Repo'rt Resumes
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WI REPO'RT RESUMES ED 010 799 24 METROPOLITANISM AND FEDERAL AID TO EDUCATION-THE PASSAGE AND IMPACT OF THE 1965 AID TO EDUCATION ACT. BY- MERANTO, PHILIP J. SYRACUSE UNIV., N.Y., RZSEARCH INSTITUTE REPORT NUMBER BR-6-8229 PUB DATE 67 EDRS PRICEMF-$0.36HC-$9.76 244P. DESCRIPTORS- SYSTEMS APPROACH, *SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, POLITICAL ATTITUDES, POLITICAL ISSUES, *POLITICAL POWER, POLITICAL SCIENCE, *ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES, SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, LEADERSHIP, *EDUCATIONAL LEGISLATION, *GOVERNMENT ROLE, SYRACUSE, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 THE INVESTIGATOR IDENTIFIED AND ANALYZED FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THE PASSAGE OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965, USING AN INPUT-OUTPUT SYSTEMS MODEL TO ORGANIZE RELEVANT FACTORS INTO MEANINGFUL PATTERNS. INPUTS WERE PHENOMENA, BOTH PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL, OCCURRING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF A POLITICAL SYSTEMF AS A REDISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION, AN INFLATION IN THE ECONOMY, OR A SHIFT IN CULTURAL VALUES. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS SHAPE THE INPUTS WHICH CROSS THE BOUNDARY INTO A POLITICAL SYSTEM WHERE THEY ARE CONVERTED BY THE LEGISLATURE INTO OUTPUTS. THE PRIMARY TASK WAS TO INDICATE WHICH FACTORS IMPINGING ON THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE AND WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM HAD UNDERGONE SUFFICIENT CHANGE PRIOR 10 AND DURING 1965 TO PRODUCE THE NEW OUTPUT, THE EDUCATION ACT OF 1965. THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FINDING WHICH EMERGED FROM THIS ENDEAVOR WAS THAT THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE SCHOOL AID BILL COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY A SINGLE MAJOR CHANGE AT THE EXCLUSION OF OTHERS. ALTHOUGH NO HIERARCHY OF FACTORS WAS ACHIEVABLE, THE MAJOR CHANGES WERE DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL AS INEXTRICABLY INTERRELATED FACTORS WHICH RESULTED IN THIS LANDMARK LEGISLATION. (GD) 1ft U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATIONAND WELFARE Office of Education This document hes been reproduced exactlya received from the person or organizationoriginating it. Points stated do not of view or opus nocessarily representofficial Office of position or policy. EducaliM Metropolitanism and Federal Aid to Education; The Passage and Impact of the 1965 Aid tc Education Act Cooperative ResearchPr trfert No. 6-8229 Philip Joseph Meranto Syracuse University Research Institute 1967 The research reported herein was supported by the Cooperative Research Program of the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. ..711MMEMPlarlr"'-01. AA j. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE OOOOO o . o ii LIST OP TABLES OOOOO C vi LIST Off' ILLUSTPATIONS 5 F C 411 viii Chapter I. POLITICAL INNOVATION: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEUORK . 1 I. Introduction .01) 1 II. The Meaning of General Aid 5 III. A Systems Approach to Political Innovation. 10 II. POVERTY, CITY SCHOOLS, AND CIVIL RIGHTS: THE NEW RATIONALE kOR F7DERAL AIDOOOOO q 21 I. Background. OOOO . 0 21 II. The "Rediscovery" of Poverty. © OOOOO 6 26 III. Metropolitanism and City Schools.OOOOO 32 IV. The New Thrust of Civil Rights 104 V. The Rationale for Federal Aidto Education: The 1965 Version. * 53 VI.Conclusions e OOOO 60 III DEMAND ARTICULATORS: CONSTITUENTS AND ORGANIZED GROUPS. 6 41041 00 6 66 I. Constituents and Federal Aid for Education. 66 II. Public Attitudes on Parochial School Aid. 73 III. ImplicationsOOOOO OOOOO 76 IV. The Group Approach to Politicso 66 V. Former Group Alignments . 0 . a3 iv Page VI. Relieon and the 1961 Confrontation . 91i VII. The New Coalition 106 IV. DEMAND ARTICULATORS: POLITICAL PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENT . O . ....... I. The Party Role in Policy Making 135 II. The Parties and Federal Aid for Education . 137 III. The Parties and the 1965 Education Act 144 IV. The American President as Legislative Initiator 158 V. Postwar Presidents and Federal Aid for Education 161 VI. President Lyndon Johnson and Federal School Aid166 V. ALTERATIONS WITHIN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM 176 I. Introduction 176 II. The House Committee on Education and Labor. 178 III. House Committee Leadership. ..... 187 IV. The House Rules Committee and Federal Aid to Education ..... c . ... 1914 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 208 APPENDIX: A. A SUMMARY OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 218 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Rouse Vote ox Federal Aidto Education, 1961 and 1965. OOOO . 0 OOOOO 6 2 Federal Financial Assistance toEducation, 1956- 1966 (In Millions) 9 3 Population Growth in the UnitedStates, in Metro- politan Areas and DistributionWithin Metropolitan Areas: 1900-1965 (Conterminous kited States) . 33 4 Population Growth in CentralCity and Outside Central City Areas for 15Largest SMSA's: 1950- 1960 35 5 White and Negro PopulationChanges in 15 Largest Cities: 1950-1960 37 6 Educational Attainment of Persons 25Years or Older in 15 Urbanized Areas, Byresidence, By Color: 1960 40 7 Percent Won-White Population ContrastedWith Percent Non-White School Enrollmentfor 15 Largest Cities: 1960 41 8 Dropout and Graduation Rates in TucsonPublic High Schools, 1960-61, and Socio-EconomicData By Groups of Census Tracts, 1960 . 58 9 National Public Opinion Surveys ConcerningGeneral Federal Aid to Education: 1943-1965 68 10 Proportion of Individuals FavoringVarious Federal Aid Programs, 1961 72 11 National Public Opinion SurveysConcerning Federal Aid to Public and ParochialSchools: 1961-1964. 74 12 Proportion of Respondents FavoringFederal Aid to Parochial Schools, By Religion: 1961-1964 . 75 13 Proportion of Democrats and RepublicansVoting to Enlarge Federal Roles 1959-1964 0 143 14 Proportion of Democrats and RepublicansVoting for Federal Aid: 1 9 4 $- 1 9 6 5. 145 vi CPS ,i1 u7':'", ' -r Table Page 15 Party Vote on EducationAct of 1965 146 16 Vote on Ronan CatholicCongressmen on School Aid Roll Call, 1961 and 1965 150 17 Vote of Republican HouseMember for School Aid, By Region, 1965 154 18 Proportion of Republicans Votingfor School Aid, By Fercent Urban of District, 1965 155 19 Southern Democratic Voteson Roll Calls to Enlarge Federal Role and Vote forSchool Aid, 1965. 157 20 Proportion of Southern DemocratsVoting for School Aid, By Percent Urban of District, 1965 . 15e 21 Plurality of Democratic NationalLegislative Seats and Plurality of PresentialVote, 1948-1964 170 22 Presidential Legislative Scores: 1953-1965 . t . 172 23 Education Committee Members Favoringa Larger Federal Role Compared to Houseand Senate As a Whole, 1961 and 1965 183 21 Votes in Rules Committeeto Expedite Federal Aid Legislation 1960-1965 . OOOOOOO 206 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1 A Model of Legislative Change 19 2 House Action on Federal Aid forEducation Hills: 1945-1965 OOOOOOOOOO 180 viii CHAPTM I POLITICAL I::::OVATION: A CONCEPTT,:AL EIANEW3RK Introduction I an very proud ofyour House of Representatives and your United States Senate, and I know everyone is applauding the historic action that the Congress has just taken. Since 1870, almost a hundredyears ago, we have been trying to do what we have just done--pass,an elementary school bill for all the children of America. So spoke President Lyndon B. Johnsonon April 9, 1965, in reaction to the announcement that the United States Congress had approved the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. A few days later, while seated outside the former one-room school- house at Stonewall, Texas, whore ho first attended clas,;es, the President signed the bill into law. Kt: cm7hasized his satisfaction with the new legislation and its sunporters by commenting: As President, I believe deeply that no law I have signed or will ever sign means more to the t'ature of our nation . I predict that all of those of both parties of Congress who supported the enactment of this legislation will be rememl)ared in history as mon and men who began a new day of greatness in American society. The President's stress on the,innovative nature of this legislation is quite understandable to those who are familiar with April 10, 1965, p. 1. 21bid., April12, 1965, pp. 1 and 22. xl-4,-e...trT: 7s, 2 the history of past effortsto enact a program of general federal aid for elementary andsecondary education.3For nearly a century the national legislature considereddozens of proposals whichwore designed to originate sucha program; yet none wore approvod. he various proposals invariably tendedto introduces or reintroduce,a host of controversial issueswh_ch made majorityconsensus on the subject an extremely elusiveoccurrence. Many of the propositions became involved withsome corab:Ination of such explosive questions as federal control of education, the granting offederal funds to segregated schools, the distribution of federalaid to private educational institutions, and the allocationof federal funds among tho states. Indeed, this area of national publicpolicy has been so plagued by a variety of sensitive topics that carefulstudents of the subject have consistently predictedthat the passage of a federal aid for education billwas quite unlikely. For example, at the coaclusion of a detailed and insightfLianalysis o: the 1961 congressixlal deliberation concerninr; federal aid toelemereary and secondary educationone political Je..entist :ho 'oitt:rnciss of the 1961le:1L1-.tive struggle and the difficulties of reachinga consansus on the status of nonpublic schools wilL no;:.soon be for gotten. In private, many school-aid supporters admitted that federal aid of the sort proposed by President Kennedywas dead, not just for the 87th Congress, but probably forthe decade of the 1960's.4 3Althoughthis exact worsir.g will not always beused, due to style andspace consideration, the focus of this study is centered on the kind of federal aidwhich is referred to as general aid for elementary