Studiestøtte for de ubemidlede, dygtige og evnerige. Forvaltningen af ungdommens uddannelsesfond 1952-1970

Resumé

Student support of the necessitous, able and talented. The Administration of the Youth Education Fund 1952 – 1970
The article aims to examine the formation and administration of the Youth Education Fund (Ungdommens uddannelsesfond) in the period from 1952 to 1970. In the study, a number of qualitative and quantitative sources encompassing historical statistics, minutes from the board of the Youth Education Fund and parliamentary discussions are used, some of them for the first time in research. The fund was established in 1952, at the instigation of the Youth Commission and funded with new revenues that accrued as a result of the newly lifted ban on sports betting. The fund provided publicly financed and means-tested grants and loans to students enrolled in tertiary education. The main objective of the fund was to promote social mobility in the education system by mitigating the need for students to earn a regular income in the labour market. In terms of organization, the fund was centred around a board consisting of seven members, five officials from the central administration and two student representatives. The board was responsible for allocating the support funds in lump sums to educational institutions that were eligible for student aid. The support funds were administered by local stipend committees. The study shows that the Youth Education Fund was characterized by a large degree of organizational stability throughout the period. However, it also suffered from a lack of coordination between its different administrative components, especially between the board and the various stipend committees. Previous research concludes that the political impact of the Youth Commission in general was negligible. However, the evidence from the present study suggests that this assertion does not extend to the Youth Education Fund, as many of the recommendations of the Youth Commission in this policy field were transferred into actual political initiatives. One source of weakness in this study is the lack of information on the administrative praxis in the stipend committees. In spite of this limitation, the study adds to our knowledge of the political and administrative roots of the current Danish Students Grants and Loans Scheme (SU).