Chapter 2: Early Local Attempts Early County Junior College Efforts Local historian Philip Holmes in an article titled, “Ohlone College Comes to Washington Township” (Argus, 2/9/92) cites several pre-World War II efforts to bring a junior college to the area: Washington Township citizens agitated to secure a junior college in South Alameda County in 1929. It was decided that the area could not support the necessary bond. The movement was revived in 1931 for a college in Eden, Murray, Pleasanton and Washington Township. William for it offered $100,000 to start a junior college in Niles. There were also several attempts in the 1950s to site a state college in Fremont or Newark. Of course that did not happen, as Hayward was eventually chosen as the location of the state college. While Washington Township was responding to local post-war growth and incorporating into more consolidated cities, the state of California was also reacting to the dramatic post-war economic and population growth. One area that received a great deal of legislative attention was higher education. In 1955, responding to the influx of GIs, and in anticipation of the growing baby boom, the state legislature funded the previously described "Liaison Committee" to update the 1948 Strayer Report. The study and resulting report was named the “A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education,” and was commonly known as “The Restudy.” (Winter, p. 26) “The Restudy” looked at the whole system of higher education including the junior colleges, state colleges, and the University of California campuses in light of new developments. Many recommendations were made, which would ultimately (after even more studies) lead to the landmark Donohue Bill passed in 1960 establishing the Master Plan for Higher Education. (Winter, p. 29) One of the findings of the Restudy indicated the area of Alameda County south of Oakland would benefit from the formation of a junior college district. Two local planning efforts were undertaken in response to this finding and are described below, though neither would result in the formation of a district at that time. (Staniford, p. 4) The 20th anniversary of Chabot College in 1981 prompted Edward Staniford, a history professor at the college, to write a wonderful book entitled, Chabot College:
The First Twenty Years, An Informal History. His work contains the story of the formation of the college and has been a valuable source for this report. Many junior colleges created in the years prior to 1956 were organized within an existing school district, or group of school districts (Winter). During the decade following World War II (mid-40s to mid-50s), Hayward Union High School District and the San Leandro Unified School District had separately explored the junior college idea. Public reaction was mixed. Local groups such as school officials, Parent and Teacher Associations, League of Women Voters and Dads' Clubs advocated for a junior college district. Other community leaders and some city officials were opposed on the grounds South County lacked the population and industry to provide adequate tax support for a college. A newspaper report focused public attention on the fact that South Alameda County was the only area in the state with a population of over 50,000 not having its own junior college. (Staniford) These planning efforts came up empty. (Staniford, p. 12) The communities of Washington Township had not yet become Fremont and Newark. Washington High School, serving the Township, was one of the largest high school districts in the area and operated under the auspices of the Board of Trustees of the Washington Union High School District (WUHSD) (FUSD and NUSD were yet to be formed). The WUHSD Board became interested in forming a junior college district and conducted an opinion poll in 1956. The results showed people oppose the formation 511 to 357, so the idea was tabled. (Factsheet/ Robertson) Chabot College Emerges in South Alameda County In 1957 the State Department of Education (SDE) created a Bureau of Junior College Education to develop and oversee regulations to implement the wide variety of junior college related laws. In 1959 the SDE recommended formation of a larger district in the east bay area. (Factsheet/ Robertson) At that time the Alameda County School Superintendent and local school officials voiced concern about the growing expense of supporting students at junior colleges in other districts. The Hayward Union High School District (HUHSD) taxpayers alone, for example, were financing over 1300 such students, mostly to Oakland and San Mateo junior colleges. (Staniford) The need for a local junior college district was reinforced when the legislature authorized a new state college to be built in Hayward - stipulating it would operate as a two-year, upper division institution only, until a new junior college was established - a move by state officials to prod local school officials. (Staniford, p. 12) HUHSD and San Leandro Unified School District began planning in earnest. Staniford (p. 12-14) reports public support was stronger this time around, driven primarily by the desire for “home rule� over the tax dollars being spent to send students in Hayward and San Leandro to other junior college districts A campaign was waged to create the South County Junior College District (SCJCD), which eventually included Pleasanton, Dublin and Livermore.
Voters approved the South Alameda Country Junior College District in January 1961 by an overwhelming majority of 87% (19,606 yes, 3,078 no). Dr. Reed Buffington was selected as Superintendent/President. Classes at the newly named Chabot Junior College began in September 1961. In April of that year voters had approved a $17.2 million bond and construction on a new campus began in 1964. (Staniford, p. 14) Early Washington Township Junior College Efforts: 1960 - 1964 For the time being, residents in Fremont, Newark and Union City seemed willing to foot the bill in taxes to cover tuition for local students attending Chabot and other districts. The Washington Union High School District did, however, form a committee in 1960 to study the feasibility of a local junior college district for Washington Township. The Fremont News-Register (11/4/60) reported the committee included: Chairman Dr. Holger Rasmussen (Dr. Rasmussen would be a leader in several future elections involving the Fremont-Newark Junior College District), Centerville Trustee; Dr. Kenneth Goodwin, geneticist; Roy Dean, Mission San Jose Trustee; Mrs. Bonnie Waller, Centerville PTA leader; and Wayne Dugan, Principal of Newark's Silva School. This committee will be referred here to as the Junior College Committee. The News-Register article stated the Junior College Committee created two subcommittees, one to look into finance and planning issues and the other to address curriculum areas. Finance and planning issues included: 1) the present and future cost of sending local junior college students to other areas; 2) the feasibility of combining San Leandro and Hayward with Livermore and Pleasanton or going it alone for Washington Township; 3) the number of students expected for junior college study five years in the future; and 4) projecting future revenue methods of financing the project. The curriculum areas were to be studied by surveying local needs in four areas: adult evening education, college preparatory courses, vocational training for local employment, and general education. These issues would be pursued, in one form or another, over the next five years, during various planning efforts until the local junior college district was finally formed in December 1965. The local Argus newspaper was established in 1960. The first mention of the WUHSD Junior College Committee in the paper was on November 25, 1960 in a column named “All Around Our Town.” (A-001) It is a rather humorous tidbit: They say some folks’ll sign anything. All we know is school men (sic) will vote for anyone. When a junior college committee met recently attendees were about 90 percent school administrators or school board members. When it came time to elect some leaders, the name of “Dr. Halvorsen” was placed in nomination and he was unanimously approved. The voting over, somebody asked to be introduced to the officers just elected. But nobody could find Dr. Halvorsen. Guess he isn’t here tonight,” ventured someone. That answer satisfied everyone except the man who’d nominated him.
He turned to eye his neighbor with a quizzical look as he volunteered for him, “Yes, he is, he’s right – Uh. Isn’t your name Halvorsen?” It wasn’t. The work of the Junior College Committee does not appear to have been an urgent matter because no mention of it is evident until eight months later in an article in the Argus (8/1/61). The article reported during a WUHSD budget hearing, the Junior College Committee stated at least four months would necessary before an election could be held to form a junior college district. This indicates the committee had determined a local junior college district was feasible. The Junior College Committee asked Board members to consider a spring date for an election. Representatives of the committee met with Trustees on August 17 to discuss their recommendations, and also timelines and election procedures. (A-002) They recommended the formation of a junior college district in Washington Township (Fremont-Newark-Union City) with one Board administering both the high school and college. (Factsheet/Robertson) On October 24, 1961 the WUHSD Trustees reaffirmed their commitment to form a junior college district in Washington Township rather than annexation to the Hayward San Leandro district. No action was taken because the proposed district did not meet the required assessed valuation per student ($150,000 per student) (Factsheet) and new state regulations now had deferred opening a local junior college to 1964. (A-003)) The issue of assessed valuation would become a major obstacle to forming the Fremont-Newark Junior College District. A state law passed in 1961, Education Code 25431.5, required a minimum of 1000 junior college students and $150,000 assessed valuation behind each student before a district may be formed. The concept of the “low-wealth” district, part of 1961 legislation, requiring a certain amount of assessed valuation per student, seems to have been designed to discourage new districts in smaller areas This assessed valuation standard seems to have been created after many of the preWWII colleges had been formed. An argument for exemption from it (or the eventual repeal of it) held it was unreasonable and impractical; and that many of the previously approved colleges would not meet the standard were it to be imposed upon them. The standard was probably created to make sure local areas had more than enough potential tax revenue so the state would not be overly burdened by the establishment of more colleges. The State Department of Education was also promoting larger junior college districts. The Master Plan for Higher Education passed in 1960 called for all areas of the state to be part of a junior college district. As more small towns explored the formation of college districts, the SDE was encouraging annexation to existing districts, if possible. This was seen as a more cost effective way to meet the intent of the Master Plan.
The push for larger junior college districts was aligned with the rationale for the K12 “unification” efforts. The K-12 efforts were encouraged by enhanced state funding for districts unifying small school districts into larger ones. This indicates a general philosophy that larger organizations were more efficient, thus less costly. Early in 1962 the Junior College Committee was reactivated and set out to again to explore the idea of a local district. The group developed a report and recommended a planning timetable for WUHSD to form the new district by July 1, 1963 and start classes in September of 1964. In March 1962 WUHSD Trustees adopted a resolution petitioning the state to call an election to form a district. In September 1962 it was determined the township had an assessed valuation of $133,335,612 and still did not meet the minimum requirement. (Factsheet/Robertson) This led to another period of inaction on the junior college idea. In fact, there were no stories about the junior college district in the Argus for 11 months, from late September 1962 to late August 1963. In August of 1963 the Junior College Committee was reactivated once again. They looked again at enrollment and the assessed valuation issue and estimated potential enrollment to be 1,500 (based on district students attending nearby colleges) that would require $225,000,000 in total assessed property valuation (1,500 students x the required $150,000 assessed valuation per student). They stated the assessed valuation was then $153,000,000 and the potential enrollment was increasing at a more rapid rate than the assessed valuation. (Argus, 8/28/63) Mr. John McDonald, a WUHSD Trustee serving a liaison with the Junior College Committee, said the committee had considered three alternatives (Argus, 9/4/63): 1) Remain outside any district, as Washington Township was at the time, and continue to pay a tax to send Township students to other districts. However, since Township might be the only area in Alameda County next year not included in a district, it could mean an even higher tax rate than presently estimated... 2) Attempt to annex to South County Junior College District, 3) Attempt to have the state law changed, to ease the requirements [so Washington Township could qualify for a junior college district of its own]. In September 1963, seemingly frustrated with the roadblocks they had encountered, the Junior College Committee recommended annexation to the recently formed SCJCD (Chabot College) (Factsheet). It was thought since they were already paying for this attendance, officially joining that district could give them some say in how the dollars were spent without needing to form a separate district. However, an October 1963 meeting with South County officials did not go well. After the meeting, WUHSD officials decided to continue to pursue the formation of a separate district in Washington Township. (Factsheet) A subsequent Argus report (A-004) indicated that the SCJCD building plan had been projected so far into the future that Washington Township couldn’t hope for its own campus until the 1980s, or even into the 90s. Annexation could lead to tax increases for Fremont and Newark, if they were required to assume responsibility for the bonded
indebtedness of the district. Essentially they would be paying higher taxes to finance the building program that would not provide them a local campus for so many years. There was further concern that annexation would not ensure representation on the SCJCD Board of Trustees. WUHSD Trustees asked Superintendent Dr. William Bolt to contact Mr. Robert Clemo, Chief of the State Department of Education Bureau of School District Organization, to seek state legal opinions on the prospects for obtaining a variance to the law or gaining an exemption. Mr. Clemo wrote to Dr. Bolt, "exceptions can be made usually based on isolation or sparsity" and his bureau "could justify supporting a Washington Township junior college on the growth factor." He added trends at the time had been for the State Board of Education to favor larger districts through annexation of smaller, lower wealth areas. Clemo said however that even though his department would work with the district to achieve the junior college goal, his efforts must be with the "reservation that the Bureau has an obligation to the State Board." (A-004) In November 1963 WUHSD Trustees requested of Mr. Clemo that his Bureau survey the township to determine if it met state requirements for formation of a junior college district. Trustees were of the opinion that a powerful appeal could be made to the State Board of Education because of the projected growth of the township. Predictions ranged up to a population of 500,000 within 20 years. Requesting the survey would bring the proposal before the State Board of Education and allow local representatives an opportunity to plead their case. Local residents were then paying .376 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to send students to junior colleges outside the area. (A-005) Mr. John McDonald predicted his taxes would jump to $.55 next year because the newly formed South County Junior College District (Chabot College) would no longer contribute to the tax, leaving the entire burden on Washington Township. McDonald reported SCJCD which included Hayward, San Leandro, Pleasanton and Livermore levied a $.592 tax rate. WUHSD Board member Wesley Sears (later to become the first President of the Fremont-Newark Junior College Board) pointed out the local tax would be almost as high in the next year so "we might as well have a college of our own". (A-006) Clemo estimated it would take his Bureau five months to conduct the local survey and added if the State Board turned down the request, two other alternatives would be open: 1) annex to South County or 2) work for a change in the legislation. The latter couldn't be done before the 1965 session of the Legislature. Annexing to South County would require a two-thirds vote of the affected areas as voters would also be asked to assume a share of the current bonded indebtedness. The effort to form a local junior college district seemed to have gone into another state of dormancy and no Argus stories on the subject appeared for the next ten months (December 4, 1963 through September 30, 1964)