|
HOME
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
INSTITUTIONS
LEADERS
STATE ENABLING
LEGISLATION
BBS
LINKS
CONTACT
|
|
Source Documents
|
|
|
1
|
Brooks, Elizabeth, "The Junior
College," Master's thesis, Clark University, 1917.
Summary: One of the first
extended discussions of the junior college, Brooks provides a balanced
discussion, giving equal weight to private and public junior
colleges, as well as describing developments in all regions of the
nation.
|
|
|
|
2
|
City of Philadelphia Board of Public
Education, Ninetieth Annual Report, (Philadelphia: 1909),
128-129.
Summary: A proposal by the
"president" of Philadlephia's Central High School to append a junior college to his
institution. The proposal was rejected, the city school
commissioners deciding instead to expend funds on the establishment
of additional high schools.
|
|
3
|
Cubbereley,“Junior
College,” in Paul Monroe, An Cyclopedia of Education
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1912), 573.
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
Eells,
Walter Crosby, Bibliography on Junior Colleges Bulletin No. 2,
(Washington, D.C.: US Office of Education, 1930)
Summary: Includes the initial
500 entries of Eells' 1600-entry bibliography
of the early junior college.
|
|
5
6
|
Gray,
A.A., The Junior College in California, Vol. 23 No. 7 School Review, (Sept. 1915),
pp 463-475
Green,
Herbert Charles, “Junior Colleges in North Carolina”.
Master’s thesis, University of North Carolina,1932.
Summary:
While an extremely weak document from virtually any perspective, it
includes a list of junior colleges, all but one of which were
private and a brief but unverified description of the events that led
up to the establishment of each of the junior colleges.
|
|
7
|
Kansas
City School District, Forty-Fifth Annual Report. (1916):
28-29.
Summary: These comments of Kansas
City citizens before their
school board reflected two of the more common rationales for public
junior colleges in the Midwest.
The first was that the city’s high school graduates were
relatively young even by standards of the time – many of the
women high school graduates were just 16. The second was that the
city’s high school seniors, rather than waiting to leave for
college when they were older and more mature, were putting off
graduation and continuing as high school students, essentially
defeating the cost-savings the school district would have realized
if seniors took their diplomas and moved onto college.
|
|
8
|
Le Grand (California) Advocate, 14
December, 1912.
Summary: This brief
announcement provides an excellent and early example of the
"booster" argument frequently employed by civic leaders
in advocating for the public junior college. As the articles
concludes: "We don't get good things by passively waiting and
hoping they will come in their own good time."
|
|
|
|
9
|
Johnston, Charles
Hughes. The upward extension of the high school In his Modern
high school, New York, 1914, Scribners
& Sons.
|
|
|
|
10
|
Lippitt,
W.O., "The Junior College at Jackson, Minnesota," School
Education (December, 1916): 4
Summary: Lippitt
argues that a public junior college was required in Jackson to provide students with a safe,
supportive alternative to the large and impersonal university. For Lippitt, the junior college was not so much an
isthmus to the university, but an alternative.
|
|
|
|
11
|
McLane,
C.L., "The Fresno Junior College," The California Weekly
(July 15, 1910).
Summary: The original
announcement of Fresno JC's opening. McLane describes a diverse curriculum,
including special programs in agriculture and teacher education.
|
|
|
|
12
|
Oklahoma Department of Education, The
Eighteenth Biennial Report of the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction (Oklahoma City, 1940).
Summary: Among the most
persistent and effective critics of the early junior college were
chief state school officiers, for whom the
junior college represented an unconstitutional threat to public
funds earmarked by elementary and secondary education. This report
not only provides a good overview of the junior college's condition
in the state with, at the time, third greatest number of these
institutions, but provides an excellent summary of the arguments
against the junior college typically raised by state school
officials.
|
|
|
|
13
|
Prall,
Charles E., "Report of the Junior College Survey Committee,"
The Journal of Arkansas Education (November, 1930): 18-23.
Summary: Prall's
study reflects the on-going tension between communities, that often
believed that the desire to establish a junior college was
sufficient to ensure it success, and those educators who recognized
that a junior college established as part of a small high school
supported by a weak tax was doomed to failure. Prall
provides substantial evidence, not otherwise available, to support
his view.
|
|
|
|
14
|
Samuleson,
Agnes, Public Junior Colleges: Preliminary Report (Des Moines, IA:
1928).
Summary: Samuleson's
report reflects the on-going efforts of state school officials to
limit the spread of the junior college, arguing (with considerable
truth) that it drew resources away from elementary and secondary
schools.
|
|
|
|
15
|
San Francisco Public Schools. Report of
the Superintendent (June 1936): 4.
Summary: This brief report represents
an exceptionally blatant attempt to use the rhetoric of access and
opportunity to mask what was, in fact, a very pragmatic -- even
calculated -- decision to establish a junior college.
|
|
|
|
16
|
Santa Rosa (CA) Press Democrat, "Junior
College Is Recognized", 29 August, 1918
Summary: This press report
announces that students from Santa Rosa Junior College could enter San Jose Normal with senior standing, thereby requiring
them to complete only one year of student before they could secure
their state teaching credential. This press report highlights the
importance of the teacher education function for many early junior
colleges.
|
|
|
|
17
|
School District of
Kansas City. Forty-Fifth Annual Report.
(1916): 28-29.
Summary: This section from the board
minutes of the Kansas City (MO) school board presents two
of the most common reasons underlying local support for a public
junior college. The first was that the city’s graduates,
because their program was only 11 years in length, graduated at
just 16. They were required as simply too young by their parents to
attend a distant university.
The second
reason was that students, not wishing to leave school until their
parents would let them leave home for college, were simply putting
off graduation, effectively eliminating the cost savings the
district realized from having, at least on record, an 11-year
school program.
|
|
|
|
18
|
Turner,
Edward C., 1928 Ohio Opinions of the Attorney General, No. 2017,
Vol. 3, 1013
|
|
|
|
19
|
University of Illinois Committee
on Admissions From Higher Institutions, "Rating of Burlington
Junior College," (Urbana: 1929).
Summary: This report provides
an example of the close and critical scrutiny to which junior
colleges were subjected by universities as a pre-condition for the
all-important recognition of their credits for purposes of
transfer.
|
|
|
|
20
|
Zook, George. "The Extent and Significance
of the Junior College Movement." Transactions of the
Fifty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Ohio College Association
(April, 1927): 8-11
|
|
21
|
Zook, George (Ed.), National Conference of
Junior Colleges, 1920. US Bureau of Education, No. 19, 1922. (GPO:
1922).
Summary: This entry e contains a complete transcript
of the 1920 St. Louis meeting at which George Zook, on
behalf of the federal Bureau of Education, sought to convince the
assembled junior college presidents and deans to establish an
accrediting body for all junior colleges. The members rejected Zook’s proposal, and instead established
the advocacy association then known as the AAJC and today known as
the AACC. The work should be read in its entirety, as it contains a
remarkable wealth of insight into the exceptional range of factors
that led a truly disparate range of communities to establish remarkably
similar junior colleges.
|
|
|
|
|
|