• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Front Matter
 Foreword
 Committees
 Table of Contents
 Prinicipal findings
 Recommendations
 Growth of Florida's Community Junior...
 Summary of the Task Force Reports...
 Summary of the Task Force Reports...
 Summary of the Task Force Reports...
 Summary of the Task Force Reports...
 Summary of the Task Force Reports...














Group Title: Five years of progress: Florida's community junior colleges; their contributions and their future; a report to the State Board of Education.
Title: Five years of progress
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00053488/00001
 Material Information
Title: Five years of progress Florida's community junior colleges; their contributions and their future; a report to the State Board of Education
Physical Description: vii, 47 p. : map, tables. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- State Junior College Advisory Board
Florida -- Division of Community Junior Colleges
Florida -- State Board of Education
Florida -- State Dept. of Education
Publisher: State Dept. of Education
Place of Publication: Tallahassee
Publication Date: 1963
 Subjects
Subject: Junior colleges -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
General Note: Report prepared by the Division of Community Junior Colleges.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00053488
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 01830140
lccn - a 63007482

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Front Matter
        Front Matter 1
        Page i
    Foreword
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Committees
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    Table of Contents
        Page vii
    Prinicipal findings
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Recommendations
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Growth of Florida's Community Junior Colleges
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Summary of the Task Force Reports aims and purposes
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Summary of the Task Force Reports the Junior College Student
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
    Summary of the Task Force Reports the Faculty
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
    Summary of the Task Force Reports year around operation
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
    Summary of the Task Force Reports legal structure
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
Full Text




Five Years

of Progress


Florida's Community
Junior Colleges...

Their Contributions
And Their
Future

A Report
to the State Board of Education
by the
State Junior College Advisory Board

1963
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Tallahassee, Florida
THOMAS D. BAILEY, Superintendent








Five Years

of Progress


Florida's Community
Junior Colleges.

Their Contributions
And Their
Future

A Report
to the State Board of Education
by the
State Junior College Advisory Board

1963
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Tallahassee, Florida
THOMAS D. BAILEY, Superintendent


























STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION


FARRIS BRYANT, President
Governor
TOM ADAMS, Secretary of State
RICHARD W. ERVIN, Attorney General
J. EDWIN LARSON, State Treasurer
THOMAS D. BAILEY, Secretary
State Superintendent of Public Institution

STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE ADVISORY BOARD OF FLORIDA
Fred H. Kent, Chairman Jacksonville
LaMar Sarra, Vice Chairman Jacksonville
Fred B. Hartnett Coral Gables
Robert Hudson Titusville
Whit M. Palmer, Jr. Ocala
Van H. Priest Madison
J. Carlisle Rogers Leesburg

DIVISION OF COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGES
James L. Wattenbarger Director
Lee G. Henderson Assistant Director
Thomas M. Baker Specialist









Letter of Transmittal


February 28, 1963


State Board of Education
Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Sirs:
The 1961 Legislature created the State Junior College Advisory
Board and instructed it to make "recommendations to the State
Board of Education relating to personnel, curricula, finance,
articulation and coordination with other institutions, and policies
in general which it deems to be in the best interest of the junior
college program." The Board has accepted these responsibilities
with interest and with an awareness of the full implications such
responsibilities carry.
Florida's junior college program has experienced rapid develop-
ment. It has attracted approval and has earned the admiration
of people both inside and outside our state. We note that the
increase of more than 500 per cent in enrollment and of more than
800 per cent in number of counties served within a five-year
period is unprecedented.
Such rapid growth without question brings problems. Problems
can be solved. The Board has studied the Task Force reports and
herewith presents for your consideration its Findings and Recom-
mendations.
We respectfully solicit your examination of these and your co-
operation in putting them into effect. The Board is indebted to
the many junior college faculty members, to the members of the
Legislature, to the superintendents and to the others who aided
these Task Force studies. The Board particularly appreciates the
work of its own staff, the Division of Community Junior Colleges,
for its work in assembling this report.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Fred H. Kent

FRED H. KENT, Chairman
State Junior College Advisory Board









Foreword


THE COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGES of Florida repre-
sent one of the most rapidly growing junior college programs
in the United States. The expansion of these institutions began
in 1957 after a two-year study by the Community College Council
which had developed a "blueprint" or plan for expansion. This
plan pointed the way for the comprehensive and logical develop-
ment which has followed since its adoption. At that time (1957)
there were four junior college areas operating five institutions.
In Fall, 1962, when this study was completed, there were 17
junior college areas operating 29 institutions.

The State Junior College Advisory Board as its first meeting
in Fall, 1961, authorized this evaluative study and approved the
Study Design.
The study has involved specifically and directly many indi-
viduals who are concerned with the operation of junior colleges.
Members of the junior college faculties, members of advisory
committees and boards of public instruction, and members of the
Legislature have contributed in direct ways to the various Task
Force studies.

The procedure followed has been for each Task Force to study
the area to which it was assigned. Reports from the Task Forces
were presented to the Coordinating Committee. These reports
were also reviewed by the Presidents' Council. Recommendations
thus formulated were presented to the State Junior College
Advisory Board.

After carefully reviewing the reports and recommendations
of the various Task Forces, the Advisory Board formulated its
own recommendations.

The Board is greatly indebted to the contributions of the many
persons who spent a great deal of time in this study. We are
especially appreciative of the help received from Dr. S. V.
Martorana, formerly of the United States Office of Education.
The work of Dr. Douglas Montgomery, Kellogg Fellow at Florida
State University, was also valuable in the Faculty Study. The








Study itself represents a serious attempt to examine, to collect
data, to evaluate, and to improve thereby the program which
Florida's community junior colleges offer to the people of this
state.
JAMES L. WATTENBARGER
Executive Secretary
State Junior College Advisory Board

Tallahassee, Florida
1963










Committees


THE COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF THE STUDY
Dr. Myron R. Blee (Board of Control) Tallahassee
Superintendent Floyd T. Christian (Pinellas County) Clearwater
Dr. Joseph Fordyce (Central Florida Junior College) Ocala
Mr. Craig A. Gathman (Palm Beach Junior College) Lake Worth
Principal R. C. Lipscomb (Pensacola High School) Pensacola
Dr. Sam R. Neel, Jr. (Manatee Junior College) Bradenton
Representative William G. O'Neill (Marion County) Ocala
Senator Bernard Parrish (37th District) Titusville
Mr. Raymond Turner (Advisory Committee
Member, Manatee Junior College) Bradenton
Dean Charles H. Walker (Dade County Junior
College) Miami

CONSULTANT
Dr. S. V. Martorana, U.S. Office of Education Washington, D. C.

THE TASK FORCES
AIMS AND PURPOSES
Dr. Felton Harrison, Pensacola Junior College
Mrs. Opal Kaney, North Florida Junior College
Dr. Warren Land, Indian River Junior College
Dr. Richard Morley, Gulf Coast Junior College
Dr. Gordon Pyle, Dade County Junior College
Dr. Wilson Wetzler, Manatee Junior College
Mr. John Murphy, Central Florida Junior College
Mr. Charles Bond, Gulf Coast Junior College, assisted in final report
STUDENTS
Mrs. Carol P. Boyles, Central Florida Junior College
Mr. Paul Glynn, Palm Beach Junior College
Mr. Charles Miley, Junior College of Broward County
Miss Ruth Pyche, Manatee Junior College
Dr. Paul Sidwell, Daytona Beach Junior College
FACULTY
Mr. Ray Cheydelur, Manatee Junior College
Dr. William Doster, Dade County Junior College
Mr. Melvin Neely, Chipola Junior College
Mr. Marcel Smith, Pensacola Junior College
Mr. J. B. White, Jr., St. Johns River Junior College
YEAR AROUND OPERATION
Mr. Webb Allen, Chipola Junior College
Dr. M. M. Bennett, St. Petersburg Junior College
Mr. Espin Bullock, Pensacola Junior College
Mr. John Easley, Brevard Junior College
Mr. James Gardener, Junior College of Broward County
Mr. Herbert Good, Gulf Coast Junior College
Dr. Herbert Stallworth, Dade County Junior College
Dr. B. R. Tilley, St. Johns River Junior College
LEGAL STRUCTURE
Dr. Roy Bergengren, Jr., Daytona Beach Junior College
Mr. Paul Butler, Roosevelt, Junior College
Dr. Henry Goodlett, Central Florida Junior College
Dr. Marshall Hamilton, North Florida Junior College
Mrs. Grace Maxwell, Indian River Junior College
Mr. Kenneth G. Skaggs, St. Petersburg Junior College
Dr. Bruce Wilson, Brevard Junior College










FLORIDA JUNIOR COLLEGE PRESIDENTS' COUNCIL
of

THE STATE JUNIOR COLLEGE ADVISORY BOARD


REPRESENTING

BAY COUNTY
Dr. Richard E. Morley, President
Gulf Coast Junior College
Panama City

BREVARD COUNTY
Dr. J. Bruce Wilson, President
Brevard Junior College
Cocoa
BROWARD COUNTY
Dr. Joe B. Rushing, President
Junior College of Broward County
Fort Lauderdale
COLUMBIA COUNTY
Dr. Herbert E. Phillips, President
Lake City Junior College and Forest Ranger
School
Lake City
DADE COUNTY
Dr. Peter Masiko, Jr., President
Dade County Junior College
Miami
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
Dr. Henry L. Ashmore, President
Pensacola Junior College
Pensacola
JACKSON COUNTY
Dr. Ned L. Haven, President
Chipola Junior College
Marianna
LAKE COUNTY
Dr. Paul P. Williams, President
Lake-Sumter Junior College
Leesburg
LEE COUNTY
Dr. Charles E. Rollins, President
Edison Junior College
Fort Myers
MADISON COUNTY
Dr. Marshall W. Hamilton, President
North Florida Junior College
Madison
MANATEE COUNTY
Dr. Samuel R. Neel, Jr., President
Manatee Junior College
Bradenton

V










MARION COUNTY
Dr. Joseph W. Fordyce, President
Central Florida Junior College
Ocala
PALM BEACH COUNTY
Dr. Harold C. Manor, President
Palm Beach Junior College
Lake Worth
PINELLAS COUNTY
Dr. M. M. Bennett, President
St. Petersburg Junior College
St. Petersburg
PUTNAM COUNTY
Dr. B. R. Tilley, President
St. Johns River Junior College
Palatka
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
Dr. Maxwell C. King, President
Indian River Junior College
Fort Pierce
VOLUSIA COUNTY
Dr. Roy F. Bergengren, Jr., President
Daytona Beach Junior College
Daytona Beach
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Director
Division of Community Junior Colleges
Tallahassee








Contents


Foreword .............................................. ii

Com m ittees ............................................ iv

Principal Findings ....................................... 1

Recom m endations ....................................... 5

Growth of Florida's Community Junior Colleges ........... 7

Summary of the Task Force Reports

Aims and Purposes .................................. 15

The Junior College Student ........................ 20

The Faculty ....................................... .. 26

Year Around Operation .............................. 34

Legal Structure ..................................... 39


Map

Florida Community Junior Colleges ...................... 8


List of Tables

Table I Enrollment in Florida Public Junior Colleges,
1947-1970 ..................................... 14

Table II Number of Instructional Personnel in Junior
Colleges by Year, 1957-58, 1962-63 .............. 26

Table III Sources of New Teachers Employed During
1961-62 and 1962-63 ............................ 29

Table IV Florida Public Junior Colleges 1961-62
Instructional Salaries by Colleges ............. 32

vii








Principal Findings


1. The basic functions of Florida community junior colleges,
as defined in the statutes and interpreted by a task force com-
posed of junior college faculty members, are accepted and under-
stood by a selected sample of citizens of communities served by
these institutions. The sample of opinions rated the described
functions in the following order of importance:
a) College and university parallel programs;
b) A comprehensive program of guidance;
c) Technical, business, and semi-professional programs;
d) Adult non-credit courses, seminars, and institutions;
e) A program of student activities;
f) Occupationally oriented programs of a vocational nature.
2. All communities do not expect the same services from their
community junior colleges; there is a degree of diversity among
communities in their expectations of their own local institutions.
This diversity is reflected in the attitudes of selected citizens in
the communities as well as in the varied programs available.
3. The Community College Council pointed out three barriers
to students seeking higher education-geographic, economic, and
motivational-which community junior colleges could help over-
come. There is evidence that community junior colleges have
done much to eliminate these barriers and are extending educa-
tional opportunities to all citizens of the areas which they serve.
For example, forty-eight per cent of junior college students re-
ported attending a particular junior college because of its prox-
imity to their homes. Twenty-seven per cent reported that "cost"
was a major factor influencing their decision to enroll in a par-
ticular junior college. Over 70 per cent of junior college stu-
dents already have exceeded the educational attainment of their
parents.
4. Community junior college students vary widely in their
characteristics. The age of junior college students varies from
16 to 78. Men outnumber women students three to two. Fifty-
eight per cent of junior college students work while attending








junior college. Seventy-three per cent plan to live in Florida after
completing their education.
5. While Florida community junior colleges serve students
who represent a wide range of abilities, approximately one-half
of the college credit students would readily be admissible to the
state universities under the present Board of Control admission
policies, and over 75 per cent score in the upper three-fifths of
Florida high school graduates.
6. The importance of a strong guidance program in each
community junior college is recognized by students, faculty, and
public alike.
7. Faculty members in the Florida community junior colleges
are well prepared for their jobs. Over 12 per cent of the faculty
hold doctor's degrees; over 77 per cent hold master's degrees.
Almost half of the faculty members have had previous experience
teaching in a four-year college, and almost 70 per cent have had
previous experience teaching at other levels. These factors, a rela-
tively high level of academic preparation and a diversity of expe-
rience, contribute to quality teaching.
8. The morale of the faculty is high: 90 per cent reported
themselves as satisfied with junior college teaching as a career,
and 55 per cent stated that they planned to remain in the junior
college field until retirement. Only eight per cent reported that
the morale of their colleagues was below average.

9. The median salary of Florida community junior college
faculties for 10 months work is $1,400 below the national median
for junior college faculties for nine months work.
10. This low salary level is making it increasingly difficult to
recruit qualified faculty from any source, and is making it espe-
cially difficult to obtain experienced personnel from other colleges
as well as from business and industry.

11. Over 40 per cent of the faculty members have reported
that they were in favor of the principle of merit pay; almost three-
fourths of the group were opposed to the criteria now in use.

12. During the five-year period (1957-1961) Florida's com-
munity junior colleges increased in number (5 to 25), in enroll-
ment (5,736 to 29,593), and in size of faculty (259 to 1,112). The







rate of growth during this period was unmatched elsewhere in
the country. (A continued increase was reported for Fall, 1962,
when 29 junior colleges had an enrollment of 38,210).
13. A number of the large junior colleges offer summer pro-
grams supported by student fees, but attendance at such programs
is relatively low because the amount of the fees discourage many
students from participating, and because offerings are, of neces-
sity, limited. Staffing is difficult because faculty members cannot
be assured of employment at a salary level comparable to the
regular session. This results in relatively lower utilization of
existing facilities and poor articulation with the state university
system which is operating on a year around basis.
14. The present pattern of community junior college develop-
ment in Florida is in accordance with a statewide plan. This plan
assures local control over each institution and state coordination
to provide minimum standards of operation and the essential
articulation among and between the various levels of education-
elementary, secondary, junior college, and university. In Florida
this articulation is provided by the State Board of Education
through its legal responsibilities for all public education. The
State Board is assisted in its responsibilities toward junior col-
leges by the State Junior College Advisory Board.
15. A study of alternative legal structures for junior colleges
indicates that any structure will have certain advantages and dis-
advantages, but that Florida's existing organizational pattern has
more advantages and fewer disadvantages than other of the
possible alternatives.
16. Two major advantages of Florida's present local control
organization are that it provides: a) a stable minimum of local
support, and 2) an effective means for the development without
costly duplication of technical, vocational and adult educational
programs at the local level.
17. A study of junior college organization in states throughout
the nation shows that in those states in which junior colleges have
had the most successful development (California, Texas, Wash-
ington, Michigan, Illinois, Maryland, and Mississippi, to name a
few), the state level staff services are provided by the state
departments of education. In Florida, in addition to the services
provided by the division of community junior colleges, the State







Department of Education also provides services to junior colleges
in the areas of administration, architecture and building planning,
adult education, curriculum and instruction guidance, finance,
accreditation, publications, teacher qualification, library services,
and vocational and technical education.
18. The Task Force study indicates that the legal structure of
Florida's community junior colleges is basically sound, efficient,
and economical. It appears, however, that the increasing size and
complexity of the program will require more attention to state-
wide coordination than has heretofore been necessary.








Recommendations


1. Community junior colleges should continue to improve the
quality and the diversity of educational programs available to
youth and adults in the various communities. These programs
should all operate under a single budget and should be available
on a year around basis.
2. The continual growth and economic well-being of the state
demands a large scale development of technical and other occu-
pationally oriented programs. Community junior colleges should
continue to work with business and industry to plan and to
develop these specialized programs.
3. In order to maintain the present quality of junior college
faculty, salaries must be raised substantially.
4. Financial support and legal authorization for year around
operation of the community junior colleges are required if there
is to be efficient utilization of staff and physical plant, and effec-
tive articulation with the state university system.
5. Effective utilization of the resources of the community
junior colleges as well as the resources of students requires that
students select programs of study and objectives that are realistic
and attainable. In order to accomplish this, community junior col-
leges must continue to emphasize and to improve the guidance
and counseling services available to students and prospective
students.
6. Community junior colleges should develop more adequate
follow-up studies of graduates, transfers, and drop-outs as a
means of evaluating and improving the overall junior college
program.
7. Florida's community junior colleges should continue their
present role as locally controlled institutions providing education
at the post high school level as a part of the local public school
systems. The statutes and State Board of Education Regulations
should be revised wherever needed to provide a clear definition
of this role and function.
8. Local boards of public instruction approved to operate
community junior colleges should clearly define the role and








function of the community junior colleges as a unique part of the
local school system, and should develop such policies and admin-
istrative procedures as are needed to enable the community jun-
ior colleges to fulfill efficiently their assigned responsibilities.
9. The State Junior College Advisory Board should be re-
named "The State Junior College Board of Florida" and should
be assigned the specific statewide coordinative responsibilities for
community junior colleges now held by the State Board of
Education, subject to the approval of that Board.
10. The various divisions of the State Department of Educa-
tion should provide specialized staff services as needed, but the
major responsibility for staff services to the State Junior College
Board of Florida should continue to be provided by the Division
of Community Junior Colleges. The budget of this division should
include adequate funds for operation of the Board in carrying
out its assigned responsibilities.








Growth of Florida's

Community Junior Colleges

IN THE FALL of 1962, there were more than 38,000 youth and
adults attending Florida's community junior colleges. Seven-
teen junior college areas include 29 junior colleges which are
within commuting distance of 63 per cent of the high school grad-
uates of Florida. These colleges are a part of the long range plan
which was adopted by the State Board of Education in 1957 to
provide opportunity within commuting distance at this post high
school level to 99 per cent of the state's population. (The remain-
ing one per cent live in counties too isolated to be included within
a commuting distance.) The long range plan provided for the
eventual establishment of 25 to 30 junior college areas but set up
no time table regarding creation of new institutions. A step by
step procedure was outlined and has been carefully followed as
new junior college areas have been established. Currently, in
addition to the 17 areas, there are two areas in Priority One status
waiting to be activated. Three other areas are in the process of
conducting surveys in order that each may determine its need
for a junior college in its particular area.
By eliminating the construction of dormitories and by provid-
ing this level of education through the public education system,
a new educational opportunity of benefit both to the individual
and to the business, industrial, and cultural development of Flor-
ida has been provided with economy and with efficiency. The Leg-
islatures of 1957, 1959, and 1961 have taken important steps in
implementing this development. Florida's community junior col-
lege program has grown more rapidly than that of any other state,
and more efficiently than that of most other states.

Historical Development
There were five publicly supported junior colleges in Florida
in 1955. These were scattered from Pensacola on the northwest
to Palm Beach on the southeast and served an enrollment of 7,200
students in 1957. In the Fall of 1962, there were 29 junior colleges
in 17 junior college areas in Florida, serving an enrollment of
38,000 students-more than 500 per cent growth in enrollment in
just six years. Future enrollment growth may be just as dramatic.













Florida Community Junior Colleges


CHIPOLA JR.
7LIEGE
JACKSON JR.
COLLEGE

* ;
..:_,. ,...-


NORTH FLORIDA LAKE CITY JUNIOR
JR. COLLEGE COLLEGE & FOREST
\SUWANNEE RIVER RANGER SCHOOL
J i -fl -lLilF
_. \ '* "


WASHINGTON... LL "
JR. COLLEGE ROSE .L",:, I rE ,,
JUNIOR 'N .

-00


0L I iE
,1 LLt J. 1 i i. i l



E1 ,',L L '




j. A' t .i
;: ', T I I N i






A' r. .ri.rD IE
'7 J i l,, c ri Jlu- .f


J- F li:' LL U .


'L: ': I )UNTY
lrY,.'h rv JR.
,'TLL f ,t


',',[ COUNTY
J. COLLEGE


, ', /'








Forty-five thousand students are expected by Fall, 1963, and over
100,000 students by 1970.
In the Fall of 1962, more than 50 per cent of all Florida fresh-
men enrolled in Florida institutions attended a community junior
college. In the 33 counties supporting junior colleges in 1961, 64
per cent of the Florida freshmen were enrolled in the junior col-
leges. In a few individual counties, as high as 85 per cent of the
Florida freshmen went to the local junior college.

Local Influence
These are community institutions in the practical implications
of the word, since 89 per cent of the total enrollment in junior
colleges are from counties supporting a junior college and over 97
per cent are Florida students. Less than three per cent of the
student body of junior colleges come from out of state.
The influence of the presence of a junior college in a commu-
nity upon college attendance is illustrated by examining the ratio
of the Fall, 1961, freshmen enrollment as compared with the June,
1961, graduates from high schools. In those counties supporting
junior colleges, this ratio is 55.5 per cent. In the other 34 counties,
the ratio is 36.3 per cent. Even in those counties where univer-
sities are located the ratio is not up to 55 per cent.
This past fall, a little more than one-third of all college stu-
dents in Florida were enrolled in a community junior college. The
comparable figure for 1957 was just over one-eighth of the Florida
students-another illustration of the rapid growth.

Programs
The students attending these junior colleges were enrolled in
courses and in programs designed to provide: 1) the first two
years of the pre-professional and the general education required
for a four-year degree, 2) education preparatory to entering a
specified occupation, and 3) a variety of community educational
services.
The first category is the most well known and most widely
accepted program of the community junior colleges. Most young
people need additional general education in their background,
whether they go from junior colleges into a job or into further
education. A little less than one-third of the junior college fresh-








men actually go on to a four-year bachelor's degree program.
Those students become the lawyers, the teachers, the physicians,
the business executives, the engineers, or the scientists. The
records they make in grade point averages at the universities
have been approximately equal to the records of the "native"
students who began their freshman work at the universities.
Even a number of junior college transfers who were ineligible
for admission to the university as freshmen have proved their
ability by transferring as juniors and were thereby salvaged for
educational advancement by this second chance. Already more
than 2,000 junior college graduates transfer each year. This num-
ber is expected to increase rapidly.
Under the second category, the occupationally oriented pro-
grams, the community junior colleges have made great strides
during the past five years. In 1957, there were few examples of
these programs. Most of them were in the secretarial and business
administration areas. Now, however, there are a number of tech-
nical, technically related, and specialized programs. These include
programs designed to prepare electronic technicians, civil tech-
nicians, engineering aides, mechanical technicians, or data proc-
essing technicians. There are also programs for registered nurses,
dental hygienists, and junior business executives. More recently,
new programs in police administration, motel operation, building
construction, and specialized secretarial services have been de-
veloped. Others are in the process of development. These pro-
grams are designed to prepare individuals specifically for an oc-
cupation, and from one-half to two-thirds of the students enter-
ing junior colleges might well select from among them.
As Florida expands industrially, these programs are among
the most important of the offerings in higher education. Space age
education requires much more technically trained manpower than
was ever envisioned before. Each scientist and engineer needs
from one to 20 technicians to support him. Surveys in Florida
indicate that over 15,000 technicians would be needed before 1963.
These surveys were completed before the NOVA project was an-
nounced. The community junior colleges have already proved
their value to Florida's economy in the development of these
programs.
The third category of junior college programs is important
to the business as well as the cultural development of Florida's








communities. Courses offered as a community service provide
opportunities for individuals to change their vocational skills, to
improve their basic cultural education, or to study specialized
areas needed for self-improvement. Over 15,000 students were
enrolled in these courses last year in Florida.
The success of these programs is very much dependent upon
the guidance facilities that permit each junior college student to
take tests and to be counseled in order that he may be able to
make intelligent decisions about his educational and personal
life. The junior colleges have developed rapidly in providing these
services.

State Plan
All of this development has been based upon a carefully or-
ganized plan with step by step implementation and continuous
coordination at the state level. The Community College Council
conducted a thorough study of Florida's educational needs at
this level, projected a long range plan, and suggested a way of
implementing this plan in logical sequence. The State Board of
Education has followed the basic principles of this plan in approv-
ing the establishment of new junior colleges only upon receiving
approval from the legislatures. The State Junior College Advisory
Board is responsible for state coordination through the State
Board of Education.
The Southern Regional Education Board in a recent publica-
tion, Within Our Reach, the report of its Commission on Goals,
outlined three essential bases for junior college organization:
"1. They must be integral parts of the state systems of higher
education and fully coordinated with other parts of the
system.
"2. They must resist pressure to expand into four-year insti-
tutions, concentrating rather on achieving excellence in
their two-year programs.
"3. Their distinctive function must be recognized and re-
spected. They are neither mere extensions of the high
school nor decapitated versions of the four-year college."
Florida has been able to meet these essentials in an excellent
fashion thus far in its community junior college development.








State coordination has been augmented by the 1961 Legislature's
establishment of the State Junior College Advisory Board. In
examining the continuing relationship between the junior college
and other segments of post high school education, it is the purpose
of the Board to study in some detail the role assigned to the state
community junior colleges and the scope of their accomplish-
ments to date in order to determine what improvements may
be made.

Evaluative Study
The State Junior College Advisory Board, the members of
which are appointed by the Governor, is charged in the law to
make recommendations to the State Board of Education relative
to junior college matters. Early in its existence the Board deter-
mined that an evaluation of the progress during the five-year
period between 1957-62 was essential for continued orderly devel-
opment. This evaluation has the following specific purposes:

1. To determine the progress which has been made in Florida
community junior colleges;

2. As a means of evaluating the present community junior col-
lege program, to study the long range educational planning
of this level of education in Florida, to examine the busi-
ness and industrial development of Florida, and to assess
the diversity of educational needs in Florida;

3. To develop specific plans which will improve the quality
and the effectiveness of all phases of the educational services
of the community junior college program in Florida.
The work of the study was carried on by five Task Forces
which were made up of 33 faculty members representing the vari-
ous junior colleges in the state. These Task Forces centered their
activities around the following studies:
1. Aims and Purposes
2. Students
3. Faculty
4. Year Around Operation
5. Legal Structure








Each Task Force has completed its studies and made its own
recommendations. These have been reviewed by the Coordinating
Committee and the Junior College Presidents' Council. The Board
itself examined the reactions of these reports and prepared its
own final recommendations which appear at the beginning of this
report. The following section summarizes the activities, findings,
and recommendations of the five task force studies.







TABLE I
ENROLLMENT IN
FLORIDA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES
1947-1970

Total Full-Time Per Cent Change
No. of No. of Total College-Level Equivalent in ADA Over
Year Areas Colleges Enrollment Enrollment Enrollment( ADA) Previous Year
1947-48 2 2 800 800
1948-49 4 4 1,143 1,143 874 -
1949-50 4 5 1,434 1,434 1,107 26.66
1950-51 4 5 1,375 1,375 1,040 -6.05
1951-52 4 5 1,164 1,164 896 -13.85
1952-53 4 5 1,407 1,407 1,083 20.87
1953-54 4 5 1,676 1,676 1,233 13.85
1954-55 4 5 2,516 2,516 1,797 45.74
1955-56 4 5 3,757 3,757 2,201 22.48
1956-57 4 5 5,218 5,218 2,816 27.94
1957-58 5 7 7,224 7,224 3,601 27.88
1958-59 10 16 13,303 11,514 6,198 72.12
1959-60 10 17 23,436 14,068 8,052 29.91
1960-61 14 24 36,846 21,533 11,955 48.47
1961-62 14 25 46,281 28,974 16,310 36.46
1962-63 17 29 55,537(E) 36,218(E) 22,095(E) 35.47(E)
1963-64 17(E) 29(E) 63,867(E) 45,273(E) 27,619(E) 25.00(E)
1964-65 17(E) 29(E) 73,447(E) 52,064(E) 31,762(E) 15.00(E)
1965-66 17(E) 29(E) 82,260(E) 58,311(E) 35,573(E) 12.00(E)
1966-67 17(E) 29(E) 92,131(E) 65,308(E) 39,841(E) 12.00(E)
1967-68 17(E) 29(E) 101,344(E) 71,839(E) 43,825(E) 10.00(E)
1968-69 17(E) 29(E) 111,478(E) 79,023(E) 48,208(E) 10.00(E)
1969-70 17(E) 29(E) 122,626(E) 86,925(E) 53,028(E) 10.00(E)
1970-71 17(E) 29(E) 135,000(E) 95,618(E) 58,000(1) 10.00(E)
(E) Estimated-assuming establishment of no additional junior colleges.
(1) Minimum number of students junior colleges should accommodate according to Board of Control Estimates.








Summary of The Task Force Reports

Aims and Purposes


T HE FUNCTIONS of the public community junior colleges
in Florida have developed over a long period of time. In
other sections of the United States junior colleges originally were
established to provide the first two years of college education for
youth graduating from high school. As these institutions became
more firmly established and as the need for more specific educa-
tion beyond high school became apparent, the public began to
expect more occupationally oriented education to be made avail-
able in the junior college. More recently-within the last 25
years-the function of community services (adult education) has
been added.
Florida's junior college program has followed a somewhat
similar pattern of development. The first junior college law in-
cluded no reference to the curriculum or function, although the
law implied the university parallel function. Subsequent revisions
of the junior college law specifically mentioned the responsibility
of the colleges for "terminal-technical," "vocational-technical,"
and "adult education." The community junior colleges in this
state have added these programs to their basic university parallel
structure as communities' needs for education have been identi-
fied and interpreted by the faculties and boards.
The term "junior college" as defined by the Florida Legis-
lature and as used herein shall mean an educational insti-
tution operated by the county board as part of the county
school system and offering (a) a program of general
education consisting of classical and scientific courses in
the thirteenth and fourteenth grades parallel to that of
the first and second years of work at a senior four-year
state institution of higher learning, (b) terminal courses of
a technical and vocational nature, and (c) courses for
adults.
A statement of the aims and purposes was formulated by the
Task Force and presented to the citizens of the various commu-
nities for their reactions and comments. This statement included
four major functions. The order in which these functions were
listed in no way implied the degree of their relative importance.
The statement follows:








a) Occupationally Oriented Programs
These programs are planned for those people who pro-
pose to enter full-time employment upon completion of
the junior college work. These programs include courses
of study designed for training of engineering technicians,
registered nurses, laboratory technicians, data processing
technicians, junior cost accountants, bookkeeping ma-
chine operators, correspondence clerks, and similar occu-
pations.

b) University Parallel Programs
The community junior college provides programs of gen-
eral education, including pre-professional education, par-
alleling the freshman and sophomore years at four-year
colleges and universities.

c) Special and Adult Education
Acting upon the premise that there is no age limit to
learning, the junior colleges provide educational pro-
grams for all citizens in the community, including such
persons as those previously denied higher educational
opportunities, those seeking additional college work for
self-improvement, and those needing below college level
instruction not otherwise available to them. These are
for part-time and special students.
d) Community Services
The junior college also serves the community through a
comprehensive program of educational and cultural ac-
tivities designed not only to enrich the lives of the stu-
dents, but also that of the entire community.
As a part of the study an opinionnaire was sent to all junior
colleges in the state. Each college distributed a number of copies
roughly equal to 10 per cent of its enrollment. Approximately
1,000 returns were tabulated. An analysis of the returns indi-
cated the following:
1) The respondents rated the functions of community junior
colleges in the following order of importance:
a) College and university parallel programs
b) A comprehensive program of guidance








c) Highly specialized, technical, business, and semi-
professional courses of college-level achievement
d) Adult, non-credit, enrichment-type courses, seminars
and institutes
e) An extensive program of student activities concerning
all phases of students' social, intellectual, aesthetic
and athletic activities
f) Occupationally oriented programs of a vocational na-
ture requiring a high school diploma for entrance
g) Occupationally oriented programs for adults not re-
quiring a high school diploma for entrance
h) Preparation by adults for completion of a high school
diploma or its equivalent
2) The junior colleges are meeting the need for college and
university parallel transfer programs in the communities
they serve. They are also meeting the need for guidance
and counseling programs, non-credit enrichment-type
courses or seminars, and highly specialized technically
related courses-in that order of precedence.
3) The junior colleges, apparently, are not completely meet-
ing the need for programs designed to enable adults to
attain a high school diploma or its equivalent, and for
occupationally oriented courses and programs that do
not require a high school diploma for entrance.
4) Graduation from an accredited high school as a minimum
requirement for admission to a community junior college
is considered very important by the respondents.
5) There is evidence of great community pride in the local
junior colleges. Industry, business, area governmental
agencies, and other organizations look upon the college
as a definite asset to their operations.
6) Most of the information about the junior college comes
from direct contact with a person connected with the
junior college or from students who have attended the
junior college.
7) The community gets more information about the junior








college from local newspapers than from radio and tele-
vision.
8) Although there is evidence in regard to the uniformity
of views on aims and purposes among citizens of the state,
enough diversity of opinion among the different areas
wherein are located the various junior colleges is found
to deter the development of a commonly accepted image
of a community junior college.

Recommendations

1. Junior colleges should continue the excellent university paral-
lel programs and should continue to stress to appropriate
students successfully completing these programs the impor-
tance of continuing into the third and fourth years of college.
2. Junior college faculty should continue their strong personal
contact with citizens of the community. The value of such
personal contact in developing public understanding should
be stressed to all junior college personnel.
3. Junior colleges should give more attention to the mass com-
munications media as a means of explaining their aims and
purposes to the community.
4. Junior colleges should continue the work they are now doing
in counseling and guidance and should give attention to the
possibility of providing guidance and testing facilities for
adults of the community who have need for help not provided
by other agencies.
5. Each junior college should re-examine its occupational pro-
grams in the light of community opinion and determine how
these need to be strengthened. There should be more infor-
mation available in the community which would specifically
encourage students to enter the field of technical education.
6. Each junior college should re-examine the relative importance
of each of the four main areas as described by the task force
in its introduction to the opinionnaire, as described in the
1955 and 1957 state law authorizing public junior colleges,
and as outlined by the junior college leadership in the state
and nation. If these functions are equally important, most
persons in the various communities are not aware of this fact








and apparently do not believe that the junior colleges are giv-
ing equal emphasis to all functions.
7. If, after re-examining the relative importance of the main
aims and purposes as they may apply to individual communi-
ties, junior colleges feel that all functions share the same rela-
tive importance, junior college faculties should attempt to
develop all functions and should take every opportunity to
acquaint the public of this fact. If the junior colleges decide
that these functions do not share the same importance in the
various communities, then this fact should be recognized and
accepted.
8. Continued studies which will enable Florida junior colleges
to evaluate their past performance, their present status, and
their future goals should be conducted under the supervision
of the State Junior College Advisory Board.








Summary of The Task Force Reports

The Junior College Student


STUDENTS in junior colleges vary greatly in age, ability, eco-
nomic status and many other characteristics. Students in
Florida junior colleges, while much like junior college students
institutionally, also have certain unique characteristics. This
study briefly describes certain characteristics of students enrolled
in Florida's publicly supported community junior colleges in
1961 which may have significance for future planning in regard
to such areas as curriculum, facilities, instructional practices,
and student personnel services. It also briefly describes the kinds
of student personnel services currently available in Florida public
junior colleges.

Degree-Credit Students
1. Reasons for Attending a Community Junior College
Forty-eight per cent of the students reported they attended a
particular community junior college because of its location (prox-
imity to their homes. Nine per cent reported they enrolled in a
particular college because of its "general reputation." Eight per
cent mentioned availability of "special programs." Twenty-seven
per cent reported "cost" to be a major factor influencing their
decision to enroll in a particular college.

2. Academic Aptitude
For several years, Florida's publicly supported universities
have used an applicant's total score on the Florida Statewide
Twelfth Grade Test Battery as one means of effecting admission
decisions. Until September, 1962, a total score of 200 was the
minimum score necessary to secure unqualified admission.
Seventy-four per cent of the students enrolled in Florida's
publicly supported community junior colleges earned total scores
which would have qualified them to have entered the publicly
supported universities of Florida in 1961-62 if they would have
so desired.








3. Family Background
a. Occupational level of the family's principal wage earner
has been considered in two investigations of community
junior college students in the nation as a whole. Havig-
hurst and Neugarten state "... no more than five per
cent of the upper and upper-middle classes would be
represented in the 'opportunity college'." Medsker com-
ments ". only a tenth come from families in the
professional category."
In this study, 23 per cent of the students come from
families in which the principal wage earner is classified
in the "professional, technical, and kindred worker"
category. Twenty-three per cent come from families in
which the principal wage earner is in the "manager,
official, proprietor except farm" category. Only 14 per
cent of the students come from homes in which the prin-
cipal wage earner is in one of the four lower occupa-
tional levels.
b. Family size. Thirty-five per cent of the students in the
study come from families in which there are no siblings;
50 per cent from homes in which there are one or two
siblings, and 15 per cent from homes in which there are
three or more siblings.
c. Parents) educational level. Forty-six per cent of the
students' fathers (39 per cent of the mothers) had less
than a high school education. Twenty-five per cent of
the fathers (34 per cent of the mothers) were high
school graduates but had no college education. Seven-
teen per cent of the fathers (18 per cent of the mothers)
had some post high school education but did not com-
plete four years of college. Six per cent of the fathers
(five per cent of the mothers) completed four years of
college. Six per cent of the fathers (one per cent of the
mothers) had post baccalaureate education.

4. Student Characteristics
a. Age range. Medsker's publication includes an analysis
of the age range of students enrolled in a representative
sample of community junior colleges. This provides a







valuable frame of reference for comparison with the
population in the Florida study.
Florida's community junior colleges enrolled a larger
number of students (69 per cent) in the typical college
age range (16 through 22 years) than did institutions
cited in Medsker's study (53 per cent).
Florida's community junior colleges enrolled fewer indi-
viduals in the "older youth" category, i.e., 23 through 25
years of age (seven per cent in the Florida study, 19 per
cent in the Medsker study). Both studies indicate that
about 16 per cent of the students enrolled in community
junior colleges are 30 years of age or over.
b. Classification in terms of the number of semester hours
of study for which the student is enrolled. In 1961-62
junior colleges enrolled 29,974 college-credit students.
Of these, 15,192 or 52 per cent were full-time students
(enrolled for 12 or more semester hours); and 13,782, or
48 per cent, were part-time or unclassified students.
c. Marital status. Twenty-six per cent of the students en-
rolled in Florida's publicly supported community junior
colleges reported that they were married. In Medsker's
study about 23 per cent of the students were married.
d. Ratio of men students to women students. Medsker re-
ports "... the ratio of men to women was three to one."
In Florida, 59 per cent of the junior college students
were men, 41 per cent were women.
e. Religious orientation. Seventy per cent of the students
came from a Protestant background, 16 per cent from a
Roman Catholic background, and 14 per cent reported
that they were of "other" or "no" religious orientation.

5. Students' Aspirations
a. Educational aspirations. Twenty per cent of the students
contemplate less than four years of college level study.
Fifty-seven per cent plan to complete four years of
college -study. Twenty-three per cent anticipate post-
baccalaureate education.
b. Vocational aspirations. Fifty per cent of the students








contemplate entering a profession when they leave col-
lege. Eighteen per cent plan to enter business in a man-
agerial or sales capacity. Four per cent wish to function
in one of the creative arts. Only two per cent express
interest in entering agriculture or an allied occupation,
and 15 per cent plan to enter an occupation not in-
cluded in any of the above categories.

c. Place of post-education residence. Seventy-three per
cent of the students express a desire to reside in Florida
when they complete their college education. Five per
cent want to live in the south but outside of Florida.
Eleven per cent want to live in the northeast or midwest.
Six per cent prefer to live in the west or far west. Four
per cent express a desire to live in a foreign country or
a United States possession.

6. Need for Financial Assistance
Thirty-seven per cent of the students report they will need
financial assistance if they are to complete their education. Of
this number, 10 per cent report they will need considerable
financial assistance, 16 per cent report they will need financial
assistance sufficient to defray at least one-half of their total
expenses, and 11 per cent will need financial assistance to defray
less than one-half of their total expenses while attending college.

Follow-Up
Evaluation of the service of a junior college depends not only
upon clear, factual knowledge of the student served, but also
upon an understanding of how the college program is meeting
the needs of the student. One way of gaining insight into the
effectiveness of a college program is by a follow-up study of
students.
In the Fall of 1961, a follow-up study was made of full-time
students who first enrolled as freshmen in the Fall of 1959. Thir-
teen of the 17 junior colleges which were operating in 1959 pro-
vided follow-up information on 1,705 students. Of these, 33 per
cent graduated on time in the spring or summer of 1961, but the
college records indicated that only 21.5 per cent had transferred
to a college or university after graduation. An additional nine








per cent of the total transferred to a college or university prior
to junior college graduation. Over five per cent were still enrolled
in the fall of 1961 as full-time students, while an additional three
per cent were enrolled as part-time students. However, 42 per
cent had dropped out of junior college prior to completion of their
programs. The remaining eight per cent were in miscellaneous
or unknown categories.
No attempt was made in this survey to ascertain the reasons
for 42 per cent of entering freshmen dropping out before com-
pletion of a program. However, the mere fact that 42 per cent of
the incoming freshmen drop out within two years should be in-
centive enough for colleges to undertake serious self-evaluations
to ascertain if the programs offered are meeting the needs of the
students being served, and if those students have available the
types of information and the professional counseling assistance
which will enable them to make realistic and attainable edu-
cational and career decisions.

Non-Credit Adult and Vocational Students
In 1961-62, 16 Florida public junior colleges enrolled 18,241
non-credit students. Of these, 5,408, including 2,780 men and 2,628
women, were enrolled in non-credit terminal-occupational pro-
grams at nine junior colleges. A total of 12,833 persons, 5,644
men and 7,189 women, were enrolled in a wide variety of adult
non-credit courses at 15 junior colleges.
The overwhelming majority of these are part-time students.
A few of the students enrolled in occupational programs are
attending full-time to prepare themselves to enter employment
in a specific occupation. The majority, however, are attending
courses in the evenings to upgrade themselves in their occupa-
tions. The adult students are enrolled in a wide variety of types
of courses. These courses range from high school completion
through avocations, investments, personal finances, and current
affairs to courses for senior citizens. Except for the possibility
of a few students enrolled full-time in high school completion
courses, these students are all enrolled part-time, predominantly
in the evening. Because enrollment procedures for non-credit
courses are greatly simplified and because the students are on
campus only a few hours a week, it is much more difficult for
colleges to obtain information about characteristics of non-credit








students than about credit students. There is very little informa-
tion currently available about non-credit students.
The adult non-credit student is an important link in the com-
munity-college relationship. Through him the college serves the
community and thereby fulfills one of its purposes. Yet he is
presently the "forgotten" student in the junior college. There is
a real need for definitive information about the characteristics
of the persons availing themselves of the non-credit offerings of
junior colleges.

Student Personnel Services Now Available
Student Personnel Services in junior colleges have many spe-
cific functions and, in addition, tend to be generally concerned
with the student's physical, social, emotional, spiritual, and intel-
lectual development. These services complement as well as sup-
plement the instructional program. They are concerned with the
development of the individual and are also concerned with im-
proved curriculum and methods of instruction as a means of
serving the individual.
The specific functions of student personnel services include
admissions, articulation, counseling, evaluation and follow-up
studies, foreign student advisement, housing, job placement, occu-
pational information, orientation, petitions, program advisement,
publications, records, recruitment, registration, scholarships and
loan programs, student activities, student health, testing, veteran
information, enforcement of college regulations, and transfer
information. A sampling of students indicates that 70 to 80 per
cent of the students are satisfied with the student personnel serv-
ices provided in the junior colleges and feel that the counseling
service, testing, orientation, financial assistance and placement
services are adequately meeting the needs of junior college
students.









Summary of The Task Force Reports

The Faculty


BASIC TO the development of quality in an educational insti-
tution is the selection and retention of qualified faculty
members. Since 1957, the Florida junior colleges have increased
in enrollment very rapidly and the necessity of adding new fac-
ulty has been a matter requiring constant attention and continu-
ous consideration. During the school year 1957-58 there were
258.6 equivalent full-time positions in Florida community junior
colleges; in 1961-62 there were 1,112.3 equivalent full-time posi-
tions, an increase of 430 per cent during the five-year period.

TABLE II
NUMBER OF INSTRUCTIONAL PERSONNEL
IN JUNIOR COLLEGES BY YEAR
1957-58-1962-63
Total Equivalent
Year Full-Time Part-Time Full-Time
1957-58 230 113 259
1958-59 406 332 480
1959-60 557 440 649
1960-61 760 435 860
1961-62 1,025 362 1,112
1962-63(E) 1,130 424 1,350
(E)-Estimated

The addition of more than 200 full-time faculty members each
year is an important recruiting task. The expected increase of
new personnel during the immediate future and the declining
supply of qualified faculty who are available may make this
recruitment problem even more difficult. The competition for
college teachers, both in academic and in technical and special-
ized subject areas, will be strong. The problem of selection and
retention will continue to occupy much of the time of the junior
college deans and presidents. However, if there is an opportunity
for careful staff selection, the problems of retention will be some-
what less time consuming.








The Faculty Task Force, the membership of which was rep-
resentative of the geography, the faculty leadership, the experi-
ence, and the background of Florida's junior college faculty mem-
bers, was assigned the specific responsibility of determining the
facts about the faculties.

This research identified the following characteristics of Flor-
ida junior college faculty members:
1) Sixty-five per cent are men; 72 per cent are married; 43
per cent have two or fewer children; 68 per cent are 44
years of age or younger.
2) Their salary from teaching is $5,800 per year (the median
salary in 1961-62 for full-time faculty members).
3) Fifty-two per cent are veterans; 8 per cent are in the Re-
serve or the National Guard.
4) Fifty-four per cent are the sole supporters of their family.
5) Sixty-one per cent are buying homes; 55 per cent have
one car each; 60 per cent are each less than $1,000 in debt
(exclusive of home mortgage).
6) Sixty-five per cent were born east of the Mississippi
River; 53 per cent spent the major part of their youth in
a town of 10,000 population or less; and 63 per cent at-
tended a medium-sized or smaller high school.

7) Forty-three per cent of their parents are residents of the
southeast, including Florida.

8) The fathers of seventy-one per cent were either farm or
business owners or were salaried employees.
9) Of the 116 with an earned doctor's degree, 48 (almost
half) received the degree from an institution in Florida
or the Southeast.

10) Eight hundred eighty-six have at least a master's degree,
and nearly half of these people received that degree in
Florida or the Southeast.
11) Sixty-one per cent did not belong to a college fraternity,
but 52 per cent are now a member of one or more civic
organizations.








12) Four hundred eighteen favor the principle of merit pay
for teachers, but 726 are opposed to the merit pay criteria
currently in effect in Florida.
13) Three hundred sixty-six had decided to become a teacher
since high school or before; 183 during the first two years
of college.
14) They are reasonably satisfied with conditions in their jun-
ior colleges; their morale is high, and they feel that the
morale of their fellow teachers is also high.
15) They consider the administration of their college to be
good when compared with other institutions.
16) In general, they believe the emphasis in the junior col-
lege should be about equal on transfer courses, terminal
courses, and on community services.
17) They work in a junior college because they like working
with the age group of students in the freshman and soph-
omore years of higher education.
18) Fifty per cent of the faculty have had teaching experience
in a four-year college. Only 14 per cent indicated that
they had had previous junior college experience, however.
Almost 70 per cent indicated that they had one or more
years of elementary or secondary school experience.
19) At the present time, Florida faculty represent an edu-
cational level of professional preparation above the na-
tional average. Over 12 per cent of Florida faculty hold
the doctor's degree; only 8 per cent of the new full-time
teachers employed nationwide by public junior colleges
in 1960-61 held the doctor's degree. Even at the master's
level, Florida exceeded the national trend: over 77 per
cent of Florida teachers held the master's as their highest
degree; a comparable national figure was 68 per cent.
20) Almost all faculty members are entirely dependent upon
their earned income in order to live; only 16 per cent have
some sort of additional income, and most of this is a very
modest amount.
21) Salaries paid during the 1961-62 school year showed a
great deal of range between colleges as well as within









colleges. The median salary for each college for 10 months
faculty varied from a low of $4,750 in one college to a
high of $6,850 in another college. The low end of the
ranges varied from $3,600 in one college up to $5,250 in
another college. The highest salary (except the presi-
dents) varied from $5,700 to $13,110. All median salaries
are less than the national median; concern for selection
and retention of quality faculty should be a major consid-
eration. Further analysis of the Table IV will indicate the
varied nature of these salary ranges, medians, and means.

TABLE III
SOURCES OF NEW TEACHERS EMPLOYED DURING
1961-62 AND 1962-63


Number
of Teachers

Graduate School 165
Bachelor Degree Class 5
College and University Teaching 120
High School Teaching 179
Elementary School Teaching 6
School Administration 11
Research (Educational and Non-Educational) 4
Other: Educational TV, Nursing, etc. 7
Homemaking 4
Religious Service 2
Business Occupation 35
Government Service 6
Military Service 7
Other: Secretarial 7


TOTAL


558


Percentage
29.57%
.90
21.51
32.08
1.06
1.97
.72
1.26
.72
.36
6.27
1.06
1.26
1.26

100.00%


The questionnaire also pointed up the attitudes
these faculty members.


and opinions of


1. Faculty members seemed highly satisfied with their
chosen profession. Ninety per cent reported that they
were satisfied with junior college work and eighty-one
per cent would continue to choose teaching as a career.

2. Morale apparently is good throughout the junior colleges,
for 69 per cent of the respondents reported that among
their immediate co-workers the morale was good or very








good, while another 21 per cent indicated that morale was
at least average.
3. The most frequently reported satisfactions in junior col-
lege work were "enjoyment of teaching," "helping young
people grow," "association with college age students,"
"fine colleagues," "freedom and independence in work,"
"desirable working conditions," "personal satisfaction,"
and "sense of social usefulness." The "public image of
junior college" was indicated by a very few of the re-
spondents as a "satisfaction"; however, only a very few
indicated the "image" as a source of dissatisfaction.
4. Eighty-seven per cent of the faculty members reported
the flow of information, views, and opinions between the
administration and the faculty in their college was either
adequate or fairly adequate.
5. The quality of administration was reported as being good
or very good by 77 per cent in comparison to a "good pub-
lic junior college," and by 75 per cent in comparison to
the four-year colleges and universities.
6. Fifty-four per cent indicated that if the salary, promotion,
and security were equal they would prefer to teach in a
junior college rather than in a high school or a four-year
college.
7. The majority of the respondents, 59 per cent, indicated
the most powerful voice in determining the educational
programs on their campus was either the president, deans,
or department heads. Only 15 per cent indicated the
greatest power was outside the college in such agencies
as the State Board of Education, the legislature, and the
county board of education, or the county superintendent
of schools. Five per cent of the respondents indicated the
"faculty" had the most powerful voice on their campuses.
8. The "open admission to all courses" was accepted by only
40 per cent of the respondents, a "restricted admission
policy to college transfer courses" was accepted by 69 per
cent of the respondents. Fifty-six per cent of the faculty
members indicated that they were satisfied with the pres-
ent admission policies at their institution, and 12 per cent
indicated that they were dissatisfied.








9. Thirty-nine per cent of the faculty favor the title "pro-
fessor" being used for junior college faculty; 23 per cent
are opposed to the suggestion, and 36 per cent are neutral.

10. In reference to the preferred nomenclature of the institu-
tion, 44 per cent prefer "junior college," 13 per cent "com-
munity junior college," 21 per cent "community college,"
and 22 per cent "college."

11. The vast majority of the faculty families are satisfied with
the community in which they live. Forty-seven per cent
of them indicated that they were "very satisfied" and an
additional 35 per cent said that they were "satisfied."
Only one per cent said that they were "very dissatisfied."

12. The majority of the faculty work many hours above the
normal workweek, 78 per cent devoting more than 40
hours per week to their work. More than a fourth of the
faculty members report that they work 55 hours or more
each week.

13. One administrative policy which received some criticism
concerns the procedure of the colleges in granting pro-
fessional leave. More than a fourth of the faculty indi-
cated that procedures were either non-existent or not sat-
isfactory to them.

Recommendations
Florida junior college administrators should be encouraged
to continue to employ highly qualified individuals to serve on
community junior college faculties. In order to do this, the fol-
lowing recommendations are made by the Task Force at this time:

1. If junior colleges are to compete with other institutions of
higher learning, immediate steps must be taken to increase
the annual income received by junior college faculty. The
current differential between the median, at the national level
and that in Florida, is much too great if quality faculties are
to be retained.
2. Difficulties encountered in employing foreign citizens and rec-
ognition of degrees from foreign universities should be allevi-
ated by regulation and/or by law.









TABLE IV
FLORIDA PUBLIC JUNIOR COLLEGES
1961-62 INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES BY COLLEGES

Range 10 Months All Personnel
County College Low High Median Mean Median Mean
Bay Gulf Coast 3950 8700 5450 5296 5500 5651
Rosenwald 3700 6200 5600 5132 5700 5308
Brevard Brevard 4400 8600 5633 5660 5675 6116
Carver
Broward Broward 4600 10,080 6200 6012 6250 6418
Dade Dade 4400 13,110 6850 6810 7444 7816
Escambia Pensacola 4300 12,070 6780 6808 7080 7220
Washington 4600 8520 6100 5909 6100 6127
Jackson Chipola 4392 7788 5052 5120 5100 5358
Jackson 5196 6215 5196 5036 5196 5331
SMadison North Florida 4400 8080 5400 5239 5400 5562
Suwannee River 3600 5700 5400 4800 5400 4905
Manatee Manatee 4200 9520 5500 5468 5800 5852
Marion Central Florida 4510 8380 5390 5736 5770 6041
Hampton 4400 7000 5200 5064 5400 5321
Palm Beach-Palm Beach 4750 10,200 6150 6157 6150 6411
Roosevelt 5250 9500 6150 5990 6150 6157
Pinellas St. Petersburg 4048 10,500 6000 5773 6300 6314
Gibbs 4100 8500 5400 5503 5800 5779
Putnam St. Johns River 4400 7200 4750 4736 4825 5223
Collier-Blocker 3900 5830 4800 4740 4950 4922
St. Lucie Indian River 4200 7300 5000 5158 5550 5542
Lincoln 4200 6600 5500 5300 5500 5413
Volusia Daytona Beach 4400 9000 5000 5178 5117 5711
Volusia County 3950 7284 5050 4963 5100 5109

ENTIRE STATE 3600 13,110 5830 5803 6000 6218








3. Arrangements for professional leave should be clarified and
simplified. Faculty members should receive every possible
encouragement to improve their professional competence.
Particular attention should be given to the continuing contract
law as professional leave may relate to it.
4. The requirement that teachers present scores on examina-
tions before employment or before continuing contract may
be awarded should not be applied to the junior college faculty.
The competition for personnel between universities and junior
colleges is much greater than between high schools and junior
colleges, and the exam score requirement places the junior
college in an unfavorable competitive position with the uni-
versities.
5. Since one of the greatest increases in curriculum development
will likely occur in the technical subjects, every effort should
be made to make employment of individuals qualified to teach
these subject areas most attractive. This would require that
industrial work experience for these individuals should be
given equitable credit for salary increments just as teaching
experience is given for academic teachers.
6. Every possible inducement for continued professional im-
provement should be considered, and those which are best
suited to each college should be put into effect. Such induce-
ments as sabbatical leaves, scholarships, and attendance at
professional meetings are particularly important.
7. Of particular importance in developing good junior college
faculties is the individual's understanding of the contribution
of the junior college as a part of the total facilities for higher
education. Continued attention needs to be given to the in-
service development of these faculty members so that they
have this understanding.








Summary of The Task Force Reports

Year Around Operation


D URING THE past decade, the State of Florida has proceeded
rapidly and systematically to make provisions for its post
high school educational opportunities for its people. Concurrently
with this expansion, there developed an awareness that the state's
ability to provide for all of the students who ought to attend col-
lege in Florida is contingent in part upon the attainment of full
utilization of existing and new institutional facilities. Four times
during the past decade projections of college enrollment have
been made, and each time the total number of students projected
was increased substantially. Both the junior colleges and state
university system have taken steps to increase the utilization of
instructional space under the present calendar, but both groups
have also been concerned that the present calendar did not permit
maximum utilization of the space available.
Some very preliminary estimates of first-time-in-college en-
rollments indicate that the first-time-in-college enrollments in
public junior colleges in Florida may increase from 9,996 in the
Fall of 1961 to 20,532 in the Fall of 1965, to 29,257 in the Fall
of 1970, to 52,651 in the Fall of 1975. Even if these estimates
are in error by as much as 50 per cent, the rate of growth is
still such that it is imperative that every means be sought to
extend the utilization of educational facilities so that post high
school educational opportunities will be available for all these
students. Although immediate reason for considering year
around operation at this time is to increase the utilization of
existing facilities, this fact is only a part of the problem. The
existing two semester calendar-although a hold-over from an
agrarian economy with little if any social, psychological or edu-
cational evidence to support it as the best calendar for higher
education today-is a very simple and efficient type of calendar.
Any calendar change not thoroughly studied may, in the long
run, be more expensive and less sound educationally than would
be the provision of additional classrooms to accommodate the
additional students. A calendar change could decrease the qual-
ity of educational programs and result in inefficiency and confu-
sion. On the other hand, a soundly conceived year around calen-








dar should result in the economical provision of opportunities for
higher education as well as improved quality of educational
programs.
At the outset of this study, it was assumed that junior col-
leges might begin a trimester system as had the university sys-
tem. As facts began to come in, however, it became evident that
junior colleges had unique problems not faced by the universities
and that it would be necessary to study various types of year
around calendars other than the trimester.
Any plan of year around operation should meet the following
criteria: 1) The plan must lend itself to the consideration of the
effect on students as well as the program of the institution, bear-
ing in mind the wide range of student abilities, interests, and
aptitudes in the junior colleges having open door admission pol-
icies; 2) The plan must be economically feasible and reasonably
adaptable for both large and small junior colleges; 3) If possible,
the plan should not include major breaks for holidays during
an instructional term; 4) The plan must provide time for facul-
ties to do additional study toward professional improvement; 5)
The plan must be compatible with the semester plan under which
we now operate; 6) The plan must include reasonable work loads
for students and faculties; 7) The plan must focus emphasis
upon maximum utilization of existing facilities and upon balanc-
ing student enrollment during the separate terms; and 8) The
plan must make economic use of time, facilities, funds, and
energies for instruction, and must reduce to a minimum expendi-
tures for "academic housekeeping."
In developing a plan which would meet these criteria, it was
necessary to consider the answers to the following questions:
1. Which calendar promises the best framework for effective
quality education at the junior college level?
2. Which calendar gives the best possibility of a truly year
around operation?
3. Which calendar is the most feasible administratively for the
junior colleges in Florida?
4. Which calendar can be accomplished with the least confusion?
5. Which calendar will provide the greatest opportunity to ful-
fill our responsibility, not only to university transfer pro-








grams, but also for terminal programs and community service
programs?
6. Which calendar will provide the most effective articulation
with the universities and senior colleges as well as the high
schools in the areas in which we serve?
7. What legal changes will be necessary to implement any pro-
posed change in the calendar?
8. Which calendar will provide for the most nearly equal en-
rollments throughout the year?
9. To what extent can we shorten the hours devoted to class-
room instruction without reducing the quality of the instruc-
tional program?
The quarter system was not considered because no other
institutions in the state were on the quarter system and because
the quarter system was not compatible with our present semester
organization of classes but would require a complete reorganiza-
tion of the course content, scope and sequences. A complete
trimester system of operation similar to that adopted by the
state university system was studied at some length as was a
second calendar which would involve two semesters and a shorter
term. It was found that it would not be possible to equalize
enrollments throughout three trimesters in junior colleges which
have students only for a period of two years and to which al-
most all new students will be coming from the high schools at
the same time. It found that even if half the incoming freshmen
were deferred one trimester, the distribution between the three
trimsters would be little improved over the present two-semester
operation. It was also found that in some of the smaller institu-
tions, a truly year around calendar would actually be more
expensive because of the limited enrollment and the small po-
tential increase in these institutions. In such cases year around
operation would increase cost by requiring duplication of classes
which already had small enrollments.

Recommendations
The following recommendations are made to implement year
around operation in Florida public junior colleges:
1. It is recommended that the Legislature be requested to make








such legal changes as will enable junior colleges to offer in-
struction throughout the year, and for purposes of Minimum
Foundation Program reimbursement to count attendance for
instruction at whatever time it occurs throughout the year.
2. While not precluding the possibility of individual colleges
going on either trimester or quarter system on an experi-
mental basis, it is recommended that the basic period of in-
struction be two semesters of 17 weeks each, with instruc-
tion beyond that period to be determined by the needs of the
individual college.
a) The basic contractual period for instructors in junior
colleges would be changed from 10 months to nine months.
This recommendation is prefaced by the assumption that
student semester hour productivity and salary will remain
the same even though the contractual period is decreased.
b) One student in average daily attendance would be defined
as attendance by one student for 15 hours of classes per
week for 34 weeks instead of 36 weeks as at present. In
other words, one ADA would be 510 student class hours
instead of 540 as at present.
c) Since the basic contractual period for instructors would
be nine months, it is recommended that the extra allocation
of salary funds for ASIS and SPS units for operation be-
yond the nine months period shall be increased by 33 per
cent instead of 20 per cent as at present.
It is believed that this is a sound and desirable plan of year
around operation for the following reasons:
1. It will make possible year around operation which will in
turn permit optimum use of physical and faculty resources.
2. It will enable junior colleges to articulate reasonably well
with the public schools in the areas served by the junior col-
lege and at the same time articulate with the universities.
3. It will enable some students to complete two years of college
and progress to the upper division of the state university at
times other than the fall trimester.
4. It will enable variations in the calendar to suit the varied
needs of large and small, urban and rural junior colleges, and








the needs of students of widely varied abilities which are
served by the junior colleges. It is expected that some junior
colleges will need to offer only the basic two semesters of
instruction; because of the small number of students involved,
to go beyond this would be very uneconomical and inefficient
in these colleges. Larger junior colleges, on the other hand,
would be in a position to offer six, eight, ten, or 12 weeks of
instruction beyond the basic two semesters. Junior colleges
offering 12 weeks of instruction beyond the two semesters
would be offering a total of 46 weeks of instruction during
the year which is approximately equal to the instruction being
offered by the universities under the trimester system.
5. It makes possible a calendar which has no major breaks in
the middle of a semester.
6. It enables colleges to keep at a minimum the amount of time
earmarked for academic housekeeping duties.
7. It basically extends the same unit cost to instruction through-
out the year as is now provided for a regular school term.
Student semester hour productivity would be the same for
nine months as currently for ten.









Summary of The Task Force Reports

Legal Structure

THE FIRST LAW affecting junior colleges in Florida was
passed by the Legislature in 1939. This law empowered
county boards of public instruction in any county with a popula-
tion of not less than 50,000 inhabitants to establish a junior col-
lege. The law provided, however, that the State Board of Edu-
cation must approve the establishment of the institution before
it could operate. When this bill became law on May 26, 1939,
Palm Beach Junior College, which previously had been estab-
lished by the Palm Beach County Board of Public Instruction
in 1933, became the first public junior college established under
this law.
Since that time, several amendments to the junior college
legal structure have been made. For example, the omnibus
school law, passed -in 1947, included junior colleges as a part of
the total program of public education in the counties where they
might be located, and provided that the junior colleges would
have equal state support with other levels of the public school
system. The 1947 law also provided that a group of counties
could join together to establish a junior college when the total
population of the entire group of counties was equal to 50,000
individuals.
Other laws were passed in 1953 and 1955 which affected in
some small ways the internal organization and operation of junior
colleges in the state. The second major change, however, oc-
curred in 1957 after the Community College Council made its
report to the State Board of Education and to the 1957 Legisla-
ture.
During the years between 1939 and 1947, there were no addi-
tional publicly supported junior colleges established in Florida.
Between 1947 and 1957, there were three new junior college
areas approved by the State Board of Education and four new
junior colleges established, bringing the total to five institutions.
Since 1957, there have been 13 additional junior college areas
established, and 24 new institutions authorized by the State
Board of Education.









Junior Colleges as Different Types of Institutions


While the basic legal structure for the operation and control
of these institutions at the local level has not changed appreciably
since 1947, there have been a number of clarifications and re-
finements in the law which differentiate the community junior
colleges in Florida from other levels of the public education
system. Some of these differentials were a part of the original
law; others were subsequent clarifications. They include:

1) No junior college may be established without specific and
direct approval from the State Board of Education.

2) The employment and/or dismissal of the president of a
junior college must be approved by the State Board of
Education.

3) Each junior college has an advisory committee which is
appointed by the State Board of Education upon recom-
mendation from the local boards of public instruction.
These committees have specific legal functions.

4) Each junior college maintains a separate budget which is
exempt from all other public school budget approval pro-
cedures.

5) The junior colleges may not receive free textbooks.

6) The State Board of Education is authorized to provide for
specific regulation and supervision of the junior college,
apart from grades 1-12.

7) A State Junior College Advisory Board makes recommen-
dations to the State Board of Education relative to junior
college matters in a manner similar to the local junior col-
lege advisory committees and the local school board.

An essential part of the legal structure of the junior colleges
in Florida has been the provision of a Minimum Foundation
Program of state support for junior colleges. This minimum
foundation support is based upon factors similar to those in the
Foundation Program for the operation of grades 1-12. The junior
college minimum foundation program, however, provides for the
differences in costs of operation of community junior colleges








compared with the elementary and high schools. The program
continues, however, the essential combination of state and local
support.

The community junior colleges in Florida are organized as
a part of local public school systems. They are defined by law
in Section 228.041 as a part of the public school system. This
same section, however, recognizes that junior colleges offer work
at the same level as universities. Section 228.14, Florida Statutes,
also defines junior colleges as part of the county school systems
and requires that they offer work parallel to that of the first
and second year's work at the senior four-year state institutions
of higher learning. Junior colleges, then, are, by law, defined
as higher education at the local level.

In Florida each county constitutes a tax district for school
purposes. The law provides that the junior college shall be part
of the school system of the county in which it is located. There-
fore, the board which has the immediate local responsibility for
junior college operation is the county school board. The law
also provides, however, that each school board shall have an
advisory committee to aid it in the development of the junior
college program. This advisory committee is a legal body at the
local level and has specific responsibilities which are outlined
in the law.

State Board of Education. The law also provides that the junior
colleges shall be a responsibility of the State Board of Education.
The Board is given some very specific responsibilities for the
junior college program over and above those which it holds for
grades 1-12 and for the universities. Some of these responsibilities
are as follows:

1) To approve establishment or acquisition of a public junior
college in a county. Regulations of the State Board of Edu-
cation require that a survey be completed before the State
Board will act on a request to establish a junior college.

2) To establish standards and criteria to determine the level
of work which may be taught in a junior college.

3) To develop regulations which assure the sound operation
of junior colleges.








4) To approve the appointment of each junior college presi-
dent.
5) To appoint junior college advisory committees from nomi-
nations by the county boards of public instruction.
6) To prescribe minimum standards for junior colleges.
7) To authorize any matriculation or tuition fees which may
be charged to students.
8) To adopt regulations relating to the preparation and ap-
proval of junior college budgets.
9) To approve a site in two-county junior college areas.
10) To adopt regulations relating to the issuance of certificates
for junior college teachers.
11) To adopt regulations relating to the employment and other
matters relating to personnel.
12) To adopt regulations relating to the planning and construc-
tion of junior college buildings.
13) To approve project lists of junior college facilities as may
be developed from a survey of the junior college buildings.
14) To provide coordination and establish the framework within
which the junior colleges may operate. The State Board
of Education has adopted as its blueprint of this operation
the 1957 report of the Community College Council.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. The State Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction is designated by the Constitution
of Florida as the Secretary of the State Board of Education. He
is the executive officer of the State Board of Education, and as
such he has both general and specific responsibilities for junior
colleges. The law provides that the State Superintendent shall:
1) Approve budgets for junior colleges;
2) Approve master campus plans and building plans;
3) Apportion state funds for junior colleges in accordance
with the law;
4) Administer the State Board of Education Regulations rel-
ative to community junior colleges;









5) Recommend surveys for new junior college areas; and
6) Act as the executive officer for the State Board relative to
junior college regulations.
The State Superintendent maintains a staff of professional
persons who aid him in his responsibilities. He has assigned
major portions of his responsibilities relative to junior colleges
to the Division of Community Junior Colleges in the State De-
partment of Education. There are, however, other divisions of
the State Department of Education which also have responsi-
bilities relative to the junior college program.
State Junior College Advisory Board. The State Junior College
Advisory Board is assigned by law to make recommendations
to the State Board of Education on matters relating to person-
nel, curriculum, finance, articulation, and coordination with other
institutions, and policies in general which it deems to be in the
best interest of the junior college program. In addition to these
general responsibilities, the Board shall review all capital outlay
requests for junior colleges. In the performance of these respon-
sibilities, the Board shall be authorized to make studies and to
employ such consultants or professional assistance as may be
necessary and advisable as funds may be available therefore.
These responsibilities are very similar but not identical to
those which had previously been assigned to the State Advisory
Council on Education which acted as the Community College
Council in the 1955-57 Biennium. The state superintendent and
the State Board of Education may assign responsibilities to the
State Junior College Advisory Board. These responsibilities have
to deal specifically with the expansion and development of the
junior college program. The State Junior College Advisory
Board, while it does not have a direct relationship with the indi-
vidual colleges in terms of being a governing board for these
colleges, has responsibilities of a general nature which will affect
all junior colleges. The State Junior College Advisory Board
normally seeks the advice and counsel of the individual junior
college presidents and their faculties in the development of its
recommendations.
The following specific responsibilities are placed upon the
State Junior College Advisory Board in its relationship to the
entire junior college program:









1) Approval for changing a junior college area from a lower
to a higher priority status.

2) Pass to the State Board of Education for implementation
in terms of regulations, or to the Legislature for implemen-
tation in terms of legal changes, such recommendations as
it feels may be needed to improve the junior college pro-
gram.
3) Specific and direct recommendations to the State Board of
Education for changes in the regulations where this is nec-
essary.

4) Approval of all proposals for capital outlay.
As problems arise which affect individual junior colleges,
these are considered by the Advisory Board in terms of the
total junior college program, and if changes in law or in regula-
tions seem desirable to alleviate the problem, then such a law
or regulation affects the junior colleges as a whole rather than a
specific institution.
Legal Task Force Study. The Legal Task Force, composed of
junior college presidents and faculty members, has attempted
to examine the legal structure of the control and financing of
public junior colleges as outlined in the Florida law, and to de-
termine what improvements are needed, either in the law, in
the regulations, or in the interpretation of these. The methods
used by the Task Force in this study are as follows:
1) A careful analysis of the literature relating to legal struc-
ture was made, including an analysis of the legal status of
junior colleges in other states as compared with the legal
status of junior colleges in Florida.
2) An attempt was made to gather from the junior college
presidents and their staffs specific ideas concerning the
problems and difficulties which they may encounter under
the present legal structure. The collection of this informa-
tion not only involved questionnaires, but also involved
interviews with various persons in all parts of the state.
3) The same procedure was used to gather information from
other persons such as county superintendents, school board
members, advisory committee members, who are involved








in the administration of junior colleges at the local and state
levels.
4) Interviews were held with members of the Legislature and
others who were concerned with the development of junior
colleges.
In making this study, the Task Force considered several
specific alternate proposals for organization ranging from local
to state controls. To aid in measuring validity of proposals, the
Task Force derived the following criteria as essential bases for
community junior college operation:
1. LOCAL CONTROL IS DESIRABLE AND NECESSARY
FOR THE SURVIVAL OF A JUNIOR COLLEGE.
2. CLEAR LINES AND PATTERNS OF RESPONSIBILITY
AND AUTHORITY ARE ESSENTIAL AND SHOULD BE
CENTERED IN A SINGLE ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD.
3. CONTROL BOARDS SHOULD a) HAVE REASONABLE
STABILITY IN MEMBERSHIP; b) HAVE SUFFICIENT
TIME TO CONSIDER JUNIOR COLLEGE MATTERS; AND
c) CONSIDER ISSUES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE PUR-
POSES OF THE COLLEGE.
4. PROVISION FOR ADEQUATE AND STABLE FINANCIAL
SUPPORT MUST BE MADE.
5. STRUCTURE FOR EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL AD-
MINISTRATION MUST BE ESTABLISHED.
6. DIVERSITY OF POST HIGH SCHOOL OPPORTUNITIES
MUST BE PROVIDED.
7. ARTICULATION WITH OTHER EDUCATIONAL AGEN-
CIES AND INSTITUTIONS ABOVE AND BELOW THE
JUNIOR COLLEGE MUST BE ENCOURAGED.
8. PROVISION FOR STATEWIDE COORDINATION MUST
BE A PART OF THE PLAN.
As alternate plans were analyzed, several important consid-
erations became apparent. In examining the total responsibilities
which are involved for the junior college program as it assumes
its role as a part of the public education system, as well as the
higher education program of Florida, it appeared that there








would be many disadvantages attendant upon a basic change in
the present legal structure of the junior colleges in Florida. The
problem of identifying a local source of revenue was certainly
not the least of these. The coordination of the junior college
with other types of post high school education, including voca-
tional and adult programs in order to avoid duplication, is also
an essential part of the considerations relative to operating under
a single county board of education. The position of those institu-
tions located on sites adjacent to or a part of the high school
site becomes clouded if more than one board is legally respon-
sible.

The Task Force then recommended that the criteria which
it has established be considered carefully in designing any
changes in the operation of the legal structure of the junior col-
leges of Florida. After thoroughly studying the various alterna-
tives, the Task Force made the following recommendations, each
of which is in accordance with previously stated criteria, as the
most desirable way to promote the orderly and efficient develop-
ment of the comprehensive community college in Florida:

1. Maintain local control and orientation over the junior col-
leges;

2. Promote the continued development of the comprehensive
community junior colleges;

3. Delineate and clarify the responsibilities and duties of the
local junior college advisory committees and the State Junior
College Advisory Board.

The Task Force felt that these purposes could be accom-
plished by:

1. Retaining the junior colleges as a part of the county systems
under the supervision of the county boards of public instruc-
tion;

2. Clarifying the specific responsibilities of the local junior col-
lege advisory committees;

3. Delineating the statewide responsibilities now held by the
State Board of Education and delegating certain of them to
the State Junior College Advisory Board.








Recommendations
1. That the criteria developed by the Task Force relative to the
control and operation of junior colleges be implemented
through regulation and law;
2. That the essential basic organization of local control over the
junior colleges with a coordinating state board be continued,
delineating, however, more carefully the responsibilities of
the various boards relative to the operation of the institu-
tions;
3. That the law be changed to permit all funds supporting junior
college purposes to be in one budget, including vocational,
adult, college transfer, and technical programs;
4. That some additional sources of local revenue for junior col-
leges be identified as quickly as possible;
5. That operating procedures, regulations, or legal structure be
changed in order to permit the implementation of the criteria
as developed;
6. That junior college presidents and faculties be encouraged
to operate collegiate units within the total scheme of public
education;
7. That a procedural framework be established which will in-
crease the status and prestige of the community junior col-
leges within the total framework of public education.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs