UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The federal government and education : Canadian and American perspectives Andrews, Bruce Alfred 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A2 A33.pdf [ 17.96MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0064472.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0064472-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0064472-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0064472-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0064472-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0064472-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0064472-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0064472-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0064472.ris

Full Text

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION CANADIAN AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES by BRUCE ALFRED ANDREWS M.A., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN. PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES i n the Department of EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIONS We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1978 © Bruce A l f r e d Andrews, 1978 In present ing th is thes is in p a r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree l y ava i lab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th is thes is for scho la r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h is representat ives . It i s understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f i n a n c i a l gain sha l l not be allowed without my wri t ten permission. EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS Department of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND EDUCATION CANADIAN AND AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES (1867 - 1970) ABSTRACT T h i s study compares the development o f the r o l e o f the f e d e r a l government i n educa t i o n i n Canada and the Un i t e d S t a t e s d u r i n g the p e r i o d 1867 to 1970. I t i d e n t i f i e s the nature o f f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d i n both c o u n t r i e s d u r i n g the p e r i o d , and through comparison, the s i m i l a r i t i e s and d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e n t between the two f e d e r a l systems i n terms o f the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l r o l e . The study g i v e s a u s e f u l and needed p e r s p e c t i v e on f e d e r a l involvement i n educa t i o n d u r i n g a time when domestic c o n d i t i o n s i n both c o u n t r i e s prompted the develop-ment of a st r o n g e r f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence. The works o f three s c h o l a r s c o n t r i b u t e d t o the con-c e p t u a l development of the study. B r i a n Holmes suggestions on the use o f the problem approach i n comparative edu c a t i o n p r o v i d e d an a n a l y t i c a l framework f o r the comparative aspects of the i n q u i r y , w h i l e the d e s c r i p t i v e works of J.C. M i l l e r and C.A. Quattlebaum on the f e d e r a l r o l e i n Canada and the Uni t e d S t a t e s r e s p e c t i v e l y , f u r n i s h e d u s e f u l suggestions f o r the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l approach adopted. The information and data required for the study was obtained from a variety of sources. Primary source material was obtained from federal l e g i s l a t i o n , regulations, and reports of the various federal departments and agencies in both countries. In addition, special reports and mono-graphs were u t i l i z e d to gain more detailed information on s p e c i f i c aspects of various federal education programs. These sources were supplemented by secondary material dealing with the economic, s o c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l background to the evolving federal role i n the f i e l d , p a r t i c u l a r l y insofar as the nature and evolution of both federal systems was concerned. In t h i s study, education i s defined as a formal process where i n s t r u c t i o n i s given and/or learning takes place within the confines or under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of a recognized educational i n s t i t u t i o n . Within t h i s d e f i n i t i o n the material i s presented i n accordance with two major c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of federal educational a c t i v i t y , those programs developed under federal c o n s t i t u t i o n a l obligations and those developed i n areas normally outside of federal j u r i s d i c t i o n . For convenience, the l a t t e r programs are treated under three categories, elementary/secondary, post secondary, and vocational/professional education. Three important postulates are advanced through t h i s inquiry. Dealing with both federal systems, the study i v suggests t h a t by 1970, the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence was such t h a t a " t h i r d p a r t n e r " had emerged i n the conduct of edu c a t i o n i n both c o u n t r i e s , a l o n g s i d e the t r a d i t i o n a l s t a t e / p r o v i n c i a l and municipal/county governments. At the same time the study suggests t h a t the nature of the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence i n both c o u n t r i e s was q u i t e d i f f e r e n t though o f t e n prompted by s i m i l a r c o n d i t i o n s . In terms of the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence i n areas under f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , the study suggests t h a t the Canadian government tended t o adopt a p a t e r n a l i s t i c approach towards such e d u c a t i o n a l programs. The American government tended t o encourage the development o f s e l f - s u s t a i n i n g programs and was a c c o r d i n g l y l e s s p a t e r n a l i s t i c i n approach. At the same time, i t i s demonstrated t h a t i n both c o u n t r i e s f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n , development, and implementation of e d u c a t i o n a l programs under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was a slow and o f t e n r e l u c t a n t p r o c e s s . Where f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l programs overlapped w i t h those o f other l e v e l s o f government, there were a l s o marked d i f f e r e n c e s i n the approaches taken i n both c o u n t r i e s . The study demonstrates t h a t f o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , p o l i t i c a l , and o t h e r reasons, the Canadian government was o f t e n f o r c e d t o p r o v i d e i n d i r e c t and/or g e n e r a l a s s i s t a n c e t o e d u c a t i o n . For s i m i l a r reasons the American government was f o r c e d to p r o v i d e more d i r e c t and c a t e g o r i c a l a i d . As a r e s u l t o f V the d i f f e r i n g nature of federal educational involvement i n both countries the administration of federal educational programs also d i f f e r e d . This study points out, however, that despite these differences, there exists a c r i t i c a l deficiency i n Canada, where despite the s i g n i f i c a n t nature of the federal educational presence,by 19 70 no formal mechanism existed for the e f f e c t i v e coordination of the federal e f f o r t . S i m i l a r i t i e s and differences aside, the study establishes the complex yet s i g n i f i c a n t nature of the federal educational presence i n both countries. I t suggests that there i s a place for a federal government i n the f i e l d within a federal system. I t also provides a needed foundation for further research i n the f i e l d and an hypothesis for a future inquiry into the federal educational role i n other federal systems. v i TABLE OF CONTENTS  Chapter Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1 II AN OVERVIEW 13 1776-1866 16 1867-1913 24 1914-1945 31 1946-1970 39 I I I FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 6 4 The Armed Forces 69 C i t i z e n s h i p E d u c a t i o n 89 I n t e r n a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Programs 92 F i s h e r i e s 102 Indian E d u c a t i o n 103 Educati o n Programs In F e d e r a l P e n i t e n t i a r i e s . . . ; 118 T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 125 Veterans Educ a t i o n 132 E d u c a t i o n a l Support F u n c t i o n s 144 F e d e r a l E d u c a t i o n C o o r d i n a t i o n and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 144 E d u c a t i o n a l S t a t i s t i c s 147 E d u c a t i o n a l Research 151 Le a r n i n g Resources 152 E d u c a t i o n a l B r o a d c a s t i n g 155 N a t i o n a l Museums 161 C o n c l u s i o n 16 4 IV THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ELEMENTARY SECONDARY EDUCATION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES • 173 v i i Chapter Page V THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 209 VI THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN VOCATIONAL/ PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 263 Vocational Education 264 Professional Education 313 VII AN APPRAISAL 338 BIBLIOGRAPHY 358 v i i i LIST OF TABLES Table Page I S e l e c t e d S t a t i s t i c s On Indian E d u c a t i o n In Canada And the U n i t e d S t a t e s For S e l e c t e d Years 104 II World War Two and Other C o n f l i c t s : Veterans T r a i n i n g S t a t i s t i c s Canada and the Un i t e d S t a t e s (1944-1970) 137 I I I F e d e r a l Agencies P r o v i d i n g Resources And M a t e r i a l s In Support o f Ed u c a t i o n 153 F e d e r a l L e a r n i n g R e p o s i t o r i e s And Years When E s t a b l i s h e d 154 IV N a t i o n a l Museum Components In Canada And the Uni t e d S t a t e s 164 V F e d e r a l Elementary/Secondary Education Expenditures U n i t e d S t a t e s (1960-1972) 201 VI Canada - F e d e r a l Government Grants t o U n i v e r s i t i e s 218 VII C a p i t a l Grants By The Canada C o u n c i l To U n i v e r s i t i e s And C o l l e g e s , 1957/58 to 1966/67 220 V I I I U n i t e d S t a t e s - F a c i l i t i e s C o n s t r u c t i o n Grants Expenditures H.E.F.A. T i t l e s I - I I (1965-1970) 222 IX U n i t e d S t a t e s - Post-Secondary Operating A s s i s t a n c e Expenditures H.E.A. T i t l e I (1966-1970) 225 X Un i t e d S t a t e s - Strengthening Developing I n s t i t u t i o n s H.E.A. T i t l e I I I (1966-1970) ... 228 ix Table Page XI Canada - Federal Expenditures On Public School Education University and Non University (1960-1970) . 231 XII Canada - Federal Government Payments And Recipients Under The Dominion-Provincial Student Aid Program (1939-1959) 238 XIII Canada - Canada Student Loans (1965-1970) 242 XIV United States - Student Loan Plan Expenditures .. ( T i t l e II N.D.E.A. and T i t l e IV (E) H.E.A.) (1959-1970) 244 XV Canada - Scholarships, Fellowships, and Bursary Awards Federal Government Departments and Agencies (1969-1968) 249 XVI United States - Preliminary Budget Estimates For Federally Supported Pre-Doctoral Fellow And Trainees, By Program and By Agency 250 XVII A g r i c u l t u r a l Instruction Assistance Acts (Canada) Payments to Provinces (1913-1924) 266 XVIII A g r i c u l t u r a l Instruction Assistance Acts (Canada) Pro v i n c i a l Disbursements (1913-1923) . 267 XIX Canada - Federal Expenditures and Disburse-ments Under The Technical Education Act 2 70 XX Canada - Technical Education Act 1919 Enrolments 2 71 XXI United States Vocational Education S t a t i s t i c s (1918-1970) 273 XXII United States Vocational Rehabilitation S t a t i s t i c s (1921-1970) 276 XXIII Department of Labour War Emergency Training Program (1940-1946) 282 XXIV United States - Work Training Program S t a t i s t i c s Federally Assisted Programs (1963-1970) 289 X Table Page XXV Canada - Technical Education Act 1961 Annual Federal Expenditures (1962-1969) ... .294 XXVI Canada - Technical And Vocational Training Acts (1942-1969) Provincial Disbursements.. 296 XXVII Canada - Federal Expenditures and Enrolments By Program T.E.A. (1961-1969) 297 XXVIII Canada - Vocational Rehabilitation or Disabled Persons Act (1961-1970) 299 XXIX United States - F i s c a l Year 1970 Vocational Education Expenditures, By Source Of Funds And Basic Allotments 306 XXX Canada - Federal Expenditures And Enrolments A.O.T.A. (1967-1970) 310 XXXI United States - Health and Welfare Professional Training Federally Assisted Programs (1938-1968) 320 XXXII , United States - National Health Institute Training Programs Total Expenditures And Pa r t i c i p a t i o n (1938-1972) 322 XXXIII Canada - Federal Welfare Training Grants (1946-1970) . . . 324 XXXIV Canada - Dept. of National Health and Welfare Professional Training Grants (19 51-19 70)... 326 XXXV Canada - Physical Fitness and Amateur Sport Program Federal Expenditures and P a r t i c i p a t i o n (1963-1970) 328 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT No man i s an i s l a n d , and no work the product of a s i n g l e mind o r p a i r o f hands. S p e c i a l note must be made of a s p e c i a l group o f people who have c o n t r i b u t e d to the completion of t h i s study, which as anyone who has undertaken t h i s k i n d of endeavour w i l l know, c a r r i e s with i t a f u l l share o f e l a t i o n ; f r u s t r a t i o n ; f u l f i l l m e n t , and doubt. F i r s t mention must go to my f a m i l y , my wif e and daughter; Rolande, whose f a i t h i n t h i s work surpassed my own and whose love has helped s u s t a i n i t , and M i l e n a , who has endured a p a r t - t i m e f a t h e r with equal f a i t h and l o v e . T h i s work would not have reached completion without the continued support and encouragement of Dr. Joseph Katz. The author was more than f o r t u n a t e t o have been one of h i s students, b e n e f i t t i n g from h i s r i g o r o u s t u t e l a g e and under-s t a n d i n g guidance, and coming to know him as a man of unique breadth o f v i s i o n and human concern. A l s o a p p r e c i a t e d was the support and counsel o f P r o f e s s o r s Ron Jones and Henry Johnson, of the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n , and Paul Tennant of the P o l i t i c a l Science Department a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia. F i n a l l y , no work of t h i s magnitude can succeed without a c o n s c i e n t i o u s t y p i s t . In t h i s case my thanks and a p p r e c i a t i o n must go t o Ms Judy P i t c h e r o f V i c t o r i a . 1 Chapter I INTRODUCTION The purpose of the following investigation i s twofold, to i d e n t i f y the nature of the federal educational presence i n Canada and the United States during the period 1867 to 19 70; and through an examination of federal educational l e g i s l a t i o n i n comparable program f i e l d s , account for the s i g n i f i c a n t and essential s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n the federal educational role between both countries. The d e s i r a b i l i t y of such a study i s supported on the one hand, by recent developments i n both nations where federal involvement i n education has grown s i g n i f i c a n t l y , and on the other, by the absence of any comprehensive comparative study of that growth. The need to i d e n t i f y the nature of the federal educational presence i n Canada and the United States arises 2 from a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l paradox. In p r i n c i p l e , the c e n t r a l government i n both c o u n t r i e s was denied any j u r i s d i c t i o n over e d u c a t i o n though the f i e l d i t s e l f was never e x p l i c i t l y d e f i n e d . 1 While i n p r i n c i p l e both f e d e r a l governments appeared to be excluded from the f i e l d , i n p r a c t i c e a d i f f e r e n t s t o r y u n f o l d e d . In the United States i n 1785 and 1787 the American government p r o v i d e d f o r the endowment of p u b l i c and high e r education i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s . T h i s p r o v i s i o n was c a r r i e d on i n the new Sta t e s as they were e s t a b l i s h e d . Between 1789 and 1867 f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l programs were developed t o meet the needs of armed f o r c e s personnel, n a t i v e Indians, and c e r t a i n s e c t o r s o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n the n a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g i n 1867, the esta b l i s h m e n t of a f e d e r a l O f f i c e of Ed u c a t i o n . In Canada too, w i t h i n a few years of Con f e d e r a t i o n , the c e n t r a l government was c a l l e d upon, t o make p r o v i s i o n f o r the support o f p u b l i c education i n the unorganized 1. The American C o n s t i t u t i o n does not make r e f e r e n c e to the f i e l d o f educ a t i o n . Under the Tenth Amendment, a l l such u n s p e c i f i e d powers were delegated t o the St a t e s and i t has subsequently been g e n e r a l l y accepted t h a t by i m p l i c a t i o n e d u c a t i o n was a s t a t e / l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In Canada, S e c t i o n 9 3 of the B.N.A. Act ( B r i t i s h North American A c t ) , e x p l i c i t l y d e legated l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y i n the f i e l d to the pr o v i n c e s except where the education r i g h t s o f r e l i g i o u s m i n o r i t i e s were concerned. In t h i s i n s t a n c e the F e d e r a l Government was empowered t o i n t e r v e n e to g i v e p r o t e c t i o n t o these r i g h t s where the a c t i o n s o f a p r o v i n c i a l government threatened them. 3 t e r r i t o r i e s ; to develop educational programs for native Indians and federal prison inmates; and to provide l i m i t e d support for an assortment of c u l t u r a l l y or a g r i c u l t u r a l l y related educational projects. Thus, i n both countries c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e was to some extent contradicted by l e g i s l a t i v e practice. This dichotomy became more s i g n i f i c a n t as the federal role i n education expanded. Other factors also contributed to a recognition of the need for such a study. If a comprehensive " d e f i n i t i o n " was required to gain an appreciation of the significance or otherwise of the federal educational presence, where was this to be obtained? The l a s t comprehensive attempt to do so i n Canada was completed by J.C. M i l l e r i n 19 36. In a d i f f e r e n t context and time frame, C.A. Quattlebaum provided a description of American federal programs up to 19 6 7. 1 At t h i s time, af t e r a lapse of forty years i n Canada, and considering the s i g n i f i c a n t number of programs developed i n the United States during the past decade, i t would seem desirable and appropriate to conduct a further study of the federal educational presence i n both countries. '1. J.C. M i l l e r , National Government and Education in Federated Democracies: Dominion of Canada, (Philadelphia: Science Press Printing Company, 1940); and C.A. Quattlebaum, Federal Educational P o l i c i e s , Programs, and Proposals, (Washington, U.S. Government Prin t i n g O f f i c e , 19.68). 4 The period 186 7 to 19 70 was chosen i n t h i s regard because i t spanned the f i r s t century of the contiguous existence of the two federal systems involved, complemented by the observation that 1970 represented something of a highwater mark i n federal educational a c t i v i t y i n both countries. By 19 70 both federal governments had passed through a decade of intense and unprecedented lev e l s of educational involvement, wherein the pattern of federal educational a c t i v i t y i n the immediate future was established. The study i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n other ways as well . Previous attempts to examine the relationship of the federal government to education i n a federal system were developed on a singular basis, that i s to say, from the perspective of the p a r t i c u l a r federal system under discussion. In the following chapters an attempt i s made to view t h i s relationship from the perspective of two federal systems. In the history of the treatment of the subject t h i s i s a comparatively recent and unique approach but i t i s nonetheless ess e n t i a l to a broader appreciation of the significance or otherwise of the federal educational presence. Canada and the United States were chosen for t h i s study because they are contiguous nations that over t h e i r history shared a similar range of underlying s o c i a l and economic problems. In summary, the study i s needed 5 because i t s timing i s appropriate and warranted by the domestic conditions i n both countries with respect to education. I t provides an opportunity to further study the rationale behind federal intervention i n the f i e l d and to compare the experience of two contiguous federal systems. There are important q u a l i f i c a t i o n s attached to this inquiry. To a s s i s t i n providing a manageable approach to the topic education i s defined as a formal process whereby i n s t r u c t i o n i s given or learning takes place within the confines, or under the auspices, of a recognized educational i n s t i t u t i o n or agency. I t w i l l be recognized that t h i s d e f i n i t i o n excludes a number of informal, i n d i r e c t , and n o n - i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y related educational programs that emanate from various federal departments and agencies such as the dissemination of information p r i n t materials, audio-visual resources, and the provision of support f o r a variety of c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s . In addition, i t i s drawn to the reader's attention that the study examines federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education from the federal perspective only. No attempt i s made to assess the impact or effectiveness of federal programs upon the p a r t i c i p a t i n g constituencies. Further, the study deals only with established federal programs and does not investigate speculative areas that involve issues such as what might, 6 could, or should, have been undertaken. F i n a l l y , the scope of the study excludes an intensive examination of the background to any one federal educational program or an aspect of such a program. This s a c r i f i c e was made i n the i n t e r e s t of presenting a comprehensive study i n keeping with the objectives outlined at the beginning of the chapter. Important considerations also determined the structure of the inquiry. These included such factors as the form, purpose, s i z e , and scope of federal educational programs. In Canada and the United States federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education i s given form through four p r i n c i p a l devices, the constitution, federal l e g i s l a t i o n and/or regulations, and precedent. It i s from these sources that information was obtained on the authority and intent behind federal educational programs. The size and scope of these programs i s measured i n terms of federal expenditures, and the range of a c t i v i t i e s fostered under a program, the extent of p a r t i c i p a t i o n from the e l i g i b l e community, and the administrative requirements involved. The performance of the respective federal governments i s also considered i n the study. Under t h i s heading q u a l i t i e s such as consistency, persistency, continuity, coherence, and f l e x i b i l i t y are considered. The presence of these q u a l i t i e s i s important i n assessing the merits of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d . 7 The research for t h i s study u t i l i z e d a variety of resources. Primary material was gleaned from c o n s t i t u t i o n a l documents, federal statutes and regulations, and reports of the various federal departments and agencies i n both countries. In addition to these primary sources the works of a number of scholars and students were examined. Of p a r t i c u l a r assistance were the works of M i l l e r and Quattlebaum .(previously cited) , and a comparative educator, Brian Holmes. M i l l e r ' s work presented a detailed survey of federal educational programs i n Canada from 1967 to 19 36. The author organized his work around program areas (such as school lands, Indian education, e t c . ) , and examined the appropriate federal l e g i s l a t i o n i n each area over the period. Quattlebaum provided an exhaustive description of American federal educational programs i n his study but excluded any s i g n i f i c a n t reference to the l e g i s l a t i o n involved. Aspects of the approaches taken by both authors were combined i n the development of this study. Brian Holmes work, Problems in Education-^A. Comparative Approach, was useful i n terms of the comparative approach undertaken i n th i s work. Not only did Holmes advocate the adoption of a problem-based approach to comparative study, he also made s p e c i f i c observations .that were applicable to t h i s study when he observed that i t was 8 " . . . possible to hold as a fundamental p r i n c i p l e that democratic systems ought to be decentralized", and that i n practice, " . . . the successful operation of any system of administration depends on a complex set of relationships between i t and the s o c i e t a l configurations." He maintains that these relationships, " . . . apparently d i f f e r according to i n d i v i d u a l aspects of education, often i n accordance with l e g i s l a t i o n . " 1 In analyzing the nature of these relationships Holmes makes extensive use of the s o c i o l o g i c a l concept of " c r i t i c a l dualism" which involves the combination of normative (legal or l e g i s l a t i v e ) , and non-normative (sociological or human and/or i n s t i t u t i o n a l ) , factors. Knowledge of the role of normative and non-normative factors i n the development and explanation of the federal educational presence i n Canada and the United States i s c r i t i c a l to understanding the federal role, both separately and comparatively, and i s accordingly given substantial consideration. In addition to the aforementioned, a number of other studies from other areas of scholarly inquiry bear mention. In gaining an o v e r a l l appreciation and understanding of the 2 p r i n c i p l e of federalism, K.C. Wheare1s Federal Government 1. Brian Holmes, Problems in Eduoation--A Comparative Approach, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964), p. 17. 2. K. C. Wheare,. Federal Government, (New York; Oxford University. Press, 1964). 9 was h e l p f u l . In terms of the application of this p r i n c i p l e i n the United States and Canada, Morton Grodzin's The American System, and William Riker*s Federalism: Origin, Operation, S i g n i f i c a n c e , were useful for the American perspective, and Donald Smiley's The Canadian P o l i t i c a l N a t i o n a l i t y and Murray Beck's The Shaping of Canadian Federalism, provided s i m i l a r insights for Canada.1 In terms of educational decision-making at the federal l e v e l i n both countries two comparatively recent works were useful. Eidenberg and Morey's study of the passage of the Elementary/Secondary Education Act of 19 65 i n the United States provided an authoritative description and analysis of the procedures and processes involved i n the development 2 of one major federal educational program. In 19 72 Richard Simeon provided a sim i l a r service from the Canadian point of view when he published a study of federal-provincial 3 decision-making i n Canada. In examining the educational context within which the federal programs discussed i n this •1. Morton Grodzins, The American System, (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1966); W.H. Riker, Federalism: Origin, Operation, S i g n i f i c a n c e , (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1964); Donald Smiley, The Canadian P o l i t i c a l N a t i o n a l i t y , (Toronto, Methuen, 1967); and J.M. Beck (ed.), The Shaping of Canadian Federalism, (Toronto: Copp Clark and Company, 19 71). 2. E. Eidenberg and R. Morey, An Act of Congress, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1969). 3, R. Simeon, Federal-Provincial Diplomacy; The. Making of Recent P o l i c y in Canada, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1972). 10 paper developed a number of general sources were used. Comprehensive studies of education i n Canada were not numerous but s p e c i f i c mention must be made of the work of Professors Henry Johnson, Joseph Katz and Donald Wilson in this area. A l l three have produced recent works on Canadian education that brought both an h i s t o r i c a l and contemporary insight into developments in that country. 1 There were many general h i s t o r i c a l sources dealing with the development of education in the United States. The work of E.P. Cubberly remains a h i s t o r i c a l milestone among the h i s t o r i e s of American public 2 education. When supplemented by more recent works, a 3 comprehensive story was made available. F i n a l l y , i n dividual monographs, unpublished reports and theses were also u t i l i z e d for this study and are appropriately l i s t e d i n the bibliography. 1. F. H. Johnson, A Brief History of Canadian Education, (Toronto: McGraw-Hill, 1968); J. Katz, Society, Schools and Progress in Canada, (Toronto: Pergamon Press, 1969); and J.D. Wilson (et a l ) , (Eds.), Canadian Education:• A History, (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970). 2. E. P. Cubberly, Public Education In The United States, (New York: Houghton M i f f l i n Company, 1934). In mentioning this source the author also draws the readers attention to the words of Lawrence Gerwin and Bernard Bailyn, two contemporary American educational historians who have both made s i g n i f i c a n t contribu-tions to understanding the evolution of American education. 3. G. R. Gressman and H. W. Benda, Public Education In America: A -Foundations Course, (New York: Appleton Century Crofts, 1966); and N. Edwards^ and H. Richey, The School In The American Social Order, (Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n and Company, 1963).. 11 To achieve the desired objectives, the study is organized into four major sections. The second chapter establishes the general chronology of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n in education i n both countries over the period in question. Chapter Three is then devoted to an examination of those federal educational programs that were developed within the powers delegated to the central governments under their respective constitutions. Chapters Four to Six are given to examining federal educational programs that were developed in j u r i s d i c t i o n a l areas t r a d i t i o n a l l y the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of other levels of government in both countries. For convenience, these programs are treated under three categories, elementary/secondary, post-secondary, and vocational/professional education. The conclusions derived from the study are presented in the f i n a l chapter. In conclusion, one or two comments are appropriate regarding certain federal educational programs not considered in the study. No consideration is given to tr a i n i n g programs for members of the respective federal c i v i l services. To a limited extent programs of this type existed p r i o r to 1960. Thereafter the growing complexity and sophistication of govern-ment in both countries gave ri s e to the development of a variety of t r aining programs. Within the context of this study, however, this proved to be a d i f f i c u l t area to deal with in terms of the 12 information available and i t s r e l a t i v e significance was f e l t to be marginal over the period covered by this study. Limitations were also placed upon the extent to which federally-funded research was considered. In this case only that research d i r e c t l y related to federal educational programs was reviewed. 13 Chapter II AN OVERVIEW In an environment that changes every decade with the advance of science and technology, our future depends upon our f l e x i b i l i t y , our adaptability to changing conditions. And t h i s depends upon the quality of the education we make available to our young people . . . thi s i s a national i n t e r e s t . 1 In a commentary on Canadian Confederation the late Professor Frank Underhill, a noted Canadian h i s t o r i a n , underscored two of the chief contributing factors to an increased federal presence i n education i n Canada and t United States; an accelerated and accelerating rate of s o c i e t a l change stimulated by commensurate changes i n 1. Frank Underhill, The Image of Confederation, (Toronto: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1964), p. 65. 14 science and technology. Indeed, as A l v i n ToffIer has suggested, the process of change contemporarily became, " . . . a current so powerful . . . that i t overturns i n s t i t u t i o n s , s h i f t s our values, and shrivels our r o o t s . " 1 Over the r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f continuum of the existence of both countries change was one of the "constants" i n t h e i r evolution. In the attempt to cope with the e r r a t i c and sometimes overwhelming changes that occurred, the governments of Canada and the United States made frequent use of t h e i r public educational systems. Through the passage of time, c r i t i c i s m , and constructive program development, the educational systems i n both countries were generally able to respond to the needs of the populace. Between 1867 and 1970, however, a s i g n i f i c a n t change occurred i n the pattern of federal educational response i n both countries. In 1867 education was c h i e f l y a parochial enterprise. By 19 70 i t had become a national concern involving a l l levels of government i n both countries. The parochial educational outlook fostered during the c o l o n i a l period of both nations and t y p i c a l of early Canadian and American practice, proved inadequate to meet modern demands. As educational problems assumed national 1. A l v i n ToffIer, Future Shook, (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1971), p. 1. 15 significance i t became d i f f i c u l t for l o c a l or state governments to respond to them with the necessary co-ordination of e f f o r t and s i n g u l a r i t y of purpose. 1 Under such circumstances the national government became a l o g i c a l resource to provide assistance i n resolving the di s p a r i t y between educational need and l o c a l capacity. In order to grasp the significance of t h i s process i n Canada and the United States an understanding of the "sweep of events" that gave r i s e to t h i s trend i s necessary. In the succeeding pages of t h i s chapter an h i s t o r i c a l overview of federal educational involvement i n Canada and the United States i s presented. The overview i s intended to chronologically survey the development of federal educational programs i n both countries to place i n context the developments i n s p e c i f i c program areas dealt with i n l a t e r chapters and provide an i n i t i a l comparison of federal educational a c t i v i t i e s . In short, to est a b l i s h the l i m i t s of the forest before attempting to i d e n t i f y the trees therein. The overview i s divided into four h i s t o r i c a l periods: 1776 to 1866, 1867 to 1913, 1914 to 1945, and 1946 to 1970. The early period p r i o r to 1867 i s important to t h i s study since i t covers a period of American history wherein s i g n i f i c a n t precedents were established i n terms of 1. Hereinafter the word state w i l l be used to r e f e r to the second l e v e l of government i n Canada and the United States unless otherwise indicated. 16 federal educational involvement i n that country. The remainder of the selected periods cover s i g n i f i c a n t epochs i n the history of both countries. Each covers a time during which both countries faced s i m i l a r challenges that were, at the same time, separate and d i s t i n c t from those presented i n an e a r l i e r or succeeding e r a . 1 1776 - 1866 During t h i s period the federal government i n the United States became involved i n educational programs both inc l u s i v e and exclusive of i t s co n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . In the former category, the a c t i v i t i e s of several federal departments and agencies led to the establishment of certa i n educational programs that were i n keeping with t h e i r needs or assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In the l a t t e r category, federal support was provided for the establishment of common schools and i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education, the education of the handicapped, and the education of negroes i n the American South. The appearance of these programs contrary to the implications of the Constitution, suggested that the potential existed for a federal role i n the f i e l d of education. 1. The uniqueness of each period i s discussed i n the context of reviewing the history of federal educational a c t i v i t y . 17 I t was noteworthy that the f i r s t American federal educational i n i t i a t i v e developed i n a sector t r a d i t i o n a l l y within state and l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Under the provisions of two land ordinances enacted i n 1785 and 1787 respectively, the central government set aside certain sections of surveyed public lands i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s for the endowment of public schools and i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education. This was an unusual act for a f l e d g l i n g " and weak federal government, explained only by a unique combination of p r a c t i c a l circumstances and p o l i t i c a l i d e a l i s m . 1 1. Under the A r t i c l e s of Confederation (1776-1789), the federal government i n the United States was very much the "weak s i s t e r " , dominated almost to the point of impotence by the whims of several states. I r o n i c a l l y , i n thi s instance i t s weakness proved i t s strength as c o n f l i c t i n g claims to western lands by in d i v i d u a l states produced an impasse of s u f f i c i e n t import that the states ceded t h e i r claims to the federal government. This action forced the Continental Congress to develop a public lands p o l i c y . In the debates over t h i s issue men l i k e Jefferson and Washington, acted on the b e l i e f that i t was necessary " . . . to promote . . . as an object of primary importance, i n s t i t u t i o n s for the general d i f f u s i o n of knowledge . . . as the structure of government gives force to public opinion, i t i s es s e n t i a l that public opinion should be enlightened." The idealism of these leaders combined with t h e i r tenacity and determination overcame the considerable resistance to attaching any educational provisions to the settlement of the public lands issue, with the resultant enactment of the above-mentioned Ordinances. See H. Good, and J. T e l l e r , A History of American Education, (New York; MacMillan Company, 1973), p. 87. 18 Between 1789 and 1856 the other educational a c t i v i t i e s of the central government were confined to areas within i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . 1 For a nation born out of c o n f l i c t and into a f r a g i l e international and domestic existence i t was not surprising that defence was an important i n i t i a l p r i o r i t y . In 1790 the f i r s t step was taken towards the establishment of a m i l i t a r y academy at West Point, New York, as Congress set aside the area as a m i l i t a r y reservation. In 180 2 the f i r s t m i l i t a r y post schools were established for the education of American m i l i t a r y personnel. At the same time the f i r s t ship schools were established for the broader education of American naval midshipmen. By 1866 these small beginnings had mushroomed into two f u l l -fledged m i l i t a r y academies (The U.S. M i l i t a r y Academy at West Point, New York, and the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland), and an established post school education program that provided basic l i t e r a c y education for army personnel and t h e i r dependents. Under the provisions of the Constitution of 1789 the federal government was assigned r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the 2 regulation of commerce with Indian t r i b e s . During the 1. The information contained i n this section was obtained from a survey of United States statutes. See U.S., Statutes At Large (Washington: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1789-1?70J) . 2. A r t i c l e 1, Section 8. 19 period under review t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y came to be broadly interpreted to include o v e r a l l management of Indian a f f a i r s , including t h e i r education. Small, tentative, and tenuous beginnings were made towards the establishment of federal assistance for Indian education with the establishment of a Superintendency of Indian Trade i n 1806. By 1845 substantial progress had been made towards the development of a formalized, federally-supported, church-operated, reservation-based, Indian elementary school system. In 1815-16 Congress established the Library of Congress and also began a program whereby the personal papers of prominent national leaders were purchased for public preservation. These events foreshadowed the development of a complex of i n s t i t u t i o n s comprising i n t o t a l a national repository for learning. In 1836, further progress was made towards th i s objective when an Englishman l e f t a legacy to the federal government for the establishment of a national i n s t i t u t i o n to promote the cause of learning. In 1844 provision was made for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of federal maps and charts to educational i n s t i t u t i o n s . After some debate over the purposes: to which the Smithsonian legacy was to be applied, the Smithsonian Ins t i t u t e was f i n a l l y established i n 1846. In 1856 the f i r s t public school l e g i s l a t i o n was enacted for the D i s t r i c t of Columbia, 20 providing for the establishment of a public school system. 1 At the close of the period new federal programs appeared in support of education in the public domain. In 1856 a nationally oriented, f e d e r a l l y supported, i n s t i t u t i o n for the r e h a b i l i t a t i v e education of the deaf and b l i n d was established in Washington, D.C. Later named Gallaudet College, the founding of this school heralded the beginning of what was l a t e r to become a broad program of federal educational assistance to the handicapped. A s i g n i f i c a n t program of federal assistance in the f i e l d of higher education was i n s t i t u t e d in 1862 with the passage of the f i r s t M o r r i l l Act. This l e g i s l a t i o n established what became known as the land grant college program and promoted the establishment of a college of agriculture and the mechanical arts in each state. In 1866 Congress authorized the assignment of m i l i t a r y o f f i c e r s to these colleges to provide i n s t r u c t i o n in m i l i t a r y t a c t i c s . In the same year Congress provided assistance for the development and implementation of educational programs for the newly emancipated negro 1. The D i s t r i c t of Columbia was established by Congress in 1804.to provide for a national c a p i t o l . It was d i r e c t l y administered by Congress while provision for the education of i t s inhabitants was made, the establishment of a public school system awaited that time in American history when the provision of a public common school education was popularly desired and acceptable. 21 population i n the South. The explanation of the appearance of these federal education programs was related to p r e v a i l i n g domestic conditions. In 1776, of the approximately 3.5 m i l l i o n American c i t i z e n s , the majority rose and r e t i r e d with the sun and were preoccupied with the business of s u r v i v a l i n what was s t i l l a b a s i c a l l y inhospitable environment. 1 The nation's p o l i t i c a l leaders were primarily concerned with consolidating the gains of the war and developing a viable basis for the government of the nation. In an age when, " . . . the nation was as yet too poor to support widespread education and too backward for the mass to appreciate i t s necessity . . . ", many American children never attended school, most that did, did so i r r e g u l a r l y , and only a minority by v i r t u e of a b i l i t y , status, or influence, were 2 able to secure a f u l l 'and complete education. The United States of 1860 was s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed. The population had increased tenfold and the l i n e of s i g n i f i c a n t settlement extended westward to the r i v e r valleys of the Ohio and M i s s i s s i p p i . While a g r i c u l t u r a l 1. For a concise description of c o l o n i a l l i f e and times see S.E. Morison, The Oxford History of The American People, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), pp. 470-1. 2. H.W. Faulkner, American P o l i t i c a l and Social History, (New York: F.S. Crofts and Company, 1946), p. 216. 22 a c t i v i t i e s s t i l l formed the backbone of the country's economy, the new a g r i c u l t u r a l and i n d u s t r i a l technology of the "old" world was making important inroads into American l i f e . In the northeastern corner of the nation a burgeoning i n d u s t r i a l complex had emerged by 1860, com-plemented by the beginnings of an extensive system of r a i l -roads, and supplying i n increasing dimension the f i n a n c i a l , material, and technological needs of the South and West. This concentration of economic power had adverse p o l i t i c a l e f f e c t s across the re s t of the country and was instrumental i n the development of a variety of socially-based humanitarian movements that swept the nation between 1830 and 1860. The s o c i a l concerns gave r i s e to the formation of a variety of associations and socie t i e s dedicated to programs designed to a l l e v i a t e poverty, abolish slavery, reform the prisons, reform the r e l i g i o u s l i f e of the nation, care for the handi-capped, and f i n a l l y and perhaps most s i g n i f i c a n t l y , e s t a b l i s h a public school system i n each S t a t e . 1 These p o l i t i c a l , economic and s o c i a l f r i c t i o n s culminated i n the outbreak of a C i v i l War i n 1860, the results of which at least confirmed the existence of the United States as a nation thereafter. 1. N. Edwards, and H. Richey, The School in the American Social Order (Boston: Houghton, M i f f l i n and Company, 1963), p. 271. The pattern of federal involvement i n education during the period r e f l e c t e d events i n the nation as a whole. The federal m i l i t a r y and Indian education programs originated i n response to domestic i n s e c u r i t i e s and were maintained and reinforced as conditions warranted. Others emerged with the establishment of federal agencies (such as the Library of Congress or the Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e ) , whose functions included educational obligations. Federal involvement i n the public educational sector began i n a general way as indicated e a r l i e r i n this chapter. Later programs, however, were linked to more s p e c i f i c national issues and the concept of general federal assistance was replaced by one that supported more lim i t e d categorical involvement. Thus the programs developed i n the f i e l d s of higher ( M o r r i l l Act), handicapped, and negro education, were not only responsive to the economic, p o l i t i c a l , . and s o c i a l pressures then i n existence but were also keyed to s p e c i f i c problem areas. In summary, the period 1776-1866 provided the f i r s t indications of the nature of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education i n the United States. I t was clear that i n areas f a l l i n g within the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of the central government, educational programs could be developed where these were extensions of the a c t i v i t i e s of respon-s i b i l i t i e s of a federal department or agency. It was also 24 clear that i n a time of national c r i s i s Congress was prepared to override t r a d i t i o n a l regard f o r the p r i n c i p l e of l o c a l paramountcy by providing federal support to key need sectors i n the national educational enterprise. Of additional significance i n thi s regard was the s h i f t from a generalized to categorical type of assistance. By 1866, however, i t could not be maintained that the federal educational presence was i r r e v e r s i b l e or even p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t when compared to state and l o c a l a c t i v i t i e s . 1 As the American nation matured, however, the "symbols" of federal educational involvement established i n this early period gained i n substance and signi f i c a n c e . 1867 - 1913 In 186 7 Canada and the United States began t h e i r unique history of contiguous coexistence. Over the period the former experienced i t s f i r s t ventures i n terms of federal educational involvement and the l a t t e r , a modest expansion of i t s federal educational enterprise. There were broad s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the types of educational programs undertaken by both central governments as well as important s p e c i f i c differences. In Canada, as i n the United States, the federal government acquired some of i t s educational 1. While no tabulation of national expenditures could be found for t h i s period, the h i s t o r i c a l evidence suggests that the federal presence at thi s time was symbolically, as opposed to functionally, s i g n i f i c a n t . 25 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s through powers delegated to i t by con-s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement. The separation of powers between the constituent governments within Canadian confederation however, was e x p l i c i t . Federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s included the f i e l d s of defence, f i s h e r i e s , Indians, p e n i t e n t i a r i e s , the geological survey, and navigation and shipping. These functions came to involve the central government i n the maintenance or development of education programs. While the Canadian government assumed immediate respon-s i b i l i t y for these j u r i s d i c t i o n s in 1867, the educational programs associated with them developed only gradually over the period. In 1871 a program of federal support grants for Canadian nautical t r a i n i n g schools was i n s t i t u t e d that lasted u n t i l 1875, was then discontinued u n t i l 1903 (at which time the program was reinstated), and subsequently supported up to and beyond 1970. In 1874 provision was made for the establishment.:of a m i l i t a r y college in Kingston, Ontario. The f i r s t class entered in 1876. By the end of the period (1910), a naval college had also been established in Halifax, Nova Scotia. During the 1880's other federal programs took shape. The Canadian government became concerned about the condition of Indian education and established a f e d e r a l l y supported Indian education system. S i m i l a r l y , e f f o r t s were made to bring systematic attention to the 26 education of federal prison inmates. F i n a l l y , i n 190 2 the f i r s t of many f i s h e r i e s t r a i n i n g programs was undertaken. The provision of f i n a n c i a l support, or the d i r e c t operation of educational programs by the federal government were not the only forms of assistance developed. In the mid-80's the Geological Survey began a practice of d i s t r i b u t i n g mineral samples and maps to educational i n s t i t u t i o n s across Canada for u t i l i z a t i o n i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs i n the schools and u n i v e r s i t i e s . In addition to the American federal educational programs previously mentioned under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , several new programs appeared during the period. In 186 7 a federal O f f i c e of Education was established. In 1874 the American government inaugurated a program of assistance for marine tr a i n i n g through state nautical schools i n states bordering large bodies of navigable waters. In 1876 the f i r s t provision was madeP for t r a i n i n g coast guard o f f i c e r s and by 1910 a basis for the establishment of a Coast Guard Academy existed. F i n a l l y , the concentration of the American Indian population on reserves af t e r 18 75 focussed more attention upon the issue of th e i r education and during the 1880's the American government gradually assumed f u l l control of thi s program with a concomitant expansion of i t s investment i n Indian education. At the turn of the century the American government became involved i n the 27 f i r s t of i t s e x t r a - t e r r i t o r i a l education programs as a re s u l t of the Spanish-American War. There were s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences i n terms of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education i n areas within the t r a d i t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n of second and t h i r d l e v e l govern-ments between the United States and Canada. Just as the question of support for education i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s had become a concern i n the United States, so too was i t an early issue i n Canada after Confederation. In 1872 a national crown lands policy was established i n Canada that provided for the support of common schools through the sale or lease of crown lands set aside for such purposes. The program was si m i l a r i n p r i n c i p l e to i t s American counterpart but d i f f e r e d i n terms of i t s application and administration."'" From the mid-1880's the central governments of both countries became increasingly involved i n technical and vocational education. In Canada lim i t e d federal support for a g r i c u l t u r a l education was provided through a system of grants to a g r i c u l t u r a l s o c i e t i e s inaugurated i n 1885. In 1890, i n the United States, a second M o r r i l l Act 1. In addition, i n 186 7 the Canadian government also inherited j u r i s d i c t i o n over a Common School Fund that had previously been administered by the United Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. A dispute over the administration of t h i s fund between Ontario and Quebec prevented disbursement of the funds and the Canadian government continues to make i n t e r e s t payments to the two provinces up to the present day. 28 was passed that i n c r e a s e d support f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l and mechanical c o l l e g e s . By the end of the p e r i o d the Canadian government had i n s t i t u t e d a program of f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l e d u c a t i o n and both governments had undertaken s t u d i e s to determine what involvement the c e n t r a l government should have with t e c h n i c a l or i n d u s t r i a l e d u c a t i o n . There were a d d i t i o n a l developments i n both c o u n t r i e s . The Canadian government e s t a b l i s h e d an i n t e r e s t i n c u l t u r a l matters through a number of i r r e g u l a r grants f o r e t h n i c and language s t u d i e s . In 1909, through the Strathcona T r u s t , the Canadian Department of M i l i t i a and Defence became i n v o l v e d with promoting p h y s i c a l t r a i n i n g i n the schools and l a t e r , with t r a i n i n g teachers i n t h i s s u b j e c t area. The American government a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e d i n some new i n i t i a t i v e s . I t assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r education i n A l a s k a i n 1867, and developed a program of a s s i s t a n c e f o r e d u c a t i o n a l e x t e n s i o n work i n the f i e l d of a g r i c u l t u r e i n 1887. At the same time a modest i n c r e a s e o c c u r r e d i n terms of the l e v e l of f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e d u c a t i o n a l programs f o r the handicapped. F i n a l l y , the American government made b e t t e r pro-v i s i o n f o r e d u c a t i o n i n Washington, D.C, and a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d a f e d e r a l l y - s u p p o r t e d negro u n i v e r s i t y i n that c i t y . 29 In both countries, federal involvement i n education during t h i s period was attributable to a number of under-ly i n g factors. Among these were included important demographic, s o c i a l , economic, p o l i t i c a l , and educational developments. The period was p r i n c i p a l l y one of domestic consolidation for both countries that involved the establishment of t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries, a doubling of the respective populations; the beginning of intensive i n d u s t r i a l development with an accompanying r u r a l to urban population s h i f t ; and, i n terms of public education, the maturation of elementary educational systems within the various states and provinces and a growing emphasis on the development of secondary education."'" While these developments were t y p i c a l of the period i n both countries, t h e i r appearance i n time and space varied, depending upon the respective levels of development that applied i n each. As noted i n previous sections of t h i s chapter, federal educational involvement during this period was generally 1. I t should be noted that i n comparison with t o t a l expenditures for education the American federal investment during the period was not s i g n i f i c a n t . I t represented 1.3 per. cent of the t o t a l national expenditures. While no s p e c i f i c national figures were available for Canada, a si m i l a r proportion was probable. National s t a t i s t i c s for educational expenditures i n Canada were not systematically available u n t i l after 1920. See: U.S., H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s : Colonial Times to 1970, pp. 1123-1125. 30 related to surrounding h i s t o r i c a l events. The development of the western t e r r i t o r i e s i n both countries brought the respective remaining native Indian populations under federal supervision with resultant pressures to meet th e i r economic, s o c i a l , and educational needs. The m i l i t a r y p a c i f i c a t i o n of the American west was a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the maintenance of the m i l i t a r y academy and post school education programs. Towards the end of the period the outbreak of the Spanish-American War and the threat of a major European c o n f l i c t further encouraged the retention and expansion of these m i l i t a r y programs. In 186 7 Canadian defence was the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the B r i t i s h government. Gradually, however, Canada established a defence ca p a b i l i t y of i t s own, i n i t i a l l y to counter a threat of invasion from the United States but l a t e r , as a symbol of the growing autonomy of the Dominion. Canadian troops participated i n the Boer War i n 189 9 and during the period 1910 to 1913, m i l i t a r y preparations were i n i t i a t e d ..in response to recognition of the p o s s i b i l i t y of war on the European continent. In the public domain, federal involvement i n a g r i c u l t u r a l and vocational education was also related to the aforementioned events. The development of a more s c i e n t i f i c and mechanized approach to farming i n both countries with a commensurate growth of competition i n international a g r i c u l t u r a l commerce 31 placed increasing pressure upon farmers and governments to increase farm productivity and improve farming practices. Both central governments responded to t h i s need, cautiously at f i r s t , but with growing concern towards the end of the period. The development and expansion of industry i n both countries (though on a much smaller scale i n Canada and somewhat l a t e r than i n the United States), produced a requirement for a mechanically s k i l l e d workforce. At the close of the period both national governments were i n the process of studying the p o s s i b i l i t y of a federal role i n the f i e l d of vocational education. By 1913 federal involvement i n education i n both countries could best be described as emergent. While the United States had moved further along the path of i n d u s t r i a l and urban development than Canada, neither country faced s o c i e t a l or educational problems that required s i g n i f i c a n t national intervention i n the public educational sector. At the same time, however, a federal presence was maintained i n the f i e l d with indications that that presence was soon to be reinforced as i t pertained to matters f a l l i n g under state or l o c a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . 1914 - 1945 The foundations of contemporary federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education were established during t h i s period i n both 32 countries. The p r i n c i p a l stimulus for t h i s development was the occurrence of two world wars separated by a severe world-wide economic depression. These events brought about p o l i t i c a l and s o c i a l changes i n the fa b r i c of Canadian and American society that were accompanied by new educational p r i o r i t i e s . These new p r i o r i t i e s were r e f l e c t e d i n the respective federal educational programs. Between 1914 and 19 45 previously established educational programs under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n were generally expanded or enhanced, and a number of new ones undertaken. Not unexpectedly, the armed forces received most of the attention i n t h i s regard as both countries were involved i n two major international c o n f l i c t s . In 1915 the American Coast Guard was formally established and provision made for t r a i n i n g i t s personnel. In 1918 under the provisions of the Soldiers C i v i l Re-Establishment Act i n Canada and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act i n the United States educational programs and services for F i r s t World War veterans were inaugurated. In 1937 the United States Military.and Naval Academies were given degree granting powers, experienced increased enrolments and an expansion of t h e i r educational programs. In 194 3, the American government amended the Vocational Rehabilitation Act to provide for vocational counselling and t r a i n i n g for the disabled veterans of the Second World War. The following year both Canada and the United States 33 enacted federal l e g i s l a t i o n to provide educational opportunities and services to a l l returning war veterans. Educational services for the native Indian population i n both countries were also dramatically improved during the period. In 1920 both nations i n s t i t u t e d compulsory school attendance regulations for Indian children. In the United States the per capita expenditure rate for Indian education was raised from $200.00 i n 1916 to $270.00 i n 1919. In 19 29 the l i m i t s imposed on c a p i t a l spending were eliminated. In Canada too, a larger amount was spent on Indian education, r i s i n g from approximately nine hundred thousand d o l l a r s i n 1913 to almost two m i l l i o n i n 1944. In addition the educational curriculum for Indian schools was standardized and, i n the United States, the f i r s t contract was entered into for the education of Indians i n the public schools. The period was also one wherein the educational f a c i l i t i e s and programs i n the Canadian penitentiary system were improved. In 192 2 the Department of Justice adopted a policy of employing only c e r t i f i e d teachers i n prisons where educational i n s t r u c t i o n was provided. In the United States i n 19 24 authorization was given for the construction and operation of the f i r s t federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas. In 19 30 the f i r s t American federal prison Act was passed and provision made for the education 34 of inmates. In Canada, i n 19 33, basic l i t e r a c y i n s t r u c t i o n was made compulsory for i l l i t e r a t e inmates i n Canadian pe n i t e n t i a r i e s . By 1945 vocational education programs i n the federal penitentiaries of both countries had become regularized, and s i g n i f i c a n t changes had occurred i n the quantity and q u a l i t y of academic education offered. A number of new federal educational programs were also established i n both countries. In 1918 i n Canada provision was made for the c o l l e c t i o n of national educational s t a t i s t i c s . Two years l a t e r an agreement was worked out with the provinces concerning the nature of the s t a t i s t i c s to be c o l l e c t e d and'the f i r s t data was gathered i n 1921. The development of new methods of communication and transportation, i n the form of the radio and the aeroplane during t h i s period, spawned a requirement for some form of federal regulation. These new federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s also came to involve educational programs. In Canada federal funding was provided to a s s i s t i n the development of licensed c i v i l i a n p i l o t s i n 1920. Similar provisions were implemented i n the United States i n 1942. The establishment of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation i n 1936 led to the development of a program of national school broadcasts. In 19 34 the Canadian Motion Picture Bureau was established (the precursor of the National Film Board), and i t , too, soon developed an educational r o l e . 35 While there was no p a r a l l e l development i n the United States i n terms of national broadcasting, the U.S.O.E. developed a l i m i t e d t r a n s c r i p t i o n and broadcast service during the same period. F i n a l l y , there were a number of miscellaneous developments worthy of note. In 19 20 the f i r s t f u l l fledged Merchant Marine Act was passed by Congress extending the same type of federal support to the American Merchant Navy as existed for the Coast Guard, including provision for the t r a i n i n g of seamen and o f f i c e r s . In 1922 under the Department of Labour the federal government i n Canada provided funds for the support of what was c a l l e d the Frontier College of Canada. This i n s t i t u t i o n was established to provide educational services to Canadians i n remote or i s o l a t e d communities and work camps. In 1941 the United States Congress enacted the Lanham Act and thereby provided federal funds to a s s i s t l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s where m i l i t a r y or c i v i l i a n war-related a c t i v i t i e s had swelled the school population without p r o v i d i n g corres-ponding revenues to finance education i n the l o c a l area. There were s i g n i f i c a n t developments i n terms of federal involvement i n public education i n both countries during the period. Prio r to the outbreak of the F i r s t World War the impetus of i n d u s t r i a l development spurred the federal governments of both countries to consider 36 intervention i n the f i e l d . The outbreak of the war served to reinforce the need for such programs. In 1914 the American Congress enacted the Smith-Lever Act providing additional aid for extension t r a i n i n g i n agriculture and home economics. In 1917 under the provisions of the Smith-Hughes Act assistance was provided for agriculture, home economics, trades and i n d u s t r i a l i n s t r u c t i o n , and teacher t r a i n i n g i n these f i e l d s . The Canadian government established a technical education assistance program i n 1919. While th i s program was only established for a ten-year period, i t did serve to stimulate the development of technical education i n some parts of the country. This spate of vocational education l e g i s l a t i o n was brought to a close i n 19 20 with the enactment of the Smith-Bankhead Act i n the United States providing educational assistance for persons disabled i n industry. The onset of a severe economic depression i n 1929 affected both Canada and the United States. The American government experienced more success i n dealing with t h i s problem than i t s Canadian counterpart, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the f i e l d of education. I r o n i c a l l y the Canadian government was the f i r s t to attempt to act. In 19 20 under the provisions of a special R e l i e f Act the federal government provided funds for public works to the provinces and muni c i p a l i t i e s . These funds were often used for the 37 construction and repair of educational f a c i l i t i e s . In 19 31 the Canadian government attempted to i n i t i a t e another vocational education program but the provinces balked at the scheme and i t was never implemented. While the Canadian government was :.tkus:jrehdered ..'somewhat impotent, the American government, with the assistance of the Supreme Court, was able to make better progress. In 19 32 under the provisions of an Economic Act, the assistance offered under the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 was increased. In 19 33 under an Act e n t i t l e d the Relief of Unemployed Through Useful Public Works Act, grants and loans were made for the construction and repair of school and college buildings, and a C i v i l i a n Conservation Corps was established to provide employment and vocational t r a i n i n g for unemployed young men. In the same year, under the Works Progress Act a number of educational projects were established that gave work to the unemployed. As one author has pointed out, while there were no general education b i l l s enacted by Congress, the " . . . Depression b i l l s , discontinued aft e r World War Two, represented noticeable departures from former federal p o l i c y towards education." 1 What the Canadian government had f a i l e d to achieve during the Depression years, i t managed successfully between 1. S. Tiedt, The Role of the Federal Government In Education (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966), p. 24. 38 1939 and 1945. In 1938 under the provisions of the Unemployment and A g r i c u l t u r a l Assistance Act appropriations were made for assistance in the development of apprenticeship and leadership training programs. One year l a t e r a youth training program was launched to a s s i s t the unemployed youth in Canada. With the outbreak of war i n 1939 Canada was catapulted from a state of economic hardship into one demanding f u l l employment. A massive vocational t r a i n i n g program was launched under the Vocational Training Co-ordin-ation Act (V.T.C.A.), of 1942 that included provision for student loans, university fee subsidization in selected areas of special need, and vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . The period 1914 to 1945 was thus s i g n i f i c a n t in the history of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education in both countries. The concept of the human and material resources of an entire society being mobilized towards the achievement of s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l , and economic goals was i d e n t i f i e d , experimented with, and f i n a l l y implemented by both national governments during this time. The f i e l d of education was not exempted from this phenomenon as both federal governments used th e i r resources to provide support for educational programs considered essential to meeting the challenges at hand. Most of the federal educational i n i t i a t i v e s developed were considered temporary in nature, p a r t i c u l a r l y 39 where they involved the j u r i s d i c t i o n of other levels of government. The potential revealed through the e s t a b l i s h -ment of these programs, however, proved d i f f i c u l t to forget. The events of the period demonstrated that a federal presence i n education was at times necessary i n both countries. 1946 - 1970 The s o c i e t i e s of Canada and the United States emerged from the experience of the Second World War considerably changed. The Depression was a memory. The s a c r i f i c e s required by the war were ended and the " f a c t o r i e s " and the "granaries" of the western world were turned to the task of rebuilding what had been l o s t or damaged, both i n t e r -nationally and domestically. In both countries the period 1946 to 1970 was one of unprecedented prosperity. Prosperity brought d i s p a r i t y , however, and from d i s p a r i t y , a host of p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l , and economic problems arose. The story of federal educational involvement i n both countries during t h i s period was very much associated with the onset of those problems, with the cumulative e f f e c t that by 1970 a federal presence i n education became a "fact of l i f e " , though the s p e c i f i c nature of that "fact" obviously d i f f e r e d i n accordance with the country involved. 40 The factors contributing to this development were ea s i l y i d e n t i f i e d . In the United States the o v e r a l l population increased from 141.3 m i l l i o n in 1946 to 204.8 m i l l i o n in 1970, over a 44.9 per cent increase in twenty-four years. 1 The Canadian population experienced a similar expansion, moving from approximately 12 m i l l i o n in 1946 to 21.5 m i l l i o n in 1971, or an increase of approximately 79 per cent. The Gross National Product of both countries also increased dramatically (from 212.0 b i l l i o n dollars i n 1945 in the United States to 974.1 b i l l i o n in 1970 and from 11.8 3 b i l l i o n dollars in 1945 in Canada to 85 b i l l i o n in 1970). On the negative side, the average unemployment rates increased from 3.0 per cent of the labor force i n Canada i n 1953 to 7.2 per cent in 1961.^ By 1970 an average of over 500,000 Canadians were unemployed annually.^ In the United States a somewhat lower percentage rate occurred but an equally r i s i n g annual trend put from two to six m i l l i o n 1. U.S., H i s t o r i c a l S t a t i s t i c s , p. 8. 2. Canada, Yearbook,1974, p. 160. 3. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s , p.21 and Canada, Survey of Educational Finance, 1965 and 1969-70, p. 19 and 41 respectively. 4. J.S. Dupre, et a l , Federalism and P o l i c y Development (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1973), p.33. 5. Canada, Annual Supplement to Section I: Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review, 1974, p. 27. 41 out of work during the p e r i o d . x At the close of the f i f t i e s and on through the s i x t i e s , problems also developed in both countries over the in e q u a l i t i e s faced by minority or underprivileged populations (Indians, French-speaking Canadians, Negroes, Puerto Ricans, the poor and otherwise underprivileged, and l a s t but not least, women). The most graphic i l l u s t r a t i o n of the need for increased federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education was provided by educational s t a t i s t i c s in both countries. At every l e v e l of the educational enterprise the demand for educational services 2 dramatically increased. These demands were not only quantitative in nature. A better informed public demanded a greater breadth and depth in educational services that included a broad range of special education for handicapped, underprivileged, and g i f t e d students. Whereas in e a r l i e r times post-secondary education was generally available only for those who could afford i t , during the period under review i t became a public enterprise available to most who wanted i t . By 19 70, while the impact of these dramatic developments was s t i l l not f u l l y discernible i t could safely be said that 1. Morison, p. 1113. 2. In the f i e l d of post-secondary education for example, enrolments increased from over 40,000 to over 200,000 in Canada and over 1.5 m i l l i o n to 7.9 m i l l i o n in the United States. 42 without federal assistance i t was unlikely that many of the needs that emerged during the period could have been met. Educational a c t i v i t y under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada and the United States was s i g n i f i c a n t l y expanded during the period. By 19 70 i n Canada there were thirty-two federal departments or agencies involved i n administering a variety of educational programs."'" In the United States, discounting the functions of the U.S. Office of Education, some t h i r t y -three federal departments and agencies were administering 2 over one hundred and f i f t y educational programs. In addition to the a c t i v i t i e s already i d e n t i f i e d within this category new educational programs were developed during the period i n both countries i n the areas of international assistance, c u l t u r a l education, c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g and health and welfare education programs. The cessation of h o s t i l i t i e s i n 1945 did not bring an end to the overseas m i l i t a r y commitment of Canada and the United States. From 1946 to 1970 the armed forces es t a b l i s h -ment i n both countries was strengthened as the "cold war" 1. Ottawa, A Directory of Federal A c t i v i t i e s in Education and Research (Ottawa: Education Research and Liaison Branch: Department of the Secretary of State, 1971) pp. 1-3. 2. United States, Catalog of Assistance (Washington: Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 19 72), p. A l - l - A l - 1 5 . The degree and comparability of federal agency involvement i n education programs i s more f u l l y discussed i n the following chapter. 43 i n t e n s i f i e d and open c o n f l i c t developed i n Korea, South East Asia, and the Middle East. The establishment of m i l i t a r y bases overseas led to the development of extensive educational f a c i l i t i e s for dependent children i n these locations."'" The American armed forces i n s t i t u t e d such a 2 program i n 19 4 6 and Canada followed s u i t i n 1953. New m i l i t a r y colleges also sprang into existence. In Canada the Royal M i l i t a r y College was supplemented with two feeder colleges i n 1950 and 1952. In 1954 the United States A i r Force Academy was established at Colorado Springs i n Colorado. In addition to these i n s t i t u t i o n s , the armed forces of Canada and the United States developed extensive under-graduate and graduate t r a i n i n g programs i n the u n i v e r s i t i e s and sel e c t i v e graduate programs i n the m i l i t a r y colleges. Educational opportunities and funding for the native Indian populations of both countries were also s i g n i f i c a n t l y expanded. While the foundations for t h i s expansion were established p r i o r to the Second World War the development and implementation of many of the programs only occurred 1. The establishment of educational f a c i l i t i e s on U.S. m i l i t a r y and other government reservations was not a new practice, but overseas establishments i n occupied countries presented a new problem and resulted i n a new type of program. See: A. Cardinale, Overseas Dependents Schools of the Department of Defence, (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, George Washington University, 1966), p. 39. 2. B.A. Andrews, The Federal Government and Education In Canada 1867 - 1970 (an unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972), p. 218. 44 after 1945. Native Indian school enrolments increased from 28,000 and 18,000 in 1940 i n the United States and Canada respectively, to 66,000 and 50,913 in 1969. 1 Expenditures on Indian education increased accordingly and a wider variety of educational programs was provided. The most s i g n i f i c a n t development of the period, however, involved the increasing enrolment of Indian students in the public schools. Educational programs in the federal penitentiary systems in both countries were also improved. In Canada immediately after the war an extensive vocational t r a i n i n g program was established that included correspondence courses and university undergraduate studies. During the s i x t i e s emphasis was a d d i t i o n a l l y placed upon recreational a c t i v i t i e s including organized sports and arts and crafts programs. Similar developments occurred in the United States but with an important difference. Under the provisions of the Correctional Rehabilitation Study Act of 1965 a vigorous program of community-based r e h a b i l i t a t i o n projects was ins t i t u t e d . The effects of both the Second World War and other international c o n f l i c t s , brought about extensive federal educational programs for war veterans. In 1945 the 1. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s , 1971, p.3. 45 Department of Veterans A f f a i r s was established i n Ottawa and the entire r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and r e t r a i n i n g program for returning soldiers was placed under i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . In the United States the program was launched under the auspices of the Serviceman's Readjustment Acts of 19 4 3 and 1944. In 1953 Canada extended educational assistance to the children of those k i l l e d i n the war, a step that was duplicated i n the United States i n 19 56. A new area of federal educational endeavor developed i n Canada and the United States during the period under review, with the establishment of a broad range of postwar international educational assistance programs. Soon after 19 45 the Canadian and American governments were c a l l e d upon to provide technical t r a i n i n g and assistance to help the recovery of countries devastated during the war and to provide newly independent or l i b e r a t e d nations with the means to achieve parity i n the "new" world. This a c t i v i t y received l e g i s l a t i v e sanction i n the United States under the provisions of the F u l l b r i g h t Act (1946) and the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. In Canada, under the Colombo Plan and other Commonwealth agreements, sim i l a r a c t i v i t i e s were i n i t i a t e d between 1946 and 1950 though without the s p e c i f i c federal l e g i s l a t i v e sanction provided i n the United States. In the early s i x t i e s the establishment of the American Peace Corps Program and the Canadian 46 University Students Overseas (CUSO) Program greatly expanded the overseas educational commitment of both countries. By 19 70 extensive quantities of human, monetary, and material resources were being channelled into these federal educational programs. 1 There were a number of other federal educational i n i t i a t i v e s during the period. In the United States improvements were made i n the provision of educational f a c i l i t i e s for the handicapped with the passage of the National Heart Act i n 1948, the Medical Education Act of 1954, the Deaf Education Act of 1961 and 1965, and the general education acts for the handicapped i n 196 6 and 19 68. By 19 70 the Canadian government had s t i l l refrained from becoming d i r e c t l y involved i n educational programs of this type. Between 19 6 7 and 19 70 the federal government i n Canada reorganized and expanded the National Museum, established a National Library, and provided funds to stimulate c u l t u r a l education programs throughout the country. F i n a l l y , i n 19 6 7 the United States amended i t s federal broadcasting l e g i s l a t i o n to make provision for the establishment of a non-commercial public t e l e v i s i o n broadcasting f a c i l i t y to be primarily used for educational purposes. In 19 68 the Canadian 1. In the United States, i n conjunction with the State Department, the U.S. Office of Education administered an extensive international student and teacher exchange program. In Canada the Canadian International Development Agency i n conjunction with the Department of External A f f a i r s provided s i m i l a r opportunities. 47 government expanded the j u r i s d i c t i o n of i t s own broadcasting l e g i s l a t i o n to make provision for the development of educational t e l e v i s i o n broadcasting. The most s i g n i f i c a n t developments of the period occurred where federal programs interfaced with the educational authority of p r o v i n c i a l and state governments. In view of the volume and nature of federal programs established under t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n during the period, developments i n Canada and the United States have been separated i n the following paragraphs, each being discussed i n i t s own context. In the United States the story began with the passage of the School Lunch Act i n 1946. Under the provisions of thi s l e g i s l a t i o n , the federal government assisted the states i n providing an adequate supply of food and f a c i l i t i e s for the "establishment, maintenance, operation, and expansion of nonprofit school lunch programs." 1 A si m i l a r program was inaugurated i n 19 56 to provide milk for the public schools. In 1950 under the provisions of the National Science Education Act the National Science Foundation was established and the basis l a i d for i n d i r e c t federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the promotion and development of science education i n the schools of the country. The cause . of educational research received support i n 19 54 when the Commissioner of Education was permitted to "enter into 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1946, Vol. 60, Chap. 281, p. 230. 48 contracts or j o i n t l y finance cooperative arrangements with u n i v e r s i t i e s , colleges, and States education agencies for the conduct of research, surveys and demonstrations i n the f i e l d of education.""'" In 1957 the Soviet Union launched the f i r s t space s a t t e l i t e and thereby emerged as a major competitor of the United States both i n terms of technological supremacy and international status. Congress had considered a number of requests for federal aid to education over the years p r i o r 2 to the Sputnik incident and repeatedly turned them down. The Russian educational and technological challenge could not go unanswered, however, and i n 1958 the National Defence Education Act was passed. Couched i n terms of national security, the Act implemented a broad range of educational assistance programs designed p a r t i c u l a r l y to upgrade and expand the s c i e n t i f i c t r a i n i n g of American students. In summing up the intent of the l e g i s l a t i o n Congress declared that " . . . the States and l o c a l communities have and must r e t a i n control over the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for public education . . . The National i n t e r e s t requires how-ever, that the Federal Government give assistance to 3 education for programs which are important to our defence." 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1946, Vol. 60, Chap. 281, p. 230. 2. F. Munger and R. Fenno, National P o l i t i e s and Federal Aid to Education (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1962), p. 9. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1958, Vol. 72, P.L. 85-864, p. 1581. 49 Nine programs were devised to carry out the intent of the l e g i s l a t i o n . 1 In 19 6 2 Congress enacted a Manpower Development Training Act designed to overcome s k i l l and mobility defi c i e n c i e s i n the labor force of the nation. .^Rapidly changing technology had brought about employment problems i n the United States and t h i s Act was designed to remedy the s i t u a t i o n i n three ways. The f i r s t involved a determination of the areas where c r i t i c a l manpower shortages or surpluses existed and the development of programs for the t r a i n i n g or r e t r a i n i n g of personnel i n those areas. The second provided for the payment of subsistence allowances for those undergoing such t r a i n i n g . A t h i r d program was designed to improve f a c i l i t i e s for testing and counselling. In 19 6 2 the Federal Communications Act of 19 34 was amended to provide funds to the States for the construction of educational t e l e v i s i o n broadcasting f a c i l i t i e s . In 196 3 federal aid was made available to the states for the construction and/or r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of t r a i n i n g f a c i l i t i e s and the establishment of student loan funds with respect to the t r a i n i n g of physicians, dentists, and public health personnel. A Higher Education F a c i l i t i e s Act was also passed with extended si m i l a r aid to community 1. These programs are f u l l y i d e n t i f i e d and discussed i n Chapter V. 50 colleges and technical i n s t i t u t e s , undergraduate higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s , and graduate educational f a c i l i t i e s . Congress enacted a new Vocational Education Act in 1963 as well. Under this l e g i s l a t i o n emphasis was placed on the youth tr a i n i n g , with f i f t y per cent of the funds provided spent on programs concerned with those between 15 - 19, twenty per cent on those between 20 - 24, f i f t e e n per cent on the 25-- 65 age group. In addition, the appropriations for the program were increased. From an educational point of view two s i g n i f i c a n t pieces of l e g i s l a t i o n were enacted in 1964, dealing with c i v i l rights and poverty. The C i v i l Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of color, creed, or national o r i g i n in the United States, including education and accordingly, provided funds for educational i n s t i t u t i o n s to establish training i n s t i t u t e s for the training of teachers having to cope with desegregation problems; technical assistance to educational agencies in the preparation and implementation of their desegregation plans; and grants for the in-service training of teachers and the employment of s p e c i a l i s t s in advisory capacities. The Economic Opport-unity Act attacked the problem of poverty in the nation. Included among the programs i n i t i a t e d under this l e g i s l a t i o n were a Youth and Adult Basic Education Program. In the former case the Federal Government provided funds for 51 projects designed to prepare those between 16 - 21 years of age for responsible c i t i z e n s h i p and employment through educational and vocational t r a i n i n g and work experience/ work study programs. The l a t t e r provided l i t e r a c y and academic upgrading opportunities for those over 18 years of age with a view to improving t h e i r employability. In addition, by Executive Order i n 1964 the President gave the Department of Health, Education and Welfare wider educational r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , including the task of deter-mining the goals and needs of the nation i n the f i e l d . Of a l l the years i n the decade, 1965 must be considered the most s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of American Federal educational involvement. The enactment of the Elementary/Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act l e f t l i t t l e i n the educational spectrum of the nation untouched by the Federal wand. The Elementary/Secondary Education Act extended Federal aid into a number of areas including f i n a n c i a l assistance to l o c a l education agencies serving areas with concentrations of low-income families to encourage them to expand and improve educational programs (including pre-school); grants for the improvement of l i b r a r y resources, textbook supplies, and other i n s t r u c t i o n a l aids; the provision of supplementary educational centres and services such as guidance and counselling, audio v i s u a l materials, etc.; and educational research and research 52 t r a i n i n g , and f a c i l i t i e s c o n s t r u c t i o n g r a n t s . F i n a l l y , the c e n t r a l government made funds a v a i l a b l e t o s t a t e education agencies f o r the improvement and updating of t h e i r f a c i l i t i e s i n terms of p l a n n i n g , s u p e r v i s i o n and s e r v i c e s , and r e s e a r c h . The Higher Edu c a t i o n A c t of 196 5 expanded the government's e a r l i e r commitment to t h a t s e c t o r to i n c l u d e F e d e r a l a i d f o r community s e r v i c e and c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n programs; c o l l e g e l i b r a r y a s s i s t a n c e , t r a i n i n g and r e s e a r c h ; s t r e n g t h -ening d e v e l o p i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s ; teacher t r a i n i n g and development; and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r the improvement of undergraduate i n s t r u c t i o n . Three other p i e c e s o f f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n were enacted i n 1965. A N a t i o n a l Foundation on the A r t s and Humanities was e s t a b l i s h e d and funds were made a v a i l a b l e to groups and i n d i v i d u a l s i n the form of s c h o l a r s h i p s , f e l l o w s h i p s , and r e s e a r c h grants f o r the fu r t h e r a n c e of s t u d i e s i n those f i e l d s . A N a t i o n a l V o c a t i o n a l Student Loan Insurance P l a n was put i n t o e f f e c t , and a program of a s s i s t a n c e t o medical l i b r a r i e s was undertaken. Between 196 6 and 196 8 a number of amendments were made to the Ac t s d e a l i n g w i t h elementary, secondary, h i g h e r , and v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . The changes r e f l e c t e d changing p r i o r i t i e s and needs. In 1966, f o r example, the Elementary/Secondary Education A c t was amended to d i s -continue the p r o v i s i o n of f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o l o c a l 53 education agencies. On the other hand, support for the l i b r a r y resources program was increased and extended. New provisions were inserted i n the Act with respect to the education of the handicapped and adult education. The Economic Opportunity Act of 196 4 was also amended at t h i s time to provide federal assistance for Headstart Programs for children i n poverty areas. In 1967 the Higher Education Act was amended to improve the teacher t r a i n i n g provisions. An Educational Professional Development Program was added to attack the problem of teacher shortages across the nation. As well i n 1967, the Communications Act was amended to provide for. the establishment of a national, private, non-profit, non-commercial, educational t e l e v i s i o n network. 1 The Federal Government provided funds to the Corporation set up to administer the program but divorced i t s e l f from any control over the operation of the network save for technical considerations with respect to federal communications laws. In 196 8 the Elementary/Secondary Education Act was further amended. Its general provisions were extended to 19 70 and i n addition, special incentive grants to sta.te agencies were r e i n s t i t u t e d , funds were provided for the establishment of regional resource centres for the 1. The Public Broadcasting System. 54 education of the handicapped, and drop-out prevention projects for r u r a l areas were included among the types of projects for which Federal assistance could be obtained. Amendments were also made to the Higher Education Act. S i g n i f i c a n t among these were such items as the merger of the various student loan plans, the extension of the period of operation of the Act, the transfer of a greater share of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for some programs to State and l o c a l agencies, and the expansion of the program to include aid to graduate education i n the United States. The Vocational Education Act was also amended to provide support for a wider range of a c t i v i t i e s . The s i x t i e s were thus decisive years i n terms of federal educational involvement i n the United States. In a period of just over ten years federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n had considerably expanded. The si g n i f i c a n c e of th i s expansion lay not so much i n the increased dimension of the federal e f f o r t as i n i t s impact upon t r a d i t i o n a l educational management i n the United States. A determined thrust was made to equalize educational opportunity across the nation i n a number of areas where i t was f e l t that students and adults suffered through inadequate educational opportunity. Short of exercising d i r e c t control over the development of educational p o l i c i e s and programs, a Federal presence i n the f i e l d of education was firmly established. The 55 p r i n c i p l e behind Federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n had also become clear -national issues warranted national a t t e n t i o n . 1 The p r i n c i p a l method of Federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s sector was through the provision of funds released to the states or pa r t i c i p a t i n g agencies i n accordance with pre-determined objectives and c r i t e r i a . With the exception of the c i v i l rights l e g i s l a t i o n , p a r t i c i p a t i o n by State and l o c a l education agencies i n federal programs was voluntary. The period was also s i g n i f i c a n t i n terms of federal educational involvement i n the public sector i n Canada. Developments i n t h i s area f i r s t occurred i n the f i e l d of higher education. Federal f i n a n c i a l support for Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s was made available i n 19 51 i n response to 2 recommendations made by the Massey Commission i n 19 49. 1. As Eidenberg and Morey pointed out i n t h e i r study, the national p o l i c y consulting/development system for education at th i s time was comprised of the major education i n t e r e s t groups including the National Education Association, the United States Catholic Conference, the American Feder-ation of Teachers, State Commissioners of Education, the U.S.O.E., Congressional committee members, the White House, and several major nationally organized r e l i g i o u s groups. These groups did not make decisions but did es t a b l i s h the parameters within which national decision-making could occur. Thus provision existed within the American system for e f f e c t i v e consideration of nationally-oriented educational issues. See: Eidenberg and Morey, pp. 4-5. 2. This Commission, properly c a l l e d the Royal Commission on National Development i n the Arts, Letters and Sciences, was established to examine the general question of what role ought to be played i n education by the Federal Government. See: F.H. Johnson, A Brief History of Canadian Education (Toronto: McGraw H i l l and Company, 1968), p. 126. 56 In the early days of the program the federal contribution was a modest one, moving from f i f t y cents per capita to one d o l l a r between 19 51 and 1960. Between 1960 and 1966, the grant was increased to f i v e d o l l a r s per capita. In 1966-67 as part of a major study of i t s f i s c a l agreements with the provinces the Federal Government reviewed i t s commitments i n t h i s educational sector and developed a plan that provided for the payment of up to f i f t y per cent of the costs of post-secondary education across the country. In 1967 a special o f f i c e was established within the Secretary of State's Department (the Educational Support Branch), to administer t h i s program and conduct limited research i n the f i e l d of higher education i n Canada. Additional forms of Federal support for higher education were implemented i n the late f i f t i e s and early s i x t i e s . In 19 57 under the Canada Council Act funds were provided for c a p i t a l construction programs at i n d i v i d u a l i n s t i t u t i o n s across Canada, and a program of fellowships and scholarships i n the Arts and Humanities was i n s t i t u t e d . In 1961 the National Housing Act was amended to provide for loans to Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s for student housing projects. In 1964 a national student loan plan was implemented whereby Canadian university students could borrow up to one thousand do l l a r s per year to a maximum t o t a l of f i v e thousand d o l l a r s . 57 Federal involvement i n technical and vocational education was also expanded. Under the provisions of the Technical Education Act of 1961 the programs of the old Vocational Training Co-ordination Act were continued with increased emphasis on the development of programs and f a c i l i t i e s i n the high schools of the nation. In addition, new programs were implemented to provide for the r e t r a i n i n g of unemployed persons displaced by automation or changing economic p r i o r i t i e s . In the same year, under a separate piece of l e g i s l a t i o n , the Federal government i n s t i t u t e d i t s f i r s t general r e h a b i l i t a t i v e vocational education assistance program whereby persons with mental or physical handicaps could q u a l i f y f o r such t r a i n i n g . F i n a l l y , i n 1966 a Training Allowances Act was passed that provided subsistence allowances for trainees undergoing r e t r a i n i n g under the Technical Education Act. The Federal Government re-entered the f i e l d of physical fitness t r a i n i n g i n 1961. Under the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sport Act the central government extended f i n a n c i a l aid to amateur sport organizations to foster the better t r a i n i n g of Canadian athletes i n a number of major sports a c t i v i t i e s . In addition, a research and development program was established i n Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s through a number of undergraduate scholarships and bursaries, graduate fellowships, and research grants. Whereas the previous 58 assistance plans had been primarily concerned with the public schools, the new Act sh i f t e d the emphasis to post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s . In 1964 further steps were taken by the Federal Government to encourage the achievement of a higher general l e v e l of education among Canada's youth. The Family Allowances Act of 1944 established a po l i c y whereby recipients of the allowance were compelled to provide t h e i r children with an adequate education. By and large this meant attendance at a public school up to age sixteen. Under the Youth Allowances Act of 1964 the system of support payments was extended to age eighteen. Those e l i g i b l e for the allowance had to be i n attendance at a school or university or handicapped to the extent that this was not possible. The intent of the Act was c l e a r l y stated i n the preamble - to encourage young people to complete t h e i r high school education. A s i g n i f i c a n t s h i f t i n the nature of Federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education i n Canada occurred i n 1966-67 as fed e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l relations came under stress through a combination of p o l i t i c a l and economic circumstances that brought into question the v i a b i l i t y of Confederation. One of the by-products of the attempt by the central government to improve i t s relations with the provinces was a change i n educational assistance p o l i c i e s . As previously noted, one of these changes 59 involved the assumption of f i f t y per cent of the operating costs of post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s throughout the country. The Federal Government also r a d i c a l l y altered i t s vocational t r a i n i n g assistance program. Under the terms of the Adult Occupational Training Act of 1967 (A.O.T.A.), Ottawa assumed the f u l l cost of t r a i n i n g or r e t r a i n i n g employable adults i n Canada but at the same time withdrew i t s support from programs developed i n the p r o v i n c i a l public schools. F i n a l l y , the central government declared i t s intention to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c u l t u r a l development of Canada by re-organizing the o f f i c e of the Secretary of State to encompass such agencies as the National Film Board, the C.B.C., the National Museum, Library and Archives, and the Citizenship Branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. Each of these agencies had developed educational programs over the years and these were generally continued and expanded under the new organization with added emphasis given to themes dealing with national unity and c u l t u r a l p l u r a l i t y of the country. Towards the end of the s i x t h decade two additional educational endeavors were launched by the central government. In 196 8 the Broadcasting Act was amended to provide for the establishment of a national educational t e l e v i s i o n net-work. While th i s enactment was not translated into r e a l i t y by the end of the decade, substantive negotiations were i n 60 process with the provinces. In 1969 i n the s p i r i t of the provisions of the O f f i c i a l Languages Act, monies were made available to the provinces for the development of second language t r a i n i n g programs within t h e i r educational systems. The s i x t i e s were thus decisive years for Federal educational involvement i n Canada. In general, for both p o l i t i c a l and economic reasons, the central government moved away from educational concerns that were considered to be within the j u r i s d i c t i o n or capacity of p r o v i n c i a l govern-ments and concentrated upon those areas that could be more e a s i l y related to the national i n t e r e s t . While the scope of the Canadian national e f f o r t was thus somewhat narrowed, the s i z e of i t s t o t a l investment i n the country's educational process dramatically increased. In sum, and i n f act, the s i x t i e s i n Canada were years during which a Federal presence i n education was firmly established and and the question became not whether, but how! The foregoing overview has presented a chronological panorama of federal educational involvement i n Canada and the United States. Viewed i n h i s t o r i c a l perspective, a s i g n i f i c a n t federal educational presence did not emerge i n either country u n t i l a f t e r the Second World War, though i n o r i g i n , the trend began a decade e a r l i e r . I t was not 61 coincidence. Prio r to 1945 the educational resources of both nations were generally s u f f i c i e n t to meet the demand for educational s e r v i c e s . 1 The evidence presented i n the chapter revealed a slowly developing set of educational a c t i v i t i e s under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of each central government. In the public domain lim i t e d ventures had been undertaken by both federal governments but i n neither case could they have been described as other than symbolically important. After 1945 the picture s w i f t l y changed. The resources of second and t h i r d l e v e l governments were no longer e n t i r e l y adequate to cope with the demand for educational services. The fund r a i s i n g powers of both federal governments provided the only other s i g n i f i c a n t source for improving the l e v e l and quality of educational service i n the nation. The expansion of federal educational p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the public domain was accompanied by an expansion of the educational programs under federal j u r i s d i c t i o n , including the introduction of new educational programs i n th i s sector. The preceding overview also permits some i n i t i a l parametric observations about the function and nature of federal educational presence i n Canada and the United States. The evidence provided by the experience of both national 1. Discounting the unusual and extreme conditions brought on by the Depression. 62 governments suggested two conditional prerequisites for federal involvement i n the f i e l d , an i m p l i c i t or e x p l i c i t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or the r e a l or perceived existence of a national imperative. Further the reaction of both national governments to any given educational issue was apparently more dependent upon the p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l , economic and p o l i t i c a l climate than upon c o n s t i t u t i o n a l constraints. It was also clear, that given a broad s i m i l a r i t y i n the causal factors leading to the establishment of federal educational programs i n both countries, a s i m i l a r i t y also existed i n the respondent educational programs themselves. 1 The aforementioned overview has i l l u s t r a t e d that federal educational involvement developed i n d i f f e r e n t ways depending upon whether or not i t emanated from a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or s o c i e t a l need. Programs developed under c o n s t i t u t i o n a l authority were generally implemented slowly, grew incrementally but steadily, and tended over time to involve an increasing number of federal departments and agencies. Those programs developed from s o c i e t a l imperatives; were sporadically implemented (with the exception of the period 1. Which i s not to suggest that there were not s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n the s p e c i f i c application and/or implementation of such programs or that i n each country there were differences i n the a b i l i t y and capacity to operate c e r t a i n programs as well as differences i n emphasis and/or intent. 63 1950 - 1970 when a v i r t u a l plethora of these appeared); had a r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f tenure or underwent s i g n i f i c a n t modification as p r i o r i t i e s and needs changed; and with few exceptions, provided the least r e l i a b l e evidence of a continuing federal commitment. Thus the "ebb and flow" of federal involvement i n education tended to d i f f e r i n accordance with the j u r i s d i c t i o n covered by the program. At the same time, i t was evident that during the period 1946 to 19 70, the t o t a l federal educational e f f o r t i n both nations far surpassed that of any preceding period. In the succeeding chapters a more detailed comparative study of federal educational programs i n both countries i s presented i n order to esta b l i s h more c l e a r l y the nature and significance of th i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Chapter III FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES In 19 70 the Canadian government spent over 210 m i l l i o n dollars on education programs within federal j u r i s d i c t i o n . 1 In the same year the American government spent approximately 2 3.5 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s on such programs. These expenditures represented twenty-seven and thirty-seven per cent of the respective t o t a l federal educational expenditures for the year, a s i g n i f i c a n t portion of the federal educational d o l l a r . The programs associated with these expenditures 1. Canada, Financial S t a t i s t i c s of Education: 1969 and 1970, (Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1975), pp. 30-31. 2. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s : 1971 (Washington: U.S. Office of Education, 1972), pp. 111-112. 65 were both numerous and varied. No study of federal educational involvement i n Canada and the United States can ignore a c t i v i t y i n this sector. In order to a s s i s t with the presentation and analysis of the material i n t h i s chapter three broad program c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were developed. The f i r s t consisted of those that provided a f u l l range of educational services including i n s t r u c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , services, and i n s t r u c t i o n a l aids and resources. The second consisted of programs providing i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials or other resources for use i n the classroom, and the t h i r d , of a c t i v i t i e s designed to provide for the c o l l e c t i o n and dissemination of national educational s t a t i s t i c s or the conduct of educational research. Within the f i r s t category both central governments developed education programs that involved the j u r i s d i c t i o n s of the armed forces, c i t i z e n s h i p t r a i n i n g , f i s h e r i e s , i nternational education, native Indian education, federal pe n i t e n t i a r i e s , transportation, and veterans education. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l authority underlying a federal educational presence i n the aforementioned f i e l d s came to each government in a variety of ways. In the majority of cases j u r i s d i c t i o n was delegated to the central government."'" 1. Under the Constitution of 1789 the American govern-ment was e x p l i c i t l y charged with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the f i e l d of National Defence and Immigration and Naturalization ( A r t i c l e I, Sec. 8), Foreign A f f a i r s ( A r t i c l e I, Sec. 10 and A r t i c l e II, Sec. 2), Inter-State and Foreign Commerce 66 There were exceptions to the general r u l e . x The American Constitution, for example, did not e x p l i c i t l y i d e n t i f y inland or coastal f i s h e r i e s as an area s o l e l y within federal j u r i s d i c t i o n , whereas the reverse applied i n Canada. In part t h i s discrepancy accounted for some of the differences between, both nations. Federal involvement i n international education programs was also governed by a d i f f e r e n t set of circumstances i n both countries. In the United States the Constitution gave the federal government j u r i s d i c t i o n i n the f i e l d of international a f f a i r s and thi s was extended to include educational concerns. In Canada the s i t u a t i o n was less clear and federal authority i n terms of international 3 educational matters i n p a r t i c u l a r , was open to question. ( A r t i c l e I, Sec. 8), and Indian A f f a i r s ( A r t i c l e I I , Sec. 8 and A r t i c l e IV, Sec. 3). A sim i l a r s i t u a t i o n applied i n Canada under the B.N.A. Act of 186 7 i n the f i e l d s of National Defence (Sec. 91 (7)), Immigration (Sec. 91 (24)), Fisheries (Sec. 91 (12)), Indian A f f a i r s (Sec. 91 (24)), Penitentiaries (Sec. 91 (27) and (28)), and Transportation (Sec. 91 (2) and (10)). 1. These developed from two basic conditions, j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given to the broad powers e x p l i c i t l y or i m p l i c i t l y expressed i n the respective c o n s t i t u t i o n a l Acts, or the appearance of unanticipated needs. 2. The federal government was able to regulate c e r t a i n aspects of a c t i v i t y i n thi s area under the provisions of the int e r s t a t e commerce clause i n the Constitution. This power did not involve the central government i n the management of the industry, however, to the same extent as the provisions of the B.N.A. Act bound the Canadian government. 3. The B.N.A. Act did not i d e n t i f y t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n and though r o l e , precedent, and common sense made i t a l o g i c a l federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , p o l i t i c a l and economic r e a l i t i e s gave 67 In neither country was the federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the education of the native Indian population given s p e c i f i c c o n s t i t u t i o n a l sanction. In the United States i n i t i a l provision for federal involvement with the Indians related s o l e l y to the regulation of trade and the making of t r e a t i e s . Some of the early tr e a t i e s contained educational guarantees and successive events broadened the interpretation of the con s t i t u t i o n a l powers to include an o v e r a l l federal respon-s i b i l i t y i n thi s area. In Canada, the precedents established during the c o l o n i a l period regarding the welfare of the native Indian population, (including education), were carried on by the federal government. The structure of Canadian federal law automatically dictated the existence of federal prisons with attendant c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provisions for t h e i r e s t a b l i s h -ment and governance."'" In the United States the j u s t i c e system was primarily a matter of State concern and for those federal offences that existed up to the early 1900's, State prisons were used to house convicted federal offenders. Changes i n American federal law i n the late Nineteenth and r i s e to the establishment of overseas o f f i c e s by p r o v i n c i a l governments. International educational matters also became the subject of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l f r i c t i o n between federal and pr o v i n c i a l governments. 1. Under the B.N.A. Act, the f i e l d of criminal law was made a federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and consequently the requirement existed for a federal prison system (Section 91 (27)) . 68 early Twentieth Century, however, brought about the need for a federal prison system. F i n a l l y , the provision of educational services to war veterans was also not s p e c i f i c a l l y sanctioned by the consitution of either country though i t was obviously accepted that such programs emanated from a federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for national defence. A variety of "authorities" were thus involved i n establishing the legitimacy of the federal educational programs i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s chapter. In addition to those programs i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y authorized by the respective constitutions, many of the a c t i v i t i e s included i n the chapter were accepted and continued on the basis of precedent or through a favourable int e r p r e t a t i o n of "broad powers". Both countries shared i n the use of these conventions and i n t h i s sense r e f l e c t e d a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c common to many federal systems where convention often carried the force of law. The key difference between both nations, however, was to be found i n the e x p l i c i t nature of the separation of federal and p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n i n Canada as opposed to the i m p l i c i t nature of the American experience. 1 This s i t u a t i o n 1. In the Constitution of 1789 the separation of powers between the central and State governments was not given detailed attention. Broad powers were vested i n the central government but these were not generally well defined. In 1791 an amendment to the Constitution further stated that a l l powers not s p e c i f i c a l l y assigned to the central government belonged to the State governments. The interpretation of where one j u r i s d i c t i o n ended and the other began became the 69 r e s u l t e d i n a c u r i o u s r e v e r s a l i n p r a c t i c e where educa t i o n was concerned. In Canada some forms of f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s e c t o r were i m p l i e d i n the e s t a b l i s h e d a u t h o r i t y o f a f e d e r a l agency and l e f t t h a t way t o av o i d open c o n f l i c t w i t h the B.N.A. A c t . Across the border, Congress o f t e n e x p l i c i t l y e s t a b l i s h e d a f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l program to a v o i d a s i m i l a r c o n f l i c t with the Constitution.''" The s t r a t e g y adopted to presen t the programs of concern i n t h i s chapter g e n e r a l l y conforms to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y d i s c u s s e d . With one or two minor exceptions those programs p r o v i d i n g a f u l l range o f e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s are d i s c u s s e d f i r s t , f o l l o w e d by those i n c a t e g o r i e s two and t h r e e . THE ARMED FORCES E d u c a t i o n a l programs e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n the armed f o r c e s i n both c o u n t r i e s may be d i v i d e d i n t o two p r i n c i p a l types, major f u n c t i o n of the American Supreme Court. In Canada, the American experience was observed to have proven t h a t some g r e a t e r s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f the r e s p e c t i v e powers of the f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l governments was d e s i r a b l e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n view of the re c e n t C i v i l War. Thus, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d i n the s t r u c t u r e o f the two f e d e r a l systems. 1. N a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l b r o a d c a s t i n g p r o v i d e d an example of t h i s phenomenon i n Canada as, c o i n c i d e n t a l l y , d i d the esta b l i s h m e n t o f the P u b l i c B r o a d c a s t i n g System i n the Unit e d S t a t e s . 70 those involving the education of servicemen and those involving the education of th e i r dependents. 1 In the former category the most consistent and persistent a c t i v i t i e s i n both countries were developed through the m i l i t a r y college programs (known as academies i n the United States), established to provide an o f f i c e r corps for the various components of the armed forces. In this sector, by 19 70, the American Armed forces also developed programs i n the areas of r e h a b i l i t a t i v e , adult, and post-graduate education. F i n a l l y , through the establishment of elementary and secondary schools on m i l i t a r y bases (both domestic and overseas), or the purchase of services from domestic l o c a l public school systems on behalf of servicemen's children, the armed forces of both nations provided for the education of dependents. While the national governments of Canada and the United States both established m i l i t a r y colleges, the history of the development of these systems provided an i n t e r e s t i n g comparison. Overall both systems were modestly implemented i n the beginning; developed slowly and somewhat sporadically u n t i l the period following the Second World War; and emphasized throughout t h e i r h i s t o r y the development of professional and technical competencies beyond those required 1. An important d i s t i n c t i o n i s made here. The normal t r a i n i n g requirements of the armed forces are excluded from consideration. Education i n t h i s sense i s used to cover programs providing public and post-secondary education only. 71 for purely m i l i t a r y purposes. At the same time the quantitative requirements of both nations d i f f e r e d con-siderably i n terms of the demand for graduates from these i n s t i t u t i o n s , as did the factors contributing to t h e i r recruitment. In addition, the approaches taken towards the selection of candidates, curriculum, and the o v e r a l l organ-i z a t i o n of the programs, also contained s i g n i f i c a n t differences. The development of a United States M i l i t a r y Academy (U.S.M.A.) at West Point, New York, was provided for i n 1802 with the establishment of an engineer corps on the s i t e . 1 In the same year the basis for a s i m i l a r naval i n s t i t u t i o n was established through the promulgation of naval regulations authorizing the employment of schoolmasters on board ships 2 for the i n s t r u c t i o n of midshipmen. The United States Naval Academy (U.S.N.A.) was not formally established, however, u n t i l 1845, and under quite d i f f e r e n t circumstances from 3 those pertaining to the establishment of West Point. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1802, Vol. I, Chap. 9, p. 16. 2. J . Crane, and J . K e i l l y , The United States Naval Academy (New York, McGraw-Hill, 1945), p. 5. 3. Early Congressional approval for naval education was obtained through budget appropriations. These did not mention or ever authorize the establishment of an Academy pr i o r to 1846. In 1845, however, the then Secretary of the Navy reduced the number of schoolmasters "serving aboard ships and used the money saved to purchase land for the establishment 72 By 1874, when the Canadian government made provision for the establishment of the Royal M i l i t a r y College (R.M.C.) i n Kingston, Ontario, the two m i l i t a r y academies i n the United States had been operating for a number of years. 1 R.M.C. was formally opened i n 1876. I t was not u n t i l 1910 that provision was made for the creation of a Canadian navy, but within the enabling l e g i s l a t i o n i n that year authorization 2 was given for the establishment of a Naval College. The Naval College was destroyed, however, i n the famed Halifax explosion of 1917. An attempt was made to carry on the work of the College through integration with the R.M.C. program but this proved unsatisfactory and with the cessation of h o s t i l i t i e s i n 1918 the College was discontinued u n t i l j u s t p r i o r to the outbreak of the Second World War, when i t was re-established at Royal Roads just outside V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia. After the Second World War the Canadian government adopted a new and d i f f e r e n t concept i n the operation of i t s m i l i t a r y colleges. Partly because of economics, and partly because of the lessons learned about combined operations of the Academy. In 1846 Congress approved the approprations for the Academy, thus l e g i t i m i z i n g i t s existence. To thi s day, however, the Naval Academy has not been authorized by s p e c i f i c statute. See: Crane and K e i l l y , pp. 20-22. 1. Canada, Statutes Of Canada, 1874, Chap. 36. 2. Ibid., 1910, Chap. 43. 73 during the war, between 1948 and 1950 the Canadian m i l i t a r y College program came to include a l l branches of the armed forces.''" In 1952 a second feeder college was established at St. Jean, Quebec, to bring Canada's complement of these i n s t i t u t i o n s to three. The combined services approach was not adopted i n the United States, though a t h i r d Academy was also established there i n 1954 at Colorado Springs, Colorado, to serve the o f f i c e r recruitment needs of the 2 American A i r Force. Under the provisions of the National Defence Act of 1950 the s e l e c t i o n of cadets for the Canadian m i l i t a r y colleges was based upon a formula whereby 50 per cent were selected on the basis of p r o v i n c i a l quotas determined by population 3 and 50 per cent on merit. Candidates applied for entry into the colleges through armed forces r e c r u i t i n g centers or the public schools and were subsequently tested for a variety 1. Ibid., 1950, Chap. 43. 2. P o l i t i c a l and economic factors appear to have influenced the divergence between both countries aft e r World War I I . The comparative size of both armed forces and the difference i n t h e i r o f f i c e r recruitment requirements were s i g n i f i c a n t factors behind the Canadian a b i l i t y to e f f e c t a conceptual change i n the m i l i t a r y college system and the i m p r a c t i c a l i t y of any attempt to do so i n the United States. In addition, economic considerations alone provided strong reasons for adopting the above-mentioned approach i n Canada whereas equiv-alent parameters did not e x i s t i n the United States. 3. Canada, Annual Report of the Minister of National Defence, 1951, p. 12. 74 of s k i l l s and interviewed by a regional Board. F i n a l s e l e c t i o n was made i n Ottawa by a committee established under the Minister of National Defence. 1 In the United States a more elaborate selection system was i n s t i t u t e d that took a variety of factors into consideration. By 19 70 the three M i l i t a r y Academies i n the United States adopted a uniform quota system for the numbers of enrolees, though the Naval Academy d i f f e r e d i n terms of the numbers taken i n each quota category. The American quota formula made basic allotments to the States, T e r r i t o r i e s , and the D i s t r i c t of Columbia. State allotments were apportioned between the members of Congress and cadets were nominated through these elected representatives. T e r r i t o r i a l allotments were nominated by the Commissioner or Governor of the T e r r i t o r y . The President and Vice-President were also able to nominate a fixed number of cadets at large. F i n a l l y , c e r t a i n numbers of cadets were selected from among the regular and reserve components of the armed forces, the graduates of designated honor schools, and the families of members of the armed forces 2 k i l l e d i n action. As i n Canada, candidates for the 1. Canada, Annual Report of the Minister of National Defence, 1951, p. 12. 2. United States, U.S. Code Annotated, T i t l e X, Chap. 403, Sec. 4342, p. 325. 75 m i l i t a r y academies i n the United States underwent a battery of physical and mental tests (including standard college entry examinations), to establish merit and p r i o r i t y with respect to s e l e c t i o n . 1 While the American selection process was thus more complex, i t can be seen that both systems respected the federal structure through a state apportionment system, while at the same time ensuring some selection by merit. In the area of curriculum there were two s i g n i f i c a n t developments i n the Canadian and American m i l i t a r y colleges. By 19 70 these i n s t i t u t i o n s were conferring degrees on th e i r graduates, and the respective curriculae were expanded and d i v e r s i f i e d . The American m i l i t a r y academies were the f i r s t 2 to receive degree granting powers i n 19 33. The Royal M i l i t a r y College i n Canada received t h i s authority i n 19 59 3 under p r o v i n c i a l statute. While the American academies 1. United States, A Study of the Programs of the U.S.M.A. (West Point, U.S.M.A., 1972), p. 95. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1933, Vol. 48, Chap. 32, p. 73. This authority was dependent upon the accreditation of the Academies by the American Association of U n i v e r s i t i e s . 3. The method used i n Canada was i n d i c a t i v e of the operation of i t s federal system wherein control over education at a l l l evels rested with the p r o v i n c i a l govern-ments. The central government was not perceived to possess the authority to give a federal i n s t i t u t i o n degree-granting powers. 76 were empowered to c o n f e r a B.Sc. degree upon t h e i r graduates, RMC, by v i r t u e o f i t s program was able to c o n f e r a B.A. or B . S c , depending, upon the student's s u b j e c t c o n c e n t r a t i o n . U n t i l 1948, the c u r r i c u l a o f f e r e d a t RMC and the American m i l i t a r y academies were s i m i l a r as noted e a r l i e r i n the chapter. A f t e r 194 8 RMC and i t s feeder c o l l e g e s began a d i f f e r e n t approach to o f f i c e r e d u c a t i o n i n v o l v i n g g r e a t e r emphasis on academic i n s t r u c t i o n and more b r o a d l y -based academic experience g i v i n g g r e a t e r emphasis to the a r t s and humanities. In t h i s way, as one a u t h o r i t y commented: Canada's RMC d i f f e r e d from i t s American o p p o s i t e number. Although the course was of s i m i l a r l e n g t h , f o u r y e a r s , and although the apportionment between m i l i t a r y t r a i n i n g and e d u c a t i o n was much the same a t West P o i n t and A n n a p o l i s , the American academies f o l l o w e d the p r i n c i p l e of g i v i n g to a l l cadets or midship-men what was c o n s i d e r e d the i d e a l programme of s u b j e c t s f o r t r a i n i n g a s e r v i c e o f f i c e r . There was thus a s e t p a t t e r n which pe r m i t t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s o n l y i n one or two s u b j e c t s (more advanced languages or a d i f f e r e n t h i s t o r y c o u r s e ) . The academies were thus, i n the American t r a d i t i o n f o r undergraduate c o l l e g e s , g e n e r a l r a t h e r than s p e c i a l i z e d , but u n l i k e American c i v i l i a n c o l l e g e s they went to the o p p o s i t e extreme from the f r e e e l e c t i v e system. D i f f e r e n c e s i n s c h o l a s t i c a b i l i t y were re c o g n i z e d by p l a c i n g students i n s m a l l c l a s s e s d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g to competence, thus p e r m i t t i n g each student to progress a c c o r d i n g to h i s c a p a c i t y ; but t h i s p r a c t i c e had the e f f e c t of t a i l o r i n g the p a s s i n g standard to the student's a b i l i t y i n s t e a d of assuming a l e v e l of achievement which a l l must a t t a i n . Weekly 1. The U.S.N, post-graduate s c h o o l was g i v e n the a u t h o r i t y to grant an M.Sc, M.A., Ph.D., or P. Eng. degree i n 19 45. 77 t e s t s and assignments f o s t e r e d r e g u l a r study r a t h e r than long-term under-s t a n d i n g . 1 The American m i l i t a r y academies began a process of c u r r i c u l u m d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n i n the 1960's but t h i s p r i m a r i l y c o n s i s t e d of i n t r o d u c t i o n of s o c i a l s c i e n c e e l e c t i v e s i n t o the course of i n s t r u c t i o n w h i l e r e t a i n i n g the b a s i c e n g i n e e r i n g / p h y s i c a l s c i e n c e s c o r e . 2 The s i m i l a r i t i e s between the Canadian m i l i t a r y c o l l e g e s and the American m i l i t a r y academies were a product of the common purposes served by these i n s t i t u t i o n s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between them r e f l e c t e d the d i f f e r i n g nature of the two f e d e r a l systems, as w e l l as d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r demographic and economic s t a t u s , s t r u c t u r e , and i n t e r n a t i o n a l p o l i t i c a l and m i l i t a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . The i n t e g r a t e d approach towards o f f i c e r t r a i n i n g adopted by the Canadian armed f o r c e s a f t e r 1950 was a s i g n i f i c a n t departure from e a r l i e r 1. R.A. P r e s t o n , A History of the Royal M i l i t a r y College (Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 19 69), pp. 335-336. 2. In 19 70 the o p e r a t i o n o f the m i l i t a r y C o l l e g e s i n Canada c o s t the government over 12 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s with an enrolment of approximately 1,50 0 cadets. The American government spent over 184 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s f o r the o p e r a t i o n o f i t s three m i l i t a r y academies. Enrolments i n these i n s t i t u t i o n s t o t a l l e d over 12,000 cadets. The c o s t of o p e r a t i n g the r e s p e c t i v e programs were obtained from the f o l l o w i n g p u b l i c a t i o n s ; Canada, Survey of Educational Finance: 1969-1971 (Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1973), and U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s : 1971.- Enrolment s t a t i s t i c s were o b t a i n e d from the annual r e p o r t s o f the r e s p e c t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s . 78 practice i n that country and was also a d i s t i n c t i v e con-ceptual departure. To a lesser extent, the philosophical approach taken towards the curriculum also d i f f e r e d . While retaining a t e c h n i c a l / s c i e n t i f i c core for the majority of cadets, the Canadian colleges also provided a l i b e r a l arts concentration for those whose career choices made t h i s path possible. The t e c h n i c a l / s c i e n t i f i c core was retained for a l l cadets i n the American academies. These differences aside, however, both central governments continued to provide support for t h e i r m i l i t a r y college programs, which by 1970 had become well established, recognized, and credentialled a c t i v i t i e s . In addition to the m i l i t a r y colleges, federal educational programs were also developed i n the armed service to meet the needs of servicemen i n general. In the United States these programs f i r s t began with the establishment of post schools for e n l i s t e d men. They were l a t e r expanded to include a f u l l range of educational opportunity including post-secondary education. In addition i n both countries reserve and regular force t r a i n i n g programs were inaugurated i n conjunction with the colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s to a s s i s t with o f f i c e r recruitment i n time of c r i s i s . The post school concept had i t s origins i n 1821 when, under the provisions of a M i l i t a r y Appropriations Act, the regulations governing the m i l i t a r y establishment of the 79 United States were adopted."1" The need for such a service was obvious as the American Army occupied f i r s t , f r o n t i e r outposts largely i s o l a t e d from regular school f a c i l i t i e s and l a t e r , bases established i n foreign countries. Between 1812 and 1860 these schools were i r r e g u l a r l y established and poorly administered. In 1866, however, the provisions regarding such schools were made more e x p l i c i t when Congress declared: Schools s h a l l be established at a l l posts, garrisons, and permanent camps at which troops are stationed, i n which the e n l i s t e d men may be instructed i n the common English branches of education, and e s p e c i a l l y i n the history of the United States; and the Secretary of War may d e t a i l such o f f i c e r s and e n l i s t e d men as may be necessary to carry out t h i s provision. I t s h a l l be the duty of the post or garrison commander to set apart a suitable room or building for school and r e l i g i o u s purposes.2 In 1916 and 19 20 the curriculum for these schools was expanded to include vocational t r a i n i n g and the employment of c i v i l i a n 3 instructors was authorized. In 1956 these schools were authorized to provide r e h a b i l i t a t i o n t r a i n i n g to prepare 1. A. Cardinale, Overseas Dependent Schools of the Department of Defense (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis; George Washington University, 1966), p. 19. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1866, Vol. 14, Chap. 299, p. 336. 3. Ibid., 1916, Vol. 39, Chap. 134, p. 392. Between 19 20 and 19 56 t h i s program was maintained or expanded as the role of armed forces was modified by world events. 80 servicemen for return to c i v i l i a n l i f e . In Canada the provision of this type of education was not seriously undertaken during the period under review. Although the National Defence Act of 1950 gave the armed forces authority to establish a wide variety of educational programs, the only d i r e c t r e s u l t of this l e g i s l a t i o n involved the pro-v i s i o n of correspondence courses offered through p r o v i n c i a l agencies to a s s i s t in upgrading the general l e v e l of schooling 2 among servicemen. The development of close working relationships between the armed forces and i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education had a long history in both countries. In the United States i t began with the passage of the f i r s t M o r r i l l Act in 1862 when i t was required that i n s t r u c t i o n i n land-grant colleges include m i l i t a r y t a c t i c s . Accordingly, in 1866, the armed forces were authorized to d e t a i l o f f i c e r s to such i n s t i t u t i o n s , or any others having a suitable body of 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1956, Vol. 70A, Chap. 1041, p.559. 2. By the time Canada's armed forces reached s i g n i f i c a n t size, few were stationed out of proximity to a l o c a l c i v i l i a n educational resource thus making a post school system un-necessary. At the same time, the armed forces in Canada tended to overlook the general problem of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n for c i v i l i a n l i f e and suffered by comparison with their American counterpart. 81 students, to give m i l i t a r y instruction." 1" In 1870 the Sec-retary of War was authorized to issue m i l i t a r y equipment 2 to such i n s t i t u t i o n s for tr a i n i n g purposes. The practice of providing s i m i l a r t r a i n i n g i n Canada was begun i n 190 7 and was expanded into the Canadian O f f i c e r s Training 3 Corps (COTC), i n 1912. In 1916 the Reserve O f f i c e r Training Corps (ROTC) was established i n the United States consisting of a senior d i v i s i o n of the land-grant college l e v e l and a junior d i v i s i o n at a l l other educational i n s t i t u t i o n s . With the American entry into World War One provision was made for the attendance of m i l i t a r y personnel 5 at educational i n s t i t u t i o n s for t r a i n i n g at public expense. In 1920, those i n s t i t u t i o n s host to the ROTC were required to include a mandatory m i l i t a r y i n s t r u c t i o n component. In the United States the ROTC became an established feature of educational l i f e i n the country's u n i v e r s i t i e s and 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1866, Vol. 14, Chap. 229, p. 336. 2. Ibid., 1870, Vol. 16, Chap. 294, p. 319. 3. Canada, Annual Report of the M i l i t i a Counoil, 1907 and 1912, No. 35, Vol. 17, p. 10 and p. 117. 4. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1916, Vol. 39, Chap. 134, p. 182. 5. Ibid., 1918, Vol. 40, Chap. 143, pp. 848-9. 6. Ibid., 1920, Vol. 41, Chap. 227, pp. 779-80. 82 colleges as the American nation was almost continuously involved i n , or threatened by, international c o n f l i c t s . The COTC program was dropped i n Canada i n the mid-sixties as the o f f i c e r requirements of the armed forces were being adequately met through the m i l i t a r y colleges and the Regular O f f i c e r Training Plan (ROTP).1 With the expansion of t h e i r m i l i t a r y roles over the years, the governments of Canada and the United States found 2 i t necessary to provide for the education of dependents. The f i r s t such provision was made i n the United States where, under the post school program, education was also provided for children of the garrison whenever possible. The f i r s t o f f i c i a l l y reported schools for such children were established i n 1880, and 108 schools were i n existence i n 1883, with an 3 average d a i l y attendance of 3,729. The post school for 1. This plan was introduced under the authority of the National Defence Act of 1950. I t did not receive s p e c i f i c federal l e g i s l a t i v e sanction, however. In the summer of 19 52, to supplement the work of the m i l i t a r y colleges i n Canada and provide for specialized types of tr a i n i n g not available through those i n s t i t u t i o n s the armed forces i n t r o -duced the Regular O f f i c e r Training Plan (ROTP). The Defence Department f u l l y subsidized the university education of candidates on t h i s program i n return for which three years of service was required i n the armed forces. See: Canada, Annual Report of The Department of National Defence, 1953, p. 14. 2. Servicemen's children. 3. Cardinale, p. 24. 83 children had a rocky history, however, and i t was not u n t i l after the Second World War when bases were established overseas that the education of dependents took on a greater significance, in this instance, for both nations. 1 Two types of dependents education programs developed in Canada and the United States after the Second^World War. The f i r s t consisted of schools established on garrisons in foreign countries, and the second, of schools inside Canada and the United States or their t e r r i t o r i e s . In 1946 the U.S. Army and Navy established schools for dependents at overseas locations. The Navy did so under Congressional authority but the Army, lacking such a commitment, financed the schools from the p r o f i t s r e a l i z e d from the sales of 3 post exchanges and from Canteen liquor sales. It was not u n t i l 1948 that Congress appropriated funds for army over-4 seas dependents schools. Between 1948 and 1964 the three 1. Shortly after an i n i t i a l surge the number of dependents needing post school f a c i l i t i e s declined and Congress prohibited expenditures for this purpose. A variety of measures were subsequently adopted between 1889 and 1918 to keep the schools going. Congress re-appropriated funds for them after World War I u n t i l 1922 when the practice was again discontinued. Up to 1950 the schools were funded out of recreation funds supplemented by parental payments. See: Cardinale, pp. 25-27. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1946, Vol. 60, Chap. 756, p. 854. 3. Cardinale, pp. 40-41. 4. Ibid., pp. 49-50. 84 armed services each operated t h e i r own overseas school system. In 1964, after one year of planning, the operation of a l l overseas dependents schools was consolidated under a Director of Overseas Dependent Schools and administration of the system was r a t i o n a l i z e d and r e g i o n a l i z e d . 1 The Canadian armed forces established t h e i r f i r s t overseas schools i n 1953 under the 1950 Order-in-Council that gave the Minister of National Defence authority, "to e s t a b l i s h schools for the education of children of service personnel at or near defence establishments, i f suitable educational f a c i l i t i e s were not available within a 2 reasonable distance . . . " Under this Order dependents schools were established i n Belgium, France, and West Germany. The overseas system was given further d e f i n i t i o n i n 19 62 when, under a further Order-in-Council, p o l i c i e s and practices were established dealing with the curriculum, the h i r i n g and employment of teachers, and the conditions surrounding the establishment of such schools. Within the confines of Canada and the United States the armed forces also operated schools for dependents or made provision for th e i r education. Whenever possible both such 1. Cardinale, p. 113. The various overseas theatres of operation were organized according to m i l i t a r y commands, (i . e . Europe, P a c i f i c , e t c . ) . 2. Canada, Annual Report of the Minister of National Defence, 1951, p. 31. 85 services purchased education from l o c a l public schools systems, but when necessary also established schools on m i l i t a r y bases. The early history of such schooling i n the United States has already been recounted. During the Second World War the Federal Works Administration and the Secretary of the Army were authorized to make payments to l o c a l education agencies for schooling of the dependents of federal personnel where t h e i r presence had affected the capacity of the l o c a l schools to provide education.''" This p o l i c y was further defined i n 1949 and 1950 under the federal l e g i s l a t i o n providing a i d for federall y impacted areas. Under the l e g i s l a t i o n prorrated payments were made to school d i s t r i c t s for educational services rendered to the dependents of federal employees, and also payments for 3 construction of educational f a c i l i t i e s . Further, federal agencies were authorized to b u i l d and maintain schools where such educational services were not available l o c a l l y . 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1947, Vol. 61, Chap. 437, pp. 716-7; and 1948, Vol. 62, Chap. 389, p. 297. 2. Ibid., 1949, Vol. 63, Chap. 583, p. 697; 1950, Vol. 64, Chap. 995, p. 967, and Chap. 1124, p. 1104. 3. The formula for such payments was equal to; the number of children i n average d a i l y attendance mul t i p l i e d by 0.5 the aggregate current expenditure for the school d i s t r i c t (for the second year preceding the year of e l i g i b i l i t y ) , and the aggregate number of children i n average d a i l y attendance. 86 Payments were made d i r e c t l y from the Treasury on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Education. In 1955 the armed forces were prohibited from educating dependents on base schools where l o c a l public schools were a v a i l a b l e . 1 The Canadian armed forces entered into s i m i l a r arrangements with school d i s t r i c t s i n Canada under Orders-in-Council 2 proclaimed xn 1950 and 1968. There were sxgnxficant differences, however, i n the p r a c t i c a l application of the l e g i s l a t i o n . In Canada dependent education could be provided through payments i n l i e u of taxes (with the agreement of the municipality); payment from resident school fees (as determined by the school d i s t r i c t ) ; payments on a per pupi l cost-sharing basis for both the construction and operation of school f a c i l i t i e s ; or by federal construction and operation of school f a c i l i t i e s on federal property when such f a c i l i t i e s were not otherwise available. Given that the involvement of the Canadian armed forces i n the education of dependents was not as extensive as that of the American m i l i t a r y , the approach of both countries to the same problem contained s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences. In Canada the control and development of 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1955, Vol. 69, Chap. 446, p. 433. 2. Canada, Report of the Assistant Deputy Minister of National Defence (Personnel)', 1973, p. 1. 87 dependents education, from the outset, was more centralized and better coordinated."'" By the mid-sixties, however, both nations had adopted similar procedures for the education of dependents at overseas i n s t a l l a t i o n s including a stand-ardized curriculum and centralized teacher recruitment. Both armed forces also moved to a system whereby educational services for dependents within the country were •purchased from l o c a l public schools wherever f e a s i b l e . The method of payment for these services was more complex i n the United States than i n Canada because school funding i n the former was a l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as opposed to the 2 p r o v i n c i a l l y based system i n Canada. In the United States, the administration of the funding for dependents education inside the country was handled by the U.S. O f f i c e of Education i n conjunction with l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s 1. The Canadian armed forces only f u l l y came into being during the Second World War. When the Department of National Defence was established the operations of a l l three services were brought under one o v e r a l l administration. This, i n turn, made i t possible to avoid duplication of service by each of the branches of the armed forces i n areas such as dependents education or i n the m i l i t a r y colleges. In the United States the t r a d i t i o n that developed early i n i t s history whereby each branch of the service developed indep-endently and often i n competition with the others, presented a more d i f f i c u l t background against which to develop co-ordinated programs. 2. The American forces ( d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y ) paid l o c a l school d i s t r i c t s the costs of educating dependents i n l o c a l schools. 88 whereas i n Canada, i t was a d i r e c t transaction between the federal Treasury Board and p r o v i n c i a l governments. 1 In summary, i n 19 70 expenditures for dependents education i n Canada exceeded 22 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s while those i n the United States exceeded 137 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . In Canada these monies were used to provide education for over 7,000 students both inside and outside the country, and to operate 18 schools. Correspondingly, the /American armed forces were operating 302 schools and providing an education 2 for approximately 180,000 students. Federal involvement i n educational programs connected with the a c t i v i t i e s of the armed forces i n both countries were thus generally si m i l a r i n purpose and typology. The major exception to t h i s generalization occurred i n the area of r e h a b i l i t a t i v e educational programs for servicemen and o f f i c e r post-graduate t r a i n i n g . It was also a p e c u l i a r i t y of 1. The best comparison of t h i s aspect of Canadian and American federal l e g i s l a t i o n can be gained from examining the Impacted Area l e g i s l a t i o n of 1949 and 1950 i n the United States and the educational provisions of the National Defence Act of 19 50 i n Canada. 2. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s , 1971, and l e t t e r from E.D. Sorenson, Chief, F i n a n c i a l Management and Support D i v i s i o n , U.S. Department of Defence, September 30, 1975; Canada Survey of Educational Finance, (1969-1971) and l e t t e r s and material from Col. J.G. Morin, Director General Dependents Education Programs, Department of National Defence, Ottawa, November.2, 1975. 89 the American experience that three of the educational programs in t h i s f i e l d (post-schools, the U.S.N.C., and the U.S. Army Dependents Schools), were established i n advance of Congressional enabling l e g i s l a t i o n . Differences i n the content and magnitude of the various a c t i v i t i e s common to both countries were generally more related to the varying size of the constituencies being served and the d i f f e r i n g m i l i t a r y p r o f i l e s than to substantive differences i n p r i n c i p l e or need. CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION Federal involvement i n what became known as c i t i z e n s h i p education developed comparatively late i n the history of both countries. In the United States i t emerged as a r e s u l t of conditions surrounding the outbreak of the F i r s t World War. The Canadian government did not become involved u n t i l a f t e r the Second World War.1 While the circumstances surrounding federal involvement i n t h i s f i e l d were thus quite d i f f e r e n t , the form of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n contained many s i m i l a r i t i e s . American p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the F i r s t World War precipitated a wave of patriotism that included a demand for the 1. P r i o r to the enactment of a Canadian Citizenship Act i n 1947 there was considerable uncertainty over what a Canadian was. U n t i l 1947 B r i t i s h l e g i s l a t i o n gave Canadians the status of B r i t i s h subjects i n international dealings but c i t i z e n s naturalized under Canadian law were not regarded as B r i t i s h subjects by other countries. See: Canada 1867-1967 (Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1967), p. 100. 90 "Americanization" of the immigrant populace. Congress responded to t h i s pressure by tightening the immigration and n a t u r a l i z a t i o n laws and expanding the work of the Bureau of Naturalization, declaring i n 1918 that: . . . for purpose of carrying on the work of the Bureau of Naturalization of sending the names of the candidates for c i t i z e n s h i p to the public schools and otherwise promoting i n s t r u c t i o n and t r a i n i n g i n c i t i z e n s h i p r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of applicants for n a t u r a l i z a t i o n , as provided i n t h i s subdivision, authority i s hereby given for the reimbursement of the p r i n t i n g and binding appropriation of the Department of Labour upon the records of the Treasury Department from the n a t u r a l i z a t i o n fees deposited i n the Treasury through the Bureau of Naturalization to those candidates for c i t i z e n s h i p only who are i n attendance upon the public schools, such reimbursement to be made upon statements by the Commissioner of Naturalization of books actually delivered to such student candidates for c i t i z e n s h i p , and monthly natur a l i z a t i o n b u l l e t i n , and i n t h i s duty to secure the aid of and cooperate with, the o f f i c i a l State and national organizations, including those concerned with vocational education and including personal service i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia. In 19 52 the requirements for c i t i z e n s h i p were further outlined and included the necessity f o r a minimal understanding of o r a l and written English as well as a knowledge of American , • , 2 h i s t o r y . 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1918, Vol. 40, Chap. 69, p. 544. 2. Ibid., 1952, Vol. 66, Chap. 414, pp. 239-40. 91 The Canadian program began afte r the Second World War. In 194 6 the Canadian Parliament enacted the f i r s t t r u l y comprehensive c i t i z e n s h i p l e g i s l a t i o n and included within i t provision for the establishment of f a c i l i t i e s to provide c i t i z e n s h i p education and language t r a i n i n g . 1 In 1950 the Department of Citizenship and Immigration was established and a program involving the subsidization of language 2 tr a i n i n g was inaugurated. The Canadian program d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from i t s American counterpart. It not only provided textbooks for i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes but also 3 provided for the costs of i n s t r u c t i o n . The federal government bore the f u l l costs of the production and provision of the textbooks, but shared the i n s t r u c t i o n a l costs with the i n d i v i d u a l provinces on a matching d o l l a r basis. Further, the Canadian program did not require immigrants to reg i s t e r at l o c a l public schools. Instead, the Canadian immigration authorities administered this aspect of the program. The difference between the Canadian and 1. Canada, Statutes At Large, 1946, Chap. 15. 2. Canada, Annual Report of the Department of C i t i z e n -ship and Immigration, 1950, pp. 9-10. 3. Between 19 50 and 19 70 the Canadian government spent over 1.8 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s on language textbooks and 4.3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s for language and c i t i z e n s h i p i n s t r u c t i o n . Comparable figures were not available from United States sources. See: Canada, Annual Reports of the Department of C i t i z e n s h i p and Immigration and the Department of the Secretary of State, 1950-1970. 92 American experience i n t h i s area was explained by a number of factors. American federal involvement developed during a period of international c r i s e s and at a time when federal interference i n l o c a l education matters was considered an exceptional measure. In 1950 i n Canada a dramatic increase i n the rate of immigration into the country coupled with p r e v a i l i n g federal p o l i t i c a l attitudes that favored a stronger federal presence i n the nation's l i f e generally, accounted for the appearance of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r program.''" INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS While the American government became involved i n some international education a c t i v i t y p r i o r to the Second World War, s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n did not occur u n t i l a f t e r 1945. Canadian involvement i n the f i e l d began afte r 1945. By 19 70, three basic types of programs were established i n both countries consisting of those designed to provide, funds for the establishment of educational f a c i l i t i e s abroad; educational personnel for the purpose of providing advice and t r a i n i n g f o r other countries; and educational t r a i n i n g for foreign students within the United States and Canada. Within the f i r s t category i d e n t i f i e d above, both Canada and the United States channelled t h e i r major 1. See: Canada, Canada 1867-1967, p. 92; and Donald Smiley, The Canadian P o l i t i c a l N a t i o n a l i t y (Toronto: Methuen, 1967), pp. 35-37. 93 contributions through the United Nations, p a r t i c u l a r l y through UNESCO. In addition to t h i s form of assistance (begun i n 1947 i n both countries), the United States i n s t i t u t e d a program of sel e c t i v e aid to American-sponsored schools abroad i n 19 49 under the provisions of the Smith-Mundt Act wherein the Secretary of State was authorized: . . . to provide for assistance to schools, l i b r a r i e s , and community centers abroad, founded or sponsored by c i t i z e n s of the United States, and serving as demonstration centers for methods and practices employed i n the United States. In a s s i s t i n g any such schools, however, the Secretary s h a l l exercise no control over t h e i r education p o l i c i e s and s h a l l i n no case furnish assistance of any character which i s not i n keeping with the free democratic p r i n c i p l e s and the established foreign policy of the United States .-1-2 In 1949 nearly $54,000 was expended on t h i s program. In 19 67 the figure reached nearly three m i l l i o n d o l l a r s but 3 declined by 19 70 to $1,599,661. The Canadian government began a program of grants i n 19 60 for the establishment and operation of schools i n foreign countries where such needs existed."* 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1949, Vol. 62, Chap. 36, p. 6 . 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Federal Security Agency, 1949, p. 79. 3. U.S., "A S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e of the U.S. Exchange Program 1971", Bureau of Educational and Cultural A f f a i r s , Table 8. 4. S p e c i f i c expenditures between 19 60 and 19 70 were not available, but i n 1969, under the special programs grants 94 Another s i g n i f i c a n t international education program sponsored by the federal governments of Canada and the United States involved an exchange of students, teachers and other, personnel. By 19 70 both countries were committed to a s s i s t i n g under-developed countries throughout the world to overcome educational d e f i c i e n c i e s by providing t r a i n i n g opportunities for them i n a variety of ways. In the United States two basic types of foreign educational exchange programs were i n s t i t u t e d : B i l a t e r a l programs whereby arrangements were made between the United States and one or a small group of countries, and m u l t i - l a t e r a l programs wherein the United States participated along with other countries or organizations i n extending educational services to a large number of interested nations. Four pieces of federal l e g i s l a t i o n gave form and substance to the American international education e f f o r t , the F u l l b r i g h t Act of 1946, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, and the Foreign Assistance Act of 196l. 1 Under these acts a broad range of exchange of the Canadian International Development Agency (C.I.D.A.), $375,000 was expended on this type of program. See: Annual Report of the C.I.D.A., 1969, p. 33. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1946, Chap. 493, p. 311; 1948, Vol. 62, Chap. 36, p. 6; 19 61, Vol. 75, Public Law 87-256, p. 527; and 1961, Vol. 75, Public Law 87-195, p. 326; respectively. In 1966 a further International Education Act was passed (1966, Vol. 80, Public Law 89-698, p. 1066), but was not funded. 95 programs and services, were fostered. The f i r s t exchange program undertaken by the United States developed from the apprehensions raised by Axis incursions into Latin America i n the nineteen-thirties. In 19 38 Congress made provision for, " c i t i z e n s of the American republics to receive i n s t r u c t i o n at professional educational i n s t i t u t i o n s and schools maintained and administered by the Government of the United States Under the same authority i n 1944 an international educational development program for the tra i n i n g of foreign teachers was inaugurated and expanded under further Acts i n 1946, 1948, and 1961, to encompass not only L a t i n American but 2 underdeveloped countries throughout the world. In 19 46 the federal government inaugurated a teacher exchange program 3 with Great B r i t a i n . By 19 70 t h i s program was expanded 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1938, Vol. 52, Chap. 644, p. 10 34. Under t h i s Act Latin American students from 17 countries had, (by 1952), attended schools, colleges, and un i v e r s i t i e s , i n the U.S. and 6 3 U.S. graduate students had studied or done research i n Latin American countries. See: T.E. Cotner, D i v i s i o n of International Exchange and Training Programs and Services (Washington: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1975), p. 3. 2. I b i d . Between 1944 and 1970 thi s program accommo-dated over 9,000 educators from 83 countries i n the areas of elementary,.secondary, vocational, second language (English), administration, and special education (p. 4).' 3. Cotner, p. 5. 96 to include s i x countries on a one for one basis, and some one-way placements i n the United States from Europe, La t i n America, and India. By 1970, 98,437 foreign students, scholars, teachers, and lecturers, had participated i n American exchange programs and 38,581 Americans. 1 In 19 70 the cost of a l l American international educational programs t o t a l l e d 35,814,577 d o l l a r s . The international educational a c t i v i t y of the American government was coordinated through two agencies within the Department of State, and also with the assistance of the 2 U.S. Office of Education. Within the Department of State the Bureau of Educational and Cul t u r a l A f f a i r s administered the bulk of the exchange programs developed under the Cultural Exchange Act of 19 61. The Agency for International Development, established under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 catered to technical assistance and funding programs. The U.S. Office of Education cooperated with both agencies i n the organization and administration of U.S.-based programs for foreign exchange personnel. The Canadian student exchange programs began i n 1949 under the auspices of the Economic and Social Council of the 1. U.S., A S t a t i s t i c a l P r o f i l e of the U.S. Exchange Program, p. 1. 2. C A . Quattlebaum, Pt. II, 1968, pp. 8-11. 97 United Nations. 1 In 19 50 the Department of External A f f a i r s , as a r e s u l t of a government study, assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a number of foreign student exchange programs and i n the . . 2 same year Canada joined the Colombo Plan. By 19 70 Canada was involved i n s i x b i l a t e r a l foreign assistance programs that included the Colombo Plan, the Commonwealth Caribbean Program, the Commonwealth African Program, the Francophone A f r i c a Program, a Latin American Program, and other programs involving the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, and Turkey. In addition, the Department coordinated and administered the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship 3 Program. These d i r e c t federal foreign assistance programs 1. This program involved the provision of funds and personnel for technical assistance purposes and the t r a i n i n g of foreign personnel i n Canada. See: Canada, Annual Report of the Department of External A f f a i r s , 1948, p. 64. 2. Up to 1950 student exchanges had been handled through private agencies and coordinated by the Canadian Council for Reconstruction. This body was disbanded i n 1950 and i t s functions assumed by the Department of External A f f a i r s . The Colombo Plan involved Canada i n a program of technical and other kinds of assistance to South and South East Asian countries. See: Canada, Annual Report of The Department of External A f f a i r s , 1950, p. 30. 3. Disbursements for educational purposes under these programs up to 19 69 were as follows: a. Commonwealth Scholarship $ 8,202,400 b. Colombo Plan 782,500,000 c. Commonwealth Caribbean 1,197,000 d. Commonwealth A f r i c a 69,100,000 e. Francophone A f r i c a 512,000 f. Other 29,000 g. L a t i n America 5 4,70 0 See: Canada, Canadian International Development Agency: Annual Review, 1969, pp. 31-32. 98 were supplemented by the provision of funding for a host of private, non-governmental, agencies such as the YM-YWCA, the Canadian Teachers Federation, the Canadian Education Association, and the Canadian University Students Overseas (CUSO), that included educational projects i n t h e i r overseas a c t i v i t i e s . The administration of Canadian external aid programs had quite a d i f f e r e n t history from that of the United States. While provision was made for the conduct of foreign a f f a i r s by the Canadian government i n 1909, i t was not u n t i l 1946 that a separate ministry was established. Between 1946 and 1960 foreign aid programs were gradually brought under the umbrella of the Department of External A f f a i r s . In 1960, the scope of such programs was such that a special o f f i c e was created (the External Aid Office) to coordinate and administer them. In the same year, and for d i f f e r e n t purposes, the Canadian International Development Agency (C.I.D.A.) was established."'" I n i t i a l l y t h i s agency was intended to provide funds on a grant and loan basis for the purpose of a s s i s t i n g under-developed countries. As the scope of the operations of the C.I.D.A. expanded i t became more close l y a l l i e d with the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the External Aid O f f i c e and i n 1969 C.I.D.A. became the c o n t r o l l i n g agency 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1960, Chap. 32. 99 for i n t e rnational assistance programs. A comparison of the external educational aid programs operated by Canada and the United States indicated a s i m i l a r i t y of purposes but differences i n j u r i s d i c t i o n a l authority, structure, and operation. J u r i s d i c t i o n over the conduct of foreign a f f a i r s was less c e r t a i n i n Canada than i n the United States where educational matters were concerned. This issue was highlighted i n a federal working paper i n 1968 when the then Minister of External A f f a i r s stated: Canada i s universally recognized as an independent member of the community of nations, and the Canadian Government enjoys f u l l powers to enter into t r e a t i e s and agreements on a l l subjects. However, under the B r i t i s h North America Act, as interpreted by the J u d i c i a l Committee of the Privy Council, the P a r l i a -ment of Canada cannot l e g i s l a t e to implement a treaty i f the subject matter f a l l s within the exclusive l e g i s l a t i v e competence of the provinces.1 In the further paper, the Minister of External A f f a i r s stated that henceforth i n the f i e l d of education p r o v i n c i a l author-i t i e s would represent Canada at inte r n a t i o n a l conferences with federal involvement confined to matters of protocol or o v e r a l l foreign policy implications. Educational p o l i c y matters a r i s i n g out of such conferences were to be l e f t to 1. Paul Martin:Federalism and I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1968), p. 9. 100 the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education."1" Thus Canada and the United States presented quite a d i f f e r e n t p r o f i l e i n terms of federal authority i n international educational matters. The Administrative structure and operation of i n t e r -national educational programs i n the United States and Canada also d i f f e r e d . As indicated e a r l i e r , two agencies of the Department of State and one from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (The U.S. Office of Education (U.S.O.E.)), played p r i n c i p a l roles i n the administration of American programs. In Canada by 19 70 one federal agency performed t h i s function, supplemented when necessary by the services of the Department of External A f f a i r s . F i n a l l y , there was a subtle but s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the application of international educational programs by both countries. This difference was highlighted i n the wording of American federal l e g i s l a t i o n wherein these programs were seen as vehicles for the transmission of 1. M i t c h e l l Sharp, Federal-ism and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conferences on Education (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1968), pp. 50-5 2. The Council of Ministers was a body composed of the Ministers of Education of the various provinces established by them to o f f e r an opportunity for more coordinated approach to educational development between the provinces. 101 American ideals and culture." 1' The Canadian approach was less d i r e c t l y motivated as primary emphasis was given to the provision of assistance. Here again, however, both countries functioned i n a d i f f e r e n t context, the United States bearing a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n world a f f a i r s while Canada's role was substantially more modest. 1. As an example of t h i s approach Sec. 2 of the International Education Act of 1966 i s c i t e d : The Congress hereby finds and declares that a knowledge of other countries i s of the utmost importance i n promoting a mutual understanding and cooperation between nations; that strong American educational resources are a necessary base for strengthening our relations with other countries; that t h i s and future generations of Americans should be assured ample opportunity to develop to the f u l l e s t extent possible t h e i r i n t e l l e c t u a l capacities i n a l l areas df knowledge pertaining to other countries, people, and culture; and that i t i s therefore both necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to a s s i s t i n the development of resources for international study and research, to a s s i s t i n the development of resources and trained personnel i n academic and professional f i e l d s , and to coordinate the e x i s t i n g and future programs of the Federal Government i n international education, to meet the requirements of world leadership. See: U.S., Statutes At Large, 1966, Vol. 80, Public Law 89-698, p. 1067. 102 FISHERIES In Canada, control over inland and coastal f i s h e r i e s was delegated to the Federal Government. In 190 2, to improve the q u a l i t y and e f f i c i e n c y of Canada's east coast herring fishery, the Canadian government introduced a t r a i n i n g course sponsored by the Department of Fisheries and operated by a Mr. John Cowie of Scotland. 1 Thus began a series of periodic t r a i n i n g courses between 190 2 and 19 36 whereby the Department undertook to maintain, and where necessary improve, the q u a l i t y of the A t l a n t i c f ishery. These courses normally consisted of a number of lectures given to the fishermen i n t h e i r v i l l a g e s by a Department employee either hired s p e c i f i c a l l y for the purpose, or as part of his normal r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In 19 22 the Marine B i o l o g i c a l Board inaugurated a s i x week course for hatchery o f f i c e r s . Five years l a t e r courses of s i m i l a r length were introduced for fishermen complete with a scholarship to defray the costs of t h e i r attendance. After the Second World War, the Department continued to provide a variety of subsidized t r a i n i n g courses for the Canadian fishermen. Rather than operate these courses i t s e l f , however, the Department contracted for the services 1. Canada, Sessional Papers, 1905, Vol. 2, No. 22, p. x x i i . 103 o f one or two u n i v e r s i t i e s f o r i n s t r u c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and p e r s o n n e l . In 19 50 an a d d i t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n was e s t a b l i s h e d as the Consumer Branch of the Department began to p r o v i d e l e c t u r e s , demonstrations, a u d i o - v i s u a l a i d s , e t c . , f o r classroom use i n the s c h o o l s . Between 1907 and 1969 the Department spent over 2.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s on t r a i n i n g courses f o r fishermen, over 5.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s on i n f o r m a t i o n and e d u c a t i o n support f u n c t i o n s and i n grants to i n s t i t u t i o n s of h i g h e r l e a r n i n g . In a d d i t i o n , i n 1965 a program o f r e s e a r c h i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s was begun by the Economic S e r v i c e s Branch of the Department at the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto. Expenditures under t h i s program reached $50,500 an n u a l l y by 19 70. 1 INDIAN EDUCATION F e d e r a l involvement i n n a t i v e Indian education was an e a r l y development i n both c o u n t r i e s . I n i t i a l l y i t c o n s i s t e d of the p r o v i s i o n of funds to a s s i s t w i t h the payment of teachers s a l a r i e s or the c o n s t r u c t i o n of f a c i l i t i e s . Between 1867 and 1970, however, f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n was g r a d u a l l y i n c r e a s e d to the p o i n t where the c e n t r a l government i n each country c a r r i e d t o t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t h i s 1. Canada, Annual Reports of the Department of F i s h e r i e s , 1907-1970. No e x p l a n a t i o n was found f o r the i n c l u s i o n of the s o c i a l work grants i n the o p e r a t i n g budget of the F i s h e r i e s Department. I t remains a c u r i o s i t y a t t h i s p o i n t . 104 TABLE I YEAR 1870 1875 1886 1887 1900 1901 1920 1921 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 POPULATION (000) CANADA U.S. 380.6 91.9 128.0 115.0 100.0 118.3 136.4 191.7 244.0 269.3 312.4 340.5 334.0 343.0 547.0 827.0 SCHOOL AGE POPULATION (5-17 YRS) (000) CANADA U.S. 95.0 7.1 28.0 25.0 23.0 26.4 43.0 45.6 98.0 90.4 97.5 99.0 104.0 146.0 205.5 SCHOOL ENROLMENTS (000) CANADA U.S. 2.1 5.5 9.6 12.1 15.7 18.3 23.4 40.6 66.7 6.9 12.3 27.5 62.7 76.0 67.5 77.5 133.3 185.5 SELECTED STATISTICS ON INDIAN EDUCATION IN fA^PA AND THE UNITED STATFS FOR SE1FCTFI1 YFARSl SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (*) CANADA U.S. 7.2 23.2 51.8 22.1 62.5 69.3 68.4 77.9 11.6 81.8 15.0 58.2 66.9 20.6 89.1 91.3 88.0 90.3 AVERAGE ATTENDANCE (000) CANADA U.S. .5 2.9 6.1 7.6 9.5 23.0 23.2 72.3 FEDERAL SCHOOLS CANADA U.S. CO 198 290 321 342 378 403 471 280 153 214 304 220 390 325 270 241 1. Statistics presented for the years up to 1920-21 are suspect. There was no clear and verifiable knowledge of the Indian population at the Federal level before ?his time and c l a i ms made for attendance records etc. should be treated with elution After 1930 ZIZT™ I ? ? 0 1 ? " 9 ° f I? d 1 a n - e d u c a t l ' o n w a s s u s P e c t f o r w h a * w« not repSrteJ Accurate figures on attendance r a t 1 0 S and the school age Indian population were difficult'to obtain since they disappeared from departmental reports. aitncuit to FEDERAL SCHOOLS ATTENDANCE (000) CANADA U.S. 9.6 12.1 14.0 18.1 23.4 31.1 27.8 12.3 22.9 23.8 27.2 28.5 41.3 37.3 47.8 PUBLIC SCHOOLS ATTENDANCE (000) CANADA U.S. .14 .20 1.6 9.4 38.8 .13 33.2 48.8 39.0 36.2 84.6 126.8 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES (millions) . CANADA U.S. .08 .11 .39 1.05 2.3 2.3 6.2 31.0 92.0 .25 .89 3.08 11.4 15.0 20.0 150.0 PER CAPITA EXPENDITURES BASED ON ENROLMENTS (*) CANADA U.S. 4.02 20.0 40.9 86.7 148.0 ' 126.2 265.4 767.0 1.379.0 35.6 81.0 112.0 150.2 222.1 258.0 808.2 Sources: Many sources were used to obtain the limited data presented in this Table. ^ n l r S n a a n 1 , U a l / e ? ° r t S ' 5 p e c i a 1 r e p o r t s ' l e t t e r s b e t w e e n t h * author and ! n P ? l ? h £ l ? f ! 1 C i a l S a " d . m 0 " 0 ? r a p u h s by individuals. These are too numerous to l i s t here but are contained in the Bibliography. These § 105 a c t i v i t y . The t r a n s i t i o n from p a r t i a l to t o t a l involvement in this f i e l d was not without i t s problems. In 19 70 the rol e and goals of the Indian education system i n both countries seemed no closer to resolution than i t was i n 186 7. In the meantime, many attempts were made to bring the "system" into some meaningful rela t i o n s h i p with the surrounding and larger white society. Some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with the development of Indian education i n Canada and the United States are re f l e c t e d i n the Table on the preceding page. Prior to 19 30 r e l i a b l e s t a t i s t i c s on Indian education were d i f f i c u l t to obtain, p a r t i c u l a r l y insofar as the size of the native population and school attendance was concerned."'" In addition to these problems the federal management and administration of Indian a f f a i r s (including education), was 1. Attendance at Indian day schools i n both Canada and the United States was i r r e g u l a r and perfunctory, even with the introduction of compulsory attendance laws p r i o r to the turn of the century. Some Indian agents reported these conditions accurately when supplying s t a t i s t i c s but others claimed attendance at levels not generally borne out by the national picture. Indian population figures were largely estimated before the 19 20's p a r t i c u l a r l y where school aged children were concerned. In only a few cases was the information supplied by the various Indian agents i n both countries summarized i n useable form by the federal author-i t i e s . A l l of these conditions suggested that despite the presence of a structure for Indian education i n both countries, i t was not u n t i l 19 30 and beyond that s i g n i f i c -ant progress was made i n u t i l i z i n g these f a c i l i t i e s much les s , i n achieving the purposes for which the system was designed. 106 given varying p r i o r i t y over the years. Between 1775 and 1849 the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h i s function was changed f i v e times, and i n Canada, s i x . The evolution of federal Indian education policy i n both countries contrasted sharply. As a r e s u l t of the e f f o r t s of the French and English i n using the Indian as an instrument of war during the c o l o n i a l period, the American government generally treated him as a candidate f o r " c i v i l i z a t i o n " . 1 Continued h o s t i l e contact with the native Indian population as the f r o n t i e r moved westward did nothing to encourage a change i n t h i s attitude. I t was not u n t i l 19 30 that the change occurred, and with i t , the goals of the American Indian education system. In Canada pre-confederation c o l o n i a l p o l i c i e s were continued af t e r Confederation by the federal government. In th i s context the Canadian Indian 2 was treated i n a more paternal and protective manner. By 19 70 both governments had altered t h e i r attitude to the point where the thrust of federal programs was to restore a sense of selfworth and dignity to the Indian people and encourage the concept of equal c i t i z e n s h i p and p a r t i c i p a t i o n 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1819, Vol. 3, Chap. 85, p. 516. 2. A Superintendent of Indian A f f a i r s pointed out that Canadian l e g i s l a t i o n was based on the p r i n c i p l e that the aborigines were to be kept i n a position of tutelage and treated as wards of the State. See: Canada, S e s s i o n a l Papers, 1877, No. 11, Vol. VIII, p. xiv. 107 i n the national l i f e . " 1 " By 186 7, the year i n which the Canadian government assumed d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Indian education, the American government had established a federal Indian school system, i n s t i t u t e d compulsory school attendance; made annual appropriations for Indian education; and permitted Indian students l i v i n g o f f the reservation to attend . . 2 public schools with the aid of federal subsidies. Between 186 7 and 1895 the Canadian government l e f t the education of the Indian to the church with federal funding 1. The American government, through the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s indicated that, " . . . a new t r a i l leading to equal c i t i z e n s h i p rights and benefits, maximum s e l f s u f f i c i e n c y , and f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n American l i f e (was) the keynote for the administration of programs . . . " U.S. Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s , Federal P o l i c i e s To 1970, (Washington: U.S. Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1970), p. 12. In a s i m i l a r vein, the Canadian government announced i n a policy paper i n 1969 that i t s Indian, " . . . p o l i c i e s must lead to the f u l l , free, and non-discriminatory p a r t i c i p a t i o n of the Indian people i n Canadian society," and that this goal, " . . . requires that (their) role of dependence be replaced by a r o l e of equal status, opportunity, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . . . ". Canada, Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian P o l i c y 19 69, (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969), p. 5. 2. Between 1806 and 1870 the U.S. government approp-r i a t e d a t o t a l of $8,000,000 for Indian education including the $10,00 0 per annum granted to the President for such purposes. Between 1870 and 1895 Congressional appropriation moved from $330,015, to i n excess of $1.5 m i l l i o n per annum. In 1970 the sum exceeded $300,000,000. While the percentage of Indian school age children i n school remained low during the period (less than 50%), the number i n school increased from 5,000 to over 21,000. This information was obtained from the annual reports of the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s . 108 provided on an occasional basis.^ In 1870 the American Congress made i t s f i r s t annual appropriation for Indian education i n the United States. The p r e v a i l i n g attitude towards the Indian was summed up i n the Commissioner of Education's Annual Report for the year when i t was stated that: The Indian tribes and bands resident within the United States are d i r e c t l y under control of the General Government. Its authority over these scattered communities, within the l i m i t s which the p o l i c y so long followed i n relations to them has assigned, is. complete. The General Government i s the protector and guard-ian of t h i s race. They are regarded as i t s "wards". At least such i s the theory. In the progress of the nation changes are rendered necessary i n the application of t h i s theory . Learning our duties more c l e a r l y through the t e r r i b l e events of the past decade, we are r e a l i z i n g the mistakes that have been made, as well as the obligations resting upon us. Nothing seems more s e t t l e d , as a question of national p o l i c y , than the o b l i t -eration of such d i s t i n c t i o n s as excluded from the p r i v i l e g e s of c i t i z e n s h i p a large body of the people on account of color. How soon the Indian s h a l l become a c i t i z e n 1. By 1895 there were 290 Indian schools reported i n operation i n Canada with 4,819 students i n attendance. As i n the United States the foundation of the Indian school system at t h i s time was the day school, supplemented by a li m i t e d number of boarding schools. The Canadian system d i f f e r e d from i t s American counterpart, however, i n terms of types of schools (there were fewer), and funding. 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1870, p. 22. 109 i s a question for others to consider. But the conclusion i s ine v i t a b l e . Either c i t i z e n s h i p ^ or extinction seems to be the Indian's destiny. Imp l i c i t i n thi s attitude was the requirement that the Indian be prepared for a c i v i l i z e d l i f e i n accordance with the norms of American society. Two issues prompted greater American federal p a r t i c i p -ation i n Indian education during the period 1867 to 1895, the i n a b i l i t y of the various missionary s o c i e t i e s to develop uniform educational p o l i c i e s and the insistence of many of these same s o c i e i t e s on teaching the Indians i n th e i r native d i a l e c t , a practice not i n keeping with the po l i c y enunciated i n 1870. The federal response to thi s s i t u a t i o n was to introduce two new i n s t i t u t i o n s into the Indian educational system, the t r a i n i n g school and the government reservation boarding school. Both i n s t i t u t i o n s made provision for vocational type t r a i n i n g (the former more than 2 the l a t t e r ) while also giving i n s t r u c t i o n only i n English. In 1882 a federal Inspector of Schools was appointed for Indian schools and i n 1884 Congress required an annual census of the Indian school system including s t a t i s t i c s on 3 enrolment, schools, teachers, and f a c i l i t i e s . In 1886 1. U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1870, p. 339. 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian A f f a i r s , 1885, p. 137. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1882, Vol. 22, Chap. 163, p. 3 and 1884, Vol. 23, Chap. 180, p. 98. 110 the Inspector of Indian Schools became a Superintendent and one year l a t e r Congress required the Secretary of the Interior to annually report upon expenditures on Indian education. 1 By 1891 the t r a i n i n g received i n federal Indian schools was standardized and compulsory school attendance was i n s t i t u t e d complete with penalties for 2 non-compliance. In the same year provision was made for the attendance of Indian students at l o c a l public schools at an allowance of ten d o l l a r s per pupil per quarter, 3 based on the average attendance for a l l such pupils. By 189 5 the framework of the American Indian school system 4 was firmly established. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1886, Vol. 24, Chap. 362, p. 69. 2. I b i d . , Vol. 27, Chap. 16 4, p. 14 3. 3. U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian A f f a i r s , 1891, p. 71. 4. In 1885 the American Indian education system was structured as indicated below and remained b a s i c a l l y unchanged u n t i l 19 30. a. Day Schools 1. Established and supported by the Government. 2. Supported by contract with r e l i g i o u s s o c i e t i e s . 3. Mission schools established and supported by r e l i g i o u s s o c i e t i e s . b. Boarding Schools 1. Located on reservations and controlled by agents. I l l In 1894 the Canadian government formally took control of the funding of Indian education i n Canada afte r twenty-eight years of sectarian management.^ The government was not happy with the work of the mission schools. As early as 1875 the Superintendent of Indian A f f a i r s reported 2. Independent Schools - supported by general appropriation - supported by s p e c i a l appropriation 3. Contract Schools - supported by general appropri ation - supported by s p e c i a l appropriation 4. Mission schools established and c h i e f l y supported by r e l i g i o u s associations. c. State and T r i b a l Schools 1. Indian schools of New York State. 2. T r i b a l schools of Indian T e r r i t o r y . The sources of revenue by which the Indian schools were supported may be classed as follows: 1. Appropriations made under the educational provisions of e x i s t i n g t r e a t i e s . 2. Funded investments of bonds and other s e c u r i t i e s held by the Government. 3. Proceeds of the sale of lands of c e r t a i n Indian t r i b e s . 4. Accumulations of money i n the Treasury r e s u l t i n g from the sale of lands. 5. Annual appropriations by Congress for Indian school purposes. Source: U.S., Annual Report of the. Commissioner of Indian A f f a i r s , 1886, pp. 136-137. 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1894, Chap. 32. 112 t h a t w h i l e e d u c a t i o n was g r a d u a l l y being extended to the Indian p o p u l a t i o n , i t was not being done well."'" The Superintendent argued f o r a p o l i c y t h a t enabled the Indian to prepare f o r a h i g h e r c i v i l i z a t i o n by encouraging the assumption o f the p r i v i l e g e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of f u l l c i t i z e n s h i p . By 1895 there were three b a s i c types of Indian s c h o o l s i n Canada, the day s c h o o l , the r e s i d e n t i a l or boarding s c h o o l , and the i n d u s t r i a l s c h o o l . Each of these schools served purposes s i m i l a r t o t h a t of t h e i r American counter-p a r t w i t h the e x c e p t i o n t h a t the academic course o f study conformed to Canadian standards. Compulsory attendance a t r e s e r v a t i o n s c hools was a l s o p a r t o f the package developed 2 from the l e g i s l a t i o n o f 1894. By comparison, the r e g u l a t i o n s adopted i n Canada p e r t a i n i n g t o compulsory attendance gave the Indian agent more a u t h o r i t y than h i s American counter-p a r t . In 1881 the Supreme Court forbade the American government to take custody of Indian c h i l d r e n f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes without p a r e n t a l consent whereas the Canadian a u t h o r i t i e s c o u l d do so when circumstances d i c t a t e d such a c t i o n . The funding of Indian e d u c a t i o n was c a r r i e d out i n a s i m i l a r 1. Canada, "Annual Report of the Department of The I n t e r i o r " , Sessional Papers, 1875, V o l . V I I , No. 8, p. 28. 2. Canada, Statutes of Canada, 1894, Chap. 32. 113 way i n both countries. After 1895 the federal government provided the bulk of the funding, supplemented by Indian band funds and monies derived from the sale of Indian lands. A few Indian schools i n the United States were e n t i r e l y supported by the Indian community but no such schools existed i n Canada. In 1897, a f t e r more than a decade of heated controversy between the churches and the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s the long standing American t r a d i t i o n of cooperation between church and state i n Indian education was terminated."'" The basic reasons for t h i s action have already been mentioned and i t need only be added that the decision was also i n keeping with the Constitutional p r i n c i p l e whereby public monies were not to be used to support sectarian endeavors. The t r a n s i t i o n from church to state governed Indian education was more gradual i n Canada and, i n fact, by 1970 a number of reservation schools were s t i l l run by church organizations supported by public funds. The differences that existed between the United States and Canada with respect to the role of church and state i n Indian education were e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d . H i s t o r i c a l l y the church i n Canada was primarily represented by the Roman Catholic and Anglican f a i t h s and i n keeping with 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1897, Vol. 29, Chap. 62, p. 106. 114 h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n t h e i r churches generally operated i n cooperation with the state. The church i n the United States presented a more diverse and complex mosaic and the decision by the Congress to divorce the state from the church early i n American history i n part r e f l e c t e d the d i f f i c u l t y i n dealing with that "mosaic" i n a cooperative and uniform manner.1 Sectarian controversy was avoided i n Canada by l e g i s l a t i n g exclusive j u r i s d i c t i o n over the educational a c t i v i t y on a p a r t i c u l a r reservation to that 2 f a i t h acceptable to the Indian band. In the United States a variety of f a i t h s were often i n competition for Indian education programmes. F i n a l l y , the pressures to bring Indian education into some semblance of uniformity appeared much l a t e r i n Canada than the United States largely because the Canadian west developed more slowly than i t s American counterpart and the resultant s o c i e t a l problems were consequently deferred. The practice of enroling Indian students i n the public school system began i n the United States i n response to the 1. I t must also be recognized that a cooperative re l a t i o n s h i p between church and state was a n t i t h e t i c a l to the American " v i s i o n " whereby old world customs were generally to be rejected i n favor of more democratic governmental modes. 2. Canada, Canada Gazette, 1894, Vol. XXVIII, p. 832. 115 e d u c a t i o n a l needs of Indian c h i l d r e n not r e s i d e n t on r e s e r v a t i o n s . In g e n e r a l the s u b s i d i e s granted f o r t h i s purpose d i d not cover the c o s t s i n v o l v e d w i t h the r e s u l t t h a t t h i s o p t i o n was not w i d e l y used."*" In 19 24 however, 2 American c i t i z e n s h i p was extended to American Indians. One of the long term e f f e c t s o f t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was to i n v o l v e the s t a t e s i n Indian e d u c a t i o n . As the Commissioner of Indian A f f a i r s p o i n t e d out i n 19 31, "When Congress . . . made a l l Indians c i t i z e n s i t served n o t i c e t h a t Indians c o u l d no longer be over-looked i n the c i t i z e n r y of any 3 S t a t e . " In 19 34 under the P r o v i s i o n s of the Johnson-O'Malley A c t the F e d e r a l Government was a u t h o r i z e d to enter i n t o c o n t r a c t u a l agreements w i t h the Stat e s or T e r r i t o r i e s f o r the p r o v i s i o n o f the e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s to the 4 . . n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n . In the same year under the p r o v i s i o n s of the Indian R e o r g a n i z a t i o n A c t loans were a u t h o r i z e d f o r t u i t i o n purposes f o r Indian students i n v o c a t i o n a l and 1. Adams, p. 71. 2. W.E. Washburn, The American Indian -and the United States: A Documentary History, V o l . I-IV (New York: Random House, 1973), p. 2209. 3. U.S., Annual Report of the Bureau of Indian A f f a i r s , 1931, p. 7. 4. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1934, V o l . 48, Chap. 147, p. 596. 116 trade schools, high schools and colleges." 1" The use of public schools by and for Indian students increased steadily from 1934 to 1970, largely because the range of f a c i l i t i e s and opportunities available through that system surpassed the c a p a b i l i t i e s and capacity of the federal Indian school system. In Canada the attendance of Indian students at non-Indian schools began i n the l a t e nineteen-twenties, but as i n the United States, the numbers affected by t h i s practice were i n i t i a l l y very small. I t was not u n t i l 1951 that the Indian A f f a i r s Branch was authorized to enter into educational 2 agreements with the provinces. A Canadian Indian scholar-ship system to provide incentive and a s s i s t Indian students i n t h e i r pursuit of post-secondary education was not 3 introduced u n t i l 1956. While the s h i f t i n emphasis from federal to public school attendance for Indian pupils was never p u b l i c l y explained i n Canada, the evidence suggests i t was not unrelated to factors that had influenced the American decision. The costs of duplicating services offered by the public schools where proximity dictated, 1. Washburn, p. 2214. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1915, Chap. 29. 3. Canada, Annual Report of the Department of C i t i z e n s h i p and Immigration, 1956, p. 60. 117 were beyond the c a p a b i l i t y of federal resources. Further, the p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over education dictated that i n each province the education provided had to p a r a l l e l the p r o v i n c i a l system i f Indian students were to be considered e l i g i b l e for post-secondary educational opportunities. By 1970 the status of Indian education i n Canada and the United States was considerably changed from what i t had been i n 186 7. While developments i n Canada tended to lag behind and were often patterned af t e r those i n the United States, both countries had s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased t h e i r investment i n Indian education. As indicated i n Table I the Canadian government was spending more per capita than i t s American counterpart i n this a c t i v i t y . Further, the evidence suggested that a more p a t e r n a l i s t i c and centralized approach to administering Indian education existed i n Canada than was evident i n the United States, a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c observed i n other programs previously discussed i n t h i s chapter. Conversely, while the American government was spending less per capita, i t s programs were broader i n scope and offered wider opportunities for educational advancement than the Canadian program. F i n a l l y , despite these developments, the evidence from both countries suggested that the basic issues of the role and goals of Indian education were no closer to effective resolution than i n 186 7. 6 118 EDUCATION PROGRAMS IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES In 19 70 the federal governments of Canada and the United States, through the o f f i c e s of the S o l i c i t o r General and Attorney-General respectively, were extensively involved with education programs fo r inmates i n federal prisons. While the Canadian government was involved with such programs shortly a f t e r Confederation the American government did not become involved u n t i l a f t e r the turn of the century. P r i o r to 19 30 i n both countries educational programs for prison inmates were viewed as a p r i v i l e g e and used as a "punishment-reward" instrument to a s s i s t i n c o n t r o l l i n g behavior. After 19 30 they came to be viewed as part of the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n process and consequently figured more prominently i n prison life."'" When the development of th i s federal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was compared between Canada and the United States, however, there were inter e s t i n g divergencies i n what was generally a common mosaic. The federal prison system i n Canada generally continued educational practices c a r r i e d out by i t s c o l o n i a l predecessors. As a general rule those programs had placed heavy emphasis 1. I t should be noted that "education" i n the prison system i n both countries was generally separated into two types of a c t i v i t y , academic learning and vocational t r a i n i n g . The former was not generally associated, or necessarily held i n conjunction with, the l a t t e r . 119 on trades t r a i n i n g . Whatever academic learning took place was confined to moral i n s t r u c t i o n from prison chaplains sometimes supplemented by in s t r u c t i o n i n basic literacy."'" When the federal government assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for penitentiaries provision was made for the appointment of a 2 schoolmaster and trades instructors. Unfortunately the prison system did not make f u l l use of the l e g i s l a t i v e provisions, as i n 1921 a spec i a l commission reported that, "The arrangements for the formal education of convicts are very inadequate . . . only very recently that provision 3 was made for a schoolmaster at any penitentiary." Between 1922 and 19 30 considerable progress was made i n bringing educational opportunity to prison inmates as proper schoolmasters were employed and some convicts were enroled i n secondary education programs. By contrast American prisoners at t h i s time were provided with l i t t l e 4 or no educational opportunity. The f i r s t signs of change i n the American federal prison system came i n 1918, when a cotton factory was established i n the Atlanta Penitentiary and in.19 24 when 1. M i l l e r , p. 349. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s Of Canada, 1870, Chap. 32. 3. M i l l e r , p. 350. 4. U.S., Federal Bureau of Prisons Annual Report, 1973, p. 1. 120 Leavenworth Penitentiary was authorized to establish a factory for the manufacture of government supplies. Funds from these "prison industries" were i n i t i a l l y and p a r t i a l l y used to pay inmates for t h e i r labor. By 1925 progress had also been made i n the area of academic education as Leavenworth reported 1,300 inmates taking night school courses primarily i n grades one to eight but some including high school l e v e l i n s t r u c t i o n i n subjects including 2 business, foreign languages, and technical studies. In 19 30 the "prison industries" approach to providing for vocational and academic r e h a b i l i t a t i v e educational programs 3 was formalized. This marked a s i g n i f i c a n t difference from the Canadian experience where a l l educational a c t i v i t i e s were sustained by federal funding. By 19 40 the foundation for educational programs i n federal penitentiaries i n Canada and the United States was firmly established although p a r t i c i p a t i o n was far from 4 universal. Between 1940 and 1960 i n both countries educational opportunities for inmates were expanded i n terms 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1918, Vol. 40, Chap. 144, p. 89 7 and 19 24, Vol. 43, Chap. 17, p. 6. 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Attorney General, 1925, p. 341. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1930, Vol. 46, Chap. 340, p. 391. 4. Twenty to t h i r t y per cent p a r t i c i p a t i o n was evidence i n Canada and the United States based upon data contained i n the Annual Reports for the period 1930-1940. 121 of quantity, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and f a c i l i t i e s . In Canada, af t e r the Second World War, the vocational education program was extensively reorganized and upgraded. Corres-pondence courses were introduced i n 19 47 i n cooperation with p r o v i n c i a l education departments and the federal Department of Veterans A f f a i r s . Further, a growing number of post-secondary educational programs were inaugurated during the period."'" During the same period s i m i l a r develop-ments occurred i n the United States federal prison system. In 1948 the Prison Industries Act was amended to make provision for the schooling and t r a i n i n g of a l l inmates regardless of t h e i r i n d u s t r i a l or vocational assignments 2 within the penitentiary. In 1950, over f i f t y per cent of the American federal prison population was enrolled 3 i n a variety of vocational and academic education programs. The period 1960 to 1970 was a decade of change i n the federal prison systems i n Canada and the United States. The p r i n c i p l e behind the change was best enunciated by the 1. In 19 55 the Department of Justice reported 2,106 inmates enrolled i n 16 4 correspondence courses and 10 university extension courses (mainly out of Queen's University). See: Annual Report of the Department of J u s t i c e , 1955, pp. 65-66. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1948, Vol. 64, Chap. 276, p. 230. 3. U.S., Annual Report of the Bureau of Prison, 1950-51, p. 38. 122 Director of the Bureau of Prisons i n the United States i n 1965 when he stated that, "the central objective of the Federal corr e c t i o n a l system must be to use i t s resources to achieve . . . the ultimate reintegration of offenders into the community.''" In the United States three major enactments by Congress i n 1965 inaugurated programs i n keeping with t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act, the Law Enforcement Assistance Act, and the Correctional Rehabilitation Study Act. From an educational perspective, the f i r s t and l a s t of these acts were s i g n i f i c a n t . As noted by the Attorney General, the Prisoner Rehabilitation Act contained three important provisions: . . . i t authorized extension of the l i m i t s of custody to permit selected inmates to be employed or receive t r a i n i n g i n the community, to be granted escorted furloughs for special purposes, and i t authorized the establishment of community treatment centers (half-way houses). 2 The Correctional Rehabilitation Study Act enabled s i g n i f i c a n t projects to be undertaken to evaluate the e f f e c t and 3 implications of e x i s t i n g and proposed educational programs. 1. U.S., Annual Report of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prison, 1966, p. 28. 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Attorney-General, 1966, p. 407. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1965, Vol. 79, P.L. 89-178, p. 676. 123 No l e g i s l a t i o n heralded a si m i l a r s h i f t i n emphasis i n the Canadian federal prison system but a f t e r 196 7 small scale community-based r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs were i n i t i a t e d . By 1970 there were 27 federal penal i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the United States ranging from juvenile f a c i l i t i e s to maximum security i n s t i t u t i o n s . In Canada there were seven major penitentiaries with a number of smaller i n s t i t u t i o n s for minimum security purposes. The federal prison populations exceeded f i v e , and twenty thousand i n Canada and the United States respectively, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educational programs averaged around sixt y per cent i n both countries. The American government was spending over f i v e m i l l i o n dollars for educational programs, 2.5 m i l l i o n of which came from prison industries revenues and 2.8 m i l l i o n from Congressional appropriations. Canada was spending over four m i l l i o n on sim i l a r programs a l l of which was obtained from federal appropriations. The comparison of federal prison education programs i n the United States and Canada revealed a s i m i l a r i t y i n the pattern of development i n both countries despite d i f f -erences i n approach. Educational programs moved from being viewed as a p r i v i l e g e extended to inmates to control t h e i r behavior while incarcerated, to a v i t a l part of a program designed to a s s i s t inmates i n t h e i r return to a normal l i f e a f t e r release. In keeping with developments 124 i n other sectors of society the educational opportunities available to inmates were expanded and d i v e r s i f i e d after the Second World War. In both countries the education services of school, d i s t r i c t s , colleges, and u n i v e r s i t i e s were contracted i n increasing proportions to provide the required educational programs. Changes i n federal prison policy, including education, were generally r e f l e c t e d i n Congressional l e g i s l a t i o n i n the United States whereas i n Canada they were implemented by regulations. Although Canadian involvement i n a federal penal system pre-dated the American experience, once a federal system was established i n the United States, s i g n i -f i c a n t changes i n policy and practice tended to originate there and were l a t e r adopted and adapted i n Canada. At the same time the Canadian government invested a considerably larger per capita amount on prison education programs than was the case i n the United States and appeared to exercise greater control over the operation of the system than the American government. F i n a l l y , information concerning penitentiary education programs i n Canada was more d i f f i c u l t to obtain after World War Two whereas the opposite applied i n the United States."*" 1. Data concerning enrolments, courses, and expenditures, ceased to appear i n the annual reports i n Canada after 1950. 125 TRANSPORTATION A number of education programs i n the f i e l d of Transportation were developed by the federal governments of Canada and the United States. In both countries, these programs developed, f i r s t i n the areas of maritime transport and l a t e r , i n the development of the aviation industry. A federal i n t e r e s t i n developing a cadre of native-trained seamen surfaced i n both countries at approximately the same time. In 1871 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries observed that, "some s l i g h t subsidy or aid for the government nautical schools of i n s t r u c t i o n may be advisable.""'" Between 18 71 and 1875 three schools were established at Quebec City, Halifax, and St. John's, New Brunswick, and subsidized at a rate of $1,500 per annum. In 1874 the American navy was authorized to, "furnish . . . a suitable vessel . . . with a l l her apparel, charts, books, and instruments of navigation . . . to be used for the benefit of any nautical school, or school or college having a 2 nautical branch," at s i x port c i t i e s . In 1876 the subsidies for nautical schools i n Canada were discontinued 3 and i t was not u n t i l 190 3 that t h i s program was reinstated. 1. Canada, S e s s i o n a l Papers, 1872, No. 5, Vol.3, pp. 46-47. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1874, Vol. 17, Chap. 339, p.121. The Act also provided o f f i c e r s for i n s t r u c t i o n a l purposes. 3. Canada, S e s s i o n a l Papers, 1905, No. 21, Vol.5, p.111. 126 In the United States the Commissioner of Education reported f i v e "school ships" i n operation i n the United States under the provisions of an 1874 A c t . 1 After 1903, nautical schools continued i n operation i n Canada u n t i l 1961 when this type of t r a i n i n g was turned over to the provinces under the terms of the Technical Education Act with approp-r i a t e federal subsidies. In 1911 the American Congress enacted a Marine Schools Act that i n addition to the exis t i n g program provided federal subsidies up to a maximum of 2 $25,000 per annum per school. The nautical or marine schools i n both countries served si m i l a r purposes. They were designed to produce trained seamen for the merchant marine. The curriculum of the schools consisted primarily of subjects related to the various aspects of seamanship such as s i g n a l l i n g , ship-board equipment and i t s use, rules of the sea, and navigation. They d i f f e r e d i n that the Canadian schools were pri v a t e l y sponsored u n t i l 19 59 while t h e i r American counter-parts were state-sponsored i n s t i t u t i o n s . The 1. U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1879, p. 632. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1911, Vol. 36, Chap. 265, p. 15 3. 3. Canada, Annual Report of the Department of Marine and F i s h e r i e s 3 Sessional Papers, 1872, No. 5, Vol. 3, p. 112, and U.S., Annual Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1878, p. 133. 127 Canadian schools catered to a smaller, more diverse, mature and experienced population than the American schools, preparing candidates for masters and mates c e r t i f i c a t e s . The American schools concentrated on youths between 14 and 18 years of age. Consequently, the courses of i n s t r u c t i o n i n American schools included elements of common school education not found i n Canadian schools. American "school ships"each enrolled between 100 and 200 students annually. The Canadian schools operated seasonally and normally catered to a t o t a l core of 100 - 300 students depending upon t h e i r location and duration. After the turn of the century, the degree of commitment to the development of maritime transport i n Canada and the United States, altered. American interests abroad expanded s i g n i f i c a n t l y after 1900 and th i s expansion was accompanied by the development of a merchant marine and Coast Guard. The Canadian government, while equally dependent upon overseas trade, did not foster a merchant marine and did not develop a f u l l - f l e d g e d coast guard service u n t i l the mid-sixties. The development of these services i n both countries was accompanied by the development of education programs and f a c i l i t i e s to t r a i n personnel. The U.S. Coast Guard was established i n 1915 as a federal service through the amalgamation of two former services, the Revenue Cutter Service and the Life-Saying 128 Service. The Coast Guard operated under the control of the Treasury Department i n peacetime but was subject to the control of the U.S. Navy during wartime. In 1920 the United States formally established a merchant marine, " . . . s u f f i c i e n t to carry the greater portion of i t s commerce and serve as a naval or m i l i t a r y a u x i l i a r y i n time 2 of war or national emergency." I n i t i a l l y the nautical schools provided the bulk of the tr a i n i n g for the ratings of the two new services, supplemented by a t r a i n i n g program for Coast Guard o f f i c e r s conducted by the Treasury Department 3 at New London, Connecticut. In 19 36 provision was made for the establishment of an Academy at King's Point, 4 New York. The Coast Guard Academy accommodated approx-imately 800 cadets annually and the Merchant Marine Academy 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1915, Vol. 38, Chap. 20, p. 800. 2. I b i d . , 1920, Vol. 41, Chap. 250, p. 988. 3. The Coast Guard Academy began as a tr a i n i n g f a c i l i t y for o f f i c e r s i n the Revenue Cutter Service i n 1910 under Treasury Department regulations. I t became the Coast Guard Academy i n 1915 but did not receive l e g i s l a t i v e sanction as an educational i n s t i t u t i o n u n t i l 1949 although degree conferring powers were granted i n 19 33 and l e g i s l a t i o n governing the appointment of c i v i l i a n i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t a f f was enacted i n 19 37. 4. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1936, Vol. 49, Chap. 858, p. 216. 129 1,200.^ The Academies offered undergraduate degree courses of four years duration. Cadets were admitted on a pro-portionate basis according to Congressional representation from each State and on the basis of competitive examinations. In addition to the Merchant Marine Academy, o f f i c e r s for that service were also provided through f i v e State Marine Schools subsidized on the basis of $75,000 per annum i f the school admitted out of state students and $25,000 per annum i f i t did not. In addition, funds were provided 2 to a s s i s t cadets to a maximum of $600 per year. The Canadian Coast Guard College was an outgrowth of a t r a i n i n g program established at Queen's University i n 19 34 and operated by the Department of Marine and Fi s h e r i e s . " This was a departure from the e a r l i e r practice of providing such t r a i n i n g on a private basis with some federal subsidy to help defray costs. In 1961 the practice of sub-s i d i z i n g private enterprise was discontinued and; A l l remaining schools supported by the Department of Transport were placed under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act on January 1, 1962. As a r e s u l t a l l t r a i n i n g i n navigation was placed under Program 8 . . . Under th i s arrangement, Canada, 1. CA. Quattlebaum, Pt. I I , p. 158 and 286 . 2. I b i d . . , p. 160. Approximately 1,500 cadets per year were enrolled i n t h i s program. 3. Andrews, p. 136. 130 through the agency of the Department of Labour, reimburses the provinces for 75% of th e i r expenditures . . . and the Department of , Transport ceased to make f i n a n c i a l contributions. In 1965 i n order to f a c i l i t a t e the tr a i n i n g of o f f i c e r s for the Coast Guard, a college was established at Point Edward, Nova Scotia. The College i n i t i a l l y enrolled 40 cadets with a capacity for 120 spread over a four year t r a i n i n g 2 course. With the advent of the airplane a new dimension was added to the f i e l d of transportation. The federal government i n Canada and the United States became involved not only i n the regulation of thi s a c t i v i t y but also i n the tr a i n i n g of c i v i l i a n p i l o t s . Canada was the f i r s t to become so engaged when i n 1929 the Department of M i l i t i a and Defence gave assistance towards the formation of Light 3 Aeroplane Clubs (Flying Clubs). Each Club received new a i r c r a f t from the Department and a grant of $100 per pupil successfully trained by the Club. This program (less the provision of the a i r c r a f t ) was continued through to 1970, by which time over 4 0 Clubs with a membership of over 1. Canada, Federal-Provincial Conditional Grants and Shared-Cost Programs - 1962 (Ottawa: Department of Finance, 1963), p. 88. 2. Canada, Annual Report of The Department of Transport, 1962, p. 34. 3. Canada, Annual Report of the Department of M i l i t i a and Defence, 1929, p. 76. 131 5,000 were receiving a t o t a l of over $220,000.J" The C i v i l i a n P i l o t Training Program i n the United States was 2 inaugurated i n 19 39 and lasted u n t i l 1944. Under the provisions of the Act authorizing the program: The t r a i n i n g was open to graduate and undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 25 who were United States c i t i z e n s and who already had an elementary knowledge of physics. The colleges were permitted to charge up to •': $ 1., () 00 , , $40.00 of which went for a $3,000 l i f e insurance p o l i c y and $10.00 for a physical examination. The Authority paid the College $20,000 and the f l y i n g school $270 to $290 for each student who made the grade. Selection of candidates was based on scholarship, health and aptitude.3 The program operated out of education i n s t i t u t i o n s and f l y i n g schools i n the United States and consisted of a 72 hour ground school course accompanied by 30 to 5 0 hours of f l y i n g . With the outbreak of the Second World War and the attack on Pearl Harbour i n 1941, the program was integrated with m i l i t a r y p i l o t t r a i n i n g . This program was discontinued i n 194 4 as the conditions giving r i s e to i t abated. The rapid development of transportation technology and transportation systems between 196 7 and 19 70 c l e a r l y 1. Canada, Public Accounts, 1950,'pp. 2-52. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1939, Vol. 53, Chap. 244, p. 855. 3. P a t r i c i a Strickland, The Putt-Putt Air Force, (Washington: Department of Transport, 1975), pp. 3-4. 132 prompted both national governments appropriately to expand educational programs i n t h i s sector. The American government maintained a greater i n t e r e s t i n such programs where they affected the nation's i n t e r e s t at home or abroad, as i n the f i e l d of maritime a c t i v i t i e s . In contrast, though of no less significance i n terms of the national i n t e r e s t , the Canadan resource base for similar programs was less substantial than that of the United States. Consequently Canadian programs i n thi s sector were generally more tenuous and considerably smaller i n scale. At the same time, i t was cle a r that both national governments were prepared to provide educational assistance when the circumstances c a l l e d for such a course of action. VETERANS EDUCATION The provision of educational opportunities for war veterans became a federal concern with the advent of the F i r s t World War.1 The unprecedented scale of involvement i n that c o n f l i c t i n Canada and the United States created equally unprecedented r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and resettlement problems for returning s o l d i e r s . Both central governments 1. The United States Government had provided subsidies to homes established i n the various states to care for veterans of the C i v i l War but no provision was made for educational programs. See: U.S., S t a t u t e s At Large, 1883, Vol. 25, Chap. 914, p. 450. 133 responded with extensive veterans t r a i n i n g and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs. The program foundations established i n both countries i n 1918 became the basis for an expanded e f f o r t after the Second World War, the Korean, and V i e t Nam c o n f l i c t s . 1 ..The e a r l i e r entry of Canada into the war i n 1914 (the United States only became involved i n 1917), dictated an e a r l i e r consideration of the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of returning s o l d i e r s . The Department of M i l i t i a and Defence began to study the problem i n 1914. In 1915 a M i l i t a r y Hospitals Commission was established by Order-in-Council, " . . . to deal with the question of employment for members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force on t h e i r return to Canada, (and) to cooperate with the P r o v i n c i a l Governments . . . 2 for the purpose of providing employment." In 1918 the Department of Soldiers C i v i l Re-Establishment was created 3 to administer the programs developed for the veterans. In the same year the American Congress provided for the care and t r a i n i n g of American veterans under two pieces of 1. Veterans of the V i e t Nam War i n the United States also received benefits. 2. Canada, Sessional Papers, 19 20, No. 14, Vol. 4, pp. 31-32. 3. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1918, Chap. 42. 134 l e g i s l a t i o n , the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and the War Risk Insurance A c t . 1 Under the provisions of the former discharged disabled veterans received monthly f i n a n c i a l compensation and, i f possible, vocational t r a i n i n g . Under the provisions of the l a t t e r f i n a n c i a l compensation was also made available to a veteran's family. Under the Acts two agencies were established to administer the veterans programs, the Federal Board for Vocational Education and the Bureau of War Risk Insurance. In 1921 the Veterans Bureau was established and combined the functions of both former 2 agencies under one mantle. Between 19 20 and 19 36 over 14 m i l l i o n and 645 m i l l i o n dollars was spent to t r a i n and/ or r e h a b i l i t a t e over 32,000 and 170,000 veterans i n Canada 3 and the United States respectively. The programs launched i n both countries were sim i l a r i n intent and content. They included academic and vocational t r a i n i n g (more of the l a t t e r than the former), provided free of charge to the veteran through h o s p i t a l , university, school, and college programs. Both federal agencies enlisted the support and cooperation of p r o v i n c i a l 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1918, Vol. 40, Chap. 107, p. 617 and p. 618. 2. I b i d . , 1921, Vol. 42, Chap. 47, p. 147. 3. These figures were obtained from summaries included i n the annual reports of the respective agencies. 135 and state agencies i n the provision of s t a f f and f a c i l i t i e s . The Canadian and American programs d i f f e r e d i n some respects. In Canada provision was made for the granting of vocational loans to veterans that were i n e l i g i b l e f or other benefits. There was no records of such loans being established i n the United States. In 19 34 i n Washington, D.C, provision was made for educational assistance for the children of war veterans. 1 While t h i s program was only established i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia i t became the forerunner of a more universal program i n the United States after the Second World War. No sim i l a r program was established i n Canada u n t i l 1953. The outbreak of the Second World War precipitated the development of further veterans r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs i n both countries. There were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the national programs of the e a r l i e r period and those adopted during and a f t e r World War Two. In the l a t e r programs, a l l veterans of the second war were e l i g i b l e for educational benefits, the f i t as well as the disabled. This factor alone s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the siz e of the o v e r a l l program i n both countries and s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased the 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1934, Vol. 48, Chap. 671, p. 1125. The program provided $3,600 annually for an eight year period to a maximum of $200 per c h i l d over a five year period for the costs of t u i t i o n , maintenance and supplies and books. 136 demands upon education f a c i l i t i e s . The education programs were also more complex and sophisticated, r e f l e c t i v e of the changes i n the' respective s o c i e t i e s between the wars. During the period 19 45 - 19 70 the Canadian government spent over 2.6 b i l l i o n on veterans education programs while the American government expended over 23 b i l l i o n . 1 It was not u n t i l 1944 that both countries enacted laws o u t l i n i n g the provisions to be made for returning veterans. In that year the Canadian government established the Department of Veteran's A f f a i r s and delegated to i t the powers formerly held by i t s predecessor, the Department of 2 Soldiers C i v i l Re-Establishment. The American Congress enacted the famed G.I. B i l l or Servicemen's Readjustment 3 Act. Both acts provided for the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of wounded or disabled veterans but the American l e g i s l a t i o n also provided that: . . . any person who served i n the active m i l i t a r y of naval service or afte r September 16, 1940, and p r i o r to the termination of the present war, and who s h a l l have been discharged or released there from under conditions other than d i s -honourable, and whose education or tr a i n i n g was impeded, delayed, interrupted, or interfered with by reason of t h i s entrance into the service, or who. desires a refresher;,or re t r a i n i n g course, and who either s h a l l have served ninety days or 1. See Table I I. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s Of Canada, 1944, Chap. 19. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1944, Vol. 58, Chap. 268. TABLE II WORLD WAR TWO AND OTHER CONFLICTS: VETERANS TRAINING STATISTICS CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES 1B&J2ZQ1 VOCATIONAL TRAINING OTHER TRAINING 4 WAR DEAD ASSISTANCE (CHILDREN) EXPENDITURES (000) ENROLMENTS3 EXPENDITURES (OOO) ENROLMENTS EXPENDITURES (000) - ENROLMENTS YEAR CANADA U.S. CANADA (000) PER CAPITA (tooo) U.S. (000) PER CAPITA ($000) CANADA U.S. CANADA (000) PER CAPITA ($000) U.S. (000) PER CAPITA ($000) CANADA U.S. CANADA (000) PER CAPITA ($000) U.S. (000) PER CAPITA ($000) 1944 1 664 3.8 .17 1945 286 8,348 21.8 .38 8,693 .035 .248 1946 8,111 45,087 34.8 .23 116.1 .39 1,486 350,561 30.3 .049 1.180 .297 1947 .20,666 221,147 21.1 .98 304.5 .72 2,211 2,118,735 34.8 .063 3.639 .582 1948 10,297 333,311 22.9 .45 337.0 .99 8,478 2,498,884 64.0 .132 3.578 .698 1949 4,692 335,199 4.5 1.03 294.8 1.13 24,763 2,703,861 38.9 .636 3.223 .838 1950 2,075 272,291 1.7 1.24 224.6 1.21 15,787 2.595,728 28.1 .560 3.097 .837 1951 875 176,875 .6 1.46 155.2 1.14 9,226 1,943,340 17.9 .514 2.499 .777 1952 325 97,902 .2 1.55 83.0 1.18 3,799 1,325,403 12.9 .292 1.742 .760 1953 182 57,768 .14 1.28 51.2 1.12 1,602 667,802 13.3 .120 1.120 .595 . 1954 139 41,294 .21 .66 • 40.8 1.01 813 544,119 10.3 .078 .956 .568 106 1955 220 40,769 .35 .63 41.4 .98 538 664,513 10.6 .050 1.077 .616 145 .30 .474 1956 164 38,133 .08 2.07 36.5 1.04 396 766,900 10.3 .038 1.127 .680 182 .68 .268 1957 116 30.598 .13 .88 26.1 1.17 360 713.905 9.7 .037 1.058 ' .731 207 2,351 .87 .237 3.4* .676 1958 69 26,095 .03 2.40 22.3 1.17 327 693,232 9.0 .036 .952 .728 216 5,183 1.10 .195 6,7 .767 1959 135 22,306 .02 6.44 18.7 1.19 109 566,365 9.1 .012 .754 .750 288 7,663 1.40 .205 10,7 .714 1960 106 17,910 .003 35.46 14.0 1.27 83 371,404 9.6 .008 .502 .739 1,534 11,457 1.73 .883 14,2 .807 1961 66 11,837 .002 33.34 9.2 1.27 74 220,971 11.1 .006 .306 .721 464 16,293 2.10 .220 20,3 .795 1962 44 10,335 8.5 1.21 54 121,191 U.9 .005 .171 .705 560 21,366 2.55 .219 27,2 .784 1963 34 9,243 8.0 1.14 47 62,505 10.4 .004 .092 .673 648 25,704 2.92 .221 32,0 .803 1964 57 11.757 11.3 1.04 44 33,926 - .048 .704 731 24,805 3.28 .223 31,6 .784 1955 33 14,533 12.4 1.17 41 11,807 8.4 .004 .021 .373 773 25,570 .85 .904 33,8 .756 1966 34 17,426 .03 1.10 10.8 1.61 34 - 6.5 .005 930 31,112 .27 3.383 35,6 .871 1967 35 19,186 .025 1.42 12.5 1.53 29 251,658 3.1 \009 .467 .537 833 34,376 .33 2.471 37.2 .924 1968 48 22,755 .026 1.85 14.3 1.58 26 428,747 .2 .125 .686 .624 803 37,938 .31 2.558 40,4 .937 1969 47 29,965 .018 2.64 18.9 1.58 27 622,352 .2 .119 .925 .672 876 39,682 .33 2.656 43,2 .916 1970 33 41,642 .006 5.61 24.4 1.70 15 938,775 .01 1.909 1.210 .775 914 45.288 .28 3.255 45,4 .996 TOTALS 48.889 1,954.380 70,369 21,225,377 10,210 328,788 1. No benef i ts were ava i l ab le in th i s year. 2. Trainee f igures p r i o r to 1967 are estimates. 3. Enrollments i n these programs included for each year, veterans engaged 1n continuous programs and therefore contain dupl icat ions from year to year. 4. Other t r a i n ing included such programs as Un ivers i ty education; correspondence courses, high school academic education and l i v i n g and subsistence allowances. — J 138 more, exclusive of any period he was assigned for a course of education or t r a i n i n g under the Army spe c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g program or the Navy college t r a i n i n g programs, which course was a continuation of his c i v i l i a n course and was pursued to completion, or as a cadet or mid-shipman at one of the service academies, or s h a l l have been discharged or released from active service by reason of an actual service-incurred injury or d i s a b i l i t y , s h a l l be e l i g i b l e for an e n t i t l e d to receive education or t r a i n i n g under t h i s part . . . 1 The s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the t r a i n i n g offered under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act and "G.I." B i l l , was that the Veterans Bureau supervised the former but not the 2 l a t t e r , that, "being the function of the States." Under the provisions of a Veterans Rehabilitation Allowances Act i n 1945, the Canadian government expanded i t s veterans program to include s i m i l a r education opportunities for 3 a l l returning s o l d i e r s . The veterans programs provided for under the l e g i s l a t i o n described i n this paragraph established a pattern that was continued i n both nations to 19 70 and beyond. Under the terms of the Serviceman's Readjustment Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act (V.R.A.), over three m i l l i o n American veterans received educational t r a i n i n g 1. U.S., Statutes At Large*, 1944, Vol. 58, Chap. 268. 2. U.S., Annual Report of the Administrator of Veterans A f f a i r s , 1945, p. 17. 3. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1945, Chap. 71 and Chap. 72. 139 benefits between 1944 and 19 70."1" The vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program accounted for approximately two b i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n expenditures and involved less than a half m i l l i o n trainees. In Canada nearly a h a l f - m i l l i o n 2 veterans received educational t r a i n i n g between 1944 and 1970. The veterans assistance programs established between 1943 and 1946 i n the United States and Canada while b a s i c a l l y s i m i l a r i n structure and design, d i f f e r e d i n timing and content. Two broad categories of t r a i n i n g were provided under the l e g i s l a t i o n i n both countries, r e h a b i l i t a t i v e t r a i n i n g for those disabled but trainable veterans, and vocational and academic tr a i n i n g for those wishing to take advantage of the opportunity to upgrade t h e i r s k i l l s i n order to return more p r o f i t a b l y to c i v i l i a n l i f e . During the period of such t r a i n i n g the disabled veterans and t h e i r dependents received allowances to cover t h e i r l i v i n g costs and the federal government absorbed the f u l l costs of t h e i r t r a i n i n g . Those physically able veterans undergoing vocational or academic t r a i n i n g were also f u l l y subsidized for t h e i r t u i t i o n and educational expenses. In the l a t t e r case, however, subsistence allowances and t r a i n i n g entitlements were linked to t h e i r years of service, 1. This information was obtained from data supplied by Mr. Howard J. Sharon, Acting Director, Reports and S t a t i s t i c s Service, Veterans Administration, Washington, D.C, U.S.A., August 24, 1975. 2. This data was obtained from a survey of the Annual Reports of the veterans agencies i n Canada and the U.S. 140 with additional time r e s t r i c t i o n s on t h e i r e l i g i b i l i t y . " 1 " Neither central government was f u l l y capable of providing the required f a c i l i t i e s for the i r respective programs. Accordingly, i n 1946 both governments enacted l e g i s l a t i o n authorizing, i n case of the United States, payment: . . . reimbursing State and l o c a l agencies for reasonable expenses incurred by them i n (1) rendering necessary services i n ascertaining the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of i n d u s t r i a l e s t a b l i s h -ments for furnishing on-the-job t r a i n i n g to veterans under the provisions of Part VIII of such regulation, and i n the supervision of i n d u s t r i a l establishments furnishing such t r a i n i n g , or (2) furnishing, at the request of the Administrator, any other services or f a c i l i t i e s i n connection with the administration of programs for tr a i n i n g on the job under such provision . . .2 In Canada the Minister of Veterans A f f a i r s was also empowered to pay costs to any educational i n s t i t u t i o n p a r t i c i p a t i n g 3 i n the program. Both governments also implemented an educational loan program for veterans that featured l i t t l e or no in t e r e s t charges and easy repayment terms. 1. In Canada the veteran had to apply for such t r a i n i n g within one year and three months of his or her discharge where two years was allowed i n the United States. The American veteran was e n t i t l e d to a maximum of four years t r a i n i n g over a period of seven years aft e r the end of h o s t i l i t i e s . The Canadian veteran's period of e l i g i b i l i t y was at the d i s c r e t i o n of the Minister of Veterans A f f a i r s and was generally equated to the years of service. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1946, Vol. 60, Chap. 886, p. 934. 3. U.S., Annual Report of The Administrator of Veterans A f f a i r s , 1946, p. 54. 141 Between 194 7 and 1949 modifications were made i n the veterans t r a i n i n g programs i n both countries. In the United States, i n addition to public, post-secondary, and vocational educational programs, on-the-job and on-farm t r a i n i n g opportunities were introduced."'" The Federal Works Administration was also authorized to provide educat-ional f a c i l i t i e s for veterans t r a i n i n g courses (other than housing), and under th i s program the schools, colleges, and u n i v e r s i t i e s acquired the classroom space to accommo-2 date t h e i r expanded enrolments. In Canada a program of supplementary funding for u n i v e r s i t i e s was introduced i n 1941 whereby the sum of $10 5 per enrolled veteran was allocated to each i n s t i t u t i o n , " i n order to provide 3 additional s t a f f and accommodation." In addition, under regulatory provisions on-the-job vocational t r a i n i n g was introduced by way of an apprenticeship plan i n cooperation 4 with industry. The f i n a l chapters of the veterans program i n Canada and the United States were written into 1. U.S., Annual Report of the Administrator of Veterans A f f a i r s , 1946, p. 54. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1947, Vol. 60, Chap. 917, p. 958. 3. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1948, Chap. 73. 4. Canada, Annual Report of the Department of Veterans A f f a i r s , 1946, p. 17. 142 law i n 1953 and 1956 respectively, when provision was made for the post-secondary education of dependent children of those servicemen k i l l e d during the wars. The Canadian Act provided a $25 per month allowance to such students under 25 years of age i n addition to the costs for t u i t i o n and s u p p l i e s . 1 The American Act e n t i t l e d the student to 2 $110 per month i n addition to the other benefits. In each case between the time of inception of the program and 1970, periodic upward adjustments were made i n the allowance. The e f f o r t s of the Canadian and American governments i n meeting the educational needs of veterans between 1914 and 1970 contained s i g n i f i c a n t s i m i l a r i t i e s and differences. In general s i m i l a r types of educational opportunity were made available i n each country though the range of a c t i v i t i e s was greater i n the United States. There were also great s i m i l a r i t i e s i n the design and structure of the respective programs i n terms of the types of benefits available to veterans and th e i r dependents. The differences between both countries generally involved such things as e l i g i b i l i t y c r i t e r i a ; per capita expenditure, and administration. In the l a t t e r case, i n p a r t i c u l a r i t was again noticeable that a greater discretionary power resided with the Department and 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1953, Chap. 27. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1956, Vol. 70, Chap. 476, p. 411. 143 the Minister i n Canada than with t h e i r counterparts i n the United States. At the same time, while decision-making was more centralized i n Canada, the decentralized application of the American programs led to a greater s p e c i f i c a t i o n of allowable educational programs. Once again the chief difference between the approaches of both nations was that of the general as opposed to s p e c i f i c nature of t h e i r programs. The educational and r e h a b i l i t a t i v e needs of the veterans i n Canada and the United States fostered an unprecedented l e v e l of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education. The assistance given to the veterans and the range and d i v e r s i t y of programs offered i n both countries established modes of federal intervention that were not forgotten when other problems arose that dictated the necessity for a si m i l a r type of involvement i n l a t e r years. Student aid, fe d e r a l l y subsidized university housing, vocational, and other types of programs were a l l i n some measure experimented with or developed during the years immediately following the Second World War. The following chapters of this study w i l l demonstrate the si g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y during the balance of the period up to 1970. 144 EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT FUNCTIONS In addition to the aforementioned educational r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a variety of supportive educational act-i v i t i e s were developed by both central governments. These a c t i v i t i e s f e l l into four basic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , the co-ordination and administration of federal educational programs not under the p a r t i c u l a r j u r i s d i c t i o n of any federal agency; the c o l l e c t i o n , c o l l a t i o n , and dissemination of national educational s t a t i s t i c s ; educational research; and the provision of resource materials and in s t r u c t i o n aids for use in the schools. With the exception of the f i e l d of educational research, each central government made provision for some form of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these f i e l d s . In Canada, federal educational research was given very limited attention. Federal Education Coordination and Administration The problem of coordinating the educational a c t i v i t i e s undertaken by federal departments and agencies was approached d i f f e r e n t l y i n both countries. From 1867 u n t i l 1964 the United States O f f i c e of Education performed t h i s function i n the United States. In 1964 the President created a Federal Interagency Committee on Education, to bring some coordination to the educational a c t i v i t i e s of a l l federal 145 agencies i n the United States. No comparable f a c i l i t y was established i n Canada during the period under review although tentative steps were taken to establish a federal agency s p e c i f i c a l l y for the purpose of administering c e r t a i n education support programs. The U.S. Of f i c e of Education was established i n 1867. Prior to 1958 the Office was predominantly concerned with the c o l l e c t i o n and dissemination of national educational s t a t i s t i c s and information. With the passage of the National Defence Education Act i n 1958, however, the function of the agency was expanded to include a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for administering programs established under the Act. With the enactment of an increasing quantity of federal educational l e g i s l a t i o n between 1958 and 1970, the Of f i c e of Education increasingly became the "enforcer", for federal educational assistance programs. By 1970 the Office employed over 2,000 employees, operated on a budget of over four b i l l i o n d o l l a r s , and 2 administered over 80 federal programs. The increase i n the 1. While the Federal Interagency Committee on Education was established i n 1964 i t did not receive high p r i o r i t y and by 1970 had made l i t t l e progress towards the f u l f i l l m e n t of i t s function. 2. D. R. Warren, To Enforce Education: A History of The Founding Years of the United States Office of Education, (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1974), p. 184; and, U.S. Digest of Education S t a t i s t i c s , 1971, p. 113 and pp. 116-118. 146 size and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the O f f i c e of Education was d i r e c t l y attributable to the assumption of i t s new role i n the administration of federal education programs and the general expansion of those programs between 1958 and 1970. By 19 70 the Canadian government also made progress towards the development of a more systematic administration of federal educational support programs. With the regularization of post-secondary educational support payments i n the provinces i n 1967, the Education Support Branch was established i n the Department of The Secretary of State to administer the program. 1 The functions of the Branch were l i s t e d as follows: - administration of the adjustment payments and along with the Department of Finance, evaluation of the F i s c a l Arrangements Act; - research i n education, i n p a r t i c u l a r federal government involvement at the post-secondary l e v e l ; - and, l i a i s o n with the educational community i n Canada, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the area of higher education 2 While both countries thus developed machinery at the federal l e v e l to deal with an expanding federal educational role, there were important differences between them. The 1. Letter from Gordon Strain, Education Support Branch, Department of the Secretary of State, February 9, 19 71. 2. Ibid. 147 "enforcer" role assumed by the Office of Education was not shared by the Educational Support Branch. 1 The Off i c e of Education catered to a f u l l range of programs spanning elementary to post-secondary education, whereas i n Canada t h i s a c t i v i t y was confined to the post-secondary sector. The establishment of a centralized federal educational admin-i s t r a t i v e structure modest as i t was, was an h i s t o r i c occasion i n Canada. The pr i o r existence of such machinery i n the United States, coupled with weaker and more numerous state educational systems, made i t somewhat easier, for the Office of Education to assume and implement i t s r o l e . F i n a l l y , no move was made to e f f e c t any coordination of the educational a c t i v i t i e s of the various federal departments i n Canada whereas the machinery for t h i s function was established i n the United States. Educational S t a t i s t i c s The c o l l e c t i o n , c o l l a t i o n , and dissemination of educational s t a t i s t i c s on a national basis was a federal act-i v i t y that developed from the requirement i n both countries to conduct a periodic national census. In Canada the authority 1. The formula used i n dispensing federal funds for post-secondary education i n Canada was based upon a fixed per capita grant according to the student population as opposed to the performance criteria-based approach generally used i n the United States. 148 for t h i s function was contained i n Section 91 (6) of the B.N.A. Act which charged the Federal Government with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the census and s t a t i s t i c s . No s i m i l a r s p e c i f i c authority was contained i n the American Constitution. In 186 7, however, Congress enacted that: That there s h a l l be established . . . a department of education, for the purpose of c o l l e c t i n g such s t a t i s t i c s and facts as s h a l l show the condition and progress of education i n the several States and T e r r i t o r i e s and of d i f f u s i n g such information respecting the organization and management of schools and schools systems, and methods of teaching, as s h a l l a i d the people of the United States i n the establishment and maintenance of e f f i c i e n t school systems and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country.! The establishment of the "Department" (renamed the Bureau i n 186 8 and subsequently given reduced status within the federal hierarchy), was the culmination of more than forty years of public pressure and the decisive impact of the C i v i l War upon 2 the unity of the nation. In i t s function as a s t a t i s t i c a l and reporting agency the Office of Education had a chequered existence. It experienced everything from open h o s t i l i t y to lukewarm support through most of i t s existence p r i o r to 19 30 but through a l l v i c i s s i t u d e s managed tb establish a regular national educational reporting system. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1867, Vol. 14, Chap. 158, p. 434. 2. Warren, pp. 12-22. 149 By contrast, although educational s t a t i s t i c s were included i n the information to be gathered i n the Canadian census, i t was not u n t i l 1912 that serious discussions were held between the federal government and the provinces on the s p e c i f i c nature of these s t a t i s t i c s . 1 In that year, an o f f i c i a l Commission reported that: Such s t a t i s t i c s should comprise the nature and variety of educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , public and private, including t h e i r organization, grading and equipment, whether for primary, secondary or higher education. They should also give the number of pupils and students i n the various grades, t h e i r attendance, age on entering and leaving school, the nature of the education given, whether t h e o r e t i c a l , p r a c t i c a l or s p e c i a l , and any supplementary educational f a c i l i t i e s , including l i b r a r i e s , night schools, art or trade schools, etc. Particulars should be included as to the teaching s t a f f s , t h e i r q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , sex, age, frequency of changes i n the s t a f f s , also the expenditure on education i n the various grades, distinguished as permanent and annual expenditure.2 In 1914 an i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l convention approved the establishment of a national educational s t a t i s t i c a l function and i n 1920 the Federal Government and the provinces met and established the f i n a l nature of the s t a t i s t i c s to be c o l l e c t e d and the 3 manner of t h e i r publication. For a variety of reasons, 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1886, Chap. 58. 2. Canada, Report of Conference on Education S t a t i s t i c s , (Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1921), p. 5. 3. Ibid., p. 6. 150 the provinces i n Canada p e r s i s t e n t l y r e s i s t e d attempts to develop any f e d e r a l l y directed national coordination of education. The work of the Education Division of the Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s (later S t a t i s t i c s Canada) progressed slowly. By 1970 the pace of educational development had outstripped the capacity of the Div i s i o n to compile the incoming data, and publications on important aspects of Canadian education were two to f i v e years behind the period of t h e i r v a l i d i t y . The a c t i v i t i e s of the Office of Education i n the United States and those of the Education Div i s i o n of S t a t i s t i c s Canada (insofar as they relate to the s t a t i s t i c a l and reporting function), d i f f e r e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t ways. The Education Div i s i o n was r e s t r i c t e d to reporting the s t a t i s t i c s supplied by the province within c a r e f u l l y prescribed guide-l i n e s established i n cooperation with p r o v i n c i a l governments. The Office of Education, i n addition to publishing s t a t i s t i c s , also published a variety of information by way of monographs on national and international educational trends, systems, and schools. In that sense the Office of Education contained an educational research c a p a b i l i t y that was not p a r a l l e l l e d i n Canada. F i n a l l y , the task of developing inter-agency cooperation i n education had received l i t t l e formal attention i n Canada by 19 70, whereas the machinery to provide t h i s f a c i l i t y was established i n the United States. 151 Educational Research The development of t h i s a c t i v i t y w i l l be treated i n more d e t a i l i n Chapter V. Suffice to note at t h i s point that a certain amount of educational research was always conducted by the U.S.O.E.1 More extensive federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n educational research i n the United States began with the 2 passage of the Cooperative Research Act i n 1954. Between 1955 and 1970 the sum and substance of federal research interests were expanded i n conjunction with the expansion of federal educational programs. By 19 70, discussions were underway to consider the establishment of an independent national educational research d i v i s i o n within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. In Canada a limited educational research capacity was developed within the Educational Support Branch of the Department of The Secretary of State af t e r 1967. There was no comparison, however, between the e f f o r t s of the respective national governments i n t h i s sector. 1. Once again, what i s being referred to here i s educational research related to the formal educational process. I t i s recognized that other types of educationally-related research were conducted i n both countries by agencies such as the Departments of Labor, Health, and Welfare, etc., but t h i s has been excluded from consideration i n t h i s study because of the d i f f i c u l t y i n i d e n t i f y i n g educational research within the larger research a c t i v i t i e s of these agencies. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1954, Vol. 68, Chap. 576, p. 533. 152 L e a r n i n g Resources Before l e a v i n g t h i s chapter i n the s t o r y o f f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l involvement, mention must be made of the v a r i e t y of e d u c a t i o n a l support f u n c t i o n s c a r r i e d out by a number of f e d e r a l departments i n both c o u n t r i e s . For convenience these a c t i v i t i e s are d e s c r i b e d w i t h i n two c a t e g o r i e s , the p r o v i s i o n o f resource m a t e r i a l s f o r classroom use, and the p r o v i s i o n o f n a t i o n a l r e p o s i t o r i e s f o r l e a r n i n g . W i t h i n the f i r s t category were i n c l u d e d such a c t i v i t i e s as the p r o d u c t i o n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f a u r a l , v i s u a l , and p r i n t , classroom a i d s . Under the second c l a s s i f i c a t i o n were i n c l u d e d the a c t i v i t i e s o f such i n s t i t u t i o n s as the L i b r a r y o f Congress i n the Uni t e d S t a t e s and the N a t i o n a l L i b r a r y i n Canada; the N a t i o n a l A r c h i v e s i n both c o u n t r i e s , the N a t i o n a l Museum i n Canada and the Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s ; and the N a t i o n a l A r t G a l l e r i e s i n both countries."'" In the i n t e r e s t of b r e v i t y and economy, two examples of t h i s type o f i n v o l v e -ment were s e l e c t e d f o r d e t a i l e d examination, p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n a l b r o a d c a s t i n g , and the a c t i v i t i e s of the r e s p e c t i v e n a t i o n a l museums. 1. An i l l u s t r a t i o n o f the chronology of development and types of i n s t i t u t i o n s i n v o l v e d appears a t Table I I I , pp. 153 and 154. 153 TABLE III Federal Agencies Providing Resources And Materials In Support Of Education Canada United States Date Agency Function Aural, V i s u a l , and P r i n t Materials Agency Date 1936 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 1929 National Film Board Public 1 1967 Broadcasting Service 1867 Queen's Pri n t e r U.S. Gov't P r i n t i n g O f f i c e 1776 1872 Dept. of Energy, Mines, and Resources Dept. of I n t e r i o r 1844 1968 National Museum Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e 1846 National Science Foundation 1950 154 TABLE III Federal Learning Repositories And Years When Established Canada 1872 National Archives 1968 National L i b r a r y 1868 National Museum 1967 National Art G a l l e r y U.S. National Archives 1778 L i b r a r y of Congress 1776 Smithsonian I n s t i t u t e 1846 National Art 1917 G a l l e r y 155 E d u c a t i o n a l B r o a d c a s t i n g The f i e l d o f b r o a d c a s t i n g i n Canada and the U n i t e d States by v i r t u e of i t s i n t e r s t a t e a p p l i c a t i o n , was co n s i d e r e d a f e d e r a l domain. E d u c a t i o n a l b r o a d c a s t i n g , however, was not a c l e a r - c u t j u r i s d i c t i o n and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n , method, and ex t e n t of f e d e r a l involvement i n t h i s f i e l d i n both c o u n t r i e s presented an i n t e r e s t i n g c o n t r a s t between the two f e d e r a l systems. I n i t i a l l y the f e d e r a l r o l e was c o n f i n e d to p r o v i d i n g audio and v i s u a l resources f o r classroom use. By 1970 the Un i t e d S t a t e s Government was s u p p o r t i n g the es t a b l i s h m e n t of b r o a d c a s t i n g program f a c i l i t i e s , r e s e a r c h i n t o the use of e d u c a t i o n a l media, and t r a i n i n g programs f o r teachers i n the development and use of audio and v i s u a l m a t e r i a l s . F e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d i n Canada was l i m i t e d t o the p r o d u c t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s d i s t r i b u t e d on request to p r o v i n c i a l s c h o o l s , c o l l e g e s , and u n i v e r s i t i e s . With the advent of the "moving p i c t u r e " i n North America e a r l y i n the t w e n t i e t h century both c e n t r a l governments took advantage of the medium to develop and disseminate i n f o r m a t i o n a l and e d u c a t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . In the Un i t e d S t a t e s t h i s a c t i v i t y was l e f t to the i n d i v i d u a l needs of the v a r i o u s agencies of the f e d e r a l government. In Canada a s i n g l e f e d e r a l agency was c r e a t e d to serve a l l f e d e r a l departments. 1 In 19 39 the 1. The f i r s t s e r v i c e was e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n the Department of Trade and Commerce i n 1916. In 1923 the Canadian Government 156 National Film Board was established to further consolidate and f a c i l i t a t e the work of i t s predecessor. After the Second World War the Board developed d i r e c t l i n k s with the Canadian educational community and established a complete system for the production and dissemination of educational f i l m s . 1 The central governments of Canada and the United States also became involved i n radio and t e l e v i s i o n broadcasting. In the United States i n 1935 a Federal Educational Radio Commission was established under the Federal Communications Commission to promote cooperation between educators and 2 broadcasters. In the same year the Office of Education began a t r a n s c r i p t i o n service whereby broadcasts were 3 recorded and d i s t r i b u t e d to schools on request. Motion Picture Bureau was established encompassing the act-i v i t i e s of the former service and others. The Bureau i n i t i a l l y used private f a c i l i t i e s for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of i t s films and schools and other educational i n s t i t u t i o n s became primary users of the service. See: Canada: Annual Report of The Department of Trade and Commerce, 1917, p. x v i i i , and 1924, p. 39. 1. The National Film Board established a reference committee i n conjunction with the Canadian Educational Association to plan the production of educational films. In addition the Board established four national i n t e r n a l d i s -t r i b u t i o n systems including r u r a l , i n d u s t r i a l , trade union, and entertainment c i r c u i t s . The educational films were di s t r i b u t e d on the r u r a l c i r c u i t . See: Canada, Annual Report of The Department of Trade and Commerce, 1946, p. 5 and 9. 2. U.S., Annual Report of The Commissioner of Education, 1936, p. 110. 3. In 1936, 2,745 schools participated i n t h i s service, involving 3.2 m i l l i o n students. 157 In Canada the question of national educational radio broadcasting was given greater attention. In 19 32 a national broadcasting commission was established to regulate the i n d u s t r y . 1 The Commission was replaced i n 1936 by the 2 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Apart from i t s regulatory functions, the new corporation was given the mission of protecting the national i n t e r e s t i n the f i e l d i n terms of programming. Extensive educational radio broadcasting was not begun u n t i l a f t e r 1942 as a r e s u l t of a national conference held to study the question. One byproduct of the Conference was the establishment of a National Advisory Council on School Broadcasting. The Council was given the respon-s i b i l i t y for advising the CBC and p r o v i n c i a l governments on program planning, development, implementation, and dissemination."^ 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 19 32, Chap. 51. A summary of the history of the development of a national public broad-casting system i n Canada was presented by Margaret Prang in.. 1965. In her a r t i c l e i t was established that the appearance of the CBC was largely attributable to the emergence of a threat of an American takeover of the private broadcasting industry i n Canada and the work of the Canadian Radio League (a body of volunteer c i t i z e n s united i n common cause), i n persuading the Canadian government to take protective action against t h i s threat. See: Margaret Prang, "Origins of Public Broadcasting i n Canada", Canadian E i s t o r i o a l Review, Vol. XLVI, No. 1, March, 1965, pp. 30-31. 2. I b i d . , 1936, Chap. 24. 3. T.R. Morrison, The Development of National Radio Education i n Canada, (Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Faculty of Education, U.B.C. 1967, p. 64). The province of Quebec did not p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s program. 158 F e d e r a l i n t e r e s t i n the f i e l d of e d u c a t i o n a l t e l e v i s i o n (ETV) i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s developed e a r l y i n the h i s t o r y of the medium. In 1948 the F.C.C. w i t h h e l d the g r a n t i n g of broadcast l i c e n c e s i n the f i e l d u n t i l the q u e s t i o n of e d u c a t i o n a l usage was c o n s i d e r e d . 1 In 1950 a J o i n t Commission composed of educators, government, and i n d u s t r y , was e s t -a b l i s h e d t o c o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n , with the r e s u l t t h a t twelve per cent of the a v a i l a b l e channels f o r t e l e v i s i o n b r o a d c a s t i n g 2 were r e s e r v e d f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes. At the same time, 3 the development of ETV was l e f t t o the p r i v a t e s e c t o r . In 1962, however, the Communications A c t of 1934 was amended to p r o v i d e f e d e r a l matching grants f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n of 4 ETV f a c i l i t i e s . Four years l a t e r f o u r m i l l i o n d o l l a r s was a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r e d u c a t i o n a l media r e s e a r c h , and the 1. U.S., Annual Report of the Federal Security Agency, 1948, p. 22. 2. Ibid. 3. One. of. '• the p r i n c i p l e s u p p o r t i n g agencies i n t h i s r e g a rd was the Ford foundation which s u p p l i e d the m a j o r i t y of the funding f o r the f i r s t ETV system i n the United S t a t e s at Hagerstown, Maryland. 4. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1962, V o l . 76, P.L. 85-864, p. 1595. 159 d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n , concerning e d u c a t i o n a l use of the media. In 195 8 and i n 196 3 the N a t i o n a l Defence Education Act made p r o v i s i o n f o r r e s e a r c h and experimentation i n t o more e f f e c t i v e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t e l e v i s i o n , r a d i o , motion p i c t u r e s , and r e l a t e d media f o r e d u c a t i o n a l p u r p o s e s . 1 F i n a l l y , i n 1965, under the p r o v i s i o n s o f the Elementary/ Secondary Educa t i o n Act, f e d e r a l funds were a l l o c a t e d f o r the development, p r o d u c t i o n , and t r a n s m i s s i o n of r a d i o and 2 t e l e v i s i o n programs f o r classroom and other e d u c a t i o n uses. F e d e r a l involvement i n ETV culminated i n 196 7 i n the 3 e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a P u b l i c B r o a d c a s t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n . In e n a c t i n g the l e g i s l a t i o n the American Congress d e c l a r e d t h a t the F e d e r a l Government had an o b l i g a t i o n to develop a n a t i o n a l p o l i c y i n the f i e l d of non-commercial b r o a d c a s t i n g to p r o t e c t the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e o f the n a t i o n from undue i n t e r f e r e n c e and c o n t r o l from extraneous sources. Under the A c t a v a s t a r r a y o f i n i t i a t i v e s were made p o s s i b l e 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1958, V o l . 72, P.L. 85-864, p. 1595. A N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y Committee was a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d under the A c t (On New E d u c a t i o n a l Media), and was a u t h o r i z e d to conduct, a s s i s t , and f o s t e r r e s e a r c h and experimentation f o r the u t i l i z a t i o n and ad a p t a t i o n o f the media f o r c l a s s -room use, f o r the t r a i n i n g o f t e a c h e r s , and the p r e s e n t a t i o n of academic s u b j e c t matter. 2. Ibid., 1965, V o l . 79, P.L. 89-100, p. 40. 3. Ibid., 1967, V o l . 81, P.L. 90-129, pp. 368-9. 160 to promote, stimulate, and develop educational programs i n the media. The sums allocated to the purposes of the Act were not as generous, however, as those under the Act of 1962. In Canada federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n ETV was less sub-s t a n t i a l than i n the United States. By 1970 e f f o r t s to e s t a b l i s h a national educational t e l e v i s i o n network proved f u t i l e . In 1951 the f i e l d of educational t e l e v i s i o n was added to the terms of reference of the National Advisory Council 2 and that body recommended experimentation i n the f i e l d . Between 1958 and 1963 the percentage of educational broad-casting hours was increased from four to twenty i n t e l e v i s i o n and from three to six i n radio. In 19 6 8 the Broadcasting Act was amended to provide for the inc l u s i o n of educational 3 broadcasting f a c i l i t i e s within the C.B.C. Greater federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s a c t i v i t y was f o r e s t a l l e d however, by the emergence of a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l dispute between the federal and p r o v i n c i a l governments and no s i g n i f i c a n t progress was made by 1970 towards the resolution of the issues. 1. The Public Broadcasting Corporation Act allocated 10.5 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n 1968, 12.5 i n 1969, and 15 m i l l i o n i n 19 70 for the support of educational broadcasting. 2. Canada, Annual Report of The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1954, p. 3. 3. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1967-68, Chap. 25. 161 National Museums The national museums of Canada and the United States provided another example of federal involvement i n education. By 1970 the Smithsonian Institute i n the United States and the National Museum i n Canada were a composite set of a c t i v i t i e s organized under one federall y incorporated umbrella agency. The story of the development of these two large agencies exemplified another way i n which a federal government came to support the educational endeavour. The National Museum of Canada and that of the United States were i n i t i a l l y established through private i n i t i a t i v e . In 1836 an Englishman, James Smithson bequested one hundred thousand pounds to the United States government, "to found at Washington . . . an establishment for the increase and d i f f u s i o n of knowledge among men."1 In Canada i n 1841, the then Province of Canada appropriated $1,500 towards the appointment of a government geologist. William Logan, the appointee, on his own i n i t i a t i v e began to c o l l e c t and display specimens from his travels and i n v i t e d and encouraged school 2 children to v i s i t his private c o l l e c t i o n . Confusion and controversy delayed the incorporation of the Smithsonian 1. Walter Karp, The Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n (Washington: Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n , 1965), p. 8. 2. F.J. Alcock, A Century In The History Of The Geo-l o g i c a l Survey of Canada (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1947), p. 4. 162 u n t i l 1846, and i t was not u n t i l 1877 that the Board of Directors of the I n s t i t u t i o n was firmly established and substantial funding provided for i t s a c t i v i t i e s . 1 In 1872 the Federal Government i n Canada assumed r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for 2 Logan's c o l l e c t i o n and established a Geological Museum. Five years l a t e r the Museum was placed under the supervision of the Department of the Int e r i o r . Under the provision of the same act the Museum was authorized to d i s t r i b u t e specimens to educational i n s t i t u t i o n s . In 1883 sim i l a r provisions 3 were enacted i n the United States. Prior to the second half of the twentieth century the work of the National Museum of both countries was primarily devoted to the accumulation of knowledge and the establishment of national c o l l e c t i o n s of materials of h i s t o r i c , s c i e n t i f i c , or c u l t u r a l value. After 1950, however, both i n s t i t u t i o n s developed extensive education programs. By 1961, the National Museum of Canada was conducting regular lecture and motion picture presentations for children and adults, working d i r e c t l y with schools to provide exhibits for classroom use; operating an audio-visual van service; conducting school 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1877, Vol. 19, Chap. 69, p. 253. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1872, Chap. 22. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1883, Vol. 22, Chap. 143, p. 629. The author has been unable to ascertain the volume of service offered under t h i s authorization i n the United States. 163 class v i s i t s ; and extending f a c i l i t i e s and resources for educational purposes to other museums across the country. 1 S i m i l a r l y , i n the United States, the Smithsonian Institute inaugurated a series of educational programs whereby school tours of museum f a c i l i t i e s were developed; each component museum established an educational o f f i c e ; workshops were developed for teachers and administrators; and an extensive 2 information dissemination system was established. In 1966 the National Museum of the United States was 3 formally incorporated. One year l a t e r the Canadian govern-4 ment followed s u i t . In both countries the National Museum was e s s e n t i a l l y an administrative body coordinating the a c t i v i t i e s of the agencies l i s t e d i n Table IV, including t h e i r educational programs. In thi s instance, federal i n s t i t u t i o n s were generally better suited and better prepared to a s s i s t schools and teachers than l o c a l i n s t i t u t i o n s i n terms of the provision of nationally-oriented programs and materials. 1. Canada, Annual Report of The Department of Northern A f f a i r s and Natural Resources, 1961, pp. 22-23. 2. Letter from David Estabrook, Education Program Co-ordinator, Elementary and Secondary Education, Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n , Washington, D.C, U.S.A., September 8, 1975. 3. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1966, Vol. 80, P.L. 89-674, p. 953. 4. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1967, Chap. 21. 164 TABLE IV NATIONAL MUSEUM COMPONENTS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES Canada United S t a t e s N a t i o n a l G a l l e r y o f Canada (Art) Museum of Human H i s t o r y Museum of Science and Technology Museum of N a t u r a l H i s t o r y War Museum A v i a t i o n Museum F r e e r G a l l e r y of A r t N a t i o n a l G a l l e r y of A r t Fin e A r t s and P o r t r a i t G a l l e r y H irshhorn Museum and Sc u l p t u r e Gardens Renwick G a l l e r y N a t i o n a l Museum of H i s t o r y and Technology N a t i o n a l Z o o l o g i c a l Park N a t i o n a l Museum o f N a t u r a l H i s t o r y A r t s and I n d u s t r i e s Museum Smithsonian I n s t i t u t i o n A n a c o s t i a Neighborhood Museum CONCLUSION The Canadian and American f e d e r a l education programs d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s chapter r e v e a l e d the breadth and s i g n i f i c a n c e of the e n t e r p r i s e as a p p l i e d to e d u c a t i o n a l matters under f e d e r a l j u r i s d i c t i o n . From 1867 to mid-twentieth century 165 educational program development i n most of the a c t i v i t y areas concerned (armed forces, Indians, etc.) i n both countries, was gradual and incremental i n nature. Between 1950 and 1970, however, i n keeping with the general expansion i n size and a c t i v i t y of both s o c i e t i e s , the dimension and extent of federal educational a c t i v i t y also increased. P a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s regard, was the observable impact of the s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l stresses of the l a t e r period upon educational program development i n this sector i n both 1 nations. It was noteworthy that while the e a r l i e r stance of both countries i n t h i s area of federal educational a c t i v i t y contained important contrasts, by 1970 a general s i m i l a r i t y existed. In 186 7 the d i f f e r i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l respon-s i b i l i t i e s of each central government dictated the absence or inclusion of a p a r t i c u l a r educational a c t i v i t y . Thus the presence of federal penitentiary education programs i n Canada and t h e i r absence i n the United States. Social and p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s also affected the development of educational a c t i v i t i e s i n this sector as evidenced by the contrasting p r o f i l e s between both countries i n the areas of c i t i z e n s h i p , transportation, and c u l t u r a l educational act-i v i t i e s . By 1970, however, while differences existed i n the 1. Developments i n the Indian, prison, museum, and broadcasting j u r i s d i c t i o n s most s i g n i f i c a n t l y exampled thi s phenomenon. i 166 federal education programs within each a c t i v i t y area, a general s i m i l a r i t y existed between both nations, i n terms of the a c t i v i t y areas involved. It was t y p i c a l of both countries that the "authority" for the type of federal educational involvement discussed in t h i s chapter stemmed not only from a s p e c i f i c a l l y delegated c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y but from practice and presumption as well.''" In the United States the post-school, naval academy, and native Indian education programs were examples of educational a c t i v i t i e s established by practice, while those i n the f i e l d of educational broadcasting exampled those established by presumption. In Canada the national museum program originated from practice as did the provision by the central government of maps, charts, and mineral c o l l e c t i o n for use i n Canadian classrooms. Federal involvement i n international educational a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada exampled the presumptive mode. The s i g n i f i c a n t differences between both countries i n terms of the educational programs and a c t i v i t i e s included i n t h i s chapter were evidenced i n the nature of the respective federal endeavours. Canadian programs tended to be ce n t r a l l y administered, p a t e r n a l i s t i c , and general i n nature. American programs on the other hand, tended to decentralize 1. The term "presumption" i s used to describe the sit u a t i o n where no clear l i n e of authority existed but where the central government presumed i t s authority through the development and establishment of an educational program. 167 decision-making a u t h o r i t y , be e s t a b l i s h e d on a l a i s s e z -f a i r e b a s i s , and were normally d i r e c t e d towards s p e c i f i c problems w i t h i n an a c t i v i t y a r e a . 1 In each country e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s undertaken by the r e s p e c t i v e c e n t r a l governments r e f l e c t e d these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to a v a r y i n g degree. The tendency to c e n t r a l i z e or d e c e n t r a l i z e d e c i s i o n -making a u t h o r i t y i n the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n programs o f concern i n t h i s chapter r e f l e c t e d the d i f f e r i n g nature of the two f e d e r a l systems, p r e v i o u s l y noted i n t h i s study. Examination of the f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l programs i n both c o u n t r i e s f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . In Canada the e x p l i c i t a u t h o r i t y v e s t e d i n f e d e r a l agencies under the B.N.A. A c t encouraged the development o f a c e n t r a l i z e d decision-making p r o c e s s . The i m p l i c i t nature of the American C o n s t i t u t i o n tended to encourage a d e c e n t r a l i z e d p r o c e s s . A comparison of the e d u c a t i o n programs i n the armed f o r c e s p r o v i d e d one example of t h i s p a t t e r n . In Canada the e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s of the three branches of the armed f o r c e s were j o i n t l y a d m i n i s t e r e d a t the n a t i o n a l l e v e l . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s c o n d i t i o n a p p l i e d o n l y to overseas programs. Domestic programs i n t h a t country were administered 1. The term " l a i s s e z - f a i r e " i s used to d e s c r i b e the tendency i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s f o r f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l programs to p l a c e a major r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the program's success or f a i l u r e upon the p a r t i c i p a n t s , as exampled by the " p r i s o n i n d u s t r i e s " approach to funding e d u c a t i o n a l programs i n f e d e r a l p r i s o n s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . 168 in the context of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of separate branches (army, navy, or a i r force), of the services. It was observable that Canadian education programs in this sector tended to be p a t e r n a l i s t i c whereas the opposite applied in the United States. A good example of the difference between both countries in this regard was evidenced in the comparison of the respective c i t i z e n s h i p education a c t i v i t i e s . The Canadian government provided funds for both teaching and i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials in i t s program whereas the American government agreed to provide i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, leaving the costs of in s t r u c t i o n to be borne by state or l o c a l government.1 S i m i l a r l y , in the case of Indian students, under the law the American government could not compel an Indian family to give up a c h i l d simply for the purposes of attending school. In Canada the Indian authorities, through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, could require and implement this type of separation.. Perhaps the most s i g n i f i c a n t difference between both nations in this area of federal educational a c t i v i t y involved the general nature of Canadian programs as opposed to the s p e c i f i c nature of their American counterparts. As observed 1. It also provided a l i s t of aliens resident in each State for the use of the schools in-determining potential enrolments in c i t i z e n s h i p classes. There was no compulsion to attend these classes, however. 169 when describing the preceding c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the degree of generality or s p e c i f i c i t y varied i n and between programs i n both countries. This c h a r a c t e r i s t i c was p a r t i c u l a r l y evident i n the respective veterans education programs. In Canada, broad categories of assistance were established with considerable administrative f l e x i b i l i t y i n the interpretation of t h e i r content. The American authorities, on the other hand, were considerably more s p e c i f i c about the permissible types of educational a c t i v i t y involved. The tendency to give greater a r t i c u l a t i o n to program c r i t e r i a and content i n the United States was evident i n other a c t i v i t y areas as well. A s i g n i f i c a n t difference also existed between both countries i n terms of the o v e r a l l administration of federal educational programming. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the development of the educational programs dealt with i n the context of t h i s chapter was dependent upon either private i n i t i a t i v e or the a c t i v i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r federal agency. By 19 70 th i s continued to be the case with a notable exception. The creation of a federal coordinating agency for federal educational a c t i v i t i e s i n the United States (F.I.C.E.)., was an important development. While t h i s agency was admittedly 1. The reader i s referred to those sections of t h i s chapter dealing with armed forces, federal prisons and international education for additional examples of t h i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c . 170 b a r e l y more than-an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e mechanism by 1970, by i t s e x i s t e n c e the means were i n p l a c e f o r more e f f e c t i v e management of the o v e r a l l f e d e r a l e n t e r p r i s e and the p o t e n t i a l e x i s t e d f o r the g r e a t e r c o o r d i n a t i o n of f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s i n that country. Up to 1970 there was no formal attempt to p r o v i d e f o r such c o o r d i n a t i o n i n Canada. By 1970 a number of trends were noteworthy r e g a r d i n g the f e d e r a l education programs d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s chapter. I t was n o t i c e a b l e , f o r example, that while i n some i n s t a n c e s , Canadian programs both preceded and precedented t h e i r American c o u n t e r p a r t s , i n the m a j o r i t y of cases even Canadian programs tended to ape s i g n i f i c a n t developments i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . This was p a r t i c u l a r y e v i d e n t i n the h i s t o r y of the n a t i v e .'„'• Indian and p e n i t e n t i a r y e d u c a t i o n programs. Another s i g n i f i c a n t t r e n d i n both c o u n t r i e s was the tendency on the p a r t of the c e n t r a l government to move out of the d i r e c t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of c e r t a i n types of e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y . T h i s a p p l i e d p a r t i c u l a r l y to dependents e d u c a t i o n programs i n the armed f o r c e s and n a t i v e Indian education. By 1970 i n c r e a s i n g emphasis was being p l a c e d upon p u t t i n g students i n t o pro^ v i n c i a l and s t a t e p u b l i c schools and reimbursing those school systems f o r the c o s t s i n v o l v e d . In p a r t t h i s t r e n d was prompted by the comparative economics of the costs of f e d e r a l agencies p r o v i d i n g the r e q u i s i t e e d u c a t i o n a l 171 f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s and those i n the p u b l i c s e c t o r . I t was due i n p a r t a l s o to a growing r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t the f e d e r a l government was h i s t o r i c a l l y unable to p r o v i d e an e q u i v a l e n t e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y to t h a t a v a i l a b l e i n the p u b l i c s e c t o r . The development o f a f e d e r a l - i n t e r n a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n a l r o l e was a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t . Though the p h i l o s o p h i c a l approach taken by both governments i n t h i s f i e l d d i f f e r e d , the method and content of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e programs were s i m i l a r . More i m p o r t a n t l y , the development of t h i s a c t i v i t y brought a t t e n t i o n to the n e c e s s i t y of a n a t i o n a l f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence i f o n l y to f a c i l i t a t e the i n t e r f a c e of f o r e i g n e d u c a t i o n a l systems with domestic ones. For h i s t o r i c and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l reasons, the American government appeared to experience g r e a t e r success i n t h i s endeavour than i t s Canadian c o u n t e r p a r t . In c o n c l u s i o n , the evidence of t h i s chapter has suggested t h a t a f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence was r e q u i r e d i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s , i f o n l y to f u l f i l l c e r t a i n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n to these requirements, however, the agencies of both c e n t r a l governments developed a v a r i e t y of e d u c a t i o n programs i n support of e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s c a r r i e d out by second and t h i r d l e v e l governments in' both c o u n t r i e s , i n o r d e r to provide resources not otherwise a v a i l a b l e or i n the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t . In both c o u n t r i e s 172 the origins of t h i s educational presence were modest i n size and lim i t e d i n scope. By 1970, however, i t emerged as a s i g n i f i c a n t federal a c t i v i t y of considerable d i v e r s i t y and d i f f u s i o n . 173 CHAPTER IV THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND ELEMENTARY-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES In the h i s t o r y o f education i n Canada and the Un i t e d S t a t e s , t h a t s e c t o r comprising the f i r s t twelve to f o u r t e e n years of p u b l i c s c h o o l i n g p r o v i d e d the most d i r e c t and widespread i n t e r f a c e . 1 I t was i n t h i s s e c t o r t h a t l o c a l and s t a t e governments were t r a d i t i o n a l l y most v i t a l l y i n v o l v e d and where i t was p o p u l a r l y p e r c e i v e d t h a t the n a t i o n a l government was l e a s t i n v o l v e d . By 1970 the American f e d e r a l government was spending over 3.5 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y i n the f i e l d -.sl. Elementary and secondary education i s used i n t h i s chapter t o r e f e r t o a l l types of i n s t r u c t i o n given i n the p u b l i c s c hools from k i n d e r g a r t e n to the t w e l f t h or t h i r t e e n t h grade except v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . The l a t t e r i s covered i n a separate chapter. 174 and the Canadian government, 136 m i l l i o n . The history of federal involvement i n elementary/ secondary education i n both countries developed i n two stages. In the early history of both nations federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n was premised upon the need to provide for education i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s . As both nations matured, t h i s necessity diminished, to be replaced by p a r t i c i p a t i o n premised upon the need to redress inequities i n the public educational sector through selective or general application of federal funding. I n i t i a l federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th i s educational sector took the form of land grants established for the pur-pose of providing an endowment for the support of common schools. The practice of setting aside certain lands within a province or state for the endowment of education was a 2 carry over from the c o l o n i a l period i n both countries. This practice was established f e d e r a l l y i n the United States 1. U.S., Progress of Public Education In The United S t a t e s of America 1969-70, (Washington: United States Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1971), p. 52; and Canada, Financial S t a t i s t i c s of Education: 1969 and 1970 (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1975), p. 26. 2. A good description of t h i s p o l i c y was provided i n Chester Martin's, "Dominion Lands" P o l i c y (Ottawa: McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1973). Mr. Martin compared the po l i c y of the American and Canadian governments i n the school lands area and c i t e d early examples of the practice i n the co l o n i a l history of both countries. 175 i n 1785 and i n 1872 i n Canada. In the Land Ordinance of 1785 the Congress of the United States asserted that, "there s h a l l be reserved the l o t number sixteen of every township for the maintenance of public schools within said township." 1 In Canada the Dominion Lands Act of 1872 set aside the eleventh and twenty-ninth section of each surveyed 2 township for s i m i l a r purposes. These provisions applied s p e c i f i c a l l y to lands i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s of both countries and did not a f f e c t the funding of education i n the established states or provinces. The administration of the school lands programs i n Canada and the United States offered one of the few recorded occasions where the experience of one country was taken into account i n the other. As Chester Martin observed regarding the American approach: . . . the administration (was) turned over uniformly to the several states . . . a wide variety of pre-emption laws proved necessary to provide for squatters on school lands . . . and despite the most careful provisions for permanent school funds (1875) and safe investment (1889) the record (was) marked by faul t y and variable practices and by no ^ small amount of jobbery and f r u s t r a t i o n . 1. H.P. A l l e n , The Federal Government and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill and Company, 1950), p. 61. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1872, Chap. 23. 3. Chester Martin, p. 100. 176 In Canada control over the use of school lands was retained by the central government largely because of observed abuses within the former colonies and the record of American exper-ience."'" The d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced i n the United States stemmed from two principal- causes, the absence of any federal "presence" to ensure the lands were being administered as intended, and the fact that many of the lands were sur-veyed a f t e r settlement or use. In addition, no c r i t e r i a 2 existed to provide for a uniform national lands p o l i c y . Over the years i n both countries school lands were used i n a number of ways to finance public schools. The most d i r e c t method involved the sale of such lands and the use of the proceeds to finance the construction of a l o c a l school. This method provided no long-term funding for schools, however, and was soon replaced by the establishment of a fund consisting of the proceeds from land sales invested to produce a regular inte r e s t income that i n turn, was used to finance l o c a l education. F i n a l l y , designated school lands were leased for a variety of purposes and the revenues 1. Chester Martin, pp. 101-103. 2. Federal practice i t s e l f varied. In addition to re-serving the aforementioned sections, i n 1803-04 on the admission of Ohio to the Union, large tracts of federal public land were ad d i t i o n a l l y set aside for the support of schools. At the same time, Congress granted to the State f i v e per cent of the money received from the sales of these lands. (U.S., S t a t u t e s At Large, 1802, Vol. 2, Chap. 68, p. 717). Sub-sequently, other states received from 5 to 15 per cent. See: CA. Quattlebaum, (Pt.) I, p. 17. 177 gained thereby were applied to the general fund. As schooling i n Canada and the United States became more complex and expensive, and the available land more scarce, t h i s method of financing schools proved inadequate. By 19 70 the Canadian government was only marginally involved with school lands. 1 It withdrew from the f i e l d i n two stages. After d i r e c t l y administering school lands for f i f t y - e i g h t years, j u r i s d i c t i o n over these lands was turned 2 over to the respective p r o v i n c i a l governments. In 19 61 the Canadian government also turned over to the provinces administrative control of the funds that had accrued up to 3 19 30. Up to 19 30 the three western provinces received a t o t a l of over 4 8 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n revenues from land sales and leases and over 37 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n in t e r e s t payments from t h e i r school lands funds. In addition, a further 1. At Confederation the federal government i n Canada inherited the Common School Fund of the former united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada. A sa t i s f a c t o r y agreement between the provinces of Ontario and Quebec of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the assets of t h i s fund proved impossible and thus the federal government continued to administer the in t e r e s t on the fund and di s t r i b u t e d i t proportionately. In 19 70 t h i s amounted to a t o t a l of $113,888.00 di s t r i b u t e d on the basis of approximately 55 per cent to Ontario and 45 per cent to Quebec. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1930, Chap. 3. 3. I b i d . , 1961, Chap. 2. 178 37 m i l l i o n i n int e r e s t accrued during the period 19 30 to 1961. 1 Comparable figures were not available i n the United States as early records of these lands sales were either 2 non-existent or suspect. In the United States, school lands continued to provide revenue for education y i e l d i n g 3 82.3 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s i n 19 70. The handling of the school lands question i n the United States and Canada presented an int e r e s t i n g contrast. The American government established a national policy but l e f t i t s administration i n the hands of the several States. The Canadian government took the opposite approach. The American system suffered many abuses but revenue from federal school lands continued to contribute towards defraying the costs of public education through to 1970 and beyond. The Canadian program, though c e n t r a l l y and e f f e c t i v e l y administered, and free of the abuses existent i n the United States, was comparatively short-lived. The continued operation of a federal school lands program i n the United 1. Canada, P u b l i c Accounts, 1868^1930. 2. In the United States the monitoring of school lands use was carr i e d out by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, however, both the Forest Service and the Department of Agriculture made payments to the States of Arizona and New Mexico for common school purposes. These monies were provided on the basis of the r a t i o between school lands and t o t a l forest lands, as applied to the gross proceeds from the national forests. (See: CA. Quattlebaum, Pt. I I , p. 129) . 3. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s : 1974 (Washington: United States Government Prin t i n g O f f i c e , 1975), p. 126, 179 S t a t e s was a t t r i b u t a b l e to the d e c e n t r a l i z e d nature of the system and the gradual e l i m i n a t i o n of the abuses. The b r i e f tenure o f the Canadian program was g e n e r a l l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o p r o v i n c i a l s e n s i t i v i t y towards f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a p r o v i n c i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and the obvious dichotomy i n the e x i s t e n c e of two f e d e r a l p u b l i c lands p o l i c i e s w i t h i n the same Dominion. In a d d i t i o n to p r o v i d i n g funds f o r the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of common schools i n the h i n t e r l a n d s , to a d i f f e r i n g degree both f e d e r a l governments became i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g o p e r a t i n g funds f o r education i n these r e g i o n s . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s p r a c t i c e developed f i r s t w ith the a c q u i s i t i o n of A l a s k a i n 186 7 and was continued i n the e x t r a - t e r r i t o r i a l p o s s e s s i o n s a c q u i r e d l a t e r i n the century. Canadian experience with t h i s p r a c t i c e began with the a c q u i s i t i o n of the o l d Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s and was continued throughout the p e r i o d covered by t h i s study. S h o r t l y a f t e r the Alaskan purchase the American Congress gave the S e c r e t a r y of The I n t e r i o r the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making , " . . . n e e d f u l and proper p r o v i s i o n f o r the e d u c a t i o n of the c h i l d r e n of s c h o o l age . . ." and s e t a s i d e $25,000 f o r t h a t p u r p o s e . 1 As the T e r r i t o r y matured f e d e r a l funds were put i n t o the hands of Alaskan o f f i c i a l s f o r schools 1. U.S., Annual Report of The Commissioner of Education, 1870, p. 336. 180 s e r v i n g the white and mixed b l o o d p o p u l a t i o n and the Department o f the I n t e r i o r assumed f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r Indian and Eskimo s c h o o l s . The expense of m a i n t a i n i n g t h i s system exceeded one-half a m i l l i o n d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y and was maintained u n t i l A l a s k a was granted statehood i n 1958, when the State assumed f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r e d u c a t i o n . By 1970, the O f f i c e of The T e r r i t o r i e s i n the Department of The I n t e r i o r was p r o v i d i n g e d u c a t i o n a l a i d to American Samoa and the T r u s t T e r r i t o r y of the P a c i f i c I s l a n d s . In 1967 both programs were funded to the extent of over seven m i l l i o n d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y . 1 Canadian f e d e r a l involvement i n education i n the t e r r i t o r i e s f o l l o w e d a somewhat s i m i l a r p a t t e r n . Although the Canadian government gained c o n t r o l over the Northwest T e r r i t o r y i n 1868 i t was not u n t i l 1880 t h a t s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n 2 was made f o r e d u c a t i o n . The F e d e r a l Government a p p r o p r i a t e d from three to s i x thousand d o l l a r s a n n u a l l y towards the c o s t of e d u c a t i o n i n the T e r r i t o r y u n t i l 1905 when the p r o v i n c e s of A l b e r t a , Manitoba, and Saskatchewan were e s t a b l i s h e d and r e s p e c t i v e l y assumed c o n t r o l of t h e i r own e d u c a t i o n a l systems. As was the case i n A l a s k a , however, the Canadian government r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n over the e d u c a t i o n of the n a t i v e Indian p o p u l a t i o n i n these areas. 1. C A . Quattlebaum, pp. 119-120. 2. Canada, Statutes of Canada, 1880, Chap. 25. 181 By 19 70 the Canadian government was i n v o l v e d with the p r o v i s i o n of e d u c a t i o n i n two t e r r i t o r i a l p o s s e s s i o n s , the Yukon and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , both i n the Canadian A r c t i c . In a d d i t i o n to being t o t a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the e d u c a t i o n o f the n a t i v e p o p u l a t i o n s i n t h i s r e g i o n , the c e n t r a l government a l s o p r o v i d e d funds f o r the education of the non-native p o p u l a t i o n . Though these funds were adm i n i s t e r e d through the t e r r i t o r i a l c o u n c i l s , the M i n i s t e r of the Department of Indian A f f a i r s and Northern Development was u l t i m a t e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r them. 1 There were two other i n s t a n c e s where one or the other c e n t r a l government became i n v o l v e d i n elementary/secondary e d u c a t i o n i n a g e n e r a l way. In the U n i t e d S t a t e s t h i s o c c u r r e d i n connection with the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the n a t i o n a l c a p i t a l , Washington, D.C. In Canada i t o c c u r r e d i n d i r e c t l y i n c onnection with the Family Allowance Program i n s t i t u t e d a f t e r the Second World War. Nowhere i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s was f e d e r a l involvement i n elementary and secondary e d u c a t i o n more d i r e c t and complex 2 than i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia. Under an Act passed by 1. Canada, A Directory of Federal A c t i v i t i e s In Education and Research (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1971), pp. 28-29. 2. In 1802 the C i t y of Washington was i n c o r p o r a t e d i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia. The F e d e r a l Government made annual a p p r o p r i a t i o n s f o r the A d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the c i t y from taxes c o l l e c t e d from the r e s i d e n t s . I t was not u n t i l 1856, however, 182 Congress i n 1878, the funding of elementary education i n the D i s t r i c t of Columbia was c a r r i e d out on the basis that, " . . . a l l appropriations . . . for public school purposes (were) payable one-half from the revenues of the D i s t r i c t . . . and one-half from any funds i n the Treasury not other-wise appropriated.""'" In addition, the D i s t r i c t q u a l i f i e d for the wide variety of categorical federal assistance programs undertaken between 186 7 and 19 70. As part of a wide range of s o c i a l assistance programs designed to improve the general welfare of the Canadian population, the Federal Government of Canada enacted l e g i s l a t i o n i n 19 44 that provided a cash allowance for each c h i l d i n a 2 Canadian family. The allowance (called a Family Allowance) was to be applied towards "the maintenance, care, t r a i n i n g , that provision was made for the establishment of school d i s t r i c t s and school commissioners were appointed. (See: U.S., S t a t u t e s At Large, 1856, Vol. I I , Chap. 86, pp. 33-42). By 1876 the school system had been established (See: Quattlebaum, Vol. I I , p. 443), and i n 1906, "The Congress of the United States, without reli n q u i s h i n g ultimate control of the D i s t r i c t of Columbia educational budget or . . . teachers s a l a r i e s , delegated f i s c a l control . . . of education to the three-member Board of Commissioners appointed by the President . . . and the operation of the system to a nine-member Board of Education . . . appointed by the D i s t r i c t of Judges . . . and a Superintendent of Schools . . . appointed by the Board." {Ibid) . 1. U.S., Annual Report of The Commissioner of Education, 1906, p. 1242. 2. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1944, Chap. 40. 183 e d u c a t i o n , and advancement o f the c h i l d . " R e c e i p t o f the allowance f o r those c h i l d r e n o f sch o o l age was t i e d d i r e c t l y 2 to s c h o o l attendance a t the elementary l e v e l . In 19 6 4 the Family Allowance was extended t o i n c l u d e a l l dependent youths and was subsequently c a l l e d a Youth Allowance. P r o v i n c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Youth Allowance program was v o l u n t a r y and c a r r i e d with i t c e r t a i n s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s as had p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the Family Allowance 3 . . program. In p r o v i d i n g funding t h a t was c o n d i t i o n a l upon sc h o o l attendance the Canadian government pla y e d no smal l p a r t i n the post war development of p u b l i c education i n the A country. The f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e program d e s c r i b e d i n the preceding paragraphs was used f o r the ge n e r a l support of ed u c a t i o n . By 19 70 programs of t h i s type were not i n widespread use i n 5 e i t h e r country. T h i s type of f e d e r a l involvement was not 1. Canada, Statutes of Canada, 1944, Chap. 40. 2. Canada, Annual Report of The Department of National Health and Welfare, 1946, pp. 79-80. 3. The p r o v i n c e o f Quebec d i d not p a r t i c i p a t e i n the Youth Allowance Program. 4. The Annual Report of The Department 1946 observed t h a t , " . . . the p r o v i s i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s f o r p r o c u r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on sch o o l attendance by c h i l d r e n who are r e c -i p i e n t s of the b e n e f i t s . . . have been made d u r i n g the year with a l l the p r o v i n c e s . " (pp. 79-80. 5. Though Congress continued to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the e d u c a t i o n a l system i n Washington, D.C, and s c h o o l l a n d 184 g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e t o second and t h i r d l e v e l governments s i n c e i t was seen t o c h a l l e n g e t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e s o f e d u c a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y . F u r t h e r , the e a r l y experiences of both c e n t r a l governments w i t h t h i s type of a s s i s t a n c e a l s o discouraged more widespread a p p l i c a t i o n as i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r i n the chapter. Over the years, t h e r e f o r e , a more s e l e c t i v e approach was taken t o f e d e r a l involvement i n t h i s s e c t o r o f e d u c a t i o n . A f t e r the t u r n of the century, as pressures developed f o r g r e a t e r f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education g e n e r a l l y , and i n elementary/secondary education i n p a r t i c u l a r , both c e n t r a l governments responded w i t h s e l e c t i v e programs designed to pr o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e f o r s p e c i f i c problem areas. The Canadian government was the f i r s t t o become c a t e g o r i c a l l y i n v o l v e d i n elementary/secondary e d u c a t i o n . In 1909 under the t h r e a t of impending war a p h y s i c a l t r a i n i n g program conducted under the auspices of the Department of N a t i o n a l Defence, was implemented i n the p u b l i c s c hools i n two of the Maritime P r o v i n c e s . In a d d i t i o n to adopting the Defence Department's c u r r i c u l u m , the schools secured the s e r v i c e s of the l o c a l m i l i t i a i n s t r u c t o r s who not o n l y revenues continued t o pr o v i d e some support f o r ed u c a t i o n , and though, the Canadian government continued to p r o v i d e some support f o r educ a t i o n i n the North West T e r r i t o r i e s and the Family Allowance program continued to provide i n d i r e c t i n c e n t i v e t o the work of the p u b l i c s c h o o l s ; the t o t a l impact o f these programs was marginal when compared to other forms of f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e . 185 i n s t r u c t e d the p u p i l s but t r a i n e d the teachers as w e l l . A f t e r the F i r s t World War t h i s program was expanded to i n c l u d e e i g h t p r o v i n c e s and became e s s e n t i a l l y a teacher t r a i n i n g program. Between 1921 and 1940 over 96,000 c e r t i f i c a t e s of q u a l i f i c a t i o n s were i s s u e d and over 160,000 2 candidates attended courses. In 1943 t h i s program was f o r m a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d under f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n and was 3 continued u n t i l 1955. During the p e r i o d 1943 to 1955 expenditures exceeded 1.6 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s w i t h a l l p r o v i n c e s except Quebec and Newfoundland p a r t i c i p a t i n g . T h i s program e s t a b l i s h e d a foundation f o r p u b l i c s c h o o l p h y s i c a l education c u r r i c u l a throughout most o f the country and a l s o p r o v i d e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l t r a i n i n g f o r a l a r g e number of t e a c h e r s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n by the pr o v i n c e s i n the program was v o l u n t a r y but r e q u i r e d the s i g n i n g of a c o n t r a c t u a l agreement i f a 4 p r o v i n c e "opted, i n " . I t was not i n s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h i s 1. Canada, Sessional Papers, 1910, No. 35, V o l . 19, p. 16. 2. These s t a t i s t i c s were ob t a i n e d through an examination of the Annual Reports of the Department of M i l i t i a and Defence from 1921 to 1940. 3. Canada, Statutes of Canada, 1943, Chap. 29. 4. The A c t r e q u i r e d t h a t a pr o v i n c e e s t a b l i s h an o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the purpose of c o o p e r a t i n g with a f e d e r a l C o u n c i l i n c a r r y i n g out the p r o v i s i o n s o f the Act and t h a t p r o v i n c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s develop a p l a n f o r the implementation of a p h y s i c a l f i t n e s s program. Funds were a l l o t t e d on the b a s i s o f p o p u l a t i o n or p r o v i n c i a l expenditure whichever sum was l e s s . The r a t i o of p r o v i n c i a l t o n a t i o n a l p o p u l a t i o n 186 program was developed d u r i n g a p e r i o d of n a t i o n a l c r i s i s as the l i n k between p h y s i c a l and m i l i t a r y preparedness was an obvious one. The development of adequate p h y s i c a l education programs and f a c i l i t i e s a t the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l , coupled w i t h a t y p i c a l p r o v i n c i a l concern over f e d e r a l involvement i n educat i o n , brought an end to the program i n 1955. The f i r s t c a t e g o r i c a l f e d e r a l involvement i n elementary/ secondary e d u c a t i o n i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s o c c u r r e d d u r i n g the Depression o f the 1930's. Under the aegis o f the Recon-s t r u c t i o n Finance C o r p o r a t i o n and a f e d e r a l R e l i e f of P u b l i c Schools Act, Congress a u t h o r i z e d the expenditure o f 10 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s t o , "enable S t a t e s or agencies to i n c u r indebtedness f o r the purpose of f i n a n c i n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n , o p e r a t i o n , o r maintenance of f a c i l i t i e s . " ' ' In a d d i t i o n , under the F e d e r a l Emergency R e l i e f A c t and the Works Progress A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a nurs e r y s c h o o l program and a school lunch program were i n i t i a t e d t o provide f o r c h i l d care 2 f a c i l i t i e s and n u t r i t i o n a l needs. While many of the was a p p l i e d to a maximum sum of 225,000 d o l l a r s or the p r o v i n c i a l investment was matched by the f e d e r a l government to a l e v e l e q u i v a l e n t t o the l e s s e r amount. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1935, V o l . 49, Chap. 646, pp. 796-7. 2. U.S., Summary of Federal Relief and Federal Work Program S t a t i s t i c s , 1933-1940, p. 5; and, Final Report of The Works Progress Administration Program, 19 3 5-19 43, p. 60 (Washington: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1940 and 1944 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . 187 programs begun d u r i n g the Depression were temporary i n nature, some were continued i n m o d i f i e d form t h e r e a f t e r . A f t e r 1945, domestic c o n d i t i o n s i n both c o u n t r i e s produced p r e s s u r e s f o r g r e a t e r f e d e r a l involvement i n t h i s s e c t o r of e d u c a t i o n . While the response to these p r e s s u r e s on b e h a l f of both n a t i o n a l governments d i f f e r e d i n scope and magnitude there were three c a t e g o r i e s of s i m i l a r f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , s c h o o l c o n s t r u c t i o n a s s i s t a n c e , a d u l t b a s i c e d u c a t i o n , and b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n . At the same time a t t e n t i o n has been drawn to a number of programs not common to both j u r i s d i c t i o n s . In the succeeding paragraphs the former category o f a c t i v i t i e s w i l l f i r s t be examined, fo l l o w e d by comment upon the d i f f e r e n t programs e s t a b l i s h e d i n each country. The p r o v i s i o n o f f e d e r a l funds to a s s i s t f e d e r a l l y impacted s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s or s t a t e agencies was i n s t i t u t e d on a r e g u l a r b a s i s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s d u r i n g the Second World War and i n Canada i n 19 51. With the American e n t r y i n t o the War a program of f e d e r a l grants was inaugurated to a s s i s t s c h o o l d i s t r i c t s w i t h the o p e r a t i o n a l , maintenance, and c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s o f t h e i r s c h o o l s . These programs were a p p l i e d i n areas of the country where war a c t i v i t i e s c r e a t e d unusual demands upon the l o c a l e ducation systems. 1 1. T h i s was a u t h o r i z e d by a J o i n t R e s o l u t i o n of Congress and an amendment to the Second Defence A p p r o p r i a t i o n A c t of 1941. A f e d e r a l l y impacted area r e f e r r e d to any l o c a l i t y 188 In 19 46 t h i s p o l i c y was continued under an amendment to the N a t i o n a l Defence Housing A c t . 1 F i n a l l y , i n 1950 Congress enacted two p i e c e s of l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d the program, a F e d e r a l A s s i s t a n c e to Schools In F e d e r a l l y 2 Impacted Areas A c t and a School C o n s t r u c t i o n A c t . Under the p r o v i s i o n s o f these two A c t s , f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e were p r o v i d e d . L o c a l and St a t e education agencies r e c e i v e d a s s i s t a n c e as a r e s u l t of f e d e r a l a c q u i s i t i o n of p r o p e r t y t h a t had the e f f e c t o f red u c i n g the e d u c a t i o n a l tax revenues of these a u t h o r i t i e s . They a l s o r e c e i v e d a s s i s t a n c e where they were p r o v i d i n g an education f o r c h i l d r e n r e s i d e n t on f e d e r a l p r o p e r t y o r whose parents were employed on f e d e r a l p r o p e r t y . F i n a l l y , a s s i s t a n c e was a l s o a v a i l a b l e i n cases where an i n c r e a s e i n sc h o o l attendance r e s u l t e d from f e d e r a l a c t i v i t i e s i n a gi v e n j u r i s d i c t i o n or area. Funds f o r the o p e r a t i o n and maintenance of p u b l i c schools w i t h i n these f o u r broad c a t e g o r i e s were p r o v i d e d i n two ways. i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s where f e d e r a l a c t i v i t y such as the esta b -lishment of a m i l i t a r y base, war i n d u s t r y , or a government agency, had s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e d the p o p u l a t i o n , without producing commensurate revenue f o r the maintenance of l o c a l s e r v i c e s such as h e a l t h and edu c a t i o n . 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1950, V o l . 60, Chap. 498, p. 314. 2. Ibid., 1950, V o l . 64, Chaps. 995 and 1124, p. 367 and 1101 r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 8 9 Where r e a l p r o p e r t y was i n v o l v e d (and onl y i n cases t h a t o c c u r r e d a f t e r 1 9 3 8 ) , payment was made equal t o the revenue l o s s s u s t a i n e d by the e d u c a t i o n a l a u t h o r i t y l e s s other f e d e r a l payments t h a t the agency r e c e i v e d from other f e d e r a l programs (such as grants i n l i e u o f taxes, Tennessee V a l l e y A u t h o r i t y payments, e t c . ) . The second b a s i s f o r payment i n v o l v e d a complex computation o f student r a t i o s based on the average d a i l y attendance i n the State or Dis t r i c t . " ' " In a d d i t i o n t o the f o r e g o i n g , p r o v i s i o n was a l s o made f o r the c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n of schools i n areas where no p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s e x i s t e d . In terms of s c h o o l con-s t r u c t i o n c o s t s the c e n t r a l government p r o v i d e d funds f o r surveys and p l a n n i n g on the b a s i s of the r a t i o o f the f e d e r a l l y a f f e c t e d student p o p u l a t i o n compared to the t o t a l student p o p u l a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n these funds were "matching" i n t h a t the S t a t e was r e q u i r e d t o cover 5 0 per cent of the c o s t s . School c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s were p r o v i d e d on the b a s i s o f a minimum of 1 5 students and f i v e per cent of the estimated 1 . For students r e s i d e n t on f e d e r a l p r o p e r t y or whose parents worked on same the payments e q u a l l e d the product o f ; number of federal students X LCR (Local Contribution Rate). The LCR = $ spent on education by local education authority 4r ALA (Average Daily Attendance) of a l l students. F u r t h e r , a minimum of 1 0 students had to be i n v o l v e d i n such a program and the t o t a l number had to exceed from 3 to 6 per cent o f the t o t a l student p o p u l a t i o n , depending upon whether t h a t p o p u l a t i o n was below or i n excess o f 3 5 , 0 0 0 . S i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n s a p p l i e d i n the case o f more r e c e n t i n c r e a s e s i n student p o p u l a t i o n . 190 t o t a l number of c h i l d r e n i n average d a i l y attendance (A.D.A.)'. T h i s f i g u r e was s u b s i d i z e d up t o 95 per cent of the per p u p i l c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i o n f o r the State or 70 per cent i n the case o f the L o c a l E d u c a t i o n Agencies, and 10 per cent of the average d a i l y attendance. In 1965 f u r t h e r amendments t o the Acts mentioned above pr o v i d e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e t o p u b l i c schools i n d i s a s t e r a r e a s . 1 S c a l e d funding was made a v a i l a b l e i n such cases whereby payments were spread over a fo u r year p e r i o d and began a t one hundred per cent o f o p e r a t i n g and maintenance c o s t s i n the f i r s t year. T h e r e a f t e r payments were reduced by 25 per cent per year up to the f o u r t h year. S i m i l a r amendments were made to the p r o v i s i o n s f o r sch o o l c o n s t r u c t i o n a s s i s t a n c e . F e d e r a l expenditures under P u b l i c Law 81-874 t o t a l l e d over f o u r b i l l i o n d o l l a r s between 19 51 and 19 75 and 2 over 1.4 b i l l i o n under P u b l i c Law 81-815. Under the former law over 132 m i l l i o n students were a f f e c t e d , and under the l a t t e r , over 2 3 m i l l i o n . The Canadian government a l s o became i n v o l v e d i n p u b l i c s c h o o l f i n a n c e . As i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s the i n i t i a l cause f o r t h i s type of involvement centered around the expansion 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1965, V o l . 79, P.L. 89-313, p. 1159. 2. U.S., Twenty-Fifth Annual Report of The Commissioner of Education, 1975, Appendix "A". 191 of Canada's defence commitments i n conjunction with the development of the "cold war". In 1950 under the provisions of the Municipal Grants Act municipalities i n Canada whose tax revenues were affected by federally held or acquired property were e l i g i b l e for grants or payments i n l i e u of taxes to compensate for revenue l o s s e s . 1 In addition, under Orders-in-Council the Armed Forces were authorized to pay school d i s t r i c t s for the costs of educating the dependents 2 of t h e i r personnel. Under the Municipal Grants Act payments were made i n one of two ways on the basis of the assessed value of federal property at the municipal tax rate for a given year, or i n cases where school taxes were levied on a separate basis, on the rate of property taxation for general purposes plus an amount determined by div i d i n g the t o t a l amount of school taxes by the assessed value of r e a l property i n the municipality for which school taxes were paid. In the former case payment for school purposes was not separate from payments for general services and were thus not i d e n t i f i a b l e within e x i s t i n g resources. In the l a t t e r case such payments could be i d e n t i f i e d . The Order-in-Council dealing with the education of Armed Forces dependents established a per pupil cost formula for reimbursing the public schools. Payments 1. Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, Chap. M15. 2. Canada, Canada Gazette, 1950, P.C. 44/2300, 6 May. 192 made under t h i s program o b v i o u s l y v a r i e d depending upon the l o c a t i o n o f the defence f a c i l i t y and the l o c a l per p u p i l r a t e . On a more l i m i t e d s c a l e , some p u b l i c s c h o o l systems i n Canada a l s o r e c e i v e d f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e i n s c h o o l con-s t r u c t i o n under the aeg i s of a v a r i e t y of programs e s t -a b l i s h e d to combat r e g i o n a l economic d i s p a r i t y . In 19 6 3 the F e d e r a l Government i d e n t i f i e d 35 areas of the country t h a t were c h a r a c t e r i z e d by h i g h c h r o n i c unemployment and slow economic growth and attempted to a s s i s t such areas by d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t means. 1 In 196 5 the program was expanded to i n c l u d e s o c i a l improvement p r o j e c t s and f i v e r e g i o n s were desi g n a t e d (through f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l n e g o t i a t i o n ) , as p i l o t p r o j e c t s f o r e x t e n s i v e s o c i a l improve-2 ment programs t h a t i n c l u d e d e d u c a t i o n a l components. E n t i t l e d the Canada NewStart Program, i t i n v o l v e d minor 3 expenditures on s c h o o l f a c i l i t i e s . In a d d i t i o n to the NewStart Program, a Fund f o r R u r a l Economic Development (FRED) 1. Canada, Social Development (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974), p. 1. 2. These p r o j e c t s were f o r l i m i t e d p e r i o d s of time (four years) and d i d not p r o v i d e f o r a uniform s c a l e of funding or a common s e t o f expenditure items. 3. Canada, New Careers For The Disadvantaged (Ottawa: Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1974), p. 37. 193 was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1966 t h a t a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r s c h o o l c o n s t r u c t i o n a s s i s t a n c e . 1 The f i e l d o f A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n o f f e r e d another o p p o r t u n i t y f o r comparison between f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l programs i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada. In 1964 i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s p r o v i s i o n was made f o r persons of 16 years of age or o l d e r to r e c e i v e f e d e r a l l y a s s i s t e d i n s t r u c t i o n below the 2 c o l l e g e l e v e l . The Act d e f i n e d a d u l t b a s i c education as academic educ a t i o n ( t h e o r e t i c a l , l i b e r a l , s p e c u l a t i v e , and c l a s s i c a l s u b j e c t m a t t e r ) , designed to improve the l i t e r a c y , and hence, e m p l o y a b i l i t y of a d u l t s . W i t h i n the A c t sums were s e t a s i d e f o r i n n o v a t i v e and experimental p r o j e c t s , and grants to S t a t e s . Each State r e c e i v e d a minimum of 150,000 d o l l a r s p l u s a f i g u r e a l l o t t e d on the b a s i s of the r a t i o of the e l i g i b l e a d u l t s i n the State to the t o t a l number of e l i g i b l e a d u l t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s . In 1970, over 128 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s was spent on t h i s a c t i v i t y , 3 57 m i l l i o n of which came from f e d e r a l funds. From ten to 1. In New Brunswick up to 1972 the F e d e r a l Government underwrote 50 per cent of s c h o o l c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s under the agreement (5.5 m i l l i o n ) . See: Canada, Northeast New Bruns-wick Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement as Amended To September 5, 1972 (Ottawa: Department o f Regional Economic Expansion, 1974), p. 37. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1966, V o l . 80, P.L. 89-750, p. 1216. 3. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s : 1974 (Washington: U n i t e d S t a t e s Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1975), pp. 63 and 133. 194 twenty per cent o f the t o t a l f e d e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n f o r t h i s f u n c t i o n was s e t as i d e as a d i s c r e t i o n a r y expenditure under the c o n t r o l of the Un i t e d S t a t e s Commissioner of Educat i o n f o r i n n o v a t i v e and experimental p r o j e c t s . The American program had a d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on Canada. Under the auspices o f the Canada NewStart Program DACUM p r o j e c t s '(Developing A Curriculum);, were' i n s t i t u t e d i n 1966 t h a t had t h e i r conceptual o r i g i n i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s . As r e p o r t e d , "many of t h e i r ideas came from r e p o r t s on t r a i n i n g programs i n the U.S. War on P o v e r t y . " 1 While the bulk o f the NewStart i n i t i a t i v e s i n v o l v e d voc-a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n , a d u l t b a s i c education was a l s o i n c l u d e d i n the terms o f r e f e r e n c e . At the time of w r i t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on expenditures on these programs was not a v a i l a b l e . S u f f i c e to say, however, t h a t the o v e r a l l magnitude of the Canadian program was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than i t s American counter-. 2 p a r t . 1. Canada, New Careers For The Disadvantaged (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1974), p. 2. 2. Canada, The Adult Learner: Adult Basic Education In The Canada NewStart Program (Information Canada, 1974). The Canada NewStart Program was e s t a b l i s h e d as an experiment i n f e d e r a l - p r o v i n c i a l c o o p e r a t i o n to f i n d ways of a l l e v i a t i n g c h r o n i c poverty and disadvantage. I t began as a p i l o t p r o j e c t of the Canada Department of Manpower and Immigration a f t e r almost f o u r years o f p l a n n i n g and development. When plans were made to e s t a b l i s h the Canada Department of Regional Economic Expansion, i n 1969, the NewStart Program was i n -cluded i n the new department. 195 Another f i e l d worthy of comparison between the two c o u n t r i e s concerned was what came to be c a l l e d " B i l i n g u a l E d u c a t i o n " . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s the term was used to d e s c r i b e c h i l d r e n of l i m i t e d E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g a b i l i t y who came from home environments where the dominant language was other than E n g l i s h and where the f a m i l y income was under $3,000 a y e a r . 1 The A c t was designed to g i v e c e r t a i n m i n o r i t i e s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s more equal access to e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y . In 1969, $456,000 was spent under the p r o v i s i o n s of the A c t and $6,192,000 i n 1970." The F e d e r a l Government In a l l , s i x p r o v i n c e s entered i n t o agreements with the govern-ment of Canada, to p a r t i c i p a t e i n the NewStart Program. Nova S c o t i a , P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d , Saskatchewan, and A l b e r t a concluded agreements i n 1967; New Brunswick and Manitoba i n 1969. For a v a r i e t y of reasons, agreements were not reached w i t h the other p r o v i n c e s . A NewStart c o r p o r a t i o n was a p r i v a t e company s e t up under l e g i s l a t i o n of the p r o v i n c e i n which i t operated. I t s board of d i r e c t o r s was s e l e c t e d j o i n t l y by the p r o v i n c i a l and the f e d e r a l governments and f i n a n c e d t o t a l l y from f e d e r a l funds. F i s c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was maintained by r e q u i r i n g annual a p p r o v a l by the p r o v i n c e and Canada of the o p e r a t i o n a l plans of the c o r p o r a t i o n . L i a i s o n w i t h the f e d e r a l government was p r o v i d e d through a branch of the funding department. Under Manpower and Immigration i t was the P i l o t P r o j e c t s Branch; f o r Regional Economic Expansion i t was the S o c i a l and Human A n a l y s i s Branch. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1968, V o l . 81, P.L. 90-247, p. 816. 2. U.S., Bureau of Elementary Secondary E d u c a t i o n , Program Descriptions and Program Status Reports: 1973 (Washington: U.S. Dept. of HEW, 1974), p. 30. 196 through the Office of Education funded applicants for t h i s type of assistance on a matching d o l l a r basis. Unlike other programs under the general provisions of the Elementary Education Act, no sums were a l l o t t e d to the States. Instead l o c a l education agencies, States, or other educational i n s t i t u t i o n s received funding based on merit. In Canada the Federal Government introduced a b i l i n g u a l education program i n conjunction with the o f f i c i a l languages po l i c y enunciated under the provisions of the O f f i c i a l Languages Act of 1968. 1 . Bilingualism i n Canada was defined i n terms of two languages, French and English, and was designed to promote the public use of both languages as opposed to the American objective of a s s i s t i n g with the education of minority language groups. As stated by the Secretary of State, "the objectives of the program . . . were to ensure that, insofar as i t i s f e a s i b l e , Canadians have the opportunity to educate t h e i r children i n the o f f i c i a l language of t h e i r choice, and that children have the opportunity to learn, as a second language, the other 2 o f f i c i a l language of t h e i r country. Federal grants to the provinces i n 1970 t o t a l l e d $7,029,000 and were made i n the 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1958-69, Chap. 0-2. 2. Press Release From The Office of The Secretary of State, September 9, 1970, No. 9-970E. 197 form of transfer payments. The grants were calculated on the basis of the percentage of time spent receiving i n s t r u c t i o n . Students receiving i n s t r u c t i o n i n the minority language (75 per cent at the primary l e v e l and 6 0 per cent at the secondary level) were subsidized on the basis of nine per cent of the average cost of i n s t r u c t i o n for a f u l l -time student. Second language i n s t r u c t i o n (where students of the majority language group sought i n s t r u c t i o n i n the other " o f f i c i a l " language), received a grant equal to f i v e per cent of the average cost of in s t r u c t i o n for a fu l l - t i m e student. 2 While the foregoing s i m i l a r i t i e s existed i n cer t a i n aspects of federal involvement i n elementary and secondary education i n Canada and the United States, federal involvement i n the United States was c l e a r l y more extensive. Under the National Defence Education Act (N.D.E.A.) of 1958 public schools became e l i g i b l e to receive grants or loans (or a combination of both, " . . . for the a c q u i s i t i o n of equipment . . . and minor remodelling of f a c i l i t i e s , to strengthen science, mathematics, and modern foreign language 1. Canada, Financial S t a t i s t i c s of Education: 1969 And 1970 (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1975), pp. 28-29. The p r i n c i p l e of transfer payments w i l l be discussed i n a l a t e r chapter. 2. This information was contained i n a press release from the Secretary of State's O f f i c e , dated September 9, 1970. (Press Release No. 9-970E). 198 i n s t r u c t i o n . " A s s i s t a n c e was a l s o p r o v i d e d f o r the est a b l i s h m e n t o f Guidance, C o u n s e l l i n g , and T e s t i n g s e r v i c e s and f o r the d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n on new e d u c a t i o n a l media. In the same year, as has a l r e a d y been mentioned, Congress made p r o v i s i o n f o r the establishment and promotion 2 of science c l u b s i n the p u b l i c s c h o o l s . In 1964 under the p r o v i s i o n s of T i t l e IV of the C i v i l R ights A c t p u b l i c schools were ordered desegregated and f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e was pr o v i d e d f o r the development of desegregation plans and the t r a i n i n g o f personnel i n d e a l i n g w i t h desegregation problems.^ Under the Elementary/Secondary Educa t i o n A c t of 1965 i n a d d i t i o n to the Impacted Area A s s i s t a n c e Program, the A d u l t B a s i c E d u c a t i o n Program, and the B i l i n g u a l i s m Program, other programs were a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d . T i t l e I o f the A c t pro v i d e d f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e to l o c a l e ducation agencies f o r the educa t i o n o f c h i l d r e n of low income f a m i l i e s where the c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f such p o p u l a t i o n s impaired the a b i l i t y of the l o c a l agency to mount e f f e c t i v e e d u c a t i o n programs. 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1958, V o l . 72, P.L. 85-864, p. 1580. These b e n e f i t s were a l s o a v a i l a b l e t o p r i v a t e , n o n - p r o f i t , elementary and secondary s c h o o l s . 2. Ibid., P.L. 85-875, p. 700. 3. Ibid., 1964, V o l . 78, P.L. 88-352, p. 246. 199 Under T i t l e I I f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e was made a v a i l a b l e f o r the improvement of school l i b r a r y r esources i n terms of t e x t -books and oth e r i n s t r u c t i o n a l m a t e r i a l s . A s s i s t a n c e f o r the development o f supplementary and/or i n n o v a t i v e e d u c a t i o n a l programs was p r o v i d e d f o r under T i t l e I I I of the A c t . Wi t h i n the scope o f t h i s l a t t e r s e c t i o n o f the l e g i s l a t i o n were i n c l u d e d grants f o r the pl a n n i n g , establishment, maintenance, and o p e r a t i o n o f programs f o r the educa t i o n of the handicapped t h a t encompassed such a c t i v i t i e s as remedia l i n s t r u c t i o n and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s ; guidance and c o u n s e l l i n g s e r v i c e s ; s p e c i a l i z e d i n s t r u c t i o n and equipment; and media s t u d i e s . F i n a l l y , T i t l e V o f the Act p r o v i d e d funding to strengthen the c a p a b i l i t y of State E d u c a t i o n Agencies to p r o v i d e the necessary l e a d e r s h i p and s e r v i c e to t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l systems. The E.S.E.A. was amended i n 19 66 and 196 8 to make pro-v i s i o n f o r a d d i t i o n a l programs. In 1966 a new T i t l e VI was i n c o r p o r a t e d , "to a s s i s t S t a t e s i n the i n i t i a t i o n , expansion, and improvement of programs and p r o j e c t s . . . f o r handicapped children.""'" Handicapped c h i l d r e n were d e f i n e d as those who were, men t a l l y r e t a r d e d , hard of h e a r i n g , deaf, speech impaired, v i s u a l l y handicapped, e m o t i o n a l l y 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1966, V o l . 80, Chap. 750, p. 1191. 200 disturbed, crippled, or other health impaired children. In the same year an adult basic education program was provided for under T i t l e VII of the Act. In 196 8 further amendments to the Act authorized: . . . support of regional centers for education of handicapped children, model centers and services for deaf-blind children, and r e c r u i t -ment of personnel and dissemination of information on education of the handicapped; technical assistance i n education to r u r a l areas; support of b i l i n g u a l education programs. Also, i n order to give adequate notice of available Federal f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t -ance, authorized advance funding for any program for which the Commissioner of Education has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for administration by authorizing appropriations to be included i n the appropriations act for the f i s c a l year preceding the f i s c a l year for which they are available for o b l i g a t i o n . 1 A further Act provided federal funds for pre-school and early 2 education programs for handicapped children. In 1970 the E.S.E.A. was again amended to authorize comprehensive planning and evaluation grants to State and l o c a l education agencies and established a National Commission 3 on School Finances. In addition, educational assistance for the handicapped was established under separate l e g i s l a t i o n and broadened to include general provisions for support as comprehensive i n scope as those for other sectors of the 1. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s (Washington: United States Government Pr i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1972), p. 109. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1968, Vol. 84, P.L. 91-203, p. 177. 3. I b i d . , 1970, Vol. 84, P.L. 91-230, pp. 141-2. 201 I I I TABLE V FEDERAL ELEMENTARY/SECONDARY EDUCATION EXPEND UNITED STATES (1960-1972)  (OOP's) TURES Legislative Program 1 1960 2 1961 3 1962 4 1963 5 1964 6 1965 7 1966 8 1967 9 1968 10 1969 11 1970 12 19711 13 19721 14 Total 642,925 677,693 651,056 723,932 747,637 863,321 1,687,382 187,277 2,435,831 2,423,273 2,826,717 3,199,185 3,226,959 Elementary and Secondary Education Act' 811 1,095 1,247 1,521 1,648 1,712 816,982 ,252,208 1,327,723 1,359,843 1,412,949 1,651,586 1,744,430 Tit le I. Educationally deprived children - - - - - - 746,904 ,056,621 1,049,116 1,073,033 1,170,355 1,405,250 1,463,169 T i t le II. Library resources - . - - - - - 47,871 1 i | 92,505 91,054 64,530 44,670 51,472 73,438 Tit le III. Supplementary education centers - • - - - - - 10,938 ; 1 , 74,961 161,256 194,058 158,781 143,478 142.352 T i t le V. Strengthening State Depts. of education 811 1,095 1,247 1,521 1,648 1,712 11,269 \ 1 28,121 26,297 27,463 29,247 29,335 33,475 T i t le VII. Bilingual education - - • - - - _ 456 6,192 .17,298 23,151 T i t le VIII. Dropout prevention - - - - - - - _ 303 3,704 4,753 8,845 School assistance in federally affected areas 258,198 278,782 282,909 343,111 334,289 409,593 447,074 506,372 397,581 656,372 511,688 486,569 Maintenance and operation 174,850 207,749 226,419 276,869 283,688 311,413 409,593 399,858 470,887 374,589 620,463 479,273 460,654 Construction 83,348 71,033 56,490 66,242 50,601 38,258 55,742 47,216 35,485 22,992 35,909 32,415 29,915 Adult basic education -' - - - - - 3,146 33,616 28,336 28,701 37,527 43,464 50,239 55,615 Civi l Rights Act 1 - - - - - 1,292 5,291 8,798 7,437 8,239 10,608 20,193 12,798 Appalachian Reg. Dev. & Training Act - - - - - - _ 1,856 21,753 22,383 27,128 - -School lunch & milk pro. 383,916 397,816 366,900 379,300 411,700 507,500 421,900 448,005 543,845 597,700 676,196 965,479 927,547 Notes: 1. Estimated 2. T i t le VI for education of the handicapped is not included here but is included under "Educational improvement for the handicapped". Source: U.S., Digest of Eduoational Statistics, 1974, p. 112-118. 202 e d u c a t i o n a l community under the E.S.E.A. F i n a l l y , i n 1970, f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e f o r environmental and drug-abuse ed u c a t i o n programs i n the schools was p r o v i d e d f o r through two separate p i e c e s of l e g i s l a t i o n . The t a b l e on the preceding page p r o v i d e s a summary of American f e d e r a l expenditures i n the f i e l d o f elementary/ 2 secondary e d u c a t i o n from 1960 to 1970 and beyond. The s t a t i s t i c s c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n i l l u s t r a t e some important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of f e d e r a l involvement s i n c e 1965, the most dramatic being the i n c r e a s e i n f e d e r a l spending over a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d o f time (a t r i p l i n g of expenditure w i t h i n a f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d ) . A l s o n o t i c e a b l e was the tendency f o r e xpenditures i n c e r t a i n program areas to l e v e l o f f or d e c l i n e w hile o t h e r s were c o n s i s t e n t l y i n c r e a s e d . S o c i a l l y o r i e n t e d programs designed to r e d r e s s i n e q u a l i t i e s of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h i n s i g n i f i c a n t s e c t o r s of the American p o p u l a t i o n tended to f a l l i n t o the l a t t e r category while f a c i l i t i e s , r e s o u r c e s , or s e r v i c e - o r i e n t e d programs were t y p i c a l of the former category. P a r t i c i p a t i o n by the 1. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1970, V o l . 84, P.L. 91-230, p. 177. 2. From 1960 to 1965 items appearing i n the content of the E.S.E.A. were d e r i v e d from e a r l i e r programs (such as those emanating from the N.S.E.A./1958), t h a t were l a t e r i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o the 1965 l e g i s l a t i v e program. 203 S t a t e s i n the v a r i o u s programs developed under the E.S.E.A. was g e n e r a l l y h i g h . 1 While a g e n e r a l s i m i l a r i t y e x i s t e d i n the e a r l y h i s t o r y of f e d e r a l involvement i n elementary/secondary education i n Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s , by 1970 both n a t i o n s appeared to be adopting d i v e r g e n t stances. During the e a r l y p a r t of the p e r i o d under review both c e n t r a l governments p r o v i d e d g e n e r a l i z e d support f o r elementary/secondary edu c a t i o n through endowments pro v i d e d by the s a l e or l e a s e of p u b l i c lands. In a d d i t i o n , i n s p e c i a l cases, o p e r a t i n g a s s i s t a n c e funds were p r o v i d e d d i r e c t l y to s c h o o l systems i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s . By 19 70 t h i s type of support had l a r g e l y given way to more s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d a s s i s t a n c e programs i n both c o u n t r i e s . At the same time, Canadian f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d was of l e s s s i g n i f i c a n c e than t h a t of i t s American c o u n t e r p a r t . An important f a c t o r i n the e x p l a n a t i o n of the c o n t r a s t i n g r e c o r d between both c e n t r a l governments was the " a u t h o r i t y " u n d e r l y i n g the f e d e r a l presence. In Canada, the e x p l i c i t nature of the B.N.A. Act i n the f i e l d o f e d u c a t i o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , combined wi t h the s t r e n g t h and s e n s i t i v i t y 1. While not r e f l e c t e d i n the Table the author has e x t e n s i v e l y reviewed State p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n E.S.E.A. programs and found t h a t a f t e r three years of o p e r a t i o n most programs were f u l l y shared with a l l S t a t e s and where t h i s s i t u a t i o n d i d not apply, o n l y two or three were not i n v o l v e d . 204 of the p r o v i n c e s i n t h i s area, appeared to m i t i g a t e a g a i n s t a n y t h i n g but a temporary d i r e c t f e d e r a l presence. The American government was a b l e to i n t e r v e n e with g r e a t e r success than i t s Canadian c o u n t e r p a r t under the o v e r r i d i n g powers of the c e n t r a l government i n the area of n a t i o n a l defence and the g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , and w i t h the support of the American Supreme Court. In a d d i t i o n to these normative p r o v i s i o n s , however, s o c i e t a l determinants a l s o bore upon the d i f f e r i n g postures of both n a t i o n s i n t h i s s e c t o r . In Canada there appeared to be no s u s t a i n e d popular demand f o r , o r acceptance of a s i g n i f i c a n t f e d e r a l e d u c a t i o n a l presence. The i n c r e a s e d a c t i v i t y of the American government i n t h i s area suggested a d i f f e r e n t p u b l i c a t t i t u d e i n t h a t c o u n t r y . 1 The nature of f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n elementary/ secondary e d u c a t i o n i n each country r e f l e c t e d the d i f f e r i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s of the r e s p e c t i v e c e n t r a l governments. In Canada 1. The campaign f o r some form of g e n e r a l a s s i s t a n c e to e d u c a t i o n i n the U n i t e d States was not g i v e n up, however, as between 1870 and 1960 over 67 separate b i l l s were p l a c e d b e f o r e Congress to p r o v i d e f o r t h i s type of support. See: F. Munger, and R. Fenno, National P o l i t i e s and Federal Aid to Education (New York: Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1962) p. 4 and 9. In Canada no l e g i s l a t i o n s u r f a c e d proposing t h i s form of f e d e r a l a i d . Yet, p e r i o d i c a l l y , and e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g times of n a t i o n a l c r i s i s (the Depression, d u r i n g the t u r b u l e n t s i x t i e s , e t c . ) , p u b l i c suggestions f o r a n a t i o n a l system o f e d u c a t i o n were proposed as onemethod of e n s u r i n g u n i f o r m i t y of e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y throughout the country. T h i s q u e s t i o n s u r f a c e d d u r i n g the R o w e l l - S i r o i s Commission i n 1937, the Massey Commission i n 1949, and d u r i n g the d e l i b e r a t i o n s of the B i l i n g u a l i s m and B i c u l t u r a l i s m Commission i n 1970. 205 by 19 70 two r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d and categorical federal assistance programs were i n existence. Both were post-1965 developments. In retrospect, the Canadian experience with di r e c t federal involvement i n t h i s sector of education proved to be temporary, whether assistance was general or s p e c i f i c i n nature. On the other hand, i n d i r e c t forms of support for elementary/secondary education i n Canada appeared to be more successful, as evidenced by the Youth Allowances Program. In the United States, generalized federal support for t h i s sector also f e l l into disfavor, though i t continued to e x i s t as a source of school funding throughout the period. Categorical federal aid programs emerged as the acceptable form of federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n elementary/ secondary education i n the United States. As i n Canada, however, the American federal experience i n t h i s f i e l d was a recent development that only began i n 1958. Thus, while the a c t i v i t i e s of the American government c l e a r l y out-stripped those of the Canadian government i n magnitude and scope, l i t t l e could be concluded about the persistency of the presence of either central government i n t h i s area. By 19 70, few s i m i l a r i t i e s existed between both countries insofar as the program areas within which federal assistance for elementary/secondary education was provided. Where these did e x i s t (in areas such as federal impacted area assistance, adult basic education, and b i l i n g u a l education), considerable 206 d i f f e r e n c e s were e v i d e n t e i t h e r i n the d e f i n i t i o n given to these programs, or i n t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , or both. In g e n e r a l , f o r example, impacted area a s s i s t a n c e programs i n Canada were n e g o t i a t e d with p r o v i n c i a l governments and e s t a b l i s h e d under broad l e g i s l a t i o n . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s such a s s i s t a n c e was o f t e n p r o v i d e d d i r e c t l y to a l o c a l e d u c a t i o n a u t h o r i t y and i n accordance with s p e c i f i c g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d by f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , i n the areas of a d u l t b a s i c and b i l i n g u a l e d u c a t i o n , i n Canada the f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d l e f t c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c r e t i o n to the p r o v i n c i a l governments i n terms of i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . In the Un i t e d S t a t e s such a s s i s t a n c e was very s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d w i t h l i t t l e d i s c r e t i o n l e f t to s t a t e o r l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s i n terms of i t s u t i l i z a t i o n . These d i f f e r e n c e s r e f l e c t e d both the common purposes of the r e s p e c t i v e c e n t r a l governments and t h e i r d i f f e r i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the f i e l d . As i n d i c a t e d towards the end o f t h i s chapter, there were unique f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e programs i n t h i s s e c t o r of edu c a t i o n i n both c o u n t r i e s . The Youth Allowance Program i n Canada was one such scheme, p r o v i d i n g support through i n d i r e c t means f o r what was not otherwise p o s s i b l e . In the U n i t e d S t a t e s the f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e programs developed f o r the v a r i o u s c a t e g o r i e s of u n d e r p r i v i l e g e d or handicapped p u b l i c s c h o o l students, the sc h o o l lunch and milk programs, 207 and the national desegregation program provided were examples of t h i s type of program. In each of these cases, the generality of Canadian federal programs contrasted with the categorical nature of those i n the United States. By 19 70, i t was apparent that the Canadian government was i n a d i f f e r e n t position v i s - a - v i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n elementary/secondary education than i t s American counterpart. Though a s i m i l a r i t y existed i n terms of the nature of the domestic s o c i a l and economic problems giving r i s e to a greater federal i n t e r e s t i n t h i s sector i n both countries, normative and p o l i t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s prevented extensive development of a federal'educational presence i n Canada. At the same time, however, these factors did rot completely exclude the national government. Apart from i t s r e l a t i v e l y b r i e f f l i r t a t i o n with generalized assistance i n t h i s area, the Canadian government r e s t r i c t e d i t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n to highly s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t i e s (such as the physical education program), designed to remedy an observed deficiency i n Canadian school c u r r i c u l a or stimulate the development of more extensive education programming i n the provinces where p r o v i n c i a l governments were receptive. It was s i g n i f i c a n t , despite the exclusiveness of educational j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s sector, that a role existed for the federal government i n Canada. 208 In the U n i t e d S t a t e s , f e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n elementary/secondary education turned an important corner i n 1964. Up to t h a t time the p r i n c i p l e of d e c e n t r a l i z e d a u t h o r i t y i n the f i e l d was s c r u p u l o u s l y observed. With the passage of the C i v i l Rights Act, however, an a u t h o r i t a t i v e and d i r e c t i v e f e d e r a l presence was made p o s s i b l e . As i n d i c a t e d i n the t h i r d chapter, a b r i e f f l i r t a t i o n w i t h t h i s power developed a f t e r the C i v i l War i n connection with the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the U.S. O f f i c e of E d u c a t i o n . At t h a t time the experiment f a i l e d . I t d i d not a f t e r 1964. There-a f t e r , American f e d e r a l a s s i s t a n c e programs were premised upon the need to p r o v i d e equal e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y f o r those s e c t o r s of the country's p o p u l a t i o n t h a t by v i r t u e of s o c i a l or economic circumstances, were unable to b e n e f i t e q u a l l y from the e x i s t i n g e d u c a t i o n a l systems. At the same time, f e d e r a l involvement i n elementary/secondary e d u c a t i o n i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s stopped w e l l s h o r t of becoming t o t a l and continued to be s e l e c t i v e l y a p p l i e d . 209 CHAPTER V THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES F e d e r a l involvement i n post-secondary e d u c a t i o n was p r i n c i p a l l y a phenomenon o f the post-war p e r i o d i n both c o u n t r i e s . I t c o i n c i d e d with a sharp i n c r e a s e i n e n r o l -ments i n u n i v e r s i t i e s and c o l l e g e s and a r e s u l t a n t i n c r e a s e i n the c o s t s of education i n t h i s s e c t o r . The s t a t i s t i c s speak f o r themselves. In 1950 i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s approximately 2.2 m i l l i o n students were e n r o l l e d i n p o s t -secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s and f e d e r a l expenditures t o t a l l e d l e s s than a h a l f b i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Twenty years l a t e r e n r o l -ments exceeded 8.4 m i l l i o n ( f u l l and p a r t - t i m e ) , and f e d e r a l expenditure exceeded f i v e b i l l i o n d o l l a r s 210 annually."1" Similar changes occurred i n Canada where between 1950 and 1970 enrolments i n post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s rose from 68,000 to nearly 500,000, and federal expenditures i n the f i e l d , from 5.6 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s to 2 250 m i l l i o n . While federal p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s sector of education developed comparatively recently and dramatically, there was an h i s t o r i c r e l a t i o n s h i p i n both countries. In 1787 under the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance the /American Congress reserved two townships i n the unorganized t e r r i t o r i e s for the endowment of higher education. In 1885 the Canadian government also attempted to i n s t i t u t e a land-grant program for the endowment of higher education. Three years e a r l i e r , the Canadian government had also become involved i n chartering 3 a p r o v i n c i a l university. Neither the /American land-grant 1. U.S. Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s : 1971, p. 62, 67, 111-112. For 1950 federal expenditures see the 1974 e d i t i o n of the Digest, p. 110. In percentage terms the U.S. federal share of post secondary expenditure decreased from a high of 19.1% i n 1966 and 1967 to 16.6% i n 1970 even though actual expenditures s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased (p. 19) . 2. Canada, Financial S t a t i s t i c s of Education: 1969 and 1970 (Ottawa: S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1975), p. 100 and 130, 138 respectively. 3. In 18 82, doubts having arisen over the v a l i d i t y of the p r o v i n c i a l statute chartering Queen's University i n Kingston, Ontario, the Federal Government granted a charter. See: Canada, S t a t u t e s of Canada, 1882, Chap. 123. 211 program nor the tentative e f f o r t s of the Canadian government, were p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t or successful. It was not u n t i l 1862 i n the United States and 1938-39 i n Canada that the f i r s t meaningful steps were taken to formally involve the respective central governments with higher education. 1 In the United States, the endowments for higher education provided under the Ordinance of 1787 proved no more e f f e c t i v e than had the land grants for the common schools. By 186 2, however, the combined influence of a rapidly developing farm and i n d u s t r i a l technology and the stresses of the American C i v i l War persuaded Congress to make further provision for the development of higher education f a c i l i t i e s . Under the provisions of the M o r r i l l Act of that year 30,000 acres of public land i n each state were a l l o t t e d for each Senator and Representative i n Congress from that State, for " . . . the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one College where the leading subject was, with-out the exclusion of other studies, and including m i l i t a r y t a c t i c s , to teach such branches of learning as are related to Agriculture and the mechanical arts . . . i n order to promote the l i b e r a l and p r a c t i c a l education of the i n d u s t r i a l 2 classes i n several pursuits and professions i n l i f e . " 1. Both national governments also u t i l i z e d the s t a f f s , services, and f a c i l i t i e s of post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s for consultative and research purposes. 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1862, Vol. 12, Chap. 130, p. 503. 212 The monies d e r i v e d from the s a l e s of these lands were to be i n v e s t e d i n government s e c u r i t i e s a t f i v e per cent i n t e r e s t . The i n t e r e s t o b t a i n e d from these investments p r o v i d e d an annual income f o r the c o l l e g e s . 1 In 1887, f u r t h e r f e d e r a l a i d was p r o v i d e d i n the form of a 15,000 d o l l a r grant towards the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of experimental s t a t i o n s " . . . to a i d i n a c q u i r i n g and d i f f u s i n g . . . u s e f u l and p r a c t i c a l 2 i n f o r m a t i o n on s u b j e c t s connected w i t h a g r i c u l t u r e . " A second M o r r i l l A c t was passed i n 189 0 t h a t broadened the base of support f o r the land-grant c o l l e g e s and i n c r e a s e d 3 the l e v e l s o f funding p r o v i d e d . The revenue f o r the grants under the A c t of 1890 was d e r i v e d from g e n e r a l l a n d s a l e s as opposed t o the s p e c i f i c a l l o t m e n t s p r o v i d e d under the 1862 A c t , and the c o l l e g e s each r e c e i v e d a f i x e d l e v e l of f e d e r a l funding. The grants were i n i t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d a t a base of $15,000 per annum but were e s c a l a t e d over a p e r i o d 4 of t en years to $25,000 per annum. By the t u r n of the century every e s t a b l i s h e d s t a t e r e c e i v e d these g r a n t s . 1. Sta t e s l a c k i n g s u f f i c i e n t p u b l i c lands t o meet t h e i r quota were granted s c r i p i n l i e u . 2. U.S., Statutes At Large, 1887, V o l . 24, Chap. 314, p. 440. 3. Ibid., 1890, V o l . 26, Chap. 841, p. 417. 4. In 19 0 7 t h i s A c t was amended to i n c r e a s e the grant to $50,000 per annum. See: U.S., Statutes At Large, 1907, V o l . 34, P.L. 242, p. 1282. 213 H i s t o r i c a l l y , there was c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n i n the revenues obtained under the M o r r i l l A c t s . 1 The income r a i s e d under the l e g i s l a t i o n was dependent upon the u n c e r t a i n value of land and as t h i s v a r i e d over the yea r s , a con-s i s t e n t l e v e l of revenue was not forthcoming. Thus, i n 1960 the c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s r e c e i v e d $2,665,714 from t h i s source while i n 1970, $4,301,478 was d i s b u r s e d . In 1970, t o t a l f e d e r a l grants t o a g r i c u l t u r e and mechanical c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s under the M o r r i l l A c t s and t h e i r 2 amendments exceeded 21 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . Between 1862 and 1867 the grants were administered by the Treasury Department but w i t h the es t a b l i s h m e n t of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r e i n 186 7, the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the program was t r a n s f e r r e d to t h a t agency. In 1953 the O f f i c e o f Educat i o n i n the Department of Hea l t h , Education and Welfare assumed respon-s i b i l i t y f o r a d m i n i s t e r i n g Land-Grant C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y funds. 1. As one author p o i n t e d out i n a r e p o r t on F e d e r a l and State a i d to h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n i n 1897, "there i s no p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s c o v e r i n g , without long and p a t i e n t r e s e a r c h among the a r c h i v e s o f each State c a p i t a l , what sums the land was r e a l l y s o l d f o r - or e x a c t l y how much money came i n t o the hands of the State or even f o r what p a r t i c u l a r e d u c a t i o n a l purpose the amounts r e c e i v e d were expended." See: U.S., Annual Report Of The Commissioner Of Education, 1897, V o l . 11, p. 1139. 2. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s , 1971, p. 106, and 118. T o t a l f e d e r a l payments t o these i n s t i t u t i o n s exceeded 180 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s but the a d d i t i o n a l funds were d e r i v e d from other sources, p r i n c i p a l l y i n the f i e l d o f v o c a t i o n a l e d u c a t i o n . See: Chapter VI. 214 In Canada there was a b r i e f f l i r t a t i o n with the concept of a federal land-grant for higher education. In 1885 under a settlement of claims made by the Province of Manitoba against the federal government, 150,000 acres of Crown Land was set aside for the endowment of a University of Manitoba. 1 In 1890, these lands became the subject of a controversy within the Province that was only f i n a l l y s e t t l e d by Federal 2 mediation. The proceeds from the fund established from the sales of t h i s land yielded $65,000 i n 1920 and continued 3 to provide minor revenue for the university thereafter. The Federal Government did not extend t h i s type of assistance outside the province of Manitoba. The impetus for more d i r e c t federal involvement i n post-secondary education i n both Canada and the United States developed from a dramatic and s i g n i f i c a n t expansion of student enrolments at the end of the Second World War. In the 1. Canada, S t a t u t e s Of Canada, 1885, Chap. 50. 2. This dispute occurred during the same period as the famous Manitoba Schools Question and involved some of the same part i c i p a n t s . P o l i t i c a l l y , i t was an uncomfortable period for the Federal Government and while undocumented, these events c l e a r l y influenced the decision not to become involved i n further land grants for higher education. 3. D.A. Stager, The Evaluation of Federal Government Involvement In The Financing of Post-Secondary Education, 1867-1960, (an unpublished study commissioned by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada, 1971), p. 14. 215 United States enrolments i n higher education jumped by nearly one m i l l i o n between 1946 and 1948. 1 Canadian post-secondary i n s t i t u t i o n s experienced a similar rate of increase moving from 34,493 students i n 1946 to 61,529 i n 1947. During t h i s b r i e f period (when veterans programs were i n f u l l operation), the u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges of both countries received both d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t federal assistance through fees, l i v i n g allowances, and per capita payments for new f a c i l i t i e s . As the veterans "boom" subsided, (to be replaced by increasing enrolments by regular students), the u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges were faced with a diminishing capacity to finance t h e i r programs. In seeking a solution to t h i s dilemma the governments of Canada and the United States employed d i f f e r e n t strategies. The Canadian government implemented a program of block funding grants to a s s i s t Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s while the American government i n s t i t u t e d a more selective approach, using the p r i n c i p l e of categorical aid referred to i n previous chapters. The modern period of federal assistance i n the f i e l d of post-secondary education began i n the United States i n 1950, when, under the provisions of the Housing Act of that year, 1. U.S., Digest of Educational S t a t i s t i c s , 1974, p. 76. 2. Canada, Canada Yearbook, 1949, p. 302. 216 a college housing program was inaugurated. This program provided for d i r e c t loans to colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s for student housing and related f a c i l i t i e s where these i n s t i t u t i o n s could not obtain funds from other sources. By 1967 this program had provided over 3.2 b i l l i o n dollars in loans to more than 1,500 i n s t i t u t i o n s and 123 hospitals to accommodate approximately 750,000 people. 1 The f i r s t regular and systematic program of federal assistance to Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s was i n s t i t u t e d i n 1952. It emerged out of a. recognition by the federal government that funding of higher education in Canada was i n a pre-carious condition. This s i t u a t i o n was brought to the government's attention repeatedly after 1945 by the National Conference of Canadian Uni v e r s i t i e s and appeared also in 2 the findings of the Massey Commission. The program f i n a l l y adopted by the central government and implemented by Order-in-Council, provided the sum of f i f t y cents per person to the u n i v e r s i t i e s , in accordance with the t o t a l population of the country, d i s t r i b u t e d to each i n s t i t u t i o n on the basis 1. Quattlebaum, 1968, Part II, p. 267. 2. An excellent summary of the c r i t i c a l developments leading to the establishment of the university grants program is contained in David Stager's work referenced e a r l i e r i n this chapter. Consideration of the p l i g h t of the u n i v e r s i t i e s was added on to the o r i g i n a l agenda of the Massey Commission subsequent to the presentation of a Br i e f to the Federal Cabinet i n 1949. With the Commission's recommendations in hand the Prime Minister provided for the establishment of the assistance program. (See: Stager, pp. 116-136). 217 of i t s proportional student enrolment."1" These per capita grants were increased between 1952 and 1966 to a maximum of $5,00. Under t h i s program Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s received over 372 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s during the period 1952-1958. The benefits that applied to Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s under the per capita grants program were neither consistent nor uniform. As indicated i n Table VI, variations i n the size of the student population within each i n s t i t u t i o n , the wide discrepancy between the provinces i n terms of the i r comparative populations, and the number of i n s t i t u t i o n s involved, contributed to a varying range of subsidization across the country. While a l l Canadian u n i v e r s i t i e s benefitted from the program, not a l l benefitted equally. Further i t also c l e a r l y indicated the impact (upon Quebec i n s t i t u t i o n s and students), of the p o l i t i c a l decision on the part of the Quebec government not to pa r t i c i p a t e i n the program. Clearly one of the weaknesses of the Canadian approach to the question of assistance for higher education was the d i f f i c u l t y i n providing a uniform scale of i n s t i t u t i o n a l benefits. The Canadian experience also under-1. Canada, P u b l i c Accounts, 1952, Vol. II, p. F-19. The story behind the establishment of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r figure i s i n t e r e s t i n g . The National Council of Canadian U n i v e r s i t i e s had proposed a figure of $7,842,000 i n a b r i e f to the Govern-ment. At f i f t y cents per capita the sum made available for disbursement by the federal government t o t a l l e d $7,100,000. (See: Stager, p. 131). TABLE,YI CAJlflM FEDERALMEBNMENLSRM.S-JiUMIV£BiLTi£i ( 1 9 5 2 - 5 8 ) GRANT PER TOTAL ELIGIBLE GRANTS STUDENT PROVINCE YEAR i INSTIT. ENROLMENT ($000) ($) K F L D . 1952 1 374 180 483 MAN. 1952 7 3,932 388 98 i953 1 417 187 459 1953 7 • 3,953 399 101 1954 1 401 191 477 1954- 7 4,051 404 99 1955 1 505 199 304 1955 7 4,171 414 99 1956 1 576 • 206 357 1956 7 4,180 • . 424 101 . 1957 1 740 415 500 1957 8 4,430 850 191 1958 1 1,011 426 421 1958 8 4,796 860 179 P . E . I . 1952 2 207 49 184 SASK. 1952 14 2,301 415 • 130 1953 2 251 51 205 1953 14 2,314 421 182 1954 2 253 53 209 1954 14 .2,424 430 177 1955 •' 2 245 52 214 1955 14 2,684 439 163 1956 2 200 • 54 207 1956 14 2,925 444 152 1957 2 310 99 320 1957 14 3,327 880 264 1953 2 350 99 282 1958 14 3,827 879 229 N . S . 1952 13 3,475 321 92 ALTA. 1952 4 2,844 469 . 165 1953 13 3,430 326 95 1953 5 2,937 485 165 1954 13 3,696 331 89 1954 4 3,171 501 158 1955 12 3,948 335 85 1955 4 3,297 . 519 157 1956 12 4,224 341 80 1956 4 3,558 533 149 1957 12 4,470 694 155 1957 4 3,873 1,123 295 1958 13 4,740 702 148 1958 5 4,322 1.160 208 N . B . 1952 . 6 1,803 257 136 B . C . 1952 4 5,664 532 102 1953 6 1,815 263 144 1953 4 5,457 599 109 1954 6 2,014 268 133 1954 ' 5 5,616 615 '109 1955 • 6 2,231 273 122 1955 5 6,005 633 105 1956 6 2,483 279 112 1956 5 6,563 652 99 1957 6 2.775 551 199 1957 5 7,930 1,398 176 1958 6 3,087 565 183 1958 5 9,311 1,487 159 QUE. 1952 5 19,273 2,027 105 TOTALS 1 1952 83 58,226 6,992 120 1957 6 23,898 4,628 193 1953 . 79 38,157 5,115 134 1958 7 26,806 4,758 177 1954 79 38,565 5,243 136 1955 78 40,982 5,390 131 . ONT. 1952 27 18,203 2,298 126 1956 78 43,570 5,526 126 1953 27 17,593 2,383 135 1957 87 72,476 16,049 221 1954 27 16,939 2,448. 144 1958 91 80,596 16,558 205 1955 27 17,896 2,523 140 1956 27 18,801 2,591 137 1957 29 20,723 5,405 260 1958 30 22,346 5,622 251 1. I N S T I T U T I O N S IN QUEBEC A C C E P T E D P A Y M E N T ONLY IN. 1 9 5 1 - 5 2 , SOURCE: STAGER P . 153. R E F U S I N G FhdM 1 9 5 2 - 5 3 T O 1 9 5 5 - 5 6 . FOR 1 9 5 6 - 5 7 A N D S U B S E Q U E N T Y E A R S , P A Y M E N T S R E F U S E D WERE H E L D I N T R U S T BY T H E N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E O F C A N A D I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S U N T I L T H E I N S T I T U T I O N S SAW F I T TO A C C E P T T H E M . I N 1 9 5 7 - 5 8 , O N E I N S T I T U T I O N A C C E P T E D T H E G R