Legislative History And Critical Events

Front 1

Smith-Hughes Act of 1917

Back 1

funded secondary ag, trade and industry and home ec programs

Front 2

Vocational Education Act of 1963

First narrowly focused and $$ at post-secondary level

Does not transfer to higher level education

Back 2

supported occupational prep below BA level
intended to serve all students

Front 3

Vocational Education Amendments of 1998

HS and CC course articulation

Back 3

expanded fed's role
emphasized professional development
course articulation with HS
increased support for post-secondary programs
student outcomes not program outcomes

Front 4

Federal Education Amendments of 1976

Tracking students outside of the transfer mission

Back 4

programs overcoming gender discrimination & stereotyping
focus on HS dropouts, unemployed, and incumbent workers
vocational ed for handicapped and ESL
National Vocational Education System

Front 5

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act of 1984

Back 5

Tech prep programs
Course articulation
accountability and student outcomes
training for disadvantaged (special needs) students

Front 6

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act Amendments of 1990 (Perkins II)

Back 6

largest fed funding to HS
increased attention to academic and tech skills
funding favor disadvantaged students
increase accountability esp student academic achievement

Front 7

Grubb et al (1996)

Back 7

Workforce Preparation and Development
Tech prep and school to work
Job training and skill development

Front 8

Bragg (2001)

Back 8

New Vocationalism

Career pathways/clusters
transferable skills (healthcare, business, technology)
sequential core curriculum to transition from HS to post-secondary
Constructivist theories - active teaching and learning, learner centered, project-based instruction

Front 9

W. Norton Grubb (1998)

Back 9

Benefits of New Vocationalism
1. Complete Assoc degree
2. Large gains experienced by minorities

Front 10

Founding of AAJC

Back 10

1920

Front 11

Periods of CC Development in 20th Century

Back 11

1900-1920 Formative Period
1920-1945 Developmental Period
1945-1970 Take Off
1970-present Great Transformation
(Brint and Karabel, 1989: The Diverted Dream)

Front 12

Generations of CC Development in the 20th Century

Back 12

1900-1930 Generation 1 (extension of high school)
1930-1950 Generation 2 (junior college)
1950-1970 Generation 3 (CC)
1970-1985 Generation 4 (Comprehensive CC)
1985 - present ????
Deegan & Tillery

Front 13

Leaders of the Developmental Period

Back 13

Leonard Koos
Walter Crosby Eells
Doak S. Campbell

Front 14

1900-1940 Early Growth Period What influenced the Growth?

Back 14

more HS Grads
university advocacy & sponsorship
lack of higher ed options
support for vocational ed

Front 15

Ideals of American Education

Back 15

lead to upward mobility
create social efficiency
relieve social ills
enhance individual achievement
improve the economy

Front 16

Illinois General Assembly recognizes/legalizes JC

Back 16

1931

Front 17

Illinois Association of Junior Colleges as lobbying agency

Back 17

1936

Front 18

The time when JC viewed as post-secondary as opposed to secondary as previously viewed.

Back 18

Late 1950s

Front 19

Illinois State Funding approved

Back 19

1955

Front 20

Greater state control because of duplication and competition

Back 20

JC --> CC

Early 1960s

Front 21

Junior College Act passed and signed by Otto Kerner for capital building

Back 21

1965

Front 22

Major impact to CC

Back 22

ADN Program

Front 23

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Functional Advocates

Back 23

Functional Advocates - democratizing access
Medsker
Gleazer
Cohen and Brawer
Parsons

Front 24

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Instsrumentalists Marxist Critics

Back 24

Instrumentalists Marxist Critics - inequalities created by capitalist elite

Karabel
Pincus
Zwerling

Front 25

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Institutionalist Critics

Back 25

Institutionalist Critics - hamper attainment of bachelors

Brint and Karabel

Front 26

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Functionalist Advocates

Back 26

Functionalist Advocates - democratic demands students and parents

Front 27

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Marxist Instrumentalist Critics

Back 27

Marxist Instrumentalist Critics - capitalist view keep universities select

Front 28

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
Institutional Critics

Back 28

Institutional Critics - university attended by only wealthy, best students

Brint Lange
Karabel Jordan
Larabee

Front 29

Dougherty (1994)

The Contradictory College:
The State Relative Autonomy Perspective

Back 29

The State Relative Autonomy Perspective - promoters of CC

Functionalists - students/parents
Instrumentalist Marxists - business
Institutuionalists - State Univ

Front 30

Dougherty (1991) The CC at a Crossroads.

Back 30

A need for reform.
Because students are obtaining bachelor degrees
CC--> 4 yr institution
CC--> branch of universities

Front 31

Dougherty (1991)

The Baccalaureate Gap

Back 31

Three reasons for Baccalaureate Gap
1. surviving CC
2. transferring to 4 yr
3. persisting in 4 yr

Front 32

Dougherty (1991)

Reformers recommendations

Back 32

1. CC--> 4 yr
2. CC--> branch of 4 yr

Front 33

Founding of AAJC

Back 33

1920

Front 34

Truman Commission Report

Back 34

Vocationalism
Need for access
Women and minorities
Veterans and Soldiers
Importance of Gen Ed
Define state and local control
Financial aid

Front 35

Clark (1960) Cooling Out Function in Higher Ed

Back 35

Dissociation between aspirations and avenues in education.
Inconsistency between achievement and realities of limited opportunity.

Front 36

Clark (1960) Cooling Out

Back 36

never dismiss just redirect

lets the student down gently and unexplosively.

Front 37

Clark (1960) Cooling Out Features

Back 37

1. Alternative Achievement
2. Gradual disengagement
3. Objective Denial
4. Agents of consolation
5. Avoidance of Standards

Front 38

Clark (1980) Cooling Out Revisited

Back 38

Clark suggests
1 open door admission (nonselection)
2. those who can be successful in university should attend university
3. deny some aspirants the transfer option and now what

Front 39

Clark (1980) Cooling Out Revisited

Back 39

Six Alternatives
1. preselection
2. transfer track selection
3. open failure
4. guaranteed graduation
5. reduction of transfer-terminal distinction
6. move problem to another type of college

Front 40

What Karabel (1972) says about CC.

Back 40

way to maintain low income minorities because that's where they go to school

academic standards block upward mobility

Front 41

What Zwerling says about CC.

Back 41

maintains social stratification
CC is one more barrier between poor and middle class

Front 42

Clark Kerr

Back 42

Carnegie Commission
Author of the CA Master Plan
Believes there is a need to sort to maintain high research standards and quality

Front 43

Carnegie Commission

Back 43

1967

Front 44

Edmund Gleazer (1980)
The Community College: Values, Vision & Vitality

Back 44

Community College difficult to define due to changing roles

Front 45

Dale Parnell ( )

The Neglected Majority

Back 45

The Father of Tech Prep