The California Community Colleges
Throughout the late 19th
century and early 20th century, states established public
colleges and universities, funded enrollment expansion, and launched
an experiment in social engineering. The result was a transformation
of the scope and purpose of American higher education. California
can be seen as leading this transformation. California reflected the
struggle of most other states to coordinate their respective public
institutions. Issues of governance, autonomy, funding,
and accountability gained greater importance in local and statewide
politics. As the need of higher education in American society increased,
the number of public institutions grew. The cost to taxpayers advanced
these developments, but it differed in its early development of a
coherent organizational structure for public higher education. In
the Progressive Era, California established and funded a groundbreaking,
geographically dispersed system of public colleges and a multi-campus
state university . California Progressives created a
social contract and an organizational structure that coupled the promise
of broad access to public higher education with a desire to develop
institutions of high academic quality—an influential model that John
Douglass, in his book The California Idea and American Higher Education:
1850 to the 1960 Master Plans, calls “The California Idea.”
A Pivotal Role
California played a pivotal
role in the development of community colleges and districts in America.
Legislation in California produced some of the earliest community
colleges in the country. The district college soon became the model
for most public community colleges in the nation and other states
moved quickly to pass similar legislation.
Social, political, and
economic forces shaped public higher education in California. Its
major personalities include David
Starr Jordan, Benjamin
Ide Wheeler, Hiram
Warren, and Clark
The first two-year colleges
in California began with the recognition by local townspeople that
many young high school graduates, unable to take up residence at an
often distant college or university (usually for financial reasons),
might benefit from college level studies. The founders of these institutions
tended to be modest about their aspirations. They wanted to make it
clear that they were in no sense proposing to compete with four-year
Generally, these colleges
were established by an existing high school district as just one more
service offered to the community by the democratic school system.
It was not long, however, before the "post high school experience"
grew into full-fledged junior colleges. Ultimately these institutions
became today's "comprehensive" California Community Colleges.
some debate the origins of how the junior college came to California,
evidence points to William Rainey Harper, President of the University
of Chicago. Letters authored by Harper around 1900 noted that he was
working with three California Colleges on the junior college idea.
However, it was David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford College,
who became the most important figure in the junior college movement
in California. Jordan's friendship and exchanges with Harper, as well
as his tenacious persuit of the separation from the university's lower
division, made him one of the most important figures in California's
two-year college movement.
A California law adopted
in 1907 (Upward Extension Law) allowed high schools to offer "postgraduate"
classes. Many historians have described this law as the beginning
of the California junior college system. The historical record, however,
does not support this view. Both extended high schools and two-year
colleges appear to have existed before the 1907 law. There is some
historical evidence that many California high schools were already
offering post diploma courses before the law was passed. William Rainey
Harper noted in 1900 that five California colleges were already preparing
to convert to junior colleges. These institutions may have converted
before 1907 (Witt, p 53).
The first use of the Upward
Extension Law in the state was Fresno High School around 1910. With
the assistance of universities Stanford and Berkeley, a principal
and instructors were chosen for the first junior college in California.
The school provided courses primarily to prepare persons for work
in agriculture or industry. In 1913, Bakersfield, Fullerton, and Long
Beach founded junior colleges. Between 1915-1916, Azuza, Chaffey,
Riverside, Sacramento, and Santa Ana followed suit. By the end of
the decade, California had created the most extensive junior college
system in the nation (Witt, p. 53).
The Development of
Districts in California
Another piece of California
legislation passed in 1917, the Ballard Act, which provided state
and county support for junior colleges. This Act followed the state
funding formula for high schools and provided funding to community
colleges on a per-student basis. In 1921, the District Junior College
Law amended the Ballard Act. This law allowed for the creation of
community college districts to fund and administer junior colleges
in California (Witt, p. 52-53).
With the establishment
of college district boards of education, freestanding institutions
of higher education were controlled by the electorate, not by an academic
elite. This combination of local control and public funding allowed
junior colleges to adapt rapidly to the needs of their districts.
Local control also contributed to the rise of vocational education,
adult education, evening classes, and other innovations that distinguish
today's community colleges. This new law had an immediate effect as
three junior college districts formed soon after, including Modesto
College in September 1921. Eight days later Riverside Junior College
reorganized under a district plan, and two months later Sacramento
created a college district. California had thirty-one public junior
colleges, fourteen of them districts, by 1928. The
1920's and 1930's were a period of increased growth and interest in
the community college. By 1930, approximately 150,000 students were
enrolled in the community college system (Witt, p 96-113). Most of
that growth took place in Illinois, Texas, and California.
The second world war created
a demand for vocational programs. Many junior colleges participated
in the newly approved Civilian Pilot Training Program. The greatest
concentration of these programs was in California and Texas. This
defense effort provided a boon, increase in scope, and new acceptance
for junior college vocational programs. In addition, with students
facing military draft, junior colleges began offering accelerated
degree programs. For example, San Bernardino Junior College shortened
their associate degree to three semesters (Witt, p.119). Throughout
the nation, despite the fact that the Selective Service Act of 1940
exempted college and university students from the draft, enrollments
declined and small private junior colleges closed. Conversely, California's
booming defense industry provided for an establishment of ten new
colleges during the war. By 1945, the state had fifty-seven junior
colleges (Witt, p. 125-128).
Following World War II,
colleges were given a boost with the passage of the GI Bill. Under
the GI Bill, any honorably discharged veteran who had served ninety
days or was injured in the line of duty was entitled to a free college
education. The government would pay for tuition, books, and fees at
any approved institution. After the decline in enrollments nationwide,
colleges scrambled to meet the demand. Once again, California blazed
ahead of the nation with the establishment of 18 new public junior
colleges in the first five years after the GI Bill passage (Witt,
By the end of the 1950's,
as the baby boom generation was preparing to graduate from high school,
California claimed the largest two-year college enrollment in America.
Nearly 300,000 students were part time or adult education students.
About 91,000 were enrolled in full-time or certificate programs (Witt,
The history of California
public higher education from statehood to politics and economic forces
eventually resulted in the 1960 California Master Plan for Higher
Education. This plan, formulated by a commission headed by Clark
Kerr, then president of the University of California, remains the
controversial basis of California Higher Education today. By the end
of the decade nearly half the states in the nation had adopted similar
plans. The controversial plan created a three-tiered system of higher
education and placed new restrictions on admissions to state colleges
and universities. The upper 41 percent of graduates could enter other
state colleges and universities. The remaining students would be diverted
to the state's junior colleges. Many complained that the poorest of
students were being relegated to two-year colleges. Others felt that
the two-year college provided a nurturing environment where students,
eliminated from a state university, succeeded.
During the 1970's, community
colleges nationwide faced a drop in enrollments. California's system
felt an enormous 9 percent decrease. In addition, on June 6th, 1978,
nearly two-thirds of California's voters passed Proposition 13, reducing
the property tax by about 57%. Funding control shifted to the State,
with the Legislature increasingly involved in community college operations.
A Priceless Treasure
Due in part to a national
recession, two-year colleges experienced a resurgence after nearly
four years of stagnant enrollment. In addition, between 1980 and 1990
minority groups fueled the growth in the nation and contributed to
the new wave of Americans entering colleges. Community colleges served
as the gateway to higher education for this new wave of students,which
called for the restructuring of missions and goals, shared governance,
learning styles, and faculty and staff diversity. Ironically, this
resurgence was temporarily short lived as increased military spending
and a long period of economic growth signaled another downturn in
enrollments. Community colleges looked for new ways to reach out into
untapped sections of the community (high schools, senior citizen centers,
and prisons). These efforts increased enrollments tremendously. During
the 1980's, two-year colleges gained increasing attention from the
White House, as two-year colleges served more voters and existed in
most every congressional district. During an interview with a community
college delegation, then President Ronald Reagan called community
colleges, "a priceless treasure--close to our homes and work,
providing open doors for millions of our fellow citizens...the original
higher education melting pot (Witt, p. 264)."
Tidal Wave II
In the 21st Century new
challenges face California Community Colleges. The importance, effectiveness,
and role of community college education in the competitive California
economy is growing. In March of 2000, the State of California's Little
Hoover Commission undertook a study to determine how well community
colleges were meeting state goals. The Little Hoover Commission, formally
known as the Milton Marks "Little Hoover" Commission on California
State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state
oversight agency that was created in 1962. The Commission's mission
is to investigate state government operations and, through reports,
recommendations and legislative proposals, promote efficiency, economy
and improved service. According to the commission, the Department
of Finance projects a 25 percent increase from 1996 enrollment. Access
to and effectiveness of community colleges is under greater scrutiny
due to this projected increase.
The commission focused
on two issues: first, understanding the evolving mission of the community
colleges and the roles community colleges play in post-secondary education;
second, reviewing whether community colleges successfully realize
their mission. In short, one of the more significant commission findings
was that the success of the community colleges depends on the quality
of teaching as well as true access to the educational services that
individual students need. The commission's findings and recommendations
are presented in four sections:
- Making Teaching Count:
Quality teaching is not prioritized in hiring, professional development,
or tenure decisions.
- Ensuring Access and
Benefit for All: Colleges fail to identify the potential students
they intend to serve, the barriers that prevent those populations
from benefiting from the colleges, or how resource decisions can
best serve access goals.
- Aligning Funding
with Purpose: Community college funding is baseline and enrollment
driven. Funding structures do little to encourage individual colleges
or the colleges as a system to promote efficiency, cost effectiveness
- Reinvigorating Governance:
Community college leadership is bifurcated between state and
local decision-makers, both of them bound by procedures intended
to give all parties a seat at the table. In the absence of leadership
this muddled governance mutes responsibility and accountability
for the quality and the cost-effectiveness of services offered.
William Rainey Harper's
plan to revolutionize higher education is still alive in the ever
changing California's community colleges.The associate degree has
become an accepted standard of achievement, and millions of students
who would have otherwise been unserved find an open gateway in California's
on the Community College in America. It's History, Mission, and Management.
Ed. George A. Baker III. Greenwood Press, 1994.
Sidney W., and Myron Roberts. The California Community Colleges.
Field Educational Publications Incorporated, 1973.
J.A. The California Idea and American Higher Education: 1850 to
the 1960 Master Plan. Stanford University Press, 2000.
Doors and Open Minds: Improving Access and Quality in California's
Community Colleges. State of California Little Hoover Commission,
March 2000. http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html
Allen A., James L. Wattenbarger, James F. Gollattscheck, and Joseph
E. Suppinger. America's Community Colleges: The First Century,
Community College Press, 1994. (p. 34).