0,. ASEER cm: 5.. M. £00 s}? W'Scjor‘ AEEWIDE HIGHER OR! 5T N E L o. .R F . < ~ nut—m“.va .5 E... 143.5 .. m” i v mxhfififi p 1.... é: . . . 1., 1... . . ‘ArJébefy .. 1 in... . “.3. . 1.“: i . ”5-.m’onrfltk $3.: :1 KW... 5.1.... .56 in”... . 1111 rarflfir $311.1. .4??? .5 . In... «.alemfl.. Mia. ‘ 532 ‘7 :.. .. U énvet-szty W It;littlytttttyttttluttmgttu ,_ a! .tttt .-9“ «W- . _ ”‘5 .6 This is to certify that the .3“ *1 “F . . .1 thesxs ent1tled .5?" An Analysis of the Role arid Scope of ' Community College as Reflected in Selected State Master Plans of Higher Education presented by Brian L. Donnelly has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Higher Education [Mtg/757‘ ;%21 Major professor Date May 18, 1973 0-7839 L; 9.4995 ‘ :ity a! MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout fron your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. meg 3995- ‘ ~ 311611036ng ABSTRACT CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION by Brian Lawrence Donnelly Problem There have been uncertain implications of central planning for the community college which was initially designed for responding to local needs. Problems such as unnecessary duplication and the elimination of institutional diversity between community colleges and other institutions of higher education may be guarded against with proper statewide planning. Although the community college has been included in some statewide master plans of higher education, there have been no criteria for community college role and scope statements which are needed for the development of proper master plans of higher education. PUI‘EOSG The major purpose of this study was to provide criteria for community college role and scope specifications for master plans of education. Two subpurposes were (1) to provide an analysis and a synthesis of the community college role and scope as revealed in selected statewide master plans of higher education, and (2) to provide a set of imperatives, derived from related literature, for community college role and scope specification in master plans of higher education. Methodology Eleven statewide master plans were selected from the existing statewide plans as a source of community college role and scope statements. A Typology of Community College Characteristics was developed with the cooperation of a panel of experts and practitioners for the analysis of the plans. Each of the 19 characteristics provided a category into which role and scope statements could be placed. The three groups of community college characteristics were functions (e.g., university parallel), descriptive instit- utional traits (e.g., open-door policy), and contributions (e.g., personal upgrading). A synthesis of community college role and scope statements was developed by categorizing statements from the master plans. Criteria from the combined statements were derived. Based on a critical analysis of the literature, which had implications for community college role and scope statements eight topical areas emerged. They were (1) diversity, (2) institutional identity, (3) accountability- governance, (4) autonomy-centralization, (5) access— accommodation, (6) goals and institutional priorities, (7) social contexts and projections for planning, (8) con— ditions giving rise to coordination and planning. Forty— three imperatives were developed from which additional criteria for community college role and scepe statements were derived. Findings From the master plan statements, the literature imperatives and an analysis of the synthesized community college role and scope statements, 88 criteria for community college role and scope specifications in master plans of higher education were developed. In addition to the derivation of the community college role and scope criteria, it was found that (1) there is a declining order among the three groups of community college characteristics, viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions according to the number of times a characteristic was mentioned in the set of master plans; (2) four out of seven of the functions characteristics were mentioned in all the master plans; (3) there was no single descriptive institutional trait for community colleges that was universally discussed in the master plans; (4) four out of six of the least—mentioned characteristics are from the contributions group despite the goal- and future-orientation of the contributions group. Additional findings specific to the individual characteristics were reported. Master plans need to reflect a goal- and future- oriented focus. Criteria for community college role and scope statements for master plans of higher education need to be used if the planning process is to be effective. CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE SPECIFICATIONS FOR STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION by Brian Lawrence Donnelly A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1973 © Copyright by BRIAN LAWRENCE DONNELLY 1973 ii to EILEEN .1 .1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My dissertation committee has been extremely cooperative and supportive throughout the effort involved in writing this dissertation. I would like to thank Gunder Myran for his work with me on my "first" dissertation. His encouragement and support were timely and helpful. I extend appreciation to Dr. Mel Bushman who so cooperatively replaced Dr. Myran upon the latter's move. Dr. Sam Moore has been extremely helpful with his thorough criticisms and frank comments. I thank Dr. John Useem for serving on my committee. I extend special thanks to Dr. Max Raines who encouraged, extolled, criticized, prodded, and supported always seemingly in the prOper dosages and at the right times. His effort as my dissertation committee chairman and advisor has been immensely appreciated. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . STATEMENT OF PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . NEED FOR STUDY 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 PURPOSE 0 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE DEFINITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW 0 O O I O O I O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER II. PLANNING AND COORDINATION . INTRODUCT ION 0 I O O O O O O O O O O 0 PLANNING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of Planning and Coordination Role and Scope Specifications . . . Need for Statewide Plans . . . . . . Federal Government Influences . . . State Involvement . . . . . . . . . COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Community College . . . . . . . SUMMARY 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll 12 14 16 16 l6 16 21 23 25 28 29 29 31 32 33 35 35 35 Sequence of Analysis . . . . The Master Plans . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . CRITERIA FROM DOCUMENT ANALYSIS TWO OTHER SOURCES FOR CRITERIA SUMMARY........... CHAPTER IV. TOPICS AND ISSUES IN LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . DIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY . . . . ACCOUNTABILITY - GOVERNANCE . AUTONOMY - CENTRALIZATION (DECE ACCESS - ACCOMMODATION . . . . GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL PRIORIT SOCIAL CONTEXT AND PROJECTIONS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER V. QUANTITATIVE PROFILE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER VI. COMMUNITY COLLEGE R0 PLAN STATEMENTS . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . ROLE AND SCOPE . . . . . . . . vi PLANNING--THE NTRALIZATION) . . . . IES O O O O O O O O 0 FOR PLANNING . . . . OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE LE AND SCOPE MASTER 36 36 38 39 43 45 46 46 49 54 61 66 71 73 76 80 83 83 84 84 92 94 94 94 Vocational—Technical . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . 95 University Parallel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Community Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Continuing Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 General Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Compensatory Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Community Counseling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Equality of Educational Opportunity . . . . . . . . 108 Open Admissions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Local Autonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Within Commuting Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Low-Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Teaching Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Second- Chance Institution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Personal Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Economic Development of the Community . . . . . . . 121 Upgrading the Quality of Community Life . . . . . . 122 Inter—Cultural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Interpersonal Relating Development . . . . . . . . . 124 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Descriptive Institutional Traits . . . . . . . . . . 130 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 SUMMARY 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l 3 5 CHAPTER VII. CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE SPECIFICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 3 9 FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSES . 139 CRITERIA FOR STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . 144 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 APPENDIX 1. E.C.S. TASK FORCE REASONS FOR STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . 154 APPENDIX 2. EVOLUTION OF COORDINATING PATTERNS WITHIN STATES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 155 vii APPENDIX 3. MEDSKER TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONTROL PATTERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 APPENDIX 4. FACSIMILE OF FORM USED IN ANALYSIS OF STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION . . . . . . 158 APPENDIX 5. DEMONSTRATION OF CRITERIA DERIVATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 APPENDIX 6. LIST OF SYNTHESIZED COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163 APPENDIX 7. IMPERATIVES FOR PLANNING FROM THE LITERATURE RELATED TO HIGHER EDUCATION PLANNING . . . 169 APPENDIX 8. IMPERATIVES FOR PLANNING AND PLANS. . . . . 173 APPENDIX 9. LIST OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE CRITERIA FOR HIGHER EDUCATION MASTER PLANS . . . . . . 176 viii LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 THE STATUS OF MASTER PLANNING BY TYPE OF COORDINATING AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 3.1 TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 5.1 COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS FROM STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS . . . . . . TABLE 5.2 RANK ORDERING OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE 5.3 FREQUENCY OF MASTER PLAN REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARACTERISTIC GROUPS ix 0 18 4O 85 86 87 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 3.1 SOURCES OF CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 3.2 DIALECTICAL PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . FIGURE 3.3 STAGES IN DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA . . . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Statewide planning of higher education is a rela- tively recent phenomenon (Comprehensive Planning for Post- Seconday Education, 197l:2). The first statewide master plan for higher education was not drawn up until 1959 in California (Wilson, 1965). Since that time recognition of the need for statewide planning of higher education has grown to the point where "46 states now have legislatively authorized agencies with statewide planning as one of their primary functions" (Comprehensive Planning for Post-Secondary Education, 1971:2). Brumbaugh has written that Careful statewide planning is the key to an effective system of higher education. As a means of extending 'full opportunity' for post-high school education to all who seek and can profit by it, the commun1ty college has an important role (Brumbaugh, 1965:18). Logan Wilson asks "What role should community colleges play [in developing statewide master plans and policies and in achieving common educational goals]?" (Wilson, 1972:53-54). Criteria for determining community college role and scope specifications for statewide master plans of higher education are not presently available. In order to establish and main- tain community college identity in statewide systems of higher education, criteria for community college role and scope 1 2 specifications need to be developed. NEED FOR STUDY In The Community College in Higher Education, Stoops states that there is a need to define the role of the commun- ity college in the higher education system as a necessary step in the development of higher education master planning (Stoops, 1966z8). There are some statewide master plans of higher education which include the community college in their purview. They have been developed without appropriate criteria for community college role and scope. In addition, there is a body of literature which includes discussion of issues in higher education which is pertinent to community college role and sc0pe in master plans of higher education. Based on existing master plan statements and on the litera— ture imperatives, the need to derive criteria for community college role and scope Specifications is essential for commu- nity college deve10pment in systems of higher education. PURPOSE There were three purposes for this study. 1. To provide criteria for community college role and scope specifications for master plans of higher education; 2. To provide an analysis and a synthesis of the com- munity college role and scope as revealed in selected statewide master plans of higher education; 3. To provide a set of imperatives, derived from 3 related literature, for community college role and scope specification in master plans of higher education. PRACTICAL AND THEORETICAL SIGNIFICANCE There are several practical contributions to be made by this study. The community college role and scope criteria may be used in statewide master plans of higher education as a guideline for specifying community college role and scope. Institutional diversity in systems of higher education may be better planned when the roles and scopes of the separate institutions are clearly conceptualized. Community colleges at the local level may use the criteria as a checklist for establishing and developing their own roles and scopes. Such deliberation may aid in estab- lishing and maintaining the uniqueness of the community college. The collected community college role and scope statements from selected state plans provide a graphic example of the kinds of master plan statements made about community college role and scope. The imperatives derived from the literature provide a collected set of propositions regarding the needs in higher education planning. The criteria and the list of community college role and scope statements, and the planning impera- tives from the literature may provide an aid to planners and practitioners in being able to see the range of the nature of the community college. The study provides a number of theoretical benefits. 4 Criteria and imperatives from the literature add to the speculative literature on what the community college should be like as one institution in a system of education. More- over, the criteria for community college role and scope provide the basis for the systematic development of a philo— sophy of the community college. Planning statements on the nature of an institution are sometimes future and goal oriented. Thinking on what the community college ought to be like emerges through the imperatives and the criteria for community college role and scope. DEFINITIONS The meanings of a number of terms are stipulated below as they were used in this study. Included in the definitions are the nineteen characteristics of the typology of community college characteristics used in categorizing community college role and scope statements. Higher Education System In the context of planning, "system" refers to the total set of higher educational institutions and to the relationships between them in a given state. "Higher edu- cation" refers to all public and private universities and colleges of a past—secondary nature. Community College This term refers to public (and private when appropriate to statewide higher education planning) two—year colleges. It is one component of higher education (Berdahl, 1971:229—230). Coordination The term refers to the process of program review, budget review, planning and implementation undertaken by a voluntary agency, governing board or a coordinating agency for providing maximum effectiveness among higher educational institutions in a state. Planning Planning is "the attempt to interrelate the many variables in a statewide system of higher education and to come up with long-range policy recommendations and a scheme of action" (Berdahl, 1971:74). Statewide Higher Education Master Plans This term refers to the set of documents prepared in approximately 27 states. Although the "term master plan is already on the way out because it connotes rigidity," (Berdahl, 1971:74) it will be used for lack of a better term. Role and Scope This term refers to the determination of an institution's basic type and the general spread and level of its programs (Glenny, l971b:34). It includes reference to functions and contributions as well as to the institutional traits of the community college. Typology of Community College Characteristics The typology is a set of nineteen characteristics 6 divided into three groups which provided the categories for the content analysis of the statewide higher education master plans. The three groups are functions, descriptive insti— tutional traits, and contributions. Because the charac- teristics were used as a classification system, descriptions in addition to the definitions are given. Functions This term was used to describe seven general types of programs at community colleges. Vocational-Technical Education may or may not result in the awarding of a two-year Associate of Arts degree. Most often the programs are directed toward entrance into specific occupational areas upon completion. University Parallel programs provide a specific orientation to the curriculum requirements of the univer— sities to which students may be transferring. Most often the university parallel curriculum is organized according to the disciplines. Community Services refers to the assessment of needs in a specific community and the consonant development and implementation of responses. It entails the tailoring of community college resources to the needs of a specific community. Continuing Education refers to a whole range of credit and non-credit courses that have been typically offered to those persons who can afford to pay. It is closely linked to community services in its local response approach. General Education refers to the organization of the curriculum which is usually offered during the first year of community college work. The curriculum in a general education approach is organized according to the problems of the whole man vis-a—vis the limitations set by the disciplines. Compensatory Education refers to the range of programs and activities that attempt to eliminate educational deficiencies. Typically, such programs might include tutoring, special funding, special counseling, special recruitment, and any other specific help responses that would help the educationally deficient student successfully complete a program. Community Counseling refers to the orientation of the college to the counseling needs of the total community. Provision for marriage counseling, individual growth seminars, and other counseling programs are offered for non-students as well as students. Descriptive Institutional Traits This is the group of seven characteristics that has 8 been used to describe the community college as a whole. Equality of Educational Opportunity is a generic term descriptive of a policy that permeates the institution. This descriptor refers to an approach by a faculty which recognizes that many people are discriminated against through many primary and secondary educational systems. The effects of the implementation of this policy may occur in nearly any other category. Open-Admissions refers to the accessibility of the community college to a broad public. Typically, the limit— ations involved in the implementation of this policy are either high—school completion, age eighteen, or judged able to benefit by a program at the college. Local Autonomy refers to the locus of the governance of the institution as being kept close to the community in which the institution is operating. Within Commuting Distance refers to geographical and time-to—travel elements between a community college and its student constituency. It may be considered as a factor in democratizing higher education if one considers the socio— economic status of the community which is or is not "within commuting distance" when the college is situated in a given locus. Low—Cost is an essential category in the description. It includes reference to tuition as well as to the cost for 9 programs offered and the level of expense to parents because dependent students often live at home. Teaching Institution characterizes the overall thrust of each of the other characteristics. Even through its "services," the community college is attempting to provide learning for some constituency. Second—chance Institution is closely tied to the previous category. It includes responses to drop-outs, persons refused at other institutions, people who failed out, and others. The open-door policy is one manner of implementing this policy. Contributions This term is used to include five characteristics which have described the kinds of growth for individuals and communities toward which the community college may contribute. Personal Upgrading refers to development of the individual in terms of human and occupational skills. Counseling,resulting in the design of a course program for the student, or in a job after the community college experience, or in developing personal problem—solving approaches are activities proper to "personal up—grading." Economic Development refers to the increased pro- duction in material resources in a particular community 10 as a function of community college resource input. It is often confused with "upgrading of quality of community life" or the community development dimension of "community services." Neither of the latter two characteristics have been used to refer to material wealth although economic development may accompany "upgrading of community life" and "community services." Upgrading the Community Life refers to a developing sense of awareness of other persons in a given locus. It implies a dimension of sharing as well as a dimension of creative and harmonious participation in a common life. It is closely related to both "inter—personal relations development" and "inter-group social development." The latter categories have been reserved for social problem- solving enterprises however. Ecological concerns of a local nature that result in interpersonal or inter—group con- frontation would be classified in this category. Inter-Cultural Education refers to activities that have ramifications for an individual because of his or her membership in a particular group. Examples of such activities include providing greater awareness of social infringements on rights of others because of their membership in a parti— cular ethnic or racial group through the development of forums, seminars, etc. involving various cultural groups from the community~at~large. 11 Interpersonal Relations Development refers to the development of skills that are specifically supportive of developing richer inter—personal relations. It may refer to counseling for married couples as well as counseling for foremen from a local shop. Ordinarily it refers to the relations between one individual and one other small number of individuals. study: 1. ASSUMPTIONS The following eight assumptions were made for this Statewide plans of higher education neither preclude nor insure the possibility of a unique institutional identity for the community college. Community colleges are a part of statewide higher educational systems. Statewide planning of higher education is a desir— able process for eliminating duplication and overlap. There are different kinds of higher educational needs that warrant different kinds of higher educational institutions. Some persons have been discriminated against through a biased primary and secondary educational system. Such persons may well have the "ability" to work at the higher educational level and it is the obligation of higher educational leaders to offer a multitude of educational opportunities that are responsive to these persons. 12 6. Equal educational opportunity in higher education in part means preparing a system to respond to diverse post-secondary educational needs. 7. Persons should not be expected to fit the system but rather the system should be designed as much as possible to respond to the needs of the person. 8. Statewide systems of higher education are operative although in many cases they have not been planned. 9. As a part of various systems, community colleges are affected by the activities of other institutions. LIMITATIONS While statewide higher education master plans may deal with any topic related to higher education, this study is limited to those elements of the statewide higher edu- cation master plans which have implications for community college role and scope. Issues such as the role of the university and economic accountability in higher education for example, are related to this study but are not in them— selves the proper concern of the study. A number of dimensions appear in statewide plans of higher education. Mayhew lists the following ideas that, among others, are typically found in most master plans; some as- sumptions relating the universal opportunity for higher education; dispersed two—year colleges as an efficient way to handle many sutdents; stratification into a multilayer system involving two—year colleges, four-year colleges, and universities that assume most of the research function; coordination as an essential means for budgeting, establishing new programs, carrying out studies and so forth; attention to con— tinuing education and the training of college teachers. (Willingham, l970:6). The focus of this inquiry is on the role and scope assignment to the community college. Special attention is paid to the implicit statements relating to the community college in statewide plans of higher education. The study is limited in design to an analysis of statewide higher education master plans. The methodology is essentially the one used in two major studies on statewide coordination and planning (Glenny, 1959; Berdahl, 1971) except that resources for this study did not permit in-depth interviews with persons in selected states. Since literature imperatives for community college role and scope specifications in master plans of higher education have been drawn from the literature reviewed, the imperatives are contingent upon the literature reviewed. The imperatives would be altered if certain literature were either added to or deleted from the review. While the literature review is comprehensive, additions to or deletions from the review may alter the imperatives. The list of imperatives however is quite comprehensive. There is no documentation of the relationship between the position of the community college as described in state— wide master plans of higher education and the way community colleges do function. There is a distinction between the intentions (of plans) and the practice (in the field). The Study is limited then to the projected role and scope of the community college as opposed to the actual role and l4 scope of existing community colleges. This study was not an examination of the role and scope of the community college in isolation. It was an inquiry into the role and scope of the community college as part of an integrated system of higher education. The specific documents of interest therefore were the statewide plans for total higher education systems. OVERVIEW A review of the literature on statewide planning of higher education is presented in Chapter II. The methodology for the study is presented in Chapter III. The Typology of Community College Character— istics is described as the basis for the categories for classification of master plan statements. Issues in higher education related to statewide planning are reported in Chapter IV. The analysis of the literature on issues provided the basis for the development of a list of imperatives for community college role and scope specification in master plans of higher education. Results of the analysis of statewide higher education master plans are presented in two chapters. The quanti- tative data on the content analysis are presented and discussed in Chapter V. In Chapter VI there is a presen— tation and a discussion of the community college role and scope statements from selected statewide master plans of higher education. ]_________ 1 15 In Chapter VII the criteria for community college role and scope specifications for master plans of higher education are given. Recommendations and implications are presented. CHAPTER II PLANNING AND COORDINATION INTRODUCTION In Chapter II a review of the literature on state- wide planning of higher education related to community college role and scope is presented. Pertinent literature on coordination is also reported in this chapter. PLANNING Status of Planning and Coordination In 1959 Lyman Glenny reported that planning was among the most important functions of the coordinating agencies and that it was the function which was served least effectively. Robert Berdahl published his study on coordinating agencies in 1971 and reported that planning had become widely recognized as the most important function of coordinating agencies.1 Palola, Lehman and Blischke did an intensive study of coordination and planning (Palola at aZ., 1970) which revealed that current statewide plans are essentially quantitative to the omission of qualitative issues. Thus while the importance 1The methods of investigation for Glenny (1959), Berdahl (1971), and for Michael Usdan et al., (1970) involved documentary analysis and interviews with selected persons in selected states (Glenny, 1971azIX). A similar methodology is used in this study. 16 17 of statewide higher education planning is becoming recognized, it is neither completed in all of the states nor is it adequately performed in many states that have statewide plans (Glenny, l971a:VIII-IX). Berdahl notes in his study that there is a signi- ficant difference between the rhetoric of planning and the reality of what is occurring. The inclusive nature of his definition provides general criteria for assessing the adequacy of long-range plans. He states that long- range planning or master planning .... ideally involves the identification of key problems, the accumulation of accurate data about those problems, the analysis of their interrelationships, the extrapolation of future alternatives which might emerge out of present conditions, the assessment of the probable consequences of introducing new variables, the choice of the most desirable (or least undesirable) modified alternatives as the basic goals, a sequential plan for implementing the desired goals, and a built— in feedback system for periodically re—eval- uating both the goals selected and the means used to achieve them (Berdahl, 1971:74). He states that long-range planning "at its best, defines the institutional role and scope missions within which program formulations must occur" (Berdahl, 1971:74). Of the 46 higher education state agencies, 27 are coordinating, 19 are governing; in addition there are two voluntary agencies. The status of planning according to types of agencies is that "About two-thirds of the existing coordinating agencies have made or are in the process of making a master plan, while about one— half of the consolidated governing boards have done so" 18 (Glenny, 71b:27). Thus there are statewide plans and related documents from about 27 states that have potential impact on the community-junior college. (See Table 2.1) TABLE 2.1 THE STATUS OF MASTER PLANNING BY TYPE OF COORDINATING AGENCY Master Category of Plan or Plan Plan No Agency as of Equivalent Being To Be Master October 1961 Completed Developed Developed Plan I No state agency 0 0 0 2 II Voluntary association 0 0 0 2 III Coordinating board 17 3 3 4 IV Consolidated governing board 10 3 2 4 TOTAL 27 6 5 12 Source: Louise Abrahams, State Planning for Higher Edu— cation, Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health, Edu— cation, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research, under Contract No. OEC—0—8—980797-4634 (010) (Washington: Academy for Educational Development, 1969), Table III, p. 9. 19 Of the 48 existing agencies, 41 have jurisdiction over all or nearly all public higher education. In seven states—-one with a coordinating board (North Carolina) and six with governing boards (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon)~—the junior colleges are coordinated separately. In six states——three with coor- dinating boards (Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania) and three with governing boards (Idaho, Montana, and Rhode Island)--the State Board of Education has been designated as the coordinating agency (Berdahl, l97l:Ch.2). The major empirical studies related to statewide planning in higher education have focused on coordination. In two separate studies Lyman Glenny and Robert Berdahl examined statewide planning as parts of their investi— gations on coordination in twelve states. Logan Wilson has pointed out that statewide coordination and planning was not a subject of much inquiry before 1964 (Wilson, 1971:47). Thus there is a meagerness of literature on statewide coordination and planning. But the fact that literature has been lacking has not curbed the centralization trend in higher edu- cation. Of particular interest is the trend toward state control of community colleges. In a dissertation entitled, "Community Centeredness and Institutional Adaptability Under State and Local Control," John Petersen stated that: 20 Until the present decade, the dominant form of organization for community colleges was that of local control with a variable amount of coordination, supervision, control and planning at the state level. The state level agency charged with this responsibility was most often the state department of education. This is no longer the case. Some twenty states, including most of those with the largest numbers of colleges, have established separate state boards with responsibility for community colleges only. Of these twenty boards, eighteen have been established in the last ten years (Petersen, 1969:53). S. V. Martorana notes that To be sure, there is a wide variation among these states in the degrees of responsibility for community—junior college affairs and in the extent to which they are associated in their duties with other local state boards (Martorana December, 1968 - January, 1969:25). This transition from local control to state control is significant in terms of the definition and emergence of the community college institution in integrated systems of higher education planned at the state level. The fact that community colleges are more and more coming under the jurisdiction of state—wide coor- dinating boards and that planning is becoming the primary function of coordinating agencies has implications for long—range developments and the role and scope of the community college throughout the states (Higher Education in the States, June-July, 1971:73-78). Robert Berdahl has indicated that the values of planners as they concep- tualize institutions will have effect on the institutions (Berdahl, 1971:74—75). Moreover, Berdahl states that critical dimensions in the planning process are insti~ tutional role and scope assignments and long-range plans 21 for institutions (Berdahl, 1971:144—145). The question that emerges is what will the effect of statewide plans for higher education be on the previously locally planned and locally developed community college? Role and Scope Specifications While Brouillet notes that determining insti— tutional roles is the most controversial function of a coordinating agency (Brouillet, 1968:47) he and other writers in the field concur with Berdahl on the point that role and scope definition is a major function of the planning agency. Lyman Glenny has stated that the function of the coordinating agency is planning for state needs and stating the goals and policies of each of the institutions in its jurisdiction (Glenny, 1959:59 and 44—45). Glenny indicated that "In states where coor— dinating agencies now lack the authority to allocate role and scope assignments, evolving master plans indicate that the agencies will have something to say about role and scope missions in the future" (Glenny, 1971b:34). Logan Wilson has written that ".... planning entails giving attention to the role and scope of existing institutions, developing criteria for the establishment of new branches and new institutions, and furthering the more efficient use of staff and facilities" (Wilson, 1972:50). Balderston states that: 22 Each institution can expect to derive a well—defined role assignment from statewide planning .... An indirect benefit of mission and role definition to both public and private institutions is that the functions of their competing and complementary insti- tutions are also defined (Balderston in Glenny, l97lb:106—107). Lyman Glenny stated that “Establishing the roles and functions of institutions and maintaining these differ- ential functions over time is one of the most difficult tasks for state planners, and not many states have a record of success" (Glenny, 1971b:34). Role and scope specifications require a realistic notion by planners which is on one hand political if the plans are to be implemented and on the other hand utopian if the plans are going to be of any significance (Comprehensive Planning for Post- Secondary Education, 1971:4; Berdahl, 1971:87). Berdahl, Livesey and Mayhew all extol the importance of the qualitative, intuitive thinking necessary for planners (Berdahl, 1971:86—87). Berdahl states that there is a need for intuitive, imaginative thinking as well as for a hard data approach (Berdahl, 1971:96). This kind of thinking is intimately connected with role and scope specifications. A helpful distinction between "strategic" planning and "tactical" planning is made by Glenny et a1. Strategic planning provides the framework within which tactical planning is imple- mented. The former is subject to few changes (if any) between major planning 23 cycles and reflects the state's funda— mental assumptions about post-secondary education; the long-range societal objec- tives and goals; and the principal missions, roles, and functions of all educational institutions and agencies and step-by- step means for achieving goals (Glenny, 1971b:30—31). The focus of this inquiry as it relates to community colleges is on strategic planning. Strategic planning is what Uhl has written about in Identifying Insti- tutional Goals: In these critical times for higher edu— cation, academic communities are being called upon to rethink their fundamental orientations. It is important that they develop rational processes through which their constituent groups can achieve some agreement on the institution's goals (Uhl, 1971:52). Need for Statewide Plans Arguments for the need for planning range from the very practical concern for the reasonable use of tax money (Conant, 1964:72) to an elaboration on the disarray of higher education both within states and across states (Conant, 1964:14-15). Corson (1960: 128—129) and Glenny (1959:80-81) were early writers on the lack of statewide planning and the lack by college and university leaders to think out their pro— jected activities. There is a need today to specify objectives and outcomes and not to simply let emerge what will (Glenny et aZ., 1971a:30). 24 Wilson (19652102; in Eurich, 1968:39), Berdahl (1971:252), the E.C.S. Task Force on Commu— nity and Junior Colleges in Perspective . . . (1971), Usdan (1969:187 and 189), McConnell (1962:101), and Brumbaugh (1965:?) have all made the case for the necessity of statewide planning. The E.C.S. Task Force on Comprehensive Planning for Postsecondary Education has enumerated eleven reasons why the need for statewide planning is particularly acute at this time. The reasons range over concerns for finance and accountability to questions of direction and social unrest. (See Appendix 1). The need for centralized planning has evolved for a number of reasons among which is competition for limited state government funds. The community college position vis—a—vis state and/or local funding has been ambiguous in many states. As centralized plans emerge for the community college, the locally initiated nature of this institution is certain to be affected. Michael Usdan et al. (1969) found that one of the problem areas between primary and secondary education on one hand and higher education on the other hand in relating to government is the ambiguous role of the community college. Questions of control 25 and mission of the community college have impli- cations for financial support from continuously diminished state coffers (Usdan, 1969:181). The community college has paralleled primary and secondary education with a local support base and a local orien- tation in service. The ambiguous position of the community college in state systems of education has not only generated competitive difficulties but has also contributed to a lack of clear identity for the college (Usdan, 1969:182). Federal Government Influences Institutional identity and role differen— tiation have not been free of federal government action. Various acts of legislation and grant pro— grams have required role differentiation among insti- tutions in statewide systems. Furthermore, recent legislation has stipulated that there be coordination and planning in statewide systems (Willingham, 1970: 10). Although there are no clear goals for higher education, the federal government is making itself felt in shaping academic growth (Huitt in Hodgkinson and Meeth, 1971:175; Wilson, 1965:281). 26 Wilson has outlined the following historical concern of the federal government for the input and output of higher education. 1. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 set aside lands for the development of public schools. 2. The Morrill Act gave us our land grant colleges and universities. 3. The Hoover National Advisory Committee on Education Report in 1931, the Truman Commission Report in 1948, and the 1957 Report of the President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School are evidence of national interest. 4. The National Defence Education Act in 1958 and the Economic Opportunity Act in 1964 relate national welfare needs to education (Wilson, 1971:79). Berdahl has suggested that a number of recent federal programs have ramifications for planning and coor- dination for which state administrative agencies must be designated. The four higher education programs currently being administered by one or more state agencies are: Title I of the Higher Edu- cation Facilities Act of 1963 (HEFA), which pertains to undergraduate facilities; Title IVa of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA), which pertains to equipment grants for the improvement of undergraduate instr- uction; Title I of the 1965 HEA, which pertains to community service and con— tinuing education programs; and the State Technical Services Act of 1965, which per— tains to technical services to industry and commerce (Berdahl, 1971:220). 27 As a result of federal legislation, three consequences for statewide planning have emerged (Glenny, 1971b:35-36). 1. There is a representation of all public and non—public institutions within the state and a statewide plan for admini- stering monies has been required. 2. Federal money strengthened some weaker statewide—planning agencies. 3. Certain critical areas of higher edu- cation need (e.g., facilities and continuing education) received attention. By the same token several problems with long—range inimical consequences have emerged (Glenny, 1971b: 36-37). 1. States with weak planning agencies created new planning agencies to administer the federal programs thereby further weakening existing planning agencies. 2. Non—public colleges were overbuilt because of the "success" of some federal programs. 3. A surplus of institutions offering, and of individuals holding advanced degrees emerged. Oversupply, duplication of effort, and campus proli— feration have not been the exclusive effect of federal programs. Yet, it is these conditions and others such as unchecked growth of community colleges, over— taxed citizens, maintaining diversity and expanding higher educational opportunity that necessitate coordination. 2. W Y Glenny (1959:11—12) states that coordination of State Involvement state systems of higher education has been called for since 1950. T. R. McConnell (Wilson, 1965:132) has substantiated the need for coordination in terms of resource allocation and elimination of duplication. The irked and taxed legislators and governmental agencies, not the universities and colleges have been the source for the new coordination in higher education (Glenny in Wilson, 1965:87). As such, coordination is visualized as a money—saving device for the squandering of resources on ill-behaved youth (Huitt in Hodgkinson and Meeth, 1971:177). Glenny has remarked (l97lb:26) that Another trend which has created conditions neces— sitating more authoritative coordination and regulation arose from the great growth of state colleges and community colleges which enroll a major— ity of students in higher education and, thus, command an increased audience in the legislature. One of the central themes of Education and State Politics by Usdan, Minar and Hurwitz is that as the state becomes the supporter of both higher education and primary and secondary education, statewide planning will be necessitated throughout the educational levels (Usdan et al., 1969: 178-179). The irony of community college campus proliferation giving rise to coordination (Conant, 1964:55—56; Huitt in Hodgkinson and Meeth, 1971:176-177) is that community colleges have typically implied local vs. state control. Yet, "as campuses proliferate, state officials understandably 29 want to bring about some order" (Huitt, 1971:176). Some sort of coordinating body seems to be the answer. . . But what should the coordinating agency do? Act as the governing board for all the public institutions in the state? Or provide a structure of coordination for the separate governing boards of the individual institutions? Or should there be a board for each major sector of postsecondary education to govern (or coordinate) respectively the universities, four-year colleges, community colleges, and technical schools? Anyone familiar with modern government knows that no word is easier to say and no act is harder to perform than coordinate (Huitt in Hodgkinson and Meeth, 1971:176). COORDINATION Agencies Glenny writes that there are three goals for co— ordinating agencies: 1. to decrease or prevent high costs resulting from the unnecessary duplication of major functions of the institutions, to improve the quality of present specialized programs in the several institutions by centering various programs in appropriate colleges rather than allowing their growth in all, to improve the quality of the whole curriculum of each institution not only by achieving the two goals mentioned but also by preventing unnecessary proliferation of courses, services and programs within each institution (Glenny, 1959:89—90). Coordination in higher education has emerged from a tradition of staunch institutional independence in the United States (Wilson, 1971:46). While in many institutions there is a conscious effort to decentralize authority, higher education is moving toward greater centralization. Yet statewide regulation of higher education has been established since 1784 in New York State (Wilson, 1971:47). Pliner has suggested that the development of state- 30 wide coordination has occurred in four major periods, each with a dominant trend: 1. Complete autonomy of institutions lasting from colonial days to the late 19th century; Creation of single statewide governing boards beginning in the late 19th century, reaching a peak in the first two decades of this century, and currently undergoing a slight revival; 3. Creation of voluntary arrangements gaining impetus in the 19408 and 19503; and Creation of statewide coordinating boards beginning in the 19505 and still continuing (Berdahl, 1971:26). 2. Appendix 2 shows the evolution of coordinating patterns within the states. There are three basic types of coordi- nating institutions: 1. the voluntary agency, 2. the coordinating agency, and 3. the governing agency (see the notes in Appendix 2 for further distinctions). Berdahl states that There is no such thing as 'no coordination'. Where neither voluntary nor statutory agencies have existed, normal state organs-—governor's office, budget office, legislature, state auditor, etc.——made the decisions, usually on an ad hoc basis, which implicitly per- formed this function (Berdahl, 1971:240). The questions concerning coordination is not whether it is taking place but by whom and how will it be performed. That coordination is taking place regardless of the attention of educators makes the awareness of educators all the more essential if direction in coordination is to be offered by professionals (Comprehensive Planning for Post-Secondary Edu- cation, l971:5). The initiative for coordination in higher education has come from outside academic circles. Unfortu- nately resistance to change has placed educators in a role of passive observors (Wilson, 1965z5). Thus coordination to the center of the coordinating process . . . 31 has been emerging with a minimum of input by educators—— the presumed experts. The development of the community colleges in the states has made clear that there are various functions to be served in higher education. The majority of states are moving in the direction of systematizing higher education; and as systems are emerging, coordination must take place (Brouillet, 1968:126—127). Brouillet reports from his study that the "placing of junior colleges within the realm of coordinating board authority will undoubtedly continue, in fact, coordinating agencies will probably assume more control over their operations" (Brouillet, 1968:56). Functions The functions of the coordinating agencies have been written about by Wilson, Glenny, Berdahl and Brouillet. Berdahl reports his recommendations on functions at length in his study (1971: through p. 249). Wilson's general description of the functions of the coordinating agency is typical of the types of activities discussed as being per- formed. The functions of commissions or coordinating boards characteristically involve analysis of institutional budgets for construction, operational cost studies, the development of accounting codes and of uniform policies and procedures, and similar matters. In recent years, these agencies have engaged more inten— 1971:501). sively in master planning (Wilson, On this point Berdahl states that ". . . statewide planning for higher education has moved steadily from the periphery " (Berdahl, 32 1971:99). Brouillet (1968:44 and 139—140) recommends that the major emphasis of coordinating agencies should be planning while Lyman Glenny notes that among the various functions of the coordinating agency, planning is the central concern (Glenny, l97lbz27). Students of coordi— nation in higher education overwhelmingly agree that planning is central to the coordinating process. The Community College While planning in higher education systems involves the community college as an institution of higher education, some agencies aren't clear how to involve the community college. As the Pliner survey for the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana points out, most states with coordinating agencies have aegis over all public colleges and universities, though some have separate jurisdictions for junior colleges, and a few draw private institutions into planning and other special activities. A number of states are still undecided about how to draw community colleges and private institutions into unified planning and coordination (Wilson, 1971:49). Brouillet reported in 1968 in his investigation on coordi— nation that 18 states were concerned with the "Placing of junior colleges in the realm of higher education and con— trolling or making recommendations concerning their develop— ment as part of the master planning process" (1968:46 and 45). Petersen stated that it is important for the coordi— nating agencies to have planning power that included the community colleges in its jurisdiction if deterrents to equality of educational opportunity are to be removed 33 (Petersen, 1969:40). Petersen reports on the present status of "state" and "locally" controlled community colleges drawing heavily on work reported by Leland Medsker who devised a typology of control patterns (see Appendix 3). It should be noted that all of the states in which the community college has reached its most notable development—~California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Washington——fall into categories four and five, under local control. But on exami— nation of recent developments within some of these states, definite movements toward centralization become apparent (Brouillet, 1968:47—48). With the trend toward centralization, the conception of the role and scope of the community college as portrayed by coordinating agency planners will become increasingly important. While there is still only a portion of the coordinating agencies which have specified the role and scope of the community college in integrated systems of higher education, it would be appropriate to ascertain how the community college role and scope, as part of a system involving other institutions of higher education, is con— ceptualized. SUMMARY Planning is the major function of the coordinating agencies. Statewide plans of higher education are either underway or complete in a total of twenty seven states. A major dimension of the planning function is Specifying institutional role and scope. The function is yet to be performed well but it is growing in significance as systems of higher education emerge. The specification of the role and scope function is 34 particularly critical to the community college which is yet unfolding an identity. Moreover, the specification of role and scope by central agencies, prima facie seems contrary to the nature of the locally—oriented community college. Statewide planning however may be the saving device for community college uniqueness if planners define unique roles and scopes for institutions. Coordinating agencies generally have moved from a voluntary to statutory organizational framework with powers that have consonantly moved from an advisory to a regula— tory nature. The authority of such agenices may be the buffer needed by the community college to assure it its special place in systems of higher education where pres- sures to conform to the university model are great. There is a need for community college role and scope criteria for use in statewide master plans of higher edu— cation. A number of master plans have implicit and explicit statements regarding the role and scope of the community college institution which provide the basis of the criteria developed in this study. A systematic approach for examining the implications of those statements is presented in the next chapter. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY INTRODUCTION One of the most difficult tasks for state planners is establishing and maintaining differential functions of institutions of higher education. Yet criteria for speci— fications for higher educational institutions generally, and for community colleges specifically, for statewide master plans of higher education are nonexistent. The purposes of this study have been 1. to provide a list of criteria for community college role and scope specifications for master plans of // higher education; 2. to provide an analysis and a synthesis of the com- munity college role and scope as revealed in selected statewide master plans of higher education; and 3. to provide a set of imperatives, derived from the re— lated literature, for community college role and scope specification in master plans of higher education. METHODOLOGY The criteria for community college role and scope specifications for master plans have been generated from three sources. They are 36 1. community college role and scope statements from eleven selected statewide master plans of higher education, 2. discussion of the community college role and scope statements from the eleven selected statewide master plans of higher education, and 3. literature on topics and issues in planning. The literature on topics and issues in planning provided a basis for criticism of the master plan statements as well as a source of criteria in its own right. In Chart 3.1 the steps for deriving the criteria from each of the sources is presented. Sequence of Analysis A Typology of Community College Characteristics was developed. A feasibility test for analyzing the master plans according to the Typology of Community College Character— istics was done on one statewide master plan of higher education. The analysis of the related literature on topical issues was completed before any other master plans were analyzed. The analyses of the master plans were com- pleted after the analysis of the related literature. Discussion of the analyses of the master plans followed the analyses of the plans. The Master Plans The primary source for the criteria for community college role and scope statements was the combined role and scope statements from eleven selected statewide master mpC®Empwum wmoow pcm wHOH mmoaaoo wuHcsEEoo 0p mumamu SOHQB aflnouflno hnmcHEHH Iona mo coflpm>flumo + mmoaomwu ecu on mcflpuooom mm>HbmuwQEH mo mcflmsouo 37 + mcflccmam Hmummfi How mw>flumummfiH mo coflum>fluoo A, mcflccmam ca m®5mmfl pom moamou so ousumumUHH mo mflmwamcm .m coflumoscm Honmflm mo woman Hopmmz + CH mucmfiwumum omoom can waom omwaaoo muHGSEEoo HOM afluwufiho mo pom Hmcflm A, AmwOHSOm 039v Menopfluo mo pow pmumfiwmaofifl + coammsomflp may Eonw maumuflno wnmcflaflamnm mo coaum>fluwo A, mucmeumvm mmoom tam waom opp mo coammsomflo .N mbcmamuwum wmoom Use maom MOM mfluoufluo mnmcfiefla Iona mo coflpm>flumo + mucofimpmpm mmoom cam waom omoaaoo muHcsEEou +lIIIIIllIIII mo coHpMOHMHmmmHU A, coflpmoSUM Hmnmflm mo woman noummz MUHBmumpm mo mammamsd s moflumflumuomnmso mmwaaoo muflcoeaou mo mqoaommB mo ucmfimoac>mo .H mEZmEmBfifim mmOUm Q24 mqom HQMQQOO NBHZDESOO mom demBHMU m0 mMUMDOm H.m ENDOHM 38 plans of higher education. Statewide higher education master plans and related materials were requested from all state offices responsible for the coordination of higher education. The listing of state offices found in the U.S. Office of Education, Education Directory, 1968—1969, Part 3, was used for mailing purposes. Sample The sample of statewide plans of higher education chosen for examination in this study was in part a function of availability of the plans. In response to a request to each of the 50 states, 33 returns were made. Of the 33 returns, there were five indications that either no master plans existed or that a master plan was in preparation. Of the 28 master plans of higher education which were returned, 15 master plans were selected as potentially useable for the purposes of examining the role and scope of the commu- nity college in an integrated system of higher education. The 15 master plans met the criteria of discussing the a community college as a part of the higher education system. » Four master plans were eliminated,one for each of the following reasons: 1. One plan was long outdated; it is presently under revision and it is soon to be released. To use the master plan would have misrepresented the facts. 2. Another master plan was very poorly written and logically remiss; the content analysis performed depended upon an internal consistency in the document 39 which was absent from the particular plan. 3. In one system there was an absence of comprehensive community colleges. 4. One master plan lacked substance. The "plan" was essentially a public relations document. Of the eleven master plans selected for final analysis in this study, three were prepared by governing boards and eight were prepared by coordinating agencies. CRITERIA FROM DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 7 An analysis of the master plans was made in order to Lextract the eprigit and impliZit community college role and scope statements from each master plan. The instrument used for the analysis was a chart bearing a classification system for community college role and scope categories. (See Appendix 4). The chart included each of the characteristics from the Typology of Community College Characteristics as categories for the analysis. (See Table 3.1 for the Typology). The data of interest were the statements that either denoted or implied characteristics for the community college in a system of higher education. Reliability in content analysis is largely dependent upon clearly stated criteria for the categories for classi— fication of the communication content (Borg, 1963:256—260). There were two sets of categories used in the content analysis. The first set was the two item implicit—explicit distinction used in the process of identifying content which had a bearing on the role and scope of the community college. 40 TABLE 3.1 TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS A. Functions 1. Vocational-Technical 2. University Parallel 3. Community Services 4. Continuing Education 5. General Education 6. Compensatory Education 7. Community Counseling B. Descriptive Institutional Traits 1. Equality of Educational Opportunity 2. Open Admissions 3. Local Autonomy 4. Within Commuting Distance 5. Low-Cost 6. Teaching Institution 7. Second—Chance Institution C. Contributions 1. Personal Upgrading 2. Economic Development of Community 3. Upgrading the Quality of Community Life 4. Intercultural Education 5. Interpersonal Relations Development The second set was based on the 19 item classification system that appears in the typology in Table 3.1. 41 If/(fl r \ In the first stage of the analysis the "explicit" content was apparent. It was often preceded by a statement such as, "The role of the community college is . . . " The difficulty in the first stage of the analysis was in distinguishing the "implicit'' content from the rest of a plan other than the content which had an "explicit" bearing on the role and scope of the community college. The "implicit" category was used to refer to any discussion that may have been about any higher educational institution or situation in a state system but which could be understood as having an effect on the role and scope of the community college. For instance, in a number of plans, discussion centering on the role of four-year colleges referred to the need for them to emphasize senior level and graduate level programs and to reduce their enrollment of freshmen and sophomores. While there was no mention of the consonant increase in emphasis of the university parallel programs in community colleges in the state, the inference that community colleges would enroll a greater percentage of transfer students in their first two years, would be drawn by implication. The Typology The classification system used in the analysis was based on the Typology of Community College Characteristics. The Typology was developed from readings in the professional literature on the community college and from discussion with experts and practitioners in the field who were accessible to the investigator for discussion. IIIIIII[IIZZ_______________________________l 42 The typology is divided into three groups of characteristics, viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions. The functions group embraces the set of programs which are likely to be offered at any community college. While a community college may be described by a characterestic from any of the three groups, the descriptive institutional traits is the group that contains many of the rhetorical and often-times ambiguous phrases used to describe the uniqueness of the community college. The contributions category includes the set of characteristics which link the institution to the broader I society. They are especially value-laden and future- ‘ oriented. Criteria Derivation from Statements A copy of the chart in Appendix 4 was used for each separate master plan. Identification of a sentence, para- grph or page of a master plan which pertained to one of the categories was listed under the appropriate category. Each page of a master plan which had community college role and scope content was duplicated. The selection pertaining to a particular category was cut and classified with that category. This procedure was followed for each master plan. The statements from all of the master plans pertaining to community college role and scope were grouped according to each of the nineteen characteristics. The grouped statements provided an inclusive listing of statements on community college role and scope from master plans of higher education. They are provided in a % 43 modified and condensed form in Appendix 5. They are discussed in Chapter 6. From the grouped statements on role and scope, a preliminary set of community college role and scope criteria were developed. TWO OTHER SOURCES FOR CRITERIA The second source for community college role and scope criteria was the discussion of the master plan role and scope statements. The discussion in Chapters 5 and 6 provided the basis for the derivation of the criteria. A dialectical process was entailed which involved moving from the statements to criticisms to criteria. FIGURE 3.2 DIALECTICAL PROCESS Role and Scope Discussion or Statements Criticisms (Thesis) (Antithesis) Criteria (Synthesis) The framework for the discussion was in part provided by the analysis of the literature on topics and issues in planning. The third source of criteria was the literature on topics and issues in planning. Based on a written analysis of the topics and issues in planning (presented in Chapter 4), a list of imperatives was generated from the literature (see Appendix 6). Since many of the imperatives dealt with the process of planning not all of the criteria derived from them pertain to community college role and scope statements 44 as such. There were three discernible stages in the develop- ment of criteria from the literature on topics and issues in planning. FIGURE 3.3 STAGES IN DEVELOPMENT OF CRITERIA 1 Synthesis of Imperatives from Written Review of Literature + 2 Derivation of ] Imperatives i 3 Formulation of Preliminary Criteria based on grouped imperatives Selectivity occurred at several stages in this process. 1. While the review was comprehensive, only literature ostensibly related to master planning for higher education was analyzed. 2. The written review provided the basis for the subsequent imperatives. The fact that the imperatives were derived directly from the review and not from the literature itself was inherently selective of propositions. 3. Many imperatives were eliminated as providing for criteria since they simply had no bearing on community college role and scope statements. 45 A step-by-step illustration of the process of criteria derivation is presented in Appendix 5. The four steps in the process were: 1. Identification of role and scope statements; 2. Criticism of statements; 3. Derivation of imperatives from the literature; and 4. Amalgamation of the criteria. SUMMARY The nineteen item Typology of Community College Characteristics was developed from the professional liter- ature and dialogue with people in the community college field. Eleven statewide master plans of higher education were analyzed for community college role and scope statements which were classified according to the Typology. The role and scope statements and subsequent discussion on the state— ments each provided a source for the derivation of criteria for master plan community college role and scope specifi— cations. From an analysis of the literature related to topics and issues on planning in higher education, a list of planning imperatives were generated. The imperatives provided a third source for community college role and scope criteria. The analysis of the literature on topics and issues in planning which provided the basis for the imperatives is presented in Chapter 4. CHAPTER IV TOPICS AND ISSUES IN PLANNING--THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION One of the sources for the development of community college role and scope criteria has been the literature on topics and issues related to planning in higher education. The analysis of the literature on topics and issues related to planning is presented in this chapter. A list of impera- tives for planning has been derived from the analysis (see Appendix 6). The imperatives have provided a basis for cri- teria derivation as well as providing a basis for examining the community college role and scope statements from the master plans. There are a number of issues which have been hastening the development of coordination and planning in higher edu- cation. An analysis of these issues provided a background for a fuller understanding of the problems involved in statewide master planning of higher education. The literature was divided into seven sections. Each of the sections has been treated in terms of its importance to the community college and its implications for statewide planning. While the issues treated in each section have not directly given rise to statewide planning, a consideration of statewide planning involving the community college must 46 47 include a consideration of these issues. An overview of the topic for each section is presented below. Diversity includes a consideration of institutional distinctness in a system of higher education. It entails the differentiation of institutions according to the servicing of different needs. It is at the heart of a system of higher education since institutional difference is implied in the notion of system. Institutional identity is closely related to the problem of diversity. It refers to the establishment and pursuit of purposes and goals agreed to by the constituencies of the institution. It has unique ramifications for the community college in the context of its position in statewide systems of higher education. Whether the community college is to be assimilated as a "mini-university“ (as one author writes) or whether it is to establish its uniqueness depends in large measure on a clearly perceived institutional identity. Community college identity is critical to the statewide higher education planning process. Accountability is the process whereby institutions are held to answer for achieving objectives consistent with their articulated purposes. The problem of accountability is treated with governance. The accountability problem embraces questions of duplication, overlap, and educational purpose. Planning may be seen both as a result of the need for eliminating some presumed unnecessary overlap and as a step in providing for greater accountability. The account- ability problem is closely tied to diversity and 48 institutional identity. Autonomy refers to the freedoms of an interdependent institution as it operates in a system of institutions. It is so closely related to the centralization (and decentral- ization) issue that autonomy and centralization (and de- centralization) are treated together. AutonomyeCentralization (decentralization) pertains to the governance process of higher educational institutions. There has been a recent upsurge in California to decentralize the decision-making process in higher education. Autonomy in the context of a previously centralized decision—making system may be understood as a result of decentralization. For the community college which has typically been locally initiated and largely autonomous, there are questions about local orientation and the nature of the community college which should be raised as there is a movement toward the centralization implied in statewide planning. The question of access and accommodation deals not only with the placement of colleges in particular locations but also with the provision of resources for successful completion of programs by students. The need for strate- gically placed community colleges is largely admitted (although too often ignored-~Willingham, 1971), but accommodation in terms of money, counseling, tutoring and other special aid to students, depending upon their needs, is still a debated issue in the attempt to democratize higher education. The topical sections goals and institutional 49 priorities, and social context and projections for planning, are self explanatory and provide a basis for the development of a number of imperatives as do the previous five topical areas . DIVERSITY Whether there is diversity in institutions of higher education is a hotly debated question that warrants exami- nation (Palola, l970a:1). An assumption of a system of higher education is either that there is or that there will be,different institutions in fact as well as in name. There are two conditions for diversity of institutional types in a system of higher education. They are: 1. that there is a diversity in the types of students coming into higher education; and 2. that there ought to be opportunity for different types of students to pursue post-secondary education. If there is agreement that there is a need for a system of higher education which responds to a diversity of student needs with a multiplicity of types of institutions, then there is a warrant for presenting a statewide 2133 for higher education (Wilson, 1965:133). Since statewide plans have been forthcoming which specify the nature of the community college in relation to other institutions of higher education, it is important to know what is being implied as well as what is being expli— cated for the role of the community junior college. Wilson 50 has stated that diversity and autonomy of institutions will decrease as systems of institutions develop and coordination increases. He makes the point that investigation of specific infringements of autonomy will be needed (Wilson, 1965:22-23). Such an investigation is warranted with the trend toward centralization in the control of the community college. Warren Willingham has indicated the necessity of diverse models in system planning in higher education (Willingham, 1970:208—211). If different models of higher educational institutions are to be established, then planners will have to be able to conceptualize and articulate what the implications of various models are within a system. Daniel Bell has raised a number of provocative questions pertinent to the planning of a system. His point is that planning schemes for differentiating types of institutions must be debated since the schemes are subject to many warranted criticisms. If a systems approach to higher edu— cation is to be established, "serving various purposes in a meaningful division of labor, surely we must initiate . . . debate" (Bell in Hodgkinson and Meeth, 71:167). Unfortunately the debate that Bell calls for has not been possible since the diversity that has occurred has emerged on an ad hoc basis. In discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the system or non—system of higher education in this country, Wilson has lauded the fact of diversity where it has occurred. But we cannot afford the cost of an 51 inefficient, uncoordinated system (Wilson, 1965:2—3) that may or may not be diverse and that may or may not be serving a broad public. The fact that the society—at~large has opted for mass higher education implies a diverse student body and a consequent diversity in the higher education system (McConnell, 1962:17-18). McConnell states unequivocally that the ideal of a diversified system is one with a “best fit" for students (McConnell, 1962:189). Other leading educators stating the need for diversity in higher education have included John Gardner (Gardner in Eurich, 196823), James Bryant Conant (Conant, 1964:37), Robert Berdahl (Berdahl, 1971:14 and 148—149), Brumbaugh (Brumbaugh, l965:l), and Lyman Glenny (Glenny, 1959:VII and ff; l97lb:VI). Diversity however is neither easily achieved nor simply maintained. Glenny has pointed out that diversity may be maintained at the expense of institutional develop- ment. Some coordinating and governing agencies appear to regard differentiation in function among institutions as a good end in itself and fail to relate it to the broad aim of providing the best possible educational system for the state. Frequently the university's wish to maintain a traditional monopoly in some discipline or service takes precedence over an imaginative policy of meeting needs in the state (Glenny, 1959:212). The continued fear of statewide coordination springs from the suspicion among some leaders that diversity will be eliminated as standardization and the same treatment must reSult from a central agency (Glenny, 1959 and Berdahl, 1971). The confusion results from a misconception of equal treatment. 52 "Equal treatment, in this sense of the word, does not take account of differences in the philosophies or goals of the various institutions; the level and quality of their programs . . . " (Glenny, 1959:214). The coordinating agency of course may do much to insure diversity. However, Glenny found in 1959 that central agencies often did little to diversify institutional types (Glenny, 1959:208 and 244— 245). Glenny's finding that university domination of curriculum leads to a standardization (Glenny, 1959:258-259) is not singular. McConnell states that colleges tend to be more similar rather than more diverse despite needs for diversity (McConnell, 1962:59) and moreover that parent, student and faculty attitudes impede diversification (63—64). Hefferlin speaks of the tendency toward isomorphism and the dominance of the multiversity. . . . the dominant structural trend of the academic track of postsecondary education during the past half- century has not been diversification but isomorphism: the increased resemblance of formerly diverse types. Normal schools, liberal arts colleges, technical institutes, seminaries, even some community colleges have tended toward what Warren Bryan Martin (1969: 229) has dubbed the one—model box of the "versity" coming in three sizes—~the miniversity, the university, and the multiversity-—and epitomized by the compre- hensive state university (Hefferlin in Glenny 1971: 54). Hodgkinson states in the report of his recent study of structural trends among colleges and universities that "Taken as a whole, the amount of institutional diversity in American higher education is decreasing. This is due partially to the pervasive existence of a single status 53 system in higher education, based on the prestigious university, offering many graduate programs and preoccupied with research. There are few alternative models to this system now functioning" (Hodgkinson, 1970). latthew Miles points out in his opening essay of Innovation in Education that in the American Educational System "Downward influences are exerted not only on the curricula of the lower schools, via college entrance require— ments but on their teaching staffs and their social and intellectual climates as well" (Miles, 1964:31). This com— ment applies quite well to the community college where the community college faculty is often times concerned with creating the impression of a senior college and where the faculty emulates the senior college and university faculty generally so ill—prepared to teach. Thus, the content of the curricula is often geared to transferability and not to the needs of the students or community as the community college rhetoric suggests it should be. Sloan Wayland in his article “Structural Features of American Education as Basic Factors in Innovation" states that "The graduate departments, then, are the capstones of the formal structure, and control the levels below them in various ways . . . . For each of the lower levels, the re- quirements of the upper level are taken as given, and any adjustment must be made by the lower level" (Wayland in Miles, 1964:595). While there is an apparent lack of diversity despite its need, and while coordinating agencies have done little 54 to foster differences in institutional type, the emerging planning function of coordinating agencies may aid in establishing and protecting uniqueness among institutional types. Hefferlin states that How skillfully planners and coordinators carry out their dual responsibility will, in large part, deter— mine whether postsecondary education in America grows more diverse and adaptive during the 19705 or more uniform and rigid, whether it simply mirrors the dominant trends in society or becomes a model for adapting creatively to them, affecting them for the better (Hefferlin in Glenny, 1971b:58). An examination of statewide higher education plans involving community colleges may provide some insight into how well planners are designing that institution's future. INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY The discussion of the need for diversity in higher education leads to the topic of institutional identity and institutional character. The fact that there is a mutually reciprocal dynamic between planners and types of institutions should not be overlooked. Planners should not simply describe the model of the institution which they see operative in the field. If they were simply verbalizing what already exists they would not be performing as planners; they would not be doing their jobs. It is appropriate, if planners are doing their jobs, that "The campus . . . looks to the statewide authorities for clues to its own identity" (Foote et aZ., 1968:27). Yet communication about role from the existing com- munity colleges to the planners must occur if meaningful plan- ning is to take place. There is a need for institutions of 55 higher education to articulate what their goals are if they are not to be misled (Dobbins and Lee, 1968:225—226). In order to be able to resist encroachments, Dobbins states that there is a need for universities (and it is equally true for community colleges) to state clear role definitions (Dobbins and Lee, 1968:182—183). To establish clear role definitions is imperative since as has been noted by Berdahl that a danger of coordinating agencies is their occasional "failure to make proper allowance for the special programs of individual institutions" (Berdahl, 1971:206). Leland Medsker points out that The result (of community college uncertainty about identity) is that some two year colleges identify themselves so closely with a four year institution that they organize and teach most courses in exactly the same manner as in the four year college. When this happens the junior college forfeits its iden— tity and its opportunity to experiment in the develop- ment of a program most appropriate to it" (Medsker, 1958:53). Similarly, John I. Goodlad states that Frankly, I am not at all sure that the junior colleges have yet defined functions with respect to the curriculum. And if the junior college is now going to move toward a pattern of curriculum organization which is merely an extension of what has preceded or what is going to follow, it will be losing its unique opportunity (Goodlad in Johnson, 1970:24). Goodlad points out that general expectations are that all phases of education have a single organizational pattern, viz., around the disciplines. He implies that the community college phase of education might well be organized around the problems of the individual while elementary and secondary school curricular organization could be organized in terms 56 of societal problems, and the curriculum of the university could be organized according to disciplines. Goodlad asks, Should the student during the junior college phase be primarily contributing to the culture? Should we be organizing the curriculum of the junior college around the disciplines? Around problems of earning a job? Around special interests? Should we be providing each student at the junior college level with some special competence, art or music or liter— ature or some other? (Goodlad in Johnsen, 1970:24). John Corson in Governance of College and Universities discussed the need to identify the character of colleges and universities where institutional character was equated with the sum total of commitments by the university or college (Corson, 1960:179). It is the assumption of institutional planning that plans will have an impact on future commit— ments of colleges. Corson's indication of a need for analysis of “characters" of colleges (Corson, 1960:183) is not inappropriately begun in statewide plans for higher edu- cation. Baldridge similarly notes the need to study the "domains“ of higher education institutions. Domain is "the role that the university claims as its unique task" (Baldridge, 1971:126-127). Domain is closely linked to institutional character and it is critical to the planning process in an integrated system of higher education. The futuristic orientation of planning describes both domain and character elements akin to role and scope of an insti— tution. Although institutional roles will alter over time as a function of a myriad of social circumstances, institutional 57 stability may result as a function of clear definition of roles in systems of higher education (McConnell, l962:vi-vii and 154-155). However, statements of roles as appear in statewide plans must be neither so restrictive that they prevent responses to changing institutional environment nor so ambiguous that they are subject to frequent interpre— tation (McConnell, 1962:155). Clark Kerr states that a university or college needs a purpose-—"a vision of the end"-—in order for an insti- tution's role to definitively emerge (Kerr, 1964:31-32). In an integrated system some of the vision for individual institutions must be provided by those who are integrating the system in statewide plans. In deciding upon institutional mission, Jacques Barzun suggests that it is just as important for a college or university to consider what it will_ggt do as well as what it will do (Barzun in Wilson, 1965:25—26). This imperative is particularly true for the community college which (as mentioned by Myran) in some instances has attempted to be all things to all people and as a result has squandered its resources. Barzun notes that an institution needs to be focused on its purpose if its autonomy is to be preserved. Only through the maintenance of autonomy will the institutional identity essential to institutional survival be preserved (Barzun in Wilson, 1965:27—28). The metamorphosis that is likely to occur without a clear institutional identity will make an institution distinct in name only in systems of higher education. On the other hand, Barzun notes that there is often 58 an absurd reluctance of advocates of particular kinds of Yet institutions to look at benefits of division of labor. hastily contrived arrangements in coordination and coop— eration can do violence to the integrity of the institutions (Barzun in Wilson, 1965:34-35). Clyde Blocker wrote the "Purposes of the Community College" as a contribution to an edition entitled The Com— Blocker munity College in Higher Education (Stoops, 1966). enumerated the five typically listed functions of the com— transfer programs, 2. voca— munity college including 1. continuing education (credit tional—technical programs, 3. and non-credit) programs, 4. special supportive counseling a precursor to what is now community services, and 5. Blocker compares the services (Blocker in Stoops, 1966:25). community college role with the university role embraced in the triad of research, teaching, and public service (Blocker in Stoops, 1966:26). First, the community college emphasizes the teaching responsibility whether it be in traditional liberal arts courses, semi~professional fields, or continuing education. The community college recognizes that greater emphasis must be placed upon student guidance than is ordinarily accepted on the university campus. The relative immaturity of students and their need for help in making far—reaching career and personal decisions amply justify such concern for guidance and counseling. The contrast continues in community or public service, although faculty members are encouraged to participate such relation— in community activities and affairs, ships are generally confined to a sharply circumscribed geographic area in immediate proximity to the college. University personnel participate in activities on the national and international scene. This analysis of functions should make it clear that the community college is not and cannot be all things 59 to all people. Differentiation of educational programs these days begins in the early years of the public schools. The comparison is extremely appropriate in terms of d1scu351on about higher education systems and 1nst1tutional diversity. Today however, the distinctions that Blocker The teaching superi— has suggested have been questioned. ority of the community college vis-a—vis the univer51ty has while the community college has offered long been suspect; so too support programs for NEW Students in recent years, have the major universities. As a group, community college students are older and probably more mature with regard to the work a—day world than their university counterparts 1n their undergraduate divisions. While community college 1nst1tut1onal uniqueness is likely to rest in the community services area that Blocker discusses, it is not in the fashion that he notes. Community college faculty may be encouraged to participate in local community act1v1t1es but the extent to which this characterizes a distinction With the university is questionable. Although university faculty may prov1de services on a broader scale than their community college counterparts, this does not preclude their Sign1f1— cant involvement in local community service act1v1t1es.1 Other authors who have written on the role of the community college relative to the role of other 1nst1tut1ons 1Note for instance the participation of Michigan State University faculty in local elections as well as the fact that the serving mayor of East Lansing is a member of the M. S. U. faculty. 60 1n a higher educational system have usually been quite general which served an earlier purpose. Max Smith wrote a discussion on the "Relation of Community College to Higher Education" in the volume entitled Planning Community Colleges. H15 recommendations were on the following general level "High priority should be given to community colleges for meeting local post high-school needs" (Smith, l959:6). T R McConnell sums up the identity problem that still faces the community college today. The ambiguity of the unselective junior college is inherent in its service as a comprehensive community In a hierarchical system of higher edu— 'right to try. institution. it should cation, it protects every student' 5 . . (yet) despite its many— sided character, be able to attain a better identity and a clearer status by articulating its multiple responsibilities for itself, its students, and its community (McConnell, 1962:122). The identity problem transcends the question of whether the community—junior college is a part of higher educatlon. It is generally agreed that it is. Citing Medsker, Joseph Axelrod states that "In the majority of two—year colleges, relatively little had been done to meet the objectives of general educatlon." This judgment of general education goals is that echoed of the other major functions of the community college. "A basic cause for the failure was the mounting pressure to offer courses exactly parallel to those in four~year 1nst1tutions. 'When this happens,‘ Medsker declared 'the junior college '" (Axelrod in Wilson, 1965:42). forfeits its identity. Axelrod lauds the advent of statewide master planning as reversing the loss of identity for the community college 61 but his tongue—in—cheek attitude about planning is altered in subsequent paragraphs. The state master plans have come into existence, and the junior college is to play an extraordinarily significant role in the future development of the nation . . . . Experimentation in junior colleges with new organizational patterns has thus far, however, been limited . . . . As for concrete change however, Johnson reports that 'only a few faltering steps have been taken . . . .' Only rare instances were found 'of any attempts to break the lockstep of the traditional calendar.‘ (Axelrod in Wilson, 1965:42—43). It may be that statewide plans will aid in providing an identity for the community—junior college in an integrated system of higher education. The role and scope of the community college as portrayed in existing statewide plans however is unknown. (Moreover, a community college role and scope framework needs to be established for higher education master planners.) The collected statements of statewide plans for community college role and scope should provide further insight into that institution's identity. What emerges as a description of the community college by planners, is seen to be remiss in the light of prescriptions for diversity, accessibility, autonomy, elimination of duplication, needs for accountability, and provision for community growth and development. ACCOUNTABI LITY- -GOVE RNANCE Limited resources and a financial pinch on the public have led directly to a public demand on higher education for accountability. The costliness of higher education and the potential fight with other levels of education at the state level (Glenny, l97lb221) has implied the necessity for 62 initiative for planning by educators themselves lest restrictive measures inspired by cost-analysis techniques and management systems dictate the plans for education. Citizen support of politicians over academicians will permit external governance (Hodgkinson, 1971:22, 113-115). Account— ability is not the evil however. Kingman Brewster Jr. in the "Politics of Academia" has stated that "I am, rather, convinced, that accountability is what we should be striving for" (Hodgkinson and Meeth, 1971:56); and Warren Willingham makes a case for accountability in higher education (Willing- ham, 1970:11). It is a notion of accountability, prompted by tight financial constraints implemented through structures which are not properly adapted to the needs of higher education, that portends evil (Berdahl, 1971:118). John Corson discussed the need for agreement on purposes over a decade ago in order that allocation of limited resources could be appropriately distributed (Corson, 1960:122—123). The need for statewide planning that is not simply dictated by efficiency measures is urgent and long overdue. Higher education considered as a right (vs. a Privilege) preempts pressure from the political system. Implications for spending public money arise when mass higher education must be provided. So emerge a host of complex issues for the planning and governance of higher education (Willingham, 1970:6). Governance is the process involving a complex of structures and processes through which critical decisions and 63 long-range policies are made which determine the destiny of a university or college (Baldridge, 197l:vii; Schenkel in Hodgkinson and Meeth, l97l:2). The shift in government of colleges and universities has been from an intramural locus to an extramural locus. McConnell remarks that in "Considering the attention paid to intramural changes in academic governance, it is astonishing how little popular notice has been given to the kind and number of decisions that have been shifting to an extramural locus" (Berdahl, 1971:XI). While there is a popular mandate for greater central— ization and an economic and a practical exigency for extra- mural governance that removes the decision—making power to a more remote locus, there is an inherent problem in divesting individual community colleges from the decision—making process in the community. Granted that there is a degree of centralization of authority without which a structure could operate, the danger lies in the continued centralization of power for governance of an institution presumedly arranged to provide decision—making power to the community. Robert Nisbet has stated unequivocally that "Where power is external or centralized . . (it is) difficult for a true community to develop" (Nisbet, l962:XV). What has been so apparent in the modern history of the family will be no less apparent in the future histories of profession, university, labor union, and all other forms of association in our culture. Deprive these entities of their distinctive functions through inf creasing nationalization of service and welfare, divest them of the authorities over their members through in— creasing centralization of political power in soc1ety, 64 and these associations, like the extended family, the church, and the local community, must shrink immeasur- ably in their potential contributions to culture (Nisbet, 1960:269). McConnell has exclaimed that he has understated the case for extramural influence of statewide agencies on colleges and universities (Berdahl, 1971:XI). The link between governance and power in the college or university is policy-making. Policy is set in governance; power on the other hand refers to "the ability, of individ— uals or groups, to control the policy—making process in the academic community" (Hartnett in Hodgkinson, 1971:187). The question for the community college with the trend toward centralized governance is "To what extent can power be removed from the local base of the institution without destroying a fundamental purpose of the community college?" The relationship between the community college‘s ultimate educational goals and its mode of decision—making or form of governance is subtle (Foote et aZ., 1968:81). There is a fundamental distinction in college and university governance vis—a—vis business governance that requires a clear View of purpose (Corson, 1960:120-121). Educational institutions must involve their constituencies in order to achieve this purpose. One purpose of the community college in providing for the establishment of community, cannot be achieved while permitting a remoteness of governance. Higher education claims to provide decision-making power to its constituencies. Profit—making and other purposes may or may not involve the constituencies of an organization in 65 decision—making. Nisbet contends that Most of the tendencies in contemporary society toward the erosion of cultural differences and the standard— ization of cultural tastes, beliefs, and activities, which are so often charged, mistakenly, against tech— nology and science are the product, actually, of a centralization of authority and function and a desic- cation of local and cultural associations (Nisbet, 1962:267). Robert Nisbet has further written that It will be recognized at once that planning and administration in terms of decentralization, localism, and associative autonomy is far more difficult than administration carried on under the myth of territorial masses of discrete individual atoms. Not only does it go against the tendency of the whole history of modern and political administration, it raises problems of organi— 1962:275). economic, educational, but, on its own terms, zation that are immense (Nisbet, His point is that the difficulty of such administration does not preclude its implementation. T. R. McConnell has written that "the redistribution of power in higher education will not proceed smoothly or amicably; it will be accompanied by turbulence, controversy, and even conflict." He states that Scarce resources and expanding social demands seem to require concerted planning and coordination among both public and private colleges and universities. Often the purpose of coordination is to fit particular insti— tutions into a grand plan, in which functions and programs are allocated and assigned by superior governing or coordinating bodies or both. In coordi— nated systems institutional autonomy is inevitably to some degree sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. In some instances, statewide master plans fasten a relatively inflexible pattern on higher education which thwarts the desirable evolution of particular campuses or groups of institutions (McConnell in Hodgkinson, 1971:122-123; order of quotes reversed from source in text). At the present time there are no rights or wrongs 66 in governance of higher education. "But public institutions of higher education may end up being governed from the out- side by political forces if faculty, students and adminis— trators prove unable to govern them from inside" (Hodgkinson and Meeth, l97lzxii). As coordinating agencies become statutory rather than voluntary and their decisions become regulatory rather than advisory, more decisions are being made outside the institution. Implicit to the question of identity for an institution which aims to provide self— determination to the local community, is whether its local constituency can make decisions regarding its destiny, if the decision-making process is being centralized. AUTONOMY-—CENTRALIZATION (DECENTRALIZATION) The question of autonomy vs. central control is one that has been particularly troubling to the community college which has been ambiguously situated between local and state government. Usdan, at aZ., explain the issue quite well. The junior and community college interests themselves have rarely developed a firm independent base of The basic reason is that they have political power. been split between those with the background and orientation of public school people and those who take the academic world of the college and university as Similarly, they are split their major reference group. at the policy level between forces for local autonomy and forces for central control (Usdan, 1969:181-182). The pressing need for state funds makes the community college tendency toward centralization a greater likelihood. While unpopularity of centralized planning has been documented by many writers (Hefferlin in Glenny, 1971b:44, Glenny, 1959:265; Palola, 1970:59), it is occurring in the 67 management of postsecondary education. Weathersby states that "Without market prices and without an enforceable contract, the pressure of public responsibility inexorably moves statewide or national public officials to assume a larger role in the management of institutions of post— secondary education" (Weathersby in Glenny, 1971b:75). Ironically, there is an administrative difficulty that would not immediately surface since centralization lends itself to administrative expedience. The centralized planning agency has difficulty knowing the needs of local communities. There is need for an open system with centralized planning in which those persons closest to the effect of the decision will have significant input in making the decision (Stroup, 1966; and Balderston in Glenny, 19711:);111-112).1 The "Byrne Report" is the basis for The Culture of the University by Foote, at aZ., (1968). The major themes of the report are conCerned with the decentralization of decision—making and the need for the development of a spirit of mutual trust among the various constituencies of the California higher education system (Foote, et aZ., 1968:253— 260). Although there were two persons who wrote a dissenting Opinion, the report reflected a dissatisfaction among the constituencies for decisions being made at a remote level of a hierarchical system. Hodgkinson has aptly noted that attempts to establish trust and respect or a sense of 1The Rhode Island Board of Regents which is the planning agency for Rhode Island has stressed an open-systems model for decision—making in their planning process. 68 community in higher education are branded as unsophisticated and unintellectual (Hodgkinson, 1971:22). Foote, at al., are clearly not denying the need for centralized planning and coordination; but they insist on a creative format that maximizes the contribution of each constituency. "The design of the appropriate central structure poses complex problems. Whatever ultimate forms these central institutions may take, it seems clear--and not really paradoxical——that decentralization will require cre- ative central direction" (Foote, et aZ., 1968:67). The authors state that "There have been some real gains . . . (but there is) the appearance of grave doubts about the value of a centralized system of statewide control over education" (Foote, et aZ., 1968:19). In one study, Harold Hodgkinson drew a positive correlation between organizational size (meaning number of students) remoteness of control and other factors to student alienation and disruption. Hodgkinson states that Although it is after the fact, the best hope for those institutions (and all institutions) is to con— sider various plans for decentralization of governance functions in those areas which directly affect the quality of life of the participants . . . . The necessary task will be that of redesigning existing institutions so that their governance can be 9932 small and large simultaneously (Hodgkinson, 1971:149). Hodgkinson's exhortation, appropriate for the university, is particularly significant for the community college as it moves more closely toward centralized planning. Planners must be acutely aware of the necessity for providing for community and individual participation in the decision—making 69 (governance) process of the college. Yet local demands must be balanced against wider needs (Wilson, 1965:36). There is a need for central planning which provides for responses which extend beyond the parochial and chauvinistic concerns of a region. Returns from an interdependent system of higher education can be maximized. Thus, there is a need for central planning (Dobbins, 1968:137-139) which provides for autonomy for the individual institution. But interdependence implies a relationship between or among institutions that have autonomy. The institutions must have freedom to make significant decisions concerning their own fates. Dobbins and Lee suggest some checkpoints for minimal autonomy for colleges and universities in an interdependent system (Dobbins, 1968:143-144). Berdahl provides a similar list (Berdahl, 1971:254—255). Generally, the fear seen in statewide plans by the constituencies of a college or university is the loss of autonomy (Balderston in Glenny, l97lb:109 and ff). Balderston suggests that In order to make statewide planning and coordination both palatable and effective, those concerned should seek, to begin with, a definition of what is properly within the domain of operating autonomy for the individual institution and what is in the domain of planning and evaluation which compels the design of comprehensive plans and their enforcement (Balderston in Glenny, l97lb:112). Berdahl makes a distinction between "procedural" and "sub— stantive" autonomy. The latter is concerned with goals, policies, and programs that an institution has chosen to 70 pursue, the former is concerned with the methods by which those will be pursued. The difficulty is to maintain an appropriate state influence on behalf of the public interest without stifling the ability of the institution to respond creatively (Berdahl, 1971:10; Brouillet, 1968:143—145; Wilson, 1965:20-21). Brubacher (1965:138-139) has written that the bases for policy are pluralism and local autonomy. Within this context the question concerning autonomy has not been whether but how? Interestingly, it has been the autonomous develop- ment of colleges and universities which has lead to pressure to devise statewide plans for higher education (McConnell, l962z8). McConnell concurs with Brubacher however that planning and coordination should not signal the end of autonomy. McConnell states that the problem is how to co— ordinate without destroying autonomy (McConnell, 1968:145). Kerr relates the significance of an autonomous insti— tution to a need beyond the college or university. He relates the needs for autonomy and community suggesting that the denial of each is so often inherent in greater central— ization of authority. On the other hand, Logan Wilson makes the point that the autonomous institution is vulnerable to outside influ- ences such that it is less free to control its own destiny (Wilson, 1965:24). For the community college, autonomy vis-a—vis integration in a statewide system of higher edu- cation would apparently imply greater ease of university control over community college curricula and the paradoxical 71 loss of institutional freedom. Whereas in an integrated system there would be the hope of differential institutional function—development through the protection of the coordi- nating agency. The planning agency which specifies institutional role and scope with the consonant power for implementation of plans may in the last analysis provide the community college greater autonomy (Wilson, 1965:82—83). Foote, et a1. state that groups which have the res— ponsibility for teaching must have the powers and resources necessary to make that responsibility genuine (Foote, et aZ., 1968:61). For the community college this may necessitate the buffer of the coordinating agency from the university. This will permit the community college to be more responsive to the needs of students without the over—concern of whether certain types of non—traditional courses will transfer. ACCESS--ACCOMMODATION The freedom to be able to respond to New Students is critical if the community college is to fulfill its mission to democratize education (McConnell, 1962:83). Unique types of educational experiences are often warranted for students of poor academic backgrounds. The community college can uniquely bring the society to the school (Richmond, 1972: 44—45) if it has adequate reign. A major dimension of equal educational opportunity is accessibility. In planning the loci for situating community colleges, there has been a minimum of benefit for accessibility to those persons in greatest need of educational 72 opportunity. This point argues well for more and better centralized planning (Willingham, 1970:36-37). Moreover, the fact that community colleges have largely been located in the suburbs does not permit response to the needs implied in providing equal educational opportunity (Mayhew, 1970: 115). Unfortunately, where state master planning has been operative, it has not done much to alleviate problems of equal educational opportunity (Willingham, 1970:207). Willingham has written that there is need for state planners to be sensitive to the need for equal educational opportunity and to the dangers of central coordination (Willingham, 1970:IX). Proximity of higher education insti- tutions to potential students has been demonstrated to have a positive effect on accessibility (Willingham, 1970:9—10). Moreover, planners must be aware of, and examine, the effect of educational institutions on community. The location of community colleges should be examined in terms of the groupings of persons the colleges will attract. Thus, the very site—selection of the colleges may be providing for community development (Willingham, 1970:16—17) as well as for access to higher education. In general, Willingham concludes from his detailed study on accessibility that there is a necessity for central planning as a means of fostering broader opportunity for accessibility (1970:222—223). There is a need for statewide planning but there are thirteen restraints on accessibility of which planners should be cognizant. They are: 1. Insufficient colleges, 2. Selectivity, 3. Tuition 73 expense, 4. Shortage in the cities, 5. Competing colleges, 6. Minority balance, 7. Segregation, 8. Inadequate programs, 9. Limited Coordination, 10. Underdeveloped colleges, ll. Sparse population, 12. Transfer problems, and 13. Inadequate information (Willingham, 1970:211-214). GOALS AND INSTITUTIONAL PRIORITIES Uhl quotes a report from the Assembly on University Goals and Government which states that "'If the colleges and universities are to improve themselves, they need to become more self-conscious about themselves, more understanding of what they have been and better informed abOut what is happening to them, and what their strengths and weaknesses are'" (Uhl, 1971:50). But within the framework of statewide systems of higher education, goal identification is only a first step in the subsequent process of goal communication and agreement on priorities of goals set. Peterson has written that " . . . diverse colleges must be able to articulate their unique goals in ways that are meaningful to their constituencies and other supporters if they are to expect continuation of the support necessary for their survival" (Peterson quoted in Uhl, 197lz4). The difficult problem in statewide planning especi- ally for the community colleges is the need for constant articulation of goals to the coordinating agency. Goal statements such as "to offer educational programs to the disadvantaged" are reduced to rhetorical jibberish if insti- tutional priorities are being determined elsewhere. The 74 state certainly has an interest in institutional definitions and purposes since state agencies in many cases approve funding (Wilson in Eurich, 1968:32—33). The question, "Who sets institutional priorities?" has special significance when a state agency (perhaps in the person of a minor auditor in a legislative budget office) can refuse to grant matching funds to a community college attempting to offer services to disadvantaged students. Berdahl discusses the reality of such institutional priorities, based on the findings of his recent study (Berdahl, 1971:12- 13). He states that it is obvious that different institutions require different funding depending upon their missions (Berdahl, 1971:125 and 127). The community college which is still evolving its identity has a doubly difficult task It must ascertain institutional goals and priorities for itself, and articulate the significance of those insti— tutional goals to persons at the funding source, in order to make its goal statements meaningful (McConnell, 1962:220- 221). The distinctiveness of an institution depends upon the process of establishing priorities and adhering to them (McConnell, l962:X—XI). An institution's ability to adhere to priorities set, is in part a function of adequate funding. Caleb Foote has written that the failure to establish priorities, resulting in service (in the broadest sense, including and perhaps especially, paid consulting) as a top priority "has dominated the ethos of the university and shaped its direction" (Foote, 1968:14). For the community college there is a greater exigency for goal selection and 75 priority setting since local means of pursuing goals is more finite (Foote, 1968:15). In the institutional setting there is a need to establish agreement on goals to be pursued lest goal priori— ties are simply not attained (Dobbins, 1968:176-177), Uhl, 1971). Moreover, priorities need to be evaluated in terms of the relations between means and ends (Wilson, 1965:32). Inadequate support for achieving a so—called high priority goal, de facto lowers the priority of that goal. The goal—setting needs in statewide systems of higher education must be concerned with two particularly critical factors: 1. that the goals of our institutions are not simply related to present student needs; and 2. that the crisis facing our institutions is qualitative and not quantitative. Lawrence and Glenny have discussed the first factor at length (Glenny, l97lb:3, 9, 28, and 34). Lawrence has written that "Now are young people in postsecondary education demanding that the purpose and goals of education be thoroughly examined and priorities be established for reaching them. No more are young people satisfied with goals relevant only to the past" (Lawrence in Glenny, l97lbz3). He continues that young people are concerned with the relationship between education and the quality of life and that relationship must be set in education. Thus the goal setting capability of postsecondary education must be adequate to anticipate needs and guide the Changing aspirations of society. 76 Lawrence elsewhere states that "the failures of planning agencies to relate the goals of institutions to the needs and characteristics of their current student bodies and their future needs is still a major factor of the 'quali- tative' crisis in postsecondary education today" (Lawrence in Glenny, l97lbz9). Glenny concurs with that image of planning indicating that the early need for accumulating quantitative data has diverted the attention of planners from qualitative concerns. Unfortunately emphasis is still on quantitative concerns as "projected changes foreseen in sub- stantive areas of postsecondary education will make it necessary to continue the concern with quantitative units of measure . . . rather than focusing exclusively on types and quality of educational programs“ (Glenny, l97lb228). SOCIAL CONTEXT AND PROJECTIONS FOR PLANNING There is a constant need to relate institutional purpose to societal purposes (Wilson, 1972:XVI). Huston Smith in The Purpose of Higher Education writes that "Our basic problems in education derive from the total intel— lectual climate of our culture; to be effective education must relate itself constructively to the basic value questions of our age" (Smith, quoted in Corson, l960:3). Glenny implies that the irrelevance found in higher education is a basic problem in society—at—large as well as in higher education (Glenny, l97lbz6l). The manner of controlling student activity with the lure of getting a job is not as effective in higher education as it once was. 77 Student interest is focused on concerns of a more humane nature. Weathersby states that the return to earth and communal movements indicate that "jobs" is not the raison d'etre of students (Weathersby in Glenny, 1971:65). The importance of the way we live and not just the quantity of consumption is reflected by students in 3E3 Greening of America (Reich, 1970). Hefferlin strikes a theme consonant with Reich's, suggesting that corporate life has had a devastating impact on people such that there is no experience of interpersonal sharing as would occur in a humanely oriented community. Thus, some institutions are attempting to foster "community" (Hefferlin in Glenny, 1971b: 48 and ff). This is no insignificant point for people who are planning for community colleges. Planning for higher education must transcend para— meters of efficiency and effectiveness and deal with the establishment of priorities concerned with the accomplish— ment of more ultimate goals. Thus, while recalling that resources are limited, planners must focus on the accom— plishment of values of a more ultimate nature. By considering the questions of goals, planners must focus on needs rather than just trends. In effect planners will be involved in considering what society will be like (Hefferlin in Glenny, l97lb:42 and 43) and consequently they must deduce consonant higher education institutions for an appropriate fit. Willingham has stated that "Undoubtedly the most dramatic and important development in higher education has been the questioning of fundamental values" (Willingham, 78 1970:3). Interestingly many of the social developments of the 60's have been reflected in the community college move— ment as it has responded in part to the need to universalize higher educational opportunity (Willingham, l970:5). Questioning for the 70's extends beyond whether higher edu- cation will be Open to certain groups to the nature of the educational experience in relating with the community—at— large. Willingham puts the challenge to the planners of community colleges in particular: As new colleges are increasingly regarded as intel— lectual and cultural resources, it seems all the more necessary that they be accessible to their clientele on a casual basis. Keniston (1965) has described the shattering of traditional communities and its devastating side effects. The local college is one social institution that should have great potential for shoring up the sense of community——much depends upon whether it is developed with that intent (Willingham, l970:8). Willingham has suggested that there are two major problems facing higher education from within. The first is the inadequate sense of community and social commitment that students find on most campuses . . . . A second major problem . . . is the fact that expanding educational opportunity has brought the reality of new types of students and the difficult job of providing relevant education for them (Willingham, 1971:218). Willingham suggests that there is a cycle between discipline— oriented course—work, student agitation and the removal of issues of real consequence from higher education. Apropos of the community college, one must first look at what community means in a human sense rather than what job needs there are in a given locale. One must consider whether local businesses and industries are serving or 79 deterring the end of a humanely oriented community. It may be that the community college ought not be providing training programs for some businesses just because they can pay, or because those businesses have a training need or because they are located in a certain geographical locus. It may well be that some businesses, industries and other special interest groups make requests for educational services from the community college while their own over—all thrust is counter—productive to human sharing and the establishment of community. Community college leaders must decide in such a case, whether or not to provide services. Community college leaders must be able to determine what the word "community" in the phrase community college means in suchacontext.1 It is an inappropriate understanding of community to think that just because programs are being offered to some interest groups that service is being provided to the community. Planners of higher education are obliged by definition to link theinstitutions of higher education to the broader purposes of the society at large. The development of a sense of community and the development of interpersonal relations would be central to the nature of the community college. Insights into the development of community in this sense need to be nurtured and provided for the community college 1Jencks and Riesman in The Academic Revolution ask who is the "public" for public higher education. In a special application of this point, it is critical that the question, "Who is the community?" be asked with reference to the community college. 80 in systems of higher education. SUMMARY Seven topics emerged from an analysis of the liter— ature on topics and issues in planning. The topics were diversity, institutional identity, accountability—governance, autonomy—centralization, access—accommodation, goals and institutional priorities, and social context and projections for planning. The discussion in each topic was oriented to the community college. In the diversity and institutional identity topics, the contemporary assimilation of higher education models into one type was noted as being contrary to the interest of responding to a multiplicity of higher educational needs. Despite general support for diversity in higher education even the community college is subject to forfeiting its identity in arranging its resources according to the dictates of the university model. The hope of personnel in planning agencies to establish and maintain diversity in institutional role and scope was noted as being a primary role of planning agencies and one in which they are yet to demonstrate success. From the literature one may conclude that the community college would well benefit from the establishment of a strong planning agency which would be able to act as a buffer in protecting its unique role. Increased costliness in part due to duplication and overlap has provoked a call for greater accountability. State planning may be seen as a condition to effective accountability 81 or as a result of the demand for accountability. In either case, definitions of institutional role and scope are emerging in statewide plans for higher education. With decision—making in higher education tending more toward a pattern of centralized governance, the traditional orientation of a locally, community—centered institution is in potential jeopardy. Nisbet has insisted upon the necessity of certain decision-making functions being at the local level if a sense of community is to be fostered. But even Foote who argues for decentralization recognizes the need for some centralized decision-making. Autonomy for the community college is essential if it is to be responsive to local demands. But the literature bears out a need for interdependence among institutions of higher education that will provide for wise resource allo- cation and sharing of certain institutional strengths. Community colleges represent a possibility for acces- sibility to higher education in an attempt to democratize higher education. The literature substantiates the unfor— tunate proposition that the community college has been largely ineffective in strategically placing its resources for maximum benefit for those who could benefit most. The implication is that, with a greater amount of authority placed in statewide planning agencies, greater geographic accessibility may be provided. Accommodation is a dimension of accessibility that provides for adequate support (financial, academic, counseling) for students once they have entered the institution. Again 82 centralized efforts at the federal and state level have been the mainsprings toward providing for accommodation. Within state systems it would appear that a single planning agency would be the most effective way for developing programs and avoiding duplication and overlap. While formal planning is a relatively recent phenom— enon, goals have been being established often—times for financial reasons by budgeters. In statewide systems of higher education, goal identification, goal communication, and agreement on the priority of goals set was indicated to be crucial. Lawrence underscored the importance for planners to understand the need of institutional goals which relate to future student needs, and for planners to recognize that the crisis facing our institutions is qualitative and not quantitative. In the discussion of social context and projections for planning, the need for planners to relate institutional purposes to value questions and the culture was articulated. Contemporary concern for the quality of human life vis-a—vis the quantity of production consumed was discussed. The opportunity for the community college to focus on the develop— ment of human bonds and relationships was noted. In Chapter 5 a quantitative overview of the analysis of community college role and scope statements from master plans of higher education is presented. In Chapter 6 the content and meaning of the statements is discussed. CHAPTER V QUANTITATIVE PROFILE OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS INTRODUCTION Two of the purposes of this study involve an analysis of the master plans of higher education. The development of lists of community college role and scope statements and criteria are based on an analysis of the master plans. In Chapter 5, the results of the analysis are pro— vided in quantiative terms. Eleven documents were used in the analysis which was focused on community college role and scope statements and not on the odcuments as such.1 State- ments from the master plans were selected for use in the analysis if they pertained to one of the nineteen charac— teristics in the Typology of Community College Characteristics. The classification of the statements from the plans provided the basis for two different frequency counts. 1The master plans used in the analysis were from the following states: 1. Florida, 2. Ilinois, 3. Michigan, 4. Minnesota, 5. Mississippi, 6. New Jersey, 7. Oklahoma, 8. Ohio, 9. Oregon, 10. Pennsylvania, and 11. Virginia. The specific titles of the documents are listed in the Bibliography. Quotations in the text from the documents will be by a state number and by a page number; e.g., (7:6) refers to page 6 of the Oklahoma master plan. 83 I‘—_l 84 OVERVIEW The report of the quantitative analysis includes a frequency count for each community college characteristic and a count for the number of master plans in which the characteristic was discussed. Table 5.1 provides a profile of the community college role and scope from the eleven selected master plans of higher education based on the Typology of Community college characteristics. Table 5.2 provides a rank-ordering of community college characteristics according to the total number of times a characteristic was mentioned in the state plans. The numbers in the Tables do not reflect units of communication of equal length but rather they reflect approximately equal references to the community college characteristic listed. The data in Table 5.2 have been arranged in clusters of five subgroups. The first cluster includes those characteristics which have been mentioned 32 times or more in the master plans. The other clusters are grouped according to a frequency range of five. The ranges beginning in each cluster with an actual count. Therefore the ranges are 22 - 18, 16 - 12, 11 - 7, and 4 — 0. DISCUSSION There were two questions that were asked throughout the examination of the quantitative data. They were: 1. What 13 the role and scope of the community college? and 85 TABLE 5.1 COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE STATEMENTS FROM STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS No. Times No. Plans Charac— Charac- teristic teristic Mentioned Mentioned A. Functions 1. Vocational—Technical 57 ll 2. University Parallel 51 ll 3. Community Services 44 ll 4. Continuing Education 35 ll 5. General Education 14 7 6. Compensatory Education 14 9 7. Community Counseling ll 9 B. Institutional Traits 1. Equality of Educational Opportunity 32 9 2. Open Admissions 22 8 3. Local Autonomy 21 4. Within Commuting Distance 20 101 5. Low—Cost 16 6. Teaching Institution 7 3 7. Second—Chance Institution 3 2 C. Contributions 1. Personal Upgrading 21 10 2. Economic Development of Community 10 8 3. Upgrading the Quality of Community Life 8 7 4. Intercultural Education 7 4 5. Interpersonal Relations 4 3 Development 1It was denied in two master plans (New Jersey and _ Nebraska) that being within commuting distance was essent1al t0 the concept of community college. 86 TABLE 5.2 RANK-ORDERING OF (Di/MUNITY CDLLEE CHARACTERISTICS No. Times Characteristic No. Plans Characteristic Group Characteristic Mentioned (from Table 5.1) Mentioned 57 Vocational—Technical (A) 11 51 University Parallel (A) ll 44 Commmity Services (A) 11 35 Continuing Education (A) ll 32 Equality of Educational Opportunity (B) 9 22 Open Admissions (B) 8 21 Iocal Autoncxny (P) 7 21 Personal Upgrading (C) 10 20 Within Comnuting Distance (B) 10 16 low-Cost (B) 9 14 General Education (A) 7 l4 Compensatory Education (A) 9 11 Community Counseling (A) 9 10 Econcmic Development of Community (C) 8 8 Upgrading the Quality of Conmunity Life (C) 7 7 Intercultural Education (C) 4 7 Teaching Institution (B) 3 4 Interpersonal Relations Development (C) 3 3 Second-Chance Institution (B) 2 87 2. What should the role and scope of the community college be? A common assumption has been that on one hand, the writers of master plans have derived their images of the community college from persons in the community college field (Berdahl, 1971) and that on the other hand planners will be attempting to modify and design the community college institution in order to respond to changing needs in a complex society. The data reflects this duality with unequal emphasis. An examination of the data reveals a pattern of declining emphasis for the three groups of characteristics, functions, institutional traits and contributions, respectively. The mean and median scores for each of the three groups of characteristics are listed in Table 5.3. TABLE 5.3 FREQUENCY OF MASTER PLAN REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY COLLEGE CHARACTERISTIC GROUPS Functions Institutional Contributions traits Mean 32.3 17.3 10 Median 35 20 8 The extraordinary differences among each of these categories may be explained according to what the community college is most well known. The top four characteristics in Table 5.2 are probably the most universally accepted functions of the community college. While it would seem 88 that the functions of the community college should be discussed in some detail in master plans, the nature of planning is such that it should also be future-oriented. The group of characteristics entitled, contributions, uniquely includes many future and goal-oriented charac- teristics. Yet, the contributions group is that to which there were the fewest references. Four out of six of the leeep frequently mentioned characteristics have fallen into the contributions group. For both the top four and the bottom four charac— teristics in Table 5.2 there is a correlation between the number of times a characteristic was mentioned and the number of state plans in which a characteristic was mentioned. The four top characteristics received relatively high frequency counts and were discussed in every master plan. Each of the bottom four characteristics was mentioned in fewer than one-half of the master plans and each received very low frequency counts as well. The correlation at the top of the table,wou1d seem to indicate a reflection of what is presently operative in the community college field. Four out of seven of the functions of the community college (viz., vocational- technical, university parallel, community services, and continuing education) have been universally written about in the master plans and have received the greatest frequency of discussion in the master plans. Of the remaining three functions in the typology, compensatory education and community counseling are mentioned 89 in nine of the state plans with approximately one—quarter of the frequency of the top two characteristics. The general education function is mentioned with one-quarter of the frequency of the vocational—technical function and in only seven out of the eleven master plans. It is most likely that writers of master plans are reflecting an awareness of the functions that have been generally agreed upon and accepted in community college education. The three less-frequently mentioned functions have not received universal acceptance in the field even though it is apparent that community colleges in systems of higher education ought to be performing them. There may be several explanations for the correlations at the low end of the Table. There are different explanations that may be offered for each of the different characteristics. The characteristic, second-chance institution, is now anachronistic. Students who may have performed poorly in previous academic settings are more likely to be con- sidered in terms of many possible negative factors rather than simply their own previous poor showing, in academic work. The phrase "second—chance" seems to implicitly condemn the student for previously failing. Such phrase- ology with a condemning effect would be self-defeating. It does not enhance a positive self—image that would provide a chance for growth and learning. The low count correlation for the category, teaching institution,may be explained in a number of ways. First, 90 there is an assumption that is made about the raison d'etre of an educational institution that it performs a teaching role (vis-a-vis the research and community services roles) and therefore that role is not discussed. However, the teaching role of higher education institutions was discussed in general, in a number of the state plans but not with particular reference to the community college. On the other hand, it may be assumed that the teaching characteristic permeates all of the other community college characteristics since the college 15 a teaching institution. But this explanation is also inadequate in terms of the multitude of claims made for the community college es a teaching institution. The alleged uniqueness of the community college as a teaching institution in systems of higher education simply is not explicated in the master plans of higher education. The low counts for inter-cultural education and interpersonal relations development may be explained in terms of their being subdivisions of a more general counseling characteristic which could embrace personal upgrading and community counseling as well. But in con— sidering major social problems in our communities, and that dimension of the two—fold question, "What should the role and scope of the community college be?“ special emphasis on the former two characteristics may be seen as warranted. Yet emphasis is minimal. Discord and disharmony among racial groups and between individuals may be abstracted in state plans to the extent that these problems 91 are removed from the living fabric of a particular locale. The community college, in providing educational resources to specific groups in the communities it serves, has a unique opportunity to make a very specific and directed impact. The absence of references to the intercultural education and interpersonal relations development categories reflects a possible failure of planners to see the community college as having a direct bearing on human relations problems in specific communities. The low count for upgrading the quality of community life may be largely explained as a category that was designed in order to exclude references which referred to the economic development of a community, whereas, the phrase upgrading of community life often has economic overtones. People in a community who are developing a sense of sharing and belonging, while providing for individual growth may or may not be developing the economic resources of a community. There is a failure in master plans to reflect the potential impact of the community college on the quality of human life as an important dimension in the role and scope of the community college. In part, cultural events are dealt with in community services and continuing education. But problem- solving in the community is left relatively untouched. The institutional traits group of categories included charac- teristics typically descriptive of the community college. They occupied the middle range of frequency in count and individually reflected a set of descriptions often used in referring to the community college. It was very difficult 92 to interpret any relative significance for institutional traits since they occupied the middle range of the dis— tribution. SUMMARY There were three groups of community college charac- teristics, viz., were functions, institutional traits, and contributions. There was a declining frequency count among the three groups as listed above in relation to the number of times a characteristic was mentioned and for the number of master plans in which a characteristic was mentioned. Two of nineteen possible categories into which community college role and scope statements could have been classified were nearly empty. The categories were second—chance institution and interpersonal relations development. Functions Four functions characteristics, viz., vocational— technical education, university parallel education, community services, and continuing education were universally recognized and discussed in considerable detail. General education, compensatory education, and community counseling functions were neither universally recognized nor given much attention. Descriptive Institutional Traits There was no single institutional trait which was discussed in all of the master plans. The teaching institution trait had a very low count, while equality of 93 educational opportunity had a high count. Although open admissions, local autonomy, within commuting distance, and low—cost were discussed at some length, none of them were used to universally characterize the community college as has been commonly thought. Contributions While the community college has had a focus on specific communities, there was little content describing the contribution, upgrading community life. The con— tributions, inter—cultural education and interpersonal relations development were hardly discussed while the con- tribution, personal upgrading was discussed in all but one master plan. The specific content for each of the categories will be discussed in Chapter VI. CHAPTER VI COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE MASTER PLAN STATEMENTS INTRODUCTION One of the three purposes of this study has been to provide an analysis and a synthesis of the community college role and scope statements as revealed in selected statewide master plans of higher education. Role and scope discussions identified in the master plans were grouped and presented according to each of the categories listed in the Typology of Community College Characteristics. The report on the content of those discussions is presented in Chapter VI. For some characteristics in the Typology, quotes from several master plans (with reference to other plans) have been given to indicate what has been said about a particular characteristic. For other characteristics, para— phrasing has been done to summarize the content of several different master plans on a given characteristic. For every characteristic, a synthesis of the totality of what has been said about that characteristic has been presented either by quoting, paraphrasing or a combination of both. ROLE AND SCOPE The analysis and synthesis of role and scope statements 94 EI::_________________________________l 95 from statewide master plans of higher education has been arranged according to the Typology of Community College Characteristics. Referencesfor quotes from the master plans have been made in parentheses at the end of each quotation. The first number refers to the state as indicated below; the second number refers to the page of the master plan. Master plans were used from the following states: 1. Florida, 2. Illinois, 3. Michigan, 4. Minnesota, 5. Mississippi, 6. New Jersey, 7. Oklahoma, 8. Ohio, 9. Oregon, 10. Pennsylvania, and 11. Virginia. Vocational-Technical Treatment of the many units of communication regarding the "vocational-technical" characteristic was in terms of four sub-categories of communication: 1. descriptions of com— munity college vocational—technical programs; 2. occupational programs; 3. other institutions (involved in vocational technical programs); and 4. various types of programs needed. Both explicit and implicit communications will be presented for each subgroup. 1. In the first sub-group, descriptions of community college vocational—technical programs, one set of statements in particular, was very descriptive. Vocational-technical education is a fast-growing sector of higher education. It is made up of occu- pational, vocational—technical, and apprentice pro- grams taught primarily in community colleges, propri— etary schools, and certain baccalaureate institutions where they usually do not lead to a bacculaureate degree. There is every indication that a great need exists to expand, substantially, this sector of higher education (3:10). 96 This communication embraced the many dimensions of vocational-technical education in general fashion,that were implied in the sub-group headings above. Descriptive statements about the vocational— technical role of the community college were without exception,explicit. Typically, statements describing the vocational—technical education function of the community college state that the community college is to provide An offering of vocational—technical courses so designed that with appropriate guidance and counseling, a student may complete a program that will lead to meaningful employment, retrain him for a new type of employment, or upgrade his present occupational skills (9:11). (Other references to similar communications are 5:91; 3:18; 6:16; 12:11; 11:7; 1:51; 1:28). 2. Communications regarding the second sub—group deal with occupational programs. A typical statement con— cerning the role of the community college in occupational education is that The comprehensive community colleges are the higher education system's center of occupational education below the baccalaureate. There is every indication that in the future they will undertake virtually all such post—secondary occupational education (6:115). An element of distinction that was sometimes made between vocational-technical programs on one hand and occupational programs on the other hand was credit vis-a—vis non—credit (1:35). In the Florida state plan, nearly half of the community colleges have been designated as one—half of the area post— high—school occupational centers (1:18, 19). In other states 97 the community college was the major post—high—school occu- pational education center (6:V 8; 4:29). 3. Explicit and implicit communications dealt with the vocational—technical role of the community college and its relationship to other institutions. The predominant concern reflected in these communications was the need for avoiding costly duplication and the need to maximize usage of costly materials (3:35; 4:30; 3:15; 12:37, 5:89; 8:13). Coordination of vocational—technical programs with those offered by proprietary institutions was mentioned as another type of institution that the community college should be aware of duplicating (1:37). Inter—institutional flexibility on a longitudinal educational plane was discussed in several instances as providing for the possible avoidance of dropouts (1:43). For instance, if some secondary school students were to take community college vocational-technical programs they may receive motivation for continued education by the changed social milieu. In some cases vocational-technical credit programs will transfer into similar university technological programs and permit students maximum educational achievement (1:34 and 44). 4. Implicit communication content was predominant in the sub-group of various types of programs needed that have a bearing on the community college. The communication content of this sub—group would be implicit by nature since there was a constant developmental need to consider insti- tutional changes implied in emerging societal changes. 98 Programs in public service (8:62), dental medicine (8:48), social justice (2:63), and allied health (7:27; 8:41), for example are being designed and each seems to have a special place in the community college. One recommendation is that a state authority should Approve and support new programs at community colleges and universities in such areas as parole and probation, management and administration of correctional facilities, and the training of court-support personnel (2:63). In two state plans, references to manpower planning corro- borated the need for development of programs in the suggested areas (8:28 and 3:22). University Parallel Community college university parallel programs were typically mentioned in explicit statements such as the following: The community college provides "freshman and sophomore programs which are part of the usual baccalaureate degree program" (5:91). (Other references are 6:V 8; 9:12, 21). Much of the explicit communication dealt with the proportion of enrollments between the community college and the senior institutions. Reflecting a typical point was the following statement: Increasingly, the public junior colleges in Mississippi are enrolling higher proportions of high school gradu- ates in the state who go on to college (5:87). (A similar point is made in 3:54; 1:51 and 27). In one state plan the following significant statement which has implications for articulation programs was made: '99 In the decade of the 1960's, the community junior colleges supplanted the state universities as the principal component for lower division enrollment. This trend is expected to continue through the 1970's. The Council believes that the lower division of the state university system should henceforth complement the lower—division programs of the community junior colleges (1:30). Implication for the increased importance of the uni— versity parallel role of the community college appeared throughout the master plans. An increasing number of students in higher education, and a trend of a number of institutions to specialize in providing for senior level educational opportunities, implied the need for developing the university parallel role of the community college (4:21; 10:1; 7:66; 12:29; 2:36; 37). On the other hand, it appears that even a minimal university parallel program in community colleges is having an impact on the metamorphosis of some colleges and universities to concentrate more on the senior range (7:11, 12; 12:20, 31). A concern for maximizing the total resources of the state higher education system was reflected by the emphasis on the need for articulation (which implied the major role of the university parallel function). A well—worded statement was that Easy transferability is particularly necessary for community college students. . . . Indeed, this is essential if New Jersey colleges and universities are to function as a system (6:II 15). (Additional statements on this point were made in 1:20, 21, 29: 8:39, 14; and 6:V 4). 100 Community Services Explicit communication on community services in the community college was limited. One explicit statement on the community services scope of the community college inclusive of other statements follows: Through community service programs, the college or university makes its major thrust into the community, aiding in the solution of problems, and in turn gaining new insights that point the way to new solutions (4:59). Both the university and the community college were often lumped together regarding community services, but it is likely that this function may well provide for distinction between the two institutions. There was a great deal of descriptive information of an implicit nature on community services types of activities. The implicit content was divided into six categories: 1. area needs, 2. community self-determination, 3. service delivery, 4. institutional cooperation, 5. support of community services, and 6. the educationally deprived. 1. In one master plan there was discussion of the changing social context to which higher education institutions have not been adapting (4:31). Such adaptation is the core of community services. Implying the community services role of the community college the author of another master plan states that The community college must make a determined effort to ascertain the educational needs of the population it serves and build programs that will encourage the admission of those needing and desiring higher edu- cation(3:25). 101 The extent of the community services responsibility of the community college in a particular area vis—a-vis other types of higher education was implied in one master plan which indicated that the community college had a first obligation to service a local area (3:41). Several communications alluded to the need for program development in terms of local needs and resources (9:12 and 42; 1:27; 5:77). The necessity for higher education insti- tutions to order their resources to the alleviation of local and statewide problems was emphasized in 2:49. 2. Community self-determination was implied as an important focus for community college, community services programs. Referring to the community college, one plan stated that . . . as 'grass roots' institutions, they hold great potentials for involvement, particularly in community service programs (4:59). Active recruitment for organizing decision—making committees comprised of local residents was discussed (9:44) as a di— mension of encouraging local articulation and self—determination of community social needs and the development of appropriate re— sponses by institutions of higher education (2:47). Other master plans emphasized the local orientation of the community college to serve area needs (6:V, l7 and 10:28). 3. The importance of being able to bring the programs to the people as well as being able to bring the people to the programs was emphasized in a number of plans (9:36; 3:41). One plan stated that Community colleges should assume greater responsibility 102 for the delivery of services since they are spread throughout the State in geographical areas not readily served by senior institutions (2:48). Of importance to the delivery of service is the location of the community college. Two plans, in particular, specified the need to develop off-campus centers to supple- ment delivery (3:30 and 4:21). ‘ Involved in community services is the function 4. of establishing institutional cooperation (which may occur with a number of different types of agencies). The emphasis for community colleges is in meeting the needs of a local community while maintaining a broader orientation that avoids needless duplication of costly programs (6:V, 9). Co- operation may be with secondary schools and trade schools (3:36) as well as with colleges and universities (6:V, 3). "In addition business, industrial, and commercial enterprises (resources) which some faculties of the college can need . . . provide" (5:86). Coordination with correctional institutions (2:63) and service agencies (1:36) moreover provide additional opportunities for maximizing resource usage. 5. Support for community services was discussed in terms of financial provision and other types of resources. Support, financial and otherwise, depends upon continuing review of total resources available in the Commonwealth and periodic analysis of business, governmental and community needs so that priorities may be determined (10:26). Exhortation, for special formula funding for state money which recognizes that community services programs are not easily equatable, was made in several master 103 plans (2:47). One plan states that Because the educational programs of community colleges vary widely and some are penalized by the standard per student appropriation, the State Board of Education, with the advice of the boards of trustees of community colleges and the State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges, will recommend a new way of deter- mining appropriations for community college operations consistent with their roles as institutions of higher education (3:48). 6. The aggressive outreach dimension of providing for educationally disadvantaged students from low socio- economic status has implications for the community services role of the community college. Three master plans discussed this area (1:43; 3:29; 4:16). Special recruitment, funding, tutoring and other services are needed. Impediments to effective community services were summed up in one master plan. The author said that The limited resources, the conception of the role of the institution and the psychological distance between the college and all or much of the surrounding com- munity all combine to keep community service to a minimum in many instances (5:83). Continuing Education Explicit communication content dealing with con— tinuing education in the community college ranged from adult basic education, job—upgrading, and transfer education. The inclusive type of statement with reference to the higher educational system was that The bulk of the offerings of the public system of higher education in part—time undergraduate education and general interest adult education should take place in community colleges (6:V8). In addition, the community college will "provide basic adult education" (9:12). Generally, continuing education 104 opportunities in the community college should include a variety of educational experiences designed to provide adults in the community with opportunities to meet their own personal educational needs (5:94). (Other references to this function are 5:61, 91, 96, 106—108; 2:63; and 6:I, 15, V3). Implicit reference to the continuing education characteristic of the community college often involved dis— cussion of continuing education at higher education insti— tutions in general, but with reference to particular com- munities. In other instances the references were understood as having unique pertinence to the community college because of the continued commitments of adults in other spheres of their lives,making commuting an essential,although not exclusive condition of such continuing education. In other references either other institutions or other administrative units would work cooperatively with the community college to offer continuing education again to a particular community. As stated in one plan: The comprehensive community colleges have continuing education as one of their major functions. The four— year institutions also have an important role in this area of higher education, through their campus and off-campus extension and public service programs (12:43). The community college as the preeminent continuing education institution for local areas in systems of higher education was implied in many state plans (9:15; 6:VII 15; 5:65; 4:58; 3:34; 2:48, 49 and 51). Worthy of special notice was the implication for the community college as the locally oriented higher educational 105 institution to supply the “master teachers" who would complement continuing education through educational tele- vision (5:55, 56). General Education The general education characteristic of the community college was documented in over half the state plans. Typically the communication was explicit and simple; for example, the community college will "provide basic general education“ (7:69). (Other references are 9:12; 10:12; 5:93; 8:20; 1:21; 5:91; and 8:23). In only one instance was the concept of general education discussed in any detail. The reference to The application of knowledge to specific problems . . . will change as knowledge changes, and the statement that . . . general education looks to that part of a student's life as a responsible human being and citizen, as contrasted with special education which looks to the student's competence in some occupation (8:29) provided the basis for understanding the unique role of the community college in providing general education. Only in the above quotes was there a beginning recognition of the person as the integrating force of the general education curriculum vs. the discipline-oriented liberal arts cur- riculum. Compensatory Education The compensatory education characteristic of the community college was reflected essentially the same way in 106 explicit and implicit references. The community college was noted specifically in several references as having to be able to "provide remedial instruction when necessary" (9:12). It was stated that This opportunity should include courses and educational programs which will permit students to catch up, to correct, and to reappraise such educational deficiencies as they may have developed prior to their entering the community junior college (5:94). The compensatory education function of the community college in systems of higher education was implied by the specialty of the community college to address specific and unique learning needs (3:51; 8:79; 8:13; 4:15; 6:V10; 1:45; 10:3). One master plan alluded to the need for evaluation of com— pensatory programs and continued research suggesting the need for cooperation between universities and community colleges (1:43, 44). Community Counseling The only explicit reference to community counseling stated that the community college should be Providing to citizens of the community an opportunity to participate in the necessary testing, guidance and counseling activities which will enable each one to understand and to accept his strengths and his limitations. These activities should enable the student to select realistic and attainable goals toward which he can proceed (5:94). Implicit references to the community counseling characteristic of the community college (because of its relationship to particular communities) referred to the disadvantaged in particular in The need for adequate assessment and counseling ser— vices to channel the disadvantaged population into the 107 appropriate post—secondary experience, and to retain the student once enrolled (4:15). And again Each institution should establish its own council to consider problems of the disadvantaged and coordinate plans to solve these problems. Such councils, with strong community representation, can do much to over— come the insulation that exists in relation to the deprived student and the total needs of the Common— wealth, in both rural areas and large urban centers (10:3). The special linkage that the community college has between various levels of education made the following com- munication particularly pertinent to the community college: The overall counseling program, a necessity throughout all stages of education of the disadvantaged, should be strengthened by the appointment of administrators from black and other minority groups (10:4). The community college has a special relationship with other levels of education because of its occupational function as well as its position between secondary education and univer- sity education. The Council recommends that, in order for a student to acquire a broad exposure to occupational alternatives prior to the necessity for selecting a post-high—school institution, courses relating to the world of work, career guidance, and industrial orientation be included as an integral part of the educational process at the secondary and pre-secondary levels (1:36 . The community college is an obvious choice to participate in such a counseling program. Another state plan implied the unique community counseling function of the community college while discussing the manner for budgeting this function. The net expense of a clinical service (gross expense minus direct income) is a necessary operating expense of a public institution of higher education. Such expense then becomes a direct charge to the instructional 108 budget of the institution. It is recommended that the magnitude and trends in such direct charges be subject to continual careful analysis by each public insti- tution of higher education (8:63). Support for clinical work must be budgeted to the community college. Equality of Educational Opportunity The state plans provided a large amount of content on this characteristic. Much of it was oriented to higher education in general, but implied a special role for the community college. Explicit reference to the community college role to equalize educational opportunity was also made. In one state plan which continuously referred to a systems approach, the following statement was written. It is anticipated that community colleges, with their wide variety of educational alternatives in academic and occupational programs, will prove the most sig- nificant institutions in the education of the dis- advantaged. However, all colleges must lend their creativity and resources to this task, which will remain one of the major responsibilities of the college and university system, until the problems it addresses have been solved (6:II,10). A second plan recommends Removal insofar as is possible, of the barriers to continued education: geographical, financial, and motivational (5:92). An encompassing statement on the community college to provide for equalization follows: Heretofore, the majority of students enrolling in Oklahoma higher education has been an academic elite, emanating for the most part from the upper one-half of the high school graduating class. In recent years, however, the distribution of students with regard to both academic ability and occupational interests has 109 been widening, fueling the need for different kinds of programs to be offered at different levels of academic rigor. By 1980, the academic aptitudes and interests of students enrolled in the college freshman class will be roughly equivalent to those of the population in general (7:14). Other explicit references were made to the equalization of opportunity as a unique trait of the community college in higher education by referring to complementary charac— teristics such as location (5:92) low—cost (5:93), and a myriad of educational programs that attempt to meet the entry needs of the students (2:12; 1:43, 45; and 7:67). In a chapter of one state plan entitled "Equalization of Higher Education Opportunity" substantive discussion began with the following remarks: The key tools to accomplish the equalization of higher educational opportunity are the development of pro- grams that would include necessary remedial and compensatory work; a recruitment process that would involve a conscious effort to seek disadvantaged youth; a critical reexamination of the entire admis- sions process; and the provision of financial assistance of students and direct financial aid to institutions in the form of contractual grants to support services for enrolled disadvantaged students. Permeating these recommendations must be heavy emphasis on improved counseling in both secondary school and college (10:21). While the orientation of these "tools" would not exclude use by any sector of higher education, the counseling, tutoring, compensatory education, undergraduate-teaching, open-door admissions, orientation of the community college implied that it is particularly well—oriented to the role of equalizing higher educational opportunity in state systems of higher education (4:18). “Disadvantaged" students are located in rural as well as urban settings (4:14). The location of 110 institutions is critical if higher education is to become universally accessible (7:49). The community college as a relatively low-cost higher education institution is the likely provider for expanded higher education opportunities in the population centers. One master plan reported that . . . Blacks often are unable to afford enrollment in residential institutions. Of the 432,891 degree students enrolled in higher education in 1968, only 17,532 were Black. Although Blacks comprise about 11 percent of the total State population, the 17,532 figure represents only 4 percent of the college-going ' population. Providing expanded opportunities for higher education for such persons in the population centers may serve to increase the college enrollments, perhaps above present expectations (2:33). Geographic availability was a factor in other state plans implying that the community college would likely be uniquely but not singularly chartered to equalize opportunity (1:13; 3:51; 8:18). Grants to institutions and grants to students provided a category for examining other communications imp— lying the equalizing of opportunity role for the community college. In the light of its other characteristics, the community college should emerge as a preeminent server for equalization of opportunity where the following statements apply: . . . the Commission will make grants to institutions on the basis of the relative potential of proposed programs for serving disadvantaged students effectively and the need for such programs in different types of institutions and at different locations in the state (4:19). (Additional references to the equalizing characteristic implied for the community college by special funding are 7:21; 8:75, 76, 81; and 7:60). 111 Open Admissions The communications regarding "open admissions" for the community college are generally explicit. Most often, qualifying stipulations for open admissions contained two out of the following three factors: 1) high school graduate, 2) 18 years of age or over, 3) and has a reasonable interest (or chance) to succeed. One statement which embraced all three factors was that Community colleges should maintain an open door admission policy. Any high school graduate or other person 18 years of age or over who has a reasonable chance to succeed in a program of instruction in the community college to which he applies should be admitted (9:19). Provision for persons under 18 years were occasionally stipulated (9:11). (Additional references to this point are 6:V 9, 10; 5:92; 8:17, 24; 10:22; 9:33). Implicit communications underscore the special role of the community college in systems of higher education. In one instance, students closed out of other institutions because of various admissions policies would be able to enroll in the community college (3:26). The concept of fostering universal higher education and the unique role of the community college was implied in some master plans (4:10 and 8:12, 13). The dimension of the open door concept which encourages the provision of a full range of programs that students who enter, need and can undertake successfully is explicitly mentioned in only one plan (3:41) although it is implied in many others, but usually not in the context of the 112 open-door concept. Local Autonomy Explicit references to the local autonomy charac— teristic of the community college generally provided for a minimal degree of centralized state supervisory authority. A typical state plan indicated that "Community colleges are being established through local initiative" and that the coordinating agency is providing leadership and supervision over community colleges, with the aid of its advisory board for public community and junior colleges (3:14 and 9, respectively). (Similar statements appear in 5:99, and 7:32). State authority plays an important part even in the locally initiated institution. One state plan indicated that The Board of Education should satisfy itself that adequate local interest is evidenced in support of a new area education district (9:37, 38). Yet, the local autonomy of the community college was explicitly contrasted with the central control of other institutions of higher education in one plan: The contrast in levels of autonomy between the state universities and the community junior colleges is a matter of some concern . . . . (1:21). Implicit references to the local autonomy characteristic of the community college were most often made in terms of higher education in general and the governance of all institutions of higher education. A number of references that have implication for the community college advocate autonomous governance. Speaking generally, one plan stated that "It is highly desirable that 113 maximum possible autonomy of governance be vested in boards of trustees" (8:84). Another plan indicated that Both conceptually and organizationally, the advantages of such an organizational pattern [viz, each institution with its own individual governing board] far outweigh the disadvantages" (7:16). Similarly, with regard to branch campuses, they should be established as independent institutions and given autonomy. The development of branch campuses as a way to meet the need for education at remote locations apart from the main campuses should be avoided. lower—division institutions now campuses should become separate own governing boards as soon as Those specialized operated as branch institutions with their feasible (7:16). The same state plan emphasized that specialized branch campuses should be established as comprehensive community colleges to serve local needs (7:17). State~leve1 governance for higher education was in part implied by several state plan communications. Typically the state authority was supervisory (3:32, 18, 58; 1:2, 20 7:33, 41, 42). I Within Commuting Distance The explicit communications regarding the community college characteristic of being within commuting distance was summed up in the one statement that "community colleges should be considered essentially commuter—type institutions" (9:27). Additional references to this same point are 1:2; 11:7; 12:26; 12:39; 12:42; and 7:62 in which all or nearly all of the population of each state would be planned to be within commuting distance of a community college. 114 Notable exceptions to the community college as essentially commuter oriented institutions were explicit in two demographically contrasting states: one with an extremely dense population and one with quite a sparse population. In the densely populated state it was contended that some kind of higher educational institution would be within commuting proximity to nearly every individual in the state and that there were advantages of accessibility to specialized programs at different community colleges that could be attained if residences were established at the community colleges (6:V18, 19). In the sparsely populated state, accessibility to higher education would be enhanced if the institution established residences where one or more of three specified conditions prevailed (9:28, 29). The position of two different states on the point of residences at community colleges is explicit. One plan stated that In general, the residence hall is inconsistent with the fundamental principle underlying the community college concept as a commuter institution—-the concept of taking education to the people. Furthermore, such self—liquidating projects could have a detrimental effect upon program offerings (3:40). The second plan was not as dogmatic. Programs or courses which require students to travel and live away from home may not be appropriate for community junior colleges unless such programs or courses are related directly to other regular offerings of the college (5:96). Strategic location is a principle that is significant for accessibility to the population. The State Board of Education believes every resident 115 of the state should have access to community colleges services. In keeping with the belief that all residents of the state should reside in community college districts, it is essential that community college campuses be located to serve the largest number of people, within the shortest commuting distance (3:40). Yet when locating community colleges is beyond question because of the completed development of the system, then new "centers" to accommodate shifting or neglected population groups were advised (5:94). Implications for the community college as a commuter institution were included in several topical discussions. The discussions were concerned with making post—secondary education possible for residents (4:20); making funding the family responsibility (and the implied necessity for some persons therefore, to live at home and commute); and providing for commuter institutions to examine the environmental settings in which its students are forced to operate (1:45). Low-Cost Explicit discussion on the role of community colleges as a lost-cost institution was limited to three statements from only two different master plans. The first two selections were from the same master plan: The recently established loan programs and the expan- ding community college system with 1ow tuition costs have, it is believed, substantially improved the situation. It is of vital importance that competent students not be deprived of higher educational oppor— tunities because of high student costs (12:11). The establishment of community colleges throughout the country is producing striking advances in the rate of college attendance. This results from both the 116 proximity of the colleges to the students and from the advantages to the student of low—cost higher education (12:20). The third statement was that It is recommended that costs be as low as possible for students attending these colleges (5:102). Implicit discussion on the low—cost characteristic of the community college has been divided into four subgroups: 1. Variation in cost of funding for different programs of higher education. 2. Expenditures by object (in the budget). 3. Tuition and Fees (cost to student). 4. Student aid (cost to family). 1. There were six "implicit" communications on the variation in cost for funding for different programs of higher education from two states. In a table listing various programs, the cost of each program was ranged in terms of "Average Base Compensation" of $12,000 for "General Studies" and "Technical Education" to $23,500 for doctoral and medical programs. Moreover, these two categories had the highest "student—faculty ratio (FTE)" 24—1 and 16—1 respectively, and the highest number of "student credit hours per faculty" 360 and 240 respectively (8:74). In another state plan a great deal of attention was paid to the discrepancy in the level of funding for lower- division programs of the state universities and for comparable general academic programs of the community junior colleges (1:30). In the context of another implicit communication (1:11) the meaning of a low—cost role (which may not be finan- Cially fair to the community college) was made clear as 117 costing less than other programs to support. Student mix,(i.e., the relative number of students at various levels of post—secondary education) and their relative costs was the emphasis of several communications. Each of the sets of communications pointed to the low-cost character of the community college. Viewed another way, a reduction in the number of graduate students would permit the same amount of general revenue support to provide for a much larger number of students in the community junior colleges or in county-based programs. For each advanced— graduate student, either 8.2 general academic or 5.5 occupational students may be supported in the community junior colleges (1:52). 2. In the subgroup, "expenditures by object", the low-cost characteristic was again reflected. In the addition of staff benefits, the community college is nearly a full two percent less than the average for higher education in one state (7:76). Compared with average university and college salaries, community college salaries are nearly $3,500 and $1,500 less respectively. 3. There were two references pertaining to cost to Students. The first communication applies broadly to higher education, but in the context of the total report has special bearing on the community college. Student charges at institutions in the Oklahoma State System of Higher Education should be kept as low as possible, and should not exceed the average charge at like—type institutions in the geographic region of which Oklahoma is a part (7:20). The second communication referred to a hoped—for outcome. Tuition and fee rates charged by Michigan community colleges vary widely from college to college, and are high compared to the rates charged by community colleges in other states. In November, 1966, the State ‘4' ea 31445.54 .V. _fli¥ A iii 77* 118 Board of Education discussed at great length the need to reverse the trend of increasing tuition and fees at community colleges. The Board expressed the belief that as a statewide system of community colleges is established, a consistent policy of lowering tuition should emerge. In view of this relatively long standing concern about the level of tuition charges at community colleges, the State Board will be re- viewing recommendations to present to the Legislature that will provide an incentive for community colleges to reduce their tuition rates (3:51). 4. In the area of student aid, one state plan reflected a previous inherent discrimination against community college students because of the low—cost of the institution. The change makes possible the reception of the discussed grant by community college students (4:10). In another state, the plan reflected an awareness of the low socio—economic student constituency at the community colleges because of their low cost. The plan provided an additional incentive by recommending "the awarding of one— year partial tuition and fee remission grants to students attending each community college annually“ (9:46). Another plan stated that college costs have sharply 1 risen and such costs create a burden on many families. The writer concluded that "Commuter colleges and the creation of community colleges in metropolitan areas help to reduce this burden" (12:45). From the higher education systems point of View, the low~cost nature of the community college is stressed. Tax funds should be expended as additional money becomes available: . . . . To allocate funds to provide for increasing enrollments. It will be least costly for the state to assure that student vacancies in independent institutions are filled first. Enlargement of the community college segment is next least costly (10:4). 119 Teaching Institution The teaching institution characteristic of the community college is more often alluded to as a need rather than a fait accompli. The allusions referred to an opportunity for the community college to be oriented to teaching with greatest excellence. Clearly much of the impersonalization which exists in undergraduate education has its roots in its relation— ship to graduate education. Too many undergraduate courses are taught by teaching assistants preoccupied with securing their own education (6:VIl3). Other implied references to the community college opportunity to be the preeminent higher education teaching institution were 8:13; and 1:47. Descriptive of what has been occurring with particular frequency in the community college is the following statement suggesting the development of a Special study center to help improve student study skills with additional instructional materials, small group classes, and other specialized teaching (8:79). The reference is to a higher education need in general although leaders of community colleges may see this need as being opportune for the development of the community college role as a teaching institution. Second—Chance Institution This category had the least number of references. The statement referring to the community college role with regard to second-chance students occurs in an explicit reference to the community college. Discussing lower admissions requirements the author of the plan wrote that 120 This provides opportunity for the student who develops and matures later than the average to take advantage of a baccalaureate program from which he may otherwise be excluded (9:49). A second communication on this point occurred in the same plan (9:50). It is likely that this once frequently referred to characteristic has been subsumed by other characteristics. Personal Upgrading An explicit communication referring to the personal upgrading characteristic of the community college was similar in a number of states. The following two references indicated the nature of the characteristic. Through a wide variety of creative and innovative programs the community colleges should offer educational opportunity to all the citizens of New Jersey. For this reason they are crucial elements in realizing the Board of Higher Education's pledge that each individual should have the opportunity to be educated to the height of his potential (6:V10). The community college system has a particular obligation to people who are uncertain about their educational interests or abilities and who consequently want to explore a variety of occupational and academic programs. Community colleges should be the open door to higher education in New Jersey (6:V9). (Also see 9:12). Additional points that were stressed involved the possibility of working through business and industry while enrolled as well as providing special services for part—time students (10:12) and counseling services for the successful transfer of community college students to senior colleges (4:42; 3:26). For the implicit communication, some of the same dimensions of personal upgrading were stressed as were stressed in the explicit category. Rising to one's full 121 potential (5:92 and 7:47) and providing for part-time student needs (6:II8, 9) were emphasized. Of particular interest is the communication regarding the ethnic origin of counselors. The notion of providing models of professional people from certain ethnic backgrounds was particularly significant in the community college which operates to respond to specific community differences. They may provide student personnel staff on their own campuses who are trained and experienced in working with Negro students. It is important that some of these staff members be Negro (1:46). Model—provision is a significant factor in personal growth. Economic Development of the Community Master plan references concerning the effect of the community college on the economic development of the com— munity often involved upgrading of the individual. In one reference economic development of the community as well as personal upgrading were indicated. The economic development category was applied because of the tone of the total document and the context of the statement. Referring to community college opportunities, the author of the plan stated that This opportunity should include programs which enable students to enter defined occupations and to participate in their communities as wage earning citizens (5:94). Implicit references in some cases alluded to the contribution of higher education in general to economic development or they referred to factors for the community college which result in economic development of the community. One stated goal of higher education was that "Higher 122 education should contribute to the economic growth of the state"(7:47). This statement has implications for specific communities. Perhaps the state is to the university or senior college what the local community is to the community college. One plan spoke in detail of the economic development goals of its state which were articulated aims of its "Research and Development Center". The unstated relationship between the community college operating at a local level and the center working at the state level were implied (5:57, 58). Correlation of technical and business education programs with local needs were cited several times (8:30, 31; 2:62; 5:91). Closely related to this point but often over— looked is the simple impact the establishment of a community college has by virtue of its presence in a particular community. One state plan cited the importance of "resource dispersal" in terms of optimum campus size (1:26) implying that the economic impact of colleges on communities warrants a limitation of campus size in order that different com— munities may benefit by colleges in their communities. Upgrading the Quality of Community Life Even among explicit references to this characteristic there is a lack of clarity as to what is meant by the word "quality" although contemporary ordinary language referring to the "quality of human life" is well understood. Two explicit references relating the community college to national immediate needs to upgrade the quality of community life were 123 that the community college should be 1. providing to the local communities cultural and related activities associated with this level of education (5:94) and 2. serving the community with updating and upgrading educational Opportunities and cultural and public service programs (11:7). Implicit references to the quality of community life characteristically pivot upon the local orientation of the college. The purpose "to contribute to the well-being of the community" (6:2) was understood in reference to the community college. 0 O . educational institutions should be provided adequate staff and resources to make available multi— service programs to assist the community or region in the solution of basic educational, economic, political and social problems as well as to encourage cultural growth (9:43). Similar exhortations for the community college were implied in other plans (8:65; 4:61; 2:28; 7:26). Exhortation for community colleges to become involved in the solution of specific community problems was not given. A relationship between integrity and "quality" of life was not articulated. Inter-Cultural Education This characteristic of the community college follows logically from the characteristic "upgrading of quality of community life". There is not an explicit reference to this category although several communications described charac- teristics closely akin to inter—cultural education as responsibilities of the community college. The responsibility for providing HHIHIW‘ 124 Opportunity for necessary dialogue among people as groups and as individuals (2:51). is understood for the community college because of its role in working close to communities. An inclusive statement from one state plan with implications for the community college is that the Board will Encourage the institutions to broaden their service as cultural—educational centers for Illinois communities. The Board will give high priority to new and existing programs that accomplish this purpose (2:11). One reference encourages the participation of faculty and staff in roles to aid in identifying and selecting persons from.minority groups for higher education (2:8). Such roles are becoming more typical in community colleges. Involvement back into communities is cited in terms of para-professional career counselors (1:36 and 1:46). Provision for members from specific minority groups (especially black) to successfully transfer to all-white institutions implies the responsibility for support programs with the community college. Interpersonal Relations Development The several references for this category stress supporting the individual in his efforts to adjust to his environment. The references were taken to have special implications for the community college vis-a-vis other institutions of higher education (but not to their exclusion), because of a purported orientation of the community college curriculum to the individual vs. a discipline-oriented curriculum at the university. One statement expressed a most enlightened position: (lllllllllllllh 125 Individuals not afforded post-secondary educational opportunity should have ayailable to them programs that will provide the information necessary to effectively maintain their economic status and their self-respect by enabling them to participate in community affairs from an informed base (2:51). A second statement reflected the community college attention to the individual: The community college should provide programs to counsel the student in adjusting himself to changing society (9:12). The role Of educational institutions in providing programs for interpersonal relations is fundamental. The link between the establishment of community and the development of inter- personal relations is critical. DISCUSSION As with the quantitative overview, there are two questions that have provided a framework for examining the community college role and scope content of the statewide master plans of higher education. They are: 1. What has been said about the role and scope of the community college in statewide master plans of higher education? and 2. What should be said about the role and scope of the community college? Functions A major point which emerged from the analysis of the master plans was the relative importance of the university parallel function of the community college. Master plans reflected an expectation that increased percentages of state 126 higher education students will enroll in junior college university parallel programs. This expectation occurs while leaders in the community college field have been arguing for an increased importance for vocational—technical programs and career—oriented education in the community college. Part of the emphasis on the university transfer function is a result of planned emphasis at senior level and graduate level work at a number of colleges and universities. The planning reflects an apparent need for consolidation of costly programs at the upper level of higher education and a realization that community college education at the lower level of a four-year program is often less expensive than at the university. The emphasis on university parallel programs has not implied a corresponding diminution of emphasis on vocational- technical programs. There was however, a lack of expression regarding an integration of vocational~technical programs into the mainstream of higher education. There was little reflection on the difficulties that emerge from the divisive- ness of programs named as vocational—technical on one hand and university parallel on the other. A failure to articulate the societal hypocrisy concerning views toward technical work on one hand and "higher education" on the other hand is an omission in plans for higher education. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in peep Time, More Options has stressed the following point: Society would gain if work and study were mixed through— out a lifetime, thus reducing the sense of sharply 127 compartmentalized roles of isolated students v. workers and of youth v. isolated age. The sense of isolation would be reduced if more students were also workers and if more workers could also be students; if the ages mixed on the job and in the classroom in a more normally structured type of community; if all members of the community valued both study and work and had a better chance to understand the flow of life from youth to age. Society would be more integrated across the lines that now separate students and workers, youth and age (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, l97l:2). Statewide master plans in higher education may do much to reenforce or overcome some divisiveness in the society. Master plans need to reflect direction regarding the critical integration of vocational technical and academic work. The community college is a focal point for a possible healthy mix in the community. The intensive discussion of the community services function in the master plans emerged as a defining charac— teristic of the community college in a system of higher education. It is significant that notice was made of the impediments to implementing the community services function. Appropriate formula funding which expressed commitment to community services was a critical impediment. Non-traditional programs will have difficulty being implemented without financial commitment. The plans as a group advanced a notion of community services that is quite detailed. The continuing education function of the community college was discussed in some detail in the master plans. The divisiveness in our society along certain lines including age may be seen as a challenge to community college leaders and planners. The planners were remiss in not indicating 128 directions for the community colleges to enter persons of all ages into the mainstream of various programs. Some of the continuing education programs in community colleges have been identified as programs for "mature" students. While "mature" students may often enter the mainstream of college programs, the master plans might address the point of student mix vs. grouping. Communities may well benefit by (and apparently need, in general) opportunities for persons from different age-groups to share in common activities. The limited awareness of what general education programs mean, and the failure to realize the potential which general education offers for the organization of community— junior college curricula was reflected in the plans. Diversity in higher education implies a range of curriculum responses not only according to content but also according to approach. The organizational principle of a general education curriculum is the individual as Opposed to the discipline. While there is no need to preclude universities from offering curricula organized around individual needs, a significant difference between the two higher educational institutions may be the general education curriculum. While the community college has rhetorically claimed an emphasis on the student, there was a lack of understanding reflected by the master plans on how the community college could implement a general education curriculum to augment its student orientation. Compensatory education as a specific mode of bringing about equal educational opportunity was not discussed in much 129 detail. The rationale for this function was discussed in terms of "catching up" which appears quite noble. The difficulty with "catching up" is that it assumes that a learner ought to be somewhere else on the performance scale than where he is. Such a judgment is presumedly made according to a relative scale. The student who is being taught so he can "catch up" may be being told implicitly that he is behind (or "slow" or "stupid"). The rationale for providing the compensatory function in community colleges needs to be further developed in the light of recent studies on teacher expectation and institutional expectations. While the function needs to be performed, the critical basis for establishing programs and the mind—sets of faculty needs to be explored. As a learning or growth center for a given community, the community college may have a special Obligation to the people in that community or region. Yet the community college as an educational resource would presumably contain experts on the very community itself: its resources and its needs. As an educational institution it is not inappropriate to expect that it would develop provisions for disseminating its expertise. An information and referral system which may provide for testing and interpretation as well as information on volunteer—work situations of an educational nature, should be discussed in master plans. Referrals for job-learning experiences should be,but haven't beenyindicated in master plans for the college of the community. 130 Descriptive Institutional Traits The early development of the community college has relied on the attractiveness to many constituencies Of rhetorical terms such as "democracy's collegefl'"open admissions," "local autonomy," "within commuting distance," "low—cost," "second-chance institution," and "teaching institution." The nebulous nature of these terms and the range of meanings was amplified through the collected master plan statements on the traits. Each of the descriptions was to be qualified. The terms taken alone were seen to be misleading. Discussion on the relationship between institutional goals and the manner in which they would relate to society's broader aims was generally lacking. Equality of Educational Opportunity, however, emerged in many discussions on the community college role. But the relationship of the community college to equalize educational opportunity to specific problems that have drawn national attention was lacking. The plight of the migrant worker, the Appalachian white, the urban black and the rural poor were hardly brought into focus as specific target populations for the community college to address in terms of equalizing educational opportunity. Master planning which would provide for services to target groups would support present efforts of persons attempting to make the community college answerable to such populations by explicating the needs. On the other hand, emphasis on the compensatory education function indicated a serious commitment to non—traditional students although there is a need to 131 further develop the meaning of compensatory education. The Open admissions category was used as a description but not without qualification. Despite an interest in achieving a democratic ideal, colleges are obviously re— stricted by the practical limitations of space. Other stipulations including age, high school completion and an assessment of a candidate's likeliness to succeed, further modified the meaning of the open—door. Serious difficulty emerged when these stipulations on the meaning of "open—door" were juxtaposed with the institutional trait, provider of equality of educational opportunity. The last stipulation viz., the likeliness of a candidate to succeed might result in the exclusion of those persons who would otherwise be most able to benefit from the community college experience. The dilemma regarding space limitations and the commitment to provide equal Opportunity must be solved without excluding those persons who may benefit most from the community college experience. In the broad sense, education provides for decision- making power among individuals. Autonomy in decision—making is a goal. Attention to the question of autonomy for the community college was generally limited to questions of structure in governmental arrangements. Again the larger questions that deal with frustrations in communities of people unable to influence the decision—making process were largely ignored. The importance of the college—of—the-community filling a role that it itself provides for decision—making is critical to the larger aims Of the educational institution in 132 relation to the society. Despite the concerns for economy and efficiency, autonomy in the community college need not be precluded especially if diversity is to become a reality. The fact that organizing a system of higher education with units which are autonomous will be difficult does not warrant exclusion from working toward that goal. Local autonomy as a description was misleading. The overwhelming need for coordination in order to avoid costly duplication and overlap has placed a constraint on the application of the term "local autonomy." There is a need for master plans to specify thinking on the manner in which the community college may maintain significant local decision-making power while permitting statewide coordination. The analysis of the category within commuting distance reveals an interesting disagreement on what has been considered a fundamental factor in the definition Of community college. While within commuting distance may generally hold as a description of the community college, it is apparent that the institutions which emerge with integrity will be responsive to needs peculiar to certain areas, whether or not it is feasible for all persons in an area to commute to the college. Low—cost education like motherhood is difficult to oppose; yet, as with motherhood, low-cost education has difficulties. Expenses to the student may be minimized by low tuition rates and elimination of boarding costs if a student commutes. On the other hand, lowered tuition rates to the student often need governmental subsidy. Moreover, (A AeafiJ-lh l_._’.Al 133 the implementation of the unique functions of the community college which have not been adequately funded through per capita budgeting must be funded if a truly diverse system of higher education is to be established. The master plans generally failed to explain the meaning of low—cost education. Costs accruing to the operation of the college,which may add to a rising budget for education may be seen as long-term investments to provide job-training and greater power for individual adaptability. The principle of diversity in systems of higher education opens the possibility for the community college to provide a type of experience that is considerably different than that offered at the university. While the university experience may focus on achievement in the disciplines, the community college may focus on providing a diverse set of modes whereby students may better be able to learn. While the community college has claimed excellence in being able to teach better than the university, this claim has not been demonstrated. Specification in master plans of the unique teaching role of the community college was largely lacking. Second-chance institution is an anachronistic description. It has apparently been subsumed by other characteristics (e.g., equality of educational opportunity and compensatory education). Contributions Rising to one's full potential was the generally asserted description of the characteristic, personal upgrading. - i A-z'r» tskviriex w—a—ev, , 134 While the "functions" of the community college would presumedly provide the vehicle for bringing about personal upgrading, there was no articulation of what human potential may mean. There is a need to explicate in the context of the educational process how the community college may in fact provide for personal upgrading or rising to epele full potential as opposed to insuring that students will behave in order to achieve certain grades or other imposed ends. There is a need in the master plans to articulate the community college commitment to the growth of the person in a highly technocratic society in which persons often become inadvertently subservient to technological ends. Economic development of the community is intimately linked with educational activities. Educational processes may be provided in order to stimulate economic development; as well, they may be introduced as a result Of economic stimulation. The very operation of an educational center such as a community college has economic implications. The relationship between economic development and community self—determination is profound. Discussion on the role of the community college as it bears on this relationship was lacking. The difficulties that we have as human beings 9E3 human were not really brought into focus as areas for community college effort. The nature of community life which thrives on mutual sharing and the development of strong interpersonal relations is yet not seen as an important area for explicit commitment by a higher educational institution. 135 A national approach to some of our social problems such as drug abuse, suicide, and epidemics of venereal disease seems to involve a search for a devil. The necessity for providing educational programs in a serious, committed fashion to foster understanding and love between human beings on questions of child—rearing, loneliness, and other human relations issues is an essential element for a college for the community. Upgrading the quality of life, intercultural education, and interpersonal-relations development are contributions that may be made by the community college which may intimately affect that very fiber of the community in the most profound sense. These characteristics hardly received the treatment warranted by master plans which would presumedly attempt to provide direction for institutions as they relate to the purposes of the society—at-large. SUMMARY The process of master planning may aid in strength— ening the identity of the community college by well conceived role and scope statements which extend beyond what is already operative in the field. If planning is to actually occur, there must be some anticipation of societal needs and social changes. Consonant specifications for the role and scope of higher education institutions should emerge in such a planning process. In large measure much community college role and scope specification was lacking in the master plans for higher education selected for this study. Whether master planning will become an impediment to developing responsive 136 institutions which insure diversity in higher education remains to be seen. Master planning however, presents an opportunity to develop institutional diversity in statewide systems of higher education. The functions of the community college were discussed at length but not always with insight into how the master plan was a vehicle for directing the development of the community colleges. Master plan discussion of the functions often reflected more on the existing state of community college affairs rather than providing direction for the community colleges. The university parallel function is largely being planned to take increasing percentages of students at the first two years of the undergraduate university curriculum. Many plans specified the community college as the center for vocational—technical and occupational training below the baccalaureate degree. Discussion on six aspects of the community services function was provided in addition to discussion on funding needs for services. Discussion on continuing education was largely limited to the local orientation of college programs. The general education function was hardly discussed while the relationship of this function to the need for diversity in higher education was not mentioned at all. Discussion on compensatory education was noticeable for its lack in sophistication apropos of sociology of education theory on teacher-expectation. The community counseling function, while discussed, did not emerge as an area worthy of serious development. 137 The descriptive institutional traits, equality of educational opportunity, open admissions, local autonomy, within commuting distance and low—cost emerged from the master plans with significant qualification on their meanings. The institutional trait, within commuting distance, although generally discussed as a characteristic was sig— nificantly qualified in certain states as a defining feature of the college. Although some reference was made to its teaching nature the community college was not singled out in systems of higher education as having a unique teaching function. Among the contributions characteristics personal upgrading was largely discussed in general terms of fulfilling one's potential. Economic development was largely discussed as the individual's ability to take a paying job because of training through the community college. Upgrading the quality of community life, intercultural education and inter- personal relations development were discussed at a very superficial level despite their profound relationship to the very fiber of a community. Across the three groups, specific counseling charac- teristics for the community life, viz., intercultural edu- cation, interpersonal relations development, personal up— grading and community counseling were not drawn out for the community college as characteristics which may contribute to the solution of human relations problems peculiar to specific communities or regions. The contributions characteristics, as a group were 138 distinctly future oriented. The group of characteristics is particularly important to the planning function for that reason. As a group, however, contributions was the least well-developed. Despite omissions in the plans, many dimensions of the total set of characteristics were developed. Between the statements made, as reported in the first part of this chapter, and the discussion on the statements, a basis for deriving criteria for community college role and scope statements has been provided. The criteria are provided in Chapter VII. CHAPTER VII CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROLE AND SCOPE SPECIFICATIONS INTRODUCTION A major purpose of this study was to provide a set of criteria for community college role and scope specifi- cations for master plans of higher education. The analyses of the statewide master plans were a major component of the study. In Chapter VII, the findings of the analyses are presented. The criteria for community college role and sc0pe master plan statements are also presented. Other sections include implications for future research and the general summary. FINDINGS OF THE ANALYSES The process of generating the criteria entailed the development of the Typology of Community College Charac— teristics which was used in the master plan analysis. The nineteen characteristics of the typology provided the categories for analyzing eleven selected statewide master plans of higher education for statements about community college role and scope. The statements from all of the master plans were grouped and analyzed according to the characteristics of the Typology. 139 140 The first set of findings listed below pertained to the Typology of Community College Characteristics as a whole. The three remaining sets of findings are listed according to the groupings of community college characteristics; viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions. General 1. There is a declining order among the three groups of community college characteristics, viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions according to the number of times a characteristic was mentioned and according to the number of master plans in which a characteristic appeared. The functions group is predominantly ordered to existing, widely accepted types of programs; the contributions group of charac— teristics is largely order to future-oriented characteristics. 2. Of nineteen possible categories into which community college role and scope statements from master plans of higher education could be clas- sified, three characteristics viz., second—chance institution, intercultural education, and inter— personal relations were hardly mentioned. Functions 1. Four out of seven of the functions characteristics (viz., vocational-technical, university parallel, community services, and continuing education) have 141 been written about in all the master plans. (No other characteristics were discussed in all of the master plans). The remaining three functions characteristics were mentioned in fewer master plans and received considerably less discussion. The plans have been written so that community colleges would accommodate increasing percentages of undergraduate students in the university parallel function despite recent clamor for more job—oriented education. There was detailed discussion on the community services aspect of the college. It was arranged into six topical areas: (1) community problem—solving; (2) area needs; ‘(3) community self—determination; (4) service delivery; (5) institutional cooperation; and (6) the educationally deprived. There was minimal discussion on what a general education curriculum means and how it might be particularly appropriate to community college education. The social significance of programs for adults at various learning levels was reflected in the compen— satory education characteristic as well as in other characteristics. Described as "catch—up" education, the compensatory education characteristic was defined in terms of the individual's failure to achieve according to someone else's rate of Descriptive Institutional Traits l. 142 accomplishment. Community counseling programs described for the advantage of the general citizenry and for the "disadvantaged" in particular received little discussion but were referred to in most of the master plans. Specific counseling characteristics for the community college (viz., intercultural education, interpersonal relations development, personal upgrading and community counseling) were not explicated for the community college as charac— teristics which may contribute to the solution Of human relations problems peculiar to specific communities or regions. There was no single descriptive institutional trait for community colleges that was universally dis- cussed in the master plans for higher education. The descriptive institutional traits, provider of equal educational opportunity, open admissions, local autonomy, within commuting distance, and low—cost were significantly qualified in discussion. Special emphasis on the teaching role of the community college was not made. While the description, teaching institution was referred to only a total of seven times in three master plans. Provider of equal educational Opportunity was 143 discussed in considerable detail but it was omitted from two master plans. Contributions 1. Four out of the six least-mentioned characteristics are from the contributions group of characteristics. 2. Personal upgrading was by far the most widely mentioned and the most often mentioned charac- teristic from the contributions group of charac— teristics; it was discussed at the general level of fulfilling one's potential. 3. Economic development of the community was largely limited to discussion of the individual‘s ability to take a job because of training through the community college. 4. Although upgrading the quality of community life was mentioned in over half the master plans and it has significant bearing on the meaning of "community" in the term community college, there was little content describing what is meant by this characteristic. 5. Although the characteristics, intercultural education and interpersonal relations are profoundly related to much of the country's social malaise, and although these characteristics are intimately involved with the meaning of "community" they were hardly mentioned in the master plans. The criteria for community college role and scope 144 were generated from a combination of three sources: 1. Community college role and scope statements from statewide master plans of higher education; 2. Discussion (criticism) of the community college role and scope statements as grouped in each category of the typology; and 3. Imperatives from the literature on planning in higher education. The full list of imperatives from the literature has been given in Appendix 6. The synthesis of community college role and scope statements is listed in Appendix 5. The criteria for community college role and scope statements follow below. CRITERIA FOR STATEMENTS The criteria for community college role and scope statements for master plans of higher education have been listed for eighteen of the nineteen characteristics from the typology. Criteria have also been listed for each of the group headings of the typology, viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions. The characteristic, second-chance institution, was omitted from the criteria listing since the category appeared to be largely subsumed under other categories. A total of 88 criteria are listed according to 22 headings in Appendix 9. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Several major implications for future research emerge from this study. The first implication is the need for a 145 field study, of selected community college, which would determine correlation between role and scope specifications in master plans of higher education with what is occurring in the field. Such a study may provide for examination of the states selected for this study. The problem of individual state correlation with individual state plans should be treated. Secondly, there is a need to determine the impact of planners on community colleges and a need to derive an optimum approach to role and scope specification that provides for the benefits of centralized planning while permitting maximum local autonomy. Such a study should be undertaken with the realization that there are benefits for the community college both in centralization and autonomy. Third, there is a need to verify the community college typology, that was developed for this study. The typology should be in a state of flux as a vehicle which reflects the adaptability of the community college. It should provide a framework for future needs as the per— spective for planners. Fourth, there is an opportunity to follow this study with an investigation of an experimental nature that provides for role and scope determination through different processes. The place of community colleges in systems of higher education has evolved as has coordination and planning. The meta— morphosis, in both spheres, warrants the attention of how the community college, as a unique institution in systems of higher education, may establish and maintain its uniqueness 146 in such systems. The study should examine a number of different approaches to community college planning while hypothesizing maximum advantage for a particular model for planning. Fifth, there is a need for a field study to determine how master plans may aid in providing the community-junior college with an identity. Part Of such a research project should examine the process of community—junior college involvement in the statewide higher education planning process. There is a need for research which leads to the development of effective communication vehicles for trans— mitting role and scope commitment from the field to planners as well as vice versa. Sixth, there is a need to determine the effect of centralized planning on community colleges as institutions which have presumedly provided for local autonomy. The apparent dilemma of providing for a self—determining com— munity through an autonomous community college which is centrally planned should be examined through field study. Seventh, there is a need for speculation on the‘ nature of community as it may provide insight into the nature of the community college. Planning implies a goal orientation. The community college which is presumedly oriented to servicing the needs Of local communities would apparently bring about changes in the community to establish it as a better community. The notion of "the good community" needs to be articulated as part of the planning process in establishing role and scope for the community college. 147 SUMMARY There is an ominous ring to the phrase, “master plan." The planning that is already occurring as Glenny, and others have noted can be improved by discussing the nature Of the planning activity that is often occurring under some other title. A statewide master plan for higher education may be an instrument for aiding in integrating a system of diverse educational institutions. It need not be a tool for con- straining and dictating. The master plan may provide direction and support for institutions in order that they may service various clienteles. In order to so function, the planners must be able to con- ceptualize the role and scope of each of the institutions in the higher educational system. Based on the master plan statements, discussion and criticism of the statements, and the imperatives for planning from the literature eighty eight criteria for community college role and scope state— ments for master plans of higher education were derived, which may provide the needed conceptual framework. The analysis of master plans, the synthesis Of collected community college role and scope statements and the generation of criteria were each organized around the Typology of Community College Characteristics in order to develop the criteria. The literature imperatives were arranged according to eight headings which emerged from the topics and issues in the literature. The Typology was developed from readings in the professional literature and from dialogue with experts and 148 practitioners in the community college field. There were nineteen characteristics arranged according to three headings viz., functions, descriptive institutional traits, and contributions. Underscored in the study was the need for planners to understand the need for institutional goals which relate to future student needs and the need to recognize that the crisis facing our institutions is qualitative and not quantitative. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Power and Conflict in the University. Baldridge, J. Victor. John Wiley & Sons, 1971. New York: Berdahl, Robert O. Statewide Coordination of Higher Education. Washington, D.C., American Council on Education, 1971. Borg, Walter R. Educational Research: An Introduction. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1963. Brouillet, Frank B. An Analysis of the State of Washington's Method for Coordinating Higher Education. An unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, 1968. Bases for Poliey in Higher Education. McGraw-Hill Book CO., 1965 Brubacher, John S. New York: Establishing New Senior Colleges. Southern Regional Educational Brumbaugh, A. J. Atlanta, Georgia: Board, 1966. ------ , Guidelines for the Establishment of Community Junior Colleges. 1967. and Nicos E. Devletoglon. Academicain Basic Books Inc., 1970. Buchanan, James M. New York: Anarchy. Community and Junior Colleges in Perspective, A Report of the Task Force on Community and Junior Colleges of Denver, the Education Commission of the States. Colorado: 1971. Comprehensive Planning for Postsecondary Education, A Report of the Task Force on Statewide Comprehensive Planning for Postsecondary Education of the Education Denver, Colorado: 1971. New York: Commission of the States. Shaping Educational Poliey. Conant, James Bryant. MCGraw—Hill Book CO., 1964. Governance of Colleges and Universities. McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc., 1960. and Calvin B. T. Lee. Whose Goals for Washington, D.C., 1968. Charles C. American Higher Education. Corson, John J. New York: Dobbins, 149 150 Duff, Sir James and Robert O. Berdahl. Universit Government in Canada. Toronto: Univer51ty of Toronto Press, 1966. Evans, N. Dean and Ross L. Neagley. Innovative Community Colleges. Prentice-Hall, 1973. Planning and Developing Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Eurich, Alvin. Campus 1980. l 968. The Culture of San New York: Delacorte Press, Foote, Caleb, Henry Mazer and Associates. the University: Governance and Education. Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1968. Aspirations, Enrollments, and Resources: Washington, D.C.: Froomkin, Joseph. The Challenge to Higher Education. Office of Education, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1970. New York: Glenny, Lyman A. Autonomy of Public Colleges. I959. McGraw—Hill, Statewide Planning Glenny, Lyman and George B. Weathersby. for Postsecondary Education: Issues and Design. Western Interstate Commission Boulder, Colorado: for Higher Education, 1971. Glenny, Lyman, Robert O. Berdahl, Ernest Palola and James G. Paltridge. Coordinating Higher Education for the 70's. Berkeley: University of California, 1971. Hallein, Joe. "Master Planning in Higher Education - A Bibliography". An unpublished mimeographed annotated bibliography: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada, 1971. "State Planning and Coordination of " Educational Henderson, Algo D. Public and Private Higher Education, Record. 47 (1966). Higher Education in the States. Vol. 2, No. 4 and No. 5, pp. 45-88. Denver, Colorado: May-July, 1971. Richard Meeth, Power and Authority: San Francisco: Hodgkinson, Harold L., Transformation of Campus Governance. Jossey~Bass, 1971. . Halstead, Kent, Handbook for Statewide Planning in Higher Government Printing Education. Washington, D.C.: Office, 1971. 15l Hurlbert, Allan. State Master Plans for Community Colle es. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday, 1969. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the Unversity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964. Mayhew, Lewis B. Arrogance on Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. Martorona, S. V. "Developments in State-level Governance," Junior College Journal. December, 1968—January, 1969, p. 25. McConnell, T. R. A General Pattern for American Public Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book CO., Inc., 1962. Nisbet, Robert. Community and Power. (formerly The Quest for Community). New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Palola, Ernest. "Academic Reform: A Challenge for State— wide Planners," The Research Reporter. The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1970. ------ . "A Challenge for Statewide Planners," The Research Re orter. The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, 1968a. ------ , Timothy Lehman and William R. Blischke. Higher Education by Design: The Sociology of Planning. Berkeley, California: Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, 1970. Petersen, John Chresten. Community Centeredness and Institutional Adaptability Under State and Local Control. Berkeley, University of California: An unpublished Thesis, 1969. Peterson, Richard E. "The Crisis of Purpose: Definition and Uses of Institutional Goals," Report 5, Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, October, 1970. Pliner, E. Editor. Coordination and Planning. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Public Affairs Research Council, 1966. Reich, Charles. The Greening of America. New York: Random House, 1970. 152 Richmond, George. "An Alternative to the Deschooled Society," Saturday Review. June 24, 1972, pp. 44-45. Small, James Matthew. College Coordination in Alberta: System Development and Appraisal. An unpublished dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972. Smith, Max. Planning Communiterolleges. East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Community—Junior College Cooperation, Michigan State University, 1959. Stoops, John A., Editor. The Community College in Higher Education. Bethlehem, Pennsylvania: Lehigh Univer51ty, 1966. Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Usdan, Michael D., David W. Minor, and Emanuel Hurwitz, Jr. Education and State Politics: The Developing Relationship Between Elementary-Secondary and Higher Education, New York: Teachers College Press, 1969. Uhl, Norman P. Identifying Institutional Goals. Durham, North Carolina: National Laboratory for Higher Education, 1971. Willingham, Warren W. Free—Access Higher Education. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1970. Wilson, Logan. Emerging Patterns in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1965. ------ . Shaping American Higher Education. Washington D.C., American Council of Educatibn, 1972. Yarrington, Roger. Junior Colleges: 50 States/50 Years. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. 153 Statewide Master Plans of Higher Education Florida. Florida Post—High- -School Education: A Comprehen- sive Plan for the 70' Tallahassee, Florida:5 Select Council on Post-High- School Education, March, 1970. Illinois. A Master Plan for Higher Education in Illinois, 3 volumes. Springfield, Illinois: Board of Higher Education; V. 1, 1964; V. 2, 1966; V. 3,1971. Michigan. State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1970. Minnesota. Meeting the Challenge. Recommendations for State Action in Meeting Minnesota's Needs for Post- Secondary Education, Comprehensive Plan - Phase II. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Commission, January, 1971. Mississippi. Strengthening Mississippi's Higher Education Through DiversificatiOn, Cooperation, and Coordination. Jackson, Mississippi: The Board of Trustees of State Institutions of Higher Learning, November, 1966. New Jersey. Draft, New Jersey Master Plan for Higher Education Number 2. New Jersey: Department of Higher Education, December, 1970. Ohio. Ohio Master Plan for Public Policy in Higher Education 1971. Ohio: Ohio Board of Regents, March 1971. Oklahoma. Oklahoma Higher Education. A State Plan for the 1970's. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, July, 1971. in Oregon, Phase I. Salem, Oregon: Educational Coordinating Council, January, 1969. Pennsylvania. The 1971 Master Plan for Higher Education in Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: State Board of Education, May 14, 1971. i l l \ Oregon. Goals, Guidelines and Recommendations for Education Virginia: State Council for Higher Education for Virginia, July, 1969. —————— . A Proposed Master Plan for a State—Wide System of Community College Education in Virginia. Virginia: January, 1967. Virginia. Criteria for New Colleges, Background Papers. i l l L APPENDICES 154 APPENDIX 1 E.C.S. TASK FORCE REASONS FOR STATEWIDE MASTER PLANS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 1. The apparent scarcity of resources for further support and expansion of postsecondary education at state and national levels. 2. The increasing emphasis on public accountability for all forms of education and postsecondary edu- cation in particular. 3. The apparent imbalance of educational products and manpower needs including an apparent present oversupply of certain types of highly educated manpower and an undersupply of others. 4. The aggravated financial plight of many private higher educational institutions. 5. The resistance of many taxpayers and legislators to increase taxation. 6. General acceptance at the national and state levels of the goal of equality of postsecondary educational opportunity commensurate with individual ability, need, and interest for all citizens regardless of economic status. 7. The increasing emphasis upon postsecondary occupational education as a viable alternative to more traditional modes of higher education. 8. The emergence of new and more sophisticated informational and management tools for postsecondary educational institutions and systems. 9. The continuing public concern and uneasiness related to campus unrest. 10. The increasing recognition of the desirability of institutional and programmatic complementation rather than duplication and competition. 11. The basic need for a rational sense of direction. (E.C.S. Task Force on Comprehensive Planning for Post- secondary Education, 1971:1—2). 155 APPENDIX 2 EVOLUTION OF COORDINATING PATTERNS WITHIN STATES 1940 1950 1960 1965 Prior to to to to to State 1940 1949 1959 1964 1969 Alabama I I I I IIIb Alaska IV IV IV IV IV Arizona I IV IV IV IV Arkansas I I II IIIb IIIb California I II II IIIa IIIa Colorado I I I II IIIc Connecticut I I I I IIIc Delaware I I I I I Florida IV IV IV IV IV Georgia IV IV IV IV IV Hawaii IV IV IV IV IV Idaho IV IV IV IV IV Illinois I II IIIb IIIc IIIc Indiana I I II II II Iowa IV IV IV IV IV Kansas IV IV IV IV IV Kentucky IIIa IIIa IIIa IIIa IIIb Louisiana I I I I IIIc Maine I I I I IV Maryland I I I IIIa(1962) IIIb(l963) IIIb Massachusetts I I I I IIIc Michigan I I II II(1961) IIIb(l964) IIIb Minnesota I I II II IIIa Mississippi IV Iv Iv IV IV Missouri I I II IIIb IIIb Montana IV IV IV IV IV Nebraska I I I I II Nevada IV IV IV IV IV New Hampshire I I I IV IV New Jersey I I I I IIIC New Mexico I I IIIC IIIC IIIc New York IIIC IIIC IIIC IIIC IIIC (Berdahl, 1971:34) NOTE: The categories are as IIIb = Coordinating board; public follows: I = No state agency II = Voluntary association IIIa = Coordinating board: institutional majority: advisory power IIIC = II IV majority; advisory powers Coordinating board; public majority; regulatory powers Consolidated governing board 156 APPENDIX 3 MEDSKER TYPOLOGY OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONTROL PATTERNS (BROUILLET, 1968:47-48) A. These states in which two—year colleges are fully state controlled: 1. Under a separate board for community colleges as the principal governing body; 2. Under a board responsible for other institutions of higher education, although perhaps with a subunit primarily responsible for community colleges; 3. Under the general jurisdiction of one or more state universities; B. Those states in which two-year colleges are controlled by local communities under the super— vision of the state: 1. With the state's function performed by The State Board of Education and/or the Department of Public Instruction: 2. With the state's function performed by a separate board for community colleges; 3. With the state's function performed by a board responsible for other institutions of higher education: The first three may be considered as centralized, roughly dividing categories into "state" and "local" control patterns. The state—controlled group Includes less than a third of the colleges and only a seventh of the total enrollment as of the Fall Term, 1968. 157 APPENDIX 3 (Continued) Figure 2-1 Number of Community Colleges and Enrollment by Medsker Control Categories Enroll- Percent Control Number Number Percent ment of Total Cate- of of of October Enroll— gory States Colleges Colleges 1968 ment "state 1 7 88 12 111,000 6.2 2 6 29 4 36,500 2 10 97 13.2 110,500 6.1 "local" 4 15 223 30.5 401,800 22.1 5 7 179 24.5 837,300 46.3 6 4 115 15.7 309,000 17.1 731 99.9 1,806,100 99.9 e m m a 388$. puma page $05.50 Ego wuguhommo ImonSoo Imon>md wuHSaEUo 6:089. :033 Hmcofl HmaoOm 2033mm mo ”Ema new 2on coaumosflm cofluwosmvm IaumcH L658 Mo 0580 Enema mfiomumdb hoax/0Q \UHQB Imflafim. Eggnog—50 1.33qu mfisowme Snug IHNHEH IuquH HchmHmm oEbcoom JHOQQO ago v 8 5 1 m N H 3H4 Susanne $39869 683mg . mo ~33de 8385me gammgoo Hwflmudm IHMQOH mmofirnmm Snooze. mfiugEbo umoo ~ gong mfisfifione Sago 338325 luwoo> Ego HMOQH 553» Log _ .meE 83838 “whoa oegmumum 5 mpcflcwuwpm @3038 an omofloo mflSéBo ms» 8 gnome. moflumflsmuomnmso 8HH