COLLEGE COORDINATION m ALBERTA ; fay-gm ; f ;
BEVELQPMENTAND APPRARSAL -

Thasisfonhe. as $th * *

moi-cm 3mg UNWERSWY , , '

JAMES MATTHEW SMALL ~ g 1 ,
1:972 ,

 

 

(Hr-'3‘?

 

ABSTRACT

COLLEGE COORDINATION IN ALBERTA: SYSTEM

DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL
3‘!
James Matthew Small

The purposes of this study were to describe the develOpment of
Alberta's public college system with emphasis on mechanisms of coor-
dination; to identify and illuminate important decisions from the past
which had system-wide implications; and to evaluate coordinative
arrangements, especially those currently in force.

The principal method of investigation was a systematic examina-
tion of records and reports such as minutes of government agencies,
minutes of University of Alberta committees, Provincial legislation,
official government reports, special studies and dissertations.

Primary data sources were also utilized in the form of inter-
views with knowledgeable persons, and questionnaire responses of public
college leaders.

The data were organized into two parts, the first describing
college system develOpments in Alberta, and the second dealing with an
assessment of coordination mechanisms.

The analysis of the data suggested the existence of three
distinct phases of college coordination: phase I, from 1930 to 1957,

characterized by private junior colleges Operating in affiliation with

James Matthew Small
the University of Alberta; phase II, from 1957 to 1967, characterized by
an expanding public junior college system; and phase III, beginning in
1907, characterized by formal and specific provincial coordination
agencies.

Assessnent procedures were largely subjective in the case of the
fir5t two phases, judgments being made on the basis of impressions
gathered when viewed in the light of the literature on coordination.
Current arrangements for coordination under the Colleges Commission were
evaluated more rigorously, by means of a questionnaire and criteria
derived from the literature.

Until 1967 the junior college scene was dominated by the
University of Alberta which, through its Committee on Junior Colleges,
administered affiliation arrangements with public and private junior
colleges. The primary orientation of these colleges was towards
university-parallel studies which were controlled by the University.

In this way the University successfully discharged its responsibility
for the maintenance of academic standards, but it did not presume to
exercise leadership in the development of a coherent junior college
system.

The need for a better articulated post-secondary education
system was recognized by the Government of Alberta in the mid-Sixties
at which time the issue of what would constitute the best structural
forms for doing so was keenly debated. One reason for disagreement was
the existence of a variety of institutional forms offering post-
secondary education programs.

In the absence of consensus the Government established the

James Matthew Small
Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education to provide immediate
coordination of the public colleges only, and to discuss further the
structure of the total post-secondary system. The Board was successful
in developing and coordinating a comprehensive public college system,
but was unable to convince the provincial government of the desirability
of a unified system which would also include the rural agricultural and
vocational colleges and the urban technological institutes.

The Colleges Commission, which evolved from the Provincial
Board, proved its ability to coordinate the public colleges with
general acceptance but, like the Board, has been frustrated in its
attempts to rationalize the total system and deveIOp functional and
harmonious affiliation arrangements with the universities.

The conclusions reached confirm the theoretical premise that
coordination is ineffective in decision areas in which statutory
authority is deficient, but deny the claim that state level coordination
inevitably results in institutional standardization and loss of local
sensitivity.

The major recommendations are that changes should be made to
empower a provincial body to coordinate the total non-university
post-secondary system .at least,that the degree of control with respect
to public colleges should not be increased, and that the Alberta Colleges
Commission, by its past performance, has demonstrated its potential to
fill such an expanded role.

Finally, with respect to articulation between the colleges and
universities, in the absence of an overall coordinating agency or of
voluntary agreements between existing agencies, the intervention of the

provincial government in imposing a solution would be warranted.

COLLEGE COORDINATION IN ALBERTA: SYSTEM

DEVELOPMENT AND APPRAISAL
By

James Matthew Small

A THESIS

Submitted to
Nfichigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education

1972

ACKN WLEDSMENTS

A debt of appreciation is owed to faculty in two universities
for their sUpport in the conduct of this study. To my advisor, Dr.

J. H. Nelson and committee members Drs. F. G. Parker and M. R. Raines
at Michigan State University, I express my sincere thanks for their
counsel at the beginning and final phases of this study, and for their
continuing consideration and cosperation in simplifying the logistics
of a study conducted in absentia. Special thanks are accorded to

Dr. Walter Johnson for his participation and advice in the final
examination while substituting for an absent committee member.

I am also indebted to my colleagues at the University of
Alberta, especially Dr. G. L. Mowat and members of the College Adminis-
tration Project for their support during the data gathering and writing
stages, and to Mr. J. R. Ramer, graduate student, who showed insight and
personal initiative while assisting in data investigation.

I wish to express my appreciation of the c00peration and direct
assistance of the Alberta Colleges Commission through its professional
officers and staff, and to acknowledge the contribution of many other
persons involved in higher education in Alberta who gave of their time
to present their views.

Finally, I acknowledge the support and encouragement of Marjory,
Greg and Stephen, who share in large measure the credit for the
completion of this undertaking.

J. M. S.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION . - a - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PURPOSES OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DELIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DEFINITION OF TERMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DATA-GATHERING PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. RELATED LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THE RATIONALE FOR STATE LEVEL COORDINATION . . . . . .

The Nature and Purpose of Coordination . . . . . . .

The Case for Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coordinative Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Governing or Coordinating Boards? . . . . . . . . . .

Two Dimensions of Coordination . . . . . . . . . . .
Opposition to Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STAGES, TRENDS AND CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS IN COORDINATION
Current Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Stages and Trends 0 O O I O O O O O O O O I O O O O O

Page

MM

(.0

13
15
15
15
19
29
32
32
37
41
45

46

52

Chapter

THEORETICAL MODELS OF COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . .

Litwak and Hylton's Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organization Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Exchange Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. COORDINATION IN ALBERTA--PHASE I . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Early Affiliation Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . .

University Response to the Lethbridge Junior College
Movement 0 O O C O C O O O C I O O O C O C O O O O O

50 COORDINATION IN ALBERTA--pHASE II o o o o o o o o o o o o 0
THE ENLARGEMENT OF JUNIOR COLLEGE OPPORTUNITIES . . . . .

DISPERSION OF POWER WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM . . . .

POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND JUNIOR COLLEGES .

The Committee on Junior Colleges Versus Mount
Royal C011 ege . O O I O O I I I I O O O O O O O O O 0

THE INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER INTEREST GROUPS . . . . . . . .
Royal Commission on Education in Alberta . . . . . .
Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta . . . .
Public EXpenditure and Revenue Study Committee . . . .
Special Study on Junior Colleges . . . . . . . . . . .
The Aftermath of the Stewart Report . . . . . . . . . .
6. COORDINATION IN ALBERTA--PHASE III . . . . . . . . . . . .
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION . . . .
Affiliation Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Changes in Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page
55
55
57
59
61
63
72

73

86
87
91

99

100
108
108
110
112
114
118
125
125
128

132

Chapter Page
THE ALBERTA COLLEGES COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

Powers and Duties of the Alberta Colleges Commission. . . 144

Exercise of Authority by the Commission . . . . . . . . . 146
Operational Style of the Colleges Commission . . . . . . 149
Coordination Agreements with Other Provincial Institutions 155
Relationships with the Universities . . . . . . . . . . . 163
CONCLUSIONS ON COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

7. AN ASSESSMENT OF COORDINATION IN ALBERTA . . . . . . . . . . 175
Assessment of the Colleges Commission . . . . . . . . . . 177
Perceptions of College Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

The Deve10pment of the Alberta Public College System . . 193

Key Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Evaluation of Coordinative Mechanisms in Alberta . . . . 203
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

APPENDIX A: Documents Relating to the Establishment of a
Provincial Coordinating Agency . . . . . . . . . . . 214

APPENDIX B: Documents Relating to Affiliation Agreements . . . . . 240

APPENDIX C: Questionnaire to College Presidents and Board
Chairmen C O O C O C C C C C C C O C C C O C 0 C O O 250

LIST OF TABLES

Primary Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Activities of the Committee on
Junior Colleges 1931-1958 . . . . . . . . . .

Areas of Assumption of Direct Authority by the
Colleges Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Areas of Assumption of Authority to Recommend by
the Colleges Commission . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of the Operational Style of the Alberta
Colleges Commission September 1969-March 1970

Page

0 O O O O O O 147

o o o o o o o 149

I O O O I O O 153

Issues Discussed at the Cabinet-College Conference . . . . . 156

Some Significant Events in the Development of a
Provincial System of College Coordination . .

O O O O I O O 172

Average Scores on Centralization-Decentralization
Continuum by Coordinative Phase and Control Area . . . . . 191

vi

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The study which is reported here was first conceived in Chicago
in Nbrch 1971 as a result of conversations with Dr. H. Kolesar,
Chairman of the Alberta Colleges Commission. Following a period of
eXploration of the topic with Dr. G. L. Mowat, Chairman of the
Department of Educational Administration and Coordinator of the
Kellogg-sponsored College Administration Project, University of Alberta,
a pr0posa1 was submitted and approved by the Thesis Advisory Committee
at Michigan State University. Data were gathered in Alberta dUring the
fall and winter of 1971, with the c00peration of the Alberta Colleges

Commission staff, and the University of Alberta.

Purposes of the Study

The purposes which directed the study were as follows:

1. To describe the development of the Alberta Public College
system from the period of initialization of the Lethbridge Junior
College (c.1950) Up to the summer of 1971, in terms of significant
events, legislative enactments and other government actions, emergence
of colleges and programs, and means of coordination and control.

2. To eXplicate further important decisions having systemmwide
implications by identifying:

a. issues and alternatives
b. arguments posited to support the various alternatives

1

2
c. the means of resolution of issues
d. the level of satisfaction with the decision on the
part of those involved in or affected by it, and
e. the impact and outcomes of the decision as revealed by
subsequent events.
3. To evaluate mechanisms for coordination as perceived by
college leaders.
4. To provide thereby a broader knowledge base from which to
evaluate present and emerging trends and alternative directions in

the coordination of higher education in Alberta.

1. The study focuses on events which occurred during the last
twenty years in Alberta. Other historical facts are included for the
clearer understanding of this Period.

2. The study focuses on the coordination of public, compre-
hensive, two-year colleges, frequently referred to as junior or
community colleges. Reference is made to other institutions of higher
education such as specialized two—year institutions and universities
only in so far as it contributes to a clearer understanding of the
comprehensive two-year college (known in Alberta as the public

college).

Limitations
The study is limited by the data gathering techniques which
drew mainly from secondary sources, such as reports, records and

minutes. Wherever possible added insight was derived by interviews

3
with peOple directly or indirectly involved in the matter in question.
In this way many significant personages (see Table 1) made primary
inputs which are acknowledged throughout the report. In some instances
primary data which might have been significant were not available due
to the inaccessibility of the person in question. It is therefore
hOped that other researchers of this tOpic will sUpplement these

limitations by drawing on different sources.

.Definition of Terms

No new terms have been created for this study and common
interpretations have been used throughout. When special provincial
bodies or other agencies are first introduced the full title is used,
but in dealing with such bodies abbreviations have been used when no
confusion was seen to result. In this way, for example, The Provincial
Board of Post-Secondary Education is referred to variously as the
Board, or the Provincial Board, and the University of Alberta Committee
on Junior Colleges is likewise referred to as the Committee. Generally
the terms "post-secondary education" and "higher education" are used
synonymously to include both university and non-university institutions,
but in context "post-secondary education" may be used to refer only to
non-university matters, such as when used in the expression "Provin-
cial Board of Post-Secondary Education." Where there is doubt of the
meaning of terms from the context the term is clarified, for example,
"post-secondary (non-university) educational system."

The same technique has been used with respect to Alberta public

colleges. These are referred to frequently simply as "colleges"

4

Table 1

Primary Data Sources

 

 

‘-
-

 

Time and Position at point of
Interviewee place Format interest
H. Kolesar Edmonton Informal (1)Executive ass't Prov.
Aug.-Sept/7l Board of Post-Secondary
Education
(2)Chairman, Prov. Board
(3)Chairman, Alberta Colleges
Commission
Medicine Hat
B. Perrin Oct. 12/71 Informal Registrar, Medicine Hat
College '
O. D. Alston Lethbridge Formal Director of Liberal Studies
Oct. 12/71 Lethbridge Junior College
W. 0. Burns Edmonton Informal Sec'y, University of Alberta
October/71 Committee on Junior Colleges
M. Fenske Edmonton Informal (1)Executive ass't Prov.
Oct.—Dec./7l Board of Post-Secondary Edu-
cation (2) Director of Adminis-
trative services, Alberta
Colleges Commission
R. Fast Edmonton Informal Executive Ass't Prov. Board
Oct.-Dec./71 of Post-Secondary Education
Director of Instructional
Services, Alberta Colleges
Commission
J. C. Jonason Edmonton Telephone Executive Sec'y, Fact Finding
Oct.26/7l (30 mins) Committee
D. Campbell Edmonton Telephone Co-chairman, Conference on
Nov. 2/71‘ (20 mins) Post-Secondary and Continuing
Education
G. L. Mowat Edmonton ’ Formal Chairman, Provincial Board of
Nov. 17,19/71 Post-Secondary Education
W. D. Neal Edmonton Formal Chairman, Coordinating Council
Nov. 24/71 Committee on Junior Colleges

5

Table 1 (Continued)

 

 

 

Time and Position at point of
Interviewee place Format interest
H. T. Coutts Edmonton, Formal Dean and member of the
Dec.l6/7l University of Alberta Commit-
tee on Junior Colleges
3. C. T. Clarke Edmonton Formal Executive Sec'y, Alberta
Dec.l5/71 Teachers' Association
T. C. Byrne Edmonton Formal Deputy Nfinister of Education
Dec.2l/71
G. Yackulic Red Deer Formal City Editor, Lethbridge
DeC.21/7l Herald
M. Parsons Red Deer Formal Chairman, Board of Red Deer
Dec.2l/7l College
R. McKinnon Edmonton Formal Minister of Education
Dec.22/7l
Rev. R. A. Edmonton Telephone President, Concordia College
Frantz Dec.30/71 (10 mins)
J. Haar Edmonton President, Grant MacEwan
Feb 2/72 College

 

6
except where it was necessary to distinguish between public colleges

and other colleges such as agricultural and vocational colleges.

Data-Gathering Procedures

_ The method used may be best described as progressive multi-
lateral inquiry starting with the minutes of the Provincial Board of
Post-Secondary Education. This led in sequence to the minutes of
standing committees of the Board, minutes of the Colleges Commission,
agenda packages and other files of the Colleges Commission, the
minutes of the University of Alberta Committee on Junior Colleges,
reports of the Coordinating Council Junior College Committee, and to
certain files and reports of the Department of Education. These,
together with more widely available documents such as dissertations
and published reports of governmental agencies and commissions,
comprised the secondary data sources.

In turn the documents referred to above identified significant
personages for possible interview, in addition to those named as
leaders of the movement or informed persons, by Dr. Kolesar, Chairman
of the Colleges Commission.

In addition to the analysis of documents and interview
techniques, a questionnaire instrument was administered to public
college leaders, being the President and the Chairman of the Board
of Trustees, in most cases. The develOpment of this questionnaire
followed the acquisition of information reported in the first part of
the study and is described, with a full statement of its purposes, in

Chapter 7.

pgtg Anglysis

Since there were no hypotheses to direct the investigation the
organization of the data was determined by its intrinsic qualities.
It was considered inapprOpriate to develOp hypotheses or models of
coordination and later combat the temptation to distort the data to
fit. The approach used was to collect the data first, sift and sort
it and organize it into a coherent body of knowledge. In this way
certain trends and phases in the evolution of an integrated college
system were perceived, and their actual existence hypothesized.

A description of the Alberta College system and its various
evolutionary phases was then prepared and offered for the scrutiny
of Dr. W. H. Swift, a noted educational historian and writer, formerly
Deputy Minister of Education and Chairman of the Alberta Universities
Commission, now retired. In this way errors of interpretation, bias
or omission were reduced or eliminated, for the early periods (phases
I and II) of this history.

By a similar process Drs. H. Kolesar and M. Fenske of the
Alberta Colleges Commission vetted the description, with particular
attention to phase 111. Following each commentary, the questions
raised prompted further inquiry which led to several revisions of the
draft. Nevertheless the author accepts final responsiblity for any
errors of interpretation which remain, while acknowledging the value

of first-person validation.

Signifiggnce of the Study

Since the creation of the Lethbridge Junior College in 1957
there has been considerable expansion of Opportunities, and of legis-
1ative activity in the field of junior college education in Alberta.
Enrollments rose to 3,600 F.T.E. students by the 1969-70 academic year
and an estimate of 15,000 plus is forecast for 1974—75 (A.C.C., 1971c:
26). The number of public colleges has increased to six with offerings
in approximately sixty-five different programs which can be classified
in the following areas: agriculture, arts, business and administra-
tion, communication, health and social welfare, home eConomics,
industrial and technical and university transfer.

A comprehensive curricular program such as is clearly in
effect increases the need for system level coordination, and planning.
In addition there is the addedccomplexity introduced by the existence
of three agricultural colleges and two technological institutes which
provide one to four years of specialized education. While not truly a
part of the public college system, legislative provision exists for
their future inclusion and they must, of necessity, feature in any plans
for system rationalization.

The Colleges Act (Gov. of Alberta, 1969) specifies that public
colleges be placed under the direct administrative control of boards of
Governors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.1 The
Colleges Commission SUpplies a leadership function which may be
exercised in a varity of ways (A.C.C., 197lc:17~18):

(a) initiation of and provision for new programs;

(b) promotion and SUpport of a variety of research projects;

 

In Canada, by terms of the B.N.A. Act, public education is a
matter for provincial jurisdiction.

9

(c) provision of specialized central office staff to assist
colleges in areas where need arises;

(d) providing strong representation to government and public
alike to point out objectives of the system and to help achieve
its objectives.

The commission also has regulatory powers relative to the
following specific aspects:

(a) to determine how funds provided by the legislature are
to be distributed among the members;

(b) to advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the
establishment of new members of the college system;

(c) to regulate or prohibit instructional programs offered
in the colleges;

(d) to review for approval all capital projects of colleges;
and

(e) to review for approval other aspects of college Operation
deemed apprOpriate for central consideration.

Apparently the commission has considerable power to shape the
develOpment of college education in Alberta, although it may not
necessarily choose to use it. Limitations on the exercise of powers
may arise from natural checks and balances such as the willingness of
local boards to acquiesce, lack of consensus within the commission
which is representative of a wide range of public Opinion, or pressures
on the commission's permanent staff.

Hannah (1967) stated that many significant develOpments in our

social, political, and educational systems have come not as a result

10
of rational planning, but as healthy spontaneous reaction of
intelligent and responsible peOple to the stimuli of recognized
social, political and educational needs. Progress in education may
therefore come largely through compromise decisions shaped by social
and political forces.

In similar vein McConnell (1962:vi) states that the subtle
nature of human motivation and the social forces that play on
individuals and institutions has prevented the emergence of neat and
rational patterns of higher education. He goes on to state (l962:3)
that pressure to devise master plans may emanate from legislative or
executive government agencies concerned primarily with the expansion
of existing institutions at minimum cost, and with little alteration
of their character and functions.

Glenny (1959:61) also stresses the importance of appreciating
and understanding the situational context in which a coordinated
system develOps. Politics and history of develOpment bear Upon the
powers and organization of the central agency. "The result of this
great diversity in factors influencing higher education and its
government. . .is the present lack of any standardized pattern of
coordination."

NbConnell (1962:101) summarizes the relatedness between
coordinative systems and the contextual situation by concluding that
"each state must work out a program that is consistent with its own
traditions, and its own cultural, economic, geographic, and demographic
conditions."

Finally Henry (McConnell, 1962:160) adds perspective by

11
cautioning that "coordination is a result, not a process. It cannot be
imposed. It does not arrive suddenly. It does not come through edict
or mandate. Effective state plans grow out of the experience of
institutions in working together."

The purpose of thesegcitations is to illustrate that legally
enacted power is not the sole determinant of coordinated activities,
but that coordination and planning are evolving functions which can
only be understood and managed by taking into account the antecedent
and current situational variables of a social, political and ideo-
syncratic nature.

The significance of the study here prOposed is twofold. First
by describing the shaping of decisions which have deeply affected the
configuration of the public college system Up to this point, a keener
understanding of the modus Operandi for the future may result, and
secondly a historical study has intrinsic value as a contribution to
the chronicles of education.

Kerlinger (1964:698) describes historical research as the
"critical investigation of events, develOpments, and eXperiences of
the past, the careful weighing of evidence of the validity of sources
of information on the past, and the interpretation of the weighed
evidence." In explaining its importance he extracts the following
excerpt from a report of a committee of historians (1964:700):

Historiography has a necessary relevance to all the social

sciences, to the humanities, and to the formulation of public
and private policies, because (1) all the data used in the
social sciences, in the humanities, and in the formulation of
public and private policies are drawn from records of,

eXperience in, or writing about the past; because (2) all
policies respecting human affairs, public or private, and all

12
generalizations of a nonstatistical character in the social
sciences and in the humanities involve interpretations of or
assumptions about the past; and because (3) all workers in the
social sciences and in the humanities are personalities of given
times, places, and eXperience whose thinking is consequently in
some measure conditioned and determined by the historical
circumstances of their lives and eXperiences.

Kerlinger (1964:698) considers historical research especially
important in education, and states that besides the intrinsic interest
of history "it is necessary to know and understand educational
accomplishments and develOpments of the past in order to gain a
perspective of present and possibly future directions."

Nowhere is this need for insight more critical than in the
field of post-secondary education, and it seems particularly so in
Alberta in view of the succession of events and counter-events of the
last two decades, which have characterized the develOpment of the
college system.

These events are the subject of this study, and although the
focus is on the past the implications rest with the future in terms
of the long-range plans and policies which will emerge under the
influence of this and other studies.

In June 1969 the Alberta government created a Commission on
Educational Planning under the direction of Dr. w. H. Worth to launch
a broad-scale inquiry into current social and economic trends and
their educational consequences for Albertans over the next two decades.

In a policy statement issued in January 1970 the Minister of
Education stated that one of the greatest challenges of the future,

which the Worth Commission must deliberate, is the continuous reform

of our post-secondary education system (University of Alberta, 1970a:l).

13

One challenge will be comprehensive planning of the three-part
system. In its brief to the Worth Commission the General Faculties
Council of the University of Alberta referred to this need (University
of Alberta, l970b:4) by recommending that thought be given "to the
kind of organization that would enable direct participation by and
COOperation between institutions within a local region in dealing with
such common problems as enrolment projections and the use of scarce
resources."

Whatever changes occur and new forms emerge it is inevitable
that there will be wide differences of Opinions and conflicts of
interests, but it is essential that the best conceived plans be
implemented for the benefit of the province and the future welfare of
the students of all ages who participate in post-secondary education.
The practical significance of this study is that the information
which is gathered and organized may help to facilitate the imple-
mentation of future plans by eXplaining at least some of the important

decisions which have occurred in the recent past.

Orggnizgtion of the Report

Chapter 2 is a summary of the literature on coordination of
higher education, including a brief statement of the current situation
and trends in the United States and Canada. Chapter 3 consists of
an outline of the develOpment of various kinds of non-university
institutions of post-secondary education in Alberta.

Chapters 4, 5, and 6 describe the three phases of college

coordination which emerge from the data, and the last of these

14
chapters ends with some conclusions on college coordination in Alberta.
Chapter 7 deals with the questionnaire responses of current
public college leaders, which reveal their perceptions of the
Colleges Commission.

Final conclusions and observations are presented in Chapter 8.

Chapter 2
RELATED LITERATURE
THE RATIONALE FOR STATE LEVEL COORDINATION

The Nature anddPurpose of Coordination

Higher education in the United States and Canada has tradi-
tionally been characterized by the existence of semi-autonomous and
independent institutions, each with its own appointed board of
governors, and each offering programs of studies to a selective body
of students in keeping with its inherent, ingrown and often unstated
philosOphy. While this laissez-faire arrangement may have sufficed
in the 19th and early 20th centuries, societal and philosOphical
changes following the second world war brought new demands from the
public and their elected representatives for greater control over the
activities of higher education.

Glenny (1959:12) presents the fundamental reasons be perceived
for the changing attitude towards colleges and universities as falling
into two categories:

1. The increasing complexity of higher education itself in
terms of the eXpansion of enrolments, diversification of programs,
and multiplication_pf institutions.

2. The increasing size of, and structural and procedural
changes within state government, such as the consolidation of state
agencies into a small number of departments, clearer lines of authority

15

16
between the governor and the agencies, staff offices and regulations to
provide control mechanisms, elimination of administrative boards and
commissions, and the placing of audit systems under the legislative
branch.

Erickson (l968:22-) lists six forces which he identifies with
the national trend towards state coordination.

1. Acceptance of the view that educational needs cannot be
met entirely by planning at the institutional level, or by voluntary
.consortiwms.

2. The rapid growth of the community college.

3. Increased state financing of higher education.

4. Expansion of federal grants which require state level
administration.

5. Growing awareness of the relationship between educational
planning and public policy.

6. The eXperience of states like New York, Florida, Alabama,
Illinois, Texas, and Minnesota where master plans for higher education
have been develOped.

In discussing the shift of control from locality to state,
Wattenbarger (1968:10) suggests the following additional forces:

1. POpulation mobility - the movement of families from one
home to another.

2. Trends toward centralization and consolidation in industry
and government.

3. The recognition of the value of planning and coordination.

4. The re-emphasis of state responsibility for education.

l7

5. The recognition of the need for education at all levels
of employment.

Palola (1968:19) on the other hand eXplains the changing
centers of power in higher education in terms of the new relationship
between the campus and its communities. "Today, colleges and univer-
sities are being pulled into society and its problems to an extent
unprecedented at any time in the history of American higher education."
In four states studied the main issues of concern were money, student/
faculty conduct, returns on investments, and the role of the legisla-
ture in planning, budgeting and general control over higher education.

Glenny (1959:17) gives several immediate reasons for coor-
dination. Foremost among them is the demand for economy and efficiency
from legislatures faced with burgeoning educational costs. Two
related reasons are (l) the rivalry between colleges for resources,
and (2) the eXpanding tendency of institutions both of which have
involved intensive lobbying by individual colleges. Finally (and
most tentatively) there is an increased acknowledgement by colleges of
some of the benefits of coordination.

The need for coordination in some form is now no longer a
controversial matter in the United States (Pliner, 1966:7). It has
been justified by the persistence of the factors recognized by Glenny
in 1959, and especially by the phenomenal growth of community-junior
colleges during the sixties and seventies, and by the outlook for the
next decade. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1970:59)
predicts an increase in enrolment in two-year colleges from approx-
imately two million students today to three to four million by 1980 in

the United States, an increase in the range of 65 to 137 per cent.

18
When enrolment in all post-secondary education is considered student
numbers jumped from under two million in the late 1940's to over
six million by 1966, and are projected to reach twelve million by
1980 (Berdahl, 1971:28).

In Canada the eXpansion of higher education Opportunity while
less dramatic is no less real. Campbell (l971a:75) predicts on the
basis of his observations of current develOpments in the provinces
that, as in the United States, the number of colleges will sharply
increase until a college exists within commuting distance of almost
every citizen.

While in some states the coordination of two-year colleges is
separated from that of senior colleges and universities there is no
doubt that the community college phenomenon has played an important
part in the acceptance of coordinative mechanisms for all higher
education, not only with a view to controlling costs, but also to
providing the necessary articulation between institutions which can
no longer be thought of as independent entities.

Coordinative mechanisms are found in a wide variety of forms,
which have arisen more by eXpediency than by design and consequently
a system found effective in one state will not necessarily suit the
needs of another. Generally, however, the concerns and broad
purposes are the same. Glenny (1959:87) assumes that the purpose of
coordination is to regulate and combine in harmonious action the
various components of the higher education system. Millett (1967:13)
defines coordination as the procedure for adjusting conflicts

between governmental agencies having related interests and for

l9
eliminating or reducing overlapping and dUplication of administrative
activities. Stuckman (1969:37) speaks of "effective" and "efficient"
coordination where "effective" refers to meeting the institution's
needs and "efficient" refers to meeting the states' educational
needs. In each case there is an acknowledgement of various inherently
conflicting but legitimate interests which by rational and considerate

action can be mutually satisfied.

The Cage for Coordination

Many writers have discussed the "pros" and "cons" of coor-
dination, and generally agree on the purposes served and on the
problems which may be encountered.

Glenny in 1959 reported in his national survey of state
coordination four essential functions which can best be carried out
by central agencies (Glenny, 1959:59):

1. Planning and policy-making.

2. Allocation of functions and programs to state institutions.

3. Determination of financial needs and budget requests.

4. Facilities planning and SUpport.

Elgnnino gnd allocation. There are two levels of planning

which must be considered. Planning may be conceived of as giving
meaning to action. The work done by an administrative agency will
achieve its goals only if careful plans have been prepared which show
what it is to be accomplished. Short-range ad hoc or contingency
planning attempts to deal with situations as they arise or might

arise. Long-range planning on the other hand is a deliberate attempt

20
to direct a total system towards the achievement of goals which are
generally subscribed to. The state master plan for higher education
is the consummation of coordination, and is its ultimate objective.
However, the master plan itself is subject to continuous revision as
conditions change, thus the work of the central agency, however
advanced, is never finished.

The develOpment of an adequate master plan requires a broad
frame of reference, and access to relevant and reliable data.

Most states lack an adequate data base (Texas, New Mexico,
California and Oregon excepted) the chief weakness being that
institutions predict for themselves with biases (Glenny, 1959:74).

Conant (1964:50) states that often complicated questions of
eXpansion and control are answered with little thought to long—range
plans which should take into account state and national interest:
"One of the most conspicuous characteristics of the educational
interests at the university and college levels in many states is the
lack of consensus among the interests. Genuine political battles have
become the normal pattern."

Bender (1968:59) refers to the role of the state agency as
maintaining a "delicate balance of creative tensions." Man has two
conflicting forces which are at different ends of the scale: the
instinct for self-preservation which, when carried to extremes, can
be viewed as selfishness, and the forces of loyalty to the family unit
or community. The long-range plan must take account of these drives
by encouraging the participation of every institution affected, but

taking a firm stand on priorities and allocative decisions which are

21
equitable and for the common good. Such action is only possible by
a state level agency endowed with the necessary authority and equipped
with eXpertise and vision.

The responsibility of the coordinating agency for master-
planning is now generally acknowledged though this has not come about
with ease. Hurlburt (1969:3) from his review of the literature of
community college develOpment in states that have achieved a state
master plan comments on the struggles of strong and visionary leaders
or grOUps to bring about a state system of community colleges so that
every citizen might have the Opportunity to receive the education for
which he has the capacity.

Hurlburt (1969:3—7) develOps a rationale for state master
planning around fourteen major purposes:

1. The state master plan is a way for the state to eXpress
its concern for the educational welfare of its adolescent and adult
citizens.

2. The state master plan describes an organized system of
higher education, not just a grOUp of institutions.

3. A state master plan provides a way of meeting both
universal needs and diverse needs.

4. A state plan is an effective way to describe a minimum
foundation program.

5. A state plan assists communities to assess their own
capabilities and readiness to develOp a college.

6. A mastac plan provides a means of removing community

college establishment and develOpment from purely political

22

considerations and local pressures.

7. The state master plan is an effective vehicle for
systematic planning and for establishing priorities.

8. A state plan serves to insure coordination of higher
education effort.

9. An adequate master plan provides a basis for further
planning.

10. The develOpment of a state plan Opens areas of needed
research.

11. The develOpment of a master plan encourages and facili-
tates systematizing routine state services.

12. COOperative state planning including both public and
private institutions improves both state and local planning.

13. The develOpment of a master plan reveals inadequacies
in legal provisions for community colleges, hence it is a basis for
preparing new laws.

14. A master plan is an effective public relations instrument.

It is obvious from the above list that planning and coordina-
tion are integrally tied. In fact as spelled out in the Oklahoma
plan (Hurlburt, l969:6): "Coordination is the planning for and
systematic allocation of responsiblity and resources among institutions
to promote maximum efficiency and effectiveness in the achievement of
higher education goals."

Whether a master plan exists or not decisions must be made on
the allocation of functions and programs to state institutions.

Obviously this task is considerably simplified if decisions can be

23
seen to follow rationally from some overall plan. Glenny (1966:32)
states this clearly as follows:
Within the prescribed policy perimeters of a master plan
the agency may prOperly recognize its short-run functions
of budgeting and program approval without the capricious
characteristic of expedient ad hoc planning. The more
clearly defined the long—range objectives, the more rationally
and easily made are decisions on immediate eXpansion plans
of individual institutions or systems of institutions. Such
planning also works to the advantage of the college adminis-
trators and state officials in that both have a basis beyond
aSpiration and wishful thinking for making decisions.
Nevertheless there is still sc0pe for the exercise of judgment
and discretion in the assignment of priorities within some grand
design. Thus the factor of political influence can never be totally
discounted. A state coordinating agency, however, is essential in
order to provide an alternative to the legislative lobbies, where
educators may be assured of a fair hearing and may participate in the
decision-making processes.
The following flow chart depicts the relationship between the

appointed state agency, its staff, and college presidents in formulating

policy.

reports ——4(executive Officer ——4agency staff)——4 policy paper

Via college
agency-e» presidents

 

College presidents may be represented on study committees,
as well as being able to react to prOposed policy before it is
submitted for official approval. Frequently informal gatherings of
state and local officials sUpplement the formal, scheduled, meetings.

In all systems public airing of conflicts and dissension among the

24
institutions is discouraged (Glenny, 1959:70).

According to McConnell (1962:3) the pressure to devise master
plans ordinarily stems from the legislature and is "little more than
an effort to plot the eXpansion of existing institutions at minimum
cost and with little alteration of their character and functions."
Only a state-sanctioned agency is likely to have the status to with-
stand such pressure in implementing decisions which involve changed
roles for existing institutions and the creation of new ones.

Glenny (1959:89) prOposes three allocative goals of the
coordinating agency. These are (1) economy, (2) diversification,
(3) control of unnecessary proliferation. Generally the central
agency has eXperienced more success in its attempts to allocate
new functions than to reallocate existing ones, since any prOposed
reduction or change is interpreted as a slight to the community
(Glenny, 1959:101). But according to Millett (1967:14) the state
agency cannot be eXpected to settle or adjust every case of conflict:
"The most it can do is select critical issues which seem to demand
attention primarily in terms of public and political interest or
impact." He goes on to say (1967:19) that state government needs a
state agency to help articulate the public interest in higher educa-
tion:

If this public interest is not described, eXplained, and
demonstrated in practical ways, then we cannot eXpect state
government to continue indefinitely to augment the resources
it is willing to devote to the support of higher education.

The key concern of the public interest is the availability

of needed educational services, conveniently located, and at

25
reasonable cost. This raises the issues of diversification and
dispersion. McConnell is a strong advocate of diversification in
higher education (1962:17):

Mass education is here to stay. American higher education
will become more rather than less inclusive. This means that
the educational system will have to serve an enormously diverse
pOpulation, a student body certainly no less heterogeneous
than the one we have now.

He criticizes American higher institutions for the lack of conscious
design in preparing students for a wide variety of technical, semi-
professional and professional OCCUpations, and calls for a more
efficient eXpenditure of funds, a more rationally differentiated
system and better placement of students (1962:52). The most general
kinds of education, serving the greatest number of students, should
be widely dispersed, and the most Specialized programs concentrated
in a limited number of places. For example junior college education
should be widely available, and legal and medical education should
be restricted to a single university in most states (1962:75). The
difficulty of implementing such a design rests within the individual
institutions (Glenny, 1959:101):

In all states, but particularly the large ones, compe-
titiveness, narrow pride, and failure to look beyond local
boundaries often characterize the alumni of each institution
and the peOple of the community in which it is located. Pride
grows in proportion to the increase in enrollment, the number
of buildings, and the scOpe of the programs offered.

For example there has been noted a tendency for teachers' colleges
to aspire to become four-year state colleges, and likewise junior
colleges to seek senior college status.

The problem of institutional self-seeking is further compli-

cated, according to Riesman (1956:94), by vested interests within the

26
college. Established disciplines and departments act as political
blocs to the develOpment of new studies and innovative programs which
could be more relevant to the needs and desires of a community.

It is conflicts of this nature, according to Glenny (1959:203)
which have led to the role of the coordinating agency as middleman
between the legislators and college officers. "One is impressed with
the ability of coordinating agencies to give the legislature the
impression that they are 'tough on institutions' while assuring the
institutions and local boards that they promote their interests within

the state."

Budgeting for Operational and capital sUpport. According to
Glenny (1959:111) the central agency fulfils a key function in the
rationalization of budgets in terms of program needs. "The nearly
universal failure to determine costs of new programs reveals the lack
of understanding of the fact that functions and programs are basic
to budgets." He states that the quality and type of program desired
should be the first consideration, and then the costs of the program
should be discussed and judged in terms of its merits. However
(Glenny, 1959:112):
While a central agency should present to the legislature
what it conceives to be the needs for higher education in
the state, the agency must also calculate the funds likely
to be needed for support. An illustration of the failure
to consider the second factor is the situation in Iowa,
where the agency, in allowing its two universities to
inaugurate new services, new institutes, and new specialized
graduate majors, apparently ignores the record of the
legislature for providing insufficient sopport in the past.

Thus budgets ought to be realistic and feasible while expressing

the most critical needs. Glenny sees the agency's four goals in

27
budgeting as follows (1959:115):

l. to provide budgets equitable and reasonably satisfactory
to all institutions according to relative needs;

2. to provide to legislators and state executive officers
uniform and comparable fiscal information, including apprOpriate
statements on over—all fiscal needs;

3. to eliminate competition among the institutions for
Operating funds especially to keep it out of the halls of the legis-
lature so that here, at least, a united front is presented; and

4. to effect economy and efficiency where possible.

With respect to capital outlay projects Glenny (1959:153)
states that the struggle among public colleges and universities for
building funds even exceeds their concern for Operating funds. He
sees the function of the agency being:

1. objective determination of capital needs for each college;

2. establishing a single priority list for the whole system
by determining the relative needs;

3. elimination of politics in the determination of priorities;
and

4. financing of new buildings from income other than
apprOpriations.

If these functions are carried out there will be less tendency
on the part of legislators and budget officers to reduce apprOpriations
and restrict expenditures.

Other budget—related functions raised by legislators as

legitimate for central agencies are (Glenny, 1959:200):

28

1. pooled contracts on the purchase of more eXpensive
equipment;

2. establishment of a standard personnel service for non-
' academic employees;

3. establishment of standards for space utilization and
plant develOpment;

4. eXpenditure controls including short-term allotment
system, prescription of financial forms and accounts, and a pre-
audit of all eXpenditures to ascertain their prOpriety as well as

legality.

Research and information. Underlying the four functions of the
coordinating agency suggested by Glenny in 1959 and discussed above is
the need for an adequate data base. The difficulty of obtaining
accurate and unbiased information directly from the institutions has
already been referred to, and so it falls naturally upon the central
agency to act as collector and storer of information relative to
higher education, not only in order to provide checks and balances on
institutions but to serve better the needs of planning committees at
both the state and local level. The Michigan Legislative Study
Committee on Higher Education in 1958 prOposed, among other functions
of a coordinating agency, the collection, analysis and reporting of
data relative to programs facilities, finances and Operation of
colleges and universities. Another example of the importance placed
on research and data gathering is offered by Wisconsin, where the

central agency has conducted a series of studies on manpower needs,

29
enrollment trends, demography and college programs (Glenny, 1959:67).
Texas is also cited for research activities, such as cost-effective-
ness studies and utilization of facilities. Other agencies rely
mainly on regional agencies such as Western Interstate Commission on
Higher Education (WICHE), or utilize outside professional consultants
for "need studies."

The use of computers in data management systems has emphasized
the need for uniform codes in reporting. WICHE is currently involved
in the production of standard data elements which may be adOpted by
member states. Whether a state uses a regional system or develOps its
own, consistency in use of terms and in procedures is of fundamental
importance. It behooves the central agency to exert its power to
require the adOption of a uniform system of reporting by all colleges

and universities.

Coordinative Tasks

Some of the main functions which can be readily performed by
a state level coordinating agency have been discussed, but beyond these
there have been studies of specific agencies which have indicated the
nature of the coordinative tasks which are, or can be, performed by
the central agency. With some reiteration of functions and activities
which have already been mentioned the following items may be con-
sidered.

In investigating required staffs for coordinating agencies
Wattenbarger et a1. (1970:2) prOposed five roles which state staffs
must play:

1. Leadership and help to individual colleges;

30

2. Administrative discharge of required legal and financial
responsibilities;

3. Enforcement of laws and regulations;

4. Coordination and consultation relating to system-wide
Operation; and

5. Providing services such as computer services, purchasing
and recruitment which are more efficient if centralized.

The specific nature of these activities is further revealed
through an analysis of the tasks which are eXpected of the Director
of the State Coordinating Agency. A 1968 Survey by the American
Association of Junior Colleges (Wattenbarger et a1. 1969:13) found
that there was general agreement among twenty-three states engaging a
director of two-year colleges, that his responsibilities required him
to:

1. Assist in the establishment of two-year colleges (22).
2. Gather and present data concerning two-year colleges (23).

:3. Represent two-year colleges before state committees (22).

4. Assist in determining state plans for higher education (23).
5. Establish guidelines and programming elements for

evaluating Operations and plans of two-year colleges (23).

6. Review construction plans (21).

7. Approve construction plans (16).

8. Review curriculum plans (23).

9. Approve curriculum plans (19).
10. Review and evaluate the credentials of applicants for

two-year college presidencies (l5).

31
11. Review budgets of two-year colleges (20).
'12. Approve budgets of two-year colleges (17).

Of the various functions and activities of the state coor-
dinating agency and its staff Wattenbarger et a1. (l970:3) suggest
seven major grOUpings.

1. Services and relationships. A small State staff is
recommended to deter bureaucratic controls. Therefore special task
forces involving college staff are required.

2. Elgnning. Involves the collection of statistics, pro-
cedures for approving new districts, and the implementation of the
state master plan.

3. Eolicy. Should involve faculty, students, administrators
and local board members in making proposals and recommendations.

4. Allocation of responsibilities. The state board should
establish procedures for arriving at final decisions.

5. Cspital outlay. Sopport and consolidation of long-range
and individual college plans.

6. Fsculty. Standards and approaches to recruitment, pre-
service and in-service education.

7. Other ggencies. The board is the major contact point
with other related agencies.

The actual scape of activities depends largely on the competence
of local personnel, for example in approving building plans. In
areas where college officials display a high level of professional
responsibility the state agency may play a minor role. It is essential,

however, that the office of state director is endowed with sufficient

32

authority to take regulatory action when this is deemed necessary.
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

To this point the discussion of the literature on the tOpic of
state coordination of higher education has considered the logic of
coordination and its related activities. No mention has been made of
the relative merits of various organizational forms nor of the poten-
tial dangers of centralized control in academic affairs. These are

issues which are discussed in this section.

Governing or Coordinating Boards?

Discounting voluntary agreements for the moment, two clear
alternatives in types of central agencies exist. First there is the
governing board as in Massachusetts which is responsible for both
coordination of the various state community colleges and for insti-
tutional Operation. The alternative is a two—tier or sUperboard type
in which a state coordinating board is soperimposed on institutional
boards, the former being responsible for leadership and coordination as
Specified in statutory provisions, and the latter being charged with
the day by day governance of the local institution. There has been a
marked trend in favor of the coOrdinating agency as Opposed to the
governing agency throughout the states and most arguments against
state control are more cogent when applied to the latter type.
Nevertheless a case can be made for even the most extreme form of
control of state colleges if the situation warrants it.

Morrissey (1966:16-19) lists ten advantages of state control

33
by the governing agency in Massachusetts which was created in 1958:

l. The boundaries of the state may be conceived as a single
planning unit, and criteria for new colleges can be set at a level
that will insure Optimum develOpment of each institution. Therefore
unnecessary proliferation can be avoided, and comprehensiveness
assured.

2. It helps effect the independence of two-year colleges
from local school systems.

3. It helps effect coordination with other institutions of
higher education, for example transfer programs.

4. A state system can liberate community colleges from too
frequent conflict between local governing boards and college presidents.
Regional advisory boards can help to provide a diversity of programs
with no administrative interference.

5. It facilitates planning for growth; for example the develOp-
ment of state-wide construction systems.

6. Equality of Opportunity is assured by establishing
minimum standards in all schools and programs. Also uniform financial
sopport contributes to equality.

7. The maintenance of high faculty and administration standards
is facilitated by a uniform staffing policy.

8. It encourages innovation through communication between
colleges and the professional staff of the board.

9. It can avoid costly duplications of programs.

10. It reduces political controversy since legislators will

not seriously consider bills and apprOpriations unless recommended by

34
the board.

The above, of course, has no research validation but is
apparently a sincere statement of faith in a system which was considered
apprOpriate to the conditions at the time. It is of interest, however,
that Wattenbarger (1970:10) notes that twenty-four state agencies
describe their function as primarily coordination and leadership, even
though several have been statutorily established as staffs of Operating
boards: "It appears that even staffs with Operational responsibilities
are particularly sensitive to their coordinative role." It may be,
therefore, that state governing boards do not constitute such a severe
threat to institutional autonomy as some critics suggest, since the
availability of vested authority does not necessarily imply its use,
but delegation of responsibility to college officers and advisory
boards is still possible.

Glenny (1959:36) in his survey noted that this in fact was the
case although the underlying reason may be default rather than design:

The eXperience of the governing agency seems to be that the

tasks of systematizing and coordinating leave little time for
attending to the details of administering each college and univer-
sity. Consequently presidents and other institutional officers

in these systems fill Up the vacuum and decide matters which,

in other states, would fall within the province of an institu-
tional board.

Further SUpport for a governing system is the possibility, in
. the absence of other forms of state control, of more objectionable
interference by state agencies not specifically concerned with higher
education. Leonard (1956:264-69) for example, refers to the dangers of

controls imposed by state departments of finance, legislative auditors,

and personnel boards.

35

Glenny (1959:151) observed this kind of control as being
Operative to some degree in Iowa, New York, Oregon and the state
college system of California.

Although Leonard is arguing for the removal of government
controls his concerns could be met, at least in part, by a state
governing agency which is genuinely and exclusively interested in
promoting higher education.

Glenny (1959:61) concludes from his study that there is often
little relationship between the legal provisions binding the agency and
its actual undertakings. Changes in objectives, relationships and
methods over time are common. Thus generalized arguments for or
against governing agencies as Opposed to coordinating agencies may be
ill-founded. He does point out, however, that in states with
coordinating-only agencies the governing board of the institution may
resent any intrusion on its autonomy to determine functions and
programs (1959:102), and he further states that the omission of a major
power or a limitation on duties may seriously impair the coordinating
effort from the beginning (1959:183). Difficulties arise when attempts
are made to determine the sCOpe of power specifically delegated to the
coordinating agency eSpecially with respect to programs (Glenny,
1959:229).

Glenny (1959:244) summarizes the discussion of governing versus
coordinating agencies as he saw the situation in 1959:

1. Under the governing agencies the presidents have a little
more freedom than the presidents with local boards.

2. Some purposes of coordination are more effectively

36
achieved with a single board (e.g., program and function allocation
and capital construction activities). Both systems have been ineffec-
tive in statewide planning.

3. There is little evidence that one system provides better
institutional administration than the other; both have deficiencies.
The governing agencies do not usually have sufficient time to consider
all matters about which presidents would wish to have lay Opinion. If
the coordinating agency effectively performs its legally assigned
functions, it leaves little Opportunity for local boards to engage in
major policy decisions in these matters, so that issues left to local
boards are often matters of administration which could be handled by
the president and staff.

4. In state systems which are not complex and have fewer
than eight institutions, a single governing agency either with or
without advisory councils for each institution appears preferable to
two levels of boards.

5. If a multiboard system is used, improved communication,
COOperation, and coordination between the two levels of boards are
urgently needed. Local boards tend to undo coordinating policy.

Finally in discussing the third form of coordination, voluntary
coordination, Glenny (1965:87-89) states that without exception
coordinating councils arose only after the state legislature prOposed
an imposed governing or coordinating agency. Originally their main
concerns were budget preparation and the division of legislative
apprOpriations. They do not appear to meet the long-run eXpectations

of the state government or the public, and are especially prone to

37
preserving the status quo between institutions. Few writers now
consider the voluntary coordinating council as a viable alternative.

NbConnell (1965:138) who at one time sopported the idea of

voluntary coordination sums Up the situation with specific reference
to California as follows:

Time has proved that, however able and devoted the council
has been in discharging its responsibilities, its powers are
inadequate to coordinate a pattern of public higher education
as large and complex as that of California. . . .A coordinating
board must at least have the power possessed by the Board of
Higher Education in Illinois, and by the new Ohio Board of
Regents for public higher education, to approve all new educa-
tional programs--meaning any new unit of instruction, research,
or public service.

TWO Dimensions of Coordination

One of the least discussed but most pertinent issues in the
coordination of higher education is the relationship between various
segments of public education. Usdan (1968) has reported an investiga-
tion of the politics of elementary-secondary and higher education and
questions the wisdom of considering these levels as separate objects
of political action. The investigation, which was conducted by the
Education Commission of the States, found that education officials,
policy makers and informed citizens in twelve of the fifteen most
pOpulous states are concerned with such basic issues as resource
allocation, organization of post-high school education, and reSponsi-
bility for vbcational-technical education to the extent that Open
conflict seems imminent. These tensions are likely to increase in
the years ahead, and can be ignored only at considerable peril. New

overall coordinating mechanisms are required to bring the various

levels of educational endeavor into harmony.

38

The same kinds of concerns are eXpressed by B. Lamar Johnson
(l964:8) when he states that any plan for post—secondary education
must avoid needless dUplication between technical—vocational institutes
and the community colleges. If these two kinds of institutions are
controlled by separate agencies it is difficult to engage in state-
wide planning.

In investigating the relationship between the central agency
and state institutions Glenny (1959:203) noted that several states
said that the COOperation of the state university was the single most
important element in maintaining the balance between institutions and
the state. If this is not obtained the existence of the agency is
jeOpardized.

McConnell (1962:105) also states that it would be unfortunate
if the relationships between parallel systems of higher education
became too rigid.

A sensible scheme of differentiated functions among higher

institutions should not freeze their status, should not pre-
clude the possibility of movement from one system to another.
But it is essential for this to be a planned movement rather
than a haphazard one.

On the other hand many writers have pointed to the great
advances in community college develOpment when it received recognition
as an independent institution free from the influence of school
sUperintendents in the old K914 arrangement, at one end of the scale,
and equally free from university dominance which earlier characterized
the two-year extension branch arrangement, at the other end of the

scale.

Miller (1962:164) brings some perspective to this complex

39
issue when he states that there are two distinctly different kinds of
coordination:

1. Horizontal (geographic): concerned with the distribution
of basically similar educational Opportunities through an entire state.
2. Vertical (program): concerned with the pyramid of

educational programs from two-year diploma to Ph.D.

Unless a coordinating board is conscious of the differences
and is aware of its responsibilities for both, it is apt to over-
emphasize one to the detriment of the other.

The second type is the more complex of the two since it deals
with many questions which are non-quantifiable, thus involving less
objective judgment. Such questions as the variety of Opportunities a
state can afford to sopport, the consequences of not providing certain
programs, the ambitions and capabilities of the institutions, and the
availability of similar programs elsewhere must all be taken into
account.

Several alternative ways of dealing simultaneously with
horizontal and vertical coordination have been prOposed (Millett,
19653226):

1. A single governing board for all higher education insti-
tutions responsible both for Operating problems and planning.

2. A single coordinating board for all institutions with
representation from each post-secondary level, and semi-independent
local boards.

3. A separate board for planning only, with distinct coordina-

ting boards for the various post-secondary levels. The planning board

4O
relies on goodwill to build working relationships between planning and
Operating.

Millett concludes that there is no theoretically best model,
but practical and local factors most influence the solution.

Some indication of the kind of arrangements tried are given by
Wattenbarger (1970:10) in describing the formal lines of authority
affecting state directors of community colleges. In twelve states the
director reports to a junior-community college state board. In five
states he reports to the board or chancellor of higher education, and
in five states he reports to a chief state school officer.

Berdahl (1971:23) notes that in seven states (Arizona, Florida,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Oregon) the junior
colleges are coordinated separately. In all but North Cardlina which
has a coordinating board, the governing board structure is used.

However, Singer and Grande (1971:39) report from a study of
statutes governing the junior college that in thirteen states the
community college was sopervised by the state department of education;
while in twelve states control is by the board of regents or commissions
of higher education. 'An autonomous state board or commission is
responsible for junior-community colleges in fifteen states, and four
others use a combination of these three patterns.

There thus appears to be an even split between subordination
of junior-community colleges to a board of higher education, control
by the state department, and an independent junior-community college
system. There is no mention of planning-only boards although these

probably exist in some forms. t is quite clear that much more

41
research is needed before the issue of vertical coordination can be

settled.

Opposition to Coordination

Although as stated earlier the need for some form of coordina-
tion is now generally accepted it is useful to examine some of the
uneasiness which coordination has created among the ranks of profes-
sional educators, in order to be aware of the pitfalls in coordination
which are to be avoided.

The basic philosOphical argument in favor of state coordination
is ably stated by Cowley and quoted in Wilson (1965:18):

Why have institutions of higher education been established

and by whom? The answer seems clearly to be, first, that they
have been organized to disseminate and to advance socially
beneficial knowledge, skills and attitudes; and second, that
civil governments have created them for the good of the general
community. They have not been founded for the sole or even the
primary benefit of professors, students, trustees, or all of them
taken together but, instead, for the benefit of society at large.
Hence, in all countries civil government, the most inclusive agent
of society, retains the right to set them in motion and, further,
to require that their governing boards represent the public
interest.

The main fear of educators is that coordination will result
in overestandardization of programs and loss of local initiative. In
the case of the community college Wattenbarger (1968:9) states:

Study after study has emphasized the need to develOp local

control. . . .The early develOpment of the individual community—

junior colleges has invariably resulted from concerned action
on the part of a grOUp of local citizens.

Gleazer (1968:19) lists six disquieting elements in the
community college picture which must be faced. One of these is the

loss of local control which has accompanied the trend towards

42
increased state and federal financial sopport:

It seems clear that the community college of the filture
will be a different kind of institution if significant
decisions about the college are made without meaningful
involvement of the peOple served by the institution.

Palola (1968:22) reiterates Gleazer's concerns and adds that
the greater centralization of authority at the state level will
reduce the flexibility needed at the campus level to adapt and inno-
vate in response to new develOpments and social demands. In reporting
the views of junior college staff he concedes the need for standards
in determining minimum qualifications for faculty and administrators,
and for graduation. The majority of faculty however wished to see the
following prerogatives retained by each college (Palola: 1968):

Approving text books and teaching materials; approving

appointments of chief administrators in local colleges;
approving courses of study and curricula in local colleges,
and approving the academic calendar.

Most writers concede that state coordination will necessarily
involve some loss of local autonomy, and call for a compromise in which
particular institutions may still have room for initiative, eXperi-
mentation and striving for excellence while they play their apprOpriate
roles in the general plan (McConnell, 1962:82).

Brumbaugh (1961:175) suggests that this is possible if
coordinating boards or commissions limit their activities to policy
consideration on a state-wide basis. "But when such boards assume
responsibilities for institutional management they become another arm
of the state wielding a heavy hand."

To what extent have agencies, equipped with the necessary

authority to do so, wielded the heavy hand? Glenny (1959:224)

43
summarizes his findings on 'this question as follows:

The fears of those in higher education that coordinated
systems impose uniformity and restrain initiative in many
matters where uniformity is of secondary importance and initia-
tive is vital to healthy institutional life, do not appear, on
the basis of the evidence to be well founded. It is signifi-
cant that few illustrations of uniformity and standardization
could be found.

Several suggestions have been offered for improving the
relationship between local institutions and the central agency as it
undertakes the essential tasks of coordination. Glenny (1959:194)
lists four conditions resting within the agency calculated to create
goodwill and active COOperation:

l. Objectivity in collecting and analyzing data, in establish-
ing policies, and in applying policies to institutions.

2. Impartiality of the agency members.

3. Impartiality and competency of the executive officer and
other professional staff.

4. Sympathetic understanding of institutional philosOphies,
goals and aspirations.

In addition he prOposes some practices which should facilitate
good morale:

l. The use of presidents and officers as a permanent cabinet
to the chief executive officer of the agency.

2. The use of interinstitutional committees of professors
and administrators to aid in develOpment of all major policies.

3. The free exchange of views of presidents and with agency

members in closed or informal meetings.

4. Periodic meetings of the agency to hear each president

44
discuss his concerns.

5. Informal social gatherings.

6. Widespread distribution among institutional officers and
faculties of the official minutes and other reports of the policies
and actions of the agency.

Wattenbarger (1968:11) refers to three essential considera-
tions for the efficient functioning of state junior colleges which
were first prOposed by B. Lamar Johnson. To these he adds two further
suggestions:

1. The need to establish local committees and to outline
clearly their functions and contributions.

2. The necessity of identifying highly qualified state
leadership.

3. The need to develOp clear assignments of authority and
responsibility.

4. The need to develOp a number of clearly stated principles
which may be used to determine those decisions that should be made at
the institutional level and those that should be made at the state
level.

5. The need to analyze the factors which promote quality
education and assure that these factors are present in all institutions.

Other guidelines prOposed by Johnson (1965:23-24) are:

l. Thorough and scholarly state-wide studies as a basis for
planning the location of colleges.

2. Recognize that planning is a continuous process.

3. Make allocative decisions on the basis of educational needs,

45
not political expediency.

4. Establish a ststgs position of community college state
leadership.

5. Make sure the person who fills this role is a competent
and knowledgeable leader.

6. Draw Upon expert resources.

7. Assign to each junior college, major authority and respon-
sibility for decisions regarding its programs and develOpment.

8. Involve local citizens in planning, develOpment and
Operation.

There is quite clearly a common thread running through the
various statements of recommendations. First and foremost is the idea
that coordination is characterized more by educational leadership than
bureaucratic control, and secondly that the best decisions are reached
by tapping the reSources of experts wherever they may be found,
including local officers and spokesmen who are in the best position
to eXpress the point of view of and needs of a college's members be
they administrators, faculty or staff. And as a result of these
procedures not only are sound decisions more probable, but the added
benefit of good relationships develOping between central and local
grOUps through participation is realized.

STAGES, TRENDS AND CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS
IN COORDINATION
From time to time national surveys of state arrangements for

higher education have been taken. Two of the most ambitious have been

46
Glenny's in 1959 from whose report has been derived many commentaries
on the principles of coordination, and Berdahl's reported in 1971.
Since even the most Up to date publications use data at least one year
old no great importance should be attached to organizational arrange-
ments reported for a particular state. Of greater import are the
trends which are observed across the nation as a whole. The object
of this section therefore is to examine some trends which have been
observed in the United States and Canada, and only secondarily to

report on existing arrangements.

Current Arrangements

United States. Berdahl (1971:20-22) reports that as of 1969
all but two states (Delaware and Vermont) have some state agency
serving the purpose of coordination: Indiana and Nebraska make use of
voluntary agencies; twenty—seven states have coordinating boards and
nineteen have consolidated governing boards. Of the twenty-seven
coordinating boards Berdahl observes the following sub-types:

1. A board composed in the majority of institutional repre-
sentatives and having essentially advisory powers (two states).

2. A board composed entirely or in the majority of public
members (i.e., having no institutional affiliation) and having
essentially advisory powers (eleven states).

3. A board composed entirely or in the majority of public
members and having regulatory powers in certain areas without, however,
having governing responsibility for the institutions under its juris-
diction (14 states).

Although the major concern is clearly the coordination of

47
public colleges and universities, eight coordinating boards include
one or more institutional representatives from the private sector
(Berdahl, 1971:22).

Most coordinating and governing boards were created by regular
state statute, but Oklahoma and Georgia have given constitutional
status to their agencies (Berdahl, 1971:23).

In both cases, highly controversial political intervention

in higher education had occurred, and constitutional autonomy
for the agency, linked with the power of lump sum apprOpria-
tions, was considered to be at least a partial solution.
In contrast, the voluntary associations were created by agreements
among the institutions, with no force of law.

Berdahl (1971:20-21) presents in tabular form for each state
the category of agency, the title of the present (1969) agency and the
year in which that agency was created. This reveals the extent of

activity in organization or reorganization of state level agencies

during various periods of time:

Prior to 1940: 15 agencies created
19405: 2 agencies created
19505: 7 agencies created
19605: 24 agencies created

The increasing activity reflects the forces which occurred
following the second world war, but it was only in the sixties that the
movement gathered momentum. Undoubtedly the seventies will see a
continuation of the concern over the relationship between higher

education and the state.

48

Qanad . Campbell (1971:15) states that since 1960 four
Canadian provinces have enacted legislation establishing a community
college system: British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. But
"the agencies in each province are different in construction, terms of
reference, and manner of Operation."

In presenting the profiles of these four systems Campbell
(1971:22) makes the following points of comparison.

In the case of British Columbia state coordination is effected
through an "Academic Board" serving both universities and colleges.
It is composed of nine members, six appointed by the university, and
three by government. Local boards, called "College Councils" must
include school officials. Two agencies in British Columbia function
at a level between the college council and the minister of education.
The Division of University and College Affairs, which is a branch of
the Department of Education is regulatory in nature. The Academic
Board for Higher Education, on the other hand, is advisory only.

The function of the board is to (Campbell: 1971:27):

. . .provide information relating to academic standards,

and to advise apprOpriate authorities on orderly academic
develOpment of universities. . .and of colleges established
under the Public Schools Act by keeping in review the academic
standards of each. . . .

Coordination of community colleges in Alberta is the respon-
sibility of the "Alberta Colleges Commission." The Commission has
nine members, all appointed by the government, including the deputy
ministers of education and agriculture and the deputy provincial
treasurer. At the local level an Operating board of eight members

is appointed for each college.

49

One unusual feature of the Alberta system is the separation
in fact, but provision in principle, for integration,of the public
junior colleges, the institutes of technology and the agricultural
and vocational colleges. The separate control of the latter two under
the department of education and the department of agriculture
respectively has definite implications for the horizontal and vertical
coordination of colleges in Alberta.1

Parallel to the Colleges Commission is the Universities
Commission which was created by the Universities Act, 1966. The
function of the commission is to act on behalf of the Government of
Alberta in matters of interest to them, for example in allocating
resources and to act as an intermediary between the universities and
the government (Alberta Universities Commission, 1971:7-8).

There is at present no formal structure linking the Colleges
Commission and the Universities Commission. Thus Alberta has two
distinct systems of post-secondary education--the public college
system and the university system. There is speculation however
(Fenske, 1971:26) that a single system for all higher education is
on the horizon.

In Ontario the Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts
and Technology, which consists of fifteen members appointed by the

Minister of Education, provides an element of coordination for the

 

1In September 1971, the Conservative Party Government, by
Order-in-Council, ransferred the administration of the agricultural
and vocational colleges to the new Department of Advanced Education.

50
college system. The functions of the council are: to advise the
minister of education on all matters pertaining to the colleges; to
recommend to the minister the appointment of members of the local
boards of governors; to coordinate the work of local boards in such
areas as curriculum develOpment and fee schedules; and to set salary
scales for the various levels of personnel (Campbell, 1971:37-38).

According to Campbell (1971:38):

The apportionment of power and responsibility among the
minister, the Department of Education, the Council of Regents,
and the boards of governors has resulted in a system per-
mitting striking diversity.

As in Alberta, however, there is evidence of government
initiative in response to problems of coordination between different
post-secondary education levels. In his Throne Speech at the end of
March 1971 Premier Davis announced the intention of re-organizing
the Department of University Affairs to include responsibility
for community colleges, as well as universities (Association of
Universities and Colleges of Canada, l97l:7).

Quebec has perhaps the most clearly articulated higher educa-
tion system in that a clear flow from high school, through the CEGEP
(College d'Enseignement General et Professionel) to university has
been formulated. Provincial coordination and administration of CEGEP
is the responsibility of a directorate of college education under
the Ministry of Education. Local boards of directors for each college
consist of nineteen members representing college, parents, students
and community.

In summarizing these relationships in four Canadian provinces,

51
all make some kind of provision for the coordination of colleges and
universities, and there is increasing awareness of the need to bring
these two levels together under one coordinating body. The control
function of the provincial board appears to be more clearly stated
in Alberta, where the Colleges Commission has wide-ranging powers,
than in the others where authority to control resides within govern-
ment departments. Decentralization of institutional administration
is effected by a local board arrangement, British Columbia being the
only one in which there is statutory provision for participation of
public school officials on local boards of governors and permission
for local taxation.

The other six Canadian provinces all have two-year colleges
in some form or another but apparently have not developed college
systems to the same degree as the four provinces discussed above.

Manitoba designated three vocational centers at Winnipeg,
Brandon and The Pas as Community Colleges in 1969, although they do
not offer university-level studies. Programs are coordinated by a
Director General of Community Colleges under the Department of Youth
and Education (Campbell, l97lb:40-4l).

A provincial community college system is being planned in
Saskatchewan, and in the Atlantic Provinces special-purpose technolo—
gical colleges or institutes are Operated by government departments.
However Warren (1971:30-33) reports that in each Atlantic province
there have been recent develOpments which indicate the pending
reorganization of post-secondary education. New Brunswick has

established a Higher Education Commission, and Prince Edward Island a

52
Commission on Post-Secondary Education, both of which have advocated
increased Opportunities for higher education.

The Nova Scotia Department of Education in 1967 pointed to
the need for community college-type education, and the Newfoundland
Royal Cdmnission on Education and Youth advocated the establishment
of a system of regional colleges comparable to community colleges.
Apparently, then, a planned and systematized provision for post-
secondary education Opportunities will in the future be available

throughout Canada to all who so aspire.

Stages and Trends

While the objective of this review is to structure and
organize the literature on coordination in order that a clearer
understanding of the concept may emerge, the task is made difficult
by the nature of the concept itself and by existing conditions which
are extremely complex. McConnell (l962:vi) aptly describes the
situation:

Those familiar with American higher education, the subtle
nature of human motivation, and the social forces that play on
individuals and institutions will not be surprised with the
conclusion. . .that no neat pattern can be designed, despite
the need for greater rationality and purposeful differentiation.
This inability to systematize higher education thoroughly will
annoy the doctrinaire in planning and in public administration
who is preoccupied with formal structure, stable and tidy
organization, and detailed contrdh and it will baffle the
thoughtful educator who would like to make higher education more
orderly without organizing it rigidly, or who would like to see
students and institutions more effectively paired without
infringing unnecessarily on the free choice of either.

For this reason any major classifications and categorizations

of stages and trends must be interpreted grossly and tentatively since

53
many arrangements may be lwnped together on the basis of some common
feature while at the same time covering Up key distinctions which for
other purposes would assume importance.
With this reservation in mind some trends are now discussed.
Of 379 state-controlled colleges and universities in the United States
in 1956, 234 were under the authority of some legally established
agency responsible for either a grOUp of colleges (frequently teachers'
colleges) or for all public institutions within a state. State-wide
agencies of the latter type were Operating in twenty states (Glenny,
1959:11). State coordination is therefore not a new phenomenon.
Glenny (1959:14) recognized two stages in the develOpment of
coordination Up to that time. First the sUpervision of small satellite
colleges by a major state university as in Oklahoma and Georgia, and
second the establishment of a single board for all state-supported
institutions. Florida in 1905 was the first to establish such a
board, and by 1932 ten other states had taken this course.
Miller (1962:164) noted that this trend to replace institu»
tional governing boards with a single central governing board ended
in 1945 at which time twelve states had one:
The double responsibility of trying to handle the internal
problems of each separate institution and also coordinate
the system as a whole proved to be a heavier work load than
many of the boards could handle.
A third stage in the develOpment of coordination is the master
coordinating board which is SUperimposed on existing boards. Miller
(1962:164) observed that this device had been tried by eleven states

since 1940.

54

Paltridge (1965) noted several trends in coordination:

l. A marked decrease in states with no coordination
(voluntary or statutory) between 1955 and 1965.

2. An increase in voluntary coordination in 1960 followed
by their replacement with statutory forms.

3. Putting these two together for the period 1945-65 an
evolutionary movement is indicated from no coordination, to voluntary
coordination, to a form of public regulatory coordination (ten states); or

4. No coordination, to voluntary coordination, to advisory
board coordination (eight states).

Glenny (1965:101) summarized the major trends in coordination
Up to the year 1965 as follows:

1. The number of state-wide voluntary coordinating agencies
remained static, althOUgh their Operations broadened in SCOpe.

2. The single governing board was no longer widely adOpted.

3. Coordinating boards rapidly became the principal means.
Some have advisory powers only.

4. Representatives of non-public institutions were sometimes
given membership on coordinating boards with advisory powers.

5. The chief function of most agencies changed from budgeting
to planning, making use of a large volume of collected data.

6. Staffs of agencies became larger and better prepared.

Berdahl (1971:33) Offers the most recent comments on trends
in coordination, and as well as confirming earlier observations draws
attention to two additional ones:

1. Within the coordinating board category, the trend in

55
membership is definitely toward public member majorities (in the sense
that they represent the general public rather than a particular
college or university).

2. Within the coordinating board category, it has recently
become the trend to grant more regulatory powers, but thirteen boards
out of twenty-seven must still be classified as essentially advisory.

Berdahl also notes that while there has been little increase
in the number of states with consolidated governing boards, no state
adOpting this system has changed it.

Finally Berdahl (1971:35) prOphesies that all states will have
some form of coordinating mechanism, and that there is some interest
develOping (e.g., in California and Ohio) in a change to a "giant
consolidated system with sub-boards that will coordinate by region
rather than by type of insfitution." In other words greater emphasis
may be given to vertical coordination than has been the case in the

past.
THEORETICAL MODELS OF COORDINATION

Various models of organization have been enunciated which may
have some applicability to state coordination, although this has not

yet been definitely established.

Litwak and Hylton's Model
One promising model is that which Litwak and Hylton (1962)
develOped to explain the activities of volunteer social welfare

agencies. They state the problem of coordination as finding the

56
procedures which ensure the individual organizations their autonomy in
areas of conflict while at the same time permitting their united
effort in areas of agreement (1962:399).

One such mechanism is the coordinating agency--forma1
organizations whose major purpose is to order behavior between
two or more other formal organizations by communicating per-
tinent information. . .by providing standards of behavior. . .
by promoting areas of common interest. . .and so forth.

Litwak and Hylton's model of coordination is develOped from

the following general hypothesis (1962:400):

Coordinating agencies will develOp and continue in exis-
tence if formal organizations are partly interdependent;
agencies are aware of this interdependence and it can be
defined in standardized units of action.

Definition§(Litwak and Hylton, 1962:402): Interdependence:
Interdependence exists when two or more organizations must take each
other into account if they are to accomplish their goals. Inter-
dependency may be competitive where one agency can maximize its goals
only at the eXpense of the other, or facilitative where two or more
agencies can simultaneously maximize their goals.

Awareness: The organization, 25 a matter of policy, recognizes
that a state of interdependency exists.

Standardized actions: behavior which is reliably ascertained
and repetitive in character, by which the agency can bring some
consistency of action.

Litwak and Hylton (1962:417) then prOpose that a system of
organizations, such as a state college system, can be categorized by

reference to three dimensions: (1) awareness of interdependency;

(2) level of standardization of procedures; and (3) the size of the

57
system in terms of number of organizations.

Where there is great interdependence, high awareness, high
standardization and many sub-organizations the tendency towards
bureaucratic forms of coordination can be expected to develOp. Under
similar conditions but with little standardization more professional
autonomy can be anticipated. Where no interdependence exists there is
little concern for coordinating mechanians, and so on.

This model can be used to perceive both a total higher educa-
tion system and a community college system. The relationships between
universities and colleges may be seen more as facilitative than
competitive interdependence when reference is made to transfer
programs, but more competitive with regard to apprOpriations. In the
case of the relationship between community colleges the element of
competition is much more apparent with regard to allocations of programs
and facilities. Standardization of procedures will depend on a number
of factors such as the degree of similarity between institutions, the
level of state financial sUpport and the leadership record of the
central agency. Also the age of the college as a system and the
number of institutions will affect the organizational forms. Thus
the coordinative mechanisms suggested as being most apprOpriate for a

given state or province must take account of all these factors.

Organization Set
Evans' ideas of "Organization—Set" (Stuckman, 1969:24) are
consistent with Litwak and Hylton's model. The interrelationships

between the coordinating agency and the individual colleges can be

58
viewed as a network with the agency being the "focal organization."
With an increase in the size of the system the linkages between the
agency and the colleges become more distant thus causing an increase
in attempts by the agency to standardize procedures in order to sustain
its authority.

At the same time the colleges feel the need for greater
institutional autonomy as the sc0pe of their Operations eXpands,and so
they resist the tendency towards centralization. The balance which is
struck between centralization and decentralization of authority
largely determines whether the college system is characterized by the
bureaucratic or professional model.

Stuckman (1969:26) refers to this balance between the sub-
systems as a steady state, a stable and enduring balance between the
forces of change and forces resisting change. He states (1969:27)
that it is imperative that the forces of change predominate because
the social environment is changing constantly, necessitating apprOpriate
adjustments in the coordinating mechanisms. The responsibility for
seeking the most functional balance between autonomy and centralized
control rests with both the central agency and the colleges, and is
effected through the feedback process (Stuckman, 1969:27):

It is manifestly important that the statewide coordinating

agency seek out and respond accordingly to feedback received
from the junior colleges as regards the coordinating function.

. . .If the agency cuts itself off from institutional feedback,
the state junior college system will become dysfunctional and

will be in disequilibrium. In this state, the process of
coordination cannot take place.

59
Exchange Theory

The harmonious balance between central and local agencies has
been the subject of much attention among organizational theorists.
Barnard (1938:56) has stated that a system will survive to the extent
that the benefits of membership exceed the costs. The benefits to the
colleges within a coordinated system of higher education include a
measure of protection from direct political action, a fairly certain
level of financial sUpport, and protection from the more virulent
forms of inter-college competition. The cost is the loss of some
independence of action.

The key idea in the exchange theory, however, is that both
parties to the agreement stand to benefit from the arrangements. The
statewide coordinating agency has objectives of its own which can only
be served through the system of local colleges. In exchange for its
SUpportive actions the agency is entitled to expect the colleges to
accept in broad terms the state-wide goals.

Levine and White (1961) have analyzed the components of the
exchange situation, which has four main dimensions:

1. The parties to the exchange, i.e., the agency. and the
institutions.

2. The exchanged elements, e.g., allocations or information.

3. The agreement underlying the exchange which is formal,
i.e., established by the state legislature. And,

4. The direction of the exchange, i.e., the flow of elements
can be unilateral or reciprocal.

As Stuckman (1969:23) points out the exchange process implies

60
reciprocity, and the source of dissonance in college systems is
frequently that the participants have different perceptions of their
relative contributions and benefits--"neither participant feels he is
receiving commensurate value in return."

Again the best hOpe for maintaining a functionally healthy
relationship is through the feedback process (Stuckman, 1969:23):

It is imperative that the statewide coordinating agency

and the junior colleges communicate sufficiently to resolve

any differences in their eXpectations of relative contributions
to the exchange process in order that the minimum of discord

is present in the state junior college system.

The three models discussed briefly have certain common features
as well as important differences which set them apart in application.
All are based on the idea of systems in dynamic equilibrium, capable
of adaptive reactions to any new inputs and in this way help to eXplain
dysfunctions in real systems resulting from unwarranted rigidities.
They provide a total view of a system of integrating parts.

Litwak and Hylton's model seems particularly apprOpriate for
assessing the suitability of coordinative actions in the light of
prevailing conditions. Evans' concept of organization set helps to
reveal the conflict potential as the central agency and local insti-
tutions adjust to changes in the distribution of power between them,
and exchange theory allows an approach to be made to the question of

the level of satisfaction and acceptance of each party to the

arrangement.

61

CONCLUSIONS

The tOpic of state coordination of higher education has been
a very pOpular one among United States educational theorists and
practitioners in the past decade, but from the sample of the litera-
ture which has been reviewed here, much that has been written appears
repetitive in content and approach, and there is considerable internal
consistency.

In summary the necessity for some form of legislated coordina-
tive activity is generally accepted in spite of the fact that the
community college has flourished on the theme of local institutional
autonomy. Many writers have commented on the dangers inherent in
"coordinating" this local discretion out of existence. The solution
rests in a balance between centralized control of those aspects which
must be coordinated for the well-being of the state, and local
initiative in all matters which can reasonably be handled within a
regional or district perspective. The maintenance of the functional
balance hinges Upon adequate communication, both formal and informal,
mutual understanding and goodwill between central and local officers,
and Upon the realization that inevitably there will be shifts in the
authority relationships as the system adjusts to internal and external
pressures.

Generally the most lauded form of agency is the coordinating
agency as Opposed to governing or voluntary agencies. However alterna-
tive forms cannot be discounted since the features of a system must be

evaluated in the state or provincial context. No one system of state

62
coordination is entirely eXportable to some other state.

Finally the success of the entire system depends to a
considerable extent on the qualities of leadership which are found
in the office of the state director. Despite the framework within
which he Operates, leadership, persuasion and rational judgment, based
on objective analysis of state conditions and educational needs, must
characterize his official behavior.

There have been two purposes in reviewing the literature.
First to summarize the state of knowledge of coordination, and secondly
to provide a theoretical basis for the extension of knowledge with
Special attention to the current Alberta scene.

With reference to the second purpose a heavy reliance was
placed on this literature review in develOping a questionnaire which
was administered to Alberta public college presidents and chairmen of
local boards of governors. The questionnaire and responses are

presented in Chapter 7.

Chapter 3

COLLEGE DEVELOPMENT IN ALBERTA

College develOpment in Alberta has been influenced signifi-
cantly by a variety of factors, notably the church, university, and
provincial government. These institutional forces to some extent
have been tempered by the resourcefulness of individuals acting in
leadership roles to further their personal or parochial interests.

The impact of the church was most pronounced at the time of
the first appearance of junior colleges offering post-high school
education. Mount Royal College in Calgary was established in 1910
under the sponsorship of the Board of Colleges of the Methodist Church.
Instruction commenced in 1911, primarily at the high school level, but
with more advanced instruction in commercial education and music. In
1925 sponsorship was assumed by the United Church of Canada, and six
years later a two-year college division was established, affiliated
with the University of Alberta. In 1966 the sectarian orientation was
relinquished when the college became a public comprehensive junior
college.

The second off-campus denominational school to be affiliated
with the University of Alberta was Camrose Lutheran College which
obtained junior college status with affiliation in 1959. Organized
in 1910 this college was owned and Operated by the Alberta Norwegian
Lutheran Association until 1957 (Loken, 1965:46), when it was received
as an institution of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Unlike Mount

63

64
Royal College the sectarian orientation has been retained and the
college continues to Operate as a private denominational college.

Another private Lutheran college Operating in Alberta is
Concordia College in Edmonton. Established in 1921 and SUpported by
the Missouri Synod, its original purpose was the preparation of
Lutheran ministers and parochial teachers. In 1967 its function was
expanded to that of a general liberal arts college offering first-year
transfer programs in education and science in affiliation with the
University of Alberta. A special emphasis is placed on Christian
education, all students being required to take at least one course in
religion. About half of Concordia's students, at the present time,
are adherents of the Lutheran faith (Frantz: p.com.l).

.Other denominational colleges which operate in the province
are: Hillcrest Christian College in Medicine Hat; Canadian Union
College, Lacombe; and North American Baptist College in Edmonton.2

Two denominational colleges, located on the University of
Alberta campus, have offered programs of religious education in
affiliation with the University for many years. St. Stephen's
College, the theological school of the United Church of Canada was
affiliated in 1909, and St. Joseph's College, established under the
authority of the Roman Catholic Church, was affiliated in 1926
(University of Alberta, 1971).

Concurrent with the establishment of denominational colleges

 

1P. com. is used to denote "personal communication."u For
details, see Table 1, page 4.

2No claim is made that all colleges Operating in Alberta are
listed in this chapter.

65
the Government of Alberta instituted a number of agricultural and
vocational colleges as offshoots of experimental farms to serve the
rural pOpulation. Between 1913 and 1951 seven such schools were
established of which those at Olds, Vermilion and Fairview are still
in Operation (Collin, l971:5). The original purpose of these colleges
was "to teach practical and scientific farming, household economy,
domestic science, and such other subjects as the Board may prescribe."

Today their purpose has been expanded to include the
following (Collin, l971:8):

1. Train farmers, farm managers and leaders.

2. Prepare competent manpower for farm-related business.

3. Train technicians and technologists to assist professional
agrologists.

4. Train technicians in fashion and design merchandising.

5. Provide skills required for employment in modern offices.

6. Provide equal Opportunities for rural youth.

7. Provide service to the general public by offering programs
of continuing education on a daytime and/or evening basis.

Until 1971 the Agricultural and Vocational Colleges were
Operated by the Department of Agriculture under apprOpriate acts, but
are now controlled by the Department of Advanced Education. While
these colleges are not junior colleges in the sense of providing first-
or second-year transfer programs they fit the rubric of a "community"
college in their orientation to providing a program of non-university
educational services to the district.

Paralleling the rural colleges an urban trade college was

66
Opened in Calgary in 1916 and subsequently evolved into its present
polytechnical role under the name of the Southern Alberta Institute of
Technology (SAIT). In 1962, as a result of seed money made available
by the Federal Government under the Technical Vocational Training
Assistance Act the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology (NAIT) was
established in Edmonton. Both technological colleges were Operated by
the provincial Department of Education until 1971 when they, like the
agricultural and vocational colleges were subsumed under the new
Department of Advanced Education.

The fourth type of college in the Alberta picture is the public
junior college type, such as was first introduced in Lethbridge in 1957.
Since this is the prototype of the public (comprehensive) college, the
focus of this study, its evolution is emphasized in this chapter and
discussed further in the next.

The idea to establish a junior college in Lethbridge first came
to Gilbert Paterson, Q.C., Chairman of the Board of Lethbridge Public
School District, in the early 1940's (Yackulic: p.com.). Paterson for
some time had been interested in extending higher education Opportuni-
ties in the Lethbridge area, in spite of the fact that there was no
strong tradition of university participation in the south of the
province. On his travels in California he came in contact with the
community college idea and became very excited about the prospects of
such a college in Lethbridge. In 1949 assistant superintendent L. H.
Bussard was directed by the school board to investigate the feasi-
bility of the prOposal, and this was eventually established in 1951 by

a study conducted by S. V. Martorana.

67

Paterson also sought the COOperation of his friend, Senator
William Buchanan, publisher of the Lethbridge Herald for which organi-
zation Paterson acted as legal adviser. Both Buchanan and his
successor Harold G. Long produced an extensive output of editorials in
SUpport of the prOposed college for Lethbridge. Nb. Yackulic, as
city editor, and Mr. Long were referred to on occasion as "Ministers of
PrOpaganda."

The task of "selling the college" to the peOple extended over
a period of ten years. Resistance arose from the mistaken notion
that a junior college was a "deficiency" institution whose main
purpose was to rectify the mistakes of the public schools. But the
concept which was clear in the mind of Paterson was a college which
would offer the first two years of university education initially,
and over an extended period of time slowly grow into a shall presti-
gious, degree-granting four-year university. This aSpiration was
achieved indirectly in a manner which was not foreseen at the time,
by the creation of a university separate from the college. The
circumstances surrounding this event justify a separate study, as the
value of a college and a university Operating independently in a city
of 40,000 peOple has been seriously questioned (Yackulic: p.com.).

The chronicle of events leading Up to the establishment of the
Lethbridge Junior College in 1957 is a testimonial to the leadership
and dedication of several local individuals most notably Paterson and
Mrs. "Kate" Andrews, chairman of the Lethbridge School Division
Board. That foresight, shrewdness and political acumen were the

ingredients of success in this venture, is illustrated by such moves

68
as eliciting the SUpport of the press, staffing the Lethbridge
Collegiate Institute with teachers holding master's degrees in order
to have a pool of talented teachers readily available, commissioning
a junior college eXpert to do a feasibility study, and convincing the
University of Alberta Board of Governors and the Provincial Govermnent
of the need to establish such a college even before specific junior
college legislation had been discussed in the House.

The short-term result of this campaign was to establish a
college which was described seven years after its inception, by Dr.

W. H. Johns, President of the University of Alberta, as (Loken, 1965:44)
"the best example of the public junior college in Western Canada if
not in the whole country."

The major program thrust of the Lethbridge College was in first-
year university transfer courses which were immediately successful.

In addition, one-year technical, commercial and general courses were
offered but were less pOpular (Alberta Colleges Commission, 1971c:ll).
Subsequently second—year university transfer courses were offered,

but the transfer program was moved in 1967 from the college to the
newly established University of Lethbridge. Since that time a broad
range of technical-vocational and community service courses have been
instituted.

The wider implication of the Lethbridge Junior College
initiation was the endorsement of this form of post-secondary education
by the government, which in 1958 introduced legislation which provided
a more comprehensive statutory base and Opened the door to a flurry of

activity in the field of public junior college education.

69

Four other colleges were established in a manner similar to
Lethbridge College: Red Deer (1964), Medicine Hat (1965), Grande
Prairie (1966), and Grant MacEwan, in Edmonton, in 1970. All but the
last-named leaned initially towards university parallel programs
(Stewart, 1965:30). In addition to the four types of colleges
mentioned above, other institutions offering post-secondary educa-
tional services have emerged in Alberta (Stewart, 1965:31-35).

College St. Jean in Edmonton was founded in 1911, according
to Rev. Arthur Lacerte, for the purpose of offering secondary educa-
tion to boys who huended to enter the priesthood. In 1942, at the
request of many parents and organizations the sc0pe was broadened to
offer bilingual secondary education to any boys who met the entrance
requirements. In 1963 a two-year bilingual teacher-training program
was commenced in affiliation with the University of Alberta. Finally,
in 1970, College St. Jean became a bilingual college of the University
of Alberta.

Alberta College, Edmonton, founded in 1903 by the Methodist
Church, does not offer courses at the university level, but does offer
programs for adults, especially in high school matriculation subjects,
business and music.

To complete the list of colleges offering post-secondary
programs in Alberta, Stewart (1965:35) makes reference to the Alberta
Vocational Centres at Calgary, Edmonton, and Fort McMurray; the Fire
Officer's Training School, Vermilion, and the Alberta Forestry
Technician School at Hinton.

Considering the many institutional forms which have emerged

70
over the years it is inevitable that there be program and service
imbalances due to each following its own perceived functions in the
absence of overall system rationalization. However, the need for
coordination is most obvious when two or more institutions of higher
education coexist in a state of dependence, or where more than one
institution attempts to provide similar services in the same region.
Some of the ways in which coordination 1185 been effected in Alberta
will be considered in the next three chapters, each dealing with a
specific phase. Conclusions on coordination are deferred until the
end of the last of these chapters.

The first phase begins with the emergence of the private
junior colleges, and ends with the establishment of the first public
junior college.

The second phase takes in all the developments commencing with
the Public Junior Colleges Act, 1958, and ends in 1967 with the
formation of the Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education.

The present phase of develOpment takes in the activities of
the Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education and the Colleges
Commission, and will likely last until this body is replaced or
reconstituted.

System rationalization has been a recurrent concern in each
phase, as the following examples illustrate:

l. The need for direction in the form of legislation or
regulations was apparent to the trustees of Lethbridge Public School
District as they grappled with the task of establishing a new type

of college.

71

2. In 1967 Farquhar (1967:vi) concluded that the desire to
develOp college Opportunities was clearly demonstrated but "in the
absence of coordinated direction and positive leadership, develOpments
have been sporadic so far and have not been congruent with the
purposes expressed."

3. Fenske (1971) saw coordination being currently necessary
to provide comprehensive post-secondary education services on a
province-wide basis throughout Alberta.

However, in spite of the acknowledged need for coordination,
as happened elsewhere, Alberta appears to have acquired a provincial

college system more by evolution than by design.

Chapter 4
COORDINATION IN ALBERTA-~PHASE I

The first phase is characterized by a strong, protective,
monOpolizing University of Alberta, whose legal authority was set
forth in the original University of Alberta Act (Government of Alberta,
1910) in the provision for affiliation with the university of any
institution or college in the province established for the promotion
of any other Useful branch of learning (Farquhar, 1967:65). In
keeping with this Act provision for the establishment of colleges
within the public school system was included in the School Act, 1931
(Government of Alberta, 19315: 121):

The Board of every district shall, at its discretion, have
power, Upon obtaining the consent in writing of the Board of
Governors of the University of Alberta and the approval of the
Nfinister of Education, to establish a college, in affiliation
with the University of Alberta, in which may be taught work of
a university grade not to exceed that commonly accepted for credit
for the first two years of an Arts course, and may maintain and
administer the college, and be entitled to receive grants under
The School Grants Act in respect of the same.

Thus, while a school board could initiate action to establish

a public junior college the Board of Governors of the University had
the power to set the conditions through the affiliation agreement.

The nature of this affiliation agreement, however, was shaped in

response to the early private junior colleges.

72

73
Early Affiliation Agreements

The first junior college in Alberta was Mount Royal College
which acquired affiliation in 1931. In anticipation of the need for
control a set of affiliation regulations was drawn Up by the
University in 1930 (University of Alberta, 1930). A special committee
of the Senate known as the Committee on Junior Colleges was appointed
to administer these controls. Included in this committee were the
President of the University who acted as chairman, the Dean of Arts
and Science (vice-chairman and convenor), the chairman of the First
Year Committee, the Registrar as secretary, and another faculty
member.

The Senate minutes of October 1930 contain a statement put
forward by the committee sUpporting the concept of the junior college.
Advantages in such an arrangement were seen to accrue to the Univer-
sity as well as to the residents of the province, especially in the
south, but concern was expressed for the maintenance of standards:

If the standard of work can be rigorously safeguarded and

if the college is sUpported independently of subsidies fran

the state, there is an economic justification in that the
resources of the state are to that extent husbanded for the
higher work of the senior division of the Arts and Science
Faculty and the professional schools. The Opportunity is
provided as well, for students who may not desire to complete
the requirements for a degree, to carry forward their education
well beyond what the high schools have hitherto been able to
provide in their own locality. The cause of higher education
is thereby advanced.

The committee recommended that it was desirable in the
interests of higher education in Alberta to look forward to a policy

of affiliation of junior colleges, but only under the following

conditions:

74

1. Staff:
(3) Number of staff: a minimum of six teachers giving the
major part of their time to junior college work.

(b) .Qualifications of staff: University graduates with
Special training in their special fields and at least
one year of post-graduate study.

2. Organizatio :
Junior college work may be associated with the work

of the high school but must be dissociated both in organi-
zation and in building from the work of the primary grades.

3. Equipment:
Library and laboratory equipment to be reasonably adequate
in the subjects taught in the junior college.

4. Examinations:
The examinations in the two years of the junior college to
be the regular university examinations or as an alternative
the grade XII departmental examinations and the regular
university examinations of the second year.

The conditions of entrance and of advancement to the second
year to be those which obtain in the university.

5. Eingngial Sopport:

Except in the case of high schools which may Obtain junior
college affiliation and receive the regular departmental
grant, junior colleges to be affiliated on the basis of
private financial support only.

One dissenting voice was raised in the committee, that of
G. H. Ross, who stated his agreement with section 4 only:

I do not consider it the concern of the University where
or under what conditions the work is taken. I would eliminate
sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 from the recommendations and admit to
third year work any student who passes the necessary examinations
of the second year or the equivalent thereof. Under such a
policy there would be no need for junior colleges or high schools
being affiliated with the university. Such affiliations are
not helpful to a university and are not desirable.1

At a subsequent meeting of the Senate the recommendations of

 

1Unless otherwise specified, the sources of information or
quotations are the recorded minutes dated as in the text.

75
the committee were accepted and the affiliation policy was published
(University of Alberta, 1931a), one which was to have a profound effect
on the college system over the next forty years.

The first recorded meeting of the Committee on Junior Colleges
was held on May 30, 1931, for the purpose of dealing with a request
from Mount Royal College to approve a list of ten courses in the three
divisions: Languages and Literature; PhilOSOphy, History and Poli-
tical Economy; and thhematics and Natural Sciences.

After a full discussion it was decided that approval be denied
for PhilosOphy 2 and Mathematics 1, because of staffing deficiencies
for these courses.

The next meeting was held on June 9 to deal with the draft of
the material for the prOposed circular to be issued by Mount Royal
College, announcing the Junior College Program (University of Alberta,
1931c): ". . .After some discussion it was decided that the Dean of
Arts and Science, in consultation with the Registrar, should revise
the material presented." It was later reported that Dr. Kirby
(Principal of Mount Royal College) had accepted the amended draft as
prepared.

This kind of unilateral control by a committee dealing with
matters referred to it, in the absence of participation by those
affected, is typical of the activities of the Committee on Junior
Colleges, as is shown by the analysis of minutes for the period 1931-58.

In the twenty-eight years covered by this period the committee
met officially on fourteen occasions, at irregular intervals ranging

from one week to seven years. Generally the meetings were of short

76

duration lasting one to one and one-half hours, were closed in the
sense that no junior college representatives were present, dealt
almost exclusively with formal written submissions and requests, and
resulted in decisions which were consistent with established policies
preserving and entrenching the central authority of the University.

Table 2 is a summary of the actions taken by the committee
grOUped under four main categories. The major kind of activity was
that having a direct effect on the quality of programs and standards
of instruction in the junior college. In all but three of the fourteen
meetings such decisions were made as approving or disapproving of an
instructor nominated by a college, or requiring substitutions of
one course for another in the light of an instructor's competence to
teach. At six meetings decisions were made requiring colleges to
comply with centralized administrative procedures such as referring
difficult admission cases, submitting test scores, and closer sUper-
vision of examinations. Other recurring decisions involved restrict-
ing the SCOpe of junior colleges to limit their role to a level
acceptable to the committee, and making arrangements for on-site
inspection of physical facilities.

From this analysis, apparently the Committee on Junior Colleges
met when the need arose to reSpond to some request or new situation
in the college field. It was not a planning or coordinating body in
the sense that it sought to develOp and rationalize a system of higher
education for the province. Its main focus was to prevent the erosion
of standards threatened by the expansive ambitions of private colleges.

The actions of the committee were consistent in following

77

Table 2

Summary of Activities of the Committee on
Junior Colleges 1931-1958

1|

 

Control of Quality & Control of Inspection 3
admin. standards; sc0pe of approval of
procedures curric. & program facilities
instructors

May 31, 1931 x

Junr 9, 1931 x

Oct. 28, 1931 x x

Sept. 7, 1932 x x

Oct. 28, 1932 x x

Sept. 19, 1939 x x x

Sept. 19, 1941 x

Sept. 19, 1942 x x

Why 13, 1943 x

March 11, 1947 x x

July 5, 1947 x

Aug. 24, 1953 x

Feb. 27, 1957 x

May 23, 1957 x x x x

 

78
established routine. Decisions appear to have been promptly and
unanimously reached, and there is no evidence of any desire to engage
in any discussion of the merits of a proposal. When Rev. J. H. Garden,
principal of Mount Royal College, attempted to establish such dialogue
(University of Alberta, 1942) he was informed that requests be made in
"formal documentary form, rather than as informal verbal requests."

There was, however, some confusion over conditions for
affiliation, perhaps stemming from the infrequent meetings of the
committee, and the failure to adjust its stance over the years. At
the meeting of August 24, 1953, the president reported that a formal
application for affiliation had been received from St. Anthony’s
College. The officials of St. Anthony's had requested that, in the
event the application were refused, specific information be furnished
as to the requirements that would have to be met for affiliation
(University of Alberta, 1953).

The discussion which followed reveals that a new issue had
been raised in addition to the maintenance of standards, namely,
direct competition with the University. One committee member observed
that it seemed undesirable to set Up affiliated junior colleges in
Edmonton where students have the Opportunity of attending the Univer-
sity. The president replied that this question of policy was being
studied by the Board of Governors and the committee should limit
its deliberations to the question of maintaining academic standards.

The outcome of the discussion was an agreement over tactics

to delay a decision on St. Anthony's application until the Board of

79
Governors had reviewed the situation.

To what extent the Board did consider the affiliation agree-
ment is not clear, but the committee apparently did not meet again
until three and one-half years had elapsed, and no further mention is
made of St. Anthony's application. It is clear, however, that no
change in policy was considered necessary since at the next committee
meeting, held on February 27, 1957, only slight modifications were
made, although the chairman referred to the need to review the
regulations in the light of changes which had occurred in the general
situation since 1930. This was a reference to the public junior
college idea.

It was agreed to recommend to the General Faculty Council, to
which the committee now reported, that three additional members be
appointed to the Committee on Junior Colleges, these being the Dean of
the Faculty of Education, ex officio, one person from the Faculty of
Arts and Science representing the liberal arts, and the Director of
the Evening Credit Program, ex officio.

The new regulations relating to junior colleges were estab-
lished as follows (University of Alberta, 1957):

1. Staff -

(a) Number of staff: A minimum staff of six teachers giving
the major part of their time to junior college work must
be maintained.

(b) Qualifications of Staff: The members of the staff must
hold at least the Master's degree in the main field of
instruction. Subject to the regulations of the Depart-
ment of Education, all staff members offering instruction

in High School work must hold teachers' certificates.
All staff members offering instruction at the University

2.

7.

80

level must be approved for appointment by the Committee
on Junior Colleges of the University of Alberta.

Curriculum -

The program of studies for university credit must be approved
by the University Committee on Junior Colleges.

Equipment -

Library and laboratory facilities must be adequate in the
subjects taught in the junior college.

Admissions -

The conditions of admission to university programs at junior
colleges will be those which obtain in the University of
Alberta.

Examinations -

The examinations of the junior college will be the regular
university examinations of the first year.

Financial SUpport -

The University of Alberta assumes no responsibility for the
financial SUpport of affiliated junior colleges.

~Affi1iation with other Institutions -

Junior colleges affiliated with the University of Alberta

may not have or enter into affiliations with other colleges
or universities without the permission of the General Faculty
Council.

Internal Regulations

In addition to the regulations for publication two additional

regulations for the guidance of the Committee in its functioning
were recommended.

1.

The Committee on Junior Colleges will undertake to consult and
secure approval of the departments concerned before giving
approval to the appointment of any member of the teaching
staff of a junior college.

The Committee on Junior Colleges will secure the consent

of the apprOpriate faculty council before giving approval

of the program of courses to be offered for university credit
at junior colleges.

81

These changes had the effect of centralizing to a greater
extent the control of junior colleges within the University by
specifying approval of instructors and programs by the committee,
imposing the same admission standards as used by the University and
prohibiting unauthorized affiliations with other colleges or univer-
sities, a move apparently directed at Mount Royal College.

At the same time the committee intended to disperse some of
its influence within the University structure by involving any
departments and faculties of the University affected by decisions.

The final event of this phase was the approval of program and
staff for the initial year of Lethbridge Junior College. This is
recorded in the minutes of February 27, 1957. While no mention is
made of the involvement of the committee in the establishment of the
first public junior college, the considerable contribution of indivi-

dual members of the university is documented elsewhere.

University Response to the Lethbridge Junior College Movement

Nbrkle (1965:43) states that from the outset there was:

... a lively interest shown by University of Alberta authorities
who would, in the final analysis, decide whether certain educa-
tional requirements had been met and if, indeed, Lethbridge
should or should not have a public Junior College.

While Dr. Andrew Stewart, President of the University of
Alberta, was interested in the Lethbridge project, Markle (1965:44)
credits Dr. Walter H. Johns, then Dean of Arts and Science and sub-
sequently President, with giving the movement great impetus. Johns

foresaw the Upward trend in enrollment in higher education and

conceived of the need for local campus facilities and junior colleges.

82

In a memorandum to Dr. Stewart, Dr. Johns referred to a number
of factors that would be advantageous in establishing first-year
university work in Lethbridge: availability of qualified members of
the Lethbridge Collegiate Institute Staff, proximity of the Science
Service of the Dominion Department of Agriculture which could be a
source of personnel; and the existence of library and laboratory
facilities, which, with the proposed classroom addition to the
Collegiate Institute, would meet the immediate space needs (Nbrkle,
1965:46).

On the question of program scope Johns, in the same memorandum,
advised that university transfer work be the first consideration with
more comprehensive programs becoming available later. In this way
the University would be able to direct the early progress of the college
and might facilitate government financial sUpport (Nmrkle, 1965:47).

At a special meeting held in June 1955 the Lethbridge Public
School District Board, encouraged by the support of the university,
passed the following resolution (Markle, 1965:48):

That this Board apply to the Board of Governors of the
University of Alberta and to the Minister of Education for the
establishment of a College in Lethbridge, Alberta, in which
may be taught subjects of University level and other subjects
of a general and/or vocational nature beyond the level of
high school in accordance with Section 178, Subsection 3,
of the School Act, or on such other basis as may be deemed
advisable.

The resolution was submitted to Dr. Swift, Deputy Minister of

Education, with a letter explaining that the intent was to obtain

approval in principle for the proposa1.to establish a junior college

or university extension centre (Markle, 1965:48).

83

In his reply Swift reminded the Board of the need for univer-
sity affiliation but stated his concern that the university not
exercise controls over what may be matters not of univeristy concern
(but presumably of concern to the government, such as vocational
programs). He alluded to the possibility of a joint university and
government policy in relation to junior colleges and related questions
(Nbrkle, 1965:49).

A few weeks later the President of the University wrote to the
Minister of Education eXpressing the desire for discussions on "the
broad problems of post-school education in general and in particular
the requests that have been made by the Calgary University Committee
and the Lethbridge School District."

Subsequently the Minister of Education and the Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the University appointed a committee to
deliberate the question, consisting of the Deputy Minister and Dr.
Johns. The two-man committee considered the administrative and
financial implications and sUggested the kind of permissive legisla-
tion which would be necessary to permit the joint participation of
several local school boards, in the Operation of a junior college
(Markle, 1965:50).

Subsequently, at a meeting in April, 1956, described by
Maakle (1965:51) as probably the most important meeting in the entire
early develOpment of the Junior College in Lethbridge since it brought
together the Minister and Deputy Minister of Education, the Provincial
Director of Curriculum, the Vice-president Of the University of

Alberta and representatives from all the county, divisions and school

84
districts within the Lethbridge area, and dealt with matters relating
to definite organization.

At this meeting the Minister stated (Markle, 1965:52):

. . .that if only University courses were offered the

college must look for support from University funds, but that
government grants would be available if the college offered
not only University but also non-university courses of a
vocational nature.

The basis of financial contribution of participating school
boards, and the necessary changes in the School Act were discussed.

Finally in April 1957, according to Markle (1965:53), the
Board of Governors of the University of Alberta announced its approval
of the establishment of a Junior College in Lethbridge "providing the
conditions of affiliation as established by General Faculty Council
are met."

Following in rapid succession after this announcement the
Lethbridge Junior College Board was convened (April 19, 1957); permis-
sive legislation drafted by Swift was paSsed by the Provincial Legis-
lature (1957), and in 1958, one year after the college commenced
Operation, a permanent Public Junior Colleges Act for the Province of
Alberta was enacted which affirmed that (Government of Alberta, 1958):

for the purpose of teaching subjects of University level

not higher than the level commonly accepted for the first year
beyond University of Alberta matriculation in a course leading
to a bachelor's degree, or for the purpose of teaching other
subjects of a general or vocational nature not provided in the
high school curriculum of the Province, Junior Colleges may be
established and Operated pursuant to this Act.

In this way public junior colleges became a legitimate part

of the Alberta system of higher education, oriented primarily to

university transfer work under the close control of the University of

85
Alberta, but at the same time required to offer non-university
programs and services, in order to meet the conditions of government

financial SUpport.

Chapter 5
COORDINATION IN ALBERTA-~PHASE II

As in the first phase of the develOpment of coordination in
Alberta the second phase is dominated by the University of Alberta.
Although there are many similarities in the role played by the univer-
sity in this period as in earlier years, significant changes took
place in the environment of higher education between the years 1958-1967
to warrant this being considered a distinct phase.

One important change was the eXpansion of junior college
Opportunity by the creation of new public colleges and the extension
of university transfer programs in the private colleges. Another
change which affected the role of the University of Alberta was the
emergence of the Calgary campus as an independent university. Finally
the provincial government began to take a more active interest in the
develOpment of a comprehensive system of post-secondary education for
the province.

In the face of these changes the university sought to preserve
its jurisdiction and responsibility for standards through affiliation
regulations which were executed by the Committee on Junior Colleges.
As before the stance of the committee was reaction and containment
rather than initiation and leadership, and in this way the university
provided the necessary coordination and control of ambitious and
expansion-minded colleges.

The events of this period can be traced along several parallel

86

87
lines or trends. These are:
1. The enlargement of junior college Opportunities.
2. The dispersion of power within the university system.
3. The power struggle between the university and junior
colleges.

4. The involvement of other interest grOUps.

THE ENLARGEMENT OF JUNIOR COLLEGE OPPORTUNITIES

At the time of the passing of the Public Junior Colleges Act
in 1958 there were two junior colleges affiliated with the University.
These early affiliation agreements were made with Mount Royal College
in 1931, and Lethbridge Junior College in 1957. Camrose Lutheran
College gained affiliation status in 1959, and three public colleges
were established in the period 1958-1967: Red Deer (1964), Medicine
Hat (1965), and Grande Prairie (1966).

The probability of new junior colleges was acknowledged and
encouraged by university senior officials, most notably Dr. Johns.
Loken (1965:47) cites Harold C. Melsness in 1955 as follows: "It seems
more and more evident that the policy of the Government and the
University will be to encourage the establishment of junior colleges in
the near future."

It was in anticipation of increased activity in administering
affiliation agreements that had prompted the expansion of the committee
and review of the regulations in 1957.

The first request of this period was received from Camrose

Lutheran College. Prospective instructors' transcripts were

88

scrutinized by the apprOpriate departments of the University of
Alberta and the facilities were inspected and approved. On May 27,
1959 the Committee on Junior Colleges agreed that "the Board of
Governors should be advised that the Committee felt that an affiliation
agreement might safely be entered Upon for a trial period of a year."1

The case of Camrose Lutheran College illustrates the pro-
cedure which had been established for considering an affiliation
request, namely: approval of prOposed courses and instructors by the
committee, or by departments of the university with the endorsement
of the committee; similar approval of facilities, especially library
and laboratories; and finally a recommendation through General Faculty
Council to the Board of Governors. However this sequence of events was
not convenient for prOposed new colleges established under the Public
Junior College Act by which the following steps were necessary
(University of Alberta, 1964a):

1. Sponsoring by school boards.

2. Formation of a provisional Junior College Board.

3. University approval of affiliation, subject to conditions.

4. Ministerial approval and incorporation.

5. Affiliation.

6. Opening of the college.

Until incorporation the board could not collect or spend

money to develOp the necessary facilities.

 

1 O O 0 O I

Unless otherwise Speleled the sources of information on
activities of the Committee on Junior Colleges are the recorded
minutes, dated as in the text.

89

In recognizing the difficulty of approving affiliation subject
to certain conditions, at such an early point in the establishment of
a new college, the committee passed a resolution:

. . .That it be recommended that the Public Junior Colleges

Act be amended so as to require approval of the Department of
Education of the feasibility of any prOposal submitted to it
by a provisional Junior College Board, the Minister of Educa-
tion having the right to consult the University of Alberta for
an Opinion on the academic aSpects of the prOposal if desired.

If this approval be given the college board would be able to
incorporate and proceed with its affiliation application. The full
intent of the motion is not clear from the minutes, but apparently
the committee did not want to be in the position of making decisions
on the establishment of colleges, other than those affecting academic
standards or the interests of the university. Certainly the respon~
sibilities of the University and the Department of Education regarding
the establishment of new public colleges was not clear at this time,
as is illustrated by the committee's response to the applications of
Red Deer Junior College and Medicine Hat Junior College for affilia-
tion (University of Alberta, 1964b):

Normally, the committee would not recommend final approval

for affiliation of a junior college until the inspection of
the facilities had been completed. However, in this case,
there would not be an Opportunity between the expected date
of completion and the beginning of the school year to forward
a recommendation to the General Faculty Council. . . .Accord-
ingly, on the basis of the information at hand and the assurances
of Mr. Dawe that the necessary equipment and books are being
ordered, it was moved and carried:

that affiliation be granted to Red Deer Junior College for one year,

with inspection during the year, before recommending an extension of

the period.

90

In the case of Medicine Hat's application the committee again
showed its reluctance to become involved in decisions having implica-
tions beyond the maintenance of academic standards. Hillcrest Christian
College was also aiming at the establishment of a private junior
college in 1966. The committee felt that the economic feasibility of
two junior colleges serving the same area should be studied carefully.
A motion was carried that the application be referred to the Depart-
ment of Education for study (University of Alberta, 1964b).

At the meeting of August 26, 1964 the chairman announced that
both the Department of Education and the Board of Governors of the
University had approved Medicine Hat's application for affiliation in
Spite of the fact that no such recommendation had as yet been made by
the Committee. The chairman expressed the hOpe that better liaison
between the committee and the Board would exist in the future.

Although the function of the Committee on Junior Colleges, as
a sub-committee of General Faculty Council, was primarily advisory the
committee, and in particular its chairman, assumed executive authority
in negotiating with colleges and approving staff and programs.

General Faculty Council showed no inclination to reject the recommenda-
tions of the committee, except in the case of the application of
College St. Jean for affiliation.

At the committee meeting of April 15, 1963 the dean of the
Faculty of Education read an eleven-item suggestion approved by the
Board of Teacher Education and Certification under which College St.
Jean would offer the first two years of a bilingual teacher education

program, the third year being taken at the University of Alberta.

91
It was moved and carried (University of Alberta, 1963b):
That the committee express its Opposition to the prOposal
in the present form and its feeling that, if College St. Jean
wishes affiliation as a junior college on the terms which now
apply to other junior colleges, the committee would be willing
to consider its application.

1 However, at the next committee meeting the chairman announced
that General Faculty Council had agreed to approve in principle the
affiliation of College St. Jean on the basis of a special agreement.
The Committee on Junior Colleges was to be responsible for deciding

when sufficient staff, prOperly qualified, were available (University

of Alberta, 1963c).
DISPERSION OF POWER WITHIN THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM

The dispersion of power from a select grOUp known as the
Committee on Junior Colleges commenced in 1957 with the decision to
enlarge the committee and to have apprOpriate departments scrutinize
instructors, and faculties, programs. The committee would then submit
affiliation decisions to General Faculty Council. Likewise depart-
ments would assume responsibility for examination standards.

At the committee meeting held on July 13, 1961 the chairman
raised the question of the role of the University of Alberta, Calgary,
regarding Alberta junior colleges, since junior courses in some
departments were different in Calgary and Edmonton, with separate
exams. It was agreed that a uniform policy was needed so that junior
colleges in the south would not be considered the domain of the
University of Alberta, Calgary, since such action might result in

different policies for northern and southern junior colleges.

92

Three motions were carried which are summarized as follows
(University of Alberta, 1961):

(a) That the basic principle be adOpted that courses
presented in Alberta junior colleges be courses offered on the
Edmonton campus.

(b) That any department in Edmonton may arrange that the
exams written at Mount Royal College and at Lethbridge Junior
College be those set and marked at the University of Alberta,
Calgary.

(0) That departments whose courses are offered in junior
colleges should be reminded that it is their responsibility to
make arrangements to ensure the equivalence of standards in
term and final examinations between Alberta junior colleges
and the University of Alberta.

Eighteen months later the committee reconsidered these
resolutions in the light of the rapid develOpment of the University
of Alberta, Calgary, and the increasing number of their own courses
with their own numbers. Also Mount Royal College and Lethbridge
Junior College found it much easier to deal with Calgary than
Edmonton.

Discussion indicated that a split between policy and practice
was desirable, with a central policy-making committee, but decentrali-
zation of surveillance over junior college programs. The maintenance
of uniformity of standards was considered of paramount importance, a
responsibility which should be made clear to departments at Calgary.

The following motion was then carried (University of Alberta,

1963a):

That the Committee on Junior Colleges recommend to the
General Faculty Council

(1) that the membership of the Committee on Junior Colleges
be expanded to include representation from the University of
Alberta, Calgary, and that the committee thus expanded continue

93

in its present function; and

(2) that beginning with the 1963-64 winter session
Lethbridge Junior College and Mount Royal College carry on
their programs under the surveillance of the University of
Alberta, Calgary, while Camrose Lutheran College carries on
its program under the surveillance of the University of
Alberta, Edmonton.

By this resolution therefore, the committee further dispersed
its power within the university system to allow for greater parti-
cipation by the Calgary campus. At the same time, however, it
resisted the suggestion of the newly-formed Alberta Association of
Junior Colleges 'that representatives be invited to meetings of the
committee to share in discussions. The control of junior colleges
was clearly to remain in the hands of the university, for the time
being at least.

On May 11, 1964 the likelihood of the University of Alberta,
Calgary becoming independent was mentioned, which once more raised
the question of surveillance of junior colleges in the province. The
matter was referred to again in a memorandum to the chairman of the
committee from President Johns, who outlined the situation as
follows (University of Alberta, 1964c):

The legislature had revised the University Act at the 1964
session providing for the establishment of a Co-ordinating Council
which would have, among other things, the duty and power to recommend
to the Board the action to be taken on affiliation. Thus the whole
question of the continuation of the Committee on Junior Colleges

was raised. The President thought that it should be a sub-committee

of the Co-ordinating Council, and asked for the committee's views.

94

The matter of the status of the Committee on Junior Colleges
was discussed by the committee on August 26, 1964. The committee
agreed that there should continue to be one committee responsible for
matters of common interest throughout the province, such as the main-
tenance of standards of affiliation and qualifications of staff.
However, there appeared to be a need for a committee on each campus
to look after the details of Operation of the affiliations, such as
examination standards and procedures, the develOpment of courses, and
so on. Also since the Coordinating Council had the power to report
directly to the Board of Governors rather than to two General Faculty
Councils it was moved and carried that as an interim measure, it be
recommended "that the Committee on Junior Colleges be named a
Committee of the Coordinating Council."

With regard to the future and the probable separation of the
University into two institutions, the Committee felt unable to make
any suggestions at that time, because of a lack of knowledge of what
might develOp.

At the committee meeting held on January 15, 1965 reports were
received indicating that each General Faculty Council would prefer to
have the jurisdiction for committee considerations retained in the
hands of their respective Councils.

Apparently there was an impasse at this point with the
President and Committee on Junior Colleges favoring the by-passing of
the General Faculty Councils and the councils Opposing this. In an
attempt to resolve this predicament the Committee on Junior Colleges

formed a sub-committee to investigate the possible types of

95
relationships the junior colleges might have with the respective
campuses. It was agreed that the sub-committee might avail itself of
the services provided by the firm of consultants which was currently
studying the university. However, no reference to any action or
recommendations of this sub-committee is contained in subsequent
minutes.

In the absence of further clarification of its role the
committee split itself along the lines of the two university campuses,
and proceeded to deal directly with junior colleges much as before.
About sixteen months later the nature and function of the committee
was called into question by the Faculty of Commerce. The matter was
discussed at the committee meeting of May 24, 1966 where it was agreed
that in view of the changes in university structure, including the
establishnent of an independent University of Calgary, the chairman
would ask the Coordinating Council to review the entire matter of
representation on the Committee on Junior Colleges.

The changes in university structure and the responsibilities
of the various agencies for junior colleges were specified in the Act
Respecting Provincial Universities (Government of Alberta, 1966b) which
was passed at the 1966 session of the Legislative Assembly. The
relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

8. For each university there shall be a senate consisting of:

(c) thirty representative members, to be elected by the

ex officio and appointed members to represent affiliated
colleges or institutions, geographical areas and grOUps

and organizations with an interest in the university.

34. (1) Subject to the authority of the board, a general faculty
council is responsible for the academic affairs of the

96
university and in particular but without restricting
the generality of the foregoing, the general faculty
council is empowered to

(0) make recommendations to the board with respect to
affiliation of other institutions.

39. (4) Nothing in this section takes away or impairs the right
of control that an affiliated institution or college
has over its students.

45. (2) Subsection (1) does not take away or impair any right
of a college or institution affiliated with a university

(a) to make such provision with regard to religious
instruction and religious worship for its own
students as it considers prOper, and

(b) to require the observance thereof as part of its
own discipline.

60. (4) The univerSities Co-ordinating Council may determine
minimum standards for the affiliation of colleges or
institutions with a university and may recommend

(a) the affiliation of a college or institution with
a university and the terms thereof, and

(b) the dissolution of any such affiliation or the
modification of the terms thereof.

The Act makes the Coordinating Council responsible for
establishing province-wide standards for affiliation, while leaving
each General Faculty Council responsible for academic standards of any
affiliated college; but both bodies are empowered to recommend to the
Board of Governors on any specific requests for affiliation.

The University of Alberta interpreted the Act as justifying
its right to continue to enforce general regulations pertaining to
junior colleges seeking affiliation with the University of Alberta
and reaffirmed its policies in the 1966-67 Calendar as follows

(University of Alberta, 1966b:730-31):

97

By authority of the Co-ordinating Council of the University,
junior colleges may be recommended to the Board of Governors for
affiliation under the following conditions:

(1) Staff:

(a) A minimum staff of six teachers giving the major part
of their time to first—year junior college work, or
ten giving the major part of their time to first and
second year junior college work.

(b) Qualifications of staff: The members of staff teaching
only first year courses should hold at least the Master's
degree or its equivalent in the main field of instruc-
tion; those teaching any second year courses should
hold substantially higher qualifications in the appro-
priate field of instruction.

All staff members offering instruction at the university level
must be approved for appointment by the Committee on Junior
Colleges.

(2) Curriculum:

Courses and programs of studies for university credit must
be approved by the Committee on Junior Colleges.

(3) Equipment:

Library and laboratory facilities must be adequate in the
subjects taught in the junior colleges.

(4) Admission:

The conditions of admission to university courses and
programs at a junior college will be those which obtain
in the University of Alberta.

(5) Examinations:

The examinations of the junior colleges in courses offered
for university credit will be the regular university
examinations in these courses. In addition to Physical
Education not more than ten full courses may be offered
for university credit by any student taking both first and
second years at the junior college.

(6) Financial SUpport:

The University of Alberta assumes no responsibility for
the financial sUpport of affiliated junior colleges.

98
(7) Affiliation with Other Institutions:
Junior colleges affiliated with the University of Alberta
may not have or enter into affiliation or accreditation
agreements with other colleges or universities without
the permission of the Co-ordinating Council.
(8) Period of Affiliation Agreement:
The period of any affiliation agreement shall be five years.
(9) Public Announcements:
All documents which an affiliated institution prOposes to
issue for public information and which prOposes to contain
a statement of the institution's relationship with the
university or other universities shall be submitted before
printing for the approval of the President of the University.

Similar regulations were drawn Up at the University of
Calgary.

To complicate what was already a confused situation the
Coordinating Council established its own Junior College Committee under
the chairmanship of Dr. W. D. Neal, to consider provincial policy and
to negotiate with the newly-formed Provincial Board of Post-Secondary
Education (which is discussed later in this report).

According to Dr. Neal (p.com.), in attempting to guide the
Coordinating Council, he and his successor, Dr. Blackley, submitted
three reports in 1968, 1969, and 1971, the first of which set out
general principles of affiliation on a provincial basis, the second
attempting to establish Operational procedures, and the third dealing
with arrangements for specific applications.

With the establishment of the Coordinating Council came the

end of the Committee on Junior Colleges as the sole controller, and

sometimes coordinator, of junior colleges in Alberta. The traditions

99
and name of this committee were continued as a sub—committee of General
Faculty Council of the University of Alberta, to advise the Council
and to maintain liaison with the Coordinating Council and the Junior
College Committee of the University of Calgary.
POWER STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY
AND JUNIOR COLLEGES

The previous section has dealt with the activities of the
committee on junior colleges in making recommendations on affiliation,
a necessary step in the creation of a junior college, and in quality
control of the curriculum. The committee was not equipped with nor did
it ever seek the power to coordinate junior colleges as a provincial
system. It referred matters of feasibility and need to other agencies
such as the Department of Education and the Board of Governors, and
did not attempt to initiate junior college develOpment.

The committee, however, did not take lightly its responsibility
for the preservation of standards, and in exercising controls over
courses, programs, instructors, examinations, facilities, student
records and admissions it was involved in policy—making and sUper-

' activities.

vision of many of the colleges
In most instances the colleges deferred to the SUperior
authority of the committee, but there is evidence of considerable
initiative on the part of local leaders in trying to develOp their
institutions and programs within the constraints of the committee's
policies.
Perhaps the best illustration is provided by Mount Royal

College, the affiliated college of longest standing.

100
The Committee on Junior Colleges Versus Mount Roval College

Being the first affiliated college it is natural that Mount
Royal College offers some good illustrations of the interaction
between the Committee on Junior Colleges and local college leaders.

At its first meeting in 1931 the committee disallowed some courses and
recommended others, and required the revision of the prOposed circular
to describe the new junior college program.

In September 1932 the committee expressed its concern over
registration procedures at Mount Royal. Apparently some students had
registered for summer courses at the University, and later, for winter
courses at Mount Royal, without completing the directed reading
required at summer school--the University policy of restricted
registration must be followed in such cases. It was agreed that to
safeguard'dfis and other registration policies all Mount Royal
registrations for University credits must be approved by a reSponsible
officer of the University. It was further agreed that steps be
taken by the University to accept more responsibility for the SUper-
vision of examinations.

In 1942, despite difficulties of obtaining qualified staff
during the war years, Mount Royal College sought to add to its basic
Arts and Science program. The request was turned down on the grounds
that there was plenty of sc0pe for useful work in the field to which
junior colleges were peculiarly adapted, without aspiring to develOp
into professional schools.

The year 1957 ushered in the era of the public junior college

and the promise of increased activity in post-secondary education

101
generally. To c0pe with the anticipated pressures the committee was
enlarged and affiliation regulations revised.

One important new rule prohibited a junior college, affiliated
with the University of Alberta, from entering into similar agreements
with other universities, without the permission of General Faculty
Council. This regulation was aimed at Mount Royal College which had
established liaison with universities in the United States, and had
not enrolled students in University of Alberta affiliated courses since
1952-53. The reason for this, as stated in a memorandum written by
NE. W. J. Collett, Principal of Mount Royal (University of Alberta,
1959), was the attempt to provide post-secondary education of univer-
sity caliber to non—matriculated students, which was contrary to the
admission requirements of the University of Alberta, but acceptable
to some American institutions. Collett eXpressed the desire to
re-establish ties with the University and asked for permission to
admit students without senior matriculation to courses of university
level, while concurrently being registered in high school courses to
complete their matriculation.

The committee was reluctant to establish such a precedent but
agreed to admit candidates with one matriculation deficiency, provided
that their average on the other five subjects was 60 per cent or better,
and the deficiency would have to be cleared before the student could be
admitted to the second year at the University.

In making this concession the committee recognized only one of
the three basic target grOUps identified by Collett as follows:

1. A large percentage lacking the foreign language requirement.

102

2. A good percentage who left school prematurely due to
failing to develOp the necessary habits of study and concentration,
or due to immaturity, lack of ambition or faulty guidance.

3. A good number of adults who left school because of poor
results, finances or some other good reason.

In insisting on only one matriculation deficiency and a 60 per
cent average, groups 2 and 3 were effectively disallowed. However,
this concession would not be permitted until September 1960 (i.e.,
not allowed for the coming academic year) and would be conditional Upon

the college actually improving its standards by reviewing its staff,

curriculum and equipment.

Mount Royal College, however, chose to eXplore another avenue
to its goal of providing Opportunities for matriculation-deficient
students, and Ufis came to the attention of the committee at the
meeting of March 4, 1960:

The chairman said that the nlain purpose of the meeting
was to decide what to recommend to the General Faculty Council
regarding the relationship between Mount Royal College and the
University, particularly in view of two recent develOpments.
. . .It appeared that Mount Royal College was seeking to obtain
federal aid on the basis of an inference that Mount Royal College
courses were acceptable by the University of Western Ontario for
credit at the university level. (Contrary to Regulation #7.)

He then referred to the draft calendar announcement for
1960-61 submitted by Mount Royal College for approval by the
university. . . .The description of the programs and the
numbering of the subjects made it abundantly clear that the main
purpose of the college was to prepare students for transfer to
institutions other than the University of Alberta. The conclu-
sion was almost inescapable that the affiliation agreement with
the University of Alberta was being used as a means to persuade
students to believe that other institutions would grant credits
on transfer for work done at Mount Royal College in the belief
that the University of Alberta recognized the work of the college.

103

Under the threat of disaffiliation Mount Royal College was
required to reorganize and reword its calendar making clear that the
University would not grant credit for work done except in certain
approved courses and only if certain conditions were met. Also the
advertising of relationships with other institutions had to be
removed.2

At a subsequent meeting (University of Alberta, 1960b) the
Rev. Collett eXplained his attempt to meet the "salvage" function, and
alluded to the success of his college in doing so. He denied that
there were any affiliation agreements with other institutions
although programs were designed to prepare students for transfer to
them. From an economic standpoint the college had to depend on these
programs, since there would not be enough students drawn to the
regular transfer or terminal programs. However the college was
reluctant to separate from the University, and he would redraft the
calendar in the light of these discussions.

Collett later smeitted a statement outlining three prOposed
programs for the approval of the committee. These prOposals and the
committee's decision are summarized (University of Alberta, 1960c):

1. Terminal Course - two year post-high school programs

planned with direction and advice from the University (approved).

 

2It is clear from this episode that Mount Royal College wished
to infer from its affiliation agreement a status of "accreditation"
by which its total program would be reCOgnized without the imposition
of close controls. The benefits of an accreditation system over an
affiliation system were discussed from time to time by the committee.

104

2. Matriculation program - one year of matriculation studies
for students who hold a high school diploma preferably with students
writing examinations apart from the usual high school examinations
(approved contingent Upon the students writing the regular grade XII
examinations).

3. Matriculation deficiency program - for students averaging
60 per cent in five subjects including English 30, but deficient in
one subject. They would register in this deficiency and four first-
year courses provided: (a) that instructors in first-year courses are
approved by the university; (b) that the student passes examinations
in the first-year courses set by the university (might be approved,
but only under'UHms by which some measure of control be exercised
over the college).

The matriculation-deficiency program did go into effect for
the following winter session, but the committee recommended a review
and assessment before re-authorizing it for the 1961-62 session.

The assessment of the committee was later recorded (University
of Alberta, 1961): It was clear that a few good students had registered
in the program, and a large number of satisfactory students. More than
half of the grOUp, however, had unsatisfactory records on the Univer-
sity exams. However a few students with two deficiencies had been
admitted in September 1960. In future the University would not admit

students who had been registered in this program in error.3

 

3This disallowance would apply even if a student, admitted in
error, was successful in the first-year courses.

105

In February 1963 the results for the 1961-62 session were
appraised. The consensus was that if one out of three peOple (that
being the success rate) could be saved to go on to higher education,
the program was worth it, and there was no disposition to terminate
the arrangement so long as no irregularities occurred, such as students
entering with two matriculation deficiencies. At the same meeting
permission was given for Mount Royal College to offer a summer semester
of university transfer work commencing in March but it was firmly
agreed that the matriculation deficiency program should not be
included in this semester, also the students would write the regular
University SUpplemental examinations in September.

This decision was of limited value to Mount Royal College
since only a small percentage of their students had clear matricula-
tion standing at the beginning of their program (for example 10 out
of 69 in 1961-62).

In seeking to attract students to its transfer program Mount
Royal College exercised less stringency in its admissions procedures.
Two departures from established practice were considered by the com-
mittee at the meeting of August 15, 1963.

The first concerned the practice of admitting students who had
been required to withdraw from the University of Alberta or another
university. Two such students had been admitted on the basis of
extenuating circumstances. In future the college would be required to
add a question to the application form asking the student if he had
ever been refused re-admission to another university.

The second departure was the admission of a number of students

106
for the 1963-64 session with matriculation averages of less than 60
per cent. In fact these students had achieved only 59.5 per cent.

It was agreed that students admitted this year with averages

of at least 59.5% should be allowed to continue and be accepted
by the University of Alberta, but next year the requirement of a
full 60% average would be enforced.

The problem was raised of students who at the end of a year
in the Deficiency Program, had successfully completed the year's
work but still had a matriculation average of only 59.5“per cent.
After considerable discussion it was agreed that "students with six
passes in matriculation subjects, but lacking the 60 per cent average
may be admitted if they have attained a 60 per cent average in their
university work, otherwise not."

In attempting to implement its more liberal admissions policy
Mount Royal College turned again to transfer arrangements with other
institutions. At the meeting of March 23, 1964 the chairman referred
to a prOposed calendar statement submitted by the college regarding
such courses. A number of members of the committee had no objections
to this provided the distinction between courses offered under the
affiliation agreements and other courses was made very clear. This
could be done by minor amendments to the statement.

Mount Royal College's next move to expand its services took
the form of a request for permission to offer second-year courses in
commerce. (The move to enter Upon professional programs had been
earlier rejected in 1942.) The Dean of the Faculty of Commerce had

no objections but the committee moved to table the request for one

year, that is vetoed the program for at least a year, on the grounds

107
that the program in Commerce at University of Alberta, Calgary, had
not yet been fully develOped (University of Alberta, 1964b).

Another direction taken by Mount Royal was to serve the needs
of students graduating from high school in January under the high
school semester arrangement. The college had received permission to
advance its summer semester to the period February-August, but under
the same conditions, namely that only fully matriculated students be
admitted. However, at the meeting of May 11, 1964, it was pointed
out that some students were admitted to the program before grade XII
Departmental Examination results were available, and had not subse-
quently received matriculation. It was understood that these students
would be required to drOp out, but had not done so. It was agreed
that the chairman would write to the college to remind them of the
terms of the agreement with reSpect to the spring-summer term.

Mount Royal College was insistent in its desire to Open its
spring-summer program to include matriculation-deficient students. A
request to do so was resubmitted in January 1965.

The committee deferred a decision until the fall of 1965
when additional evidence would be available regarding the spring-
summer 1965 program, although the summer program had already been in
Operation for three years (University of Alberta, 1965a).

The last entry in the minutes of this period, making reference
to Mount Royal College, is a statement of March 13, 1965, that it was
the Opinion of the Calgary members of the committee "that if Mount
Royal can obtain the capital funds they need for their building pro-

gram by other means, they will probably drop their request to offer

108
the second year of a program in the Faculty of Commerce."

This is a final illustration of the fact that the relation-
ships between the college and the committee were somewhat less than
SUpportive. The motives of each grOUp were questioned by the other,
and as the junior college sought to expand its programs and economic
base in the name of a progressive policy of extended Opportunities,
the Committee on Junior Colleges was guided by its first mission, the
defense of the quality of a university education, which forced it
into a reactionary position rather than one of leadership. A clear
'statement of the philoSOphy of post-secondary education acceptable to

both the universities and junior colleges was apparently needed.
THE INVOLVEMENT OF OTHER INTEREST GROUPS

Although the University of Alberta, through its Committee on
Junior Colleges, continued to play a central role in junior college
develOpment and control during the period from 1958 to 1967 it did
not attempt to provide coordination in the sense of organizing
relationships for maximum effectiveness and efficiency, nor did it
attempt to formulate long-range plans for meeting future post-secon-
dary education needs of the province. These were responsibilities of
the provincial government which sought the answers through the advice

of committees and commissions set Up for a variety of purposes.

Roval Commission on Education in Alberta
On December 31, 1957 the Government of Alberta appointed a

Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the Honorable Donald Cameron

109
to make a comprehensive study of the various phases of the elementary
and secondary school systems. The report (Government of Alberta, 1959)
which was presented in November 1959 contained some references to
post-secondary education organization, in particular to community
colleges which were seen as extensions of the high school system.

Among the recommendations prOposed were the following:

Recommendation 120: That the present highly centralized
system of vocational and trade programs be decentralized and
re-established in regional centers to be known as Community
Colleges.

Recommendation 121: That a suitable inter-departmental body
be established to coordinate the respective educational programs
of the departments involved.

Recommendation 122: That the Department of Education be
designated to act as the sole governmental agency dealing with
the eXpanded public school system.

Recommendation 123: That the Alberta Planning Commission or
a committee established by the government be asked to study
pertinent factors and to create a master plan of regions in
each of which, at local Option, a community college be

established at recommended locations.

Recommendation 124: That legislation relating to community
colleges provide for their control by regionally elected boards.

Recommendation 125: That legislation concerning community
colleges provide for a Regional Advisory Committee upon which
shall sit competent representatives of the various vocations
and trades related to college programs.

Emphasis was placed on the important principles of decentrali-
zation, regional adninistration, coordination by the government, and
long-range planning. In several respects the community college as
envisioned was different from the evolving public junior college; for

example it would be an outgrowth of the high school, and would not

concern itself with university courses, but would focus Upon vocational

110
and non-academic programs to meet the needs of those not aSpiring to
university-level studies.

Although the recommendations of the Commission were not
accepted totally by the government,neither were they completely
ignored; this is indicated by subsequent recommendations from other
advisory bodies, and by develOpments during the decade towards a

coordinated system of colleges offering comprehensive programS.

Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta
The survey committee was a joint committee of senior
government and university Officials, including the Minister of Educa-
tion and the presidents of the Edmonton and Calgary campuses. Its
purpose was to inquire into, and report on, all those problems and
possibilities which bear on the future growth and develOpment of the
programs of higher education in Alberta, with particular emphasis on
the evolvement of the best possible policies consistent with the
greatest economy in Operation (Stewart, 1965z8).
Four interim reports were presented in 1961, 1963, 1965, and
1966. On the subject of junior colleges, the first report endorsed
the start made by the junior colleges in Lethbridge and Camrose and
saw the college serving three basic functions (Government of Alberta,
1961):
1. To take pressure off the University in the Freshman year (and
perhaps, also the sophomore year).
2. To provide terminal courses for students not wishing to dr
not qualified to advance to the University.
3. To provide the facilities for much of a community's adult

education program.

The Committee feels a Junior College Program has many
advantages, including the following:

111

1. It takes the University to the small community and closer
to the student's home.

2. It permits the High School and Junior College to comple-
ment and sUpplement each other.

3. It provides a good Opportunity for adult education at
college level.

4. It permits variation to meet local needs.

Therefore, the Committee would like to recommend the following:

1. In centers of pOpulation large enough to attract a sufficient
number of post—high school students, School Boards should be
encouraged to establish Junior College Programs as a part of
their local school systems. These Junior Colleges should be
affiliated with the University. The University and the
Department of Education should tender technical advice in
formulating plans and in making preparations for the Operation
of such colleges.

2. Provided they can meet the standards approved by the Board

of Governors of the University, private schools should be

permitted and encouraged to affiliate with the University

and offer courses in the first year, or the first and second

years of university work.

The Survey Committee attempted to provide the rationale for a
coordinated system of post-secondary education in its Second Interim
Report (Government of Alberta, 1963) where it stated the functions
and interrelationships between the university, the junior colleges
and the technical schools. With regard to the junior college the
Survey Committee now appeared to de-emphasize the transfer function
in favor of the more comprehensive function of providing Opportunities
for the non-university student:

The Committee believes that, while the extension of junior
colleges may remove some of the enrolment pressures on the
university; this should not be regarded as the major function
of such colleges. The Committee feels that the main purpose
of the junior college is to make higher edJcation more readily
available to the peOple of Alberta so that the total number of
students enrolled in post—high school institutions will be

greater than if junior colleges were not in existence.

Among its many recommendations at this time was that study be

112
given to the question of the future eXpansion of junior colleges and
other facilities for higher education, such as satellite campuses
necessary to accommodate additional undergraduate students due to
prOposed enrdflment restrictions for the main campuses.

From these passages the inference may be drawn that the Survey
Committee was not entirely accepting the direction being taken by
junior colleges in their emphasis Upon university work.

In its third (Government of Alberta, 1965a) and fourth
(Government of Alberta, 1966a) interim reports the Survey Committee
. reiterated its earlier statements on junior colleges, that they should
extend educational Opportunities to more peOple by decentralizing
facilities, by offering comprehensive programs, and by variation to
meet local needs. Although the transfer function was considered to
be only one of several important functions the Survey Committee was
consistent in its recommendation that affiliation agreements should
continue. This arrangement, however, was called into question by a

committee of the government, reporting about the same time.

Public Expenditure and Revenue Study Committee

Although concerned primarily with broad financial questions,
the fundamental issue of the function to be served by both public and
private junior colleges was considered by this citizen's committee of
the government. The committee observed as follows (Government of
Alberta, 1965b):

Both public and private junior colleges receive assistance

from the Province in accordance with the terms and provisions

of the University and College Assistance Act passed by the
Legislature in 1964.

113

In the case of public junior colleges the PrOvince provides
Operational grants for both university and vocational students
as well as capital grants not exceeding 90 per cent of the cost
of approved buildings and equipment.

In the case of private junior colleges affiliated with the
University of Alberta the Province provides grants of $630 per
full-time university student and guarantees the payment of
interest and principal on a loan for approved construction
projects Up to two-thirds of the approved cost. Private
colleges are prmmxflng a service with comparatively little
governmental SUpport and must be encouraged to develOp.

All junior colleges receive some financial assistance
from the Federal Govermnent from the grants of $2.50 per
capita paid to all universities and affiliated colleges.

The relevant question centres around the direction in
which they are to develOp. At present they are tied very
closely to the universities; the latter specify curriculum,
standards of admission and qualifications of staff. Since
present enrolment of full-time students at the Edmonton and
Calgary campuses of the University of Alberta now number some
12,000 and are expected to reach 28,000 within a decade the need
for satellite colleges to relieve this pressure is not difficult
to discern. A very similar develOpment has taken place in
California where junior colleges offer instruction to large
numbers of university students, permitting the University of
California's two branches in Berkeley and Los Angeles to
accept only about one-eighth of the total freshman student
enrolment.

There are those who believe that the Junior College in
this Province should offer a somewhat broader service to its
community, accepting post-secondary students who intend to
proceed to the vocational institutes as well as university, and
also itself offering vocational and commercial courses as well
as offerings in the field of adult education. Is the junior
college to become "a service station to the university" as one
educator phrases it, or, is its function to be more that of
a community college?

The answer to the above question must have a bearing on
the manner in which these colleges are to be financed as well
as their number and location. At present, local school
authorities are making a contribution to their sUpport through
an ear-marked addition to their prOperty tax mill rate. The
contribution of the Province with respect to students enrolled
in university courses has already been noted. The junior
colleges will make very substantial progress within the next
decade; the direction of this progress is in need of eXploration

114

and definition. The Government has engaged Dr. Andrew Stewart

to survey and report Upon the role of the junior college in the

Province's educational structure.

Special Study on Junior Colleges

In view of the sensitive nature of the issues involving the
Government of Alberta (financial implications), the Department of
Education (coordination), the University of Alberta (sanctity of
standards and programs), and the junior colleges themselves (autonomy,
expansion, and community sensitivity), Dr. Andrew Stewart, a man of
considerable education and political stature, was commissioned by the
government to undertake a special study on junior colleges in Alberta.

Included in the terms of reference was the direction to
ascertain:

(a) the prOper role of the junior college,

(b) the procedure by which it is formed and financed, and

(c) the course of develOpment and growth.

The following excerpts4 from the report summarize Stewart's
(1965) Opinions and prOposals:

(a) Purpose. The primary purpose must be to extend post-school
educational Opportunities to young peOple who, having
completed the programs of the schools, do not, either by
choice or by failure to meet the required conditions, go
on to university. The main purpose is to provide a valid
alternative to university for these young peOple. The
new institutions may provide a 'second chance' for students
not initially qualified to enter university studies. The
new institutions may also provide programs which will

advance the education of students who will proceed to
university.

 

4 .
On writing this review a heavy rellance has been placed on
the abstracting performed by Farquhar (1967).

115

(b) Programs. The primary emphasis must be on programs related

to the needs of students who, for valid reasons, will ter-
minate their formal education when they leave the new
institutions. . . .The programs should be complete and
educationally effective in themselves. . . .The programs
should be designed to prepare students for life eXperiences,
including employment eXperiences, within three broad areas--
the technologies, business, and the arts.

(c) Articulation with the Schools. It will be necessary to

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

articulate the programs in the schools and the programs in
the new post-school institutions so as to provide progres-
sive educational eXperiences.

Articulation with Universities. The programs must be devised
primarily for the needs of students not proceeding to univer-
sity. . . .Some accommodation within the university may be
required to provide for progressive educational eXperiences.

Adult Continuing,Education. The new institutions will have
a responsibility to perform in the eXpanding provision of
continuing education for those who have withdrawn from the
main stream of formal education.

The Government and Organization of the New Institutions.
The new institutions if they are to be effective, will have
to be receptive to local needs; and the apprOpriate form of
government will be affected by the tendency to decentralize
physical facilities so as to equalize Opportunities.

Financing the New Institutions. Decisions must be made
respecting the distribution of costs.

(h) Preposals. Dr. Stewart makes the following prOposals in

Part IV of his Report:

(1) It is prOposed that, for the develOpment of a systematic
approach to post-school education, the Province should
be divided into Districts.

(2) It is prOposed that the Districts should be established
by order-in-council; and that the Districts together
include all parts of the Province.

(3) It is prOposed that, in each District, there be estab-
lished a District Board for Post-School Education, which
would be responsible for all post-school education in
its district, not including university education.

(4) It is suggested that the District Boards, although

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

116

including representatives of the schools should be
divorced from the schools. The junior college boards would
consist of representatives of the school boards.

It is suggested that the members of the District Board
should be appointed. The Board should be essentially a
lay board.

The Boards should have full responsibility for all forms
of post-school education, other than university educa-
tion. -

There should be provision for a Provincial Board for
Post-School Education to coordinate the develOpment

of post-school education throughout the Province, to
maintain COOperation between the District Boards, to
effect liaison between the Districts and the Government
of the Province, and to advise the legislature of the
Province on the financial needs of the District Boards.
The Provincial Board should include representation from
each of the District Boards.

It is prOposed that comprehensive colleges be established.
The program of studies should be adapted to particular
abilities, aptitudes and interests of different grOUps

of individuals.

All District Boards should be eXpected to develOp strong
Counselling and Guidance Services and Extension Divisions.

A similar pattern should not be imposed on all Districts.
The pattern of activity and develOpment in the Districts
should be different, and eXperiment should not be inhibited
by imposed uniformity. Nevertheless, there should be a
large measure of unanimity in the philOSOphy which

inspires the develOpment.

The Province should ensure that the District Boards
should have available to them sufficient funds from the
Provincial Treasury to undertake the responsibilities
assigned to them.

The Province should be prepared to delegate the decision-
making responsibility to District Boards.

Consideration should be given to Provincial Grants to
District Boards on a per capita basis.

The Boards should be assisted in raising funds for
capital eXpenditures.

117
(15) It is strongly recommended that the Province act
boldly to place the responsibility squarely in the
Districts on District Boards.
(16) District Boards should have the power to enter into
negotiations with local school boards and other District
Boards regarding courses and acceptance of students.

(17) District Boards should not attempt to dUplicate the
work of Institutes of Technology.

(18) The functions of the District Boards must be considered
in relationship to university education.

(19) It is prOposed that students be diverted to attendance
at District Colleges.

(20) It is prOposed that a 2-2 plan be established, whereby
students could Spend two years in a College and two
years in a University.

(21) It is prOposed that the term Junior College be abandoned.

(22) It is prOposed that private church-related colleges be
integrated into the system of post-secondary education.

Stewart was considerably influenced by the Royal Commission's
recommendations and also by the develOpments in British Columbia where
district or regional colleges were permitted by the Public Schools Act
Amendment Act, 1965. Central to his prOposals were the ideas of
regional autonomy, priority of non-university work, provincial
coordination and adequate financial sUpport from the government.
Relationships between the District Boards and the University would
have to be considered.

Stewart was critical of some of the develOpments that had
already taken place in post-secondary education which had resulted
in a preoccUpation with university programs, and a lack of a systematic
approach to the provision of Opportunities beyond school for the grOUp

who would not enter university. The Public Junior Colleges Act

118
(Government of Alberta, 1958) had failed to create the needed
systematic approach to the problem of post-school education in the

communities in which the colleges are located.

The Aftermath of the Stewart Report

A few months after Stewart's report was submitted, in the
spring of 1966 the Banff Regional Conference of School Administrators
devoted its entire program to the theme of junior colleges. In
summarizing the discussions which took place among approximately
ninety educators of diverse backgrounds, Dr. L. W. Downey described
some of the features he eXpected to see emerging as colleges were
develOped (Farquhar, 1967:90—91):

(l) The college will be an autonomous institution, accredited
by the universities and by society on the basis of its pro-
ducts. It will be free to be different, to experiment and
to innovate.

(2) It will be created out of the educational aSpirations of the
citizens of a particular region or community and will reflect
these aspirations in its philOSOphy and its programs.

(3) Its doors will be Open to all high school graduates and to
selected high school drOp—outs.

(4) It will Operate on a divided-year plan so that students may
be sorted regularly, so that failure may not be prolonged,
but rather so that individuals may be aided in selecting
satisfying and productive careers.

(5) It will offer general, academic, technical, and para-profes-
sional programs, following the comprehensive pattern, with
a program tailored to the needs of each student.

) It will be housed in a building which is planned around
domains of knowledge and related technologies, rather than
the level of status of program and which has as its focal
point a well-appointed learning materials center calculated
to facilitate the inquiries of all students.

0\

(

(7) It will be staffed by teacher-scholars, dedicated to excellence

119

in teaching, committed to keeping abreast of develOpments in

their respective fields of study, and interested in the

conduct of research and eXperimentation in the processes

of teaching and learning.

Some of the changes of status foreseen for the junior college
as it currently existed in Alberta are indicated by the terms:
accreditation, freedom to eXperiment, regionalization, Open door,
comprehensive, curricular innovation, and eXpanded media. A new wave
of interest and enthusiasm for the community—junior college idea was
apparently about to surge.

The importance of the junior college idea did not go unnoticed
by Dr. T. C. Byrne who had worked with Dr. Stewart on his report and
who in May of 1966 assumed the position of Deputy Nfinister of
Education (Byrne: p.com.). Two principal concerns were recommended
for his attention by Dr. S. C. T. Clarke, Executive Secretary of the
Alberta Teachers Association: (1) educational finance, and (2) junior
colleges. Both areas were to form a major emphasis during Dr. Byrne's
term of office.

Dr. Clarke, at this time, became convinced of the need for a
serious review of all the recommendations currently being made for
the colleges, and urged the Deputy Minister to initiate a major
conference, failing which the A.T.A. might itself sponsor such a
meeting (Clarke: p.com.). SUpport for a conference was also eXpressed
by Dr. H. T. Coutts, Dean of the Faculty of Education and member of
the university's Committee on Junior Colleges (Coutts: p.com.).

Subsequently Dr. Byrne obtained written permission from the Minister

of Education, R. McKinnon, to proceed in arranging such a conference.

120

The importance of this conference, which was held in Edmonton
on November 28, 29, and 30, is beyond question. It was extraordinary
from the early planning stages to the final report.

According to Dr. Swift (p.com.) who was an observer of these
events, having recently assumed the new role of Chairman of the
Universities Commission, Dr. Byrne decided to use a tactic which had
been successfully tried earlier in connection with legislation on
accreditation of school districts, that is, to prepare a document in
the form of quasi-legislation for the reaction of interested parties.
Such a document, based largely on the Stewart report, was prepared by
Dr. Byrne during the months of June, July and AUgust, with the help
of Dr. G. L. Mowat and one representative from each of the A.T.A. and
the Department of Education. This "non-act," (as it was later dubbed
by Dean T. M. Penelhum since,in spite of the claims to the contrary,
it was seen by many as pending legislation with government backing)
was a substantial document containing fifty-seven sections, with the
following major divisions (Byrne, 1966):

Establishment of a College Region.

Duties and Powers of a Regional College Board.
Organization of Board of Trustees.

Board of Trustees.

Programs in Regional Colleges.

University Transfer Program.

Vocational Program.

Programs of General Education.

Institute Transfer Programs.

Programs of Adult or Continuing Education.
ll. Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education.

12. Finance.
13. Instruction.

\DCDNO‘U-DOOMH

...o
5’

The "non-act" was circulated in the province, and conference

delegates representing the full range of educational interests were

121
sent, ahead Of time, a questionnaire seeking their reactions. From
the forty-two questionnaires returned the following major conclusions
were reached:
1. Dividing the Province into regions--SUpported.
2. Establishment Of Regional Boards, mostly elected-~sUpported.
3. Student admission requirements not to exceed a High School
Diploma--SUpported.
-4. Comprehensive curricula—-SUpported.
5. Funds secured from different sources, mostly government-—
SUpported.
6. Staff certification requirements--mixed response. Most
favored non-certification requirement.
7. Creation of a Provincial Board-~5L:pported.5
A second major conference input was initiated by Dr. Byrne in
the form Of an analysis Of the existing provisions and Opportunities
in post-secondary and continuing education in Alberta.
A Fact Finding Committee consisting Of one member from each
Of the University Of Alberta, private industry, the public school
system and the Department Of Education was established to prepare a
report to be presented at the conference.
Leadership in this undertaking was provided by the Department
Of Extension Of the University Of Alberta whose Director, Duncan
Campbell, co-chaired the conference with Dr. Byrne. In a letter to
J. C. Jonason, executive secretary Of the Fact Finding Committee,
Campbell outlined the terms Of reference as follows (University Of

Alberta, 1966c):

An important item Of this conference is, Of course, the
review Of Opportunities in Post-Sec. and Continuing Education

 

5The detailed analysis Of the survey and other conclusions from
the conference are contained in the Appendix in a document entitled
"Conference on Post-Secondary and Continuing Education."

122
in Alberta today. Quite Obviously what is wanted here is
something beyond a mere catalogue. What is required is a
searching, perceptive assessment Of the realities of what
exists in Alberta today in Post-Sec. and Continuing Education.

The Planning Committee Of the Conference felt that this

job could best be done by a small committee Of knowledgeable
persons who would jointly undertake the study. The report
having been prepared, we would wish the entire committee, as
a team to present it to the Conference audience.

The report reviewed the relationships between employers and
educators and the services available through public and private
colleges, Extension Departments, and public schools in meeting
general post-secondary education needs. It differed from the Stewart
report in that it did not Offer a set Of recommendations, but raised
many important issues concerning the need for new comprehensive
colleges.

That the conference succeeded in bringing together inputs
from eminent theorists is clear from the program (see Appendix A).
However, if the sponsors truly sought consensus, they were frus-
trated in this end. The general support for the "non-act" provisions
reported from survey returns was turned into dissension during the
course Of the conference, and scathing attacks were made unfairly,
in the Opinion Of Dr. Margaret Parsons, Upon the University of Alberta
for its attitude towards the colleges (Parsons; p. com.). In Dr.
Byrne's assessment there was little SUpport for the comprehensive
program, but agreement that colleges should be freed from university
domination and placed under the control Of a provincial board (Byrne;
p.com.).

Nb. R. McKinnon, Minister Of Education, remembered two

123
important questions which were raised in his mind at the conference
(McKinnon; p.com): (l) the problems which might arise from having
local regional boards some Of whose trustees would be appointed and
some elected, but receiving large sums of money from the government--
would this result in unhealthy competition for staff with possible
inflation Of salaries? (2) the problems Of enforcing regional
attendance in the case Of a student who wished to attend a college
in another part Of a province.

The major outcome as seen by Dr. Mowat (p.com.) was an
increased realization on the part Of Dr. Byrne that legislation such
as that contained in the proposed act, involved many very touchy
political problems, which led to his deciding to drOp the bill.

Dr. Byrne recognized four alternative courses Of action
(Byrne; p.com.): (1) do nothing; (2) plan another meeting Of the
conference participants tO try to reach agreement; (3) pass the
"non-act" in the face Of Opposition from the Universities; or (4) use
the consensus of the meeting to set up a provincial Board, a course
which would involve only minor amendments tO the Public Junior
Colleges Act.

Having chosen the last—mentioned course, Dr. Byrne circulated
the necessary legislative revisions and brOUght together, at a
meeting in Calgary, the senior administrators of the colleges. There
was general acceptance Of the prOposal among educational leaders with,
according to Byrne (p.com.) two notable and vigorous dissenters.

In view Of these protests some minor changes were made and

the Minister Of Education agreed tO carry forward the legislation to

124
amend The Public Junior Colleges Act.

The 1967 amendment established the Provincial Board Of Post-
Secondary Education to (1) study provincial needs in the field of
post-secondary education and make recommendations to the Minister,
(2) advise the Minister on administrative and financial matters, and
(3) coordinate the work Of the junior colleges (Alberta Colleges
Commission, l97lc:15).

The creation Of the Provincial Board ushered in the proposed
third stage Of the development Of a provincial system Of college

coordination.

Chapter 6

COORDINATION IN ALBERTA--PHASE III

The last of the three prOposed phases in the develOpment of a

provincial system Of college coordination takes in the Provincial

Board Of Post-Secondary Education which came into existence in 1967,

and the Colleges Commission which replaced the Board in 1969.

THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

The Provincial Board was established by a series Of revisions

of the existing Public Junior Colleges Act (Government Of Alberta,

1967) as follows:

23. (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

There is hereby established a board with the name the

Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education which shall

consist Of

(a) a chairman, and

(b) such number Of other members as may be determined
by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The Minister shall appoint an Official Of the Department
Of Education as the chairman Of the Provincial Board.

The other members Of the Provincial Board shall be
appointed by the Minister to hold Office for a term Of
three years.

The Provincial Board shall

(a) advise the Minister on all matters related to the
administration of this Act,

(b) review and coordinate the work Of the junior colleges,

(c) study provincial needs in the post-secondary field
and make recommendations to the Minister,

(d) advise on matters of financial sUpport for junior
colleges, and

(e) arrange for affiliation between junior colleges and
universities through consultation and agreement
with the Co—Ordinating Council.

125

126
5. NO junior college may be established unless
(a) the Minister has given his consent thereto on recommenda-
tion Of the Provincial Board, and
(b) the Provincial Board, in consultation and agreement with
the Co-Ordinating Council, has approved the application
for affiliation with one or more universities.

34. A college board shall, so far as it is within the power Of the
board, provide

(3) courses Of study for students who require one year Of
university training beyond matriculation into a
university.

35. (1) Students desiring to attend a junior college for univer-
sity courses are required to meet such admission require-
ments as may be prescribed by the Provincial Board in
consultation and agreement with the Co—Ordinating Council.

37. (1) A college board may engage instructors of university
courses, whether full or part-time, in accordance with
requirements set out by the Provincial Board in consul-
tation and agreement with the Co-ordinating Council.

Following the establishment Of the Provincial Board, the first
action Of the government, on the recommendation Of Dr. Byrne, was to
appoint a chairman with outstanding leadership qualities in the person
of Dr. G. L. Mowat, Professor Of Educational Administration at the
University Of Alberta, who also served on the Cameron Commission.

Dr. Mowat's first assignment was tO recommend to the govern-
ment the names Of potential board members from various parts Of the
province, identified because Of their professional interest in post-
secondary education or as interested laymen. The government accepted
Mowat's recommendations with one exception, and also approved the
appointment Of Dr. H. Kolesar as member and half-time secretary to the

board (Mowat; p.com.). In this way a group Of tOp level peOple capable

Of exercising a great deal Of influence among their constituents was

127
brought together to shape the future Of post-secondary education in
Alberta.
Present at the first meeting held on November 24, 1967 were
the following Board members:
Dr. G. L. Mowat (Chairman), Mrs. G. Sterling (school principal),
Dr. E. E. Ballantyne (Deputy Minister Of Agriculture), Nb. J. J.
Comesotti (Mount Royal College trustee), Mr. H. A. Doherty
(Alberta Teachers' Association), Nb. L. K. Haney (rural school
trustee and member Of a junior college board), Dr. N. 0. Matthews
(college president, dean), NE. J. P. Mitchell (Director Of
Vocational Education), Mr. F. M. Riddle (school sUperintendent),
Dr. W. E. Smith (Professor, past-president Of A.S.T.A.), Dr.
W. H. Swift (Chairman, Universities Commission), Dr. R. Warren
(school superintendent and member of Fact Finding Committee),
Dr. M. Wyman (vice-president Of the University Of Alberta) and
Dr. H. Kolesar (executive assistant).1
The first concern Of the Board was to clarify its functions.
The Board would be advisory to the Minister Of Education regarding
junior colleges specifically, and regarding the needs Of post-secon-
dary education generally. It would be concerned, along with other
agencies, such as the Universities Commission, in long-range planning,
and in the establishment Of new colleges. It was agreed however that
the Board had no statutory responsibilities with respect to private
colleges.
A primary responsibility was tO help develOp new legislation
to implement the needed changes in post-secondary education organiza-

tion, but this was not considered feasible before the 1969 legislature.

The decision was reached, in response to a request from the

 

1Unless otherwise specified the sources Of information on the
activities Of the Provincial Board Of Post-Secondary Education and its
sub-committees are the recorded minutes, dated as in the text.

128
School Trustees’ Association, that meetings would not be Open tO
Observers, but that advisory committees might be used as an alterna-
tive avenue of communication.

Early acknowledgement was given to the importance Of COOpera-
tive action on the question Of affiliations and the chairman was
directed tO initiate discussion with the Universities Coordinating
Council and its committee on junior colleges. The events which
followed provide a good illustration of the Operational style Of
the Board, and Of its degree of success in attempting to provide
coordination between the two main branches Of higher education, the

colleges and universities.

Affiliation Agreements

At the second Board meeting held on January 10, 1968 the
Chairman presented the following proposals which were generally
SUpported by the Board:

1. That the high school equivalent component Of "combined"
programs in junior colleges require a relationship between
the colleges and the Department Of Education only.

2. That in respect Of students who take their first year
university programs in a college with which a university has
an affiliation agreement the university be concerned with
the end-product only, providing:

(a) students meet the university's entrance requirements, and
(b) students achieve a complete first-year program in the
college.

3. That graduates from first-year university programs in colleges
be admitted to any university, providing:
(a) the college has an affiliation agreement with a university,
(b) the graduate possesses qualifications required for
admission to the university he seeks to enter, and
(c) the degree Of advanced standing awarded is at the
discretion Of the receiving university.

129

The Chairman was empowered to engage in consultation with the
Universities Coordinating Council with a view tO establishing the
general acceptability Of all university work done in a public junior
college by all universities in Alberta-~that is accredited college
status. The Board, thereby, made clear its intention to seek some
control over the nature and administration of the college program in
total, and to establish some uniformity in Operation for the province
as a whole, while at the same time recognizing the rights Of the
individual universities tO insist on regular admission standards and
to assess the degree of advanced standing tO be awarded in a particular
program.

These prOposals were put before the Junior College Advisory
Committee, one of the four advisory committees established by the
Board, at its inaugural meeting Of January 31, 1968. The purpose Of
this committee was tO effect liaison with colleges by direct communica-
tion with the presidents who sat on the committee.

The prOposals were accepted by the advisory committee with the
recommendation, however, that clause 2 in its entirety or 2(b)
Specifically, be deleted.

On March 8, 1968 Dr. Mowat announced that negotiations on
affiliation were continuing with both the Junior Colleges Committee Of
the University Of Alberta and the Coordinating Council. Following
this announcement, on April 4, Dr. W. D. Neal, Chairman Of the Univer-
sities Coordinating Council Junior Colleges Committee presented a
report to the Advisory Committee outlining his grOUp's position. In

an attempt to resolve the different points Of view the Coordinating

130
Council requested that three Board members meet with three Council
members to prepare a joint statement (B.P.S.E., 1968i).

However the failure to reach an agreement was indicated, six
months later, when the Chairman Of the Board discussed with Board_
members a prOposed modification Of affiliations based Upon separate
reports Of the Universities Coordinating Council and the Provincial
Board (B.P.S.E., 1968i).

Meanwhile confusion over the question of who controlled the
transfer program was inhibiting the program develOpment function Of
the Board. At its second meeting, in January 1968, the Board had
clearly demonstrated its assumption Of authority in recommending to the
Nfinister which junior college programs should be funded, and requiring
colleges tO submit requests for course approval. In discussion Of
program changes the Advisory Committee (B.P.S.E., 1968i) agreed that:

A statement Of philOSOphy for the college system and a

set Of criteria for approval or rejection Of a program would
be Of interest to the colleges and should precede actual
consideration Of prOposed programs. There was also general
agreement that a broad committee considering the overall
post-secondary education situation should consider, advise and
give leadership in the program area to all post-secondary
institutions.

In carrying out the program approval function the Board
recommended a minimum Of specific prescription, with local flexibility
and "coordination" by the Board (B.P.S.E., l968e). This was possible
in the case Of non-transfer courses.

However, when Red Deer College requested the Board's permission

to initiate second-year university transfer programs the issue Of who

had the right to authorize this was confronted (B.P.S.E., l968m). It

131
was moved that "since the function Of the colleges in Alberta and their
relationship tO the university system is currently under study, that the
Board not approve the introduction Of second-year university transfer
programs in any college for September, 1969."

The partisan nature Of the discussion and the split between the
two levels Of post—secondary education is indicated by the comment in
the minutes that while the Chairman Of the Universities Commission was
a member Of the Provincial Board Of Post-Secondary Education (and could
thereby influence decisions affecting the colleges) the Chairman Of the
Board was not a member Of the Commission. A motion seeking to rectify
this state Of affairs was passed.

Eventually, in February 1969, following consultations between
Dr. Neal and Dr. Kolesar, who had succeeded Dr. Mowat as Chairman of
the Board, a joint statement on affiliation was presented, but not
formally ratified by the Board. The text Of this statement is contained
in Appendix B.

Finally, at the last meeting Of the Advisory Committee, held on
March 20, 1969, two months before the Provincial Board of Post-Secon-
dary Education was dissolved, the Chairman indicated that negotiations
on affiliation were still underway.

Thus the next formal agency for college coordination, the
Colleges Commission, inherited the unresolved problem Of university

transfer and affiliation.

132
Changes in Legislation

Perhaps the major function Of the Provincial Board of Post-
.Secondary Education was tO advise the Minister on new legislation
required tO provide for the better coordination and develOpment Of
post-secondary education in the province, the need for which had
earlier been recognized by the government, but delayed because Of lack
Of consensus among affected grOUps. In recognizing the momentous
task Of resolving the educational and political issues confronting it,
the Board decided that the 1969 session Of the legislature would be
the earliest Opportunity to effect such changes.

At the meeting Of February 14, 1968, Chairman Mowat presented
his prOposals tO the Board. Of ten prOposals three were amended before
approval, and one was deleted entirely. Agreement was unanimous when
each prOposal was voted Upon, with the sole exception Of one abstention
in the case of proposal 4.

The prOposals as amended are listed below:

1. Institutes Of Technology, Agricultural and Vocational Colleges,
and Junior Colleges are parts Of one provincial college system.

2. That normally these colleges should be designed to serve
persons who possess a high school diploma or its equivalent,
OR who are adults by definition.

3. That the five public junior colleges, three agricultural and
vocational colleges, and two institutes Of technology be
brought under the direct administrative control Of boards Of
governors.

4. That consideration be given to the prOposition that one board
of governors might have jurisdiction over more than one campus.
For example:

i. S.A.I.T. and Mount Royal Junior College.
ii. Red Deer Junior College and Olds Agricultural and
Vocational College.

10.

133

iii. N.A.I.T. and a future junior college in Edmonton.
iv. Grande Prairie Junior College and Fairview Agricultural
and Vocational College.

That a Provincial Commission be established replacing the
Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education and the Univer-
sities Commission tO undertake apprOpriate functions in
respect Of the whole public post-secondary system including
the universities.

Local Boards of Governors should not have direct access to
prOperty taxes.

The administration Of the college system be completely distinct
and separate from that Of the public school system.

(The deleted prOposal) That any type Of region be avoided in
the design Of the future post-secondary education system.

That further develOpment in the near future be limited tO
existing centres.

The members of the Board agreed to discuss these prOposals

among their various reference groups, and feedback was made available

in this way from a wide range Of influentials as follows (B.P.S.E.,

l968e):

1. Members of the Universities Commission.
2. Board members of several colleges.

3. All college deans and presidents, and the President of the

Alberta Association Of Junior College Faculties.

4. Selected staff members of colleges.
5. An executive committee of the Department Of Agriculture.
6. Senior administrators Of the institutes of technology.

7. A group Of Oil company executives in Calgary and the current

and two past-chairmen Of the Calgary Public School Board.

8. The Executive Secretary Of the Alberta Teachers’ Assoaiation

Junior Colleges Committee.

134
9. Executive members Of the Alberta School Trustees'
Association.

10. Members Of the Edmonton Public School Board.

11. Selected persons in attendance at the Annual Convention Of
the American Association Of Junior Colleges.

12. A number Of other persons.not included in the above.

All indicated sUpport in principle, but were concerned about
certain details such as:

1. What would be the criteria used in the creation Of local
governing boards?

2. What aspects of legislation would guarantee adequate finan-
cial sUpport for all existing institutions?

3. Will resulting legislation allow for flexibility in
Operation locally?

4. How will legislation relative tO a Provincial Commission
ensure that both universities and colleges will receive adequate
attention and support?

A common thread running through these concerns is the implicit
fear Of loss Of existing authority due tO centralization, and an
unfavorable redistribution Of resources.

At this point nO Official presentation had been made tO the
Minister Of Education, and the chairman was authorized to present the
amended prOposals for the reaction Of the government.

At the Board meeting Of April 10, 1968, the reactions Of the
Cabinet were reported by Dr. Mowat and Dr. T. C. Byrne, Deputy Minister

Of Education who attended for part Of the meeting, althOUgh neither

135

had been present at the Cabinet meeting. Four prOposals were commented
on and referred back for further consideration:

PrOpOsal 3 (local boards Of control): More institutional
boards would create new pressure groups in competition with each other
with unreasonable demands and conflict being possible results. One
provincial board might be established to Operate all colleges.

PrOposal 4 (multi-campus jurisdiction): Referred back since it
is related to #3.

PrOposal 5 (single commission for colleges and universities):

A provincial authority for colleges could, and perhaps should, Operate
independently of the Universities Commission.

PrOpOsal 10 (limits of centers Of develOpment): A reasonable
proposal, but should fall within the discretion Of the Provincial
Board.

In response tO the Cabinet's reaction Board members reiterated
their unanimous sUpport for local boards Of control (#3), and majority
SUpport Of a single commission (#5). The key issue behind both items
was the degree Of independence Of the colleges from government control.
A single prestigious coordinating body might have more independence
from the government than two coordinating bodies for colleges and
universities which in turn would have to be coordinated. ". . .It was
reaffirmed that any provincial college coordinating body should Operate
outside a government department, and that it should report directly to
a Nfinister."

The outcome Of the meeting was that the Chairman was directed

tO issue another statement in SUpport Of the prOposals already made,

136
and to arrange for a meeting directly with the Cabinet.

In the meantime it was necessary to develOp a statement Of
interim provisions for coordinating college develOpment until new
mechanisms were established by legislation. These provisions, the
Board agreed, should be devised according tO requirements Of particular
cases coming tO the Board's attention (B.P.S.E., l968h).

The Cabinet granted a meeting with Drs. Mowat, Stewart, and
Wyman, and stated that it would give further consideration tO the
prOposals and would issue an Official Cabinet Commentary (B.P.S.E.,
1968i). The Cabinet, however, did not yield on its position with
reSpect to local governing boards, and on June 13, 1968 the Chairman
submitted a prOposed press release indicating areas of disagreement
for the consideration Of the Board. The Board moved once more to
attempt to reach agreement on prOposal #3 by directing the Chairman tO
write to the Minister Of Education. An amended press release was
forwarded for the consideration Of the Nfinister, and meetings with a
variety Of educational agencies were planned tO inform them Of the
contents Of the statement before it was released tO the press. The
grOUps mentioned were the Alberta Teachers' Association, Junior Colleges
Trustees and Administrators, Junior Colleges Staff Association,
Agricultural Vocational Colleges, Institutes Of Technology, the Univer-
sities Coordinating Council, the Alberta Association Of Students, and
the Alberta Home and School Association (B.P.S.E., l968j).

The government eventually compromised by agreeing tO the
establishment Of local governing boards for junior colleges, but for

the time being insisted Upon direct control Of the colleges Of

137
technology and the agricultural and vocational colleges. However,
for purposes Of coordination, all colleges could be considered to be
members Of one system. The Board in turn accepted the idea Of two
separate provincial commissions, one for the university system and the
other for colleges.

The text of the final recommendations and Cabinet reactions is
contained in Appendix A. It is important to note that this release
established government policy only, and it now fell Upon the Board to
work out the detailed provisions prior to the drafting Of new legis-
lation.

Dr. Mowat, having resigned his position on the Board in order
to accept a call to assume the chairmanship Of the Department Of
Educational Administration, University Of Alberta, which was vacated by
the sudden death Of Dr. A. W. Reeves, Dr. H. Kolesar was named as the
new Chairman Of the Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education.

In order tO advance the process Of establishing new legislation, Dr.
Kolesar established an Advisory Committee on PrOposed Legislation which
first met on August 15, 1968. The powerful nature Of this committee is
indicated by its membership: Dr. Kolesar (Chairman), Dr. Byrne (Deputy
Minister Of Education), Dr. Ballantyne (Deputy Minister Of Agriculture),
Dr. Mowat (former Chairman), Dr. A. Stewart (new Chairman Of the
Universities Commission), Dr. Warren (school soperintendent) and
Nb. Doherty (Alberta Teacher's Association). The functions of this
committee were to (B.P.S.E., l968k):

l. "Skim" the first draft (prepared by Dr. Kolesar) Of the

prOposed legislation to ascertain major areas Upon which
divergent viewpoints might exist, and

138

2. discuss those areas and recommend an initial position tO be
taken on the points in question.

The major areas Of conflict were then identified as:
l. the composition Of the Colleges Commission
2. the powers Of the Colleges Commission
3. membership in the college system
4. position Of private junior colleges in relation to the
prOposed legislation
5. composition Of a Board Of Governors Of a college and
6. provisions relating tO the staff Of a college.
The Committee on PrOposed Legislation met three times: August
15, August 21, and October 18, 1968, and reached agreement on details
recommended for inclusion in Bill 70. These were subsequently
discussed by the full Board on December 20, 1968, and general approval
was given. The new legislation was assented to in the 1969 legislative
session.
On recalling the sequence of events leading to agreement on
Bill 70, Dr. Byrne described some of the reactions he perceived, and
some possible reasons for the government's rejection of two key pro-
visions (Byrne, p.com.):
l. The Universities Commission was currently in Operation
and the union Of two bodies would create administrative difficulties.
2. Fear that the attention Of a single commission would be
concentrated on the universities, to the detriment Of the colleges.
3. The existence Of two separate commissions provided more
political positions to be dispensed as rewards.
4. Nb. R. Reierson, who had assumed the Ministry Of Education

in 1967 following Mr. R. McKinnon, may have wished to de-emphasize the

importance of the universities by stressing the value Of colleges. This

139
change Of emphasis could be more readily achieved by the creation Of a
new commission for the colleges.

5. The Instflmmes Of Technology had been uniquely successful
under the Department Of Education, especially in the eyes Of the business
community. This fact was clearly seen by Byrne when he chaired a
committee to investigate the student "revolt" at S.A.I.T. The govern-
ment continued to receive gOOd feedback from the Institutes which
reflected better than any other institution the predominant value Of
Alberta, namely the Puritan Ethic. The government therefore was not
disposed to change a pOpular program.

6. At cabinet level there was protectionism Of existing domains.

7. The agricultural and vocational colleges were the special
preserve Of the Department Of Agriculture, and although an anachronism,
vested interests in the Department kept them alive, with the help Of
large sums Of money not justified by their merits as colleges. The
Board of Agricultural Education with the backing Of politically minded
farmers, is credited with much influence in the protection and isolation
Of these colleges.

Dr. Byrne's own feelings concerning the recommendations Of the
Provincial Board were mixed. Being administrative head Of the Depart—
ment Of Education and himself interested in the colleges, he had hOped
that much Of the responsibility for their future direction would fall
within his department, such as in Ontario. Generally he was Opposed to
the commission form Of governance since it is insulated from adminis-
trative control, and can Operate behind closed doors, but depends for

its continuity on the good graces Of the government. (Dr. Byrne

140
justifies these Opinions by pointing not to the Colleges Commission
but to the Universities Commission.)

In recognizing, but disagreeing with Byrne's point Of view,

Dr. Mowat had contested the authority line Of the Provincial Board,

which Byrne felt was within his department, and unequivocally recommended
that the new Commission should report directly tO the Minister. Rather
than take issue with this point Of view Dr. Byrne allowed it tO prevail
without protest.

Although there was a general readiness across the province to
accept the prOposed Colleges Act, it was not without its critics, one
being Dr. Margaret Parsons who had been chairman Of the Red Deer
College since its inception, and was committed to its develOpment.

This was confirmed by Dr. Parsons (p.com). The Act, as she
perceived it, would empower the Commission to restrict the programs
Offered by a college and thereby could frustrate its aspirations for
degree-granting status as an ultimate goal; colleges would lose local
autonomy by the absence Of elected or locally-appointed trustees who
could represent the municipalities and counties; technological programs
such as are Offered in Edmonton and Calgary should also be available
outside those centers, such as at Red Deer. The failure of the Bill
tO include the institutes would lessen the prospects Of technological
courses being Offered at Red Deer College, and finally the existence
of two commissions might lead to action tO establish new universities

without regard to the groundwork which had been laid by a junior college

141
which may give it a claim to senior college status.2

Dr. Parsons, however, sopported the idea Of some form of provin-
cial agency coordination in view Of the large anount Of money which
would be directed to the colleges from the general revenues Of the
province, and in order to reduce problems Of articulation and transfer
in a develOping system.

The existence of the Provincial Board of Post-Secondary
Education came tO an end at the meeting Of May 14, 1969 when the
Chairman announced that since Bill 70 had been assented to, the Board
was dissolved. It had fulfilled its primary mission Of develOping
legislation for post-secondary education organization, and had estab-

lished procedures for the coordination Of colleges, the continuation

Of which would now be the responsibility Of the Colleges Commission.

THE ALBERTA COLLEGES COMMISSION

The Colleges Commission was created by An Act Respecting a
Provincial College System (The Colleges Act) assented to in May, 1969.
Section 3(2) of this Act specifies (Government Of Alberta, 1969):

The Commission shall consist Of the following members:

(a) a chairman appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council;

(b) the Deputy Minister Of Education;

(0) the Deputy Minister Of Agriculture;

(d) the Deputy Provincial Treasurer;

(e) five other members appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-

in—Council.

Dr. Kolesar was named first Chairman, and the following

 

2This prOphecy was soon to come true with the government deci-
sion to locate Alberta's fourth university in the Edmonton area, rather
than in Red Deer.

142
non-statutory members were appointed:

Mrs. I. Taylor, formerly a member Of the Royal Commission on
Education, member Of the Board Of Governors Of the University Of
Alberta, and active in rural organizations.

Mr. W. H. Bowes, businessman and civic leader in northern
Alberta.

Mr. R. M. Jewell, businessman and Chairman Of the Red Deer
Junior College Board.

Mr. J. D. Mitchell, member Of the Vulcan Town Council.

Mr. J. J. Comesotti, member Of the Board Of Mount Royal Junior
College.

In addition, Dr. R. G. Fast and Dr. M. R. Fenske were appointed
staff Officers responsible respectively for instructional services and
administration.

Whereas the primary purpose of the Provincial Board of Post-
Secondary Education had been to set Up the structures for coordination
Of the provincial college system, the main purpose Of the Commission
was to establish policies for effective administration in keeping with
the philOSOphy Of the government which was eXpressed by the Nfinister of
Education at the first meeting Of the Commission (A.C.C., l969a):

. . .The primary emphasis in the public colleges should be on

non-university programs, but. . .the Commission must deal at
an early date with the problem Of second-year university transfer
programs in the colleges.

This was a clear indication Of the growing interest in the non-univer-

sity component, and Of the government's desire tO foster the develOpment

Of truly comprehensive colleges.

143
Other urgent matters awaiting the attention Of the Commissioners
were identified by the Chairman as follows:
1. Ratification Of affiliation agreement.
2. Procedures and criteria for consideration Of college program
prOposals and continued program Offerings in colleges.
3. Policy regarding second-year university transfer programs
in colleges.
4. Procedures and criteria for consideration Of college campus
develOpment including residences and Students' Union facilities.
5. Consideration Of long-range needs and demands for college
develOpment.
6. Policies regarding capital and Operational budgets Of
colleges.
7. Ratification Of Provincial Board decisions for campus
develOpment in each college location.
8. Consideration Of need for amendments to existing legisla-
tion during the 1970 session.
9. Consideration Of membership in the college system by
provincially-0wned institutions.
10. Need for establishment Of new college centers.
11. Operating grants to colleges, 1969-70.
12. Attendance at American Association Of Junior Colleges
Convention, 1970.
13. Need for model bylaws for colleges.
14. Review Of admission requirements and tuition fees in

colleges.

15.
16.

17.

144
Membership Of new college boards.
Salary levels Of college presidents.

Submissions from college boards regarding pensions.

This list indicates the wide sc0pe Of activities for which the

Commission assumed responsibility. The legal basis for this responsi-

bility and the manner in which duties were discharged will now be

considered.

Powers and Duties Of the Alberta Colleges Commission

The Colleges Act gives the Commission broad regulatory powers

over the colleges by virtue Of the following provisions (Government Of

Alberta, 1969):

8.

The Commission may
(a) gather and make available information relating to education

0))

(C)

(9)

in the college system in order

(i) to assist the members Of the college system in the
preparation and execution Of plans for the develOp-
ment Of the system to the end that they may be fully
adequate to the needs Of society, and

(ii) to advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the
establishment Of new members Of the college system;

inquire into the financial needs Of the college system and
advise the Lieutenant Governor in Council with regard

to the granting Of financial assistance for the purposes
Of the college system;

regulate or prohibit

(i) the extension, eXpansion or establishment Of any
service, facility or program Of study by a member
of the college system so as to reduce or avoid an
undesirable or unnecessary doplication Of a similar
service, facility or program Of study already provided
by another member Of the college system, or

(ii) the establishment Of a new school, faculty or depart-
ment by any member Of the college system;

subject tO the terms Of any trust upon which it may be held,

145
divide among the college boards in such manner as the
Commission sees fit any moneys or real or personal prOperty
received by the Commission for or in connection with the
college system;

(h) require each college board to submit tO it from time tO
time such reports and other information as the Commission
may require;

(i) act as an intermediary between the Government and the
college system, between the universities and the college
system, and between the members of the college system;

(k) establish such advisory committees as may be considered
desirable, and prescribe and provide for the remuneration
tO be paid to members Of such committees;

(1) make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor in Council
on any other matters considered relevant by the Commission.

From the above it is clear that the Commission has, among
other powers, the authority tO control public college programs
directly by withholding approval, or indirectly through fiscal
controls. The Commission's powers over other provincial post-secon-
dary institutions, however, is much less definite. The provisions Of
the Act apply only tO members Of the college system defined as
follows (Government Of Alberta, 1969):

18. (a) each public college, and
(b) each provincially-owned institution declared tO be a
member of the college system by an order under section 20,
and then only to the extent that the order makes this
Act applicable to that institution.

Thus the Institutes Of Technology and the Agricultural and
Vocational Colleges are not subject to the control of the Commission
unless so enacted. But the intent Of the Act was tO give the

Commission long-range planning capabilities for all post-secondary

institutions, and the right Of concern over the programs Of other

146
institutions is implied in section 8(a)ii, which empowers the
Commission to advise on the establishment Of new members Of the college
system.

In view Of the fact that responsibility for coordination Of the
total system Of non-university post-secondary education in Alberta is
not exclusively the right Of the Colleges Commission, and keeping in
mind the fact that rarely does a central agency engage all its formal
authority in conducting its affairs, it is useful to consider the
areas Of assumption Of authority by the Commission as revealed through

its minutes.

Exercise Of Authority by the Commission

An analysis Of the minutes Of the Colleges Commission between
September 1969 and June 1971 reveals two Operational levels Of
authority: (1) direct authority for action or decision; and (2)
authority tO recommend to the Minister Of Education or other agency Of
government. Decision areas which fall in each category are listed in
Tables 3 and 4.

From these tables it is clear that many Of the powers tO
coordinate and tO recommend have been employed from time to time; but
the manner in which the powers have been exercised is not revealed by
this analysis. In order tO describe the "Operational style" Of the
Commission it is necessary to re-analyze the records Of the Commission
from the point Of view Of process rather than decision area. In
this regard the quality Of the Commission's staff is Of fundamental

importance.

147
Table 3

Areas Of Assumption Of Direct Authority by
the Colleges Commission

 

 

 

 

Zone Of
Influence Decision Area
Internal Fiscal control procedures: signing authority, banking,
administration auditing, budget approval, setting the fiscal year
authorizing travel and expenses, authorizing remunera-
tion Of commissioners in lieu Of salary foregone.
Voting procedures.
Scheduling Of meetings.
Staffing procedures: appointments and conditions Of
work, employment Of consultants and interns, purchase
Of accident insurance.
Purchase or rental Of Offices and facilities.
Authorizing staff to act on behalf Of the Commission.
Public College programs: program approval, criteria for
colleges program develOpment, control Of religious instruction,

approval Of experimental programs, disallowance Of
courses and programs, approval of second-year transfer
programs in principle, authorizing Manpower Program
agreements.

Fiscal control procedures: establishing policies,
formulas, definitions, and support levels for disburse-
ment Of moneys; approval of Operating and capital
budgets; controlling tuition fees; auditing procedures;
making special financial provisions for new colleges;
setting limits for land purchase; transfer Of funds
from Operating to capital accounts; establishing
policies with respect to student scholarship funds;
review Of insurance policies; checking Of student counts
reported by colleges; controlling Operating costs by
establishing a maximum percentage increase to be
recommended tO the government.

Planning and development procedures: establishing
guidelines for campus develOpment; long-range planning;
approval Of college master plans; initial approval Of
building plans.

148

Table 3 (Continued)

4

 

Zone Of
Influence Decision Area
Public General control: establishing admission policies;

colleges (contd)

approval Of retirement fund plans; establishing non-
resident student policies; scrutinizing the Operation
Of boards.

Communication procedures: consulting with boards on
financial needs; establishment Of advisory committees;
soliciting nominations for board membership;

arranging college board hearings.

 

Post-secon-
dary system

Studying post-secondary education needs of the province

Establishing avenues Of communication with other
provincial agencies.

Approval Of affiliation agreements.
Conference sponsorship.
Submission Of briefs to planning agencies.

Receiving submissions on post-secondary education
needs from any part Of the province.

Providing leadership in program develOpment.

Establishment Of an information service.

 

149

Table 4

Areas of Assumption Of Authority tO Recommend

by the Colleges Commission

 

 

Fiscal:

Legal:

DeveIOpmental:

Requisitions for college SUpport under ApprOpriations
Bills; total apprOpriations for the public colleges
for the fiscal year; capital and Operational funds
needed.

Legislative amendments, proclamations, and Orders-in-
Council concerning the college system; regulations
regarding college by-laws.

Specific facilities construction needs--site, costs
etc.; guidelines for government consideration in
facilities approval, campus develOpment needs;
guidelines for removal Of barriers tO progress in
college develOpment involving other government
agencies; inclusion of an existing institution in the
public college system; feasibility studies involving
other institutions.

Guidelines for pension plans.

Study Of working conditions in colleges, which come
under the authority Of local boards, such as staff
load, hours Of work per week, and number Of weeks
worked per year.

 

Operational Style Of the Colleges Commission

From the outset the approach Of the Chairman to his executive

role has been tO attempt tO facilitate decision-making by sUpplying

leadership, and relevant information tO the Commission. This has been

implemented mainly by the preparation Of agenda packages which are

distributed to Commission members a few days before each regularly

scheduled meeting (Fenske; p.com.). Each agenda package contains

COpies Of materials relevant tO the items on the agenda, together with

150
explanatory comments formulated by Commission staff. In many instances
a recommendation for action or other decision is included. The minutes
Of the Commission indicate that recommendations are usually adOpted, but
occasionally amended or rejected.

The preparation Of an agenda package usually commences
immediately following a meeting Of the Commission and is ready for the
next month's meeting. The content Of the package is determined largely
from the concerns expressed at the meeting, but from time to time
actions are reviewed in reports covering a longer period. Three
agenda packages which were prepared for the first Commission meeting
in September 1969 are typical.

The first package contained the following items Of information:

1. A statement Of proposals to Cabinet.

2. Bill 70--An Act Respecting a Provincial College System.

3. Amendments tO Bill 70.

4. Population analysis and projections (Hanson).

5. Post-secondary education: A brief review Of the literature.

6. Population trends-~student enrollment forecasts--future
accommodation requirements (Fast and Fenske).

7. Guidelines and procedures for campus develOpment (Fenske).

8. Criteria for program development (Fast).

9. Bill 70: Provincial College System--a suggested critical
path for proclamation and implementation.

The next two packages consisted Of similar materials. In this
way the staff attempted to provide an overview Of: (a) the policies

adOpted by the Provincial Board with respect to campus and program

151
develOpment, (b) the need for post-secondary education in the province,
and (c) the legislative framework within which the Colleges Commission
would function.
A recommendation was also made on the staff structure needed
to support the Commission in the performance Of its duties. The

Commission approved the structure outlined below (A.C.C., 1969a):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chairman
Comptroller
I (L V 1
Director Director
Administrative Services Instructional Service

 

 

 

 

 

The Administrative Services branch would be concerned primarily
with:

(a) establishment Of new colleges;

(b) college planning;

(c) administrative responsibilities to the college system; and

(d) gathering and assessing Of data.

The Instructional Services branch would be concerned with the
develOpment and improvement Of curriculum and instruction in the
institutions comprising the college system. It would also be concerned
with related research, and to a degree with student services. Out Of
each of these areas two basic functions evolve: (a) administration, and
(b) leadership; and an analysis Of the activities Of the Commission and
its staff over the first six months Of Operation, as revealed by
Commission minutes, gives some indication of the extent to which

the two basic functions emerged in the Operational routine Of the agency.

152

This analysis is presented in Table 5, which shows that while
the wide-ranging powers of control, which were established by the total
fiscal dependence Of colleges, appear to have been used to impose a
system of public college coordination, the leadership function was
not overlooked in the deliberations Of the Commissioners, and actions
Of the staff.

TO illustrate the level Of sOphistication at which the staff
Of the Commission Operated in fulfilling its administrative and leader-
ship roles, two samples Of items included in agenda packages are

cited below.3

The first deals with a request from Lethbridge Public College
for permission to Offer a Social Services program. The staff recommended
as follows:

3. Whereas there are currently three institutions in Alberta
Offering a two-year Social Service program, and

Whereas these three institutions namely Mount Royal College,
Red Deer College, and the Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology have the facilities tO graduate 75 students
annually, and

Whereas the relationship of the manpower demand to the number
Of graduates is not clear, and

Whereas a research study has been sponsored jointly by the
Alberta Colleges Commission, the Alberta Universities
Commission, and the Human Resources Research Council tO
determine the supply-demand factor at three levels: the
two year diploma, B.S.W., and the M.S.W.,

Therefore, it is recommended that the Alberta Colleges
Commission delay action on the Lethbridge Social Service Program
until such time as the findings Of the study have been submitted
to the Commission.

 

31h Byrne's Opinion, the effectiveness of Dr. Kolesar and his
staff in administering the public onllege system justifies his view that
the Commission structure was not required.

153
Table 5

Analysis Of the Operational Style Of the Alberta Colleges
Commission, September 1969 - March 1970

w
—

 

 

Fiscal con-
trol:

Program
control:

LEADERSHIP

Research and Coordination in Fairview-Grande Prairie area;

forecasting: Atherton study on college finance; Vermilion College
eXpansion; ‘

Initiating Ad hoc committee for campus develOpment; contact with

structure: other provincial institutions; representation on
Planning Commission; Commonalities Committee, con-
ference sponsorship; recommendation for new legislation.

Long-range Five-year master plans from colleges; submission tO

planning: Commission on Educational Planning.

Establishing Interceding with the government on behalf Of Mount

harmonious Royal College eXpansion, advisory committee, communica-

relations: tion with presidents. \

Policy Criteria for second-year transfer programs;philOsOphy,

develOp- services and functions Of colleges; criteria for pro-

ment: gram develOpment and coordination, affiliation agree-
ment; college grants structures; guidelines for campus
develOpment; hiring Of consultants.

Information Significant new bOOks to Commissioners; Educational

function: Opportunities Chart.

ADMINISTRATION
Internal Signing authority, voting privileges, facilities,
Operations: meetings, staffing, etc.

Accounting procedures, college budget approval;
appointment Of auditors, auditors' reports, capital
financing, grant structure, definitions of students.

Approval Of aviation program at Mount Royal, approval
Of arts and science program at Red Deer, withholding
approval Of second-year transfer program at Medicine
Hat until a better balance Of transfer and non-
transfer courses is planned for; refusal of transfer
programs at Lethbridge; delay Of Social Service program
at Lethbridge.

 

154
The second illustration outlines the tasks to be performed in the
establishment Of a public college in Edmonton, and shows the respon-
sibilities Of each Of three levels of authority.
These tasks together with the dates by which they should be
accomplished are identified in the critical path or time-line diagram

below:

1) Proclamation Of Sections 31 and 32 Of Bill 70

2) Appointment Of a Board Of Governors for the Edmonton college
3) Arrangements for Financing Completed

4) President appointed

5) Temporary Office quarters secured

6) Secretarial staff employed

7) Administrative assistant appointed

8) Consultants selected and appointed

  

 

 

 

  
  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  

 

  
 

July I7 July 2 Sept. 1 Sept.107 ”Sept.251 Sept.30
(l) (2) (4) (5) (7) (8)
Proclaim Appt'd Pres. Off.Qts. Adm.Asst« Consult.
Act Board FAppiéd? ! SecEred Appt'd Appt'd ,
(3) (6)
Fin'l Some Sec
Arrange. Staff
Compl‘g Appt'd |

 

 

 

 
 

—.
, pi; ~11; |
cad—2:933.

Tasks Of Gov't Task Of College Board Tasks of Board on
' Recommendation Of Pres.

 

 

 

 

 

The efficacy of the Commission, however,éwsa coordinating
agency may be better measured by its results on two fronts: (l) intra-
system relationships, and (2) inter—system relationships. An indication

Of the first is available in the concerns expressed by member colleges

155

over system conditions, at a conference held with the Cabinet in August,
1970. These are presented in Table 6, together with the re5ponses Of the
Commission.

The stated concerns Of the member colleges cover many aspects
Of the system as follows: (1) problems Of dflferences between colleges;
(2) problems of Operating and capiud funds; (3) inter-institutional
relations; (4) the community service dimension; (5) long-range planning
rigidities; (6) relations with industry and community; (7) lack Of
incentive for good college management; (8) problems Of program
develOpment; and (9) dissatisfaction with the Colleges Commission.
Some of these complaints were refuted by the Commission while others
were accepted for study and possible remedial action.

The efficacy Of the Commission in its role Of mediation with
other provincial agencies must be judged by its success in resolving
the important problems Of program coordination and inter-institutional

articulation. These will be looked at in the next sections.

Coordination Agreements with Other Provincial Institutions

' The need for better coordination between the various provincial
agencies responsible for some aspect Of post-secondary education was
clearly seen by the Chairman Of the Colleges Commission, who initiated
discussion of the problem. The text Of two reports which were included
in the agenda packages for October, 1969 and June, 1970 are summarized
here:

In the Opinion Of the Chairman the need for improved communica-

tion among existing authorities was recognized by all, but prOgress

156

.pcoEmpmpm mm: cums mesocoo scammfiEEou och .Hmmfio
mpwsc mom mommaaoo esp mo mach esp mchmmmom mxnmEmm
m.nmfi5osm one .nm>m30£ .ym: mcfioflpmé xb commas “smog

was“ ow common cum: .EOpm>w one am ommafioo comm mo
macs one mcfimop Hams cmHQ Hmcoflpmospo mowmme one Av
.cowmmfleeOo momofiaoo one we mHHonee: one nope: mEmo
mcofipspwpmcw >ofimnm>ficsucoc Ofifinsa Ham ma poocmccm
>Hpmmnm on page; mcowpspwpmcfi new mamnmoma mo comp
nmapnooo pmcp cofimmfieeOo mmmofiaoo one we cowpwmoo
one come m>m3am mm; “H AOAQ .HnoH .H comm: :0 one mm
nmppme mflcp co unseen < .>pfiflwbmmmmm:mnp mo momma
may o>aommm Op ponmfianmpmm comb mm; moppweeOo < Am

pm: mcHOflme
mommaaoo poo:

pm: sameness

mommfiaoo poo:

macs

Mo movemomsm w campficfiwmpnp
mcoflp:WfimeH

Hmnpo spas :oflpmcfipmoovo
mommafioo

macaw cofipmcflpmooo Emmmomonn
coflp

lmfiaflmwm mommCmHe >pwmmm>HC3Am

mcofipmfimm Hmcoflpzpfivmcflunmch

 

.mospsm
new: one CH pm>aowmn on pdsocm smpcfimemm esp pcm
pm>MOmoA ammo >pmmnfim m>mc mmmaaoo >e pmwmflwcwpfi

mmsmmfl one we >cmE .wmfiOAHoo HmflocmCHm maompomoom
mcficmwaempmw :fi momowmmo Hmflocmcfiw .mmmofiaoo are
some egos ow came mm: cofipocsw mowco omens noaaonp
16500 m pmecfiooom mm; pH .mnspooono pmmfipnmUCmpm
m Opcfi mcfipcsooom paw mmfiOHHoo Hmflocmam mmoHHoo
mcfimcflnb Hmm> pmma one ucoom mm; :ofimmfieeOo och

mommaaoo ewe:

mowpmflnmyomomco
mcfipmmweo Cw mwocmnomMfio
composnpmcoo mocwpwmmm
mHo>oH mow coflpflsH

mmaspmzom
>Hmamm w accepmwpomo: wmmpm
«mpcsw
Hmpflomu w mcwpmmooo mo Ewanona

 

.cofipmooafim Emmmomo wo Eofibomo esp O>Hom

Hafiz >Haswoooz mfiLH .pommamma mcflwb ma EmHQ Hmcoflp
twospm oopwme < .mmmoaaoo Ham mo pcoeooHo>mp paw
pcoegmfiflempmw ecu pm>mfiop :msp Resume a: pmpmoom
>Hamnmcom mm: cowpom :ofimmfleeOo .mmmmHHoo HHmEm

pcm mmmoaaoo so: mo wEmeomo may gyms ammo Op
moHOfiHoa soc mewooao>mp >Hpcmpmcoo we conmfieeOo mzh

Home pom
amemaneuaa
wfimflmmm mesmmo

memnmoma cfi mmocomowwwp
memefiaoo HHme
mmmoaaoo so:
"memoaaou
comrpme moocmnmmmfip mo mEOHbomm

 

mwcoommn commmfleeOo

omwafioo

osmmH

 

mocmnmmcoo womaaootumcfibmu on“ pm pommsomfia mmsmmH

0 maan

157

.mEmHmomo amcofipmoo> no Ammnmo :w mam pcmo mom on
cams; mamomono HemmCme >wflmnm>fics aw mom mgmmna<
cw mmmmaaoo cfi pmHHoncm mpcmpspm one mo pcmo

mEmHmomQ

 

see He pmzp 30cm Hmm> “coneso esp new moflumfipmpmAn ammo pom swampmom co wwwchEw Lmficfib
.mpmmea<
c“ mowpwmmm>fics one >e powpspm mcfimb >Hycmmnso we
mmnm one page wasp mm pm .mcflxomfi we ucoeaon>mp Home pom mcflxomfi cunmommnfim
Emnmona co commemmm mo pcsoEm :fiwpnoo m maficgflm pcoeaofim>wp Emnmoma
pcoewmmCme mmoaaoo
.pmflpapm mcflmb mm mflnh mmpwnbcpmq poem How unwrap mo xomq

 

.COflpmpcommonn >pfiCDEEOQ no Hmwnpmzpcfi
.mmmcfimsb m>flmcmpxm m>m£ wwmppHEEoo Esasowmmso
Emnmono awe: .>pfic:eeOo ecu new; meme omoHo

mo Homeooam>mp mLp pmmmmsooco mm: cofimmfleeOo OLH

Hm>om page:

>pwcsEEoo w >Hpm3pcfi
cums mcofiumfimn mmmfiaoo

 

.cpmcoa pmmnm pm popcoe:oop new popmfipcmpm

team on pause wflcH .mEmHmoHo mo moa>y new ponpme
.cmwmmv cfl mmopfi re: use mmmcoscflc: .>pfiaflnflxmam
pmmmmsoocm Toepcfl mm: new compspfipmcfi some acne
woman ompmme omcmnlmcofi posfisvon mm: cowmmfieeOo och

amsaaaeeoa

>yflaflbflxmflw
mmnwsgon mEHCCmHO mmCmHImcoq

 

.moflpficseeOo among some moficmcowpmaon o>fipomwmm
mcwcmflaempmo Cw paw mummc >pwc:EEoo mcflcHmem cfi
m>fipmfipficfi esp wimp page one mo>aom5mcp mommaaoo

one ma we Am>osom .pcfiooCmficp ow powflmmLQEm come
we: mm: concoefip mow>nom >pficseeOo may pmzp many
an on .aapmaam>m were memos seaward new sameness
paw cofipmmmflmmfi mo oceanmflabmpmo one cosoncp pcoe
uaon>mp Emmmona pom madame mo mmmnm one C“ Epsomm
mmmaaoo mo wwwpfinofimo mozmflc esp we pasmmm m m<

mommaaoo HH<

:ofimcmeflp m0fl>mom >pficseeOo mLH

 

mmcoOmmn conmHEEOU

mmwafloo

“casewoaoov a sagas

mammH

158

 

.tmpco5m

we :mo coflpmamwmoa one .Oanmnflmop OOEOOO mm pm mm

.mmmamzpno>mz .Oco ammo one was cofiwmfleeOo one mo

coflpHmOoEOO pcomoma one wasp .OOCHOOOOO masomm one
mo HHO umoeam >n .>p:um Hawonmo “some .pmonmm was

wH .cofipmfimwmoa one wo mcflpmmnp one mcfinsp mecma compmucmmomomn m>fipmnpmficfi5pm
pmonm em pcm mewmp pmonm a“ Ommmsomfip mm; cofip w mmmpm .pcmpspm mpsaocfl
IHmOOEOO awLmHObeOe coflmmfiEEOu yo cofipmmsc OEHAO mmpfisnnpwq Op pepspfipmcoomn Ob pHsOLmAO

.moocmcMw pcm .ucoeoOHo>op
Emmoono .pcoeaOHO>op mOOEmO onwcswocoo mmoypme aw

mocwaopfism pcm mewofiaoa mo pcoezmflfibmpmm exp cmaomcp mflzmnopmofi
aficmnmcmofl popfi>ona some :H mm: :ofimmfieeOo OLHAQ ompfiencpmq o>HpOmmwm mcfipfi>ono quAb
.mcofipfimoo

pawn“ mumpfiafiomw ccm oocmccm pan Gawcpoc ocop
mm; coflmmweeOo ecu pmcp powficmoomm O>OL momOHHOO

mo >pHMOmme one paw .mcop mm: H“ mfiLH .EOpm>m mmmcfimsb poom MO
mmoHHOO m we pcweaOHo>mp new Lpsonm one mpmmmaoma mofiawocflna no“; pocmmocoo pOzAm
paw cmflmop Op cozmflaempmm mm; coflmeEEOo OLHAO mmpfihbcpmq CmemfleeOu mommaaoo

 

.>mOHOCLOOp mo wmpspfipmcH paw mofipfimmm>fics
one rpm; pmmmeeoo can; mmsmflm pcmowmficmfim m go:

m“ mommfiaoo cfl mpcopspm somehow mo ucoefiomco OEHAO pmcfinmo mpcweaoncm peopspm ammonomfio
.momofiaoo egg pm .Hmppmb
pOc mm .aaos mm pmmmwwo on UHOOO moflpwwmm>flcs mcoflpspfimeH Hospo xb po>mom
exp om paw >mOHoccomH mo mmpspflpmcH one pm mmpflmbgpoq mcfiOb >Hpcommmq mcoflpocsw
Oommmwo >Hpcmnnso mamnmona onm mep some ma pHAp pm: mewOfipoE mEOm m>mmmrufisocw wmmOHHOoAp
.mpcmpspm wo memo: opp pose Op mOOfl>HOm :Ofipmmmpflmcoo pcmwoflwmsm
mafiaaomcsoo mpmsvopm mcfioofiw>mp mum mommaaoofio Home pom cm>fim p0: mpemc pcmOOPmAO

.meOsmOno newmcmnp >pwmnm>fics ca mpcmpsum mum

mo “coo non mo mm: wammpw omoHHOo Home pom OLH

.mnmo> oo pmmfl one am pmcomom po> uOc O>mL use

co>fimpw o>mL mmwmpm poems: esp aw mmmoHHOO moflcsh
one news; mOHmBOp mosmfle oabmw>cm any mm mach Homo pom Ab

 

Omc0Omon :OfimmfieeOu mmOHHOu msmmH

 

 

Apmscfipcoov o mfiemh

159
could not be made until decisions were reached concerning the role Of
the Commission.

The lack Of formal authority meant that the Commission could
neither promote nor restrict any aspect Of the Operation Of institutes
and agricultural colleges. However, since these institutions received
their approvals from the Cabinet, a higher authority than the Commission,
the Commission's decisions were under their influence. This position
was antithetical to the Cabinet statement Of reaction to the prOposals
Of the Provincial Board that "lnstihfies Of Technology and Agricultural
and Vocational Colleges (would) be coordinated with the college system
as a whole in keeping with the recommendation Of the Provincial Colleges
Commission to the Ministers responsible for their administration."

Attempts at voluntary coordination Of programs in the three
types Of colleges during 1968-69 were largely unsuccessful, mainly
because the participants indicated that they would be bound only by
favorable decisions.

In an attempt tO remedy the situation the following motion was
carried at the October, 1969 meeting Of the Commission:

That the Commission approve (l) the establishment of formal

avenues Of communication between the Colleges Commission and

the various participating grOUps in the provincially owned
institutions, and (2) the discussion with these groups of the
relationship Of the institution to the College System and to the
Colleges Commission.

A series Of meetings was subsequently held with the various
institutions with the Objective Of prOposing an Order-in-Council which

would establish new structures for coordination. There was general

sopport for the idea from the Agricultural and Vocational Colleges who

160
saw the prospect Of expanded programs with public college status, but
the response Of the Institutes Of Technology was tO recommend a
"laissez-faire" arrangement for at least the next two-year period.

The response Of the Commission was to submit a recommendation
tO the Cabinet that an Order—in-Council be made bringing the institutes
of technology under the authority Of the Colleges Commission in matters
relating tO programs and services, campus develOpment, and finance
(A.C.C., l970d). NO action was forthcoming from the government to
implement this recommendation; nor did the government accept the
resolution Of the Commission passed on June 10, 1971 that the Vermilion,
Olds and Fairview Agricultural Colleges be incorporated as public
colleges under the Colleges Act.

The dysfunctionality Of having a provincial Commission charged
with the coordination Of a post-secondary education system but lacking
the power to control two Of its three major parts is clearly illus-
trated in the following examples:

1. The Lloydminster brief. This was a prOposal for the
establishment Of a public college serving the Lloydminster area.

One important factor facing the Commission in considering this
brief was the existence of an Agricultural and Vocational College in
Vermilion some thirty—seven miles from Lloydminster. Lacking the
necessary authority even to study the situation the Commission
recommended to the Minister Of Education that the Commission's staff
be authorized to conduct a feasibility study on the expansion Of
programs in the Vermilion College (A.C.C., l970a). The Minister's

reply indicated that even at his level no authorization for the prOposed

161
feasibility study could be given until the whole matter had been
considered by the Cabinet. The caution exercised by the Nfinister
indicated the sensitivity Of other government departments in matters

Of post-secondary education.

2. Long—range mastergplan. Although the Worth Commission on
Educational Planning was due tO report in 1972, and Dr. Kolesar,
Chairman Of the Colleges Commission, was himself a member, and in
addition the Director Of Instructional Programs was a member Of the
Post—Secondary Education Task Force Of the Commission on Educational
Planning, the Colleges Commission, in December 1970, approved an amount
not to exceed $37,000 for the develOpment Of its own master educational
plan, with respect tO public colleges.

This action affirmed the Commission's responsibility for
planning, which was already underway under the direction Of a new staff
Officer, and apparently induced the government tO reconsider the
Commission's sc0pe by requesting the Commission to eXpand its Master
Educational Planning Project to incorporate all forms Of non-university
post-secondary education. This the Commission agreed to do (A.C.C.,
1971a).

Although the Colleges Commission lacked the formal authority
to coordinate the programs at the institutes of technology and agricul-
tural colleges, there is in the above actions Of the government evidence
Of acceptance Of the idea Of leadership in coordination emanating from
within the Colleges Commission. This trend may have facilitated the

voluntarism evidenced in the agreement which was reached between the

162
new Grant MacEwan College and the Northern Alberta Institute Of
Technology in specifying their respective program areas. This took
place at a meeting held in April 1971 between Commission staff,
President and Chairman Of Grant MacEwan College, and senior adminis-
trators Of NAlT and the Division Of Vocational Education. The follow-
ing abstract is from the files Of the Colleges Commission:

From the philOSOphies Of the two institutions an apprOpriate
placement Of programs would be:

N.A.I.T.: All engineering, medical and trade and technical
programs.

Grant MacEwan: Remedial and Upgrading programs, general
education, Social Service career programs, Business career programs,
allied health career programs, all other service oriented career
programs, and community service programs.

Continuing education courses would be Offered by both insti-
tutions depending Upon the category in which they exist. TO avoid
unnecessary dUplication and redeployment, it was agreed that for the
time being the philosOphies established above would not be implemented
in their entirety. The following allocation was approved:

N.A.I.T. (a) Will continue to Offer all engineering and medical
technician/technclogy/trade programs; (b) will continue to Offer the
business programs which they are currently Offering, but will not
eXpand programs in this area.

Grant MacEwan. (a) Will not Offer engineering technician/
technology/trade programs; (b) programs in business and allied health

fields will be developed in areas not currently Offered by the

163
Northern Alberta Institute Of Technology except where duplication may
be desirable or necessary; (c) the social services program will be
transferred to Grant MacEwan Community College from the Northern
Alberta Institute Of Technology.

The fact that agreement was reached on even a limited transfer
Of programs from NAIT to Grant MacEwan characterizes this as an unusual
example Of voluntary coordination. The feeling Of mutual unease over
program demarcation persists in certain areas, however, and it was
clearly understood that agreements reached were temporary and not
binding on either party. Further negotiations were anticipated.

In evaluating its own position as coordinating agency (A.C.C.,
l970e) the Commission appears to have accurately described its situa-
tion as follows:

Commission powers relating tO colleges and including such
powers as to gather information, regulate service, distribute
funds, and make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor-in-
Council, are limited tO the affairs Of the public colleges only.
Thus there continue tO be three systemsserving a common non-
university clientele without the benefit Of an overall plan for
their develOpment and their coordination other than that imposed
by Cabinet itself.

It is not intended here to criticize the effectiveness of
coordination by Cabinet. Instead the intent is to indicate
that the 1968 Cabinet Statement Of policy has not been achieved.

It is the view Of the Colleges Commission that coordination
among the non—university institutions is desirable and necessary,
and that this coordination should be provided by the Commission
as provided for in enabling legislation contained in The Colleges
Act.

Relationships with the Universities

The Minister of Education charged the Commission, at its first

meeting, with an early resolution Of the problem Of second-year

164
university transfer programs in the colleges, this being a reference to
difficulties in establishing agreements with the universities. Further
the Chairman's list Of tasks to be accomplished was headed by the item
Ratification Of Affiliation Agreement. The Commission's failure to
achieve either,tO the complete satisfaction Of the colleges and the
universities,is the subject Of this section.

The affiliation agreement referred tO was that which was agreed
Upon by Dr. Neal and Dr. Kolesar in the last months Of the Provincial
Board Of Post-Secondary Education, but which was questioned by both
the Board and some college presidents. One concern was the manner in
which the universities would evaluate the first-year program Of a
transfer student for credit purposes.

In elucidating this point Dr. Neal, Chairman Of the College
Committee of the Universities Coordinating Council wrote to Dr. Kolesar
in April 1969 as follows:

Because Of the considerable differences in program details
between similar departments Of different Universities, there will
have to be flexibility Of assessment Of a transferee's student
background. A Department may have to say that it can accept
certain courses, but that for another it may be necessary for
the student to do some other pre-requisite study.

A college will have to be aware Of the differences and
decide whether it is going to aim towards one particular univer-
sity with perhaps some divergence from the others or try to
provide a general course aimed at all Universities.

I think much Of these details will be clarified as Operations
proceed, particularly if regular professional liaison is maintained
at Departmental levels—-and I see this as quite different from

the present control mechanisms.

I hOpe that the flexibility involved in the procedures
proposed will be better for all concerned in the long run.

In consideration Of this letter the Commission approved the

165
Affiliation Agreement, at the meeting Of November 13, 1969.

A few months later, however, the Chairman Of the Commission
reported that two colleges were experiencing some difficulty in
arranging for the affiliation Of second-year programs, and that its
staff was planning to meet with the Universities Coordinating Council
in an attempt to alleviate the problems (A.C.C., l970b). Subsequently
an advisory committee was established to look into the matter Of
affiliation and a report was presented to it by Dr. East, a Commission
Officer, in May, 1970.

In this report, which is included in Appendix B, Dr. Fast
outlined the problem Of establishing a second-year transfer program,
necessitating, as in the case Of Red Deer College, approval Of seven
separate committees. In spite Of the confusion Dr. Fast was encouraged
by the attitude Of the Coordinating Council in its desire tO establish
shorter and more reasonable procedures for affiliation: "While to say
that things have not gone well might be recorded as the understatement
of the year, we do see a glimmer Of hOpe on the horizon."

This Optimistic view, however, was later to prove unwarranted.
On September 10, 1970 the Chairman reported that the entire issue of
accreditation and transferability.was being studied, and that the
Objective was to arrive at solutions to major problems by September 1971.

The situation was not resolved, however, but in fact deteriorated
during 1971, until the point was reached where the public colleges
refused to sign formal agreements Of affiliation proferred by the
University Of Alberta. Currently the transfer Of students between

colleges and universities is effected by informal rather than formal

166
means, and it is still the subject of study and negotiation.4

The fundamental reason for the confusion over transfer arrange-
ments, as seen by Dr. Neal (p.com.), is that legislation covering
university level work is found in both The Universities Act and The
Colleges Act. The Colleges Act specifies that:

25. mebers of the college system may be affiliated with Alberta
universities subject to regulations established by the Com-
mission following consultation and agreement with the
Universities Co—ordinating Council.

26. A college board may
(a) with the approval of the Commission, establish the admis-

sion requirements for students of its college.

27. A college board may provide at a college
(a) courses of general, academic, vocational, cultural or

practical nature, subject to the approval of the
Commission.

By the terms of the two Acts the Commission is given the power
of approval in principle of college parallel programs, and may likewise
veto such programs by withholding support funds; the Coordinating
Council and the Commission may negotiate affiliation principles and
procedures, but specific affiliation agreements between a college and
a university is a matter for the approval of the Board of Governors,
and therefore subject to the recommendation of the University's
Committee on Junior Colleges; and finally, departments and faculties
exercise controls through their acceptance of college transfer courses

for credit, by authority of each General Faculty Council.

A second, related problem which has also defied solution,

 

4This situation was confirmed in an interview with the Aegis-
tant Registrar of the University of Alberta, and by correspondence in
the "Affiliation File" of the Alberta Colleges Commission.

167
according to Dr. Neal, is the definition of matriculation equivalency
in the case of students who commenced college transfer work with
matriculation deficiencies. Agreement was reached between the Depart-
ment of Education, the Coordinating Council and the Colleges Commission
that colleges could develOp alternative programs equivalent to grade
XII high school work, but agreement was lacking on who should validate
the equivalence of specific courses. Authority in this regard also
resides, therefore, with each General Faculty Council, and Operationally
is decided by individual faculties, the result being some inconsis-
tencies in practice which have caused consternation, especially in
Lethbridge Community College (Alston, p.com).

Dr. Kolesar (p.com) sees the problem differently. Both the
Provincial Board and the Colleges Commission have consistently sought
accredited status for the public colleges, and the Commission does, in
fact, have its own internal accreditation system. At the heart of the
affiliation problem is the reluctance of the universities to recognize
the contribution and legitimacy of the colleges, and to accord
accredited status where merited. This attitude, together with an
unworkably complex affiliation procedure, has precluded any fundamental
agreement on the transfer function.

The result of the failure of the Commission to bring about a
rationalization of the transfer function of public colleges has
necessitated institutional adjustments such as seeking affiliation for
one program with the University of Calgary, and for another with the
University of Alberta depending on the degree to which the college’s

program resembles that of each major university. This is the situation

168
which obtains at Medicine Hat College where, in the words of the
Registrar (Perrin, p.com.): "transfer arrangements appear to work

satisfactorily, but the universities 'call the shots'."

CONCLUSIONS ON COORDINATION

In the last four chapters a description of the develOpment of
the Alberta colleges and coordination mechanisms has; been given.

The first Alberta junior colleges were private church-related
colleges which combined high school work with first-year university
transfer programs in affiliation with the University of Alberta. No
formal mechanisms for coordination existed other than the University of
Alberta which through its Committee on Junior Colleges SUpervised the
conduct of the transfer program. The primary orientation of the
Committee, in dealing with the private junior colleges, was to protect
and preserve the interests of the university by screening instructors
and setting academic standards for courses and programs. The result
was a concentration on academic work duplicating university studies
on a course by course basis. Junior college leaders appeared to
accept the inevitability of university domination and a functional, if
not harmonious, relationship existed between them.

With the introduction of public junior colleges in 1957 an
attempt was made by the Government of Alberta to encourage comprehensive
college programs of non-university as well as university caliber. The
Junior College Committee continued to administer affiliation agreements
much as before, but a gradual deterioration in the relationship between

the colleges and the University took place. The Committee on Junior

169
Colleges zealously exercised its right to control and limit transfer
programs in the junior colleges, and since these programs were still
perceived locally as the mainstay of the colleges the "authority"
of the university was resented.

During this phase the influence of the committee was dissipated
throughout the university by the delegation of certain responsibilities
to individual faculties and departments and by the inclusion of
representatives from the Calgary campus. As before, it limited its
attention to academic matters, and resisted any further involvement in
system coordination, such as establishment of new colleges. System-
wide planning and coordination, however, were increasingly of interest
to the government which initiated or sUpported a variety of surveys
and studies. The most notable of these was the Stewart Report which
initiated a flurry of activity culminating in a three-day conference in
Edmonton.

The result was a confluence of Opinions mostly supporting the
idea of planned growth in junior college Opportunities especially for
those not desiring a university education, but divided on such basic
issues as regional organization, and allocation of functions. To
resolve these issues the government established a powerful central
agency known as The Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education, whose
primary function was to advise the government on policy. The policies
forthcoming, however, were not entirely acceptable to the government,
and compromises were reached in the formulation of Bill 70--An Act
Respecting a Provincial College System, which discarded the "junior"

college image and created a provincial system of post-secondary

170

(non-university) education of three parts: technological institutes,
agricultural and vocational colleges, and public colleges. The Alberta
Colleges Commission was created to coordinate the system as a whole and
to provide central control and coordination of the public colleges in
particular. The records Of the Commission indicate that it established
a coordinated public college system with comprehensiveness on a
provincial basis and a balance Of university and non—university programs.

The Colleges Commisskin, however, was not able to successfully
coordinate the total post-secondary education system due to lack of
legislated power to control the institutes and agricultural colleges.
Also the failure of the government to revise thoroughly the Univer-
sities Act in the light of the college movement resulted in legislation
covering college transfer programs existing in two Acts. As a result
Of overlapping jurisdictions, the tradition of university control,
reactionary university departments, and eXpansion-minded college
presidents, the Commission faced an impossible task in attempting to
reach consensus on affiliation and transfer procedures. While
analytical and eXploratory studies continue to be made to this day,
another route to the resolution of the problem of college-university
relations has been Opened by the Conservative Government which took
office in September 1971 following thirty-six years of Social Credit
rule. In the first few months of office the government established a
Department Of Advanced Education which quickly brought the institutes of
technology and the agricultural and vocational colleges under its
jurisdiction, while preserving the existing administrative structures.

In similar vein the government has Opened discussion on the possible

171
future union of the universities and colleges under a new coordinating
or governing agency.

Whatever forms emerge there can be little doubt that the future
will bring significant develOpments in the arrangements for the coordina-
tion Of post-secondary education in Alberta. In order to see how these
develOpments are related to the past, and to better understand how the
past may guide the future, the table which follows (Table 7) contains
the writer's perceptions of some significant events which are seen as

milestones in the develOpment of the Alberta college system.

172

Accuummfiwuumvmammaaoo
Hoficsh co mmppfleeoo
munmnfi< mo suns
Inm>wca .Amcficmaov

mommaaoo homesm change Hem maoep

machpcoo cofip
Imflafimmm poohOWCHOH amps: mmOHHou

 

 

coflpmcflphoou ommaaoo we Ewpm>m

A sagas

Hmflocfl>OHa m mo pcmeaon>mQ may ch mpcm>m pamOfimficmHm mEom

mcflmsou .5 ammo Icoo compmfiafiwmm mo cowpmxmfimm Howcsh mmpfinngpmq mzp mo mCHCmQO Roma
.mphmon Hoozom
mcfipmaflofiwhma >3 mcflhmcmlpmoo Am
.wEmHmoHo mo mmmcm>wmcmcmHQEou AN
.mmnwwaguma
How mmmfiaoo Hofizsn Ofiansa m AH
.pmflsm .Ho .cmwpspm >HH:% mCprmOAHQEM Hfipcs “co pcmeOmHm< .mamwuammo Hoozom
.mccoh .I .3 .HQ mmoHHoo Hoflcsn owansa m0 590% mmpfihbcumq w >pflmum>flca ..pm
.msmupc< .comhmuma 3m: m co pcmEOmem wcoawmoa Oh we .pamo .pcmecnm>oo mo mcflpmoE coma
cowpmpcmwno
.pemmmsm pcmhmmmflv m new; pcmpasmcoo mthOphmE >2 mmpfihncpmq
.: .4 .:omhmuma .0 HmooH m >O pmpospcoo >pspw cfi mmmaaoo mo >p3pm >pwfifinfimmmm Hood
.Ompfinbnpmq c“
msmnpc< mpmx .mHE .< we .3 mo Hmpcwo mmmaaou Ofifibsa m we >pfififlnwmmmm
.u.0 .comhmpma “embawo :oflwcmpxw no .msQEmo Hmooq opp mpwmwpmw>cfl Op m>oe pmufim mvma
O>fiymc9mpam
egg mcflphoaesm mmom ponghQ we ccfimfl>hmosm
.: .0 LP“; .mmmofiaoo mopsn paw howsoe mm mcfipom >pflm Emhmoma mmofiu mcfi>mflommm
saunas co amupneeOo uum>ucs Luna cohemumhanaucM Hmwmnma ..<uo.: may go summon cemumflfimuua Hmoa
cauummufiuum asap swarms conumnuuuum mausumomam
cofiumumumuoom so amumsm boa muwmnua Co >pmmh¢>mc2 was cums
mnm>oe Oeflhm mm>flmeHmpH< pcm>m mpmo

173

.uOSOE

.0 .5 .mCH>m .0 oH
.Ho .cofipmospm

mo .pama new

ao< MO .3 ao<oHo¢

pumamum .< .HO

COHQEGU .9 .HO pmcmm

pumam .HO

.mcofimmm cofipmospm
>hmOcOOmm|mem mcfipowammm po<
OLp mo mmmmmmm .paoamm unmawpm
esp mo puma HO Ham How whoaasm

.mcoflpmpcOEEOome mmmcp
“hoswssm OsmHOQ Ho.co po<

.pmma any mcfiwwewpflmwa Cmcp
HOLOOH waspsw esp mewmeflOHpcm

.mpowhpmwp Hmcoflmmh
How coawmamflmma pmmnp mo Hmamhp

ream; .puoamm uwmgmpm may ow mcofiu

lemma pewficmmho .mocmhowcoo >Opnm
cam phonon mmppwEEOo mcflpcfim pom»

.OOOOO

cofipmcmOhOOO Hmwocfl>OHa m :O OHOOO
poflnpmflp some Echw mm>wpmpcmwmhomh
.mmmOHHOO O>flmcmzwhOEOO Ow coflpmospm

>Hmpcoowmlpwoa mo cofiumwfiamcoflmOh
.mpoahpmfip Opcfl Ompfl>fib OOOM>OHQ
mcfipcmEEOoma whoamm uhmgmpm

.cmaa HOpmmE momma

schH mo coflwmflpwcfi.>ocmmm mcfi
ICMO>Om mm .Om mo .pQOo .mEmhmOha
mpmhu tam Hmcofipmuo> MO coflpmw
Iflflmhpcoomp .mOmOHHOu >OMCOEEOU
mm cgocx mmhpcmo Hmcoflmmh now
mcowpmpcmeeOOOH co cmxmw :Ofigom
Oz .pHOQOm cndmmfiEEOo coaoEmo

.cofipmfififlmmm >wwwhm>wcs CO Empm>m

esp Ommhovcm paw .Ompwuncpwq pm
mpcm>m OONfiHmEHoc Loan; pom c<

mmwpspm new: mpfignmocfi>oaa .mOmOHHOo howcsh Oflabsm wO pcmecmwa

co Ommmn cowpmamfimmfi pomce OH

IOOme any How OOH>OHQ Op wo< c<

coma

mama

mama

 

mHO>OE wefima

mm>fipmchmpa<

Apmscfipcouv s OHOOH

pcm>w

 

 

174

 

 

coapmospm .cOCmmCEEOo mwmwaaoo
Oah>m .93 CO .pamo any CO Hohpcoo OLC mcfinmflanmpmm .Op Ompcmmmm
Hmmmfiox .90 mecca mmmOCHOO CO pcoemomam po< mmmOCHOo OLHIIQN CCCm mooa
.mOmOHCOO Ocm
mmflpflmhm>wcs HOC COCOOCEEOO Ofimcfim
m paw .mcoflpapfipmcfi >hmbccomm
nymoa Ham HOC HOHCCOO CO mpnmon
>thfipcm :C chHCOOOOEEOOOH COOOH mcfiuomnwh .mcowmeCOEEOOOH
mhmymficwe pmcfinmo w.OHmOm Hmflocfl>ohm CQOO0< Mmamm Op cowpommn Camachm>oo mood
.cOfiCmosOm
>hmpcoommlpmom CO Ohmom COCO
Cm302 .OQ .m:a>m .HQ ncfi>ohm any CO Ocmezmflfibmpmm soofi
.mEmsmOha thmcmnp OmOCCOO
Howcsh hOC mofipfiafibfimcoamoh .mmmOCHOO aoficsm O» Comammh LCM;
CO OOCCOOHOEOO HOHOOHU AN HCOcOOo mcfipmcfiphooo Ocm .Cflocsoo
.OO>COmmh mm; >CCOOOC Hmhocmo .mchHO>Oo CO
mmmeHOO hOwcsn OCCOOQ CO COCO Oemom CO mewsoa mcH>CHOOQm mewpwm
Immsd mcp Cape: ucmecOQCmOm AH Ihm>flc3 Hmflocfl>ona mcflpomammm Co< ooofi
whm>oe Oeflhm mo>fipmcumpa< pcm>m mpmo

 

Anmacflpcoov e mHOmH

Chapter 7
AN ASSESSMENT OF COORDINATION IN ALBERTA

In this chapter an attempt is made to evaluate critically the
various arrangements for coordination which have been used in Alberta,
namely: the University of Alberta Committee on Junior Colleges, the
Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education, and the Colleges
Commission.

In dealing with the first two forms, the task is approached by
reviewing, in the light of the literature on coordination, selected
items of information which were presented objectively in previous
chapters. In the case of the Colleges Commission, additional informa-
tion is available in the form of questionnaire responses to an evalua—
tive instrument.

According to Stuckman (1969:37) the first requirement of a
coordinating body is that it be effective and efficient, meaning that
it serve the needs and interests of both the individual colleges and
the province.

In the first two phases which are characterized initially by
private junior colleges, and later by public junior colleges Offering
transfer programs in affiliation with the University of Alberta, the
Committee on Junior Colleges appears to have met its primary purpose
Of maintenance of standards. In fact the Committee, in some instances,
outdid its own academic standards in the level of professional prepara-
tion required of junior college instructors, and in some examination

175

176
standards which exceeded those required of regular university students.

Towards the end Of the second phase, with the growth in the
number Of public junior colleges, and the increasing demand for compre-
hensive programs, the need Of the province centered on system rationali-
zation and coordination of the variety of contributing post-secondary
educational institutions. The Committee on Junior Colleges was neither
equipped for nor charged with this duty. While the Committee sought the
involvement of the Department of Education in controlling the expan-
sion of junior colleges it failed to adjust its own stance on affilia-
tion, and the regulations and procedures which sufficed in the 1930's,
40's, and 50's, were inadequate for the 60's. In terms of efficiency,
therefore, this declined over the years.

The effectiveness outcomes of the Committee are measured in
terms of the degree of satisfaction of the needs Of affiliated colleges.
In the first phase of develOpment the orientation of private colleges
was almost entirely towards university transfer work. The main advan-
tage of affiliation was that it brought program credibility and status
to the college. It also entailed the college's compliance with certain
academic and physical requirements, and removed these concerns from the
decision-making bodies of the college.

These were significant advantages which more than compensated
for the transfer of power to the Committee, and in most cases relations
were functional, if not harmonious. There were instances, however, most
notably in the case of Mount Royal College, where the costs of affiliated
status, in terms of loss of control over programs, were too great to be

paid without protest. These problems were inherited by the first public

 

177
colleges which were accorded exactly the same treatment.

It is only in the third, and current, phase of the develOpment
of provincial coordination that an agency is set Up specifically for
this purpose. The Provincial Board Of Post-Secondary Education was
effective in meeting its two main responsibilities: (1) the develOpment
Of policy culminating in legislation and a permanent structure for
coordination; and (2) the develOpment of working procedures for college
coordination. In dealing with both an emphasis was placed on Opening
channels of communication, and there is evidence of considerable input
on the part of college presidents, senior government officials and
representatives of other agencies interested in education. The Board
was unsuccessful, however, in its dealings with the universities.

The present arrangement for coordination is the Colleges
Commission, and since its Operations are most readily scrutinized, and
of greatest tOpical interest, a fuller assessment of its performance is
justified. This is done in two parts: (1) an assessment based on

documents and interviews, and (2) perceptions of college leaders.

Assessment of the Colleges Commission

The Colleges Commission appears to have been effective in
coordinating the public college system to the extent of being able to
initiate the preparation of a college master plan. The Commission,
however, has been ineffective in coordinating the total non-university
post-secondary system due to deficiencies in legislated power.

The Commission appears to have established Open lines of

communication through standing committees and active staff liaison

178
with the colleges. Contacts with other governmental agencies, such as
the Universities Commission and provincially-owned institutions, have
been less regular. This has resulted in generally sound and sUpportive
relations within the public college system, but in frustrations over
the allocation of technical-vocational and academic programs, and over
university domination of transfer programs.

Likert (1960) claims that in all organizations an emphasis on
develOping "human capital" is rewarded in terms of increased productivity
and member satisfaction. A "human" organization is characterized by
SUpportive relations, grOUp decision-making, and high performance
aspirations (Likert, 1960:48). The Colleges Commission, as already
reported, appears to have engendered good rapport among college leaders.
In addition, the Commission has been highly SUpportive of its staff.
This is eSpecially evident in the attitude Of the chairman towards his
assistants, who are encouraged to exercise initiative, and whose works
have been praised in the minutes.

GrOUp decision-making is assured to some degree by the Commis-
sion structure, and has been Optimized by the use of agenda packages
which provide the salient facts on any anticipated issue, and by the
readiness of the chairman to act on the intent, and in the spirit of
Commission decisions. Decentralization of college administration is
encouraged in principle in wholly local matters, and issues of wider
implication are debated in regularly scheduled meetings with college
presidents.

It is clear that the value Of human capital and the need for

both effectiveness and efficiency (as defined by Stuckman) have not

179
escaped the notice Of the Colleges Commission.

Miles (1969:378) states that "a healthy organization not only
survives in its environment, but continues to OOpe adequately over the
long haul, and continuously develOps and extends its surviving and
COping abilities." Nevertheless the survival of a commission (as
Byrne notes) is conditional Upon the whims of politicians, and these
may pose a greater threat to the Commission than its own condition Of
health.

A healthy organization is characterized by:

l. A clear goal focus. (The focus of the Commission is
clear with respect to public colleges, but unclear with respect to
other post—secondary institutions.)

2. Communication adequacy. (The Commission has adequate lines
of communication with the public colleges, but inadequate lines with
provincially-owned institutions and universities.)

3. Optimal power equalization. (A reasonable balance appears
to have been established in the public college system, but the
Commission lacks the power to carry out its responsibilities for the
coordination of the total post-secondary system.)

4. Optimum resource utilization. (Although there are some
complaints about the allocation of program functions among colleges,
and some concern over community service budgets, there is general
agreement on the policy Of sUpporting existing colleges nather than
dispersing resources more widely.)

5. Cohesiveness. (There is a feeling of identity and group

Spirit among college personnel.)

180

6. Morale. (Morale is lowered by relationships with the
universities and failure to attain accredited college status.)

7. Innovativeness. (The records give little evidence of
innovativeness in the public college system.)

8. Autonomy. (The public college system as a whole is
entirely dependent Upon government fiscal sUpport, and transfer
programs are subject to the control Of the universities. The total
existence Of the Commission depends on government approval. In its
internal Operations, however, the Commission has much autonomy.)

9. Adaptation. (The Commission proved itself capable of
overcoming the problems of "newness." These are discussed below.
Another positive indicator is the continued Operation of the transfer
program despite a lack of general agreement with the universities.)

lO. Problem-solving adequacy. (The Commission's records

contain evidence of a willingness to confront and deal with problems.
Decisions are reached rationally on the basis Of available information
and long-range plans for individual colleges and the system as a
whole.)

Stinchcombe (1965:148) in discussing the "liability of

newness" states that:

As a general rule, a higher prOportion of new organizations
fail than old. This is particularly true of new organizational
forms, so that if an alternative requires new organization, it
has to be much more beneficial than the Old before the flow of
benefits compensates for the relative weakness of the newer
social structure.

The vulnerability arises from the following problems:

1. New roles have to be learned, which involve high costs in

181
time, worry, conflict and temporary inefficiency.

2. New organizations must rely heavily on social relations
among strangers. This means that relations Of trust are much more
precarious in new than Old organizations.

3. There is a loss of stable ties to those who use organiza-
tional services.

The Commission has been spared some of these problems by the
continuation of the policies Of the Provincial Board, and by the
decision to retain its chairman and central staff, but newness demands
still arose from changes in the personnel structure of the Commission
and of local boards. There is no evidence, however, of temporary
inefficiency. The business Of the Commission was initiated by the -
staff during the three months preceding the first Commission meeting,
and the momentum appears to have been maintained.

A tentative conclusion offered at this point in the assessment
is that the Colleges Commission failed in areas where it lacked the
necessary powers, and succeeded most in areas which were subject to
the influence of the Chairman and his staff. The Commission per se
provided the necessary vehicle for the formalization Of policies and
linkage with the government.

The writer's prognosis is that the Commission would prevail
under existing conditions, but that action by the provincial government,
through legislative amendments, could quickly decide its fate one way

or the other.

182
Perceptions of College Leaders

A page by page review of Chapter 2 gave rise ‘tO a series of
questions which could be asked of college leaders to elucidate their
perceptions Of the functions which should be served by a provincial
coordinating agency, and their assessment of performance by the Alberta
Colleges Commission. These questions were organized into a questionnaire
which was scrutinized independently and revised in the light of sugges-
tions made.

The final draft of the questionnaire, a copy Of which is in the
Appendix, contains the following major divisions:

1. Basic purposes of a system of college coordination.

2. Tasks and functions of a coordinating agency.

3. Performance characteristics of the Alberta Colleges
Commission.

4. Outcomes of coordination in Alberta.

5. Review of the past.

In dealing with purposes, tasks and functions, all those
identified in the literature were included, and respondents were asked
to judge their apprOpriateness for the Alberta Colleges Commission, their
importance, and the extent of achievement by the Commission.

The performance characteristics deal more with the manner of
performance of duties and less with outcomes, and are proposed in the
literature as illustrative of sound procedures. The question was asked:
How frequently does the Colleges Commission meet these standards?

The list of outcomes was derived mainly from the section of

related literature dealing with the benefits of state-level

183
coordination. Are these benefits achieved in Alberta? Some questions
also arose from the theoretical models of coordination to see if any
of the formulations were applicable to the Alberta situation. A
separate list of outcomes arose from the complaints of college
presidents in 1970. The intent behind these was to assess the efficacy
of the Commission in removing or reducing problems identified by
college leaders. -

Finally, the questions dealing with the past sought to reveal
the subjective assessment of college leaders to situations which they
may, or may not, have experienced directly. Specifically, respondents
were asked to judge the balance between centralization and decentraliza-
tion of control over colleges which existed in those phases Of coordina-
tion identified in this study.

A basic underlying concern throughout the questionnaire is the
validation, or otherwise, of the conclusions formulated from the analysis

Of documents and interviews.

Administration of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was
mailed, with a letter of eXplanation, to the current presidents and
board chairmen of the six public colleges. In addition one was sent to
the former president of Medicine Hat College, who had recently resigned
from this position. Advance notice of the questionnaire was given at
the December meeting of the Colleges Advisory Committee, at the request
of the researcher.

Responses were received from all but two potential respondents.

Of the eleven respondents, four did not feel competent to complete

184
section V of the questionnaire.
The consolidated data are located with the questionnaire in Appen-

dix c, and findings are reported in the sections which follow.

BurposesL tasks and functions of a coordinating agen_y. Of the
twenty items prOposed there was general acceptance of all but four. The
four tasks and functions which the majority Of respondents deemed
inappropriate for the Colleges Commission are:

1. Planning college facilities.

2. Pooling requisitions on the purchase of expensive equipnent.

3. Establishing standards and approaches to recruitment, pre-
service, and in-service education of academic faculty.

4. Establishing standard personnel policies for non-academic
employees.

Of the remaining sixteen apprOpriate items thirteen were rated
as very important, the majority of responses being in category 4 or 5
of the importance scale. Among them are all four basic purposes, and
nine tasks and functions. These are listed below in the order of
perceived achievement as indicated by average scores on the achievement
scale.

Approving building plans (3.8)

Determining financial needs of the public college system (3.7).

Approving college budgets (3.5).

Meeting the needs and furthering the objectives of colleges (3.5).

Establishing standards for space utilization and plant develOp-
ment (3.4).

Serving the best interests of the province (3.4).

185

DevelOping a master plan for public colleges (3.3).

Harmonizing the various components of the system (3.3).

Allocation Of programs and functions to colleges (3.1).

DevelOping a master plan for all post-secondary, non-university
education (2.9).

Establishing uniform codes in information reporting (2.9).

Reducing conflicts between agencies having related interests
(2.8).

Establishing auditing procedures (2.5).

Some interesting conclusions may be tentatively drawn from these
Observations.

College presidents and chairmen generally accept centralized
coordinative activities with the exception of facilities planning and
equipment purchasing, and personnel policies for both faculty and non-
academic employees, which apparently are perceived as local matters.

Generally the performance of the Alberta Colleges Commission in
undertaking functions deemed apprOpriate is evaluated favorably, since
three quarters of the mean scores fell above the mid-scale score Of 3.0.

In serving its purposes the Commission is most successful in
meeting the interests Of the colleges and a little less successful in
serving the best interests of the province and regulating and harmonizing
the components of the post-secondary system. It is least successful in
reducing conflicts between agencies having related interests.

The tasks which are performed best are those dealing with
building plans and fiscal needs and allocations. The next group of

tasks are related to program planning functions in the public college

186
sphere. Those rated lowest in terms of achievement are concerned with
program planning and rationalization in the context of the total post-
secondary system, and with accounting and reporting procedures.

These evaluations tend to SUpport earlier conclusions that the
Commission meets more success in coordinating matters internal to the
public college system, than in matters cutting across the segments of
post-secondary education. In addition a new dichotomy appears between
tasks related to the facilitation of college programs, such as approving
building plans and providing financial resources, and tasks related to
college accountability, such as receiving fiscal reports and other
information on the Operation of the colleges. The Commission is

apparently more successful in the former than in the latter.

Eerigrmange ghgrggtgristics of the_Alberta Colleges Commissig .
In turning attention to process the conclusion is readily reached that
college presidents and chairmen receive the Commission's Operations
favorably. Of the eighteen characteristics indicating sound procedures
the number of respondents checking the "usually" or "always" columns
exceeded the total in the "never," "seldom," and "sometimes" columns
in all but two cases. The suspect characteristics are: establishes
consensus among the colleges; and relates the cost of new programs to
budgets.

The first of these is attenuated by the almost unanimous opinion
that the Commission usually gives a fair hearing to colleges, makes
equitable decisions, and successfully controls virulent competition.
Perhaps the lack of consensus, which sometimes exists, reflects a

functional variance of Opinions.

187
Apparently, however, a laxity is perceived in the Commission's
SUpport of certain new programs, in spite of the general accord with

budgeting procedures.

Outcomes Of coordination. While there appears to be a high
degree Of unanimity among college presidents and chairmen in their
perceptions of the Commission's activities and procedures, there is
generally less agreement on results. The technique used to identify
items responded to positively and negatively is as before: positive
responses are indicated by a majority of responses in columns (4) and
(5), and negative responses by a majority in columns (1) and (2‘. In
most cases positive responses are favorable responses.

Of the sixteen outcomes posited the following were accorded
majority agreement.

1. Colleges are able to function well independently of each
other.

2. The conflict level between local college boards and the
Commission is low.

3. The conflict level between local boards and college presi-
dents is low.

4. Initiative in individual colleges is encouraged.

5. Community citizens are involved in the development of a
college's programs.

6. Coordination results in greater gains than costs to colleges.

7. Coordination results in comprehensiveness of programs in

the context Of the total province.

188

Majority disagreement was indicated for the following outcomes:

1. The colleges are free from the interference Of universities
and other post-secondary institutions.

2. The colleges are free from arbitrary government intervention.

3. College programs have become standardized.

4. Administrative procedures are standardized.

Opinion is divided in the case of five possible outcomes
dealing with the definition of a college's community role, the balance
of programs in a given college, the degree Of uniformity of academic
and vocational standards between colleges, college sensitivity to
community needs, and the balance between the forces Of change and
resistance to change.

In evaluating improvements brought about.since August 1970
when concerns of college leaders were discussed with the Commission and
the Cabinet, respondents generally acceded that some progress had occurred.
The majority agreed with the following trends:

1. Inter-institutional relations are characterized by improved
COOperation.

2. Relations with industry and community are satisfactory.

3. Satisfaction with the coordinative role of the Colleges
Commission is high.

There is lack of consensus on six items:

1. Problems of differences between colleges have been removed
or significantly reduced.

2. Problems of Operating funds have been minimized.

3. Problems Of capital funds have been minimized.

189

4. Long-range planning rigidities have been removed or
significantly reduced.

5. Incentives are provided for good college management at the
local level.

6. Problems of program develOpment have been removed or
significantly reduced.

One problem remains unsolved in the opinion of the majority,
namely the community-service dimension which is still inadequately
SUpported. This may be the program element which gave rise to the
criticism of failure to relate the cost Of new programs to budgets.

In the light of these perceptions of outcomes some important
conclusions can be tentatively prOposed on the subject of coordination
in Alberta:

1. If, as Litwak and Hylton prOpose, bureaucratic forms are
apprOpriate where there is an awareness of interdependency, high
standardization, and many institutions, then the apparent absence of
these conditions in Alberta indicates that any changes in provincial
coordination currently under consideration should not move in the
direction of more agency control, unless standardization and dependency
are desired.

2. The special problems of system coordination, namely loss Of
local initiative and lack of sensitivity to the needs of particular
colleges, have not been encountered under the Colleges Commission.

3. In spite of the Commission's sympathetic understanding of
the individual college's goals and aSpirations, there is some dissatis-

faction with community service programs. This may arise from financial

190
SUpport formulae and/or from some local deficiency.

4. The exchange theory is SUpported by the fact that a high
level of satisfaction among college leaders with the coordinative role
of the Colleges Commission coexists with feelings that coordination
results in greater gains than losses.

5. Only one Of the benefits of coordination, as identified in
this study, has clearly not been achieved by the Colleges Commission.
The others have been achieved to a greater or lesser extent, in the
Opinion of the majority. The single failure is the high degree of
dependency of the public college system on actions and decisions of the

provincial government and other post-secondary institutions.

Perceptions of the past. While the information gathered in
part V of the questionnaire is at best speculative due to the reluc-
tance of some respondents to eXpress a judgment, the collective
responses do tend to SUpport earlier impressions. This is most apparent
when scores on the centralization-decentralization continuum are
averaged. These averages are presented in Table 8.

Since the continuum ranged from 1 (most centralized) to 12
(most decentralized) any means falling below 6 or above 7, the mid-point
scores, were interpreted as indicating bias towards centralization or
decentralization of control. By this strategy the program control
function is denoted as balanced in the first two phases. This is an
unexpected perception since programs were primarily university parallel
and as such subject to the approval Of the University Of Alberta. In

phase III, on the other hand, which is characterized by comprehensiveness

191
Table 8

Average Scores on Centralization—Decentralization Continuum
' by Coordinative Phase and Control Area

V__— :-
:—_ 4"

Control area

 

Phase Program Fiscal Administrative
I 7.4 11.1 11.0
II 7.0 8.3 7.0
III 3.3 2.6 4.4

 

of programs under the coordination of the Commission, college leaders
see a greater tendency towards centralization. This could be explained
by the fact that the colleges now have to deal with two agencies for
program approval, namely the apprOpriate university committee and the
Commission, even though the policy of the latter is to encourage local
initiative in program develOpment.

In the area of fiscal control the anticipated trend towards
greater centralization is perceived. The private junior colleges Of
phase I are likely to have had more autonomy regarding financial
concerns than did the public colleges in phase II, and in the current
phase the disbursement of all public funds is via the Colleges Commis-
sion which also stipulates procedures for fiscal accountability.

Likewise control of administrative policies and procedures is
perceived as increasingly centralized from phases I through III.

Finally, in focusing on current arrangements for coordination
under a provincial agency it appears that all three aspects of control

are perceived as centralized, the degree of centralization being

192
greatest for fiscal matters and least for administrative policies and
procedures.

When the responses are examined individually the same trend
towards increasing centralization from phases I through III is per-
ceived. In the twenty-one progressions examined there were no reversals
in sequence: phase III greater than phase II greater than phase I
in centralization.l

The commonsense conclusions are that private colleges have
more autonomy than public colleges, and colleges have more autonomy in

the absence of a formal coordinating agency than when one exists.

 

1See page 260.

Chapter 8

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS

A summary of conclusions organized to parallel the statement
of purposes on page 1 is now presented. The writer, however, recog-
nizes that since the intent of the study is more to describe one facet
Of a period Of history than to answer definitive questions, care must
be taken to avoid distortions by over-simplification. The reader should
therefore accept this summary as complementary to any conclusions and
impressions presented in preceding chapters, and should judge the

evaluative comments in the light of his own interpretation of the facts.

The DevelOpment of the Alberta Public College System

The public colleges of Alberta have evolved from the private
denominational junior colleges which were established during the early
part Of the century, and from the vocationally-oriented institutes and
colleges. In order to Offer university level courses the junior
colleges were required, by statute, to enter into affiliation agree-
ments with the University of Alberta. The university discharged this
responsibility through its Committee on Junior Colleges which was
initially a sub-committee of the Senate and later of the General Faculty
Council. The primary duty of this committee was to preserve standards
and protect the interests of higher education, and this was effected

by quality controls imposed upon college teaching faculty, facilities,

193

194
and courses. The committee was assiduous in protecting its domain and
adOpted a reactionary stance rather than one of leadership.

The first public junior college was established in Lethbridge
in 1957, by the initiative of several local educational leaders with
the support of the press, and high ranking university officers. The
then existing legislation covering public junior colleges did not allow
for the joint involvement of several school boards in the support of a
college, and so amendments were written into the Act to permit this.

The public junior college differed in three fundamental ways
from the private junior colleges. There was no religious orientation;
it was partially financed by a local prOperty taxation on participating
school districts; and it was required to Offer terminal as well as
transfer programs in order to receive government grants, that is, it
provided a comprehensive program. However, the transfer function
predominated, and was controlled by the university by the same affilia-
tion arrangements which applied to private junior colleges.

In 1958 the Legislature provided a more comprehensive statutory
base for the public colleges by the Public Junior Colleges Act, which
normalized the existing situation, and led to the establishment during
the sixties of four more public junior colleges. The place of the
junior college in the scheme of post-secondary education had not been
adequately formulated, however, and concerns were expressed over the
costs Of higher education, the emphasis on transfer programs in the
colleges, the role of the University Of Alberta, and the ambitions held
by college leaders for their institutions.

In the absence of any agency to deal directly with these issues

195
several government-sponsored committees touched them obliquely, but by
this means problems were identified only and not resolved. To provide
some answers the government commissioned Dr. Andrew Stewart to do a
Special study in 1965.

The Stewart Report sparked an interest in a system of regionalized
colleges which would rationalize and accommodate the variety of post-
secondary institutions which had emerged, including the junior colleges,
the rural agricultural and vocational colleges which were Operated by
the Department of Agriculture, and the technological institutes, Operated
by the Department of Education, in Edmonton and Calgary. These would
be organized on a regional district basis with an emphasis on local
control, and comprehensiveness of function based on local needs. Stewart
also recommended a 2-2 split of the bachelor degree prOgram with the
regional college Offering the first two years.

That the Stewart Report was seriously received is indicated by
the develOpment of prOposed legislation on the regionalization of
post-secondary education, and by the controversy which ensued.

An attempt was made to sound out the Opinions of wide-ranging
interest groups across the province by means of a survey and confer-
ence which were Sponsored jointly by the Department Of Education and
the University of Alberta. This conference was held over a three~day
period in 1966, and while it brought no consensus over basic issues it
led directly to a decision to drop the idea of fundamental legislative
changes, for the time being. Instead, amendments were proposed for the
Junior Colleges Act which would establish a Provincial Board of Post-

Secondary Education to provide for the immediate coordination of public

196

colleges, and to prOpose a long-term solution in the form of new
legislation.

The Provincial Board was established in 1967 and its work was
completed in 1969 with the passage of the Colleges Act, which
brought into existence the Alberta Colleges Commission. The Provincial
Board was successful in develOping a cohesive public college system
with a commitment to comprehensiveness of program in the provincial
context. It also fostered good relations by the use of the free flow
of communication with the colleges and other educational grOUps. The
relationship of the colleges to the universities through affiliation
agreements was not fundamentally altered, however, and this led to
some dissatisfaction in both types of institutions regarding transfer
programs. The position of the Provincial Board and the colleges was
to establish a system of accredited colleges, while certain departments
and faculties of the university favored the continuation of affiliation
requirements. The problem was compounded by legislative provisions in
the Universities Act and the Colleges Act which did not clearly assign
responsibility for transfer programs to any single sUperordinate body.

The affiliation problem was inherited by the Colleges Commission
which continued to look for a solution with little apparent success,
and confusion over affiliation procedures remains today. The Commission
however did maintain and further develOp a growing comprehensive public
college system, which now consists of six colleges with over 5,000
students. The policy of the Commission is not to establish new
colleges in the immediate future but to develOp those in existing centers.

This policy has implications for the agricultural and vocational

197
colleges, which, since the fall of 1971 with the accession of a new
provincial government, have been under the control of the Department of
Advanced Education. These rural colleges have traditionally provided a
range of technical-vocational programs geared to the needs of rural
residents, and could, without much change in philOSOphy, broaden their
sc0pe to that of a public college.

Early movements in this direction were hindered by the deci-
sion Of the previous government to reject the recommendations of the
Provincial Board Of Post-Secondary Education which would have estab"
lished a single post-secondary system under the control of the Colleges
Commission. The Commission, however, later received and acted Upon a
request by the government to include all types of institutions in the
development of a post-secondary education master plan. To some extent
this charge overlaps with the Worth Commission's which is to study all
aspects of education in Alberta, and whose report is eXpected in 1972.

The provincial government has indicated its interest in new
structures by the creation of the Department of Advanced Education which
now coordinates the work Of the agricultural and vocational colleges and
the technological institutes, and which may eventually assume coordina-

tive responsibility for public colleges.

Kev_Decisions

Some important decision-making points have been presented in
Table 7, with a brief statement of possible alternatives. The reasons
for, and means of, selecting particular alternatives are complex and

have been touched Upon in this study, and the level of satisfaction of

198
certain individuals has been mentioned whenever these were revealed.
NO attempt is made to restate findings specifically in these areas;
rather this can be done indirectly at this point of the study by
reviewing the panorama of events for insights into the impact of the
decisions which were taken. By the same process several prepositions
about educational policy-making in the Province Of Alberta are suggested

and tentatively prOposed.

Impact. The decision of the Senate of the University of Alberta
to accept the majority recommendations of a sub-committee on junior
colleges and to maintain it as a standing committee to administer
affiliation arrangements is one which has had lasting impact. The
tradition Of university control over transfer courses and programs has
prevented any erosion of standards in academic areas, but has limited
the ability of the private and public junior colleges to serve that
grOUp of potential students who lack normal matriculation standing but
are desirous of an academic program leading to a degree.

One way in which this barrier has been overcome is by transfer
arrangements with U.S. institutions. While the number of students
involved may not be great, this practice represents a loss of income to
Alberta colleges and universities, and leads to additional problems of
articulation and professional accreditation if they return to Alberta
for further university preparation or employment. The threat of such
problems may result in their permanent absence from Alberta and
consequent loss of educated manpower. Another unestimated loss to the

province is the body of young adults who might have been induced back

199
to formal education by more liberal admission policies to academic
programs.

The strict application of the concept of equivalence has also
led to standardization of courses in public colleges rather than
experimentation and innovation, whereby equal but different kinds Of
programs are developed.

The inability of both the Provincial Board Of Post-Secondary
Education and the Colleges Commission to reach agreement with the
universities on affiliation has also inhibited the develOpment of
second-year programs in the public colleges. This may have had a
beneficial outcome in inducing the colleges to develOp technical-
vocational programs to the extent that an approximately equal balance
between transfer and terminal programs now exists in the system as a
whole.

Had the Committee on Junior Colleges interpreted its statutory
duties more liberally, as one member prOposed, and acted mainly as
judge of final standards and ratifier of college programs, then the
desire of the colleges for accredited status might have been achieved.

Another decision within the university structure which has
affected program planning in the public colleges, was the decision to
retain a sub-committee of General Faculty Council for the purpose of
Specific college program control. The existence of this committee
along side the junior college committee of the Coordinating Council
has led to overlapping responsibilities, dysfunctions in affiliation
procedures and a gOOgraphically illogical distribution of affiliation

arrangements between provincial universities because certain.college

200
programs "fit" better in Edmonton than they do in Calgary and vice-
versa.

These problems would have been obviated or attenuated had the
Coordinating Council been given sole responsibility for relationships
Of colleges to the provincial universities.

There is no doubt that the establishment of Lethbridge Junior
College had an important impact procedurally for other communities, such
as Red Deer, and configurationally since the legislation which was
forthcoming had to recognize the fact of the prior existence Of such a
college.

While it might be argued that the initiation of a public
junior college by local pressure groups resulted in hastily conceived
legislation which prOpagated and entrenched the notion Of university
affiliation, it must also be acceded that governments Often need some
inducement to legislative action and the stimulus Of the Lethbridge
case may be the one major factor in Alberta's prominence in comprehen-
sive college education in the Canadian scene today.

The Stewart Report resulted in a high degree of public aware-
ness of problems and issues in post-secondary education which had been
troubling the government and the educational institutions. These
stemmed largely from the absence of any formally established agency
for college coordination and planning in a period Of accelerating costs
and growing enrolments.

If the Stewart Report was the flame that brought the post-
secondary issue to a boiling point, the Fact Finding Committee Report,

Survey and Conference sponsored by the Department of Education and the

201
University acted to relieve the pressure. The conference was a
cleverly conceived means of permitting the legitimate reaction of
interest grOUps threatened by the prOposed regional colleges, and at
the same time allowed the new Deputy Minister of Education to "fly a
kite" in the form of prOposed legislation. Not surprisingly, consensus
was not reached and the notion of regionalized centers was drOpped.

Had Stewart's major recommendations been carried through by the
government, as could have happened, then Alberta might have been spared
some of its most pressing current problems in such areas as college-
university relations, relationships between the three non-university
post-secondary institutional types, regional disparities in college and
university access, and lack of support for community service activities.

The politically expedient alternative to restructuring the post-
secondary education system was to establish an interim agency with
enough power to coordinate the safe, as yet unpatronized, public junior
colleges, and with a mandate to deliberate and make recommendations on
needed legislation. The Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education
was mostly successful in the former charge, and partially successful
in the latter.

The Cabinet rejected three basic structural recommendations
which would have established one commission for all post-secondary
education including the universities, one cohesive system of post-
secondary (non-university) education including the public colleges,
technOlOgical institutes and agricultural and vocational colleges, and
local boards of governors for each institution some Of which might be

multicampus in form.

202

There is evidence of some continuing influence of the Stewart
Report in these recommendations which would have obviated the same
problems, but the Cabinet was still not ready to remove existing domains
of power. The Colleges Commission was given the impossible task of
coordinating a three-part post-secondary (non-university) system of
which it had direct authority over only one segment. The processes
of recommendation and consultation with the other institutions (includ-
ing the universities) produced more frustration than action.

The logic of the Provincial Board's recommendations now seems
inescapable in view of such current issues as the future of the
Colleges Commission and the Universities Commission, the place of the
agricultural and vocational colleges in the college system, the program
relationships between N.A.I.T. and Grant MacEwan College, transfer and
articulation problems, and the location of new universities and how
this is influenced by existing public colleges. One bright glimmer Of
hOpe for system rationalization which lies in the immediate future is
the Worth Commission, whose report, together with the master plan now
being prepared by the Colleges Commission, could lead to a permanent
and stable ordering of the total educational system in Alberta.
Unfortunately this light is dimmed by the precipitate action of the
new government in creating a Department of Advanced Education, and
restricting capital Spending and educational research, which raises the
Spectre of another round of pclitical expediency in educational

decision-making.

203
Evaluation of Coordinative Mechanisms in Alberta

Public college presidents and board chairmen are generally
satisfied with the Alberta Colleges Commission. They see as legitimate
for the Commission the usual range of activities with the exception of
those touching academic and non-academic personnel policies, and
facilities planning. The Commission provides, in this way, an impor-
tant service to both the province and the colleges.

The Commission is perceived as fair and unbiased, and generally
sensitive to the individual colleges' needs. The Commission is prepared
to remedy where possible, the complaints of the college leaders. Some
dissatisfaction remains with the level of SUpport of community service
programs, and the colleges are not free from the interference of
universities and other post-secondary institutions. There is, however,
a low level of conflict within the public college system, and strong
feelings Of independence and individuality among its members.

Generally college presidents and chairmen feel that the benefits
of coordination outweigh any disadvantages, but this alone does not
justify increased coordinative action, or change in the locus of

control which is perceived as centralized in program and fiscal matters,

and in matters of administrative policy and procedures.

PrOpositions. Some prOpositions which are SUggested by the
above impressions are now Offered:

1. Agencies or bodies with a primary orientation or attachment
to a sub-group, charged with decision-making for a wider system, will

reach decisions which favor the protection of the sub-group.

204

2. Policies develOped to meet restricted Situations are more
likely to be applied to new eXpanded Situations, than to be changed.

3. New institutions emerge and develOp more as a response to
parochial than to state level leadership.

4. The establishment Of fact-finding or advisory groups is a
legitimate way to avoid politically threatening decisions.

5. Voluntary coordination of a college system succeeds only
in those decision areas which enhance the coordinated member's status,
or contribute to its specific aspirations.

6. An agency empowered to control a specific aspect of
system can do so without engendering hostility on the part of the
coordinated members.

7. State level coordination can be effected without loss of
local sensitivity.

8. Coordination succeeds best in decision areas permitting
the exercise of influence backed by statutory authority.

9. Influence and consultation in the absence of subordinate/
SUperior authority relations seldom results in functional agreements.

10. Voluntary acceptance of coordinative arrangements becomes
harder to achieve when the parties to the arrangement are separated
by intermediaries.

11. There is a natural inertia within coordinating or controlling
agencies which leads to evolution of form rather than sudden restruc-
turing.

12. When a sudden restructuring of state level coordination

takes place it is likely to occur simultaneously with changes in the

205

political structure of the state or province.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations appear to be justified by this
study:

1. The Alberta Colleges Commission has demonstrated its ability
to fulfill its duties given the necessary power. The Commission should
not be replaced unless a better alternative is clearly available.

2. The Government of Alberta, through the Department of
Advanced Education, should take an active interest in removing affilia-
tion and transfer problems between the public colleges and universities.

3. Further steps should be taken to unify the post-secondary
education system either by implementing permissive legislation for the
inclusion of other institutions in the public college system, or by
the creation of new provincial structures for the coordination of all
higher education.

4. Any changes in provincial coordination should not result in
a shift towards centralization of the balance Of control which currently
exists with respect to public colleges.

5. More money should be channeled into community service
programs.

6. NO changes should be effected before the Worth Commission
Report is available.

7. Structural changes, if any, should be devised for more
effective rand efficient post-secondary educational service, and not for

political gain.

206
8. More research is needed to eXplore:
(a) the perceptions of coordination held by college
administrators and faculty members;
(b) perceptions and mutual expectations held by commission
staff, commission members, and college trustees;
(c) selection, composition, characteristics and influence
of commission members and trustees;
(d) interprovincial comparisons of coordination mechanisms
for improved models;
(e) the relationship between coordination and planning and
responsibilities therof in post-secondary education.
9. The prepositions made above should be subjected to study
by means of literature reviews and analyses.
10. Other historical descriptions of this same period are

justified in order to provide a different perspective.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alberta Colleges Commission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

l969a. Minutes of A.C.C. Meeting, September.
1969b. Nfinutes of A.C.C. Meeting, October.
l969c. Nfinutes of A.C.C. Meeting, November.
l970a. Minutes of A. C.C. Meeting, January.
l970b. Minutes of A. C. C. Meeting, April.
1970c. Minutes of A. C.C. Meeting, May.
l970d. Minutes of A. C. C. Meeting, June.
l970e. A.C.C. Files, "Cabinet Conference," August.
1970f. Minutes of A.C. C. Meeting, September.
l970g. Nfinutes of A.C.C. Meeting, December.
l97la. Minutes of A.C.C. Meeting, March.
1971b. Minutes of A.C.C. Meeting, June.
l97lc. First Annual Report, 1969-70. Edmonton: Government of
Alberta.
Alberta Universities Commission.
1971. Annual Report 1969-70. Edmonton: Government of Alberta.

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

1971. University Affairs, 12:5.
Barnard, Chester I.
1938. The Functions of an Executive. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Bender, . W.
1968. "Local and state relations," Proceedings of the junior college
conference. Ocean Springs, Mississippi. University of
Florida and 1:lorida State University. Pp. 58-66.
Berdahl, Robert O.
1971. Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.:

American Council on Education.

Board of Post-Secondary Education.

1967.

1968a.
1968b.
19680.
l968d.
l968e.

Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, November.

Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, January.

Minutes of Junior Colleges Advisory Committee, January.
Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, February.

Minutes of Junior Colleges Advisory Committee, March.
Minutes of B.P.S.E Meeting, March.

207

208

Board of Post-Secondary Education.

1968f. Nfinutes of Junior Colleges Advisory Committee, April.
19689. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, April.

1968h. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, May 3.

19681. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, May 10.

19685. Nfinutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, June.

1968k. Minutes of Committee on PrOposed Legislation, August.
19681. Minutes of Junior Colleges Advisory Committee, September.
1968m. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, November.

1968n. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, December.

1969a. Minutes of B.P.S.E. Meeting, February.

1969b. Minutes of Junior Colleges Advisory Committee, March.

Brumbaugh, A. J.
1961. "The prOper relationships between state governments and
state-sUpported higher institutions," Educational Record,
42:173-78.

Byrne, T. C.
1966. An Act respecting post-secondary education regions (prOposed).
(Mimeographed.)

Campbell, Gordon.

l97la. Community Colleges in Canada. Toronto: McGraw—Hill Co. of
Canada.
1971b. "British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba," The Community

College in Canada. Report of the proceedings of the first
annual Banff leadership conference on college administration.
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Pp. 35-41.

Collin, W. J.

1971. "A follow-up study of the 1966-70 graduates of the Alberta
agricultural and vocational colleges." Unpublished master's
thesis, University of Alberta.

Conant, James B.

1964. Shaping Educational Policy. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Erickson, C. G.

1968. "Illinois balances statewide planning and local autonomy,"

Junior College Journal, 38:22-26.

Farquhar, H. E.

1967.

"The role of the college in the system of higher education in
Alberta." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Alberta.

Fenske,
1971.

209

Nfilton.

"Alberta." The Community College in Canada. Report of the
proceedings of the first annual Banff leadership conference
on college administration. The University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta. Pp. 20-26.

Gleazer, E. J.

1968.

Glenny,
1959.

1965.

1966.

"Concerns and cautions for community colleges," Junior
College Journal, 38:18-21.

Lyman A.

Autonomy of Public Colleges: The Challenge of Coordination.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

"State systems and plans for higher education." Ed. Logan
Wilson. Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education.
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

"Politics and current patterns in coordinating higher
education." Berkeley: Center for Research and DevelOpment
in Higher Education (unpublished manuscript).

Government of Alberta.

1910.
1931.

1958.

1959.

1961.

1963.

1965a.

1965b.

1'1966a.

1966b.

1967.

An Act ReSpecting the University of Alberta (Chapter 42).
The School Act (Chapter 32).

An Act to provide for the Establishment of Public Junior
Colleges (Chapter 64).

Report of the Royal Commission on Education in Alberta.

Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta. First
Interim Report.

Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta. Second
Interim Report.

Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta. Third
Interim Report.

Public EXpenditure and Revenue Study Committee. Departmental
Surveys: Department of Education.

Survey Committee on Higher Education in Alberta. Fourth
Interim Report.

An Act respecting Provincial Universities (Chapter 105).

An Act to amend the Public Junior College Act (Chapter 64).

210
1969. An Act respecting a Provincial College System (Chapter 14).

Hannah, John A.
1967. "No master plan!" Junior College Journal, 38:25.

Hurlburt, Allan S.
1969. State Master Plans for Community Colleges. Washington, D.C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges.

Johnson, B. Lamar.
1964. ”Alternative patterns for post-secondary technical-vocational
education," Technical-Vocational Education and the Community
College. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual legislative
work conference of the southern regional education board,
Williamsburg.

1965. State Junior Colleges How They Function Effectively?
Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board.

Leonard, J. P.
1956. "Controls on higher education: Implications for program
planning," Current Issues in Higher Education, 1956:264-69.

Levine, S. and P. E. White.
1961. "Exchanges as a conceptual framework for the study of inter-

organizational relationships," Administrative Science
Quarterly, 5:583-601.

Likert, Rensis.
1960. The Human Organization Its Management and Value. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Litwak, E. and L. Hylton.
1962. "Interorganizational analysis: A hypothesis on coordinating
agencies," Administrative Science Quarterly, 6:395-420.

Loken, G.
1965. "An analysis of the junior college in Alberta: Progress,
program and prospects." Unpublished master's thesis,
University of Alberta.

1965. "Genesis of the Lethbridge public junior college." Unpub-
lished master's thesis, University of Alberta.

McConnell, T. R.
1962. A General Pattern for American Public Higher Education. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

1965. "The coordination of state systems of higher education."
Ed. Logan Wilson. Emerging Patterns in American Higher
Education. Mashington, D.C.: American Council on Education.

211

Miles, M. B.

1969. "Planned change and organizational health: Figure and ground,"
Organizations and Human Behavior. Eds. F. Carver and T.
Sergiovanni. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miller, J. L-
1962. "The two dimensions of state-wide higher education coordina-
tion," Educational Record, 43:163-67.

Millett, J. D.

1965. "State planning for higher education," Educational Record,
46:223-30.
1967. "Statewide planning and coordination of higher education,"

Sixteenth annual legislative work conference. Southern
Regional Education Board.

Morrissey, K. C.
1966. "An alternative: State control," Junior College Journal,
36:16-19.

Palola, E. G.
1968. "Changing centers of power in higher education: A challenge
to institutional leadership." Berkeley: Center for
Research and DevelOpment in Higher Education (unpublished
manuscript).

Paltridge, J. G.
1965. "Organizational forms which characterize statewide coordina-
tion of public higher education." Berkeley: Center for
Research and DevelOpment in Higher Education (unpublished
manuscript).

Pliner, E., ed.
1966. Coordination and Planning. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Public
Affairs Research Council.

Riesnan, D.
1956. Constraint and Variety in American Education. University of
Nebraska Press.

Singer, Donald L., and John A. Grande.
1971. "Emerging patterns of governance: Promise or peril?"
Junior College Journal, 6:38-42.

Stewart, A.
1965. Special Study on Junior Colleges. Edmonton: Government of
Alberta.

Stinchcombe, A. L.
1965. "Social structure and organizations," Handbook of Organiza-
tions. Ed. James March. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Stuckman, Jeffrey A.

1969.

Statewide Coordination of Community Junior Colleges.
ville, Florida:

Florida.

University of Alberta.
Minutes of the Senate meeting, October.

1930.
1931a.
1931b.
1931c.
1942.
1953.
1957.
1959.
1960a.
1960b.
1960c.
1961.
1963a.
1963b.
1963c.
1963d.
1964a.
1964b.
1964c.

1965a.
1965b.

1966a.
1966b.

1966c.

1970a.
l970b.

1971.

Calendar 1931-32.

Minutes of
Minutes of

Minutes of

Minutes of

Minutes of

Minutes of
of
of
of

Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes of
of
of

of
of

Minutes
Minutes
Minutes
Minutes

of
of
of

Minutes
Minutes
Minutes

of
of

Minutes
Minutes

Minutes of

Calendar,

the Committee
the Committee

the Committee
Committee
Committee
the Committee
the

the
the

Committee
Committee
Committee
the Committee
the
the

the
the

Committee
Committee
Committee
Committee

the
the
the

Committee
Committee
Committee

the
the

Committee
Committee

the Committee

1966-67.

212

Edmonton:

on
on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on

on
on

on

The University

Junior Colleges,
Junior Colleges,

Junior Colleges,

Junior Colleges,

Junior

Junior

Junior
Junior
Junior

Junior
Junior
Junior
Junior

Junior

Junior
Junior
Junior

Junior
Junior

Junior

Colleges,
Colleges,

Colleges,
Colleges,
Colleges,

Colleges,

Colleges,
Colleges,
Colleges,
Colleges,

Colleges,
Colleges,
Colleges,

Colleges,
Colleges,

Colleges,

Gaines-

Institute of Higher Education, University of

of Alberta.
May.
Junr.

September.
August.
February.
May.

March 4.
March 11.
April.

July.

February.
April.
hay.
August.

March.
May.
August.

January.
March..

h’ia y 0

Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on Post-Secondary
and Continuing Education in Alberta.

Folio, 6:27.
Folio, 6:44.

Calendar, 1971-72.

213

Usdan, 1.,D. Miner, and E. Hurwitz.
1968. The Politics of Elementary-Secondary and Higher Education.
Denver: Education Commission of the States.

Warren, Phil.

1971. "The Atlantic provinces." The Community College in Canada.
Report of the proceedings of the first annual Banff leadership
conference on college administration. The University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Pp. 26-35.

Wattenbarger, J. L.
1968. "Changing patterns of junior college control: Local to
state government," Junior College Journal, 38:9-11.

Wattenbarger, James L., William Gager, and Jeffrey Stuckman.
1969. The State Director for Community Junior Colleges. Gainesville,
Florida: Institute of Higher Education, University of Florida,

Wattenbarger, James L., W. Gager, Jr., J. A. Stuckman, and M. Sakaguchi.
1970. State Level Staffs for Coordination and/or Control of
Community Junior Colleges. Gainesville, Florida: Institute
of Higher Education, University of Florida.

Wilson, Logan.
1965. Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education. Washington,
D.C.: American Council on Education.

 

APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A

PROVINCIAL COORDINATING AGENCY

POST-SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CONFERENCE

PROGRAMME

Monday, November 28th

9:00 a.m.

9330 a.m.

11:00 a.m.

2:00 p.m.

3:30 p.m.

Registration

"An Act Respecting Post-Secondary Education Regions
G. L. Mowat

Vocational Plans of Alberta Youth
D. C. Fair

Career Decisions of Canadian Youth
R. Breton

Manpower Needs of a Technical Society
E. J. Hanson

Tuesday, November 29th

9:00 a.m.-

2:00 pom.-

An Assessment of Opportunities in Post-Secondary and
Continuing Education in Alberta

J. C. Jonason

M. Stewart

W. A. S. Smith

R. Warren

Implications and Issues
Study Group Discussion

Wednesday, November 30th

9:00 a.m.—

9:30 a.m.-

2:00 p.m.-

Opportunities in Post-Secondary and Continuing Education
in Alberta-~A Synthesis of Conference Views
T. M. Penelhum

Goals and Policies for Post-Secondary and Continuing
Education

Bill J. Priest

Paul H. Sheats

Andrew Stewart

Post-Secondary and Continuing Education-~The shape of
Future Legislation

G. L. Mowat

Mrs. Catherine Andrews

Peter Bargen

S. C. T. Clarke

Mrs. W. Hansen

T. M. Penelhum

214

215
Conference Documents

Government of the Province of Alberta. "An Act Respecting Post-
Secondary Education Regions" (prOposed). 1966.

Fair, D. C. Vocational Plans of Alberta Youth. November, 1966.

Breton, Raymond and McDonald John. Career Decisions of Canadian
Youth. Department of Manpower & Immigration, Ottawa, 1966.

Hanson, E. J. Population and Income Developments, Alberta, Western
Canada and Canada. Section A. Population Projections and Labour
Force Data, Alberta. Section B.

Jonason, J. C. et a1. Report of the Fact-Finding Committee on Post—
Secondary and Continuing Education Opportunities in Alberta.
November, 1966.

Stewart, Andrew. Special Study on Junior Colleges. December, 1966.

Priest, Bill J. "On the Threshold of Greatness." Junior College
Journal, September, 1966.

Sheats, Paul H. "The Past is Prologue." A convocation address to the
University of Akron, April, 1966.

Advisory Committee to the Conference

Dr. T. C. Byrne, Deputy Nfinister of Education, Department of Education

Nb. Duncan Campbell, Director of Extension, University of Alberta.

Dr. E. J. M. Church, Director of Special Services, Department of Education.

NR5. M. Green, Alberta Federation of Home and School Associations Inc.

Mr. S. G. Maertz, Alberta School Trustees' Association

Mr. J. P. Mitchell, Department of Education

Dr. R. E. Rees, Chief Superintendent of Schools, Department of Education.

Dr. J. E. Seger, Department of Educational Administration, University of
Alberta.

Mr. F. J. C. Seymour, Alberta Teachers' Association.

Dr. W. H. Swift, Chairman of the Universities Commission.

216

Conference Chairmen
Dr. T. C. Byrne, Deputy Minister of Education, Department of Education.

Duncan Campbell, Director of Extension, University of Alberta.

217

POST-SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION CONFERENCE

November 28—30, 1966

Lister Hall, University of Alberta

SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATION

Alberta School Trustees' Association:

Alberta Federation of Home & School Ass'ns Inc.:

Alberta Education Council

Alberta Teachers Association:

Alberta Association of Registered Nurses:
University of Alberta:

University of Calgary:

Provincial Department of Education:
Members of the Legislative Assembly:
Universities Commission:

Edmonton Separate School Board:
Lethbridge Junior College:

Medicine Hat Junior College:

Red Deer Junior College:

Mount Royal Junior College:

Grande Prairie Junior College:

Camrose Lutheran College:

Alberta College:

Association of Canadian Commercial Colleges:
Christian Training Institute:

Agricultural and Vocational Colleges Branch:

30 delegates
9
10

21

218

Association of Private Schools and Colleges: 1 delegate
College St. Jean: 3
Urban School SUperintendents' Association: 3
Mount Royal Faculty Association: 1
County of Wheatland No. 16 Strathmore: 1

Northern Alberta Institute of Technology: 3

219
‘EQNFERENCE ON POST-SECONDARY AND CONTINUING EDUCATION
Analysis of Questionnaires re PrOposed Legislation.
Forty-two questionnaire forms were returned. Of these, several
reSponses were in general terms rather than in reference to the
items specified on the form. Not.all sections were completed

by all those who returned the questionnaire.

General Summary

 

In general, the respondents indicated a preference for local

representation and control, consideration of local needs in

establishing programs, and decision-making at the local level.

For the most part, the document received the support of those

who responded, although there were many qualifications, queries,

and suggestions.

1. Dividing the Province into regions -- supported.

2. Establishment of Regional Boards, mostly elected -- supported.

3. Student admission requirements not to exceed a High School

Diploma —- supported.

4. Comprehensive curricula - full range of programs - supported.

5. Funds secured from different sources, mostly government -
supported.

6. Staff certification requirements - mixed response. Most
favored non-certification requirement.

7. Creation of a Provincial Board - supported.

' 3 2%)

Details on Sections of Act

 

A. Regions:

b)

d)

3. The Province shall be divided into such numbers of

regions for the purpose of providing post-secondary
education as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may
determine and every part of the province shall be

included in a region.

4. The Minister by Order shall indicate the boundaries

of each region and give to each region a number and

a name.
The majority of reSpondents to this question supported the
preposal that the Province be divided into a number of
regions for the purpose stated; Opposition was negligible.
Most of those who answered felt that decisions respecting
location of boundaries should be made at the governmental
level; very few suggested that decisions should be made
at the local level.
Several respondents felt that there should be consultation
and local involvement before the final determination of
regional boundaries. There was some feeling that local
wishes should be respected and also that local political
pressures should be avoided. Some replies were linked
to matters of financing and representation.
A number of replies indicated a desire for studies of
needs, collection of data, and the establishmalt of criteria.
There were suggestions that boundaries should be deter-

mined on other than geographical bases, e.g., population,

f)

s)

h)

9 221
facilities, urban-rural, Catholic.
Interest was evidenced in provision for alteration of
boundaries. It was suggested that there should be
provision to alter boundaries to meet emerging needs of
education and changing conditions. It was suggested
that the Act should specify reasons for alteration Of
boundaries and that there should be consideration of
local Opinion and local Option.
Several replies suggested that regions should be classi-
fied by name rather than by number.
Miscellaneous suggestions included:
Colleges should be located in large central towns rather
than in cities.
Students should be able to cross regional boundaries.
EXploratory regions should be set up and tried out before
legislation is passed.
There should be no more than eight regions.
Use should be made of the Co-terminous Boundaries Commis-
sion in the study of boundaries.
To avoid confusion, the boundaries should be co-terminous
with existing school boundaries.
The Act should read "Regional Board" rather than ”Regional
College Board".
The Act should read "College District No. ---" rather than

"College No. ---".

B. Regional Boards.

 

7.

Establishment of Regional Board (S-ll members).

Respondents strongly supported the establishment of a

Regional Board. One suggestion recommended that the

maximum number of trustees should be 9.

The majority of members elected - the remainder

appointed.

 

(a)
(b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

This question elicited the most diverse comment.
Most reSpondents were in favor of a board composed
of a majority of elected members.

Some were undecided; some questioned appointed
members; others favored totally elected members;
while still others felt that the majority should
be appointed.

Concern was eXpressed about representation and
reSponsibility to the electorate. It was felt

by some that representation could only be assured
by appoinUmnt. It was also suggested that local
school boards might appoint representatives.

A number of respondents eXpressed the Opinion that
appointed members might be better qualified, more
knowledgeable, more efficient, and less subject to
local political pressures and biased interests.
Other suggestions: Establish individual college
boards. Inclusion of representatives of other
institutions by way of appointment.

Assure reasonable autonomy and wide responsibility.

12. Board responsibility for post secondary education.

 

Strongly supported.
One reSpondent felt that the Board was given much
responsibility with little authority for action.

13. Board to undertake study of post secondary educational

 

needs.

Strongly supported.

It was suggested that such study should be undertaken

by an outside agency.

14. Board responsibility for meeting educational needs.
Strongly supported.
Some Opposition was expressed to need of approval of
Provincial Board to meet educational needs of region.

15. Board may establish and Operate Regional College.

 

Strongly supported.

25. Replacement of Board Member.

 

Strongly supported.

General Comments on Regional Boards

 

In summary, this section received strong support in
general, with majority Opinion in favor of locally elected
members outnumbering appointed members on the Board. The
degree of control exercised by the Provincial Board was
questioned. It was felt that there should be provision
for appeal to the Minister.

The extent of the responsibility of the Board for the

post secondary education of all students was queried;

" .224

this was in reference to the Opportunities provided by

other educational institutions.

Some Opinions were linked to matters of financial support.

'A suggestion was made that all matters contained in this

section be left to the framers of the legislation.

C. Students

13.

34.

Study Of post secondary educational needs.

Strongly supported.

Entrance requirements for admission shall not exceed

a High School Diploma or its equivalent.

(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

In general this provision received strong endor-
sation.

It was felt by several that entrance requirements
should not be specified in the Act. Rigidity

should be avoided. Decisions reSpecting admission
should be left to the individual Boards and
Colleges.

Many respondents thought that the entrance re-
quirements were too restrictive and favored a

more Open-door policy. They were of the Opinion
that provisions should be made to accommodate

those with less than diploma standing. Entry should
be broadly based and extend up and down from diploma
standing.

It was suggested that there should be different
admission standards for different programs, there

should be a large element of flexibility, and that

7: ,225
requirements should be geared to programs.
(e) There was seen to be a need for a strong counselling
program to ensure that students were fitted into
apprOpriate programs.

(f) Miscellaneous comments:

 

. Need for articulation with high schools.‘

Control entry and maintain prerequisites for

Specific programs.
Establish an advisory committee for each program.

Set age limit for entry so as not to interfere
with the high school program.

Specify standards of entry.

Open door policy for adults over 21.

There was sOme confusion about admissibility of
matriculants.

Should continue to Offer first year arts and
science courses.

Longer periods of time should be provided for non-
matriculants who plan to enter university.

Will this policy tend to lead students into the
prestige transfer program?

Will maximum requirements become minimum require-

ments?

In general, respondents favored an Open-door

 

admission policy, broadly based and flexible,
with decisions concerning entrance requirements

left to the individual colleges.

‘226

E. Programs

 

32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44

I(a) In general there was strong support eXpressed
for all types of programs suggested.

(b) It was felt by some that programs should not be
specified or restricted by legislation.

(c) Many reSpondents expressed the Opinion that
programs should be based upon local needs and left

to the discretion of the Boards.

 

(d) A need was seen fOr careful planning by many peOple.

(e) SOme respondents felt that the suggestions con-
tained in the document were too restrictive.

(f) While there was support eXpressed for the transfer
function, several peOple felt that the main em-
phasis should be placed on other types of programs.

(g) Miscellaneous comments:

A need was seen for articulation with business,
industry, high schools, universities and
institutes of technology.

Programs should very between regions.

Programs should lead to a certificate or diploma.

Accreditation is preferred to affiliation.

Programs should not be offered in professional areas.

There should be a minimum age limit to entry to
protect high schools and exclude drop-outs.

Faith should be placed in the reSponsibility of
the colleges to maintain standards and prepare
students for further education.

Programs should be comprehensive and integrated.

- ‘ 227
Colleges should establish their own identity.
Emphasis should be on total offerings.
All post secondary education should be under one
authority.
There should be provision fOr experimentation.
Courses should include religion and philOSOphy.
Consider middle management area as program of
study.

Some confusion was apparent regarding the relation-

 

ship of college programs to high school programs
and university work; this produced questions
about the length of the college program and
the point of entry into the university.

There was a question about the demand for general
courses.

It was suggested that the term "terminal” be
deleted and the term "adult" be defined.

The tendency to escalate standards should be

avoided.

In summary, reSpondents supported broad, compre-

 

hensive programs, based on local need, determined
by the Boards.
F. Finance
48. The revenue for a college shall be derived from
federal and provincial funds, gifts, tuition fees,

and requisition on the districts.

(a)

(b)

(C)

(d)

(e)

(f)

G. Staffing

 

55.

(a)

(b)

(C)

228

The prOposal as stated was accepted by a number of
peOple.

Many of the respondents felt that the main source
of revenue should be provincial and federal
governments. Opposition was expressed, in
many cases, to local requisition.

A number of peOple tied the principle of local
taxation to local election of membership to
the regional board.

Some eXpressed the Opinion that tuition fees should
be charged, others thought that fees should be
low while still others Opposed charging fees.
should—be~10w—whiLe—eeilluethens—Opposed
:eharffiaHy—fees.

It was felt by some that the wording of 48 (a)
was indefinite.

The suggestion was made that the regional board
be given the right to requisition funds if

so desired.

(Certificated and non-certificated).

It was suggested that this section should not be
included in the legislation.

A few respondents favored certification for all
instructors.

There was considerable support expressed for the
provision of both certificated and non-cer-

tificated teachers.

(d)

(e)

(f)

.229

The largest eXpressed Opinion Opposed the
requirement of certification.

Most of those who commented either Opposed
membership in the A.T.A. or felt that it
should be voluntary.

Miscellaneous comments:

 

The college staff should establish its own

association, establish its own identity,

set

up its own certification pattern, and be its

Own bargaining agent.

A number of respondents emphasized the importance

of the teaching function in the colleges and

suggested some type of teaching preparation

program.

Fears were expressed that the recognition of

two types of teachers would cause divisions

in the staff and administrative problems.

The difficulty Of securing staff was seen to be

a problem by some. It was felt that shortages

of staff would not permit insistence upon

certification requirements.

It was suggested that the requirement of cer-

tification of all teachers would establish

the high school image in the colleges.

H. Provincial Board Of Post—Secondary Education

(45.

46, 47 Appointed by the Government, chairman

responsible to the Deputy Minister of Education.)

(a)

(b)

(c5

(d)

(e)

(f)

'- ., 230

This prOposal received strong support. The

Board was viewed as a necessary and important
body, to co-ordinate activities and to avoid

duplication.

A number of reSpondents felt that the Board

should be responsible to the Minister of
Education.

Considerable interest was shown in Board member-
ship. It was suggested that there should be:
Regional Board representation.

Representatives of regional interests.
Representatives of educational groups.
Representatives other than "educational eXperts".
Chairman appointed by the Board.

Some respondents thought that the Board should be
advisory only and not regulatory. There was
a feeling expressed that Sections 14 and 15
were in contradiction with the advisory function
and placed too much authority in the hands of

the Board.

The necessity of establishing a Provincial Board

was questioned by a few peOple. It was felt
that there might be interference with the
Regional Board's attempt to meet local needs.
Relationship to the Universities Commission
received some consideration. It was suggested

that:

.s

231

there should be co-ordination between the
two bodies.
there should be only one co-ordinating body.
that the Universities Commission be the
senior body.
(g) Affiliation - seen to be contentious. Responsi-
bility of the region. Institutes of Technology -

do they come under the Provincial Board?

Other Comments Not Directly Related to Sections

 

(a) The Conference was variously described as historic,
meaningful, useful, fruitful, interesting, excel-
lent, powerful in promoting the American compre-
hensive college concept, as well as tedious and
unproductive.

(b) Congratulations were extended to those reSponsible
for the conference by a number of peOple.

(c) It was suggested that a future conference or
meeting be held to present alternatives, to learn
of eXperdrnces elsewhere, and to debate fundamental
issues.

(d) It was prOposed by a number of peOple that steps
be taken to enact the legislation at an early date.
The Opinion was also expressed that there is
presently too much confusion to proceed at this
time; objectives should be defined first. It was
also felt there is no apparent need for new
institutions at this time; faith was eXpressed in

existing institutions.

(e)

(f)

'232
Some respondents felt that too much emphasis was
placed on the university transfer program. Others
thought that the university role and the transfer
program were downgraded and that the discussion
was slanted toward the American comprehensive
college concept.

Miscellaneous comments:

 

Establish a Junior College Retirement Fund.

Establish a Provincial Junior College Faculty
Association.

Revise University entry requirements.

Delete all administrivia, rules, and regulations
from the Act.

Regional Colleges must establish their own identity,
but must establish adequate articulation with
other institutions.

Incorporate private colleges, Agricultural Colleges
and Vocational Colleges intothe total plan.

Define both faculty and students as legal entities
in the Act.

Emphasize the place of General Education and
Religious Education in the program and establish
a Provincial Curriculum Committee for the
Colleges.

Accept Diploma students into the Cofleges.

University Faculties of Education should play an

important role in future develOpments.

"233

Is the demand for post-secondary education over-
estimated?

How can potential students be motivated to desire
further education?

Will admission requirements exclude those with
higher requirements than indicated in the

prOposal?

RECOMMENDATI N3 OF THE ROVINCIAL BOARD OF PCS S1CHVDJPV
EDUCATION 10 THE MINIS T"R OF EDUCATION ANll Thllbfl 3T5
OF CABINET REACTION.

 

The Provincial Board of Post—Secondary Education, having examined
the present provisions for post—secondary education in Alberta notes
the following:

1. Post-secondary education is provided mainly by four public
systems: the universities, the public junior colleges, the
institutes of technology and the agricultural and
vocational colleges.

2. Needs and demands for post—secondary education are increasing
rapidly. Two groups of clier tele require services:
(a) those who are qualified and who wish to attend universities;
(b) those who are admissable to institutes of technology,
agricultural and vocational colleges, junior colleges, and
other public educational facilities of similar purpose,
excepting the public schools.

The Board's vien, arising from these observations, is that post»
secondary educa atiozl should be thought of as encom1assing p1~grans offeied
in all institutions stipulated above.

The conviction developed among Board mem~ers, consequently, that
the whole pos —secondary system should be thought of as consisting of
two parts: a gpjygrsity system and a Epileee system. The Board noted,
however, that provisions had already been ma ade for cc-ordinat ion 0.: the
university system and decided, consequently, to restrict its deliberations
to institutions other than universities, i.e. to institutions which,
collecti.vely, might comprise a college system. '

For the purposes of definition, a college is thought of as being
an institution designed primarily to serve persons who cannot, need not,
or do not wish to attend universities (with the exception of those in
university transfer programs) and who normally cannot be eXpected to return
to public high schools.

At the moment, at east three public college systems exist in
Alberta — the public junior colleges, the in titutcs of technology, and
the ag.icultu1al and vocational colleges (10 centers in all). They serve
in large part similar clientele, as described above. Yet the three
systems Operate without benefit of an overall plan and with little if any
coordination. Their operati as present marked variations in entrance
requirements, form of school year, length of term and level of fees. They
are financed differently and administered by different a';encie3.

234

235 2

The Provincial Board has reached the conclusion that in view of
the complexity of college education, its high cost, and the anticipated
great demand for it, the major need is for one integrated public college
system.

PrOposals l and 2, below, are presented in order to express the
Boardls views that one college system should be shaped from the existing
three systems to serve, in large part, specified groups of provincial
pOpulation.

PROPOSAL 1: That institutes of technology, agricultural and vocational
colleges, junior colleges, and other public institutions
which serve similar post-secondary clientele be looked upon
as being parts of 323 provincial college system.

 

This prOposal indicates that the three systems mentioned should be
merged into one college system. Regardless of the names of the various
institutions, they would be known as membersof a provincial college
system.

EABINET REACTION: Institutes of technology, agricultural and
vocational colleges, public junior colleges, and other public institutions
serving similar purposes will be viewed as parts of one provincial college
system.

 

PROPOSAL 2: That gggmglly colleges should be designed to serve persons
who possess a high school diploma or its equivalent OR who
are adults by definition (ordinarily 18 years of age or
older).

 

This proposal tends to establish primary purposes of colleges in
terms of persons who should be admissable to colleges. The suggested
"normal" entrance requirements would potentially provide for:

a) the admission of persons, of any age, who have achieved at
least an Alberta High School Diploma or its equivalent;

 

b) the admission of any person defined as being adult (minimum
age: 18 years tentatively suggested) who has achieved less
than an Alberta High School Diploma;

c) the admission of other persons (the word "normally" implies
flexibility) such as senior high school students from smaller
high school centers who might profit from at least one year
of work, for high school credit, in a college where
specialized options could be available. Thus, present
trends of this nature could continue, perhaps through
increasingly systemmatic arrangements between public school
and college authorities.

236 3

 

QABINET REACTION: Provincial colleges will serve the broadest
possible scope of clientele, including persons with high school
diplomas or equivalent, and other persons of lower educational
attainment. -

The foregoing PrOposals represent goals to be attained by
redesign of the college systems. The chief requirement in this
regard is to cause all college—type institutions to be brought within
a common framework of provisions for their coordination, control and
direct administration.

The Provincial Board considered various structures which would
satisfy this requirement and, having judged one to be superior to
others, submits further proposals which would :

1) provide a college system administratively independent of
the public school system (Proposal 3)

2) eliminate the use of prOperty taxation in direct support of
any part of the college system (Preposal 4)

3) establish a body to coordinate the provincial college
system (Proposal 5)

4) create governing boards for the institutes of technology
and the agricultural and vocational colleges, as well as
public junior colleges (PrOposal 6)

5) provide that a board, as in Proposal 6, above, might have

jurisdiction over more than one campus (Proposal 7)

PROPOSAL 3: That the administration of the college system be completely

 

distinct and separate from that of the public school system.

On the basis of appraisals stated or implied throughout this
report, the Provincial Board proposes an administrative structure for
colleges which is independent of public school structure.

CABINET REACIION: The administration of provincial colleges will

mu“- -

be completelyfldistinct and separate from that of the public school
system.

 

 

PROPOSAL 4: That college boards do not have access to property taxes as
a source of revenue.

 

The concept of one college system as proposed in this report
dictates that existing college—type institutions (institutes of
technology, agricultural and vocational colleges, and public junior
colleges) should have similar structural characteristics, in major
respects, within the system. At present, only public junior colleges
are reliant Upon property taxation for portions of their revenues. This
feature of present Operations, supported by other considerations not

237
treated herein, causes the Provincial Board to offer this Preposal.

CABINET BEACTION: Provincial colleges will not have access to
property taxes as a source of revenue.

 

PROPOSAL 5: That a Provincial Colleges Commission be established
to replace the Provincial Board of Post—Secondary
Education, and that it be given statutory powers to
undertake apprOpriate functions in relation to the
college system.

 

Administrative policy and regulation applying within an
institution should be separated from policy and regulation designed
for a whole college system. It is believed by the Provincial Board,
therefore, that greater effectiveness of operations can result from
separate provisions for the internal government of an institution
(Preposal 6) and for the overall government of the system (PrOposal 5).

The Provincial Colleges Commission should be given statutory
powers of sufficient scepe to enable it to coordinate the operations
and growth of the college system.

The distinction of the proposed Provincial Colleges Commission
from the Universities Commission may tend to result in less effective—
ness of Operation in matters of common concern. It is assumed,
however, that the two bodies would cooperate with each other suitably.
The possibility should not be abandoned, moreover, that eventually
there might be a fusion of the two bodies.

The Provincial Colleges Commission should report to the
Provincial Government through the Minister of Education. 'Its general
relationship to the provincial government should be essentially the
same as that applying to the Universities Commission.

CABINET REACTIQ§; A Provincial Colleges Commission will be
established to replace the Provincial Board of Post—Secondary Education,
and it will be given statutory powers to coordinate and control the
provincial college system.

 

PROPO§4L_§: That the five public junior colleges, the three
agricultural colleges and the two institutes of technolog
all be placed under the direct administrative control of
boards of governors.

Reasons for the Board's preference for this proposal are :

l) PhilOSOphically, a measure of decentralization or sharing
of responsibilities for public education is desirable.

2) Administratively, policies, regulations and masses of
decisions which govern the daily operation of an
institution can be most suitably made close to the scene
of operation. Clear communication between an executive

23o 5.

staff and a policy-making body, and ease of adjusting
to new circumstances are enhanced by provision of
college boards. ‘

CABINET RFACTION: Public junior colleges will be placed under
the direct administrative control of boards appointed by the
Lieutenant Governor-in—Council, but for the time being institutes of
technology and agricultural and vocational colleges will continue to
be under the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture,
respectively, for purposes of their direct administration. Institutes
of technology and agricultural and vocational colleges will be
coordinated with the college system as a whole in keeping with the
recommendation of the Provincial Colleges Commission to the Ministers
responsible for their administration.

 

In summary, Proposals S and 6 are intended to provide for three
desirable features of administrative structure for the public college
system :

l) The placement of the direct management of individual
institutions with the institutions, and its separation
from the coordination and regulation of the college
system as a whole.

2) The establishment of one body with extensive powers,
outside of government structure and with its own staff,
to coordinate and regulate the college system as a whole.

3) The provision of a direct line of communication between
the coordinating, regulating body (2, above) and the
provincial government, through the Minister of Education.

PROPOSAL 7: That provisions be made that a board of governors might
have jurisdiction over more than one campus.

 

This proposal is based on the Board's belief that a college may
consist of a cluster of complementary facilities located in a common
area, in which the operations on various sites are not independent of
each other. The provision of one governing board for two college
campuses in a large urban area, for example, would facilitate a measure
of "local" coordination in planning and Operation which would otherwise
become the responsibility of a provincial agency.

CABINET REACTION: Provisions will be made to enable a college
board to have jurisdiction over more than one campus.

 

239

FURTHER PLANE-ENG:

 

The Board's intent is to develOp detail related to its proposals,
as approved, in the manner required to prepare enabling legislation for
the 1969 session of the legislature. Enabling legislation should make
provisions for a transition period during which the necessary changeover
may be accomplished. The first essential action to be taken under new
legislation will be to establish the Provincial Colleges Commission which
will assume responsibility for implementing other features of change as
circumstances permit. Pending the establishment of the Commission, the
Provincial Board of Post-Secondary Education, in its relationship with

1,,

public junior colleges, will take cogniaance of impending change.

APPENDIX B

DOCUMENTS RELATING TO AFFILIATION AGREEMENTS

BART A:

l.

AFFILIATIONS BETWEEN COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES IN ALBERTA

INTRODUCTION

This document consolidates various statements which have been
approved during 1968 and 1969. It contains also additional
sections in an endeavour to provide a document on which future .
action will be based.

The terminology used assumes that the legislation affecting
colleges as prOposed by the Board of Post-Secondary Education

The document provides for affiliation of public and private

The general objective of affiliatiox is to enable colleges to
provide suitable educational Opportunities for students. The
best interests of higher education will be served if the
colleges, both public and private, are regarded as independent
institutions and the staffs of the colleges are encouraged to
exercise professional responsibility in making judgments
associated with programs leading to transfer to the University.
Hence, while preserving the legitimate interests of the
University, considerable autonomy with respect to these programs
is granted to the Colleges. It is eXpected that the Colleges
will respond to such responsibility and that students trans-
ferring to the University will benefit also from the greater
freedom for decision making with respect to courses,learning

 

2.
will be passed.
3.
colleges.
4.
eXperiences, etc.
PART B: AFFILIATION OFAPUBLIC COLLEGES
5. Assumptions

 

The acceptability of specific means of implementing the general
objective are contingent upon legislative requirements beyond
the powers of the Coordinating Council and the Colleges
Commission. Assumptions are made, therefore,that the Universi-
ties Coordinating Council and the Commission will continue to
act "in consultation and agreement" regarding:

a) the initial entry of a college into university transfer
programs;

b) the extension of a college's university transfer program
beyond the level of the university first year.

240

241

Affiliation Procedures
Granting the assumptions, as above,the following procedures will

apply:

6.1 An application regarding affiliation from a public junior
college would be directed in the first instance to the
Colleges Commission. This application might refer to a
new affiliation, a change in the program offered under the
current agreement or a renewal of affiliation. The Board
would forward the application to the Coordinating Council.

6.2 An affiliation agreement will be made eventually between
a College and a University because of the existing
legislation.

6.3 An affiliation agreement between a University and a College
will be continuous but will be reviewed as required.

6.4 A University, the Coordinating Council, a College or the
Colleges Commission may apply for review of an existing
affiliation.

6.5 Where there is an application for affiliation, a renewal
of affiliation, or a review of an existing affiliation,
an evaluation committee will be established representative
of the Coordinating Council, the University concerned and
the Commission. The evaluation committee would visit the
college and hold such discussions as may be necessary before
submitting a report. After consultation and agreement
between the Council and the Commission a recommendation
would be submitted to the University.

Standards for Affiliation

At the time of application for affiliation, and thereafter in
order to remain in good standing, a College must undertake to
satisfy three conditions which represent minimum standards for
affiliation.

THE PROPOSALS SET OUT BELOW RELATE ONLY TO COURSES OFFERED UP

TO THE END OF THE FIRST UNIVERSITY YEAR. All applications to
offer second year courses should be directed to the Coordinating
Council thrOUgh the apprOpriate channels, there to be treated as
special cases in accordance with conditions and criteria to be
established.

7.1 An instructor appointed to teach university transfer courses,
whether full time or part-time, shall have at least a
master's degree or its equivalent with appropriate content
and Specialization for the course he is teaching.

 

7.2

7.3

242

The College shall provide adequate instructional resources
and facilities particularly in relation to such matters as

'laboratories, library, etc., and shall establish policies

dealing with academic appointments, academic freedom and
tenure and student affairs.

A student seeking admission to a University with transfer

of credits as a result of courses taken at a College shall
possess an Alberta university matriculation or its equiva-
lent for the faculty or school to which he seeks admission.
Equivalence should be established initially by discussion
between the Coordinating Council and the Colleges Commission.

Inherent Understandings
The following understandings are explicit or implicit:

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

The main concern of the University is that students trans-
ferring to its second year courses have the necessary
educational background and have acquired the knowledge and
skills to c0pe satisfactorily with courses they undertake
in the University.

The high-school-equivalent component of combined, deficiency
and preparatOry programs offered in colleges require a
relationship between colleges and the Department of Educa-
tion only.

A College affiliated with a provincial university will be
regarded as an approved College by all other Universities,
and a student from any such approved College will be

eligible to apply for admission to any Alberta University.

The receiving Faculty or Department will have the responsi-
bility of evaluating the student's prOgram and making
judgments as to the apprOpriate place of the student in his
University program. In this respect, however, first year
courses in the College need not be identical with the first
year courses required in that University. Judgment should
be made on the general level of skills and knowledge
acquired and the ability of the student to c0pe with further
University study. Evidence for such judgments should be .
accumulated on the performance of students in the Univer51ty.

Once an affiliation agreement has been established respon-
sibility for appointment of staff, develOpment of courses,
examinations, etc., will be left to the affiliated College,
unless an evaluation committee specifies temporary restric-
tions based on circumstances found in the course of its
investigation. While exercising its own profe551onal
judgment with respect to curriculum, teaching methods and
examinations the College will have to keep in mind the

9.

243

requirements its students will have to meet for successful
transfer to a University or Universities.

igperational Procedures
The procedures set out below will form a guide to procedures that
will be followed in processing applications.

9.1(a)

9.1(b)

9.2(a)

9.2(b)

9.2(c)

9.2(d)

9.3(a)

9.3(b)

9.4(a)

Existing affiliation agreements and future agreements
between Colleges and Universities will be continuous
until the Colleges Commission and the Coordinating
Council initiate review procedures.

Quite apart from reviews resulting from applications as
specified below, the Coordinating Council and the Colleges
Commission will establish a schedule of periodic reviews
of all affiliation agreements.

Affiliation agreements to offer first year University
programs will be in accordance with the conditions agreed
Upon and set forth in earlier sections of this Part.

Agreements to offer first year University programs will
be in general in terms of a particular program with the
range of courses specified. The timing and details of
a particular approved course will be the responsibility
of the College.

Applications to offer second year University courses
should be made in accordance with the procedures set
out below. However, the criteria used to determine an
application may differ from that used for first year
courses.

With respect to College courses offered as equivalent to
those normally accepted for matriculation (see Sections
7.3 and 8.2) it will be the responsibility of a College
through the Commission to advise the Coordinating Council
of those courses prOposed for this category.

When a College applies for affiliation or change of
affiliation the application will be forwarded to the
Colleges Commission and will set out such information
as may be required by the Commission.

The Commission will forward an approved application to
the Coordinating Council.

The Coordinating Council and the Colleges Commission will
establish a committee to review the application and to
recommend thereon.

244

The composition of the evaluation committee will be
determined by the Council and the Commission on the
basis of the nature of the application and will consist
of members nominated by the Council and the Commission.

The evaluation committee will submit a written report to

Since at the present time an agreement must be signed
with a University a recommendation for a prOposed
affiliation will be forwarded to that University and
notification of the agreement will be forwarded to

In connection with Section 8, paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5,

of this document it is in the interest of the Colleges
and of review procedures to follow Up the performances
of students in the receiving Universities. The Colleges,
therefore, shoud initiate procedures to maintain records
of their students‘ achievements and the Universities
would be requested to SUpply the necessary information

 

All the principles, conditions and criteria set forth in
sections 1-8 of this document apply also to affiliations
between private Colleges and Universities except that
where reference is made to the Colleges Commission
different procedures will be required since the
Commission is concerned in the main with public Colleges.

Operational procedures to be followed with respect to

 

Existing affiliation agreements and future agreements
between Colleges and Universities will be continuous
until the Coordinating Council initiates review proce-

Quite apart from reviews resulting from applications as
specified below, the Coordinating Council will establish
a schedule of periodic reviews of all affiliation

9.4(c)
the Council and the Commission.
9.4(d)
all other Universities.
9.5
so that this can be done.
BART C: AFFILIATION OF PRIVATE COLLEGES
lO. 1.
2.
private Colleges are set out in section 11.
11. Operational Procedures
ll.l(a)
dures.
ll.l(b)
agreements.
ll.2(a)

Affiliation agreements to offer first year University
programs willk>e in accordance with the conditions
agreed Upon and set forth above.

245

ll.2(b) Agreements to offer first year University programs will
be in general in terms of a particular program with the
range of courses specified. The timing and details of
a particular approved course will be the responsibility
of the College.

ll.2(c) Applications to offer second year University courses
should be made in accordance with the procedures set
out below. However, the criteria used to determine
an application may differgfrom that used for first
year courses.

ll.2(d) With respect to College courses offered as equivalent
to those normally accepted for matriculation (see
Section 7.3) it will be the responsibility of a College
to advise the Coordinating Council of those courses
prOposed for this category.

ll.3 When a College applies for affiliation or change of
affiliation the application will be forwarded to the
Coordinating Council and will set out such information
as may be required by the Council.

11.4(a) The Coordinating Council will establish a committee to
review the application and to recommend thereon.

11.4(b) The composition of the evaluation committee will be
determined by the Council on the basis of the nature of
the application. The committee will consist of members
nominated by the Council and will include representatives
of the University with whom the affiliation agreement
will be made.

ll.4(c) The evaluation committee will submit a written report to
the Council.

11.4(d) Since at the present time an agreement must be signed
with a University a recommendation for a prOposed
affiliation will be forwarded to that University and
notification of the affiliation will be forwarded to
all other Universities.

ll.5(a) In connection with Section 8, paragraphs 8.4 and 8.5 of
this document it is in the interest of the Colleges and
of review procedures to follow Up the performances of
students in the receiving Universities. The Colleges,
therefore, should initiate procedures to maintain records
of their students' achievements and the Universities
would be requested to supply the necessary information
so that this can be done.

February 18, 1969.

246

REPORT TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
AFFILIATION OF COLLEGES WITH UNIVERSITIES

fi

 

PROBLEM

Several months ago, the Director of Instructional Services in
agreement with members of the Commonalities Committee indicated he
would attempt to clarify the status of the affiliation document pre-
pared jointly by Drs. Mowat and Neal, and accepted by the Universities
Coordinating Council and the Alberta Colleges Commission. Since the
agreement assumes that existing affiliations at the first year level
will continue to remain in effect until One group or the other
terminates them, the problem does not lie immediately at the first
year level, but rather at the level of second year affiliation.
Furthermore, this document is not clear as to the procedures or
methods to be followed in establishing an affiliation arrangement at

the second year level.

ACTION

As a result of this uncertainty, the universities have proceeded
to establish a variety of hierarchies and procedures to examine
colleges for approyal of second year courses. The example below will

indicate some of the confusion which ensued.

247

'Example: The Red Deer Situation

'Red Deer College made application jointly to the Universities
Coordinating Council and to General Faculties Council. This resulted
in the following seven committees having to give approval to the

Red Deer request:

 

1. Universities Coordinating Council.
2. Junior Colleges Committee.

I_§; Ad Hoc Committee.

I_ZT General Faculties Council.

5. Executive Council.

6. Junior Colleges Committee.

 

7. Ad Hoc Committee.

This approval had to be granted after all University Department
Heads had given special approval on faculty, and in some cases texts,

curriculum guides, and examinations.

Besides the above confusion, we became aware of the fact that at
least two if not three groups at the University were drafting separate

affiliation agreements.

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Coordinating Council of which I was
a member, after visiting the Red Deer College, recommended without any
reservation that the second year program for Red Deer be approved.
But it went further to recommend to the Coordinating Council that

affiliation procedures be clarified and that the process be shortened.

248

Then since it became evident that the Red Deer request which
would receive approval from the Universities Coordinating Council
and its two sub-committees, but not from General Faculties Council
and its three sub—committees (at least until they had visited the
college for the same reasons as the other committee), Dr. Kolesar
contacted the Coordinating Council and requested permission to

appear at their next meeting.

The Medicine Hat case was similar to the Red Deer case in most

respects and therefore will not be discussed here.

Meeting with Coordinating Council

 

n April 28, Dr. Kolesar and I met with the Universities
Coordinating Council to discuss affiliation problems. We requested
that approval be given to the Medicine Hat and Red Deer Colleges to
offer second year of the university transfer program. Out of this
Irequest arose a good deal of discussion on the problems presented
within this report. We were informed by the Chairman, Dr. Carrothers,
that while it was too late to assist in the Red Deer request, every
effort would be made to combine members of the two major committees
in the Medicine Hat evaluation. I was also a member of this committee.
However, when I inquired as to the joint membership of the committee
upon my arrival in Medicine Hat, the members indicated that they were
not aware of it, and assumed they were representatives of the

Coordinating Council only. Nevertheless, the evaluation took place

249 4

and a recommendation should be forthcoming shortly on the Medicine Hat

situation.

THE FUTURE

 

While to say that things have not gone well might be recorded as
the understatement of the year, we do see a glimmer of hope on the
horizon. We say this for several reasons. First, we are confident
that Red Deer's request will be approved for September, 1970 and
that approval will be given to Medicine Hat if not in 1970 then in
1971. But we also have an indication that the Coordinating Council
will meet with us in the near future to establish shorter and more
reasonable procedures for affiliation. We were given this assurance
by the Chairman of the Coordinating Council when Dr. Kolesar and I
met with that group in April. If the Coordinating Council does not
initiate action sooner, we will attempt to begin discussions early in

the fall of this year.

APPENDIX C

QUESTIONNAIRE TO COLLEGE PRESIDENTS

AND BOARD CHAIRNEN

THE COLLEGE ADMINISTRATION PROJECT

SPONSORED BY
THE W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA
EDMONTON 7. CANADA

FACULTY OF EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT or EDUCATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION

 

December 22, 1971

To Presidents and Board Chairmen of Alberta Public Colleges

Dear Sir:

In the Spring of 1971, following discussions with Dr. Kolesar,
I submitted a proposal for a study of the develOpment of the Alberta
College System with Special attention to coordinative mechanisms. This
proposal was subsequently approved for doctoral dissertation purposes
at Michigan State University, and has also been recognized as contributing
to the interests of the College Administration Project, Department of
Educational Administration, University of Alberta.

The main sources of data used so far have been reports, records
and minutes supplemented by a number of interviews. In order to bring
the study to completion, however I seek your help in establishing
actual perceptions of coordination held by leaders in the field.

I am grateful for the support and cooperation given to me by
Dr. Kolesar who has also consented to the use of this questionnaire.

Your early response will be greatly appreciated in order that
I may complete my project and submit my report to the Commission for

your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

JEmO/‘ffiufi/C

James M. Small
(Associate Professor)

250

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A VAVA VAVA V AVA VAVA VAV A V A V s
A VAVA VAVA V AVA VAVA VAV A V A V m
AVAVAVAVAV AVAVAVAVAV AV AV N
A VA VAVA VA V A VAVA VA VAV A V A V A
l Dot/owned ® GU ® @ @ vm>ownom Doghouse @ GU © @ @ Damn—.395
was afloumamaoo I DOD mHmEouuxo DOD 02 wow
unoEo>meo¢ mo ucmuwm mocmuuomEH mumfiwmmummfl. EODH
.DOflmmeEoo ODD hp DO>OH£Om wH Ow DOHL3 ou ucmuxo ecu pom .omoausm osu
mo moamuuomaw ozu mo uOoEmmommm use» mumOHch .A:wo%: poxoonoV oumwumowmam mum xcwnu so» umnu omonu mom
.GOHmmwafioo mowOHHoo muuona< man you oumfimeUmmm.owm DOHE3 manuapcw owmoad monomwnm o>onm OED mo zone pom
.ooafl>owm osu mo mumoumuafi Omen OED o>wom Ou wand .mH umnu .DOOHOHmmo on OH .q
.mowOHHOO OED mo mo>fluoohno one wonuusm pom memos ODD need on mane .mw umnu .o>Huoowuo on OH .m
.oum .mmwuwmwo>flab
.ucoacuo>ow mo muaoauumdma “onmeo How .mumONODDH poumaow wOH>mE mmwocowm coo3uon muoaamcoo weapon OH .N
.Boumhm OED mo mDOOEOOEOO wOOHum> cowuom mDOHcoSumn ON ocflDeoo pom oumflnmou OH .H

 

“m3oaaom mm poumum some o>m£ :owumnwpuooo mo Ewummm m we memomwsm,OHmnm

.DOHumcHOwooo pom mundawo>ow mo muwuuma OD Doommow saws haamfiommmo .EODmmm owmaaoo wuuona<
m5» m0 OEONDQOODOO Mao» wcflpomumwoncs OH o8 Ou Hammad: on cases xoflnu 50% Downs mucoEEOo ham ppm Ou moum Hmmm
mmmmam .muuona< DH amummm omoaaoo owansm HMDOD ecu mo owpoa3ocx DOOA co wcwzwup .maowuwoav mmonu wo3mcm ommoam

 

Ammeazmmeaa moV .mnmaom mo zmzmHamo .mezmaummma "mamaama momaaoo mom mmH<ZZOHHmmma.

VA

252

DOHDOOOm GU GU QU NU @ w

\Ewun

VA

VA

VA

VA

VA

VA
VA

VA
VA
VA
VA
VA

VA

VA VA V

VA

VA

VA

VA

VA
VA

VA
VA
VA
VA
VA

VA

VA V

VA V

VA V
VA V

VA V
VA V

VA V
VA V

VA V
VA V

VA V

 

mudguomumm NO
ADAAmso Do Damuxm Do Ammwmuada

.N

VAVA VAVA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA
VA VA VA VA

DEmDDOOEfl GU ® @ @ @DanDOOEw

AHmEowao

oocmDuomEH

 

A A U wEHDDomow EOMDmEDOwcw
DA mopoo Euowflcs mowLmHHDmDmm
A A v mOOAOAdeo
owEmpmomlcoc Dom mOHOHHOO
Hoaaomuom pumpcmDm wcwanHDmDmm
A A U ADHDOMw OwEopmum mo comeuspm
OOH>DOmIOH paw defi>uomlowm
.DOmEDHODoou OD wosomouadm
pom mODmpEmDm wcflnmfiHDmDmm
A A Vucoamwsvm o>flmcmdxo mo ommnuwsd
OED Do chHDfimHOvou wcwaoom
A A v mouspmooum
meanness wcwamwmamumm
A A U mDowpDD mmeHoo wEH>ODad<
A A U amDmAm owoaaoo UHHDOQ mED mo
wpooc Hmwocmcfim wcADfiEDmDon
A A V madam wOADHHDD wEH>ODOd<
A A U DOoEOOHo>op
Domam pom OOHDmNMHHDD woman
Dom wpumpcmDm wcHEmHADmem
A A V moaDwkumm mwOHHOU wcwccmam
A A U mmwoaaoo OD mEOADocsm
Dam mEmeODO mo OOADmOOHH<
A A V mowoaaoo ONHDOQ
wow swam DODmmE m wcHOOHo>OQ
A A v cOfiDmospm ADHmDm>HDO
Icon .AumpcoommlDOOO Ham
Dow Edam DoDme m wDHOOHm>oa

02 new

ODmfiHmmumm< SODH

.Aocowm mDflDmEfiDDOOU m we :OHmmHEEoo momoaaoo meona< OLD mo mocmawomumm OED mo chflDdooumm DOOA
mDmUADEA .mcomeosv wDOH>oDO ODD DH mm somoumam damn OED mamas .Aodow< wDHDmchDoou m we mnowDocow pow mxmmy .HH

 

.mH

.NH

.HH

.OH

253

A VA VA VA VA V

AVA VAVA VAV

A VA VA VA VA V

DOHDmQDw ® ® 6 GU QU Doom
\Emwn \30A
|\|\|IIIII oocmEuomwmm mo

mm<
:0 DO DOODxm mo Hmmfimu
Aswan

.m

A VA VA VA VA V A V A mewuwuouua Do aoquEDEUaume was
an mowuwmoa Do cowumawswwm .GA

A VA VA VA VA V A V A V muamesuw HOAeam mamas
wcfisommD wafi>ao>ofi woowom

xmmD Hmwooam wDHEmHHDmDmm .ma

A VA VA VA VA V A V A V mDoDmquwaDEUm was mumemma
mwoaaoo wcH>HO>dH mOOD0m

xme Hmfiommm wDHEwAHDmem .qH

 

 

DEmDDOOEH ® AU A0 @ @Damuwomefi Oz mo.»
AHoEmDon Doc
oocmDDOQEH mmeDOODmmfl. EoDH

254

 

 

A V A V A V A V A V mamom .OOHEOOOOHHLO HOOOHDDDHDODA mo wmmwmeMWmemfiwmwwmwMOmmm .wH
A V A V A V A V A V Assamese an? 83,338 .2
A V A V A V A V A V AHOewDOOmDO OOEOHHDODOO ONO OOAOHHOm .OH
A V A V A V A V A V ONO DOADOEwOmOH pom OOOOH wOHwOOLOxO Dom mmmmmmmwwmwwwmwwm .ma
A V A V A V A V A V ODOOOOH OwOHHOO wooem pOwODOOOOO ONO meHDOLDOw HOEDODEH .qa
A V A V A V A V A V OOwOHHOO DOOBDOD DOADADOOEOO DOOHDDH> OHODDEOO AHHOmmmOooOm .ma
A V A V A V A V A V OOOHO>O we OEODMODO pom OOODOOO mo DOADODOMHHODQ AHOOOOOOEOD .NH
A V A V A V A V A V ODprDD OD meOquDO 3O: mo Dmoo OED OODOAOM .HH
A V A V A V A V A V mumwean mwOAAou aw Auwsam ma>mwau< .0A
A V A V A V A V A V AHO>NDOOWDO OwOHHOO LOOO mo OOOOD HODNOOO OOENBDODOQ .m
A V A V A V A V A V maowmwume so wanna auwu m mamas .w
A V A V A V A V A V poom coeaoo ODD Dow ODO OONDHDOADQ pom moomeOOo .A
A V A V A V A V A V OHDODHDOO ONO OOHDHDOADO pom OEOwOHOOQ .o
A V A V A V A V A V OOOHO OwDODIwOOH EDHB DEODOHOGOO ODO OOOHOHOOD O>ADOOOAH< .m
A V A V A V A V A V wOwOHHOO ODD macaw ODODOOGOO OOEOAHDODOM .O
A V A V A V A V A V OwOHAOO EOOO OD wEHDmOn DHOM O OO>mu .m
A V A V A V A V A V DDO>OHOD ONO OODOEDOw ODOQ .N
A V A V A V A V A V pauom ODO OODONGSOOD wcfiDOnDOw ODOQ .H
OAOSHO .AHHOOOD .mOEHDOEOm .BOOHOO .DO>OE
III DDOEOmOmw< HMWW
.DOAOOAEEOU mOmOHHOO ODDODH< OED mo mumefluODuwwmso OOCOEDOmDOm .HHH

255

DOODNO DOODw O OD

DO OODwO

AVA

VA
VA
VA
VA

AAA/N

VA
VA
VA
VA

AAA/N

AVA
AVA

AVA

AVA
AVA
AVA

AVA

VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA

VA

VA
VA
VA

VA

VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA

VA

VA
VA
VA

VA

VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA
VA
VA

VA
VA

VA
VA
VA

VA

VVVV

VVVV

v

® @©©@HHO DO Don

DO OODwOOHp

OOEA>ODO HODOD OED mo DxODEOO
OED DH OBODwODO mo OOOOO>wOOOnquaou Ow ODHDOOH EOHDOOHODOOQ

OOwOHHOO OD ODOOO OOED OOHOw DODOODw DH ODHOOOD DODDOOHODOOU
ODOaaaODODO OwDODO mo OOODOm OED BODOAm OwOHHOu OAHDOm OED DH
OONAODOOOODO ODO OODDOOOODO O>HDODDOOOAEO<

EODwODQ O.OwOHHOO
O mo DOOEOOHO>OO ODD DH OO>HO>OD ODO OOONHDHO ADHODEEOU

ODOOD ADHODEEOO OD O>HDAOOOO ODO OOwOHHOO OLH
OOOOOHOD HHO3 ONO EODmODm HODOD O.OmOHHOO O we ODEODOOEOO OER
vaODDOOOO OH OOwOHHOO HOOOA>HODD OH O>HDOHDHOH

OOwOHHOu OOOBDOD
OODOOOODO AOOOHDOoo> OOO OHBOOOOO mo ADHEDODAOO OH ODOEH

OONHODOOOODO OEOOOD O>O£ OEODwODO OwOHHOQ

30H OH
ODOOOHOODO OwOHHOo OOO OODOOD HOOOH DOOBDOD HO>OH DOHHmEOo OEH

BOA Ow OOMOOAEEOU OOwOHHOU
ODD ODO OODOOD OwOHHOo HOOOH OOOBDOD HO>OH DOHHMOOO OEH

DOEDO DOOO mo AHDOOOOOOODOH HHO3 DOHDOODM OD OHDO ODO OOwOHHOU
DOHDDO>DODafi DOOBODO>Ow ADODDADDO Eoum OODm ODO OOmOHHOO OLH

ODOfiDDDwDODfi ADOOOOOOOIDOOO DOEDO ODO
OOHDHODO>HDD mo OOOODODDODOH OED BOND OODM ODO OOwOHHOO OEH

OO>HOODOO AHDOOHO O“ OHOD ADHODEEOO O.OwOHHOO DOOM

 

OOOOOOOM

 

EODH

 

OOADODHODOOU OwOHHOU a“ OOHDOODHm DOODwmm.

.oa
.mH
.OH
.MH

.NH
.HH
.0H
.m

.<

 

DOHDOOAODOOU mo OOEOODOO

.>H

256

A VA

VA VA VA V

VA VA VA V

VA VA VA V
VAVA VAV

VA VA VA V
VAVA VAV

VA VA VA V
VA VA VA V
VA VA VA V

VA VA VA V

DGODxO DOODm O OD @ @ © @U @ HHO DO DOG

DO .OODwO

Do .OODwOOHp

 

OOGomOOm

waD OH GODOOHEEOQ
OOwOHHOU ODD mo OHOD O>HDOGHODOOO ODD DDfiz GOHDOODOHDOO

OOODDOD AHDGOOADHGwDO
Do OO>OEOD GOOD O>OD DGOEOOHO>OD BODwODO mo OEOHDODm

HO>OH HOOOH
ODD DO DGOEOwOGOa OwOHHOo Doom Dom OOOD>ODO ODO OO>DDGOOGH

ADODOODOHDOO ODO ADHGDEBOO UGO ADDOODGA DDH3 OGOHDOHOm

OOOGOOD AHDGOODDHwaO
DO OO>OEOD GOOD O>OD OOHDHOHmDD wGwGGOHO OwGODIwGOA

DODDOOGDO AHODODOODO OH GOHOGOEHD OOH>DOOIADHGGEEOO ODE

GOHDODOOOOO OO>ODOEA
AD OONHDODOODODO ODO OGOHDOAOD HOGODDODHDOGDIDODGH

OOODBHGHE GOOD O>OD OOGGM HODDOOO mo OEOHDODm
OOOHBNGHE GOOD O>OD ODGDD wGNDODOOO mo OBOHDODm
.OOOGOOD

AHDGOOHDHGwHO DO DO>OEOD GOOD O>OD A.ODO OOwOHHOO HHOGO
.OOwOHHOO 3OGV OOwOAHOO GOOSDOD OOOGODODMDO mo OEOHDODm

eODH

.Cmfiu OUGHw UMHHDUUO 0>m£

DODDB ODGOBO>ODOED mo OGOHDOOODOO DOOA ODDOOOE OD OD OGODDOOOO ODD mo DGODGH ODD UGO .onma DODwG<
GH DOGHDOU ODD DDfis OOGODOmGOO ODD DO ODOOOOH OwOHHOO AD OOOHOD ODO3 OEOHDODG wGfiaoHHom ODH

.OH

.H

.m

257

 

 

 

NH AH 0H m w A o m e m N H
a a p u u p p o p o o p p I
m mm<mm
NA NA 0H m m A o n O m N H
u p p p p p p a u u a p .
N mm<mm
AODDGOU
HODDGOO AOGOw< AOHoGD>ODm
GONNDNU no Do .DGOEGDO>OU
OwOHHOo HOOOH NA NA 0H m w A o m w m N a - .ADHODO>HGD
INDOOAHODDGOOOQ . . . . . . . . . . . . IIHOONHHODDGOU
H mm<mm

AOHOom ODD GO

 

HODDGOU EODwOMM.
DDOE DOODO O OOODAV

.HODDGOO mo DOOOOO DOOO Dom wGNDOwNO GOHDONHHODDGOO mo OODwOD ODD mo OGOHDOOODOQ DOOA ODOONOGH OOODO DOOO Dom

.GOHOONEEOU OOwOHAOU ODD AD

DODOH UGO .DDOom HOHoGD>ODm ODD AD DODHD GOHDOGADDOOO HONOGH>ODO AD OOOHDODOODODU . I Acma .m OOODm

.OEODwODO

O>HOGODODOEOO OD05 wGHDOmmO OOmOHHOO OHHDDO mo DGOEDODHDODOO ODD AD DOOHDODOODODU .Aomannmma .N OOODm

GODDODHNNDO GD OEODwODA DODOGODD wGDDOmmO OOmOHHOO

.ODDODa< mo ADHODO>AGD ODD DDH3
DOHGGn ODO>HDO AD DONDDODOODODQ .NmmA OD a: .H OOODm

"OBOHHOM OO DOOAOODDOOAD

 

OD GOO BODOAm OwOHHOo ODDODH< GO mo DGOEOOHO>OD ODD GH OOOODO DOGHDONO OODDH .DOOm ODD mo 3Ofi>Om

.>

258

l\

NH

HH

OH

30% MZ<$H

 

NH

HH

OH

 

NH

HH

OH

m N H

DI . .
m N H

u . uI III]
m N H

 

OONHHODDGOOOQ

II‘

NH

HH

OH

H Mm<mm

OONHHODDGOU

 

OODGOOUODA DGO OOHOHHom O>HDODDOHGHBD< mo HODDGOQ

 

NH

HH

0H

 

NH

HH

0H

m N H
m N H
m N H

 

OONHHODDGOOOQ

H mm<mm

u u I|ul

OOOHHODDGOU

 

HODDGOU HOOOHm

259

CONSOLIDATED QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Average
achievement

Importance

Appropriate

(yeS)

Item

(3)

(1 a 2)

(n6)

(4 a s)

 

Section I

3854
A¢A2AOAO
9797
1413
1011
0000
1111
1111
1234

Section II

 

9314487559329301
OEQVQVQVQVQVQVquuil1l1inanznzna

887584105333AOOD23

ll

2343120123312554

nonvnv1i111annV1lqaozqw1lozqumi

IanOEAVOEoEnOnVQDAV7.RVnVoAA.9_

85431979

01959911
11 11 1

1234567690123456
1111111

III

tion

Sec

 

769470978658877879
l

I

111410112132111031

11022002112011.2100

1234567890

1
l

2
.1

3
1

4
l

5
1

6
1

l7

8
l

Item

260

ReSponse

(1 a 2) (3) (4 a 5)

 

Section IVa

\OOJAIO‘U'ACONI“

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16

Section IVb

OomNO‘Lfi-bwmt"

...:

ection

_Prooram Control

I
II
III

Fiscal Control

I
II
III

Administrative

I
II
III

2 4 5
9 O 2
6 2 3
O 2 9
O l 10
O l .9
7 3 1
3 6 2
l O 9
2 3 4
2 5 4
O 3 8
6 2 3
l 5 5
0 5 6
l 2 8
3 3 4
2 3 5
O 5 5
1 2 6
7 2 1
3 4 2
l 3 6
4 2 3
l 4 5
2 1 7

9 l 10 8 12 l

9 1 5 11 10 l

7 l 3 5 3 l

9 12 10 l2 l2 l2

9 7 6 10 8 7

4 l 5 4 1 l

9 12 10 12 ll 12
8 l 8 l2 8 l
l l 6 l2 2 1

11
11

ll
11

11
11