State-schools Coordination Said 'needed'

A verbal fencing match was conducted last evening in the auditorium of Slauson Junior High School between members of Michigan's Board of Education and spokesmen for the University and two community colleges in this area. The outcome remains uncertain because the state board members contended there wasj no serious contest, but merely disagfeement in the interpretation of certain goals listed in the board's provisional "Statel Plan for Higher Education in Michigan." Last night's meeting was thel last in a series of eight publicl hearings the state board hasl held in various cities to gatherl opinions on its provisional higher education plan. Speakers at the hearing generally supported the view thafl more coordination is "overdue'j and "desperately needed ' among Michigan's colleges and universities. However, several speakers! criticized certain goals listed in the provisional plan, contending the goals can be interpreted as meaning the State Board of Education is trying to remove some of the constitutional autonomy of the universities, and also trying to take away local control of community colleges. The strongest criticism of the provisional plan was voiced by Arthur M. Ross, U-M vice president for planning and state relations; Eric Bradner, dent of the board of trustees of ', Schoolcraft Community College : in Livonia; Mrs. Elizabeth Kummer of the local chapter of the American Association of sity Women, and President David C. Ponitz of Washtenaw Community College. Their criticism was directed chiefly at goals numbered 11, 21 and 28 in the provisional 66page plan. Those goals state, in part: ". . . the State Board of Education will, in cooperation with the colleges and universities, initiate studies designed to culminate in recommendations concerning admission and retention practices that will make it possible for a greater variety of students to be admitted, consistent with the needs of society. ". . . the State Board of Education will study and recommend a state policy concerning institutional size, and the distribution of students among the institutions. "It is . . . the policy of the board that all areas of the state be included in independent community college districts." Ross, in addition, criticized the provisional plan's goal 22, which states: "It will continue to be the policy of the State Board that the existing branches should be provided thei r autonomy in an expedious manner." Ross noted the U-M recently initiated studies aimed at making its Plint and Dearborn branches as responsive as possible to community needs, but not with the goal of ending their U-M connections. Bradner said more state control over location and curriculum of community colleges might warrant consideration if' the state provided complete financial support for those colleges. State support totaled 17.8 per cent of Schoolcraft's budget! last year, he added. Ponitz said the state board appears inclined to count vocational community college students in the same manner it wishes to count freshmen and sophomores in four-year universities. He contended vocational students are more equivalent to gradúate students in terms of costs. Dr. Harold T. Smith, chief author of the state provisional plan, replied to the criticisms, stating: "I have no doubt thatl admission standards and tuition levéis are solely in the province of the governing boards of the institutions. They have got to handle these things responsibly or the public isn't going to like it very well. These wordings (of the plan's goals) came out of c i t i z e n s ' committees. They aren't happy to see tuitions going up, up, up." Ira Poíley, state superintend; ent of public instruction, and state board member Peter Oppewall of Grand Rapids, said the provisional plan's goals cali for studies and recommendations, not for a state take-over of the college boards' legal powers. State Board President Edwin L. Novak of Flint said the board hopes its provisional plan can be implemented "early in 1969," subject to continuing review and possible revisión.