Abstract
This study critically reviewed steps taken by Maryland to enhance and desegregate its public black colleges with limited knowledge of the adequacy of its enhancement effort or the comparative effectiveness of "desegregation" activities. Through structured interviews, this study obtained from 39 black college administrators their (1) perception of the adequacy of enhancement resource estimates and (2) assessments of the effectiveness of component "desegregation" activities. Additionally, it sought to determine if these measures differed significantly on the basis of whether the administrators functioned as executive level administrative staff (ELAS) or mid-level administrative staff (MLAS).The administrators perceived the fiscal estimates determined by the state as needed to enhance the black college to comparability with traditionally white colleges as less than adequate. Providing financial grants to other-race students (ORGP) was considered as the most effective "desegregation" activity, with recruitment next most effective, and other-race personnel for services to other-race students least effective. Significant ELAS/MLAS differences were (1) MLAS appeared to assess recruitment as more effective and "desegregation" expenditures as more adequate than ELAS and (2) ELAS appeared to assess ORGP (other-race grants) as more effective than MLAS.Maryland has undertaken substantive actions to enhance its public black colleges, but more needs to be done. While ORGP was considered the most effective "desegregation" activity the study suggested that expenditures for "desegregation" have been less than adequate to achieve undergraduate racial enrollment proportions that would suggest that these are no longer segregated institutions. The author did not seek to draw rigid conclusions on significant differences in responses of the ELAS and MLAS on certain interview items because of the research methodology employed.The study offers recommendations to various state agencies, the Maryland General Assembly, and the federal government for policy analyses, programmatic and administrative actions, and further research which, it is believed, will be helpful to the state's efforts to eliminate vestiges of a dual higher education system.