A Study On American Federal Higher Education Policies For The Disadvantaged Groups After World War Ⅱ

With the expansion of higher education scale, issues related to educational equity are becoming more and more important in our country. How to help the disadvantaged groups to receive higher education catches the attention of the government and citizens, for the unequal realities call for government's regulations. This research is carried out under such background.The paper begins with "introduction". The introduction is composed by reasons of selecting the topic, present condition of research, the defining of core terminologies, the aims and scopes of this study.Along with the development of history, this paper divides the American federal higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups after World War II into four phrases: Nationalism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, and the third way. They composed four sections of this paper. In every section, we first explore the policies' contents, process, results and the analysis of policy values. Then, we do the comprehensive research on the policies' value choice of this whole phrase on a micro-level.Section One "Higher Educational Policies for the Disadvantaged Groups Based on Nationalism" In 1950s, America faced the translations of the Second World War, including the civil life and economy development. A large amount of veterans from the battleground asked for jobs, at the same time, the Cold War contest with pre-Russian gave America huge pressure. They called it nation defense crisis. Under such background, the federal government issued GI Bill and National Defense Act, which made it regulation that government pay the money to help the veterans and poor excellent youth to attend college. Its aims laid on protecting the society stable, and promoting the higher education institutions' function of training manpower for national benefits, not the individual educational equal rights protection. In this way, the value choices of 1950' federal higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups came from nation benefits, not the pursuit of education equity.Section Two "Higher Educational Policies for the Disadvantaged Groups Based on Neoliberalism" In 1960s, American economic prosperity continued, which brought them into the "wealthy times". But in this great prosperous scenery, huge gaps between the poor and the rich, in additional to the fierce racial conflicts composed inharmonious elements in American society. With the promoting of African's Civil War Movement, the federal government made a series of policies to help the disadvantaged people receive higher education, including Higher Education Act and Affirmative Action program. The aim of these policies is to relieve racial and classical conflicts, to promote the harmonious development of the whole country, in the means of providing the disadvantaged groups equal education chances. In brief, during this period, federal government's higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups were based on neoliberalism. Its value choices embodied the just pursuit of education equity.Section Three "Higher Educational Policies for the Disadvantaged Groups Based on Neoconservatism" In 1980s, President Reagan opened the neoconservative period in American politics. Under the pressure of huge federal financial deficit, Reagan government took a new federalism policy, which includes reducing society well-beings. The higher educational aid financial investment was attacked. At this moment, Democratic Party and higher educational groups fought bravely. In the end, though the president's large amount reducing in higher education investment didn't come true completely, the higher education aid policy took a back step still. At the same time, Reagan opposed affirmative action, which takes the aim of helping the minority, the disable persons and women to get the equal society chances. In higher education, affirmative action program gave the disadvantaged groups preferential treatment in college admitting, aid granting and curriculum designing. It did help these people greatly. But Reagan's conservative politics tried to cut it down. President Bush basically took the same way with his fore partner in higher education policies. All in all, the 1980s' federal government's higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups were based on neoconservatism. It chose the efficiency instead of equity. American higher education aid policy fell into a all-time low, the disadvantaged people 's equal higher education chance was threatened.Section Four "Higher Education Policies for the Disadvantaged Groups Based on the Third Way" In 1990s, President Clinton took a new political route between newliberalism and neoconservatism. In higher education, on one hand, he increased the state investment and designed several methods to enlarge higher education chance, on the other hand, Clinton emphasized responsibilities and efficiency. In all, his higher education policy tried to keep a balance point between equity and efficiency, between middle bourgeoisie and the poor class. But, the policy consequences shows, the higher education policy for the disadvantaged people of this period took a way of variation. The whites, middle bourgeoisie benefits the best from the policy, the equal educational rights of those poor class and minority people who need the help the most didn't get just protection.Section Five "Introspection and Revelation" This section includes two contents: First, after the introspection of the study on federal higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups after World War II, this paper concludes: (1) Federal higher education policies for the disadvantaged groups after World War II reveals a "pendulum" phenomenon, politics and economy are the critical reasons of policy changing. (2) The contradictions entrenched in American culture is the origin of hindering the development of federal higher education policy for the disadvantaged groups. (3) In America, policy formulation is controlled by several political powers, this model helps to make the policy reasonable, stable and coherent. But, at the same time, it has several shortcomings, which hinders the progress of society democracy. Secondly, being aimed at the unequal conditions and the disadvantaged group problems in our higher education, this paper puts forward several policy recommendations.