INFORMATION T O USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dpiipendent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of technique is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
I.T h e sign or "target" for paget apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page ft) I f it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spli cad into the film along with adjacent pages,
This may have necessitated cuttiing thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete co ntinuity.
2. When an Image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photoMirapher suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and th us cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the atlj acent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chinrt, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photograplher followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photolng at the upper
left hand comer of a large shcet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with e small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning bullow the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate ihat the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" If essential to tie understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, givin;i the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reprodi cad.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.

Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zoeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48100

73-20,338
GATZA, Raymond Eugene, 1928A STUDY OF THE STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND
CRITERIA FOR CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
IN SELECT MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1973
Education, curriculum development

University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

A STUDY OF THE STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND CRITERIA
FOR CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING

IN
SELECT MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES

By
Raymond E. Gatza

A THESIS
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

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OP THE STRUCTURES. PROCESSES AND CRITERIA
FOR CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING
IN
SELECT MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
Raymond E. G&tza

The major purpose of this study vas to describe the structures,
processes and criteria for making decisions about programs and courses
of study in a sampling of Michigan community colleges. A correlative
purpose vas to describe personal and group Involvements in the decision­
making process and the nature of their responsibilities.

The relation­

ship between the community services of the community college and the
community education programs of the public schools vas also explored.
Decision-making vas recognized at the outset as the central act and
problem of administrators. What is taught and learned in the community
college vas visualized as singularly important to(the community a college
serves.
A review of pertinent literature reported the basic issues in cur­
ricular decision-making in general, and specific fundamental decision­
making Issues in each of the several community college curriculum.

Ex­

ternal influences arising from the national and regional, state and local
levels and internal Influences deriving from governance structure were

Raymond E. Gatza
reported.

Traditional processes of program and course selection vere

reviewed, and a systems analysis approach to curriculum development
vas described.
The rationale for selecting the colleges to be studied vas then ex­
plained, and a description of the colleges selected given.

The method

and description of the study vas presented, and vas followed by the
research auctions and related hypotheses.
Structured interviews vere conducted In three colleges following a
pilot study in another college.

Six major interviews, each of approxi­

mately two houra length, vere conducted with carefully chosen respondents
identified on the organization chart or othervlse noted as important in
the curriculum decision-making process.

More than 250 questions embodied

in a 33-point lnterview-gulde vere discussed in these Interviews.

Short

interviews vith several other persons in each college— faculty and
administrators— averaged 1 5 -3 0 minutes and had as their purpose either
reaffirmation of specific information given or resolution of doubts
expressed.
Findings in each college vere reported, and a statement of accept­
ance or rejection made for each hypothesis.

Data gathered from the three

colleges vere then considered together under each hypothesis*

The indi­

vidual and collective results of hypothesis' acceptance or rejection vere
charted.
Conclusions to this Study are the following:
1. The procedural (structural) process by* which curricular decisions are
made are not completely and fully described in print or publication
in any college.

Raymond E. Oatza
2.

Decision points In the procedural process are clearly established in
each college studied. The relative importance of each decision point*
however* and the division of responsibilities among them is generally
obscure.

3. Divisional Chairmen are particularly important in the curricular
decision-making process. The dimensions of their control is contin­
gent upon administrative influence and power.
1*. Comprehensive written criteria are not found at any decision point
in the processes of the colleges studied and often none are written.
5. A systems approach to curricular decision-making is observed in1one
of the three colleges studied. Traditional approaches are found in
the other two.
6 . Community Involvement in the curricular decision-making process is

apparent in the community service curriculum* but practically reduces
to the political influence of the board and the academic advisement
of selected and Invited committees in other curricula. Student in­
volvement is minimal or non-existent.
7. Participative involvement in curriculum development depends upon an
administrative Interest and faculty cooperation.
8 . Authority/control in matters of curricular decisions is shared by

administrators and faculty in two colleges. Administrative primacy
or control is evident in the third.
9*

Curricula confusion and imbalance between academic and occupational
programs/courses* resulting from an organizational by-pass of the
chief instructional officer by the director of occupational programs*
is not a problem in any college.

10.

A curriculum committee is found in one college. Functions usually
ascribed to such a committee are performed by committees that are
responsible for many activities, curriculum among them* in the other
two. The curriculum committee is not generally recognized as one of
the most important college committees. Its functions* and the cur­
ricula responsibilities of its surrogate, does not constitute a major
role in curriculum development. Their functions are largely unclear
and/or unacceptable to administration* faculty* students* and members
themselves. Released time and special compensation is given members
in one college.

11.

Programs (professional) accrediting associations regulate specific
curriculum. The North Central Association and the various State
agencies are not generally viewed as regulatory. Although their
influence is recognized* they are thought to parallel* for the most
part, ideals and regulations internal to the college.

Raymond E. Gatza
12.

Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on cur­
ricular matters and current relevant literature is unassigned and
assumed.

13.

Pragmatic concerns (I.e., what is best for the college as an insti­
tution) govern decisions when resources are too limited to admit more
than one of several new courses or programs of equal importance into
the college curricula.

lb.

The colleges view themselves as leading agencies of community
education.

15. Advisory Boards to the Community Services Division of the colleges do
not require and do not specifically Beek qualified representation
from the public school?* ■ community education interest.
16.

17

A unified relationship between the community service efforts of the
colleges and the community education efforts of the public schools
is not found. Leadership in effecting such a unified relationship
has not been demonstrated in any college.

. and
Community Service non-credit academic programs/courses and activities—
in one college credit-bearing courses also— are offered without
the need of approval from academic and occupational administration and
faculty.

18 . A specifically designed developmental (remedial) curriculum is not

established in any college, and the need for such a curriculum is
not recognized. Divisions handle Individual problem students.
19. A specifically designated general curriculum is not found in any
college. General courses are accentuated and frequently evaluated
in one college, and are decided by transfer institutions in the
other two.
20.

Continuing (adult) education credit-bearing courses are not distin­
guished from academic or occupational curricula in two colleges and
are offered by the Community Service Division in the other. Con­
tinuing education non-credit academic programs/courses, as also
cultural, enrichment, skill-training, and hobby-training programs/
courses, are offered in each college as a community service.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The production of a dissertation is the vork of many people who have
cooperated in numerous ways. Special assistance and encouragement came
from the persons who are specifically mentioned herein.
A very warm expression of appreciation is given to Dr. James H.
Nelson, chairman of the doctoral guidance committee. His sensitive,
constructive, and humane counsel and leadership have been major factors
in the completion of this study.
A sincere expression of gratitude is extended to Dr. Clyde M.
Campbell, particularly for his friendship and guidance during the intern
year, and Dr. Max R. Raines and Professor Bob Repas for their advice and
encouragement.
This study could not have been completed without the overwhelming
support of the respondents to this study who were so patient and helpful
in lengthy personal interviews. To these persons the investigator ex­
presses his deepest gratitude.
A word of thanks goes to a very good
friend, Mr. WilliamP. Mlnardo,
Director of Community School Servicesin Flint, Michigan, for his personal
Interest in me and in my work, and to Mr. Frederick Robbins, Dean of
Liberal Arts and Sciences at Genesee Community College, who was especially
helpful at critical moments during this study.
Sincere appreciation goes to the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation for
the coveted fellowship award which made this Btudy possible.
The last and most significant acknowledgment goes to my wife, Lucy,
for her many hours of work and her patient, loving encouragement. With­
out her unfailing support this study would never have become a reality.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER
I.

PAGE

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM------------------------- 1
Introduction-— — — -— — --— — ------ — -- — ----- 1
The Problem-— — --- -----— — — — ----- — — — — — — 1*
Significance of and Need for the Study----- — ------ 8
Historical Perspectives— ---— -— — ---—
8
Philosophy and Purpose of the Community
College-—
— — -- ----------— -- — — i3
Community College Curriculum: A Result of
Decision—
-- — ------- -— -- — — — — --- -18
Curricular Decision Making: Current, Vital,
Comprehensive------ — -------- --- --- — — 21
Purpose of this Study-------------------- — ----- 23
Research Questions— -— — — -—
— -------------- 2k
Assumptions to this Study—
--- — — — - — — —— 25
Delimitations of this Study----------- --- — — — — 26
Definition of Terms----- -— -— — — -------- — — — 27
Overview—
---- — — — — — ------2 8

II.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE---------------------------- 31*
Basic Issues in Curriculum Decision Making------- —
Institutional Goals and Decision Making— ---- — —
Fundamental Decision-Making Issues in Community
College Curricula----- — -— ---------- — — —
Transfer Curriculum---------- — --Major Problems in Designing a Transfer

35
1*9
52

52

Occupational Curriculum—
— —
--- — --- — — — 6U
Major Problems in Designing an Occupational
General Education Curriculum------------ -------- 81
Major Problems in Designing a General
Education Curriculum — ----------— 01*
Remedial (Developmental) Curriculum— ------ — ----- 90
Major Problems in Designing a Remedial

iii

PAGE

CHAPTER

Adult or Continuing Education Curriculum— — — ---- 97
Major Problems in Designing on Adult or
Continuing Education Curriculum
— — — -9 9
Community Service Program*— — — — —
—
102
Major Problems in Designing Community
Service Programs—
— — — — — — — 10U
Influences upon Curlricular Decision Making— ----- 107
National and Regional Influences upon
Curricular Decision Making—
— — --- 109
State Influences upon Curricular
Decision Making
------- —
-----— 116
Michigan State Influences upon Curriculum
Decision Making-— -— — ----- — ----- — --- 123
Local Influences on Curricular Decision
An Overview of National, Regional, State and Local
Influences on Curricular Decision Making— —
lk2
The Progress of Program and Course Selection™
1^3
A Systems Approach to Curriculum Development
— 156

III.

METHODOLOGY OF STUDY----------------------

171*

-

Background Preparation—
--------- --- -------- 17^
Selection of Community Colleges for this
Study: Rationale------------ ■
— — ----------- i0i
Sources of Data Described------ — — — ---------181
Grand Rapids Junior College—
— — ------l8l
Delta College— — — —
----- -------- — -183
Muskegon Community College— ---------- — — 186
Plan of Study-----— — -------------- — — ---- 189
Method and Description of Study--- -- — — — 189
Procedural Plan of Interviewer— ------- — — — — 193
Summary—
— — — — — ^
— — ——— ——— —— ———19^*
IV. PRESENTATION AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS-------------- 196
Explanatory Note—

— —

------------- — ------196

Summary Remarks to the Studyof College A—

—

215

Summary Remarks to the Study ofCollege B--------- 236
Summary Remarks to the Study ofCollege C
— --— 255
Summary and Discussion
--- — — --------- ---- — 258

iv

CHAPTER

PAGE

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEIfDATIONS---------- 267
Summary of Study------------------------------- 267
Conclusions to this Study: Existing Conditions
in Colleges Studied------------ — --- — — — 272
Discussion and Recommendations— --- — — -------- 27 *+
Implications for Future Research— --------------- 202
BIBLIOGRAPHY----------------------------------------20U
APPENDIX A:

Structured Interviev-Guide---------------- 302

APPENDIX B:

Organization Charts of CollegesStudied----- 316

Muskegon Community College—
— —
—
------ 3 1 7
319
Delta College—
— — --------------------321
Grand Rapids Junior College---—

v

CHAPTER I
Statement of the Problem

Introduction
An argument which is ancient pitted opposing extremist philosophical
perspectives against one another.

The Philosophers of Being with

Parmenides viewed being as Immutable:

"All is; there is no becoming."

Heraclitus and other Philosophers of Becoming negated stability in any­
thing:

"All is becoming; there is no is." Alvin Toffler*s current and

widely discussed Future Shock updates an argument that was once specula­
tive and perhaps fanciful.

Not recognized as an extremist, Toffler would

appear, however, more comfortable with the "becomlnglsts," and perhaps
most of his contemporaries would agree with him.

Change is a natural

phenomenon, everyone concedes, but Toffler argues that the rapidity of
change that the whole of society has witnessed in recent years and will
continue to experience at a growing rate in the future will create a tre­
mendous coping problem that will increasingly challenge the psychological
health and life of every man.* Organizations, as moral persons, will ex­
perience similar problems of coping.

Coping ability, or survival, will

depend upon foresight and planning, healthy psychological gearing, the
creation of ideas and vehicles to meet problems as they begin to develop,
before they become critical, before they become overwhelming!

^Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock. New York:

1

Random House, 1970.

"Organisations are social unitB (or human groupings) deliberately
constructed and reconstructed (underscoring mine) to seek specific goals."
Etzloni defines organizational goals as "that state of affairs vhlch the
p

organization as a collectivity la trying to bring about."

Ooals are ex­

pressed in the philosophy and purposes vhlch an organization delineatest
and they are realized through effective, efficient decisions in keeping
vith them.

"Organizations are constructed to be the most effective and

efficient social units.

The actual effectiveness of a specific organiza­

tion is determined by the degree to vhlch it realizes its goals.

The

efficiency of an organization is measured by the amount of resources used
to produce a unit of output.(underscoring mine)
The goals of an organization are not easily set, but unless they are
clearly established and set forth, they can be mistaken even by those who
constitute the human grouping.

Etzloni cautions, for example, againBt

equating organizational goals vith output, though they are related.11 A
school's unit of output, for example, is clearly the Btudent.

Whether

the finished student or the general velfare of society is the school's
goal cannot perhaps be ansvered categorically, or at least readily.
Once goals for an organization have been established, decisions
directed tovard them become an on-going process.
affected by many variables.

Decision-making is

"Executive vork is not that of the

■^Etzloni, Amitai, Modern Organizations. Englevood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196 h, p. 3. Etzloni is quoting Talcott Parsons,
Structure and Process in Modern Societies, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press, I960, p. 1 7 .

3
organisation i tut the specialised vork of maintaining the organisation in
operation. " 1

Whether an organisation is a corporation* an army, school*

hospital* prison...its maintenance depends upon executive administration
vhlch is "a generalised type of behavior to be found in all human organlft
3
sations.'
Central to administration is decision making.
Griffiths de­
limits the administrative role and responsibility tovard an organisation
by specifying its function as "developing and regulating the decision­
making process in the moBt effective manner possible," * 1 and places* as the
criteria by vhlch an organisation may be evaluated* "the quality of deci­
sions vhich the organisation makes plus the efficiency vith vhlch the
5

organisation puts the decisions into effect."
At the beginning of the tventieth century, "the prevailing attitude
vas that educational problems could be resolved through appeals to five
sources:

common sense, authority* Intuition* revelation, or 'reason'."*’

Sax recognises that dependable knovledge about education has come from
various of these sources* and he does not vlBh necessarily to exclude
appeals to them in decision making.

He does take the position*-hovever*

^Chester Barnard, The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press* 1956, p. 215,
^Daniel Griffiths* Administrative Theory, Nev York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts* Inc.* 1959* p. 71.
3Ibid.. p. 92.
**Ibid.. p. 73.
5Ibid.. p. 113.
^Gilbert Sax* T?mp->yieal Foundations of Educational Research. Englevood
Cliffs* Nev Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.* 1966* p. 2.

that "science provides the most reliable means for obtaining knowledge
about empirical relationships and that education can be studied
scientifically."^
The Problem
Since decision making is so important, "the central process of administration,"

an administrator needs acute awareness of the sources of

knowledge and of all forces that cause things to happen.

If education is

to be scientific in gaining its objectives, fundamental recognition of those
parts of a decision-making process that are generally recognized by theorists
Q

in administration

I

and research appears basically useful and wise.

Expert

care In validating premises that precede decisions can then be founded in a
scientific process.
Decision making is involved in every facet and phase of an organiza­
tion's life.

This study will look at select community colleges in Michigan

as organizations of focus, and will examine specifically their processes of
"directing and controlling life"*’ in curricular decision making.

The cur­

riculum— what is taught and learned and how it is taught and learned, is
the essence of the community college.

It is the specific process upon which

organizational goals are contingent.

Effective and efficient realization of

organizational goals is the criterion of evaluation.^
The review of literature and preliminary investigation that preceded
this study revealed no generally accepted procedural model for curricular
^Ibid., p. 6 .
2

Griffiths, op. cit.. p. 92.
Ibid., p. 9U.

**Sax, op. d t .. p. 6 ff.
^Griffiths, op. d t ., p. 72.
6

decision making that could serve as a guide to administrators in exercis­
ing their responsibilities to make goal-oriented things happen (direct
and control life) through effective and efficient decisions.

Indeed, the

general absence of correlation between statements made in college cata­
logues, newsletters, and brochures with reality are more apparent in the
literature!^
If a model of the decision-making process is to be designed, certain
influences upon its characteristics are immediately recognized in even a
cursory review of literature.

For example, it will need to reflect the

recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, sugges­
tions and guidelines of the American Association of Junior Colleges,
leadership and/or other influences of the State Community College Board,,
and perhapB the Michigan Community College Association, regulatory and/or
advisory pressure of the state agencies upon the curriculum, legislative
requirements, financial strength or weakness, including the analyses re­
quired for the Planning Program Evaluation System, new to the State of
Michigan.

Collective bargaining that brings pressure upon decisions affect­

ing curricula may affect the design of a model.

The community education

efforts of the K-12 system will deserve attention, too.
efforts obviously is to be avoided.

Overlapping of

The community college and the K-12

system evidently should function harmoniously, though perhapB at differ­
ent levels and vith differing emphases, each helping the other in a unified
objective to serve the people who make up their constituencies.

Information

^Tom Spencer, "Is Our Integrity Above Reproach?", Junior College
Journal, Vol. Ill: June, 1971» P» 20-23.

6
from the U* S. Office of Educationt state and national current emphases
on model requirements, requests from the community for service, plans and
programs in other colleges...

All these influences vlll hear upon the

characteristics of a curricular decision-making model!
Each college, in addition, needs continually to search out for It­
self whatever is needed for its vitality in fulfilling Its responsibility
to provide for all the post-hlgh-school educational needs of the community.
Any portended model, therefore, will include lntra-institutlonal influ­
ences that help fasion it.

Faculty advisement, it will be noted, for

example, cannot be considered ancillary but is essential.
A model that will serve the needs of students planning further edu­
cation in senior colleges will incorporate the guidelines of those insti­
tutions.

Local businesses, industries and professions require in-put

into model-deslgn if students' career education will be adequate and use­
ful. The students themselves and the whole community needs a voice in
any model construction, for its needs are diverse and its aptitudes for
education varied.

Model flexibility is a must!

Seventeen of the Michigan public community colleges are accredited
by the North Central Association.

The remaining colleges, Including

branch campuses, are either recognized candidates for accreditation or
are in a correspondent status, having indicated intent to work toward
accreditation and appearing to have the potential for attaining this goal
within a reasonable time.*

*1971-1972 Directory of Institutions of Higher Education, Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.

7
Various professional associations are currently accrediting programs
in eight colleges.

The national League for Nursing accredits an associate

degree program in nursing at Delta and Henry Ford Community College, and a
practical nursing program at Mid-Michigan.

The American Medical

Association, Council on Medical Education, accredits radiologic technology
programs at Delta, Kellogg, and Washtenav Colleges.

The American Dental

Association, Council on Dental Education, accredits programs for dental
assistants at Delta and Genesee Community Colleges and in dental hygiene
at Genesee and Grand Rapids!^
It is expected that each of these accrediting associations place
constraints upon curricular decision makers as do all the factors and
forces that contribute to a decision-making model or to the process of
curricular decision making, with the clear view of a real model or with­
out it.
Fundamental, of course, to any model is concern with "determining
the nature and degree of existing conditions1' 2 currently obtaining.

An

Investigation into the curricular decision-making processes in select
Michigan community colleges, the focal institutions of this study, will
provide basic information necessary
of a meaningful model.

sb

a starting point in the creation

Remediating or ameliorative action can be taken

1 Ibid.

2Irvin J. Lehmann, William A. Mehrens, (Editors), Educational
Research. Readings in Focus. Hew York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc.,
1971, p. 95.

only after the current status of a problem Is described.

Once this Infor­

mation Is available, resolutions to existing problems can begin. 1
Significance of and Heed for this Study
Historical Perspectives
The Junior College Movement is engaging and fascinating.

2

For the

purposes of this study, Thornton's historical developmental patterns are
of special interest:
The present-day community Junior college has evolved in three
major stages. The firBt and longest lasted from 1850 to 1920.
During that period the idea and the acceptable practice of the
Junior college, a separate institution offering the first two
years of baccalaureate curriculums, vere achieved. Next, the
concept of terminal and semi-professional education in the
Junior college...gained widespread currency vith the foundation
of the American Association of Junior Colleges in 1920. Ry the
end of World War II in 19^5» this idea vas an established part
of the Junior college concept. The changeB in post-hlgh-school
education brought by the var emphasized a third element of re­
sponsibility, service to the adult of the community, and so
the period from 19^5 to the present has seen the development
of the operative definition of the community Junior college.3
The community college has become the fastest growing segment of the
educational system, and has rapidly taken its place in education's "Jacob's

^Sax, op. dt.. p. 36 .
^See, e.g. Ralph Fields, The Community College Movement. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962, p. 15ff. Also, James Thornton, The
Community Junior College. Third Edition, New York: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., 1972, p. U6 ff and others. Fields notes that historical research in­
to the beginning of the Junior College Movement has not yet occupied the
serious efforts of an historian. See also The Open-Door Colleges. Policies
for Community Colleges. A special Report and Recommendations by the
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., June 1970, Chapter 3, "The Growth and Development of
Community Colleges," p. 9ff. This chapter highlights several important
causative factors in the community college expansion in the United States.
^Thornton, Ibid., p. U7 .

9
Ladder."

"Public Junior colleges now operate in forty-nine of the fifty

states and enroll more than two million students.

Countless other

Americans attend, non-credit courses In continuing or adult education or
participate In college-sponsored cultural and recreational programs,
conferences and workshops."* In the public community college movement,
growth has been steady.

Between 1959 and 1969, numbers of colleges have

grown from 390 to 791* and enrollments from 551*760 to 2,051,1*93. 2

"There

are now over 1,000 two-year colleges in the United States, and in recent
years new colleges have been created at the rate of about one each week."
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education projects enrollments for 19^0

American Junior Colleges, 0th Edition, Edmund J. Olaezer, Jr. Editor,
Jane Follett Cooke, Associate Editor, American Council of Education,
Washington, D. C., 1971* p. 3. Figures finalized by the American
Association of Community and Junior Colleges (AACJC) show a total of
2,680,762 students registered for courses in community and Junior colleges
and technical schools in the fall of 1971. Of these 2,5^3,901 students
attended public community colleges and 136,861 attended independent twoyear Institutions. The AACJC'a office of Data Management on 1,111 col­
leges estimates that in 1972 enrollments in American two-year colleges
have hit the three million mark. Community and Junior College Journal,
Vol. 1*3, Ho. 1: August/September 1972, p. 3U,
2
Ibid., p. 3. The latest figures from the AACJC office of Data
Management (fall, 1972) are 1,111 colleges and enrollment estimates of
three million. Community and Junior College Journal quoted in footnote
one.
3

The Open-Door Colleges, op. cit.. p. 12. The AACJC office of Data
Management lists 1,111 colleges and 2,5^3,901 studentB enrolled in the
fall of 1971 and an estimated number of three million students currently
enrolled in community and Junior colleges and technical schools. Community
and Junior College Journal, quoted above in footnote one.

10
between 3,100,000 and 1*,1*00,000, depending upon certain assumptions for
the future.^'decent figures show that community college students account for
nearly thirty percent of all undergraduates and twenty-five percent of
1

students in higher education in the nation* ^ The age span of the

student bodies is likewise of interest in this Btudy:

"Approximately

half of the students in the two-year colleges are adults, ranging in age

Leland L. Medsker, Dale Tillery, Breaking the Access Barriers; A
Profile of Two-Year Colleges* Hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971*
p. 26. Three assumptions are the bases for three projections: "For
Projection A, the assumption is that the proportion of undergraduates in
the two-year colleges will remain the same as that in 1968 (29 percent).
For Projection B, it is asBurned that 60 percent of the future growth in
undergraduate enrollment will be absorbed in two-year colleges. (This
60 percent figure has been exceeded in four states during the past fiveyear period.)
For Projection C, it is assumed that the future annual increase
centage of undergraduate enrollment in the two-year colleges in
will be the same as that estimated for each state from data for
five-year period. According to Projection C, the proportion of
graduates enrolled in the two-year colleges, including two-year
of universities, will rise from 29 percent in the United States
to about 35 percent in 1980 ."

in per­
each state
the past
under­
branches
in 1966

Most recent estimates by the AACJC Office of Data Management (Community
and Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*3, Ho. 1: August/September 1972, p. 3**.)
give these fall enrollment projections:
Year
1972
1973
1971*
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981

Public
2,797,000
3,01*7,000
3,293,000
3,539,000
3,785,000
>*,032,000
1*,278,000
l*,52l*,000
U,1*70,000
5,017,000

Independent
ll*2,000
11*6,000
11*9,000
153,000
156,000
160,000
163.000
167.000
170.000
171*,000

2The Open-Door Colleges, op. cit., p. 3.

Total
2,939,000
3,193,000
3,1*1*2,000
3 ,692,000
3 ,91*1,0 0 0
1*,192,000
1*,1*1*1,0 0 0
i»,691,000
1*,91*0,0 0 0
5 ,191,000

from twenty-two to seventy or more, with the median age of about twentyfive years."1
Michigan vas among the first states to introduce the two-year college—
Grand Rapids in 1911*, Highland Park, 1918* and Flint and Port Huron in 1923.
The early two-year colleges developed as divisions of the public
schools and vere formed as upward extensions of the K-12 public school
system.

Close articulation with the public school curricula, shared

faculty, and administrative staffs and utilization of high school faclli2

ties vere common.

"These two-year colleges, or Junior colleges as they were called,
vere organized in response to a growing Interest In higher education.
They vere designed to meet the needs of a limited number of Btudents for
3
whom a four-year college avay from home vas not feasible."
Shoup, in his doctoral study, continues:
The enrollment in Michigan Community Colleges grew slowly until
the 1950's. By then the community college had developed a repu­
tation for its excellent vocational-occupational programs in
addition to its traditional transfer courses. As the demand
for occupational training beyond high school was stimulated by
rapid advance in science and technology, and as the educational
aspirations of the general populace moved upward, community
colleges experienced a vigorous growth. From 1930 to I960, the

1Ibid., p. 6.
2Clyde E. Blocker, Robert H. Plummer, Richard C. Richardson, The TwoYear College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1965 » P. 25.
^Charles A. Shoup, A Study of Faculty Collective Bargaining in
Michigan Community Colleges. Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 19^9, p. 2^.

12
number of Community Colleges grev from nine to sixteen and the
enrollment multiplied to over 2 7 ,000 .
Growth of the public two-year college in Michigan has been even more
dramatic since i960 . The lateBt figures show 132,059 students enrolled
in twenty-nine Institutions for the fall of 1971# «■ growth of 1*».5J» since
1969 and a staggering increase of 362% during the past decade.

Community

colleges in 1970 enrolled 32,6% of the U05»7l6 students in Michigan's in­
stitutions of higher learning— a new record— and 53.8 # of firat-time-incollege enrolleea, establishing a new high.

One out of every three

students attending Michigan public and private colleges and universities
waa enrolled in a community college in 1971.

Enrollment of more than

double the current enrollment is conservatively anticipated in the next
two decades. 2

The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education estimates an

enrollment growth in Michigan of between roughly 60 JS and 100 # by 19801 ^
Moat colleges formed after 1950 were, unlike earlier organizational
patterns, independent of the public school and served a county or regional
area rather than a single public school Bystem*

In addition, all but six**

of the colleges originally associated with public schools have now formed

1 Ibld.* p. 2U-25.

^Financial Requirements of Public Baccalaureate Institutions and
Public Community Colleges. Michigan Department of Education, Statistical
Bulletin 1(052, 1971, Section II: "Enrollment Projections." Cf. also
Community College Enrollments, Michigan Community College Research Series,
Vol. 72, No. 1, Lansing, Michigan, Dec., 1971. Also, see Statewide
Community College Services in Michigan. A special report with recommenda­
tions by the Michigan Community College Association, LanBing, Michigan,
June 1971. The latest Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS)
shows a headcount enrollment of 132,059 for the fall of 1971 and a head­
count enrollment of 137,63** (an increase of 5,575) for the fall of 1972 .
^Medsker, op. clt.. p. 30.
^Btate Plan for Higher Education, Michigan Department of Education,
Revised, 1970, p. 1-7.

13
independent and enlarged districts.

Already community colleges have be­

come accessible to the majority of Michigan residents, and additional
colleges are In the planning.
Philosophy and Purpose of the Community College
Accepted purposes of the community college are several:

general edu­

cation, education for transfer to a senior college, occupational (voca­
tional) and technical education, adult (continuing) education, developmental
(remedial) education, counseling and guidance of studentB and community
service programs.
The community college ideally strives to meet all of the educational
needs of the community that are not met by other existing institutions or
that, recognizing its limitations, it can meet best.

The philosophy and

purposes of present-day Michigan community colleges have been stated by
the State Board for Public Community and Junior Colleges as follovs:
The community college is becoming the one versatile educa­
tional institution vith the flexibility and adaptability to
meet the ever-changing requirements of community needs In a
dynamic world. It is coming of age under the spiraling needs
that a modern, democratic society has for educated and
trained manpower* It offers hope that in this nation there
shall not exist an educational gap breachable only by the
economically, the socially, or intellectually elite.
Public community colleges can and should provide additional
educational opportunities leading not only to advanced aca­
demic study in our four-year Institutions of higher educa­
tion, but alBo to the best in continuing education programs,
in vocational/technical, occupational and retraining programs,
in general and in broad educational programs beneficial to
the entire community and to society, in diversified community
enrichment activities and functions that will elicit maximum
participation by both youths and adultB.1

^A Position Paper by the State Board for Public Community and Junior
Colleges, Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Education, 19&7, P* 1“2*

It*
The Michigan Conmunity College Association amplifies and details
expression of philosophy and purpose vhlch parallels that of the 8 tate
Board in eighteen statements entitled "This ve Believe."

"We helieve:

1.

That the central object of concern should continue to be
people, and that community colleges should continue to
offer a range of learning options and career opportunities*

2.

That the concept of "open-door" admissions is Inherent in
the community college philosophy and should continue to
be a primary objective and function of Michigan community
colleges.

3. That the community college should continue to seek Its iden­
tity in the life-style of the community it serves, always
aware that its educational reason for being is unique and
should not be abandoned by becoming a baccalaureate degree
institution.
U. That comprehensive programs of general academic, develop­
mental and career education are Inherent to the concept of
the community college, and that the scope and priority of
these services should continue to be consistent vith the
priorities of related community needs.
5 . That the allocation of human, material, and property re­

sources of the community college should alvays continue
to be vieved in relation to the benefits accruing to the
community.
6. That the community college Bhould continue its effortb to
function in full and complete harmony vith all other in­
stitutions and agencleB providing educational services to
the constituency it serves.
7. That the community college should be physically and finan­
cially accessible to all people throughout their lives.
8 . That control of the community college's destiny alvays be

an unalienable right of the community which it serves.
9.

That the community college, by the nature of its purpose,
should relate to its local community and be governed by a
locally elected board.

10.

That a single non-partisan lay-board of Michigan citizens
should be responsible for statewide coordination of all
public higher education in Michigan, the sole responsi­
bility of this board being to coordinate and advise higher
education in Michigan on matters vhlch do not conflict
vith the constitutional right of local boardB of trustees
to supervise and control their institutions.

15
11.

That admission and tuition reciprocity agreements between
states is in the best Interests of community colleges and
should be continued.

12.

That tuition charges not be allowed to inhibit educational
opportunity.

13. That the establishment of tuition rates should continue to
be a responsibility of locally elected boards of trustees.
lU. That tuition rates should continue to be as low as poBBible.
1?. That the community college should receive financial support
from the community it serves.
16.

That community colleges are properly a part of the basic
governmental services provided throughout the state and
that guaranteed basic support for such services should
continue to be required of all citizens.

17.

That adequate state financial support is essential for
insuring equal opportunity for higher education in
Michigan.

18.

That the paramount concern in extending community college
services to all Michigan citizens should continue to be
that of enriching the quality of human experience and
community life."*-

In 1970, the Carnegie Commission presented a Bpedal report on poli­
cies for community colleges.

In the recommendations submitted for the

development of a comprehensive community college are elements supported
by current literature which speaks to the essential characteristics and
functions (philosophy and purpose) of the community college.

Curriculum

is at the heart of each of the eight recommendations which, therefore,
are useful to this study:

1Statewide Community College Services in Michigan, op. clt., p. 5-7.

l6
Open Acccaa; The Commission recommends that all states enact
legislation providing admission to public community colleges of
all applicants vho are high school graduates or are persons
over 18 years of age vho are capable of benefiting from con­
tinuing education.
Preserving the Tvo-Year Institution: The Commission believes
that the comprehensive public community college has a unique
and important role to play in higher education and that public
tvo-year colleges Bhould be actively discouraged by state
planning and financing policies from coverting to four-year
institutions.
Meaningful Options: The Commission recommends that all state
plans for the development of tvo-year institutions of higher
education should provide for comprehensive community colleges,
which will offer meaningful options for college-age students
and adults among a variety of educational programs, including
transfer education, general education, remedial courses, occu­
pational programs, continuing education for adults, and cultural
programs designed to enrich the community environment. Vlthln
this general framework there Bhould be opportunities for varying
patterns of development and for the provision of particularly
strong specialities in selected colleges.
Opportunities for Degrees: The Commission recommends that all
tvo-year colleges should award an Associate of Arts or Associate
of Applied Science degree to all studentB vho satisfactorily com­
plete a tvo-year prescribed curriculum and that students vho
enter with adequate advanced standing should have the option of
earning the Associate degree in less than two years. Non-degreecredit courses should be confined to short-term courses and to
training of the skilled craftsman type, for which certificates
should be provided, and to remedial work.
Transfer Programs; The Commission recommends that policies be
developed in all states to facilitate the transfer of students
from community colleges to public four-year institutions.
Whenever public four-year institutions are forced, because of
Inadequacies of budgets, to reject students vho meet their ad­
mission requirements, top priority should be given to qualified
students transferring from community colleges within the state.
Private colleges and universities should also develop policies
encouraging admission of community college graduates. In addi­
tion, there should be no discrimination against students trans­
ferring from community colleges in the allocation of student aid.
Occupational Programs; The Commission recommends coordinated
efforts at the federal, state, and local levels to stimulate
the expansion of occupational education in community colleges
and to make it responsive to changing manpower requirements.
Continuing education for adults, as veil as occupational edu­
cation for college-age students, should be provided.

17
Guidance i The Commission recommends that all community colleges
should provide adequate resources for effective guidance, In­
cluding not only provision for an adequate professional counsel­
ing staff hut also provision for involvement of the entire
faculty in guidance of studentb enrolled in their courses. The
Commission also recommends that all community college districts
provide for effective coordination of their guidance services
vith those of local high schools and for coordination of both
counseling and placement services vith those of the public em­
ployment officers and other appropriate agencies.
Remedial Education: The Commission recommends that community
colleges provide remedial education that is flexible and re­
sponsive to the individual student's needs, that such programs
be subject to continual study and evaluation, and that community
colleges seek the cooperation of other educational Institutions
in providing for remedial education. In addition, the Commission
reaffirms its recommendation that an Individualized "foundation
year" be made available on an optional basis to all interested
students.
Educational institutions of every kind certainly should be expected
to be at the forefront of community Interest, involvement and learning.
The above statements in large measure speak to community education,
though they single out the community college for particular definition of
philosophy and purpose.

Leadership in the community education movement

is more and more coming to understand that community education is not a
prerogative of any system, but must be actualized at every level of edu­
cation*

The Community Education Journal, for example, in every issue

since its recent Inception, gives credence to the role of the community
college in its concern and involvement in people and community Interests
and services.

Indeed, the community services development of the community

college and the community education movement in the K-1 2 system are reo
markably parallel.
The community college cannot be grouped vith other

~*The Open-Door College, op. clt.. pp. 15-23.
Q
See, for example, "Educational Interlink: Community Services and
Community School," Gundar A. Myran and Jerry G. Sollovay, in Community
Education. Vol. 1, No. 2, May 1971* PP* *+2—U6 .

18
Institutions of higher learning which may be or may have been criticized
as being "Ivory Towers1' unrelated to people and real life.
Flexibility and versatility should be descriptors of the community
college!

The new focus of the educational process has changed from "in­

put" to "output."

Public Judgments of academic excellence no longer are

made on the basis of real or presumed administrative and staff competence,
on facilities or campus, or even on admission requirements.

An institu­

tion that rates well in its graduates— degreed and others— vho have com­
pleted programs/courBeB successfully cure viewed favorably.

Opportunities

and success of students in the employment market come under public
scrutiny, and evidence of enrichment in the lives of those vho, with di­
verse objectives, utilize the human and material resources afforded by
the college are expected.

Output clearly depends upon the process, and

the process in the community college is itB curriculum— what is taught
and how it is taught.
Community College Curriculum; A Result of Decision
The educational needs of a community should be reflected in the com­
munity college curriculum which sets as its goal the practicalization of
its philosophy and purposes.

Community college catalogs generally announce

both Institutional philosophy and purposes in strikingly uniform expres­
sion.

The statement from the Genesee Community College Catalog (1971-

1972 ) provides an example which also addresses, pointedly, the subject

of this study:
There are many measures of the effectiveness of a college.
Some persons look only at size— the number of faculty, the
size of the student body, or the number of buildings in
use. The growth pattern of Genesee Community College would
suggest something about its effectiveness and the value
attached to it by the community.

19
But a more fundamental appraisal— a look at the part of
the Institution that sets it apart as a college is its
curriculum.
One of the most pertinent criteria in appraising curriculum
is the extent to which it meets the needs of the students.
A continuing program of student testing, studies of com­
munity needs, and constant self-appraising is continuously
improving the College's ability to meet changing standards.
The curriculum is vital to the community college.

"The curriculum

of any junior college truly Identifies the institution's philosophy and
p

objectives. 11

Programs and courses detail the diversified kinds of post-

high-achool educational opportunities made available for different people
vith differing needs within the community.
The curriculum elaborates educational opportunities Judged appro­
priate through decision-making processes that require careful considera­
tion and analysis of numerous factors which differ from place to place
and from time to time.

The curricular decision-making process is vital

to the effective and efficient realization of the community college
philosophy and purpose; it is the criterion of evaluation.
Because decision-making is so important, it represents the chief
problem to administration.

Thornton recognizes that community Junior

colleges have not solved the problems of designing courses that will be
appropriate.

Blocker speaks of the problem of organizational structure:

Internally, the tvo-year private and public colleges have
not demonstrated outstanding leadership in the implementa­
tion of new concepts of administrative organizations and

^Senesee Community College Catalog. 19T1-1972, p. 53.
Mg Kv Paterson, "Curriculum of the Junior College," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 29, No. 8 , April 1959, p. U37.
^Griffiths, op. cit.. p. 113.
1,
Thornton, op. cit., p. 38.

20
functioning. College administrators have been slow to recog­
nize that, as the roles of their colleges expand both in terms
of programs and in number of students served, administrative
organization and relationships must be adapted to new needs
vithin their institutions.
The administrative decision-making process is not a problem to be
resolved once and for all, but to be improved continually.

The concern of

Blocker and Campbell appears rhetorical when they write that:
It may be true that Junior colleges are carrying out their
functions under their current administrative structure.
The question to be considered is whether these same insti­
tutions could move forward faster and on a higher qualita­
tive level if another type of administrative structure were
set up for them.
Medsker speaks more directly to the purpose of this study:
The control pattern must be such as to recognize an insti­
tution as an entity with a character which it must achieve
through pursuit of goals, (underscoring mine) In other
words, each institution is a personality which like a human
being haB— or should have— hopes and ambitions to be ful­
filled, and if not fulfilled, will wither and leave the
institution sterile. This would seem particularly appli­
cable to an agency such as the community college with its
avowed purposes and objectives.3
Blocker, Plummer, Richardson, Campbell, and MedBker speak softly of
the problem they each see.

But Tom Spencer, referencing the Texas

Coordinating Board and writing recently in the Junior College Journal is
both direct and unapologetic in his approach.

Ineffective and inefficient

curricular decisions are so common, he writes, that community college edu­
cational integrity in providing programs for all members of the community
needs to be questioned.**
^Blocker, Plummer, Richardson, op. cit., p. 197.
2
Clyde E, Blocker, Henry A. Campbell, Attitudes of Administrators
Toward the Administrative Organization of Public Junior Colleges in Seven
States. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1962, p. 5.
3
Leland L. Medsker, Patterns for the Control of Community Colleges.
Establishing Legal Basis for Community Colleges. Washington, D. C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges, 196l, p. 15.
^Spencer, loc. cit.

21
Curricular Decision Making;

Current. Vital, Comprehensive

Every institution is founded on and hopefully develops out of the
needs of the people it serves.

These needs "are continually growing, con­

tracting, or changing in reaction to shifts In the forces of society and
the evolving attitudes and needs of individuals and groups.

Such is the

nature of the Junior college."^
The changing needs and attitudes of Individuals and groups Induces
constant pressure upon an institution's reserves and ingenuity, its flexi­
bility and versatility to survive and prosper.

The community college has

been a response of society to its growing needB resultant upon the massive
and rapid changes in Michigan and everywhere.

It must seek to supply

ideas and vehicles to meet community problems as they arise by addressing
itself to the educational needs of every man.
Today, certainly as never before, the challenge to institutional
growth and development in accordance with the accepted community college
philosophy and purpose is surpassing.

How, for example, does an institu­

tion which projects every person in the community

sb

a potential student

develop and continually modify curriculum for the economically, financially,
culturally, educationally, and socially disadvantaged?

How can it offer

real and satisfying help to the high school non-graduate, minority, and
ethnic groupB, the low achiever? How can it address itself to the entire
adult population in every age grouping and diversity of

interest? How

can those not academically inclined or able find occupational and voca­
tional educational benefits that will enrich their lives and make useful
their earning endeavors?

^Donald E. Stanbury, A Study of the Administration of Michigan Junior
Colleges, Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 19^5» p. 5*

22
Short courses, term courses, vocational and occupational programs,
developmental and special programs, adult and continuing educational op­
portunities ... a sound and academically creditable program for the degree
seeking vho vill continue their education in a senior college— each pre­
sents problems calling for decisions!

"There is a growing consensus about

the nature of the program of the comprehensive community college, which
can best be summed up as a program for all."^

(underscoring mine)

"Input" from those being served is necessary for effective decisions.
Faculty attitudes bear too upon decisions.

Recruitment care and in-service

training has a particular significance in curriculum decisions, for
faculty can often cause designed goals to be met or thwarted.
Many considerations affect the curricular decision-making process!
Financial constraints and other limitations in human and material re­
sources may present problems that demand careful choice of priorities
among alternatives.
sions?

What criteria are valid in making difficult deci­

Common sense, authority, intuition, revelation, or reason may not

provide the moBt reliable means

relationships

o

for obtaining knowledge about empirical

when decisions are demanded and all considerations affect­

ing them may not be readily perceptible or even known.
The administrator, therefore, must be continually alert to community
needs and real life forces of every kind.
needs are impelling.

Change is rapid.

Societies'

The more that is known about the curricular decision­

making process, the better It can be examined for effectiveness and effi­
ciency.

It Is hoped that this study vill provide a needed touchstone for

^Medsker, op. cit.. p. 53.
2
Sax, op. cit.. p. 6ff.

23
administrators and others responsible for curricular decisions, to help
bring about an optimally effective and efficient curricular decision­
making process in the Michigan community colleges.
Purpose of this Study
The vhole community comprises the potential student body of the com­
munity college.

Educational opportunity for the people should be un­

limited, for the community college is committed to providing education at
changing points of need in the life of each individual.
It vill readily be seen that basic functions of community
colleges are not visely determined by assumptions, precon­
ceived notions or by mere imitation of senior-college pro­
grams; not even by following the plans of other community
institutions, however well they may be suited to meet the
needs of the people of communities in which they are located.
Communities differ in many respects. While some needs may be
universal, ...they also vary according to the maimer in
which people make their living.^Bogue repeats his thoughts for strong emphasis:

"If the final goal,

namely, proper education for all the people of the community without re­
gard to race, sex, religion, color, geographical location, or financial
status is missed in the initial planning stages, the basic functions
(underscoring mine) of the community college will be only partially
provided.
The community college curricula in each institution must be broadly
Inclusive and carefully designed for the community it serveB.

The rapid

changes in society are such that the community college, alert to them,
needs constantly to alter its curricula for functional efficiency and
effectiveness.

^Jesse Parker Bogue, The Community College. New York:
Book Company, 1950, p. U6.

2

Bogue, loc. c i t .

McGraw-Hill

2U
It is proposed in this study to learn "the nature and degree of
existing conditions"*- in curricular decision-making processes, and cri­
teria that affect decisions made in selected Michigan community colleges.
Specifically, the decision-making processes in these selected col­
leges will be examined to elucidate the discriminating paths of a curricu­
lar suggestion^ origin and/or initiation, diversion, rejection, -or
acceptance, and the criteria of decision at each evaluative point.

Common

and unique characteristics of the decision-making processes and criteria
affecting decisions will be examined and presented.

Recommendations drawn

from this study and in the light of generally recognized community college
philosophy and purpose vill be offered as a touchstone for those responsi­
ble in making curricular decisions.
Research questions proposed for this study are, therefore, the following:
RQ^ What is the procedural (structural) process by which curricular deci­
sions are made?
RQg What are the various decision points in the process?
RQ- At which decision point are arguments favoring a curriculum modifi­
cation most carefully and minutely drawn?
RQli Are written criteria specifically established at each decision point
(other than the final point of acceptance/rejection) as guide to the
Judgment of decision makers?
RQj Is a systems analysis approach to problem solving (such as that de­
scribed by Bushnell) used in the curricular decision-making process?
RQg Who is involved in the curricular decision-making process?
RQf What 1b the nature of their involvement?
RQg What 1b the balance of authority and control over curricular decisions
between the administration and the faculty?
^LehmannT op. cit., p, 95. The authors speak of descriptive research
as being "primarily concerned with determining the nature and degree of
existing conditions."

25
RQq Do the deanB (directors, coordinators...) of the academic (liberal
arts, transfer...) curriculum and of the occupational (vocational,
technical.*.) curriculum report to the same dean of instruction or
chief instructional officer?
RQ10 What importance is attached to the curriculum committee in curricu­
lum development?
RQ11 Which groups, external to the college, place regulatory constraints
on the curriculum?
RQ^2 What sources of information are used by curricular decision makers?
RQj? Hov are priorities chosen vhen needs are equal and resources are
limited?
RQ,-^ In decisions related to non-credit community-need programs and
courses, and in the establishment and implementation of community
enrichment and cultural programs, vhat influence of the K-12 Bystem
in its community education efforts is found?
RQjc Are community service non-academic-credit programs and courses inte­
grated into the same decision-making process as credit-bearing
courses or vhat in-put do they receive, prior to decision, from
divisional or curriculum committee members?
RQ^g What are the channels or steps a proposal for an academic non-credit
program or course to be offered by community services follows to its
final acceptance, modification, or rejection?
Hypotheses to this study are the following:
The complete procedural (structural) process by which curricular deci­
sions are made is not set forth in any college publication.
Hg Decision points in the procedural process are clearly established.
Hg The division evidences major control over curriculum development.
Criteria specifically written as a guide to the Judgment of decision
makers are not found at any decision point.
H- A curricular decision-making model which uses a systems analysis ap­
proach to problem solving is not found in the colleges studied.
Hg Everyone in the community, theoretically at least, 1b involved in
the curricular decision-making process.
Hy Actual involvement in curriculum development is reserved to teaching
faculty and administration.
Hg

In matters of curriculum decisions, administration evidences a primacy
of control over the faculty.

26
H_

Deans (directors, coordinators...) of academic (liberal arts, trans­
fer...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...) of occupa­
tional (vocational, technical...) programs and deanB (directors,
coordinators...) of credit-bearing continuing (adult) education pro­
grams report to the same single officer.

H^q

The curriculum committee is generally recognized as one of the most
important college committees and bears a major role in curriculum
development.

Hu

Program accrediting associations and groups which control money-flov
into the college are the only external regulatory constraints on the
curriculum.
Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on cur­
ricular matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.
When needs are equal and resources are limited, priorities are chosen
pragmatically (i.e., what is beat for the college as an institution).

HjlI* The community college views itself as a leading agency of community
education.
H-^ Advisory Boards to the Community Services Division of the community
college do not require qualified representation from the K-12 com­
munity education interest.
H^g A unified relationship between the community service efforts of the
community college and the community education efforts of the K-12
system is not found.
Hjj

Deans (directors, coordinators...) of Community Service Divisions
which offer non-credit academic courses and non-academic programs,
courses or activities function without the approval of academic and
occupational administration and faculty.

Assumptions to this Study
The accepted worth of all the community college objectives is acknow­
ledged by everyone.

Although each college may find itself at a different

stage in the realization of vhat is ideal, the general acceptance of com­
munity college philosophy and purpose is assumed in this study.

Similarly,

it is unquestioned that c ommunity education includes meaningful options
for college-age students and adults, including general education, educa­
tion for transfer, occupational programs, remedial courses and continuing
education programs for adults.

Of paramount importance are cultural

27
programs designed to enrich the community environment, programs not
otherwise available, offered in harmony vith other institutions and
agencies which provide educational services.
Physical and financial accessibility to all people in the communityincluding the culturally, educationally, economically and socially dis­
advantaged, high school non-graduates, minority and ethnic groups— is
assumed in this study, even though it may express only an ideal to be
strived for in some colleges.
In general, it is accepted in this study that an ideal which identi­
fies an institution's philosophy and purpose by its curricula is
uncontested.
Delimitations of this Study
This study, which examines the curricular decision-making processes
in select Michigan community colleges, is not designed to critique any
one process or program.

While recommendations vill naturally evolve from

it, this study is "primarily concerned with determining the nature and
degree of existing conditions,"^ and should not be viewed as an evalua­
tive study, as such, of any college. As Sax points out in his Empirical
Foundations of Educational Research, remediating or ameliorative steps can
be taken only after the current status of a problem is described.

Once

this information is available, resolutions to the problem can begin.^
This study is confined to the selected colleges under review.

While

such a study hopefully will provide a touchstone and therefore be useful

^Lehmann, loc. cit.
%ax, op. cit., p. 36.

28
to those responsible for curricular decisions in other Michigan community
coUeges« it does not generalize its findings or conclusions to them.
In every organization! both formal and informal! elements are at
work in the administrative process.
element.

This study is limited to the formal

Blau and Scott define the formal organization as "any organiza­

tion which has been set up to accomplish stated objectives requiring col­
lective effort on the part of many individuals.^ The informal element
could be the basis for another Important Btudy.
Definition of Terms
For the purposes of this paper! the following terms will be under­
stood as defined herein:
Community college educational limitations— These ore understood as set
forth in the definition of a community college.
Community college, two-year college, and Junior college— These terms
are used Interchangably to describe an institution which offers two years
of post-high school education encompassing general education programs!
education for transfer( terminal programs, adult education, developmental
programs, community service programs, programs in counseling and guidance,
or at least several of these.
Community Service Propcrams-r-Any program, sometimes including adult edu­
cation programs, that is designed to serve the community and individuals
which comprise it, by making available, as an extension of the regular
school program, educational opportunities of a broad nature in response
to general community needs and/or the expressed interest of a community
group.^
••■Peter M. Blau, Richard W. Scott, Formal Organizations. San Francisco,
California: Chandler Publishing Company, 19f>2, p. 39.
2

Thornton, op. cit.. pp. 67-68,

29
Continuing Education. Adult Education— Any program of training, offered
In cooperation vith other public educational Institutions, which provides
for the diverse educational needs (including cultural and vocational edu­
cation) of adults living in the area.1.
Counseling and Guidance Programs— Any program of training designed to . ..
help a student "discover his aptitudes, choose a career, and prepare for
it."2
Criterion— A test, means of Judging, a standard of Judging; any estab­
lished lav, rule, principle or fact by which a correct Judgment may be
formed.J
Curriculum— "The aggregate of courses of study given in a school, col­
lege, university, etc."**
Decision-making process— Those steps, similar to the following, which
precede a decision and are described by Griffiths:
A. Recognize, define, and limit the problem.
B. Analyze and evaluate the problem.
C. Establish criteria or standards by which solutions will
be evaluated or Judged as acceptable and adequate to the
need.
D. Collect data.
E. Formulate and select the preferred Bolution or solutions.
Test them in advance.
F. Put into effect the preferred solution.
1) Program the solution.
2) Control the activities in the program.
3) Evaluate the results and the process.5

"^Bogue, loc. cit.
2Bogue, op. cit.. p. 53.
^Webster's Hew Twentieth Century Dictionary. Unabridged. Second Edition.
Jean L. McKechnie, Editor, New York: The World Publishing Co., 1958.
**Random House, op. cit.. p. 356.
^Griffiths, op. cit.. p. 91*.

30
Developmental Programs— Any program that provides opportunities for
students vho are deficient in meeting established college entrance stand­
ards to help them qualify for admission in the senior college they may
choose.^
Education for transfer— “Lover division or the first tvo years of
senlor-college work for the limited number of students vho plan transfer
2

to a university after completing tvo years in Junior college."
Effective— "Adequate to accomplishing a purpose; producing the intended
or expected result,"^
Efficient— "Performing or functioning in the beBt possible and least
wasteful manner. ..1*
Essence— "The basic, real, and unvariable nature of a thing or its
significant individual feature or features."’’
General education— That training which prepares (a person) to function
effectively as a member of a family, a community, a state, a nation.^
Occupational, vocational, terminal, and/or technical education— TheBe
terms are used interchangably in this study to describe community college
programs of formal education which are completed in tvo years or less and
are "designed to provide occupational competence, civic competence and
7
personal adequacy."

^Bogue, loc. cit.
p
Bogue, loc. cit.
^Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Jess Stein, New
York: Random House, 1969* p. ^55.
^Loc. cit.
W

,

p. 1*87.

^Bogue, loc. cit.
7
Bogue, loc. c i t .

31
Process— "The action of moving forward progressively from one point to
another on the way to completion; the action of passing through continu­
ing development from a beginning to a contemplated end; the action of
continuously going through each of a succession of acts* events or
developmental stages; continued onward movement (or flow)."'*'
Touchstone— "A teBt or criterion for determining the quality or
genuineness of a thing."2
Overview of the Study
The curricular decision-making processes in select Michigan community
colleges is the subject of this study.

Characteristics of effectiveness

and efficiency in thiB process, viewed against the backdrop of recognized
community college purposes and philosophy and drawn from this study will
be highlighted.

Suitable recommendations, consequent to the study, will

be offered.
An extensive review of pertinent current literature is seen as a
major part of this study, and will be reported in Chapter II.

Questions

basic to curricular delcslon making will be reviewed and problems inherent
in and fundamental to each curriculum will be noted.
The literature will be searched for relevant thought addressed to
criteria— constraints, barriers, influences, determinants— which affect
curricular decisions to be made.

Pressures upon the curricula, whether

regulatory, advisory, stimulating or informational will be reported as
found in the literature and summarized.
_

Webster*s Third International Dictionary. P. B. Gove, Editor,
Springfield, Massachusetts: G and C Merriam Co., Publishers, 1965 , p. 1608 .
2
Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary. Jess Stein, Editor,
Springfield, Massachusetts: G and C Merriam Co., Publishers, 1971, p. 935.

32
Traditional models of curricular decision-making processes vill be
noted and more recent processes— systems analysis models— vill be care­
fully described.
The question of administrative, faculty, student, and other partici­
pative Involvement in the curricular decision-making process vill be inci­
dental to this review, though not neglected— its value generally recognized
insofar as the traditional role of the administrator has already been, and
is likely to be, more democratized.*
In Chapter III the method used in conducting thlB study vill be pre­
sented.

The sources of data vill be described and the reasons for their

selection explained.

Personal, structured interviews vill be conducted

in each college to gain answers to the research questions of this study
and to test its hypotheses.
Preliminary to this study, personal informal interviews vith per­
sonnel of the State Board for Public and Community Junior Colleges and of
the Michigan Community College Association were arranged to engage the
interest of these groups, to gain relevant information and to exchange,
informally, useful thoughts about this research problem.
The findings of the investigation vill be presented in Chapter IV.
Following the presentation of data from each college, a summary of the
findings vill be given.

Under a general summary, the findings in each

college vill be related to one another.

*See, e.g., "Needed: New Directions in Administration," Richard C.
Richardson, Jr., Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 6: March 1970,
pp. 16-22. Also, William L. Deegan, "Students and Governance: Where are
We? Where are We Going?" Junior College Journal, Vol. 1:2, No. 5*
February 1972, pp. 38-50. Note also the changes in the traditional role
of the administrator consequent to collective bargaining.

33
Chapter V vill present a summary of this study.

Recommendations

forthcoming from this Btudy will he offered and suggestions given for
further research as a corollary of this study will be made.

CHAPTER II
Review of Literature

Introduction
In 1961, in his study of Evaluation in Higher Education. Dressel was
able to reflect back upon the increased importance research in higher
education had taken on in the 1950's.

He predicted that the demand for

and the patterns of research in the years ahead would depend upon the
then current studies.^
The problems of Increasing costs, numbers of students and demands
upon educational institutions to meet the needs of society in a developing
"age of discontinuity"^ were already, at the end of World War II, pressing
the imaginations of serious-minded educators for solution.

Evidence of

educational adequacy and effectiveness had to be searched out then as now.
Predictions an4 assessments of future needs had to accentuate expected
coBts and estimate whether they could be satisfied.
Current literature reveals new problems and new emphases.

They do

not necessarily replace the old oneB— •Justification of budgets, Increasing
enrollments, plant-faeility assessments.

They more likely add to them as

the rapidity of change in society creates cycle upon cycle without allow­
ing the administrator the comfort of first seeing the completion of those
*3
already perhaps long-since set in motion.

*Paul L. Dressel and Associates, Evaluation in Higher Education,
Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961 , p. 389 .
2Peter F. Drucker, Age of Discontinuity, New York:

Harper and Row,

1969.
■a
Alvin Toffler, Future Shock, New York:
3U

Random House, 1970.

35
Perhaps never before in the history of American higher edu­
cation has there been such a flux and change as the enter­
prise reacts to the pressures and problems, costs, increased
amounts of new knowledge, and greater social demand for
service. As colleges and universities struggle to adapt
techniques and programs to new conditions, the curriculum
obviously becomes a major focus of attention.1
Basic Issues in Curriculum Decision Making
In this review of literature, attention centers upon the processes
of curricular decision making and on criteria that affect decisions to
be made.

Decisions are possible only within one's area of freedom, for

constraints, when they exist, necessarily limit one's conduct.

Even

bounded by the same restrictions, decision makers choose differently when
confronting identical problems.

An examination into "the mind of the

decision maker" of course transcends this study.

Nonetheless, since basic

issues are resolved or accommodated in accordance with each decision­
maker's biases, convictions, or philosophy, they need to be reported in
this review.

It is generally recognized, furthermore, that not only in­

dividuals but institutional groupings of people develop an outlook that
becomes definitive when challenged by certain kinds of problems.
Among these issues, basic to curricular decision making, Mayhew sug­
gests several questions:

stressing culture vs. utility in the college's

endeavor; transmitting general overviews of knowledge vs. providing con­
centrated effort in a limited field; an open or closed, elective or pre­
scribed curriculum; whether programs and courses should be designed for
the elite or for everyone; whether they should be student or subject
oriented, discipline or problem oriented; should the sciences or the

Lewis B. Mayhew, The Collegiate Curriculum--An Approach to Analysis.
Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, 196£>, p. 1.

36
humanities most characterize the curriculum?^ In recent attempts at cur­
ricular construction, according to Mayhev, a struggle to accommodate all
2
of these issues is found.
After enumerating several curricular efforts, Mayhev sums up by say­
ing that "no clear resolution of basic issues has yet been accomplished...
and that resolution is not likely, for the issues seem rooted in man's
condition, in the change and flux of life, and in society.

"However,"

he is quick to add, "each Institution and each professor must attempt
to resolve them."
suggestions;

To assist In this process, Mayhev offers several

"a clear recognition that the undergraduate college is

neither a graduate nor a professional school, ...that the needs and de­
mands of undergraduates can be identified by watching vhat they do outside
of the formal curriculum,

...and by a systems analysis approach to

curriculum."*4
There are many ways to approach curriculum development, according to
DreBBel.

Too often a systematic approach to curriculum development is

lacking and curricular decisions are made as the basis of expediency
rather than sound Judgment.-*
Discussions of curriculum too often are preoccupied with
means rather than ends, vith details rather than structure,
and with courses rather than learning. Although many
hours may be spent developing a statement of objectives,
the statement hardly provides practical guidance for cur­
riculum planning. Faculty members usually recognize that
the college exists to educate students. Driven by the

^Ibid.» pp. 1-H.
2
Loc. cit.
3lbid.. pp. 11-13.
^Loc. cit.
^Paul L. Dressel, College and University Curriculum, Berkeley,
California; McCutchan Publishing Company, 1968i p. 12.

37
administration to restudy curriculum, they feel obligated
to state (or restate) objectives. Bewildered, disturbed,
and exhausted by the time and energy expended in reaching
an agreement, the faculty finally issues a statement of
pious hopes and exhortations rather than a program of cur­
riculum review. The statement contains some reference to
each of the disciplines to please the various segments of
the faculty, some expression of concern for citizenship
and social participation to satisfy the personnel staff
and some allusion to religion or values to satisfy the
president, trustees, and parents. The objectives are so
inclusive, vague, and inconsistent that they satisfy no
one, and no one expects they will be met. Moreover, faculty
members think primarily in terms of their own courses and
most of the objectives do not define the conduct of a
single course.*
Administrative officers, according to Dressel, have lost control over
the curriculum because they have been "unwilling to face the unpopularity
g
of a ruthless review of curriculum and curriculum development practices."
Circumstance, rather than deliberation, has conceded to departments' cur­
riculum control even though administration is best "able to grasp the
total curriculum and to evaluate it in relation to the individual student
and to pervasive educational g o a l s . . . . Curriculum profusion, confusion,
and waste is the result of happenstance management, and "the ensuing pres­
sure upon the student to choose a vocation early threatens to destroy
liberal and general education.

..1*

Failure to confront issues, according to Dressel, creates a no-policy
situation that makes decision making a game of chance, lacking both sys­
tem and objectivity.

Basic issues need resolution if decision making is

to be based on sound Judgment rather than upon vhat appears expeditious

1Ibld.. p. 15.
2Ibld.. p. 12.
■a
Loc♦ cit.
ll
Loc. cit.

30
at the moment.

For example* "(a) What student shall we educate?

what ends shall they be educated?
and means of Instruction?

(b) To

(c) What shall constitute the materials

(d) How much diversity in programs and goals

shall be encouraged and permitted?
education be evaluated and improved?

(e) How can the quality of higher
(f) How is higher education to be

financed?"1
DresBel discusses three distinctive approaches to curriculum develop­
ment.

That "which involves considerations of educational philosophy*" he

says* "is instructive but unsuitable to pluralistic institutions."^ Un­
suitable or not* however* it is evident in the literature that philosophi­
cal attitudes* biases* theories* value Judgments* and underlying decisions
of curricular decision makers are extremely important criteria* constraints
or determinants of curriculum in the practical order of reality.^
The approach (see figure on following page) which "defines objectives*
selects and organizes appropriate educational experiences* then evaluates
their effectiveness...is commendable*" Dressel sayB* "but it does not des­
cribe vhat goes on in actual curriculum development."^
Dressel'a four continuums* he suggests, is an approach to a structure
for curriculum analysis especially adapted to colleges and universities.^
Each involves resolution of basic issues in the creation of policy by
which decision makers should be guided in the exercise of their curricular

^Loc. ci t .

2Ibid.. p. 15.
3
Cf.* e.g., James W. Reynolds* The Comprehensive Junior College
Curriculum, Berkeley* California: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1969 ,

pp.lVl-m2.

^Loc. cit.
^Dressel* College and University Curriculum, op. cit.. pp. 16-25.

39

/s
/ V

Course
or
Curriculum

Footnote 1*

responsibilities, and, as such, become criteria against vhich decisions
are examined before being drawn.

1
Paul L. Dressel, The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education.
Stages in Curriculum Planning (from Chapter II, Figure 1, "Basic
Considerations in Curriculum Planning"), The Center for Applied Research
in Education, Inc., Vashington, D. C., 1963, p. 25.

1.

Individual student.......... Disciplines
Personal development
Mastery of content
Behavioral orientation
Structure and methodology of
disciplines
Affective concerns
Scholarly objectivity

2.

Problems, policies, actlono...Abstractions, ideas, theories
Competencies
Verbal facility
Present and future oriented
Past oriented

3. Flexibility, autonomy
•
Adaptation to individual's
needs and interests
Democratic
U.

Rigidity, conformity
Prescribed program and standards based on demands of dis­
ciplines and/or "average"
student or ideal scholar
Authoritarian

Integration, coherence, and...Compartmentalizatlon, inconsiBunity in and from learning
tency. and discord in learning
experiences
experiences

Continuums Suggestive of Possible Curricular Qnphases'1,
"The first contrasts concern for the individual student with concern
for the discipline.

If concern for the individual dominates program de­

velopment, then objectives emphasize the growth and development of the
individual in a vide range of areas and roles....

At the other extreme

of this continuums, the disciplines represent the accumulated wisdom of
mankind and are more important than the individual who merely assimilates
them.

2

"The second continuum contrasts a practical with an 'ivory tower*
conception of education.

On one side, the curriculum focuses on problems

and on the policies, actions and competencies required to deal effectively
with them....

The other extreme of the continuum emphasizes knowledge and

understanding of abstractions, ideas and theories."

1»1
"The third continuum contrasts highly flexible, adaptable programs
vith rigid, uniformly imposed patterns.

At the left extreme, the student

is free to plan his program, state his goals, and perhaps even set his
standards for attainment of them.

At the right the student conforms to

prescribed programs and standards."1
"The fourth continuum contrasts programs which Beek integration, co­
herence and unity with those which ignore these qualities."2
Dressel cautions that despite the obvious relationships between these
continuums, they are largely Independent of one another, so that, for ex­
ample, "concern for the individual student does not necessarily lead to a
problem-oriented curriculum. ..3
Among other basic issues, therefore, which affect curricular deci­
sions to be made, and must be viewed aB criteria, when and if they are
resolved, are these questions which

muBt

be confronted:

1. Should the curriculum emphasize the disciplines or the
interests, needs, and motivations of the individual?
2. Should the curriculum be theoretical and abstract, or
should it confront the issues and the problems of the
era?
3.

Is a discipline an accumulation of knowledge or a mode
of thought?

h. How is the attainment of breadth, depth, integration,
coherence, and unity in learning related to the use
of the diaciplineB as a basis for curriculum organization?^

1Ibid.. p. 17-18.
gIbid.. p. 18 .
3

Loc. cit.

U2
Frederick Shaw, writing in The Review of Educational Research, de­
clares that curricula has developed as a simple result of "the facts of
life" or circumstances.

Social* economic and demographic forces, advances

in technology, political influences (governmental programs, interest
groups) and the knowledge explosion have been more important to the ap­
proach of a structure for curricular development than has theory.

"The

most important curricular innovations were introduced (in recent years)
in response (not to curricular theory, but) to social, economic and in­
tellectual problems, such as the influx of minority groups into big cities,
the growth of automation in industry, and the knowledge explosion."^* And
yet everyone seems to agree that "the community college 1b destined to be
a keystone for fundamental structural changes which con be expected in
higher education in America in the next half-century'.'2-that the program
of the community college should be comprehensive and "must be rationally
planned, coordinated, and renewed so that students are encouraged through
classroom and guidance experiences to re-examine their educational and
O
career goals and to change directxon if they so choose."
Medsker and
Tillery say that "the educational package designed for each student from
the several components of the comprehensive program is what makes the
community college something special."*1 Wise curriculum planning shares

^"Frederick Shaw, "The Changing Curriculum," Review of Educational
Research. Vol. 36, No. 3: June 1966, pp. 3**9-350.
p
Clifford G. Erickson, "The Community College— Keystone for Change,"
Junior College Journal. Vol. U0, No. 6: March 1970, p. 16.
^Leland L. MedBker and Dale Tillery, Breaking the Access Barriers;

A Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York:
P. 53.
**Ibid.. p. 53-5**.

McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971,

1*3
a vorld of new promise, according to Shane and Shane, and demands that
particular attention be given to the speculative process.
Kelley and Wilbur recognize the curriculum as the center of the com­
munity college, and report survey samples of faculty views that point up
issues and problems basic to a structured and efficient curricular-maklng
process.
The problem 1b where a two-year college education should
begin and end.
Trying to offer both terminal and transfer programs simul­
taneously Is like serving two masters.
In the Junior college there is a procedure of repetitousness of high school subjects; there'b a need for more
varied subjects.
What subjects best prepare students for transfer?
With so many things to be taught, what should be selected?
In establishing curriculum, how can we remain a college and
yet help people become adults?
How do you develop a comprehensive college, one that offers
subjects that meet the needs of all the students who
wish to enroll?
The problem of emphasis on programs— what should it be?
How can the Junior college programs bridge the gap between
high school and senior colleges or universities?
Presentation of a curriculum geared to all aspects of the
modern world and present-day society with the future
in mind but not forgetting the past.
Finding curriculum and study designed for terminal studentB,
the non-major, and majors in a given field.

Reconciliation of differences between various disciplines
as to .their relative importance and emphasis in the
curriculum.2
In looking at basic issues that underlie curricular decision making,
Bums and Brooks place emphasis on the learner.

In their review of cur­

ricular reform since 1950, they conclude that curricular reform must deal

June Grant Shane and Harold G. Shane, "Cultural Change and the
Curriculum," in Richard W. Burns and Gary D. Brooks (Editors), Curriculum
Design in a Changing Society. Englewood Cliff3, Hew Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications, 1970.
*Tfin Kelley and Leslie Wilbur, Teaching in the Community Junior
Collegei New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Merdith Corporation, 1970,
pp. 203-20U.

kk
firat with content which haa changed little aince the l880 's and that
"none of the reforms have gone far enough to produce the curricula needed
for today's education."* Of particular importance, they say, "io the
development of curriculum designa worthy of modern technology."
Science instruction is leading the way in recognizing the
process deficiency in education. Learners need to know
more than mere information— they need to know how infor­
mation is gathered, identified and transformed; in short,
they need to know how information is used. Learning must
involve more than the mere memorization of facts and prin­
ciples. Learning must involve an understanding of the
methods by which fields of knowledge have been constructed.
Learners should know the "hows" and "whys"— the whole
structure of the sciences, mathematics and boc IoI sciences.
Learners must develop Bklll in using the same processes
that physicists, historians, zoologists, economists, and
others use to study and pry information out of our natural
and social environment. Learners need to know the methods,
the ways— the processes— by which factual information,
once gained, is transformed into generalizations, concepts,
principles and laws. Learners need to know how to learn,
how to use what they have learned and how to communicate
about what they have learned.3
Change, adaptation, flexibility, vitality— these are terms running
through a vast amount of literature that discusses the community college
curricula.

Wilcox, after conceding that the curriculum "is in a state of

transition"^— that he "hasn't the vagueBt idea" about a new curriculum
and thinks that no one else does either ("et nemo alius quid scit")— ad­
vises that "any curriculum that does not provide for rapid adaptation,

*Burn8 and Brooks, "The Need for Curricular Reform," in Curriculum
Design in a Changing Society, p. U.
2
Loc. cit.
3
Ibid., p. 5.
I4
Edward T. Wilcox, "The New Curriculum," Junior College Journal,
Vol. 33, No. 6: February 1963, p. 1 6 .

1+5
that cannot* almost at a moment’s notice* override college or departmental
rules and regulations* that leaves no provision for by-passing prerequi­
sites or substituting requirements— such a curriculum* however freshly
designed today* will tomorrow be moribund and of only historical interest."1
Wilcox predicts more adaptive change* and notes that "it 1b the overriding
flexibility that makes it possible to define and encompass the 'new
curriculum'."2
Medsker and Tillery conclude their excellent study Breaking the Access
Barriers with the same theme of change and the implications that relate the
community college to society:
The two-year college movement haB made significant strides
during the first six decades of the twentieth century. With­
out doubt* however* its Bupreme test is yet to come* perhaps
during the seventies. Almost certainly the period immediately
ahead will bring profound social changes* and thexewill be a
need (that exceeds even that of prior years) for an institu­
tion like the community college. For it to respond to these
changes will require the greatest possible input on the part
of those within the Institution as veil as of persons who
occupy leadership positions in government and other segments
of education. Planning muBt be done and appropriate staff
prepared. Adequate resources must become available and the
public’s understanding of the two-year college role must in­
crease. The process will require time* understanding* and
cooperation on the part of students* faculty* administrators*
board members* legislators* and the public at large. The po­
tential of the two-year college to revitalize American educa­
tion is high* and it is waiting to be realized fully.^
Burns and Brooks outline a series of cogent reasons, not so clearly
and carefully delineated by others* to point up the need for a curricular
decision-making structure and system to accommodate them effectively and
efficiently:

^Loc. cit.
2

Loc. cit.
3
Medsker* op. cit., p. 153.

1. We are living in a global society wherein "provincialism
and isolationism are rapidly becoming dead ideologies.
2. Our world is rapidly changing:
What Is needed are curricula designed not as collec­
tions of independent bits of knowledge, not as isolated
and static subjects learned in a vacuum. Instead, our
curricula must reflect the complex interrelationships
and processes inherent in the many problems facing our
society. Knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes,
appreciations, interests and processes should be studied
as Integrated units in curricular designs which reflect
the rapidly changing aspects of our society. Learners
must think; that is, use all of the mental processes
implied in problem solving, instead of merely remember­
ing, as they are currently required to do in recalling
information.
3.

"Knowledge is increasing at a geometric ratio...information
usage must be emphasized in the curriculum."3

U.

"Present curricula and present teaching methods emphasize
Information learning rather than discovery, problem solving.
Textbook learning, teacher telling, lectures and factual
achievement tests all indicate the overwhelming emphasis
placed on the mastery of information in our present
system."^

5.

"There is a lack of relevancy between in-school education
and out-of-school life."5

6.

"There is a prohibitive time lag in education between the
discovery of new techniques and the incorporation of these
techniques into educational practice."

7.

"General education and core curricula are presently too
survey oriented."

’'■Burns and Brooks, op. cit. p. 6,
2Ibid., p. 7.
3Ibid.. p. 8.
**Loc. cit.
5Ibid., p. 9.

U7
6.

"There are nev technical innovations for which new cur­
ricular patterns can he designed."
Learners should be brought into visual and audio contact
with government, business, religious, social and military
leaders. The environment of far-away places should be
brought into the classroom. Efficient learning materials
must be designed that are guaranteed to result in learn­
ing if used properly. Children should be trained in com­
puter language, computer skills and similar functions so
that they can use technological aids in learning.

9.

"Urban Living, Family Structure, Mobility and Individual
Responsibility" are considerations needing attention.
Should schools stress individuality and individual free­
dom, or should they train individuals to become effective
members of groups— such as families, communities, states
and nations? They should do both. Should schools edu­
cate students to develop their personal role, their unique
talents, or should shools develop good citizens, with a
high degree of interest and responsibility in public
affairs? They should do both.
Urban living, giant industries, huge federal programs,
increased mobility of the population, large tax burdens,
military service and changing moral values cause indi­
viduals to become lost, Isolated and alienated.

10.

"There is an increased recognition of the needB of minority
groups and minority group problems."3

11.

"Our knowledge of what it> true is constantly changing."**

12.

"Significant advances have been made in learning theory—
which have not been applied to classroom practices to any
significant degree."5

13.

"The behavioral definition of learning products has re­
vealed deficiencies in our present curricula.... Present
and past educational reforms in courses, curricula, methods

1Ibid.. p. 13.
^Loc. cit.
3Ibid.. p. 13-11*.
**Ibid.. p. llt-15.
**Loc. cit.

1+8
and testing will never achieve the desired and neces­
sary changes until specific objectives are carefully
defined.
ll». "Productivity has released man from the necessity of
long labor, so that he can pursue recreational skills
and lelsure-time skills of a creative nature."2
Quite obviously, unless basic issues are identified and resolved in
each college, they will inhibit policy decisions that should guide curricu­
lar decisions and will impede or delay the vital process by which a com­
munity college must respond to the continually changing forces of life.
UnlesB articulated and resolved, underlying attitudes, biases, philosophies,
theories and value judgments of the board, the administration, the faculty,
even the students and the community, of the curricular decision makers
will form indefinable and obscure criteria for decision.

Inefficiency and

ineffectiveness, frustration and apathy must then be expected in the
decision-making process.
Cohen exposes a few more basic issues ("iqyths," he calls them) which
need to be clarified and understood with common mentality by the curricu­
lar decision makers in each college:
1.

Only transfer credits are "college level."

2.

"College level" courses are determined by the nature
of the subject taught.

3. Education for immediate employment is less "collegiate."
b. Everything must be formally taught to be learned—
•»everything must be taught.
5.

The method of instruction is all-important.

6.

"Value-free instruction" is possible and useful.

^Loc.cit.
O
T jOC. cit.

>49
7.

The community college is an open-syatem.

8 . Junior colleges offer a liberal, general education

to their students.3Institutional Goals and Decision Making
In the Journal of Higher Education. Alexander W. Astln writes that
"...few activities are more important to American higher education than
systematic, perceptive planning and decision making. " 2

Espousing manage­

ment by objectives, he adds, in another place, that "...the starting
point for effective planning and decision making should be a clarifiestion and understanding of the goalB of the institution...."
According to Medsker and Tillery, there are some leaders in American
education who think that the community colleges cannot fulfill its com­
prehensive function.*1 Medsker and Tillery, with so many others, recognize
that positive action in various directions will be required by innumerable
individuals and many agencies if Junior colleges are to reach their potential in the decade ahead.

They recognize too that "the precise nature

of these actions will vary according to the perception of the individuals
who will take them"^-resolution of basic issues in accord with the
recognized philosophy and objectives of the community college movement,
and a well thought-out plan of action.

The public community colleges—

J
Arthur M. Cohen, Dateline '79i Heretical Concepts for the Community
College, Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe Press, 1969, p. 78-83.
p
Alexander W. Astin, "Open Admissions and Programs for the Disadvantaged,"
Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 1*2, No. 8 : November 1971, p. 669 .
3Ibld., p. 673 .
li
Medsker, op. cit.. p. 1 U7 .
5Ibid., p. ll»6 .
^Loe. cit.

specifically members of governing boards, administrators and faculty—
bear an exceedingly heavy responsibility to reassess their goals and the
means of attaining them.

"Greater facility commitment to community college

program development will require (1) opportunities for faculty to study
new approaches to curriculum and instruction and to try new models; (2)
systematic faculty involvement in the deciBion-raaking process at the cam­
pus and interinstltutional levels...."^

The formulation of educational objectives involves basic decisions
consciously made by those responsible for making them.

Unless they are

acceptable to those affected by them, and are realistic and feasible, they
are unlikely to be attained.

The present level of student development,

their needs and interests is one type of source commonly used in thinking
about institutional objectives.
porary life is another.

The conditions and problems of contem­

"The nature of the subject matter and the de­

liberation of subject-matter specialists on the contribution their subject
is able to make to the education of the Individual" is a third source,
"...objectives are not only the Goals toward which the curriculum is
shaped and toward which Instruction 1b guided, but they are also the goals
that provide the detailed specification for the construction and use of
evaluative techniques."
Tyler offers four fundamental questions which, he says, must be
answered in developing any curriculum and plan of instruction.
1. What educational purposes should the school seek to
attain?

1Ibid., p. lU7.
A
cBenjamin B. Bloom, Editor, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, New
York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1956, pp. 26-27.

51
2.

What educational experiences can he provided that are
likely to attain these purposes?

3.

Hov can these educational experiences he effectively
organized?

1*. Hov can we determine whether these purposes are helng
attained?^
Tyler affirms, with others, the importance of acceptable resolution
of hasic Issues in each institution, for "in the final analysis objectives
are matters of choice and they must therefore he the considered value
o
Judgments of those responsible for the school."
In their report from Project Focus, Bushnell and Zagaris offer evi­
dence that a consensus on the multiple purposes that the community college
should serve 1b emerging.

If it is true that basic issues are being

hammered out and that general recognition of community college institu­
tional goals is being reached as appears from the consensus of the 12,800
respondents to the Project Focus goal inventory, then community colleges
are Indeed fortunate as compared with other forms of higher education.
Curricular decision making depends upon defined institutional goals as it
does also upon the resolution of all issues basic to it.

These are indeed

criteria by which curricular decisions are made.

^Ralph W. Tyler, Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction,
Illinois: University of Chicago, 1950, pp. 1-2.
2Ibid.. p. 3.
^David S. Bushnell, Ivars Zagaris, Report from Project Focus: Strategies
for Change. Washington, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges, 1972*
p. 55. Tin August 1970, Project Fo c u b was established under the auspices of
the American Association of Junior Colleges with financial support from the
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Edmund J. Glaezer, Jr., Executive Director of the
Association, took a year's leave of absence in order to serve as director of
the project. David S. Bushnell and Ivars Zagaris undertook to marshall sta­
tistical data related to the information obtained by Dr. Glaezer during his
extensive field visits. It is this data, gathered by means of questionnaires
and other data sources, which is reported and interpreted in Strategies for
Change.)

52
Fundamental Decision-Making Issues in Community College Curricula
The growing consensus about the nature of the program of the compre­
hensive community college "can best be summed up as a program for all."^
The comprehensive program, designed to serve the most diverse population
in all of education, encompasses general education, preparation for ad­
vanced study (preparation for transfer to a senior college or university),
career education (including vocational, occupational and technical educa­
tion), developmental (or remedial) education, continuing (often called
"adult") education for life and community service.

The function of stu­

dent guidance, unquestioned as of paramount Importance, is expected as
part of the comprehensive program in a community college, but does not
relate directly to this study which focuses upon curricula.
Agreement about curricular emphases is not universal.

The literature

reveals various points of tension among writers, and sometimes heated argu­
ment for specific points of view is found.

A balanced program in any in­

stitution appears easier to discuss than to fashion.

Each curriculum

presents special problems that must be confronted in the decision-making
process and resolved.
Transfer Curriculum
Historically, Junior colleges were either "upward extensions of
secondary education, feeder colleges to four-year colleges, or decapip
tated four-year colleges.
Their programs of study were predominantly,

^Medsker, op. cit., p. 53.
2james F. Hall, "Program for the Community College," The Community
College in Higher Education, John A. Stoops, Editor, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Lehigh University, 19<>£>» p. 30.

53
if not entirely, preparatory in nature.

Transfer programs today continue

to be the most constant and usually the main feature in most Junior and
community colleges.

"Not only do all community colleges offer transfer

level courses, but on inspection of community college catalogs reveals a
striking similarity betveen the academic courses in the community college
1
and the academic courses In the first two years of the senior colleges.
Reynolds gives several reasons that account for the popularity of prepara­
tory educational programs in the community college.

Each becomes a cri­

terion for curricular decision:
1.
2.
3.
I*.
5>

Availability of teachers in .the academic fields.
Availability of Instructional facilities.
Inexpensive to expand.
Forms large core of the professional curriculum.
Can be offered in Junior colleges vith small enrollments.
a. The per-student cost is much higher, eventually
becoming prohibitive.
b. There are not enough students to provide enroll­
ments in a vide range of courses.
6. Popular with regional accrediting associations.

Major Problems in Designing a Transfer Curriculum
Course articulation requirements vith senior colleges and satisfac­
tory preparation of transfer students are major problems for community
college curriculum designers, and hardly any author vho addresses himself
to community college curricula fails to emphasize them.

Many students vho

enroll In preparatory or senior college-parallel courses, authors also
note, transfer to another program or fail to continue their education

^"Charles R. Monroe, Profile of the Community College. A Handbook.
San Francisco, California: JoBsey-BasB, Inc., Publishers, 1972, p. 59.
%all, op. cit.. pp. 30-31. Cf also James tf. Reynolds, The Junior
College, Nev York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
19S5V pp. 32-35* Reynolds suggests, in addition to the above, that a
Junior college vith a strong preparatory program comes nearer to the
popular image of vhat a college should be.

5U
post the community college level.

Curriculum designers are therefore

pressed to develop courses, insofar as possible, that serve not only a
preparatory function but have a general or inherent value as veil.1

For

those vho do transfer, the problem of university articulation is more
keen, for senior colleges are not uniform in requirements for the first
p
and second years, and their requirements are constantly changing. "It
is not at all uncommon for graduates of a Junior college to be enrolled
at as many as 30 or even 50 upper-division institutions in a given year."^
The student himself may complicate the problem.

Some need to complete

prerequisite courses from high school before they can proceed; some vlll
drop a single difficult course from a carefully planned program and be
delayed in making it up; others vill change their educational objectives
or their choice of transfer institution vith a corresponding loss of time.1*
The community college "cannot duplicate every one of the lover divi­
sion offerings of even one large university, let alone Uo or 50."** Ex­
aggerated community college faculty enthusiasm causeB part of the problem
vhen it slavishly attempts to duplicate course for course and perhaps
elaborate transfer courses far beyond the lover-division needs of their
students and beyond the limits of acceptability at the upper-division
colleges.** Thornton and others who have recognized university dominance

York:

1James W. Thornton, The Community Junior College, Third Edition. New
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972, p. 223.
^Hall, op. cit., p. 31.
Thornton, op. cit., p. 160.
^Kelley, op. cit., p. 17.
^Thornton, op-, cit., p. l6l.
6Ibid., p. 2bl.

55
over a major part of the community .college program suggest, nonetheless,
that this dominance at times 1b an excuse rather than an adequate course
for Junior college conservatism.^* Within very recent years, Medsker wrote
that "some two-year colleges identify themselves so closely with a fouryear institution that they organize and teach most courses in exactly the
same manner as in the four-year college.

When this happens," he added,

"the Junior college forfeits its identity and its opportunity to experiment in the development of a program most appropriate for it."

Monroe,

too, feels that community college faculties have been unwilling to experi­
ment and break new ground in their curricular designs, perhaps by reason
of fear that the university would not give credit for experimental courses.
Such fear, Monroe feels, is "unjustified if the community college people
approach the university officials in a cooperative spirit."
The Knoell-Medsker National Study of nearly 5,500 students

focused

on the transfer programs in more than 300 two-year colleges located in
forty-three states.

In I960, the students had transferred to forty-one

senior colleges located in ten states.

The study involved comparative

success of transfer and native studentB— the native students being taken
from the 1962 class of the same senior colleges.

The study concluded

that community colleges are meeting the goal of providing adequate transfar programs.11

Ibid.. p. 2h3.
o
H.
T. Morse, "Between the Ivory Tower and the Market Place," Junior
College Journal, Vol. 35» No. 7i April 1965* p. 17» quoting Leland L.
Medsker, The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Co., 19<j0, p. 53. Morse argues that the rightful place of the Junior
college is "between the Ivory Tower and the Market Place,"
^Monroe, op. cit., p. 60.
^Dorothy M. Knoell, "Focus on the Transfer Program," Junior College
Journal, Vol. 35» No. 8: May 1965* pp. 5-9. Cf. another useful summary
of this study in Monroe, op. cit.. pp. 62-63.

56
Progress vith the problem of senior college and university articula­
tion vith community colleges is being made.

The student is more readily

accepted as the real concern of all educational institutions, and the
utility of Junior and senior college collaboration "in experiments, re­
forming of course content and curriculum in both kinds of institutions to
attend to the basic, individual creative needs of students" is better
recognized as necessary for his veil-being.^ The differences betveen the
Junior and Benior colleges is generally accepted vith content rather than
displeasure by the authors, and a cooperative spirit in the preparation
of community college faculty, vhlch cannot model its practices on those
o
found in secondary schoolB and universities, is frequently reported.
Similarly, formal efforts to facilitate articulation betveen Junior col­
leges and senior institutions have expanded in recent years.

California

and Florida vere among the leaders in developing articulation arrangements.
For Californians, innovations in the articulation process
are best developed through the Articulation Conference (a
quadripartite statevide organization devoted, by informal
supervision, to the efficient progress of students from
the high school through graduate school). The great
strength of this organization is that it carries the
veight of agreement not of edict; it is dedicated to .
bringing about greater understanding among the four seg­
ments of public education rather than allov impositions
of will of one upon another.3
Such a plan of cooperative interest among the school levels is seen
by educators as an opportunity rather than an obstacle to student grovth,
financial economy and efficiency through non-duplication and useless vaste.
•‘•James H. Nelson, "Guidelines for Articulation," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 36, No. 6: March 1966, pp. 20-23.
2Arthur M. Cohen, "Developing Specialists in Learning," Junior
College Journal. Vol. 37, No. 1: Spetember 1966, p. 22.
^Frederick C. Kintzer, "Articulation is an Opportunity," Junior
College Journal, Vol. 37, No. 7s April 1967t P* 19*

57
Florida's program for improvement of articulation has demonstrated
the need too for formal structure:
1. A representative body of professional persons vho are
responsible for developing techniques and avenues for
solving transfer difficulties and for expressing basic
guidelines vhich may be used by all institutions.
2.

The backing of legal bodies responsible for the opera­
tion of the institutions.

3.

A commitment by the representations of institutions to
seek solutions to problems.

it. A staff to follow through on the details.
5.

Constant and alert attention to all matters related to
articulation.^

Stravbridge and Wattenbarger claim that these principles are tried
and tested, that they vork in Florida and would be helpful in any state.2
Kelley and Wilbur seem to recognize the need for the same "principles" in
what they call "the machinery of articulation.
Articulation betveen Junior and senior institutions is an area of
common interest vhich has received considerable study among the member­
ship of the Joint Committee on Junior and Senior Colleges.

Membership in

this committee is drawn from the American Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, the American Association of Junior
Colleges and the Association of American Colleges, and, since 1957* ac­
cording to Nelson, has proved to be an important step toward improving
transfers from Junior to senior colleges.

Nelson has presented a summary

1James R. Stravbridge, James L. Wattenbarger, "Articulation— Florida
Style," Junior College Journal, Vol. 37* No. 6: March 1967» p. 52.
p

Loc. cit.

^Frederick W. de Bolman, "New Opportunities in Articulation," Junior
College Journal. Vol. 36, No. 6: March 1966, p. 10.

58
of the recommendations of this Joint Committee as guidelines for articula­
tion, under five general groupings:

"l) admissions; 2) evaluation of

transfer courses; 3) curriculum planning; U) advising, counselling and
other student personnel services; and 5) articulation programs."*
The Associated Press reported on November 10, 1972* that an agreement
had been made betveen the tvo-year community colleges in Michigan and many
of the state's four-year colleges and universities.

The Michigan Association

of College Registrars and Admissions Officers concluded a five-year nego­
tiating period to produce what is believed to be the first such voluntary
agreement in America.

Under the agreement, community college graduates
tt
will readily transfer their general education credits to the senior col­
leges that have pledged to accept them.

Community college students, begin­

ning in the 1973-197^ school year will know vhich colleges vill accept
their school's general education credits, thus eliminating the fear of
losing credits vhen transferring.
State officials reported, according to the Press, that moBt of
Michigan's thirty-eight four-year and tventy-nine tvo-year colleges are
expected, eventually, to Join the seventeen four-year schools and four2
teen public community colleges in this agreement.
Articulation problems exist not only betveen Junior colleges and
senior colleges, but betveen Junior colleges and high schools and sepa­
rate trade, vocational or technical schools. The latter separate schools
often prepare students in a very limited area Imbalanced betveen general

^Nelson, op. cit., pp. 2 *+-2 6 .
2"Colleges in State Will Sign Pact on Credit Transfer," The Flint
Journal, Flint, Michigan, November 10, 1972, p. 1 8 .

*

59
and special education.'1’ High school graduates often come to the community
college undecided upon educational goals, unaware of what a selected pro­
gram may entail and totally unprepared to enroll in courses their program
may require. Smith points up the need for high school counseling centers
to articulate Junior college objectives to prospective in-coming students.
Kelley and Wilbur, among others, voice this same concern.

2

"Articulation,

to put it simply, is coordination between schools or levels of schools."
These authors recognize, however, the contrast between these two terms—
articulation and coordination— as given by Knoell and Medsker, and which
may be useful to present for the purpose of this study:
Articulation and coordination may in fact be contrasted in
terms of their differing concerns— articulation centered on
the students and their courses of study and coordination on
Institutional budgets and building programs. Coordinating
agencieB tend to represent the interests of the state and
its citizenry; articulation programs consider the interests
of the individual student and hiB instruction.
The problem of upward mobility from a two-year occupational program
into a four-year baccalaureate degree program has not yet been resolved,
but some success in removing the barriers between an associate degree on
the path upward to the baccalaureate degree has been noted. ^ Paul De Cora
registers the same observation, and suggests that since recent evidence
1Thornton, op. cit., p. 190.
p

Albert K. Smith, "Bridging the Gap-High School to Community College,"
Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 51 • February 1970, pp. 33-36.
^Kelley, op. cit.. p. 17.
^From Junior to Senior College: A National Study of the Student,
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965, p. 75.
^Norman C. Harris, Emphasis: Occupational Education in the Two-Year
College. Washington, D. c7! American Association of Junior Colleges, 1966,
pp. 58-59. Addresses and Recommendations presented at a Conference spon­
sored by the Midwest Technical Education Center and the American Association
of Junior Colleges in St. Louis, Missouri, 1966.

60
indicates that "terminal graduates" have heen continuing at an increasing
rate to go on in higher education rather than enter an occupation immediate­
ly upon graduation, the basis of granting the requests for transfer of
occupational students be considered by registrars and admissions officers.^
In general, hovever, articulation problems are yielding to solution.
Monroe sums up the present condition and injects a note of hope for a com­
plete solution vith this present decade:
...as transfer students demonstrate their ability to do
college vork satisfactorily and as the senior colleges
learn to know and trust community colleges to give highquality instruction, the problems of articulation and of
the transfer of students have largely vanished. A fev
state universities, and some private ones, have so com­
pletely accepted the community-college idea, that they
are beginning to admit community-college graduates vho
have a C average or better for credit for all courses.
This does not mean that the transfer student doeB not
have some deficiencies upon admission to certain depart­
ments or colleges or that the student vill graduate in
only tvo more years. By 1900 the nit-picking system of
evaluating each student's transcript, course by course,
vill undoubtedly be replaced by a blanket transfer policy
vhich vill automatically admit all community-college
graduates.^
The areas of curriculum and instruction, counseling and economic
problems, according to the Knoell-Medsker study, have to be a continuing
real concern for both Junior and senior Institutions.

Of greatest impor­

tance remains "producing the best kind of educational experience possible
for the transfer students from Junior colleges.
Curricular decision makers, according to the literature, must look
to the senior schools for knovledge of requirements to be met and must
^Paul J. De Cora, "Two-Year College Transfers: Graduates of Organized
Occupational Curriculums," College and University. Vol. *i0, No. 1: Fall
196*4, p. 68, Cf, also Monroe, op. cit.. p. 65.
2Monroe, op. cit., p. 65 .
o
JDorothy M. Knoell, Leland L. Medsker, From Junior to Senior College.
A National Study of the Transfer Student, Berkeley, California: Center for
the Study of Higher Education, University of California, 1965 , p. 59.

61
have an in-put into formulating them.

They must cooperate vith these

regulations, retain their own flexibility and vitality by vhich they should
be characterized, insofar as possible, and demonstrate their interest in
and integrity toward their students vhoBe time, energy, and economic re­
sources are carefully budgeted.

In the curricular deciBion-makIng process, criteria for decisions to
be made mvst include the availability or non-availability of competent
teachers and students able and vllllng to meet the challenge of their pro­
gram of study.

Garrison speaks of this concern.^- Dressel thinks that

curricular reform "that begins vith an existing faculty usually ends in
complexity and compromise."

He Bees faculty selection, training, and

orientation as one of the major problems in curriculum reform.2 The study
of Bushnell and Zagaris revealed that "full-time faculty at the community
and Junior colleges are a relatively Inexperienced group," that almost
one-third have been teaching for five years or leBS, that "of those vho
were employed in other educational institutions before accepting their
present employment, 38 percent were employed in a high school, 11 percent
worked in an elementary or Junior high school, and 27 percent served as
faculty members of a four-year college or university."

The study also

demonstrated that full-time faculty members in the community college come
from backgrounds similar to those of the students they teach, and raised
the question whether upward mobile faculty from a comparable or lower

^Roger H. Garrison, Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems,
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967, PP* 02-87.
2 Dressel, College and University Curriculum, op. cit., p. 111.
•a

JBushnell, op. cit.. p. 35.

62
socio-economic status could empathize with their students.

The study ob­

serves further that most faculty have little experience vith life apart
from the academic vorld and, in addition, have teaching credentials ac­
quired from the university environment that is geared to a different kind
of student.*

Medsker and Tillery, among others, suggest a nationwide

drive to prepare and develop faculty and administrators suited for and
trained for the specific problems and environment of the community college.
Job requirements, they suggest, should be separated from personnel and
educational requirements of the staff; potential staff should be recruited
from the representative segments of the population, particularly ethnic
groups; staff preparation should include significant supervised observa­
tional and vork experience in the Junior college.

These authors suggest

that the Doctorate of ArtB degree might have considerable validity for
Junior college teaching and personnel staff.

2

Student admissions and placements (or program/course selections) as
related to the"open-door policy" remains a debated question.

It is im­

portant to curricular decision makers as a criterion of'choice, for the
"quality" of student obviously affects both programs and courses.

John V.

Huther argues for what he calls a "totally open door policy" to the insti­
tution and all curricula, and for each student, vithout prerequisite de­
velopmental curriculum to be allowed to enroll in the curriculum he
chooBes.3

Robert Birnbaum believes that "maximum choice coupled vith

*Loc. cit.

o
Medsker, Breaking the Access Barriers:
op. cit.. p. 72 .

A Profile of Two-Year Colleges.

^John W. Huther, "The Open Door: How Open Is It7," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 7: April 1971, pp. 25-27.

63
supportive services yields students the greatest opportunity for self
development."1
Expressing an opposite view is Norman C. Harris:

"...it is neverthe­

less (despite the inexactitude of testing, interviewing and elaborating)
indefensible to allow students to enroll in any curriculum or course vhich
suits their fancy."

o

Roueche and Sims express a like view:

In Junior colleges there now exists the ludicrous situation
of Btudents enrolling in programs and working toward educa­
tional goals for vhich they are unqualified. These students
make heavy demands upon their instructors and impede the pro­
gress of their fellow students. Often these students are
qualified for other programs offered in the same college.
These authors make a plea for selective placement:

"The Junior college

has an obligation to place students in programs in which the student has
a good chance of succeeding, and, conversely, to keep students out of

programs In which they will probably fall.

..U

Institutional policy decisions about admission requirements to the
college and to its various programs and courses become criteria that con­
front curricular decision makers in curricular design.
5

In a most recent study,

Willingham set as his primary purpose a re­

view of literature concerning research and development pertaining to the
various problem areas that affect students transferring from Junior to

^Robert Birnbaum, "Open Door College or Curriculum?," Junior College
Journal. Vol. h2, No. 3: November 1971, pp. 25-27.
2
Harris, op. cit.. p. U9 .
^John E. Roueche, David M. Sims, "Open Door College or Open Door
Curriculum?," Junior College Journal. Vol. 38, No. 5: February 1968,
pp. 18-19.
L
Loc. cit.
•H/arren W. Willingham, The No. 2 Access Problem: Transfer to the Upper
Division. Washington, D. C.: Prepared by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education, George Washington University, Published by the American Association
for Higher Education, July 1972.

6U
senior colleges.

Four national projects^- that examine general aspects of

the transfer issue were surveyed and ten specific transfer problems were
presented:

curriculum articulation, adequate guidance at the community

college, adequate orientation at the senior college, diverse admission
procedures, academic standards and the question of credit, accesB/retentlon and financial aid.

Willingham believes that smooth transfer betveen institutions is a
basic requirement for the hierarchical model of higher education.

He is

encouraged by evidence of increasing flexibility and cooperation betveen
community colleges and four-year institutions and describes the future as
optimistic.

At the same time, he recognizes that progress in flexibility

and cooperation is too slow and that Important transfer problems, e.g.,
access rates, student aspirations, financial aid, minority representation...
are too often ignored.
Occupational Curriculum

Validation of the occupational curriculum as an integral function of
the community college cannot be part of this review.

It is useful to note,

however, that while the transfer function of the Junior college was iniO
tlally its sole function, far thinking persons, and the passage of

^The Knoell-Medsker Btudy of student performance, The Joint Committee
Guidelines and The Kintzer national survey of articulation have been re­
ferenced earlier. The fourth is the Willingham-Findikyan survey of ad­
mission patterns.
O
For example, Dean Alexis F. Lange of the University of California,
Dr. Merten E. Hill, principal of Chaffee Junior College and William H.
Snyder of Los Angeles Junior College.

65
vocational education bills during World War 1,^ impelled the American
Association of Junior Colleges to expend its definition of the Junior
college in 1925:
The Junior college is an institution offering two years of
strictly college-age grade. This curriculum may include
those courses usually offered in the first two years of the
four-year college, in which case these courses muBt be iden­
tical, In scope and thoroughness, with corresponding courses
of the four-year college. The Junior college may, and is
likely to develop a different type of curriculum suited to
the larger and ever-changing civic, social, religious and
vocational needs of the entire community in which the col­
lege is located. It is understood that in this case also
the work offered shall be on a level appropriate for high
school graduates.2
Lange, in 1917, had insisted that the Junior college could not make
preparation for the university its reason for existence; in 1933, Snyder
insisted equally that the Junior college could not allow itself to become
merely a vocational institution— that, rather, it must embrace both cul­
tural and utilitarian subjects in its offerings.3
Occupational Education in the community college context is understood
generically to include vocational preparation and technical training.
Specifically it has as its primary objective the preparation of students
"for immediate entry, after leaving the community college, into middlelevel vocations or to upgrade the skillB of persons already employed.

For

the vocations in question, a high school education is inadequate and a

Notably, the Smith-Hughes Act P.L. 6U—3**T- Cf. Administration of
Vocational Education; Rules and Regulations. Vocational Educational
Bulletin No. 1, Revised 196^, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education, 1967, p. ix and Grant
Venn, Man. Education and Work. Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education. 1961*. P. 1122 ff et al for a detailed description of this
act and its important ramifications for future federal and state legislation.
p
Thornton, op. clt., p. 53.

66
college degree ia unnecessary."^ Monroe suggests distinguishing character­
istics of middle-level occupations:
1. They require training beyond the high school level;
2. They require some theoretical knovledge of mathematics
and science, equal to the first year or two of a pro­
fessional program;
3. They require training in the development of manipula­
tive skills for using delicate and precise laboratory
instruments and equipment;
U. They often require that a person have personality
characteristics which allow him to understand human
behavior, especially if he 1b employed in a super­
visory position or in a social-Bervice or humanrelations occupation;
5* They train students as assistants to professional
workers or administrative officials.2
The rapid expansion of occupational courses, following the new defini­
tion of the AAJC, is of historical record.

The great depression that ex­

tended over nearly a decade encouraged training to prepare workers for
much needed and competitively sought Jobs,

The national emergency and

defense needs of World War II further promoted occupational education,
and the increase of automation following the War aggravated the need for
skilled, trained manpower and the realization of both employers and workers
that those who did not qualify for employment would be left out of the em­
ployment ranks.

Finally the Vocational Education Act of 1963* P. L. 88-210,

removed the restriction of the Smith-Hughes Act (which had limited itself
to courses leBs than college grade}, and made monies available to help

Monroe, op. cit., p. 82. Thornton, op. cit., p. l8o, uses the term
"occupational education" in the same way as does Harris, op. cit., pp. liOff
and others. He finds that "vocational education has become restricted, in
much educational writing, to preparation of less than college grade" (cf.
p, 178). "Career education" seems to be a newly-acceptable term for edu­
cation which leads to immediate employment (cf. e.g., Bushnell, op. cit.,
pp. 106ft). "Terminal education" appears unacceptable today when educa­
tion is recognized as a life-long proceBB.
^Loc. cit.

fulfill pressing occupational education needs at the community college
level.3.
The Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, enacted by CongresB at
almost the same time as the Vocational Act, proposed "to assist the nation's
institutions of higher education...to accommodate mounting student enroll­
ments and to meet demands for skilled, technicians and for advanced
graduate education."2
Major Problems in Designing an Occupational Curriculum
In reporting the first year activities of the AAJC's Occupational
Education Project in 1967, Skaggs and his associates noted the Association's
concern in the development of occupational programs which had become "over­
whelmingly important." They quoted Venn to express the Association's
point of view:

"The two-year colleges in America, if they are to assume

their proper and effective role in the educational system of the nation,
should make vocational-technical education programs a major part of their
mission and a fundamental institutional objective.

For summaries of Federal Legislation for Vocational and Technical
Education, cf. Administration of Vocational Education: Rules and
Regulations. op. cit.. pp. ix-xi, and especially Venn, op. cit.. pp. 112128. A detailed review of this legislation is not feasible in this study.
Philosophies underlying the Smith-HugheB Act and The Vocational Act of
1963 are related also in Venn, op. cit.. pp. 6U-66.
o
Venn, op. cit.. pp. 127-120.
^Kenneth Skaggs, Douglas W. Burris, and Lewis R. Flbel, "AAJC's
Occupational Education Project," Junior College Journal, Vol. 37, No. It:
March 1967 , p. 23. Cf. Venn, op. cit., p. 165.

68
In agreement vith Venn

1

are Harris,

2

Monroe,

3

Reynolds,

1»

Burt,

5

Clark,^ Henniger,^ and all authors vho recognize that a community college
is a new type of educational institution.

Each of these authors has

addressed himself both to the manpower needs of the nation and to the
needs of youth and adults who characterize middle-level manpower.

Harris,

for example, notes that at the turn of the century, five percent of the
labor force worked in the realm of ideas and the other ninety-five per­
cent worked!

"Today," he relates, "more than half the labor force 1b en­

gaged in 'work' whose intellectual content is Buch that post-high-school
O
education is essential." Middle-level manpower needs, he estimates,
accounts for thirty percent of the labor force.

^Venn, op. cit.
^Norman C. Harris, Technical Education in the Junior College/New
Programs for New Jobs, Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior
Colleges, 196 ^•
^Monroe, op. cit.
\james W. Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op.
cit., and Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit.
fork:

^Samuel M. Burt, Industry and Vocational-Technical Education. New
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.

6
Burton R. Clark, Educating the Expert Society, San Francisco,
California: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.
7

C. Ross Henniger, The Technical Institute in America. New York:
American Council on Education, 1961*.
Q
Harris, Technical Education in the Junior College/New Programs for
New Jobs, op. cit., p. 32.

69
Today's high schoolB do not offer adequate preparation for
these Jobs, nor do four-year colleges and universities. Re­
sponsibility for the necessary preparation rests, instead,
vith the community Junior college* But the educational pro­
grams must take nev directions— they must be oriented toward
middle-level youth rather than academically superior youth.

The educational programs for these youth must be charac­
terized by diversity, rather than by highly selective admis­
sions policies only; and by practicality rather than by sheer
intellectuality.
Harris says that the future technicians and semi-professional workers
in our society will come from the middle fifty percent of high school
graduates who outnumber academically superior students two to one— that
the needs of such a large number has to be recognized as important— that
educational programs designed for them certainly are to be regarded as
respectable.
In spite of these factB, commonly recognized by the authors, "more
than half of all Junior colleges offer fewer than five curriculums empha­
sizing any occupational skills; among the courses offered, the business
rather than the technical competences predominate."^ Reynolds, referencing the American Junior Colleges, 6 th edition, gives a Bimilar report.
Monroe, writing as did Thornton, in 1972, spoke about progress in develop­
ment of occupational programs, even though the progress seemed more the
result of various external forces to the colleges than the result of forward institutional thinking and bold decision making.

Today, according

to Monroe, "a third of all community college enrollees are in

^Ibld., pp. 1*6 —U7 .
^Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 189 .
^Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit., p. 36.
**Monroe, op. cit., pp. 92-93.

70
occupational courseB, while some community colleges con boast that half
their students are in these courses."*

Poor attitudes of certain defensive types of students create some
curricular problems, according to Monroe,2 Bushnell and Zagaris,3 and
Venn.** Monroe,** Wilbur,** Bushnell and Zagaris,? Harris,® and others re­
port negative attitudes of many liberal arts faculty toward occupational
curriculum.

A superior or snobbish attitude of faculty deters the whole­

some recognition that all learning is respectable os is every honorable
occupation.

Clark seems to stand alone when he speaks of the "triumph"

of vocationalism:

"That vocational orientation as the primary orientation

to college is held in very respectable quarters, finds expression in books
on educational philosophy, and has many spokesmen both among college
teachers and administrators."^

In agreement with others who have con­

sidered the line between liberal and vocational education to be thin,
Clark thinks that "we undoubtedly will see the conflict result in various
combinations of the academic and the vocational subcultures.

The

1Ibid., p. 93.
2Ibid., p. 9^*
^Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 107.
Venn, op. cit., p. 139*
Monroe, op. cit., p. 96.

«'

®F. Parker Wilber, "Occupational Education and Administration," in
Harris, Emphasis; Occupational Education in the Two-Year College, op.
cit.. p. 18.
Bushnell, op. cit., p. 10 8 .
®Norman C. Harris, "Major Issues in Junior College Technical Education,"
The Educational Record, Vol. l»5, Ho. 2, Spring 196U.
^Clark, op. cit.. p. 2U3.

71
difference,” he concedes, "will lie in whether they are combined in
generous proportions or blended by adding a drop of one to a heavy dose
of the other."'*’
2
3
Venn and Monroe are among those who elaborate the critical need for
vocational counseling.

Curricular decision makers need to understand in­

stitutional and divisional policy relative to "openness."

How far the

college should go in offering training programs for "lower-level occupa­
tions" (e.g., beauty treatments...or appliance repair), for the hardcore
unemployed and for high school dropouts has to be understood by counselor^
and curriculum designers alike.

The question, of course, is not rhetori­

cal and the answer should not be supplied by the faculty as much as by the
community.

"If the local community has no other training facility or

skill center to assist the illiterate, the marginal worker, and the unem­
ployed in finding a Job, then it would seem proper that the community col­
lege undertake this level of occupational education also."** Harris
declares that facing these Issues demands both courage and conviction,
"conviction based on the realization that higher education today must
have broader base and a greater degree of diversity than has ever before
been attempted in the collegiate world."** Harris insists that our needs
of the past are unlike those of the present when training for the "world
-

Loc. cit.
2Venn, op. cit., p. 1^7.
^Monroe, op. cit., p. 90.
**Ibld.. p. 97.
^Harris, "Major Issues in Junior College Technical Education," op.
cit., p. 128.

72
of work" is a task that has to he accepted by higher education. "Society's
I
Disaster Gap," in Harris' terminology, is the educational void that vould
result from separating an elite, academically gifted group from a mass
group of neglected citizens.^ For administrators and faculty this means
a "recognition of the fact that occupational education Is a respectable
role for colleges."
It is a fact that at leaBt half- and perhaps 70-percent Of
Junior college freshmen vill never matriculate as Juniors
in a baccalaureate degree program. It is a fact that over
50 percent of Junior college students vill eventually find
their life careers in fields for which a two-year program
of semi-professional and technical-vocational education is
the optimal preparation. It is fact that for successful
living in America today, not Just one-fourth but perhaps
three-fourths of all youth need a college experience of at
least two years. And they cannot all be extruded from the
same academic mold. 3
Venn takes up the same argument and appears to be in full agreement
with Harris.*1
The importance of occupational programs in the community college is
generally recognized.

The needs of the community, the abilities and needs

of students, community attitudes, values and perceptions of the board, the
administration, the faculty and students create criteria that needs to be
respected by those who decide curricular matters.

The criteria of deci­

sion making may appear elusive, but decision making without criteria is
guess-work, make-shlft and probably immature in wisdom and Judgment.

1Ibld., p. 129.
O
Loc. cit.
^Loc. cit. and ff. Harris, in the same treatise, suggests five sig­
nificant factors about the community Junior college that point to it as
the answer to the national need for semi-professional and technical
manpower.
**Venn, op. cit., pp. Ih5-151.

73
The authors give recognition to "dead-end educational programs," and
suggest remedies in collegiate offerings of "clusters of programs," "careerladder concepts," the utility of short courses for certain students, suit­
able occupational programs for the disadvantaged, low-achieving student,
vork-study programs and other innovative, forward thinking planning that
looks to the needs of both the student and society.

The community college

is a service organization, not a tower of ivory unrelated to thereal
world.1
Curriculum designers need to be concerned with the quality of programs

for each diversely able and interested student.

Harris says that,

...community colleges should provide two different levels
of curriculums in the technologies, ranging from the en­
gineering technologies across the spectrum to the indus­
trial or highly skilled technologies, in crder to accommodate
the needs of business and industry and also the abilities
and interests of students of middle-level academic poten­
tial. Exactly the same line of reasoning applies to
buslnesB fields, the health, technologies, and to curricu­
lums in public service.

Proper balance among the various curricula also has to be the concern of
curriculum designers, for too much stress on occupational programs can be
deleterious

to the college, the community, and itB students as can be too

much stress on transfer programs.

Cf., e.g., Monroe, op. cit., pp. 97-100; Thornton, The Community
Junior College, op. cit., p. 1 96 ; Robert H. Finch, "Career Education:
A Program for Community Colleges," Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 3:
November 1969; Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit., pp. 37ff* David
Leeb, William C. Prentiss, "Learning through Participation," Junior College
Journal, Vol. 1*0, No. 8: May 1970* Keith D. Lupton, "'Campus Stretching'
through Cooperative Education," Junior College Journal, Vol. I|0, No. 5:
February, 1970; Mary R. Hunt, "Co-op Education: A Remarkable Instrument
for Learning," Junior College Journal. Vol. 36, No. U: January 1966.
2
Harris, Emphasis;
op. cit., pp. 51-52.

Occupational Education in the Two-Year College,

71*
i

Monroe,1 Thornton,

2

^

li

Henniger,^ and Burt are among those who address

themselves to quality programs, the use of advisory committees, coopera­
tion with Industry (management and labor).

Some states— Michigan among

them— require, by legislation, that advisory committees from Industry

be

appointed to consult vith vocational and technical educators.'* In addi­
tion to an over-all occupational advisory committee, many colleges estab­
lish an advisory committee for each occupational program offered.**
Unfortunately, according to Burt, too many advisoxy committees, when they
exist, are not really operational, but become "paper committees.11^
Nonetheless:
There is a general unanimity among educators and Industry
leaders regarding the desirability and mutual benefits to
be derived through cooperative effort in the development
and conduct of the vocational and technical education pro­
gram offerings of local schools and school systems. Em­
ployers can gain desired training facilities, reduce their
own training coBts, and participate in the development of
workers and In the development of training programs which
meet the needs of members of their specific groups. The
schools benefit by offering courses of instruction and
training programs attuned to the needs of industry and
labor, and therefore play a more meaningful role in the
community which, hopefully, provides a broad base of com­
munity support for vocational and technical education.
When industry and education ignore each other or fall
actively to cooperate, the inevitable result is schools
turning out unqualified workers and Industry suffering
skilled manpower shortages. The student and community

"Monroe, op. cit.. pp. 9 U-9 6 .
2Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit., p. 165 , p. 191ff,
p. 2 U2 .
^Henniger, op. cit., pp. 3*+ff.
**Burt, op. cit.. pp. 3ff.
^Loc. cit.

6 Ibld., p. 7 .

75
are cheated while industry- is forced to engage in expensive
in-plant training or he satisfied with untrained workers
giving low-grade performance. The cost is passed on to the
public who thus payB twice— once for ineffective schools
and again for the expense of ineffectively-trained workmen
in industry. The effect on our nation's manpower develop­
ment and utilization efforts is not only negative, but, when
allowed to persist, disastrous.
In addition, there is widespread recognition of the value of general
education in all occupational curricula.

"In 1968, the North Central

Association of Colleges and Universities, the accrediting agency for high
schools and colleges in the midwest, recommended that approximately onep

fourth of the total occupational curriculum be in general education."
F. Parker Wilber, President of the Los Angeles Trade-Technical College,
regards as necessary to an occupational curriculum the ingredients that
broaden the student’s learning to give him an appreciation of the riches
of life's values over and above, or along with, a more narrow specializa­
tion. 3 Henniger argues that the reluctance of educational institutions
to balance occupational programs with general education is "one of the
reasons wfry the public has been so Blow to accord the technical Institute
its proper place in the Bpectrum of higher education."** Some "among
liberal arts educators and particularly the specialists in socialhumanistic studies...hold that all segments of American education share
an obligation to prepare young men and women for participation in our
democratic society, that the higher the education, the greater the

^Ibid,, pp. Ul-1*2.
O
Monroe, op. cit., p. 97.
Q
F. Parker Wilber, "Occupational Education and Administration," in
Harris, Emphasis: Occupational Education in the Two-Year College, op. cit.
pp. 18-19.
4Henniger, op. cit.. p. 11
44,

76
obligation, and that only general subject matter can accomplish this re­
sult."3, Venn argues in the same vein,^ os does Thornton.^
The successful transition of young people from school to
job will become easier to accomplish as the artificial
vail between the schools and the outer vorld breaks down*
Fortunately, the vail has been crumbling for some time,
and is certain to disintegrate further. The vast develop­
ment of industrial, military, and other educational pro­
grams outside the formal system is striking evidence of
that fact... Also disintegrating is the notion that edu­
cation is something that goes forward with no interruption
until it 1* capped by.-.some sort of graduation ceremony,
whereupon it ends forever. We are coming to recognize
that education must be lifelong, that it may be inter­
rupted at many^points, and that it may take place In
many settings.
Venn interestingly asks, as a special issue, "How can learning, re•
I*
gardless of how or where achieved, be given equivalent credit?"Facilities for occupational programs need to be available and costs
need to be Justified.

Harris suggests a general cost-Justification of

occupational curriculum as compared with the transfer program.^ Reynolds
explains the higher costs of vocational educationas being reasonable,
but recognizes, with authors generally, that lack of expensessurely can
block or deter the offering of needed occupational programs.^ Venn

Loc. cit.
g
Venn, op. cit., pp. ll*0-lU3; also pp. 153-15^.
^Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 191.

**John Gardner, "From High School to Job," I960 Annual Report of the
Carnegie Corporation. New York: The Corporation, 1961, p. 19, quoted in
Venn, op. cit., pp. 150-151.
^Venn, op. cit., p. ll*3.
^Harris, Emphasis:
op. cit.. p. U5.

Occupational Education in the Tvo-Year College.

^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. pp.
37-38.

77
singles out the problem of federal supporting policies which, he says,
are inadequate, improperly coordinated, too categorical and too indefi­
nite*

Vocational and technical education:

...are closely linked to the economic, military, and social
well-being of the country; therefore, federal programs of
assistance should, presumably be designed to support federal
policy in these broader areas. This is not always the case.
The programs of the Department of Defense and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration generate growing de­
mands for technical-level personnel: federal programs to
provide technical education are, by comparison, small.
Federal vocational and technical education programs seek to
use the educational system as the means to prepare students
for Job entry; another federal agency Is making plans to
provide Job training for teen-agers outside the educational
system. Equal opportunity for occupational education re­
mains a vital and widely accepted national goal; in prac­
tice, gross examples of denial of such opportunity occur
within the federally-supported program. Similarly, federal
policy in such matters as fair employment practices, the
awarding of defense contracts, area redevelopment, man­
power training, labor-management relations, overseas middlelevel manpower development, apprenticeship, youth unemploy­
ment, tax policy, and public works can all have a vital
effect on the educational system and on vocational and
technical education.
The obvious problem is that the Federal Government has no
policy regarding the role of vocational and technical edu­
cation in the resolution of national problems. The effect
of federal action on social, economic, and security issues
is to place educational institutions, which are locally
controlled, in positions of uncertainty about the longrange policy of the Federal Government. This uncertainty
retards educational planning for program, facilities,
staff, and discourages the research and experimentation
needed to obtain vocational and technical education.1
The problem of adequate faculty staffing for occupational courses
confronts the curricular decision maker, and can be a determining

^Venn, op. cit.. pp. 155-156.

78
criterion in program planning.

1

Monroe

ft

and Venn* both speak of the neces­

sity of college and university occupational teacher preparation programs.
Many of the practicing teachers lack the necessary practical experience
in business and industry, according to Monroe, and Venn seeB the desperate
shortage of qualified teachers and administrators as one of the greatest
handicaps to the improvement and expansion of vocational and technical
^
I
education. Thornton expresses the same vievpoint, as does Reynolds.
The ideal occupational-staff person has both academic credentials and onthe-Job experience.

Sometimes It is necessary, however, to compromise

what is ideal and accept work experience as the equivalent of graduate
work.

The flexibility of the community college may allow this decision,

but when made, "it does tend to intensify the split between those in the
academic programs and those teaching non-academic courses."'’
As an added consideration for curricular decision makers, under the
question of community college capability to satisfy recognized manpower
needs, state requirements need to be mentioned, namely, "the fact that
administrative agencies at the state level often tend to become specific
concerning the exact nature of vocational-technical programs and thuB
leave little to the Imagination and educational philosophy of local colleges and technical institutes."

Finally, the absence of cooperative

^Monroe, op. cit.. p. 100.
^Venn, op. cit.. p. 151.
^Thornton, The Community Junior College. op. cit., p. 198.
Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 38.
^Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 112.
Leland L. Medsker, "Changes in Junior Colleges and Technical Institutes,"
in Wilson (Editor), Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 19^5, p. 8l.

79
planning for the future development of vocational and technical education
among the various levels of education has to he seen by each curriculum
designer as a problem that is all his own.

Donald Michael, quoted in Man,-

Education and Work has stated the issue veil.
The problem involves looking ahead five, ten, tventy years
to see vhat are likely to be the occupational and social
needs and attitudes of these future periods; planning the
Intellectual and social education of each age group in the
numbers needed, motivating young people to seek...certain
types of Jobs and to adapt the desirable and necessary
attitudes; providing enough suitable teachers; being able
to alter all of these as the actualities in society and
technology indicate...
If ve do not find the ansvers to these questions soon, ve
vill have a population in the next ten to tventy years
more and more out of touch vith...realities, ever more the
victims of insecurity on the one hand and ennui on the
other, and more and more mismatched to the occupational
needs of the day. If ve fail to find the ansvers, ve can
bumble along, very probably heading into disaster.
A recent article in The Flint Journal (Michigan) expressed this
recognition and spoke of state plans to provide for it:
A revolution is happening in Michigan...plans are being made
to turn the vhole state education system into a 'career edu­
cation* program.
The aim is to guarantee that if a youth goes through the
entire process, he can be assured of placement in a goodpaying Job matching his abilities— vhether he goes to col­
lege or not.
The student might vind up as a plumber, nurse, or nuclear
physicist, but first he vould have a salable skill to earn
a decent living.
Behind the emphasis on a Job-oriented education system are
these facts:
"Only tventy-six percent of all Michigan students
starting the first grade continue their education
long enough to receive a college degree— in other

Donald Michael, Cybernation: The Silent Conquest. Santa Barbara,
California: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1962, pp.
Ul-U2, quoted in Venn, op. cit.. p. 153.

80
vords, nearly three-fourths go no further than a
high school diploma, if that far* (sic)
•More than 32,000 public school students, 17 per­
cent of the states1 total, attend schools offer­
ing no vocational education at all.
To meet these needs, the State Board of Education and the
State Department of Education have approved a Career
Education Plan vhich vill lead to every local school dis­
trict and community college becoming part of a coordinated
system. Several years and millions of dollars in state
and federal funds still lie ahead before the plan Is in
full operation...'Michigan Is on the cutting edge In pro­
viding national leadership in career education,' said
Dr. Jack Michie, state vocational education director.
'We're going to expose kids to career opportunities from
kindergarten on up. The foresight of many legislators
and the cooperation in general from unions Is very
encouraging.'
In Michigan general recognition of occupational program Issues and
problems for curricular decision makerB Is articulated by the State Board
2
of Education, Department of Vocational Education Services and by the
3
Michigan Advisory Council for Vocational Education.
Two hundred and
thirty-five occupational programs are offered in the tventy-nlne public
community colleges.
nine.

Individual college offerings range from nine to sixty-

Eighty-tvo college apprenticeship programs ore being offered in the

public community colleges; individual college offerings vary from zero to
Ji
twenty-eight.

^■"Revolution Occurring in Vocational Education," The Flint Journal.
Flint, Michigan, September 21, 1972, pp. 1, 16.
2
Vocational Education Services of the Michigan Department of Education.
LanBlng, Michigan: State Board of Education, 1970, pp. 1-32.
3
Opinions About Vocational Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Advisory Council for Vocational Education, 1971* PP« llb-117.
k
Occupational Program Inventory: Public Community and Junior Colleges
in Michigan. Lansing. Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1969.

81
The area of occupational curriculum is a vastly important one.

Unfor­

tunately— or perhapB fortunately— curricular decision-making criteria do
not yield neatly into a universally usable compact package.
General Education Curriculum
Course offerings in higher education are significant in part because
they reveal "the educated community's conception of what knowledge is most
worth transmitting to the cream of its youth.
The term "general education" is not new, and the concepts it implies
2
date back to ancient history.
The general education movement seems to be
traced especially to the period following World War 1,^ and most notably
to the Harvard Report of 19^5.

The dominant theme in the report was

stated by Harvard's President in 19^3 when he appointed a Committee on the
Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society:
The primary concern of American education today is the
development of the 'good life* for young gentlemen bom
to the purple. It is the infusion of the liberal and
humane tradition into our entire educational system.
Our purpose is to cultivate in the largest possible
number of our future citizens an appreciation of both
the responsibilities and the benefits which came to
them because they are Americans and are free.
Considerable dissatisfaction with existing college curricula and with
overspecialization of undergraduates to the detriment of their broader

Richard Hofstadter, C. DeWltt Hardy, The Development and Scope of
Higher Education in the United States. New York: Columbia University,
1952, p. 11, quoted in Nibhael Brick, Forum and Focus for the Junior
College Movement: The American Association of Junior Colleges. New York:
Teacher's College, Columbia University, 19^5> p. il2." ..
A

Philip C. Chamberlain, "General vs. Sepciallzed Education:
of Institutional Tension," in Burns, op. cit., pp. 2l*6ff.

Sources

%rick, op. cit.. p. 112. Cf. also, Monroe, op. cit., p. 69-70.
h
General Education in a Free Society. Report of Harvard Committee,
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 19551 PP* xiv-xv.

82

understanding of social issues and life's problems was the motivating
cause for careful curriculum analysis.

The "shocks of the first world war,

a depression, growing fascism, a second world war, threat of atomic destruc­
tion and the challenge of Communism (were forceB that caused the) re­
examination of the college curricula."^ Higher education, it was recognized,
was not preparing youth to make decisions concerning the critical issues
which they had to face in the real world.
Since the Harvard Report, the volume of literature that has been pub­
lished on this subject, including that of the American Association of
Junior Colleges has been staggering.

The search for an acceptable defini­

tion of general education has, however, not yet been found!

Nonetheless,

there are common elements in each effort to define the term that can be
synthesized into a statement of basic, cosmon agreement.

The American

Council on Education, for example, declared that general education "refers
to those phases of non-apecialized and non-vocational education that
should be the common possession, the common denominator...of educated per­
sons as individuals and as citizens of a free society."2 The AAJC empha­
sized "mlniBtering to the common needs of human beings in contemporary
democratic s o c i e t y . By general education, Bell means focusing on
"...courses which cut across disciplinary lines (as in the case of contem­
porary civilization and humanities' programs) to deal with the hiBtory,
tradition and great works of Western civilization, and in courses which

^Brick, op. cit.. p. 11U.
2Ibld.. p. 113.
3Karl W. Bigelow, "Report on the Discussion Groups," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 21: May 1951, p. ^91.

83
deal with the Integrative problems or common subject matters of several
disciplines.V1 Reynolds calls general education "that body of education
the need for vhich is shared by all people,...a pervasive value Byatem
(not Just a collection of courses) touching all phases of the student's
2
educational life."
Thornton says that"general education refers to programs
of education specifically designed to afford young people more effective
preparation for the responsibilities vhich they share in common as citizens
in a free society and for wholesome and creative participation in a vide
range of life activities."

Every author vho discusses general education

presents a personal viev or an amalgamation of vievs.
specifies his definition vhich seems to give an

Thornton further

overall and sufficient

indication of the goals of general education.
It is that part of education vhich prepares the student to
assume his roleB as an individual, as a member of a family,
and as a citizen. While it may contribute to his choice
of occupation and to his success as a worker, vocational
skills are not its main objective. It is called 'general'
because its purposes are considered to be common to
men; it is that part of the total collegiate offering
vhich is concerned vith men's likeness rather than with
their divergent interests* It intends to assist the stu­
dent to feel Intellectually and psychologically at home in
a world vhich makes nev economic, social, civic, physio­
logical, spiritual, and intellectual demands upon him.
Reynolds observes that the overlap between general and preparatory
curriculum is pronounced, and the line dividing one from the other is a
1
Daniel Bell, The Reforming of General Education. NevYork:
University Press, 1966, p. 180,

Columbia

^Reynoldst The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 28.
3
Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit., p. 202.
It
Ibid.. p. 202-203, quoted from James W. Thornton, Jr., General
Education: Establishing the Program (pamphlet). Washington, D. C.:
American Association for Higher Education, 1958, p. 2. Cf. also Chamberlain
in Burns, op. cit.. pp. 251-252.

Bit
thin one.

To distinguish one from the other, he looks to the purpose for

vhich the course is taught or to the content of the course as emphasised
by the instructor.

General education, he says, emphasizes learning for

personal use— preparatory courses emphasize meeting requirements in an
academic or professional field.

Some courses, he notes, are designed to

achieve both purposes simultaneously.

He goes on to say that the distinc­

tion is useful in simplifying the vork of the Junior college curriculumdevelopment staff and permits greater detailed attention to be given to
the planning.^*
Institutional perceptions of general education, vhatever they are,
become a criterion for curricular decision makers!
Major Problems in Designing a General Education Curriculum
Authors in general impugn community colleges for their failure to
develop a general education curriculum or at least integrate general edu­
cation courses into the college program.

Thus, Mastln and Walsh find that:

"The literature on general and liberal education is characterized by apo­
logy, criticism, polemic and a continued search for values."^ Reynolds
notes that "there is a vide diversity among Junior colleges as to vhat
proportion of the tvo-yeor curriculum vill be required to devote to
q
general education.
MorBe and Dressel find that "college courses designed

^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. pp.
29-30, and Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit.. p. 32.
p
Ralph R. Fields, John W. Mastin, James P. Walsh, "Educational
Programs," Reviev of Educational Research. Vol. 35» No.
October 1965,
p. 292.
^Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit.. p. 29. Reynolds says that,
vlth fev exceptions, Junior colleges have shovn little creativeness in
organizing general education programs— that most Junior colleges do not
have them.

85
to assist students in meeting their personal problems are still novel.
Monroe, writing most recently, references Bogue, B. L* Johnson, Thornton
and Reynolds to demonstrate that "the general-education movement never
caught fire in the community college."**
College faculties differ as to the desirability of providing general
education courses at the college level, and scrutinise, criticize, reappraise and revise programs according to their own need-perceptions.
Faculty members who are unsympathetic to the Idea of general education
"argue that the humanistic, civilizing values of general education can be
found in the subject matter of every department."^ Even if a body of sub­
ject matter Is agreed upon, the many questions that can be asked about
their manner of presentation can deter action, frustrate proponents and
end In a morass.^
Student lack of motivation to utilize general courses is a problem
confronting curriculum designers.

Many studentB are geared strongly, if

mot exclusively, to vocational goals.

Prescription of courses is likely

to create separate problems.^ Bell observes also that "the pretentions
of secondary schools about 'upgrading' and 'enriching' their courses"
causes damage to the social sciences and humanities by giving students

^Horace T. Morse, Paul L. Dressel (Editors), General Education for
Personal Maturity. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Co., Publishers, 19&0,
p. ix.
2
Monroe, op. cit.. p. 71*
^Morse, General Education for Personal Maturity, op. cit.. p. ix.
^Monroe, op. cit.. p. 71.
^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. p.
28, and Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit., p. 29*
^Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit., p. 31.

86
the illusion that they have already acquired a general education before
entering college.^ Community college-high school articulation needs can­
not be ignored!
Chamberlain feels that the compression of college time and the domi­
nance of the graduate schools results in undue specialization in under­
graduate colleges.^ Insofar as this may be true* pressure is upon both
faculty and studentB to narrow their sights and look to expediency as a
criterion of decision.
The problems in designing a general education curriculum are real
and honest.
insight:

Thornton summarizes them with what appears a keen and fair

"The sheer complexity of the undertaking; the leadership, the

money, the time, and the faculty members simply have not been available
q
for planning on a necessary scale."'9 The autonomy of each college makes
individual planning or Imitation of other curriculums necessary, he says,
and resources have not been available.

Transfer requirements limit fur­

ther; community college time is compressed; university dominance inhibits
experimentally developed courseB....

"The net result of these difficul­

ties has been to paralyze initiative and to discourage experimentation in
general education, so that no public Junior college exhibits a coherent,

■^Bell, op. cit.. p. 182. Cf. Lamar B. Johnson, General Education in
Action. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1952, p. 3^7*
wherein Johnson reminds Junior college faculties that students are not,
nonetheless, "virgin minds" devoid of post experience and achievements.
^Chamberlain, op. cit.. in Bums, op. cit., p. 2kQ.
^Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 213ff.

67
veil-planned, and carefully evaluated curriculum to lead all its students
tovard the twelve goals of general education."^
The goalB of general education are not contested by the authors nor,
apparently, by the practitioners.
tention.

How to gain them is the point of con­

Various approaches or methods have been used to organize the

subject matter "in a systematic and intelligible fashion in order that
the student will be motivated to comprehend (it) and to apply (it) in his
p

personal living."

The use of the great books, or ample selection from

them, to study Vfestern civilization In all its aspects is one of them.
The problem approach which accentuates the manner of presentation and
teaching rather than content is another.

Problems used for study are of

Ibid., p. 2lU. The twelve goals of vhich Thornton speaks cure enumerated
by B, L. Johnson in General Education in Action, op. cit.. pp. 21-22, and
since each may be a criterion in curricular decision making, they are re­
produced here:
1. Exercising the privileges and responsibilities of democratic
citizenship.
2. Developing a set of sound spiritual and moral values by vhich he
guides his life.
3. Expressing his thoughts clearly in speaking and writing and in
reading and listening with understanding.
Using the basic mathematical and mechanical skills necessary in
everyday life.
5. Using methods of critical thinking for the solution of problems
and for the discrimination among values.
6. Understanding his cultural heritage so that he may gain a per­
spective of his time and place in the world.
7. Understanding his interaction with his biological and physical
environment so that he may better adjust to and improve the
environment.
6. Maintaining good mental and physical health for himself, hiB
family and his community.
9. Developing a balanced personal and social adjustment.
10. Sharing in the development of a satisfactory home and family
life.
11. Achieving a satisfactory vocational adjustment.
12. Taking part in some form of satisfying creative activity and in
appreciating the creative activities of others.
A

LeviB B. Mayhev (Editor), General Education: An Account and
Appraisal. Nev York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, 19(^0, p* 62ff.

88
any kind so long as they have a real and current interest and value.

The

conventional and most commonly used method requires the student to take a
number of courses vhich must be distributed over three or four large areas
of study.^
Monroe cautions that "many proponents of general education do not
agree that this latter practice is in any vay general education since the
courses are neither organised nor taught to develop within a student an
integrated body of knowledge organized around a few basic concepts and
principles vhich can be used in the solution of ethical, social, and
o
personal problems."
Many certainly appear to think otherwise, and the
"core curriculum" offers the advantage of student freedom of choice and
faculty opportunity "to teach their specialities without being bound by
the restraints of the framework of a committee or inter-disciplinary
course."^
|>
Thornton,

C
if
O'Connell,' Burns and BrookB, are among those who find

value in the core curriculum concept and attempt to describe and refine
it.

Harris has designed a special scheme Incorporating a core of general

or liberal arts education into currlculums of occupational education at
the associate degree level.^

For all undergraduates, Dressel suggests

1Monroe, op. cit.. pp. 72-73.
2Ibid.. p. 73.
3Ibid.. p. fit.
h
Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 217.
'’Thomas E. O'Connell, Community Colleges; A President's View. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois, 1966, p7 1*2. O'Connell quotes Harris
approvingly.
^BurnB, op. cit.. p. 11.
^Harris, Efrnphaala: Occupational Education in the Two-Year College,
op. cit.. pp. l*6ff.

89
some common general education requirements— a common core— that embraces
the major fields of knowledge.^
Cohen addresses himself to a "core curriculum that combines elements
of sequences formerly designated as 'college-parallel* and 'remedial* edu­
cation" to help students individually and as a community service.**
The core ourriculum is based on the ideav old in education,
that there are boBic principles that must be learned by all
members of a community if it is to function effectively and
vlth a minimum of disorder. Problems in various domains of
human living, viewed through various subject areas, are its
organising center. The curriculum is constructed so that
interrelationships among bits of knowledge are clarified.
It is not designed particularly as a preparation for uni­
versity specialization; it stands alone as a contribution to
the students' knowledge, and it helps them understand their
world. Thus the students receive something of value even if
they never take another formal course in Bchool. The generaleducation curriculum at the college includes four core courses,
in the traditional areas of communications, humanities,
sciences, and social sciences.3
Criteria which must guide curricular decision makers are real— some­
times elusive.

Each institution formulates its own conceptual basis for

the general education curriculum, and its constraints will be somewhat
like, somewhat unlike those of other colleges.

Certain of Cohen's mythB,

noted earlier, are repeated in this context, for they also spell out ideas
that, whether accepted or not become decision criteria.
Uth myth:
5th myth:
6th myth:

that everything must be formally taught to be learned.
a college should assume all knowledge to be itB province.
the method of instruction is all-important.

iDreBsel, The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education, op. cit..
pp. 61+-66.
2
Cohen, Dateline '79: Heretical Concepts for the Community College.
op. cit., p. li*.
^Loc. cit.

90
7th myth:

value-free Instruction exists and students, somehow on
their own| will learn to apply critical thinking to
social, political and personal issues*

Whatever the present condition of general education in the community
colleges, Cohen has no doubt that the curriculum in the college of '79
p
will be built on the unifying theme of general education.
For him this
conclusion may be all-important as a criterion in curricular decision
making.
Remedial (Developmental) Curriculum
Professional literature has, at least until recently, neglected cur­
ricula for the marginal student.3 The development of the idea of the
comprehensive community college has sharpened the Identity and role of
the community college in recent years, however, and the recommended poli|i
cies of the Carnegie Commission undoubtedly will change all thiB.
It
has been common for remedial offerings to serve as a pacifier on the one
hand and a subterfuge on the other to screen out candidates for other
curricula "rather than serve as a tool and technique for providing learning
experience for marginal students commensurate with their needs, abilities
and aspirations."'*
Education has played a decisive role as a medium in transmitting
culture, knowledge, beliefs, customs, values and skills.

The schools act

1Ibld., pp. 00-82.
^Ibid., p. 13.
^William Moore, Jr., Against the OddB. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 1970* P» 169.
\jf., for example, The Open-Door Colleges: Policies for Community
Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970; and Medsker, Breaking the
Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year Colleges, op. cit.
^Moore, op. cit.. p. 170.

91
as a aoclalizer in the preservation and formation of society.

They pro­

vide historical continuity of culture and are idea-centers for cultural
adaptation and development.^ The lfcg>ortance of neglecting none of
America's youth becomes obvious vhen one recognizes that common values both
preserve society and make possible an open exchange of minds in communicat­
ing fairly those differences among men that require mutual respect and
mutual acceptance of and adjustment toward one’s fellow man*

Men live

peaceably with one another when common values bind them together and are
both stronger and more Important than their differences.
Curriculum is a tool of instruction. It is a body of know­
ledge, an experience activity, a performance opportunity,
and a response to societal needs. It is designed to assist
the student in coping effectively with his environment. For
the marginal student, it is much more. It is actually a
prescription for his success or his failure. In short, the
curriculum is a means to an end. 2
Students who have difficulty competing with others for passing grades
in traditional academic courses have been called "marginal students,"
"high-risk students," "socially-different students," "low^-achievers,"
"culturally disadvantaged students."

...Causative factors leading to

their unfortunate conditions are discussed by the authors,^ and are not
directly related to this study.

These students are identified quite

readily by their problems and will Buffer from one or more of the following
characteristics:
John E. Roueche, Salvage. Redirection, or Custody? Remedial
Education in the Community Junior College. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior
College Information, Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1968» p. 21. Cf. also Clarke, op. cit.. p. 11, and Burns, op.
cit.. p. 219 .
O
Moore, op. cit.. p. 168 .
3

For example, Moore, op. cit., William Moore, Jr., The Verticle. Ghetto:
Everyday Life in an Urban Pro.lect. New York: Random H q u b c . 1969. Clark, op.*
cit.. Roueche, op. cit.. Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit..
Monroe, op. cit.. Bushnell, op. cit.. ct al.

92
1. Graduated from high Bchool with a lov C average or helov.
2. Are severely deficient in basic skills; i.e., language and
mathematics.
3. Have poor habits of study (and probably a poor place to study
at home).
I+. Are veakly motivated, lacking home encouragement to continue
in school.
5. Have unrealistic and ill-defined goals.
6. Represent homes vith minimal cultural advantages and minimum
standards of living.
7. Are the first of their family to attend college, hence have a
minimum understanding of vhat college requires or vhat oppor­
tunities it offers.
2
Quoting Gordon and Wilkeraon, on the bails of a number of their pub­
lished studies, Monroe summarizes the basic social, economic and psychologi­
cal characteristics of disadvantaged students in a statement much more
amplified than that of Roueche.^
Lov-achleving students are increasingly becoming a larger percentage
of the community college student body.14 They are handicapped at least in
this that they cannot "make the grade in traditional courses taught in
traditional vays and measured by traditional standards."'’ Curriculum de­
signed for these students cannot be neglected.

Curricular decision makerB

must take them into serious account!
The Junior college must develop a curriculum designed to
meet the identifiable educational needs of the disad­
vantaged student with specific reference to the effects
of deprivation on aspirations, values, motivation, and
Belf-concept, and to the influence of class or caste on

Roueche, op. cit., pp. 12-15. Cf. also Raymond W. Mack, Transforming
America; Patterns of Social Change, Nev York: Random House, 1967, p. 66.
Mack relates I.Q. to achievement expectation.
2
E. W. Gordon, D. A. Vilkerson, Contemporary Education for the Disad­
vantaged. Nev York; College Entrance Examination Board, 1966.
^Monroe, op. cit., pp. 107ff.
^Roueche, op. cit., p. 1*1, Moore claims that "6o£ of all students vho
enroll in the community college are at the 30th percentile or belov." Moore,
Against the Odds, op. cit., p. 155.
^Monroe, op. d t ., p. 10l*.

93
academic progress* This student needs to develop (l) posi­
tive feelings of personal vorth, (2 ) values compatible vith
society in general, and (3) the conceptual, social, and
manipulative sklllB necessary to fulfill his goals. A good
program will provoke the changes needed for this develop­
ment by concentrating on vhat it can do vithin the context
of the student’s ovn nature and the pressures upon him.^
Major Problems in Designing a Remedial. Curriculum
Lack of commitment to the disadvantaged is singled out by the authors
as a chief reason for the absence or poor quality of remedial programs.^
Lack of agreement on the objectives of a remedial program is another serious
obstacle that curricular decision makers vill have to accept or surmount.^
"...in the final analysis, Junior colleges must decide vhat remedial pro­
grams are supposed to do and hov best to implement the objectives.

Yet,

it appears that goals and objectives for remedial programs are nebulous and
ill-defined because no one is absolutely convinced that it is even possible
to remediate."1* This mentality appears evident folloving an examination of
most existing programs,*’ all of vhich have proved ineffective.

Johnnie Ruth Clarke, "A Curriculum Design for Disadvantaged Community
College Students," Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida, 1966 .
(Abstract from ERIC, EDOi575**-JC 670 97*0 Cf. also BuBhnell, op. cit.. p.
118 for a more brief but similar statement, and Moore, Blind Man on a
Freevay. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Boss Inc., Publishers, 1971.
Moore, op. cit.. p. 90ff, Moore, Against the Odds, op. cit.. pp. 69 70, Roueche, Salvage, Redirection or Custody? Remedial Education in the
Community Junior College, op. cit.. pp. vii, 15, et al.
3james Coleman, "The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity,"
Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 38, Ho. 1: Winter 1968 . Monroe, op. cit..
p. Ill*, and Roueche. op."cit., pp. 2*tf, 57.
^Roueche, op. cit.. p. 25.
^Cf., for example, Moore, Against the Odds, op. cit., pp. 10, 170,
Roueche, Salvage. Redirection or CustodyY Remedial Education in the Community
Junior College, op. cit.. p. 3, Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 120ff, Monroe, op. cit..
p. 119.
^Roueche, op. cit.. pp. 21, 1*2, 1*7.

9U
Moore credits or blames the administrator for the success or failure
of any developmental programand marshalk
tion.

strong argument for this posi­

The administrator should be the pace-setter, the believer* the per­

suader and motivator of both board and faculty.

He has the listening ear

of the community.
The administrator's funding recommendations are also clearly heard.
Glaezer says that generous financial support of remediating is essential
and cannot be sold to the public on the basis of low cost,

"...no one

must be fooled into believing that the open door means the usual college
curriculums at community college bargain prices."

Unequal amounts of

resources must be expended for educating Negro as compared to vhlte
children and poor as compared to rich children, and the notion that the
educational system alone can and should bear the responsibility for
achieving equal educational opportunity must be laid to rest.^ The deci­
sion makers in the community college Insofar as they are free from con­
straints in their decisions, must make up their minds vhat to strive for
and hov to go about accomplishing vhat they decide.
Staffing problems need to be considered too by curricular decision
makers.

Finding faculty prepared or willing to teach underachievers is a

major barrier to educating all Junior college students.** The authors in
general address themselves to this problem.

Teaching culturally deprived

^-Moore, op. cit., pp. 126ff.
O
Edmund J. Glaezer, Jr., "Concerns and Cautions for Community Colleges,"
Junior College Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6: March 1968, p. 20.
^Samuel Bowles, "Toward Equality of Educational Opportunity!" Harvard
Educational Review. Vol. 38, No. 11: Winter 1968.
**Richard L. Meeth, "Expanding Faculty Support for Underachievers,"
Junior College Journal. Vol. Ii2, No. 5: February 1972.

95
youth of the lover class, all agree, is hard, different from the teaching
of middle and upper-class students and calls for special adaptations*
Clark says that, "The problem for the school is to change the 'vicious
cycle' of Interaction between student characteristics and teacher response—
through such means as increasing the motivation to achieve on the part of
the pupils and strengthening the commitment of the best teachers to the
worst schools."^ Donald A. Eldridge, past President of the American
Association of Junior Colleges, names facility recruitment to teach the
lov-achlever a matter of major importance. 2 David Rogers speaks about it. 3
Moore prefers hiring satisfactory teachers with "the right attitude and
commitment who may not have the right credentials" to the properly credentlaled who lack the needed attitude and commitment toward the students
who need their help.** Monroe observed the teacher's need for "empathy
and understanding for the lover-ability students."**
Roueche also has noted with irony that the inexperienced instructor
is the one most often found in the remedial classroom.

"The questions of

status and prestige among teachers must be resolved," he says, "if in­
structors are to become interested in the teaching of remedial students."^

^Clark, op. cit.. p. 99*
o
Donald A. Eldridge, "Hew Dimensions for the Two-Year College," Junior
College Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1: September 1967.
^David Rogers, 110 Livingston Street. Folitica and Bureaucracy in the
New York City Schools, New York: Random House, 1968, p. 326.
**Moore, AgainBt the Odds, op. cit.. p. ll*7.
•’Monroe, op. cit.. p. 115.
^Roueche, Salvage, Redirection or Custody? Remedial Education in the
Community Junior College, op. cit., pp. 51, 62.

96
He suggests that Institutions may want "to consider the possibility of
employing qualified elementary teachers to teach students in remedial
courses," teachers "eiqperienced vith the level of subject matter taught
in remedial courses."^
The importance of proper teacher attitudes towards low-achieving
students cure stressed by Roueche, for, as he observes, one who is not en­
thusiastic certainly cannot motivate those for whom motivation may be a
most seriouB problem.

A special workshop on programs for low-achievers

spelled out the following Justifications needed by teachers in remedial
programs.
1.
2.
3.
k.
5.
6.

They provide a summary of current literature on the BUbJect:

The Instructor must seek change in the present curriculum
or ignore it.
The instructor must understand his teaching field, but
more Important, he Bhould be able to present the material
at the level of the students.
The Instructor muBt be willing to live with the knowledge
that many people believe such students have no place in
college.
The instructor must give up the belief that to be non­
verbal is to be a non-learner.
The Instructor must believe in the educational worth of
the remedial student.
The instructor must be willing to give up his subjectcentered orientation in favor of involving himself vith
the student in relevant educational experiences which
stress the processes by which learning takes place. 2

Curricular decision makers need institutional guidelines or policies
to serve os criteria in their efforts to design a curriculum truly geared
for the unprepared or otherwise culturally disadvantaged student.

Loc. cit.
2

Quoted in Roueche, Salvage. Redirection or Custody? Remedial Education
in the Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 19. 62.

97

Adult or Continuing Education Curriculum
Many of the authors, in order to place the community college adult
or continuing education curriculum in perspective, trace its early begin­
nings to human needs experienced and recognized a century ago.

1926 ,

however, was a key year, according to Btyson, for in that year adult edu­
cation "ceased to be a combination of sporadic and scattered impulses and
began to take shape as an organized pattern within both our public school
system and many of our urban collegiate institutions."^
Junior colleges were late in accepting responsibilities in this field
or work.

The AAJC Committeeon Junior College Adult Education foundwide­

spread interest in 19^1, but as recently as in 1952, Brick reports,only a
p
small group discussed adult education at the AAJC Convention.
It appeared
evident that while "many Junior colleges were doing a remarkably effective
Job, many others were not aware of their responsibility and opportunity
to provide education for adults."3 However, as Brick continues,
TheCurriculum Commission in recent years has recognized
the importance of adulteducation and has made this one
of its priority projects. While it 1b not the peculiar
responsibility of Junior colleges, those two-year institu­
tions that are truly oriented to community service should
perform a major share of the nation's total program for
adults. With the Increased emphasis on the value of edu­
cation throughout life, with more leisure time, and with
the increased need for re-training, continuing education
is a new frontier in American education.^

^"Lyrnan Bryson, Adult Education. New York: American Book Company,
1936, pp. 20-21.
p

Brick, op. cit.. p. lUl.
3
Loc. cit.
**Loc. cit.

98
The term "adult education," while still used by many authors, is now
considered inappropriate by many others who prefer "continuing education."^
No longer is it possible to differentiate "adult" courses, many feel, on
the basis of student age, full-time employment, and utilization of evening
classes.

Many regular full-time students enrolled in the community col­

lege are adults in the most restrictive sense.
Thornton points out that for this reason "community colleges are
giving increased attention to providing evening courses identical to those
given in the day, carrying the same requirements and creditB, and leading
to the same objectives."

Evening classes are becoming more an integral

part of the college curriculum, indistinguishable from day-time classes.
Furthermore, since the community college exists to serve the educational
needs of all, it can hardly operate differently when one-half or more of
its students are part-time students.3
Continuing education, formal or informal is recognized as a life-long
reality.

The community college serveB the adult community in several ways:

basic education leading to a certificate of bightschool equivalency or a
diploma, occupational training or re-training, cultural education which
encompasses a wide variety of avocational interests, civic education to
prepare for American citizenship, associate degree programs, workshops,

^Monroe, op. cit., p. 129, et al.
^Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit., p. 2^5*
^Monroe, op. cit., p. 130, also Thornton, The Community Junior College,
op. cit., p. 2Vo! Thornton finds that there is substantial agreement among
Junior college administrators that continuing education is distinguished
from the regular day-time program as a matter of convenience rather than
because of essential differences, p. 25 U.

99
seminars and non-credit courses designed to meet the special needs of the
community.* Monroe, among others, notes that "the variety of the offerings
in adult education are so diverse and unique to each community college that
it would be impossible to set forth a sample curriculum as typical or desir­
able. " 2
Ma,1or Problems! In Designing an Adult or Continuing Education Curriculum
Basic issues need to be resolved into institutional policies if cur­
ricular decision makers can hope to design an optlmely useful program in
continuing education.
example.

The question of college credit for courses is an

Some feel that credit should be offered only for courses that

parallel their day-time offerings; others feel that any course worthy of
being offered is worthy of credit.

Some colleges, and perhaps most, offer

short courses and courses of limited scope and specialized interest
courses without credit and allow students to take classes that are equiva•a

lent to the day-time classes for credit or as auditors.
Other questions have to do with the treatment of regular and "adult"
students.in regard to relative tuition charges and other sources of
revenue.
The scope and diversity of the program creates 1b sues that find great
disagreement among administrators and need to be resolved before curricu­
lum planning can begin.

The public Bchools, perhaps, and other agencies

doubtlessly engage in adult education services, and Bhould not find

^Bushnell, on. cit.. pp. 90-91. Thornton adds "home-making education"
and a"gsriatric purpose," Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.
pp. 250-251.
2Monroe, op. cit.. p. 133.
3

Ibid., p. 13l*» also Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.,
p. 255^25<r.

100
needless or useless competition from the community college.1. Articulation
vith the educational agencies— for example* the community education ser­
vices of the public schools— is an acute need.

"Organised decisions

should be sought that vill result in making available to the people of
the community the finest possible continuing education program* vith due
regard for economy to the school districts and for harmony among all
vorkers."^ Thornton enumerates a series of questions related to scope and
diversity— to vhat extent should the community Junior college seek to meet
all educational needs of the adults of the community— and suggests that
administrators vho adopt the community Junior college point of viev "lean
tovard the aggressive* all-inclusive* extended-service concept of the
adult education program."**
Faculty and administration qualities cannot be overlooked by curricu­
lar decision makers.

Monroe thinks that it is "sometimes better to abandon

the adult-educatlon program than to attempt to operate it...vith the half­
hearted support of the college's board and administration." The faculty
for college-credit continuing education programs should probably be the
same as for the regular programs; instructors must* hovever* be able to
adapt to a different* more mature and exacting clientele.

Professional

and skilled vorkers from non-academic backgrounds vho instruct on a parttime basis can provide a rich teaching resource for the community college;
academic credentials may veil be valved in favor of "hard practical knovledge and vork experience." * 1

^Ibid,, p. 136.

Cf. also Bushnell* op. cit., p. 93-9*+.

^Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 255*
^Loc. cit.
**Monroe, op. cit.. p. 137*

101
Bushnell and Zagaris see that a non-tenured faculty, plus a program
conaldered by many to be "low status," plus limited dollar resources for
planning and development make the continuing education program most vul­
nerable when the college is faced with a budget squeeze.

The examination

of state budgets, in addition, they find shows that rarely are separate
fundB provided for continuing education, and further evidences the marginal
status of continuing education programs in the community college.3'
Forces which tend to restrict the development (of the size
and scope of Junior college adult education) to conventional
classroom programs are the definition of adult education as
a community service Inferior to transfer and terminal pro­
grams, the lack of Imagination shown in adult classes, the
ill-conceived state reimbursement schemes, the lack of co­
operation with adult educators in other institutions, and
the 1 ack of training for administrators. 2
Griffith sees the necessity for a distinction between educational
activities and community service programs as being of fundamental impor­
tance.

Others recognize this distinction, even though they relate continu­

ing education and community services to one another as a part to the
•a

whole.

Still others Bpeak of them in the same breath.

Flexibility in continuing education programs must be a watch-word
for curriculum planners.

If college administrators see as the ideal "to

offer anything and everything of educational value for which there is a
sufficient and sustained demand"1* then "demand" becomes an indeed important

^Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 9^*
^William S. Griffith, "Adult Education: The Challenge of the Junior
College," Address presented at the Third Annual Illinois Junior College
Conference, Rockford, Illinois, October 25, 1968; Los Angeles, California:
University of California: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Education, EDO 25691AC003126, 1968.
^Monroe, op. cit.. e.g., and Harlacher, whom Monroe references, p. 129.
Thornton, The Comaunity Junior College, op. cit.. p. 257.

102
criterion In program planning.

In any event, administrative willingness

to offer programs at times and places when they can he utilized appears a
sine qua non for the growth and development of an adult education curriculum.
Community 3crvice Programs
Most recent among the recognized major functions of the community col­
lege is community services.

Before I960, adult or continuing education—

the evening classes— was the summation of community service functions.
Medaker reported that in 1956 very little community service other than
this was being offered anywhere.'1' Harlacher noteB a significant increase
in the recognition of the community service function of the community colft

lege since 1965 » and that while ejqpansion of these services is occurring,
they are still relatively undeveloped.
The origin of the community service function in the community college
can be traced to two different movements in American education, according
to Harlacher, the community school concept in the public schools and the
community development concept in the four-year institutions of higher
3
education.
The acceleration of interest in community services during
the 1960's was the result of several factors.

^Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College:
cit.. p. 79 .

These included "the infusion

Progress and Prospect, op.

*T2rvin L. Harlacher, The Community Dimension of the Community College.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19f>9» p. 1 8 .
3
Ervin L. Harlacher, Effective Junior College Programs of Community
Services: Rationale. Guidelines. Practices. Los Angeles, California:
University of California, 1967* pp. 1^-17. The relationship and inter­
linking of the community education of the public schools and the community
services of the community college is the subject of an interesting and
useful article by Jerry G. Solloway, Gundar A. Myran, "Educational
Interlink: Community Services and Community School," Community Education,
Vol. 1, No. 2: May 1971.

103
of federal monies, particularly In areas related to poverty, urban rede­
velopment, and man-pover training; the civil rights movement and demands
to open Bociety for Blacks and other minorities; the visibility of com­
munity services programming provided by the American Association of Junior
Colleges, and the increasing social concern for the urban crisis, racial
inequalities, and illiteracy."*Reynolds, in a frustrating attempt to define the function of community
services, concludes that the community service program vhich he says is so
diffuse and So ephemeral "Includes all the educational services provided
by a Junior college over and above the regular day program for full-time
students.
Harlacher includes not only educational services, but cultural and
recreational services...all in cooperation vith other community agencies*
Community Services, he says, is nov widely recognized as a major function
of the community college.

This recognition and general acceptance obliges

the community college to:
1.

Become a center of community life by encouraging the use
of college facilities and services by community groups
vhen such use does not interfere with the college's regu­
larly scheduled programs;

2.

Provide for all age groups educational services that
utilize the special skills and knowledge of the college

^Holloway, op. cit., p. 1+2,
2
Reynolds, The Junior College, op. cit.. p. 1+2. Reynolds says else­
where that "the comprehensiveness of a community services program depends
on the perceptiveness and ingenuity of its innovators vho are responsible
for discovering the educational needs of the community." Quote taken from
Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit., p. 91• A
taxonomy of community services functions, prepared by Max R. RaineB,
Michigan State University, describes the present scope of community ser­
vices and provides, really, an extended and detailed definition of community
services. Qundar A. Hyran, Community Services in the Community College.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969* PP.

lU-16.

10U
staff and other experts and be designed to meet the
needs of conmunity groups and the college district
community at large;
3.

Provide the community, including business and Indus­
try, vith the leadership and coordination capabilities
of the college, assist the community in long-range
planning, and join vith individuals and groups in
attacking unsolved problesm;

U.

Contribute to and promote the cultural, intellectual,
and social life of the college district community and
the development of skills for the profitable use of
leisure time.

To accomplish these objectives, the folloving principles, Harlacher
says, need also to be recognized and accepted:
1.

In a community college the campus is the length and
breadth of the junior college district.
2. The program of community services is designed to bring
the community to the college and take the college pro­
gram out into the community.
3. The educational program of the college must not be
limited to fomalized classroom instruction.
1*. The community college recognizes its responsibility bb
a catalyst in community development and self-improvement.
5. The program of community services meetB community needs
_
and does not duplicate existing services in the community.
Maior Problems in Designing Community Service Programs
Program planners do not escape difficulty in designing community ser­
vice programs, but the problems appear to be fairly straight-forvard.

Thq

need for leadership and for total faculty involvement is mentioned by
several authors.^ Reynolds notes that administrative policies are highly
^Harlacher, The Community Dimension of the Community College, op. cit.,
p. v of Preface.
p
Ibid.« p. 15. Harlacher is evidently a recognized leader among authors
in the field of community services. Monroe, op. cit.. p.l38ff and others
quote his thoughts quite extensively. Articulations of others, e.g., Max R.
Raines, Gundar A. ttyran, "Community Services: A University-Community
College Approach," Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 2: October 1970,
run parallel to them.
^Raines, op. cit., Bushnell, op. cit., Reynolds, The Comprehensive
Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. Harlacher, The Community Dimension of
the Community College, op. cit.

105
Influential In determining the type of curriculum the college provides.
The community service program often is directly controlled by the educa­
tional philosophy of the chief administrator.

His "relationship to the

college board, the faculty, and the piblic relations program...makes his
attitude critical in causing the program to succeed or fall; since these
three parts of the organization exercise a great deal of paver, it appears
that their view vould be decisive."^
The attitude of the board is important and can indirectly determine
policy through its selection of the president, or it may directly favor
or object to the positive philosophy of the chief executive tovard com­
munity services.

The attitude of the president can be decisive similarly

vhen he hireB nev faculty as veil as in his normal influential relation­
ship vith the instructional force.^

Faculty members may

object to non­

credit courses as flaunting veil-established traditions in higher education,
and may resist community service programs for vhich they are not ready and
P
vhich, they may feel, attack their status.
Adequate resources or their absence may be decision-making criteria
for program planners.

Costs of staff, added service functions (e.g., ex­

tended library hours), utilities, custodial service, supervisory admini­
strative personnel, secretarial help, guidance and counseling services are
not small expenses.

In addition, course credit is often the criterion the

state useB in giving or vlthholding supporting funds.^

■'■Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. p.
91f. .
2Ibld.. p. 92.
^Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 98 .
^Loc. cit.

106
Reynolds points out that the size of the community served by the
community college can be an inhibiting factor in community services pro­
gram development.

In a small community, both instructors and interested

program participants may be scaroe.

In larger communities, Reynolds ob­

serves, larger enrollments, more comprehensive curriculum, richer resources
in faculty and instructional aids are more readily expected.

Colleges in

such areas may be inhibited by competition from other community serving
agencies— a problem not usually experienced by colleges in the smaller
communities.^
Community Services instructors, often recruited from the community
for their special Interests and abilities, are often untenured and may be
paid at an hourly rate.

Credential requirements expected of full-time

faculty members may be vaived and vages paid may be substantially lover
than that paid full-time faculty.

Bushnell and Zagaris suggest that

"recent developments in collective bargaining may end or reduce this
flexibility in hiring," eliminating the extensive use of resource persons
p
and pricing community service programs out of the market.
These same
authors point out that practical or psychological handicaps felt by thoBe
vho vould utilize the community services programs (e.g., the need for care
of dependents, lack of transportation, a sense of Inadequacy in the learn­
ing situation and inflexible vork schedules need to be overcome.^ These,
insofar as they exist, should be recognized by program planners for they
are criteria of decision.

Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit., p. 93.
^Bushnell, op. cit., p. 99•

107
Harlacher enumerates eight major problems and issues— some already
mentioned— that curriculum decision makers in planning a community services
program vlll need to resolve or recognize as criteria guidelines for
decision:
1. internal and external communications;
2. securing the support of boards of trustees,
'. the administration, and faculty for community
services;
3. coordination of service vith other community
and regional groups;
1*. identification of community needs and interests;
5. planning and evaluation of the program;
6. development of a program philosophy and identifi­
cation of objectives;
7* administration and supervision of the program;
8. adequate resources.
External Influences upon Curricular Decision Making
In this review of literature, thought addressed to the process of
program and course selection and to criteria vhich affect decisions to be
made is the important focus. Kirst and Walker, in a lengthy and stimulat­
ing article appearing In the Reviev of Educational Research object to vhat
authors in general call "influences" on curricular decision making.
Authors without exception, they find, treat "conflict always as conflict
among ideas, never as conflict among individuals, interest groups or fac­
tions within school system bureaucracies."2

For Kirst and Walker, the

determination of public school curriculum is not Just Influenced by poli­
tical events, but is a political process resolved through political

Harlacher, The Community Dimension of the Cnnmmnity College, op. cit.,
pp. U3-6 7 .
A

Michael W. Kirst, Decker F. Walker, "An Analysis of Curriculum Policy
Making," Review of Educational Research, Vol. 1*1, No. 5: December 1971*
pp. 1*81.

108
conflict "generated by the existence of competing values concerning the
proper basis for deciding vhat to teach. V al u e conflicts, authorita­
tively allocated, is the essence of vhat they mean by the political prop
cess in curriculum decision making, and each value basis has its supporters
and detractors vho use political techniques to bolster their position.
When a definite value base is accepted, determination of the curricu­
lum is simplified, these authors say, for then there is provided a limited
and vell-defined set of criteria for narroving the bevildering array of
curricular choices.

But even though the acceptance of a single clear and

consistent basis of value simplifies the process, the resolution of poli­
tical conflict in curriculum policy making requires a decision procedure
in addition to a value basis.

Thus, usually, on individual or small group

is given authority to make decisions by exercising professional and
"expert" Judgment.

The power given this decision-making body ranges from

tight control to virtual independence.
Kirst and Walker, quoting Lindblom and Braybrooke, Buggest that the
decision procedure these groups will follow is one of "disjointed incrementalism— a collection of 'relatively simple, crude, almost wholly con­
scious, and public strategies' for decision making, vhich 'taken together
as a mutually reinforcing set...constitute a systematic and defensible
strategy'"...^
The major features of disjointed lncrementalism are (a)
acceptance of the broad outlines of the existing situa­
tion with only marginal changes contemplated, (b)

I
Ibid.. p. 1<80.
2 Ibid., p. 1*83.

3
C. Lindblom, D. Braybrooke, A Strategy of Decision. New York: Free
Press, 1963, p. 82 , quoted in Kirst, "An Analysis of Curriculum Policy
Making," op. cit.. p. 1*8U.

109
consideration of a restricted variety of policy alternatives
excluding those entailing radical change, (c) consideration
of a restricted number of consequences for any given policy,
(d) adjustment of objectives to policies as veil as policies
to objectives, (e) willingness to formulate the problem as
data becomes available, and (f) serial analysis and piece- ^
meal alterations rather than a single comprehensive attack.
The conclusion reached by Kirst and Vblker 1b that "curriculum deci­
sion makers use informal methods of decision making," and that the "absence
of formal decision-making procedures complicates the task of comprehending
the political processes involved in decision making since informal methods
are more complex, diffuse and irregular."2
Dispute among authors as to the political processes and informal
methods of decision making has not been evidenced in this review.

Further­

more, "influences," "determinants," "constraints," and all other pressures
upon the curriculum, whatever they are called, provide criteria for cur­
ricular decision makerB and the question of semantics need not here be of
concern.
National and Regional Influences upon Curricular Decision Making
Richardson, in examining influences from the nations! perspective,
notes three complications:

".(1) confusion as to national goals and lack

of clearly-defined objectives for higher education, (2) rapidly changing
and vacillating leadership on the national level, and (3) the late arrival
of the two-year college as a national p r i o r i t y . Without clear objectives,
plans cannot well be designed on a long-range basis, but must be devised

"hcirst, "An Analysis of Curriculum Policy Making," op. cit., p. U8**—U852Ibid.. p. 1*85.
3r 1chard C. Richardson, Jr., Clyde E. Blocker, Louis W. Bender,
Governance for the Two-Year College. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972, p. 6.

110
to meet short-term critical needs that demand prompt satisfaction.

The

question of higher education's role and purpose in society has been un­
resolved on the national level, as "an almost endless succession of com­
mittees, commissions, task forces, and self-appointed critics (suggest)
fundamental redefinitions of the roles of higher education."1 The long
time recognition of both -the public schools and four-year institutions as
being of national importance kept the short-Bighted from appreciating the
important place the new community colleges were taking everywhere.and the
special problems which they faced.

A clearly evident pull toward cen­

tralised bureaucratlc<j9cntrol-oa- the~Btate or national levelB is resulting
from the absence of a unified and sound national policy structure and a
reliable and consistent funding program,^
Federal funding policies powerfully Influence the curriculum at every
educational level.

Millett is not alone in observing that "federal funds

do mean various kinds of control and do exercise various kinds of influence
upon the decision making of colleges and universities.Colleges really
cannot expect to be both affluent and autonomous, Millett says.
Senator Harrison C. Williams (D.— N. J.), who Introduced the Compre­
hensive Community College Act of 1969 to the Senate, saw that "the Federal
Government had failed in its full responsibilities to these colleges which
represent almost half of all institutions of higher education and approxi­
mately one-third of all Btudents in higher education."*1

^Ibld., p. 7.
^Loc. cit.
John D. Millett, Decision Making and Administration in Higher
Education. Ohio: Kent State University PreBs, 1966, p. 27.
**Harrison A. Williams, "To Close the Opportunity Gap," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 1: September 19^9» p* 8.

Ill

Without adequate financing at the federal levelt supporting the state and
local efforts, community colleges, Harrison recognized, could not "close
the opportunity gap" that separates American society into educational
"haves" and 'have-nots."
Encouragement is generally found in a "nev Washington climate" that
will enable community colleges to serve their communities better.The
"Orantmanship" has probably been a greater problem in the four-year col­
leges and universities.

Federal funding programs for one year (or any

short term) is a problem more acutely experienced, perhaps, in the community
colleges.

Without a secure view toward the future, long-range plans become

impossible and short-range development unlikely.

The AAJC Commission on

Legislation has called for a restructuring of federal programs.

"Some

forty-four different agencies of the Federal Government are currently
administering scores of educational programs.

The Office of Education alone

administers more than seventy-five programs."2 The Commission has called
for more effective coordination among the federal agencies, simplified
grant forms, regional coordinating agencies where the various colleges can
find help in clarifying their needs and in making maximum use of appropriate
agencies.

Still further decentralization to state departments of education

and urban centers is asked by AAJC."

*Frank R. Mensel, "Federal Support for the Two-Year Colleges: A
Whole Nev Ballgame," Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*0, Iio. 1: September
1969.
^"Toward Universal Opportunity: Goals and Priorities for Federal
Programs," (Statement adopted by the AAJC Commission on Leg ialation,
December 1970, as its first formal statement of legislative goals), Junior
College Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 6: March 1971* p. 17*
^Loc. cit.

112
A single national system of higher education is not favored by the
authors.

Recommendations for federal support emphasises its increased

role for specialized and supplemental purposes, not as a dominant source
of basic financial support that 3eads to federal dominance in Influence
and control,1
Finances can make needed programs possible in the community college.
If there is a "trade-off" in some loss of autonomy or if constr&lntB are
placed upon programs backed by federal funding, policy makers and curricu­
lar decision makers vill have to decide vhich course to follow.

At least

criteria, hopefully clear, will be able to guide them in their decisions.
The influences of national professional organizations are of impor­
tance to tvo-year colleges.

The American Association of Junior Colleges

has represented tvo-year colleges and their various constituencies at the
national level.

It has provided notable assistance in improving communica­

tions between the federal establishment, state director of community college
systems, and university professors involved in the preparation of profess
p
sional personnel.
Its influence has been informational, advisory and
stimulating— not regulatory— as has been the Influence of the American
Council on Education and the American Association for Higher Education.
Both of these Associations have been helpful in communicating the needs
and activities of higher education to government, business, and industry
and in communicating information to their membership.
I
The Capitol and the Campus; State Responsibilities for Postsecondary Education. Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission
on Higher Education, New York: McOrav-Hill Book Co., 1971» p. Iff.
^Richardson, op. cit.. p. 10.

113
The National Education Association and the American Federation of
Teachers (and to some measure the American Association of University
Professors) compete as spokesmen for professionals in higher education.^*
Collective bargaining in Michigan has as its scope vagest hours, and con­
ditions of employment.

Under this latter— conditions of employment— many

influences upon curriculum may be expected.

Negotiations over vages and

hours too can provide criteria that will affect curricular decisions to
be made.
The influence of regional and professional accrediting associations
upon curriculum is pervasive.

It 1b the primary method by which higher
O
education provides for its own governance.
B. Lamar Johnson notes the

values of accreditation vhich, he says, emerge largely from two steps in
the process:
(l) the preparation of the application (faculty participa­
tion in a study of the institution and the resulting pre­
paration of reports for submission to the accrediting
agency), and (2) the improvements made by the college as
a result of the accreditation survey and its recommendations.
Zhe latter outcomes are, in large measure, dependent upon
the clarity and the validity of the recommendations made
by the visiting examiners.
At the same time, according to Kirst and Walker, accreditation is seen
by every Bchoolman as being so important that it brings almost Irresistible
pressure on the curriculum.

"In effect, accrediting agencies make value

1
M. Lleberman, Michael H. Moskow, J. Joseph Loevenberg, Edward C.
Koziarz, Collective Negotiations for Teachers. Chicago, Illinois: RandMcNally, IpSST Cf. also Collective Bargaining in Public Employment, New
York: Random House, 1970.
^William K. Selden, "Nationwide Standards and Accreditation," in Wilson
(Editor), op. cit., p. 2ll*-215. Cf. also Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior
College Curriculum, op. cit., et al.
^B. Lamar Johnson, "California Junior College Curriculum Development,"
The California Journal of Secondary Education, Vol. 31: March 1956, P» 13^.
Richardson expresses a like view in Governance for the Two-Year College, op.
cit,., p. 36 .

Ill*
Judgments about what should be taught while their credo stresses profesatonal Judgment.

h

1

Both views are doubtlessly right.

From one point of view, the in­

fluence of accrediting agencies can be seen as advisory, informational,
and stimulating— as a totally free and objective self-apprdisal by an
institution,

from another point of view, one can recognize that the

crltlcality of being accredited practically coerces compliance and obsequiosness, even when the subjectivity of examiner's viewpoints, values,
and Judgments may be unacceptable.

The influence Of accrediting agencies

over curriculum can be regulatory and usually is.**
Accreditation of programs by various professional associations repre­
sent a complex problem to the two-year college, Richardson thinks.

Their

proliferation, cause of unnecessary time consumption, expense, and some­
times unrealistically high requirements has encouraged some faculty members
to emphasize college parallel curricula at the expense of occupational
programs.

3

The findings of a study by MeBsersmith and Medsker, on tie

contrary, affirm the utility and acceptance of program accreditation in
post-secondary education.

li

Foundations and other philanthropic organizations contribute to the
development of community colleges and their programs, and they have become
"powerful agents In curriculum making.
Kirst, op. cit.. p. 489.
2
Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 39.
3
Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit.. p. 13.
4
Lloyd E. Kessersmlth, Leland L. Medsker, Problems and I b b u c s in
Accreditation by Specialized Agencies of Vocational-Technical Curricula in
Post-secondaxy Institutions," HEW Cooperative Research Program, Berkeley,
California: The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education,
1969. Abstract from ERIC, ED030750-VT008 830.
^Monroe, op. cit.. p. 494.

115
Testing agencies exert a "standardizing" influence on curriculum,^
and textbook publishers are "powerful influences on the curriculum," for
to control the content of the textbook is, naturally, to control the curo
riculum.
University professors, by the articulation of their personal
values Influence curriculum and when banded together in their professional
associations can be extremely influential.
Another national Influence upon the curriculum, noted by the authors,
1b the Education Commission of the States which tries to exert pressure
upon Congress to support comprehensive post-secondary institutions which
serve the local community.

The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB),

the Western Interstate Compact for Higher Education (WICKE) and the New
England Board of Higher Education (NEBHE) have provided national leader­
ship.

Their influences are not coercive, but their leverage with legis­

latures and community college people is very significant.

Through pro­

viding a facility for the collection, coordination and dissemination of
materials of interest to community colleges and through its original re­
search, the ERIC center for Junior colleges, located at the University of
California, Los Angeles, has likewise become important as an influence in
curriculum development.
The external forces upon curriculum determination at the national
level are of various kindB and arise from various sources.

They may not

"hcirst, op. cit.. p. l»89 .
2
Ibid.. p. U92. Cf. also Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College
Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 191. "There is probably no greater Influence on
a given curriculum than the textbooks used in its course."
3Ibld.. p. I195-U9 6 .
^Monroe, op. cit.. pp. 15-17*

116
simplify the work of curriculum designers or policy makers, but they may
be "portants of an increasingly political approach to curriculum questions
on the part of the general public."*
State Influences upon Curricular Decision Making
The authors are in agreement that influences upon the community col­
lege at the state level have markedly increased in recent years*

The

need for coordinated efforts within and among the various segments of
higher education 1b today generally recognized and called for.

State

Master Plans for institutions of higher education, it is recognized, can
bring about efficiency and economy of programs and services.
Guidelines for the feasible establishment of new institutions for the
maximum opportunity and development of students can be established by ob­
jective research.

Roles and responsibilities of the various career-

developing institutions and their interrelationships can be defined. A
clear and binding, acceptable plan for articulation between community col­
leges and four-year institutions, relative to transfer curriculum, can be
fashioned to free students from fear of penalty when they transfer from
the Junior to the senior college.

A Master Plan cannot escape recognition

of the state's financial responsibility toward its institutions, and
authors feel that community colleges (supported by local taxing bodieB

^TCirst, op. d t ., p. 509*
^Principles of Legislative Action for Community Junior Colleges.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, (Commission
on Legislation), 1962, e.g., under Principle 7» P* 8: "The organization,
operation and control of community Junior colleges should reflect both a
recognition of the institutional integrity of the college and its coordi­
nate relationships with other educational levels within the state."

117
up to two-thirds of their total expenses) should he treated fairly with
the four-year institutions and universities whose total costs (apart from
tuition and fees) is paid by the state.^
The question is not whether to plan and coordinate, according to T. R.
McConnell, writing in 1966, but who will plan and coordinate— external
agencies, such as the legislature or the state department of finance, or
responsible educational bodies— and what will be the role of the coordi­
nating body?^ Vattenbarger, in 1968, spoke of "the stigma of state control,"
and noting then that many influences were at work directly affecting the
organization of the community junior colleges— that state control, where
evidenced, had not proved propitious to the development of the community
college— urged the preservation of the strengths of the locally controlled
3

system.

Three years later Vattenbarger, working with J. A. Stuckman,

appeared to accept as a fact the recognition of state legislators that
"planning and coordination are essential if a state's educational and

^iedsker, Breaking the Access Barriers: A Profile of Two-Year College,
op. cit., pp. 11*8-150. The AAJC, Principles of Legislative Action for
Community Junior Colleges, op. cit.. Principle 5* reflects the same con­
sideration. The Carnegie Commission outlines various common purposes of
coordination and offers recommendations of minimum elements deemed neces­
sary in any Btate planning effort. The Capital and the Campus; State
Responsibility for PoBt-secondary Education, op. d t .. pp. 26. 3^. Cf.
also Mlllett. op. cit.. pp. 28-31.
^T. R. McConnell, "The Coordination of Btate Systems," in Wilson
(Editor), op. cit.. pp. 136ff.
James L. Vattenbarger, "Changing Patterns of Control: Local to State,"
Junior College Journal. Vol. 38 , No. 8: May 1968. Cf. also Principles of
Legislative Action for Community Junior Colleges, op. cit., Principle t,
p. 5: uThe control of a community Junior college should be vested pre­
ferably in a local board whose sole‘responsibility is the operation and
management of the college." Singer and Grande evidence the same conclu­
sion. Donald A. Singer, John A. Grande, "Emerging Patterns of Governance,"
Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 6: March 1971*

118
occupational needs are to toe met, If equal educational opportunity toeyond
the high school regardless of home location 1b to toe provided, and if the
community college development in the state is to toe orderly."1 Wattentoarger
argued for Institutional integrity on the one hand and for a spirit of co­
operation and support betveen the local hoard, administration and facility
vith the state coordinating agency on the other.

He argued further for
p
the establishment of separate councils for the president, the chief aca­
demic officer, the chief student personnel officer, the business manager
and the teaching faculty of each community college in the state— each of
the five organizations vorking under a definite plan vith an agency staff

member to bring out effective statevlde and institutional planning.
In the summer of 19T2, vorking vith Louis W. Bender, Wattentoarger
noted the continual evidence "that the

focus for much of the public

policy making, for higher education and planning, for budgeting, and for
the much needed evaluation is shifting from the individual institution
and the local community level to the state level."^

He noted too the in­

roads of non-educational Btate agencies vith responsibilities or control
over matters affecting community colleges.

"The role of state budget,

personnel, or physical facilities agencies, as veil as other departments
of state government," he observed, "often impinge upon the on-going

Jeffrey A. Stuckman, James L. Vattenbarger, "Coordination Within
the State System," Junior College Journal. Vol. Ul, No. 6: March 1971»
P. 1*3.
^Fairly common already, according to MenBel, op. cit., p. 266.
^Louis W. Bender, James L. Wattenbarger, "Challenge Ahead: StateLevel Control," Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*2, No. 9* June-July 1972,
p. 17.

119
operation of local community colleges.

As the Carnegie Commission had

2
3
recommended a year earlier and McConnell even earlier, Vattenbarger
turned his attention to the Important nev career aspect of state agency
work.

In addition, he reported the establishment of a Center for State

and Regional Leadership, established by the University of Florida and
Florida State University with the assistance of a grant by the V. K.
Kellogg Foundation to support activities vhich would aid in solving prob­
lems caused by present trends.

The "participating universities are con­

vinced that the currently Increasing and often unplanned emphasis upon
state level coordination and/or control must be tempered by deliberate
attention to the nature of this relatively uncharted development.1'11

1Ibid., p. 17.
**Thc Capital and the Campus:
Education, op. cit.. p. 30-31.

State Responsibility for Post-secondary

^McConnell, op. cit.. p. 137.
h
Bender, op. cit.. p. 20. The nev center has the following basic
purposes:
1. To provide a more positive and temperate direction in the
rapidly emerging role of the states in planning, coordination,
and operation of community college systems.
2. To foster improvement of vorking relationships within and ser­
vices from various governmental agencies involved in state-wide
development of community colleges.
3. To provide a national center for development of professional
personnel who will serve in the various governmental agencies
having responsibilities for community colleges.
1*. To establish a national information center focused upon evolv­
ing issues related to the development of state-level coordina­
tion of community colleges and the effects upon constituent
institutions.
5. To strengthen the national scope of state-vide community college
programs by providing services to the National Council of State
Directors of Community Colleges and assisting the development
and activities of that organization.

120
tyman A. Glenny noted the existence of state-wide boards to coordinate
public institutions of higher learning early in the century, though the
steady increase became especially rapid since 1930. All of them were
characterized by "a decided lack of positive goals to develop and strengthen
the institutions and programs.*'1 Vith authors in general, Glenny BeeB as
the greatest problem of coordination today the perennial question of hov to
achieve economy, efficiency and the reduction of competition among insti­
tutions for state funds without destroying the initiative, flexibility and
o
diversity of the public institutions. He agrees with McConnell that
voluntary systems of coordination cannot serve the Interests and needs of
3

state-wide higher education as well as formal coordinating agencies,

and

that in practice "coordinating agencies do not afford individual instltutions more freedom and initiative than governing agencies,

even though

they are by far more popular and least opposed by Institutions.
Even though fear for institutional integrity and autonomy continues
to be a common concern,^ Richardson reports that while only twenty states

■4iyman A. Glenny, Autonomy of Public Colleges. New York:
Book Company, 1939, P* 263.

McGraw-Hill

^McConnell, op. cit., p. 138.
^Glenny, op. cit.. p. 262.
**Ibid.. p. 26b. Bushnell and Zagarls "foresee a continuing tension
between state and local authorities over who will set priorities and what
those priorities should be. Bushnell, op. cit.. p. 152.
^Monroe, op. cit., p. 360, Note especially the recommendations of the
Carnegie Commission, The Capital and the CampuB: State Responsibilities for
Post-secondary Education, op. cit., p. 20ff that governors not serve as
chairmen or voting members of state coordinating agencies o£ governing
boards of colleges and universities, and that appointments by the governor
to governing boards of state colleges and universities, and to state co­
ordinating and/or planning agencies, be made with the advice and consent
of the senate. Other restrictive suggestions, relative to coordinating
agencies, are also offered.

had state coordinating agencies in 1959, forty-eight of the fifty states
had developed some type of statevlde coordination or control by 19^9*1
"Concern for institutional autonomy," however* "has counteracted trends
for greater coordination, creating in many institutions a reaction
against the principle of long-range planning designed for Btatevide cop

ordination of a system or even sub-systems."
Two-year colleges can be classified into three categories, out of
which, according to Monroe, three basic patterns of control and finance
have emerged.

The first and oldest pattern of community college operation—

the unified district community colleges— organizes the community college as
*
an Integral part of the public school system. The Independent Community
College can more readily look to the state for alleviation of the local
financial burden, and therefore has greater opportunity to provide a more
comprehensive educational program— especially occupational curriculum— for
more students.

Such an organizational pattern is common in Michigan and

is becoming more common generally.

Independent colleges are controlled

by Ideally elected (e.g., Michigan) or appointed college boards which are
independent from other local school boards.

State operated community col­

leges (and also technical institutes and area vocational schools) are
organized under the direct control of a state agency, either a state board
of higher education, a state community college board or a state university.
3
These are financed completely by the state.

Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit.. p.

2k,

122
Organization of Community Colleges^
Type of College

Number of Colleges
(percentage surveyed)

Local two-year colleges including both unified
and independent school districts

59.0

State supported two-year colleges and technical
institutes

15.U

University extension centers and branches

20.7

Other institutions

U.9
100.0

Richardson points out that "one difficulty inherent in statewide coordina­
tion or control is the ability to maintain a balance between state and
2
local needs and interests."
McConnell,^ Vattenbarger,** and Richardson** are among the authors who
have observed increasing Influence upon community colleges by specializing
governmental agencies, such as the state vocational education agency, budget
offices and licensing boards.

Richardson notes the contribution of various

publics whose activities and actions can help shape the community college
"when they take positions on proposed legislation affecting such institu­
tions, or when they uae the media to influence sentiment."** Political

1Ibid., p. 352.
^Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit.. p. 26.
^McConnell, op. cit.. p. 83.
h
Bender, op. cit.. pp. 17-20.
^Richardson, op. cit.. p. 28.
**Loc. cit.

123
parties, state chambers of commerce, the manufacturer's association, state
labor unions are some of these.

Voluntary state educational bodies, he

observes— professional organizations for trustees, administrators, faculty
or studentB— "frequently give direction to efforts creating statutory or
regulatory provisions designed to influence the* dilssion or programs of the
two-year college."1
In summary, the legislature, the executive office, coordinating
agencies, Judicial bodies and other governmental and non-governmental
agencies provide directional and/or operational influences upon the comO
munity college, according to RiehardBon.
The distinction he makes be­
tween directional and operational influences is interesting and appears
unique.

Directional influences, he says, result from "long-range planning,

enabling legislature, determination of priorities and similar processes
to shape institutional purposes directly.

Operational influences are more

direct and are the consequence of special procedures or restraints imposed
by legislation, executive order or through agencies exercising powers
granted by the l e g i s l a t u r e . The many state influences upon the community
college and its curriculum need to be recognized and understood by curricu**
lum decision makers, for individually and collectively they are criteria
that direct or guide decisions to be made.
Michigan State Influences upon Curriculum Decision Making
In creating the new State Board of Education, the 1963 Constitution
prescribed that the board "shall serve as the general planning and

1Ibid., p. 28-29.
2
Ibid.. pp. 19-35.

3

Ibid., p. 3*4*

12k

coordinating body for all public education, including higher education,
and shall advise the legislature as to the financial requirements in con­
nection therewith."^ The State Board of Education, furthermore, "has
leadership and general supervision of all public education, including
adult education and instructional programs of the state institutions,
except as to institutions of higher education granting baccalaureate
degrees."^ In addition, the 1963 Constitution stipulates that "the legis­
lature shall provide by lav for the establishment and financial support of
public community and Junior colleges vhich shall be supervised and con­
trolled by locally elected boards," and thfct "the legislature shall pro­
vide by lav for a state board for public Junior and community colleges
vhich Bhall advise the state board of education concerning general super­
vision and planning for such colleges, and requests for annual appropria­
tions for their support."^
The Michigan Department of Education adopted a State Plan for Higher
Education on June 11, 1969*^ In this Plan are outlined thirty-eight goals
related to services in the area of higher education planning and coordinat­
ing.

These are divided into four broad categories:

identification of

needs in higher education, planning and coordination of programs, determina­
tion of financial requirements, and a fourthvhich embraces severalfederal

^Constitution of
paragraph 1, in Lavs.
Community Colleges in
1970.
2
Constitution of

the State of Michigan. 1963, Article VIII, Section 3,
Statutes and Constitutional Provisions Affecting
Michigan. Michigan Department of Education, revised
the

^Constitution of the

State of Michigan,op. cit., Section IX.
State of Michigan, op. cit., Section 7.

**Btate Plan for Higher Education in Michigan. Revised February 1970,
Lansing, Michigan, Michigan Department of Education.

125
programs administered as part of the Higher Education Planning and
Coordination Services.1
Goals number one provides a general objective for all services, pro­
grams and activities related to Higher Education Planning and Coordination:
To plan for and encourage the orderly development of a com­
prehensive Btate system of education beyond the secondary
level that will effectively and efficiently serve all the
needs of Michigan.
In order to expedite progress toward them, "eight supporting objec­
tives have evolved out of recent efforts to group the other thirty-seven
goals
1. Nine of the goals (7, 11, 12, 13, lU, 15, 16, 30, 3*0 address the
Issue of providing "equality of opportunity for access to and
completion of higher education programs in Michigan."
2. Four general goals (9» 10, 19, 21) have to do vith determining
the "present and future manpower requirements of this state and
proper allocation of educational resources to meet these needs."
3. Goals 2, 17, 31, and 35 call for determining "ways of making more
effective and efficient use of educational resources through ex­
amination of institutional roles, responsibilities, programs,
services and resource requirements."
1*. Goal 18 of the State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan states
that the Michigan Board of Education "will develop, in coopera­
tion vith institutional representatives, a state-wide plan where­
by off-campuB education can be encouraged, fostered and coordinated."
5. Eight of the goals deal specifically and exclusively with community
colleges, and have to do vith planning for and encouraging the
orderly development of a state-wide system.

Namely, Title I, Higher Education Facilities Act, Construction
Grants; Title I HEFA, Comprehensive Planning; Title I HEA, Community
Service and Title VI-A, HEA, Equipment GrantB.
2
State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan, op. cit., p. 1-8.
^Higher Education Planning and Coordination of the Michigan Department
of Education. State Board of Education, Lansing, Michigan, November 1970.

126
6.

Goals 1* and 5 consider the coordination "of program developments
at private Institutions and proprietary schools as part of the
overall system of higher education."

7«

Goals 22, 23, 2U, 25 relate the formulation of plans for coordi­
nation and development of higher education on a regional basis.

8.

Four of the goals in the State Plan (6, 32, 36, 38) indicate a
planning approach to "develop long-range projections of educa­
tional demand and resource requirements for higher education In
Michigan." More specifically, they call for:
a) "the development of long-range projections of student
enrollments,"
b) "adoption of a uniform system of counting and reporting
students,"
c) "continuous study of operating needs,"
d) "annual projections of capital outlay needs.

The Program Planning Budget System (PPBS), as it is called in
Michigan, is not mentioned in this document, butits definitions are de­
tailed in a later publication from .the Bureau of the Budget.
The special responsibility for post-secondary area vocational and
technical programs to be operated and financed by the community college
in each region of the state is Bpelled out in Vocational Education Services
O
of the Michigan Department of Education. Plans of the State Board of
Education "to ultimately place adult education programs under the respon­
sibility of community colleges..."were listed among administrative policies
for 1970-1971."3
The Michigan Department of Education has addressed itself to Community
Service and related programs,*1 to scholarships and tuition grants,

^Loc. cit.
2
Vocational Education Services of the Michigan Department of Education.
Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, November 1970, p. 9.
3Ibld., p. 21.
**Adult Education and Community Services of the Michigan Department of
Education. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, November 1970.

127
guaranteed loans1 and to related subjects vhich directly or Indirectly
Influence the community college in its operation and programs.

In Adult

Education and Community Services, the State Board of Education treats
Adult Basic Education, High School Equivalency Certification Programs and
Community School Programs.

In discussing the latter, the board gives

credit to the W. K. Kellogg and the Mott Foundations.

The Mott Foundation,

especially, has been instrumental in elaborating community services
through the public schools.

Community education programs, lauded by the

state and throughout the country, point up the need and value of coopera­
tive respect, recognition and effort between all segments and levels of
education to serve the community.

In thiB, the public schools and the

community college should be natural partners.2 All of these external
forces are important, for, in one way or another, in large or small mea­
sure they define parameters of institutional and curricular decision
making.
Local Influences on Curricular Decision Making
C. West Churchman says that there is a great mystery in the natural
world— the who, when, how and what of man's decisions.

So many factors

come into play in organizational decision making that these questions are
3

obscured...

And yet decisions are made!

They must be made some time by

someone for definite reasons (criteria), even if they are made at the
wrong times by the wrong person who is guided by faculty criteria.

^Student Financial Aid Services of the Michigan Department of Education.
Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, November 1970.
2Adult Education and Community Services of the Michigan Department of
Education, op. cit.. pp. 19-2U.
3C. WeBt Churchman, Challenge to Reason. New York:
Book Company, 1968, p. 20.

Me Grav-Hill

128
The administrator of a community-centered institution must always be
concerned vith the Image the Institution projects, however, both to those
serving within it and to the outside publics.

Naturally, he will wish to

design decision-making processes in such a way as to ensure their general
acceptability by those to whom, directly or indirectly, he is accountable.
"The context within which a college is viewed by Its supporting community,"
according to Richardson, "has the likelihood of becoming a self-fulfilling
prophecy."^
Monroe says that "in practice, the public means the elected members
of legislative bodieB, the executive and Judicial officers."^ Underlying
these powers and giving them strength, it has to be noted, are the various
Individuals, formal and informal groups, coalitions of different groups,
organized pressure persons and pressure groups who fight to be heard,
especially monied persons or groups^ who, by mounting advertising campaigns,
and perhaps in other ways, can influence the average citizen to a point of
view, a definite outlook or an emotional response.

There are a variety of

influential groups with which a college is Involved in its operations—
various political, civic, ethnic, social and educational groups— each with
differing degrees of influence and Impact. The socio-political setting of
each college has to be understood by decision makers.

"College administra­

tors must comprehend the nature and behavioral pattern of political

^Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year

College, o p . cit.. p. 36.

Cf. alBo Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit..
pp. 11*7-1*8.

O
Monroe, op. cit.. p. 305*
3Ibid.. p. 307.

*

129

thought and organization vithin the community if the college is to he an
integral part of it."'1'
Governance is a comprehensive term vhich describes all aspects of a
college's control and direction.

It includes "the state constitution,

statutes, state boards of education or higher education, local boards of
control, the administration, and in some institutions, the faculty and
student body.

It includes both'the policy-making mechanisms and the

agencies through vhich the policies are executed or administered."^
Advisory Committees may also play a real role in governance.3
Local board members in Michigan are general overseers of the comh
munity college, responsible by lav for its direction and control. The
board must define "the broad underlying principles for the direction of

•'■Richardson, Governance for the Tvo-Ycar College, op. cit.. p. 38.
^Monroe, 6p. cit.. p. 303. John Carson defines governance as that
art or process "vith vhich scholars, students, teachers, administrators,
and trustees associated together in a college or in a university estab­
lish and carry out rules and regulations that minimize conflict, facili­
tate their collaboration, and preserve essential Individual freedom."
John J. Carson, Governance of College and Universities. Nev fork: McGravHill Book Company, 19^0, p. 12.
^Monroe, Thornton, Richardson and others speak of the value of general
and special advisory committees. Since, as Riendeau says, "they have no
authority to delegate or to legislate, and in no vay are their activities
intended to usurp any of the prerogatives of boards of trustees or col­
leges administrative staffs, they vill not be considered separately under
governance. Their influence, hovever, is real, or should be, but they
must be considered indirectly vith the boards or administrators they as­
sist. They are not included separately in definitions of governance."
Albert J. Riendeau, The Role of the Advisory Committee in Occupational
Education in the Junior College. "Organization and Administration of the
Advisory Committee," Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1987, P* 33.

130
the college," answering "such questions os how the students are to be
educated, vhat students are to be educated, what the goals and programs
of the college are, and who the administrators and faculty should be."*
The board members are expected to know the community and its needs and to
be responsive to them.

They depend upon the administration for adequate

information to make appropriate decisions,
criticial they are called upon to make:

three of which are the most

Those having to do with admis­

sions standards, tuition rates, and institutional programs. ^ The impor­
tance of the board to the college in mediating between internal and
external constituencies iB critical,1* and its importance to curricular
decision makers likewise becomes apparent when viewed against the three
principle questions mentioned above.
Funds for the Bupport of community colleges come from tuition
charges, local property taxes, general state revenues and federal grants
in varying proportions from state to state,5 and each source is surrounded
by problems.

In Michigan, state officials reported the following percent­

ages of current expenses for the budget year 1967-1968:

federal— 2JC;

state— 36jt; local supporting district— 26J(; student feeB and tuition— 29%i
and "other"— 1%, The range of federal

support among the states extended

^Monroe, op. cit.. pp. 307-308.
^Richard J. Gilliland, Michael Y. Nunnery, "Florida Trustees:
Characteristics and Opinibns," Junior College Journal, Vol. hO, No. 5:
February 1970, demonstrate from current Junior college literature that
while unanimity may be found among trustees on the role and the philosophy
of the community college, admissions, decisions, curriculum, staff and
governance, they nay be far from the ideal. The authors suggest that they
would be responsive to help from administrators. Such kinds of help may be
reflected in George L. Hall, "Ten Commandments for Trustees," Junior College
Journal. Vol. 36, No. 7: April 1966.
^Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit., p. U9 .
''ibid., P* 52.
5

Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit., p. 95*

131
from 0%-2k%f of state support from l*Jf-10Q/C, of local supporting districts
from 0£-l*7Jt, and of student fees from

Michigan State officials

reported these percentages for capital outlay for the same year:
20% (range among states:

federal—

0%-90%)\ state— 21% (range among states:

93^) and local supporting district— 59% (range among states:

Ojf-

OJf-lOOjt).1

George Rodda Jr. speaks of the necessity for trustees to organize
into a political force in order to secure funding to bridge educational
gaps and solve the problem of "half enough funding for our educational
program."2 Olaezer says that local control will not be maintained if
local financing cannot demonstrate a meaningful involvement of the people
served by the I n s t i t u t i o n . The New Depression in Higher Education ob­
serves that five main categories of activities control the financial
situation in many colleges:

"postponing, general belt-tightening, cutting

and reallocating within existing structure, scrambling for funds, planning
and worrying.Inflation, increase in faculty salaries, increase in stu­
dent aid, campus disturbances and growth in responsibilities, activities,
and aspirations contribute heavily to the cost Bide of the problem** that
confronts the board and must be resolved by it.

Junior college boards are

being forced "to set specific objectives and establish educational
priorities."^
IMedsker, Breaking the Access Barriers:
op. cit., pp. 116 -12 1 .

A Profile of Two-Year Colleges.

p

George Rodda, Jr., "Trustee Power:

Bridging Educational GapB,"

Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*0, Wo. 6: March 1970, pp. 39-1*0.
^Glaezer, op. cit.. p. 21.
**Earl F. Cheit, The Mew Depression in Higher Education: A Study of
Financial Conditions at 1*1 Colleges and Universities. A General Report for
the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the Ford Foundation, New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971* pp. 83-105.
5Ibid., pp. 105-113.
^Carol Hatfield, "No More Rubber-Stamp Boards," Junior College Journal.
Vol. 1*1, No. 5: February 1971.

132
The Invitational National Workshop for Junior College Boards of
Trustees in 1970 reported that "both nev and old trustees felt the impe­
tus of changing from the traditional concept of board responsibility in
policy making and administrative implementation to a more direct board
participation in the total institutional program.'1^ The survey of
Bushnell and Zagar1 b clearly indicates the same increased interest and
sense of responsibility of trustees toward their various constituent
groups, especially faculty and students.

o

3

Richardson and a growing num­

ber of others insist upon faculty and student representation (in some
capacity) at all trustee meetings.
The community college administrative staff includes all persons who
are engaged in the execution and application of the policies and decisions
of the board.

The chief administrative officer, usually called the presi­

dent, setB the tone of the institution, and his selection by the board
must therefore be most carefully made.

Among the many qualities that, in

the expected Judgment of the board he should possess, is the understanding
of and acceptance of those basic principles upon vhich a community college
is founded.

His resolution of the basic issues described by authors and

presented earlier in this review can be expected to influence the opera­
tion of the college, including curricular decisions.

His leadership

should be expected to enable the college to function efficiently, effec­
tively and harmoniously.

Like the board, the administration, under the

1Ibid., p. 75.
^Bushnell, op.
0£ cit., p. 150.
3
Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit., p. 1*8.

133
president, ’’exercises its chief control through the allocation of funds
and can nourish or starve any aspect of the college operation.”^ Public
relations is a responsibility that administration shares vith the board.
It has already been noted that a positive image is very necessary if the
college is to attract studentb and the financial support of the piblic.
Faculty-administrator relations have recently become a major concern
in every segment of education. Impatience and dissatisfaction of faculty
p
members, coupled vith administrator's unvillingness to share board3

delegated povers vith the teaching faculty is a pregnant subject in cur­
rent literature.

The jover of governance, according to Monroe vho articu­

lates the thoughts of many others, is still concentrated in the community
college boards and the presidents. Faculty pover is still conspicuously
]i
absent, he says.
But if it is, authors generally agree, it vill not be
before long,

"...the involvement of faculty in the decision-making pro-

cess is critical to the success of the tvo-year college movement."

Its

involvement, according to Richardson, should extend in an advisory capacity

^"Monroe, op. cit.. p. 311.
n

John Lombardi, "Faculty in the Administrative Process," Junior College
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3; November 1966.
%ichard C. Richardson, Jr., "Policy-Formulation in the Two-Year
College: Renaissance or Revolution," Junior College Journal. Vol. 37,
No. 6: March 1967, p. bo.
**Monroe, op. cit.. p. 321. See too Roger W. Keynes, "Today's
Problems and Tomorrov's Students," in Algo D. Henderson (Editor), Higher
Education in Tomorroy's World. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of
Michigan. 1966. pp. 80-fll. et al.
^Richardson, "Policy-Formulation in the Tvo-Year College: Renaissance
or Revolution," op. cit.. p. 1*1. Alexander Vavoulis, "A Faculty Role in
Policy Making," Junior College Journal. Vol. 3**, No. 7* April 196b, says
the same thing. See also, Richardson, "Needed: Nev Directions in
Administration," Junior College Journal. Vol. bO, No. 6: March 1970.

13»*
to the hoard, to include admission standards, curriculum additions, re­
vision or deletion...

Tillery calls on administrators and trustees to

recognize that "vise and attainable ediicuatlonal decisions cannot be made
without the formal and responsible involvement of the teachers."*
Participative decision making, or shared authority, is becoming a
subject of common discussion in the literature and a good case for it is
usually built.

Burton Clark suggests that even when power is shared,

though, a certain ambiguity necessarily continues:

"because responsibility

for decision making is diffused among groups vith inherently different in­
terests.

The authority structure puts a premium on administrative action

through consultation, persuasion, the patient gaining of a vorking
p
consensus."
The American Association for Higher Education^ describes five zones
in the distribution of decision-making authority betveen faculty and ad­
ministration:

administrative dominance, administrative primacy, shared

authority, faculty primacy and faculty dominance.

Millett thinks that

"the prevailing expectation today is that the collective faculty In a
college or university vill enjoy 'shared authority' vith the administration
in decision making about the institution,"*4 but that the problem of

^Dale Tillery, "Academic Hank," Junior College Journal. February
1963, p. 33. Ikenberry suggests that the democratization of colleges is
likely to require nev patterns of behavior for administrators, faculty,
and students. Stanley 0. Ikenberry, "Governance and the Faculty," Junior
College Journal. Vol. ^2, No. 3: November 1971 •
2Burton R. Clark, "Faculty Organization and Authority," in Terry F.
Lundsford, The Study of Academic Administration. Boulder, Colorado:
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education: October 1963, P* 302.
•a

^Faculty Participation in Academic Governance, Report of AAHE Task
Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations, Campus Governance
Program, Washington, D. C.: American Association of Higher Education, 1967*
pp. ll*ff.
U
Millett, op. cit.. p. 5.

135
defining shared authority remains to be aolved.

A Btudy by the American

Association of Higher Education (1967) "found that in its sample of fourand tvo-year colleges, only 25 percent could be classified as sharedauthority institutions.

The other 75 percent vere dominated by the

administration."1. Some evidence of Increasing consultation vith the
faculty in Junior colleges was noted by the association and a recommenda­
tion for some form of shared power between the faculty and the administra­
tion was recommended.
The functions which belong to the administration are pro­
viding overall institutional leaders, coordinating the
different parts of the college, especially by means of
the budget, assuming leadership for Innovation, evaluat­
ing departmental standards so that the weak departments
are encouraged to improve, mediating between the com­
munity college board and the faculty, and managing the
housekeeping choreB related to finance, buildings,
maintenance, and legal problems.
The faculty has primary responsibility for decisions vhich
affect curriculum, the learning environment, academic
standards, admissions policies, professional standards and
the means for Improving professional statuB, academic free­
dom, and all else which affectB the learning process and
the student. It is recommended that neither faculty nor
administration have exclusive control over any aspect of
the college operation. The administration should have
primary Jurisdiction in its sphere, but not exclusive
power, and the Bame goeB for the faculty.

Arthur Cohen, writing the forward to Governance and the Two-Year
College, describes the historical anomalies in community college structure
and functioning that resulted from the disparities (elements of the secon­
dary school and university structures) in its heritage.

The twin

Facility Participation in Academic Governance, op. cit.. p. 16.
These Bame conclusions are evidenced in R>bert E. Lahti, MA Faculty Role
in Policy Formulation," Junior College Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1,
September 1966.
p
Monroe, op. cit., pp. 325-326.

136

developments of faculty militancy and student unrest in the 1960's,
Cohen says, forced a redefinition of community college administration.
"The autocrat became as outmoded as the hickory stick and today's college
administrator operates in a sphere of compromise and reconciliation be­
tween contending forces."^
Richardson, Blocker, and Bender collaborated in Governance and the
Two-Year College to "argue for a participative model of decision making
in order to bring about optimal satisfaction, effectiveness, and communi­
cation both within the institution and between the Institution and its
p
various constituencies."
In the preface to this treatise, they suggest
"a participative model which

haB

as its goal the development of coopera­

tive relationships among all members of the college community as opposed
to confrontation, which seems increasingly to be an inevitable concomitant of the more traditional bureaucratic model."
We suggest the existence of three major internal constitu­
encies (administration, faculty, students) requiring two
spearate procedures for interaction. Given the existence
of a workable consensus sustained by common values and
norms, the bureaucratic administrative structure remains
the most efficient procedure for accomplishing coordina­
tion. In the absence of such a consensus, new values must
evolve through the structure of governance that operates
to protect the interests of all three constituencies while
at the same time providing the meanB of effective inter­
action through vhich equitable and, hence, workable com­
promises may evolve. The structure of governance offers
the power relationships of Interdependency as an alterna­
tive to the power conflicts induced by the inappropriate,
use of the authority of the structure of administration.
1
Richardson, Governance and the Two-Year College, op. cit.. p. v.
2Ibid.. p. vi.
3Ibid.. p. viii.
Loc. cit.

/

137
While a careful, detailed analysis of the traditional bureaucratic
model of an organization and the particlpational model devised by
Richardson and his associates lies beyond the parameters of this review,
its value as related to current literature is recognized; it pulls together
the ideas and ideals of many authors and systematizes them.*1* As the theory
of shared authority becomes more and more a vorking reality,

curricular

decision makers can expect to find the processes by vhich and through
vhich curriculum is determined, refined or revised.

With useful in-put

from more people, the criteria of their decision making perhaps too will
be clearer and more straightforward.
Faculty choice of collective bargaining as a principle manner of
participation in governance has moved at a rapid pace in tvo-year colleges.
The right for Michigan public employees to organize is granted under the
p

Michigan Public Employment Act of 1965*

and all but five of the Michigan

community colleges now operate under negotiated contracts.

3

Ikenberry

thinks that collective bargaining is attractive to some faculty members
"not so much because of the possible salary advantages, but as a means of

Among so many authors vho speak of shared authority, cf. Charles A.
Atwell, J. Foster Watkins, "Nev Directions for Administration," Junior
College Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 5: February 1971; Suzanne NicholB, "Model
for Participatory Governance for Community Colleges," Los Angeles,
California: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, Abstract
ED05l*772-JC710 237» 1971; Robert E. Lahti, op. cit., et al. already re­
ferenced in this reviev. The American Association of Higher Education
presents an excellent case for shared authority in
Faculty
Participation
23—
gin Academic Governance, op. cit., especially pp.
^Hyman Parker, Michigan Public Employment Relations Act and Procedures.
East Lansing, Michigan: School of Industrial Relations, Michigan State
University, 1970.
3
Tfee development of collective bargaining in the Michigan community
colleges is traced by Charles A. Shoup in his doctoral dissertation, A
Study of Collective Bargaining in the Michigan Community Colleges. East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969* "'

138
securing a stronger voice in the governance process,"*1 Ray Hove outlines
some of the general implications of collective bargaining vhich he thinks
2
may have universal Impact.
Millett expects some far-reaching changes in
the determinates of educational objectives and institutional procedures.
Gianopulos takes up the question of the administrator's participa­
tion in the negotiating process.

Despite numerically veighty opposition*

he thinks that the college administrator should represent neither the
faculty nor the board, but remain an independent third party serving as
an Interpreter betveen the board and the faculty.

Without taking sides*

the administrator should be concerned vith the utilization of collective
bargaining to provide the beBt possible education for community college
Btudents.**
Charles M. Rehmua and Evan Wllner reported the economic results of
teacher bargaining in Michigan during the first tvo years folloving the
Public Relations Employment Act.'5 Salary levels* class size and operating
budgets vere affected beneficially or adversely* depending upon one's
point of vlev.

Administrators and curriculum planners make decisions

under budget constraints that vill need to be vatched and carefully anti­
cipated.

The faculty right to bargain not only for vages and hours but

for conditions of employment may create problems decision makers vill find

ikenberry, op. cit.. p. lk.
O
Ray A. Hove* "Faculty-Admlnlstration Relationships in Extremis*11
Junior College Journal. Vol. 37, No. 3: November 1966* p. lk. Cf. also
Maskov, op. cit.
^Millett, op. cit.. p. 17.
Kjohn W. Gianopulos* "The College Administrator and Collective
Negotiations," Junior College Journal, Vol. kl* No. 1: August/September 1970.
5
CharleB M. Rehmus* Evan Wilner* The Economic Results of Teacher
Bargaining! Michigan's First Tvo YearB. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University
of Michigan, 1968,

139
hard to anticipate and to vhich adjustments may be difficult.

But collec­

tive bargaining is a fact that perhaps makes the interdependency of board,
administrators, faculty and Btudents and others better recognized and more
mutually respected.3In 19^7, a committee established by the Association of American
Colleges, the American Association of University Professors, the National
Student Association, the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators and the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors
Issued a Joint statement, declaring:
ly defined means to participate in

"The student body should have clear­
the formulation and application of in­

stitutional policy affecting academic and student affairs."2

Richardson,

writing in 19*>9» spoke of student rights and freedoms, and said that cur­
riculum or course addition, revision or deletion should have student in­
volvement even though the responsibility rests with the administration
and faculty.

Monroe at least vants the students "to Bound off and react

to faculty proposals."**

Vaccaro says that "at all possible points of con­

tact between student and faculty, both established and informal, clear
and open lines of communication must be initiated wherein the moduB
operand! is listening to one another, caring about what each has to say,

^Millett references a statement issued in 1966 by the American
Association of University Professors, the American Council on Education
and the Association of Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities that
seem to validate this and calls for "Joint planning and effort" on the
part of the constituent groups of an academic community. Millett, op. cit..
p. 10.
^Quoted in Millett, op. cit., p. 21.
^Richard C. Richardson, Jr., "Recommendations on Students' Rights and
Freedoms," Junior College Journal, Vol. 39, No. 5s February 1969 .

**Monroe, op. cit., p.

iuo

considering each other's proposals for solving issues and problems, and
Jointly assuming a shared authority and responsibility for the academic
community.^
Some authors have suggested student Involvement in collective bar­
gaining "to provide a continuous interchange vith those who will un­
doubtedly be affected by it."2 "...student involvement is a positive
factor in personal, institutional and community growth," is a conclusion
of the majority of the populations of Oregon's community colleges.3
"...most students chooBe not to participate in institutional governance
activities which often are time consuming, sometimes draining to the
spirit and often disruptive of the pursuit of more personal and privatis-

..U is

tic aims

on opposite view.

In 1970, Deegan and his associates reported the AAJC Student Personnel
Commission Aims for revitalization of student government through partici­
pation in the policy-making decisions of the college.

They presented

several models— traditional, separate Jurisdictions, participatory, and
others— and noted the difficult constraints which hinder student partici­
pation in governance:

the Junior college student is a community student;

a very large percentage of Junior college students work and have no time;
some groups or individuals reject the concept of student representative

1Louis C. Vaccaro, James T. Covert (Editors), Student Freedom in
American Higher Education. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia
University, 19^9, P. 52.
William F. McHugh, "Collective Bargaining and the College Student,"
Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 38, No. 3: March 1971* P» 185 et al.
^Eileen Hein, "A Case of Student Involvement," Junior College Journal,
Vol. 38, No. 5: February 1988, p. UU,
^William L. Deegan, "Student and Governance: Where Are We?" Junior
College Journal. Vol. kk, No. 5: February 1972, p. 38.

lhl
government; on a very large percentage of campuses, the cost of partici­
pation (ife terms of time, energy, and effort) is simply not vorth the
benefit (either personally or to the

institution).^

Both faculty and administration have systematically excluded students
vho also largely exclude themselves.
disorganized and sporadic efforts.

Student pover has been evidenced in
At this time, vhlle it is conjectured

by the authors that the student today will become an Important and meaning­
ful force in decision making and while most authors favor their participa­
tion in some way, student pover, except in siolated instances, is
practically non-existent.

In the words of Kirst and Walker, "students

have no influence in any formal sense over what they learn.

This 1b

obvious a fact that research to establish it would be superfluous.

so

Of

course, decision makers sometimes take student's views into account, but
A
not usually."
A statement specifically related to local influences upon the curricu­
lum is provided by Monroe and expresses his summary view:
The community college curriculum rests upon the foundation
of middle-class interests and values (explained and de­
tailed in paragraphs immediately preceding this quotation).
The boards of trustees of community colleges, for the most
part, come from the middle class and are Interested in de­
fending and promoting middle-class values.
In practice, the curriculum is organized by the profes­
sional educators vho have been entrusted by the controlling
boards with this responsibility... The curriculum-making
process in the past, and perhaps all too frequently in
the present, haB been dominated by the college administrators

Hfilliam L. Deegan, Karl 0. Drexel, John T. Collins, Dorothy L.
Kearney, "Student Participation in Governance," Junior College Journal.
Vol. Ul, No. 3: November 1970, pp. 15-22.
^KirBt and Walker, op. clt., p. 503.

1U2
with final approval of the controlling board. Typically,
public school curricula are made by central administra­
tive personnel, often with some faculty participation
(usually advisory). However, the administration has the
last word in determining what courses and programs are to
be put into the catalog and listed in the schedule of
classes.
In the larger community colleges, curriculum making is
delegated to an administrative person, the dean or the
director of instruction or curriculum, who operates under
the direction of the college president. This dean may
work with a faculty committee chosen by the president.
Two things should be noted: 1) the absence of faculty
power in decision making on curriculum matters and 2) the
absence of any student participation.1
An Overview of National. Regional. State and Local Influence on Curricular
Decision Making
Blocker, Plummer and Richardson studied the responses of 663 admini­
strators and faculty members in five branch colleges and nine community
colleges to the question of what sources of change in curriculum were most
important.

Perceptions of curricular determinants were not entirely con­

sistent, they found, but the following were perceived to be the most
important:
1)
2)
3)
U)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)

The administration.
The faculty.
The students.
Accrediting agencies (state and regional).
Four-year colleges and universities and their faculties.
The state department of education.
The board of control.
Two-year colleges and their faculties.
State government and agencies.
Advisory boards and committees.

In summarizing influences upon the curriculum, these authors offer a
concise figure, reproduced on the following page without comment, which
1
Monroe, op. cit.. p. 52.
^Clyde E. Blocker, Richard G. Richardson, Jr., The Two-Year College:
A Social Synthesis, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Frentice-Hall, 1965,
p. 20U.

ll*3
highlights factors they Judge most important in determining curriculum.^

Requirements of four-year colleges and universities
Occupational requirements
Local attitudes and traditions
Changing social and economic pressures
Types of students
State and national policies and regulations
Philosophy and objectives of the college
Training, values, and attitudes of faculty
Physical plant and equipment
Traditional vs. experimental concepts of education
Sensitivity of college to local, state, and
national educational needs
Financial support
Policies of board of control
Concept of roles of the college
Institutional climate (democratic vs,
authoritarian)
Conservative

Liberal

The Progress of Program and Course Selection
Curriculum development in the community college can never be a fait
accompli. It must be a continuous concern, for the community college
clientele includes persons vith all kinds of needs for education, and

1Ibld.. p. 205.

lkk

these needs rapidly change vith social, technological, demographic and
economic trends.

Flexibility in curriculum is a must for conmunity col­

leges which must adapt to changing conditions and needs.

Curriculum that

is obsolete or out of tune with the times cannot be tolerated in a com­
munity college which has as its purpose the offering of educational oppor­
tunity to the whole conmunity that is vital, individually and socially
useful.

Curricular decision makers dare not be "sleepyheads" or "day-

dreamers."

Their fingers must be on the pulse of life and reality, and

they must be ready to respond to
press this perception.

its beat.

Authors without exception ex­

They are not so sure what is the most efficient,

surest way to accomplish what everyone recognizes must be accomplished
almost day by day.
"Reduced to itB simplest dimensions," Reynolds says, "curriculum
development represents decisions made subjectively about the question of
what should be learned."'1' Research and experimentation are of inestimable
use, he says, but they cannot produce direct answers which are based on
the value Judgments of those responsible for it.

"The development of the

Junior college curriculum depends upon those innovative and inventive
people who discover better ways of doing things and are able to expand
fields of service to make life better for the multitudes."
The theory of curriculum design is a subject beyond the pale of this
review.

Those who make decisions that affect curricular development, how­

ever, need to be informed about research findings relative to pertinent

^Reynolds. The Comprehensive Junior College, op. cit.» p. 119.
O
Loc. cit.

1**5
aspects of the educative process.

Since without necessary information

decision makers are grossly subject to error, some reasonable understand­
ing of research conclusions can be expected of those who are responsible
for the process by which curricular decisions are made.
Monroe, for example, explains that curriculum contains four essential
elements:

the subject matter accumulated from the knowledge of the past;

skill-learning activities such as those needed in language, mathematics
and technical courses; the attitudes or emotional predispositions deemed
valuable for a host of experiences and a set of values which the decision
makers of a given society believe are necessary for the survival of that
society.^ He finds, therefore, that comprehensiveness, relevance and
teachability are three guiding principles appropriate for building a good
community college curriculum and summarizes the basic principles of curricu­
lum construction as he sees them:
l) faculty control with some measure of student participa­
tion; 2) periodic review and revision to ensure relevance;
3) reasonable balance between the traditional curriculum
and radical revision; It) student-centered rather than
faculty-centered; 5) materials and standards within the
scope of the students' interest and ability to learn; 6)
translation of content into meaningful, realistic objec­
tives taught with sincerity and enthusiasm; 7) a broadened
concept of acceptable and appropriate areas of concern in­
cluding experiences which were formerly regarded as extra­
curricular, community field experiences, and off-campus
work experiences.^
DresBel notes the importance of unity, coherence and integration in
any curriculum.^ He has developed a set of competencies to be expected of

Monroe, op. cit.. p. U6.
2Ibid.. p. 58.
^Dressel, College and University Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 227. Cf.
also his chapter on ^Instruction and the Curriculum" in the same source.

1U6

an undergraduate out of which Is derived relevant educational experiences.
The

question of what is to be accomplished is followed by how itis to be

accomplished— *a selection of clear goals, therefore, and the implementing
means of attaining them.'1' Dressel writes:
The curriculum should be based on an acceptable theory of
curriculum, and each aspect of the curriculum should be
consistent with that theory. A study of course materials,
outlines, syllabi, and policy statements should reveal the
logic and internal consistency of the curriculum. The re­
lation of objectives and philosophy to educational experi­
ences, evaluation practices, and resources should be clear­
ly specified, logical and reasonable.
In his The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education. Dressel lists
twenty-six principles for curricular planning.

3

The rationale upon which,

in his Judgment, any new curriculum model must be based are enumerated
elsewhere by him and are reflected in the writings of other authors.

"The

rationale Bhould include," he Bays,
l) a philosophical statement concerning the nature and ob­
jectives of higher education as seen by those planning the
new curriculum, 2) a psychological statement about the
nature of learning and the role of instruction in the
facilitation of learning, 3) a sociological statement re­
lating the curriculum to the needs of society and to the
needs of individuals in the society, U) an economic state­
ment which relates the curriculum to the number of BtudentB
taking it and to the dollars required to finance it, 5) &
statement on planning and management which relates the
college organization and the faclllties-plannlng to the
^
curriculum, and 6) a definition of basic curriculum concepts.

^A, similar thought is expressed in Burns, op. cit.. p. 136.
p
Dressel, College and University Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 191.
^Dressel, The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education, op. cit..
p. 82-85.
^Paul L. Dressel, "A Look at New Curriculum Models for Undergraduate
Education," Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 36, Bo. 2: January 1965>
PP. 92-93.

1U7
Medsker says that "curriculum development In the two-year college
should he guided and evaluated hy an expressed institutional philosophy
of education and a Bet of goals stated in terms of outcomes for students."^
Bruce Tuckman, Rutgers University, presents specific postulates and pro2
positions upon vhlch a student-centered curriculum can he hullt.
B. Lamar
Johnson elaborates practical questions and answers drawn from his under­
standing of curriculum theory to help curriculum designers plan and develop
curriculum in a new community Junior college.

0. C. Oliver argues for a

technological rather than a scientific process in the development of cur­
riculum.

He suggests that the development of design specifications and

related techniques, rather than the ultimate understanding of the phenomena
with which they work, he the prerequisite functions of those responsible
for effective and controlling specific changes in educational and training
environments— the primary goal and education and training, he says.

Medsker, The Junior College;

U

Progress and Prospects, op. cit..

p. 83.
2
Bruce W. Tuckman, "The Student-Centered Curriculum," in Burns,
op. cit.. pp. 153-159*

^B. Lamar Johnson, Starting a Community Junior College. Washington,
D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 196U, p p T 8-19.
**G. C. Oliver, "Toward Improved Rigor in the Design of Curricula,"
in Bums, op. cit., p. 66.

1U0
Quimby,1 KJarsgaard,2 Reynolds,3 Dressel^ Mayhew,^ and others agree
with Medsker** that the process of curricular decision making is contingent
upon a clearly expressed philosophy of education, among other things, as
understood by the decision makers.

In his doctoral dissertation, KJarsgaard

observes that "after having clarified the educational philosophy of the
school and established objectives consistent vith this philosophy, the
planning body can now be concerned with molding these objectives to con­
form to the real educational needs of the area.

There now remains the

problem of constructing a training program that will best meet these
objectives.

7

Bloom addresses himself to the question of defining educational
objectives— a problem not to be minimized— -and suggests four useful major

Edgar A. Quimby, "In Pursuit of the Self-Renewing College: The
Goodlad Conceptual System and the Problems of Curriculum Formation in the
Junior College Programs of General Education," Los Angeles, California:
University of California. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information,
ED030l431-JC69020l4. Abstract,March 8, 1969 , 32 pages.
2Donald L. KJarsgaard, Guidelines to Community College Curriculum
Planning. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, 19o8.
^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.. p. 121.
^Dressel, "A Look at New Curriculum Models for Undergraduates'
Education," op. cit., pp. 92-93.
^Mayhew, The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach to Analysis, op. cit.,
pp. 32ff. Mayhew, for example, distinguishes three current philosophies
that will influence curriculum content: Rationalism, by which the curricu­
lum is based "on eternal truths and stress the great documents which have
survived in the civilization;" instrumentalism, which believes that "goals
and objectives are constantly changing, and that materials Bhould change aB
individuals need change;" neo-humanism, which is "more ecclectic, using
material of traditional value tempered by an attempt to modify them in
accordance with changing idioms."
**MedBker, The Junior College:

Progress and Prospects, op. cit., p. 83.

"^KJarsgaard, op. cit.. pp. 110, 131.

ll+9
questions:

"1) what objectives Bhould the school or course seek to at­

tain? 2) what learning experiences can bring about goal attainment? 3)
vhat organization of the learning experiences vould provide continuity
and sequence and help the learner integrate vhat might be isolated learn­
ing experiences? U) hov can the effectiveness of the learning experiences
be evaluated?
Borrowing from the authors, Robert Gagne offers another ordering of
curricular design that reflects and is reflected by the literature on this
subject and itself involves a process of decision making:

"diagnosing edu­

cational needs; formulating objectives; selection of learning experiences;
organization of learning experiences, and determining the ways and means
o
of evaluating effectiveness of vhat is taught."
Mayhew speaks of a systematic theory of curriculum as being of singu­
lar importance to the solution of curricular problems.

The problem of

criteria, he says, is first among those problems upon which depends putting
a curriculum into effect.

Non-ratlonal criteria,^ though they must be

considered realistically* can be balanced if faculty haB the quantities of
information it needs, by rational decisions about the curriculum it offers.
Mayhew argues the importance of institutional research.
-

Bloom, op. cit., p. 25.
2
Robert M. Gagne, "Curriculum Research and the Promotion of Learning,"
in Ralph W. Ttyler and Associates, Perspectives of Curricular Evaluation.
Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1967, p. 20.
3
Conceived more to preserve an institution than to relate vitally to
what is going on in the mind and heart of the student; e.g., vhat, with
limited resources, should be taught from the plethora of subjects that
could be offered, demands of the graduate school, interests of a faculty
member, drawing power of courses, etc., in contrast to the question of
whether a curriculum is actually working. Note Mayhew1s postulates re­
ported in the following paragraphs.

150
Consider how faculties might react if each year they were
provided with evidence such as routine coat accounting for
each course, department and division; brief, regularly
written reports by lay advisory committees; yearly reports
of alumni reactions to the various courses; periodic polls
of student opinion taken throughout the year; yearly assess­
ment of sophomores and seniors on standardized tests; and
brief resumes of significant social and curricular develop­
ments. Here is the stuff out of which eventual curriculum
theory must be molded....
Every theory is based on postulates.

Postulates generate hypotheses

for testing out of which evolves still further postulates.

The curricular

decision maker, designing a process of decision making, or working within
a process already designed, will find curriculum theory, as Reynolds sugp
gested, of Inestimable value.
Mayhew noteB several postulates which, he
says, are the basis for a theory of undergraduate curriculum.

Since they

are so germane to the development of a curricular decision-making process,
they are summarized in this review:
1.
2.
3.
U.
5*
6.
7.
8.

...a student's need for structure...within which his
life is organized.
...every human being is searching for significance...
...good educational practice is very likely to be good
business and good management practice. Students are
attracted to programs and courses they see as worthwhile.
...any system of education should have built into it a
process of bringing about regular and consistent change.
...the purpose of the curriculum is to bring about
changes in people and move people in desirable directions.
...every part of the educational effort of an institu­
tion should be consistent with every other part.
...the principle of parsimony should apply to the cur­
riculum Just as much as it applies to research.
...the late adolescent period in the life of Americans
is a unique and distinct period within which individuals
manifest several discrete needs.

■^Mayhew, The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach to Analysis, op. cit.,
p. zU.
^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit..
p. 119.

151
9.

...each level of education should be articulated with
other levels and vith life outside of the curriculum.

.

Keeping these postulates in mind, Mayhew says, each institution can
work towards the development of its own curricula stance.
dures, however, he says, have to be kept in mind.

Certain proce­

These, too, are

summarized:
1.

there is "the need for an honest concern by an institu­
tion, honestly expressed, for vhat it wants to do to
its students."

2.

"...the college Bhould make an honest attempt to dis­
cover and to discard the ritualistic or non-fUnctioning
parts of its curriculum." Does this course, for example,
have a reasonable chance of bringing about the desired
result?

3. "...the institution should subject the entire curriculum
to constant criticism, constant analysis, and constant
inquiry."
U.

"...since education is basically a way by which impor­
tant elements of a culture are passed on to new genera­
tions, the collegiate institution needs to develop vayB
of accumulating evidence both as to vhat society needs
to have transmitted to youth and vhat can, in fact, be
transmitted." For example, the college should accumu­
late evidence over a period of years vhat its graduates
are doing, vhat benefittcd them moBt, what changes they
would suggest..."

5.

"...the curriculum of the college should be genuinely
related to pedagogical realities." For example, the
student course loaft, mix of subjects, reasonable time
expenditures, etc.

James W. Reynolds, in discussing curriculum development, divides the
subject of the decision-making process into its "developmental aspects"
and its "operational aspects."

Under the first, he speakB of divisional

Mayhew, The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach to Analysis, op. cit..
pp. 25-28.
o
Loc. cit.

152
or departmental organization which dealB with component aspects of the
total curriculum.

Criteria or admission standards (to the college and to

a specific curriculum) and graduation requirements set by the instruction­
al and administrative staffs is a developmental aspect of the curriculum,
he says, as are courses and decisions Justifying, modifying, or dropping
them.

Textbooks also, he mentions as part of a curriculum development.

The interrelation of courses, course outlines or syllabi, teacher assess­
ment to courses and curriculum control are others, he adds.

Decisions

relative to programs represent expression of value Judgments at a high
level; control questions, "vho exercises the control, and the breadth of
the base on which control is exercised, become matters of extreme impor­
tance in the developmental aspects of the curriculum."^
Next, in the curricular decision-making process, Reynolds discusses
operational procedures.

These, he says, are conducted within the frame­

work of an institutional policy (the continuum of control: administration...
p
faculty6), and involve administration and faculty in cooperative effort.
In the process Reynolds describes, policy control is balanced between
administration and faculty, perhaps slightly favoring teacher dominance.
An administrative staff— the president, dean of instruction, director of
academic programs, director of vocational-technical programs and deport­
mented. or divisional chairmen— exercise certain chief responsibilities:
l) "leadership in stressing the significance of curriculum development
(including Improvements in the instructional programs); 2) exercising
i
Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit.,
pp. 128-133.
^Faculty Participation in Academic Governance, op. cit., pp. lU-l6.

153
veto judgments when circumstances seem to favor such action; 3) avoiding
a fragmented approach to curriculum development in which certain segments
would he favored, others slighted; •*) providing a professional atmosphere
favorable to the efforts of faculty members in carrying on developmental
efforts."^ The curriculum committee, one of the standing committees of
the instructional staff, shares in the responsibilities of the administra­
tive staff.
In the process described by Reynolds (perhaps with minor interpreta­
tion), curricular suggestions, wherever they originate, are initiated
formally in the departmental or divisional meetings.

Ad hoc committees

may be appointed to gather facts or carry on a more intensive study than
is possible at the meeting and to report back.2 If sent to the curriculum
committee,^ suggestions are screened and evaluated,** and recommendations
for curriculum improvement are made to

the directors of the two major

programs (vocational-technical and academic).

On the criterion of curricu­

lum balance, curricular suggestions, if favorable, are forwarded to the
dean of instruction.

When and if he is satisfied that the suggestion(s)

can be balanced (or at least do not distort) the total curriculum, the
approved changes or additions are channeled finally to the president
(perhaps with his cabinet) and then to the board.5

^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit., p. 33U.
E.g., budgetary, utility, need, student interest, staff availability,
facilities, scheduling, etc.
^The authors accentuate the importance of the curriculum committee which
meets often "to consider new courses, changes in old courses, textbook changes,
the preparation of lucid course outlines and catalog description of courses..."
Kelley, op. cit., p. 116.

**Both Reynolds and Dressel (Dressel, College and University Curriculum,
op. cit., p. 205 ) note the need for the services of the office of institu­
tional research.
^Reynolds, The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum, op. cit., pp.
133-137.

15U
Curricular decision-making processes are commonly presented in skele­
tal outlines by most authors.

Thornton, as an example, dispatches the

subject by charging the curriculum committee "with the responsibility of
considering all proposals for major changes in the curriculum of the col­
lege, from whatever source," and referring those approved "to the presi­
dent and to the board of trustees for official action."*
B. Lamar Johnson, in a section dealing "with procedures and processes
in curriculum development" takes a non-procedural tack. Prom his analysis
p
of accreditation reports, he offers a listing of strengths of curriculum
development procedure and recommendations to improve procedures for the
benefit of curriculum designers.

3

Such recommendations have a real meaning and pragmatic value to
faculties and administrators, neither of whom, according to Mayhew, are
"at all Bure how to comprise a curriculum and how to analyze and change it.
In many respects," he continues, "curricula, especially those for under­
graduates, Just grow in response to the organic needs or desires or in­
terests of the individual members of the faculty aB it 1b constructed at
any one time."**
Several procedures for curriculum development appear to be most
common.

Most of those revealed in the literature seem to be partial pro­

cesses, or special in-puts into the procedural machinery functioning

*Thornton, The Community Junior College, op. cit.. p. 170.
Reports from twenty-one California public Junior colleges.
^B. Lamar Johnson, "California Junior College Curriculum Development,"
The California Journal of Secondary Education. Vol. 31: March 195&* PP«
13^-138.
**Mayhew, The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach to Analysis, op. cit.,
P. 15.

155
according to an understood manner of operation in each institution.

Per­

haps they are better called approaches to or techniques of curriculum re­
view and/or of development, though certainly they are organized in some
way into a process that leads to decision or an institution would atrophy.
The elements of theory research have to be put together in a systematic
way.

As will be reported, the systems analysis approach to planning and

doing, therefore, is one growing in currency.
Prevailing approaches are brought together and summarized by Mayhew^.
One involves self-study, either as a result of accrediting association re­
quirements or perhaps some internal institutional disposition.

Usually a

portion of the faculty is divided into a number of committees of which the
curriculum committee is one and the committee on objectives or purposes and
goals is another.

Sometimes a radical change is suggested from the simul­

taneous committee meetings on all aspects of the college, Mayhew says, but
more frequently "vested interests of quite personal significance to power
blocs within the institution" turn the study into a "political action of a
conservative aort."^
Ad hoc committees responsible for preparing recommendations specifi­
cally focused on the curriculum for later consideration by the faculty is

1Ibld.. p. 15-10. Cf. also, Bushnell and Donald Rappaport, Planned
Change in Education, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971*
quoting Warren Bennis, Changing Organizations, New York: McOrav-Hill Book
Co., 19^6, pp. 101-10**. Bennis identifies eight traditional change stra­
tegies which represent to him a "common sense" approach to change.
Bushnell says that most of theBe strategies focus on the individual as the
locus of power and ignore the significance or the organization. "Organiza­
tions shape and mold the behavior of individuals as much as or more than
those in the organization shape and mold the organization. Any comprehen­
sive change in strategy," he continues, "must be aB ready to deal with in­
stitutional 'barriers’ as it is with defenses of individuals.", pp. 6-7.
2Ibid.. p. 16 .

156
a modification of the self-study technique.

The use of an outside consul­

tant is another approach— the agreement being to follov his designs.

The

consultant's wisdom and the respect he commands from the faculty* however*
are essential to the effectiveness of any change* Mayhew notes.

The analy­

sis of curriculum through the use of a panel of experts is another related
technique.
An approach used in Florida sought to identify, through economic and
social analysis, the kinds of vocations the state needed and to offer
courses and programs in accordance with the requests and needs of the
supporting community.
The most widely used device in curriculum construction is two-fold,
according to Mayhew and others:

l) investigate what is being done else­

where, and 2) doing vhat is being done elsewhere.
"Contemporary practice thus suggests that discussion, political ac­
tivity, Judgment of experts, emulation and search for social needs are
the prevailing methods of curricular analysis and development."^
A Systems Approach to Curriculum Development
"The focal point of all curriculum endeavor," according to Beauchamp,"
p
is the development and use of a curriculum."
Some Bystem for developing,
using and evaluating a curriculum needs to be fashioned by curriculum de­
signers, and their enterprise defines curriculum as a field of study.
Systems analysis might be described as a method for determining "where,

1Ibid., p. 10.
2
George A. Beauchamp, Curriculum Theory, Second Edition, Wilmette,
Illinois: The Kagg Press, 19^8, p.

157
vhen, vlth vhat and with whom you must accomplish vhat, for whom and
vhere."^ The purpose of this kind of analysis "is to provide cues and
suggestions leading to a system or design, or a system modification or
re-design."2
Richardson calls this concept of a model or a system "an aggregate
of things, parts, or people favoring an organized complex vholc...made
up of distinct elements vhich are directly or indirectly related to all
other elements."

Any change in the position or behavior of a particular

element induces change in varying degrees in all other elements of the
system, Richardson says.

He explains that organizations, each vith a

hierarchy of valueB and functions not entirely in harmony vith any other,
mutually interact.

Such interaction stimulates changes in the relation­

ships betveen organizations as veil as vithin each organization.

"In

order to understand the internal dynamics of an organization, it is neces­
sary to understand the external forces to vhich an organization must
respond."** The many and varied influences of and upon the community col­
lege and its curriculum that have been referenced in this reviev can be
seen in a hierarchy of interacting subsystems (concentrically visualized),
each part of the total socio-political-economic system.

The organism of the

■^David G. Ryan, "System Analysis in Planning," Long Range Planning in
Higher Education, Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for
Higher Education, 19^5, P* 109, citing Ruth M. Davis, "Techniques of System
Design," Military Information Systems, Boston, Massachusetts: Frederick A.
Praeger, Inc., 1965, quoted in Mayhev, The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach
to Analysis, op. cit., p. 13.
2Ibid.. p. 107.
3Richardson, Governance for the Tvo-Year College, op. cit., p. 3.

**Ibid., p. 5, quoting Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political
Life, Nev York: John Wiley and Sons, 19^5 •

158
community college is thus related to itself and to all local, state, re­
gional and national subsystems.'*' "...an organization needs a constant flov
of information from the environment in order to stimulate effective responses and to counteract the natural tendency to drift away from reality.

,,2

Richardson borrows the following figure from Buckley to acplicate the re­
lationship of an organization to itself and to 1he outside world, and to
demonstrate that feed-back loops "tend to shift the goal-seeking activi­
ties of the organization, change the operating channels or the feed-back
loops themselves, and induce changes in the subsystems within the organi­
zation through the feed-back of new internal data."3

T
I

Goals
©

Control

Action Outputs

_Param_eters___
Center{a) I
I

Effects on
System and
Environment

Feedback TeatfSfficorreetlve^Action

Feedback

Information
Gathering on
Output Effects

J3L
FEEDBACK CONTROL OF GOAL FORMULATION AND SEEKING4

Such evidence that must be included in reaching curricular decisions
are internal influances, e.g., student characteristics, desires and needs;
ages, abilities, interests, development and motivation of faculty and ad­
ministration; costs of courses, departments, recruitment, equipment and
over-all operation...local Influences, e.g., performance, attitudes and
reflections of graduates; needs and expectations of employers; ...expecta­
tions of the larger society, its changing character, rate and direction of
change; practices and successes elaewhere; regulatory and advisory infor­
mation from the state, regional and federal offices, etc. All of these
have already been noted in this review.
p

Richardson, Governance for the Two-Year College, op. cit.. p.5.

3Ibld., p. I*.
**Ibld., p. 5, borrowing from Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern
Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967.

159

David S. Bushnell observes vhat appears immediately evident upon re­
flection, "that it is difficult to imagine anything or anyone functioning
apart from some kind of system.

One has only to think of the human body

as a aeries of interrelated systems and subsystems," he says, "to gain a
feeling for the comprehensiveness of this approach."'*' The same author
says that system analytic methods (brought to bear upon the problem of
education) provide a more rigorous vay of asking and answering questions
forcing:
problem solvers and decision makers to tackle the educational
problem logically and systematically, taking various perspec­
tives offered by different disciplines... It attempts to
describe vhat action is to be taken and the expected results
of that action against a backdrop of antecedent ^conditions,
social values, and developmental trends. It permits one to
examine the significant variables operating in a system, to
manipulate those variables, and to predict the results with
a fair degree of accuracy. It relates goals and objectives
to needs.*
Systems analysis in education is a very recent methodological process,
dating back, Bushnell, says, hardly more than a decade.

He references

Flanagan^ vho identifies reasons vhy the system approach has had such
little impact on education:
l) Accrediting agencies have given almost no attention to
inputs and outputs of the system and to classroom proce­
dures. Most of their interest has been focused on staff
qualifications, facilities and equipment. 2) Evaluating
the quality of instruction has been difficult even vith
the aid of standardized achievement and aptitude tests.
Methods for assessing the effects of instruction as

^Davld S. Bushnell, "Curriculum Change in Secondary Education," in
Burns, op. cit., p. 233.
^Bushnell, "A Systematic Strategy for School Reneval," p. 8, in
Bushnell, Planned Change in Education, op. cit.
^John Flanagan, "Hov Instructional Systems vill Manage Learning,"
Nations Schools. Vol. 86, No. 1*: October 1970, p. 68.

160
distinct from other environmental factors and innate abilities
of the student have only recently begun to emerge. 3} The de­
velopment of new instructional procedures vhich offer alterna­
tive vays of meeting the needs of individual Btudenta has
brought the need for greater precision in evaluating student
progress. If) Until recently, only some of the important ob­
jectives of education could be measured.
Bushnell says that systems analysis offers a* more potent change stra­
tegy than traditional processes in that "the development of alternative
learning strategies through the introduction of new educational technology
and the emergence of a unified theory of planned change promises a more
p

effective approach to implementing change."

Modification of curriculum

content, Instructional procedures, teacher roleB and the administrative

support systems nov become possible, he says, at the same time.
There is general agreement on the stages through vhich the systems
analysis should proceed, according to Bushnell:
Diagnosing the problem, searching for
testing these solutions, implementing
selected and providing for subsequent
back, are the essential Bteps through
sis in education must proceed.3

alternative solutions,
the alternatives
evaluation and feed­
vhich a systems analy­

Bushnell cautionB that "the constraints and barriers vhich surround a
Bchool Bystem must be carefully documented and understood before a poten­
tially successful change strategy can be formulated."**

George L. Geis has proposed that a decision to design and develop any
Instructional system be deferred until the conditions under vhich it is

^Bushnell, "Curriculum Change in Secondary Education," op. cit.. p. 8.
p
Bushnell, "A Systematic Strategy for School Renewal," op. cit., p. 122,
p. 8.
^Bushnell, "Curriculum Change in Secondary Education," op. cit., p. 233.
**Loc. cit.

l6l
appropriate to begin an instructional solution to a problem have been
analyzed.

His systems analysis seems to parallel the system described by

Bushnell.

For Deis, in this "readiness analysis," the first step is estab­

lishing the need for a consequence (proceeding from an effect desired to
its cause).

Next, he finds important defining whatever components cure

necessary to produce the deBired effects and distinguishing the human com­
ponents from any other.

Performance criteria are then specified, the per­

formance environment is re-examined and both are examined under considera­
tion of resources and constraints.

"The decision to design or develop new

instruction (or 'improving* the old) is to be arrived at cautiously," Gels
pleads, "only after exlcuding all other alternatives."*
Snyder, too, appears to present a more general description of systems
analysis in the development of educational programs than does Bushnell.2
The points of emphasis that appear among the authors may differ though
there is general agreement on the stages through vhich systems analysis
should proceed, as was noted.
Both a structure and a process are necessary to a systematic approach
to curricular development, Bushnell notes.

"The structure or 'system*

requires a network of communication links between teachers and students,
teachers and administrators, administrators and taxpayers...a network
vhich, ideally, satisfied learning needs, conveys Information, and helps
pass bond issues."3 Given such a structure, Bushnell outlines six steps
l^Qrge L* OeiB, "Curriculum Design in a Changing Society," in Burns,
op. citT| pp. 83-102.
2
Fred A. Snyder, (Director, Research and Community Resources,
Harrisburg Area Community College), The Second Annual Conference on
Post-secondary Occupational Education, University Park, Pennsylvania:
The Pennsylvania State University, 1971, pp. 88-93.
^Bushnell, "A Systematic Strategy for School Renewal," op. cit., p. 9*

162

in the systematic decision-making process or change strategy and offers
the following diagram to depict what he wishes to explain and what will
be carefully summarized in this review:
SIX STAGES TOR FLAMMED CHANGE1

(input.)

J Traditional

♦(outputs)

U J DUCjU

___
1. Diagnose Problem
2. Formulate Objectives
S
Research
*
Object:
+
and
*
3. Identify constraints
constra:
Development *--------- Select Potential
Solutions
Efforts
5. Evaluate Alternatives
6. Implement Selected
_
Alternative
Improved
i System

Systematic
Change
Strategies

♦(outputs)

Step 1: Diagnosing the Problem.
Is the system malfunctioning?

What perceptions of basic concenn are

gleaned from interviews and questionnaires querying a representative crosssection of community leaders?

Which groups to assess or query? What are

the needs and interests of teachers, staff and students, of all those to
be served by the institution?

"Questionnaires, opinion polls, advisory

boards, charrettes, and documented staff-community encounters are a few
assessment techniques employed." Non-representative influential groups
can draw an erroneous picture of reality.

■'■Ibid., p. 10.

163
Step 2: Formulating Objectives.
An understanding of vhat must be achieved is necessary before alter­
native solutions can be contemplated.

Goals (long-range general state­

ments of purpose) are distinguished from objectives (specific and proximately tangible statements).
objectives are enumerated:

Several characteristics of veil-stated '
they should be stated in behavioral terms so

that "those responsible for achieving a given objective vill knov vhat
is to be done and hov it is to be done; a veil-stated objective is in­
ternally consistent, compatible vith other objectives; veil-stated objec­
tives should be as comprehensive as possible, covering "all of the
potentially significant 'outputs' of a learning program or administrative
action."
Step 3: Identifying Constraints and Needed Resources.
"Constraints or barriers may take the form of lavs, established tra­
ditions, or faculty attitudes.

In short, they are any forces vhich vork

in behalf of maintaining the status quo. Resources take the form of
people, facilities, printed materJals and information." Bushnell speaks
of the positive and negative aspects of the use of outside consultants,
and says that vhen they are engaged, "effective linkage betveen a user
group and a research group requires mutual understanding, equal Btatus, and
frequent interaction if the relationship is to be at all productive."
Step U: Selecting Potential Solutions.
Two important requirements are necessary,

"l) avareness of potential

solutions through the systematic reviev of appropriate information sources,
and 2) the choice of one solution vhich best fits the problem at hand from
among the array of promising alternatives."

The assumption is that the

problem solver has already carried out a preliminary search of possible
information sources by visiting other institutions vhere such innovations

16k
have been effective, by examining independent evaluative studies and by
studying scholarly review articles (such aB those suggested by Bushnell)
or by consulting with an acknowledged expert in the field.
Step 5: Evaluating Alternatives.
Involves establishing criteria for comparative purposes.

Three of

the major criteria to be weighed and subsequently weighted are feasibility
(constraints, needed resources), workability (can course of action be
successfully and reliably implemented?) and effectiveness (will the course
of action accomplish what is intended?).
Step 6: Implementing the Selected Alternative.
Means early involvement of those who will be affected by plan of
action and a sharing of responsibility for putting it into effect.

Re­

quires a clear and precise understanding of the role each participant
plays.

"Those involved need a sense of competence and confidence, open­

ness to new information, and a willingness to take risks." Anticipated
rewards are also part of the change-climate needed.

Frequent measure­

ments of interim progress toward a goal— a feedback mechanism— is needed
in putting a new instructional program into action.
Bushnell summarizes the six Steps toward a systematic decision-making
process or change strategy:
Installing the innovation requires, of course, a trained staff,
the necessary resources and materials, objectives and procedures,
and a well-developed plan for monitoring feedback, and modifica­
tion of the adopted procedure. This is the essential cycle
through which any proposed solution must go if it is to have a
maximum chance of acceptance in the school setting.1

1
Bushnell, Planned Change in Education, op. cit., pp. 11-16.

165
He adds a final word:

"A systems approach does require changes in atti­

tudes and behavior, but it has definite advantages.

It is an effective

way of Joining rational planning and human orientation} merging reason
with active concern for people.

That, of course, Bushnell concludes, is

vhat educational administration is all about.
Summary
It was pointed out in an introductory statement to this chapter that
nev problems and new emphases aggravate many of those that have been his­
torical and compel decision makers to adapt techniques and programs to
nev conditions.

For this reason-changing times— literature dating back

more than a decade vas generally referenced in passing, and emphasis vas
placed, in this reviev, on the most current thought expressed by authors.
Issues basic to curricular decision making, upon which curriculum
development depends, and various approaches to curriculum development were
given first attention.

Among the issues needing resolution several vere

noted as especially Important:

whether to transmit general overviews of

knowledge or to provide concentrated effort in a limited field} an open
or closed, elective or prescribed curriculum} whether programs and courses
should be designed for the elite or for everyone} whether they Bhould be
student- or subject-oriented, discipline- or problem-oriented} should the
sciences or the humanities most characterize the curriculum?

Recent at­

tempts to construct curricula, it was seen, have tried to accommodate all
of these issues.

^Ibid., p. l6.

166

Unless basic issues are identified and resolved in each college, they
viH inhibit policy decisions that should guide curricular decisions and
will Impede or delay the vital process by vhich a community college must
respond to the continually changing forces of life.

Unless articulated

and resolved, underlying attitudes, biases, philosophies, theories, and
value Judgments of the board, the administration, the faculty, even the
students and the community, of the curricular decision makers, will form
undefinable and obscure criteria for decision.

Inefficiency and ineffec­

tiveness, frustration, and apathy must then be expected in the decision­
making process.

The need for a curricular decision-making structure,

system and criteria to accommodate vital issues effectively and effi­
ciently amidst changing times and conditions is recognized by the authors.
The formulation of educational objectives involving basic decisions
consciously made by thoBe responsible for making them vas discussed.

Cur­

ricular decision making was seen as dependent upon clearly defined insti­
tutional goals and the resolution of all issues basic to them.
It vas observed that the growing consensus about the nature of the
program of the comprehensive community college is not yet universal and
that each curriculum presents special problems that must be confronted in
the decision-making process— and resolved.
This observation— that a comprehensive program means a program for
all— led naturally to a reviev of each of the several community college
curriculum.

A background brief preceded a decision of the major problems

faced in designing each.

These major problems vere seen as decision-making

guidelines, parameters, influences, barriers, constraints, determinants...
in one way or another criteria in the light of vhich decisions had to be
made.

167
The historical development of the community college as an upward ex­
tension of secondary education, feeder colleges to four-year institutions
or decapitated four-year colleges explains, in part, the continued popu­
larity of preparatory educational programs.

Other reasons were given for

the important ranking transfer programs maintained in the community col­
lege.

Availability of teachers in the academic fields, availability of

facilities, modesty of expense even with Bmall enrollments and the favor
of accrediting agencies were among them.
The major problem in designing a transfer curriculum vas recognized
as articulation requirements with senior colleges.

Senior colleges are

not uniform in their requirements for the first and second years and
their requirements are constantly changing.

University dominance over

transfer courses has at times led to the forfeiture of a community col­
lege's identity by the letter's slavish attempts to duplicate courses and
perhaps elaborate them far beyond the lower-division needs of their stu­
dents. An unwillingness to experiment and break new ground in curricular
designs has grown out of the fear that senior colleges would not give
credit for experimental courses.

Special efforts to reBolve these prob­

lems in California, Florida, and Michigan were noted, and gradually they
are being resolved everywhere.

Community colleges in the meantime have

earned recognition for providing adequate transfer programs.
Articulation with high schools was also recognized as a major problem
in creating a transfer curriculum.

Increased upward mobility from a two-

year occupational program into a four-year baccalaureate program vas noted
as another.

Still others noted were the availability of competent teachers

for this unique kind of college and students able and willing to meet the
challenge of their programs of study.

Student admissions and placements

168
(or program/course selections) as related to "the open-door policy" re­
mains a debated question and represents a significant problem for transfer
curriculum designers.
While the transfer function of the Junior college vas initially its
sole function* far-thinking persons like Lange, Hill, and Snyder and the
passage of vocational education bills during World War I led to a nev
definition of the Junior college by the American Association of Junior
Colleges in 1925.

Occupational education (vocational preparation, tech­

nical training) has as its primary and specific objective the preparation
of students for immediate entry, after leaving the community college, into
middle-level vocations or the up-grading of skills of persons already
employed.

The rapid expansion of occupational programs Blnce 192? is of

historical record.

The great depression, the national emergency of de­

fense needs of World War II, the increase of automation folloving the War
and finally the Vocational Act of 1963 and the Higher Education Facilities
Act in the same year represent at least a partial accounting for it.
Even though occupational education is considered by authors as a
major part of the community college mission and a fundamental institu­
tional objective, and even though middle-level manpover needs account for
thirty percent of the labor force, more than half of all Junior colleges
offer fever than five curriculums emphasizing any occupational skills, and
of these business rather than technical competences predominate.

Poor

attitudes of certain types of students toward occupational training create
curriculum problems, and a superior or snobbish attitude of faculty deters
the wholesome recognition that all learning is respectable as is every
honorable occupation.

Harris speaks of an "educational void that vould

result from separating an elite, academically gifted group from a mass
group of neglected citizens."

169
The authors give recognition to dead-end educational programs and
suggest remedies in collegiate offerings of "clusters of programs," "careerladder concepts," the utility of short courseB for certain students, suit­
able occupational programs for the disadvantaged, lov-achieving student,
work-study programs and other innovative, forward thinking planning that
looks to the needs of both student and society.

The community college is

a service organization, not a tower of ivory unrelated to the real world.
The quality of programs for each diversely able and interested stu­
dent is of concern to curriculum designers; proper balance among the
various curricula is also of concern, for too much stress on occupational
programs can be as deleterious to the college, the community and its stu­
dents as con be too much stress on transfer programs.

The value of general

education in occupational programs is not easily practlcalized and more and
more graduates of two-year occupational programs are going on, or wish to
continue studies in four-year institutions toward a baccalaureate degree.
Equivalence of credit for learning, no matter where or how achieved, has
become a special issue in occupational education.
Facilities for occupational programs and higher costs represent a
problem to curriculum planners.

Federal supporting policies ore seen

sb

Inadequate, improperly coordinated, too categorical and too indefinite.
Faculty staff is a major problem; academic credentials plus on-the-job
experience is still too much a hard-to-reach ideal.

Satisfaction of man­

power needs, state requirements, and the absence of cooperative planning
for the future development of vocational and technical education among the
various levels of education have to be seen as problems to the curriculum
designer.

170
Course offerings in higher education are significant in part because
they reveal the educated community's conception of vhat knowledge is most
worth transmitting to the cream of its youth.

General education has many

definitions, one of which is that body of education the need for vhich is
shared by all people— a pervasive value system (not Just a collection of
courses) touching all phases of the student's educational life.

General

education emphasizes learning not for meeting requirements in an academic
or professional field, but for personal use.

Institutional perceptions

of general education, whatever they are, become a criterion for curricular
decision makers.
Authors in general impugn community colleges for their failure to
develop a general education curriculum or at least integrate general edu­
cation courses into the college program.
Faculty members who are unsympathetic to the idea of general educa­
tion argue that the humanizing, civilizing values of general education can
be found in the subject matter of every department.

The question of pro­

portion of general education courses in a two-year curriculum is undecided.
Students' lack of motivation to utilize general courses is a problem con­
fronting curriculum designers, for many students are geared strongly, if
not exclusively, to vocational goals.

Compression of college time and the

dominance of graduate schools results in undue specialization in under­
graduate colleges.

Pressure upon both faculty and students causes sights

to be narrowed and expediency to be viewed as a criterion of decision.
The concept of the core curriculum— incorporating a core of general
or liberal artB education into all curricula— is supported by recognized
authors as a way to achieve an objective which has a value that is prac­
tically uncontested.

171
Students vho have difficulty in competing with others for passing
grades in traditional academic courses have heen called "marginal stu­
dents," "high-risk students," "socially-different students," "lowachievers," "culturally disadvantaged"...

They are quite readily identi­

fied by their problems and are increasingly becoming a larger percentage
of the community college student body.

Curricular decision makers must

take them into serious account for education can play a decisive role as a
socializer in transmitting culture, knowledge, beliefs, customs, values,
and skills necessary both to the individual and to the preservation of
society.
Lack of commitment to these students by both administrators and faculty
is singled out as a chief reason for the absence or poor quality of remedial
programs.

Lack of agreement on the objectives of a remedial program is

another serious obstacle that curricular decision makers have to accept or
surmount.

Generous financial support in remediating efforts is essential.

Finding faculty prepared or willing to teach underachievers 1b another
major barrier in educating the specially needful.

The inexperienced in­

structor is the one often found in the remedial classroom.

The question

of status and prestige among teachers causes low interest in teaching
remedial students.
Curricular decision makers need institutional guidelines or policies
to serve as criteria in their efforts to design a curriculum truly geared
for the unprepared or otherwise culturally disadvantaged student.
The AAJC committee on Junior College Adult Education found wide­
spread interest in 19^1, but as recently as 1952, only a small group dis­
cussed adult education at the AAJC convention.

The term "adult" education

is now giving way to "continuing" education, for community colleges have
accepted their continuing obligation to make education available to every

172
person for whom lifelong learning is a recognized reality.
college serves the adult community in several vsys:

The community

basic education lead­

ing to a certificate of high school equivalence, or a diploma, occupational
training or retraining, cultural education vhich encompasses a vide variety
of avocational interests, civia education to prepare for American citizen­
ship, associate degree programs, vorkshops, seminars, and non-credit
courses designed to meet the special needs of the community.
In this curriculum, as in the others, major problems need to be re­
solved.

The question of college credit is an example.

Some feel that

credit should be offered only for courses that parallel their day-time
offerings; others feel that a course worthy of being offered is worthy of
credit.

Some colleges, and perhaps most, offer short courses and courses

of limited scope and specialized interest courses without credit, and
allow students to take classes that are equivalent to the day-time classes
for credit or as auditors.
The scope and diversity of the program creates issues that find great
disagreement among administrators.

The public schools, perhaps, and other

agencies doubtlessly engage in adult education services, and should not
find needless or useless competition from the community college. Articula­
tion needs with other agencies and schoolB is an acute need.
Whole-hearted support of boards, administrators and involved faculty,
and faculty able to adapt to a different, more mature and exacting clientele
are major needB.

A non-tenured faculty, plus a program considered by many

to be "low status," plus limited dollar resources for planning and develop­
ment make the continuing education program most vulnerable when the college
1b faced with a budget squeeze.

The lack of distinction between educational

activities and community service programs is seen by some as a major pro­
blem.

Authors agree that flexibility must be a watchword for curriculum

173
planners of continuing education curriculum.

Administrative willingness

to offer programs at timeB and places when they can he utilized appears
necessary for the growth and development of an adult education program.
Most recent among the recognized major functions of the community
college is community services.

The origin of this function can he traced

to the community school concept in the public schools and the community
development concept in the four-year institutions of higher learning.
The acceleration of interest in-community services during the 1960's
the result of several factors.

waB

These included the infusion of federal

monies* particularly in areas related to poverty* urban redevelopment*
and manpower training} the civil rights movement and demands to open
society for blacks and other minorities; the visibility of community ser­
vices programming provided by the AAJC* and the increasing social concern
for the urban crisis* racial inequalities* and illiteracy.
Community Services includes all educational* cultural and recreational
services provided by a community college* in cooperation with other com­
munity agencies* over and above the regular day program for full-time
students.
Program planners do not escape difficulty in designing community
service programs* but the problems appear to be fairly straight-forward:
leadership, total faculty involvement, administrative philosophy and in­
volvement, the attitude of the board are some of them.

Costs of staff,

added service functions (e.g.* extended library hours), utilities* cus­
todial service, supervisory administrative personnel* secretarial help*
guidance and counseling services are not small expenses.

In addition,

course credit is often the criterion the state uses in giving or withhold­
ing supporting funds.

Identification of unmet community needs and articu­

lation with other schoolB and agencies Berving the public 1b a need and in
some places a major problem.

CHAPTER III
Methodology of Study
Background Preparation
During the summer months preceding this study, informal interviews
were arranged to help set the ground-vork for the research problems it
indicated.

Informal conversations with Dr. Edwin L. Novak, President of

the State Board of Education, with Dr. S. Olof Karlstrom, Executive Vice
President of Genesee Community College and Fred B. Robbins, Dean of
Liberal ArtB and Sciences in the same institution were frequent and numerous.
Two meetings were arranged with Dr. Robert Cahow, Executive Secretary of the
Michigan Community College Association, another with Dr. Robert Kovach of
the MCCA.

Lengthy conversations with Dr. William Pierce, Deputy

Superintendent of Public Instruction in the State of Michigan and with Mr.
Phil Jager of the Department of the Budget were scheduled.
These informal meetings had, as their purpose, the objectives of an­
nouncing this study, engaging the interest of these persons and the groups
they represent, gaining relevant information and the exchange of useful
thoughts about the research problems of this study. A conversation with
State Representative Dale Kildee, a recognized advocate of community edu­
cation, was also useful and informational.
Selection of Community Colleges for this Study;

Rationale

Twenty-nine public community colleges are presently established in
the State of Michigan, and are geographically dispersed:
IT1*

two are located

175
in the upper peninsula; in the lover peninsula, three arc located to the
north of the county lines extending eaBtvard from the southern boundaries
of Benzie to Alcona Counties.

In mid-Michigan, bounded by this line to

the north and a southern line extending eastward from the southern county
lines of Ottawa to Sanilac are located eight colleges.

The remaining six­

teen community colleges are located to the south of this line with a con­
centration of eleven colleges in southeastern Michigan and four southwest
of a line running north from the western boundaries of Hillsdale, Jackson,
and Ingham Counties.

This geographical dispersion is depicted on the

following state map of Michigan*
Colleges selected for this study were identified by the following
criteria:
1.

geographical location: the colleges located in mid-Michigan,
as defined by the lines demarcated on the state map, were
chosen for three reasons:
A.

They are geographically separated from the high population
and college concentration in the southeastern sector of
the state and from outstate influences to the southwest.

B.

They are geographically separated from the low population
and college concentration in the upper part of the lower
peninsula and the upper peninsula.

C.

Their problfems were thought to be more similar to one
another than to the colleges in the other areas named.

2.

their student populations: medlum-size colleges were selected,
for their development and present circumstances were thought
to be similar. Smaller colleges in Michigan will hopefully
develop into medium-size institutions. Larger and very large
institutions represent only five of the twenty-nine public
colleges, andJbur of these have student populations far beyond
that vhich smaller, or even medium-size colleges, can expect
to attain in the reasonably near future.

3.

dependence: it vas desired to study at least one college vhich
is still part of the public school system.

1*. operating without faculty-negotiated contract: it vaB desired
to study at least one college in vhich a bargained contract
had not been negotiated.

M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
J
u
n
i
o
r
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s

1971-72

11trinl ll/ltl
i minion* *ort coil*,*
IIIKllH flrl
1 Cttntt tmtltr Jttltr Colloft
Mill
I It. Cl
Fort Huron
I Hulti** (iHimltf Cotl*|0
Htittft*

i Jttiton co**unit, c*n*i*
Jilhti
I Ct|lb1( ClMtiltjl C*1lt|0
Jiclton
I Utnr/ Pori Commit/ Co11*|0
Dnrllrt

I tltt
Co1lo|0
■••ton Mirbnr
II lirlttiiiir* MtcM,on Colll|0
Irirtrt* Clt/
II 01*0*1 Commit/ Colloi*
ll/I"!

II nttnob Count/ Cornu*11/ C*llt|0
tout* Ct*oul. Wtrroo
Cintir Ct**uo. Rt. Clootni
I) tilltii Cooounlt/ Colloft
littlo Crool
N lintlni Cooounlt/ Collotl
I<*|1*|
II D tl to C o ll to o

Ilnlrtrilt, Contor
II lirtb Control MlcM,o* Colloi*
tolllkt/
II ttboolcroft Colloi*
LUllti
II li| lo Hoc Co •unit/ Colltfl
Ittltoli
II Ottlino Cooounlt/ Coll***
Control 0ff1c*>11***Mol0 Mllli
tuburn Olllt Cto/UO. Auburn Holfbtl
Nl|b1o*0 Lotto Coooul, Union Lob*
Drchor* 110|* Coo/ut, For*tn|to*
II ntnroo Count/ Cooounlt/ C*ll*|t
Mnroo
II liutbuoitor* Hichlfio Colloi*
loti|ltt
H Uiibtoiou Cooounlt/ Colltit
Inn brbor
H botlcol* Cooounlt/ C*ll*|l

w

5m 17

7422
355B
529G
12*500
11,421

111*0/

II (Ion Coti Cooounlt/ Colloi*
(totroii)lt
■I «1| nitbtioo Co unit/ Colloio
Mrrlun
II tlrtlon* Cooounlt/ Collot*
lotitonon
II tlliniiin loll*/ Cooounlt/ Coll***
tilmuo*
II bttt Iboro Cooounlt/ C*llb|0
ItottrlUr
■t bi/M'Ctu*l/ Cooounlt/ Coll*)*

NOTE:

The numbBre corresponding
to the Community CollegB Dlstrlcta rBprasant enrollments
for fall, 1970, and arB takBn
from The Directory of Instit­
utions of Hioher Edocatlon.
Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan, 19^1-72.

177
5. accreditation: colleges fully accredited by the North Central
Accrediting Association and by professional associations were
of interest, for such accreditation vas thought to presume
maturity.
6 . establishment:

colleges organized at different times in the
state's hlBtory vere of interest, for it vas thought that
such colleges vould reflect the problems of their early grovth
and development.

Of the eight public community colleges geographically situated in midMichigan, three have medium-size student populations— Grand Rapids Junior
College, Delta College, and Muskegon Community College.
have medium-size student populations:

Each of these

Grand Rapids - 5Ul7» Delta - 600U,

and Muskegon - 3856 . Grand Rapids Junior College remains part of the pub­
lic school system.

Delta is one of the five colleges currently operating

vithout a faculty-negotiated contract.

Grand Rapids Junior College is

separated from Muskegon Community College, in date of organization, by
tvelve yearB, and Delta vas established thirty-one yews after MuBkegon.
»

Each of these colleges is among the seventeen Michigan public com­
munity colleges vhich enjoys accreditation of the North Central
Association.

The National League for Nursing accredits an associate de­

gree program in nursing, and the American Medical Association, Council on
Medical Education, accredits a radiologic program at Delta.

The American

Dental Association, Council on Dental Education, accredits a program in
dental hygiene at Grand Rapids and at Delta, and also a program at Delta
for dental assistants.^
Each of these colleges offerB tvo but less than four years occupational
education belov the bachelor's level and a tvo-year wholly or principally
creditable program of courses tovard a bachelor's degree.

’*'1971-1972 Directory of Institutions of Higher Education, op. clt.

170
Grand Rapids Junior College, Delta College, and Muskegon Community
College were most closely defined by the criteria of selection.

They rep­

resent lOOjf of the medium-size colleges in the mid-Michigan area and 10J»
of all Michigan community colleges.

These colleges vill he represented

in this study.
Dates of colleges established range from 19lb (Grand Rapids) to 1968
(Wayne County).
Michigan Public Community Colleges
Location

Date
Organized

Grand Rapids

191b

2. Highland Park College

Highland Park

1918

3. GeneBee Community College

Flint

1923

1*. St. Clair County Community College

Port Huron

1923

5. Muskegon Community College

Muskegon

1926

6. Jackson Community College

Jackson

1928

College
1.

Grand Rapids Junior College

7.

Gogebic Community College

Ironvood

1932

8.

Henry Ford Community College

Dearborn

1938

9.

Lake Michigan College

Benton Harbor

19b6

10.

Northwestern Michigan College

Traverse City

1951

11.

Alpena Community College

Alpena

1951

12.

Macomb County Community College

Warren

1953

13.

Kellogg Community College

Battle Creek

1956

lb.

Delta College

University Center

1957

15.

LanBing Community College

Lansing

1957

1 6 . North Central Michigan College

Petoskey

1958

Livonia

1961

Escanaba

1963

17.

Schoolcraft College

1 8 . Bay de Noc.Community College

179
19. Monroe .County Community College

Monroe

196 U

20 . Oakland Community College

Bloomfield Hills

196U

21 . Southwestern Michigan College

Dowagiac

196*4

22 . WaBhtenaw Community College

Ann Arbor

1965

23.

Montcalm Community College

Sidney

1965

2U.

Glen Oaks Community College

Centreville

1965

25. Mid-Michigan Community College

Harrison

1965

26 . Kirtland Community College

Roscommon

1965

27. Kalamazoo Valley Community College

Kalamazoo

1966

28 . West Shore Community College

Scottsville

1967

29. Wayne County Community College

Detroit

19681

Among the twenty-nine public community colleges in Michigan, student
populations range from very small (Klrtland:
3*1,222).

51?) to very large (Macomb:

For the purposes of this study, colleges have been grouped ac­

cording to student populations into very small (under 1 ,000 ), small (1 ,0002 ,500 ), medium (2 ,501-7 ,500 ), large (7 ,501-approximately 12 ,500 ), and very

large (30,000+).

Of the tvelve colleges established in the past decade

(since 1963, inclusive), seven are among the smallest colleges, one among
the small, two among the medium, and one among the large.
leges date, in origin, from World War II.

Nine other col­

Of these, two have remained very

small, one is small, five are medium-size institutions, and one is very
large.

Of the eight oldest community colleges, two are presently large in­

stitutions, five axe medium size, and one remains very small.
The following chart places each college in a grouping by student en­
rollment numbers.

1The Directory of Institutions of Higher Education. Lansing, Michigan,
Michigan Department of Education, 1971-1972.

\

Community College Student Population3,
P /s w w n w <

P

^ l l A

i f A

C

f l l i l i i n

f

D

A

m

iln f ^ A

n ^

Large

Very Large

7501-aprox.
12.500

30,000 Plus

Very Small

Small

Small-Medium-Large

under 1000

1001-2500

2501-5000

Gogebic - 6 U5

Northwestern - 1712

Highland Park - 3558 Grand Rapids - 5^17 Genesee - 8659

Macomb - 3l*»l*22

Alpena - 927

Monroe County - 1691

St. Clair - 281*2

Delta - 6001*

Henry Ford - 12,500

Oakland - 30,ll*3

North Central - 73^

Muskegon - 3856

Schoolcraft - 5296

Wayne County - 11,1*21

Bay de Iloc - 90l*

Jackson - 3635

Washtenaw - 1*009

Southwestern - 9^1

Lake Michigan - 2533 Lansing - 7230

IMontcalm - 686
Glen Oaks - 86l

5001-7?00

j
»
c-a
O

Kellogg - 3203
Kalamazoo - 2998

Mid-Michigan - 6l0
Kirtland - 515
West Shore - 550

^1971-1972 Directoryof Institutions of Higher Education. Lansing. Michigan:

Michigan Department of Education.

181
Sources of Data Described
The three colleges selected for this stud/ could be described in dif­
ferent ways and with different emphases.

Certain descriptors were singled

out as most relevant, for they relate moBt closely with this study.
college will be described separately.
sidered important.
cribed.

Each

Dates of establishment are con­

Location and physical facilities will be briefly des­

Admissions requirements and operational systems (semester, term)

will then be explained.

The administration of the colleges will be de­

tailed and an organization chart provided (Appendix B).

An explanation

of the various kinds of curricula and programs offered will be given and
outreach programs (e.g., extensions), when applicable, mentioned.

Degrees

and certificates awarded at each college will he noted.
Grand Rapids Junior College^Grand Rapids Junior College enjoys the distinction of being the first
Junior college in Michigan.

It was established in 191^ by the Board of

Education upon the recommendation of the University of Michigan.

At pre­

sent it occupies three buildings and adjoining campuses located conveniently
in the center of the city within easy commuting distance from outlying
areas.

The college operates on a semester system and Includes both an

evening college and a summer session.

It is administered under the local

board of education with a dean serving as its chief executive officer.^
^•Statewide Community College Services in Michigan. A Special Report with
Recommendations by the Michigan Community College Association, Lansing,
Michigan, June 1971.
GRAND RAPIDS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT— County of Kent excluding those
portions of the township of Spencer, Oakfield, Nelson and Solon included
within the legal boundaries of the Montcalm Community College District as
of January 1, 1971* the county of Ottawa excluding the townshlpB of Spring
Lake, Crockery, Robinson and Grand Haven; the townships of Lake Town,
Fillmore, Overisel, Salem, Dorr, Leighton, Hopkins and Wayland in Allegan
County; the townships of Thornapple and Irving of Barry County.
2
Catalog of Grand Rapida Junior College. 1972-1973.

182

Under the dean, assistant deans serve in the areas of general academic
programs and courses, continuing education, occupational education, and
student services.

An organization chart is found in Appendix B.

"To pro­

vide maximum educational opportunity to the members of the community and
maximum utilization of its instructional facilities, Orand Rapids Junior
College offers a number of programs of instruction in its day and evening
college; some leading to an Associate degree, some to a Diploma or
Certificate, and others less comprehensive in nature..
Two types of certificates are awarded at Grand Rapids:

a Certificate

of Achievement for satisfactory completion of college credit programs for
which degrees are not given and a Certificate of Competence for satisfac­
tory completion of non-degree credit programs.
A remedial program, presently being revised, 1b designed for students
who have demonstrated below average scholastic achievement in high school
and who are unable to satisfy the minimum entrance requirements for a col­
lege program.
sion.

Such students are encouraged to enroll in the summer ses­

Successful completion of this summer program is prerequisite to

enrollment in a full program starting in the fall semester.
Continuing education opportunities are available through a diversi­
fied program of evening courses on the college or high school level.

The

evening school also offers remedial sections in English, reading, and
mathematics.
Under the direction of the Grand Rapids Board of Education, continuing
education programs are available in several areas:
1. Adult High School Completion

1IMd.

183
2. Adult Basic Education (pre-high school training in writing,
English and math. Included are classes in citizenship and
English as a second language).
3. Community Service (non-degree credit classes of short term
in areas of special interest).
Community Schools (various enrichment programs and leisure
time activities established by the Board of Education and
offered in selected schools).
5. Adult Trades and Industry (short-term courses to teach adult
basic skills and provide useful information in certain occu­
pational areas).
The general education curriculum includes minimum requirements of
the senior institutions to vhich most students will transfer, and embodies
a variety of courses in English, the humanities, the biological and physi­
cal sciences, and the social sciences.

The Grand Rapids Junior College

Catalog does not mention general education requirements for students other
than transfer students.
An Associate of ArtB degree in Arts or Science is available to liberal
arts and pre-profeBsional students who are preparing for entrance into a
senior college or university, and an Associate degree in Applied Arts and
Sciences can be earned by students who wish to pursue tvo years of occupa­
tional oriented study in business, health, home economics, public safety
and technology.
Delta College^
Delta College vas organized in 1957* and began its operations In 1961.
The college functions independently of the public school system vlth a

1Ibid.
DELTA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT— Counties of Midland, Bay, Saginav
and Tuscola; the townships of Caseville, McKinley, Windsor, Fair Haven,
Brookfield, and Sebevaing of Huron County; the tovnshlpB of Moffat, Clayton,
Deer River, Adams, Standlsh and Lincoln of Arenac County.

10U
president as its chief executive officer, and remains one of the few
Michigan community colleges without a faculty-negotiated contract.

Pro­

grams and courses are arranged on a three semester plan and a summer pro­
gram.

The college islocated mid-way between Saginaw, BayCity and Midland

and enjoys new and strikingly beautiful facilities.
Under the president, and through an executive vice president, a dean
serves in the areas of academic affairs, student affairs, and community
affairs.

At this same level, reporting to the president through the execu­

tive vice president, is a controller and a business manager.

An associate

dean of general education (liberal arts, transfer...) and an associate
dean of occupational programs reports to the dean of academic affairs.

An

organization chart isfound in Appendix B.
Delta College 1ba charter member of the National Leaguefor
Innovation and is committed to a program of innovation, experimentation,
and improvement.
Admission to the college is open to high school graduates.

"Accept­

ance is based upon previous academic work, a record of good citizenship,
and an expressed sincere desire for additional education.^* Placement
tests determine the preparedness required for entrance into a desired
curriculum and results are carefully considered by the student with the
guidance of his college counselor.

An admissions classification system,

on the basis of the student's educational background and potential abili­
ties, is used for proper placement of the student in classes.

StudentB

are classified for admission purposes in one of the following categories:
1.

Regular admission (transcript of credits from accredited high
school or its equivalent and demonstrable potential to pursue
college level Btudy as determined by high Bchool achievement).

•^Delta College Bulletin, 1972-1973, P* 12.

105
2.

Provisional admission (educational background needs strengthen­
ing in certain areas. Student may be limited to twelve hours
and may be required to supplement his background and achievement
before re-classlficatlon as a regular student).

3. Special admission (early entrance high school students, stu­
dents vlth incomplete admission materials, and degree holding
students who are interested in specific courses).
U.

Quest admission.

5* Transfer students (admitted on an individual basis).
Delta College awards the Associate of Arts Degree, the Associate of
Science Degree, Associate Degrees in Applied Science and Business Studies.
In addition, one*or two-year certificates in occupational programs are
offered.
General requirements depend upon the requirements of senior colleges
and departmental majors, and students are advised to follow the program of
the senior college in which he expects to enroll. A general cuiriculum
for students other than those who plan to transfer is not mentioned in
the college catalog nor are remedial programs.

Occupation programs and

courses are planned in areas where Job opportunities clearly exist, and
each student in career programs plans, with his advisor, a sequence of
studies to fit his individual needs.
Delta "not only offers its distinct service through its Continuing
Education course work, it alBo accepts service from the community by hiring
professional people from the area to teach on a part-time basis.

Through

its thorough consideration of these people's training, professional acti­
vities, and work-related experience, Delta ensures that a Continuing
Education course is commensurate with day courses in academic objectives
set forth, instruction given, and totality of program offered."1

^ b i d . , p. 10.

186
Community education programs, as a community service, are geared to
serve the community needs vhich are not met by two-year degrees or academic
certificate programs.

These types of program include self-development,

Individual goals, community development and goalB of organizations and
groups.

Community service programs also involve personal counseling, up­

grading of skills, attention to social problems, cultural development and
leisure time activity hobbies and recreational activities.

Contract pro­

grams offer the individual corporation or business the opportunity to
structure a course to meet their specific training needs in up-grading
the skills of minority or disadvantaged individuals.
Delta College operates five extension centers through vhich the col­
lege is taken to the students.^ Besides these centers, evening classes,
as a function of community services, are offered in a variety of locations,
including classes in cooperation vith local schools, churches, government
agencies and private associations.

Television courses are also offered.

Muskegon Community College^
Muskegon Community College, though established aB a Junior college in
1926, prides itself in belonging to the nev era.

The change of name from

Muskegon Junior College to Muskegon Community College in 1957 noted the
difference in its program.

In 19&3, the college became Independent of

the public school system.

The college is currently administered under a

•*~Ibid.. President's Message p. 3.
p

Statewide Community College Services in Michigan, op. clt.
MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT— County of Muskegon} the county of
Nevaygo excluding the townships of Troy, Lilley, Merrill, Beaver, Goodvell,
Big Prairie, Ensley, and Croton; the townships of Benona, Shelby, Perry,
Nevfield, Greenwood, Otto, Grant and Clay Banks of Oceana County; the town­
ships of Spring Lake, Crockery, Robinson, and Grand Haven of Ottawa County.

187
president vith three deans— for instruction, for student affairs and for
business affairs— and their associates, directors and personnel.

An asso­

ciate dean for instruction assists the dean in the occupational area.
Reporting directly to the dean, who reports directly to the president, are
coordinators in community service programs, a director of Police/Fire
Science Technology Program, and three divisional directors— one in the
area of social science and related occupations, one in humanities/communi­
cation, and the third in mathematics, science and related occupations.
Department heads report to their respective divisional chairman. An or­
ganization chart is found in Appendix B.

The college is located east of

Muskegon, with large acreage and enjoys nev and very beautiful plant
facilities.
The Muskegon Community College operates on a two semester plus summer
session schedule and singlesout four educational programs:

general edu*

cation, university parallel, occupational and work experience.

"The col­

lege feels that, in addition to the specialization that most students
seek, each student should have a broad, intellectual experience in the
major field of knowledge...the requirements a student must complete to re­
ceive a degree...reflect this commitment to general education."^
The college awards the Associate in Arts Degree, the Associate in
Science Degree and the Associate in Applied Science Degree.

The first two

are primarily transfer degrees; the latter is awarded for successful com­
pletion of an occupationally-oriented curriculum, but may also be used as
a transfer degree to certain baccalaureate programs.

Muskegon Community College Catalog, 1972-1971*, P» 5.

188
Occupational programs in business, industrial-manufacturing, health
and other semi-professional programs lead directly to employment in speci­
fic fields or improve skills for individuals presently employed in this
area.

Cooperative occupational training (distributive education, office

experience) is available to studentB who wish to combine practical vorkexperience vith their formal classroom study.
The catalogue speaks of t he "exploratory college"— a oner-year pro­
gram of courses intended to offer the student an opportunity to gain an
understanding of himself in the vorld around him.

Individual study pro­

grams are also planned and encouraged at Muskegon.

Certificate programs

are available in each applied division to students vho may wish a one-year
program to provide basic proficiencies in their area of specific interest.
Community education services (community services) provides trained
and experienced leadership in the development of human, community, physi­
cal, cultural and economic resources by expanding educational opportuni­
ties to all segmentb of the college district. A four-part program of
Adult Special Interest, Special Short Programs, Community Development
Activities and Cultural Activities implements the concept of a comprehen­
sive community college being responsive to the total educational needs of
the community.
Muskegon places three coordinators, under the dean for instruction,
to head up community service or community education programs:

one is re­

sponsible for adult education and short courses, one for industrial activi­
ties, and the third for business and professional activities. All community
service courses are non-credit, though they become the preparation ground
for some vho transfer to credit-bearing courses.

Credit courses vhich are

being planned for evening hours vill not be organized under community
services.

Similarly, adult/contlnuing education courses that bear credit

189
are not distinguished from the regular educational offerings of the
college.
Remedial or developmental curriculum is not mentioned in the current
catalogue.
Muskegon Community College invites every interested person in the
community to avail himself of its varied services.

The admissions office,

cooperating vith the counseling office, promises to assist each student
in the selection of individual courses or programs of study vhich meets
the needs of his stated goal.
for certain programs.

Special admission requirements are placed

The college doeB not guarantee admission, therfore,

to all programs and requests or requires that some students make up defi­
ciencies in certain areas before gaining entry into specialized programs.
Plan of Study
As vas revealed in the reviev of literature, the authors focus their
attention largely on barriers, influences, determinants, parameters, con­
straints, decision-making guidelines (criteria), and fev, it vas observed,
discuss structures and processes by vhich curricular decisions are made.
Criteria for curricular decision making, although an integral part of this
study, represent only part of it.

This investigation accepts the validity

of the literature and centers more for the vholeness and completeness of
the study upon curricular decision-making structures and processes.
Method and Description of Study
In revievlng the literature related to curricular decision making,
careful attention vas given to the research questions presented in this
study and to the hypotheses that it vould examine.
taken to support the instrument to be used.

Abundant notes vere

The analytical thought of

190
James W. Reynolds, David S. Bushnell, Lewis B. Mayhew and B. Lamar Johnson
were especially useful In devising a plan to gain the Information necessary
to this study.

A structured, detailed interview was considered an optimum

methodological approach and was planned and improved through several re­
visions.

A pilot study conducted at Oenesee Community College in Flint

resulted in helpful points of revision.
GeneBee Community College,"*" established in 1923, became Independent
of the public school system in 1969-

It is a large college— the largest

single campus community college in Michigan and is located in the same
geographical area of mid-Michigan as defined for the colleges being
studied.

This pilot study was conducted over a period of three days.

Personal interviews Including examination of the structured instrument,
its completion, clarification, discussion of certain questions, and note
taking were lengthy and valuable.

The executive vice president, dean of

liberal arts and sciences, dean of technical education, present and past
chairmen of the curriculum committee, three

divisionalchairmen and two

tenured faculty members anonymously choBen each assisted with an average
time involvement of slightly more than two hours.
This pilot study not only improved the interview technique and the
structured instrument, but clarified the selection of respondents in the

^Statewide Community College Services in Michigan, op. cit.
QBNESEE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT— County of Genesee; those por­
tions of the townships of Marathon, Deerfield, Oregon, Elba and Hadley of
Lapeer County, and those portions of the townships of Tyrone, Hartland
and Deerfield of LivingBton County, and that portion of Rose Township
of Oakland County included within the legal boundariesof the Genesee
Community College District as of January 1, 1971-

191
colleges to be studied.

Discussion of informal activities, though not

part of this study, gave excellent preparations for the interviews that
were to follow.
Prior to each interview, the purpose of the study was briefly out­
lined.

Respondents understood that existing conditions was the primary

concern of this study which was examining the processes for making deci­
sions about programs and courses of study.

It was explained that no one

process was to be critiqued and that no attempt would be made to analyze
or evaluate any one college.

Respondents were further assured that they

would not be identified with information they were asked to give and that
the colleges they represent would be treated with anonymity.
An Initial question Bought to learn whether the entire process for
making decisions about programs and courses of study was explained in any
single college publication.

It was reasoned that without a clearly ***-

tailed explanation, one could reasonably expect a process to be or become
esoteric and that clarity of understanding at all levels in the institu­
tion would not be beBt served.
The interview next sought to learn the flow-charted structure or pro­
cedure by which curricular decisions were made, for decision making, as
Bushnell observed, and as was reported, Involves both a structure (in­
cluding communication linkage) and a process. Persons and groups in­
volved in the structure and process were the object of a series of
questions.
The nature of Individual and group involvement was probed and an
effort was made to learn their relative importance in the decision-making
process.

Further efforts were made to understand whether a systems ap­

proach to decision making was being used or whether related decisions were
made by several persons or groupB without the inter-communicationB at

192
every step that authors recognize as required in a systematic
process.
Special consideration vas given to an examination of the curriculum
conmittee, or a counterpart if there vere none, to learn its responsi­
bilities, qualifications, and the breadth of its representation.

The re­

lationship of the chief Instructional officer to such a committee was
questioned, and an effort to learn the relative respect given the cur­
ricular committee, or its counterpart, by the faculty and administration
vas made.
Questions about external regulatory constraints upon the curriculum
vere presented.

Respondents vere asked, further, to express their feel­

ings about internal control over curriculum decisions in their college—
vhether control vas shared by administration and facility or vhether one
or the other exercised a primacy or dominance.
The lnterviev sought to learn primary responsibility for curriculum
and1matters related to the curriculum as a croBS-check to procedural and
systems questions already asked, and discussion vith the respondent
folloved if a discrepancy vas noted and clarification vas needed.

The

intervievs vere less directed to gaining perspectives of various respon­
dents than to learn vbat actually vere the existing conditions by vhich
decisions vere made in the formal arena.
As a check against the organizational chart and to understand
vhether a single instructional officer vas responsible for the total cur­
riculum, or vhether he vas by-passed by certain curriculum directors, a
question vas formulated and the ansver used, vhen necessary, as a plat­
form for discussion to gain clarification that may have been needed.
A series of questions probing into sources of information actually
used by curricular decision makers vas geared to find out vhich sources

193
vere available and vhich vere used.

It seemed a problem deserving foouB

if, for example, an excellent library containing up-to-date research of
SREB, NEHBE, WICHI, ERIC et al vere available, but unused for vant of
time, assignment, or clarification of responsibility*
Questions of criteria, especially vritten criteria for decision making
followed and an effort vas made to look at the over-all uniformity in the
college's objectives, articulations, and behavior.
The interviews finally searched out respondents' understanding of
community education, itB relationship to the public schools in this area
of community service, and the procedure by vhich such programs vere con­
ceived, planned, and implemented.
The instrument used appears in questionnaire format and served to
structure the personal interview with each respondent.

A copy has been

placed in the Appendix.
Before site visitations and interviews vere conducted, personal con­
tact with the presidents of Delta College and Muskegon Community College
and the dean of Grand Rapids Junior College vaa made by Dr. James H.
Nelson.

Dr. Nelson briefly described the study to be made and gave a

preliminary introduction of the researcher.
to the college

vaB

In each instance

a

welcome

extended.

Procedural Plan of Interviewer
The study vas subsequently conducted in each of the three colleges.
Two days vere allotted for interviews at each college.

The procedure

followed by the researcher in each college vas patterned:
1. A visit to the president. The study vas explained and
permission vas asked to interview administrative officers
and faculty members vho, by reason of position» could beBt
supply the information needed. Personal conversations and

19^
excellent encouragement followed In each college. A copy
of the college's organizational chart vas requested and
obtained.
2.

Interviews vere requested from the dean of instruction or
the chief instructional officer} the dean, associate dean,
director or coordinator of the liberal arts, academic,
general education or transfer curriculum; the dean, asso­
ciate dean, director or coordinator of the occupational,
vocational, career or technical curriculum; the chairman
of the curriculum committee or the group that functioned
as such; at least one divisional head or director in the
liberal arts, academic, general education or transfer cur­
riculum; at least one divisional head or director in the
occupational, vocational, career or technical curriculum,
and from others among the administration or faculty if it
seemed necessary for purposes of clarification or separate
information.

3.

Interviews were arranged and vere conducted through comple­
tion of the instrument and note taking. Interviews averaged
nearly two hours in an atmosphere of relaxation and interest.
Notes taken were read back to the respondent to assure their
accuracy. Cooperation and friendly openness in matters
relevant to this study vas moBt generously given.

U.

Following each interview, additional notes vere written,
if useful, and quickly Jotted notes taken during the in­
terview vere re-written or amplified as a check against
memory.

In this Chapter, preparatory planning to conduct thiB Btudy was re­
viewed.

The rationale for selecting the colleges to be studied vas ex­

plained, and the relationship of these colleges to other community colleges
in Michigan vas discussed.

Dates of organization, student enrollments,

and geographical location vere singled out as being particularly important.
The sources of data— Delta College, Grand Rapids Junior College, and
Muskegon Community College— vere described in some detail.
and description of this study was explained.

The method

The pilot study at Genesee

195
Conmunlty College vas described and credited with improving the structural
interview and the technique of the interviewer.

A description of the in­

strument followed and the procedural plan of the interviewer waB reported*

CHAPTER IV
Presentation and Summary of ReBultB

Explanatory Note
The results of this study vill be presented In the same order In
vhich research questions and their hypotheses vere presented in Chapter I.
Each research question and its corresponding hypothesis vill be restated.
Data vhich supports or rejects the hypothesis vill then be presented and
vill be folloved by a statement of rejection or acceptance.
Colleges studied vlll be designated as "College A," "College B," and
"College C."

Data from each college vlll be presented separately and

hypotheses for each vlll independently be accepted or rejected.

Differ­

ences among the colleges are reflected in the data vhich, if presented
together, vould both confound the study and void the utility of the hypo­
theses; the appearance that this study generalizes its findings to other
colleges is not desirable and vould not be accurate.

The study, further,

centers on case analyses.
In each of the colleges studied, six major intervievs, averaging
approximately tvo hours, vere held.

More than 250 questions embodied in

a 33-point interview guide (Appendix A) vere asked.

Respondents vere

carefully chosen through their identification vith curriculum on the
organization chart and by asking the identity of others vho, though not
named on the chart, exercise important roles in curriculum decision
making.

196

197
Variant responses, vtaen given, vere diseusBed until clarity of under­
standing vas possible.

Short interviews vith several other persons

averaged fifteen-thirty minutes, and had as their purpose either reaffirma­
tion of information given or resolution of doubts expressed by respondents.
Printed material, vhen available, vas used,
Folloving the presentation of data from each college, a summary of
the findings vill be given.

In a section labeled "Summary and Discussion"

the findings of the study in each college vill be related to one another.
COLLEGE A

R(L

What is the procedural (structural) process by vhich curricular decislons are made?

H.

The procedural (structural) process by vhich curricular decisions
are made is not set forth in any college publication.
A variation in procedure is designed for new curricula, curricula re­

vision, and nev or revised courses.
New Curricula:
I. The program concept may originate anywhere by any interested person.
2. Proposals are sent to the Chief Instructional Officer. He investigates
each proposed curriculum, perhaps with the help of ■'professional lay
committee and gathers sufficient information to make a preliminary
evaluation.
3. Each proposal, vith data that has been gathered, is submitted to the
Curriculum Committee for its consideration and recommendation.
U. The preliminary evaluation, vith augmented evidence and the recommen­
dations of the Curriculum Committee, is returned to the Chief
Instructional Officer and appropriate division chairmen (academic
council).
5. If the proposal 1b recommended, the Chief Instructional Officer, per­
haps vith the professional lay committee, collects more detailed in­
formation relating to the points considered in the preliminary evalua­
tion. He Aotififes the dean of community affairs that an advisory
committee is to be formed and requests names of suggested members.
The chief instructional officer sends letters of invitation to the
suggested members of the advisory committee who subsequently correspond
vith the appropriate divisional chairman.

198
6. When the curriculum has heen established by the divisional chairmen,
chief instructional officer (academic council), and advisory committee,
it is submitted to the curriculum committee for its approval.
7.

The proposed curriculum is next submitted to the divisional chairmen,
chief executive officer and board of trustees for final approval.

8.

If approval is given, the chief instructional officer submits the
proposal to the State Department of Education.

Curricula Revision Procedures
1.

The appropriate divisional chairman is responsible for Submitting
proposed revisions to the chief Instructional officer. Each proposal
is accompanied by a Justification and normally the reaction of the
advisory committee (an advisory committee is appointed for each cur­
riculum, and serves for one year). Advisory committees are considered
an integral part of curricula planning and evaluation and may include
concerned members from the division and from the office of institutional
research.

2.

The chief instructional officer submits each proposal to the curriculum
committee and the divisional chairmen (academic council).

3.

If approved, the chief instructional officer notifies the catalog com­
mittee and the dean of student affairs of the revision. The divisional
chairman who initiated the proposal is responsible to distribute copies
of the final revision to members of the advisory committee.

Nev or Revised Credit Courses
1. Proposals are submitted to the chief instructional officer.
2. The chief instructional officer meets vith the originator of the pro­
posal, appropriate division chairman or chairmen, and appropriate
associate deans (academic council). A feasibility study is made.
3* If a favorable decision is reached, an assignee is given the respon­
sibility of developing a course outline.
1*. The advice of the advisory committee may be requested.
committee has not been created, one is formed.

If an advisory

5. When the course outline has been developed, the proposal is submitted
to the divisional chairmen (academic council), curriculum committee,
chief executive officer, and board of trustees.
6.

If approved, the chief instructional officer notifies the catalog com­
mittee and the dean of student affairs. When appropriate, a descrip­
tion of the course is submitted to four-year institutions for their
decision on the transferability of the course.

199
While circumstances modify the procedural (structural) process by
vhich curricular decisions are made, the following pattern is Inclusive
and carefully ordered:
1.

Program Concept

2.

Professional Lay Committee

3.

Curriculum Committee

It. Advisory Committee
5.

Divisional/Discipline Staff

6. Academic Council
7.

Curriculum Committee

8.

College Administration

9.

College Board of Trustees

10.

Bureau of Higher Education
(Division of Vocational Education)

11.

State Community College Board

12.

State Board of Education

An educational program development flov-chart has been prepared on a
transparency and is used by the chief instructional officer and others.
It clearly demonstrates the process through vhich an idea or request
passes to acceptance and through vhich it must, by evaluation, continue
to pass for continued acceptance.
page.

It is reproduced on the folloving

200

PURSUE POSSIBLE
FUTURE IMPLEMENTATION

PURSUE
TMPT.TMENT

CURRICULUM ,
DEVELOPMENT

COST/SPACE/EQUIPMENT
OPERATION ANALYSISIDEFER IMPLEMENTATIONf

RECOMMEND IMPLEMENTATION?

ICONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT|

MARKET ANALYSIS
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

Though some respondents vere not aware of any college publication
vhich set forth the procedural (structural) process by vhich curricular
decisions cure made and others thought them incomplete or inadequate (not
self-explained) or obsoletet the hypothesis of this study 1b rejected.
I
RQ^ What are the various decision points in the process?
Hg

Decision polntB in the procedural process are clearly established.

Both a printed curriculum or program approval chart and information
gathered from respondents through flov-charting the procedural (structural)
process in curriculum decision making name the following decision points:
1.

Chief Instructional Officer

2. Division/Discipline
3. Academic Council

201
1*. Curriculum Committee
5.

College Administration (Chief Executive Officer}

6.

Board of Trustees

The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQ_ At vhich decision point are arguments favoring a curricular modifi­
cation most carefully and minutely drawn?
Hg

The division evidences major control over curriculum development.
Divisional chairmen, together vith the chief instructional officer,

are responsible for preparing a preliminary evaulation of a proposal for
a new curriculum.

This evaluation must be based on the recommendations

of the curriculum committee and available evidence.

With the chief in­

structional officer, divisional chairmen determine the tentative curricu­
lum for submission to the advisory committee and then to the curriculum
committee for its approval.

The proposal is returned to the divisional

chairman before final submission to the chief executive officer.
The appropriate division chairman is responsible for submitting pro­
posed curricula revisions, vith their Justification and the reaction of
the advisory committee, to the chief instructional officer.
The feasibility of new or revised credit courses is decided by the
divisional chairmen with the chief instructional officer and appropriate
associate deanB.

These same officers appoint an assignee the task of

developing a course outline.

The divisional chairman arranges meetings

of the advisory committee to the program.

When the course outline haB been

prepared, it is submitted to him, then to the curriculum committee, chief
executive officer, and board.

202
Respondents to this study acknowledge the interest and important role
of the division in curricular matters and suggested that decisions are in­
fluenced by its behavior.

Major control over curriculum development, how­

ever, was generally conceded to the chief instructional officer and his
council and to the curriculum committee.

The flow-charted structural pro­

cess, as explained, demonstrates this control.
interview substantiate it.

Related questions in the

Both the curriculum committee and the academic

council request clarification, Justification, or restudy by the division
when necessary (q. I4.). Discussion of a proposal vas considered longest
in the curriculum committee and most detailed in the academic council
(q. 6b),

Control criteria were visualized most in evidence in the aca­

demic council (q. 7b), even though many of the decision-making process
activities (q. 8) vere carried out at the division level as well as in the
curriculum committee.
Leadership in improving the curriculum (q. 17a), avoidance of a frag­
mented approach to curriculum development (q. 17c), balance of the total
curriculum (q. I7e), evaluation of course objectives (q. 17f) and responsi­
bility for all curricula (q. 17g, h, i, J, k) vas generally reported as
belonging to the chief Instructional officer vith his council.

Similarly,

the division was seldom mentioned by respondents as responsible for other
notable curricula control activities about which they vere asked (q. 17).
It is noted that the academic council is composed of the chief instruc
tional officer, the dean of student affairs, the dean of community affairs
and all divisional chairmen.

In this respect, divisional control over

curricular development can be considered as major.

In the respect of the

hypothesis to this study, however, the division, acting independently as a
division, does not evidence major control and the hypothesis cannot be
accepted.

203
RQ,

Are written criteria specifically established at each decision point
(other than the final point of acceptance/rejection) as a guide to
the Judgment of decision makers? a

Hjj

Criteria specifically written as a guide to the Judgment of decision
makers are not found at any decision point.
Respondents answered that no standard set of criteria were established

or written (q. 7*» b), though general criteria were commonly understood.
When asked whether divisions or departments each have a set of written ob­
jectives directly related to and consistent with institutional objectives
(q. 20) and about their evaluation (q. 21), respondents agreed that such
criteria were not yet written but soon vould be.

They agreed further that

an evaluation of recognized criteria took place annually.

The question

was asked about criteria used in evaluating proposed and existing course
offerings (q. 28 a) and about the frequency of their evaluation (q. 28b).
Many of the suggested criteria vere checked and none vere added.

Written

criteria were not spelled out, though existing courses vere reported to
be evaluated annually by criteria recognized or recognizable by evaluators.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQcj Is a systems analysis approach to problem solving (such as that
described by Bushnell) used in the curricular decision-making
process?
A curricular deciBion-making model vhich useB a systems analysis
approach is not found in the colleges studied.

In the college's educational program development flov-chart, cited
and reproduced in this Chapter,under examination of the studies' first
hypothesis, a systems approach to curriculum development 1b outlined:
(1) market analysis involves professional ley persons, the office of in­
stitutional research, questionnaires, staff-community encounters...;

20U
(2) a favorable analysis leads to formulation of objectives— vhat Is to be
done and how It Is to be done; (3) constraints arc Identified and overcome
if possible, and resources (actual and potential) that will be needed are
looked at carefully; (h) the proposal may be stopped, deferred, or recom­
mended for Implementation; (?) the proposal— the best possible, as seen—
is implemented; (6) evaluation follows, and the process repeats itself as
evaluation information directs.

Members of the academic council, the curriculum committee, and the
division identified their involvement in the process coordinated through
the office of the chief instructional officer.

Some thought that the

division or the academic council performed all the steps— they did not
perceive the total plan of action— and others gave fuller credit than
should have been ascribed to a decision-making group, e.g., the curriculum
committee, other than the one with which they were most closely associated.
Nonetheless, the systems analysis process can be identified, and the
hypothesis of this study, respecting this college, cannot be sustained.

RQg Who is involved in the curricular decision-making process?
Hg

Everyone in the community, theoretically at least, is involved
in the curricular decision-making process.
Without hesitation, all respondents answered to question 2 that any

interested person or group could originate a curricular proposal.
Professional lay committees (community professionals in various occu­
pations who are carefully chosen to advise in matters of occupational cur­
riculum) and advisory committees (interested persons from the community
or from within the college) are numerous in thiB college.

Sources of

information actually used by decision makers (q. 19) named not only

205
administration and faculty, but students, board members, the community
through surveys and questionnaires and advisory committees, external con­
sultants, neighboring community colleges, "feeder" high schools...
Involvement differs for each one, but it appears evident that in-put
from every source 1b invited and often used.
This generally stated hypothesis is readily accepted.

RQy What is the nature of their involvement?
1I~

Actual involvement in curriculum development is reserved to
teaching facility and administration.
Respondents identified the nature of participants' roles in the cur­

ricular decision-making process (q. 17).

In the series of questions

following, responsibilities, as they vere identified, are noted by check­
ing letters from the listing of participants named below:
A. president or chief executive officer
B. dean of instruction or chief instructional officer
C. dean (director, coordinator...) of academic (liberal
arts, transfer) programs
D. dean (director, coordinator...) of occupational
(technical, vocational...) programs
E. dean (director, coordinator...) of community services
F. divisional (or departmental) chairman
G. curriculum committee
H. faculty-at-large (e.g., senate)
I.
J.
K.
L.

faculty through departmental meetings
classroom teacher
ad hoc committees when needed
board
A flf;d e ’GH "7

a.

leadership in stressing the value of improving
the curriculum?

b.

exercising veto power?

c.

avoiding a fragmented approach to curriculum
development (i.e., favoring certain segments
slighting others)?

3
A3

3

J

I

206

■
d.

e.
f.

providing professional atmosphere favorable
to faculty members in carrying out curriculum
developmental endeavors?

AU’1 F

leadership and the properly balanced, success­
ful operation of the total curriculum?

)

evaluating course offerings in the light of
college objectives vith a viev toward their
improvement?

F

g.

transfer curriculum?

F

h.

occupational curriculum?

i.

general curriculum?

J.

remedial curriculum?

k.

continuing adult education?

1.

community service non-credit academic curriculum

1F
F

b;

|

m. maintaining a general curriculum balance balance
academic and occupational programs?
n.

selecting textbookB?

o.

recommending new teaching personnel?

p.

determining teacher assignments?

q.

evaluating institutional objectives (philo­
sophy, aims, purposes), as found in the
catalog to assure accuracy in regard to
programs, courses and services offered?

r.

preparing statement of institutional objectives
(philosophy, aimB, purposes) for the college
catalog?

s. preparing statement of departmental objectives
for the college catalog?

r;

F
AB ?: f
F

?
C
I

j
3 I

I

*

c

AB
A

7

t. preparation of program objectives for the
college catalog?

*

r

u. preparation of course description for the
college catalog?

J

r

:

207
Understanding actual involvement to exclude concept originators and
resource persons who may be invited to lend assistance, involvement re­
duces to those identified above and to thoBe whose participation is re­
quired and visible on the decision flow-chart.

Professional lay committees

and advisory committees are represented in the curricular decision-making
process (q. 3), and counselors who are non-teaching faculty are also mem­
bers of the curriculum committee.
Actual involvement in curricular development is therefore not limited
to teaching faculty and administration and the hypothesis of thiB study is
rejected.

RQo What is the balance of authority and control over curricular deci­
sions between the administration and the faculty?
Hq

In matters of curricular decision, administration evidences a
primacy of control over the faculty.
Respondents were asked to place their college, in matters of curricu­

lar decisions, on a control continuum extending from administrative domi­
nance to faculty dominance with three mid-positions:

administrative

primacy, shared authority (the center position) and faculty primacy (q. 1 6 ).
With few exceptions, check marks were placed on "shared authority."

The

exceptions placed their mark slightly to the right of the center, toward
faculty primacy.

Cross-questions related to the question of personal and

group responsibility in curricular matters (q. 17) demonstrate a balance
of power.

In this college, divisional chairmen are considered members of

the faculty.

Were they in fact considered part of administration, the

balance of control would swing heavily toward administrative primacy, if
not control.

Answers to probing questions (q. 17) demonstrated that divi­

sional chairmen were responsible, or shared responsibility with

206

administration (without recognition of other faculty responsibility) over
many of the matters related to curriculum and decisions affecting it.
Specification of criteria for college admittance (q. 23-2*0 and for ad­
mittance into various curricula (q. 2$) is likewise a shared responsi­
bility in this college.

These responsibilities are the faculty senates'

and the academic councils'.
Faculty primacy is not evidenced and administrative primacy cannot
be demonstrated.

The hypothesis of this study, relating to this college,

is rejected.

RQ Do the deans (directors, coordinators...) of the academic (liberal
* arts, transfer...) curriculum and of the occupational (vocational,
technical...) curriculum report to the same dean of instruction or
chief instructional officer7
Hq

Deans (directors, coordinators...) of academic (liberal arts, trans­
fer...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...) of occupa­
tional (vocational, technical...) programs and deans (directors,
coordinators...) of credit-bearing continuing (adult) education pro­
grams report to the same single officer.
Continuing education credit-'uearing courses are not distinguished

from the academic and occupational programs in the college.

Both the

associate dean of general education (academic) and the associate dean of
occupation programs report to the chief instructional officer.

The dean

of community affairs (services) doeB not provide credit-bearing programs
or courses and he reports directly to the executive vice president.
Both the organization chart and replies from respondents (q. 18)
cause the hypothesis to be accepted.

RQ What importance is attached to the curriculum committee in curriculum
*0 development?
H

The curriculum committee is generally recognized as one of the most
Important college committees and bears a major role in curriculum
development.

209
Data presented under the first and second hypothesis supported the
procedural (flow-charted) process for making decisions about curricula*
The need for approval of the curriculum committee for new curricula is
stated in a written college procedure, and the important part filled by
this council in curricula revision procedures and procedures for new or
revised credit courses, while not clearly explained, is.unquestioned.
After establishing the existence of a curriculum committee as a fact,
several direct questions were addressed to respondents.

To the first.

(q. 11 a)— whether the functions of the committee vere clear (a) to the
administrators, (b) to the faculty, (c) to the Btudents, and (d) to the
committee itself— a negative answer vas received to each port, although
one respondent mentioned that the committee's functions "vere in the pro­
cess of clarification."
A next question (q. lib) asked whether the functions of the committee
were acceptable to the same groups.

One respondent affirmed that they

vere acceptable "only because the members are required to do what is re­
quired." Another felt that the committee "did the same thing as the
academic council."

Still another felt that the

committee exercised an

erstwhile power vhich haB been seriously modified.

Generally, respondents

felt that the students knew nothing about the functions of the committee
and that to administration, faculty and committee members the functions
vere not acceptable.
The curriculum committee (q. 12a) is composed of ten faculty membera,
five administrators, one member of the counseling staff and the academic
dean, ex officio. StudentB are not represented.
enjoy voting rights.

All, except the dean,

Faculty and counseling staff membership is officially

selected by the faculty; members usually volunteer and then are appointed.
Administrators are appointed by the chief executive officer.

210
The chief instructional officer serves on the committee though ex
officio and without vote.

He is considered influential in defending aca­

demic programs and doubtlessly is a heavy-weight in his persuasiveness.
The faculty senate executive committee appoints the chairman (q. 13)
for a term of one year (renewable).

He Bervea, with his committee, with­

out compensatory time (released time) or special compensation (q. lta, b).
An excellent up-to-date and well-stocked library which contains current
research findings related to curriculum development (q. 19 b, c, d) is
physically accessible, but factually remote.

Lack of time and the burden

of full teaching assignments limit the possibility of extensive reading
and study by the members of the committee.
It is significant that of the twenty-one questions (q. 17) that
searched out responsibility for each curriculum and matters related to
curriculum, no respondent viewed the curriculum committee as shoring re­
sponsibility for any.
The hypothesis of this study is rejected.

RQ-,1

Which groups, external to the college, place regulatory constraints
on the curriculum?

H11

Program accrediting associations and groups which control money flow
into the college are the only external regulatory constraints upon
the curriculum.
Respondents vere presented vith a listing of groups, external to the

college, vhich vere thought to influence the curriculum.

They vere asked

to place, in the blanks provided, a zero (0) if no influence vaB perceived,
an "A" if the influence was perceived as advisory, an "I" if the influence
vas perceived as Informational, an "S" if perceived as stimulating, and an
"R" if they saw the influence as regulatory.
letter, if desired, was acceptable.

The use of more than one

211
A zero (0) rating was given the question vhich asked about the influ­
ence of a collective bargaining agency, for a negotiated contract has not
been written in this college.
An (I) rating vas given the Michigan Community College Association.
(A), (X), (S) ratings vere given the State Board of Education, the
State Legislature, the State Bureau of the Budget, the State Division of
Vocational Education, and the North Central Accrediting Association.
(R) ratings vere given the State Board of Nursing, the Educational
Councils of the American Medical Association and the American Dental
Association and senior colleges.
Reactions to further questioning about those rated (A), (I), (S) vere
fairly uniform and answers given hinged upon the definition of "regulatory."
Respondents felt that regulatory meant coercive and that a denial of funds
or the placeat of any group (i.e., "you may or may not") vould not dictate
decisions, and that "Independence is a big thing." The State Division of
Vocational Education can regulate qualifications of those who teach within
a curriculum but cannot rule the curriculum itself nor demand its avail­
ability.

Respondents from the occupation education area felt that their

own interest in qualified instructors is no less than that required and
no dearth of suitable instructors had yet been experienced.
The hypothesis of this study 1b rejected in part, for it erroneously
assumed that groups vhich control money flow into the college exercise
powers of regulation.

It is accepted in part, for program accrediting

associations are recognized as regulatory constraints upon the curriculum.

RQl2 What sources of information are used by curricular decision makers?
H-g Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on
curricular matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.

212
Eighteen sources of information were suggested to respondents (q. 19a),
and they vere asked to check those that were used hy curricular decision
makers.

Three questions related to the curriculum library:

its accessi­

bility, its currency of relevant periodicals, and itB provision of current
research findings.

Another question asked whether divisions subscribed to

periodicals of their own.

The remaining questions had more to do with

functional information needed in the day-to-day operation of the college.
With few exceptions, respondents checked all sources of information
as being used by curricular decision makers in their college.

When asked

who or what group vas expected to keep abreast of research findings in
curricular matters and in current literature (q. 19b), respondents named
the various deans, divisional chairmen, and members of the curriculum com­
mittee.

The office of institutional research conducts surveys and offers

curriculum makers an ancillary service, each respondent explained.
The responsibility (q. 19c), however, vas not specifically assigned
to any one or any one group.

Each person and each group, by the nature

of his recognized involvement, vas considered responsible.

The hypothesis

is accepted.

R^IS How are priorities chosen when needs are equal and resources limited?
H

When needs are equal and resources are limited, priorities are chosen
pragmatically (i.e., what 1 b best for the college as an institution).
Respondents vere given ten considerations that could influence a de­

cision and vere asked to assign importance to them by forced choice, num­
bering them from 1-10 (q. 29a).

Three of the questions had to do vith

gathering information (f, g, h), and vere assigned the numbers 1 , 5 , and
6 . Three vere directed at matters of college concern for itself (c. i. J),

and vere assigned the numbers 2, 3, and U.

Two questions asked about simple

213
expediency (dt e), and vere numbered 9 and 10.

One question (b) Investi­

gated the availability of a program or course elsewhere or at a senior
college.

Respondents felt that competition for students vas undesirable

from the college's viewpoint but could influence a decision.

It was

assigned the 7th place.
A most important question asked about the relative benefit a new
program or course vould offer studentB (a).

Respondents estimated this

concern as being very important and explained that in assigning it a num­
ber of 8, it might not appear so.
importance in this college.

The interviewer vas convinced of its

Nonetheless, consideration of the college

for itself as an institution was apparent.

"In the real world," as one

respondent noted, "it's the dollar that counts.

If we can't make ends

meet, we can't offer the community anything."
A follow-up question (29b) asked vhether other considerations, in
addition to those named, would be influential in bringing about a deci­
sion.

None were added and the hypothesis is accepted.

In decisions related to non-credit community-need programs and courses,
and in the establishment and implementation of community enrichment
and cultural programs, what influence of the K-12 Bystem in its com­
munity education efforts is found?
Three hypotheses have devolved from this question;
The community college views itself as a leading agency of community
education.
H15

Advisory boardB to

the community services division of the community

college do not require qualified representation from the K-12 community
education interest.
K^g A unified relationship between the community service of the community
college and the community education efforts of the K-12 system I b not
found.

2lU
Without hesitance or discussion, respondents answered affirmatively
to the question vhether the college viewed itself as a leading agency of
community education (q. 30).

Even apart from credit-hearing courses and

an obvious position of educational Importance in the community, an array
of community services (academic non-credit programs and courses, cultural,
enrichment, skill training, hobby teaching programs...) is available in
this college and the hypothesis (lU) is accepted.
After establishing the existence of advisory boards to the community
services area (q. 31a), respondents vere asked about the public school's
community-edueation-interest

representation on these boards (q. 31b).

Several respondents thought that some inter-communication took place in­
formally but all answered negatively, and the hypothesis of this study
(H i^ )

I

s

accepted.

The question relating to a unified relationship between the public
schools and the community college in community education efforts (q. 32)
vas then discussed.

Various attitudes were expressed, generally positive

and favorable, but respondents either expressed doubt about such a rela­
tionship or replied that it did not exist.

Informal communication vas

recognized, but a working together, a co-relationship in serving community
needs vas not found.

The public schools and the community college retain

a separateness, and the hypothesis (H^g) is accepted.

Are community service non-academic programs and courses integrated
into the same decision-making process as credit-bearing courses or
what in-put do they receive, prior to decision, from divisional or
curriculum committee members?
RQ.g What are the channels or steps a proposal for an academic non-credit
program or course to be offered by community services follows to its
final acceptance, modification, or rejection?
RQ,_ and RQ _ generated a single hypothesis:
15
16

215
H

Deans (directors, coordinators.,,) of community service divisions which
* offer non-credit academic courses and non-academic programs, courses or
activities function without the approval of academic and occupational
administration and faculty.
Responsibility for community service non-credit academic curriculum

(q. 17* l) and for all community service programs was assigned by all re­
spondents to the dean of community affairB who is responsible to the execu­
tive vice president.

The organization chart makes this same assignment

clear.
In the printed procedures for non-credit courBeB (chief instructional
officer's file), it is established that all proposals for non-credit courses
are sent to the dean of community affairs and that he is responsible for
determining the feasibility of proposed offerings and for making whatever
arrangements that are necessary for their implementation.

He Informs the

chief instructional officer of each proposal and its disposition.
The channels that an academic non-credit program or course to be
offered by community services follows (flow-chart) to final acceptance,
modification, or rejection are these:
Originating Source
Dean of Community Affairs
(Executive Vice President)
(Chief Executive Officer)
The final hypothesis of this study is accepted for this college.
Summary

Remarks to the Study of College A

The study first flow-charted the procedural (structural) process by
which curricular decisions are made in this college and established defi­
nite decision points.

The relative importance of these points was dis­

cussed and the importance of the academic council highlighted.

The

216
division and the curriculum committee were seen as important in the pro­
cess hut ancillary to the academic council*
Criteria as a guide to decision makers at each decision point are
not written and this does not appear to he a problem for respondents.

A

systems analysis approach to problem solving is evidenced in this college.
A vital approach to curriculum development was noted and involves profes­
sional lay advisors in addition to carefully selected advisory committees,
faculty members, and administrators.
Those involved in curricular decision making were identified and the
nature of their responsibilities noted.

The curriculum committee's func­

tion is generally unclear and unacceptable, but both administrators and
faculty are anxious to remediate the problems that are visible and
acknowledged.
Authority/control over curricula matters is shared by administration
and faculty.

Uniformity of reporting, by both the associate dean of general

education (academic) and the associate dean of occupational education,
centralizes the knowledge of the chief instructional officer and provides
against curriculum confusion and imbalance.
Program accrediting associations are alone viewed as external regula­
tory bodies which dictate curriculum and policy.
Curriculum decision makers have a wealth of source information avail­
ably and respondents thought that every source was used.

Responsibility

for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on curricular matters and
current literature, however, is unassigned and assumed.
Priorities are chosen pragmatically when the need for several pro­
grams or courses are equal and resources force a limitation upon what can
be offered.

217
The community service division functions almost as a separate entity
in this college hut does not offer credit programs or courses.

Divisional

in-put and. reference to the curriculum committee is not necessary in its
program/course offerings.

The dean of community affairs does notify the

chief instructional officer of all proposals for community service and
their disposition as a help to him in maintaining an overviev of college
offerings.
The community service offerings of the community college and the
community education offerings of the public school system are unrelated.
Each functions apart from the other without sharing representation on its
advisory boards*

Informal communication often does occur, however, and

an absence of competition and antipathy

vaB

noted.

The research questions of this study generated seventeen hypotheses.
Of these, ten were accepted and six rejected.

One was partially accepted

and partially rejected.

COLLEGE B

What is the procedural (structural) process by which curricular deci­
sions are made?
The procedural (structural) process by which curricular decisions are
made is not set forth in any college publication.
Under the chief executive officer are four assistant deans in each of
the areas of general academic curricula, continuing education curricula,
occupational education curricula and student ser'dces.
The college functions with nine divisions, each with a chairman.

An

instructional council is composed of the chairmen of each division, the
three instructional assistant deans and the director of counseling.

An

administrative council is made up of the three instructional assistant

218
deans, the chief executive officer of the college, the registrar (vho Is
also the director of Institutional research), the business manager, and
the assistant dean of student affairs.
In the procedural (structural) process by which curricular decisions
are made, a proposal can originate with any interested person or group
within or external to the college (q. 2).
Unless special circumstances (not identified) warrant immediate sub­
mission of a proposal to an instructional dean for an initial decision, a
proposal receives first consideration at the divisional level.

An ad­

visory committee msy be formed by the division and called to assist at
this point.

If the decision at this level is favorable, the proposal is

sent to the instructional council, if a course is under consideration, or
to the State Board of Education for its approval if a program is in ques­
tion.

The administrative council next considers the proposal with what­

ever modifications and recommendations accompnay it.

A proposal that is

favored is then sent to the assistant dean of general academic curricula
or the assistant dean of occupational education who can, for all practical
purposes if he wishes, veto it.

If he approves the proposal, notification

is given the chief executive officer of the college who can but rarely
does exercise his power of veto.

The assistant deans, with the divisional

chairman and interested faculty, implement successful proposals.
cess is flow-charted on the following page.

The pro­

219

ORIGINATOR
Instructional Dean
AND FACULTY

DIVISION CHAI

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

INSTRUCTIONAL COUNCIL

administrat :

ASSISTANT DEAN OF GENERAL ACADEMIC CURRICULA
OR
ASSISTANT DEAN OF OCCUPATIONAL CURRICULA
I
I
I
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (INSTRUCTIONAL) OFFICER
OF COLLEGE
I
I
IMPLEMENTATION:

"V

INSTRUCTIONAL DEAN

WITH
DIVISIONAL CHAIRMAN AND FACULTY
The procedural (structural) process by which curricular decisions
are made (q. 1) is not set forth in any college publication.
The hypothesis of this study, as related to College B, is accepted.

RQjj What are the various decision points in the process?
H2

Decision points in t he procedural process are clearly established.
From information given by respondents, the following decision points

in the curricular decision-making process are named:

220
(1.

The Instructional Assistant Dean)

2. Division Chairman and Faculty
3a. Instructional Council (courses)
or
3b. State Board of Education (programs)
If. Administrative Council
5. The Instructional Assistant Dean
(6.

Chief Executive Officer of College)

The decision points in the procedural process are clearly established
and the hypothesis is accepted.

RQ„ At which decision point are arguments favoring a curricular modi­
fication most carefully and minutely drawn?
The division evidences major control over curriculum development.
Divisional chairmen and their faculty are responsible for preparing
preliminary evaluation of a proposal for a new curriculum.

While the

flow-chart process (RQj_, H^) and the answers of respondents (RQg, Hg)
demonstrate several decision pointB, the arguments forthcoming from the
division are of great importance to decision makers at subsequent decision
pointB.

Chairmen of the college divisions serve also as members of the

instruction council which considers course proposals.

This council is

by-passed for program proposals and divisions pass their favorable recom­
mendations and arguments directly to the State Board of Education.
Regular proposal forms or formats as required by the State Board are
used.

Apart from these, none are found.

Communication from one decision

point to the next may involve both the spoken word and written recommenda­
tions.

Divisional chairmen (and their faculty) place a proposal in motion,

when they favor it, in a manner that is expeditious and acceptable.

Re­

quirements of the administrative council are met, or the council remands

221
the proposal hack to the division for clarification, amplification, and/
or restudy (q. U).
Discussion and voting takes place at the divisional level and in the
instructional and administrative council meetings.

Respondents felt that

discussion vas ordinarily longest and most detailed in the divisional
meetings (q. 6a, b).
General criteria are established for all divisions by the administra­
tive council.

Special criteria seem to reduce to divisional good Judgment,

considerations of Job demand, a calculated gamble on the future, politics,
and a sense of good timing (q. 7a, b).

Respondents from the divisional

level (i.e., including faculty) feel quite secure in gaining final approval
of vhichever proposals they make.
In searching out responsibility for providing information necessary
for decision makers, the administrative council vas recognized, aB vas
the instructional council.

The burden, hovever, is carried by the divi­

sions even though they are not the court of final appeal (q. 8),
Tventy-one questions looked specifically for placement of responsi­
bility over curricula and related matters and vere addressed to the re­
spondents of this study.

In ansvering these questions, no one assigned

complete responsibility jto either the division or any group or person for
any of them.

The division vas assigned shared responsibility, hovever,

in nineteen of them.

The questions ranged from leadership, curriculum

balance, provision of professional atmosphere conducive to carrying out
activities in curriculum development through responsibility for specific
curriculum and their corollaries.
The divisions in College B evidence major control over curriculum
development.

The hypothesis of thiB study is accepted.

222
RQ^

Are written criteria specifically established at each decision point
(other than the final point of acceptance/rejection) as a guide to
the Judgment of decision makers?

H.

Criteria specifically written as a guide to the Judgment of decision
makers are not found at a n y decision point.

Respondents answered that a standard set of criteria was neither
written nor established at any decision point (q. 7a, b), though general
criteria were established for all divisions by the administrative council.
Nor do divisions have a set of written objectives directly related to and
consistent with institutional objectives (q. 20),though such criteria are
recognized.

Evaluation of criteria, as recognized, takes place generally

for accreditation reviews.
The question was asked about criteria UBed in evaluating proposed
and existing course offerings (q. 28a) and about the frequency of their
evaluation (q. 28b).
were added.

Many of the suggested criteria were checked and none

Written criteria are not spelled out, though existing courses

were reported to be evaluated at least every three years by criteria re­
cognized or recognizable by evaluators.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQc

Is a systems analysis approach to problem solving (such as that des
cribed by Bushnell) used in the curricular decision-making process?
A curricular decision-making model which uses a systems analysis
approach is not found in the colleges studied.
The several steps recognized as essential to a systems analysis ap­

proach to problem solving were identified for respondents (q. 8).

The

discussion that ensued between the interviewer and the respondents followed
these steps,and an effort was made first to identify the persons or groupB

223
making them and then the decision points In the process at which the/
were made.
Four decision points were examined:

the divisional chairman and

■

faculty, the instructional council, the administrative council, and the
instructional assistant dean.

The instructional dean analyzes and evalu­

ates information brought to him and can veto a proposal.

His function is

to approve or disapprove or request additional information.

The adminis­

trative council considers curriculum as one of its many areas of attention,
and expects that a viable study haB been done by the instructional council
(regarding courses only, for programs are first considered by divisions
and approved by the State Board of Education).

The Instructional council

has no interest in programs and its membership studies the arguments and
recommendations of the submitting division in matters of courses.

The

divisions are composed of a load-bearing faculty and chairman} these ex­
amine a proposal from whatever perspectives they may have (perhaps with
the aid of an advisory committee) and approve it or not.

A divisional

chairman can Bend forward the request of a faculty member on his own judg­
ment.

Proposals sent forward by the divisional chairman are usually ac­

cepted unless pragmatic reasons, as seen by subsequent decision makers,
block them.
Respondents were very college and student minded— obviously genuine
and serious in their responsibilities.

But a systems approach to deci­

sion making, such as that described by Bushnell and reviewed in Chapter II,
was not found.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

22b

RQ- Who is involved in the curricular decision-making process?
6
Hg Everyone in the community, theoretically at least, ia involved
in the curricular decision-making process.
Each respondent answered that any interested person or group could
originate a curricular proposal (q. 2)

Sources of information actually

used by decision makers (q. 19) named administrators, faculty, students,
board members, advisory committees, external consultants, "feeder" high
schools...
Involvement differs for each one, but it appears evident that in-put
from every source 1b invited and often used.
This generally stated hypothesis 1b readily acceptable.

RQy What is the nature of their involvement?
H
'

Actual involvement in curriculum development is reserved
to teaching faculty and administration.
The nature of participants' roles in the curricular decision-making

process vas identified by respondents to this study (q. 17)

In the

series of questions following, responsibilities, as they were identified,
are noted by checking letters from the listing of participants named
below:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M,

president or chief executive officer
instructional council
dean (director, coordinator...) of academic
(liberal arts, transfer...) programs
dean (director, coordinator...) of occupa­
tional (technical, vocational...) programs
dean (director, coordinator...) pf community
services
divisional (or departmental) chairman
curriculum committee
faculty-at-large (e.g., senate)
faculty through departmental meetings
classroom teacher
ad hoc committees when needed
board
registrar

225
ABCDEFGHIJXLM
a. leadership in stressing the value of improving
the curriculum?
b.

exercising veto power?

c.

avoiding a fragmented approach to curriculum
development (i.e., favoring certain segments,
slighting others)?

CC

d. providing professional atmosphere favorable
to faculty members in carrying out curriculum
developmental endeavors?

A cc

e.
f.

leadership and the properly balanced, success­
ful operation of the total curriculum?
evaluating course offerings in the light of
college objectives with a view toward their
improvement?

g.

transfer curriculum?

h.

occupational curriculum?

AH

ECC

CE

i. general curriculum?
J.

remedial curriculum?

k.

continuing adult education?

1.

community service non-credit academic
curriculum?

m.

maintaining a general curriculum balance be­
tween academic and occupational programs?

e:

n.

selecting textbooks?

o.

recommending new teaching personnel?

3]

p.

determining teacher assignments?

o

q.

evaluating institutional objectives (philo­
sophy, aims, purposes), as found in the
catalog to assure accuracy in regard to
programs, courses and services offered?

DS

r. preparing statement of Institutional objectives
(philosophy, aims, purpose) for the college
catalog?

os

226
C M

ABC 3E1i'G

s. preparing statement of departmental
objectives for the college catalog?
t.

A

C

preparation of program objectives for the
college catalog?

c 3

u. preparation of course description for the
college catalog?

c 3

r

I
I

?

I

Understanding actual involvement to exclude concept originators and
resource persons vho may be invited to lend assistance, involvement re­
duces to those identified above and to those vhose participation is re­
quired and visible on the decision flov-chart. An advisory committee may
be appointed at the divisional level, but is optional, and serves aB does
a resource person vhen called.

Divisions, the instructional council and

the administrative council ore made up of administrators and faculty. A
curriculum committee (q. 10) is not found in this college.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQq What is the balance of authority and control over curricular
decisions betveen the administration and the faculty?
Hq

In matters of curricular decision, administration evidences a
primacy of control over the faculty.
Respondents were asked to place their college, in matters of curricu­

lar decisions, on a control continuum extending from administrative domi­
nance to faculty dominance, with three mid-positions:

administrative

primacy, shared authority (the center position) and faculty primacy (q. 1 6 ).
With few exceptions, check marks vere placed on "shared authority." The
exceptions placed their mark slightly to the right of the center, tovard
faculty primacy.

Cross-questions related to the question of personal and

group responsibility in curricular matters (q. 17) demonstrate a balance

227
of power.

In this college, divisional chairmen are considered members of

the facility. Were they in fact considered part of administration, the
balance of control would swing heavily toward administrative primacy, if
not control.

Answers to probing questions (q. 17) demonstrated that divi­

sional chairmen were responsible, or shared responsibility with admini­
stration (without recognition of other faculty responsibility), over many
of the matters related to curriculum and decisions affecting it.

Sepci-

fication of criteria for college admittance (q. 23-2U) and for admittance
into various curricula (q. 25) is likewise a shared responsibility in this
college.

These responsibilities are the faculty senates' and the academic

councils'.
Faculty primacy is not evidenced, and administrative primacy cannot
be demonstrated.

The hypothesis of this study, relating to this college,

is rejected.

RQp Do the deans (directors, coordinators...) of the academic (liberal
arts, transfer...) curriculum and of the occupational (vocational,
technical...) curriculum report to the same dean of instruction or
chief instructional officer7
Deans (directors, coordinators...) of academic (liberal arts, trans­
fer...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...) of occupa­
tional (vocational, technical...) programs and deans (directors, co­
ordinators...) of credit-bearing continuing (adult) education programs
report to the some single officer.
Assistant deans of general academic, of occupational curricula, and
of continuing education report to the chief executive officer of the col­
lege who is also itB chief instructional officer.

The dean of continuing

education heads up the adult high school, adult basic education, and com­
munity service programs.

He also directs the evening college, which

offers both credit and non-credit courses, at his own discretion.

He con­

sults with divisional chairmen if he wishes (seldom with the other deans),

228
for he is constrained by a collective bargaining regulation by vhlch he
must hire regular faculty if he is offering a regular, numbered catalog
course.
The chief executive officer of the college, as the chief instructional
officer, is thus able to maintain an overview of college offerings and thus,
hopefully, eliminate confusion which could ariBe should an assistant dean
by-pass the chief instructional officer and relate directly with his
superior.
Both the organization chart and the replies from the respondents to
this study (q, 18 ) cause the hypothesis to be accepted.

RQ^q What importance is attached to the curriculum committee in
curriculum development?
H1(J The curriculum committee is generally recognized as one of the most
important college committees and bears a major role in curriculum
. development.
College B does not have a special committee or sub-committee for cur­
riculum.

Curriculum affairs are the concern of the divisions, the instruc­

tional council and the administrative council, as shown in the decision
flow-chart and the accompanying data presented under the first and Becond
hypotheses.

The instructional council recognizes curriculum and its de­

velopment as one of many responsibilities with which it is vested.

Of the

various standing committees in the curricular decision-making process, it
most closely resembles a curriculum committee, and respondents think of it,
among all committees, as the one chiefly responsible for curriculum.

As

has been noted already (H^ and H2)» this council has no interest in pro­
grams (cf. flow-charted decision-making process under RQg and Hg), but
only in courses.

Its membership is fifteen:

the director of counseling,

229
the assistant deans of the general academic, occupational and continuing
education curricula and eleven faculty members (each of the nine divisions
are represented; one additional faculty member representing each of tvo
programs), bringing the total to eleven.

All members are appointed by the

chief executive officer of the college and all, except the assistant deans
(administrative), enjoy voting rights.
Understanding the role of the instructional council as being the
prime committee concerned vith and responsible for curricula, several
direct questions were addressed to respondents.

To the first (q. 11a)—

whether the functions of the council were clear (a) to the administrators,
(b) to the faculty, (c) to the students, and (d) to the council itself—
it vas generally accepted that the administrators and the council saw the
functions as clear, but the students and many of the faculty did not.
The question vaB then asked whether the functions of the council were
acceptable to

the same groups.

All respondents thought that they were to

the administrators and were not to the students.

Some of the council feel

that they "are like rubber stamps, that their action can easily be vetoed,
that they approve or disapprove curricula action aB politically expedient."
Noting that divisional chairmen are the clear majority in the council's
membership, some of the facility feel that their Interests are not represented, for "divisional chairmen should be lined up vith the administration."
"Co-chairmen of the council are the assistant deans of the general academic
and the occupational curricula, and their chairmanship 1b established ex
officio (q. 13).

According to one respondent, "they don't have the vote,

but they don't need it."
Members of the council are given released time (one-fourth of their
loads) and other special compensations for their service (q. I1*a, b).

230
The curriculum library is veil thought of (q. 19b, c, d)t but periodi­
cals received by the division are considered more practically useful to
respondents in the occupational area.
The importance of the divisions in curricula decision making (H^)
has been observed.

The importance of the divisional chairmen to the in­

structional council is noted in examining the tventy-one questions (q. 17)
that searched out responsibility for each curriculum and matters related
to curriculum.

Respondents singled out the instructional council as being

responsible for evaluating course objectives vith a view tovard their im­
provement, but in general estimated the value and strength of the instruc­
tional council as being the value and strength of the sum total of
divisional chairmen vho largely compose it.
The hypothesis of this study has to be rejected.

HQ.. Which groupB, external to the college, place regulatory constraints
on the curriculum?

Program accrediting associations and groups vhich control money
flov into the college are the only external regulatory constraints
upon the curriculum.
Respondents vere presented vith a listing of groups, external to the
college, vhich vere thought to influence the curriculum.

They vere asked

to place, in the blanks provided, a zero (0) if no influence vas perceived,
an "A" if the influence vas perceived as advisory, an "I" if the influence
vas perceived as informational, an "S" if perceived as stimulating and an
"R" if they sav the influence as regulatory.

The use of more than one

letter, if desired, vaB acceptable.
A zero (0) rating vas given the collective bargaining agent (at least
for now!).

231
An tl) rating vas given the Michigan Community College Association.
An (A), (I), (S) rating was given the Worth Central Accrediting
Association.
An (A) and a modified (R) rating vas given the State Legislature,
State Bureau of the Budget and the State Division

of Vocational Education.

The (R) vas modified, for respondents felt that control by these agencies
was indirect or "pseudo." One respondent explained that "money comes from
the legislature in three levels: general (for any needs), technical pro­
grams, and health-related programs.

If these latter two are not approved,

money is withheld." Another felt that the legislature demanded that three
hourB of political science be included In the curriculum, and saw
"pseudo-constraint" the "success concept" of the legislature:

sb

a

"budget

allocations come not from hov many enter college, but from how many
graduate...nor are E*s counted..."

(R) ratings vere given the State Board

of Education (relative to programs), the State Board of Nursing, the
Educational Councils of the American Medical Association and the American
Dental Association and transfer colleges and universities.
When questioned further about constraints placed by the North Central
Accrediting Association

and the state agencies, respondents maintained

that the North Central vas helpful, not domineering, and that state agen­
cies could recommend and could persuade, but could not, at this time,
actually regulate.

It appeared to the interviewer that any "requirement"

of a state agency, as expressed until now, either voiced "the college mind"
or vas at least seen as non-threatening.
The interviewer felt, in addition, that a "modified regulatory agency"
vaa, in fact, seen as a regulatory agency vhich assumed a control that re­
spondents did not wish to relinquish,
nonetheless real control.

"indirect-" or "pseudo-"control is

232
The decision flow-chart, and replies elsewhere from respondents,
makes clear that all programs, before they proceed from the division to
subsequent decision pointB within the college, are submitted to the State
Board of Education for approval or rejection.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQ^g What sources of information are used by curricular decision makers?
Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on cur­
ricular matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.
Eighteen sources of information vere suggested to respondents (q. 19a),
and they vere asked to check those that vere used by curricular decision
makers.

Three questions related to the curriculm library:

its accessi­

bility, its currency of relevant periodicals and its provision of current
research findings.

Another question asked whether divisions subscribed

to periodicals of their own.

The remaining questions had more to do with

functional information needed in the day-to-day operation of the college.
With few exceptions, respondents checked all sources of information
as being used by curricular decision makers in

their college.

When asked

who or what group vas expected to keep abreast of research findings in cur­
ricular matters and in current literature (q. 19b), respondents named the
instructional aBBistant deans, divisional chairmen, and the registrar
(who directs the office of institutional research).

The responsibility (q. 19c), hovever, was not specifically assigned
to any one or any one group.

Each person and each group, by the nature

of his recognized Involvement, vas considered responsible.
The hypothesis is accepted.

233
RQ. ~ Hov are priorities chosen when needs are equal and resources
limited?
H

When needs are equal and resources are limited, priorities are
chosen pragmatically (i.e., what 1b best for the college as an
institution).
Respondents vere given ten considerations that could influence a

curricular decision and were asked to assign Importance to them by forced
choice, numbering them from 1-10 (q. 29a).

Three of the questions had to

do vith gathering information (f, g, h) and vere assigned an importance
of 7, 8, and 9.

Three vere directed at matters of college concern for

itself (c, i, j) and vere rated 1, 2, and 3.

Two questions asked about

simple expediency (d, e) and vere numbered 1: and 10.

One question (b)

investigated the availability of a program or course elsewhere or at a
senior college.

The Influence of such competition vas rated 6.

A most important question asked about the relative benefit a new
program or course would offer studentB (a).

Repondents expressed keen

regard for this influence as an ideal, and the interviewer vas convinced
that all respondents vere student-minded.

The pressure of other considera­

tions, hovever, pushed this influence into 9th place.
No additional Influences for bringing about a decision vere named
(q. 29b).

The hypothesis of thiB study, as related to College B, is

accepted.

RQ.. In decisions related to non-credit community-need programs and
courses, and in the establishment and implementation of community
enrichment and cultural programs, vhat influence of the K-12
system in its community education efforts is found?
Three hypotheses have devolved from this question:
The community college vievs Itself as a leading agency of community
education.

23U
H__ Advisory boards to the community services division of the community
college do not require qualified representation from the K-12 com­
munity education interest.
H16

A unified relationship between the community service of the community
college and the community education efforts of the K-12 system is
not found.
Except for a single respondent, all affirmed that their college vas

certainly a leading agency of community education.

Community service pro­

grams are of many kindB (cultural, enrichment, skill training, hobby
training...) and the evening school offers courses and programs, both non­
credit and credit-bearing to all interested persons.

Hypothesis ll» is

accepted.
Advisory boards to tiie community services area are available and op­
tional (q. 31a).

Advice is sought by the dean of continuing education,

vhen he feels it can be useful, from whichever source he chooses within
and external to the college.
Qualified representation from the K-12 community education interest
is not required (q. 32) and hypothesis 15 is accepted.

Nonetheless, inter­

communication between the responsible persons representing the various
educational levels does occur, at least informally.
In discussion vith respondents relative to a unified relationship
betveen the community college and the public schools in community educa­
tion efforts (q. 32), the interviewer observed a defensiveness and a fefcling of antipathy toward the community education efforts in the public
schools.

Some respondents felt that both systems vent their ovn way,

others noted Jealousy at times, others saw no real unified relationship.
One respondent thought that inter-communication vas good and that certain­
ly no ill feelings existed among the principals at any education level.
A working together, a co-relationship in serving community needs had not

235
been developed, according to respondents, generally.

A separateness,

"since the college doesn't vant to be viewed as a glorified high school,"
as one respondent felt, vas maintained.
Hypothesis 16 of this study is accepted.

RQ Are community service non-academic programs and courses integrated
^ into the same decision-making process as credit-bearing courses or
what in-put do they receive, prior to decision, from divisional or
curriculum committee members?
What are the channels or steps a proposal for an academic non-credit
program or course to be offered
by community services followsto its
final acceptance, modification,or rejection?
RQ^cj and RQ^g generated a single hypothesis:
H;u Deans (directors, coordinators...) of community service divisions
which offer non-credit academic courses and non-academic programs,
courses or activities function without the approval of academic
and occupational administration and faculty.
The evening college, which offerB both credit and non-credit courses,
1b directed by the assistant dean of community education.

This same dean

is responsible for and directs special programs, communityservice programs,
adult basic education programs and the adult high school.
The assistant dean of continuing education reports directly to the
chief executive officer of the college.

He consults with divisional chair­

men as he visheB— less often with the other assistant deans— and is con­
strained only by a collective bargaining agreement that causeB him to
employ members of the regular faculty to teach credit-bearing courses
that are named, described and numbered in the regular college catalog.
The channels that credit-bearing and non-credit programs and courses
(evening school), and community service programs, adult basic education
and adult high school programs follow (flow-chart) to final acceptance,
modification, or rejection are these:

236
Originating Source
Assistant Dean of Continuing Education
(Chief Executive Officer)
The final hypothesis of this study, related to College B, is
t

accepted.

Summary Remarks to the Study of College B
The study first flow-charted the procedural (structural) process by
vhich curricular decisions are made in this college and established defi­
nite decision pointB.

The relative importance of these points were dis­

cussed and the importance of t he divisions highlighted.

The instructional

council vas seen as important, and though it has many responsibilities in
this college, it functions also as a surrogate curriculum committee.

Its

membership includes the divisional chairmen (9)* two program representa­
tives, the director of counseling and the three instructional assistant
deans.

The administrative council is made up of the college chief execu­

tive officer, instructional assistant deans, the registrar (who also directs
institutional research), the dean of student services, and the business
manager.

This council is the most important decision-making body, func­

tioning aB "the president's cabinet," and it revlevs curricular matters
brought to it by the instructional council (in the caBe of courses) or the
divisions, via the State Board of Education (in the case of programs).
Written criteria as a guide to decision makers are not found at any
decision point, though general criteria for each division are established
by the administrative council.
A systems analysis approach to problem solving vas not evidenced in
this college.

The burden of curriculum development (additions, modifica­

tions, and drops) belongs to the division, though the responsibility for

23T
decisions is shared hy the instructional and administrative councils and
the instructional assistant deans.

Decision making, in curricular matters,

appears somewhat informal, despite the formal functional procedural struc­
ture, and seems to evidence a low-pressure fellowship type of association
among administrators (all of whom have come up the ranks from teaching
positions in this same college) and faculty.
Those involved in curricular decision making are identified, and the
nature of their responsibilities noted.

The functions of the instructional

council, as a surrogate curriculum committee, are clear to the administra­
tors and to the council members— not so clear to many of the faculty and
not understood at all by students.

Respondents feel that the functions

of this council, re curricular matters, were acceptable to the administra­
tors.

The functions are not entirely acceptable to the members of the

council or to the faculty, and the students are not aware of them.
Curricular decisions are pre-eminently and practically the exclusive
prerogative of the administration and teaching faculty.

In-put from other

sources, especially in the origination of proposals and through surveys
and advisement, involvement of the whole community is invited.

Authority/

control over curricular matters is shared by administration and faculty.
All assistant deans report to the chief executive officer of the college
(the chief instructional officer) as a provision against curriculum confu­
sion and imbalance.
A special committee or sub-committee with responsibility for curricu­
lum development is not formed in this college.

The instructional council,

in exercising this responsibility among many others, is not seen as bearing
a major role in curriculum development.

238
Regulatory bodies which Influence the curriculum are both program
accrediting associations and the State Board of Education, Legislature,
Bureau of the Budget and Division of Vocational Education.
Curriculum decision makers have an abundance of source information
available, though respondents acknowledged that many of these sources were,
in fact, not used as they might be.

Responsibility for up-to-date know­

ledge of research findings on curricular matters and current literature,
however, is unassigned and assumed.
Priorities are chosen pragmatically when the need for several pro­
grams or courses are equal and resources force a limitation upon what can
be offered.
Under an assistant dean of continuing education, special programs,
community service programs, adult basic educational programs and the adult
high school are organized.

The evening college, directed by the same

dean, offers both credit and non-credit courses and programs.

Divisional

in-put and reference to the instructional council is not necessary in its
program/course offerings.

The assistant dean reports to the dean of the

college and accounts to no other official.

The chief executive officer

of the college maintains an overview of college offerings by these reports
and by the direct reports from the instructional deans and the dean of
student services.
The college sees itself as a leading agency of community education.
Advisory boards to the community service division do not require represen­
tation from the public school community education interest, nor is a uni­
fied relationship in common community interests evident between the community
college and the various other educational levels.

Good feeling, but dis­

interestedness and separateness characterize the existing relationship.

239
The research questions of this study generated seventeen hypotheses.
Of these fifteen vere accepted and two rejected.

COLLEGE C
RQjL What is the procedural (structural) process by which curricular
decisions are made?
ttj'

The procedural (structural) process by vhich curricular decisions
are made is not set forth in any college publication.
Overall responsibility for the instructional program restB vith the

chief instructional officer.

Two other deans— for student affairs and for

business affairs— with him report directly to the chief executive officer.
The organization chart of this college clearly separates the responsi­
bilities of each dean.
Two associate deans report to the chief Instructional officer.

One

is responsible for library learning resources, the other for occupational
curricula.

Directly reporting also to the chief instructional officer are

three coordinators of community service projects (adult education and
short courses, industrial activities, business and professional activities).
Likewise reporting directly to the chief instructional officer are three
divisional directors.
Among other responsibilities, the chief instructional officer (l)
recommends .to the chief executive officer employment, promotion and reten­
tion of academic administrators and instructional personnel, (2) provides
leadership to inspire the highest quality of teaching, (3) provides a vide
selection of programs and courses of study suitable to meet the needs of
students of the college and of the community, (It) serves as chairman of
the instructional affairs council and as a member of the coordinating and

2U0
business affairs councils, (5) supervises and coordinates duties and re­
sponsibilities of deans of academic affairs, vocational-technical educa­
tion and directors of adult education, library and audio-visual media.

Program and course proposals, which may originate anywhere and by
any interested person (q. 2) ore sent to him for an initial decision.
Three divisions function in this college.

Incumbent directors are either

newly appointed or the directorship is still to be filled.

These officers,

clearly administration, will fill an important role in initial decisions
in the future; at present, departmental chairmen assist in curriculum de­
velopment and decision making on their own initiative or as directed by
the chief instructional officer.
A proposal that is tentatively favorable, or is at least not stopped,
is sent by the chief instructional officer to the instructional affairs
council— the most Important of several college councils and the most
responsive.

A regular format, which differs for each proposal, expresses

considerations in performance objective terms (q. 5)»

The instructional

council is chaired by the chief instructional officer and has presently
as members seven faculty members (elected by the faculty association) rep­
resenting the divisions and three students elected by student government.

The instructional

affairB

council Identifies, investigates, reviews and

recommends policy and procedural matters that relate to the instructional
affairs of the college.

The council considers programs, courses, credit

and non-credit classes both in regard to the academic programs and the com­
munity at large. Proposals are published for the entire faculty and stu­
dent body, and their responses and reactions are invited by the instructional
council.

Favorable proposals are sent to the coordinating council.

2ia
The college chief executive officer serves as chairman of the coordina­
ting council.

Serving vith him are the chief instructional officer, the

chairman of 'business affairs and of student affairs, and the presidents
of the faculty association and student government.
An acceptable proposal goes to the office of the chief executive
officer where, at least by inaction, he can cause it to die. Of, if his
Judgment is favorable, he submits it to the board and then, if necessary,
to the State Board of Education (q. 3).
ORIGINATOR OF PROPOSAL
CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL OFFICER

Advisement of Departments

INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS
A
COUNCIL--Advisement of Faculty
__
* and Student Body
COORDINATING COUNCIL'
Stop<r
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER-Stop

Clarification
or
Restudy (q.

\P

BOARD—
Sto

\y

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
Mo single publication explains the procedural (structural) process
by which curricular decisions are made (q. l), though such an explanation
is under preparation at present and is to be incorporated into the faculty
I
handbook.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQg What are the various decision points in the process?
H2

Decision points in the procedural process are clearly established.

2U2
The decision points are evident from the flow-chart of the procedural
(structural) process described under H^.

They are clearly established in

written form and made public through a college manual possessed by all ad*ministrators and faculty and available to students and other interested
parties.

The decision flow is not evident in printed form, but is being

planned for inclusion in the faculty handbook.

Each respondent easily

Identified the decision points:
1.

Chief Instructional Officer

2.

Instructional Affairs Council

3.

Coordinating Council

U.

Chief Executive Officer

5. Board
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQ. At which decision point are arguments favoring a curricular
modification most carefully and minutely drawn?
The division evidences major control over curriculum development.
Questions 6a and 6b delved into learning at which decision point the
real work preparatory to furthering a decision to finality was done and
to help establish the hypothesis.

In College C, discussion is part of

normal procedure at every decision point, but voting has no place, for
the consensus model obtains everywhere below the board level.

Consensus

is not interpreted as meaning unanimity, and, unless there appears to be
no defensible objection, an adamant contrary voice would be over-ruled.
The model is not taken lightly, however, and is understood to be practical
unanimity.

2^3
The instructional affairs council in this college unequivocally evi­
dences major control over curriculum development.

Discussion surrounding

questions 6a and 6b evidenced uniform understanding by all respondents.
The chief instructional officer, alone or through this council, exercises
total control over the curriculum,
evaluation of a proposal.

lie is responsible for a preliminary

Instructional matters referred to the instruc­

tional affairs council are referred by him.

He chairs the council.

This

council serves the functions of a surrogate curriculum committee, for a
separate curriculum committee has not been established in this college.
The chief instructional officer decides the feasibility of new or revised
credit courses.
fairs council.

He may act alone or through/vith the instructional af­
His is a major role, and the council he headB, as is fur­

ther evidenced in cross-questions 1*, 7» 8 and the multi-parted

17* unques­

tionably exercises major control over curriculum development.

The hypothesis of this study is rejected.

RQj^ Are written criteria specifically established at each decision point
(other than the final point of acceptance/rejection) as a guide to
the Judgment of decision makers?
Hjj

Criteria specifically written as a guide to the Judgment of decision
makers are not found at any decision point.
Definite criteria are established, respondents reported (q. 7a) at

three levels:
and board.

chief instructional officer, instructional affairs council,

Written criteria are not found at any decision point (q. 7b).

When aBked whether divisions or departments each have a set of written
objectives directly related to and consistent with institutional objec­
tives (q. 20) and about their evaluation (q. 21), respondents expressed
doubt.

Most agreed, however, that for all practical purposes they were

not, and that the divisions and/or departments showed little concern for

2kk
evaluation which was done regularly hy the chief instructional officer.
Such does not intend to indicate apathy in the divisions and departments-"
not evidenced at all, in any way— but to place recognition of responsi­
bility.

The question was asked about criteria used in evaluating proposed

and existing course offerings (q. 28a) and about the frequency of their
evaluation.
matic:

Criteria that were mentioned as guiding decisions were prag­

number of qualified students interested and adequacy of resources,

facilities and equipment.

Practicality/utility of the course and community

needs are evaluated by the internal criteria of the chief instructional
officer.

Evaluation of existing courses, according to respondents, was a

perfunctory (never really meaningful) annual expectation.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQe

Is a systems analysis approach to problem solving (such as that des­
cribed by Bushnell) used in the curricular decision-making process?

H,.

A curricular decision-making model which UBes a systems analysis
approach is not found in the college studied.

Respondents were given a listing of the Bteps considered essential
in a systems analysis approach to problem solving and were asked at which
decision points, if any, the various activities were carried out. Respon­
dents, generally speaking, had not considered these steps before and
voiced hesltance in answering.

Everyone agreed that departments were

"great information feeders" into the instructional affairs council in
which the departmental representative defended departmental considerations.
The Instructional affairs council considers and evaluates alternative de­
cisions, the chief executive officer and chief instructional officer iden­
tify any constraints that might limit freedom of decision, and the
selected alternative is implemented by the chief instructional officer
personally, or by the department, under

hlB

direction.

2U5
The approach to decision making is difficult to estimate.

No evi­

dence of a systems analysis approach was either apparent or discovered.
Collaborative administrative intelligence and intuition seemed the under­
standing of some respondents and is that perceived by the interviewer.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

RQg Who is involved in the curricular decision-making process?
Hg

Everyone in the community, theoretically at least, is involved
in the curricular decision-making process.
Any interested person or group can originate a curricular proposal

(q. 2), according to respondents.
every program.

Advisory committees are appointed to

When asked what sources of information were used bycur­

ricular decision makers, faculty, administrators, students and a neighbor­
ing community college were significant responses.
Respondents indicated, in discussion, that in-put from every source
internal and external to the college was invited and often used.

The

evident community college-mlndedness of administration indicates that the
estimation of the respondents is accurate.
This generally stated hypothesis is readily accepted.

RQ^ What is the nature of their involvement?
H_

Actual involvement in curriculum development is reserved to
teaching faculty and administration.
Respondents identified the nature of participant's roles in the cur­

ricular decision-making process (q. 17).

In the series of questions fol­

lowing, responsibilities, as they were identified, are noted by checking
letters from the listing of participants named below.

The instructional

affairs council 1b named several times with the chief instructional officer.

2U 6
This perception of respondents.should not negate another perception,
doubtlessly accurate, that the council and the chief instructional officer
are identifiable, i.e., that the chief instructional officer controls the
council.

Similarly, it mist be noted that the chief instructional officer

actually exercises total control over the curricula, and that the offices
and responsibilities listed belov

sb

B, C, D and £ are all his.

They vill

be grouped together, for the purpose of this study, under B.
A.
B.
C.

president or chief executive officer
dean of instruction or chief instructional officer
dean (director, coordinator...) of academic

(

(liberal arts, transfer...) programs
dean (director, coordinator...) of occupational
(technical, vocational...) programs
£. dean (director, coordinator...) of community
services
F. divisional (or departmental) chairman
G. curriculum committee
H. faculty-at-large (e.g., senate)
I. faculty through departmental meetings
J. classroom teacher
K. ad hoc committees vhen needed
AB3)2? mJCLMN
L. board
leadership
in
stressing
the
value
of
improving
M. instructional affairs council
B
the curriculum?
H. coordinating council
D.

a.
b.

exercising veto power?

c.

avoiding a fragmented approach to curriculum
development (i.e., favoring certain segments
slighting others)?

A

B

4

4

d.

providing professional atmosphere favorable
to faculty members in carrying out curriculum
developmental endeavors?

e.

leadership and the properly balanced, successful
operation of the total curriculum?

B

evaluating course offerings in the light of
college objectives with a view toward their
improvement?

B

f.

g . transfer curriculum?

B

21*7
h. occupational curriculum?

ABIDE F5HIJK i4
B

i.

general curriculum?

B

J.

remedial curriculum?

B

k.

continuing adult education?

B

1.

community service non-credit academic
curriculum?

B

maintaining a general curriculum balance
betveen academic and occupational programs?

B

n.

selecting textbooks?

B

o.

recommending new teaching personnel?

p.

determining teacher assignments?

B

q.

evaluating institutional objectives (philo­
sophy, aims, purposes), as found in the
catalog to assure accuracy in regard to
programs, courses and services offered?

B

preparing statement of institutional objec­
tives (philosophy, aims, purpose) for the
college catalog?

B

m.

r.

s.

....

A

[

AB
i

preparing statement of departmental objectives
for the college catalog?

t. preparation of program objectives for the
college catalog?
u.

Preparation of course description for the
college catalog?

Understanding actual involvement to exclude concept originators and
resource persons who may be invited to lend assistance, involvement reduces
to those identified above and to those whose participation is required and
visible on the flow-chart.
Three students are members of the instructional affairs council, and
the coordinating council includes the chairmen of business affairs and
student affairs and the president of the student government, none of whom
are teaching faculty.

2^8
The hypothesis of this study is rejected.

RQn What is the balance of authority and control over curricular
decisions between the administration and the faculty?
Hg

In matters of curricular decision, administration evidences a
primacy of control over the faculty.
Respondents were asked to place their college, in matters of curricu­

lar decision, on a continuum extending from administrative dominance to
faculty dominance, with three mid-pOBitions: administrative primacy,
shared authority (in center position) and faculty primacy (q. 16 ). Re­
spondents placed their check marks to the left of the center position at
various points, the common denominator of which is administrative primacy.
Cross-questions verify their Judgment.

The decision flow-chart is re­

peated, for the purpose, with meaningful notations.
(PROPOSAL) COI^EPT ORIGINATOR
CHIEF INSTRUCTIONAL OFFICER
'V

INSTRUCTIONAL AFFAIRS COUNCIL
(Chaired by Chief Instructional Officer)
(Division Directors are clearly Administrators in this college)
'I'
COORDINATING COUNCIL
(Chaired by College Chief Executive Officer)
(Chief Instructional Officer is a member)
COLLEGE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
BOARD
(Major delegations to Chief Executive Officer)
Even though published literature, some of which perhaps references
future development, speaks of democratic governance, the statement that
"the chief instructional officer, the chief executive officer, and the
board runs this college" appeared grounded in fact.

The data reported

under the seventh hypothesis is substantiating (q. 17, multi-parted).

2h9
The board determines criteria for college admittance (q. 23-2H).
strative primacy, if not dominance, is evident in College C.

Admini­

The hypothesis

of this Btudy is accepted.

RQg Do the deanB (directors, coordinators.,.) of the academic (liberal
arts, transfer...) curriculum and of the occupational (vocational,
technical...) curriculum report to the same chief instructional
officer7
Hq

Deans (directors, coordinators...) of academic (liberal arts, trans­
fer...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...) of occupational
(vocational, technical...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...)
of credit-bearing continuing (adult) education programs report to the
same single officer.
The chief Instructional officer has been identified vith each of

these positions and their corollary responsibilities (cf. data under
hypothesis 7). All positions under the chief instructional officer are
staff positions.
dents.

The organization chart verifies responses of respon­

The overview of the chief instructional officer ensures against

curricula confusion and imbalance.
Continuing education credit-bearing courses are not distinguished
from the regular academic or occupational curricula.
The hypothesis of this Btudy is accepted.

RQ10 What importance is attached to the curriculum committee in curricu­
lum development?
H10 The curriculum committee is generally recognized as one of the moat
important college committees and bears a major role in curriculum
development,
A special committee or sub-committee for curricular matters is not
found in this college.

The instructional affairs council, assigned many

responsibilities, recognizes curricula as one of them.

Membership is

250
eleven.

The faculty association appoints seven members to this council

and the student government three.
instructional officer (q. 12a).

The council is chaired by the chief
"Anyone who attends a meeting becomes a

member for the duration of the meeting, for there is no voting, only
consensus!"
The functions of this council appear clear to administrators, faculty,
Btudents and members (q. 11a), but acceptable only to administrators (q.
lib).

The council meetB every week, but curricula matters are not neces­

sarily discussed, for the council has many other concerns.

The chairman

is appointed by college policy (it used to be elective), and his term is
indefinite (q. 13).

Neither released time nor special compensation are

given members (q. 1*4a, b).

The chairman is considered most powerful in

controlling the council.
The hypothesis of this study is rejected.

RQ.. Which groups, external to the college, place regulatory constraints
on the curriculum?
Program accrediting associations and groups which control money flow
into the college are the only external regulatory constraints on the
curriculum.
Respondents were presented with a listing of groups, external to the
college, which were thought to Influence the curriculum.

They were asked

to place, in the blanks provided, a zero (0) if no Influence was perceived,
an "A" if the Influence was perceived as advisory, an "I" if the influ­
ence was perceived as informational, an "S" if perceived as stimulating, i
and an "R" if they saw the influence as regulatory.

The use of more than

one letter, if desired, was acceptable.
An (I) rating was given the Michigan Community College Association.

251
An (A) (R) rating vas given the North Central and Program Accrediting
Associations and the State Board of Nursing.
An (R) rating vas assigned the State Board of Education (including
the State Community College Board), the collective bargaining agency in
some regards, the State Legislature, the State Bureau of the Budget, and
the State Division of Vocational Education.
The hypothesis of this study is rejected.

RQj2 Wh&t sources of information are used by curricular decision makers?
H12 Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on cur­
ricular matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.
The college does not have an office of institutional research.

It

does have an excellent, up-to-date curriculum library (q. 19b, c, d), but
its utility is questioned, for time constraints and teaching responsibili­
ties leave little opportunity for its use.

Resources used by curricular

decision makers are named by respondents:

library, faculty members, stu­

dents, administrators, a neighboring community college.

Periodicals that

are used by divisions and departments are subscribed to and directed to
them by the chief instructional officer.

Student personnel follow-up of

students who have graduated or withdrawn is considered "worthless."
Other vocational-technical schools represent "pure competition" rather
than resources for information.

Community surveys and studies are con­

sidered "worthless, involving too many variables, Justifying only what
you want them to say."
It is significant that of the twenty-one questions (q. 17) (actually
eighteen, for three were unassigned) that searched out responsibility for
each curriculum and matters related to curriculum, the instructional
affairs council vas named three times, each time with the chief

252
instructional officer, and the chief instructional officer by himself fif­
teen times.

Respondents generally felt that divisional or departmental

directors and members of the instructional affairs council especially
should keep abreast of research findings in curricular matters and in
current literature.
assigned.

The responsibility is assumed, hovever, and un-

The interviewer would assume it to be primarily, if not ex­

clusively, that of the.chief instructional officer.
The hypothesis of this study is accepted.

Ho w are priorities chosen when needs are equal and resources limited?

H

When needs are equal and resources are limited, priorities are chosen
pragmatically (i.e., what is best for the college as an institution).
Respondents were given ten considerations that could influence a de­

cision and were asked to assign importance to them by forced choice, num­
bering them from 1-10 (q. 29a).

Three of the questions had to do with

gathering information (f, g, h); three were directed at matters of college
concern for itself (c, i, j); two questions were asked about simple ex­
pediency (d, e).

One question (b) investigated the availability of a

course or program elsewhere or at a senior college, and me asked about
the relative benefit a new program or course would offer students.
Answers were not given by forced choice, as the interviewer agreed,
for several of the suggested choices either did not apply (e.g., there is
no office of institutional research (f), no nearby senior college (b) or
were totally unacceptable (the expediency questions d and e). They were
given in the following manner in an early interview, and questions were
phrased accordingly with all respondents:

253
First level of importance:
Second level:
Third level:
Fourth level:

commitment of the college to serve
community needs; political expediency

information from advisory boards
number of students interested vho could benefit
use of consultants or experts

The community service, community-mindedness of the college was evi­
denced in discussion of this question.

Nonetheless, political expediency

outranked other considerations and looked to the college's welfare first.
The hypothesis of this study 1b accepted.

RQjh In decisions related to non-credit community-need programs and courses,
and in the establishment and implementation of community enrichment
and cultural programs, what influences of the K-12 system in its com­
munity education efforts is found7
Three hypotheses have devolved from this question.
The community college views itself as a leading agency of community
education.
H.c Advisory boards to the community services division of the community
college do not require qualified representation from the K-12 com­
munity education interest.
A unified relationship between the community service effortB of the
community college and the community education efforts of the K-12
system is not found.
Without hesitance, respondents answered affirmatively to the question
whether the college viewed itBelf as a leading agency of community educa­
tion (q. 30).

Even apart from credit-bearing courses and an obvious posi­

tion of educational importance in the community, an array of community
services (academic non-credit programs and courses, cultural, enrichment,
skill training, hobby teaching programs..,) is available in this college
and the hypothesis (lU) is accepted.

251*
Most community service programs have advisory hoards (q. 31a).

When

respondents were asked about the pibllc schools' community-education
Interest representation on these boards (q. 31b), they answered in the
negative, agreeing that in their geographical area the public schools pro­
vided too little an opportunity in community educational programs and
could not be helpful.

Hypothesis (15) is accepted.

Continuing the discussion on the community services of the college
and the community education efforts of the public schools, it was ex­
plained that community education vas not sufficiently developed in the
public schools of the area to expect a cooperative enterprise with the
community services of the college in a Joint effort to meet community
needs (q. 32).

Nor has the college token a lead in helping the public

schools develop community education programs.

Neither the college nor

the public schoolB have considered one another as potential partners in a
common goal and a separateness of efforts continues.
The hypothesis of this study (16) is accepted.

Are community service non-academic credit programs and courses inte­
grated into the same decision-making process as credit-bearing
courses or what in-put do they receive, prior to decision, from divi­
sional or curriculum committee members?
What are the channels or steps a proposal for an academic non-credit
program or course to be offered by community services follows to its
final acceptance, modification, or rejection?
generated a single hypothesis.
RQ. and RQ
15
16
H
Deans (directors, coordinators..*) of community service divisions
17 which offer non-credit academic courses and non-academic programs,
courses or activities function without the approval of academic
and occupational administration and faculty.
Community services do not offer academic credit-bearing programs or
courses, although some participants do transfer to credit programs and

255
courses as a result of Interest and/or ability acquired through a community
service offering.

Plans in the college are to place credit-bearing

courses in the evening hours, but those will not be (or will no longer be)
a function of community services but of the regular academic or occupa­
tional curricula.
Responsibility for community service non-credit academic curriculum
(q. 17, 1) and for all community service programs belongs to the chief
instructional officer (and his staff).

The organization chart, In addi­

tion to remarks of respondents and data already presented, makes this
responsibility clear.
The chief Instructional officer, vith his staff, determines the
feasibility of proposed offerings and mokes whatever arrangements that
are necessary for their Implementation.
The channels that an academic non-credit program or course offered
by community services follows (flow-chart) to final acceptance, modifi­
cation, or rejection are theBe:
Originating Source
Chief Instructional Officer
(College Chief Executive Officer)— Advice or notification
Since the chief instructional officer directs not only community
services, but academic and occupational curricula as well, the hypothesis
of this study has to be rejected.

Summary Remarks to the Study of College C
The study first flow-charted the procedural (structural) process by
which curricular decisions are made in this college, and established defi­
nite decision pointb . The relative Importance of these points was

256
discussed, and the Importance of the Instructional affairs council high­
lighted.

The coordinating council was seen to resemble a president's

cabinet where decisions of the instructional affairs council were reviewed.
Divisions and departments assist the chief instructional officer in diag­
nosing problems and in formulating program and course objectives and are
represented on the instructional affairs council.
General education requirements are clearly established in written
form and transfer requirements are carefully observed.

Criteria as a

guide to decision makers at the decision points are not written, and a
systems analysis approach to problem solving was not evidenced in this
college.

Problem solving (decision making) appeared the result of admini­

strative intellectual collaboration and intuition; advisory committees
serve each program.
The institutional affairs council exercises the major role in cur­
riculum development.

This council' includes the chief instructional, officer

as chairman, seven faculty members elected by the faculty association and
three students elected from student government.

Everyone in the community

is involved in curricular decisions but their involvement is either as a
proposal originator or through advisory committees or the board.
Actual involvement of non-administrative, non-teaching faculty in
curricular decisions includes students (instructional affairs council),
the chairmen of business affairs and student affairs and the presidents
of the faculty association and Btudent government (coordinating council).
The functions of the instructional council (surrogate curriculum
committee) are generally clear to administrators, faculty, studentB and
members, but acceptable only to administration.

257
Authority/control over curricula matters shows administrative pri­
macy.

The chief instructional officer, responsible for all curricula, and

the college chief executive officer exert total control over curricula •
matters.
Program accrediting associations, as also the North Central
Accrediting Association, place regulatory constraints on the curriculum.
State departments likewise impose certain regulations that must be
observed.
Curriculum decision makers have an abundance of source information
available, but limit its use in accordance with internal criteria of the
chief instructional officer.

Responsibility for up-to-date research

findings on curricular matters and current literature is unasslgned and
assumed by respondents to be largely that of someone else; e.g., the
members of the instructional affairs council.

Members of thiB council

do not receive released time or special condensation, and therefore, are
limited in keeping abreast of current, pertinent literature.
The college demonstrates a pervading Interest in serving the community
and decides conflicting priorities accordingly.

The college sees itself

as a leading agency of community education and substantiates its conten­
tion with many community services in addition to the academic and occupa­
tional curricula.

Community service academic programs and courses are all

non-credit and are not allowed to compete with catalog named, described,
and numbered programs and courses.
The chief instructional officer is the responsible officer for aca­
demic, occupational, general, adult, remedial, and community service
curricula.
Co-working with the public schools in common community interest pro­
grams has not developed, for the public schools are not sufficiently

258
oriented to and involved in community education.

The college has not

considered taking a leadership position in helping the public schools
implement the community education concept so widely discussed today.
The research questions of this study generated seventeen hypotheses.
In this study of College C, twelve were accepted and five rejected.

Summary and Discussion
Seventeen hypotheses devolved from the sixteen research questions of
this study.

Data were gathered from three colleges, studied independently,

and selected on the basiB of their geography, student populations, age,
independenceand were labeled College A, College B, and College C. A sepa­
rate and complete pilot study was done at Genesee Community College.
Findings from this study were not reported.
In each of the three colleges, six major interviews were conducted.
These interviews, extending over a period of two days in each college,
averaged approximately two hours, and embodied more than 250 questions in
a structured interview guide of 33 principle pointB.
Positions, titles and responsibilities of both individuals and groups
differ from college to college. Respondents in each college were care­
fully chosen through their identification with instructional affairs on
the organization chart and by inquiring into the identity of others who,
though not named on the organization chart, exercised important roles in
curriculum decision making.
Variant responses, when given, were discussed until uniform answers
were possible*

The study of perceptions of persons responsible for curricu­

lum development could be the subject of another interesting study, though
perhaps it could conclude nothing more than recognition of the too-evident
disparity of perception and fact.

Discussion frequently entailed either

259
suggestion of conditions by the interviewer or inquiring whether the re­
spondent agreed with the information related by the interviewer.
Short interviews with several other persons— faculty and administra­
tion— were obtained informally.

These averaged 15-30 minuteB* and had. as

their purpose either reaffirmation of specific information given or reso­
lution of doubts expressed by respondents.

The informal process of deci­

sion making, which could be still another interesting study* inevitably
entered almost every conversation.

The informal process is not part of

this study, but quite easily could have been, for respondents were generally
very gracious, helpful, and open.

Printed material, when available* was

requested, given, and used.
The study first flow-charted the procedural (structural) process
by which curricular decisions are made and established definite decision
points.

The relative importance of these points vas then considered.

The academic council (deanB and divisional chairmen) was seen as the most
notable decision-making body in one college (A), the divisional chairman
and faculty in another (B) and Instructional council (seven faculty mem­
bers and three student representatives, under the chairmanship of the
chief instructional officer) at the third (C).
Adequate written criteria were not found at any decision point in the
processes of the colleges studied, although their value was recognized
and they were in the plans at one college (A).

Professional

lay advisors

and/or advisory committees are recognized in each college as vitally
important.
Decision-making approaches differ in each college. A highly de­
veloped systems analysis approach (similar to that described by Bushnell
in his Planned Change) is identified at one college (A). At another (B)
an easy-going rapport between divisional chairmen (faculty in College B)

260
and administration gave a sense of informality to decision making and
seemed to Involve simply suggestions by divisional chairmen and approvals
or disapprovals by the curriculum directing associate dean.

In the third

college (where divisional chairmen are clearly administrators), the prob­
lem solving approach entailed the Intellectual collaboration of the chief
instructional officer and the chief executive officer and intuitive
Judgment (C).
Involvement in the curricular decision-making process is of many
kinds, ranging from the invitation to in-put ideas, to discussing them,
analyzing them, evaluating them and deciding them.

The community-at-

large is represented by professional lay committees and/or advisory com­
mittees to various programs.

Students are represented in the instructional

affairs council at one college (B), not at all in the other two, and their
interest in involvement, while encouraged everywhere, haB not been great.
Administrators and divisional chairmen (if not counted among the admini­
strators) generally are the most significant influences in the decision­
making process.
In two colleges (A and B), authority/control over curricular matters
is shared by administration and faculty, and both groupB feel that demo­
cratic governance obtains.

Administrative control is evident in the third

college (C).
The constraints upon curriculum by external agencieB were identified
with difficulty in each college and seemed to bother no one.

Program ac­

crediting associations were singled out and whatever regulatory influence
state agencies or the North Central Accrediting Association placed ap­
peared to present no difficulty and little negative concern.
A wholesome appreciation of both academic and occupational curricu­
la, with mutual regard, was evidenced everywhere.

Directors of both

261
curricula report to a common official (even though he may also direct one
of the curricula) to avoid confuaion and imbalance of the college offer­
ings.

Development of either curriculum vaa generally seen aa a reaponae

to the marketplace, rather than aa an effort to balance one program against
the other artificially.

At one college (B), however, some concern vaa ex­

pressed that a traditional transfer program might become secondary to
occupational curricula in college concern and in the community understanding.
A curriculum committee has been formed in only one college (A), and is
important in the deciaion-making process.

The functions of this committee

are unclear and unacceptable to administrators, faculty, students and com­
mittee members.

In the other colleges, corresponding committees are an

instructional council (B) or an instructional affairs council (C), both
of which have many responsibilities— curriculum among them.

The functions

of the first are clear and acceptable to administrators and members, of
the second clear to all groups, but unacceptable to faculty, students,
and members.

Membership representation of faculty is broad.

Students

serve only in the instructional affairs council at one college (C).
Members of the curriculum committee (A) and the Instructional affairs
council (C) receive neither released time or other special compensation
for their service.

Those who serve on the instructional council (B) re­

ceive one-fourth teaching load released time and other compensation.
Each college boasts a well-stacked curriculum library, readily
accessible and containing up-to-date periodicals and curricula research
findings and a host of other informational sources.

Lack of time, moti­

vation, and/or the absence of assignment of responsibility are evident
problems in all colleges studied.

The curriculum committee or its surro­

gate nowhere demonstrates the Importance assigned it by the authors.

262
Pragmatic concerns (i.e.* what Is good for the college as an Insti­
tution) govern decisions when resources are too limited to admit more than
one of several new courses or programs of equal importance into the college
curricula.
Three hypotheses devolved from a research question (lU) which inquired
into the relationship of community service programs emanating from the com­
munity college and the community education programs of the public schools.
While each college views itself as a leading agency in community education*
advisory boards to its community service programs do not necessarily seek
membership from qualified representation of the public school community
education interest.

Principals responsible for each interest may cor­

respond informally* but usually do not.

Both programs* insofar as they

exist* function apart from the other— at times with resentment for the
j*

others— but usually without even thinking of the other who shares* in
some degree* a common community interest.

A unified* cooperative rela­

tionship between the community college community service division and the
public school community education development is not found in the colleges
studied.

Leadership in effecting such a unified relationship has not been

forthcoming from Colleges A* B* or C.
In College B, regular academic credit-bearing courses are offered
by community services in the evening school.

Both other colleges restrict

community service academic programs and courses to those which do not give
credit. Each college has well-developed community service non-academic
programs and courses (cultural* enrichment, skill training* hobby teach­
ing...).

In College A, the dean of community affairs reports directly

to the executive vice president; in College B the assistant dean for con­
tinuing education reports directly to the chief instructional officer; in
College C, the chief instructional officer controls community service

263
curricula.

Some faculty resent programs and courses--credit especially

but non-credit, too— being offered outside their purview, particularly
when they resemble or are substitutes for regular college offerings.
College administrators respond, invariably, that flexibility and quick
decisions are a must in this area for the community college of today.
The importance of the general curriculum is accentuated in College
C, and is evaluated frequently.

In Colleges A and B, general studies are

simply determined by transfer institutions.

A specifically designed re­

medial (developmental) curriculum exists at none of the three colleges,
and responsibility of remediating courses are assigned the curriculum
directors and divisional chairmen.

Bach of the colleges expressed the

absence of a need for this special curriculum.
Continuing education in Colleges A and C is not a curriculum distinct
from the college's regular credit-bearing program or is considered a com­
munity service if credit is not offered.

The evening college In College B

offers credit courses, apart from the regular offerings, and is directed
by the assistant dean of continuing education.
Following the presentation of data from each college, a statement of
acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis, as related to that college, was
made.

In College A, ten hypotheses were accepted, six rejected and one

partially accepted and partially rejected.
accepted and two rejected.

In College B, fifteen were

In College C, twelve were accepted and seven

rejected.
The chart following sumarizes results in each college separately and
collectively.
jected.

Collectively, nine hypotheses were accepted and one re­

Three hypotheses (plus one partially) were accepted at two col­

leges, and three (plus one partially) were rejected at two colleges.

261+
BmnmH.rY: Hypothesis Acceptance/Re.leetion
Hypothesis

College A

1
2

Accept

Accept

5
6

College C

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

3
1+

College B

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

Accept

7
8

Accept
Accept

Accept

11

Accept *>
Reject^

Accept

12

Accept

Accept

Accept

13

Accept

Accept

Accept

1U

Accept

Accept

Accept

15

Accept

Accept

Accept

16

Accept

Accept

Accept

17

Accept

Accept

9

Accept

10

The Hypotheses Accepted at all Colleges are These;
Decision points in the pr ocedural process are clearly established.
Hj

6

Criteria specifically written aB a guide to the Judgment of decision
makers are not found at any decision point.
Everyone in the community, theoretically at least, is involved in the
curricular decision-making process.

265
Hq

Deans (directors, coordinators...) of academic (liberal arts, transfer...) programs and deans (directors, coordinators...) or occupa­
tional (vocational, technical.*.) programs and deans (directors,
coordinators...) of credit-bearing continuing (adult) education pro­
grams report to the same single officer.

II

Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on curricular matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.

H

When needs are equal and resources are limited, priorities are chosen
^ pragmatically (i.e., what is best for the college as an Institution).

H . The community college views itself as a leading agency of community
education.
Advisory boards to th e community services division of the community
college do not require qualified representation from the K-12 com­
munity education interest.
H-y. A unified relationship between the community service efforts of the
community college and the community education efforts of the K-12
system is not found.
The Hypothesis Rejected at all Colleges is thiBi
H

The curriculum committee is generally recognized as one of the most
important college committees and bearB a major role in curriculum
development.

The Hypotheses Accepted at Two Colleges are these:
H.

The procedural (structural) process by which curricular decisions
are made Is not set forth in any college publication.

He

A curricular deciBion-maklng model which uses a systems analysis ap­
proach to problem solving is not found in the colleges studied.

(Hjj.)Program accrediting associations and groupB which control money flow
into the college are the only external regulatory constraints on the
curriculum.
H17 Deems (directors, coordinators...) of community service divisions
which offer non-credit academic courses and non-academic programs,
courses or activities function without the approval of academic
and occupational administration and faculty.
The Hypotheses Rejected at Two Colleges are these:
H^

The division evidences major control over curriculum development.

H- Actual involvement in curriculum development is reserved to teaching
' faculty and administration.
Hn

In matters of curriculum decisions, administration evidences a pri­
macy of control over the faculty.

266

(H,j) Program accrediting associations and groups which control money flow
into the college are the only external regulatory constraints on the
curriculum.

CHAPTER V
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations
Summary of Study
The importance of decision making vas singled out, early in this
study, as the central process of administration in any organization.
The administrative role and responsibility toward an organization vas
defined specifically as the function of developing and regulating the
decision-making process in the most effective manner possible.

The

quality of decisions which an organization makes and the efficiency with
which the organization puts the decisions into effect were placed as the
criteria by which an organization may be evaluated.

Several historical

approaches to decision making were mentioned— common sense, authority,
intuition, relevation and reason— but empiricism, it was pointed out, is
the only approach which is scientific.
The curricula vas seen as the essence of the community college, the
very purpose for its being.

What is taught and learned, and how it is

taught and learned is the result of decisions by those empowered to make
them,

A scientific model looks for information in-put from every reasonably

available source; both Internal and external sources were considered and
were described as advisory, stimulating, simply informational, and
regulatory.
Fundamental to any model is concern with determining, first, the
nature and degree of existing conditions currently obtaining.

This con­

cern was placed as the problem of this study, for ameliorative or
267

268
remediating action can be taken only after the current status of a prob­
lem Is described.
The community college philosophy and purpose vas described in con­
siderable detail and related to the curriculum vhich is Judged appropriate
through decision-making processes which require currency, vitality, and
comprehensiveness.
It was proposed in this study to learn how curricular decisions are
made in selected Michigan community colleges— the structures, processes
and criteria as vehicles, models and guides by which curriculum was Judged
appropriate.

To this end, sixteen research questions were formulated;

seventeen hypotheses devolved from them.

Certain assumptions to this

study were made and delimitations were noted.
The study began with a careful review of pertinent, relevant litera­
ture.

Emphasis was placed, throughout the review, on the most recently

expressed thought of the authors vhich rarely dated back more than a
decade.
Although the philosophy and purpose of the community college haB
been spelled out in great detail, the authors pointed out that several
important, basic issues remain unresolved.

Untoward philosophical atti­

tudes, biases, personal theories, value Judgments and underlying deci­
sions of curricular decision makers complicate the problem and become
determinants of the curriculum.

The need for a structure and system to

accommodate them effectively and efficiently amidst changing times and
conditions vas recognized and clearly defined institutional goals given
as a first necessary step.
The growing consensus about the nature and program of the comprehen­
sive community college is not yet universal, it was observed.

Each cur­

riculum presents special problems that decision makers must confront.

269
The several curricula of the comprehensive community college were dis­
cussed and the major problems faced in designing each were recognized as
parameters, influences, barriers, constraints, determinants...that be­
come criteria affecting decisions that had to be made.
Influences external to the community college and its programs were
recognized as emanating from national and regional, state and local
sources.

Among the national influences three complications were con­

sidered:

confusion as to national goals and lack of clearly defined ob­

jectives for higher education, rapidly changing and vacillating leadership,
and the late arrival of the community college as a national priority.

The

clearly evident pull toward centralized bureaucratic control on the state
and national levels vas seen as resulting from the absence of a unified
and sound national policy structure and a reliable and consistent funding
program.

The influences of national professional organizations, usually

informational, advisory and stimulating, were referenced, as were the
regional and professional accrediting associations, foundations, testing
agencies, textbook publisherst t o I I of which bring into existence norms
to be considered by curricular decision makers.
The marked increase in influences upon the community college, at the
state level in recent years was noted.

Coordination and master planning,

budgetary regulations, guidelines of various kinds were seen as facts.
The legislature, the executive office, coordinating agencies, Judicial
bodies and other governmental and non-governmental agencies provide direc­
tional and/or operational influences upon the community college.

The

Constitution of the State of Michigan and other state department publica­
tions were referenced to report the specific influence of the State of
Michigan upon established public community colleges.

270
The local image of the community college vas considered Important.
In practice, the public is represented by the elected members of legisla­
tive bodies, the executive and Judicial officers.

Underlying these powers,

and giving them strength, are various individuals, formal and informal
groups, coalitions of different groups, organized pressure groups and
groups that fight to be heard, especially wealthy persons or groups.

The

Influence of various political, civic, ethnic, social and educational
groups was reported.
Local college boards and administration, authors reported, are impor­
tant in governance structure.

Both exercise control of budgets and fundB.

Faculty power over curricular decisions is still very limited, and student
power almost non-existent.

Collective bargaining represents a force of still

unpredictable dimension in strengthening the faculty position.
The decision process of program and course selection is a continuing
one, for community college clientele includes persons with all kinds of
needB for education and these needs change rapidly, it was observed, with
social, technological, demographic, and economic trends.

Curriculum de­

velopment was seen as representing decisions made subjectively about the
question of what should be learned.

The importance of a theory of curricu­

lum design was recognized and select notable research conclusions were
reported.

Prevailing approaches to curriculum analysis and development

have been called "common sense" approaches involving discussion, politi­
cal activity, Judgment of experts, emulation, and search for social needB.
A systems analysis approach to curriculum development vas reviewed
and reported as being moBt promising as a feasible, workable and efficient
method for developing, using, and evaluating a curriculum.
Following the review of literature, the methodology of the study to
be made was presented.

Preparatory planning was reviewed and the plan of

271
the study was presented.

The review of literature focused on decision­

making criteria, an integral part of this study.

The investigation which

followed accepted the validity of the literature and centered more on
structures and processes of curricular decision making necessary to the
wholeness and completeness of this study.

The rationale for selecting

the colleges to be studied was then explained.
described in detail.

The sources of data were

The method to be followed and the description of

the study was explained.
A pilot study at Genesee Community College was described and credited
with improving the interview guide instrument and the interviewer's techni­
que.

A description of the instrument followed and the procedural plan of

the interviewer was reported.

The research questions of the study and

the hypotheses related to them for testing against descriptive data to be
obtained were presented.
Structural interviews were conducted in each of the three colleges
selected for the study.

Six major interviews at each institution, each

of approximately two hours length, were conducted with carefully chosen
respondents identified on the organization chart or otherwise pointed out
as important in the curriculum decision-making process.

More than 250

questions embodied in a 33 point interview guide were discussed in these
interviews.

Short interviews with several other persons in each college—

faculty and administrators— averaged 15-30 minutes and had as their pur­
pose either reaffirmation of specific information given or resolution of
doubts expressed.
The study followed the interview guide found in the appendix of this
study.

Findings in each college were reported and a statement of accep­

tance or rejection made for each hypothesis.

In a section labeled

272
"Summary and Discussion" in Chapter TV, data gathered from the three col­
leges vere considered together under each hypothesis.

The individual and

collective results of hypotheses' acceptance or rejection vere charted.
In College A, ten hypotheses vere accepted, six rejected and one
partially accepted and partially rejected.
accepted and tvo rejected.

In College B fifteen vere

In College C tvelve vere accepted and seven

rejected.
Collectively, nine hypotheses vere accepted and one rejected.

Three

hypotheses (plus one partially) vere accepted at tvo colleges, and three
(pluB one partially) vere rejected at tvo colleges.

Hypotheses vere pre­

sented again and ordered into the groupings as described in this paragraph.
The pilot study vas particularly helpful in preparing the interviev
guide.

Nonetheless, in subsequent research, several such guides are sug­

gested to replace the single-guide approach.
bersome and vas unreasonably long.

The single guide vas cum­

While respondents vere very cooperative,

they could have been spared undue and unnecessazy intrusion into their
time schedules had several guides been devised; e.g., one for administra­
tors, one for divisional and/or departmental heads, another for faculty,
for members of the curriculum committee, and perhaps for members of the
educational association.

Further, several specifically directed guides

could have alloved greater in-depth probing in shorter intervievs vith
more respondents.
Conclusions to this Study;
1.

Existing Conditions in Colleges Studied

The procedural (structural) process by vhich curricular decisions are
made are not completely and fully described in print or publication
in any college. In one college procedural elements are described
and are generally available to any interested person; these elements,
insofar as they are vrltten, are neither comprehensive nor adequately
explained and are thought to be obsolete or unused by at least some
persons important in decision making.

273
2. Decision points in the procedural process are clearly established in
each college studied. However, the relative importance of each deci­
sion point and the division of responsibilities among them is generally
obscure.
3.

Divisional chairmen are particularly important in the curricular
decision-making process. The dimensions of their control is contin­
gent upon administrative influence and power.

1*. Written criteria are not found at any decision point in the processes
of the colleges studied. Plans to write such criteria are in progress
in one college and not considered in the other two.
5. A systems approach to curricular decision making is observed in one
of the three colleges studied. A non-scientific approach obtains in
the other tvo.
6. Community Involvement in the curricular decision-making process is
apparent in the community service curriculum but practically reduces
to the political influence of the board and the academic advisement
of selected and invited committees in other curricula. Student in­
volvement is minimal or non-existent.
7. Actual involvement in curriculum development depends upon administra­
tive approval and faculty cooperation.
8. Authority/control in matters of curricular decisions is shared by
administrators and faculty in two colleges. Administrative primacy
or control is evident in the third.
9.

Curricula confusion and imbalance between academic and occupational
programs/courses, resulting from an organization by-pass of the chief
instructional officer by the director of occupational programs, is not
a problem in any college.

10. A curriculum committee is found in one college. Functions usually
ascribed to such a committee are performed by committees that are
responsible for many activities, curriculum among them, in the other
two. The curriculum committee is not generally recognized as one
of the most important college committees. Its function, and the
curricula responsibilities of its surrogate, does not constitute the
major role in curriculum development. Their functions are largely
unclear and/or unacceptable to administration, faculty, students,
and members themselveB. Released time and special compensation is
given members in one college.
11. Program (professional) accrediting associations regulate specific
curriculum. The North Central Association and the various state
agencies are not generally viewed as regulatory. Although their
influence is recognized, they are thought to parallel, for the most
part, ideals and regulations internal to the colleges.
12.

Responsibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on cur­
ricular matters and current relevant literature 1b unassigned and
assumed.

27U
13. Pragmatic concerns (i.e., vhat is b e B t for the college as an institu­
tion) govern decisions vhen resources are too limited to admit more
than one of several nev courses or programs of equal importance into
the college curricula.
lU.. The colleges view themselves as leading agencies of community education.
1?.. Advisory boards to the community services division of the colleges do
not require and do not specifically seek qualified representation from
the public school's community education Interest.
16. A unified relationship between the community service efforts of the
colleges and the community education efforts of the public schools
is not found. Leadership in effecting such a unified relationship
has not been demonstrated in any college.
17.

Community service non-credit academic programs/courses and activities—
and in one college credit-bearing courses also— are offered without
the need of approval from academic and occupational administration
and faculty.

18. A specifically designed developmental (remedial) curriculum is not
established in any college and the need for such a curriculum is not
recognized. Divisions handle specific problem students.
19. A specifically designated general curriculm is not found in any
college. General courses are accentuated and frequently evaluated
in one college and are decided by transfer institutions in the
other two.
20. Continuing (adult) education credit-bearing courses are not distin­
guished from academic or occupational curricula in two colleges and
are offered by the community service division in the other. Continu­
ing education non-credit academic programs/courses, as also cultural,
enrichment, Bkill training and hobby training programs/courseB, are
offered in each college as a community service.
Discussion and Recommendations
Many considerations affect the curricular decision-making
in the community college.

Discovery must take place at each

process
college as

to when, with what and with whom what must be accomplished for whom.

At

the beginning of this century the prevailing attitude was that educational
problems could be resolved through appeals to common sense, authority,
intuition, relevation or reason.

Dependable knowledge about education

has come from various of these sources.

Empiricism certified its

275
dependability!

While these sources of knowledge cannot be counted on to

provide the most reliable means for obtaining knowledge about observable
relationships, empiricism, if seen as a total method of gaining knowledge,
cannot be supported either.

Experience or observation alone Ignores due

regard for system and theory.

Nonetheless, knowledge is capable of being

verified or disproved by observation or experiment.
The importance of a theory of curriculum has been established by
Dressel, Mayhew and others.

David S. Bushnell has been one of the authors

who centered his attention on the systematic -process of discovering know­
ledge, solving problems, making decisions.
Decision making has been called the central act of administration.
The administrative role and responsibility has been specified as the
function of developing and regulating the decision-making process in the
most effective manner possible.

The quality of decisions which an organi­

zation makes together with the efficiency with which the organization puts
them into effect has been placed as the criteria by which an organization
may be evaluated.

Because decision making is so important— the central

act of administration— it represents the chief problem to administration.
A college administrator should be able to estimate

hiB

personal effective­

ness and efficiency and that of the organization he represents or controls
by taking a close analytical and evaluative look at the question how (or
by what process) are decisions made in this college.
In one of the colleges studied, decisions in curricular matters are
made through a combination of intuition, common sense, external authority
and qualified opinion, all put together to form a perception which becomes
the basis for final approval or rejection of a curricular proposal.

In

another college, the intellectual collaboration of chief administrators
who draw upon information resources according to their perception of value,

276
combines with intuition to finalize curricular decisions.

Contrast these

approaches with the systems analysis approach of the third college vhich
is described below.

Systems analysis might be described as a method for

determining where, when, with what and with whom you must accomplish what
for whom and where.
In this college, an idea or request (curricular proposal) is first
subjected to a market analysis.

With the help of professional lay ad­

visors the need for curriculum development is the focal point of atten­
tion.

What must be accomplished for whom? The problem is carefully

diagnosed in the initial stage of the decision-making process.

The needs

in the community are analyzed and the condition of the student body re­
viewed.

The college serveB the community through preparing its students,

insofar as they are qualified and interested, for available opportunities.
The market analysis leads to dropping the proposal, deferring it for
possible future reconsideration or formulating objectives for its imple­
mentation.

When, with whom, with what is a proposal to be implemented are

questions asked and demanding answers with the assistance of advisory
boards, in curriculum development considerations. Costs, space, equipment
and operation analyses identify constraints which lead to a decision to
drop, defer, or recommend for implementation.

Alternatives have been

considered in each step of the process and the one selected for implemen­
tation becomes the subject of frequent evaluation.
Results of evaluation become in-put for a decision to continue imple­
menting the plan or returning it again to market analysis and curriculum
development for review and improvement.
ing.

The systematic process is unend­

Curricular development is never finished.

277
Authors suggest that the systems analysis approach to problem solving
is currently the moBt promising approach to a scientific method of deci­
sion making.

It is recommended that this approach be studied vith a view

toward its implementation.

In none of the colleges studied are the procedural (structural) pro­
cesses by which curricular decisions arc made clearly presented in a
single college publication.

Furthermore, although decision points are

clearly established, the precise role and relative importance of each is
not generally understood by respondents to this study.

Since respondents

were chosen because they were recognized as being particularly important
in the decision-making process, it is fair to assume that any lack of
understanding evidenced among them is projected throughout the institution.
The structure which must Bupport a system requires a network of communi­
cation links between teachers and students, teachers and administrators,
administrators and tax-payers which promoted learning needs and conveys
information.

Without information about both the structure and the pro­

cess by which curricular decisions are made disinterestedness, if not a
disgruntledness or a spirit of antagonism,1can be expected by those in­
terested and wishing to be involved in curriculum development.

Further­

more, participative or democratic governance, seen by all authors as an
ideal, suffers to whatever extent useful knowledge is not available or is
inaccurately projected.
It is a second recommendation of this study that both the structural
and process procedures be clearly written and made available to whomever
is interested, and that, at the same time, the precise role and actual
importance of each decision-making level be spelled out for general and
specific clarity of understanding.

The explanation should leave no room

278
for doubt as to who is responsible and to vhat degree, for vhat, and at
each level who or vhat group is the actual decision maker.
It iB recognized that criteria for making decisions are often and
necessarily elusive.

It is also recognized that without definite criteria,

commonly understood and accepted, a group's decision is likely to be the
result of persuasion or bias or attitude or underlying theories or the
power of an individual's position or personality.

These may not be the

best factors for making objective decisions.
The recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, the State
Community College Board, the Michigan Community College Association, the
Planning Program Evaluation System, the collective bargaining agent, com­
munity education efforts of the public schools, the U. S. Office of
Education, accrediting associations, local businesses, industries and pro­
fessions, students' needs and the needs of the entire community, curricu­
lar research and current literature— all these are in-puts into a curricu­
lar decision-making process.

Each college has its own strengths and

weaknesses, and these too affect decisions.

All these factors have mean­

ing and many of them form, or should form, criteria to guide decision
makers at each step in the decision process.
It is a third recommendation of this study that insofar aB possible,
criteria be written at each decision point to serve as guides to decision
participants in order to objectify decisions by standards empirically
fashioned through sound research.
In each of the colleges studied, either a curriculum committee or a
surrogate consider curricular proposals and 1b , at lea3t in the formal
structure, an imporbant element in the procedural process of decision
making.

Of the seventeen hypotheses of this study, the one that vas

279
rejected in each college stated that the curriculum committee is generally
recognized as one of the most important college committees and bears a
major role in curriculum development.

In the colleges studied* the func­

tions of the curricula council or the surrogates are largely unclear and
unacceptable to administrators* faculty* students and members.

Released

time and/or special compensation is given members in one college.

Respon­

sibility for up-to-date knowledge of research findings on curriculum
matters and current literature is unassigned and assumed.

Members who

serve on the committee are usually not chosen for their expertise* but for
their availability and/or Interest and divisional representation.

The

curricular responsibilities of the members* insofar as they are clear*
are narrow.
It is another and multi-parted recommendation of this study:
a. that a curriculum committee be established as a recommending body in
the colleges where one is not found.
b. that the chairman of the curriculum committee report to the chief
instructional officer and have as his full-time responsibility
leadership in curriculum development* and continual development of
personal expertise.
c. that the curriculum committee membership reflect the broad college
curricula and be comprised of faculty members elected each year (or
re-elected) by their divisions and counseling staff member.
d. that students elected by student government and other interested
persons be invited observers at curriculum committee meetings to
be heard upon recognition of the chairman.
e. that the curriculum committee meet regularly and file minutes with
the chief instructional officer and make them public to the entire
college population.
f. that curriculum committee members receive one-quarter to one-half
released time from their other responsibilities to carry out the
functions of the committee and other motivating compensation.
g. that the responsibilities of the curriculum committee (and within
the committee of its members) be clearly set forth and made avail­
able to any interested person* and include:

280
review of all curricular proposals and proper advisement follow­
ing this review.
up-to-date and maintained currency in curricula research and rele­
vant literature, under the leadership of the chairman.
continual and systematic evaluation of existing course offerings
in the light of both college and divisional objectives, and use
of such evaluation as an aid in curriculum development.
offering leadership to the faculty and eliciting faculty partici­
pation in curriculum development.
maintaining on file up-to-date outlines of all courses taught
and devlBing procedures for revising them, keeping them up to
date and increasing their usefulness.
using results of community surveys and studies, and follov-up
studies of former students and graduates as an aid In curriculum
development.
7

assist the chief instructional officer in directing and carrying
on continuous and long-term evaluation and planning.

8

give proper attention to the general education, remedial, and
continuing education objectives of the college.

9

be represented in community service decisions to call attention
to undesirable competitive offerings and to report them, if
found, to the committee.

10

be attuned to suggestions of accrediting associations and other
voices external to the college and assist in their implementa­
tion by the chief instructional officer.

In each of the colleges studied, the hypothesis which stated that a
unified relationship between the community service efforts of the com­
munity college and the community education efforts of the public school
system is not found was accepted.
Many books and articles have been written about community education.
Many speeches have been given, hourB and lives dedicated to the philo­
sophical concept which unifies the meaning of education of every kind and
at every level.

It is a concept vhich utilizes "the local school or some

other agency to serve as a catalysis to bring community resources to bear
on the community problems in an effort to develop a positive sense of

281
community, improve community living and develop the community process
toward the end of Belf-actualization."'*’ Clark visualizes the community
education movement in four Btages, the third of which Bees "all educational
agencies working together toward common goals, sharing resources and
complementing the service of one another."

The fourth, he sees as "the

reconstruction of a total educational process under a philosophy of community education; 'helping people to help themselves'."

Such a visualization is comforting to the community-minded educator
who may be disappointed in the acceptance of the hypothesis of this study.
Comfort can be taken too from the realization that the beginnings of the
community service development in the community college dates back hardly
more than a decade, at least on a national scale, and must run the long
road to maturity.
The concepts of community education and community service are almost
parallel and hopefully will merge in the time ahead.

The writer has been

a student of both and can appreciate the importance of both the neighbor­
hood and the larger community vhich encompasses many neighborhoods.

Many

of us are residents of both communities, the local school district, and
the local community college district.

Emphases in the concepts of com­

munity education and community service may differ, but the binding ele­
ment is educational, cultural, social and recreational sendee to all of
the community in accordance with the needs of the community and the in­
dividuals vhich comprise it.
^Dr. Jack Minzey, Director, Center for Community Education; Eastern
Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, quoted in Philip A. Clark,
Associate Director Comm\uiity School Development Center, Western Michigan
University, "If Two and Two and Fifty Make a Million," Community Education
Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1: February 1971, p. 8.
^Loc. cit.

282
It is a final recommendation of this study that community colleges,
legitimate in the larger community, take leadership in assisting the pub­
lic schoolB, legitimate in their neighborhoods, develop community educa­
tion in their districts— that it exert leadership with the public schools
in developing a unified relationship, in working together toward common
goals, sharing resources and complementing the service of ona another in
meeting the needs of the community and helping every individual to stand
with dignity and be his own man.
Implications for Future Research
This study proposed to describe existing conditions in the curricular
decision-making processes in select Michigan community colleges.
descriptive study, it

w sb

As a

designed, with certain assumptions and delimi­

tations, to learn the structures and processes by which curricular deci­
sions are made.

As such, this study has avoided comparison, analysis, or

evaluation.
The accepted worth of all community college objectives waa acknowledged
and the general acceptance of community college philosophy and purpose was
one of the assumptions of this study.

In Chapter I the philosophy and pur­

pose of the community college was spelled out in statements emanating from
the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, from a position paper by the
Michigan State Board for Public and Community Junior Colleges, and in
statements detailed by the Michigan Community College Association.

The

object of another useful study could well be analytical, comparative, and
evaluative of existing conditions in the Michigan public community col­
leges agalnBt these expressions of philosophy and purpose.
It was recognized, similarly, that in every organization both formal
and informal elements are at work in the administrative process.

While

283
this study vas delimited to look at the formal element, an inclination to
change course and concentrate on the informal element arose while it vas
in progress.

Discussions in an atmosphere of ease with respondents, in­

variably included them.

With scarcely an exception, respondents vere very

gracious, helpful and open.

A descriptive study of the informal process

of curricular decision making could be a useful addition to the science of
behavior in the community college organizational setting.
Still another study— perceptions of curricular decision makers— would
be a valuable case study for any college seriously interested in curricu­
lum development through a systematic approach.

Disparity of subjective

vievs and facts, even in this study, vas at times surprising, and the know­
ledge of decision makers vhich seemed reasonable to assume vas, at times,
assumed erroneously and had to be clarified.

Such a case analysis could

be done by an office of institutional research and could have as its ob­
ject clarity of procedures and processes, definitions of roles and open­
ness of communication among faculty and administration, especially among
principals in the decision-making process.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

28U

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS
Administration of Vocational Education: Rules and Regulations.
Vocational Educational Bulletin Ho. 1, Revised, 1966, Washington*
D. C.: United States Department of Health, Education and Welfaro,
Office of Education, 1967*
Barnard, Chester. The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge,
Massachusetts; Harvard University Press, 1962.
Beauchamp, George A. Curriculum Theory. Second Edition.
Illinois: The Kagg PreBs, 1968.

Wilmette,

Bell, Daniel. The Reforming of General Education. Hew York;
University Press, 1966.

Columbia

Bennett, Vernon C. Vocation Education of Junior College Grade.
Baltimore, Maryland; Warwick and York, Inc., 1928.
Blau, Peter M. and Scott, Richard W. Formal Organizations. San
Francisco, California: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962.
Blocker, Clyde E, and Campbell, Henry A. Attitudes of Administrators
Toward the Administrative Organization of Public Junior Colleges
in Seven States. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1962.
_______, Plummer, Robert H. and Richardson, Richard C., Jr. The Two-Year
College; A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965.
Bloom, Benjamin S., Editor. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Hand
Book I: Cognitive Domain. Hew York: David McKay Company, Inc.,
_______. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Hand Book II:
Domain" Hew York: David McKay Company, Inc., 196 U.
Bogue, Jesse Parker. The Community College. New York:
Book Company, 1950.

Effective

McGraw-Hill

Bowen, Harold R. The Finance of Higher Education. Berkeley, California:
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1968 .
285

286
Brick, Michael. Forum and Focus for the Junior College Movement: The
American Association of Junior Colleges. Rev York: Teachers
College, Columbia University, 196?.
Brown, James V. and Lewis, Richard B., Editors. AV Instructional
Materials Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19^9*
Bryson, Lyman.

Adult Education.

New York:

American Book Co., 1936.

Burns, Richard W* and Brooks, Gary D., Editors. Curriculum Design in a
Changing Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications, 1970.
Burt, Samuel M. Industry and Vocation-Technical Education. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967.
Bushnell, David S. and Rappaport, Donald. Planned Change in Education.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1971.
. and Zagaris, Ivers. Report from Project Focus: Strategies
for Change. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior
Colleges, 1972.
Carson, John J. Governance of Colleges and Universities. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., i960 .
Cheit, Earl F. The New Depression in Higher Education: A Study of
Financial Conditions at 1*1 Colleges and Universities, A General
Report for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education and the
Ford Foundation. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
Churchman, C. West.
Co., 1968.

Challenge to Reason. New York:

Clarke, Burton R. Educating the Expert Society.
California: Chandler Publishing Co., 1962.

McGraw-Hill Book

San Francisco,

Cohen, Arthur M. Dateline '79: Heretical Concepts for the C«"nnunity
College. Beverly Hilla, California: Glencoe Press, 1969*
_______ , and Prihode, John, Editors. The Junior College Curriculum:
Selected Academic Readings. Rockefeller Center, New York: A
Division of Associated Educational Services Cooperation, 1967 .
. and Rouesche, John E. Institutional Administrator or
Educational Leader!: The Junior College President. ERIC
Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, Washington, D. C,:
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969 .
The Community Junior College: Target Program Costa and Cost
Differentials. National Educational Finance Project, Gainesville,
Florida: University of Florida, 1970.

287
Dressel, Paul L. College and University Curriculum. Berkeley,
California: MeCutchan Publishing Co., 19^8.
. The Undergraduate Curriculum in Higher Education. Washington,
D. C.: The Center for Applied Research le Education, 1963.
. and Associates. Evaluation In Higher Education. Boston,
Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961.
Drucker, Peter F. Age of Discontinuity.

Hew York:

Harper and Row, 1969.

Etzloni, Amltal. Modern Organization. Englewood Cliffs, Hew Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 196U.
Fields, Ralph. The Community College Movement. Hew York:
Book Company, Inc., 19o2«

McGraw-Hill

Financial Aid for Higher Education. United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, Office of Education. Washington, D. C.:
United States Government Printing Office, 1968.
Garrison, Roger H. Junior College Faculty: Issues and Problems.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967 .
General Education in a Free Society. Report of Harvard Committee.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Glenny, Lyman A. Autonomy of Public Colleges. Hew York:
Book Company, 1959.

McGraw-Hill

Goodland, John I., and Associates. The Changing School Curriculum.
Hew York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1967 .
Gordon, E. W. and Wilkerson, D. A. Contemporary Education for the
Disadvantaged. Hew York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1966 .
Griffiths, Daniel. Administrative Theory. Hew York:
Crofts, Inc., 1957*

Appleton-Century-

Guidelines for Improving Articulation Between Junior and Senior Colleges.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965 .
Hall, James 7. "Program for the Community," in The Community College
in Higher Education. Stoops, John A., Editor. Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania: Lehigh University, 1966.
Harlacher, Ervin L. The Community Dimension of the Community College.
Englewood Cliffs, Hew Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19^9. Effective Junior College Programs of Community Services:
Rationale. Guidelines. Practices. Los Angeles, California:
University of California, 1967*

286
Harris, Norman C. Emphasis: Occupational Education In the Two-Year
Colleges, "Curriculum and Instruction in Occupational Education."
Addresses and recommendations presented at an Education Center and
the American Association of Junior Colleges, May 12-lb, 1966.
St. Louis, Missouri and Washington, D. C.: The American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1966 .
_______ . Technical Education In the Junior College/New Programs for
New Jobs. Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior
Colleges, 196b.
_______ , and YenBco, William. Technical Education in Michigan Community
Colleges. Ann Arbor,Michigan:
School of Education, 1965 .
Harris, Seymour E. and Levensohn, Alan, Editors. Challenge and Change in
American Education. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Co.,

3555:

_______ , and_______ . Education and Public Policy. Berkeley,
California: McCutchan Publishing Co., 1965.
Henderson, Algo D., Editor. Higher Education in Tomorrow's World.
Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan, 19<>8.

Ann

Henninger, C. Ross. The Technical Institute in America. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959.
Henry, Nelson B., Editor. The Public Junior College (Part I). Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1956*
Institutional Aid: Federal Aid to Colleges and Universities. A Report
and Recommendations by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1972.
Jensen, Gale, Liveright, A. A., and Hallenbeck, Wilbur, Editors. Adult
Education. Adult Education Association of the United States of
America (copyright), 196 b.
Johnson, Lamar B. General Education in Action. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 1952*
. Starting a Community Junior College. Washington, D. C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges, 196b.
From Junior to Senior College: A National Study of the Trysfer Student.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965 .
Kelley, Win and Wilbur, Leslie. Teaching in the Community Junior
College. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofta, Education Division,
Meredith Corporation, 1970.
Kennison, Kenneth. The Uncommitted. Alienated Youth in American Society.
New York: Dell Publishing Company, Incorporated, 1965 .

289
Khoell, Dorothy M. and Medsker, Leland L. Articulation Between Two-Year
and Four-Year Colleges, Berkeley, California: Center for the Study
of Higher Education, 196b.
_______ , and
. Factors Affecting Performance of Transfer
Students from Two- to Four-Year Colleges: With Implications for
Coordination and Articulation. Berkeley, California: Center for
the Study of Higher Education, University of California, 196U.
_______, and_______• From Junior to Senior College: A National Study
of the Transfer Student. Berkeley, California: Center for the Study
of Higher Education, University of California, 196?.
Laren, Howard B. and Reitan, Henry M. Planning Community Services.
Seattle, Washington: Center for the Development of Community College
Education, University of Seattle, 1971.
Lehmann, Irvin J. and Mehrens, William A., Editors. Educational Research.
Readings in Focus. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston, Inc., 1971*
Lieherman, M. and Maskow, M. H. Collective Negotiations for TeacherB.
Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 19£>6.
Lungsford, Terry F. The Study of Academic Administration. Boulder,
Colorado: Western Institute Commission for Higher Education,
October 1963*
Mack, Raymond W. Transforming America:
York: Random House, 196?.

Patterns of Social Change. New

Mayhew, Lewis B. The Collegiate Curriculum— An Approach to Analysis.
Atlanta, Georgia: Southern Regional Education Board, Monograph,
No. 11, 1966.
_______ , Editor. General Education: An Account and Appraisal. Hew
York: Harper and Brothers, Publishers, I960.
_______. Higher Education in the Revolutionary Decades. Berkeley,
California: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1967*
Medsker, Leland L. and Tillery, Dale. Breaking the A c c c b b Barriers: A
Profile of Two-Year Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
1971.
Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, I960.

Progress and Prospect. New York:

_______ . Patterns for the Control nt r?nnnmin<ty Colleges: Establishing
Legal Baa1b for Community Colleges. Washington, D. C.: American
Association of Junior Colleges, 1961.
Mlllett, John D. Decision-Making and Administration in Higher Education.
Ohio: Kent State University Press, 19^8.

290
Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community College. A Handbook. San
Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1972.
Moore, William, Jr. Against the Odds. San Francisco, California:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1970.
_______. Blind Man on a Freeway. San Francisco, California:
Bass, Inc., Publishers, 1971.

Jossey-

_______. Vertical Qhetto: Everyday Life in an Urban Pro.lect. Nev
York: Random-House, 1969*
Morsch, William. State Community College Systems: Their Role and
Operation in Seven States. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.
Morse, Horace T. and DreBBel, Paul L., Editors. General Education for
Personal Maturity. Dubuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company,
Publishers, i9 60 .
MoBkow, Michael H., Loewenberg, J. Joseph, and Koziarz, Edward Clifford.
Collective Bargaining in Public Employment. New York: Random
House, 1970.
Myran, Gunder A. Community Services in the Community College.
Washington, D. C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969.
Occupational Program Inventory: Public Community and Junior Colleges in
Michigan. Michigan Department of Education, 1969.
O'Connell, Thomas E. Community Colleges: A President's View. Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1966.
The Open Door Colleges: Policies for Community Colleges. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1970.
Opinions About Vocational Education in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan Advisory Council for Vocational Education, 1971.
Pearl, Arthur and RleBsman, Frank.
The Free Press, 1965.

New Careers for the Poor. New York:

Reynolds, James W. The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum.
Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publishing Company, 1969.
_______. The Junior College. New York:
Research in Education, Inc., 1965*

The Center for Applied

Richardson, Richard C., Jr., Blocker, Clyde E. Student's Guide to the
Two-Year College. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
_______, _______, and Bender, Louis W. Governance for the Two-Year
College. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.

291
Riendeau, Albert J. The Role of the Advisory Committee In Occupational
Education In the Junior College. “Organization and Administration
of the Advisory Committee." Washington, D. C.: American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1967.
Rogers, David. 110 Livingston Street. Politics and Bureaucracy in the New
York City Schools. New York: Random House, 1968.
Roueche, John E. Salvage. Redirection, or Custody? Remedial Education
In the Community Junior College. Washington, D. C.: ERIC
Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, American Association
of Junior Colleges, 1968.
_______ , and Boggs, John R. Junior College Institutional Research: The
State of the Art. Washington, D. C.: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior
College Information, American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968.
Sax, Gilbert. Empirical Foundations of Educational Reserach. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
Schwab, Joseph J. College Curriculum and Student Protest. Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Snyder, Benson R. The Hidden Curriculum. New York:
1971.

Alfred A. Knopf,

Snyder, Fred A. (Director, Research and Community Resources, Harrisburg
Area Community College). The Second Annual Conference in PostSecondary Occupational Education, "Commentary on Dr. Salitino's
Paper." University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State
University, 1971.
The Student in Higher Education. New Haven, Connecticut:
Foundation, 19^8.

The Hazen

Thornton, James W. The Community Junior College. Third Edition. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1972.
Toffler, Alvin.

Future Shock. New York:

Random House, 1970.

Tyler, Ralph W. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago, 1950.
_______ , and Associates. Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Chicago,
Illinois: Rand McNally and Company, 1967*
Vaccaro, Louis C. and Covert, James T., Editors. Student Freedom in
American Higher Education. (Crane, Robert M. “student Governance
and the Issue of Student Freedom.") New York: Teachers College
Press, Columbia University, 1969 .
Venn, Grant. Man. Education and Work. Washington, D. C.:
Council on Education, 196U.

American

292
Willingham, Warren W, Free Access Higher Education. Hew York:
Entrance Examination Board, 1970.

College

______ . The Ho. 2 A c c c b b Problem: Transfer to the Upper Division.
Washington, D. C.: Prepared by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher
Education. The George Washington University, Published by the
American Association for Higher Education, July, 1972.
Wilson, Logan, Editor. Emerging Patterns in American Higher Education.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965.
Wolk, Ronald A. Alternative Methods of Federal Funding for Higher
Education. Berkeley, California; The Carnegie Commission on the
Future of Higher Education, 1968.

BROCHURES
Establishing Legal Bases for Community Colleges. Washington, D. C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1962 .
Faculty Participation in Academic Governance. Report of the AAHE Task
Force on Faculty Representation and Academic Negotiations, Campus
Governance Program. Washington, D. C,: American Association of
Higher Education, 19&7>
The Michigan State Plan for Vocational Education. Michigan;
Deportment of Education, 1971*

State

Parker, Hyman. Michigan Public Employment Relations Act and Procedures.
East Lansing, Michigan: School of Industrial Relations, Michigan
State University, 1970.
Principles of Legislative Action for Community Junior Colleges.
Washington, D. C.: Amorican Association of Junior Colleges
(Commission on Legislation), 1962.
Rohmus, Charles M. and Wilncr, Evan. The Economic Results of Teacher
Bargaining: Michigan's First TVo Years. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan, 1968.
Vocational Education Services of the Michigan Department of Education.
Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, 1970.

DISSERTATIONS

Kelso, Charles. A Study of Decision-Making Levels in Multicampus
Community Colleges. Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1971.
Kjarsgaard, Donald Robert. Guidelines to Community College Curriculum
Planning. Oregon: University of Oregon, 1968.

293
Shoup, Charles A. A Study of Collective Bargaining In the Michigan
Community Colleges. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 19<>9.
Stanbury, Donald E. A Study of the Administration of Michigan Junior
Colleges. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1965•

OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Adult Education and Community Services of the Michigan Department of

Education. Lansing, Michigan:
1970.

State Board of Education, November,

American Junior Colleges. 8 th Edition. Edmund J. Glaezer, Jr., Editor,
Cooke, Jane, Associate Editor. Washington, D. C.: American Council
of Education, 1971•
The Capitol and the Campus:

State Responsibility for Post-secondary

Education. Report and Recommendations of the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
Constitution of the State of Michigan. 1963. in Laws. Statutes and
Constitutional Provisions Affecting Community Colleges in Michigan.
Michigan Department of Education, 1970.
______
Description of Ma.1or Services. East Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Education, 1971.

Michigan

1971-1972 Directory of Institutions of Higher Education. Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Department of Education,
Dissent and the College Student in Revolt. Presented to the Annual Con­
vention of the American Association of Junior Colleges by Clyde E.
Blocker. Atlanta, Georgia, March 1969.
Emphasis: Occupational Education in the Two-Year College. Addresses
and Recommendations presented at a Conference Sponsored by the
Midwest Technical Education Center and the American Association of
Junior Colleges in St. Louis, Missouri. Washington, D. C.:
American Association of Junior Colleges, 1966 .
Financial Requirements of Public Baccalaureate Institutions and Public
Community Colleges. Michigan Department of Education, Statistical
Bulletin 1*052, 1971.
The Flint Journal. "Revolution Occurring in Vocational Education,"
September 21, 1972.
The Flint Journal. "Colleges in State Will Sign Pact on Credit Transfer,"
November 10, 1972.

29U
Genesee Community College Catalog. 1971-1972, Flint, Michigan.
Higher Education General Information Survey (HEGIS). Michigan Department
of Education, Higher Education Planning and Coordinating Services,
OE Form 2300-2.3, Fast Lansing, Michigan, November 11, 1972.
Higher Education Planning and Coordination of the Michigan Department of
Education. Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, November 1970.
Lavs. Statutes, and Qxmtjtutional Provisions Affecting Community Colleges
in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Education, Revised,
1970.
A Position Paper by the State Board for Public Community and Junior
Colleges. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education, 1967•
Random House Dictionary of the English Language. New York:

;

1959

Random House,

State Plan for Higher Education in Michigan. Revised February 1970.
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Education.
Statevide Community College Services in Michigan. A special report with
recommendations by the Michigan Community College Association.
Lansing, Michigan: Juno 1971.
Vocational Educational Services of the Michigan Department of Education.
Lansing, Michigan: State Board of Education, November 1970.
Webster's Ncv Tventleth Century Dictionary. Unabridged. Second Edition.
McKcchnic, Jean L*, Editor. Ncv York: The World Publishing Co., 1958.
Webster's Seventh Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts:
G and C Merriam Company, Publishers, 1971.
WebBter's Third International Dictionary. Gove, P. B., Editor.
Springfield, Massachusetts: G and C Merriam Co., Publishers, 1965.

PERIODICALS
Arnov, Philip. "Bridging the Gap from School to Work."
Outlook Quarterly. Vol. 12,. No. 1*, December 1968.

Occupational

Astln, Alexander W. "Open Admissions and Programs for the Disadvantaged."
The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XLII, No. 8, November 1971.
Atvell, Charles A. and Watkins, J. Foster. "Nev Directions for
Administration." Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 5,
February 1971.
Bender, Louis W. and Wattenbarger, James L. "Challenge Ahead: StateLevel Control." Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*2, No. 9, June-July
1972.

295
Bigelow, Karl W. "Report on the Discussion Groups."
Journal. Vol. XXI, May 1951.

Junior College

Birnbaum, Robert. "Open Door College or Curriculum?" Junior College
Journal. Vol. 1+2, No. 3, November 1971*
Bolman, Frederick do W. "New Opportunities in Articulation." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 36, No, 6, March 1966.
Bowles, Samuel. "Toward Equality of Educational Opportunity?"
Educational Review. Vol. 38, No. 11, Winter 1968.

Harvard

Clark, Philip A. "If Two and Two and Fifty Makes a Million."
Education Journal. Vol. I, No. 1, February 1971.

Community

Clarke, Johnnie Ruth. "A Curriculum Design for Disadvantaged Community
College Students." Abstract from ERIC, EDD1575*»-JC670 971*.
Gainesville,Florida: University of Florida, 1966.
Cohen, Arthur M. "Developing Specialists in Learning."
Journal. Vol. 37, No. 1, September 1966.
Cohen, Arthur M, "ERIC and the Junior College."
Vol. 38, Ho, 3, November 1967 .

Junior College

Junior College Journal.

Coleman, James. "The Concept of Equality of Educational Opportunity."
Harvard Educational Review. Vol. 38, No. 1, Winter 1968.
Colvert, C. C. "A Study of Official External Influences on the
Curriculums of Public Junior Colleges." Junior College Journal.
Vol. 31, No. 1+, December i960 .
Cooley, William W. and Becker, Susan J. "The Junior College Student."
The Personnel and Guidance Journal. Vol. XLIV, No. 5, January 1966.
Cox, Miriam. "The Collcge-Is-For-Everyone Cult."
Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, September 1966.

Junior College

"A Curriculum Organization Grid System: A Model for Community College
Curriculum Development." Abstract from ERIC Clearinghouse for
Junior College Information, EDO 30l+l8-JC 690 -1 8 9 . Los Angeles,
California, 1969*
De Bernardis, Amo. "An 'Educational Shopping Center1." Junior College
Journal, Vol. 1+0, No. 8, May 1970*
De Coka, Paul J. "Two-Year College Transfers! Graduates of Organized
Occupational Curriculums." College and University. Vol. 1»0, No. 1,
Fall 196U,
Deegan, William L. "Students and Governance: Where Are We? Where Are
We Going?" Junior College Journal. Vol. 1+2, No. 5» February 1972.

296
Deegan, William L. and Drexel, Karl 0. "Student Participation in
Governance." Junior College Journal. Vol. >41, Ho. 3* November 1970.
"Differing Views of Institutional Aims Among College Administrators,
Teachers and Studonts." California Journal of Educational Research.
Vol. XII, Ho. U, September 1961.
—
Drcsscl, Paul L. "A Look at New Curriculum Models for Undergraduate
Education." Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XXXVI, No. 2,
January 1969.
Dunn, John W., Jovise, Peter, and Jentile, Ralph. "Our Faculty
Participates in Policy Development." Junior College Journal. Vol.
37, No. I*, December 1966.
Eldridgo, Donald A. "New Dimensions for the Two-Year College." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 38, No. 1, September 1967*
Erickson, Clifford G. "The Community College— Keystone for Change."
Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 6 , March 1970.
Erickson, Clifford G. "To the New Junior College Trustee." Junior
College Journal, Vol. 39* No. 6 , March 1969.
Fields, Ralph R., Mastin, John W., and Walsh, James P. "Educational
Programs." Review of Educational Research. Vol. XXXV, No. !+,
October 1969.
Flanagan, John. "How Institutional System will Manage Learning."
Nations SchoolB. Vol. 8 6 , Ho. U, October 1970.
Finch, Robert H. "Career Education: A Program for Community Colleges."
Junior College Journal. Vol. ho, No. 31, November 1969 .
Gianopulos, John W.
"The College Administrator and Collective
Negotiations." Junior College Journal. Vol. Ul, No. 1, AugustSeptember 1970.
Gilliland, Richard J. and Nunnery, Michael Y. "Florida Trustees:
Characteristics and Opinions." Junior College Journal. Vol. U0,
No. 9, February 1970.
Glaezer, Edmund J. Jr. "Concerns and Cautions for CommunityColleges."
Junior College Journal. Vol. 38, No. 6 , March 1968.
Grede, John F. "Trends in Occupational Education:
College Journal. Vol, i»0, No. 7, April 1970.

Illinois." Junior

Griffith, William S. "Adult Education: The Challenge of the Junior
College." Address presented at the Third Annual Illinois Junior
College Conference, Rockford, Illinois, October 29, 1968 . ERIC
Clearinghouse on Adult Education EDo29691-ACoo3126, Los Angeles,
California, 1968.

297
Hall, George L. "Ten Commandments for Trustees." Junior College
Journal. Vol. 3 6 , No. 7» April 1966.
Hardner, Robert J. and Pratton, Don L. "Curriculum Reform Through
Behavioral Objectives." Junior College Journal. Vol. Ul, No. 2,
October 1970.
Hardy, Norfleet. "Community Service through Great Decisions."
College Journal. Vol. Uo, No. 6, March 1970.

Junior

Harlacher, Ervin L. "New Directions in Community Services." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 38. No. 6, March 1968.
Harris, Norman C. "Major Issues in Junior College Technical Education."
The Educational Record, Vol. U5, Ho. 2, Spring 196U.
Hatfield, Carol. "No More Rubber-Stamp Boards." Junior College Journal.
Vol. Ul, No. 5, February 1971.
Hein, Eileen. "A Case of Student Involvement." JuniorCollege Journal.
Vol. 38, No. 5, Fobruary 1968.
Honor, Stanley M. "Faculty Power and Participation."
Journal. Vol. 36, No. 5» February 1966.

Junior College

Hove, Ray A. "Faculty-Administration Relationships In Extremes."
College Journal. Vol. 37* No. 3, November
1966.

Junior

Hunt, Mary R. "Co-op Education: A Remarkable Instrument forLearning."
Junior College Journal, Vol. 36, Ho. U, January 1966.
Huther, John W. "The Open Door: How Open Is It7* Junior College
Journal. Vol. Ul, No. 7, April 1971.
Ikenberry, Stanley 0. "Governance and the Faculty."
Journal. Vol. U2, No. 3, November 1971.

Junior College

Johnson, Lamar B. "California Junior College Curriculum Development."
The California Journal of Secondary Education. Vol. 31» March 1956.
Kiernan, Irene R. "The New Style in College Administration?"
College Journal. Vol. 38, No. 1, September 1967.
Kintzer, Frederick C. "Articulation la an Opportunity."
Journal. Vol. 36, No. 7. April 1967.

Junior

Junior College

Kintzer, Frederick C. "California Junior College Faculty Handbooks."
Junior College Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, November 1961.
Kintzer, Frederick C. "Decision-Making in the Multi-Unit College."
ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College Information, ED056687-JC720003*
Washington, D. C., American Association of Junior Colleges. Los
Angeles, California: University of California, Research Bulletin,
Vol. 6, No. 5* January 1972.

290
Kirst, Michael W. and Walker, Decker F. "An Analysis of Curriculum
Policy-Making." Review of Educational Research, Vol. Ul, Ho. 5,
December 1971*
Khoell, Dorothy M. "Focus on the Transfer Program." Junior College
Journal, Vol. 35, No. 0, May 1965.
KocBtor, Susan. "Chicago City College: A Center for Innovation."
Junior College Journal. Vol. 39, No. 6, March 1969 .
Kuhlman, John. "The Dilemma of the Junior Colleges." Junior College
Journal, Vol. 37* No. 6, March 1967*
Lahti, Robert E. "A Faculty Role in Policy Formulation."
College Journal. Vol. 37, No. 1, September 1966.

Junior

Lceb, David and Prentiss, William C. "Learning through Participation."
Junior College Journal, Vol. Uo, No. 8, May 1970.
Lombardi, John. "Faculty in the Administrative Process."
Journal, Vol. 37* No. 3, November 1966.

Junior College

Lupton, D. Keith. "'Campus Stretching' through Cooperative Education."
Junior College Journal. Vol. Uo, No. 5, February 1970.
Maier, Robert H. and Svlnerton, E. Nelson. "The ROAD for Curriculum
Managers." The Journal of Higher Education. Vo. XLIII, Ho. U,

April 1972.
Martorana, S. V. and McHugh, Robert F. "State Legislation: 1962-6U: A
Survey of State Legislation Affecting Two-Year Colleges." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 36, No. 6, March 1966.
Matson, Jane E. "Statements on Students' Rights."
Journal, Vol. 38, No. 3, November 1967*

Junior College

McHugh, William F. "Collective Bargaining and the College Student."
Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XLII, No. 3, March 1971.
Meeth, L. Richard.

"Expanding Faculty Support for Underachievers."

Junior College Journal, Vol. U2, No. 5, February 1972.
Mensel, Frank R. "Federal Support for the Two-Year Colleges: A Whole
New Ballgame." Junior College Journal, Vol. UO, No. 1,
September 1969 .
MeBBer smith,

Lloyd E. and Medsker, Leland L. "Problems and Issues in
Accreditation by Specialized Agencies of Vocational-Technical
Curricula in Post-secondary Institutions." Health, Education
and Welfare Cooperative Research Program, Berkeley, California:
The Center for Research and Development in Higher Education, 1969*
AbBtract from ERIC, ED030750 - VTOO083O1.

299
Morse, H. T. "Between the Ivory Tower and the Market Place." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 35* Wo. 7* April 1965 .
Myran, Gundar A. and Solloway, Jerry G. "Educational Interlink:
Community Services and Community School." Community Education.
Vol. 1, Ho. 2, May 1971.
Nelson, James H, "Guidelines for Articulation." Junior College Journal*
Vol. 36, Ho. 6, March 1966.
Nichols, Suzanne. "Model for Participatory Governance for Community
Colleges." Los Angeles, California: ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior
College Information. Abstract ED05h772 - JC710 237* 1971*
Office of Data Management, American Association of Community and Junior
Colleges. Community and Junior College Journal. Vol. 43, No. 1,
August/September 1972.
Pappas, Charles N. "Community Education." Address presented at the
National Community School Education Association, Miami, Florida,
December 2, 1971. Published in Proceedings. 1971.
1

Parent, Elaine R. and Vaughan, C. Edwin and Wharton, Keith. "A New
Approach to Course Evaluation." The Journal of Higher Education.
Vol. XLII, No. 2, February 1971.
Paterson, M. K. "Curriculums of the Junior College." Junior College
Journal. Vol. 29, No. Q, April 1959.
Pyle, Gordon B. "Teaching and Teacher Responsibility." Junior College
Journal. Vol. 38, No. 6, March 1968 .
Quimby, Edgar A. "In Pursuit of the Self-Renewing College: The Goodlod
Conceptual System and the Problems of Curriculum Formation in
Junior College Programs of General Education." Los Angeles,
University of California. ERIC Clearinghouse for Junior College
Information. Abstract EDO30l*31 - JC 690 20l*, March 8, 1969*
Raines, Max R. and Myran, Gundar A. "Community Services: A UniversityCommunity College Approach." Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*1, Ho. 2,
October 1970.
Rcdford, Edward H. "Profiting from Activism." Junior College Journal,
Vol. 38, No. 3, November 1967 .
Richardson, Richard C., Jr. "Needed: New Directions in Administration."
Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*0, No. 6, March 1970.
______ . "Policy-Formulation in the Two-Year College: Renaissance or
Revolution." Junior College Journal, Vol. 37, No. 6, March 1967.
______ . "Recommendations on Student Rights and Freedoms." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 39, No. 5, February 1969.

300
Richardson, Richard C., Jr. and Eisner, Paul A. "General Education for
the Disadvantaged." Junior College Journal. Vol. 36, Ho. 1*,
December 1965.
Roberson, Glenn. "The Counsellor and the Curriculum." Junior College
Journal. Vol. 39, No. 6, March 1969.
Roberts, Julian. "Curriculum Development and Experimentation." Revicv
of Educational Research. Vol. XXXVI-, Ho. 3, June 1966.
Rodda, George, Jr. "Trustee Power: Bridging Educational Gap." Junior
College Journal. Vol. 1*0, Ho. 6, March 1970.
Roueche, John and Sims, David M. "Open Door College or Open Door
Curriculums?" Junior College Journal, Vol. 38, No. 5, February 1968.
Shaw, Frederick. "The Changing Curriculum."
Research. Vol. XXXVI, No. 3, June 1966.

Review of Educational

Singer, Donald A. and Grande, John A. "Emerging Patterns of Governance."
Junior College Journal. Vol. Ul, No. 6, March 1971.
Skaggs, Kenneth, Burris, Douglas W., and Fibel, Lewis R. "AAJC'b
Occupational Education Project." Junior College Journal. Vol. 37,
Ho. 6, March 1967 .
Smith, Albert K. "Bridging the Gap - High School to Community College."
Junior College Journal. Vol. Uo, Ho. 51, February 1970.
Smith, Horvcl.
Society."

"Changing the Education System to Meet Changes in
Junior College Journal. Vol. 39, No. 7, April 1969 .

Spencer, Tom. "Is Our Integrity above Reproach?"
Journal. Vol. 1*1, June 1971.

Junior College

Spitzberg, Irving J., Jr. "Current Federal Financing of Higher Education
and a Proposal." The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. XLII, No. 9,
December 1971.
Strawbridge, James R. and Wattcnbargcr, James L. "Articulation— Florida
Style." Junior College Journal. Vol. 37, No. 6, March 1967 .
Stuckman, Jeffery A. and Wattenbargcr, James L. "Coordination Within the
State System." Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*1, Ho. 6, March 1971.
Teeple, John B. "Variables in Planning Occupational Education Programs."
Junior College Journal, Vol. 1*0, No. 6, March 1970.
Thompson, Donald L. "PPBS: The Need for Experience." The Journal of
Higher Education. Vol. XLII, No. 8, November 1971.
Tillery, Dale.

"Academic Rank."

Junior College Journal. February 1963.

301

"Toward Universal Opportunity: Goals and Priorities for Federal
Programs." (Statement adapted by the AAIC Commission on
Legislation, December 1970, as Its first formal statement of
legislative goals.) Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*1, No. 6,
March 1971.
Vavoulis, Alexander. "A Faculty Role in Policy-Making." Junior College
Journal. Vol. 3U, No. 7. April 196U.
Warren, James R. "Comprehensiveness May Depend on Public Relations."
Junior College Journal. Vol. 38, No. 7* April 1968.
Wattenbarger, James L. "Changing Patterns of Control: Local to State."
Junior College Journal. Vol. 39# No. 5, February 19^9.
Wattenbarger, James L. and Cage, Bob N. "Financing Public Community
Junior Colleges." Junior College Journal. Vol. 1*2, Ho. 2,
October 1971.
Wilcox, Edward T. "The New Curriculum." Junior College Journal. Vol. 33,
No. 6, February 1963.
Williams, Harrison A. "To Close the Opportunity Gap."
Journal. Vol. 1*0, No. 1, September 1969 .

Junior College

APPENDIX A

STRUCTURED INTERVIEW-GUIDE

302

APPENDIX A

A STUDY OF CURRICULAR DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES...

This study examines the processes for making decisions about pro­
grams and courses of study.

Existing conditions are Its primary concern.

It 1b not designed to critique any one process.

Nor Is it an

evaluation or an analysis of any college.
Respondents who assist in this study will not be identified, and
the colleges they represent will be treated with anonymity.
All questions relate to credit-producing programs and courses unIc b b

otherwise mentioned or clearly implied.
If a question is unclear, please check with the interviewer.

answer 1b not known, please leave space blank.

Your comments or observa­

tions, wherever they are placed, arc very welcome.

303

If an

30U

1. Does any single college publication explain the entire process for
naking decisions about programs and courses of study in your college?
b)no__

a) yea___________

2 . On the next page is a blank flov chart mapping the channels through
which a curricular proposal moves at your college. Which of the
following could be placed in Station A as the originator of a pro­
posal? Please check all that apply.

a) an administrator
_b) a faculty member

f) a business man
jj) a

professional person

c) a student

_h) a community agency

d) a board member

JL) another educational
institution

_e) an advisory comaittee
member

j) any interested person

3. Where does the originator send the proposal for initial considera­
tion? (Please fill in box at Station B, page 303 .
Continue to fill in the chart by indicating at each station the ap­
propriate committee or person to which the proposal is next sent.
For example, the originator— ^chairman of relevant division— ►
faculty of relevant division— ►faculty senate— *senate sub-committee— *
faculty senate— ^president— ►?
Use as many boxes as you need, adding additional ones if necessary.

305

STATION A

STATION B

Answered In Question 2

Originator

Initial Decision
I

Subsequent
STATION C
Decisions
STATION D

STATION E

s'
Leading to

STATION P
Final Decision:
STATION 0

STATION H

STATION I

306
U. At each stop, the proposal may be sent back to its source vlth a re­
quest for clarification and/or restudy, then returned.
a) yes
5.

b) no

Is a regular form(s) or format(s) used In preparing a proposal for
consideration?
a) yes______

b) no______

The next three questions (6-8) relate to your flovchart on page 2.
Please ansver them by circling the Station Letters that nay apply.
6a. At vhlch Station or Stations is discussion and voting a usual part
of the decision-making process?
A

B

C

D

E

F

O

H

I

none

6b. At vhich Station vould discussion generally be longest and most
detailed?
A

B

C

D

E

F

O

H

I

none

7a. At vhlch Station or Stations, if any, are definite criteria estab­
lished as a guide to the Judgment of decision-makers?
A

B

C

D

E

F

O

H

I

none

7b. At vhlch Stations, from those circled in 7a, are the criteria vritten?
A

B

C

D

E

F

O

H

I

none

8. At vhich Station or Stations are the following activities carried out?
a. diagnosing curricular problems

ABCDEFGHI

none

b. formulating program and course
objectives

ABCDEFGHI

none

c. identifying constraints that limit
freedom of decision

ABCDEFOHI

none

d. considering alternative decisions

ABCDEFGHI

none

e. evaluating alternative decisions

ABCDEFGHI

none

f. implementing selected alternative

ABCDEFGHI

none

9a. Is the president's cabinet involved vithtim as advisors, consultants
or representatives in the final decision?
a) yes___________

b) no_

307

9b. If yes, what are the positions of the members of his cabinet? Check
those that apply and vrite in others if necessary.
a. Chief instructional officer
b. Head of Academic (liberal arts, transfer...) programs
c. Head of Occupational (vocational, technical...) programs
d. Dean (director, coordinator...) of Community Services
e. Dean (director, coordinator...) of Student Personnel (or
equivalent office)
f. Chief Budget Officer
g. Presidential assistant(s)
h. Vlce-preBident

i.
J.

k.
1.
10.

Does this college have an active curriculum committee?
a) yes______

b) no

11a. Are the functions of the curriculum committee clear
a.

to the administration?

yes

no

b.

to the faculty?

yes

no

c.

to the students?

yes

no

d.

to the committee itself?

yes

no

If not, please explain to the interviewer,
lib. Are the functions of the curriculum committee acceptable
a.

to the administration?

yes

no

b.

to the faculty?

yes

no

c.

to the students?

yes

no

d.

to the committee itself?

yes

no

If not, please explain to the interviewer.

308
12a. Who serves on the curriculum committee?
Number

Has Voting Rights

How Selected

a.

counseling
staff

_____

_____

_______________

b.

faculty__________ _

_____

______________

c.

administra­
tion________ _____

_____

_______________

d.

students

e.

ex-officio

__________
_____

_____

_______________

f. other

__________

12b. How often does thecurriculumcommittee meet?_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
12c. Does the chief Instructionalofficer(e.g., the
serve on the curriculum committee?
a) yes
12d. If yes, what is his role?
In correct answer.

13.

b) no_____
Please check whichever applies, or write

a.

a regular votingmember

b.

a regular non-voting member

c.

advisory only

d.

dean of Instruction)

'
____________

How is the curriculum committee chairman selected?

What is his term of office?

l^a.

Do any of the members of the curriculum committee receive released
time from their regular responsibilities for their committee work7
a) yeB_____

b)_no_____

If yes, how much time?

Ikb.

Or other special compensation?
a) yes.

b) no

309
19.

16.

Insofar as the following groups nay influence the curriculum, please
place one or nore of the following letters in the blanks provided.
A— Advisory, I— ‘Informational, S— Stimulating, R— Regulatory,
0— None.
a.

State Board of Education (including StateCommunity College
Board)

b.

Accrediting Associations

c.

Michigan Community College Association

d.

A Collective Bargaining Agency

e.

State Legislature

f.

State Bureau of the Budget

g.

State Division of Vocational Education

h.

State Board of Nursing

i.

American Dental Association, Council onDentalEducation

J.

American Medical Association, Council onMedicalEducation

k.

Other:_____________________________________________

Here is the control-eontinuum suggested by the American Association
of Higher Education. Where would you place this college In matters
0 :* curricular declBlcms 7

Adminiiitrative
Dominance
17.

Adminii trative
Primacy

Sheu*ed
Authority

Faciilty
Primacy

Facilty
Dominance

Using letters from the llBt below, please indicate answers to the
following questions in the space adjoining each question. Write in
the answer if it is not suggested In the listing.
A. president or chief executive officer
B. dean of instruction or chief instructional officer
C. dean (director, coordinator...) of academic (liberal arts,
transfer) programs
D. dean (director, coordinator...) of occupational (technical,
vocational..•) programs
E. dean (director, coordinator...) of community services
F. divisional (or departmental) chairman
0. curriculum committee
H. faculty-at-large (e.g., senate)
1. faculty through departmental meetings
J. classroom teacher
K. ad hoc committee when needed

17.

continued
Who Is responsible for;

(Please use as many letters as may apply.)

a.

leadership in stressing the value of improving
_____________
the curriculum?

b.

exercising veto power?

c.

avoiding a fragmented approach to curriculum
development (l.e.t favoring certain segments,

______—

_

Blighting others)?_____________________________ _______________

d.

providing professional atmosphere favorable
to faculty members in carrying out curriculum
developmental endeavors?

_____________

e.

leadership and the properly balanced, success­
ful operation of the total curriculum?
_____________

f.

evaluating course offerings in the light of
college objectives with a view toward their
improvement?

_____________

g.

transfer curriculum?

h.

occupational curriculum?

i.

general curriculum?

J.

remedial curriculum?

_____________

k.

continuing adult education?

___________

1.

community service non-credit academic
curriculum?

_____________

m.

maintaining a general curriculum balance
between academic and occupational programs?

n.

selecting textbooks?

o.

recommending new teaching personnel?

p.

determining teacher assignments?

_____________

q,. evaluating institutional objectives (philosophy,
alms, purposes) as found in the catalog to
assure accuracy in regard to programs, courses
and services offered?
r.

preparing statement of institutional objectives
(philosophy, aims, purpose) for the college
catalog?

311
continued
A. president or chief executive officer
B. dean of instruction or chief instructional officer
C. dean (director, coordinator...) of academic (liberal arts.
transfer) programs
D. dean (director, coordinator...) of occupational (technical
vocational...) programs
E. dean (director, coordinator...) of community services
F. divisional (or departmental) chairman
0. curriculum committee
H. faculty-at-large (e.g., senate)
I. faculty through departmental meetings
J. classroom teacher
K. ad hoc committee vhen needed
Who Is responsible for:
b

.

t.

(Please use as many letters as may apply.)

preparing atatement of departmental objectives
for the college catalog?____________________ _____________
preparation of program objectives for the
college catalog?

u. preparation of course description for the
college catalog?___________________________ _____________
18.

To whom do the following report?
a.

dean (director, coordinator...) of academic (liberal
arts, transfer) program.

b. dean (director, coordinator...) of occupational (technical,
vocational...) program.
c.

dean (director, coordinator...) of community services.

d.

dean (director, coordinator...) of continuing (adult) education.

19a. Please check the following sources of Information vhich are used by
curricular decision-makers in this college;
a) an office of institutional research
b) a library that is readily accessible
c) a library that provides relevant up-to-date periodicals

312
19a.

continued
Please check the following sources of information vhich are used by
curricular decision-makers in this college:
d) a library that provides current research findings (e.g.,
Southern Region Education Board /SREB/, the Western
Interstate Compact for Higher Education /WICHE/, the New
England Board of Higher Education /_NEBHE/# Educational
Research Information Center /ERIC/ ...)
e) faculty members
f) students
g) administrators
h) board members
i) advisory committees
J) community surveys and studies
how frequent?
by whom conducted?
k) external consultants or experts
l) neighboring community colleges
m) "feeder" high schools
n) other vocational-technical schools
o) student personnel follow-up of students who have graduated
or withdrawn
p) periodicals subscribed to by divisions or departments
q) student personnel testing services to evaluate programs
and courses
r) learning resource center (or librarian)
please list any other

19b. Who (or what group) is expected to keep abreast of research findings
in curricula matters and current literature? ___________________

313
19c. Is the responsibility specifically assigned to onyoneT
a) yes_____
20.

b) no_____

Do divisions or departments each have a set of written objectives
directly related to and consistent vlth institutional objectives?
a) yes^

b) no________

21. If yes, how frequently ore they evaluated to determine whether
modification is necessary?

.

22

Are courses within programs evaluated with sufficient frequency and
modified if necessary to maintain continuous accord with depart­
mental objectives?
a) yes____

23.

Does the catalog specify the criteria for admission into this
college?
a) yes^

2k

.

25.

.

b) no_____

Who determines these criteria?
Does the catalog (at least at printing time) specify the criteria
for admission into a specific curriculum?
a) yes____

26

b) no

b) no_____

Who determines these criteria?

27a. Are there criteria by which general education requirements ore
determined?
a) yes

b) no_____

27b. If yes, what are they?

______

27c, Are they periodically evaluated?
a) yes_____
27d. If yes, how frequently? ______

b) no

31*4
28a. What criteria are used In evaluating proposed and existing course
offerings?
(Please check those that are used and add others that may apply.)
Proposed
Courses

Existing
Courses

Institutional objectives as spelled out
in the catalog
Departmental objectives
Number of qualified students interested
Availability of qualified instructors
Adequate facilities and equipment
Adequacy of resources
State demands or controls
Accrediting requirements
Government funding
Practicality/utility of course
Need in community

28b. How often are existing courses evaluated?
29a. When there is an apparent need for a number of new programs or
courses, and limited resources restrict the number that can
actually be offered, how are priorities determined? Belov are
listed ten BUggeBtionB. Please assign a number to each in the
order of their importance.
a) vhlch benefits students moBt?

J>)
~c)
jl)
je)
jf)
_g)
Ji)
Jl)
~j)

availability elsevhere or at senior college?
number of students interested?
vhich faculty member or administrator is more influential?
vhlch division's or department's turn is it for a favor?
Information from office of institutional research?
information from advisory boards?
use of consultants or experts?
availability of instructors?
availability of equipment and facilities?

315
29b. Are there other considerations that would be influential in bringing
about a decision? ___________________________________________

30.

Does this college viev Itself as a leading agency of community
education?

a) yes_

b) no

31a. Are there advisory boards to the community services area?
a) yes_____

b) no

31b. Is the public school's (K-12) community education interest repre­
sented on these boards?
0 y«a_
32.

Is a unified relationship betveen the community services of this
college and the community education of the public schools (K-12)
found in non-credit educational offerings, cultural and enrichment
programs?
a) yes_

33.

b) no

b) no

What are the channels or steps a proposal for an academic non-credit
program or course to be offered by community services follows to its
final acceptance, modification or rejection?

!

Originating source

I
I
I

Use as many spaces as
needed to arrive at
final decision.

APPENDIX B

ORGANIZATION CHARTS OP COLLEGES STUDIED

316

MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
Administrative Organization

tCitizens
Board of Trustees
President
Director for Public
Information Services

^Executive Dean
Director of Data
Processing Services

•*#Cont
on next
page...

Dean for Business Affairs

Dean for Student Affairs

Director of
Personnel

Associate Dean for
Counseling______

Associate Dean for
Admissions and
Financial Aid____

Coordinator/College
Services and Student
Activities

^Director of Athletics

1972-73

Director of
Physical Plant
and Purchasing

MUSKEGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE
(Continued)

Dean for Instruction
Associate Dean for
Library Learning Resources

...Cont.
---------- from preceding
P ^ - - _____________

|Associate Dean for Instruction

Coordinator/AudioVisual Services

Coordinator/Community Education Services
Adult Education and Short Courses

Director/Division of Social Science
and Related Occupations________

Coordinator/Community Education Services
Industrial Activities______________

Director/Division of Humanities/
Communication___________

Coordinator/Community Education Services
Business/Professional Activities_____

Director/Division of Mathematics,
Science and Related Occupations

Director of Police/Fire
Science Technology Program

Director of Practical
Nursing Program_____

DELIA COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
BOARD OF TRUSTEES

IInternal Auditori
I--PRESIDENTf

IRegistrar]-----------

1Executive Vice President \■
fAdalnistratlve Dean I
-ICollege Relations Director I

IData Processing Dlrector]-

Research and Development Director I

IPersonnel Servicer]---IDirector of Safety and Security!
— 1---- -----p ----Fiscal Affairs
Student Affairs
Dean of Student Affairs
— 1Associate Dean of Student Affairs]

Controller
Accountant

Television Director]
1
Coasunlty Affairs

____
-

...Cont.
on next
page...

Dean of CooBonltv Affairs
— |Asst. Dean of C o m i t y Education!

— 1Director of Adaisalonsl

— IWoaen'a Programs Director^

— 1Director of Financial Alda I

— IConference Development Director|

— lAdnlnlstratlve Assistant!
— ^Director of Student ActivitiesI
— IDirector of Placement!
— 4Director of Athletics I
August 1, 1972

319

...Cont.
on next
page...

DELTA. COLLEGE ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION

(Continued)

Executive Vice President]

1
Academic Affairs
Dean of Academic Affairs

...Cont.
from preceding
page...

[Assistant to Academic Dean

...Cont.
from preceding
page...

Business Affairs
Business Manager
Purchasing Director and
Assistant to Business Manager

Associate Dean of General Education
— [Physical Plant Director
— jAssociate Dean of Occupational Programs
IFood Service Director - Acting]
— [Acting Assistant Dean of Instruction
— [Bookstore ManageT
■— (Associate Dean of Learning Resources
[— [Director of Housing
— [Admire atratlve Assistant

GRAND RAPIDS JUHIOR COLLEGE
Administrative Organisation
DEAN
Assistant Dean General Academic

Assistant Dean Continuing Ed.

Assistant Dean Student Services

Assistant Dean Occupational Ed.
Registrar and
Director of
Institutional
Research_____

Fine Arts &
Foreign Lang.

Evening College
Health

Life Sci. A
Home Ec.

Gontinutlng
Education

Physical
Education

Ind. A
Mech.

Drafting
Mechanical
Electronics
Air Condit.
Automotive

Adult Basic Ed.

Physical Sd .
and Math.

Comsunity Service

Director of
Counseling

Director of
Student Activities

Director of
Placement

Adult High School

Social Science

Dir. Ada. A
Financial Aids

ness

IPirectorof Library Services

Students

Tr. Bus.
Tm. Bus.
Dist. Ed.
Data Proc.
Pol. Sci.
Fire Sci.
Hosp. Ed.
Food Serv.

Director of I
Athletics
I

Ass't. Dir.
Athletics

321

T* rig11*ge Arts

Special Programs

Dent. Hyg.
A. D. Nursing
L. P. Nursing
Dent. Asst.
Med. Recep.