• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Dedication
 Table of Contents
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Statement of the plan
 Results
 Summary, conclusions, implications,...
 References
 Appendices
 Biographical sketch














Title: Application of the theory of incrementalism to statutory changes in the open door philosophy of Florida's community colleges
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097430/00001
 Material Information
Title: Application of the theory of incrementalism to statutory changes in the open door philosophy of Florida's community colleges 1957 to 1981
Physical Description: viii, 171 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Henderson, Leon Nesbit, 1945-
Publication Date: 1982
Copyright Date: 1982
 Subjects
Subject: Community colleges -- Administration -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Community colleges -- Law and legislation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational equalization -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Educational Administration and Supervision thesis Ph. D   ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Educational Administration and Supervision -- UF   ( lcsh )
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 139-147.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
Statement of Responsibility: by Leon Nesbit Henderson, Jr.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097430
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000430051
oclc - 11125561
notis - ACH9338

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

applicationofthe00hendrich ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page ii
    Dedication
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Table of Contents
        Page v
        Page vi
    Abstract
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Review of literature
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
    Statement of the plan
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Results
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
    Summary, conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
    References
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
    Appendices
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
    Biographical sketch
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
Full Text









APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF IICREMENTALISMr
TO STATUTORY CHANGES IIJ THE OPEN DOOR PHILOSOPHY
OF FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES, 1957 TO 1981









BY

LEONI [ESBIT HENDERSON, JR.


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1932



























Copyright 1982

by
Leon Nesbit Henderson, Jr.



























To my father, Leon N. Henderson











ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I am indebted to the many persons who have assisted me during

the course of this study. I wish especially to thank Dr. James L.

Wattenbarger, committee chairman, for his inspiration, patient guid-

ance, positive and steady encouragement, and kindness. I am also

indebted to Drs. John M. Nickens and Ronald E. Nutter, committee mem-

bers, for their extremely valuable suggestions and constant support.

Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Robert B. Mautz, Richard H.

Schneider, and Manning J. Dauer, for their suggestions regarding the

study, and Drs. Robert B. Myers and Robert 0. Stripling, for their

encouragement.

The key informants of this study generously gave of their time

to talk with me. I am grateful for their candidness and hospitality.

Warm appreciation is extended to Dot Sappington for her assis-

tance, and to Bill Price for his sense of humor and the use of "his"

typewriter.

Finally, I wish to thank my wife, Linda, for her willingness to

embark upon this lengthy research endeavor with me, and for her love,

patience, and understanding through it all.












TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .. . . . 1

Background and Rationale . . . . . . . .. 1
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . 11
Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .... 17

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . 22

Equality of Opportunity and the Community-Junior College 22
Policy Making at the State Level . . . . . .. 32
Policy Making and Incrementalism . . . . .... .38
Summary . . . . . . . .... . . . 51

III STATEMENT OF THE PLAN . . . . . . . . . 54

The Initial Report and the Development of Florida's Long-
Range Plan . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Report of Five Years of Progress . . . . . .. 60
Summary . . . . . . . .. . . 62

IV RESULTS . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 65

Results of the Examination, Characterizing, and Rating of
the Laws of Florida from 1957 to 1981 . . . . 65
Results of Interviews with Key Informants Familiar with
Florida's System of Community Colleges and State-Level
Policy Making . . . . . . . .. .. . . 85
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .... 120

V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FURTHER STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Summary . . . . . . ... .. . . . . 128
Conclusions . . . . . . .... .. . . 132










Implications . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations for Further Study . . . . . .

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX

A FORM USED FOR CHARACTERIZING AND RATING SESSION LAWS . .

B CRITERIA USED FOR CHARACTERIZING AND RATING SESSION LAWS

C INTERVIEW GUIDE AND RATINGS USED WITH KEY INFORMANTS .

D SESSION LAWS PERTAINING TO PROVIDING EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY
TO ALL PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . .

E SESSION LAWS PERTAINING TO PROVIDING FINANCIAL ACCESSIBILITY

F SESSION LAWS PERTAINING TO PROVIDING GEOGRAPHIC ACCESSIBIL-
ITY . . . . . . . . . . . . .

G SESSION LAWS PERTAINING TO PROVIDING A DIVERSITY OF PROGRAMS

H SESSION LAW PERTAINING TO PROVIDING EFFECTIVE COUNSELING
SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . .

I LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS AND THEIR POSITIONS OR FORMER POSI-
TIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . .


Page

133
137

139



148

149

150


158

160


163

166


168


169

171












Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


APPLICATION OF THE THEORY OF INCREHENTALISM
TO STATUTORY CHANGES IN THE OPEN DOOR PHILOSOPHY
OF FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES, 1957 TO 1981

By

Leon Nesbit Henderson, Jr.

August, 1982
Chairman: Dr. James L. Wattenbarger
Major Department: Educational Administration and Supervision

The community college has traditionally attempted to make educa-

tion accessible to all persons by breaking the economic, geographic, and

motivational barriers to opportunity. This attempt has become known as

the open door philosophy. Recent criticisms and budget cutbacks, however,

signify forthcoming policy changes which are contrary to the traditional

philosophy.

There are several theories which account for changes in public

policies. This study attempted to determine whether incrementalism

accounted for change in policies involving the open door philosophy. The

study was limited to policy making involving the laws of Florida and the

open door philosophy from 1957 to 1981. The study involved five phases:

(a) a review of literature to identify the conditions and characteristics

of the theory of incrementalism, (b) a review of Florida's 1957 master

Plan to identify Florida's open door philosophy, (c) an examination and

rating of Florida session laws, (d) the designing of an interview guide,








(d) and the interviewing of key informants familiar with policy making in

Florida.

Results of the study indicated that the theory of incrementalism

did not account for change in policies from 1957 to 1970 but did account

for change in policies from 1971 to 1981. Other findings are (a) the

master plan was a rational policy of major impact, designed in response

to the needs of the state; (b) the laws from 1957 to 1981 tended to have

a minor impact upon the open door philosophy; (c) policy making from

1957 to 1970 was the result of rational planning, a cooperative legisla-

ture, and unforeseeable circumstances; (d) emphasis of the laws from 1957

to 1981 was upon providing financial access through scholarships and

loans, providing geographic access, and providing a diversity of pro-

grams, but the laws did not emphasize providing opportunity to all per-

sons or providing counseling services; and (e) there was no dissatisfac-

tion directly expressed by policy makers to indicate a change in the

philosophy as emphasized by the master plan, but there were indications

that the degree of funding and the implementation of standards will

alter the five aspects of the philosophy as they existed from 1957 to

1981.


viii











CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Background and Rationale

From its inception in America in the late nineteenth century, the

community-junior college movement has been viewed as one which sought

to bring about changes in both American society and American higher

education. The community-junior college has attempted to provide educa-

tional opportunity for citizens of all social and economic classes, to

be innovative and adaptable to the needs of students, and to reform

higher education (Gleazer, 1980; Hillway, 1958; Koos, 1924; Monroe,

1972). Many of the attempts of the community-junior college to achieve

major changes result from responses to existing educational and societal

conditions. During the early part of the twentieth century, college

education was not geographically, financially, or scholastically acces-

sible to a very large percentage of the population.

The community-junior college has traditionally attempted to make

higher education accessible to all persons. This was shown in an early

study by Koos (1921). At the time of this study, accessibility was

referred to as the popularization function (of higher education) and

consisted of two main aspects. Accessibility or popularization re-

ferred to making college available to all by providing (a) education

at a low cost, and (b) education within close proximity to the student's

home. Popularization was the same concept that Koos (1924) referred

to as the economic democratization of higher education.








As the junior college in America grew and developed, many early

junior college administrators believed that for the junior college to be

consistent (in light of the popularization function of the community-

junior college), the college should also serve students of wider ranges

of intellectual ability (Koos, 1924). The additional function of serv-

ing a wide range of intellectual abilities was referred to by Koos

(1924) as the mental democratization of higher education. Koos (1924)

showed that universities were not serving students on the lower end of

the mental score distribution. It was the hope of Koos, a strong

leader in the community-junior college movement, that community-junior

colleges would serve the needs of these students. Koos contended that

hope of social mobility and educational achievement for these students

was founded upon the idea of the community-junior college.

A major role of the community-junior college has been to provide

educational opportunity (Gleazer, 1968, 1980). In order to fulfill this

role, many community-junior colleges have attempted to provide equal

educational opportunity or equal access to education by implementing an

open door admissions procedure. This concept of the open door usually

has been understood to mean that any high school graduate or any person

who is an adult citizen is welcome to attend the community-junior col-

lege (Monroe, 1972). Admission has not therefore been based upon attri-

butes such as intelligence and grades, or religion, race, and economic

background. Open admissions have not, however, guaranteed a person

entry into any or all of the programs offered by the college (Gleazer,

1968; Huther, 1971; Monroe, 1972). Huther suggested that the open door
"only allows access to a kind of lobby where there are many doors








through which an individual may or may not pass" (p. 26). The open

door has represented a special view of ability when contrasted with

the traditional higher education merit approach to ability. The

special concept of open door has viewed ability as potential in con-

trast to meaning past academic performance. Smith (1927), al-

though he did not have the community-junior colleges in mind when he

formulated his idea of equality, proposed that equality include a

concept of ability which was to be based upon opportunity for demon-

stration of potential:

Now the irreducible minimum of equality that a philosophy can
demand and still call itself "democratic" is the sharing by
all men up to the level of their ability of the ends for which
they must work and fight. Nor must their ability be con-
sidered to be justly represented by what it is at any given
time by the status quo, but rather by what it may become
under favorable opportunities. That is, as a fundamental pre-
requisite of justice the chance at education must be passed
around. Fairness in passing it around will probably be best
guaranteed by demanding that the chance be made quantitatively
equal, for the simple reason that any prejudgment before
actual trial that persons cannot profit equally from the same
opportunity lends itself too obviously to prejudice and
unfairness. (pp. 308-309)

Community-junior colleges have also sought to expand the role of

providing equal educational opportunity by use of the open door to ex-

tend educational opportunity. This approach has been an active attempt

to provide equality of educational opportunity. Gleazer (1980) de-

scribed this expanded role of extending educational opportunity:

The theme is sounded in numerous ways: Community colleges
should reach out. Go to the people who are unserved. Give
priority to those who need the education they did not get at an
early age. Serve the students with roots in their community
and who have jobs there. Give those who need it a second
chance. Bring people into the mainstream. Serve the people
handicapped by costs and transportation. (p. 7)








Many community-junior colleges have supported the open admissions con-

cept with goals or missions statements designed to remove barriers to

access other than academic requirements. These community-junior col-

leges have supported an open door philosophy. The philosophy included

the removal of geographic, financial, and motivational barriers and

provided the support programs designed to retain students in college

and move them toward their educational goal. These community-junior

colleges have been referred to as the open door colleges (Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education, 1970).

Recently, there has been a great deal of criticism of the commu-

nity-junior colleges in regard to their approach to equality. Karabel

(1972a), while praising the strides community colleges have made toward

realization of the American ideal of upward mobility through education,

nonetheless has taken community-junior colleges to task for their treat-

ment of persons once they are admitted by way of the open door:

The community college, generally viewed as the leading edge of an
open and egalitarian system of higher education, is in reality a
prime contemporary expression of the dual historical patterns of
class-based tracking and educational inflation. (p. 526)

Other persons (Clark, 1960a, 1960b; Cohen, 1971; Folger, Astin & Bayer,

1970; Zwerling, 1976) have been critical of community-junior colleges

for their cooling-out functions, which by utilizing several methods,

offer students educational outcomes other than the student's original

choice. Karabel (1972a) identified the cooling-out function as a

severe problem because its use severely limits educational outcome.

Anderson (1981) suggested that attendance at a community-junior college

reduces persistence to graduate with a four-year degree as compared to

attendance at a four-year institution, and thus reduces equality of








opportunity. Morris (1979) compared community-junior colleges with

four-year institutions when he stated that the two-year institutions

represented a problem of educational opportunity because of "disadvan-

tages of higher black enrollment in this sector as opposed to enroll-

ment in four-year colleges and universities" (p. 15). Vincent (1981)

stated that many critics of the open admissions policies of community-

junior colleges put community colleges on the defensive by confusing

access and opportunity concepts with other problems or concerns, and

expecting community-junior colleges to reconcile these criticisms.

Vincent stated that one of the 22 issues identified by a Connecticut

Blue Ribbon Commission on Higher Education and the Economy was, "How

does a basically open admissions policy in the community and state col-

leges affect the quality of education in those institutions and the

state's elementary and secondary schools?" (p. 12).

Currently a number of concerns have been raised in regard to the

attempts community-junior colleges have made to educate massive numbers

of students from diverse backgrounds (Cross, 1981; Rippey & Roueche,

1977). Rippey and Roueche stated that students from diverse backgrounds

have special needs of counseling, remedial courses, self-concept devel-

opment, health care, and other services to a greater extent than the

traditional student. Attempts to serve nontraditional students, while

successful in many cases, have left the community-junior college open

to criticism from persons dissatisfied with the results of the at-

tempts (Gleazer, 1970). Karabel (1972a) stated that the open door in

many cases even turns out to be a revolving door when many students find

they cannot succeed at the community-junior college. Glaezer (1970), in








summarizing the issues of the 1970s, stated that the most critical

issue confronting community-junior colleges is to make good the promise

of the open door.

The extent to which the open door philosophy is currently a valid

major mission of community-junior colleges is open to question. In an

attempt to show the extent to which the open door is a major mission,

several researchers have recently ranked open door concepts with other

current issues of community-junior colleges in priority studies.

Priority studies and rankings indicate possible trends in philo-

sophical thinking. Two recent studies (Cross, 1981; Lounsbury, Young,

& Peters, 1979) and an earlier study (Gillo, Landerholm, & Goldsmith,

1974) ranked various goals and ideals of community-junior colleges.

Cross found that neither faculty nor administrators nor trustees be-

lieved that providing equal access should be included as one of the top

10 goals of the community-junior college, although providing equal access

was ranked by these same groups as one of the top 5 goals of current

importance. Cross rationalized that "present practices with respect

to accessibility are acceptable and other issues have been assigned

higher priority" (p. 116). Lounsbury et al. (1979) found the need to

respond to a diverse student body ranked low in relation to other

critical issues. The goal or value of the open door was not included

in the rankings. The need to respond to a diverse student body also

received significantly lower mean group scores from legislators than

from college personnel. In the earlier study by Gillo et al. (1974),

faculty respondents ranked the "perceived importance" of open ad-

missions number one but ranked its "preferred importance" (p. 495) as

number eight.








Recently, there have been numerous predictions of declining en-

rollment in higher education (Centra, 1980; Glenny, 1980; Scully, 1980).

Scully viewed declining enrollments somewhat positively as being offset

by increased participation by older students, women, and minority group

members. Others, however, viewed declining enrollments differently.

Thomas, Alexander, and Eckland (1979) stated that if postsecondary educa-

tion is indeed entering a period of declining enrollment, then it is

extremely important to evaluate conditions of access; "traditionally

blacks, women, and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have

been more successful in gaining access during periods of economic

growth and prosperity" (p. 134). Hyde (1981) stated that "evidence

of commitment to access [or any other public policy goal] is seldom

direct or explicit but can be gained by viewing the priorities and

activities of policymakers" (p. 5).

Community-junior colleges function within an environment which is

constantly changing. Greer (1981) stated,

Perhaps the most fundamental observation that can be made is that
higher education's future is inexorably linked to changing exter-
nal social and economic demands. Dramatic changes in higher
education policy are more likely to be triggered by environmental
demands than solely by internal system requirements. (p. 37)

These changes create a danger to the community-junior college as an

organization in that these changes could work in opposition to the goals

of the institution and possibly weaken the stability of the organiza-

tion. Weakened stability could lead to a reduction in the offering of

educational opportunity to citizens who have traditionally been granted

access to the organization.








One of the demands from the environment at the present time is

concerned with reduced governmental spending. Public education is fac-

ing a period of possible reduced funding. Rippey and Roueche (1977)

predicted that, as a result of reduced funding, community-junior col-

leges will no longer seek to recruit the nontraditional student,

returning higher education in the United States to a traditional role

of "select and sort" (p. 58). California community colleges are

presently being attacked and threatened for allowing too much growth

and not paying enough attention to quality and standards (McCurdy, 1981).

Florida utilizes the open door to extend educational opportunity

to its citizens. The open door philosophy was adopted as part of the

master plan for a system of community colleges (Community College

Council, 1957). The open door has played an important part in provid-

ing educational opportunity since the establishment of the system of

community colleges.

In Florida, the open door policy is currently receiving publicity

(Braziel & Crane, 1981; McCabe, 1981) for recent local modifications to

the concept. An Associated Press story in a Florida newspaper (Braziel

& Crane, 1981) reported that "the nation's largest junior college is

sweeping thousands of incompetent students back out through its 'open

door' to prevent any further decline in educational standards" (pp. 1A,

12A). The president of Miami-Dade Community College (McCabe, 1981)

stated in an article entitled "Now Is the Time To Reform the American

Community College" that

community colleges currently face a dilemma which mirrors our
society. It is becoming clear that there exists a paradox be-
tween the goal of equal opportunity for all, and the growing
feeling on the part of many Americans that taxpayers can no









longer afford to support all of the programs designed to attain
this goal. Many feel that the social programs attempted in recent
decades have been ineffective, that they have placed too great a
burden on middle-income Americans. Further, there is a widely
held belief that many individuals are taking advantage of social
programs by accepting funds without putting forth the effort to
improve themselves that should be expected. Further evidence of
dissatisfaction is reflected at the community college level in the
current demand by the public for higher standards and serious
questioning of the open door policies. (pp. 7-8)

The future of the open door in Florida is questioned as a result

of recent criticisms and concerns. Whether or not there will be change

in the open door philosophy, the direction of the change, and the exact

nature of the change, are all questions which will impact the offering

of educational opportunity to the citizens of Florida.

One theory which has been useful in explaining the nature of

changes in policies in a pluralistic and democratic society has been

the theory of incrementalism, which states that policy changes are

characterized by small, marginal, or incremental changes in the policy

as opposed to large, sweeping changes. The changes may be either

minimal or intense in frequency and thus may account for dramatic al-

teration in the status quo in a very short time (Lindblom, 1979).


The Problem

Statement of the Problem

The problem investigated in this study was to determine whether

or not the theory of incrementalism accounted for change in policies in-

volving the open door philosophy of the community-junior college.


Delimitations and Limitations

1. The study was concerned with the open door philosophy of

Florida's community colleges as stated in the 1957 master








plan and further defined in the study, and was based upon

legislative policy making involving the laws of Florida from

1957 to 1981 which involved the open door philosophy and

Florida's system of community colleges. Laws affecting

appropriations were not examined.

2. The study was concerned with applying the theory of incremen-

talism as identified in the review of literature and defined

for the purposes of the study.

3. The study was based upon interview data obtained from key

informants knowledgeable about the open door policy of com-

munity colleges in the State of Florida.

4. The study was subject to the limitations of interviewing con-

cerning the nature of subject matter (type of information

desired), the characteristics of the interviewer, the con-

cepts involved in the study, and the method of interviewing

(Gorden, 1969).

5. The study is generalizable only to legislative policy making

concerned with the open door philosophy and Florida's system

of community colleges.


Justification for the Study

The study was extremely timely. There have been criticisms,

voiced concerns, and publicity regarding the open door concept, as well

as significant changes in the enrollment trends of the community col-

leges. These events, when coupled with sharp budget attacks aimed at

reducing the course offerings of one of the country's largest systems

of community colleges, could very easily signify a change in the open








door concept and a modification of the traditional goals of community

colleges.

Florida's Postsecondary Education Planning Commission has been

given the responsibility of preparing a new master plan for post-

secondary education. The examination by this study of the implementa-

tion of Florida's earlier master plan for community colleges and the

providing of educational opportunity at this level to its citizens is

important in the effective formulation of new policies.

The study examined the implementation of policy in accordance

with established theory. In this sense, the study contributed to the

body of research aimed at understanding the formulation, development,

and implementation of public policy.


Definition of Terms

The following terms were defined for the purposes of the study:

1. Community-junior college. An institution designed to meet

the postsecondary education needs of a particular local com-

munity by offering a comprehensive curriculum consisting of

general, transfer, occupational, and continuing education

programs. These institutions are locally controlled and are

sensitive to the changing needs of the community.

2. Constitutive definition. A research definition consisting

of additional words or constructs as opposed to an operational

definition which specifies the activities or operations neces-

sary to measure the definition (Kerlinger, 1979).

3. Cooling-out. A term used to describe the phenomena of provid-

ing to students, by a variety of means, programs or outcomes

different from those originally selected.








4. Democratization. An educational value that emphasizes serv-

ing students from a wide variety of backgrounds (Koos, 1925).

5. Economic democratization. An educational value that empha-

sizes serving students from a wide range of economic back-

grounds (Koos, 1925).

6. Extending educational opportunity. An approach to providing

educational access to all persons by removing academic,

geographic, motivational, and financial barriers to educa-

tional institutions.

7. Florida's system of community colleges. A system of public

community-junior colleges established in Florida in accor-

dance with the master plan of 1957. There are presently 28

locally controlled community college districts serving the

local needs of the citizens of the state.

8. Incremental policy making. A type of policy making that

changes and affects existing policy only by small degrees and

that is the result of essential conditions and is identifi-

able according to characteristics concerning the nature of

change.

9. Key informant. A sophisticated informant who provides the

researcher with insights as well as detailed information

which is unavailable from other sources (Richardson,

Dohrenwend, & Klein, 1965).

10. Mental democratization. An educational value that empha-

sizes serving students who as a group possess a wide range of

mental abilities (Koos, 1925).








11. Open door philosophy. A philosophy valuing the concepts of

providing educational opportunity to all persons, providing

financial accessibility, providing geographic accessibility,

providing diversity of programs, and providing effective

counseling services (Community College Council, 1957).

12. Policy. A stated, purposeful course of action directed

toward the eventual accomplishment of goals or missions

(Anderson, 1975).

13. Policy maker. A person in a position to effect or formulate

policies, such as a community college board of trustees mem-

ber, an official of the State Division of Community Colleges,

a state legislator, a chief state school officer, or a

governor.

14. Postsecondary education. An educational level consisting of

educational programs for students who have completed high

school or are beyond the normal age for attendance.

15. Revolving door. A term to describe the phenomenon of students

exiting the community-junior college without having achieved

their educational goals and after having been admitted through

the open door (Karabel, 1972a).

16. Sociopolitical. A concept that emphasizes the interrelated-

ness of both social and political factors.

17. Theory of incrementalism. A theory which predicts that the

normal results of the policy-making process are marginal or

small changes in existing policy as opposed to large or com-

prehensive policy changes (Braybrooke & Lindblom, 1963;

Lindblom, 1950).








Procedures

Design of the Study

In the study the attempt was made to determine the nature of past

policy making concerning the open door philosophy of Florida's system

of community colleges by determining whether or not the theory of

incrementalism as defined herein accounted for change in legislation

involving the open door philosophy. The study involved six major

phases:

1. The review of literature which included the identification of

essential conditions, characteristics, and criteria which

together form a constitutive definition of the theory of

incrementalism.

2. The review of Florida's master plan of 1957 for the purpose

of forming a constitutive definition of the open door philoso-

phy.

3. The examination of Florida statutes and the characterizing

and rating of Florida laws from 1957 to 1981 relating to the

open door philosophy of Florida's system of community col-

leges in order to determine the emphasis of policies for

this period and the extent policies were major or minor in

scope.

4. The designing of an interview guide to be used when inter-

viewing in order to (a) determine the nature of policy making

from 1957 to 1981, utilizing characteristics of incremental

policy making as a framework for the guide, and (b) investi-

gate the results of the examination and rating of Florida

laws relating to the open door philosophy.








5. The interview of key informants familiar with Florida's sys-

tem of community colleges and state-level policy making.

6. The presentation of the data, analysis of data, results,

conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further

study.

The examination of Florida's master plan focused upon identifying

major aspects or themes which are representative of Florida's attempt to

provide greater educational opportunity. Examination of the plan re-

vealed that there were five themes which for the purposes of the study

constitutively defined the open door philosophy:

1. Providing educational opportunity to all persons

2. Providing financial accessibility

3. Providing geographic accessibility

4. Providing diversity of programs

5. Providing effective counseling services.

The characterizing and rating of Florida's session laws involved

selecting laws passed by the legislature and approved by the governor

from the period 1957 to 1981, with the exception of appropriation laws,

which were concerned with one or more of the five aspects or themes of

the open door philosophy. These laws were categorized and rated by the

researcher using a method of comparison with the status quo according

to three criteria identified from the review of literature for the pur-

pose of applying the theory of incrementalism (Lindblom, 1958). The

three incremental criteria used to rate the laws were

1. Whether or not the outcomes or changes sought by the law were

easily identified








2. The degree the outcomes changed longstanding norms or customs

3. The degree expected outcomes differed from the status quo or

previous laws with regard to having local or state impact,

number of persons affected, and number of dollars affected and

the burden of cost.

Each law was also categorized according to the five aspects or themes

of the open door philosophy previously identified.

An interview instrument was constructed which utilized both the

highly scheduled (structured) and the nonscheduled (unstructured) for-

mats (Gorden, 1969; Mouly, 1978). The purpose of the interview was two-

fold: (a) to validate the findings of the examination of laws relating

to the open door philosophy, and (b) to determine further the nature of

the policy-making process as it relates to the open door philosophy of

Florida's system of community colleges.

The review of literature identified two essential conditions for

incremental policy making and six characteristics of incrementalism that

formed a constitutive definition, and was used to provide the frame-

work for determining the nature of the policy-making process. The two

essential conditions (Dror, 1964) were

1. Satisfaction with present policies

2. Continuity in the nature of problems and in the available

means of dealing with the problems.

The six characteristics of incremental policy making examined in the

study were

1. The disagreement among policy makers and among citizens con-

cerning critical values and objectives









2. The absence of public discussion of current issues

3. The limited nature of policy choice

4. The realization on the part of policy makers of the complex-

ity of problems and of their limitations to understanding

all aspects of the problems

5. Past incremental policy making

6. Fragmented policy-making processes.

Persons selected as key informants, whenever possible, were expec-

ted to be familiar with policy making which involved the open door

philosophy of Florida's system of community colleges for the period 1957

to 1981. Opinions of key informants were considered expert opinion

(Simon, 1969) for the purposes of the study.


Review of Literature

The literature review included the following sections:

1. Equality of opportunity and the community-junior college

2. Policy making at the state level

3. Policy making and incrementalism.

Statement of the Plan

The statement of the Florida master plan involved citing evidence

of commitment to the goals of offering educational opportunity from the

following sources:

1. Initial Report of the Council for the Study of Higher Educa-

tion in Florida (Council for the Study of Higher Education

in Florida, 1955)

2. The master plan for community-junior colleges in the State

of Florida, entitled The Community College in Florida's

Future (Community College Council, 1957)








3. A report to the State Board of Education by the State Junior

College Advisory Board,entitled Five Years of Progress (State

Junior College Advisory Board, 1963)

A constitutive definition of the open door philosophy was formed from

the review of the master plan.


Selection of Interviewees

The key informants were selected with respect to the following

criteria:

1. Knowledge of the early development of Florida's system of com-

munity colleges and the establishment of Florida's master plan

2. A current policy-making position within Florida's system of

community colleges.

Selection of additional key informants was based upon the recommendation

of key informants previously selected who met the above criteria.

Appendix I presents a list of key informants interviewed in the study.


Development of the Instrument

Two instruments were constructed for use in the study. The first

instrument consisted of a method for rating session laws from 1957 to

1981 which pertained to the open door philosophy of Florida's system of

community colleges according to the three criteria identified from the

review of literature:

1. Whether or not the outcomes or changes sought by the law were

easily identified

2. The extent the outcomes changed longstanding norms or cus-

toms








3. The extent expected outcomes differed from the status quo or

previous laws with regard to having local or state impact,

number of persons affected, numbers of dollars affected, and

the burden of cost.

The form used for rating the session laws is found in Appendix A; the

criteria used to rate the session laws are found in Appendix B.

The second instrument was constructed to identify the events,

circumstances, and conditions pertaining to the essential conditions

and characteristics of incremental policy making during the period

1957 to 1981, as well as to examine and validate the findings of the

first part of the instrument. The questions were also designed to

elicit opinions of the key informants concerning the nature of past

and present open door policies according to the theory of incremental-

ism. Questions and ratings used to interview key informants are found

in Appendix C.

Emphasis of both instruments was upon the legislation of the

State of Florida from 1957 to 1981 that related to the open door philos-

ophy of Florida's community colleges and the constitutive definition

of incremental policy making formulated for the purposes of the study.

A list of the specific session laws pertaining to each aspect or theme

of the open door philosophy is found in Appendices D, E, F, G, and H.


Collection and Presentation of Data

The data were collected from the examination and rating of Florida

session laws and from interviews with key informants. The ratings and

interviews were made utilizing the instruments constructed in the study.

Data from the rating of session laws were presented in tabular and








narrative format according to the five aspects or themes of the open

door philosophy. The data from the interviews of key informants were

presented in both narrative and tabular formats according to the two

essential elements and the six essential characteristics of incremen-

tal policy making. The tabular results of the ratings by key infor-

mants presented the frequencies of the ratings and the means of the

ratings. The narrative format emphasized points relevant to the pur-

pose of the study.


Analysis of Data

The data from the examination and rating of Florida session laws

were analyzed to identify directly literal changes in the laws and to

identify the areas of the open door. The data were also analyzed to

determine whether the laws were major or minor in their scope accord-

ing to three criteria of incrementalism. Analysis of the laws was by

individual aspect of the open door and by individual aspect compared

with the total number of laws pertaining to all five aspects.

The data from the interviews with key informants were analyzed

to identify directly events, conditions, and circumstances that per-

tained to the essential conditions and characteristics of incremental

policy making identified by the review of literature and that related

to the purpose of the study.


Summary, Conclusions, Implications, and
Recommendations for Further Study

The emphasis of this section was upon stating the conclusions

and implications of the study. The conclusions were supported by the

identification of both dominant opinions and specific conditions and









events by key informants pertaining to the essential elements and charac-

teristics of incremental policy making. The implications of the study

focused upon incremental policy making in the State of Florida and

policy making as it relates to the traditional role of the community-

junior college. Recommendations for further study were developed from

the conclusions of the study.


Summary

This introductory chapter stated the background and rationale for

the study, the problem investigated in the study, the definitions of

terms used in the study, and the procedures for the study. The chapter

outlined the six major phases of the study: (a) the review of litera-

ture, (b) the review of the master plan, (c) the examination, charac-

terizing, and rating of session laws from 1957 to 1981, (d) the design-

ing of an interview guide, (e) the interviewing of key informants, and

(f) the presentation and analysis of data, along with the conclusions

and implications of the study.














CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


This chapter discusses (a) the development of the concept of

providing educational opportunity as it relates to the community-junior

college, (b) the recent changes in educational policy making at the

postsecondary level, (c) two recent studies involving the open door

philosophy and the community-junior college, and (d) the development

of the theory of incrementalism. A summary is included at the end of

the chapter.


Equality of Opportunity and the Community-Junior College

Community-junior colleges developed from both curriculum improve-

ment efforts of university and secondary school leaders and the unique-

ness of the American quest for equality. Both the curriculum improve-

ment efforts and the efforts to increase equality have over the years

combined into an underlying theme of community-junior colleges which

is evident at the present time.

The search for equality in America began during the American

Revolution (Pole, 1978; Smith, 1927; Tocqueville, 1948). The Decla-

ration of Independence and John Locke's belief in the rights of man to

life, liberty, and estate form the earliest statement of a conception

of equality in American history. Although limited in scope, these

rights of men established by the Constitution, combined with the unique-

ness of the American experience, have led to a concept of equality that

is still evolving.








The idea of equality of educational opportunity began in America

with the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson proposed the establish-

ment of a state system of public education to provide three years of

tuition-free elementary education. Free public elementary schools be-

gan first in New England prior to the nineteenth century. Establish-

ment of these schools in the rest of the states continued through to

the latter half of the nineteenth century. The first free public high

school was established in Boston in 1821.

The origination of the concept of equality of educational oppor-

tunity specific to higher education began in the first half of the nine-

teenth century. The origin of the concept is tied closely to the estab-

lishment of agricultural, vocational, and technical education at

Rensselaer Institute in 1824, Farmer's College in 1846, and People's

College in 1851 (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Ross, 1962). These private

institutions were the forerunners of the public land-grant colleges

established under the Morrill Act in 1862.

It was the land-grant colleges which really opened up educational

opportunity. The land-grant college was termed democracy's college

because it was public and did not cater to an elite student body or

teach the traditional subjects characteristic to American colleges up

to that time (Brubacher & Rudy, 1976; Charmichael,1959; Ross, 1942).

Charmichaelviewed the concept of the land-grant college as a

new philosophy of higher education [representing] not only a step
toward democratization of higher education, but toward the democ-
rat ization of America. It made available the advantages of
higher education to workers who had hitherto been denied them.
Previous attempts to gain acceptance for the subjects of agricul-
ture and engineering had not been successful. A few institutions
had introduced some agricultural courses, and six engineering
schools had been established, but none was affiliated with a
university. (p. 50)








The impact the land-grant colleges made upon educational opportunity in

higher education, however, was far greater than Charmichael indicated.

The impact affected the social mobility of the American culture. The

Morrell Act made democracy a reality. As Brickman and Lehrer (1962)

wrote, "It made possible the higher instruction of the children of

workers and farmers and thus enabled social mobility and the equality of

educational opportunity to become realities in a political democracy"

(p. 11).

Rudy (1962) viewed the democratization provided by the land-grant

colleges as being attributable primarily to a uniqueness of the Aemrican

cultural environment which was searching for equality. This search con-

tinued on to the development of the junior college. According to Rudy,

American civilization generated an almost irrestible drive for
the popularization of opportunities for learning, and one of the
most notable aspects of this movement was a constant increase in
the percentage of the population enjoying the benefits of a higher
education. This phenomenon was accompanied by the emergence of
institutional patterns peculiar to America, such as the state
university, the land-grant college, the municipal university, and
the junior or community college. (p. 24)

The idea of a junior college was first conceived by several univer-

sity presidents seeking to improve the university curriculum. W. W.

Folwell,of the University of Minnesota; H. P. Tappan.,of the University

of Michigan; and W. R. Harper, of the University of Chicago,all sought the

establishment of a bifurcated university (Medsker, 1960). Their idea

was to create a distinct division apart from the university for fresh-

man and sophomore work, which would be the academic college. The

upper two years were to be called the university college and be made

up solely of work consistent with a university education (Eells,1931).








Folwell (cited in Hillway, 1962) stated that colleges could rid them-

selves of their problems with adolescents by refusing to admit students

until they reached full maturity. A later plan by Harper sought to

turn over the first two years of college work to secondary schools,

creating what Harper termed a junior college (Eells, 1931). It was

Harper's belief that the freshman and sophomore years were more re-

lated to the secondary school than to the university, and that such a

shift would free the universities to pursue their unique academic roles

(Eells, 1931; Hillway, 1958, 1962). This belief that universities

were to be considered unique and separate from secondary preparation,

along the line of the German university, was expressed by President

James of the University of Illinois in 1905 (Eells, 1931):

My own idea is that the university ought not to be engaged in
secondary work at all, and by secondary work I mean work which is
necessary as a preliminary preparation for the pursuit of special
professions, that is, scientific study. Consequently our secon-
dary schools, our high schools, and our colleges will be expected
to take more and more of the work which is done in the lower
classes of the different departments of the university as at
present constituted, until we shall have reached a point where
every student coming into the university will have a suitable
preliminary training to enable him to take up, with profit and
advantage, university studies in a university spirit and by uni-
versity methods. (p. 46)

Although the idea of the junior college originated with the univer-

sities, the motivation and drive for junior colleges came from secon-

dary schools (Angell, 1915). At the beginning of the twentieth cen-

tury there was a strong movement in the state of California, as well as

other parts of the country, to extend the secondary school through the

thirteenth and fourteenth years. The result of the movement was that

in many cases secondary schools were responsible for the administration








of community colleges, thus expanding free public education into the

college years (Bogue, 1950; Proctor, 1927). Many persons advocated

the switch to a 6-4-4 plan of school organization in order to reduce

problems of articulation, consolidate administration, reduce expendi-

tures, and unify the curriculum (Ewing, 1927; Koos, 1956; Sexson &

Harbeson, 1946). It was the close ties with secondary schools which

allowed junior colleges to provide and expand the concept of educa-

tional opportunity.

The junior college during the first part of the twentieth cen-

tury provided opportunity for and served the individual in a variety

of ways. Early studies found a variety of purposes and reasons for

the junior college. Koos (1921) identified from junior college catalogs

eight special purposes of the junior college which benefit the student:

1. Offering two years of college work acceptable to colleges and
universities
2. Completing education of students not going on
3. Providing occupational training of junior college grade
4. Providing training for citenzenship
5. Popularizing higher education
6. Continuing home influence during immaturity
7. Affording attention to the individual student
8. Offering better instruction in these school years.
(p. 522)

Campbell (1930) found in a study of 343 junior college catalogs

that the preparatory function of the junior college is attached more

importance (basing importance upon being most frequently mentioned in

catalogs) than the 10 other most popular functions listed as follows:

1. Preparation for a college or university .... .43 percent
2. Give individual attention to students . . .. 32 percent
3. Economy of time and money . . . . ... 29 percent
4. Provide smaller classes . . . . .... 22 percent
5. Continue home influence . . . . .... 22 percent
6. Provide occupational training . . . ... 21 percent
7. Provide suitable tryout for college ...... 18 percent








8. Offer completion education . . . . .... 14 percent
9. Develop leadership . . . . . . ... .12 percent
10. Further training for high school graduates . . 12 percent
11. Meet local needs . . . . . . . . 10 percent
(p. 215)

Campbell (1930) similarly found the most important (also basing impor-

tance upon frequency of being mentioned) functions of junior colleges as

indicated by a review of 349 articles dealing with the purposes and

functioning to be

1. Preparation for college or university . . .. .66 percent
2. Completion of education . . . . .... 37 percent
3. Providing educational training . . . ... 33 percent
4. Completion of secondary education . . ... 29 percent
5. Economy of time and expense . . . . .. 25 percent
6. Popularizing higher education . . . ... 25 percent
7. Meeting local needs . . . . . .... 22 percent
8. Fitting the school to adolescence . . ... 19 percent
9. Relieving the universities . . . . ... 18 percent
10. Continuing home influence . . . . .... 17 percent
11. Assigning function to smaller college . . .. .12 percent
12. Democratization of higher education ...... 12 percent
13. Giving individual attention to students ... 10 percent
(p. 216)

Whitney (1928) found after summarizing catalog statements and ques-

tionnaires that "popularizing higher education" (p. 36) was the most fre-

quent statement regarding the purpose of the public junior college. Other

purposes (Whitney, 1928) and their frequency of being mentioned are as

follows:

1. Providing occupational training of
junior college grade . . . . . . . 24.2 percent
2. Completing education of student not
going on . . . . . . . ... . . 22.7 percent
3. Popularizing higher education . . . ... 76.5 percent
4. Affording attention to the individual .... 8.3 percent
5. Offering two years of work acceptable
to colleges and universities . . . ... 19.7 percent
6. Continuing home influence during
immaturity . . . . . . . ... 45.4 percent
7. Offering better opportunities for
training in leadership . . . . . . .8 percent








8. Offering better instruction in
these school years . . . . . .... 14.4 percent
9. Allowing for exploration . . . . .... 1.6 percent
(p. 36)

The early studies of the purposes of junior colleges reflect some sub-

jectivity in regard to the classifications and interpretations of

statements (Eells, 1931). Koos (1925) was concerned that

mention should be made of some difficulties met with in the at-
tempts at classification. In studies of this sort, meanings
shade into one another almost imperceptibly; one cannot be cer-
tain that violence has not sometimes been done by placing a par-
ticular statement under some particular category, thus to some
extent misrepresenting the meaning intended by the author. It is
also at times impossible to take account of all interrelationships
of purposes, expressed or implied. (pp. 18-19)

Admission or entry requirements in the junior college as it was

originally conceived in the early twentieth century were simple and

purposeful. The junior college was considered an extension of free,

public, secondary education to which every person was entitled. Entry

was never, for the most part, based upon the demonstration of merit,

worth, or family background.

The various diverse functions of the junior college also required

the implementation of an admissions policy which reduced the problems

of articulation. The American Council on Education adopted a set of

junior college standards in 1924. The standard concerning admission

of students was stated by Eells (1931):

The requirement for admission should be the satisfactory comple-
tion of a four-year course of study in a secondary school approved
by a recognized accrediting agency or the equivalent of such a
course of study. (p. 163)

A similar standard concerning admission was adopted by the American

Association of Junior Colleges in 1925 as stated by Eells:








The requirements for admission shall be the satisfactory comple-
tion of a standard four-year course of study of not fewer than
fifteen units to an accredited high school or academy approved by
a recognized accrediting agency. (p. i6S)

Koos (1970) summarized a study of the requirements or bases for admis-

sion to 31 public junior colleges from an analysis of catalog state-

ments:

A look at the first bases stated in these catalogs, which can be
assumed to be the primary ones, finds them to range rather widely,
but at the same time to be heavily concentrated on a single prac-
tice. Tne most flexible of all is found once only anJ states
simply, "All persons applying for study are admitted." Fifteen
units of high school credit (without mention of high school
graduation) is the specified basis to another catalog. All re-
maining catalogs (29 of 31) require only graduation from high
school (usually indicated as "accredited"), although three of
them state that graduates in the lower portions of the ability
distributions enter "on probation"; two of these indicate the
lowest fourth and one in the lowest third of their graduation
classes.

Almost all the catalogs specify alternative bases of admissions.
These and their frequencies are: age (over IS in 11 catalogs,
over 19 in 1, and over 21 in 3); GED certificate of high school
equivalency (in S catalogs); 15 acceptable units (in 4 catalogs);
and a year of active military service (in a single catalog). The
average number of bases, including that first stated, is slightly
under two. (p. 513)

Koos (1970) viewed the findings of the study favorably:

The manifest conclusion from this evidence on requirements for
admission to public junior colleges is one of commitment to
"open-doorness," in harmony with accepted stated purposes. It
reveals a striking contrast with practices in the typically more
selective four-year college or university. (p. 514)

Two reports concerning the educational status of the country were

instrumental in drawing attention to the growing need to provide for

additional educational opportunity, following World War II. The first,

a report b) the President's Commission on Higher Education (1947),had a

major impact on the growth of the community-junior college and its

attempt to provide equal educational opportunity (Ferrin, 1971). The








President's Commission on Higher Education (1947) stated that the

educational attainments of American society were substantially below

what was necessary for both effective individual living or the welfare

of the country. The reasons for the low attainments were stated to

be barriers of an economic and geographic nature and a highly re-

stricted curriculum offering by existing institutions of higher educa-

tion. The President's Commission made a number of suggestions

to alleviate the problems. The Commission's report stated that at

least 49% of the country's population had the mental ability to com-

plete 14 years of education, and that education through the fourteenth

year should be made available in the same way that 12 years of high

school education was then available. The Commission also called for

tuition-free education through the fourteenth year, expansion of the

community-junior college system, and the expansion of the role of

community-junior colleges in higher education in order to make higher

education equally available to all young people and equalize educa-

tional opportunities. The Commission suggested that the name "community

college" be applied to all institutions designed to serve chiefly local

community education needs.

There was a second report instrumental in justifying the need

for expanding opportunity. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education

(CCHE), in 1970, in a special report on policies for community-junior

colleges made a number of recommendations affecting equality of educa-

tional opportunity. The CCHE stated that community colleges should

be made available, within commuting distance, to all persons throughout









their lives, except in sparsely populated areas which should be

served by residential colleges. The CCHE supported the open door

concept for all high school graduates and otherwise qualified person-

nel. The CCHE stated their belief that community colleges should

charge no tuition or low tuition.

It is the opinion of some that community-junior colleges were

established for the purpose of extending educational opportunity (Bogue,

1950; Gleazer, 1980). Support for this position is strongly confirmed

by historical evidence. Community-junior colleges have, during their

history, attempted to attack the traditional barriers to higher educa-

tion by innovative and nontraditional methods. The financial barrier

was reduced by charging little or no tuition, the academic barrier was

reduced by open door admissions policies, and the geographic barrier

was reduced by locating colleges in close proximity to populated areas

(Ferrin, 1971). The barrier of motivation has been reduced by inno-

vative curriculum methods and by recruiting of students (Glaezer, 1930;

Roueche & Snow, 1977).

However, the community colleges' attempts to achieve equality of

educational opportunity by breaking traditional barriers to attendance

have not been without problems (Cohen, 1975; Cohen & Lombardi, 1979;

Cross, 1979). Legitimacy of mission is a current question in light of

an era of decreased funding, increased accountability, and stresses on

quality (Alfred, 1979; Marty, 1973). Community colleges have attempted

to be "all things to all people" (Gleazer, 1980, p. 7). Criticism of

quality of instruction resulting from the impact of a nontraditional








clientele (Clark, 1960a; Cohen, 1975) is perceived as a problem, as is

legislative questioning of community college recruitment efforts

(Glaezer, 1980). The open door is also perceived by many as a threat

to traditional values of meritocracy (Karabel, 1972b).


Policy Making at the State Level
State Policy Making Environment

The literature identified three major changes over the last 20

years in postsecondary education policy making at the state level.

First, there have been changes in both the educational environment and

in the environment of those areas which compete with education for

support, both of which have drastically altered the concerns and legis-

lative priorities of educational policy makers. Second, there has been

a large increase in the number of actors involved in policy making at

the state level as well as an increase in the staffs of these actors.

Third, there has been a shift in the focus of postsecondary education

policies during this time.

The educational environment has changed in a number of ways.

Murphy (1980) contended that the political environment of the states

has changed drastically:

The states have seemingly come of age in the government of educa-
tion. Since the mid-1860's, state governments have grappled
with controversial problems of desegregation, student rights and
unrest, school finance reform, aid to minority groups, fiscal
crises and tax caps, declining enrollments and confidence,
collective bargaining, and accountability and competency testing.
During this time, powerful coalitions of educational interest
groups have fallen apart; active new groups have joined the com-
petition for limited resources; the courts have entered the
fray, and governors and legislators have increased their par-
ticipation: building professional staffs, overseeing budgets,
taking stands on educational issues. (p. 29)








This increase in activity by states has led to what flurphy termed

"a growing attention to the appropriate state role in education, and

in some quarters, a mounting concern that decision making has become

centralized" (p. 39). Folger (1976) stated that the environment facing

higher education has changed because of public skepticism toward public

institutions in general, and a reordering of budgetary priorities

resulting from the economic uncertainty of the country. The changes

produced specific public and legislative criticism of higher education

which led to questions concerning the need for higher education, state-

ments critical of the quality of education, and charges that educa-

tional institutions were inefficient (Folger, 1976). Burnsed (1980)

characterized the postsecondary educational environment as being in need

of funding reform due to a breakdown in enrollment-driven funding formu-

las. The primary reason he gave for the breakdown was fluctuating

enrollment levels and the reduction in the traditional college-age

population:

The potential "traditional" college-age population may be reduced
by 30 percent or even more over the coming decade, and the resul-
tant changing "mix" of students includes a greater portion of
persons who have special needs for learning and other support ser-
vices. Hence, the cost of meeting the needs of students has in-
creased, while the number of students attending has decreased.
Needless to say, the inflation curve and the labor-intensive nature
of postsecondary education have made this enrollment downturn even
more significant than it might otherwise be. (p. 20)

Burnsed (1980) also stated that there were trends in the area of post-

secondary education to merge institutions because of enrollment shifts

and to make changes in the statewide governance of postsecondary educa-

tion institutions because of the desire to improve the quality of educa-

tion. The overall focus of higher education, Burnsed stated, should be








upon quality and not access as in the past; however, this focus has led

to problems:

Unfortunately, the long commitment to access as the principal
goal of postsecondary education-a commitment still encouraged by
current federal policies in student financial aid-has produced
an entire generation of faculty and administrators whose careers
have been built around this assumption. One can detect a genuine
desire to develop strategies that would improve teaching and
research, but it is coupled with a reluctance to abandon the
"bigger is better" concepts that have prevailed for more than 30
years. (p. 23)

The environment of areas which compete with education as well as

the environment which supports education has also changed over the last

20 years. Stavisky (1980) made this point clear:

As demographic patterns change, however, there are competing de-
mands for scarce dollars. Elderly citizens who no longer have
school-age children may be concerned over health care, public
safety or reduced-fare transportation. Childless adults may want
more public money pumped into programs that will generate career
opportunities, lower home-buying costs, preserve the environment
or improve recreational facilities. As education loses part of
its constituency, state lawmakers, champions of tax relief, and
critics of the schools are looking more closely at what the
money buys. (p. 12)

The legislatures are in a unique position to receive and reconcile views

of various competing groups; Stavisky reasoned that legislatures can

make a positive contribution to educational policy making by "insisting

on statewide standards, exercising programmatic and fiscal oversight and

evaluating the performance of all players in the educational arena"

(p. 13).

The number of actors or participants in the state policy making

arena has also increased (Grant, 1978; Murphy, 1980; Stavisky, 1980).

In an attempt to correlate variations to state government structure

with various outcomes, Campbell and Mazzoni (1976) identified and

examined the major participants in policy making at the state level.








The participants identified were the state boards of education, the

chief state school officer, the state governor, educational interest

groups, and the state legislature. The state legislature was deter-

mined by the study to play the most vital role in the determination of

educational policy (Campbell & Miazzoni, 1976). Other changes which

are connected with these actors have also taken place. The size of

staffs of each of these participants has increased (Folger, 1976;

Murphy, 1980; Rosenthal & Fuhrman, 1981); the amount of time legisla-

tures devote to policy making in all areas of government has increased

(Folger, 1976; Stavisky, 1980); and the number of legislators possess-

ing educational backgrounds has increased (Folger, 1976; Rosenthal,

1981; Stavisky, 1980).

The focus of policy making has changed during the last twenty

years. Martorana, Wattenbarger, and Smutz (1978) examined state legis-

lation affecting community college funding and policy making since

1973. Their findings revealed that there was a decrease in the

average appropriation growth rate, a slowdown in institutional and

enrollment expansion along with outright attempts to restrict growth,

a number of attempts to revise funding formulas and increase state con-

trol, and an increase in the state control of federal funds used for

postsecondary education as well as state generated postsecondary funds.

Their findings also indicated that the decision-making environment

for community colleges has become extremely complex due in part to

state legislation which has given a larger policy-making role to more

and more groups. These groups are the state coordinating and planning

boards, state government agencies, state legislatures, community and







junior-college personnel, students, and the public. Recent legislation

also shows evidence of a concern for accountability and efficient use

of resources (Martorana et al., 1978). Rosenthal and Fuhrman (1980)

believe that

because the nature and significance of education issues have
changed in recent years, so has the location of legislative power
over education policy. Although not wildly dramatic, the shift
has been marked nonetheless. Formerly when state revenues were
more available and state aid was less in demand, money did not
appear to be as much of a problem. Policy was the name of the
game and education committees were the principal players. In
the present period of fiscal containment and educational contrac-
tion, this is no longer the case. (p. 10)

According to Rosenthal and Fuhrman (1980), legislative power has been

relocated to the appropriations committees.

The recent shifts or changes in policies are evidence of an uneasy

relationship between higher education institutions and the state legis-

latures. Ledbetter and Ross (1978) termed the two institutions "reluc-

tant partners" (p. 14). They attributed the uneasy relationship to

legislative frustration with the increasing cost of higher education,

the anger of legislatures over the failure of many involved with higher

education to respond to political processes, and the failure of many

legislatures to grasp the nature of the aims and workings of higher

education. They also attributed the uneasy relationship to the in-

sistence by institutions of higher education upon autonomy, their

distaste of administrative or bureaucratic red tape, and their reluc-

tance to be accountable for their mission. Community colleges may not

even be included in a partnership with legislatures. According to

Martorana and Broomall (1981),

the 1980 legislation reflected a continued trend among state
legislators to view the community college as a fundamental








component of postsecondary education or of general state govern-
ment rather than as a free-standing unique institution. (p. 42)


State Policy Studies

Recently there have been two major studies concerned with the

community college systems and their open door policies in various states

(Commission to Study the fission, Financing and Governance of the County

Colleges of the State of [Jew Jersey, 1979; California Post-

secondary Education Commission, 1976). The studies offered no major

recommendations which would signal a shift in the open door policies of

the states studied; the studies appeared to support existing policy.

The New Jersey study included three areas: mission, financing,

and governance. Its recommendations supported the "open door (open

access) admission policy of the community colleges and urged increased

efforts to insure that this policy was a viable one" (p. 7). Efforts

recommended included the following:

1. Increased counseling services

2. An increase in comprehensive remedial programs

3. Entrance standards for degree programs

4. An increase in institutional research and evaluation

5. An increase in access through establishment of satellite

campuses

7. The relaxation of county boundary attendance regulations.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission (1976) study

examined the extent that community colleges within the state of Cali-

fornia were fulfilling their mission and achieving their objectives in

regard to student access and student persistence in higher education.








The study concluded that it was extremely difficult to evaluate access

and persistence because of the rapidly changing nature of the student

body and the incomplete reporting systems of individual community

colleges. Between 1969 and 1974 the enrollment of part-time students

in credit courses was three times as large as that for full-time stu-

dents headcountt enrollment). As of 1976, part-time students accounted

for two-thirds of the enrollment headcountt enrollment) and part-time

students over 21 years of age accounted for half the students in credit

courses. Part-time older students enrolled in order to satisfy per-

sonal, continuing education objectives rather than program objectives

enrolled on an intermittent basis in a number of institutions and many

times had no need for grades or credits. The study recommended an

expanded role for community education, increased accounting and grad-

ing procedures to take into account the characteristics of the part-

time student, an improved reporting system from state universities and

colleges concerning transfer students, and increased staff development

for faculty of state universities and colleges in order to better meet

the needs of the community college student.


Policy Making and Incrementalism

In the literature search, no agreement was found regarding the

definition of policy. Campbell, Bridges, Corbally, Nystrand, and

Ramseyer (1971) defined policy as the "expression of the broad goals

and purposes" (p. 103) of an institution. Dunn (1981) defined public

policy as a "long series of more or less related choices, including

decisions not to act, made by governmental bodies or officials" (p. 61).








According to Raup, Axtell, Benne, and Smith (1950), policy provides

"consistency of action from one case to another" (p. 75) and should be

distinguished from decisions which apply to a particular case without

regard for the development of generalizations which will be applied

to other decision cases of a similar type. Walton (1959) defined policy

formulation as the "setting up of the purposes of an organization, making

choices between conflicting purposes" (pp. 44-45). What appeared to be

agreed upon is that there is a multitude of persons formulating or impact-

ing policy in education (Kimbrough & Nunnery, 1976; Rich, 1974; Thompson,

1976).

Only a few major categories of theories concerning the process of

policy making were identified in a search of the literature. Several

researchers identified three distinct theories of policy making: the

rational comprehensive model, the incremental model, and the mixed

scanning model (Anderson, 1975; Etzioni, 1967; White, Clayton, Myrtle,

Siegel & Rose, 1980). Pursley and Snortland (1980) also identified

the rational comprehensive approach and the incremental approach, but

their third approach was a creative one which utilizes quantitative

aids to assist in policy analysis. Schulman (1975) identified two

major theories of policy making: the decision-making theory of incre-

mentalism and a divisibility model of piecemeal public programs with

negotiated and specialized payoffs. The divisibility model relies

heavily upon the political reality of the policy-making process.

In an attempt to present a model of decision making more

realistic than the rational approach, Simon (1976) proposed that man

should "satisfice" (p. xxvii) because he does not have the wits to








maximize. Simon distinguished between economic man and administrative

man, and listed three ways in which rational behavior is limited:

(1) Rationality requires a complete knowledge and anticipation of
the consequences that will follow on each choice. In fact,
knowledge of consequences is always fragmentary.
(2) Since these consequences lie in the future, imagination must
supply the lack of experienced feeling in attaching value to
them. But values can be only imperfectly anticipated.
(3) Rationality requires a choice among all possible alternative
behaviors. In actual behavior, only a very few of all these
possible alternatives ever come to mind. (p. 81)

White, Clayton, Myrtle, Siegel, and Rose (1980) summarized Simon's

views:

Administrative man knows that his skills and habits are limited
and that these in turn will narrow the range of alternatives he is
capable of considering and generating; administrative man is
guided by his value system and sense of purpose in choosing be-
tween alternatives and administrative man is constrained by the
knowledge he has garnered over the years. (p. 129)

It is thus administrative man as opposed to economic man, who is

rational because administrative man recognizes his limits. Simon (1980)

referred to this recognition of limitations as working within the frame-

work of "bounded rationality" (p. xxxiii). Administrative man, in mak-

ing decisions, thus "satisfices" and chooses from among limited alterna-

tives.

The incremental approach to policy making was first proposed by

Lindblom in a 1959 article entitled "The Science of Muddling Through."

Since Lindblom's article appeared, a number of other articles have been

published by Lindblom which add to or clarify the original theory.

The incremental model was first proposed in contrast to, and as

a more realistic substitute for, the rational comprehensive approach to

policy making (Lindblom, 1959). The rational comprehensive approach

was referred to as the root method of policy making; and the








incremental, or successive limited comparisons method, was referred to

as the branch method. The terms root and branch were used to indicate

major differences in the two methods. The root method begins with new

assumptions and fundamentals and makes use of the past only as it is

incorporated into theory. The branch method continually builds from the

present situation and proceeds in small step-by-step degrees, making use

of past and present policy experience.

Lindblom (1959) viewed the incremental approach to policy making

as having more relevant utility than the rational comprehensive approach

since the rational comprehensive approach was assumed by him not to be

workable for complex policy questions. To Lindblom, the incremental

approach was utilized to a greater degree than the rational comprehen-

sive approach because it was more realistic in terms of the availability

of time, money, and information in actual policy-making decisions.

According to Lindblom (1959), the essential characteristics of the

incremental approach to policy making are as follows:

1. Policy makers disagree in their identification of critical

values and objectives.

2. Citizens disagree in their identification of critical values

and objectives.

3. There is usually no public discussion of the critical values

and objectives to assist in identifying the public's prefer-

ences for these values and objectives.

4. Social objectives have different relative values which vary

with circumstances.

5. Policy makers are unable to rank values due to value con-

flicts. Values are not independent of one another and are not

comparable.








6. Value determination is only possible through policy choices.

7. The means and ends of policy are not distinct or separate.

8. Policy agreement is possible when agreement on values and

objectives is not possible.

9. Whether a policy is good or not is solely determined by

whether or not it is agreed upon by policy makers.

10. There is limited analysis by policy makers of possible policy

outcomes, policy alternatives, or the values affected by a

policy due to the complexity of problems and the limitation of

administrators to understand all aspects of a problem. Com-

prehensive policy analysis is not feasible.

11. Policy analysis is performed on a small number of policies

that are politically relevant and that differ only incremen-

tally from one another.

12. Policy is made by successive approximation of desired objec-

tives and not by a single policy. Objectives may change con-

tinually.

13. Policy analysis compares the alternative consequences of the

differing aspects of each policy. Policy making involves

the same comparisons.

Lindblom (1961) cited certain specific, unique characteristics

which identify the incremental decision maker: (a) he does not take into

consideration all policy alternatives but only those which are politi-

cally relevant and incrementally different from existing policies;

(b) he views a policy choice as only one choice in a succession of

choices; (c) he analyzes only the portions of policies which differ








from one another; (d) he is concerned with examining marginal values of

different social objectives, and (e) he considers only a small number

of the important relevant values in making-policy decisions.

Lindblom (1961) suggested that incrementalism offers "a solution

to the problem of disagreement among decision makers on values" (p.

309). Agreement among policy makers is usually gained when values are

changed only marginally. Seemingly large differences in values become

nonexistent. Thus policies with marginal value changes can be agreed

upon even when there is no agreement on values.

A number of persons in addition to Lindblom have defined and de-

scribed incrementalism as it applies to both policy analysis and policy

making. Many of these interpretations make relevant points that need

to be identified in order to understand more clearly incrementalism.

Fesler (1930) described incrementalism as a "decision making

model based upon conflict, negotiation, persuasion, and cooperation

among private and public groups, institutions, and individuals with

stakes in particular policies and decisions" (p. 229). Incrementalism

is founded upon a historical base of already existing policies, the

current funding level of programs, and the background of knowledge

each actor in the process has of the other actors' views, as well as

of the other actors' resources that can be utilized to determine out-

comes of the decision process. The overall characteristics of the

model described by Fesler are

1. The pluralistic nature of the administrative organization

2. Past incremental tendencies

3. The absence of the need for actors to agree on objectives








4. The willingness of actors to compromise and limit their objec-

tives

5. The knowledge by actors that the decision process is "epi-

sodic and diffuse: what is lost in the maximation of one's

goal this year may be regained next year or in another de-

cision arena." (p. 230).

Braybrooke and Lindblom (1963) outlined a theory of disjointed

incremental analysis which is a method of policy analysis adapted to

decision making. Incremental analysis thus shares many of the charac-

teristics of incremental policy making. Braybrooke and Lindblom's

strategy of policy analysis contains the following aspects:

1. The focus of policy analysis is upon margin-dependent choices

related to outcomes. Incremental choice considers only those

policies whose known or expected outcomes differ from each

other incrementally and those policies whose known or ex-

pected outcomes differ incrementally from the status quo.

Incremental policy analysis does not seek in-depth analysis

or information beyond that which contrasts outcomes. Policy

choice is determined by ranking preference for the incremental

outcomes. Value conflict is resolved in choosing one policy

over another where a degree of value is sacrificed in achiev-

ing a degree of another value.

2. Policy alternatives are restricted to those which are incre-

mental in nature.

3. There is a restricted examination of the consequences of any

given policy. The analyst purposefully ignores consequences

considered remote, politically unsound, uninteresting, or

poorly understood.








4. There is an adjustment of objectives to policies as well as

policies to objectives, due to changes in cost, relevancy,

the possibility of achieving the objective,and the means of

achieving the objective. Policies and objectives are con-

sidered simultaneously in a mutual adjustment of ends and

means.

5. There is a reconstructive treatment of data as the means and

ends are redefined.

6. Evaluation and analysis of policy continues in an ongoing

manner as it follows the evolution of policy.

7. Evaluation and analysis of policy has a remedial orientation.

8. There is a social fragmentation of evaluation and analysis

since it takes place at many different levels in the adminis-

trative organization.

Dahl and Lindblom (1976) viewed incrementalism as a unique

method of social action. As such, incrementalism was described by

them as being distinctly different from a simple commitment to gradual

change as opposed to large change, or a preference for an experimental

approach:

Incrementalism is a method of social action that takes existing
reality as one alternative and compares the probable gains and
losses of closely related alternatives by making relatively small
adjustments in existing reality, or making larger adjustments
about whose consequences approximately as much is known as about
the consequences of existing reality, or both. Where small in-
crements will clearly not achieve desired goals, the consequences
of large increments are not fully known, and existing reality is
clearly undesirable, incrementalism may have to give way to cal-
culated risk. Thus, scientific methods, incrementalism, and
calculated risks are on a continuum of policy methods. (p. 82)








Dahl and Lindblom (1976) stated a number of reasons for justify-

ing their view of incrementalism as a realistic method of social action.

They saw incrementalism as "an aid to rational calculation" (p. 82)

and reasoned that it is relatively easy to predict the consequences

of alternatives closely related to existing reality as opposed to al-

ternatives not closely related to existing reality. They pointed out

the difficulty in predicting one's needs and goals unless it is done

incrementally through a process of "constantly testing one's prefer-

ences by experience" (p. 83). According to Dahl and Lindblom, for a

person to act upon his goals, he must rationalize and compromise be-

tween the goals at the point where they differ marginally from one

another; choices that vary incrementally can easily be verified since

results of the choices are usually related directly to a few variables

or a single variable. According to Dahl and Lindblom, incrementalism

ensures control in that changes are easily identified, implemented, and

evaluated; incremental changes are reversible since they do not disrupt

entire systems; and incrementalism is rationalized because it allows

for the continuation of longstanding norms and customs essential to the

survival of a system and because it aids in helping an electorate

understand the rationality of a system.

Dror (1964) identified three essential conditions required for

incremental policy making:

1. The results of present policies must be in the main satis-
factory (to the policymakers and the social strata on which
they depend) so that marginal changes are sufficient for
achievingan acceptable rate of improvements in policy results.
2. There must be a high degree of continuity in the nature of
the problems.
3. There must be a high degree of continuity in the available
means for dealing with problems. (p. 154)








Also, according to Dror (1964), there must be a high degree of social

stability present for incremental policy making to prevail: Any

changes in values, changes in the environment or nature of the issues

requiring new policies with no historical base, or change in technology

which assists new means of action,will lead to the formulation of

policy not of an incremental nature.

Seitz (1978) stated that for several reasons fragmented power

(policy making) will imply an incremental approach to policy making.

In Seitz's (1978) view, fragmented power increases the number of

political actors in the policy-making process, increases the number of

pressures to maintain the inertia of a given state of affairs, makes

nonincremental change difficult because of the complexity of the

political power situation, and reduces the probability of nonincre-

mental change due to reduction in the scope of power or authority of

each political actor.

Lindblom (1968), although primarily addressing the federal

policy-making system, identified three groups of persons who have in-

fluence on public policy-citizens, interest groups, and proximate

policy makers-each group influencing policy in a different, unique

way.

Citizens were considered by Lindblom to be generally ineffective

in influencing policy unless organized by political party or as inter-

est groups. He asserted that for the average citizen the only method

of influencing policy choice is by utilizing the single vote for a

candidate in an election, He viewed the citizen as ineffective not

only because of his single vote, but also because each candidate for








public office represents a choice for many different policy issues.

Furthermore, he regarded the average citizen as being relatively un-

informed on policy issues.

In Lindblom's (1968) view, interest groups serve to articulate

the interests of citizens and bring citizen's wishes to the attention

of proximate leaders, thus wielding considerable influence on the

policy process. Lindblom described the interest group leader as

playing a key role in communicating the interests and wishes of the

interest group to the proximate leader through many methods of per-

suasion to influence, such as sloganeering, public relations cam-

paigns, and alliance building.

Proximate policy makers were viewed by Lindblom (1968) to be

specialized in their roles and thus limited in their ability singularly

to make policy. Proximate policy makers thus rely on cooperation with

other proximate policy makers. Several formal methods of gaining

cooperation were cited by Lindblom: legislative delegation of respon-

sibility for decisions to other individuals or committees; executive

leadership in proposing policy; executive delegation of policy re-

sponsibility to committees; and the use of the hierarchical organiza-

tion, the cabinet system, or the party organization. In addition to

formal methods of gaining cooperation, Lindblom cited less formal

methods: bargaining, persuading, signaling, and influencing.

The theory of incrementalism has been utilized in numerous studies

to explain policy making in a variety of governmental settings (Bowler,

1973; Garvey, 1974; Haley, 1974; McCummings, 1977; Mandelbaum, 1974;

Mansfield, 1973; Murin, 1971; Sulzner, 1967; Wirth, 1973). The








majority of studies utilized either the case study or the interview

approach to understanding policy making. In order to determine if

the policy making was incremental in nature, important elements of

the decision-making process, specific policies, and conditions asso-

ciated with policy making were investigated in the studies. Zusman

(1978) reported the findings of a case study which described the

policy-making process of the state legislature of California during

1975-1976 as the state attempted to limit growth of publicly sub-

sidized adult education. The policy-making process was described as

incremental, negotiated, nonrational, and continually amended. The

case study concluded that, since policy making concerning adult educa-

tion tends to be incremental and concerned with funding levels,

rational legislation of broad policies relating to adult education

is unlikely. The case study also concluded, however, that, because

of the increase in the size and range of adult-oriented programs, the

continued ambivalence toward adult education, and the continued lack

of trust between the state and higher education, continuing debate

over adult education is likely.

Bowler (1973) utilized semistructured, off-the-record interviews

in an attempt both to explain why the normal mode of policy analysis

and decision making were ignored in proposing the Family Assistance

Plan (FAP) and to identify the elements which make up a model of ab-

normal or nonincremental decision making. The theory of incrementalism

formed a framework for the interview questions which concerned the

following:







(1) how was FAP formulated and approved? or what was the
process of policy analysis, review and decision making that
produced FAP? who were the major participants? what were
the major issues and conflicts? and what was the general
sequence of events?
(2) why did the decision making process yield FAP?-approval of
radical extensive-change instead of the more normal and
more predictable incremental alterations in current welfare
policy? or what were the conditions or factors associated
with the formulation and approval of nonincremental change?
(p. 19)

Bowler's study identified three categories of conditions conducive for

nonincremental policy making:

1. The incentive to innovate which includes

A. Failure of past attempts to modify policy, yet continua-

tion of complaints

B. Erratic indicators of present policy performance (costs

and number of persons served)

C. Impossible control of present policy

D. Effects of current policy which are inconsistent with

widely accepted values

E. Costs and benefits of policy which are inequitable

F. Individuals and groups which appear willing to change

(interest and support groups)

2. The opportunity to innovate (availability of necessary tech-

nical and economic resources)which includes

A. Whether alternatives reflect a comprehensive and sound

investigation and analysis of current policy and policy

alternatives

B. Whether there is a consensus to the nature of change

C. Whether policy analysis can predict the consequences of

the proposed policy








3. The occasion to innovate or the mobilized support for the

new policy.


Summary

The community-junior college in America developed over the course

of more than a hundred years from efforts to ensure educational oppor-

tunity and improve the postsecondary education curriculum. Central

to the development of the community-junior college was the concept of

providing educational opportunity. This concept consisted of many

aspects including the offering of a wide range of programs, the offer-

ing of better instruction, the meeting of a diversity of needs, the

providing of individual attention to the student, the allowing of pro-

gram exploration, the providing of financial accessibility, the utiliza-

tion of admission criteria which entitled all adult persons or all

persons with a high school diploma entrance into the college, and the

offering of education within close proximity to a student's home.

These aspects of the concept of providing educational opportunity

developed out of attempts to remove the traditional barriers to educa-

tion. The attempt to remove barriers received the support of two in-

fluential commissions: the President's Commission on Higher Education

(1947) and the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1970).

Policy making at the postsecondary level which could have an

influence on the providing of educational opportunity is currently

undergoing change. The educational environment has changed so greatly

that at the present time there is much criticism of postsecondary

education, specifically in regard to the need for postsecondary







education, the status of educational priorities, and the need for educa-

tional quality. There has also been a change in the number and in-

fluence of participants at the state policy-making level. A search of

the literature showed that nearly all participants in the policy-making

process have increased their power and ability to influence other

policy makers. The state legislatures, in particular, have taken more

responsibility to be involved with postsecondary education policy.

There were only two recent major studies identified in the

literature search that involved the open door philosophy in state com-

munity college systems. Both studies recommended changes which supported

the open door philosophy of their respective state systems. There were

no studies specifically pertaining to the development of open door

policies or to the evolution of open door philosophies in the states.

Two major approaches to policy making were identified: the

rational comprehensive approach and the incremental approach. For

the incremental approach, two essential conditions were cited:

satisfaction with present policies and continuity in defining the

nature of problems and in seeking the available means of dealing with

problems. The literature also identified six characteristics of in-

cremental policy making:

1. The disagreement among policy makers and among citizens

concerning the critical values and objectives

2. The absence of public discussion of current issues

3. The limited nature of policy choice

4. The realization on the part of policy makers of the com-

plexity of problems and their limitations in understanding

all aspects of the problem.




53



5. Past incremental policy making

6. Fragmented policy-making processes.













CHAPTER III
STATEMENT OF THE PLAN


Three sources of information are reviewed in this chapter for the

purpose of identifying Florida's commitment to breaking the barrier

of access to greater educational opportunity for the citizens of

Florida. The three sources of information reviewed were

1. The Initial Report of the Council for the Study of Higher
Education in Florida

2. The Community Junior College in Florida's Future

3. Report on Five Years of Progress.


The Initial Report and the Development of
Florida's Long-Range Plan

The Initial Report of the Council for the Study of Higher Educa-

tion in Florida recommended the creation of a Community College Commis-

sion to define the precise criteria for the establishment and operation

of public community colleges in population centers throughout Florida

(Council for the Study of Higher Education in Florida, 1955). The

Council also explicitly identified four underlying concepts, or

principles, of its recommendations concerning the important advantages

of the community college. The underlying concepts were outlined as

follows:

Firstly, taking into account all of the items of expense both
to the institution and to the individual, the cost of educating
students in community colleges is less than it is to educate
them in private or state colleges and universities. Most, if









not all, of the students attending a community college can live
at home thereby minimizing the amount of the investments re-
quired to provide housing and boarding facilities. At the
same time the student or his family is relieved of the extra
expense that is involved in paying living costs away from home.

Secondly, the importance of the community college is further
emphasized by the fact that it can provide terminal programs
adapted to the vocational needs and interests of those students
who would ordinarily drop out of the university without complet-
ing a program leading to a certificate or degree, and that it
affords an opportunity to students of superior ability but of
limited means to secure at minimum expense the basic education
ordinarily provided in the first two years of college. The
present manpower needs of the state and the nation lend special
weight to this advantage. Students of outstanding ability who
are identified through the community college can be encouraged
and aided to continue their advanced studies in one of the
colleges or universities of the state.

Thirdly, as a consequence of the advantages afforded by the
community college both as to cost and as to ready access to a
college education, it may be expected that when community
colleges are established the number of students who will go to
college will be larger than it would be were enrollments limited
to fewer institutions. On the basis of experience in other
states it is reasonable to expect that an additional 10,000
above the 106,000 forecast for 1970 will be enrolled. The bene-
fits that will arise from the extension of cultural advantages
to the communities and from the improved effectiveness with
which citizens participate in the life of the community will far
outweigh additional costs that may be involved in providing
these advantages.

Fourthly, the community college can be of special service to
the community not only by the wide dissemination of educational
opportunities to the youth but also by relating its program to
the cultural needs of the adult population. It can identify
and provide for adult educational needs and it can bring to the
community lecturers, artists and entertainments of a quality
that would otherwise not be available. (pp. 10-11)

The 1955 Florida legislature, upon the recommendation of the Council

for the Study of Higher Education in Florida created the Community

College Council and directed it to develop long-range plans for the

expansion of community-junior colleges (State Department of Education,

1955). In 1957 the Community College Council presented the State







Board of Education its recommendations, in the form of a master plan,

for the establishment of 25 to 30 locally controlled junior college

areas (Community College Council, 1957; Wattenbarger, 1960). The

Community College Cponcil recommended that community-junior colleges

be charged with the responsibility of providing "broad and diversified

programs to serve the needs and abilities of all post-high school

youth in their respective communities" (p. xvii). The long-range plan

repeatedly emphasized the elimination of barriers to postsecondary

education and the providing of educational opportunity to all persons.

The third of five principal findings of the community College Council

(1957) stated that

the public community junior colleges would help to eliminate
many of the barriers to continued education which now influence
the decisions of high school seniors.
a. Three-fifths of all of Florida's high school seniors said
they would consider changing their plans in order to attend a
local public community junior college.
b. The financial barrier is the most important reason given by
the seniors for not being able to make definite plans for con-
tinuing beyond high school. Because of this obstacle, many of
the top students in Florida's high schools (those reporting grades
of A and B) cannot make definite plans to continue their education.
c. The lack of availability of certain types of post high
school programs is another barrier to many seniors. The second
most important reason for uncertainty about continued education
given by these seniors was their expressed need for vocational
guidance.
d. The location of post high school institutions forms a third
barrier. Only 20 percent of Florida's high school seniors indi-
cated a willingness to commute more than 30 miles one way to
attend a junior college. (pp. xv-xvi)

The first 2. of 12 recommendations of the Community College

Council (1957) were

1. That the State of Florida adopt a long range program for
expanding community junior college facilities in the state in
order that the expected increase in numbers of young people may
receive appropriate education near their homes for two years
beyong high school.








2. That community junior colleges be charged with continued re-
sponsibility to develop broad and diversified programs to serve
the needs and abilities of all post high school youth in their
respective communities. (p. xvii)

The Community College Council (1957),in citing the need for

community-junior colleges in Florida, stated that

the United States has been the location of a great experiment
in education which provided opportunity for all people during the
1800's in the elementary schools, for all people during the 1900's
in the high schools, and which needs to provide opportunity for
all people during the latter part of the 1900's in the post high
school years. (p. 1)

The Community College Council (1957) stated four basic assump-

tions to the sound development of education in America. The third

assumption stated that

education is valuable because it helps to equalize opportunity
for all people. Faith in the influence of education as a way
of encouraging personal improvement has been continually ex-
pressed. The supposition that education is a privilege of an
aristocracy was very quickly discarded in American history.
This assumption does not imply that all people should have the
same educational experiences, but rather that all should have
the opportunity for education which is adapted to their abilities
and their own needs as well as society's needs. (p. 2)

The Community College Council (1957) reported that community-

junior colleges would help the State of Florida extend educational

opportunity by helping to remove barriers which prevent approximately

half of the students in the upper quartile of ability and two-thirds

of all students from seeking post-high school education. The barriers

identified by the Council were geographic, financial, and motivational

in nature.

The Community College Council stated that, in special studies of

junior colleges, attendance began to fall off for students living

farther away than 15 miles. Theystated that well-placed community-junior







colleges would do much to reduce geographic barriers if they are located

close to the homes of students.

The Community College Council stated that in "order to eliminate

the financial barrier, community-junior colleges should continue to be

free from tuition charges and should be placed near to the students"

(p. 13). The Council emphasized the importance of recognizing the

financial barrier by citing comparisons between the occupations of

fathers and the degree to which sons and daughters continue their edu-

cation. The fact was pointed out that persons are more than twice as

likely to continue their education if their fathers are in professional

or managerial occupations than if the father are in laboring occupa-

tions.

The Community College Council recognized that many students were

not continuing their education because they did not see the advantages

of further education. Students who did not see advantages of further

education were in this position for two reasons: They were not familiar

with the advantages of college education and the universities were not

offering the type of training these persons needed. The Council pointed

out the need for effective guidance services and the offering of diverse

programs to alleviate the motivational barrier.

Five basic policies were stated by the Community College Council

(1957) to guide the development of junior colleges in Florida. The

third policy stated that "the long range plan should envision an oppor-

tunity for the educational needs of every person in Florida to be served

according to his own interests and abilities" (p. 28). The importance

of the five basic policies was emphasized by the Coumcil in the follow-

ing statement.








These principles emphasize the acceptance in Florida of the
philosophy that every young person and every adult should have
local opportunity for continued educational facilities as is
needed and is economically feasible in all areas of Florida.
(p. 28)

The criteria used by the Community College Council in designating

the areas where community colleges should be located were based upon

two assumptions: the first assumed joint use of facilities by high

schools and junior colleges, and the second assumed that the policy of

free tuition for Florida students would be continued and the matricula-

tion fees charged would not be increased. The third criterion stated

that "the potential enrollment of Priorities One and Two [which were

established for the orderly development of institutions] should be no

less than 400 full time students and the potential enrollment for

Priority Three should be no less than 200 full time students" (pp. 31-

32). The formula was based upon the assumption that "new community-

junior colleges will be local institutions and will continue a policy

of free tuition" (p. 33). It also assumed that "if students were re-

quired to travel further than commuting distance or pay a high tuition

fee, the numbers who attend will be less than the indicated ratio"

(p. 33).

One of several basic assumptions for financing Florida's community-

junior colleges, as stated by the Community College Council, involved

a restatement of the commitment to provide opportunity for post-

secondary education. The Community College Council stated that "a

major responsibility in community-junior college education is to

equalize and democratize post-high school opportunities in such a way

that all people may have such opportunity at as low cost as possible"

(p. 48).







Report on Five Years of Progress

A report entitled Five Years of Progress by the State Junior

College Advisory Board (1963) presented findings and recommendations

to the State Board of Education regarding the community-junior colleges

of Florida. During the five-year period from 1957 to 1961, Florida's

community-junior colleges increased in number from 5 to 25 and in

enrollment from 5,736 to 29,593. Enrollment in the fall of 1962 was

38,210, and there were 29 institutions in 17 areas. In relation to the

community-junior colleges helping to overcome the economic, geographic,

and motivational barriers to educational opportunity, the State Junior

College Advisory Board (1963) found that

it is evident that community junior colleges have done much to
eliminate these barriers and are extending educational opportuni-
ties to all citizens of the areas which they serve. For example,
forty-eight percent of junior college students reported attend-
ing a particular junior college because of its proximity to
their homes. Twenty-seven percent reported that "cost" was a
major factor influencing their decision to enroll in a partic-
ular junior college. Over 70 percent of junior college stu-
dents already have exceeded the educational attainment of their
parents. (p. 1)

The State Junior College Advisory Board (1963) reported the findings

of five Task Forces concerned with (a) aims and purposes, (b) students,

(c) faculty, (d) year-round operation, and (e) legal structure of the

community-junior colleges in Florida. The Task Force concerned with

the community-junior college student reported several findings which

have bearing on the community-junior colleges' ability to provide

opportunity and reduce barriers to access. The Task Force stated the

functions of Florida community-junior colleges in their order of

importance. The functions were (a) college and university parallel








programs; (b) a comprehensive guidance program; (c) technical, busi-

ness, and semiprofessional programs; (d) adult noncredit courses,

seminars, and institutions; (e) a program of student activities; and

(f) occupationally oriented programs of a vocational nature (State

Junior College Advisory Board, 1963). The Task Force found that meas-

ures showing family background and the occupational level of the

family's principal wage earner were higher than anticipated:

In this study, 23 percent of the students come from families in
which the principal wage earner is classified in the "profes-
sional, technical, and kindred worker" category. Twenty-three
percent come from families in which the principal wage earner
is in the "manager, official, proprietor except farm" category.
Only 14 percent of the students come from homes in which the
principal wage earner is in one of the four lower occupational
levels. (p. 12)

The Task Force also reported (State Junior College Advisory Board, 1963)

that measures showing family background and the parent's (or parents')

educational level was as follows:

Forty-six percent of the students' fathers (39 percent of the
mothers) had less than a high school education. Twenty-five
percent of the fathers (34 percent of the mothers) were high
school graduates but had no college education. Seventeen per-
cent of the fathers (18 percent of the mothers) had some post
high school education but did not complete four years of col-
lege. Six percent of the fathers (five percent of the mothers)
completed four years of college. Six percent of the fathers
(one percent of the mothers) had post baccalaureate education.
(p. 12)

The Task Force reported that a number of students indicated a need for

financial assistance:

Thirty-seven percent of the students report they will need finan-
cial assistance if they are to complete their education. Of this
number, 10 percent report they will need considerable financial
assistance, 16 percent report they will need financial assis-
tance sufficient to defray at least one-half of their total ex-
penses, and 11 percent will need financial assistance to defray
less than one-half of their total expenses while attending
college. (p. 23)








The Task Force concerned with faculty reported the satisfaction

(although low) of faculty members with the admissions policies of the

various community-junior colleges. It was reported by the Task Force

(State Junior College Advisory Board, 1963) that

the "open admission to all courses" was accepted by only 40
percent of the respondents, a "restricted admission policy to
college transfer courses" was accepted by 69 percent of the
respondents. Fifty-six percent of the faculty members indi-
cated that they were satisfied with the present admission
policies at their institution, and 12 percent indicated that
they were dissatisfied. (p. 30)

The Task Force made 10 recommendations. Two recommendations

particularly apply to the offering of educational opportunity. These

were that community-junior colleges should continue to improve the

quality and diversity of programs, and that community-junior colleges

should develop more adequate follow-up studies of graduates, transfers,

and dropouts as a means of evaluating and improving their program.


Summary

Three documents were reviewed in this chapter in order to deter-

mine the emphasis of Florida's plan to provide educational opportun-

ity forits citizens and to define Florida's open door philosophy. The

Council for the Study of Higher Education in Florida recommended the

creation of the Community College Council to define the precise cri-

teria for the operation of community-junior colleges in Florida. The

community-junior college was viewed by the Council for the Study of

Higher Education as being able to (a) minimize the expense of educa-

tion to the institution and the individual, (b) provide both terminal

programs for persons who would ordinarily drop out of a university








without completing a program leading to a degree and provide opportunity

for students of superior ability but limited means to obtain the first

two years of a four-year college education, (c) educate a greater per-

centage of the population of a community than if enrollments were

limited to fewer institutions and extend cultural advantages to com-

munities, and (d) serve the cultural and adult educational needs of the

community.

The Community College Council identified the need to provide

educational opportunity for all persons in their post-high school

years in keeping with four identified assumptions to the sound develop-

ment of education in America. One assumption was that all persons

should have the opportunity for education adapted to their abilities

and own needs as well as society's needs. The Community College Council

stated that community-junior colleges would help meet these needs by

eliminating the financial, geographic, and motivational barriers to

access by providing financial and geographic accessibility, a diversity

of program offerings, and vocational guidance.

The State Junior College Advisory Board reported that the attempts

of Florida's system of community-junior colleges in its first five

years of operation were indeed doing much to eliminate the barriers to

education by providing educational opportunity. Educational opportunity

was being provided through the accomplishment of six functions identi-

fied by the Board in the order of their importance. These functions

were (a) college and university parallel programs; (b) a comprehensive

program of guidance; (c) technical,business, and semiprofessional

programs; (d) adult noncredit courses, seminars, and institutions;




64



(e) a program of student activities; and (f) occupationally oriented

programs of a vocational nature.

There are five recurring themes present in all three documents.

These are the offering of educational opportunity to all persons, pro-

viding financial accessibility, providing geographic accessibility,

providing a diversity of programs, and providing effective counseling

services. These recurring themes evidenced Florida's commitment to

provide educational opportunity for its citizens.













CHAPTER IV
RESULTS

The study attempted to determine the nature of past legislation

and policy-making processes concerning the open door philosophy of

Florida's system of community colleges by determining whether or not the

theory of incrementalism as defined herein accounted for change in poli-

cies. The results of the study were determined by examing the Florida

Statues pertaining to community-junior colleges, by characterizing and

rating the laws of Florida pertaining to community-junior colleges

according to three criteria from the theory of incrementalism,and by

interviewing key informants familiar with the open door philosophy and

Florida's system of community colleges. First, the results of the

examination, the characterizing, and the rating of Florida Statutes and

session laws are presented according to each of the five themes which

form the open door philosophy. Second, the results of the interviews

of key informants are presented according to the two essential condi-

tions and six essential characteristics of incremental policy making.


Results of the Examination, Characterizing, and
Rating of the Laws of Florida from 1957 to 1981

This section presents the results of the examination of the Florida

Statutes according to the five themes of the open door philosophy. The

statutes and their subsequent changes are presented for direct compari-

son with one another in order to show the evolution of the policies.








Also presented are the results of the characterizing and the rating of

the Laws of Florida pertaining to each of the five themes of the open

door philosophy. The results of characterizing and rating the session

laws pertaining to the five aspects of the open door philosophy as a

group are also presented.


Provide Educational Opportunity to All Persons

The first direct reference pertaining to providing educational

opportunity to all persons was in the 1969 Florida Statutes. Indirect

reference to providing educational opportunity to all persons was pre-

viously made through another statute which defined the community college

(Fla. Stat. 228.14(3) 1957). This reference focused upon the community

colleges and their role of providing a diversity of programs and is

discussed in the section entitled Providea Diversity of Programs. The

1969 Florida Statute referenced was contained in a section of the stat-

utes describing the duties and powers of the junior college boards of

trustees:

(b) The board of trustees shall adopt such regulations to
supplement those prescribed by the state board as in its
opinion will contribute to the more orderly and efficient
operation of the junior college and to the provision of
educational services to all qualified citizens of the junior
college district.
(c) The board of trustees shall adopt such minimum standards
as are considered desirable by it to supplement those
standards of the state board. (Fla. Sta. 230.754(2) 1969)

In 1979, the Florida Statutes were changed to read:

(b) Each board of trustees shall adopt such rules to supple-
ment those prescribed by the State Board of Education as
in its opinion will contribute to the more orderly and
efficient operation of the community college and to the
provision of educational services to all qualified citizens
of the community college district.








(c) Each board of trustees shall adopt such minimum standards
consistent with and no less stringent than those of the
State Board of Education, including, but not limited to:
1. The prescribing of student performance standards for
the award of certificates of degrees. (Fla. Stat.
240.319(3) 1979)

In 1979, the duties and powers of community college district boards of

trustees were also enlarged with two additions:

(p) Each board of trustees shall provide admissions counseling
to all students entering college credit programs, which
counseling shall utilize tests designated by the Articula-
tion Coordinating Committee to measure achievement of
college-level communication and computation competencies
by all students entering college credit programs.
(q) Each board of trustees may limit students whose level of
achievement of communication and computation skills is
below that defined by the college as required for success-
ful performance in a college credit program to compensatory
courses and any other instruction for which they are ade-
quately prepared. (Fla. Stat. 240.319(3) 1979)

In 1979, the state community college coordinating board was given the

power and duty to

(b) Ensure that rules and procedures of community college dis-
trict boards relating to admission to, enrollment in,
employment in, and programs, services, functions, and
activities of each college provide equal access and equal
opportunity for all persons.
(c) Recommend to the State Board of Education minimum standards
for the operation of each community college as required in
s. 240.325, which standards may include, but not be limited
to, general qualifications of personnel, budgeting, account-
ing and financial procedures, educational programs, student
admissions and services, and community services. (Fla. Stat.
240.311(1) 1979)

Table 1 shows the results of the characterizing and rating of

session laws which pertain to providing educational opportunity to all

persons. Five different session laws were found to pertain to this

aspect of the open door philosophy. The changes or outcomes in

two laws were easily identified; in three of the laws the change or








Table 1

Characteristics and Ratings of Laws Relating to Providing Opportunity to
All Persons According to Whether or Not Outcomes Were Identifiable
(Observability), the Extent Customs Were Changed (Customs),
and the Degree of Impact on Area, Persons, and Cost



4-)
U 4-

Q
4-
4> E V)
Session law mi
Year number o > o

1968 68-5 N -1 S 1 1 -1
1972 72-3139 Y 2 S 1 1 1
1973 73-195 N 2 S 2 2 2
73-255 Y 4 S 1 2 2
1979 79-222 N -2 S 2 0 -2

Mean of the ratings 1.0 1.4 1.2 .4
Total laws rated: 5


aCharacterized as Yes or No.
Scale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor; ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
cCharacterized as state (S) or local (L).
dScale from 1 to 4: 1 is very few, 2 is few, 3 is many, 4 is all.
eScale from -8 to +8: negative number indicates student burden,
positive number indicates state burden; ratings from -4 to +4 indicate
few dollars; ratings between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 indicates many
dollars.
fScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor, ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
gRequired report only.








outcomes were not easily identified. Of the five laws, three were

found to change longstanding norms or customs,in a minor way, toward

expanding the open door philosophy; two were found to make minor re-

strictions to the open door philosophy. The mean of the ratings of

the extent that the laws changed longstanding norms or customs was

+1.0. All five laws were characterized as having statewide impact.

The mean of the ratings of the degree of impact on persons was 1.4.

The mean of the ratings on the impact of cost and burden of costs

was +1.2. The mean of the ratings of the overall impact of the laws

was +.4.0.

Overall, the examination, characterizing, and rating showed no

session laws relating to providing educational opportunity until 1968.

The 1968 session law was the first to make reference to providing

"educational services to all qualified citizens of the junior college

district" (Fla. Laws 68-5,cited in Appendix D). The most recent session

law was a 1979 law pertaining to the "adoption of minimum standards

consistent with and no less stringent than those of the State Board of

Education" which include the "prescribing of student performance stan-

dards for the award of certificates or degrees" (1979 Fla. Laws 79-222,

cited in Appendix D). All of the session laws were rated as being minor

in nature, although all the session laws were statewide in their impact.


Provide Financial Accessibility

Statues which pertain directly to the providing of financial

accessibility are generally concerned with tuition charges, fees, loans,

or scholarships. The following changes have occurred regarding tuition








and fees. In 1957, the Florida Statutes, in describing the support

of public schools, read as follows:

The public schools shall be supported and financed as pre-
scribed below and in chapters 236 and 237. No matriculation or
tuition fees shall be charged pupils whose parents are bona
fide residents of Florida, except as prescribed herein.
(4) Junior colleges, and technical or vocational schools and
schools offering ungraded work for persons regardless of age,
when organized in accordance with the provisions of law, shall
be supported and maintained as part of the county school system
from funds derived from state, county, district, federal or
other lawful sources or combinations of sources; provided, that
tuition or matriculation fees may be charged only if and
authorized by regulations of the state board. (Fla. Stat. 288.
16 1957)

The 1957 Florida Statues,in describing county support for junior colleges,

also stated:

No matriculation or tuition fees may be charged pupils attend-
ing a junior-college unless such fees are authorized by the
state board, and, if such authorization is made, any fees charged
shall conform to the fees prescribed by the state board.
(Fla. Sta. 230.48(2) 1957)

In 1965, the statutes describing county support of junior colleges were

changed to the following and placed under the section pertaining to

state support:

Fees may be charged to students attending a junior-college only
as authorized by and pursuant to regulations of the state board.
(Fla. Stat. 230.0111(3) 1965)

In 1969, the reference to junior colleges in the section of the Florida

Statutes pertaining to support for public schools was dropped. In

1977, reference to tuition and fees in the Florida Statutes read as

follows:

(a) Fees may be charged to students attending a community
college only as authorized by, and pursuant to, rules of
the state board.
(b) The state board shall adopt rules permitting the deferral
of registration and tuition fees for those students re-
ceiving financial aid, other than veterans benefits, from








federal or state assistance programs when such aid is de-
layed in being transmitted to the student through circum-
stances beyond the control of the student. Failure to make
timely application for such aid shall be insufficient
reason to receive such deferral. (Fla. Sta. 230.761(2)
1977)

Table 2 shows the results of characterizing and rating session

laws which pertain to providing financial accessibility. Fifteen dif-

ferent session laws were found to pertain to this aspect of the open

door philosophy. The changes or outcomes of all 15 laws were charac-

terized as being easily identified. Nine were found to change long-

standing norms or customs in a minor way towards expanding the open

door philosophy, 4 were found to make minor restrictions to the philo-

sophy, and 2 were rated as having neither an expanding nor a restrict-

ing effect on the philosophy.

One of the laws was characterized as having local impact; the

others were characterized as having statewide impact. Four laws were

rated as affecting zero dollars, placing the burden upon neither the

student nor the state; 7 laws were rated as placing a slight dollar

burden upon the state; and 4 laws were rated as placing a slight bur-

den upon the student. The mean of the ratings of the extent that the

laws affected changes to longstanding norms or customs was +0.6. The

mean of the ratings of the degree of impact on persons was 2.3. The

mean of the ratings on the impact of cost was +0.26. Three of the

laws placed the burden upon the student. The mean of the ratings of

the overall impact was +0.66.

Overall, the examination, characterizing, and rating of session

laws relating to the providing of financial accessibility indicated that







Table 2

Characteristics and Ratings of Laws Relating to Providing Financial
Accessibility According to Whether or Not Outcomes Were Identifiable
(Observability), the Extent Customs Were Changed (Customs),
and the Degree of Impact on Area, Persons, and Cost


4-)

U 4-
(a 4C-)



Session law m v a


1957 57-252 Y 3 S 4 3 3
1961 61-496 Y 1 S 4 0 1
1965 65-239 Y -1 S 4 -1 -1
1971 71-217 Y 1 L 1 0 1
71-937 Y 2 S 3 1 2
1972 71-3139 Y 1 S 2 1 1
1973 73-195 Y 2 S 3 2 2
1974 74-61 Y 1 S 2 1 1
SE4-






74-211 Y 0 S 1 0
(I) 4-)
> E 0) CU S- (A






74-312 Y 1 S 1 0 1
Session1975 75-302 Y S 2 -2 -
Year number C C) a






1976 76-227 Y S 2 -2 -
1977 77-338 Y 1 S 4 1 1
1965 65-239 Y -1 S 4 -1 -1




1978 71-91 Y I S 1 1 1
71-937 Y 2 S 3 1 2
1972 71-3139 Y 1 S 2 1 1
1973 73-195 Y 2 S 3 2 2
1974 74-61 Y 1 S 2 1 1
74-211 Y 0 S 1 0 0
74-312 Y 1 S 1 0 1
1975 75-302 Y -1 S 2 -2 -1
1976 76-227 Y -1 S 2 -2 -1
1977 77-338 Y 1 S 4 1 1
1978 78-91 Y 0 S 1 1 1
78-338 Y 1 S 1 1 1

Mean of the ratings .6 2.3 1.1h .66

Total laws rated: 15

aCharacterized as Yes or No.
Scale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor; ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
CCharacterized as state (S) or local (L).
dScale from 1 to 4: 1 is very few, 2 is few, 3 is many, 4 is all.
eScale from -8 to +8: negative number indicates student burden,
positive number indicates state burden; ratings from -4 to +4 indicate
few dollars; ratings between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 indicate many dollars.
fScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor, ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
gRequired report only.
hMean based upon absolute values.








the early direction was toward "no tuition or fees may be charged

pupils attending a junior college unless such fees are authorized by

the state board" (1957 Fla. Laws 57-252,cited in Appendix E). Recent

direction was that "fees may be charged to students attending a community

college only as authroized by, and pursuant to, rules of the state

board" and that special student groups may qualify for postponement of

payment of fees or fee waiver (1965 Fla. Laws 65-239,cited in Appendix

E). Emphasis of the session laws from 1971 to 1981 was upon the pro-

viding of financial accessibility through loans, scholarships, CLEP

agreements, credit card payments, fee deferments, and fee waivers. All

of the session laws were rated as being minor in nature. Of the 15

laws, 12 were passed during sessions between 1971 and 1973.


Provide Geographic Accessibility

The session laws and Florida Statues which pertain to providing

geographic accessibility are generally of two types: those that spe-

cifically establish and authorize the various individual community-

junior colleges or districts throughout the state and those which

establish procedures for modifying boundary lines or acquiring property.

Table 3 shows the results of the characterizing and rating of session

laws which pertain to the providing of geographic access. Twenty

different session laws were found to pertain to this aspect of the

open door philosophy. The changes or outcomes in 19 of these laws

were easily identified; the changes or outcomes of the remaining law

were not easily identified. Of the 20 laws, 19 were found to change

longstanding norms or customs in a minor way toward expanding the























Table 3
Characteristics and Ratings of Laws Relating to Providing Geographic
Accessibility According to Whether or Not Outcomes Were Identifiable
(Observability), the Extent Customs Were Changed (Customs),
and the Degree of Impact on Area, Persons, and Cost










U --

E) E
Year number
00 0 U 0
CO V) (0 V)I
57-736 Y 2 S 4 2 2
CU) 4- S= I -
Session law V L C
Year number L) >

1957 57-252 Y 3 S 4 3 3
57-736 Y 2 S 4 2 2
57-760 Y 2 S 4 4 4
1961 61-214 Y 2 L 3 2 2
61-527 Y 2 L 3 2 2
61-528 Y 2 L 3 2 2
61-529 Y 2 L 3 2 2
1963 63-317 Y 2 L 3 2 2
63-411 Y 2 L 3 2 2
63-438 Y 2 L 3 2 2
63-445 Y 2 L 3 2 2
1965 65-239 Y 2 S 0 0 1
65-264 Y 2 L 2 2 2
65-270 Y 2 L 2 2 2
65-271 Y 2 L 2 2 2
65-272 Y 2 L 2 2 2
65-583 Y 2 L 2 2 2
1967 67-331 Y 2 L 2 2 2
1973 73-136 Y 2 L 2 2 2
1979 79-222 N -3 S 3 -19 -2

Mean of the ratings 1.75 3 2.0h 1.9

Total laws rated: 20


aCharacterized as Yes or No.
bScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor; ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
cCharacterized as state (S) or local (L).
dScale from 1 to 4: 1 is very few, 2 is few, 3 is many, 4 is all.
eScale from -8 to +8: negative number indicates student burden,
positive number indicates state burden; ratings from -4 to +4 indicate
few dollars; ratings between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 indicate many
dollars.
fScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor, ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
gBurden is indirect.
hMean of the absolute ratings.








open door philosophy; one was found to be minor restrictive toward

changing norms or customs. The mean of the ratings of the extent the

laws changed longstanding norms or customs was +1.75. The majority of

the laws were characterized as having local impact. The mean of the

ratings of the degree of impact on persons was 3.0. The mean of the

ratings on the impact of cost was +1.9. One law placed the burden

upon the student. The mean of the ratings as to the overall impact of

the laws was +2.0.

Overall, the majority of session laws pertaining to geographic

accessibility were concerned with the establishment of junior college

districts throughout the state. Florida Law 67-331, cited in Appendix

F, established a junior college in Pasco County and basically completed

the geographic access portion of the master plan. Eighteen of the

20 laws were passed between 1957 and 1967. All of the session laws

were rated as being minor in nature. All but one of the session laws

were rated as having an overall impact of expanding, enlarging, or

improving the open door concept. Only five of the laws were charac-

terized as having statewide impact.


Provide a Diversity of Programs

The first direct reference in the Florida Statutes to providing

a diversity of programs was in 1957. The Florida Statutes stated that

junior colleges offered:

(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 voca-
tional nature, and (c) courses for adults. (Fla. Stat.
228.14(3) 1957)








In 1969, the Florida Statutes defined junior colleges through their pro-

gram offerings under chapter 228,entitled State Plan for Public Educa-

tion:

Junior colleges shall consist of all educational institutions
operated by local junior college district boards of trustees under
specific authority and regulations of the state board and offer-
ing courses and programs of general and academic education
parallel to that of the first and second years of work in insti-
tutions in the state university system, of occupational education,
and of adult continuing education. (Fla. Stat. 228.041(1) (b)
1969)

In 1979, the Florida Statutes again defined community colleges through

their program offerings:

State community colleges shall consist of all public educational
institutions operated by community college district boards of
trustees under statutoryauthority and rules of the State Board
of Education and shall maintain the primary responsibility for
lower-level undergraduate instruction. A community college may
be authorized by the State Board of Education to operate a depart-
ment designated as an area-vocational education school and
authorized to operate adult high schools. These institutions
may grant the associate in arts and associate in science degrees,
certificates, awards, and diplomas. The total program offerings
of the community colleges may include, but not be limited to,
courses as components of programs leading to the above-mentioned
degrees, certificates, awards, and diplomas; vocational and
technical offerings leading directly to employment; compensatory,
adult basic, elementary, and secondary education; other general
or liberal arts courses sought by the citizens of the community
for personal development; and other community services. (Fla.
Stat. 240.301 (1979)

Table 4 shows the results of the characterizing and rating of

session laws pertaining to providing a diversity of programs.

Seven different session laws pertaining to this aspect of the

open door philosophy were rated. All of the laws had changes or out-

comes which were easily identified. The mean of the laws as to whether

they changed longtanding normsor customs was +1.6. All of the laws

were characterized as having statewide impact. The mean of the








Table 4

Characteristics and Ratings of Laws Relating to Providing Diversity of
Programs According to Whether or Not Outcomes Were Identifiable
(Observability), the Extent Customs Were Changed (Customs),
and the Degree of Impact on Area, Persons and Cost



44-J





Session law m a 0 a)
Year number o o>

1957 57-252 Y 3 S 4 4 4
1969 69-214 Y 3 S 2 2 2
1979 79-222 Y 1 S 4 0 1
79-397 Y 1 S 2 1 1
1980 80-416 Y 1 S 1 1 1
1981 81-162 Y 1 S 2 1 1
81-254 Y 1 S 1 1 1

Mean of the ratings 1.6 2.3 1.4 1.6
Total laws rated: 7


aCharacterized as Yes or No.
bScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor; ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
cCharacterized as state (S) or local (L).
dScale from 1 to 4: 1 is very few, 2 is few, 3 is many, 4 is all.
eScale from -8 to +8: negative number indicates student burden,
positive number indicates state burden; ratings from -4 to +4 indicate
few dollars; ratings between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 indicate many
dollars.
fScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor, ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.








ratings of the degree of impact on persons was 2.3. The mean of the

ratings on the impact of cost was +1.4. The mean of the ratings of the

overall impact was +1.6.

All of the session laws were rated as being minor in nature. All

were rated as having an overall impact of expanding, enlarging, or

improving educational opportunity and the open door concept. Five of

the seven laws were passed between 1979 and 1981.


Provide Effective Counseling Services

The first direct reference to providing effective counseling ser-

vices by the Florida Statutes was in 1979. The 1979 Florida Statutes

stated:

(p) Each board of trustees shall provide admissions counseling
to all students entering college credit programs, which
counseling shall utilize tests designated by the Articula-
tion Coordinating Committee to measure achievement of
college-level communication and computation competencies by
all students entering college credit programs. (Fla. Stat.
240.319(3) 1979)

Table 5 shows the results of the characterizing and rating of the

session law which pertains to providing effective counseling services.

This was the only law determined to pertain to this aspect of the open

door philosophy. The law was characterized as having changes or out-

comes which were easily identified. The law was rated as restricting

longstanding norms or customs with regard to the open door philosophy.

The law was characterized as having statewide impact and had a rating

of 4 pertaining to the degree of impact on persons. The rating as

to the impact of cost was +1. The rating of overall impact was -2.








Table 5

Characteristics and Ratings of Laws Relating to Providing Effective
Counseling Services According to Whether or Not Outcomes Were
Identifiable (Observability), the Extent Customs Were Changed (Customs),
and the Degree of Impact on Area, Persons, and Cost






S o a)
*r- +--- r- *r-
r- E
o i ( o 4-
5- 0 0) S- 0) 0 (0
Session law 4-) s a o
Year number o = >

1979 79-222 Y -2 S 4 1 -2

Total laws rated: 1


aCharacterized as Yes or No.
bScale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor; ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.
CCharacterized as state (S) or local (L).
dScale from 1 to 4: 1 is very few, 2 is few, 3 is many, 4 is all.
eScale from -8 to +8: negative number indicates student burden,
positive number indicates state burden; ratings from -4 to +4 indicate
few dollars; ratings between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 indicate many
dollars.
d Slarcale from -8 to +8: ratings from -4 to +4 are minor, ratings
between -4 and -8 and +4 and +8 are major; negative number indicates
restricting open door; positive number indicates expanding open door.









The Five Aspects of the Open Door Philosophy

The examination, characterizing, and rating of the session laws

from 1957 to 1981 revealed that there were 41 different laws which per-

tained to Florida's open door philosophy. There were 48 ratings of the

laws made during the stud3 because several laws pertained to more than

one aspect of the open door philosophy. Of these laws, 5 were found

to pertain specifically to providing educational opportunity to all

persons, 15 were found to pertain specifically to providing financial

accessibility, 20 were found to pertain specifically to providing geo-

graphic accessibility, 7 were found to pertain specifically to provid-

ing a diversity of programs, and 1 was found to pertain specifically to

providing effective counseling services.

Table 6 summarizes the number of laws and shows the percentage

of laws by particular aspect and by all 5 aspects of the open door

philosophy prior to and after 1970. The table shows that of the 48

laws rated in the study pertaining to the open door philosophy, 50:.

were passed prior to 1970 and 50:. were passed after 1970. Of the laws

passed prior to 1970, 4: pertained to providing educational opportunity

to all; 12'.., to providing financial accessibility; 75:, to providing

geographic accessibility; 8:, to providing a diversity of programs,

and none to providing effective counseling services. Of the laws

passed after 1970, 17. pertained to providing educational opportunity

to all persons, 501, to providing financial accessibility; 8:, to

providing geographic accessibility; 21:, to providing a diversity of

programs; and 40, to providing effective counseling services.












Ln LO C0 r- -
i- C\j


0 0 O ,-
in C<




0c 0 0- 0
O0- r- 0


U
(U






L.L









C,.
4-







4.
S-~






0C








_ 0



4-.
-e







> 0)
->-



0.

C0

(3 0
.5-
4-0


0







S -
U(Q

5-JQ
Q)











.0


E


Ln -


CO 0


Sh

C)
















0



LO
0




r*r
S.-
0..
Q


- CO co


CM 0


*c
4-

4-)
s.-
0
f..






D 0
0






CL

00




.,- 4-)
0)-


Q-
0

0

-r- *

0 0 C-
.S- 01

OO

o s-oc
0 <- 0 L



U 0 0
0o s.-
.J o 0

C(UO
.- -ec= -o
0 oL+4-

0 0
o 4- 4-)-
o -





*r woo
0 om4
O QC-+

n( tW rc 4-
4-) 0

U .Ii ro u()
I tI-








*- *
. 0.- 0o0-
4- 4--) 0
S- cz

QL-^
0 0 -






C C4 CC




-- .-














0 0 0a a
-a 4- -'
.S- *S- S*-
o (Ua) a)

- Q-+- 4



S.- S.- SE- S-
o o cwrc




0 0r00


4) 4t-) 4)
U() UUU
ro r
S. S- S.-.0
al) cW/ W W1l1



S0- C-4-


0 C C


0U -C: 0) 0) 0
0. 0L. Q. 0-

0


-c
Q0


0 0 0 O
NCJ NC OC CM


C\j C'











14- C" LfO
.- r-_









An examination of the session laws pertaining to all areas ex-

cept those pertaining to providing geographic access shows that 79. of

the session laws rated were passed after 1970 and only 21. were passed

prior to 1970. Stated differently, of the 28 laws, 22 were passed

after 1970 and only 6 prior to 1970. This is because there were 18

total laws rated in the study which pertained to providing geographic

access. Ninety percent of these were passed prior to 1970, 10. after

1970.

The laws were rated to identify the extent they were minor or

major in their overall impact. All of the laws rated in the study were

rated minor in scope or impact. The mean of all the laws in the study

was 1.27. Only two laws were assigned an overall rating of 4, meaning

that only 2 laws were even close to being rated as major in scope (see

Appendix 3 for criteria).

The outcomes of the laws were identifiable observabilityy) in 40-

of the laws pertaining to providing educational opportunity to all,

100.' of the laws pertaining to providing financial access, 95' of the

laws pertaining to providing geographic access, 1001'. of the laws per-

taining to providing diversity of programs, and 100. (only 1 law) of

the laws pertaining to providing effective counseling services. The

outcomes were identifiable in 92., of the laws pertaining to all as-

pects of the open door philosophy.

Ratings identified the extent norms or customs were changed

(customs). All of the saws were rated as being changed in a minor way.

Ratings identified the extent customs restricted, narrowed, and

blocked or expanded, enlarged, and improved the open door concept.







Forty percent of the laws pertaining to providing educational oppor-

tunity to all, 20% of the laws pertaining to providing financial accessi-

bility to all, 5% of the laws pertaining to providing geographic accessi-

bility, 0% of the laws pertaining to providing a diversity of programs,

and 100% of the laws pertaining to providing effective counseling ser-

vices were rated as restricting, narrowing, or blocking the open door

concept (see Appendix B). Fourteen percent of all the laws were rated as

restricting the open door. The mean rating for all the laws was 1.6.

The laws were characterized as having state or local impact (area).

None of the laws pertaining to providing educational opportunity for all

were characterized as being local in impact. Six percent of the laws

pertaining to providing financial accessibility were characterized as

being local in impact. Seventy-five percent of the laws pertaining to

providing a diversity of programs were characterized as being local in

impact. None of the laws pertaining to providing effective counseling

services were characterized as being local in impact. Thirty-three

percent of all the laws were characterized as being local in impact.

The laws were rated to determine the extent they had impact upon

a small number or a very large number of persons. The mean score for

laws pertaining to providing educational opportunity to all was 1.4;

for providing financial accessibility, 2.3; for providing geographic

accessibility, 3,0; for providing a diversity of programs, 2.3; and

for providing effective counseling services, 4.0. The mean for all the

laws rated in the study was 2.4.

The laws were rated as to the cost and the burden of cost (see

Appendix B). The mean of the absolute values of the laws pertaining

to providing educational opportunity to all was 1.2. The mean of







providing financial accessibility was 2.6. The mean of providing geo-

graphic accessibility was 2.0. The mean of providing a diversity of

programs was 1.4. The mean of providing effective counseling (one law

rated) was 1.4. The absolute mean of values of all the laws was 1.7.

A student burden was found for three laws relating to providing finan-

cial accessibility and one law pertaining to geographic accessibility

(indirect burden; see Table 3). This indicated that the laws pertain-

ing to all aspects of the open door philosophy affected few dollars as

opposed to many, and in almost all instances placed the burden of cost

upon local or state governments as opposed to the student.

Overall, the emphasis of the laws was upon providing financial

accessibility through scholarships and loans, providing geographic acces-

sibility, and providing a diversity of programs. The laws did not em-

phasize providing educational opportunity to all persons, providing

financial accessibility through low or no tuition, or providing effec-

tive counseling services.

Results of Interviews with Key Informants Familiar with
Florida's System of Community Colleges and State-Level
Policy Making
This section presents the results of interviews with key in-

formants, including ratings. The interviews and ratings were derived

from the two essential elements and the six characteristics of incremen-

tal policy making identified from the review of literature and defined

for the purpose of the study. The interviews and ratings were conduc-

ted over a period of 30 days. Of the 16 individuals invited to parti-

cipate in the interviews, 14 were actually interviewed. Of these 14,

2 expressed unfamiliarity with the open door philosophy in 1981. One

individual expressed unfamiliarity with the open door philosophy in








1957. Several were reluctant to complete the ratings because of their

unfamiliarity with either the early or later implementation of the

philosophy. (Appendix I lists the individuals interviewed in the

study.)


Essential Condition of Satisfaction
with Present Policies

Several questions were asked key informants in an attempt to

determine policy maker satisfaction with policies during the period

1957 to 1981. The key informants were asked to describe the open door

philosophy as it was originally proposed and the population it was

designed to serve. They were asked the following questions: What

really brought about the establishment of the open door in Florida?

Was the open door established because there was dissatisfaction with

existing conditions or policies or for other reasons? What were the

stated reasons and the real reasons for opposing the open door philo-

sophy in 1981? If there was a conscientious effort by policy makers

to follow the master plan, how long did the effort last, and what brought

a halt to efforts if there was a halt?

The key informants stated that the initial establishment of the

open door philosophy of Florida's system of community colleges came

about as a result of recognition by policy makers in the 1950s of a

number of needs of the state. The largest single need was to provide

college-level education to an enormous number of citizens of the state.

These citizens consisted of (a) those who were currently willing to

attend college but who for some geographic, financial, or motivational

reason were unable to attend, and (b) those persons who would be of








college age during the next decade. Coupled with the need to provide

a college-level education to this enormous number of persons was the

recognition by policy makers of the inability of the existing univer-

sities to provide education at a low cost and be able physically to

handle the enormous number of students soon to be of college age. An

additional realization was stressed by key informants. Policy makers

realized the high cost both to the students and to the state if the

traditional university model of education were utilized; the univer-

sity model included dorms and other capital outlay expenses. The key

informants acknowledged that they were concerned during the mid-1950s

with the tremendous potential expense to the state if the present

universities were expanded to meet the growing needs of providing a

college education to this enormous population. They also acknowledged

that expansion of the present universities would not meet the needs of

this particular group of citizens seeking a college-level education.

One key informant expressed the overall problem as a load that was

thrust upon them that was too big for the universities to handle. The

policy makers of the early 1950s were forced to find new ways to deal

with the problem.

The second largest need of the mid-1950s recognized by the key

informants was concerned with vocational (trade) and technical training.

Two aspects of the need were identified: to provide vocational and

technical training to a growing number of individuals, and to improve

the existing vocational and technical training offered by the state.

A third need mentioned by the key informants was to provide a

system of education through which persons could continue their education








beyond high school. Some of the key informants reported that high

schools at the time had only partially prepared students for jobs or

for continuing their education.

The key informants also mentioned that, during the mid-1950s, there

were no institutions that served students who were academically or

emotionally unprepared for a residential state university. The commun-

ity college was viewed as the educational institution which would pro-

vide support for these students prior to, or following, their attendance

at a state university. Private community colleges had been fulfilling

this role to some degree prior to the latter 1950s.

Policy makers during the mid-1950s were aware of other trends which

contributed to the initial formulation of the open door philosophy. Two

emerging trends existed at the time. Community college administrators

were accepting students into their institutions who were less well pre-

pared than the typical college applicant,with the hopes of effectively

preparing them for continued education or vocational training. Univer-

sity administrators were tending to be more selective of their students

as competition for space in the university developed.

The open door philosophy was not reported by key informants to have

been established out of dissatisfaction with existing conditions or

policies. It was reported by the key informants to have been established

more or less as a rational policy response to the need to provide educa-

tion to large numbers of citizens of the state. The conditions existing

in the state at the time challenged the policy makers to identify a

method of overcoming these conditions. There was no dissatisfaction with

existing conditions. The feeling was more of a recognition that the

system had to be improved to meet growing needs.









The open door philosophy or focus of providing educational oppor-

tunity was thought by the key informants to have been established for

two equally important purposes: (a) to provide opportunity to those

persons of limited economic resources by ensuring geographic and finan-

cial access and a choice of program opportunity, and (b) to ensure

access to higher education to all graduates of Florida high schools.

The open door philosophy was viewed by the key informants as serving

both the traditional college-age student as well as the older student

who had already entered the work force, for the purpose of allowing

these students to obtain either college-transfer or a vocational/tech-

nical education.

Many of the key informants indicated that the original primary

function of Florida's system of community colleges was to serve the

college transfer student. These key informants reported that the

serving of the vocational and technical student was of secondary impor-

tance and that these porgrams, in fact, developed during the 1960s

following the establishment of the system. Other key informants indi-

cated that there was no emphasis on one program over another by the

junior colleges; both the vocational or technical programs and the

college transfer programs were given the same support by policy makers.

One point continually made by the key informants during the interviews

was that each individual community-junior college in the system had a

different focus or direction which was the result of uniquely differ-

ent histories or emphases by the local school boards.

The policy statement which eventually provided the support and

direction for the needed educational opportunity was the master plan








for community colleges, written in 1957. The master plan was con-

sidered by all of the key informants to be the blueprint for the devel-

opment of the system. The master plan represented a very large change

in the effort of the state to provide educational opportunity to the

citizens of Florida. Table 7 shows the frequency of ratings by the key

informants of the degree of change from the status quo the master plan

represented according to four criteria. According to the key infor-

mants the master plan represented a large or very large change from the

status quo with regard to all four aspects of the open door philosophy.

The key informants indicated that the master plan indeed represented a

very large change from the status quo in the number of persons offered

postsecondary education. Table 8 shows the frequency of the ratings by

the key informants of the extent that each policy-making position,

policy document, or other phenomena contributed to the implementation

and support of the open door philosophy in 1957. The master plan was

rated by the key informants as the largest contributor to -the implemen-

tation and support of the open door philosophy in 1957. Early satisfac-

tion with the open door philosophy of the master plan is indirectly

indicated by the large support in 1957 (as shown in Table 8) by the

governor and the legislature. A large factor in explaining the sup-

port of policy makers for the master plan was the plan's design for the

establishment of additional community-junior colleges. The master plan

offered the means by which local areas could establish locally con-

trolled colleges. According to one key informant, this opportunity

politically united all of the parochial interests of the state.













C~j C'.J C~j C~j
- I- -


-c




4-'
E





LI-














a)
",








a)














4-)
a)

c<


















C:
0





















0
Q.
.i0



S-















4-)


0
a)









a)
"-
.-.I
c" U
-o













U,
t-L










i- e







Lt-
00
3






I-Il


4-
0
U)
n .EC
E 4-
0

UL 0



-0 0
O -i
rO 4-


E 2-
S.- 4-'
0 t

*- -ro



-a ro 0




cn 0 0
c a)
0 Q. a

) 4-

F-


C 0


C .4-)
- co




ro








u


CUO 4-
4-U

r(0


0
'4-
c t






OL
0




o
a Q3
Q0.


F-


-o
0



a
c,
0



4-)








0
L







Q0

0 0
-o
a)
4-










I-
0 c



CL 0






E 4-J

cu


-c: <


ro
co







0
4-)
ro

u








0
ro
aC
a.
x


0
4-)-









L 0
co




I-)



c.


L>)


U)


*3- LrC1
S. roC
--I U


E
U)
-
m l0
V)


-. - .c.
.- <. ,- ro
S-. E 2-C
Ln u


a)

C O0

.
u


m N- C -







a C 0 C





o 0 C 0
o o o o
o o o o


I 1













r- r--- r




CO O 00 CO







c0 C C C0
om o.I "I CD


cY) CY) C\J (N (NJ m


0 0


NM NM i- ,- C


cn
4--


o
.0
OC


*r-
*- .0
00
-r--.





CLe
0










( 0
4-- C



u44-
*r-

00
0 0
Q.












SO




I-- 4-'-
C7



*r- W










r---
XQ.







4-C





r--



r -

Q.-





t--
DC 0





S4-
O
4->





w(
U~l J

4-


*^


;O S- S-
C-^ (m (



->
0






- Lo






D E












CD
C (
E
CA





o E





O OE
(Y


0U
5.-

5- 4- 4
o (J

0 0

o I 0I
-n N
-r-'
D ID -r-
. .C- *i--
I- F- L.)


- 0 r- 0 0 0 0





N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


4--
0 4-
*r- O U'

E E O
*r- U) *i-
E 4 (A

O 1-A (
0 10 E
( S U') U 2


O *
U *- I.- 0
-r -- 0- 0
Wti- ) 0

S- S- -- E
DJ 0 L.. U- O



*i- oo u- -
4- 4 en UU c
V)U E -- *r- 4


S0. Q .. U S-)
0 0
4-a) S 4-)

S3



Co0 .rU .C-
S E E- E
E 0
) C: a) 0o 0) s-
-SU 0 C- &-
F- F- I


oo
4-
S- -


















E
-c 0
0)










'--
. r
o







r4-
s.-
(A 0
S- 4-
a- (U

0- C

(U -0
0 u




(A 0
ro

E W


w .
Q I-


0

C-)


>-c



0-


O- -
0U S >

o So Co
E Q. 0
) 0-

uU 0




r- -
( ) O
U -- cfX




.- O 4-)







0) 0 00
3. C 01
am1 o
/ ol o41E


C O D 0 CJ





CO rC r--


cr CO mO r- 0 L : r o O -





,- C ) N 0 N c\- 9- CD 0


CY)




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