditures, reporting or lack thereof of local expenditures, assignment\nof overhead costs or lack thereof, inclusion or exclusion of state-run\nschools, inclusion or exclusion of bond interest and redemption, defini-\ntion of expenditures in connection of bond interest, and so forth among\nthe 50 states. These are but a few of the major problems and we know\nthere are many others.\nIt is suggested that you and your organization give serious consideration\ntoward exerting your influence through the National Education Association\nto make this research document a meaningful publication. The publication\nhas a wide readership and is attributed a validity that it does not possess.\nEven the news media accepts its findings at face value.\"\n--The NEA report \"estimates that California will spend $835 per pupil dur-\ning the current school year\". But this is only for what is labeled \"cur-\nrent expense of education\" in the accounting procedures. Unfortunately,\nthe manner in which it is presented carries a strong implication that this\nis the total cost of education, which it is not. In some states, it may\nrepresent the total cost, and in others, such as California, it does not.\nIn California the total cost can be estimated at slightly more than $1,000\ndepending what is included. How wrong is NEA in other states as well?\n--As reported in newspapers, NEA ranked California 22nd in expenditures\nfor 1969-70.' If this were the case, it is also worth noting that the Educa-\ntion Commission of the States reported that California was third in per\ncapita state and local tax burden for that same period. Last year's NEA\nRankings noted that California was third as well in the percentage increase\nof public high school graduates in the five-year period ending in 1969-70.\nWhatever else the NEA rankings of expenditures measure, they apparently\ndo not account for either the input from the taxpayers on one hand or the\noutput of the educational process on the other.\n--New York State, for example, lists in its 1971-72 budget some $2.306 bil-\nlion in general state support for public schools. But that amount included:\n3\n$214.3 million for school building aid\n20.0 million for textbooks\n23.0 million for an item entitled \"high tax aid\"\nFor the same year, California budgeted $1,522.8 million for public schools\n(K-12). But that figure did not include such monies as state contributions\nfor teacher retirement ($135 million in 1972-73), construction funds, debt\nservice ($65 million in 1972-73), or the $344 million the State spent for\nongoing tax relief programs, including $235 million for homeowner property\ntax relief and $8.6. million for senior citizens tax relief. The money\nCalifornia earmarks for homeowner tax relief may be comparable to New York's\n\"high tax aid\" category.\nIf all those missing components were added, California's per pupil expendi-\nture would probably go up at least $100 more per pupil or even more if\nstate property tax relief financed is included.\n--According to the NEA, New York will spend roughly $1,468 per pupil compared\nto $835 they list for California. If these figures were accepted, California\nwould have to spend $633 more per pupil for the estimated 4,657,440 students\nin K-12 during 1972-73 to match New York. That would amount to some $2.9\nbillion more dollars. Yet even using NEA statistics, New York is spending\nonly $1 billion more for school aid. Something obviously is missing from\ntheir figures.\n1/72\nAUGUST 30, 1971\nFranking\nSTATEMENT OF HOUSTON I. FLOURNOY, STATE CONTROLLER, RELATIVE TO THE CALIFORNIA\nSUPREME COURT DECISION HOLDING CALIFORNIA'S SCHOOL FINANCING SYSTEM UNCONSTITUTIONAL:\nAlthough I have not had an opportunity to read the 63 page text of today's\ndecision by the State Supreme Court, it would appear that this historic decision\ncould result in increased educational opportunity for the majority of California's\nschool children and could benefit the great majority of property taxpayers in the\nState.\nFor many years, I have fought to equalize the burden of financing our schools\nand lessen the dependence of education opportunity upon the value of property in a\nschool district. Currently, one dollar of tax rate in Beverly Hills raises ten\ntimes the dollars for schools as one dollar of tax rate in West Covina. It is\nunjust to ask homeowners to pay heavy property taxes for schools when islands of\nwealth in the state escape with a relatively light burden.\nIf this decision is ultimately applied and withstands appeal, I assume it will\nforce the adoption of a uniform statewide property tax for schools to replace the\npresent system with its wide variation as to tax rates. Further, it will\nprobably result in some shifting of the costs of school finance from the local to\nthe state level. I believe the average homeowner would definitely benefit if these reform\nare enacted into law.\ncame School Known\nFor Further Information\nCall Winifred L. Hepperle\nSerrano V. Priest\n(415) 557-2326\nFOR SIMULTANEOUS RELEASE:\nON MONDAY, AUGUST 30 at 11:00 a.m.\nIN SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES\nAND SACRAMENTO\nNEWS RELEASE # 111\nCALIFORNIA SCHOOL FINANCING SYSTEM HELD\nUNCONSTITUTIONAL BY SUPREME COURT\nThe California Supreme Court today held that the public school\nfinancing system is unconstitutional because it discriminates against\nthe poor.\nThe 6-1 opinion written by Justice Raymond L. Sullivan states\nthat the educational funding scheme \"makes the quality of a child's edu-\ncation a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors. Recogniz-\ning as we must that the right to an education in our public schools is\na fundamental interest which cannot be conditioned on wealth, we can\ndiscern no compelling state purpose necessitating the present method\nof financing. We have concluded, therefore, that such a system cannot\nwithstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the equal pro-\ntection clause.\"\nThe Legislature, under authority of the State Constitution,\npresently authorizes local governing bodies to levy real property taxes\nfor educational needs. This dependence on local real property taxes\nwas pinpointed by the Court as the root of the constitutional defect\nin the educational financing system. About 56 percent of school funds\nderive from property taxes, 35 percent from State aid and the remainder\nfrom federal and other sources. Thus, the Court notes, the amount a\nschool district can spend depends largely on its tax base, that is, the\nassessed value of real property within its borders. These tax bases\nvary widely throughout the state, ranging from a low of $103 per child\nto a peak of $952,156--a ratio of nearly 1 to 10,000.\n\"Although the amount of money raised locally is also a func-\ntion of the rate at which the residents of a district are willing to\ntax themselves, as a practical matter districts with small tax bases\nsimply cannot levy taxes at a rate sufficient to produce the revenue\nthat more affluent districts reap with minimal tax efforts,\" the Court\ndeclared. Thus, affluent districts can have their cake and eat it too:\nthey can provide a high quality education for their children while pay-\ning lower taxes. Poor districts by contrast, have no cake at all. If\nThe Court found that although distributions of state funds\npartially alleviates these disparities there are still wide differentials\nin per pupil expenditures among various school districts. These varia-\ntions, the Court ruled, violate the equal protection clause of the Four-\nteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.\nThe 63-page decision contains an extensive analysis of the\nrole education plays in modern society. The Court stated, \"We are con-\nvinced that the distinctive and priceless function of education in our\nsociety warrants, indeed compels, our treating it as a 'fundamental in-\nterest. 111 In this context the Court referred to previous U.S. Supreme\nCourt decisions invalidating legislative classifications based on wealth\nwhere other Fundamental interests\" such as rights of criminal defendants\nand voting rights, were involved.\nThe Court further ruled that the present financing scheme was\nnot necessary to maintain decision-making at the local level. Adminis-\ntrative control can still be left in the hands of the school districts,\nthe Court said, no matter how the state decides to finance its educa-\ntional system. Also, the Cour pointed out that the present fiscal\nCould not be consid\nJessary to promoting local financial\nchoices since \"only a district with a large tax base will truly be able\nto decide how much it really cares about education. The poor district\ncannot freely choose to tax itself into an excellence which its tax\nrolls cannot provide. II\nToday's decision came in a lawsuit brought by a group of Los\nAngeles County public school children and their parents as a class ac-\ntion against county and state officials. The parents and their children\nsought a judicial declaration that the school financing system is un-\nconstitutional and an order directing the public officials to restruc-\nture the system to remedy the invalidity. The trial court had dismissed\nthe action on the ground that a valid legal claim was not presented.\nBy its action today the Supreme Court directed the lower court to hear\nthe parents' contentions and returned the case for trial.\nJustice Marshall F. McComb dissented.\n#\nor to make a political\npoint thout telling the full\nSTOZY,\nEdwi\nSchool Financi\n1. Those seeking more financial aid for public schools sometimes cite\nthe State School Fund apportionment totals (average daily attendance\nallocations) --as if these were the only state funds allocated to public\neducation.\nAs Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post has observed, the school apportionment\nfunds is \"an inaccurate picture of the state's effort regarding public\neducation because it does not reflect other educational expenditures\nappropriated through budget action.'\n2. These other funds are known as subventions and are appropriated to\nprovide additional financial support to public schools. The list includes\n$91 million for teachers' retirement fund contributions in 1970-71, $21.3\nmillion for free textbooks, $53.5 million for paying the debt service\n(interest charges) on school construction bonds, etc. The combined total of\nthe basic average daily attendance funds and the other subventions make up the\nState's Total Subventions to public schools and constitute the State's Share\nof State-Local financing for education.\n3. In 1966-67, the final budget year of the previous administration,\nTotal State Subventions for public schools K-14 amounted to $1.220 billion\n(Table 14, Legislative Analyst's report). This represented a state share of\n41.04% of total State-Local revenues.\n4. The 1970-71 budget allocates approximately $1.753 billion in Total\nState Subventions or $533 million more in annual aid this year than in\n1966-67. This is a percentage increase of about 43% over four budget years.\n5. In 67-68 the first year of the Reagan administration, Total School\nSubventions were $1.441 billion in dollars and about 42.36% in percentage.\n2.\nFor 1968-69, Total State Subventions for public schools amounted to\n$1.504 billion, or about 41.92% of tdal State-Local spending for public\nschools.\nThe State's percentage share of total State-Local school revenues for\n1970-71 and 1969-70 cannot be determined finally until complete actual\nspending figures by local districts are compiled. However, the State\nFinance Department estimates that the State's overall percentage share of\nState-Local school costs should be up a percentage point or two (to about\n42 or 43%) in 1969-70 and 1970-71 because:\n(a) Governor Reagan included $120 million of new school aid in his\n1969-70 budget, the first time such an increase ever has been proposed in a\nGov ernor's original budget. The Governor also agreed to add certain other\nfund surpluses to school aid. The final total amount of new state school\nrevenue as a result of those two actions amounted to an estimated $187 million\nin Fiscal 1969-70.\n(b) During 1970 Legislature, Governor Reagan proposed a cost-of-living\nincrease of new school revenue for 1970-71. The Legislature finally agreed\non a net of about $98 million of additional school funding for Fiscal 1970-71.\n(c) Schools also received an infusion of new school support in 1967-68\nthrough AB 272 (Unruh), the bill that became the concensus school finance\nmeasure of 1967. Governor Reagan signed this measure. It was originally\nfigured to add about $145 million, but ultimately added about $211 million\nto school aid funds.\nHOWEVER, the money to pay for AB 272's increased school aid was possible\nonly because the Reagan administration sponsored SB 556, the 1967 tax bill to\ncorrect the fiscal chaos that the previous administration had left in state\ngovernment. (Unruh voted for the tax bill).\n*When\nJesse Unruh was Assembly Speaker and controlled a massive legislativo\nmajority, he often was listed as lead author on desirable bills which became\nlaw.\n3.\nCOMPLEX FORMULA\nGovernor Reagan feels (and many others share this view) that the\npresent complex formula for apportioning school funds is not equitable,\nparticularly for poorer districts. He also feels the burden of local\nproperty tax payers is too high.\nThat is why in 1969, the Reagan administration proposed a major tax refor\nprogram which would have resulted in the State assuming an estimated 80\npercent of local school costs. The plan was defeated.\nIn 1970, his major tax reform program originally included a school\nequalization formula which would have provided additional funds for about\n80% of California's local school districts. Amendments offered by a Democrati\nmember of the Legislature resulted in the elimination of the school\nequalization part of the 1970 tax reform program which finally lost by one\nvote in the State Senate after gaining the support of 93 of the 119 members\n(one vacancy) of the Legislature.\n50-50 SHARING\nGovernor Reagan campaigned for and has worked to attain the goal of\nhaving the State provide 50% of local public school costs. (The last time\nthe State's total share of public school subventions approached the 50%\nlevel was in the mid-1950's during the Knight administration). The 50-50\nratio never was achieved during the eight years of the prior administration.\nIn 1958-59, the year the previous administration took office, total\nschool subventions were 45.8% As noted previously, the percentage was\n41.04% in 1966-67, the final budget year of the prior administration.\nEduc.\nState of California\nOF\nGOVERNOR'S OFFICE\nSACRAMENTO 95814\nRONALD REAGAN\nGOVERNOR\nDecember 1. 1970\nTO: Cabinet & Senior Staff\nFROM: Youth Affairs (Gary Hunt & Tom Baker)\nRE: Attached survey\nThe attached survey was a random sample of 288 students\nat California State College at Long Beach. It was administered\non two diffrent days and evenings. The survey was taken\nby Mr. Terry Friedman.\nThe survey was taken in classroom settings, with sizes\nranging from ten to forty-five students. The students were\nselected by a random number generating system program.\nWe would like to draw your attention to numbers 9 and 11.\nWe believe the high percentage of students voicing their approval\nof their Student Presidents meeting with the Governor (83.5%)\nnot only speaks well of the Governor and the Presidents, but\nalso points out that the students believe this communication\nlink should be continued and expanded.\nWe also would draw your attention to number 15, which shows\nthe breakdown of age, ethnic background, financial responsibilities,\nand other pertinent personal information of those students polled.\nNumber 15 also indicates that 84.2% of those polled were of\nvoting age.\n1. Do you favor or oppose the serving of beer in the College Union?\nFavor\n62.8\nOppose\n33.7\nDon't Know\n3.5\n2. How often do you drink beer?\nOften\n17.5\nSometimes\n42.5\nSeldom\n21.1\nNever\n18.9\n3. When do you think Campus Police should be able to carry guns on campus?\nAt all times\n36.5\nDuring the day\n0\nDuring the evening\n16.1\nOnly if a conflict on\n36.5\ncampus warrants it\nNever\n10.9\n4. Do you read the Forty-Niner newspaper?\nYes\n93.7\nNo\n6.3\n5. If the answer is Yes answer this question. How often do you read the\nForty-Niner?\nEvery Issue\n28.5\nFrequentlyMost of the time 49.5\nSometimes\n22.0\n6. of what quality do you think the Forty-Hiner is?\nExcellent\n6.3\nGood\n38.3\nFair\n39.3\nPoor\n14.0\nDon' Know\n2.1\n7. What do you think is the prime function of the college campus?\nTotal\n8. Function Is California State College Long Beach accomplishing this function?\nYes\nNo\nDon't Know\n49. 4Education\n73.1\nT4.2\n12.7\n3.5Career Preparation\n90.0\n10.0\n0\n23.2F Thinking, Learning\n48.5\n38.0\n13.5\n2.110 Give Degrees\n84.0\n16.0\n0\n9.8 Don't Know\n32.1\n7.2\n60.7\n4.6Social\n53.8\n46.2\n0\n2.8Provide Community Service\n50.0\n25.0\n25.0\n4.6Antagonistic Answer\n76.9\n23.1\n0\n9. Dr you favor or oppose the Student Advisory Council that will be meeting\nwith Covernor Reagan each month?\nFavor\n83.5\nOppose\n11.2\nDon't Know\n5.3\n10. Would you favor or oppose the employment of student assistants to the\nDean of Students on the state colleges? These students should be\ndirectly involved in all administrative decisions regarding student\noffairs and should be selected either by direct election or with the\nconsent of the student body.?\nFavor\n81.4\nOppose\n16.8\nDon't Know\n1.8\nII. Would you favor or oppose the Covernor appointing a student representative\nto the Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents?\nFavor\n71.9\nOppose\n27.0\nDon't Know\n1.1\n12. Which figure below comes closest to the state expenditure per year per\nstudent in the State College System?\n$100\n5.6\n$500\n20.0\n$1000\n24.2\n$1500\n26.0\n$2000\n18.2\nDon't Know\n6.0\n13. If tuition is initiated in the State College System would you favor or\noppose a go now pay later plan, with twenty years to pay?\nFavor\n70.2\nOppose\n27.7\nDon't Know\n2.1\n14. What do you think the letters E.O.P. mean.\n15. Do you favor or oppose E.O.P: funding on the State College compuses?\nTotal\nFunction\nYes\nNo\nDon't Know\n36.8 Educational Opportunity\n79.8\nT8.4\n7.8\nProgram\n8.1 Understanding of E.O.P.\n78.3\n8.7\n13.0\n12.3 Equal Opportunity Program\n71.5\n17.1\n11.4\n15.8 Economic Opportunity\n71.4\n17.6\n11.0\nProgram\n27.0 Don't Know\n11.7\n6.5\n81.8\nAge\nRace\n78\n3.5\nCaucasian\n87.0\n19-20\n12.3\nMexican-Anerican\n3.5\n2/-22\n50.5\nBlach-(nfro-Anerican)\n2.8\n23-24\n10.2\n25-28\n13.7\n84.2%\nOriental\n3.9\nOther\n2.8\nOver 28\n9.8\nMarital Status\nUnits being attempted\nSingle\n60.0\nUnder 10\n14.1\nEngaged\n8.1\n10 or over\n85.9\nMarried\n29.4\nDivorced 2.5\nFinancial Support\nCompletely self-supporting\n47.4\nParents paying all expenses\n11.6\nParents sharing expenses with you\n38.6\nIn school on full scholarship\nin\nIn school on partial scholarship\n2.1\nClass Standing\nSex\nFreshman\n4.6\nMale\n59.7\nSophomore\n3.5\nFemale\n40.3\nJunior\n34.0\nSenior\n45.2\nGraduate-Student\n12.7\nWIRE TO COMMUNITY COLIEGE PRESIDENTS\nEdne\nMay 6, 1970\nStraight wire\nIt is essential for our college and university faculties,\nstudents and administrators to reflect on the grave\nconsequence of current events the consider their respon-\nsibilities to themselves and to our society. In order\nto afford them this opportunity, away from the highly\nemotional conditions now prevailing on most campuses,\nI have today asked President !fitch and Chancellor Dumke\nto close the University and State College campuses for\ntwo days and over the weekend.\nPresident Hitch and Chancellor Dumke strongly concurred\nin my recommendation, and accordingly have taken the\nnecessary action for implementation. All campus facili-\nties will be closed during this period.\nI hope that this period will allow time for rational\nreflection away from the emotional turmoil, and encourage.\nall to disavow violence and mob action.\nIn this period of extraordinary circumstances I believe the\ncommunity colleges would find it wise to encourage similar\nendeavors by their faculties and students.\nRONALD REAGAN\nGovernor\ncane\nSTATEMENT BY PRESIDENT HITCH 5-6-70\nAt the request of Gov. Reagan, the University of California\nwill be closed from Thurs., May 7, through the weekend, UC President\nCharles J. Hitch announced today (Wed., May 6).\nGovernor Reagan has asked that all college and university\ncampuses in the state be closed for this period to provide an\nopportunity for rational reflection on the current tragedies on\nthe nation's campuses.\nDuring the four-day shutdown, students are urged wherever\npossible to return to their homes. A skeleton force of University\npersonnel will remain on hand for necessary hospital services,\nmaintenance and security. In general, the same facilities will\nremain open as on a Sunday. The resident halls will be kept open\nfor those unable to leave. The UC campus will resume normal\noperations on Monday.\n\"The chancellors and I earnestly request all students,\nfaculty and staff to observe this period of reflection. We very\nmuch need to work and think together how best to help our society\nand our nation,\" President Hitch said.\ncame\nSTATEMENT BY PRESIDENT HAYAKAWA:\n5-6-70\nIn accordancd with a directive from Gov. R, S.F. State College,\nalong with all state colleges and universities, will be closed from\nthe end of the work today, May 6, until the beginning of the work\nday, Monday, May 11, 1970.\nThe campus will not be available to student or faculty groups\nfor meetings or any other activities during this period.\nJust before 11 this morning, we received word from the\nchancellor's office that Gov. R was ordering state college and\nuniv. campuses closed for these four days. I have since talked\nto the Gov. and understand his reasoning.\nToo many innocent students are being led down the path of\nanarchy. They need time away from the radical rhetoric to think\nof their own lives, their families and their country's future.\nFour days away from the campus should provide time for contemplation\nand serious thought about the consequences of the violence that has\nerupted in recent days.\nWhen students return to classes on Monday, I hope they will be\nable to distinguish between legitimate dissent and the movement led\nby anarchists to use current emotions as a\ncheap excuse to\ndestroy buildings, institutions and lives.\nIn the last few days, I believe that we at S.F. State College\nhave proved an important point for the entire nation. We have had\nour rallies, speeches and marches. But we have also avoided violence\ncompletely. Why? Primarily because the majority of students and\nfaculty at S.F. State College are decent, reasonable people. They\nrecognize that their rights to voice opinions, to attend classes,\nand to go about their private business are protected, but that this\ncollege will not tolerate disruption and violence perpetrated by the\nfew who have no respect for the rights of others.\nThese rights to freedom of thought and freedom of expression\nwill continued, as always, to be protected.\n# # #\nTo Fac and Staff:\nIn accordance with the above statement, the college will be\ncompletedly closed to all faculty and staff employees except for\nnormal security and required maintenance functions for the period\nstarting 12:01 a.m. Thursday, May 7, through 11:59 p.m., Sunday,\nMay 10. Employees will not be disadvantaged pay-wise for their\nscheduled duty tours (specific details will be published later).\nStaff and faculty are expected to return to their normal work\nstatus, effective Monday, May 11.\nP.B.\nJune\nfile\n/\nCalifornia pays the nation's highest average salary for\nelementary and secondary school teaching personnel.\nDuring the 1968-69 school year, the average annual salary for\nCalifornia's elementary and secondary school instructional staff was\n$9,800 according to figures compiled by the National Education\nAssociation. This is:\n-Almost 20% higher than the national average of $8,194 for all the\n50 states and the District of Columbia.\n--$308 higher than the average salary paid in Michigan, the second-\nplace state.\n$400 higher than the average instructional staff salary in New York,\nthe third-place state and the only other state with a population\ncomparable to California's.\nThe NEA survey also noted that the average annual salary for\nelementary and secondary school instructional staff in California\nrose 43.2% during the period 1959-60 to 1967-68.\nHere are the top five states in average annual salaries for\nelementary and secondary school instructional staff:\nCalifornia\n$9.800*\nMichigan\n9,492\nNew York\n9,400\nIllinois\n9,300\nMassachusetts\n9,269\n(*The average instructional staff salary for Alaska in 1968-69\nis estimated at $10,887. However, the NEA notes that the purchasing\npower of $1 in Alaska's four largest cities averages only about 75\ncents compared with the average purchasing power of the dollar in the\nareas covered by the Consumer Price Index of the U.S. Bureau of Labor\nStatistics. For this reason, the NEA says Alaska's figures should be\nAND\nreduced by about one fourth to make its figures realistically\ncomparable to those from other states. On that basis, Alaska's\nsalary scale for 1968-69 is about $8,146 in U.S. dollar purchasing\nvalue, well below the leading states in the continental U.S.)\n(Source: Table 8-10 Economic Status of the Teaching Profession,\n1968-69, National Education Association)\n2 I I\nState of California\nEducation\nMemorandum\nSchool Financing\nTo\nAlex Sherriffs\nDate : November 22, 1971\nSubject Financial Support for\nPublic Education\nFrom : Jerry Martin\nAttached is a revised one-sheet chart showing the increased appropria-\ntions for various segments of education during the Reagan Administration.\nPlease note that operational fund increase for public schools (K-14)\nhas increased four times faster than total enrollment and total school\nsubventions have increased a little more than three times faster than\nenrollment.\nAlso, when the State assumes increased Teacher Retirement Fund obliga-\ntion next year, these figures will be up substantially and will reflect\na more than half a billion increase of annual State support for K-14\nsince 1966-67, the last budget year of the prior administration.\nThe enrollment increase shown for U.C. system was the budget projection.\nActual enrollment this fall indicated this may be down somewhat, provid-\ning a larger spread between the increase in money (40.4%) and the increas\nin enrollment.\nCC: Ed Meese, Jim Jenkins, Rush Hill, Verne Orr, Jim Dwight, Ken Hall,\nJames Hall, Ike Livermore, Frank Walton, Earl Coke, Don Livingston,\nBob Keyes, Ned Hutchinson, Ed Gray, Paul Beck, Bill Stroebel,\nGeorge Steffes, Herb Ellingwood, Dick Turner, Bruce Nestande\nA\nGOVERNOR REAGAN'S FINANCIAL SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION\nBudget\nBudget\n% Increase $\n% Increase of\nYear\nYear (Est.)\n--Five Years\nEnrollment--Five Years\n1966-67\n1971-72\nDirect 'Aid to\nPublic Schools\nUP 44.2%\nK-14\n$1.049\n$1.513.8 1\nUP 11.4%\n(School Apportion-\nBillion\nBillion\n($464 Million)\nment Fund)\nTotal School\nSubventions K-14\n1\nUP 35.9%\n(Includes text books\n$1.232\n$1.673\nUP 11.4%\nSpecial Funds, etc.)\nBillion\nBillion\n($441 Million)\nJunior Colleges\n$71.2*\n$184.9\nUP 159.7%\nUP 64.4%\nMillion\nMillion\n($113.7 Million)\nState Colleges\n$167.7\n$315.8\n2\nUP 88.3%\nUP 69.4%\nMillion\nMillion\n($148.1 Million)\nUC System\n$240.1\n2\n$337\nUP 40.4%\nUP 33.4%\nMillion\nMillion\n($96.9 Million)\nState Scholarships\n$4.7\n$20\nUP 325.4%\nMillion\nMillion\n($15.3 Million)\n1. This year, the State also agreed to appropriate approximately $135 Million a year, starting in\n1972-73, to put State Teachers Retirement Fund on a sound, fiscal basis (AB 543--Barnes). This\nincreased annual contribution will substantially raise State's contribution to education in future\nyears. 2. Does not include approximately $39 Million in UC--State college capital outlay (bond\n10-27-691 ed wined this\nEduc.\nto TIME mag in N.Y.\nQUESTION: IS YOUR OFFICE INTERESTING IN A POLITICAL WAY WITH THE TRADIT-\nIONAL ACADEMIC AND ADMINISTRATIVE INDEPENDENCE THE UNIVERSITY ENJOYS IN SUCH\nMATTERS.\nANSWER: \"No, and under the Constitution of the State of California, It could\nnot.\n\"or course, as governor, I on A member of the university Board of\nRegents, along with another 23 citizens of the state. Sixteen are appointed\nmembers who serve 16-year terms, and eight, such as myself, serve in on ox-\nofficio capacity. When vacancies occur, it 1a the responsibility of the gov-\nernor to appoint successors to the non ex-officio posts.\n\"During my term in office, I have made only four appointments to the\nboard. It is very un likely, therefore, that -- even If I wished -- I could\nexert political control over board members.\nQUESTION: ARE THE REGENTS, AT YOUR URGINO, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONSIDER-\nINO A PROFESSOR'S POLITICAL LEANINGS PERFORM GRANTING HIM TENUM.\nANSWER: \"As D regent, and #: governor, 1 have never urged the adoption of\nany sort of 'political test' in the hiring of faculty members. My concern,\nhowever, is that'political tests\" co, in fact, exist and 626 being Imposed\nby certain members of the faculty on some of our compuses.\n\"At A recent meeting of the Board of Regents, I voted in favor of\n$ resolution which reaffirmed the principle that such tests should have no\nplace in the running of the university.\n\"A test to Insure liberalism, or redicalism, 1= surely no better\nthen $ test to insure conservation. Neither 1s appropriate to & public\ninstitution of higher learning. On the contrary, I believe that #: truly\nprofessional ethic \" regardless of personal bies ** should prevail in\nevery classroom.\n2 -\nQUESTION: DOES YOUR CRITICISM FROM TIME TO TIME OF 3 TUDENT RADICALS,\nPERMISSIVE PROFESSORS AND TAX ADMINISTRATORS TEND 20 PARM THE UNIVERSITY\nBY MAKING IT VULNERABLE 70 PUBLIC PRESSURE AND VOTER RESENTMENT, AS YOUR\nCRITICS CHARGE.\nANSWER: \"If anything Is harming the university, it is that administrators\nand professors are ignoring the needa of the students. Their priority\nlists are upside down, with students at the bottom. Unfortunately, too\nmany faculty members and administrators put the preservation of their own\nestablishment at the top of their priority list, at the expense of the\nstudent -- the very person which education 10 all about. My oritioism\nof the university 10 contered around faculty peglect of students. It's\nno wonder they're upset.\nQUESTION: IS THIS CRITICISM OF THE UNIVERSITY OR ITS UNTERIRABLE COM-\nPONENTS AT TRAST A POLITICAL MECHANISM WHICH YOU THINK VILL IRIP YOU IN\nTHE NEXT STATE HIROTION,\nANSWER: \"It 1s the duty of any governor to Insure that the number one\nfunction of the state's public institutions of higher learning is to educate\nstudents. I believe the vest majority of Celifornia citizens would agree\nwith m. If this is the case, then It is clear that it 10 not the governor\nor the Board of Regents who consider-it a 'political mechanism' but rether\ncertain faculty members who have obosen to insert politics into the classroom.\nQUESTION: FINALLY, AND YOU ALTERING BY YOUR ACTIVE CONCERN WITH THE UNIV-\nERSITY A TRADITION OF UNIVERSITY INDEPENDENCE FROM STATE MATTERS. IF so,\nTHIS HARM THE UNIVERSITY AS YOUR CRITICS CHARGE, OR HELP IT.\neducate our young\nANSWER: \"My sctivey-infadd-overridingygoncern infadd is that 100\npeople.\nthe\nand If this insistence on putting the needs : of of students shood of\nat the\nthe 'educational establishment'\ninventied Politionl interference, then\nS.F. EXAMINER Education writer, at his request (approved by\nperson---Governor.\nAlex Sherriffs, John Kehoe and Ed Meese). Answers are Educ. in first\nSeptember 5, 1969\n(Copied from TWX)\n1. What does the Reagan administration plan to do to help\ncity schools?\nAs you know, we presented a comprehensive plan for overhauling\nCalifornia's outmoded tax structure, including reform of the state's\noverburdened and restrictive system of financing local school operations.\nThe subject has not yet, however, received action in the legislature.\nYet, the fact is that there must be better equalization of\nfinancial support for our public schools if we are to provide equal\neducational opportunities for all our children, whether they chance\nto live in low-wealth or high wealth districts.\nUnder the tax reform program which we proposed, the state would\nassume most of the basic foundation support for local school districts\nby levying a one percent \"educational opportunity tax\" derived from\nsources other than residential property. This would amount to about\n80 percent of the residential property tax currently collected by\nlocal school districts. The funds from both the statewide educational\nopportunity taxes would permit the state to more than double its share\nof school financing- to some $3 billion a year. It would mean that\neach pupil in the state would receive from $500 to $725 per year\nbased on average daily attendance depending on grade level. This\ncontrasts with a current educational imbalance which makes available\nas little as $289 per student in some districts and as much as\n$2,662 per pupil in others.\n\"This is an imbalance which demands change, for I believe the\nstate has an obligation to make certain that every school child in\nCalifornia no matter where he happens to live---has an equal\nopportunity to realize his maximum potential.\n\"In connection with our efforts to correct this imbalance, I\nhave urged congress to consider and adopt legislation which would\nallow California residents to claim a one percent credit on their\nfederal income tax bills to cover whatever additional state income\ntaxes they might owe as a result of the kind of tax reform program\nwe proposed for California. In effect, this would offset---indeed\neliminate any net increase in the combined tax bill of any\nCalifornian on passage of our tax reform program and if the tax\ncredit were granted by the federal government.\n\"We intend to continue to push for meaningful reform in these\nvital areas, including an overhaul in California's structure of\neducational finance and implementation of the concept of federal\ntax sharing a concept which has received the support of vice\npresident Spiro Agnew and Senator George Murphy.\n\"Incidentally, if our tax reform program were adopted, I\nwould insist that state funds for local school financing be\ndistributed on a no strings attached basis.\n\"Finally, let me point out again---as I did on signing the\ncurrent state budget las month that education received the\nvery highest priority for funds of any state agency or department.\nIn fact, in submitting our budget to the legislature last February,\nI broke past precedent and requested $105 million in additional\naid to public schools. To this we were able to add $15 million\ndue to federal cancellation of the freeze on aid to families\nwith dependent children. And, to the $120 million, we agreed to\nmake available for one-time use any unanticipated revenues from\nlast year's budget.\n\"Just several days ago I had the pleasure of signing into law\na major bill in our administration's legislative program which will\nextend, and promises to improve, California's compensatory education\nfor elementary school-age youngsters who live in disadvantaged areas.\n\"I strongly support the principle of dealing with educational\ndeficiencies at the earliest possible age. If we are to achieve\neducational balance, we must support efforts which innovate valid\nand meaningful programs from kindergarten through the sixth grade\nlevel.\n\"The compensatory education bill will give our youngsters who,\nthrough no fault of their own, happen to live in disadvantaged areas,\na better chance for a good start in school.\"\n2. Do you feel that order has been restored on the Berkeley campus\nas you promised in your campaign? To what extent? What more should be\ndone?\n\"As you know, it has been my desire, and remains my desire, to\nsee those values which prevailed just a few short years ago on the\nBerkeley campus restored.\n\"As Governor, and as a Regent of the University, I have a unique\nresponsibility to represent the citizens of our state who are insisting\nthat the institutions of higher education they so generously support\nfunction effectively and properly in educating their children.\n\"I also believe that I represent the majority of the people of\nthe state in defining education as the presentation of the truth\nwhatever it may be---and not the use of the classroom for propaganda\nand indoctrination.\n\"Academic freedom is a privilege granted by the citizens of our\nsociety to insure that faculty members may pursue the truth wherever\nit might lead. But, when a professor no longer prizes this principle,\nhe betrays a trust we place in him and jeopardizes the academic\nfreedom of his colleagues as well.\n2\n\"The point is: honesty in teaching in principle and in\npractice is of greater importance to us and our youngsters than\nthe more visible signs of peace or disruption on campus. To be\nsure, if all faculty members on campus valued honesty in their\nclassroom instruction, disruption would cease to be a problem.\n\"Another concern of both students and their parents is the\npractice of faculty neglect of students in too many classrooms.\nCampus disruptions have the effect of attracting the curiosity,\nand unfortunately sometimes the naive fancy, of too many of our\nnormal youngsters out of a feeling of genuine frustration a\nresult of neglect in the classroom.\n\"The challenge, indeed the very real necessity of correcting\nthis all too frequent state of affairs, and for paying attention\nto the educational experience of students will, in the long run,\nbe of infinitely greater significance than the order or disorder\nof physical facilities.\n\"This, of course, is not to ignore the fact that in our\nsociety the rights of personal freedom and protection of personal\nproperty must be the rights of all.\n\"The capture of campus buildings and personnel, and attempts\nto silence the opposition, are totalitarian tactics and are of as\nmuch concern to the citizens of California as they are to me.\n\"We cannot derive much satisfaction from quiet on campus if,\non the same campus, indoctrination replaces integrity, frustration\nbreeds disorder, and vacillation encourages disruption.\n\"The fact is, the quiet of summer vacation is not a valid\nindicator of some sort of change for the better.\n\"We know that during the summer many plans have been made for\ncausing serious disruption on campuses this fall, including Berkeley.\n\"We will know that order is restored when we see administrators\ntake courageous action and exert constructive leadership; when we\nhear responsible faculty members speak out against their colleagues\nwho encourage and even participate in disorders; when students no\nlonger feel they're nameless, faceless numbers on an assembly line and\ntaught by teaching assistants hardly older than themselves; when\n'publish or perish' ceases to overrule teaching as a career; when\nprofessional ethics are restored to the classroom; and when student\nmembers of the responsible, if silent, majority refuse to be taken\nin by those few radicals and nonstudent activists who purvey violence\nand contempt for the law as a way of life.\"\n3. In the current Life magazine, a San Francisco state faculty member\nsays, in passing, that California's reputation among educators is\nnot good. Others have said the same thing. What do you think of\nsuch allegations?\n- 3\n\"For every faculty member who leaves California for whatever\nreason to teach elsewhere, there are two waiting in the wings to\ntake his place.\n\"Competition in the educational marketplace, combined with\nthe traditional mobility of those in the profession naturally lend\nthemselves to such charges by persons who wish to mislead the\npublic for various reasons.\n\"However, the allegations they make are often designed to\nexploit these two factors for personal aggrandizement.\n\"The competition for California educators by colleges and\nuniversities around the country is well known. The lure of bonuses\nand fringe benefits obviously attracts some California educators\nto other states. This happens because of the high reputation of\nour institutions. In addition, advancing educational systems\noutside of California want to take advantage of the training\ngained by young instructors and assistant professors in our\nUniversity and state college systems.\n\"On the other hand, I am not personally aware of any significant\nnumber of Nobel Laureates which California holds proudly having\nleft the state. Nor am I aware of any recruitment problems for\nprofessors at California institutions of public higher education\nother than the problems resulting from a generalyshort supply.\n\"I do know of instances in which teachers have left our\ninstitutions for another reason, however. They are simply fed\nup with the violence and intimidation by radicals on our campuses\nand feel compelled to either leave the profession altogether, or\nto move to institutions not beset by such problems, campuses\nwhere a peaceful and productive atmosphere prevails. \"\n4. Do you go along with those who say the California taxpayer is\npaying too big an education bill?\n\"Education is the measure of what we are today and what our\nsociety can and must be in the future. An educated citizenry\nis the key to our progress as a state and nation. The extent to\nwhich we continue to constructively build on and improve our\neducational system will determine both the quality and preservation\nof our way of life as a free people in the years to come.\n\"If we are spending too much for education, it is only in\nthe sense that we must continue to find new and better ways of\ngetting the greatest possible benefit from our investment.\n\"There is no wiser investment than that for education, but\nwe must make sure that every taxpayer dollar spent for this purpose\nis spent wisely and efficiently for the rightthings.\n- 4 -\n\"I believe these reflect the sentiments of the vast majority\nof the people of California who ask only that their money not be\nwasted that their long-term investment yield a good return.\"\n5. What do you think should be done to students who go on strike\nat state colleges and universities? What of those who break the\nlaw in connection with demonstrations? What of faculty members in\nthe same two categories?\n\"If you mean 'students who go on strike' to be those who\nchoose to boycott class, then they themselves would be the\nprincipal losers. One would presume that they are in school to\nlearn and benefit from their educational opportunity.\n\"I suppose that if they are willing to pay the price in\ngrades and not halt the educational process or infringe on the\nrights of others who do wish to take advantage of their opportunities\nas students, then there is little to be done. However, I\nthink\nit would be an excellent way of flunking out of school.\n\"In entrusting their youngsters to faculty members, the\npeople of California have granted special privileges, including\ntenure, to teachers. These privileges carry with them certain\nresponsibilities and obligations, particularly exemplary behavior\nand respect for the laws of the state.\n\"There is no law in California giving public employees\n(teachers) the right to strike. Striking by teachers has been\nheld to be grounds for dismissal.\n\"Faculty members who strike not only fail to display exemplary\nbehavior, they also ignore the public trust and privilege vested\nin themby the citizens of the state, who, after all, pay their\nsalaries. To ignore the law shows contempt for both the institution\nand the citizens of California.\n\"In the case of either students or faculty, I believe law\nbreakers should be arrested and punished appropriately if proved\nguilty.\n- 5 -\nGiven LIA Times mly.\n9-17-69\nGovernor Reagan's office today expressed surprise at\nrecent criticism of the governor's decision to veto a bill\nthat would have doubled the cost of the state scholarship program.\n\"It is interesting to note that in the three years of the\nReagan administration the amount of money made available for\nthe program has more than doubled,\" - the governor's office\npointed out.\n\"In 1967 when Governor Reagan took office, the previous\nadministration had budgeted a little more than $5 million for\nthe scholarship program. The Reagan budget for the current\nfiscal year allocates nearly $14 million for the scholarship\nprogram.\n\"Critics have overlooked the fact that there have been\nsubstantial increases in the state scholarship program.\n\"Budgeted figures show how the Reagan administration has\nincreased the amount of money available for scholarships:\nFiscal 1966-67 - $5,031,000\nFiscal 1967-68 - $6,453,000\nFiscal 1968-69 - $8,924,000\nFiscal 1969-70 - $13,931,000\nState of California\nEduc.\nMemorandum\n(EOP Funds)\nTo\n:\nGovernor Ronald Reagan\nDate : June 27, 1969\nEducational Opportunity\nSubject:\nPrograms (E.O.P.)\nFrom :\nJohn T. Kehoe\nEducational Consultant\nSoon you will be facing a budget from the Legislature which will\ncontain new funds for E.O.P. Probably no issue is more on the\nminds of the under 30 crowd today than the question of providing\nthe so-called disadvantaged students with an opportunity to have\nhigher education exposure. The \"bleeding hearts\" believe that\nthe attempt must be made to recruit individuals from pool halls,\netc., who have failed to meet basic achievement standards for\nadmission into higher educational institutions or who have\ndropped out of high school altogether.\nThis is not a State of California idea alone; the concept is\nsweeping the country, probably out of tear of having to capit-\nulate under confrontation on the part of some states and some\ninstitutions, and partly an extension of the so-called aggrieved\nconscience of our times. In any event, this is an extremely\nvolatile issue. The Democrats are clearly lying in wait and\nhoping that you will reject funding for E.O.P. The Unruh bill,\nSB 2115, represents some three years of effort by Dr. Kenneth A.\nMartyn who is Vice President for Academic Atfairs at California\nState, Los Angeles, a consultant to the Joint Committee on Higher\nEducation and a close friend of the former speaker. This bill\noffers a $16.5 million appropriation and is politically oriented\nto attract those interested in seeing the major program at the\njunior college level with experimentation in high school tutor-\ning and in allowing immediate opportunities in the state colleges\nand universities.\nAttached I have put together a briefing commentary for you giv-\ning history, etc. It is my recommendation that you find a way\nto endorse the concept of E.O.P. I like the idea of accomplish-\ning this through a modest investment in junior college programs\nalong the lines of SB 164, but not at the $10 million level of\nthis bill. Additionally, I feel that the state colleges could\ndeter some of their enrichment or augmentation programs and\nallow this money to be spent on E.O.P. at that level.\nGovernor Ronald Reagan\n- 2 -\nJune 27, 1969\nThirdly, I believe that the state should encourage voluntary\nprograms on the part of the socially active students in our\ncolleges and universities to foster tutorial programs at the\nhigh school level. These programs should be designed to offer\nspecial tutoring to the high school students on oral and written\nEnglish, as well as counseling to motivate these students TO con-\ntinue their education and strive for the highest level of achieve-\nment.\nFourth, the state colleges, universities, and community colleges\nshould be urged to collaborate on innovative programs in the\narea of E.O.P. and not try to duplicate each other's efforts on\na fenced type of program. It is not only inefficient, it can\nbe costly.\nFifth, our higher education establishment should be urged to look\nfor new ways to establish admission standards so that the archaic\nmethod of using intelligence tests, grade averages, etc., have a\ncompensating feature which would not allow a rigid hurale to be\njumped or to allow for exceptions to be made in admission stan-\ndards which provide an injustice to those striving for achieve-\nment and an injustice to those who can't achieve in any case.\nGovernor Ronald Reagan\n- 3 -\nJune 27, 1969\nBriefing Commentary\nE.O.P. - Educational Opportunity Programs\nBACKGROUND: A prevailing national view among educators stresses\nthat higher education, particularly public higher education, has\na responsibility to give a chance to so-called \"high risk\" stu-\ndents who lack money, have low standardized admission test scores,\nerratic high school records, and an inability to overcome cultural,\ngeographical, racial, and motivational factors.\nThe Coordinating Council for Higher Education in 1968 recommended\nthat the Board of Trustees of the California State Colleges and\nthe Board of Regents of the University of California adopt\npolicies doubling their exemption provisions. The Board of Regents\nestablished a program under firm controls to serve 1,948 students\nduring 1968-69 with expenditures totaling $3,761,000, of which\n$821,000 was appropriated from the Regents' Opportunity Fund. One\nmillion dollars came from a special allocation developed through\na University registration fee, paid for by students. The remain-\ning money has come from federal sources, foundation grants, and\nprivate funds. No state revenue is applied to this program.\nThe Trustees of the California State Colleges have permitted pro-\ngrams to be established that have been extremely controversial\nwith poor control and inadequate funding. There has been close\nto $1.2 million going into State College E.O.P. programs under\n\"bootlegged\" positions.\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA ACTION: In 1968 legislation was signed into\nlaw which permits the State Scholarship and Loan Commission to\nestablish a pilot program of one thousand $1,100 grants to dis-\nadvantaged students. This program is currently getting under way.\nSTATE SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN COMMISSION: For the coming fiscal\nyear, this Commission is proposing an expenditure of $14,017,590\nfor the Scholarship Program, Graduate Fellowship Program, and\nGuaranteed Loan Program. One million dollars of this money is for\nthe College Opportunity Grant Program mentioned above. The esti-\nmated expenditures for the present fiscal year for this agency\nequals $8,918,621, or a substantial increase proposed for next\nyear to accommodate more students in the area of financial assis-\ntance.\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: For undergraduates in the University of\nCalifornia a total of $10,464,384 has been spent for scholarships\nand grants, loans, and college work study. For graduate students,\nthis figure amounts to $18,545,420, or a total of $29,009,804.\nThe California State Colleges, in the year 1967-68, has spent\n$25,800,000 in financial aid for all students. This includes\nstate and federal funds and represents the latest data available.\nGovernor Ronald Reagan\n- 4 -\nJune 27, 1969\nSUMMARY: IN SUMMATION, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT THE E.O.P.\nCONCEPT IT GOOD. IT IS FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS AND MUST BE PROPER-\nLY STRUCTURED BY THE EDUCATIONAL EXPERTS. A POOR PROGRAM CAN\nBECOME A BOON DOGGLE; FINANCIAL AID ALONE IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT\nMUST BE A STRUCTURED PROGRAM WITH TUTORIAL PROGRAMS AND COUN-\nSELING. A GOOD PROGRAM CAN BECOME BENEFICIAL TO SAVE WHOLE LIVES\nWHICH MIGHT OTHERWISE BE WASTED ON WELFARE ROLES AND CRIME.\nEDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENT MUST BE MOTIVATED TO USE THEIR GENIUS\nIN INNOVATING NEW WAYS AND MEANS IN CONSTRUCTING PROGRAMS AND OF\nESTABLISHING ADMISSION STANDARDS.\nAS MATTERS NOW STAND, BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE\nSTARTS WORKING, THE BUDGET CONTAINS NO MONEY FOR E.O.P. FOR THE\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OR FOR THE JUNIOR COLLEGE SYSTEM. THE\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET DOES HAVE A $600,000 ITEM FOR\nURBAN RESEARCH AND PUBLIC SERVICE PROJECTS AND A CATEGORY KNOWN\nAS URBAN CRISIS, BUT THIS DOES NOT RELATE TO E.O.P. THE ASSEMBLY\nBUDGET CONTAINED A FORMULA FOR APPROPRIATING $2,350,000 TO THE\nSTATE COLLEGE TRUSTEES AFTER DELETING AUGMENTATION ITEMS FROM\nTHE BUDGET. ITEM 116.5 HAS SOME GOOD CONTROL LANGUAGE AND PRO-\nVIDES NO ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION ABOVE YOUR BUDGET CEILING.\nCC: Ed Meese\nMike Deaver\nPaul Beck\nAlex Sherriffs\nRuss Walton\nBob Keyes\nSal Espana\nHerb Ellingwood\nJTK:gt"
}

Survos folio page chat

Ask the Scholar

Page image

OCR

Page data

Document data

Context sent to Scholar