Abstract
The aim of this study is to clarify the two basic ideas-equality and excellence in higher education-underlying the laws of California Junior Colleges (JC) in 1917 and in 1921 and to analyze the mutual relationship between these two ideas. Before examining the ideas which led to the laws of 1917 and 1921, it seems better to introduce some of their important provisions. The 1917 law repealed the 1907 law (the first JC law in the United States as well as in California) and remedied some of its weaknesses. It provided for state financial support for JC ((1)), provided the legal basis for the development of terminal education programs in JC ((2)), and required the local high school district to have an assessed valuation of at least three million dollars ((3)). The 1921 law further strengthened the provision (1) and (3) of the 1917 law ((1)',(3)') and newly added the provisions for JC districts of three types ((4)), and for the affiliation program between the University of California and JC ((5)). These laws provided a firm foundation for the future growth of California JC. By analyzing the causes of the drives for the passage of these laws, we can recognize the two ideas underlying the process of the new legislation. One was the idea of equalizing higher educational opportunities in California school districts by promoting the growth of JC in local communities. This idea was mainly held by the JC advocates in the local high school and JC districts, and resulted in the provision (1), (1)' and (4). The other is to seek academic excellence in the university by allowing only the transfer of students from JC who could satisfy the high academic standards of the university. This idea is mainly represented in the university presidents and the faculty members and resulted in the provisions (2), (3), (3)' and (5). How about the relationship between the above two ideas or forces? In order to make it clear, it is appropriate to examine the differences in attitudes between the two forces toward provisions (2), (3)' and (5). As a result of this, we may conclude that there was a conflict of academic standards versus equal access, of excellence versus equality. Speaking more in detail, the university supported the stratification of higher education and preferred to control JC for its academic purposes, while the local JC advocates hoped to lessen the gap of higher educational opportunities geographically and preferred to keep local control over JC.
