Title: Avenues of cooperation between three state agencies responsible for post high school education
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00097547/00001
 Material Information
Title: Avenues of cooperation between three state agencies responsible for post high school education
Physical Description: xxiii, 391 leaves. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Hansen, Dean Maurice
Publication Date: 1974
Copyright Date: 1974
 Subjects
Subject: Higher education and state -- United States   ( lcsh )
University cooperation -- United States   ( 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 -- University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 384-390.
Additional Physical Form: Also available on World Wide Web
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00097547
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 - 000580794
oclc - 14083101
notis - ADA8899

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 18 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text










AVENUES OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THREE STATE AGENCIES
RESPONSIBLE FOR POST HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION










By

DEAN MAlURICE HANSEN


A DISSERTATIONS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
INr PARTIAL FULFILLMENTr OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


197/4















nf

J t
;r



,,.,


11111111111illi111111111111 1111111111111111 iii111111111 111111111
3 1262 08552 3503





























With appreciation and love to my wife, I dedicate

this dissertation to my perceptive father, now

deceased, with his eighth grade education, and to

my preceptor mother and stepfather, now retired,

with their college educations They all imbibed

knowledge and truth, and whetted a son's appetite.














ACKNJOWLEDGMENITS

I extend my sincere appreciation to Dr. James L. Wattenbarger,

Dr. Ralph B. Kimbrough, Dr. Omega R. Mc~uown, Dr. Walter A. Rosenbaum,

Dr. Roe Lyle Johns, Dr. Edwin L. Kurth, and Dr. Willis A. LaVire, who

served as chairman and members, respectively, of the supervisory

committee. Cognizantly, the articulate guidance and example of Dr.

Wattenbarger were the deciding elements in the preparation of this

di s sert action .

Gratitude is also expressed to the respective state agency

directors for their generous responses in providing the necessary data

for the study.

Special acknowledgment is rendered to the W. K. Kellogg Foundation,

The University of Florida Graduate School, and the National Educational

Finance Project for their assistance and fellowships during my doctoral

studies and the preparation of this text.


111



































I Introduction.... ... ... .... ... ... .... ... ...


Overview and Justification of the Study..........


Statement of the Research Problem................


Delimitations and Limitations....................


Assumptions..............................


Definition of Terms..............................


Procedures...................................


Study Design.................................,.


Study Population...............................


Instrumentation...........................


Data Collection, Treatment, and Presentation...


II Review of Related Literature........................


Areas and Modes of Cooperation ................... .


Agency Composition...............................


Federal Pressures................................


Theory.......................................


Summ~nary....................................


TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
iii


x


xx


ACKN~OWLEDGMENTS.......


LIST OF TABLES........


LIST OF FIGURES.......


ABSTRACT..............


CHAPTER


........................................


........................................


........................................


........................................







CHAPTER


Page


III Patterns in the Questionnaire Return and
Preliminary Questions............................. 57

Introduction................................ 57

General Appraisal of Response to Agency
Questionnaire............................... 58

Overall Response.............................. 58

Response by Individual State and Agency....... 59

Response by Geographical Area................. 59

Response of States with Three Respondent
Agencies, by Geographical Grouping............ 61

Preliminary Questions Posed to Directors of
State Agencies................................. 61

Preliminary Question Number One: What is the
State Board Relationship of the Three Admin-
istrative Bureaus or Agencies in your State
that are Respectively Responsible for ACE,
VTE, and CJC?................................. 61

Preliminary Question MNuber Two: What is the
Administrative Relationship among the State
Level Agencies Responsible for ACE, VTE, and
CJC in your State?............................ 69

Summary..................................... 75

IV Presentation of Questionnaire Data: Identification
and Analyses of Agency Responsibilities and Inter-
actions in Various Component Areas of Post High School
Education and Selected Activities and Functions
Carried on by State Educational Agencies.......... 78

Introduction................................ 78

Avenues and Patterns of Agency Responsibilities
and Interactions.............................. 79

Analysis of Question 1: Questionnaire Responses
Regarding the Type of Agency Responsibility
and/or Participation in Eight Component Areas
of Post High School Education ................. 80

Precursory overview......................... 80

Multisectional analyses..................... 81







CHAPTER Page

IV (Continued)

Analyses of individual component areas...... 98

University-parallel programs.............. 98

2-year occupational degree programns....... 101

Less than 2-year occupational degree
programs ................... ............... 103

Employment updating and retraining
programs................................. 105

Cultural and personal improvement and
enrichment programs....................... 107

Community service programs................ 109

Basic adult education programs
(grades 1-8).............................. 111

High school equivalencyc) diploma
prograuns................................. 113

Synoptic observations....................... 114

Analysis of Question 2: Questionnaire Responses
Regarding the Tyrpe of Agency Responsibility
and/or Participation in Nine Activities and
Functions Carried on by State Educational
Agencies................................... 117

Precursory overview......................... 118

Multisectional analyses..................... 118

Analyses of individual agency activities and
functions................................. 142

In-service training for agency staff...... 1k2

State educational planning for post high
school education.......................... 145

Review and approval of proposed post high
school educational programs............... 147

Preparation of legislation................ 149

Administration of state appropriated funds 150







CHAPTER Page

IV (Continued)

Administration of federal programs........ 152

Development of articulation procedures.... 156

Feasibility studies for proposed institu-
tions and institutional mergers........... 158

Establishment of standards for educational
prograns................................. 160

Synoptic observations....................... 162

V Presentation of Questionnaire Data: Identification
and Analyses of Agency Responsibilities and Inter-
actions in Selected State Educational Plans and
Federal Programs Relative to Post High School
Education.................................... 166

Avenues and Patterns of Agency Responsibilities
and Interactions.............................. 166

Analysis of Question 3: Questionnaire Responses
Regarding the Type of Agency Responsibility
and/or Participation in the Development of
Five State Educational Plans Relative to Post
High School Education......................... 166

Precursory overview......................... 166

Multisectional analyses..................... 169

Analyses of individual state plans.......... 202

Development of a master plan for all of
education................................ 202

Development of a master plan for higher
education................................ 204

Development of a state community college
plan ................... ................... 205

Development of a state vocational educa-
tion plan................................. 209

Development of a state community services
plan..................................... 211

Synoptic observations....................... 213







CHAPTER Page

V (Continued)

Analysis of Question 4: Questionnaire Responses
Regarding the Tyrpe of Agency Responsibility
and/or Participation in Eight Federal Programs
Involving Post High School Education as Touching
Their Planning, Administration, and Account-
ability.................................... 219

Precursory overview......................... 219

Multisectional analyses..................... 221

Analyses of individual federal educational
programs.................................. 267

Vocational education act.................. 267

Economic opportunity act .................. 270

Adult education act....................... 272

Higher education act...................... 274

Manpower development and training act..... 276

Higher education facilities act........... 278

Elementary and secondary education act.... 280

Nurses training act ................... .... 282

Synoptic observations....................... 284

VI Presentation of Questionnaire Data: Evaluative
Rankings and Opinionative Statements by Agency
Directors Regarding Joint Agency Cooperation...... 291

Evaluative Rankings by Agency Directors Regarding
Varied Avenues and Methods of Interagency
Cooperation................................. 291

Formal or Structured Avenues of Interagency
Cooperation................................ 292

Informal or Unstructured Avenues of Inter-
agency Cooperation........................... 307

Opinionative .Statements by Agency Directors
Regarding Aspects and Avenues of Interagency
Cooperation............. .... .... .... .... ... 313


V111








CHAPTER Page

VI (Continued)

Opinionative Statements by Agency Directors
Regarding the most Effective Avenues or
Methods of Cooperation, both Long Term and
Short Term, between State Administrative
Staff Agencies Having Responsibilities for
Post High School Education.................... 314

Opinionative Statements by Agency Directors
Regarding Methods or Avenues of Joint Agency
Cooperation Which They Would Like to See
Effected or Introduced........................ 324

Opinionative Statements by Agency Directors
Regarding Areas of Post High School Educa-
tional Concern Where Interagency Cooperation
Should Be Initiated or Developed.............. 331

Synoptic Observations........................... 341

VII Surmmary, Findings, Conclusions, and Implications... 4

Summary of the Setting, Problem, and Procedures. 3k11

Summary of Questionnaire Results and Findings... 345

Summary of Study Findings, with Conclusions and
Guidelines.................................. 355

Implications and Recommendations for Further
Research.................................... 373

APPENrDIX A.............................................. 376

BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................... 384

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................... 391












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. Taxonomy of State Politics of Education................ 42

2. Response of State Agencies to Agency Questionniare, by
Number and Percent................................. 58

3. Response to Agency Questionnaire, by State and Agency.. 60

A.Geographical Grouping of Responses to Agency Question-
naire, by State and Agency........................... 62

5. Response to Agency Questionnaire from 21 States Having
all Three Agencies Reply, by Geographical Grouping,
with Percent................................... ---- 63

6. Respondent States Reporting One Designated State Board
of Education Responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC
Agencies.................... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 65

7. Respondent State Reporting Three State Boards Respec-
tively Responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies,
Showing Appertaining Board-Agency Relationships........ 65

8. Respondent States Reporting Two Designated State Boards
Responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies, Showing
Board-Agency Relationships............................ 66

9. Reported Relationships of State Boards and State Level
Administrative Agencies in 50 Respondent States, by
Geographical Grouping............................. 68

10. Reported Relationships of State Boards and State Level
Administrative Agencies in the 21 States Having Three
Respondent Agencies, by Geographical Grouping.......... 69

11. Reported Administrative Relationships of State Agencies
in 50 Respondent States, by State Board Grouping....... 71

12. Reported Administrative Relationships Among the ACE,
VTE, and CJC Agencies, by State Board Grouping......... 72

13. Reported Administrative Relationships of State Agencies
According to Type of State Board Affiliation, by
Geographical Grouping............................*-* 74






Table


Page


14. Reported Administrative Relationships of State Agencies
According to Type of State Board Affiliation, by Geo-
graphical Grouping of the 21 States with Tri-Agency
Questionnaire Responses................................ 76

15. Summary of Comparative Agency Responses, by Percent,
Regarding Mandated and Cooperative Agency Participation
in Eight Component Areas of Post High School Education. 82

16. Summary Listing, by Percent, of Various Component Areas
of Post High School Education Where at least Thirty
Percent of Respondent Agencies Reported Mandated Agency
Responsibilities and/or Aggregate Voluntary and
Required Interagency Cooperation....................... 83

17. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies Reporting Mandated Involve-
ments in Eight Component Areas of Post High School
Education....................................... 84

18. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies Reporting Interagency
Cooperation in Eight Component Areas of Post High
School Education................................... 85

19. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Mandated Responsibilities in the Eight Varied
Component Areas of Post High School Education.......... 88

20. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of.the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in the
Eight Varied Component Areas of Post High School
Education....................................... 91

21. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in Each Administrative and Board
Grouping Reported Mandated Responsibilities in the
Eight Varied Component Areas of Post High School
Education....................................... 93

22. Summary List of Comparative Agency Responses, by Per-
cent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respective
Agencies in each Administrative and Board Grouping
Reported Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in
the Eight Varied Component Areas of Post High School
Education....................................... 96






Table


Page


23. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in University-Parallel
Programs........................................ 100

24. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in 2-Year Occupational Degree
Programs........................................ 102

25. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Less than 2-Year Occupa-
tional Degree Programs................................. 104

26. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Employment Updating and
Retraining Programs.................................. 106

27. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Cultural and Personal
Improvement and Enrichment Programs ................... 108

28. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Community Service Programs 110

29. Comparative Response Patterns, Mr Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Basic Adult Education
Programs (Grades 1-8).................................. 112

30. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in High School (Equivalency)
Diploma Programs.................................... 115

31. Summary of Comparative Agency Responses, by Percent,
Regarding Mandated and Cooperative Agency Participa-
tion in Nine Activities and Functions Carried on by
State Educational Agencies............................. 119

32. Summary Listing, by Percent, of Nine Activities and
Functions Carried on by State Educational Agencies
Where at least Thirty Percent of Respondent Agencies
Reported Mandated Agency Responsibilities and/or
Aggregate Voluntary and Required Joint Agency
Cooperation..................................... 120






Table


Page


33. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies Reporting Mandated Involve-
ments in Nine Agency Activities and Functions.......... 121

34. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies Reporting Interagency Coopera-
tion in Nine Agency Activities and Functions ........... 122

35. Summary Listing of Comlparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Mandated Responsibilities in the Nine Activities and
Functions Carried on by State Education Agencies....... 126

36. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in the Nine
Activities and Functions Carried on by State
Educational Agencies.................................. 130

37. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Administrative and Board Grouping
Reported Mandated Responsibilities in the Nine
Activities and Functions Carried on by State Educational
Agencies........................................ 135

38. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by Per-
cent, Wrhere at least Thirty Percent of the Respective
Agencies in each Administrative and Board Grouping
Reported Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in
the Nine Activities and Functions Carried on by State
Educational Agencies.................................. 139

39. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in In-Service Training for
Agency Staff..................................... 1c4

40. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in State Educational
Planning for Post High School Education ................ 146

1.Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Review and Approval of
Proposed Post High School Educational Programs......... 148


X111





Table


Page


lc2. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Preparation of
Legislation..................................... 151

k3. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Administration of state
Appropriated Funds.................................... 153

G.Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Administration of
Federal Programs.................................... 155

45. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of Articu-
lation Procedures.................................. 157

46. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Feasibility Studies for
Proposed Institutions and Institutional Mergers........ 159

47. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Establishment of
Standards for Educational Programs..................... 161

48. Summary of Comparative Agency Responses, by Percent,
Regarding Mandated and Cooperative Agency Participa-
tion in the Development of Five Educational Plans
Involving Post High School Education................... 167

49. Summary Listing, by Percent, of Five Educational Plans
Involving Post High School Education Where at least
Thirty Percent of Respondent Agencies Reported Mandated
Agency Responsibilities and/or Aggregate Voluntary and
Required Joint Agency Cooperation...................... 16

50. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Mandated Responsibilities in the Development of Five
Educational Plans Relative to Post High School
Education....................................... 172

51. Comparative Geographical Rankings, by General Percent-
age Levels, of Mandated Involvements Reported by ACE,
VTE, and CJC Agency Groupings in the Development of
Five Sta~te Educational Plans Relative to Post High
School Education ..........,...,,.........,............. 173


X1v





Table


Page


52. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Th~irty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in the
Development of Five Educational Plans Relative to Post
High School Education ...............,...,...,............ 179

53. Comparative Geographical Rankings, by General Percent-
age Levels, of Interagency Cooperation Reported by ACE,
VTE, and CJC Agency Groupings in the Development of
Five State Educational Plans Relative to Post High
School Education................................... 180

54. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Mandated Responsibilities in the Development of Five
State Educational Plans Relative to Post High School
Education Reported by ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies in
Various Administrative and Board Groupings..........,... 186

55. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Administrative and Board
Grouping Reported Mandated Responsibilities in the
Development of Five Educational Plans Relative to
Post High School Education ................... ..........11

56. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Joint Agency Cooperation in the Development of Five
State Educational Plans Relative to Post High School
Education Reported by ACE, VTE,. and CJC Agencies in
Various Administrative and Board Groupings............. 195

57. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Administrative and Board Grouping
Reported Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in
the Development of Five Educational Plans Relative to
Post High School Education................... .......... 200

58. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of a
Master Plan for all of Education....................... 203

59. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of a
Master Plan for Higher Education....................... 206





Table


Page


60. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of a
Community College Plan................................. 208

61. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of a
'Vocational Education Plan.............................. 210

62. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Development of' a
Community Services Plan ................... ............. 212

63. Summary.of Comparative Agency Responses, by Percent,
Regarding Mandated and Cooperative Agency Participation
in the Planning, Admrinistration, and Accountability of
Eight Federal Programs................................. 222

6lc. Summary Listing, by Percent, of Eight Federal Programs
Where at least Thirty Percent of Respondent Agencies
Reported Mandated Agency Responsibilities and/or
Aggregate Voluntary and Required Joint Agency Coopera-
tion in Aspects of Planning, Administration, and
Accountability.................................. 223

65. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Geographically Grouped ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies
Which Reported Mandated Involvements in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Programs........................................ 226

66. Comparative Geographical Rankings, by General Percentage
Levels, of ACE, VTE, and CJC Agency Groupings Who
Reported Mandated Involvements in the Planning, Admin-
istration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Prograns........................................ 228

67. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Mandated Responsibilities in the Planning, Administra-
tion, and Accountability of Eight Federal Programs...... 231

68. Comparative Geographical Rankings, by General Percent-
age Levels, of ACE, V7TE, and CJC Agency Groupings
Who Reported Joint Agency Cooperation in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Prograns........................................ 235





Table


Page


69. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Geographically Grouped ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies Which
Reported Joint Agency Cooperation in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Programs........................................ 237

70. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Geographical Grouping Reported
Joint Agency Cooperative Intervolvements in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Programs........................................ 240

71. Summary Listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by Per-
cent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respective
Agencies in each Administrative and Board Grouping
Repor-ted Mandated Responsibilities in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Programs........................................ 2kk

72. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Mandated Involvements Reported by ACE, VTE, and CJC
Agency Groupings in the Planning, Administration, and
Accountability of Eight Federal Programs Relative to
Post High School Education, by State Board and
Administrative Agency Status Classifications........... 248

73. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels, of
Mandated Involvements Reported by ACE, VTE, and CJC
Agencies in the Planning, Administration, and Account-
ability of Eight Federal Programs Relative to Post
High School Education, Grouped by State Board and
Administrative Agency Sta~tus Classifications..........., 250

74. Summary listing of Comparative Agency Responses, by
Percent, Where at least Thirty Percent of the Respec-
tive Agencies in each Administrative and Board
Grouping Reported Joint Agency Cooperative Inter-
volvements in the Planning, Administration, and
Accountability of Eight Federal Programs............... 256

75. Comparative Rankings, by General Percentage Levels,
of Interagency Cooperative Involvements Reported by
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agency Groupings in the Planning,
Administration, and Accountability of Eight Federal
Programs Relative to Post High School Education, by
State Board and Administrative Agency Status
Classification.................................. 260


XVll





Table


Page


76. Comparative -Rankings, by GenecLral Percentage Levels,
of Interagency Cooperative Involvements Reported by
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies in the Planning, Administra-
tion, and Accountability of Eight Federal Programs
Relative to Post High School Education, Grouped by
State Board and Administrative Agency Status
Classifications................................. 262

77. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Vocational Education Act..... 269

78. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Economic Opportunity Act..... 271

79. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Adult Education Act.......... 273

80. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Higher Education Act......... 275

81. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Federal Manpower Development
and Training Act...................................... 277

82. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Higher Education Facilities
Act............................................. 279

83. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act................... ............. 281

8k. Comparative Response Patterns, by Percent, of the Three
Reporting Agencies Regarding the Type of Involvement or
Responsibility They Shared in Planning, Administration,
and Accountability of the Nurses Training Act.......... 283


X111






Table


Page


85. Evaluative Rankings of Effectiveness and Preference, by
Percent, Reported by Agency Directors Regarding Eight
Mandatorily Structured Avenues of Joint Agency
Cooperation..................................... 293

86. Evaluative Rankings of Effectiveness and Preference, by
Percent, Reported by Agency Directors Regarding Eight
Voluntarily Structured Avenues of Joint Agency Coopera-
tion, Plus Two Unstructured Avenues.................... 295

87. Comparative Agency Rankings, by General Percentage
Levels, of the Levels of Effectiveness and Preference
Regarding Eight Avenues of Mandatorily Structured and
Voluntarily Structured Joint Agency Cooperation, as
Evaluated and Reported by Agency Directors ............. 297

88. Evaluative Rankings of Effectivenss and Preference, by
Percent, Reported by Agency Directors Regarding Four
Informal or Unstructured Avenues of Joint Agency
Cooperation..................................... 309

89. Comparative Agency Rankings, by General Percentage
Levels, Showing the Relative Ranges of Effectiveness
and Preference Evaluatively Reported by Agency Directors
Regarding Four Avenues of Informal or Unstructured
Joint Agency Cooperation.............................. 310













LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Generalized Diagram of a State System of Public Post
High School Education ................... ............... 2

2. Percentage of Responses, by State Agency Grouping...... 59

3. Generalized Models of Various State Board Arrangements
Regarding Responsibilities for the ACE, VTE, and CJC
Administrative Agencies................................ 67

4. Generalized Models of Dominant Patterns of Agency
Appendage in Single-Board States and Two-Board States.. 67

5. Generalized Models of State ACE Agency when Dependency
Status Was Reported.................................. 70

6. Model of Independent Agency Responsibility Serving as
Partial State Plan Interface........................... 169

7. Models of Joint Relationships of ACE, VTE: and CJC
Agencies and Expansion to Include Other State Level
Agencies with Post High School Education Involvements.. 359~

8. Models of Possible Joint Agency Interaction Arrangements
Between ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies..................... 364

9. Model of Increasingly Comprehensive Agency Involvement
in Joint Agency Interactions........................... 366

10. Generalized models of Bureaucratic Organizational
Structures~and Pluralistic or More Open Democratic
Organizational Structures, Showing Various Interagency
Cooperative Involvements.............................. 366

11. Generalized Models of Traditional Bureaucratic and
Emerging Democratic Administrative Organization, as
Applied to the State Educational Structure............. 367

12. Generalized Models of Unific and Multiple Lines of
Administrative, Program, and Fiscal Responsibilities
in Post High School Education.......................... 372


~M













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

AVENUES OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THREE STATE AGENCIES
RESPONSIBLE FOR POST HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION

By

Dean Maurice Hansen

December, 1974

Chairman: James L. Wattenbarger
Maj or Department: Educational Administration

The problematic objective was to identify and analyze the various

avenues of intrastate cooperational relationships emerging between three

selected state administrative agencies regarding their increasingly over-

lapping responsibilities in educational programs beyond the normal high

school age or level. Accordingly, a nation-wide survey regarding joint

agency intervolvements was made of the agencies in each state responsible

for, respectively, adult and continuing education (ACE), vocational and

technical education (VTE), and community junior colleges (CJC).

A taxonomic compendium was developed -- with general, geographical, ane

organizational perspectives -- of AGE, VTE, and CJC agency post high school

educational involvements and cooperative avenues and procedures, along with

a consideration of effective and preferred cooperative agency interactions.

Mandated avenues of interagency cooperation were more preferred by

ACE agency directors, whereas voluntarily arranged methods were more

preferred by VTE and CJC agency directors. Regular .joint agency meetings







were designated as the most effective and preferred mode of cooperation.

The most effective total agency approach was perceived to include an

integration of formally structured, informally structured, mandated, and

voluntary avenues of cooperation.

Significant overlap of responsibilities and programs was reported by

the three agencies, with agency directors manifesting a basic desire to

actively respond to joint agency cooperative involvements to meet increasing

and diverse educational needs. A need for explicit, formal, and ongoing

clarifications and definitions was reported regarding what the scope of

post high school education does or ought to include, and of the evolving,

correlated role(s) of the three agencies. Regional or national level

training workshops were a recommended method for broader understanding of

the dynamics of state level intervolvements, and of fostering and/or

upgrading appropriate state level joint agency interrelationships. Federal

involvements and programs were generally regarded as the strongest catalyst

presently in effecting, promoting, and developing state level interagency

cooperative relationships.

ACE, VTE, and CJC agencies reported being responsible to one state boar

in 18 states, but divided under two state boards in 31 states and three

boards in 1 state. ACE and VTE agencies were responsible to a common board

in 28 of the 32 multi-board states.~ Independent or equal levels of respon-

sibility, operation, and/or administrative parity were reported by the three

agencies in 31 states, with unequal or dependency agency relationships

reported in 19 states -- generally involving an ACE agency dependency on

the VTE agency. Significantly, interagency cooperative involvements were

reported more by single-board states, especially those having dependent or


.XX11







mix~ed-parity agencies. This reported result was seen to run counter to

the current trend of establishing independent state boards for administering

community junior colleges.

An area of particular agency attention concerned discordant guidelines

involving administrative, program, and/or fiscal procedures in both state

and federal educational directives and legislation.

The development of effective interagency cooperation was seen to

include the criteria of recognition of need, cooperative intent, agency

flexibility, complementation of effort, ongoing cooperative processes, and

a reciprocally accepted common concern in meeting needs. Individual agency

actions relative to effectiveness also involved their evaluative assessment

of present and potential alternatives regarding organizational structures,

programs, fiscal policies, facilities and resources, personnel, and current

interagency relationships. Good personal and interpersonal relations were

also seen as necessary factors in effective cooperation, as was the need

for a mandated chassis of sufficient formalism and structure to assure the

initiation and facilitation of continuing joint agency associations.

Several strategies for inducing or developing joint agency associations

were distinguished: Imposed, emergent (interaction generates input),

informal procedures, formal procedures, leadership (developing facilitating

mechanisms), and sharing (joint utilization of resources).

The traditional Weber model of hierarchical superordinate to sub-

ordinate administrative organizational relationships appeared less appro-

priate in fostering cooperative agency involvements than the emerging

pluralistic and democratic model which accentuates positive contributions

to the decision-making process by agency staffs at all levels, with the stress

on leadership by agency executives, rather than command.


XX111













CHAPTER I


INTRODUCTION


This study was a step in a relatively uncharted direction in educa-

tional research. Concisely, the problematic objective was to identify

and analyze, within the several states, the various avenues of cooperation

emerging between three selected state administrative agencies regarding

their increasingly overlapping responsibilities in educational programs

beyond the high school age or level. The ascer-tainment of these cr~oss-

agency working patterns predicated an increase in understanding, a

recognition of commonalities and differences, and a contribution to the

establishment of a basis both theoretical and practical for upgrading

and. improving these patterns to meet better the post high school

challenges and problems of our modern society. The study goal thus

embraced cognition and analysis of joint agency cooperative patterns,

and development of cooperative agency guideline criteria.

The investigation was therefore directed to an identification and

analytuical study of the intrastate patterns of interrelations occurring

between the three state administrative agencies designated by each state

as primarily responsible for, respectively, the community junior colleges,

vocational and technical education, and public continuing and adult

education. See Figure 1. The study aimed therein to scrutinize general

patterns and areas of agreement and disagreement on state level coopera-

tive interagency relationships and specific cooperative patterns i~n the

areas of state educational planning and federal programs.





asc


COdc


04

r-H



~00i


OMM


r



a






00
r C







Ho




r k








MC
OO

-O









Op


-rl
0t~
.o
=
00


a-d



90


Hor
OHl
Ou


ntr


kO


Fo
Oco





O
r

oh
mge
p






at
Hld
lo
on


0 r












O.H


ot ,










*H


o





O
Ol




O
o
.0
H

M





p,








a,





O

k



a,

ed
*H

e,
e,


m
aco

>-9


O 0
A-H r
0 -0
W4


*hO
Be
eae
00o


-d
00,






hOc
a0
00r
Oli






He
Ora




om
- 9

E-o


S4


L
MO
0-Hr
rlr
HC
00


LD
dMM

Hle


O


o r



oH
e





oH


LD (I
a, a


e, =





I e
cd\ om
oH rl r
0 0~O
>oo
004r e


*O
e
r
50





cdo



at d
EM


r
e
\o


,C-
O

-HO
O
r0


OM


I


iol
OHr
> <


ro-
00 ,
hM
0 0
rlH
HO ,
Ok
oM
0
o


hO
lO o


(I




do


hO

odd

o 0
ome


LO
-dH



ak
O
O







e,


M0


= .
4 .


rl
I ed
O

>O


L0
O
e,
OO
*HH
s0


k H
c O
4& O
000


oo

LO
00


r
o
r0


o i

cov

Y V


,4

cfe C
ao or ~ 1Or
c.E 61 e
eed e
MO hOe


Ia.r
OH


cdc
NO
00l


OMH
o 0
00>-I
OO


am d


*O O )
e, a c
hOt hO-e '
orl la 0 a







The particular paarameters of this study have been subsequently

delineated in this chapter in the sections on Procedures, and Delimitations

and Limitations.

Dyervietw and Justification of the Study

In a comprehensive survey~ for the United States Office of Education,

Abrahamns (1969) identified over 300 official state agencies, other than.

individual_ institutions, which had some responsibility for education beyond

the high school. To amplifyr, an intrasta-te survey by the Illinois

Junior College Board found k0 different Illinois state agencies involved

in adult and continuing education alone (W~ellmanl, 1971). Coordinating

the evolving, multiple, and often overlapping activities, and the interests

and goals of such kindred agencies within a state has become at least a

challenge, if not an enigmatic dilemna,

While this investigation pr~offers no panacea for the inlteragency
prolem o coreltig t ult~ifarious aspects of post high school

education at the state level, it is clear, as Hills (1968) pointed out,

unless one knows (A) the entities involved in the system,
(B) the relevant properties of these entities, and (C)
the relations among these properties, his chance of
changing the state of the system is slight. (p. 4)

Most state governments have recognized the increasingly critical need

for some form of overall systematic educational planning and coordination,

and are expending state level efforts of considerable magnitude to corre-

la~te thle extensive diversity of post high school educational programs

offered through public governmental agencies. As of yet, howEever, this

correlation effort has largely focused on state agencies with primary or

major educational roles, somewhat to the exclusion of agencies wuith

secondary or minor educational roles. Abrahams (1969) reported that 40

states had established constitutional or statutory "'educational super






agencies" covering varying parts of education subsequent to the high school

plane, 17 of which exerted governing and regulatory powers over both educa-

tional agencies and institutions, and 23 exercised varying degrees of

lesser control and coordination. In the 10 remaining states and tge

District of Columbia educationally mandated agencies operated in coopera-

tive ways through informal, advisory or voluntary arrangements. However,

only 21 of the 40 "super agencies" reported any responsibility for post

high school vocational-technical education (ACbrahams, 19693 Chambers,

19683 -Pliner, 1966).

Sponsored by the Education Commission of the States (1970), a

Task Force on Statewide Planning under the chairmanship of Governor

Richard B. Oglivie of Illinois reported in its May 19, 1970, meeting that

at that time,

Forty-eight states have some form of coordinating agency
with all but two (Indiana and Nebraskia) being legislatively
authorized. Of the 48, 27 are coordinating agencies and 19
are governing boards. Two states, Vermont and Delaware, have
no form of central coordinating or governing entity. (p. 48)

In assessing the vigorous extension of statewide coordination efforts

regarding education beyond the high school, Eurich (1969) stated,

The state-to-state pattern varies substantially, however,
both to meet local needs and as a reflection of differing
historical developments of the various systems. Changes
in the pattern occur nearly every year now, as legislatures,
administrators, and educational leaders develop new arrange-
ments to meet the needs of expanding enrollments and the
more -complicated educational situations that are develo-ping.


Stuckmnan (1969) noted from a community junior college viewpoint,

Thus in nearly every state there is coordination of higher
education although the mechanisms differ. If no statewide
coordinating agency is established, the executive and
particularly the legislative branches of state government
by default do the coordinating of higher education via their
decisions however ill prepared they may be. However, most
states have opted not to leave statewide coordination to






the uncer-tainties and vicissitudes of legislative and
administrative edict. (p. 2)

Personal state agency experience and research led Wattenbarger (1968)

to designate pointedly the responsibilities of state agencies over commu-

nity junior colleges related to relationships with other organizations

and agencies as an area requiring attention and careful development of

concepts. He emphasized that the great amount of overlap in programs

and activities of different but related state level agencies was a burden

and a source of confusion to junior colleges, and further, that the

increasing demand for occupational programs made top level coordination

imperative. Correspondingly, a Task Force on Community and Junior

Colleges (ECS, 1971) recommended in its final report that,

There is a need for more adequate statewide planning and
coordination of community and junior colleges, of these
colleges as an integral part of the system of higher educa-
tion, and of these colleges as they relate to all forms and
types of post-high school education in the state. A
special need at the present time exists in the area of
occupational education where parallel systems often exist,
offering similar and even identical programs in the same
locality. Because each starters higher education system
is unique, there is no single model appropriate for all
states. However, in each state there should~ beacor
dinating agency with statutory authority for overall
coordination of all post-secondary education and for car-
rying out the function of master planning all types of
higher education in the state. (p. 34)

By the first part of 1973, Wattenbarger (1973) observed that 47 states

(excluding Indiana, New Ha~mpshire, and North Dakota) had established a

board at the state level with coordinating and/or governing responsi-

bilities for the general scope of education offered in their community

colleges.

For the many state agencies involved in education beyond the high

school, the actual avenues and methods of interrelations are demonstrably

in a developing state. By choice, law, and necessity, many of these







300--plus state Instr~umoentalities with post high school responsibilities

are establishing cross-agency ties, working relationships and patterns

of cooperation of differing effectiveness in each state, some of which

are distinct and peculiar to a states legal structure and tradition,

some of crazy-q~uilt anomalyi, and others of more common and widespread

usage (Abrahams, 1969; USOE, 1967; WC~attenbarger, et al.,1970).

Increasingly, the burden of responsibility for educating those

persons in thle United States wlho are beyond the normal high school age

or level of education is being absorbed by the developing public commu-

nity junior colleges, sundry vocational and technical schools, and the

adult and continuing education centers. These three educational groupings

realize a considerable conjunction of purposes, programs and appeal at

the post high school level, but operate largely under the aegis of

different state level agencies or a mixture of such agencies (Abrahams,

.1969* Medsker, 1967; PCAE, Almanac, 1970).

The present and growing mnagn~itude of the educational task facing

these three postsecondary components and their relevant state agencies

can be somewhat demonstrated by the following data,

Calculations by the United States Office of Education indicate that

over 5,000,000 were enrolled in vocational and technical (occupational)

educational programs beyond the high school level in fiscal 1970, and

nearly 8,000,000 will be enrolled by fiscal 1975 (Russo, 1969). The

enrollment in public continuing and adult education in 1968-69 was listed

by state departments of education as totaling 4,276,576 (PCAE Almanac,

1970). However, using a broader definition, the President's Commnittee on

Education Beyond the High School (1957) has estimated that "one of every

three adults in the U~nited States is engaged in some kind of continuing






education dur~ling any single year" (p. 36), and cited the figure of

50,000,000-plus. Neff (1966) gave a figure of 60,000,000. Admittedly;

allowing some overlap wi~th the f'oregoing figures in enrollment calcula-

tions, due to comprehensive educational offerings, public junior college

figures have increased from some 1,367 inl 1917 to a 1972 fall enrollment

of 2,729,685, with approximately 5,000,000 anticipated in 1981 (Conn~or,

et al .,1973; Harbert, 1968; Harper, 1969, 1970, 1971; Medsker, 1967).

Marland (1973) reported, that along with millions of their elders, "We

have reached a point where more than half of' young Americans enter some

institutions of post-secondary learning (p. A-16).

In his assessment of this growth and the implications for finance

involved, Chambers (1968) concluded that,

Universal education beyond the high school, with perhaps
80 to 95 per cent of the high school graduates going on
with further schooling, is inevitable in the United
States. (p. 276)

He accorded that the burgeoning post high school enrollment and the con-

commi~tant expansion of programs and expenses thereto signaled a vital

and necessary point of action for achieving effective joint efforts among

the various state agencies with responsibilities at this level.

No sm~all part of state level agency sedulity and proliferation

involves the functional responsibility for administration of federally

funded education, which is both multi-level and multi-agency (Abrahams,

1969). Illustratively, at the national level 10 cabinet departments and

more than 15 agencies reported supporting or conducting vocational educa-

tion, training and related programs among the states in 1968, with an

estimated. expenditure of $11 billion (Bureau of the Budget, 1967). In

the same year, higher education received $4 billion from 12 federal

agencies, with $140 million allocated to two-year colleges (Chronicle

of Higher Education,10)







Recurrent effolis are also being made on the national plane to con-

solidate proliferating related programs under single agency direction, such

as the proposal to place all Manpower Development programs under the

Departmen-t of Labor (Burkett, 1969; ECS, 1971). The Education Commission

of the States (1968b) has also urged the Congress to consolidate all

voca~tional/technical education into one comprehensive program and provide

for a single administering federal agency. A related proposal was made

by the Legislative Cormmission of the American Association of Junior

Colleges (Henderson, 1966) for an omnibus community college federal aid

bill which would provide direct federal support for all programs of the

community college, including the community services and adult and contin-

uing education. These efforts accordingly augur adjustments in the

operations and relationships of affected state agencies.

Through the statutory and regulatory powers of the national govern-

ment, some coercive pressure is also being applied toward effecting a

correlation of agencies and programs at the state level. Under provisions

of legislation passed by the Congress, typified by the Vocational Education

Act, Titles II and III of the George-Barden Act, and the Appalachian

Regional Development Act of 1965, states are being required to designate

or to create among their agencies a primary point or points of contact and

responsibility to qualify for state participation in various national

educational funding programs. Another congressional requirement has

involved the formulation and submission of state educational plans and

projections as a condition for receiving national funding assistance

(AURE, 19683 Kirschbaum, 1964; USOE, 1967).

A report prepared by the Task Force on Statewide Planning (ECS, 1970)

portrayed the struggle at the state level to bring order and direction to






the many-headed educational animal as follows:

A second problem is that of clarification of jurisdiction
in terms of planning. Juzrisdiction varies from state to
state and in somne does not include even major segments of
public higher education such as community colleges and
post-secondary vocational-technical institutes. If effec-
tive state-wside long-range planning is to be accomplished,
not only the public segments of post-secondary education
bu~t private h-igher education as well must be integrally
involved in the planning process. In addition, federal
programs and particularly those under separate state
agencies must be considered. For example, in some states
the coordinating agency is not the agency that has been
designated to admi~nister federal programs for facilities,
community service programs, or technical services. Finally,
a strong liaison with secondary schools and departments
of education needs to be maintained. This does not imply,
however, that a single state agency for all education is
an adequate answer particularly for the larger states since
not only do the range and scope of problems differ, but the
problems and institutional relations are complicated by
subordination and other priority dema~nds. (p. 48)

In a very productive recent effort to assure that all parties interested

and involved in the total postsecondary educational program in a state

would have a participative voice in developing the educational plan which

would serve as a basis for federal support, and to stimulate more effec-

tive cooperation in the accomplishment of comprehensive statewide post-

secondary planning, the federal E~ducation Amendments of 1972 provided

that anly state that would appropriately establish or designate a state

postsecondary education commission broadly representative of all post-

secondary agencies and institutions (public and nonpublic) within the

state which would be responsible for developing a comprehensive plan for

the state would be eligible for direct federal financial support and

technical administrative assistance for that commission's comprehensive

postsecondary planning operations (Martorana, 1974). Further, this

state postsecondary education commission could also optionally be

designated as the state agency required by law as a condition for





10

continuing federal financial assistance through the various sections of

the Hiigher Education Act of 1965 dealing with Community Service and

Continuing Education, Equipment for Undergraduate Instruction, and Grants

for the Construction of Undergraduate Academic Facilities. By April, 1974,

43 states plus the District of Columbia, American Samnoa, Guam, and Puerto

Rico had established such a "1202 Commission" -- taking this "1202"

appellation from the authorizing section number of the 1972 Education

Amendments (McKinney, 1974).

Almost parenthetically, a national project presently under way,

similar to this study, is also indicative of the growing educational con-

cern about achieving meaningful. and effective interrelations among

governmental agencies a~t all levels. One of the projects included in

the 1969-1974 University Council for Educational Administration (1969)

research plan involves the study, design, and testing of new forms of

local (less thanl state level) intergovernmental cooperation. In this

case, local intergovernmental relations were defined as any procedures

by which two or more agencies or units of local government attempt to

meet a mutual problem. Several research task forces have been outlined

for ant extended in-depth study. Consonantly, the dynamics of state level

educational agencies are influenced by developing and fluctuating local

pressures and involvements.

Macroscopically, society itself is experiencing a technological

challenge and social consternation which place post high school occupa-

tional and educational patterns and potentialities under constant adaptive

stress and strain. Numerous and variegated research efforts throughout

the nation are unabating in pointing out the diversifying directions,

trends, and needs of the post high school student. These studies, with





11

resultant implications and applications, are also contributing to a change

in the role and function of the state agencies themselves, as well as to

their interaction patterns relative to postsecondary education (CSHE,

1968; ECS, 1968a; Harring-ton, 19673 Medsker, 1967; Par~k, 19713 Reller &r

Corbally, 1967; Riendeau, 1969; Taylor, 1970),

Combined with the inductive intermix of these several foregoing

sociopolitical forces is the growinJg public clamor for economy, for

effective and efficient utilization of state resources which the public

provides (Cham2bers, 1963, 19683 Ebey, 19693 Martorana, 19743 Priest,

1968). Individual agencies and institutions have been straining to plan

ahead and satisfy the demands for post high school education, all too

often with a debilitating kind of competition in the same areas (Shoematker,

1967), Illustratively, Nyquist (1967) declared that,

A case in point is vocational education. For too long, those
who administered a state's vocational education program,
typically largely or wholly supported by federal funds,
carried onlike an almost autonomous, isolated unit within
mnzuy departments. They constituted an enclave. Recent
efforts in some departments to bring vocational education
into more intimate relationships with other disciplines and
curricular activities and with technical and vocational
programs a~t the community college level, have been met with
pronounced strain, conflict, and tension. (p. 248)

Wa~ttenbarger (1973) cited nine factors influencing the various state

agencies and their interworkings on post high school education, which may

be summarized as follows:

1. The development of an egalitarian philosophy of education,

which has increased the number of postsecondatry students

and generated a concurrent increased public concern over

governance, relevancy, curriculum, cost, availability, etc.

2. Heightened student activist attitudes, seeking student input

and voice in the decision-makcing processes affecting them.





12

3. A stimulated faculty involvement, and the growth of

collective bargaining in many aspects of the educa-

tional process.

4.The impact of federal legislation, which dictates or

affects state priorities in educational programs and

directions.

5. New state level agencies or units, such as a growing

governor's staff, expanding legislative committees and

aids, and new planning and development agencies, with

their various recommendations for allocation of future

resources.

6. State budgeting authorities, whose blanket application

of uniform rules and regulations affects strongly the

decision-making power of educational agencies.

7. National educational accrediting organizations, whose

concern with program quality has achieved vast influence.

8. The Legislature, with its fiscal and budgetary power,

often imposing arbitrary fiscal limitations, with accom-

panyving interpretations of legislative content and intent

by legislative budget and finance agencies.

9. National associations and foundations, who through their

organizational and funding influences can affect educa-

tional action and interaction.

State agencies handling the multiple facets involved in education

beyond the high school are thus operating in a volatile socio-politico-

economic climate, all of which lends imperativeness to the continued

study -- and implementation -- of the highest type of in-teragency







cooperation possible. Towards this end, this study converged on the

cooperat~Live~ patterns by which three selected state agencies reportedly

interacted together on their common concerns in post high school education.

Justification for the study therefore rested on several research

pillars, along which were (a) the need for broad, valid information as a

data base, i~e., a contribution to knowledge and understanding, (b) the

practical need of dealing more cognizantly and capably with the current

pressing problems concerning cooperation between related state level

educational agencies, and (c) the need to develop a theoretical frame-

work for approaching more effectively the on-going dynamic challenge of

these agency interactions.

Statement of the Research Problem

This investigation had for its goal the identification and analysis

of avenues of interagency cooperation occurring at the state level between

.three selected administrative agencies having responsibilities for post

high school education, i.e., education beyond the normal high school

level (twelfth grade) or age (18). The following specific questions

served as the directive thrust of the research effort:

1. What present intrastatle patterns of interagency activities,

associations, and cooperative relationships can be identified

among the three state agencies whose primary responsibilities

for educational programs beyond the high school comprise,

respectively, public adult and continuing education, voca-

tional and technical education, and community junior colleges?

2. What general areas of agreement and disagreement on coopera-

tive interagency relationships can be identified among these

three agencies?







3. What specific cooperative patterns can be identified
with respect to selected state educational plans and
federal programs which deal with post high school

education?

A.What are the perceptions of the directors of these three

agency groupings concerning cooperative interrelation-

ships and practices?

5. What guidelines regarding effective (or more effective)

interagency cooperation can be developmentally established

from the research effort?

Delimitations and Lim~itations

The research focus was delimited to the public sector of post high

school education. A~ny consideration involving private post high school

educational efforts has been explicitly spelled out or omitted.

The scope of the problem included those educational programs pro-

vided for people beyond the normal high school age of 18 as well as those

beyond the high school twelfth-grade levels including up to the first

two years of college level education. No consideration was given to

further education leading to the baccalaureate degree.

Besides the 50 states, only the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was

found to have developed a sufficient level of comparable governmental

agencies and educational institutions for inclusion in this study. The

Canal Zone, Guam, District of Columbia, and other national possessions

and trust territories operated under special governmental arrangements

which lacked appropriate concord for inclusion.

Supplementing the indigenous imperfections of the author, the study

was also subject to the limitations indicated in the type of research

design. The principal data were gathered by





15

questionnaire, directed to the state directors of the three agencies in

each state and Puerto Rico. The validity and usefulness of the studyrs

conclusions are of necessity a function of the completeness and accuracy

of the sources of data.

Assuma~tions

No judgment or justification of post high school education or its

diversifications has been attempted. Rather, the assumption was that the

existence and rapid growth of this level of education presented themselves

as valid subjects for research and interpretation. The principle was

also assumed as authentic that a knowledge of existing patterns in effect

among agencies was an acceptable scientific basis for generating judicious

improvement .

For the purposes of gathering data for the study, a blanket assumpD-

tion was extended that the persons chosen to participate by questionnaire

response were knowledgeable concerning the interactions of state agencies

because of their positions, training, and experience. Ipso facto, the

information thus secured should accordingly be either representative of

the best thoughts of those who have given serious consideration to the

problem of interagency relations, or at least still scientifically appli-

cable in accomplishing the study goals. It was also submitted that the

7ise of the questionnaire technique was appropriate for use in this

investigation.

Definition of Term~s

Adult education. Although all education for individuals 18 years of

age and older may be technically designated as "adult" education, for the

purposes of this study the terms "adult educational and "Ipublic continuing

education" have been used together and interchangeably and referred







particularly to those educational programs most often offered in the

evening for part-time adult students. Curriculums contained almost any

content, whether oriented to diploma~ or degree, credit or noncredit,

occupational training or retraining, or simply to extend understanding

and knowledge (Thornton, 1966).

_Collegeea parallel. Inrterchangeable with "university parallel, this

term referred to a course of studies which leads a student to, or prepares

him for, admission to an upper division institution, whether four-year

college or university.

Fed~eral. Used interchangeably with the term "national" in this

study, it referred to the central governmentL in W~ashington, D.C.

Federal fu~nds. Interchangeable in this study with the terms "'federal

aid" and. "federal grants," this term referred to moneys being administered

through agencies or departments of -the central government in Washington,

'D.C., in accordance with congressionally enacted and funded programs.

Federal proDgram, Thris term referred to congressionally enacted

programs dealing writh some aspect of education.

Junior college. For the purpose of this study, the terms "'junior

college," "community college" and "community junior college" were used

interchangeably and referred to public institutions supported by public

tax funds which offered programs and/or courses, limited to the first

two years of post high school education, including the university par-

allel program and at least one of the two following areas, occupational

education and continuing education (Arney, 1969).

Post h~igh school education. In this study, the terms "post high

school" and''postsecondary" education have been used interchangeably, and

referred to all organized educational programs, sponsored by governmental





17

units, provided for persons having a high school diploma, or for persons

not having a high school diploma but who were beyond the normal age for

attending high school. The "normal" age referred to was approximately 18,

and was derived by addition, with a 6-year old child beginning his first

school year and continuing through 12 years of elementary and secondar3-

education.

Public education. As distinguished from "private education," this

term referred to that training, instructing and schooling (institutional

or noninstitutional) supported by tax funds secured through governmental

power and controlled by some exercise of governmental will, e.g., some

variety of government agency. The support and control of "private educa-

tion" is largely distributed among religious denominations and nonprofit

or proprietary organizations, with only secondary emphasis on governmental

funding and control. By legal definition, the state rather than the

national government is the basic unit over public education (Morphet,

Johns &e Reller, 1967).

State. This term denoted anyl~ one of the 50 states of the Union and

Puerto Rico.

State agency. While generally applied to a specially designated

administrativee staff arm" of state level boards, this term was also used

in the broader sense to mean a department, office, board, commission,

committee; or other state administrative instrumentality to which were

expressly delegated by law administrative powers and duties. "Federal

agency" had a similar definition but with its locus being at the national

government level (ACSDE, 1969).
Vocational and technical education. This term was used interchange-

ably with the term "occupational education." While vocational education





18

generally referred to basic job training skills and knowledge (without'

college credit) and technical education generally referred to more

advanced job training skills, knowledge, and competencies (often with

college credit), for this study, however, occupational education referred

to "any and all education and training .. aimed at preparation for

employment, as distinguished from curriculums in the liberal arts, the

fine arts, or the humanitiesrl (Harris, 1966, p. k3).

Pro ce dur~es

Study. Design

Typologically, this study could be characterized as survey research.

According to Kerlinger (1964), survey research has not only been a useful

tool for educational fact-finding, but also has great potential value

in helping to solve theoretical and applied educational problems, He

stated that,

Survey research is that branch of social scientific investi-
gation that studies large and small populations by selecting
and studying samples chosen from the populations to discover
the relative incidence, distribution, and inter-relations of
sociological and psychological variables. (p. 393)

MoulyT (1964) held that survey research must begin with a definite problem

and must identify present conditions and needs, it must interpret, syn-

thesize and integrate data upon which to base sound decisions, and it

must point toward eventual generalizations in later phases.

As a-method of inquiry, survey research reflected a number of strengths

and weaknesses. At the expense of depth, it had wide scope -- of informa-

tion and of coverage. It had the advantage of accurate information,

within sampling error ranges, but, while exhibiting strength and number,

the variables by their very nature could not be manipulated, and the

extent to which the variance could be maximized and controlled was quite







limited. The ex post facto nature of survey research, however, found

strength in its significance and high heuristic quality.

In brief, the design of this study was to secure from each state,

by questionnaire, information concerning the patterns of involvement and

interactions occurring among three educational adlmin~istrative staff

agencies functioning at the state level which had concurrent adminis-trative

responsibilities in the developing spectrum of post high school education.

Analysis and presentation of the respondent questionnaire data were

expected to generate, in association with the framework of relevant

literature, conclusions and implications from the total research effort.

Study Pooulation

The population selected for study comprised the directors of state

administrative agencies and included the following in each of the 50

states and Puerto Rico:

1. The state director of public continuing and adult educa-

tion, or the person charged with this responsibility at

the state level.

2. The state director for vocational and technical education,

or the person charged with this responsibility a~t the state

level.

3. The state director for community junior colleges, or the

person charged with this responsibility at the state level.

The size of the study population of state directors was 153 and constituted

a total population in that the directors of the three agencies or their

functional equivalents in all 50 states and Puerto Rico were comprehended.

Instrumentation

The instrument developed for administration was referred to as the





20

Agency Questionnaire, which included in-its basic construction a mixture

of close-ended and open-ended questions. Close-ended questions comprised

inquiries both informational and evaluative in nature, seeking to elicit

declarative responses regarding the type and quality-of multi-agency involy

ments and relationships, based upon the knowledge, perceptions, and

experiences of the agency directors. Open-ended questions were designed

to supply a frame of reference for pertinent response by the directors,

with a minimum of restraint on the candor of their answers and/or

expressions. An important feature of the instrument, to maxi;mize q~uestion-

naire response, was the effort similar to Arney (1969) to preanswer as

many of the close-ended questions as possible from information in available

documents before it was sent to the target population group. The poten-

tial respondents were thus assisted in their solicited role, being

principally responsible then to correct and/or complete those aspects

of the questionnaire where information was inappropriate or lacking, and

for expressing personal evaluative judgments regarding agency involvements

and relationships.

Data Collection, Treatment, and Presentation

In Chapter I, the problem and objectives of the study were intro-

duced, and couched in the relevant apologia of its educational milieu.

In Chapter II, a review of professional literature related to the iden-

tified study motif is set forth.

The balance of the paper deals with the collection and treatment of

the basic resource data from the study instrument, the Agency Questionnaire

Upon preparation, the questionnaire was sent to the designated state

directors, whose responses yielded considerable multifaceted information

regarding agency involvements and interactions. Compilation and analyses





21

of these varied data are presented inl Chapters III to VI. The presentation

in Chapter III treats the general instrument response and develops various

comparative agency bases. Miultisectional analyses of the questionnaire

data are then presented in Chapters IV to VI. Chapter VII forges a

synopsis, with conclusions and implications, of this investigation into

the involvements and interrelationships of three state agencies having

responsibilities in their respective states for particula-rized areas of

post high school education.













CHAPTER II


REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE


A review of thle professional literature relative to the evolving

cooperative relationships between state level agencies, especially those

agencies with direct responsibilities for post high school education,

revealed several associated generalities, but appertaining specifics

appeared to be dependent on further developmental research for their

exposition. This w~as also noted by Martorana (1972). Whle limited and

varied aspects of co-agency cooperative functioning at the state level

could thus be doc~umentally adduced, the foundational concepts and pre-

.vailring avenues serving to guide professional understanding and/or imple-

mentation in this area of interagency relationships were generally

descriptively vague in the literature. In attempting to bridge this

hiatus of popular undirection and indeterminate cognizance, the following

precursory summary of dominant features and guidelines was cautiously

derived from this review of contemporary normative writings, and from

the suppletory input of those publications referenced in Chapter I of

this paper.

1. In the area of post high school education, considerable over-

lap of agency responsibilities and programs was distinguish--

able among the three selected state level agencies involved

in this study.

2. There was difficulty in discerning a clear pattern in the






developing state board and state level agency relation-

ships and str-uctures in dealing with the proliferous

problem of overlapping responsibilities in post high

school education.

3. A relative paucity of pertinent research information was

noted regarding interactions on common problem areas by

state level agencies responsible for adult and continuing

education in cooperation with those agencies responsible

for vocational-technical education and community junior

colleges.

4. A vary~ing reluctance to accept the leadership responsi-

bility for active cooperation across agency lines on common

areas and concerns was discernible within state level agencies.

However, efforts and pressures promoting such interrelations

were increasingly~ noted, both from without and within the

agencies, and from both governmental and private sectors.

5. Nationa.lly, the calculated design of federal programs

appeared to be the strongest catalyst in effecting, pro-

moting, and developing state level interagency cooperative

relationships between the three agencies under study. W~ith

varying effectiveness, many state agencies, and especially

the more sophisticated, have germinated and generated incep-

tive as well as accessory impetus.

6. The methods used to conclude voluntary cooperative agreements

among interacting agencies were generally considered to be as

important as the agreements themselves.

7. Generally superceding the advocacy of co-agencyr agreements on








particular cooperative areas and procedures were the

recommendations for broad, formal, written arrangements

which would outline and define both the areas of partic-

ular agency responsibilities and the correlative means

of joint agency cooperation.

8. The WTeber hierarchical model of organization appeared

to persist as the dominant theoretical pattern in each

agency type. Joint cooperative relationships involving

agency responsibilities and personnel were therefore more

generally structured under formal agreements than volun-

tary. However, a personalized flexibility regarding

joint agency contacts was sought by many agencies.

9. The state and federal governmental emphasis, as per-

taining to directive theory in this area of interagency

cooperative avenues, has effectively persisted in pro-

motin7g a W~eberian hie rarchical organizational structure.

10. The emphasis in literature tended to a preference for

proper formal organizational structure and defined roles

rather than on cultivated personal relations and volun-

tary coadjuvancy. However, such personal relations and

personal abilities were still seen generally as more

-acceptable and productive than many of the more structured

avenues.

The subsequent review of literature undergirds the foregoing assess-

ments, and broaches the field of state agency interactions regarding post

high school education from the vistas of cooperative modes, agency compo-

sition, federal pressures, and organizational theory.







Areas and Modes of Cooperation

Snyder (1972) affirmed a personalized approach, holding that meaning-

ful communications between state leaders of vocational education and

community junior colleges required two basic interwoven ingredients:

trust and confidence. He envisaged trust as a firm belief in the integ-

rity of another person or thing, while confidence partook of trusted

reliance, e.g., confident that one's counterparts have the ability, the

insight, and the desire to develop programs that will best suit the needs

of a-cormmon student body. Calling for new administrative communication

devices to be developed on this basis at the state level, he reported

that,

In Kansas, the assistant commissioner for cormmunityy colleges
and the assistant comm,-issioner for vocational education work
and plan together. The programL approval or disapproval for
post-secondary institutions is a 12_int responsibility of
these two administrators who, of course, rely heavily on the
recommendations of their competent staffs. To insure still
better communications, some members of the Commnunity College
Advisoryr Council. and the Vocational Education Advisory
Council are members of both councils and both assistant
commissioners attend these council meetings. Joint meetings
of community college administrators and directors of area
vocat ional-te chni cal s schools are planned t o dis cus s mutual
problems and concerns. Joint legislative committees have
been formed and are active in combined support of legisla-
tion and financial support for their institution. (p. 17)
Onderlining added 7

Snyder generated, other related ideas and topic, such as agency organiza-

tion and communication as an interrelated problem, contractual relation-

ships between and among state agencies involved in vocational education,

developing a common data reporting system, and the pregnant ramifications

for agency relations adumbrated by the concept of career education from

the elementary school on.

The most incisive research report, by Martorana (1972), dealt with

the condition of communications in 10 states among those state level





26,

agencies and boards responsible for administering occupational education

under the Federal Voca~tional Education Act. (VEAI) in community junior

colleges. Inl emphasizing intercormmnications as a top priority concern

of responsible state agencies, he pointed out the growing commitment of

community junior colleges to provide students with relevant programs of

education and training for the world of work and that, more than any other

part of the formal post high school educational structure, the community

junior college was delivering needed post high school vocational and

technical education and training to desirous students. Improved commun-

nications between affected agencies were deemed important for maintaining

progress in community junior colleges toward developing sound vocational

education, and for effectively utilizing all available resources,

espe cially financial. Under the general problem of achieving effective

state level interagency communications regarding VEA, Martorana listed

'four subproblems that affect community junior college operations:

First, the conflict, or potential conflict, over the issue
of what state agency is in fact responsible for occupational
education in the community college. Second, the lack of
(community junior college) participation in the development
of the state plan for vocational education required by the
Federal Vocational Education Act.
Third, the differences in status and attitudes toward
communication and the related involvements concerning program
matters from those pertaining to fiscal matters in state
administration of vocational education. There is a signifi-
cant separation a~nd different attitudes prevail among state
boards in their roles and interactions (in program matters)
as opposed to fiscal decisions and operations. And, further,
the lack of definite organizational and structural or other
formal arrangements that could facilitate and enhance commu-
nications among different state level agencies interested in
community college vocational education. (p. 6)

Martorana chose to circumscribe the personalized approach in pref-

erence to more formal, businesslike, and mandated structural patterns of

cooperation:








The plain fact seems to be that .. the "system," to the
extent that it operates well at all, depends heavily on
personal relationships at both staff and board levels, not
on the format of operations or structure of the system
itself. .. while this reliance on personal relationships
can be very helpful, it obviously produces unreliable results
from' year to year, both in a given state and between states.
Only four of the 10 states .. have formal arrange-
ments to improve communications. And of these four, two...
have the community colleges under the state board of educa-
tion which is also the state board for vocational education
under the federal act.
Lone/ has a special structure for communication at the
board level in the form of an interlocking board membership.
...the fourth .. has a joint committee of personnel
involving the state board of education, serving as the federal
vocational education board, and the Board of Governors for
the Community Colleges.
...not a single state of the 10 .. made mention of
the State Advisory Council, nowl statutorily required by the
Federal Vocational Education Act. (pp. 9-11)

In his considerations, Martorana cited several structural suggestions being

put forward for possible improvement of state level interagency communica-

tion and administration of vocational education in the community colleges:

...the simplistic solution of creating a separate board,
distinct and autonomous from all other state boards in a
given state and with sole but complete responsibility for
vocational education in the state.
...have community colleges under the same board as
that designated to serve as the federal vocational education
board /7 facilitate communication ...and...
administering lyograms concerned wJith vocational education.
.. /oweved/ the trend in state level administration of
community colleges is aw~ay from use of state boards of edu-
cation as the responsible state agency, not toward this
pattern.
...the single state board responsible not for all
aspects of .. education but for only vocational education
in the secondary school and for all aspects of operation at
the community college level.
...the establishment of joint, inter-board committees
I ver both program an~d fiscal decisions by .. amendment
to the federal statutes. The mandate /pf a joint committee
with specified authority and powers/ would apply to all states
where there are tw~o or more boards and each has jurisdiction
over a part of .. vocational education. (pp. 12-1c)

Martorana also evoked the idea of using consultants to review present

roles and responsibilities of the various state level educational segments





28

for improving overall respective definitions and functions, of additional

flexible federallyj stipulated guidelines regarding state level interagency

cooperation, and of the proper role of the state advisory council being

to help state agencies develop a state vocational education plan but not

become involved in its administration.

Somewhat bespeaking Martorana's concern about the lack of mandated

agency interaction patterns, Glenny (1959) indicated in a kindred field

that statutory agency grounding, as opposed to voluntary, appeared not to

standardize unduly nor stifle initiative, and that voluntary agency efforts

operated under the severe limitation of tempering the natural motivations

of participants to promote their own needs over the needs of the whole.

Abrahams (1969) gave a nation-wside general status report on state

level planning and planning procedures for education beyond the high

school, including a general description of the structural relationship

of postsecondary vocational-technical education to other facets of higher

education. Reference was made to interrelations occurring between the

agencies responsible for vocational-technical education and community

junior colleges, but excluded involvement regarding adult and continuing

education.

Wattenbarger and Martorana (1970) in their collaborative state

level study of Oklahoma described the related and overlapping functions

and programs at both the institutional and the state level of junior

colleges, senior colleges and universities, area vocational schools, and

adult education programs. However, the study did not focus on co-agency

cooperative patterns.

Smylie (1959), in a speech to the Western Governors Conference in

1959, described the workshop approach as a valuable tool in helping







legislators, state agency officials and educators jointly examine the

needs of higher education.

In Virginia, a consultant team was engaged by a ;ioint committee of

the directors of the three state administrative agencies respectively

responsible to three state educational boards -- state board of education,
state board~ for communi-ty colleges, and state council for higher educa-

tion -- to investigate and recommend a coordinated plan for providing

post high school occupational and continuing education program

(W~attenbarger and Nerden, 1972). The consultative report outlined several

avenues of cooperative interactions felt to be essential in the develop-

ment of such a comprehensive and ongoing correlated state-wi~de plan:

State level agency interstaff corrmmuications and cooperation; a state

level coordinain committee with representatives of the three state

boards, plus the three above mentioned agency directors, to correlate

post high school programs, curriculum, facilities, funding arrangements,

and state planning; regional occupational education coordinating committees,

with members appointed by the community college presidents and school

su-perintendents, to considerately anticipate occupational needs and for-

ward recommended decisions to the state level committee; annual reports by

regional committees to the state committee for consideration and action;

joint utilization of institutional facilities where appropriate; regional

curriculum stuyla groups- regional adult education advisory committees for

school districts and for community colleges, with intercommrittee (and

even interboard) mnembershir, to coo erativel consider respective educa-

tional assignments and interests; cooperative involvement of all affected

agencies and areas in formulating and updating the state plan for voca-

tional education each year; and establishment of a state "1202" post-

secondar~y education commission.







In a study calling for altering the line of responsibility of the

community junior colleges serving New York City from the City University

of New York to sole goverance under the Board of Higher Education of New

York, State, Peat (Peat et al.,1969) recommended that it be accomplished

through the establishment of a Joint Comrmi~rm~rm~r~rm~rmttee on Statewide Coordination

and Supervision of Count Colleges, composed of the Deputy Commissioner

for Higher Education (Chairman), State University Vice-Chancellor for

Higher Education, City University Dean of Two Year Colleges, as well as

chief planning officers of the three parties. He also recommended the

creation of a Joint Comlmittee for Continuing Education to coordinate the

(at least) 16 divisions, offices, agencies, and departments involved in

continuling education in New York -- to review regional plans and priorities

and prepare a master plan.

In his study, Boyle (1965) found that the developmen-t of procedures

'for the planning of junior college occupational programs required exten-

sive cooperation among and between state agencies and individual junior

colleges. He concluded that improved procedures could be realizsed through

the development of a written state plan for junior college occupational

education which outlined responsibilities for planning, and which provided

direction for cooperative action between and anong state agencies and

individual junior colleges. However, his emphasis concerned procedures

used more- within agencies than between agencies, holding that an account

of internal agency functioning and data could then be shared mutually

among agencies through publication and distribution.

In 1963, the Council of Chief State School Officers (1963) issued a

policy statement of guiding principles for the legal status, functions,

and organization of the service areas of the state departments of educa-

tion, which concluded with these lines:







Many~ state and federal agencies are concerned writh educa-
tional affairs and contribute significantly to the state's
educational programs. The state departmentL of education
staff should work harmo~niously; and cooperativelyi with these
agencies.
The state department of education should recognize that,
in areas of joint concern, services primarilyT educational in
nature should be provided by the state department of education
and that services chiefly noneducational should be provided
by other agencies. The state department of education should
be responsible for developing procedures anld establishing
cooperative relationships to guide noneducational agencies
that administer programs directed to state and local educa-
tiona~l agencies of the state system~ of education. The same
spirit of cooperation and coordination should exist between
the state department of education and arofessional education
associations and other vo~Luneer groups concerned with the
improvement of education. (p. 43)

The Council advocated an official coonerative agreement as one of the

guiding principles:

Where two or mlore state agencies are concerned wi-th the
establishment and enf~orcement of state adm;inistrative
rules and regulations, there should be an official co-
operative agreement~ wh~rich sets forth the specific
responsibilities of each, provides for the joint develop-
ment of standards, and identifies enforcement prIocedures..
(p. 12)

MIartorana (1968-1969) saw state boards for com~muniity junior colleges

as facing three large t~ask~s: (a) Definition of the role of the community

12812& co11e~ge state board in relationrshin, to other state boards responsible

for educational affairs in the state; (b) definition of the role of the

board in relation to other state agencies such as the ones giving support

to the executive and legislative branches of government; and (c) clarifica-

tion of the relationship of the state board and its staff wit the admini-

istrativee boards and staffs of the community junior colleges in the state.

He explained that division of labor and of spheres of responsibility

among two or more state boards responsible for educational affairs at

different levels in a state should, theoretically, be easily and precisely

defined. But, because all individuals in a large program of education for





32

the masses do not follow a common experience, time-table, or path in their

educational development, duplications and overlaps develop in programs and

services. The various levels of education in the total structure cannot

be separated in any extreme and rigid way, and several boards of education

with state level responsibility need to work together in some harmonious

and coordinated way, if the total educational program in the state is to

operate effectively. Germane to this point, he said members of a state

board for community junior colleges must seek energetically and directly

to do three things in establishing relationships with noneducational

agencies whose functions and duties touch meaningfully on those held by

the state board: (a) They must determine the points of contact of

operations and. policy decision-ma~king that exist between the board and

each of the other state agencies which either legally or operationally

become involved in community junior college programs and their admin-

istrative management; (b) they must fix their policies concerning these

relationships in the best interest of their obligations to the community

junior college level of education for which they are responsible; and

(c) they must formulate and establish firm, workable, and accepted under-

standings and methods of procedure by which relevant matters can be

handled by the staffs of the agencies concerned and of the board.

The report of the Carnegie Commission for Higher Education (1970)

outlined a proposed basis for developing systems of post high school

education in each state. However, the emphasis fell mostly on organiza-

tional aspects of higher education, rather than on avenues of cooperation

among agencies.

Shoemaker (1967) gave an excellent account of the organization and

placing of the state vocational education agency within the state department







of education, but in general terms. Hie observed that,

The unit of vocational education in a State Department must
develop and maintain relationships wEith various governmental
agencies. Such agencies include the Bureau of Apprentice-
ship and Training, the State Emp~loym-entl Service, the Depsart-
Iannt of WTelfare, the Depa-rtme~nt of Developmcent, etc. While
other units inl the State Education Department maintain contacts
w~ith governmenal agencies, their contacts are with a different
set of agencies than those identified above for the vocational
education unit. (p. 268)

Due to the nature of the responsibilities and duties as
identified, the vocational education unit should have ready
access to top administration and to the State Board for
Vocational Education, established as a requirement under the
federal vocational education acts. More specificallyi the
Division of' Vocational Educa-tion muist be able to get to to
administration and to the State Board with policy problems
and mast have an opportunity to: (a) mlake adequate presen-
tation, (b) obtain adequate consider-ation,and (c) receive a
prompt response. (p. 2171)

.As .Boards have been prolifera ed within the States, between
elementary and secondaryj education, community colleges, and
boards concerned with foiur-year colleges or universities, the
problem of locating the board prov~iding policies for vocational
education has increased. This Droblem is due to the fact that
vocational education is concerned, not only with the high
school youth, but also the out-of-school you-ch and adults;
not onlyT with the skilled level vocational training at the
high school level, but also two-year post-high school training
leadin to paa-profssionl occupations, and often the asso-
ciate degree, whi-ch area often comes into focus with the field
of higher education.
To the extLent that there is a proliferation of boards of
education within a state concerned with the total educational
program, the problems of the administration of vocational
education are compounded. There seems to be a trend toward
the proliferation of separate boards for various types of
education within the state, leading to a competition for
students' prestige and! money. (p. 272)

This statement of the varied location, composition, and functioning

of the state agency responsible for vocational education harmonized with

Venn's (1964) finding that no single pattern of institutional responsi-

bility for occupational education beyond the high school had developed in

the various states. Programs of every kind and quality were being offered

by a variety of educational institutions, including comprehensive high







schools, trade and technical high schools, area vocational schools, tech-

nical institutes, special state schools, 2-year colleges, lc-year colleges,

and universities. He cited a United States Office of Education survey

which listed 48 different institutional titles of publicly supported

schools working in this field.

Stuckmnan (1969) analyzed the state agencies responsible for community

junior colleges in their coordination activities, and concluded that most

states have accepted the necessity of coordination of institutional activi-

ties-and programs, and are now concentrating on making their established

coordinating agencies more effective. He saw the scope of these agencies

extending to other state level agencies responsible for various facets of

education as well. as to the institutions themselves. Stuckman specified

22 states which have established some type of state agency to coordinate

community junior college activities and programs, but outlined their

general duties, responsibilities, and roles only in relation to the insti-

tutions. He advocated the use of councils as the most efficacious means

to effect cooperation between the institutions and the state agency.

Respective councils were to be composed of institutional representatives

by their particular function, i.e., presidents, chief academic officers,

chief student personnel officers, business managersland teaching faculty.

While the state agency was to effect coordination in an unexplained way

with other state level and federal agencies, under the leadership role of

the state agency and via the consensus-reaching approach these councils

were to serve as forums for proposing and formulating policies and proce-

dares, and as feedback vehicles from the junior colleges relative to

institutional operations.

The manner in which this "super agency" -- the state-wide coordinating

or governing agency -- interrelated with other agencies and units was felt





35

to be relevant even though its actions and patterns of cooperation neces-

sa~rily occur to a certain extent in a different relationship and setting

than that of the three selected state agencies in this study which inter-

act on common and overlapping coordinates of educational interests and

programs. In this respect, Glenny; (19166) saw the state-wide educational

coordinating agency situated between twJo powerful political forces, the

social institutions (as colleges and universities) with historic intellec-

tual independence and autonomy and the central public policy-formulating

authorities of the governor and legislature. The coordinating agencyT must

identify with both to achieve satisfactory solutions to educational

problems. It might arbitrate and mediate, but its principal duty was long-

range planning for improving educational quality in all its dimensions and

areas and for expanding programs and facilities. Its policy strength was

built on expert fact finding and extensive studies by agency and private

technicians and leading citizens. Patterns and avenues of interrelation

and cooperation must therefore be developed wsith these several groups and

forces as well as in its coordination of the various state educational

agencies. As a (a) mediator or arbitrator, the coordinating agency must

assume the role of a broker in the political market. Here it could balance

power, accommodate interests, avoid frustrating powerful interests and

outright opposition, and achieve relative harmony by partial satisfaction

to all. This could occur in meetings of the board, staff and legislative
committee, Y lete, through research reports, and in other ways. (b)

The other made of coordinative action was one which provided positive

leadership in educational development. Glenny found that this mode of

operation depended upon the composition of the coordinating agency's board

or council, with citizen members being more vigorous and effective in





36

educational activities than boards composed of institutional representa-

tives. The setting of Glenny's study differed from that of the three

agencies in thris writer's study in several autoptic ways, particularly in

that the three agencies in the present study were not generally relating

hierarchically to each other, but horizontally across agency lines. Also,

the study focus of their interactions was largely tri-agency or bi-agency

in nature, although it did involve other agencies, such as where other

agencies were designated as responsible for federal programs participated

in by one or more of the three agencies.

Another pertinent consideration concerned whether patterns and avenues

of cooperation between educational agencies should or should not be similar

to those between other public state level agencies. Gould (1966) asserted

his persuasion that education was not just another branch of government

and therefore should not be subject to exactly the same procedures or regu-

lations. He felt that if education at any level, and especiallyT beyond the

high school level, was forced to operate inflexibly under the stark rules

applicable to other government agencies, i~t was doomed to mediocrity or

worse. He saw the need, not for independence without responsibility, but

rather for a recognition of the differences between state educational

agencies and other state departmental agencies because of their differences

in purpose and mission. Education should be freed from as many bureaucratic

strictures as feasible in order that it might take appropriate initia-

tives in developing and transforming itself to meet the timely needs of

the people and the society it serves. However, Gould felt that education

at all levels must still recognize its inevitable involvement with political

figures and governmental agencies, and approach such involvements with the

highest sense of responsibility and the utmost candor in communication.







Educational agencies should deal responsibly, perceptively, and realis-

tically with all elements of state government, seeking to create a climate

of understanding and trust which would make recourse to' legal defenses

unnecessary in all but the most extraordinary circumstances.

Agency Composition

As Snyder (1972) illustrated under the previous heading, the effective

performance of state agency services and interactions has often been

expressed in terms of abilities or assignments of agency staff members

(BSS, 1955). In this regard, for example, a staff member in the Division

of Community Junior Colleges in Florida was assigned the function of

providing ". . liaison with the Division of Vocational, Technical, and

Adult Educationnl (Christian, 1967, p. 8).

A very cogent description of state staffs and the responsibilities of

staff members employed by state agencies responsible for community junior

colleges was set forth by Wa~ttenbarger (Wattenbarger et al. 1970), even

though the focus was on certain relationships of the staff to the local

institutions within the system. In an updated reexamination (Wattenbarger

et al.,1973), an effort was also made (a) to determine the line of respon-

sibility from the state board level to the state community junior college

agency, but the results were reportedly indeterminate, and (b) to ascertain

what other state level agencies the state community junior college agency

regularly~ related to, with the most frequently listed agencies being the

state budget office, the higher education council or agency, the state

department of education, and the state department of vocational-technical

education. Whr~ile the earlier study (W~attenbarger et al, 1970) was not

specifically centered on state level multi-agency interactions, several

guidelines were delineated that still carry implications for such








interrelations. Tw~o of these guidelines were expressed as follows:

Coordination is a basic responsibility of a state level
board and is expressed best through leadership rather than
control. .. In many instances the methods used in achieving
coordination may be as important as the act itself. (p. 1)

In describing the state staff, he further identified a number of charac-

teri~stics and primary functions in serving either in coordinating or

operating roles.

Lines of responsible commnuncation
Size of the staff
Relationship of the number of institutions for which the staff
is responsible and staff size
Completeness of staff responsibilities in relationship to all
two-year institutions within the state
Arrangements for handling vocational-technical programs and/
or courses
Relationship of the staff to the director
Relationship of the staff members to their counterparts in the
institutions
Incidence of other staff handling community junior college
affairs
Functions most commonly assigned to principal staff members
~Salaries of principal staff members
Seniority of principal staff members and salient features
of their background
Report on the committees of the legislatures with whom the
cormmuni-ty junior college staffs are most likely to work. (p. 8)

Watt~enbarge r noted that the disparate state agency roles of coordination

and control have a generally mutual thrust.

While it is convenient to divide state staffs into operating
staffs on the one hand and coordinating staffs on the other,
there is still a broad spectrum of alternatives in each instance.
A staff that is primarily concerned with cooperative system
planning, providing mechanisms for coordination, and providing
leadership in developmental projects may at the same time be
charged with responsibilities for budget review or surveillance
of minimum standards which imply approval or disapproval of
activities. Despite a wide variation there are often more
similarities than differences in the activities and responsi-
bilities of these staffs. (p. 7)

Wattenbarger listed five roles which the state staff must play in imple-

menting its responsibilities: (a) Leadership role, (b) administrative

role, (c) enforcement role, (d) coordination role, and (e) service role.





39

In discharging these roles, seven categories of state level staff activities

were outlined, the last of which involved cross-agency cooperation directly:

A major role for the state board is found in its relationship
with other agencies, both governmental and nongovernmental.
The board becomes the major contact point for all matters asso-
ciated with the communty junior college program. At present
the most critical area for increased effort by the board staff
is in developing a relationship with the state vocational
board and its staff which will encourage the proper development
of collegiate-t~echnical level occupational programs in the
state's cocmanity junior colleges, freed from the traditional
view that vocational-ed.ucation was primarily a secondary school
responsibility. (p. 5)

Structurally, the junior college agency at the state level has assumed many

forms contingent on legal base, responsibilities, relationships to other

agencies, state or local control of institutions, and so forth. W~attenbarger

cited 27 states as having agency staffs concerned exclusively or primarily

with public community junior colleges. Another 10 states had designated

within their educational framework one or more individuals with major

'responsibilities for working with community junior colleges, and a thirty-

eighth state was in the process of establishing a state level staff for

community colleges. In the other 12 states, various individuals had

assumed limited responsibilities for this level of education. Of the 27

states having separate staffs for comprehensive community junior colleges,

10 also had primary responsibility for vocational-technical matters. In

another 10 states, a vocational-technical staff outside the community

junior college staff was responsible for approving vocational-technical

matters. In the other 7 states, a staff responsible to another board

handled vocational-technical affairs in the community junior colleges.

Additionally, in 3 states, there were professional staffs who reported

both to the director of community junior colleges and to the director of

vocational-technical education.






le0

In this (1970) assessment of state agency staffs, Wa~ttenbarger noted

th~t~ the relative newness of the community junior college development was

portr.ayed by the fact that one of the oldest states to have a state staff

specifically designated for community junior colleges then had only 12

years of experience most states have developed staffs at this level much

more recently. He concluded that there was as yet no clear definition of

the state staff function-implementation activities. In his (1973) re-

examination, Wa3ttenbarger reported that clearer definitions were emerging

although the parameters and trends were still in rough form.

Federal Pressures

In association with the publications referenced in Chapter I of this

study, additional federal implications and aspects may be noted.

Nyquist (1967) maintained that,

The state is the key to securing a proper balance of strengths
amongst the local, state, and federal agencies composing what
adill increasingly become a calculated interdependence in educa-
tion, a partnership of shared res-ponsibility. (pp. 214-215)

Mensel (1967) listed 58 federal programs in which ;2-year colleges were

_po-tential participants, either through direct allocation to the colleges,

through state agencies over junior colleges, vocational and technical

schools, and adult continuing education centers, or through projects to

other institutions which directly or indirectly benefit ;2-year colleges

and their programs. Holding that the efficient use of all available

resources demanded optimun coordination at all levels, the Task Force on

Commurnity and Junior Colleges (ECS, 1971) urged,

Therefore, the Secretary of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and WrTelfare should take all necessary steps to assure
coordina-tion at the federal level of all programs affecting
community colleges, including enforcement of statutes and
regulations requiring coordination of programs at the state
level. (p. 35)







W~attenbarger (1969) perceived increased federal support creating

greater control and coordinating responsibility for education at the state

level. Most recent federal legislation has called for a state plan, or

some type of a. state administration of funds. Those congressional acts

that have byrpassed the states and dealt directly with local educational

units have engendered strong reactions at the state level, disposing the

United States Office of Education and other federal agencies to revitalize

policy guidelines for operating through state agencies in apportioning

funds and insuring fair and equitable treatment for all state residents.

As noted earlier, McKinney (1974) and Martorana (1974) described the

section 1202 provision set forth in the federal Education Amendments of

1972 which provided for federal financial and administrative support to

any state level postsecondary education commission established for com-

prehensive state-wride planning under conditions of broad representativeness

of all areas of postsecondary education within the state. Three other

federally administered and funded programs were also designated as

authorized for administration by this "1202" commission if a state so

opted. Masters (1967) saw the implications of an increased role of the

federal government in education as forcing state departments and state

agencies to expand their staffs, alter their basic biases, and recruit

people trained to meet the special needs of educating people at all levels,

especially in the modern metropolis.

Theory

Singling out a significant lack in the schematic composition of state

educational boards and agencies at the .post high school level, Martorana

(1972) emphasized that "organizational and structural arrangements ..

LJihould7 facilitate and enhance communication among different state level





42

agencies"(p. 6) interested and charged with common educational concerns.

Holding agency structure as a prime key to effective and facilitated

joint agency interworkings, he called for extcended and widespread research

efforts to consider the effectiveness or lack of effectiveness of inlter-

agency communications in state level administration of occupational

education in community junior colleges.

Iannaccone (1967) postulated a taxonomy of states in regard to educa-

tion according to structural type, lifestyle, and leadership group. This

taxonomy has been summarized for the -purposes of this paper in Table 1.

Table 1

Taxonomy of State Politics of Educationa


Type of State
Educational Structure Lifestyle Leadershio Group

Locally based Disparate Entrepreneurial Sq~uirarchy

State-wide M.0nolithic Cooptational Oligarchy

State-wide Fragmented Competitive Polyarchy

State-wride Syndical Coalitional Synarchy


lIannaconne, Laurence. "State Government and Education, "
in Dick C. Rice and Powell E. Toth (eds.), The EmergSing
Role of State Eductio Departments with Specific
Implications for Div~isions of Vo cational-Te chni cal
Education. Columbus, Ohio: The Center for Vocational
and Technical Education, The Ohio State University,
1967, pp. 117-140.

This taxonomy could be considered a developmental construct, with states

changing from one type of educational politics to another. The taxonomyr,

with its lifestyle or behavior patterns, could also be correspondingly

generalized to apply to relationships and interactions of state level

agencies. (a) Entrepreneurial behavior would place a premium upon indi-

vidualistic actions, having less capacity to produce than to prevent.







(b) Cooptive behavior would value persuasion, the inviting of universal

agreement on values, and the solidarity of consensus. The emphasis would

be on personal trust, disdain of gossip, and the habit of turning public

meetings into sessions for ratifying decisions previously arrived at in

informal settings rather than one's involving public confrontation of

issues and divergent points of view. (c) Competitive behavior would be

more secular and foster many viewpoints. It would be characterized by

conflict resolution rather than consensus, bargaining instead of persuasion,

and contractual agreement rather than accommodation. (d) Coalitional

behavior would emphasize structural consensus, and involve the containment

of.conflict (which might otherwise divide organization members and the inter-

ests these represent) so as to present agreement upon proposals, to prevent

other interests from competing with them, and to reduce the political

coinage in educational affairs. These goals would be attained in three

major ways characteristic of coalitions: the inclusion in its membership

of major interest groups, the exclusion from consideration of issues

regarded as basically irreconcilable, and the selection of members willing

to compromise as representatives of their respective interest groups. A~s

an expression of his taxonomic construct, lannaccone ascribed much of the

change in the governing of education to federal involvement, and stated

that,

One o3f the first state department sub-units to experience
the effects of the changing state politics of education will
be the technical and vocational one. This group will face
demands for change, and changing political ground rules, but
will also find opportunity for leadership, especially toward
reorganizing the state department as a unified agency with a
new political role. (p. 139)

Educational administrators have taken note of system theorists, such

as Hearn (1958), who pointed out the possibility of representing all forms







of animate and inanimate matter as systems, with the same principles being

generally applicable to heterogeneous system levels and types. Substantial

applications have since been made. Griffiths (1964) defined a system as

simply a boundaried complex of elements in interaction. Internally composed

of subsystems and surrounded by other related and unrelated systems, the

environment of a system also consisted of its suprasystem. The present

study of three state level agencies can be appropriately interpreted in

terms of three open, living social systems operating, often with uncertain

mutual relatedness, within the state educational suprasystem. Their

systemic elements involve department, sections, and divisions of diffuse

structure, accountability, responsibilities, rules and roles, and which

are staffed by people (components) having disparate personalities and

cultural patterns.

In terms of systems analysis, lanni (1967) cited seven characteristics

involved in diffusing innovation acceptably in educational systems, which

have applicability to developing avenues of cooperation between interacting

state level agencies.

1. Divisibility or the degree to which a cooperative practice

can have a "trial run" before it is massively installed.

2. Things are more easily handled than ideas, e.g., gadgetry

more than pedagogy, cooperation on sharing things more than

s-haring ideas acceptably.

3. Practices which contradict "core values" have lit-tle chance

of acceptance. They must be consistent with existing values,

or not conflict too glaringly with the past experience of

participating members.

4.Change generated from within a system is usually more readilyT

accepted than change from the outside.







5. A new practice has a relative advantage to the degree that

it is perceived as superior to t~he idea it supercedes.

6. Comp~lexity or the ~degree of difficulty in understanding

or using a new practice.

7. Communicability the degree to which it can? be easily

observed and commiunicated to others. (pp. 176-179)

Morphet, Johns and Reller (1967) pointed out several considerations

for educational systems such as state level agencies: (a) System Size and

Structure -- This must be guardedly considered to maximize economy of scale,

effectiveness, and relatabDility with other systems, and to miniize internal

friction and difficulty of internal communication. (b) System Communica-

bility -- A system, especially a l-=rge system with many components, can

become absorbed with the problem of" internal communications, leading to

difficulty in cooperating across its boundary with other systems. (c)

'System Component Type -- To avoid highly standardized operating rules in

external and internal associations, i.e., to minimize bureaucratic and

maximize democratic features, component people should be selected for a

system who are capable of working with each other, and provided with

opportunities to do so in group situations. Conversely, components

incapable or inexperienced in association must function according to

strict programming or standardized rules to achieve system goals. (d)

System Participation -- Errors in comr~munication, understanding and common

accomplishment, which generally result from protracted communnica~tion

channels, can be minimized by increasing direct participation of subsystems

and components. An1 apparent implication here would be for breadth and

depth in staff participation in interagency cooperative efforts, as opposed

to joint top-level agreement on cooperative aspects with a filtering down

of information and assignments.





46

On a hypothetical continuum of organization and administration as it

applied to education, Morphet, Johns and Reller (1967) set Forth two

principal competing concepts: the traditional monocratic, bureaucratic

concept and the emerging pluralistic, collegial concept. Unnumbered

variations were assumed to exist between these extremes. The typical

bureaucratic concept has been associated with Max Weber (1947), defined

as a pyramidal, hierarchical organizational structure with decision-

making power flowing freely from superordinates to subordinates. Abbott

and Lovell (1965) described five general characteristics of Weber's mono-

cratic bureaucratic model: specialization of duties, activities,and

personnel; hierarchically graded positions with fixed responsibilities

and delegated authority over subordinates; management by exhaustive

general rules which constituted standards and uniformity; efficient,

impersonal organization based on rationality; and career security estab-

lished by technical competence. This model prevails in American education.

The emerging pluralistic, collegial concept of organization and

administration was represented by Morphet, Johns and Reller as a modifica-

tion of the monocratic bureaucratic concept. Programs and policies were

seen as still being implemented through a more looselyT structured and

defined bureaucratic hierarchy, but power to make major policy and

program decisions was decentralized and shared by the executive. Thompson

(1965) noted some characteristics of the collegial model as being:

Broader work assignments organized around professional responsibilities,

without overconcern about some overlap of function because it will promote

interdepartmental communication; freer communications and innovations;

less stratification, departmentalization, and use of authority; and more

use of group processes and multiple group membership and interpersonal







commu~nicatlons. Morphet, John~s and Reller also portrayed the pluralistic

collegial concept as more favorable to the promotion of cooperative

avenues and attitudes because of its more open and threat-free climate

for feedback and innovation, feel-ing of equality and involvement as well

as independent freedom, more open structure em~phasi-ing wide sharing of

authority, more democratic administrative behavior, and multiple comm~uni-

cation channels.

Provocatively envisioning the coming death of bureaucracy, Benn~is

(1967) prescribed the unique ch"aracteristics of organizational functioning

in the developing educational world, as follows,

The key word will be "temporary. There will be adaptive,
rapidly changing teprr sytes There will be task
forces organized arounLd problems!-=o-be-solved by groups of
relative stra-ngers with diverse professional skills. The
group will be arranged on an organic rather tha~n mechanical
model; they will evolve in response to a problem rather
than to programmed! role expectations. The executive thus
becomes a coordinator or "linking pin" between various
task forces. He, must be a man who can speak, the polyrgot
jargon of research, with skills to relay information and
to mediate between groups. People will be evaluated not
vertically according to rank-and status, but flexiblyf and
functionally according to skill and professional training.
Organizational charts willU consist of project groups rather
than stratified functicnal groups. (This trend is already
visible in the aerospace and construction industries, as
well as many professional and consulting firms.)
Adaptive, problem-solving, temporary systems of diverse
specialists, linked together by coordinating and task-
evaluating executive specialists in an organic flux -- this
is the organizational fon2 that will gradually replace
bureaucracy as w~e knowj it. Organizational arrangements of'
this sort may not onl reduce the inter-group conflicts
mentioned earlier; it neay also induce honest-to-goodness
creative collaboration.
I think that the future I describe is not necessarily
a "happy" one. Coping with rapid change, livJing in temporary
work systems, developing meaningful relations and then
breaking them -- all augur social strains and psychological
tensions. Teaching how~ to live with ambiguity, to identify
with the adaptive process, to make a virtue out of contingency,
and to be self-directing -- these will be the tasks of educa-
tion, the goals of maturity, and the achievement of the
successful individual. (pp. 250-251)







Summary

During this review of literature regarding co-agency cooperative

relationships at the state level, with its focus on the three selected

agencies of this study, the following various operating principles and

guidelines surfaced, the ranging natures of which were indicative of the

differing perspectives represented.

General Aspects:

1. Effective interagency relationships reauire mutual trust and

confidence, with trust being understood as a belief in the

basic integrity of others and their actions, and confidence

being understood as a belief in the capacity and desire of

others to function appropriate to the need.

2. Although, among state agencies, the issue of designated respon-

sibilities for the ramified post high school educational programs

has yet to be resolved equitably and statutorily, effective

correlation of the developments and involvements of the program

matters and fiscal matters of post high school interests an~d

enterprises, such as vocational-technical education, can and

must be achieved at the state level.

3. The .various levels and programs 21 post hi8& school education
cannot be separated in any extreme or rigid way, if the total

educational program in the state is to operate effectively.

4. In the absence of clearly defined state level staff function-

implementation! activities and guidelines, a generally praematic

approach to the problem of interagency relationships prevails.

Governmental Aspe cts :

5. Statutory arrangements for joint agency cooperation are usually

and variously understood not just as efforts to jiuxtapose







interagency responsibilities structurally, but also as wggs

to "channel" personal and version interrelationships among

agencies. Narrow, rigid, or otherwiise inappropriate channels

are considered a hinderance to effective interrelations and

accomplishment of statutory responsibilities.

6. While recognizing their inevitable involvement and need to

deal responsibly with political sectors of government, yet

to operate effectively and appropriately in meeting timely

educational needs of society and its citizens, educational

agencies require a measure of freedom and/or special con-

sideration and flexibility relative to the bureaucratic

governmental rules and regulations intended to standardize

all state departments and agencies.

7. State boards can and/or should formulate and establish firm,

workable, and accepted _understandings and methods of internal

as well as joint cooperative procedures for themselves, and

for the staffs of concerned agencies responsible to them.

8. State level administrative agencies with post hi h school

educational responsibilities should have access to and con-

siderate response from the state boards) regarding policy

problems.

9. -A state level agency having post high school educational

responsibilities must develop patterns and avenues of inter-

relations and cooperation with the state educational coordi-

nating agency, with other state level agencies having related

educational responsibilities, with educational institutions

serving as program? outlets, and with other concerned groups

and forces, such as federal agencies.





50

10. State educational agencies should be responsible, either solelyr

or jointly, for developing procedures and establishing coopera-

tive relationships to guide noneducational state level agencies

that administer educational programs.

11. Coordination of post high school educational programs s a

basic responsibility of a state level boardss, and is expressed

better through positive leadership than control, e.g., by providing

"facilitating mechanisms"l for coordinating areas of common co-

agency concern, rather than formal, stipulated, itemized proce-

dures to be followed.

12. The method~st of achieving coordination may be as important as

the act or method of coordination itself.

13. Federallyv stipulated guidelines attached to the administration

of federal education programs generally promote state level

joint agency interaction, but the standard patterns of federal

guidelines do not awayvs allow for or accommodate existing; agency

arrangements already designated and deemed appropriate byL state

governments.

14. Federal eucato programs should be coordinated at the federal

level in their statutes and regulations which require coordi-

nation of educational programs at the state level.

15. As a point of coordination and possible constitutional proce-

dure, as well as political and governmental prudence, federal

educational legislation should deal with or through the state

level, and not bypass the state level to deal directly with

local educational units.

16. In the state level development and preparation of the various

federally required state plans, all appropriately concerned







agencies or units should have opportunities for input, even

though a particular agency may be designated by statute as

responsible for the development and submission of the plan.

Organizational Aspects:

17. Organizational and structural arrangements of state level

agencies should facilitate and enhance interagencg communica-

tion and cooperation.

18. Communications and relationships among state level agencies

may be facilitated and enhanced by both informal (personalized)

and formal (fixced, explicit order, including mandated) arrange-

ments of structure, organization~and! format of operations.

19. Disparity in the structural style and behavior patterns of state

level agencies _nee not be debilita.tive. These differences are

often expressions of innovation and progress, as well as legal

structure and tradition, of short or long term, but they in turn

augur appropriate adjustments in joint agency cooperation.

20. The selection of experienced or inexperienced, as well as mono-

cratically, bureaucratically, or democratically oriented personnel

will largely determine the tyre of operations and associations

carried on 11 an agency, on a type-continuum of strictly pro-

grammed and standardized activities toward one end and open,

democratically determined activities with a minimumn of bureau-

cratic rules at the other.

21. The traditional hierarchical organizational structure is more

favorable to interagency cooperation because of its nature of

assigned decision-making and enforced implementation.

22. The more loosely structured pluralistic or collegial concept of

organization is more favorable to cooperative avenues and





52

attitudes betwFeen agencies because of its more open and threat-

free climate for feedback and innovation, and feeling of equality,

involvement and sharing, and multiple channels of administration

and communication.

23. From a systems point of view,

a. Changes and cooperative practices generated by .joint

agency resources are usually more readily accepted than

change imposed from single agency_ or nonagenc~y sources.

b. Cooperation on facilities, equipment, and personnel is

is more easily handled than cooperation on the administration

and execution of programs. (Thingfs over ideas.)

c. The deEree of comp~lexity of various joint agency relation-

ships determines much of their success or failure, i.e.,

less complex relationships augur more successful interactions.

d. Agaggy size, as well as structure, can affect relatability

to other agencies, in terms of internal friction and communi-

cation as well as active cross-agency cooperative actions.

e. Increased breadth and depth of direct agency participation

in? interagency relationships will maximize communication,

understanding,and accomplishment of assignments.

This review also identified the following reported or suggested avenues

and modes of interagency contact and functioning, in varying stages of deve-

lopment, acceptance, and implementation.

General Behavioral Patterns:

1. EntrepreneurialS behavior, i.e., individual and individualistic

actions -- both to prevent problems and to produce results.

2. Cooptive actions by the few appropriate decision-making joint







agency personnel and/or units -- with emphasis on persuasion,

agreement on values, and consensual actions.

3. Competitive behavior by agency personnel or units -- to foster

matny viewpoints, resolve conflicts by bargaining and contracting

rather than accommodating.

4. Coalitional actions of agency personnel or units -- emphasizing

a structural consensus approach to problems, to contain conflict

and gain agreement by excluding irreconcilable issues, prevent

competition and reduce agency tensions and political advantage-

seeking by compromise of the respective interested groups.

5. EmiPLgygen of conslt-ants to review roles, relationships and

responsibilities of the various state level educational segments,

and to recommend improvement of respective definitions, functions,

guidelines, and organizational aspects.

6. Efforts to exert positive _ed EED leadership in programs of

joint agency involvement, by providing "facilitating mlechanlisms"~

for co-agency cooperation rather than itemized, structured

interaction procedures.

Modes and Avenues of Interrelations:

7. Trial runs of cooperative practices, before their permanent

installation .

8. ~Joint agency responsibilities designated by law.

9. Written state plan, with outlined responsibilities.

10. Official coopertiv agreement between two or more agencies s,

setting forth responsibilities, standards, and implementation

and enforcement procedures.

11. Contractual relationships.







12. Meetings~ of and with the board.

13. Joint board meetings.

14. Interlocking: board membership.

15. Joint committee, composed of personnel from various boards.

16. A single state board with sole responsibility for all occupational

(vocational-techni~cal) education in the state.

17. Placement of community junior college agency under whichever

board is designated as the vocational education board. (However,

the trend is presently away from placing the community junior

college agency under the state board of education.)

18. Creation of a single state board. with sole responsibility for

all aspects of community junior college operation plus all

vocational-technical education in the state.

19. Where two or more boards have jurisdiction over a part of post

high school education, require the formation of .ioint inter-

board committees with specified authority over both program

and fiscal decisions.

20. A state "1202" postsecondaryv education commission, with membership

representative of all agencies, areas, and institutions concerned

with postsecondary education, to correlate a comprehensive approach

to and execution of postsecondary educational planning, with

-options for administration of additional particular federal

postsecondary educational programs.

21. Joint personal and/or professional association of agency directors,

formal and/or informal.

22. Various formal and/or informal joint meetings of agency staff

personnel or units, e.g.,









a. Joint commilittee of agency directors.

b. Joint committee of agency planning directors.

c. Joint committee of professional staff responsible to

two or more agencies or boards.

d. Joint legislative committees, to develop and support

joint legislative programs and financial request.

e. Joint committee of finance officers, program personnel,

etc.

23. Structurally organize agencies to facilitate communication within

and across agency lines.

2L4. Assignment of various staff members or units to provide liaison

with other agencies on common problems and programs.

25. Joint utilization of facilities, where appropriate.

26. Interagency letters) and reportss.

27. Joint research (&;) reports.

28. Accounts of agency functioning and data mutually shared among

agencies through publication and distribution.

29. Workshops for concerned parties.

30. Interlocking members of Comrmunity College Advisory Council,

Vocational Education Advisoryr Council, and Adult Education Advisory

Council.

31. Better definition and use of state advisory councils by agencies.

32. A common data reporting system.

33. Sponsor joint meetings of community college administrators with

dire ctors of area vocational-te chnical s schools .

34. Sponsor councils of institutional representatives by their





56

particular function, as feedback vehicles, to consider front-

line problems of jointly administered programs, e.g.,

a. Council of presidents/directors.

b. Council of personnel officers.

c. Council of business managers.

d. Faculty councils, etc.













CHAPTER III


PATTERNS IN~ THE QUEISTIONNAIRE RETURN AND PRELIMINARY' QUESTIONS


Introduction

In the ensuing pages of this chapter various comparative agency

bases and patterns are presented which were developed from (a) an

assessment of the general qu~estiornnaire return factorss, and (b) an

appraisal of agency responses to the prelimirnary questions posed ir_

the questiolnnare regarding the reported state board relationship In

each state and the reported adm~inistrative-status clas sifi cation-s and

relationships of the three state level admIinistrative departments or

agencies under focus in this study. The determination of these palrtic-

ularized comparative bases and patterns served to establish a procedural

format for the subsequent analyses in Chapters IVT and VJ of the central

questionniare data.

For facility and conciseness in presentation, the following

abbreviations have been utilized:

ACE ageqEcy -- state level agency responsible for adult/
continuing education.

VTE agency -- state level agency responsible for vocational/
technical education.

CJC agency -- state level agency responsible for community
junior colleges.

Directed reference has been made throughout to the accompanying respec-

tive tables which serve to amplify as well as delineate the specified







trends and patterns. The prepared tables were designed to be self-

contained and complete.

General Appraisal of Response to Agmenc~y Questionnaire

Overall Resoonse

Of the 153 Agency Question~naires sent to the directors of the three

selected agencies in each of the -50 states and Puerto Rico, 115 (75.2%)

were returned. As indicated in Table 2, a breakdown of the total

response figure further revealed a near similar ratio of return by

the three agency types: ACE -- 74.5%, VTE -- 78.4;4, and CJC -- 72.5%.


Table 2

Response of Sta~te Agencies to Agency Questionnaire,
by Number and Percent


Number of Percent
Agency description respondent of
states response

Agency responsible for ACE
(Adult/Continuing Education) 38 of 51 74.5

Agency responsible for VTE
(Vocational/Technical Education) 40 of 51 78.4,

Agency responsible for CJC
(Communityv Junior Colleges) 37 of 51 72.5

Total 115 of 153 75.2



This near equivalent return augured an initial measure of confidence

regarding the various analyses drawn from the data submitted by the

respondent agencies. When demonstrated on a percentage scale, the above

responses by agency type were clustered closely to the overall mean

response of 75.2$. (See Figure 2.) This pattern of near similar ratios

also emerged in other analytical breakdowns of the agency responses.












O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ B 10 2 0 4 0 60 7 0 9 0
(Scaledn~ bypecet
75.2%o
(mean)




Resons byIndvidaledb Stateand gec




The full response pattern of the 51 states (including Puerto Rico)

and 153 respective agencies, as seen in Table 3, showed every state except

Indi~ana having at least 1 agency reply to the solicited survey. Of the

50 respondent states (excluding In~diana), 21 states had a response from

all 3 agencies, another 23 states had a response from 2 agencies, and 6

states had a response by just 1 agency, as summarized in the following

listing :

Response by Number of
agec ye states
ACE VTE CJC involved

States with three respondent agencies 21 21 21 21
States with two respondent agencies 10 10
6 6
7 7 23

States with one respondent agency 1 .2 3 6
States with no respondent agency --Indiana-- 1
Totals 38 40 37 51

Response by Geograchrical Area

Geographically divided into four major groupings of states -- east,

south, mid-west, and far-west -- the ratio of questionnaire returns from

the three agencies reflected a relatively balanced response pattern, as

















































* * * * * * * * * *
idH~ge 1a OHr cadm1c\r a OH om c


e





tO
*M.


d00
ocod
cr .H r

> < co

OP H


o
r M
.HM
hO
-H -H
UK~ c


"o 'a
(Io
O *h


*Hl



O
c40
m0


ed
- H3O
Or O
<*H r
>0 P


r
O

ca



*oa
*m5E-


hO
00





Ez


M
00

*H


o





-






O
*H










o
r
0


O


ed



oo
co'


a*HM


HOQ l

ao ~

mmooo


o*H
00nF
c c
bDHd H
Fc>~c
*H-H ed
**Ram


a,
F-





a~a


O P


O

ao

-HM,


cnMC


mo


me
cd-
F-tc
a, a
am


*
000
cdm

. HOriO


O ~O -r



* H *WW






c0
cd










*H C


a
led
c 0
-Ho


OE


ed
*Hi -H


O







a

h0
Od


a


*.H F~mo
*ded ~


*o

00 r

oa
oM


O

00


Ode

-o


**H







H

*HO


o

cd
o0
90
OO
00


ed
00r
cd9
y

Fle


rJO
6mc


O
*0
** *


ed
cd0
[IO
ed.r
rlF


................**********C~O~~rjNc;;r;~
H~~adna mmOH~NO40 C OH~dn


tnr' o l

PO I
rl ..O F
H **RM


[I

Q cdcddv
MOOd
cca4d





61

shown7 in Table 4. Summarily, the respective responses from the agencies

under study were as follows:

Questionnaire Responses
Agencies, Agencies,
# in by number bp Dercent
group ACE, VTE CJC ACE VTE CJC Mean
Eastern states group 11 7 11 8 63.6 100.0 72.7 78;.6
Southern states group 14 11 10 11 78.6 71.4 78.6 76.2
Mid-West states group 13 9 9 10 69.2 69.2 76.9 71.8
Far-Wcest states group lr2 11 10 8 85.6 76.9 61. 7
To-tal response pattern 51 38 40 37 74.5 78.4 72.5 75.2

The comparability of response factors in this geographical breakdown

appeared to be a validating demonstration of a general common level of

interest in the topic at hand. Evidently reflecting a high vocational

orientation and interest, every agency responsible for VTE in the eastern

states group replied. Of the 12 above listed percentage figures for the

geographicallyr grouped ACE, VTE, and CJC agencies, 6 were within 5.0% of

the overall mean of 75.2%, 9 were within 10.0%, and 11 were within 15.0%g.

Response of States with Three Resnondent Agencies, by Geographical
Grouping

As noted previously, 21 of the 51 states (41.2%) provided a response

from all three agencies. These 21 states with tri-agency returns served

appropriately as a control group for the purpose of assessing and veri-

ying the trends and patterns established from the total agency response.

When geographically grouped, these 21 full-responding states also depicted

a numerically comparable representation from the four major areas -- 6, 5,

5, 5 -- with the higher number being from the eastern states grouping, as

shown in Table 5.

Prelimina-ry~ Q9uestions Posed to Directors of State Agencies

Preliminary Question Number One: What is the State Board Relationshir, of
the Three Administrative Bureaus or Agencies in your State that are
Respectively Responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC?



















































I _


Or d Q

00 O
mD **H


-



O


0
p




cdh


I=

O

hO O

mO
rdh


(
cdO
bn0r
*HO
40


Ln
rl
C *








o *
He


(


Bdg4





HE






r O
oa


C

O

**00
**Mp



O


e
4


ma
Z









zam


e


Ocd
e


OcO


~ooM


o
O
r


*H





e-H





mMO
000 r
0-HO


H
v

**


~C
O *H
30
40
Qo


SO d
ct

00


O



ede
aOa
Z


hOh



*mO
*C A


00
o ,


F>-~v


oa,
Pr0


CR


e~v


ed






r ~

me
aO*
OM *
oN *
a00
-HQ ;


POC

MO
a
O W


*H
P
P-H
r



O*Hl
ME


a
r h



maMa
ZZ


hOM
oO=
aOa


h0
-H
* *




a


BS
\o










O*
rlr


r h

Cd m t 4

h "aM
< OOZ


m bH




"a a
HN Z


~4 .l o


ah ;
rr O a


0
Or a
*He
9

oa
oS


a
m
o
a,
*0,
*oi


-HQ
~cO



mo
aCO
P0D


o*H

=O
Oc
cO*
o,


o r

?C r


a
**H
* *E





a /-


Wh


ag
OO
p0
mF
00 ,


a,
r=
OO,
Pr
a0a
00n


0
a
4
WH
pw
0


*H R
0 >
mO *
OH <
O I
*0 (


cV e
N\ I e
o0 *: 0
\O cnO
edr


N-c e C-H
MMGO
rliMH



<

rl a m~e~
O d
H at


HO C-H
O 900
r- srO m-
HMH .
<< F r


edr
r l
ed h
.0 -

















Table 5

Response to Agency Questionnaire from 21 States Having all Three
Agencies Reply, by G-eograph~ical Grouping, with Percent


States having
State' Total in three respondent Percent
Grouping state group agencies response of group

Eastern States 11 1. Connecticut 54.5%
2. New Hamushire
3. New~ Jersey
4. New York
5. PennsyTlvania
6. Rhode Island

Southern States 14 1. Alabama 35.7T%
2. Arkansas
3. Florida
4. Kentucky
5. Puerto Rico

Mid-Western S~tates 13 1. Michigan 38.5%
2. Missouri
3. Nebraska
4. North Dakota
5. Wisconsin

Far-Western States 13 1. California 38. 5%
2. Idaho
3. Oregon
4. Wlashington
5. Wyoming







As shown in Tables 6, 7, and 8, 18 of the 50 responding states

(36.0%) designated their agencies responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC as

functioning under one state board, another 31 states (62.0%) reported

a division of agency responsibilities under two state boards, and 1 state

(2.0%) -- Oklahoma -- reported having three state boards respectively

responsible for the three agencies. Iteratively stated, state board

responsibilities for the three state level agencies were thus reportedly

grouped as follows:

Number Percent
Single-board states 18 36.0
Two-board states 31 62.0
Three-board states 1 2.0
Respondent states 50 100.0
(Including Puerto Rico and
excluding Indiana)

Of the states with two designated state boards, the pattern showed 28 of

the 31 states (90.3%) reporting their ACE and VTE agencies being respon-

sible to a common state board of education. In the 3 remaining states,

the state board responsible for CJC agencies was reportedly responsible

for the VTE; agencies in 2 states -- Colorado and Hawaii--- and for the

ACE agency in 1 state -- North Dakota. In every case in these 31 two-

board states, the CJC agencies were reported as serving under the state

board of higher education or state junior college board. See Figure 3

and Figure 4.

This broad pattern, of a majority of states having plural-boards

with mixed responsibilities for the three agencies over a minority

number of states with the three agencies responsible to a single-board,

was also generally reflected in the breakdown by geographical groupings,

as shown in Table 9, with a preponderance (84.6%) of the far-west group

reporting two state level boards having responsibilities over the three









Respondent States Reporting One Designated State Board of Education
Responsible for AGCE, VTE, and CJC Agencies

One State Board of Education
with resnonsibl~itie for
# ACE '-? CJC
1. Alabama Alabama AlabamIa
2. Florida Florida Florida
3. Idaho Idaho Idaho
Lc. Iowa ...a Iowa
5. Kansas Kansas o...
6. Louisiana ..aLouisiana
7. Michigan Michigan Michigan
8. ..." Mississippi Mississippi
9. Missouri Missouri Missouri
10. Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska
11. New Hampshire New Hampshire New Hampshire
12. New York New TYork New York
13. North Carolina North Carolina ...a
LA.Oregon Oregon Oregon
15. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
16. Rhode Island Rhode Island Rhode Island
17. South Dakota South Dakota ..
18. ..." Tennessee Tennessee
Respondent
states: (16) (16) (15)


aNonreporting agency, whose board responsibilities were
designated by another agency(s) of that state which did
reply to the questionnaire.
bgeported no public community junior colleges.



Table 7

Respondent State Reporting Three State Boards Respectively
Responsible for ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies, Showing
Appertaining Board-A4gency Relationships


State Board State Vocational State Board of
of Education Education Board Higher Education
State responsible for responsible for responsible for

Oklahoma State ACE State VTE State CJC
Agency Agency Agency


Table 6


aNonreporting agency, whose board responsibilities were
designated by another agency(s) of that state which did
reply to the questionnaire.







Table 8

Respondent States Reporting Two Designated State Boards Responsible for
ACE, VTE, and CJC Agencies, Show~ing Board-Agency Relationships


State Board of Education State Board of Higher Education
with or State Junior College Board
responsibilities for with responsibilities for
# ACE VTE CJC ACE VTE CJC


aNonreporting agency, whose board responsibilities were designated by
another agency(s) of that state which did reply to the questionnaire.
bReported very diffused responsibilities existing a~t the state level.


Arkansas
Californiac

Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois

Kentucky

Maryland

Minne sot a
Montana

New Jersey

N. Dakota

Ohi ob
Puerto Rico
S. Carolina

Utah

Virginia
Was hingt on

Wlisconsin


Alaska
Arizona
Arkans as
California"

Connecticut
Delaware





Kentuckcy
Maine
Maryland
Mass.

Montana

New Jersey
New Mexico
N. Dakota


Alaska
Arizona
Arkans as
Californiab
Colorado
Connecticut


Hawaii
...a

Kentuckcy
Maine


Minne sot a

Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico


Colorado



.a


...
...
...
...
...




N. Dakota


..a &b
Puerto Rico
S. Carolina
Texas


Virgini a.
Washingt on
W. Virgin~ia
Wisconsin


Oh~iob
Puerto Rico

Texas

Vermont

Wnashingt on
WT. Virginia
Wrisconsin


21.

23.

25.
26.
27.
28.

30.


Wyoming


31. Wyoming
Respondent
States:
(21)


Wyoming


(1)


(21)


(22)










Type of State Board Responsibilities According to the
State Board Tyn~e of St~ate Admininstrativ~e Ag~ency
Arlra~ngemeznt ACE Agency VTE Agency C "JC Agency


State Board of
State Board of Education
Higher Education

State Board of
State Board of EducationJuorCles

State Board
of Education State Board of Higher Education

State Board
of EduationState Board of Junior Colleges

State Board of State Vocational State Board of
Hi hr Education Education Board Hfigher Education


State Board of Hiigher Education
or State Junior College Board


State
CJC
Aency


State Board of
Education


State State State
ACE VTE CJC
Aency egncy Aenc

Single-Board States


Two State
Boards


Figure 3.


Generalized Models of Various State Board Arrangements
Regarding Responsibilities for the ACE, VTE;, and CJC
Administrative Agencies.


Two-Board States


Figure Lt. Generalized :Models of Dominant Patterns of Agency Appendage
in Single-Board States and Two-Board States.


State Board
of Education


State Sta~te
ACE VIE
Aencygency





























States with all three States with responsibilities
State agencies responsible to for three agencies divided
Grouping a single state board under two or more state boards

Eastern 1. New Hampshire 1. Connecticut 5. Massachusetts
States 2. New York 2. Delaware 6. New Jersey
(11) 3. Pennsylvania 3. Maine 7. Vermont
4. Rhode Island 4. Maryland

Southern 1. Alabama 1. Arkansas 7. Virginia
States 2. Florida 2. Georgia 8. TWTest Virginia
(14) 3. Louisiana 3. Kentucky
4. Mississippi 4. Puerto Rico
5. North Carolina 5. South Carolina
6. Tennessee 6. Texas

Mid-West 1. Iowa 1. Illinois
States 2. Kansas 2. Minnesota
(12)a 3. MLichigan 3. North Dakota
4. Missouri L. Ohio
5. Nebraska 5. Oklahomab
6. South Dakota 6. Wisconsin

Far-West 1. Idaho 1. Alaska 7. Nevada
States 2. Oregon 2. Arizona 8. New Mexico
(13) 3. California 9. Utah
4. Colorado 10. Washington
5. Hawaii 11. Wyoming
6. Montana


agencies, and an atyrpical even ratio (50.0%) of single-board and plural-

board states in the mid-west group. The pattern by geographical breakdown

can be summarized as follows:


(63.6%)


(81r.1)
(64.0%)


Eastern states group
Southern states group
Mid-W~est, states group
Far-West states group
Total response pattern


7 of 11
8 of 14
6 of 12
11 of 13
32 of 50


plural-board
plural-board
plural-board
plural-board


states
states
states
states


plural-board states


Table 9


Reported Relationships of State Boards and State Level
Administrative Agencies in 50 Respondent States,
by Geographical Grouping


alndiana did not respond to the questionnaire.
b~klahoma reported three state boards.





69

In the control group of 21 states having tri-agency responses, a .near

balance of 11 single-board arrangements and 10 plural-board arrangements

was reported. This relative balance of single-board and multi-board arrange-

ments by the control group of 21 states also carried over into a fairly

balanced geographical representativeness, as shown in Table 10, thus adding

to the verificative nature of the control group.

Table 10

Reported Relationships of State Boards and State Level
Administrative Agencies in the 21 States Having Three
Respondent Agencies, by Geographical Grouping


States with all three States with responsibilities
State agencies responsible to for three agencies divided
Grouping a single state board under two or more state boards

Eastern New Hampshire Connecticut
St ates New York New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

Southern Alabama Arkansas
States Florida Kentucky
Puerto Rico

Mid-West Michigan North Dakota
States Missouri Wisconsin
Nebraska

Far-West Idaho California
States Oregon Washington
Wyoming


Preliminary Question Number Two: What is the Administrative Relationship
among the State Level Agencies Responsible for AGE, VTE, and CJC in your
State?

Of the 50 respondent state governments, 31 (62.0%) reported administra-

tive relationships of an independent or equal-parity status existing between

their three state level agencies. The other 19 states (38.0%) reported

administratively dependent or unequal state level status relationships

among their three agencies.







In a breakdown by state board. grouping, as shown in Table 11, this

pattern of administrative relationships among the three agencies was

duplicated. Of 18 states with one board, 11 (61.7%) reported administra-

tive relationships of an independent or equal-parity status (same level
of responsibility) unong their three agencies, and 7 (383% reported'-

dependency or unequal- reatonhis Of the 32 states with two or more

boards, 20 (62.5%) reported their agencies as having administratively

independent or equal-parity status, and 12 (37.5%) reported unequal or

dependency status relationships anong the three agencies.

Of the 19 states reporting unequal or dependency administrative status

relationships, the pattern of unequal or dependency status fell most

heavily upon the ACE agencies, as shown in Table 12, which reported this

-condition in all 12 (100%) of the two-board states and in 6 of the 7

(85.7%) one-board states, for a total of 18 of the 19 state ACE agencies

(94.7%) that reported such a disproportion in agency parity with the VTE

and CJC agencies. Of these 19 states who reported dependency agency

relationship, 16 (84.2%) described their ACE agency as being dependent on

the VIE agency, and 2 states (10.5%) placed their ACE agency under the CJC

agency, with 1 lone independent ACE agency. See Figure 5.


State Board4 State Boardl State Board of Higher Education
of Education of Education or State Junior College Board


State 1/ \State I State S tate
VTE CJC VTE CJC
Aencl IState A gEencl LAgenct IState I Agency
ACE ACE
Aencyl ~Aency
this or this

Single-Board States Two-Board States

Figure 5. Generalized Models of State ACE Agency when Dependency Status
Was Reported.




















States reporting independent or States reporting unequal or
equal-parity administrative dependent state level
status of all administrative status among
three agencies the three agencies
States having States having two States having States having two
one board or more boards one board or more boards

1. Alabama 1. Arizona 1. Florida 1. Alaska
2. Idaho 2. Californiaa 2. Michigan 2. Arkansas
3. Iowa 3. Colorado 3. Nebraska 3. Georgia
It. Kansas 4. Connecticut 4. New Hampshire 4. Nevada
5. Loui~siana 5. Delaware 5. N. Carolina 5. New Jersey
6. Mississippi 6. Hawaii 6. Oregon 6. Newu Mexico
7. Missouri 7. Illinois 7. Pennsylvania 7. Ohiob
8. New York 8. Kentucky 8. Texas
9. Rhode Island 9. Maine 9. Vermonlt
10. S. Dakota 10. Maryland 10. West Virginia
11. Tennessee 11. Massachusetts 11. Wrisconsin
12. Minnesota 12,. Wyoming
13. Montana
14. N. Dakota
15. Oklahomaa &t c
16. Puerto Rico
17. S. Carolina
18. Utab
19. Virginia
20. Washington


aReported that agencies responsible for vocational/te cynical
education and community junior colleges also shared some
responsibilities for adult/continuing education, by law.
bResponsibilities were reportedly veryT diffused.
c~klahoma reported three state boards.


Table 11

Reported Administrative Relationships of State Agencies
in 50 Respondent States, by State Board Grouping







Table 12

Reported Administrative Relationships Among the ACE, VTE, and CJC
Agencies, by State Board Grouping


Administrative relationships Administrative relationships
of agencies under one board of agencies under two boards
ACE VTE CJC ACE VTE: CJC
State Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency


aNonreporting agencies, whose administrative relationship was given by
another agency(s) of that state which did reply to the questionnaire.
responsibilities were reportedly very diffused, with some being classed
as of an independent nature and some of a dependent nature.


Dependent
on VTE
Dependent
on VTTE


Dependent
On VT~~a~


Independ.a

Independl.


1. Alaska

2. Arkansas

3. Florida

Lt. Georgia

5. Mlichigan

6. N\ebraska

7. Nevada

8. N\ew
Hampshire
9. New
Jersey
10. N\ew
Mexico
11. North
Carolina
12. Ohio

13. Cregon

14. Pennsyl-
van~ia
15. Texas

16. Vermont

17. West
Virginia
18. Wisconsin

19. Wyoming


Independ.

Independ.


Dependent
on VTE


Dependent
On VITE
Dependent
on VTE


Independ.





Dependent
on CJC


Dependent
On CJC
Dependent
on VTE


Independ.


Inldepend.


Independ.a Independ.


Independ.

Independ.


Inldepend .

Independ.


Independ.a Independ.a


Dependent
on VTE


Dependent
on VTE
Dependent
on VTE


Independ.





Dependent
on CJC


Dependent
on CJC
Independ.


Dependent
on VTE;




Independ.a


Independ.

Independ.


Independ.

Independ. a



Independ.


Dependent Independ.
On VTEa & b


Independ.

Independ.


Independ.a

Independ.a

Independ..a

Independ.

Independ.


Dependent
on VTE
Dependent
on VTEa
Dependent
on VTE
Dependent
On VTE
Dependent
On VTE


Independ.

Independ .

Independ.

Independ.

Indepen~d.





73

Conversely, all 12 (100%) of the VTE agencies and CJC agencies in

the 12 multi-board states, as well as 5 (71.4%) VTE agencies and 6 (85.70)

CJC agencies in the 7 single-board states reported having administratively

independent or equal-parity status in their state educational structures.

Two states having single-boards reported a dependency relationship of the

VTE agency to the CJC agency, and 1 single-board state reported a

dependency relationship of the CJC agency to the VT agency. Interestingly,

the lone state reporting an independent ACE agency status was also the sole

state-reporting a dependent CJC agency status. The reported imparred

administrative status relationships of these 19 state groups could thus

be summarized as follows:

ACEgnE VEAec CJC Agency
Equal-parity status 1 ( 5.3%) 17 (89.57) 18 (94.7%)
Dependency status 18 (94.7%) 2 (10,5%) 1 ( 5.3k)

Geographically, as depicted in Table 13, the respective balance

between states reporting administrativ~ely independent or equal-parity

agency relationships and states reporting administratively dependent or

unequal agency relationships was quite constant and could be summarized

as follows:

States with three States with one or
Group administratively more admcinistrativelyr
total independent agencies dependent agencies
Eastern states group 11 7 (63,6%) (36.4%)
Southern states group 14e 8 (57.1%) 6 (42.9%)
Mid-W~est states group 12 8 (66.7%) (33.3%)
Far-West states group 1;2 j (61 (g) _J (38,5()
Total response pattern 50 31 (62.05%) 19 (38,0%)

Each of the four geographical groupings also included states reporting

independent agency status and states reporting dependent agency status in

a further breakdownm by single-board and multi-board states, as noted in

Table 13, indicating the representativeness of the questionnaire responses.

















Table 13

Reported Administrative Relationships of Sta~te Agencies According to
Type of State Board Affiliation, by Geographical Grouping


States with administratively States with administratively
independent agencies only dependent agencies
State One Two One Two
Grouping state board state boards state board state boards

Eastern New York Conne cticut New Hampshire New Jersey
States Rhode Island Delaware Pennsylvania Vermont
(11) Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts

Southern Alabama Kentucky Florida Arkansas
States Louisiana Puerto Rico N. Carolina Georgia
(14) Mississippi S. Carolina Texas
Tennessee Virginia West Virginia

Mid-West lowa Illinois Michigan Ohic
States Kansas Minnesota Nebraska Wisconsin
(12) Missouri North Dakota
South Dak~ota Oklahomaa

Far-West Idaho Arizona Oregon Alaska
States California Nevada
(13) Colorado New Mexico
Hawaii Wyoming
Montana
Utab
Was hingt on


"Oklahoma reported three state boards.







A geographical breakdown of the control group of 21 states having'

tri-agency responses also revealed a representative sample of states

reporting independent and dependent agency relationships under both single-

board and multi-board arrangements, as shown in Table 14.

Summary

Over three-fourths (75.2%) of the 153 solicited state agencies

responded to the questionnaire, including Puerto Rico, with a relative

balance among the three respondent agency types: 38 ACE, 40 VTE, and 37

CJC. -Every state except Indiana responded, with I;L states having a~t least

two respondent agencies. The questionnaire returns were also found to be

representative of the four geographLical sectors of the nation. As some-

what of a control group, 21 states having a response from all three

agencies were discriminatively set apart as a check on the total question-

naire pattern analysis. The control group was found to exhibit character-

istics representative of the total group, geographically, as well as in

board and agency status and relationships.

In the 50 respondent states, which included Puerto Rico and excluded

Indiana., the reported relationships of state boards to the state administra-

tive ACE, VTE, and CJC agencies revealed a single state board in 18 states,

two state boards in 31 states, and three state boards in 1 state, with

mixed responsibilities for the three agencies. This pattern of plural-

board dominance was nationwide and not just regional, with the far-western

state grouping having the highest percentage of two-board states. Further,

in two-board states a strong pattern was reported of a common state board

of education responsible for ACE and VTE agencies, and a state board of

higher education or a state junior college board responsible for the CJC

agency.
















Table 14

Reported Administrative Relationships of State Agencies According to
Type of State Board Affiliation, by Geographical Grouping of the
21 States with Tri-Agency Questionnaire Responses


States with administratively States with administratively
independent agencies only dependent agencies
State One Two One Two
Grouping state board state boards state board state boards

Eastern New York Conne cticut New Hampshire New Jersey
States Rhode Island Pennsylvania
(6)

Southern Alabama. Kentucky Florida Arkansas
States Puerto Rico
(5)

Mid-West Missouri North Dakota Michigan Wis consin
States Nebraska
(5)

Far-West Idaho California Oregon Wdyoming
States Washington
(5)

Group
Total 23.8% 28.6% 28.6% 19.0%
(21) 5 of 21 6 of 21 6 of 21 4 of 21




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