DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 090 835 HE 005 430

AUTHOR Barclay, D. JO, Ed.TITLE Post-Secondary Education: Where Do We Go From

Here?INSTITUTION Syracuse Univ. Research Corp., N.Y. Educational

Policy Research Center.SPONS AGENCY Office of Education (DREW), Washington, D.C.PUB DATE, 71CONTRACT OEC-1-7-070996-4253NOTE 32p.JOURNAL CIT Notes on the Future of Education; v2 n3 Sum 1971

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.85 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Credentials; *Educational Finance; *Educational

Policy; Essays; *Higher Education; *Post SecondaryEducation

ABSTRACTEssays contained in this document present a direction

for policy and problemsolving in the realm of postsecondaryeducation. The essays cover: (1) the "new" domain of postsecondaryeducation, (2) the growth and financing of postsecondary education,(3) a lottery system for higher education, (4) credentialism, (5)campus disaffection, (6). the redistribution of educational andnoneducational goods, and (1) new policy directions for postsecondaryeducation. (MJM)

1 NOTES ON THE17T., FUTURE OF

EDUCATION1 POA PUBLICATION OF THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY RESEARCH CENTER AT SYRACUSE VOLUME II ISSUE 3 SUMMER 1911

POST-SECONDARY

GEO FROM HERE?

EDUCATION:WHERE DO

U S. DEPARTMEAITOP. HEALTH,\s\.)

NAVONAL INSTstUTE OFEDUCATION A WELFARE

MAK Al MNTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRO

14\DuCE0 EXACTLY AS RECENED PROMTHE PERSON OR ORGAN IATION OR+GINATING tT POINTS OF SetEiti OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY A EPAE

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY.SENT OFFICIAL NAT ,ONAL INSTITUTE OF

SRC

Notes on the Future: of Education is publishedquarterly by the Educe Tonal Policy Research Centerat Syracuse, 1206 Harrison Street, .9yracuse, NewYork 13210. The Center was established in 1967,with funds provided under Title IV of the Elementaryand Secondary Education Act, by the SyracuseUniversity Research Corporation, a not-for-profitcorporation, with the cooperation of Syracuse

University's School of Education and Maxwell Schoolof Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Volume II

Summer

D. J. Barclay

Issue 3

1971

Editor

The research from which the articles in thispublication are drawn was conducted pursuant toContract No. OEC-1.7-070996-4253 with the Officeof Education, U. S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking suchprojects under Government sponsorship are encour-aged to express freely their professional judgment inthe conduct of the project. Points of view or opinionsstand do not, therefore, necessarily represent officialOffice of Education position or policy.

EPRC Staff and Associated Researchers

Donnelly J. Barclay Publications F .low James C.Byrnes Associate Director Thomas B. Corcoran Re-search Associate Laurence B. DeWitt Research FellowTeri Dickerso.i Secretary David R. Fendrick ResearchAssistant Everett Eggington Research Assistant Mi.chael Folk Research Assistant Dennis Gooier ResearchAssistant Thomas F. Green Co-Director Ralph Ham-brick Research Fellow John A. Henning AssociatedResearch Fellow Paul Johnson ReseNch AssistantLouis Kriesberg Associated Research Fellow GerhardKutsch Research Assistant David LaMar Administra-tive Officer Elizabeth Macomber Executive SecretaryMichael D. Marien Research Fellow Joseph McGivneyAssociated Research Fellow Stanley Moses ResearchFellow Mary E. O'Neill Librarian William M. RiveraResearch Assistant Arline Sakuma Associated ResearchFellow Aina Sanders Administrative Secretary StuartA. Sandow Research Fellow Manfred Stanley Associ-ated Research Fellow A. Dale Tussing Associate Direc-tor Maureen M. Webster Research Associate RobertJ. Wolfson Associated Research Fellow Warren L. Zieg-ler Co-Director

CONTENTS

2 Stanley MosesThe "New" Domain of Post-Secondary Education

5 James C. ByrnesOn the Growth and Financing of Post-Secondary Edu-cation: Who Pays, rtudent or Taxpayer?

9 Laurence B. DeWittA Lottery System for Higher Education

12 Michael MarienCredentialism in our Ignorant Society

15 A. Dale TussingCampus Disaffection, Present and Future

20 Thomas F. GreenBreaking the System: The Redistribution of Educa-tional and Non-Educational Goods

23 Warren L. ZieglerNew Policy Directions for Post-Secondary Education

EDITOR'S NOTES

The essays contained in this issue of Notes are theresult of a continuing focus at the Center on the prob-lems and perspectives of post-secondary education. Inthese essays are brought together a number of majorresearch approaches undertaken at the Center, includ-ing quantitative and structural analysis, forecasting,comprehensiveness, policy planning and others.

In their original form, these essays were substanti-ally longer, and were planned for publication as abook. Last spring, however, Dr. Samuel Halperin ofthe Educational Staff Seminars in Washington, askedthat the Center select a team to present a two-dayseminar for congressional and executive Aaff mem-bers on the problems of post-secondary education inthe United States. Though the background researchwas complete, the requirements that the essays besharpened and condensed into their present formatpresented new problems and challenges.

A series of intensive discussions honed the papersdown to approximately their present length, includinga number of changes that clarified most of the pointsunder discussion. Then, the seminar at Airtie Housein Washington identified some few points of remain-

ing obscurity. At that point, the decision was taken toput the papers through one final revision for puttlica-tion in this magazine.

While these essays contain some suggestions to solu-tions of the problems currently plaguing post-second-ary education, it is to be emphasized that their purposeis to raise and define significant, enduring issues andto point a direction for policy. An example of this isthe difference throughout these papers between "high-er education" and "Post-tecondary education." Thelatter term covers a wider and more significant set ofactivities than has usually been considered in policydiscussions; this widening of scope we feel is a crucialneed if the problems are to be alleviated during thenext few decades.

A summary of the major points made In the essaysis impossible in the space allotted to this column;rather, I would like to emphasize the fact that thesepapers present a direction for policy and problem-solving in the realm of post-secondary education, nota program of explicit cures for the educational ills ofadults and young adults.

Because of the extreme length of this issue, and theprinting costs involved, additional copies are priced at$1.50, rather than our usual one dollar. Single copies,of course, are sent to the mailing list free of charge.

The "New" Domain of Post-secondary Education

by

Stanley Moses

Stanley MosesA research Fellow at the Center un-tineptember 1971, Moses has spent the last few yearsexploring and defining the "Learning Force." In Sept-tember of 1971, he began teaching at Hunter Collegein New York City. He Is also working on a book whichfully outlines the dimeuslons and implications of theLearning Force.

We all know that the American educational systemhas grown a great deal over the pest few decades andindeed since the beginning of the republic. We knowthat this growth is reflected in both absolute numbersof participants, higher rates of participation for cohortage groups, and large increases in outlays of publicmonies at all levels of government. Probably, many ofus are aware of the intricacies and subtleties whichare at work in each of these three areas. And especial-ly the reservations involved at the present time of thebust in the birth rate and the boom in budget balancing.

But with all our knowledge and understanding ofthe growth of the "educational system" there still re-main large areas of educational activity where we arestill ;grorant and uninformed, and when I mentioneducation, I am not here referring to learning. I amsimply referring to a ba*,-s, understanding of the struc-tural dimensions of participation in formal, organizededucational experiences by the American populationas regards numbers of participants and the amounts ofexpenditures and employment involved.

Until now, all our traditional governmental agencieshave concentrated their efforts on recording and re-porting the dimensions of the Corethat sequentiniladder of formal educational activity ranging from kin-dergarten through graduate and professional schools.Missing from this accounting is the recording of parti-cipation in what I call the "Educational Periphery"the variety of formally organized educational activitiesranging from vocationally oriented programs in busi-ness, government, the military, proprietary schools andanti-poverty programs, to cultural and leisure-orientedprograms in regular Core institutions, religious educa-tion, television, correspondence courses, and privateassociations. Theso programs satisfy the interests and

needs, both cultural and vocational, of millions ofindividuals.

Also overlooked in our traditional approach to edu-cation are the variety of informal non-organized waysin which people learn and educate themselves. MichaelMarien has referred to many of their activities in hiswork on the "educational complex.',' By informal, Imean education through the media, local cultural facil-ities, activities in organizations, and the different formsof self-directed learning in which people engage forthe purpose of this presentation. I shall focus atten-tion on the formally organized aspects of non-Coreeducational activity represented in the EducationalPeriphery. At the same time, however, I wish to em-phasize to you that it is the area of informal educationwhich will in the future present some of the greaterchallenges for creative thinking in educational policy.

A great disparity exists among these various esti-mates regarding the size of the Periphery. This maybe attributed to different conceptual frameworksabout the definition of an educational activity; differ-ences in the minimum time involvement deemed nec-essary for inclusion; and Different approaches to thephenomenon of double counting which occurs whentile same individual participates In more than one activ-ity during the course of a single year. The data pre-sented in the following table are drawn from a varietyof sources, both published and unpublished. Exten-sive contact was made with various organizations andpersonnel involved in the Periphery and the Core.Consideration was given to the differing estimates presented by various studies and attempts were made toreconcile these differences, where possible.

A more comprehensive assessment of educationalactivity portrays the following picture: (See Table be-low). We note that the total learning force, in termsof total 1970 head count participation, is about even-I" divided between the educational Corethe tradi-tional system of schools and collegesand the educa-tional Periphery.

What are some of the implications which emerge

TM Learning Force 1194019761

CurrantEstimate

1440 1960 1966 1960 1966 1970 1976

1. TM Educational Coro1. Prep/ Im" .7 1.3 2.0 2.7 3.1 4.4 6.6

2. Elementary eas 21.0 26.0 29.1 32.0 32.3 30.03. Secondary 7.1 6.6 9.3 13,0 16.8 19.8 22.1

4. Undergraduate 1.4 2.4 2.4 3.2 4.9 6.6 8.35. Graduate .1 .2 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.1

Sub-Total 298 31.4 39.9 48.e 67.4 63.8 67.0

II. TM EducationalPar 1phory

1. Grosnirstiona1 8.2 10.2 10.9 13.0 148 21.7 27.42. Proprietary 2.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 7.8 9,6 1813. Anti - poverty - 2.8 5.1 7.04, Correspondence 2.7 3.4 3.5 4.6 6.0 5.7 8.7

6. TV .01 6.0 7.5 10.0

6. °that adult 3.9 4.8 5.1 6.8 9.1 10.7 13.2

Sub-Totsi 17.3 21.9 23.0 28.3 44.2 60.3 82.4

III. TM Learning Forts(I f II) 47.1 53.3 82.9 76.7 101.6 124.1 149.4

from our considerations of the learning force? Thefundamental challenge to public policy in the futurewill be to innovate new programs and experienceswhich will afford opportunities for growth and devi I-opment in ways not afforded by the traditional Coreeducational system. Public policy must rethink thecontent and purposes of organized education. Doeseducation refer only to the sorts of activities represent-ed in the Core? Traditional concepts of educationhave focused upon education as an activity engaged inby children or youth as a preparation for life prior toentering the "real" world.

The learning force concept leads to a substantiallycontrary view of education. My view challenges con-ventional wisdom about the purposes and goals ofthe educational system, and brings to the forefrontmany basic questions: Who is to be educated; WhereIs one to be educated? At what time in WO In whattype of programs? For what purposes? It challengesthe monopoly which the traditional Core educationalestablishment has had over public resources. It posesquestions for our traditional measures regarding "edu-cational attainment" and disputes the primacy of cre-dentials as a measure of that attainment. Bringing intoreckoning a vast array of already existing alternative

educational programs in the Periphery, it presents thepossibility for an innovative and creative approrch toplanning for education which can better serve theneeds of both individuals and society.

Consideration of the Periphery leads to a numberof suggestions regarding the implications of the Learn-ing Force concept. My contention is that the con-cept har a direct relevance and contribution to maketo our understanding of what education is in modernsociety; to the changing relationships between educa-tion and society; to the purposes and functioning ofeducational planning on the part of government andother social institutions; and to new possibilities forpersonal development in both work and leisure in ouremerging post-industrial society. Activities in the Per-iphery provide a new framework for the considerationsof educational policy. A recognition of tile totalLearning Force provides the basis for making an accu-rate assessment of the true dimensions of education inAmerican society, not only regarding enrollments, amatter which has been emphasized in this article, butalso comprehensive estimates regarding total educa-tional expenditures and total educational employment.A consideration of the Learning Force also providesthe basis for making more rational decisions regard-ing policy for the Core as well as providing the basisfor new initiatives In the Periphery.

in order to think about policy for the Core we willhave to Increase our undersandin3 of the Periphery asa system of education which offers a variety of alter-native possibilities for individual learning and hence,for public policy. A number of historical develop-ments In the Core make it necessary to bring to theforefront now, more than ever before, a considera-tion of the Periphery. Among these are the folk:swirl:

1. the Increasing rate of high tchool completion,now at the level of 80 percent; very simply,after 100 years, the K-12 system will not serveas the main lrea for future growth In the Core.

2. certain systemic regularities in higher educationwhich seem to have led to stabilized relation-ships between entrance and completion, thereby raising serious questions about the pal of"a universal higher education for all" as the nextphase of development in the Core. For thepast 50 years, approximately 64% of high schoolgraduates have matriculated into 4-year degreecredit programs of higher education.

3

3. an increased sense of disaffection with and chal-lenge to the power and hegemony of higher edu-cation as being the ultimate and only depositoryof "higher" learning.

4. an increasing discontent with the role which edu-cational institutions have played in abetting theemergence of the "credentialized society."

5. the fiscal crises resulting from commitment tothe Increasing development and expansion of theCore.

6. the changing economic and social structure ofsociety which indicates that many of our tradi-tional notions as to what people should learnwhere, when and howare even less valid todaythan ever beforeleading to a search for an edu-cational system which will provide more mean-ingful alternatives along the line of "continuingeducation" or, to use the Swedish term, "recur-ring education."

All of these factors indicate that our policy lensesshould be broadened beyond the traditional focus ofthe educational system. Where the broadened spec-trum leads I do not know. That is one major issue fordiscussion today. We do know that in the past, whilethe Core and Periphery have developed as two some-what separate and distinct systems, there has alwaysbeen a relationship between them. At the very least,both implicitly and explicitly, they exist as competi-tors for the dollars of both the public purse and theprivate consumer, 'nsomuch as he does have the op-portunity to exercise some choice. While in this areathere has been some competition, the struggle has beensomev hat akin to the likelihood that five midgets, al-beit highly skilled, innovative and creative, would winthe championship of the National Basketball Asso-ciation.

In terms of program substance, there has bren agood deal of interchange, with the Periphery servingas the frontier of innovation and experimentation andthe Core coopting and institutionalizing those pro-grams which demonstrate the greatest viability andsuccess. In that sense we may observe the manner inwhich junior colleges have developed programs deal-ing with many of the specialized skills and trainingthat has been regularly provided by proprietary insti-tutions, business and industrial organizations. In thepast, in order for Periphery programs to gain legitimi-

zation and accreditation it usually was necessary thatthey become absorbed within the institutional frame-work of the Core.

A major question confronting policy makers iswhether this past trend shall be the wave of the future.Are policy-makers prepared to confront some basicquestions about the relationship between schooling=ind learning, between education and occupation, andbetween credentials and capabilities; about what Isthe legitimate arena for public involvement in the sup-port of education; about the larger questions of whatshould the people learn, when, where and how? If weapproach the questions in this manner, I think we willdiscover that we already possess in this country awhole variety of programs and possibilities, of alter-natives to the regular schooling systema matter weare now hearing much aboutwhich deserves the ser-ious attention and consideration of public policy-makers.

Where does this new perspective on the total do-main of postsecondary education lead us? At thevery least, the Office of Education should address it-self to the problem of remedying some of the hugeinformation gaps which exist in our current know-ledge about the sizeable complexity of educationalactivities in the Periphery, I realize that some begin-nings have already been made under the impetus ofDorothy Guilford and Morris Ullman of the Center forEducational Statistics. But, historically, these begin-nings have a way of being terminated as soon as theybegin. Witness also the recent decision to close theERIC Center for Adult Education, strong evidence ofthe marginality and low level priority attached to non-Core activities by the Office of Education.

But even if detailed and comprehensive informationwere suddenly to be thrust upon usI am pessimisticas to what difference this would make. Would federalpolicy be able to confront some of the hard questions(interestingly enough, usually labeled by social scien-tists and other such types as "soft" questions) aboutthe goals of learning and personal development andhow these relate to the huge behemoth of the Corewhich we have created, organized, legitimized and sub-sidized. Once we have a better comprehension of justwhat the "domain of education" is, is federal policyprepared to ask what the future shape and content ofour educational system should be? I think that it Isonly when we confront some of these more basic ques-tions that we can then begin to think through some

of the implications that the Periphery, the Learning dered in this presentation, have for the formulation ofForce and the various forms of Informal learning consi- a "better" educational policy.

On the Growth and Financing of Post-secondary Education:Who Pays, Student or Taxpayer?

by

James C. Byrnes

James C. ByrnesBefore coming to the Center as aSenior Research Fellow, Byrnes was with the Officeof Education in Washington, D. C. His interest inrefining the data available on the quantity of in-struction led to the major focus of his research atthe Center, with an emphasis on the future quantityof post-secondary instruction and alternative meansof financing expected growth. A film of his projec-tions, "The Future Quantity of Instruction" was madeduring the Spring of 1971. He was made an Associ-ate Director of the Center in August 1971.

Post-secondary education in the United States is ina severe state of financial difficulty. Despite unprece-dented federal and state programs of financial assist-ance during the 1960's, the average number of staffmembers per student declined at a rate of minus 1.5percent per year from 1960 to 1970. By 1970 thataverage was 86 percent of what it was at the begin-ning of the decade. During the same period, constantdollar expenditures per staff member increased onlyby 1.0 percent per year while average incomes receivedby all families in the United States increased 3.3 per-cent per year in real terms. During this same periodthe number of student-years of instruction producedincreased by 8.3 percent per year. Educational activi-ty more than doubled. Average expenditure per stu-dent-year, in constant 1968-69 dollars, Jeclined at arate of minus 0.6 percent per year during tht. decade.

In order to maintain staff-student ratios withoutchange during the 1960's and enjoy the same rate ofgrowth in resource use per staff member as that en-joyed by the rest of us In both our homes and ourjobs, would have required 46 percent more In totalcurrent resources than institutions of higher education

actually used during the 1960's. This suggests thatthere is a good deal more than simple bureaucraticgreed behind the current cry of "financial crisis" heardfrom the educational community.

There are two reasons why thin difficulty has oc-curred. One is that the college age population in-creased at a rate of 4.2 percent per year during the1960's. That population did not Increase at all duringthe 1950's. The second reason is that the secondaryschool system began to mature. During the 1960's,the locus of growth In the number of years of furmaieducation completed by the young shifted from sec-ondary levels to post-secondary levels. We openedpost-secondary education to the less affluent on ascale unlike aaything we had done before. This wasnecessary if growth in educational attainment was tocontinue. However, by facilitating this shift in wheregrowth in schooling takes place, we also created a new,but temporary, source of student demand. Post-secon-dary education in general began to serve groups in ourpopulation never before served through student aidand by the creation of new low-tuition government-operated institutions. This brought an even greaternumber of students to post-secondary education dur-ing the 1960's than population growth and the risein per capita income alone can account for.

These factors led to the financial difficulty post-secondary education faces today and will continue tocreate problems for another ten years. The college-age population will continue to increase by 2.3 per-cent per year until 1976, and by 1.6 percent per yearbetween 1976 and 1980. Continued growth in realincome will bring with it continued growth In theaverage number of student-years of instruction sought

6

per person of college age. The opening of post-secon-dary instruction for lower income groups will continueto add to the demand for enrollment over and abovewhat growth in real income will produce. Growth inreal income will continue to raise the unit cost ofInstructional resources. Growth In national income,however, is unlikely to exceed its long-run historicalrate. Thus, without an Increase in the historic prior-ity we have placed on educational uses for new nationalresources, the financial crisis In post-secondary educa-tion will last another ten years. But, take heart, thereis an end In sight. I will explain.

There are limits to how much time people willspend in formal education. Even if there were a com-pletely open post-secondary system in the UnitedStates today, free of all cost to students at all levelsof post-secondary study, only a little more than one-half of last year's first graders would bf.4 expected tospend as many as 4 years at post-secondary levels bythe time they reach age 35. Let me translate that kindof statement into something more useful for the prob-lem at hand.

Even if the system were made completely free tostudents and programs broadened to accept all appli-cants regardless of their prior preparation, we wouldnot expect enrollment to more than double between1970 and 1980. The reason for this is simply thatpeople have other things to do besides going to school.

However, the reason we may expect the rate ofIncrease in the average amount of time those of col-llge age spend in formes education to accelerate in the1970's is that a growing number see further educationas the most desirable of all the alternatives available tothem. Geneially speaking, they are quite correct Inthis view. The increased real income and wealth ofour society comes from increased productivity in theconduct of both social and economic affairs. Increasedproductivity involves an increasing division of laborbetween learning and doing. Opportunities for exper-iential learning are dirt finishing as rapidly for the col-lege -age individual today as was the case 60 years agofor youth of high school age. The more experiencedindividual, who is not primarily an educator, findsthat he can afford less and less time to assist the unini-tiated if he is to maintain the standards of productivityothers expect. I believe that this is one reason why we s'began to create a system of public secondary schoolsat the turn of the century. I believe that this Is alsoone reason why we are now creating new publicly

6

supported opportunities for post-secondary education.

Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that, al-though we will find it extremely difficult to createmeaningful post-secondary programs sufficient to bringabout a doubling of enrollment, we can afford to dothat if we wish to accept the challenge. That wouldimply an annual average rate of growth in student-years accommodated of 7.7 percent per year. We mayhold the average staff-student ratio constant at its1970 level. We may increase average expenditures perstaff (including current capital cost) by 3.5 percentper year. This yields a growth rate for total resourcesrequired of 11.5 percent per year between 1970 and1980. (See Table A)

TABLE AAverage Rates of Growth In Percent Per Veer

All Institutions of Hielym Education

(111960'e

(2)1983's

(3) (41

1970's 1980's

MaximumGrowth)

A. Number of persons age 18.24 0.0 4.2 1.9 -1.6B. Avery* student-years completed

per person of college age 1.6 3.9 6.7 2.0C. Number of student-yaws

(A times 11)' 1.6 8.3 7.7 CS5

D. Avers?' No, staff units usedper student yew 2.7 -1.5 0.0 1.4

E. Average constant $ expenditureper gaff unit (including salary,material, and current capitalconsumption) 2.1 1.0 3.5 3.5

F. Total constant $ current resourcesused (C times D Times E1' 6.5 7.7 11.6 5.6

0. Average constant Sampendituraper student-year (F+C1' 4.8 -0.6 3.5 6.0

Rates shown we multiplichtive when fin t converted to ratios:

Ratio- 1 +

If national income continues to grow at its histori-cal rate of about 3.7 percent per year in real terms,then we can afford a 10.4 percent per year growth inexpenditures for post-secondary education with nochange in the historical priority we have placed oneducational uses of Increments to our Income for morethan 50 years. We can afford an 11.5 percent per yeargrowth in resources for post-secondary education witha lower rate of growth in total educational expendi-tures than that prevailing for the past 20 years.

If one makes the same kind of assumptions forgrowth in the elementary and secondary system-thatpre-school activities will increase; that the proportionof the young completing high school will continue torise; that the average staff-student ratio will actuallyincrease by 0.6 percent per year in order to avoid re-ducing the absolute number of staff as the school pop-ulation declines; and that expenditures per staff mem-ber will increase at a rate of 3.6 percent per year-thenrequirements for growth in total resources will be 3.9percent per year, Furthermore, this would allow fora 4.1 percent per year rate of growth in expenditure!per student in real terms. This would represent a rateof Improvement in resources per student which is sig-nificantly higher than that which has been enjoyed bythe elementary and secondary system for more than20 years. (See Table B)

TABLE BAverage Rates col Growth In Percent Per Veer

All Elemental,/ and Secondary Institutions

ill 121 131 (4)1950's 1060's 1970's 1960's

A. Number of persons age 5.17 3-6 1.9 -0.8 1.2B. Average student-years completed

per person of school age 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4C. Number of student-years

(A times BP 3.9 2.6 -0.2 1.60. Average No. stall units used

per student year 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3E. Average constant $ expenditure

per staff unit lincludi ng salary,material, and current capitalconsumption) 3.5 3.4 3,5 3.5

F, Total constant $ current resourcesused (C times 0 times El' 7.8 6.4 3.9 5.6

G. Average constant $ expenditureper student-year (F CI' 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.8

Rates shown are multiplicative when first converted to ratios:

Ratio vx 1 100

If one simply recognizes that 1970 expenditures forthe elementary and secondary system were 4 timesthe amount spent for all higher education, then onecan discover that a growth rate of 11.6 percent peryear for expenditures on higher education and a growthrate of 3.9 percent per year for the lower grades im-plies a 6.9 percent per year growth rate for both. Thegrowth rate for both has been roughly 6.6 percent for60 yearsand substantially higher than that for the past20 years. (See Table C)

TABLE C

Average Rates of Growth In Total Resource Use

All Educational Institutions

(In Percent Per Year)

(Constant 1968.69 Dollars)

1960Expenditure

Weights 1960'a 1960's 1970's Isatre

Higher Education .2 6.6 7.7 11.5 5.5

Elementary & Secondary .8 7.8 6.4 3.9 5.5

All Formal Education 1.0 7.6 6.7 6.9 5.6

Technical Note: The expenditure weights apply to the underlying growthratios consistent with the average rates shown.

N.8. The annual average rate of growth in total educational expenditureshas been approximately 5.5 percent per year In constant dollars since1920.

If we address this problem and solve it reasonablywell in the next decade, then following 1981 require-ments for growth In resources for post-secc idary edu-cation will be greatly diminished. Not only will thecollege age population decline continuously for anoth-er 10 years following 1981, but lower income groupswill have access to post-secondary education. Furthergrowth in educational attainment will thereafter beconstrained by the growth in real income per capita.And growth requirements for post-secondary educa-tion will subside to something on the order of 6.6 per-cent per year even with the most generous assumptions.

This brings us to the title question: "Who pays, thestudent or the taxpayer?" My answer is that the tax-payer pays. But remember: the student is a futuretaxpayer.

We are fond of pointing to the highK average life-time earnings of college graduates and asking: If edu-cation pays the individual so well, why not let the in-dividual pay the full cost? We forget that the success-ful student has already paid dearly In three ways. Hemust perform prodigious amounts of work. He mustgive up other activities which also might lead to a de-sirable future. And, he must assume a very severerisk that what we and our educational Institutions re-quire him to do will, in fact, prove personally valuableto him in the future. About 60 percent of the rangeof incomes received In 1969 by 35.44 year old malecollege graduates was indistinguishable from the rangeof Incomes received by their cohorts who only corn-

7

pleted high school. (See Chart 1.) To assume thatthe higher incomes which are visible have been causedby schooling, it would be necessary to deny that eitherthe student or his nonschool advantages had anythingto do with the amount of income he subsequentlyreceived. The only way our post-secondary Institu-tions can be said to have caused one person to have ahigher lifetime income than another Is by restrictingaccess to instruction in arbitrary ways

If the educational system does no more than in-crease one person's income over another's, that sys-tem is clearly discriminatory and inequitable. Thepurpose of post-secondary education is much morethan that. It quite literally pays each of us to giveothers a means to enhance their skills and abilities, aslong as those skills and abilities are not exclusive;that is, as long as anyone who wishes to acquire a par-ticular skill or insight has a chance to do so. There isno reason why a student should pay the full cost ofhis education unless it gives him some exclusive ad-

Percent

12.0

11.0

10.0

9.0

8.0

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0,-

/

With 4 Yearsof High SchoolOnly

/

vantage over his contemporaries.

During the past 30 years the proportion of theyoung completing high school has risen from 60 per-cent to more than 80 percent. The proportion of thecollegeaged finishing 4 years of college has risen fromabout 9 percent to nearly 25 percent. During thatsame period, the distribution of income received byindividuals has changed very little. What has changed,however, is that the average income received by allhas Increased more than two-and-one half times, inreal terms. It is society who pays for the educationalprocess because it is society which benef its. There maybe good and sufficient reasons for charging studentstuition and fees, but those reasons have little to dowith causing students to have high Incomes.

The manner in which we choose to finance futuregrowth in post-secondary education is of deep andlasting importance. If this is done by creating low-tuition Institutions under highly centralized govern-

CHART 1Total Money Income in 1969

Males Age 35-44

60%Indistinguishable

Thousands of Dollars

0 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1= 20Source: Calculated from U.S. Bureau of The Census, Current Population Reports, "Consumer Income," Series P60, No. 76, Dec. 14, 1970.

ti

With 4 Yearsof College orMore

-S

mental administration, student choice w:th respect towhere and how he pursues his education is minimized.I believe that one of the most critical ratios to be setthrough public policy is the ratio of institutional reve-nues from students, through tuition, to non-tuitionrevenue. That ratio now stands at roughly two to onein favor of non-tuition revenue to institutions. Asthe institutional side of that ratio increases, studentchoice with respect to where and how he gets an edu-cation Is diminished. On the other hand, if the stu-dent financed the total cost of his post-secondary edu-cation, the public nature of our educational institu-tions would be greatly diminished. Institutions wouldhave little choice but to do whatever students askedinstitutions could no longer be expected to respond towhat the rest of us might perceive as desirable forstudents.

Thus my recommendation is to create two new sup-plementary programs of educational aid. One shouldbe a general per student-year grant sufficient to pro-vide a basic minimum level of resources to any non-profit organization which provides educational servicesof a non-exclusive nature and which meets certaintests of public accountability. It would not be diffi-cult to construct a short list of workable tests.

The second new program would permit students to

A Lottery System for Higher Education

by

Laurence B. DeWitt

Laurence B. DeWittA Research Fellow at the Centerwith a strong background in economics, DeWitt previ-ously had an article In the "Right to Read" issue ofNotes (II, 1 Fall 19701 when he collaborated withA. Dale Tussing on "The Costs of Illiteracy."

Let us look for a moment at higher education interms of a set of trade-offs between three interests:students, society, and the colleges. The students havetwo, not entirely separable, interests in higher educa-tion. First, and most obviously, higher education is

finance as much of their expenses as they wish througha government post-secondary education tax founda-tion. Students would agree to pay the foundation asmall additional income tax depending upon howmuch they received for their educational expenses.At any time the accumulated tax a student returnedwas sufficient to cover the amount advanced plus in-terest, the student's obligation would end. Studentscould also pre-pay their full obligation whenever theywished. These provisions would be necessary becausethe student could always buy out of such a tax bysimply paying tuition out of his current resources.However, the tax rates would be set at such a levelthat no more than one-quarter to one-half of the aver-age amount advanced would ever be recovered. Thatloss would constitute a new form of student aid andwould be financed out of general tax revenue paid byus all. Student aid in this form would be distributedin an ideal wayaccording to the level of the stu-dent's future income.

In this way students would finance institutionalcostsover and above that covered by basic institutionalgrants. These differential costs would arise from thehigher costof more unusual or more advanced instruc-tion, But the student would play a stronger role indeciding how much of that higher-cost instruction heshould undertake.

the path to desirable and lucrative jobs. And a collegeeducation is increasingly necessary for such jobs. Sec-one, there is a range of aesthetic, self-fulfilling andmaturing interests which higher education can satisfy.These are internalthey are intangibles.

Society or "The Public" has interests very muchparallel to those of students. First, it has a need fortrained personnel: engineers, lawyers, doctors, soldiers,and so forth. Second, there are collective benefitsfrom having an enlightened citizenry which is some-

9

what knowledgeable about and interested in art,science, public affairs, and so forth. We can note atthis point that these social or public interests matchup with the interests of the students: In both casesthere is an occupational and also an "enlightenment"concern.

Consider, for a moment, that the primary Interestsof the colleges and universitier may be altogether dif-ferent. They are largely concerned about prestigetheir own prestige as compared to that of other col-leges and universities, institutions of higher educa-tion are popularly misunderstood to be primarily con-cerned with teaching and research. This is a fallacy,They ere primarily concerned with raising or at leastmaintaining their position in the academic hierarchyor pecking - order. An administrator's prestige andstatus are very much a function of the prestige of thecollege or university where're works. A faculty mem-ber's prestige and status are also very much related tothe pecking-order of the college where he is employed,but it is also a function of his personal standing in hisfield, which is determined by his research.

None of this should be taken to mean that colleges,administrators, or faculty are not concerned withteaching. They are. Nor does this mean that facultymembers and administrators are not concerned withserving the public Interest, In fact, it might be arguedthat, taken as a whole, the professional academic com-munity Is more personally and sincerely concernedabout furthering the public interest than any othermajor occupational group.

Nonetheless, we must continue and ask: In whatform is this concern expressed? The suggestion hereis that, like almost all people, their own interests, cs-reers, ambitions, status, and so forth come first. I see

the collegesfaculty and administratorsworki,eg onbehalf of the public interest once their own funda-mental and personal prestige concerns have been satis-fied. And this satisfaction comes from their particu-lar college admitting the most highly qualified studentsthey can lay their hands on. The reason is simple: thebetter the students attending a particular college, thegreater is its prestige. Of course, there are secondaryreasons too. For instance, most faculty members de-rive more pleasure from teaching bright students thanfrom teaching the duller ones. But the primary motiveremains that of maintaining or enhancing the academicstatus of the institution.

10

Another way of looking at academic prestige andstatoand the way in which it Is usually discussed byadministrators and faculty membersis in terms ofstandardsmaintaining standards. One might well ask:Well, what's wrong with maintaining standards? Cer-tainly we do not want low quality higher edutation.The question here concerns the definition of "stand-ards" and "quality." And the problem is thr thesetermsstandards and qualityare usually used to referto the students themselves as inputs to the higher edv.cation process, not to their growth, development, orlearning. It refers to something that has already hap-pened to the students before they attend college, rath-er than to the quality of the process they undergowhile attending college. It is worth noting that thereare virtually no measures of the "value added" to anindividual, or his learning, in the course of his collegeeducation. We can observe that the "best" schoolsproduce what are in some sense the "best" graduates,but we cannot tell if this is simply becrme theseschools begin with the best high school graduates inthe first place. This tells us nothing about how muchthe college adds to its students. Nor does It tell usanything about which sorts of schools are most likelyto make the greatest contribution to which types ofstudents. In this area there is almost a total knowl-edge vacuum, despite the fact that It is the single mostImportant question about the substance of highereducation.

There is, of course, a social equity principle behindthe notion that the best students should be admittedto higher education, and that the best students shouldbe placed in the best colleges, the mediocre studentsin mediocre colleges, and so forth. The principle hasbeen labelled "merit." The best high school studentsare seen as being the most deserving of or the mostable to utilize the best higher education. As waspointed out above, there simply is no data available onwho is able to utilize what sort of higher educationhow well. And the former point--concerning who de-serves any or what sort of higher educationconsti-tutes an enormous, problematic assumption, Onemight equally well argue that the academically dullestdeserve it the most, because they are the most in need.Similarly, one could argue that since higher educationis increasingly a publicly proirided service, and thatsince "possessing" a higher education confers enor-mous monetary benefits on the specific individualswho receive it, that til persons should be provided anequal chance to gain this publicly conferred benefit.Given that there exists a hierarchy or peckingorder cf

colleges, and given that the educations and degreesoffered by the "top" schools are more valuable thanthose offered by the "bottom" schools, it can be con-tended that all applicants should be provided an equalchance of being admitted to the school of their choice.This could be done by a device simile" to that now em-ployed for distributing a major publicly conferredburden: the military draft lottery. Although this mayStrike many as a radical proposal, it should be notedthat colleges using a random admissions procedurewould in fundamental ways be similar to the nowrather "traditional" comprehensive high schoels.

We must now ask what all of this has to do withpublic policy and the public interest. It seems reason-able to look at this in terms of two major concerns:First, the welfare of the society as a wholeour col-lective interests, and, second, the fair and equitabletreatment of the individuals comprising our society.

Concerning the first of these, it is clear that we, asa society, benefit from having the best possible doc-tors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, and so forth. It ispossible to extend this concern into a very "elitist"position: This top leadership strata of our society isby far our most important national resourcethe bet-ter they are, the more developed and advanced our en-tire society becomes, and we all share in this progress.Therefore, every possible educational advantage shouldbe directed to these future leaders. But It is also pos-sible to look at this same concern in an entirely dif-ferent way. It is quite reasonable to argue that thesesame "heir apparents" to the power structure of thenation will rise to the top positions regardless,whether or not they go to Harvard and Berkeley. Fur-thermore, if. one senses that the major problems andcrises con fronting this society fall into the range whichcan broadly be described as "human" and "distribu-tional" rather than "technical" and "aggregate," suchas poverty and the distribution of income and jobs,racial antagonisms, interpersonal cooperation, com-munication, and coordination, and so forth, thendoesn't it seem quite reasonable to suggest that thelast thing we need is a fairly del, hierarchical systemof education in which the wealthy and middle classtend to dominate the "better" schools, while the lowerincome classes and the blacks tend to populate the"worst" schools?

The second major public policy concernthe fairand equitable treatment of all individuals in the soci-etycan be looked at in similar terms. There are sev-

eral different principles of equality which can be em-ployed, and they result in drastically different con-clusions. The "merit" or "excellence" principle hasalready been described: Those who are In some sensemost "able" or most "accomplished" are seen as beingthe most deserving. This can be viewed as entirelycomplementary to the "elitist" and "heir apparent"positions just outlined.

But there is also a contrary, more egalitarian, prin-cipleof equity. It, too, was mentioned earlier. Highereducation Is increasingly a public activity. It confersconsiderable monetary and other advantages uponthose who receive it. Certain individuals should notbe favored over other individuals in this gigantic publicsweepstake? Furthermore, it would do much to re-d uce such enormous domestic crises as poverty and thedistribution of income, and frictions between racesand income classes were we to establish a more fullyequal system of higher education in which everyoneregardless of race, creed, sex, academic achievement,or native intelligence, is given an equal chance to reapthe benefits of higher education. A lottery system forselection into higher education and into particular in-stitutions of higher education appears to be one wayto accomplish that social objective.

So far I have talked rather broadly about socialinterest and social equity. These clearly are fully legit-imate public policy concerns. But there is also a moreimmediate way in which a lottery system is of rele-vance to educational policy.

Throughout this centuryand especially during thelast twenty yearshigher education has undergone anenormous quantitative expansion. This has been thedirect result of an increasing demand by the'public forthe benefits which a college education provides. Sofar higher education has done a fairly satisfactory jobof meeting this demand. But I suspect that this satis-faction will be very short-lived, even if the number ofnew openings in higher education continues to growat past rates.

The reasoning is simple. For those social groupsrecently admitted for the first time to higher educa-tion, this has represented a dramatic step forward forthemselves personally and for the society as a whole.But where have those "newly admitted" social groupsbeen placed in higher education? I referred earlier tothe existence of a fairly clearly defined pecking-orderof higher education institutions. It is fairly obvious

11

that the newly admitted social groups {largely middleclass and lower middle class blacks and whites) havebeen funneled for the most part into the lowest reachesof the higher educational hierarchy. So far this hasnot caused many problems because the simple act ofadmisslon to higher educationany form of highereducationhas seemed quite impressive. After all, itis a college education. But the real question is notsimply "Who gets a college education." It also in-volves asking "What kind" of an education and "Howgood" an education.

Starkly put, for how long will lower-middle andlow income parents and students, especially black ones,be content with what they have good reaton to regardas a "second class" higher education? Not only aremore public dollars spent on your education if yougo to a "better" school, but also you are more likelysubsequently to earn a higher income.

Credentialism in our Ignorant Society

by

Michael Marten

Michael Marten Much of Marien's recent efforts havegone Into establishing a "Consortium of Futures In-formation" to help futurists keep abreast of emergingknowledge development in their field. He is the com-piler oer two annotated bibliographies of educationalfuture; literature, both available from EPRC Publica-tions. He is a regular contributor to this publication,and Research Fellow at the Center.

Every societywhether pre-industrial, industrial, orpost-industrialmust have some procedure or proced-ures for social selection or determining who will oc-cupy important positions.

In a simple society, there are few positions of im-portance and the occupants of these positions are gen-erally determined bye single and simple criterion suchas heredity. There are no requirements to be apeasant, or even an unskilled factory worker. But ina complex, interdependent, service society, there are

12

Given the massive criticism of higher educationfrom many quarters in the past few years, a new attackon higher education from this equity ("who goeswhere") basis could expect to find many allies waitingin the wings. This would be especially so if such newdiscontent was expressed in terms of equal educationalopportunity. And this seems most likely. The massive"experiment" with open admissions in the City Uni-versity of New York can be viewed bs one major stepin > his direction.

A random admissions procedure would be one ob-vious institutional response to such discontent andcriticism. Less extensive, but still satisfactory, re-sponses might be possible. But if my prognosis is cor-rect, the institutional response will have to be quitedrasticdrastic on the order and degree of widespreadadoption of a lottery system for admission to colleges.

many roles to be filled requiring a high level of skillsand knowledge, and we increasingly employor shouldemploymany sophisticated measures for selectingthose who will occupy such roles.

Indeed, it is important to recognize an emergingknowledge society, where the various sources of em-ployment depending on the production ano utiliza-tion of knowledge may account for one-heif of thetotal national product by the end of this decade. Tosurvive as such a society, we require sophisticated pro-ducers and users of information. Without such sophis-tication in our labor force and our citizenry, we can-not function as a society any more than the militarycan conduct successful operations without adequateintelligence, intelligently used. The processes of en-couraging excel! e, and selecting the best men andwomen for the broaening upper labor force increas-ingly becomes a fundamental concern for the publicinterest.

But as we move to a post-industrial society, we findmany organizations and practices, established in othertimes for other purposes, to be obsolete. Such obso-lescence can also be found in our procedures for socialselection.

The set of practices that we presently use involvecredentials, examinations, accreditation, awards, pa-tronage, nepotism, measurement of Job performance,and human Judgment. Each practice has been studiedsingly to some degree, but the entire arrayor systemis seldom if ever considered. Such an overview willnot be attempted here, although much could be saidabout the deficiencies of examinations and their con-tribution to unequal opportunity, or the superficialcriteria for accrediting Institutions that often Inhibitexcellence instead of promote it.

Rather, several brief comments will be addressedto our use of credentials, for it is this practice, perhapsabove all others, that characterizes our system of socialselection. And our worship of credentials has creatednumerous problems.

1. Artificial Demand for Education, The demandfor credentials creates an artificial demand for the ser-vices of educating institutions. There are many whoattend classes primarily for gaining a credential andnot for purposes of learning. Learning may neverthe-less take place, but it is forced learning, creating a dis-taste for the self-directed inquiry that is increasinglynecessary throughout ora's life. Graduate programsin education are a notable example where enhance-ment of professional capability is rarely an outcomeand where dependencies on classrooms and programsare created.

2. Artificial Restraints to Learning. In our complexsociety, there is much for all of us to learn, and thereare many people who wish to learn but are reatraineofrom doing so by credentialism. Even where there isno scarcity of instructional resources or limited jobopportunities, enrollment In courses and programs isrestricted by using diplomas as entry passes, ratherthan Judging one on what he knows or is willing andable to learn.

3. Overlooking Obsolescence. Credentials do notreflect obsolescence. Our tradition of awarding di-plomas dates back to a time when knowledge was rela-tively static and an individual could be reasonablyeducated for a lifetime upon leaving an institution.

This Is obviously not the case today, and in some areasof learning, such as engineering, an Individual is con-sidered obsolete in 6 or 10 years if he has not pursuedhis continuing education. Even in the liberal arts,there are many differences in the experience repre-sented in a college diploma awarded In 1970, as op-rosed to one awarded in 1960 or 1930. If educationis damatically changed In forthcoming yearsas ad-vocated by many contemporary criticsthe degreesawarded in the past will become even more obsolete.

Because we have yet to formally recognize the eraof the decaying degree, there are many individuals whoare ostensibly qualified by virtue of their diplomas,who would not measure up to contemporary standards.In this respect, the young, who are presumably up-to-date upon graduation, are at a relative disadvantage tothe old.

4. Generational Inversion. The young are at an ad-vantage over the old, however, because despite manydeficiencies they are Increasingly better prepared forthe future, and they are given degrees that may or maynot reflect their superiority over the old. In manybut certainly not allrespeCts, the skills and knowl-edge of the young are more relevant to our emergingsociety, and the young do not suffer from the burdenof having to unlearn the old ways in order to accom-modate the new. This problem of actual differencesIs aggravated by the false differences imposed by cre-dentialism. The young are irwreasingly given degree-credit for the same learning that had not been creditedin the past. Moreove, ,here are many older peoplewho have acquired importont knowledge and skillsthrough work experience, formal classes in non-degreegranting educating institutions, or in self - directedlearning projectswhich is not reflected ih degree-credit or credentials.

6. Artificial Social Classes. There Is an Immensevariation among institutions granting ostensibly simi-lar diplomas, as well as among individuals within aninstitution who obtain the same diploma. To treatall high school graduates as potsessing the same levelof "education" is a convenient pseudo-egalitarian fic-tion encouraged by sociologists, pollsters, and em-ployers. Rather, in the knowledge society, we arecreating artificial social classes of high school gradu-ates, college graduates, and advanced degree holdersrefusing to recognize that the variation among degree-holders may be as great as the variation between de-gree-holders and non-degree holders. And thus, In the

13

midst of pseudo-egalitarianism, we also have pseudo-meritocracy.

6. The Myth of the Well-Educated Nation. It is adangerous illusion to count the growing proportion ofdegree-holders in our population and conclude thatwe are well-educated relative to the past, or even thatwe are over-educating as a result of unemploymentamong scientists. Through better formal and informallearning, we obviously kr,ovi more about man, nature,and society than in the past. But "progress" relatedto past attainments is not an appropriate measure ofwhat we need to know. Rather, the changing attri-butes of our society requires more learning and newforms of learning. If we set conterrporary standardsof what we should knov relative to what we actuallyknow, we may find a growing gap between needs andattainments, and an increasingly ignorant society. Thisfundamental observation is inhibited by counting de-gree-holders and proclaiming that we are consequentlywel I- educated.

The six problems outlined hereartificial demandfor education, artificial restraints to learning, over-

looking obsolescence, generational inversion, artificialsocial i..iasses, and the myth of the well-educated na-tion- arc only suggestive of the difficulties arising fromcreden tia I isn As we evolve to a knowledge-dependentbit not-yet-knowledgeable society, these problems oftomorrow will be aggravated until they finally t. orfaceas serious public issues.

We could act now by informing ourselves aboutsocial selection and consciougy shaping the entiresystem of practices to fit our national goals or wecould let matters muddle along and evolve uncon-sciously, as in the past. But in doing so, we shall suf-fer severe social costs of by-passed excellence and re-straints to learning. Whether or not we consciouslytake action, there are three basic alternatives for thefuture that appear more probable and desirable thanthe present system, which cannot survive much longer.

A genuine meritocracy would insure that creden-tials reflect abilities for all persons at all places and atall times. All diplomas would be temporary and con-tingent on mandatory renewal examinations, andadults would necessarily be provided with every pos-

sible opportunity for continuing their learning andkeeping up with the young. Changing standards of

14

merit would Insure that we no longer succumb to themyth of being well-educated.

At the other extreme, we might virtually cbanclonour use of credentials and minimize the use of exam-inations. The need for excellence would be satisfiedby actual job performance. In education, for example,proven ability to facilitate learning would be the onlyjob requirement, and, where there are many applicantsf A a Job, selection would be made after a probationperiod. This alternative would be compatible withthe humanistic objectives that are widely advocatedfor tomorrow's educationsuch as schools withoutfailure, non-grading at lower levels and pass/no pass athigher. levels. It would suggest that everyone is cap-able of learning, and that it is necessary for everyoneto maximize his learning.

The third alternative would be a complex syn-thesis of the first two, adhering to the principles ofmultiple skills, multiple measures, and multiple chanc-esand perhaps loosely known as a "multi-meritoc-racy." We would value a wide range of human attri-butes and a wider range of social roles than at present.Excellence as a parent, an auto mechanic, and a police-man would be valued. Accordingly, multiple measuresfor selection would be judiciously employed. The useof credential4 and examinations would become farless rigid, while at the same time extended, throughoptional renewal mechanisms, to recognize problemsof obsolesceme. Broader definitions would be em-ployed so that excellence and diversity might be pro-moted in individuals and among institutions. And, ina society where serial careers will be necessary formany, multiple opportunities for self-renewal and ca-reer choice at eny age would become widespread.

Now could the federal government hasten one ofthese alternative futuresa matter that surely wouldappear to be fundamentally in the national interest?

At present, there is no conscious attempt by thefederal government to regulate social selection. Thisis curious, for the government regulates civil rights,transportation, the stock market, agricultural prices,',on* energy, the power system, the environment,the monetary system, food and drugs, labor relations,and Interstate commerceall in an attempt to balancepowers in the public interest. But the government isfar from uninvolved in promoting credentialism, for

its hiring, funding and information collection all serveto aggravate the problems of credentialism in our ig-norant society. Thus, the government could consideroutside regulation, as well as internal reforms.

A wide variety of control options are possible, cov-ering a spectrum from the laissez-faire of the presentto full control of examinations, credentials, accredi-tation, and awardswhich would be politically im-probable and quite undesirable. But there are less ex-treme measures, such as better data collection, spon-sored research, ad hoc investigation by Congressionalcommittees or a Presidential commission, or a perma-nent regulatory body. Indirect measures could also be

Campus Disaffection, Present and Future

by

A. Dale Tussing

A. Dale Tussing Associate Director of the Center,Tussing is also Associate Professor of Economics atSyracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Af-fairs. His article "Campus Unrest and American For-eign Policy" will soon appear h Change magazine.His major focus at the Center has been to developeconomic forecasts through the year 2000, in orderto define the environment in which educational policydecisions will be made.

No competent and well-known authority predictedthe missive disaffection from our schools which isone of the major news stories of our times. And nocompetent and well-known authority Is incapable ofproducing a lengthy and convincing list of ex postexplanations.

There are then, plenty of explanations of disaffec-tion with the schools. We do not propose to add an-other list, Instead, we have developed a way of look-ing at the disaffection problem, and at the "clients"of the school system, which has proved to be veryhelpful in understanding them. Our analysis focuseson the purposes of education, because we view disaf-fection as largely a crisis of purpose.

taken througli reconsidering Civil Service requirements,the utilization of so-called "educational attainment"measures by the Bureau of the Census, and the favor-ing of degree-granting institutions in the granting offunds and collecting of information.

It is paradoxical that, in our information-gluttedsociety, so little is known on the total configurationof our social selection. Such a concern is not onlyfundamental to the future of our society, but can alsoyield a fresh approach to some of our educational andsocial problems. These comments will hopefully en-courage further exploration.

White these essays are explicitly concerned withpost-secondary education, disaffection knows no suchlimits, Our analysis applies to secondary as well aspost-secondary education. Disaffection is not thesame as either disruption or unrest, through both al-most certainly imply disaffection; one can be disaf-fected both quietly and alone.

Three Client Groups

Different groups use the schools for differentthings, but the dominant purpose of the Americanschools in recent decades has been for "making it."By "making It" we mean success in lifenot just ineconomic terms, but also in terms of social legitimacyand status. In spite of our admiration of the "self-made man," in practice we expect people to use theschools to make it.

"Making it" includes upward economic and socialmobility, but it is not identical with it. That is, chil-dren of the poor and disadvantaged are expected to"make it" through the schools, but so are the childrenof the successful. They are expected at least to gothrough the motions of "making it" all over again

15

each generation, and are expected to use the schoolsin doing so.

Let the schools' client population (pupils and par-ents, primarily) be sorted into three principal groups,namely, the makers, the non-makers, and the post-makers.

The. first two, the makers and non-makers, havethe same set of uses of the schools and goals of edu-cation, namely, making it, in the sense discussed. Theydiffer from one another in an important respect, how-ever: the makers use the schools successfully, whilethe non-makers do not. This does not mean that themakers will all be college or even high-school gradu-ates. It means that they see the schools as a vehiclefor attaining or assuring adequate success, in theirown eyes; and for them the schools "work." Thenon-makers, on the other hand, either see themselvesfailing in the schools or see the schools failing them;that is, they accept that the schools have the functionjust mentioned, but the schools are not achieving thisfunction in their case.

The Post-Makers

The third group, the post-makers, requires morediscussion.

A large and growing minority of today's school-age generation have values which apparently differradically from those of past generations, and one ele-ment In this shift has been what might be called achange in the importance of "success," In particular adecline in the significance of one's joh Attitudestowards jobs, income, and economic legitimacy arestrikingly different among generations, as between theolder which has known real poverty or real insecurity,or both, and which has lived through the most catas-

trophic Industrial collapse In American economic his-tory, and the younger generation which has experi-enced not only affluence but uninterrupted affluence,i.e., security. Rejection of traditional economic de-finitions of life's purposes is most common, moreover,among precisely those youth whose own family back-

ground have been the most comfortable and secure.

We are not saying that it is becoming commonamong young people to reject material well - being. n-

ste34, the point is that material well-being is Increas-ingly taken for granted, and the quest for economicsecurity has ceased to be a central task of life, More-

16

over, from a plateau of economic sufficiency, manyyoung people who have not experienced want placeless emphasis on earning still more and more, than doa depression-and-war-shortage scarred older generation.

Where survival itself is no longer an issue, andwhere economic insecurity is really unknown, thenone's "job" ceases to be the centerpiece of his life.The schools, both in their educating and their certify.ing functions, have closely keyed their own purposesto "jobs" and "success." As th' meaning of these de-clines In Importance, so must tie meaning of theschools. The minority who have rejected the tradi.ditional purpose of the schools, and who are essen-tially beyond making it, are the group we have calledthepostmakers. Though there are noteworthy excep-tions, by and large they are primarily the children ofsuccessful urban and suburban families. Some expresstheir disaffection politically, some "culturally." Theirconcerns, in colleges and universities, in secondaryschools, and even in junior high schools, range fromrevamping the curriculum and authority structure, tonational politics and foreign poll*, from astrologyto ecology, and from mysticism to music and drugs.Lest the image conjured up by this description seemsto apply to a tiny, far-out long-haired minority, let Itbe plain that there seem to us to be a much largergroup of those young people who take for grantedmaterial security, who then reject as life's goal attain-ing or insuring it, who are casting about for some othersense of purpose in lifeand who therefore rejectthepurposes of the makers.

Types of Disaffection

We believe it is useful to distinguish among dif-ferent types of disaffection.

First there is the disaffection of non-makers, whoaccept that they are expected to make it through theschools, and who fail to do so. Without examiningwhy they are non-makers (a crucial question), itshould hardly be surprising if they are frustrated, re-sentful, and angry at themselves, or at the schools, orat those who demand that they make it, or some com-bination of these.

Second is the disaffection of makers who are mem-bers of the "group of last entry"the term used else-where by Dr. Thonis F. Mien t6 denote the lastgroup in society to ieath a particular levellha Sequen-tial educational ladder. As Dr. Green notes, this Is

the only group in society absolutely unable to gainany distinction by completing that levelgraduatingfrom high school, for instance.

If the advance guard of the group of last entry aredrawn from the same social, economic, ar1d racialgroup as the non-makers, there will be reason for themto be disaffected whether or not they are successfulin school.

Quite different is the disaffection of the post-makers, whose dissatisfaction with the schools is evenless focused than that of the preceding two groups.Some will be merely bored by schoolnot because itis too easy, or too slow, but because what it is aboutdoes not interest them. Some will press for educa-tional "relevance," a term open to a variety of inter-pretations. Some will seek alternatives to the regularschool system. Some will dedicate themselves topolitical (Including "revolutionary") purposes. Thesepossibilities are derived from obtervation; there is noa priori way of knowing what fills a purpose-vacuum.

In spite of their differences, whether they are non-makers concentrated in urban areas, and mainly blacksand other racial minorities, or whether they are post-makers concentrated in suburban areas, and mainly af-fluent whites, both groups of disaffected often em-ploy a common rhetoric. Since this Is so, since theirmost politicized and articulate members view them-selves as being in some kind of alliance, and since theyare all, in any case, young people in a day of "youthculture" and "generation gap," it is easy to tt.ink ofthe disaffected as being one group, with a commonset of attitudes and causes, and a common future.To do so would be a major mistake.

Disaffection and Conflict

Disaffection and conflict are not the same. Asnoted, one can be disaffected all by himself, Butwhen groups with conflicting values and purposesare brought together in large groups, and when one ormore groups are disaffected, then conflict, and occa-sionally violence, is a predictable consequence.

It is no exaggeration to say that our schools aredominated by Maker's. Thiy are tke most numerousfitroi*OMOrifilhe -client population. EVeri though in

-the- post- secondary` area, among the students thoughnot the'parehtt:the numbiri Of p*-make rapidlycatching uti with that-if makers, It Is Mill -true that

faculty, administrators, superirandents, regents andother lay boards, and elected public officials are vir-tually without exceptIon drain n from the maker group.And when all college and university students acrossthe U.S.A. are considered, makers still surely pre-dominate.

This group of makers is liable to view non-makersas trouble-making failures, whose disaffection and aca-demic failures are viewed as separate and mutually re-inforcing. They are liable to view last-entry makers asnon-makers. And they are likely to view post-makers03 incomprehensible, unappreciative, and unrealistic,and occasionally as products of excessive permissive-ness, as dangerously radical, as self-indulgent hedonists,

or just as "campus bums."

The three disaffected groups will have equally un-pleasant notions of the dominant maker group, view-ing them as racist and manipulative, or at best crasssell-outs. It will be easy to develop political, class,and/or racial arguments against that dominant group,and these arguments can easily be vested with moralis-tic connotations.

The Future of Disaffection

There is great interest in the question of whetherdisaffection and conflict in the schools will subside orcontinue, and If they are to continue whether theywill take familar or entirely new forms. Our analysissuggests that they will continue, but that they willtake somewhat different forms. We will discuss thefuture we see, under headings corresponding to thethree client groups discussed earlier.

Non-lb.-.,ers. Conflict and disaffection associatedwith non-makers will continue for a decade and be-yond.

One reason is the problem of motivation. if forracial, economic, and/or institutional reasons, mem-bers of the non-maker group cannot in fact "make it"in vocations no matter how well they do in school, orif it appears to them that they cannot, then there islittle that can be dime In the schools to make makersout of chain.

Another problem ii the tendency of _advantagedgroUps in American society to taio over fOtilleinseNeSpromising special programs IntertFildtiscOmper*tory,-remedial elforti fol' ribti-makeri. Unlesi remedial pro-

17

grams can be devised which are at the same time ef-fective and acceptable to non-makers and in some wayunavailable and/or unattractive to the remainder ofsociety, it is difficult to employ the school system orextra - school - system programs to make makers out ofnonmakers.

And third, by 1987, it is anticipated that 90% of18-year olds will have successfully completed gradetwelve, leaving only 10% of the eligible population asnon-makers by that definition. As this last percentagefails, the remaining group of non-makers contains enincreasing proportion of emotionally and/or mentallyhandicapped young people, for whom the social costsof completing that level may be very considerable,even when compared with the social benefits: Sincesome of the handicapsincluding retardationmay be(or seem to be) socially Imposed rather than genetic,and since for a variety of reasons blacks and otherminority groups may be overrepresented in this resid-ual pool of non-makers, it will be difficult either toaccept failure for this group or to deal with it throughspecial (segregated) schools, even were that thoughtto be educationally sound. They will be in the schools,in short. The prospect of a smaller and hence moreisolated group of non-makers, comprised more heavilyof emotionally, mentally, and physically handicappedchildren, and drawn heavily from lower socio-econom-ic groups and from non-white races, is one of tor.tinuing conflict,

Makers. Many of the parents who have urged theirchildren to work hard, stay with it, and "get an edu-cation" by finishing secondary school, will soon be-gin to find that those with only a secondary schooldiploma are not socially regarded as having an educa-tion. Employers who today use the high school di-ploma (together with one's arrest record and other"objective data") as job-rationing devices and as prox-ies for desired traits will by then find that the high-school diploma, since virtually everyone has one,neither rations jobs nor is a proxy for any distinguish-ing trait.

This is what Prof. Green elsewhere in this volumerefers to as the "Law of the Moving Target"; as thegroup of last entry attains the level in the system (e.g.,completing grade twelve) that is socially deemed toseparate "elicited" from "uneducated," this targetmoves on to a higher level.

The Important Implication is that even If the schools

18

do their job thoroughly and effectively, and educateeveryone through the twelfth grade (or any otherlevel), it may be impossible for everyone to be amaker. The definition of "maker" may change.

The moving target, then, like the Northern-citymyth among an earlier group of Southern blacks, maybe explosive in its implications. However, these ef-fects may be felt mainly outside the schools, since itwill appear to be employers and society at large, ratherthan the schools, which have broken promises.

Post-makers There are many scenarios involvingpost-makers. The relative and absolute size of thepost-maker group will grow, and this growth has po-tentially powerful consequences, not only for the sub-ject matter of this paper, but for the continued exist-ence of the schools, their curricula, and their authoritystructures.

Post-makers are already a dominant group amongundergraduates at a few colleges and universities. Astime passes, they will become the dominant group atothers. The progression will probably run from themost elite private, and in a few cases, public collegesand universities, to the most academically prestigiousstate universities, to the state colleges, and finally tothe two-year community colleges. A similar progres-sion will run through secondary Schools, with post-makers becoming dominant in the student body of in-creasing numbers of private and suburban public highschools. White these developments set up the familiarconflict between the student on the one hand and thefaculty, administration, parents and community onthe other, the conflict Is complicated by two otherpossibilities. First, the growth of the post-makergroup will mean that in some suburban school dis-tricts and private universities, the post-maker groupmay soon become dominant not only among students,but also among faculty, administration, and even par-ents. At the other extreme is the possibility that post-makers may come to see their life's purpose as beingachieved wholly outside of and independently of theschools.

Speculating on the consequences of these develop-ments Is hazardous. For one thing, our expression,"post-maker," reveals that we only know whet thegroup IS not, what 'phaii it has passed, and riot whatit Is like "post-indthfrial," "post-capitalist," "post-

Christian," and eVeh "pOit-secondarY"(Oriiki"ntn-white," "non- poor," or "non - violent "), it Ife term-re-

vealing more ignorance than understanding. To saythat increasing numbers of participants in the schoolsystem will demand that schools serve some purposeother than "making it" does not suggest what thatpurpose will be; it does not even suggest that thereactually is an alternative purpose to be found.

To assume that schools will turn to teaching peoplewho want to learn for the sake of learning would be,we think, naive. A few people may accept such apurpose, but the majority will not. And such a state-ment does not provide a unique curriculum. Whatshall we learn, for the sake of learning it?

Implied Policies

The policy prescriptions arising out of this analysisare more in the nature of "don'ts" than "do's." Thisreflects a need to be sensitive to the dangers Inherentin the situation, in spite of the difficulties in fore-casting.

( 1 ) There are dangers inherent in a policy of forc-ing post-makers to act out the maker role.This is one current reaction; its results aredisaffection and alienation.

(2) As post-makers cast about for new life pur-poses, there are dangers In school authorities,following each student whim as if it were anew definition of the purpose of existence.While older people may think they are Liberalor Modern if they side with students In everyissue, actually this i. not very helpful to thosewho desperately need guidance.

(3) "'colleges, universities and secondary schools,whether public or private but particularlypublic, are dominated by and essestiatly con-trolled by post-makers, there Is the dangerthat they will come under far greater criticismby newspaper editors, political figures, com-munity groups, and parents than Is now the

case. There is much greater potential formutual alienation and polarization in ourscenario than even in the present polarizedworld. The Independence of schools may bethreatened by legislative bodies at all levelsof government. it is hard to imagine passingthrough the next decade without disruption,conflict and violence, and with no loss ofacademic freedom.

(4) There is the danger that as post-makers cometo dominate more and more colleges and lo-cal school districts, and as the purposes ofthe schools chance, making the schools more

"relevant" to post-makers may make themirrelevant to non-makers. Some of the chang-es proposed by school reformers, to makethem more open, free, and interesting, derivef 'om the needs of post-makers and may con-flict with the needs of the disadvantaged.

Concluding Comments

Our two concluding comments sound more likethose of a sermon than of policy analysis. If that Isso, it is because that is what seems called for.

First, it is clearly important to maintain a varietyof types of educational experience, and it is equallyImportant that attention be given to the standing andreputation of each type. A truly pluralistic schoolsystem, with tolerance as well as variety, is the typemost likely to minimize disaffection and conflict.

And second, It is possible, in seeking new purposesfor the schools, that ( I) no alternative purpose can befound at all; or (2) no alternative purpose can beagreed upon; or (3) the new, agreed-upon purpose isone which the schools are Incapable of fulfilling. Inall this, we should remember that It is more Impoitantthat post-makers find a purpose In life than thatschools find a new reason for being. But there oughtto be a connection.

19

Breaking the System:The Redistribution of Educational and Non-educational Goods

by

Thomas F. Green

Thomas F. GreenCo-Director of the Center and Pro-fessor of Education at Syracuse UniPersity, he recent-ly had published a textbook on the philosophy of edu-cation, The Activities of Teaching. He is currently exploring the concepts embodied In the phrase "equalityof educational opportunity" In order to more thor-oughly Inform research on educational policy options.

It is almost an axiom of American educationalpolicy that we expect the expansion of post-secondaryeducation to bring about a redistribution of certainother goods in life. It will not do so, and this paperexplains why.

Every edt.cational system is a system for the dis-tribution of certain goods and benefits. Never mindfor the moment, what those goods and benefits are.We shall get to that soon enough. To say that everyeducational system must distribute goods and benefitsis simply a convenient way of saying that some willlearn more than others; some will become more skill-ful than others; some will develop better judgmentthan others, some will advance farther than others,and so forth. So what else is news! The question isnot whether such results will occur, but whether theycan be made to occur in a way that advances othergoals of policy and promotes other socially desirableends like justice, economic well-being, and humandevelopment.

It may be necessary and inevitable that the educa-tional system distribute educational goods and bene-fits, like knowledge, skills, and taste. But there is nonecessity or inevitability that the society distributenon-educational goods like jobs, status, and income,to accord with the distribution of educational goodsand benefits. If we distinguish between educationaland non-educational goods, then the strategic ques-tion for the society has to do with the linkage betweenthese different kinds of life goods. The trauma of theissue ii "draniatically summed PP In the observationthat Whit col nta Is not what college does for you ifYou do go, but whit it does to you If yoti don't.

The educational system must distribute its benefitsin certain Identifiable ways, to certain people, and forcertain purposes. Thus the pattern of distributiongenerally is related immediately to (1) how the systemdistributes its benefits, (2) to whom it distributesthem, (3) at what time, and (4) for what pprposes.These Issues, in the American scene are especially im-portant for the post-secondary sector. They relatedirectly to problems of (1) access, (2) quality, and(3) goals. it is possible to see why and how this hap-pens from the following exercise.

Imagine an educational system with just three fea-tures.

(1) it is sequential.(2) There Is a level that everyone completes.(3) Beyond that level, the system is selective.

Imagine, furthermore, that this educational systemexists in a society strongly committed to the beliefthat education Is good, and more of It will be better,primarily because it Is a powerful instrument in gain-ing access to the good things in life jobs, income andso forth. I shall refer to this as the belief in educa-tional efficacy.

These systemic characteristics are nearly satisfiedin the American situation where the belief in the ef-ficacy of education is an article of faith. That facthas enormous influence on the ways that we thinkabout policies for post-secondary education. Considerthese features of the system one by one.

Our educational system is sequential. That is tosay, it is structured so that, on the'svhole, in order toenter a particular lev,e), one must have completed thepreceding level. The pretence of this structural featureIs one reason we tend to assume bet education-8i op-poettinity Is enlarged by encouraging more morepeople to gi On to'the debit evel of the iiistinf, thatIs, by encouraging theist to stay in ith061 I-civet%

The second of the three characteristics above Isimportant because in any educational system, if every-one completes a particular level of the system, thenthere can be no correlation betwee completing thatlevel and any other social differem )s that may subse-quently arise In the society. There may remain signifi-cant advantages in completing that level in a certainway, but there can be none in merely completing thatlevel of the system. In the United States we are ap-proaching this point of zero-correlation at the level ofgrade twelve. In a society where the purpose of at-taining higher and higher levels of education is thepresumed advantage it gives in securing jobs, incomeand other goods of life, then when everyone com-pletes high-school, for example, the relative advantagesreduce to zero. If the belief in the efficacy of educa-tion is to be preserved, there must occur pressures toexpand the system above the high-school. The pointof this principle can be given a poignant rendering.The reason we have a drop out problem in this coun-try is not because there are lots of drop outs, but be-cause there are not lots of them. In a society wherethere are lots of drop-outs, being one is no problem.But as the society approaches the point of zero-corre-lation at grade twelve, it is not simply belief in theefficacy of education that Is threatened. As that pointis approached it will necessarily become more of anindividual disaster not to complete grade twelve, butby the same token it will become less of a benefit tocomplete It. Completing grade twelve is transformedfrom a beneficial choice to a necessity. Clearly twoassumptions are strong in this processthe assump-tion of the efficacy of education, and the assumptionthat the system must be sequential.

Consider the third component in this imaginarysystem. In saying that the system is selective beyondgrade twelve, I mean to suggest not simply that somego on and some do not or that some choose to go onand some choose not to. I mean that among thosethat choose to go on some are chosen, and some arenot, The mission of the comprehensive high schoolwas to eventually include everyone. It was, in prin-ciple, an Inclusive mission. Until recently/ however, ithad not been the mission of the post-secondary sys-tem to include everyone, Colleges typically have ad-missions offices; high schools typically do not. Thereare exceptions to both. Silt In general the Americansystein is ialectiii just beyond- that point where weere approaching 2.6th:1'6)7086°n.

When we add to these considerations one additional

generalization, the distributive problems of post-sec-ondary education come into view. It simply is a factthat no society in the world has been able to expandits educational enterprise to include participation ofthe lower class In proportion to their numbers untilthe system is first saturated by the upper and middleclasses. in short, there is a definable law that governsthe sequence in which people will benefit from anyexpansion of the system. There will be a group of lastentry as the system approaches one-hundred per centparticipation at some level, and that group of lastentry will be from the lower socio-economic strata ofsociety.

This fact has interesting implications. The motivefor members of the group of last entry to finish atgrade twelve will probably be to gain the same bene-fits from the system as others have gained. Given thebelief in the efficacy of education and given the se-quential nature of the system, the pressure will be togo farther in the system. Thus, as the group of lastentry approaches their target, the target will move.This phenomenon will be associated with race only ina society where membership in the group of last entryIs associated with race. It is a phenomenon clearly re-suiting from the sequential structure of the system to-gether with a belief that non-educational goods aredistributed on the basis of educational goods and ben-efits.

The implications of this state of affairs are too nu-merous to discuss briefly. But some can be mentioned.First of all, such a system as I have described has noclearly defined Inherent limits on its growth. In asociety that believes in the Valet, of education and thatmore of it will be better, the natural tendency will beto make the system expand to ever higher and higherlevels. In fact, it can expand in any or all of fiveways(1) in response to changes in the compositionof the population, (2) by extending the system up.ward, (3) or downward, (4) by expanding outward totake in more and more activities heretofore conductedoutside the system, or (6) by Intensification of effortwithin the system (to accomplish more In the sametime or the same in less time). Three of these modesof growth Will result In leading people to spend moreof their lives in the educational system. None of themwill lead to fundamental change In the 'structure ofthe system.

WO. are reaching the point at which growth at thetop can occur only iii.the poSt-secondary sector. Out

-21

policies aimed simply at expanding the system are im-poverished in their conception. They offer an un-changing answer to the question as to how the systemdistributes its benefits to whom at what time, and forwhat purpose. It does so by schools, school attend-ance and school programs to certain age groupings forthe purpose o f more equitably distributing life chances.That is the same old story all over again.

But clearly there are limits beyond which it is nolonger socially beneficial, or, more importantly, edu-cationally valuable, to encourage people to stay inschool for a longer and longer sequence of years. Wemust recognize two points. As schooling becomes uni-versal, that is prima facia evidence that the opportun-ity to go to school is universalized. But it is also primafacia evidence that the necessity of schooling has beenuniversalized. In other words, the attainment of uni-versal post-secondary schooling appears to represent agoal of maximizing the choice for education beyondthe high school. But in fact, such a target may onlyrepresent the elimination of any choice. Schooling,under such circumstances becomes a necessity, not achoice.

But secondly, we must ask whether there are anyconditions under which it would be socially beneficialor educationally valuable for people to spend half theirlives in schools. One-third? Three quarters? There isa limit at some point, a limit to what is educationallyvaluable to do. Does the mere extension of the systeminto the post-secondary sector cross that point? Peoplewill answer the question in different ways. But un-critical adoption of growth policies for the system willanswer this question without having asked it. Thequestion is especially poignant at a time when youthare maturing earlier, and when it is increasingly ac-knowledged that interruptions in the sequence ofschooling are often educationally more valuable thanadherence to the sequential structure of the systemitself. For example, it is not implausible to conjecturethat there are enormous numbers of talented youthwho might benefit more educationally by leaving thesystem before completing high school and returninglater at a point beyond high school. Uncritical adop-tion of growth policies for post-secondary educationnot only will fail to confront these issues, but willmerely defer the point at which further upward groWthwill forte the same issues to emerge it a somewhathigher level. Thtit, Such targets f6t 0110 do not, bythemselves, confront the questions is to- how, towhom- et what time, and for -what social and educe-

tional purposes the system will distribute its benefits.They do not examine the question as to how educa-tional and non-educational goods shall be linked intheir distribution.

The strategic policy questions have to do not withhow to extend the system into the post-secondary sec-tor, but with how to alter the structure of the systemitself and therefore change its pattern of growth. Forthese purposes, the sensitive points to attack are theassumptions that the system should be sequential andthe assumption that it should be selective beyondgrade twelve. The pattern of selectivity is and willcontinue to be the point of first attack. But ulti-mately what must be changed is the assumption thatthe system will distribute Its benefits within a certainsequence of years.

Consider the effects of the following set of policyproposals. We need to move toward a national policythat provides for each individual a Iitigous claim tofifteen years of education at public expense. But thisintention should be framed with no assumption thatthose years will be spent consecutively In formalschools, nor should there be any but the most generalrestrictions at the upper levels as to what the contentshould be or whether it occurs in core or peripheralinstitutions. If a man reaches fifty and has claimedonly twelve years, he should be entitled to three more.If a child chooses to leave school for several years atgrade ten, and can enter again at grade thirteen, thenhe should be entitled to five more. Such a directionof change should be accompanied by lowering theschool-leaving age to fourteen, and subsequently withthe removal of compulsory education laws from gradeone progressively up.

The consequences of such measures would prob-ably include the following. First, the social demandfor education, expressed as a demand for formatschooling in an established sequence of years, wouldtend to decline. The opportunity for education mightonce again become a choice to be exercised ratherthan a necessity to be undertaken. Secondly, theforms In which education takes place might be greatlyexpanded. We might move more rapidly In the direc-tion of an educating system rather than the more lim-ited nation Of a system of Schoolland col legei. Third-ly, the_littalnment Of education would ten to be dis-tributed not over longer andlonger consecutive per-iods in the life tirthe Individual, INA over'shorter spansof time In the entire' fife cycle of an individual. This,

in turn, would facilitate the human demand to be ableto change directions in the course of a single life. Sucha set of policy measures would tend to break the se-quential structure of the system and transcend theselective assumptions of the post-secondary sector.

But more important, it would hopefully tend to renderadvanced education once more an opportunity to bechosen for the development of human beings ratherthan a social necessity to be born In order to gain ac-cess to non-educational goods.

New Policy Directions for Post.secondary Education

by

Warren L. Ziegler

Warren L. ZleglerCo-Director of the Center, regularreaders of Notes are already familiar with him throughhis three -part essay published In the first three Issuesof the magazine. Primarilyconcerned with the processof policy making and implementation, he Is currentlygathering together his notes and writings in preparationfor bringing them together Into a book, Ziegler Is alsoAdjunct Professor of Adult Education at SyracuseUniversity.

Federal policy for higher education critically needsto be transform ed into a new policy for post-secondaryeducation, about which there is too little clarity, lessagreement, and no policy. Since the end of the Sec-ond World War, policies for higher education have pro-moted a thrust towards mass education beyond highschool for an additionaland sequentialtwo to fouryears of schooling In colleges and universities. Bur-geoning state systems of public higher education andthe rapid expansion of community colleges during the60's are major features of this thrust. These policieshave directly encouraged the application of the cen-tral features of the K-12 formal system of schoolingto this system of mass higher education, at the verymoment in history when theta features are under ser-lout criticism and when the goals end Outcomes ofschooling are under serious dispute.

In effect, federal and state policies towards highereducationThave yet- te-teke cognizance Of crucial andsignificant Shifts under viaV In 00001 meanings ofhigher education. One major -shift iTOS Ins the domainof education *mid high School that cs; th4 totalityof rndlitidUal ahrflOititikional behavior whi6 Is educe-

tional. Stanley Moses' essay directly addresses thisshift by redefining the boundaries of the domain toencompass the educational behavior of a "learningforce."

But other changes, equally significant, are also oc-curring. These changes involve redefinition of the ob-jectives or goals of this education beyond high school.They also involve changes in the societal context ofvalues, beliefs, social structure and economic organi-zation within which this education Is imbedded. Atransformation of policy can emerge only if theseshifts in domain, objectives, and context are widelyunderstood by both the formal, policy-making appa-ratus and the policy constituents. That understandingdoes not now exist.

What is post-secondary education? The policy Isconfused over this question. Confusion and, increas-ingly, disagreement prevail about what education be-yond high school is for and who it is forthat is, aboutthe grand question of purposes and goals. This con-fusion and disagreement translates into operationalissues of when, where, and how this education is totake place. Most public policy debate locates theseIssues In the arena of higher education. This set of es-says on Post-Secondary Education. Where Do We Oofrom Here? seeks to shift the fociA of that debatehyutilizing the phrase post-secanclety education. Thisterm may be unsrpfaCtory, the now popularphraSi "post-induitrial societshs! sit telli us -only thatwe ifil'AVv114 beyond his-tbiy; bUt dOOS not tell us what stage we mays bent owing into.

The task which confronts federal policy formula-tion for post-secondary education is therefore indeeddifficult. Policy-makers are confronted with manyrecommendationsfrom foundations, research organi-zations, professional associations, academicians, stu-dents, and lobbiesabout how w remedy a rapidlydeteriorating situation in higher education. If thedrift of these. recommendations, which represent artic-ulated public opinion, were clear, federal policy couldprovide legitimacy to these directions by ranking themamong the educational priorities of the nation. Butthat drift does not yet clearly emerge. An examina-tion of the behaviors of students and other learners inthe adult population, the behaviors of employing in-stitutions, and the behaviors of educatIng institutionspresents a confusing picture. The social meaning ofthese behaviors are subject to widely varied interpre-tations, which parallel the shifting sands of a frag-menting consensus about the purposes of educationand the efficacy of existing institutions. This situa-tion is hardly amenable to the formulation of tradi-tional subsidy policies.

There is another reason which makes the task offormulating policy for post-secondary education diffi-cult. In this domain and context, the major Instru-ment of federal policyand to a large extent statepolicyis no longer appropriate. The instrument needsredefinition just as the domain, objectives, and con-text of federal policy need redefinition.

Federal policy for education, from pre-school topost-secondary, reties mainly on one lever: the ex-penditure of public funds. Public funds are collectedthrough a variety of taxes according to one complexset of distributive criteria about who should bear theburden; they are dispersed back to the public throughanother set of complex distributive criteria about whoshould benefit. Money buys goods and services, ofwhich the most important educational benefits are thetime to teach and learn, the space to teach and learn,and the content Of teaching and learning. But tradi-tional notions about the times, spaces and contents forteaching and learning are undergoing rapid transition.The recipients of public funds nn longer agree on them,which means they no longer agree on the educationalbenefits afforded by the goods and services available.

Consider the wide- ranging characteristics of time,space, and content contained, explicitlYor implicitly,in the array of alternatives currently bandied &bout inthe emerging doitain of post-secondary education.

24

Which is federal policy to promote: universal highereducation; a guaranteed right to X years of formalschooling irrespective of when taken; institutional aidto maintain a cadre of private institutions of high re-pute; new kinds of technical education beyond highschool paralleling the academic line of a liberal bacca-laureate; external credit; the open university; the uni-versity without walls; non-categorical aid to states orotner political jurisdictions; an electronic college ofthe air; a mandatory separation of employability fromeducational credentials; a new institutional and pro-gram emphasis to enable millions of adults to becomefunctionally literate according to the needs of a com-plex, modern, changing society; or some mix of allthese and more?

Fee ell olicy establishes the criteria which deter-mine ohs (change of taxes for benefits in educationand other sectors. Federal policy Is the explicationof criteria for the allocation of subsidies. These cri-teria represent what and who public policy considerseducation good for. These criteria define the educa-tional circumstances within which private judgmentand preference come into play. In the history of high-er education, private judgments were heavily con-strained by severe limitations on the financial and so-cial capacity to exercise preferences, as Laurence DeWitt's provocative essay clearly reminds us. In thepromotion of mass higher education, federal policehas utilized the leverage of financial subsidy to din4-ish only certain specific constraints to individual pref-erences. As these constraints in fact begin to diminishconstraints primarily of race, socio-economic classand geographyother constraints to the exercise ofprivate judgment and preference have emerged.

One primary constraint is the social power of theinstitutional set called credentials, certification, andaccreditation. These are crucial features of the coresystem of schools and colleges. As Michael Marten ex-plains, in an emerging "knowledge" society of complexspecialization and division of labor, educational cre-dentials have become the major common criteria forcertifying the social usefulness, employability, andworth of an individual. Accreditation is almost uni-versally accepted by public policy as the criterion forcertifying the social usefulness, employability, andworth of an individual. Accreditation Is almOtt uni-versally accepted by public policy as the criterion fordefining where knowledge resides, and allocating coretrot of its discovery and dispersal.

A second rrimary constraint to the exercise of pri-vate judgment and preference is the massive re -emer-gence of the creed of egalitarianism in society whichhas moved with astonishing and self-defeating rapidityfrom an understanding of equality as meaning accessor opportunity to an understanding of equality mean-ing condition and achievement. Thomas Green's essayspeaks eloquently to the tremendously difficult prob-lem of rupturing the ties between educational and non-educational benefits produced by this shift from anotion of opportunity to a notion of achievement.

The central question for policy is what and whopost-secondary education is fora question of pur-poses. But this question requires one or more ways toget an answer. The shifts of context, domain, andobjectives of post-secondary education make it verydifficult for the traditional instrument of federal sub-sidy to enable society to gain clarity about this central question. Note that federal policy has not yetfound a way of dispersing public funds without cir-cumscribing their use by setting forth rules, mandatesor guidelines. That is, the lever of moneyto extendthe analogyrequires a fulcrum and equivalent coun-ter-weights at both ends of the lever. The counter-weights, in our society, are a presumed agreement be-tween policy-makers and policy constituents aboutthe ways post-secondary education, of whatever formand kind, is good for society and good for the indi-viduals and institutions whose educational activity isPost-secOndary. The fulcrum is the point at whichthese counter-weights balance, where the users of pub-lic funds, be they students, institutions or inteveningagencies like banks and state education agencies, strikea bargain with the dispensers of funds, like legislativeand executive governing agencies which interpret thesocial good or public interest. What Is the bargain?The users will engage in formal behaviors (which mayhave little to domith the direct processes of learning)called for by the rules, mandates, and guidelines, inexchange for money which they judge necessary toserve their own educational purposes and interests.These purposOi and Interests result in preferentialchoices among the alternatives to which the policyrules, mandates, and guidelines subscribe.

But the consensus abotit these purposes and in-: terests Is eroding, which is inOther way of saying that

Public policy Must multiply- 0 number Of viablealternatives. How rapidly thit erosion Is taking placerequires more empirical research, How rapid it willbecome, in the decade of the Seventies, requires a

sophisticated, complex set of forecasts which are onlynow being undertaken by various outlook agencies ofwhich the Educational Policy Research Center at Syra-cuse is one It seems clear to me, however, that thelonger-term policy issue about the future directionsof post-secondary education is not one of money andcost, As James Byrnes points out, we probably canafford whatever quantity of education after highschool we want. But what we may choose to want Inquantitative terms cannot be resolved unless and un-til we all become much clearer about what goals areto be serveda qualitative question about which thereis increasing disagreement

It is at least suggestive that two most sensitive in-dicators of consensus erosion are rising. One is theconservative posture of state legislatures about theircontinuing to increase the allocation of public fundsat their disposal to higher public education vis-avisalternative uses. The other is the mounting level ofefforts by users, clients, associations, R&D outfits, ed-ucational institutions and for-profit enterprises to ex-plore alternative ways to do something called post-sec-ondary education.

The first indicates a beginning erosion in the tradi-tional belief that a college education is always good ifyou can get it. The first step in that erosion is to askfor what and for whom is it good? It is true that lit-erally millions of young people from ethnic, socio-economic and regional groups previously denied accesshave taken advantage of higher educational opportuni-ties since the enactment of the G.I. Bill, N.D.E.A. andthe Higher Education Facilities Act, It is also true thatperhaps scores of thousands of post-makers are behav-ing as if they are no longer clear as to what It is goodfor. Dale Tussing's essay sets forth the danger forfederal policy to assume that campus disaffection is auniform phenomenon, easily understood and readilyameliorated either by the infusion or denial of publicfunds to higher education.

It Is difficult to forecast when an increase in thenumber of postmakers In proportion to makers be-comes a critical enough mass to effect a substantialchange In the social meaning of edOCAtion. The Signif-icance of the concept of 'the pi:At-Malik i that ch 019esin life =style and 04616 among some-students areclosely linked with Mole pervasive transformationsunder way in economic orgenliatiori, occupationalstructures, and the traditional notion' of economicman so central to an industrializing sotto-6#. As TutsIng

25

points out, post-makers appear to be searching forsocial priorities and alternative self-definitions whichare not satisfied by the still widely accepted adultgoals of economic security and social status. Althoughmany adults, as parents or policy-makers, may findthe behavior disrupting and therefore upsetting, it canalso be considered questive. it may represent thefirstbut not the last serious challenge to the coresystem of higher education. That system has been in-extricably bound up with the allocation of those non-educational goods and services which distinguishedthe upper strata of society from the lower. It has beensystemically linked with the development of specialskills needed to manage a complex industrial societyand produce the science and technology which sup-ports the manufacture and consumption of commodi-ties, the chief business of that society.

if parsimonious state legislatures, sensitive to thetaxpayers' mood, are an indicator of an erosion ofagreement about what and for whom a college educa-tion is good, the second Indicatoran increasing postu-lation of alternativessuggests the mounting erosionof consensus about how, when, and where this educa-tion is to take place.

This erosionsymptomatic of rapid social changeon other frontsposes the problem for federal policyof the appropriateness of its chief policy instrument.The fulcrum, which balances the point of exchangebetween the dispensing of public funds and their utili-zation by individual students and institutions accord-ing to federal rules, mandates, and guidelines, is dis-appearing. To put it another way, there are now manyfulcrum points, each of which must represent a bar-gain between users and dispensers. Levers which bal-ance the public good against the private claim cannotdo their job if there are too many fulcrums. The singlefulcrum point, which has been the place of the highereducation in society, is no longer secure in an emerg-ing post-Industrial age. It Is a serious question as towhether traditional subsidy krms of public expendi-ture budgets, controlled by federal end state legisla-tures and administrations, can resecu re that place. ButByrnes' recommendation of a shift in federal supporttowards a higher proportion of "student" aid vis4visInstitutional aid makes sense only if policy is preparedto visibly relax constraining definitions of who Is astudent, and where, when and how he may undertakehis continuing education.

Two consequences emerge from this line of think-

26

ing. The first, set lorth in these essays, is that federalpolicy still employs a mythology of higher educationwhich has less and less to do with the emerging reali-ties of post-secondary education. The domain haschanged. It is being redefined; It takes a variety ofinstitutional forms which begin to break the conven-tional constraints of time, place, and content. Itsstructural linkages with the K-12 school system shift,as do its interfaces with occupational structure andemployment practices, with social structure and withthe system of distribution of life-chances and !Re-values. One poInt,hol,vever, is clear. No federal policyshould be discussed, recommended, enacted or imple-mented unless we attempt to fit the policy within anexplicit perception of this domain.

This first implication carries with it only troublefor policy-makers, for they have little history to fallback on to offer even vague guidelines about this phe-nomenon of post-secondary education. Like the soci-ety into which it is interwoven, education is under-going changes for which there appear to be no histori-cal precedents. In this context, what Is the functionof the policy-maker, habituated to rely on a presumedconsensus which not only ameliorates among factionalinterests, but also connects the futurethe domain ofpolicywith the pastthe domain of experience andknowledge?

The ambiguity of the first coisequence leads us toexplicate the second. The prot.vs of policy formulation for post-secondary education Is now in need ofstrenuous redefinition. That redefinition means, mini-malty, abstention from conventional policies dealingwith this phenomenon. When consensus erodes, whenexperts disagree, when clients and users exhibit peri-patetic behavior, when interest groups factionalize,and when money is scarce, what is not needed arepolicies to ameliorate differences and promote a facileconsensus; the need Is for unconventIone pollees topromote Invention.

I make this distinction. Public policy, at any levelof aggregation, has generally attempted to bring thefuture, usually short-term, under control. It thus re-lies upon extrapolations from the past Into the futureof the ways men are expected to behave In stipulatedsituations. Poli,v, then, stipulates these situations, orcertain of their crucial elements, on the assumptionthat individuals and Institutions will behave as ex-pected. if one conclusion is clear from these essays,it is that expectations about future human and insti-

tutional behavior in this domain can no longer be re-lied upon as a reliable basis for public policy, for suchpolicy assumes the predictability of consequences,which is a very tenuous assumption in this day and age.

For what course of action will private institutionsof higher education opt at the moment when financialfailure appears unavoidable? How will burgeoning,massive site systems of higher education behave iftheir place in the sun is shadowed over by the claimsof badgered taxpayers for alternative uses of publicfunds? What will youngsters d) who discover thatthere is no longer a simple, direct and predictableratio between number of years of schooling and life-time earnings? What will groups of last entry do whodiscover that their newly won, access to the historicleverage of higher education has moved the target ofequality of condition (status, jobs, Income), the "non-educational benefits," once mole beyond their reach?For what will education prepare its clients when theknowledge becomes public that the complex impactsof technological and macro-economic factors uponoccupational structures and sequences deprive man-power forecasts of the small degree of reliability theyformerly possessed? How will professors and teachersas well as specialists in other sectorsbehave as ex-peri me Ms with pare-professionals demonstrate the am-biguity of credentials as a certification of competenceand guarantee of its monopoly. Are we prepared tocontinue to incur or pay off bonded indebtedness toconstruct dormitories and other physical facilities aswe explore the use of electronic communications tech-nology to Instruct in those areas appropriate to itsspecial pedagogy?

These questions about the future iterate only themost obvious, by now banal, issues we confront ifpolicies for this area are based upon naive expecta-tions. But what then is the task of federal policy forpost-secondary education?

It is not to attempt to control the future. It is todiscover and support the richest variety of inventivebehavior In post-secondary education of which we are

e. We cannot know how much this will be, orwhere it will take us; but post-secondary clients arebeginning to exhibit an inventive posture, both insideand outside of colleges and universities, by graspingfor learning opportunities within a much larger do-main of institution, program, and experience than fed-

ere policies attend to.

Federal policy should aim at freeing up this inven-tive behavior, whatever Its institutional or non-insti-tutional locus, whatever its time, space and content,whether within or without the traditional core systemsof formal instruction. The varieties this inventive be-havior may take defy policy control about educationthough surely not about ot!.,ar matters. Federal policymayand surely shoulddefine criteria of accounta-bility for the expenditure and use of public funds.That is an issue of governance, more than of educa-tion. it must surely guarantee and promote equal access to Inventive, be'osvior in education. That is an Is-sue of civil rights, more than of education.

What I am saying is that we must institute a policyprocess which does not seek to colonize the future ofpost-secondary education by simplistic extrapolationsfrom the past about the social meanings of educa-tionwho and what it is for, how, when and where itwill be undertaken. This new processa policy proc-essis about learning. We must all learn from thatprocess what it is we variously with education to pro-duce for the bulk of our citizenry who are beyond thetraditional years of high school. To learn 'fiat weseek means that federal policy must learn to expandbeyond the traditional set of rules, mandates, andguidelines which have limited policy to supportinghigher education as the sole repository of educationbeyond high school. If the rim is to promote inven-tion in institutional forms, curricular content, peda-gogical technique, and the spaces, times, and contentsfor learning, then federal policy must move quickly todeny to any system of institutions a monopoly overthe future directions of post-secondary education.

In short, federal policy in this area now has a uniquepedagogical task; to develop the opportunities for thecitizenry to instruct itself as to how best to re- estab-11th an understanding about the purposes of post-sec-ondary education. Consensus may re-emerge. That isa forecast to be made and defended by those muchcloser then Ito knowing the cycles of history. Butfirst it will fragment and explode into a vast array ofalternatives. I believe it is the central task-Of federalpolicy In this area to promote (1) opOrtunItteS forinventing oternitive futures for- post - secondary educa-tion and (2) oppottonitiet for learning frOfififiisequences of those Inventions.

2?

Publications Available from the Educational PolicyResearch Center at Syracuse.

For copies of the following publications, writeInformation Service, Educational Policy Research

Center, 1206 Harrison Street, Syracuse, New York13210. List the publications you wish to receive byTitle and Author, where given. Where a cost ismentioned, make check payable to SyracuseUniversity Research Corporation. The notation (NA)indicates that the publication is not currentlyavailable.

Tho Quantity of Formal Instruction in the UnitedStates. James C. Byrnes.

A look at the growth of formal instruction in theUnited States over the past century which drawstogether the growth at all levels of formal education.A model describing the pattern of overall growth isproposed and possible trends for the future discussed.

The "Financial Crisis" in Higher education: Past, Pres-ant, and Future. (RR-6). James C. R lanes and A. DaleTossing

A discussion and analysis of the financial problemsbesetting higher education, looked at In terms of theamount of federal aid is not only necessary but realis-tic in terms of the SOCIAI value of receiving such educa-tional benefits.

A Critical Look at the Cross-Impact Matrix Method ofForecasting. (RR -5). Michael Folk

An analysis of the assumptions lying behind thecomputor-forecasting tool known as the "cross-Impactmatrix." While Folk finds that many of the assump-tions cannot be validated, he analyses modificationspossible in the method that should allow to tool toretain some of its value for forecasting and policyplanning.

Essential Reading for the Future of Education: ASelected, Critically Annotated Bibliography. MichaelMarien. $1.60.

A bibliography of 200 items, each fully annotated,which are considered by the author to be the mostimportant available documents. included is a list ofthe twelve "most important," which comprise a basiclibrary of educational futures.

Alternative Futures for Learning. Michael Marien.$5.00.

A critically annotated bibliography of over 900items, indexed by major author, organization, andselected subject. A second bibliography of moregeneral futures literature, Alternative Futures forMankind, will be available in Fall 1971.

The Learning Force An Approach to the Politics ofEducation. Stanley Moses.

A study of the "educating" system in the UnitedStates, which includes both what is traditionallyconceived of as the educational system and what hasuntil recently been seen as the periphery. (NA)

Emerging Educational Policy Issues in Law. Stuart A.Sandow. Each Approx. 50 pp. $1.25 apiece.

A series of explorations of issues In law that effecteducation, using a wide panel of persons who havebeen trained in law with an Interest In education.

No. 1: Fraud. A graduated high school student sueshis school for fraud because he does not have theessential skills assumed by being awarded a diploma.

No. 7. Career Obsolescence and Social Security. Anengirt r sues for social security benefits whensociety makes his skills unnecessary.

No. 3: Unequal Student Aid Declared Uncon-stitutional. A private university student sues statefor higher benefits equal to those received by publicuniversity students.

No. 4: State University Found Negligent. Privateuniversity sues state university for exceeding Itsstatutory authority causing bankruptcy throughunfair competition,

An Approach to the Futures-Perspective in AmericanEducational Planning. Warren L. Ziegler,

A study of five models of planning currentlyoperable in the American educational system, with adiscussion of their viability in terms of the long-termfuture. Included are two critiques of the paper.Originally prepared for the Center for EducationalResearch and innovation of the OECD, and to bepublished by them In the Fall of 1970. (NA)

Publications Available from Other Sources

Educational Planning In Perspective: Forecasting andPolley Making. Thomas F. Green, ed.

To be published in September, 1971 by Futures,the lournal of forecasting and planning. Center contri-butions to the publication include essays by bothThomas Green and Michael Marien. Other contribu-tors include Francis Keppel, Beresford Hayward, Gar-eth Williams, Maurice Kogan, and Fritz Stern. Thevolume will be available from IPC Science and Tech-nology Press, Ltd., 1PC House, 32 High Street, Guild-ford, Surrey, England. The cost per volume, postpaid,is $5.00.

The Learning Force: A More Comprehensive Frame-work for Educational Policy. Stanley Moses

Also available from the Library of Continuing Edu-cation, 107 Roney Lam Syracuse, New York 13210.Price: $1.26. This is Occasional Paper No. 25.

Educational Planning and Policy: An InternationalBibliography. Maureen Webster.

An extensive, worldwide, unannotated biblio-graphy of the planning literature of the decade of the60's. Currently undergoing revision and expansion,the working draft is available through the ERICDocument Reproduction Service, National Cash

Register Company, 4936 Fairmont Avenue, Bethesda,Maryland 20014. Hard copy price: $33.15.Microfiche price: $2.50.

Essays on the Future of Continuing Education

Reprints Available from EPRC

Thomas F. Green. "Post-Secondary Education:1970-1990," Dilemmas in American Policy:Crucial Issues of Contemporary Society, SyracuseUniversity Publications in Continuing Education#62. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1969.

Thomas F. Green. 'Schools and Communities: ALook Forward," Han,ard Educational Review,XXXI X, 2 (Spring 1969). (NA. Available fro_ mNM).

Michael Marien. "Notes on the Education Complex asan Emerging Macrosystem," aloha! SystemsDynamics, E. 0. Attinger, ed. (B. Karger: Basel,

Worldwide, Warren L. Ziegler, ed.Papers presented at an International Seminar on

Adult Education held at Syracuse University InDecember 1969. 141 pp. $3.00. Order from SyracuseUniversity Press, Box 8, University Station, Syracuse,New York 13210.

The following three studies were done by theInstitute for the Future, in Middletown, Connecticut,with support from the EPRC. Please address inquiriesfor copies of these reports to the Information Officerat IFF.

"Forecasts of Some Technological and ScientificDevelopments and Their Societal Consequences."R-6.

"Some Potential Societal Developments:1970-2000." R-7.

"The Use of Cross-Impact Matrices for Forecastingand Planning." R-10.

Film

"The Future Quantity of Instruction"A 10 minute, color, sound, 16mm computer gener-

ated animated film based on the work of James Byrnes.Available through local film renta: libraries. Informa-tion on where film libraries may purchase copies fromEPRC Publications.

Switzerland, 1970).

A. Dale Tussing. "Poverty, Education, and the DualEconomy," The Journal of Consumer Affairs, IV,2 (Winter 1970).

W. Timothy Weaver. "The Delphi ForecastingMethod," Phi Delta Kappan, LII, 4 (November1970).

W. Timothy Weaver. "Educational Policy, the Future,and Retardation." Mental Retardation, Vol, 0,No. 2, April 1971.

*GPO 715.221 29