Community College Access, Mission, and Outcomes

This article was downloaded by: [Marshall University]
On: 03 August 2013, At: 22:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Peabody Journal of Education

Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hpje20
Community College Access,

Mission, and Outcomes:
Considering Intriguing
Intersections and Challenges
Debra D. Bragg
Published online: 18 Nov 2009.
To cite this article: Debra D. Bragg (2001) Community College Access, Mission, and
Outcomes: Considering Intriguing Intersections and Challenges, Peabody Journal of
Education, 76:1, 93-116, DOI: 10.1207/S15327930PJE7601_06
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7601_06
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Marshall University] at 22:33 03 August 2013
PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, 76(1), 93–116
Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Community College Access, Mission,

and Outcomes: Considering
Intriguing Intersections and
Challenges
Debra D. Bragg
College of Education
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Since their inception, community colleges have carried out a number of com-
plex and often competing programs or foci. The transfer, vocational, develop-
mental, and continuing and community service foci have become increas-
ingly important as the mission of community colleges has evolved. During
their early history, operating primarily as transfer institutions, the student
population of junior colleges was not especially diverse—traditional age,
male, White, college-bound students filled most classrooms. As times passed
and as enrollments grew, community colleges became increasingly diverse in
the students they serve and in their purposes for being. Today, community
colleges fulfill a multiplicity of roles within their communities, offering a
myriad of educational programs and services with a broad and sometimes
contradictory set of intended outcomes. This article summarizes pertinent lit-
erature related to community college access, mission, and outcomes, explor-
ing the complex intersections between these important constructs. It con-
cludes that meeting the needs and goals of students should be paramount in
conceptualizing outcomes, otherwise community colleges will continue to be
criticized by populists who observe that they are not reaching enough stu-
Requests for reprints should be sent to Debra D. Bragg, Human Resource Education, Col-
lege of Education, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1310 South Sixth Street, Cham-
paign, IL 61820. E-mail: d-bragg1@staff.uiuc.edu
93
D. D. Bragg
dents and elitists who believe they do not meet traditional outcomes linked to
educational and economic attainment.
Setting educational priorities, meeting students’ needs, and responding

to community concerns is a complicated balancing act … . Core commu-
nity college principles like accessibility, affordability, and flexibility cre-
ate stress the way freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights simulta-
neously unite Americans and generate tensions among them. (Phillippe
& Patton, 2000, p. 9)
Since their inception, community colleges have carried out a number of

complex and competing foci as part of their open-access mission (Cross,
1985; Deegan, Tillery, & Associates, 1985), often serving individuals who
would not otherwise participate in higher education. Various programs
have been important to the evolution of community colleges, such as trans-
fer and vocational preparation, although these foci have received different
levels of support at different points in time (Cohen & Brawer, 1996;
Dougherty, 1994). As community colleges have matured, their learners
have become more diverse—much more diverse than the students of most
4-year colleges (Nora, 2000). The diversity of curricular offerings has pro-
liferated to meet students’ needs; outcomes associated with participating
in and finishing a community college education have become more varied,
challenging these institutions to address the increasingly rich array of out-
comes necessitated by diverse student participation.
Following a brief description of modern-day community colleges and
the increasingly diverse student population they serve, this article exam-
ines the literature on changing mission, student audiences, and learner
outcomes utilizing classic texts, policy documents beginning with the Tru-
man Commission report, and selected institutional resources available in
print and on the Internet. Moreover, the article explores issues related to
student access and opportunity from a present-day perspective, but also
from the viewpoint of pivotal points in the maturation of America’s com-
munity college system. Implications for the future of community college
education are considered at the conclusion.
Access and Growing Student Diversity
Having evolved from relative obscurity in the early 20th century, com-
munity colleges play a vital role in contemporary American higher educa-
tion. Kevin Dougherty (1998), a leading scholar of community college
94
Community College Access, Mission, and Outcomes
education, recently observed, “the community college today is the single

largest and most important portal into higher education” (p. 1). Although
his conclusion is based on several factors, enrollment is the most compel-
ling. Over 1,100 community colleges, comprising over one fourth of all
higher education institutions in the United States, enroll 5.3 million
full-time equivalent students (National Center for Education Statistics
[NCES], 1999a, 1999c). This level of enrollment accounts for 45% of all
first-time college entrants and 37% of all undergraduates in American col-
leges and universities.
In selected states with especially large community college systems such
as California, Illinois, and Texas, community college students make up a

far greater proportion of total higher education enrollments. For example,
recent reports of fall enrollments in Illinois confirmed that nearly 350,000
students enrolled in public community colleges compared to 200,000 stu-
dents in public 4-year colleges, nearly a 2:1 margin for community colleges
over 4-year schools (Chronicle of Higher Education, 1998). Indeed, these
figures probably underestimate the dominance of community colleges in
total higher education enrollment in Illinois because they do not include
noncredit participants who are an increasingly important aspect of com-
munity college education (American Association of Community Colleges,
2000; Carnevale, 2000).
Who are the students of modern-day community colleges? Compared
to their 4-year college counterparts, community college participants are
older, more likely to be women and members of racial or ethnic groups,
less likely to be attending full time because they are working and taking
care of family, and more likely to be the first person in their family to at-
tend college (i.e., first-generation college). Actually, this profile of stu-
dents of the community college is not new; historically, the student
populations of community colleges have been much more diverse than
the populations of 4-year colleges. However, as community college en-
rollments rose since the 1960s, community college students as a whole
became more diverse—more nontraditional—than in earlier years
(Roueche & Roueche, 1993). Looking at age alone, only 35% of today’s
community college students are traditional college age of 18 through 21
(NCES, 1999a; Phillippe & Patton, 2000). In one of the first comprehen-
sive studies of junior colleges, Medsker (1960) reported that 53% of stu-
dents were in the 18 to 21 age range in the late 1950s, with the rest being
older. Even at this early date, 2-year college students were substantially
older than their 4-year college counterparts.
Nontraditional and minority students are particularly active enrollees
in community college education. In fact, persons of color make up about
30% of all participants in community colleges compared to approximately
95
D. D. Bragg
24% in 4-year institutions (NCES, 1999a). More than one half of African
American and persons of Hispanic origin who enroll in college after high
school graduation attend a community college. These two minority groups
are the largest minority groups represented in community colleges; how-
ever, persons of Asian or Pacific Islander background and Native Ameri-
cans are also represented in significant numbers. This is explained by the
fact that large numbers of minority students reside in states having expan-
sive community college systems, such as Arizona, California, Florida, and
Texas. Hispanic students are overrepresented in community colleges,
making up 12% of the enrollment nationally, but underrepresented in
4-year colleges, accounting for only 8% there. Longitudinal analyses con-

ducted by Adelman (1992) corroborate these figures, showing how His-
panics have been overrepresented in community colleges historically
relative to other racial and ethnic groups. As a consequence, community
colleges have a particularly important responsibility for ensuring Hispanic
students (as well as other minority students) have ample opportunity to
succeed and reach their ultimate educational goals.
Longitudinal results from Adelman (1992, 1999) confirm that, com-
pared to their 4-year college counterparts, a much higher proportion of
community college students come from non-English speaking homes, are
recent immigrants, are from low-income families, or all three. Nora (1993)
reported that minority student enrollments have been consistent for the
last 25 years, with minority students making up only 6% to 8% of all stu-
dents in higher education, but nearly 60% of total community college en-
rollments. Recognizing the preponderance of minority students at the
2-year college level, it is unfortunate to learn that, although the financial
needs of many community college students are great, community college
enrollees are at a disadvantage to other college students in securing stu-
dent aid. Alexander (1999) showed that students attending low-cost com-
munity colleges are less likely than students attending high-cost, 4-year
colleges and universities to secure aid. His research raises important ques-
tions about the principle of vertical equity that various federal and state
student aid programs profess to address.
Even so, community colleges are committed to low tuition rates so
that students who would not otherwise have the opportunity to attend
college can do so. According to Phillippe and Patton (2000), “tuition and
fees at public community colleges average less than half those at public
four-year colleges and about one-tenth those at independent four-year
colleges” (p. 104). The NCES (1999b) showed annual tuition and fees for
public community colleges at just under $5,000 per year compared to
nearly $20,000 at public 4-year schools and over $30,000 at private 4-year
institutions. With community college tuition being substantially lower
96
than 4-year colleges, it is logical that more students of varying back-

grounds would attend.
Finally, open admission policies are a fundamental reason for the in-
creasing enrollment of diverse student groups in community colleges. Be-
cause of their commitment to providing comprehensive programs and
services for all of the constituents in their communities regardless of racial,
ethnic, economic, or academic circumstances, community colleges rarely
exclude anyone from participation in course work on some level. Students
range from those seeking entrance to transfer programs to those having
not yet completed high school and requiring the general equivalence de-
gree. To ensure that all types of instruction are readily available to suit the
needs of their many students, community colleges pride themselves in of-
fering flexible course schedules, small class sizes, and innovative formats
to meet individual needs (O’Banion, 1997a). They are moving rapidly to
capitalize on interactive educational technologies so that learning is more
active and accessible (e.g., see Boettcher & Conrad, 1999; Lever-Duffy,
Lemke, & Johnson, 1996), and these technologies can be applied to pro-
grams throughout the institution.
Throughout the past 4 decades, as the number of institutions grew—al-
most doubling from about 400 to just under 800 during the 1960s (Cohen &
Brawer, 1996)—the notion of an open-access, comprehensive mission be-
came widely accepted. Transfer, vocational, continuing education and
community service, and developmental education are core foci of the com-
prehensive curriculum. Even so, as evolution toward the comprehensive
mission occurred, each focus received different levels of attention and sup-
port at different points in time. Also, individual foci changed to accommo-
date increasingly complex individual and societal circumstances. For
example, the transfer focus increasingly recognized movement of students
back and forth between 2- and 4-year institutions, rather than from 2-year
to 4-year institutions exclusively. Also, the vocational focus increasingly
emphasized lifelong learning through vocational and technical education
programs offering career paths that extended from entry level to profes-
sional employment. Looking beyond changes occurring with each distinct
focus, different areas blend over time, fulfilling complementary purposes
and goals as they paid increased attention to diverse student needs.
Evolving Mission: Access to What?
When community colleges began near the turn of the 20th century, they
focused almost entirely on one focus: transfer. Hence, the name junior col-
lege was coined and used widely. Starting as extensions of local school dis-
97
D. D. Bragg
tricts, many of the first junior colleges emerged as advanced grades of high
school. At the urging of university leaders such as William Rainey Harper
of the University of Chicago, David Starr Jordan of Stanford University,
and Alexis Lange of University of California at Berkeley, junior colleges
helped to relieve senior institutions (especially those dedicated to re-
search) from the burden of teaching first- and second-year students
(Deiner, 1986; Frye, 1992). Communities without higher education institu-
tions in close proximity welcomed the chance to provide citizens with ac-
cess to collegiate education beyond the 12th grade. Widely acknowledged
as the first junior college in the United States, Joliet Junior College retains
its original name today, recognizing its early role in bridging the local high
school with the university, where Joliet students received advanced stand-
ing on entrance to the University of Chicago (History of Joliet, 2000).
Gradually, as economic and political circumstances exerted greater in-
fluence, another focus—vocational education—emerged. Early junior col-
lege leaders such as Walter Crosby Eells and Leonard Koos were adamant
supporters of this broader mission for community colleges, going beyond
transfer education to prepare students for employment (Frye, 1992). They
suggested that vocational programs should prepare youth and adults for
immediate employment in semiprofessional occupations, thereby fulfill-
ing what leaders of the time called the terminal function. This vision of Eells
(1931) was adopted by many 2-year colleges, wherein they expanded to
address four functional areas: popularization, preparatory education, ter-
minal education, and guidance. Siding with university leaders who advo-
cated terminal education, Eells believed as the concept of the junior college
matured, local educators should offer forms of education needed by the
vast majority of students, not only those interested in transfer. He argued
that the junior college should “offer something more than a simple univer-
sity preparatory course, if it is to live up to its true destiny. The develop-
ment of the terminal function is an essential corollary of the success of the
popularization function” (p. 289).
Looking back to the mid-20th century, even with calls for increased em-
phasis on terminal education, junior colleges maintained their emphasis
on transfer and liberal arts education. Populist policies adopted soon after
WWII precipitated a gradual shift in the emphasis of the higher education
system. A commission led by George F. Zook, a colleague of Eells and
Koos, issued a major report on higher education referred to widely as the
Truman Commission Report. This report made a bold statement in sup-
port of vocational education in junior colleges as a means of improving
and expanding access. The Truman Commission Report advocated that ju-
nior colleges become an avenue to provide educational access for the vast
majority of American youths and adults. Using the term community col-
98
leges, a term rarely used at the time, the Truman Commission Report pro-
vided an early vision of the comprehensive mission that permeates the
U.S. system of community colleges today. Pointing to inequities and em-
phasizing the importance of expanding educational access beyond high
schools, the Truman Commission proclaimed,
If the ladder of educational opportunity rises high at the doors of some

youth and scarcely rises at all at the doors of others, while at the same
time formal education is made a prerequisite to occupational and social
advance, then education may become the means, not of eliminating race
and class distinctions, but of deepening and solidifying them. It is obvi-

ous, then, that free and universal access to education, in terms of the interest,
ability, and need of the student, must be a major goal of American education.
(U.S. President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1948, p. 36)
Providing national leadership for community colleges after World War

II, Jesse Bogue (1956) proposed three functions for community junior col-
leges. Building on his predecessors’ understandings, Bogue advocated an
extension of education to address the added requirements of life and work
through the vocational function and preparation for further college study or
the transfer function, which he referred to as university parallel. Furthermore,
Bogue introduced the continuing education focus—offering students the
opportunity for part-time education as the need and interest arose. His de-
scription of continuing education was particularly insightful because of
how well he anticipated the expanded role of community colleges in ad-
dressing community and business needs; he also envisioned the community
colleges offering training for persons seeking job advancement and oppor-
tunities to learn about technological developments. Reflecting on the period
of greatest expansion of community colleges during the 1960s and early
1970s, Edmond Gleazer (1980) observed that community colleges broad-
ened curriculum during this time through the conversion of transfer and vo-
cational–technical education to a more comprehensive curriculum. He
argued that extending equal opportunity in higher education could be
linked directly to broadening the mission of community colleges.
Gleazer (1980) urged community colleges to establish commu-
nity-based learning centers to move beyond conventional curriculum of-
ferings and address citizens’ needs for career development and lifelong
learning. Initially, his ideas were criticized, but they gained support as
time passed. Today, community colleges fulfill a wide range of needs for
individuals, employers, and community organizations through custom-
ized training and other workforce development programs for emergent
and incumbent learners (Dougherty & Bakia, 1999; Jacobs, 2000; Warford
99
D. D. Bragg
& Flynn, 2000). Envisioning future growth in this arena, the American As-
sociation of Community Colleges (2000) recently observed, “Community
colleges—broadly based and interwoven with community net-
works—have the opportunity and the obligation to lead transformation
that will meet the requirements of a citizenry engaged in lifelong learning”
(p. 35).
Another focus, developmental education and remediation, became evi-
dent during the 1960s, with increasing emphasis placed on it since that
time. This focus has increased in importance since the wide spread adop-
tion of open access admission policies in the 1960s. No doubt developmen-
tal education was present in many 2-year colleges from the beginning;
however, open access dramatically increased the diversity of the student
population during the 1960s and 1970s. Cohen and Brawer (1996) observed
that community colleges responded to open access by “accommodating
the different types of students without turning anyone away” (p. 256). At
the same time, the colleges were admitting a growing number of
underprepared students, and instructional planning took on heightened
importance to meet their needs.
Enrollments have risen in developmental education ever since the 1960s
and 1970s, reaching as high as 80% of new college entrants in some com-
munity colleges today (Grubb, 1999a; Lewis, Farris, & Greene, 1996). Re-
porting on results from his national study, McCabe (2001) observed that
poverty is the highest correlate with underpreparedness, and that minor-
ity students are disproportionately represented in the highest poverty sta-
tus. Many school reforms are directed at closing the academic gap for these
students, but more change needs to take place to meet students’ needs. For
underprepared students, remedial coursework is necessary to bridge the
gap between high school and college, along with related developmental
services such as peer tutoring, counseling, and learning labs (Shaw, 1997).
Through these various strategies, developmental education is increasingly
relied on to bring students up to a level that enables them to be successful
in their collegiate pursuits. Coupled with other foci, developmental educa-
tion has become a core component of the comprehensive mission of com-
munity colleges. Separately and collectively, the curriculum has continued
to evolve to address diverse student needs.
Changes Within Foci
Recognizing that each particular focus makes a unique contribution to

the comprehensive mission, it is important to understand that each does
not exist with the exact same goals and in precisely the same form as in the
100
past. In fact, thinking of each focus only as it has existed in prior decades is
too simplistic, too limiting. To do so fails to recognize changes occurring
relative to the needs of an increasingly diverse student population. Con-
temporary students often have different needs and requirements than
their predecessors, leading to educational programs and services that do
not fit neatly into categories that scholars have constructed over the years.
Old definitions are not entirely suitable in the modern day, nor are they
likely to fit in the future. For example, transfer may not always mean that
students matriculate upward from 2- to 4-year colleges, and vocational ed-
ucation may not signify a goal to terminate education with immediate em-
ployment. By looking at these two foci, the oldest among all foci in the
comprehensive curriculum, we understand this point best.
With regard to transfer education, current enrollment patterns suggest
that, rather than moving up from community colleges, some students
transfer to them. No question the most prominent pathway for transfer re-
mains from the 2- to the 4-year level, although critics point out that even
this transfer rate is quite low (Brint & Karabel, 1989; Dougherty, 1994). In-
deed, Cohen and Sanchez (1997) estimated the 2- to 4-year transfer rate
somewhere between 22% to 26% nationally, and it has remained at this
level for 1 decade or more. A transfer pattern that is growing in signifi-
cance is when students transfer from 4-year colleges back to 2-year ones,
creating a phenomenon called reverse transfer (Townsend & Dever, 1999).
Current estimates suggest about 13% of community college students na-
tionally are reverse transfers, although the percentage varies greatly from
one college to another (Townsend, 1999). Post-baccalaureate reverse trans-
fer—when students who have completed a bachelor’s degree return to
study at the 2-year college—is another pattern, accounting for between
10% and 20% of community college students (Gose, 1997).
Townsend (1999) and Adelman (1999) offered several explanations for
changes occurring in the transfer focus. Townsend argued that students
subvert the structural functionalist design of policymakers and used the
transfer focus to fit their own needs. Adelman (1992) likened community
colleges to public institutions such as libraries and museums, suggesting
participants use these institutions on their own terms and in their own
unique ways. Using similar logic, both researchers acknowledged that to-
day’s transfer patterns occur in much different ways than the upwardly
vertical one envisioned by early leaders of America’s educational system.
As students of postsecondary education increasingly view themselves
as savvy consumers, they see higher education institutions (and probably
learning itself) as a marketplace for consumable goods and services
(Rosenfeld, 1999). As a utilitarian purpose of education grows in impor-
tance, the functional aspects (i.e., skill acquisition, career preparation) in-
101
D. D. Bragg
crease in value. This is particularly evident in the new ways in which

students transfer and when 4-year liberal arts bachelor’s recipients trans-
fer to community colleges for vocational–technical training. Rather than
studying liberal arts, many reverse transfer and post-baccalaureate trans-
fer students take vocational courses to gain access to technical jobs. Appar-
ently, students who already possess more advanced education see
community colleges as a viable option for specialized technical training,
and they seek participation in these schools to prepare for viable employ-
ment in the new economy (Carnevale, 2000; Jacobs, 2000; Rosenfeld, 1999).
Turning to the vocational focus, from their earliest days junior colleges
offered vocational education as an alternative track to liberal arts, transfer

programs. Students who pursued vocational credentials were assumed to
be seeking direct entry into semiprofessional occupations—for instance,
those requiring more than a high school diploma but less than the bache-
lor’s or more advanced degree associated with professional jobs (Grubb,
1996). These students were certainly not supposed to be interested in bac-
calaureate-level education. Moreover, 2-year college students who entered
transfer programs without the necessary skills and knowledge to be suc-
cessful were to be redirected—“cooled out”—through enrollment in voca-
tional education (Clark, 1960). Although this view of postsecondary
vocational education is still evident in the scholarly literature (e.g., see
Brint & Karabel, 1989), current research suggests a great deal of vocational
education is far from “terminal.” Cohen and Brawer (1996) reported that
the transfer rates from some 2-year vocational programs rivals those of tra-
ditional liberal arts transfer programs, especially in areas where a logical
progression exists to 4-year professional and technical programs such as
business, education, engineering, and the health care professions. More-
over, a 50-state study by Ignash and Townsend (2000) revealed a growing
number of interinstitutional articulation agreements and state policies en-
dorsing transfer of the associate of applied science degree to 4-year institu-
tions. Acknowledging these developments, Jacobs (2000) suggested the
creation of career pathways that “prepare students not for entry-level
work within a cluster of firms, but a career that could include advanced de-
grees. Students may choose not to continue, but the pathway needs to be in
place” (p. 3).
Recognizing transfer as a valued feature of the “new vocationalism,”
Bragg (1997) and Grubb (1997) described various opportunities and chal-
lenges for postsecondary vocational education in increasing its alignment
with the transfer focus. Among several, technical preparation (tech prep)
programs involve articulation between high schools and community col-
leges, and integrated academic and technical instruction, which can lead to
a bachelor’s degree. Integrated educational programs such as tech prep
102
that deliberately link secondary schools, community colleges, and 4-year

colleges are enormously difficult to implement, but yield positive transi-
tion outcomes when attention is paid to high standards for academic prep-
aration (Bragg, 2001). In these cases, transfer is a neglected outcome for
assessing program effectiveness. Building on the notion of students as in-
formed consumers, using transfer as an outcome for vocational programs
reflects the growing importance of lifelong learning and career prepara-
tion for all of America’s college students.
The Integration of Foci

Stimulated by the Truman Commission Report, Bogue (1956) spoke

about comprehensive community colleges in describing changes that were
happening within these institutions. Bogue urged states to lead the forma-
tion of systems of community junior colleges, recommending the expan-
sion of curricula to integrate the liberal arts and vocational education:
Those colleges which have been primarily interested in offering voca-

tional–technical programs are now offering more general education in-
tegrated with the specialized education and training. Those institutions
that leaned heavily in the direction of liberal and university parallel cur-
ricula are organizing vocational–technical programs. The view seems to
be that if the institution is to serve the needs of all youth locally at the
post-high school level, it must provide varieties of programs because the
needs of youths vary. (p. 39)
Since these early days, some educational leaders have urged commu-
nity colleges to integrate different foci, such as liberal arts and vocational
preparation (e.g., see Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Sometimes students have en-
gaged in integrated curriculum in other areas, such as developmental edu-
cation and continuing education, suggesting fluid patterns of course
taking and extensive intermingling of disciplines across the curriculum
(Bailey & Averianova, 1999; Grubb, 1999a). Moving beyond classroom in-
struction, integration can also take place between college classrooms and
in other contexts, such as the workplace through internships and coopera-
tive (co-op) arrangements and community involvement through service
learning. In a discussion of three innovative colleges that deliberately link
access to outcomes, Berquist (1995) noted,
Many of the courses, and especially the field projects at all three schools
(wherein schools are asked to donate time to perform community ser-
vice or receive internship credit while licensing), offer students an op-
103
D. D. Bragg
portunity to use (and reconfirm) in a new outside environment what

they have learned in the classroom or in life. (p. 228)
Indeed, many community colleges engage learners in work-based learn-

ing opportunities, offering them an opportunity to integrate ideas across
disciplines by linking theory to practice in natural settings (Bragg &
Hamm, 1996).
Still, the predominant emphasis of community college curriculum con-
tinues to be characterized as transfer or vocational, rather than transfer and
vocational. Critical of integration, Eaton (1994) characterized the amalgam-
ation of curriculum as an identity crisis, arguing the quality of collegiate ed-

ucation is diminished when the transfer function is not kept pure. However,
others such as Bailey and Averianova (1999), Grubb (1996, 1999a), and Perin
(1998) welcome the opportunity to integrate academic, vocational, and
other foci, envisioning new hybrid curricula that benefit diverse learners.
Specifically, the integration of academic and vocational education is advo-
cated because of its ability to prepare learners to adjust to and succeed in the
modern workplace, characterized by increased diversity, globalization, and
technological advancements (Bailey, 1995). Badway and Grubb (1997) con-
tended that academic and vocational integration can improve what and
how learners learn regardless of their curriculum or major. This is achieved
by broadening vocational education and strengthening its connection to
“citizenship issues such as public policies toward technology and employ-
ment … [and] the evolution of American work ethic” (Badway & Grubb, p.
12). The Commission on the Future of Community Colleges (1988) agreed
and recommended that community colleges stop isolating vocational edu-
cation from the liberal arts because students cannot transfer what they know
from one discipline to another. To fail to do so also diminishes students’ un-
derstanding of the relevance of what they are learning, which negatively im-
pacts retention (Tinto, 1996).
Changing Instructional Strategies
Research on student learning in higher education is extensive, but rela-

tively little is known about community college students and how to best
facilitate their learning experiences. A thorough synthesis of research on
higher education was published 1 decade ago in How College Affects Stu-
dents, wherein the authors, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), implied that
much of what is known about student learning in 4-year colleges can be
generalized to 2-year institutions. There is some truth to this claim, but the
dramatic difference in student populations in 2- versus 4-year colleges
104
suggests caution in generalizing too liberally. Whereas numerous studies

have reinforced the importance of encouraging and supporting academic
and social integration as a means of promoting retention (Astin, 1985;
Tinto, 1993), other researchers have shown these concepts do not fit the
distinct settings equally well. Among others, Bean and Metzner (1985) the-
orized that because community college students are older, nonresident,
and part time, they are not impacted by the social environment to the same
extent or in the same ways as 4-year students. Not typically included in
4-year retention studies, variables such as personal finances, hours of em-
ployment, family responsibilities, and opportunity to transfer can be im-
portant predictors of how 2-year students perform and whether they finish
college. However, these variables are rarely factored into the analysis for
students enrolled in traditional, 4-year settings.
Rendón (1994a, 1994b) offered other insights into academic and social in-
tegration, finding that community college students, particularly minority
students who may also be underprepared, lack confidence to form meaning-
ful relationships with faculty members and fellow students. To be success-
ful, they need to be integrated more fully into the academic and social life of
colleges. She contended that students can benefit immensely when faculty
validate them as learners, helping them to believe that they can learn. More-
over, she argued that faculty validation can transform underprepared stu-
dents into college-ready learners through the respect, support, and care that
faculty demonstrate through meaningful interpersonal relationships.
Students who fail to integrate academically and socially are more likely to
leave college prior to graduation than students who find a satisfactory fit
(Stovall, 1999). First-year students are particularly vulnerable to leaving col-
lege because of inadequate academic and social integration (Tinto, 1998).
Recognizing these challenges, community colleges have implemented
many interventions designed to help students integrate into college life. Stu-
dent success courses, freshman seminars, or extended orientation courses
are examples of early interventions that have grown in prominence in recent
years as community college campuses have become increasingly diverse.
Nearly 70% of community colleges have begun offering these courses dur-
ing the past decade, and they frequently include information about campus
resources, how to establish relationships among other students and faculty,
and how to assess and improve academic and life management skills (Bare-
foot & Fidler, 1996). Research results suggest a positive relation between
participation in student success courses and short-term persistence and aca-
demic performance (e.g., see Walls, 1996). Stovall reported a positive rela-
tion between student success course participation and long-term
persistence, and she found these results were more prevalent for
underprepared students and those from racial and ethnic groups.
105
D. D. Bragg
Another intervention that has drawn increased attention is the notion of

learning communities, providing another means of assisting students to
integrate into collegiate life. Learning communities consist of clustered
programs or coordinated courses with a shared set of goals designed for a
specific cohort of students and group of faculty (Gabelnick, MacGregor,
Matthews, & Smith, 1990; Matthews, Smith, MacGregor, & Gabelnick,
1997). Learning communities typically link three or more courses from dif-
ferent disciplines (e.g., math, science, and technical education). According
to Schaad (1997),
Learning communities have two common features: a) they link classes

together and build relationships between subject matter to provide co-
herence for students, and b) they build both academic and social com-
munity for students and faculty by enrolling them together in a large
block of coursework. (p. 5)
Students and faculty maintain a consistent, tight bond over a period of time
to reinforce the emergent teaching and learning relation.
Learning communities can be manifested in courses organized into
blocks within a particular academic program; Illinois community colleges
offer learning communities pairing engineering technology and sciences,
developmental and liberal arts, and liberal arts and career exploration
(Bragg & Reger, 2000). Investigating similar approaches in other commu-
nity colleges, Perin (1998) concluded that remedial education can be en-
hanced if linked to college-level studies, suggesting that “students who
come to the college for specific reasons may have a much better chance of
improving basic skills when remedial instruction is tied directly to their
goals” (p. 32). Grubb (1999a) offered similar conclusions about integrating
remedial instruction and vocational education, noting learning communi-
ties offer “fresh approaches to the three R’s … [providing] students with
supportive peers and instructors who know them” (p. 204). Furthermore,
Grubb (1999a) claimed that learning communities enhance retention and
help to maintain community colleges as “open-door” (p. 205) institutions.
O’Banion (1997b) examined student learning from an organizational per-
spective, considering how community colleges were evolving as “learning
colleges” through the infusion of educational technologies. He observed
that educational technologies are seen increasingly as a means of making ed-
ucation more accessible while also making it more efficient and effective.
Since the 1960s when community colleges dabbled in alternative instruc-
tional approaches (e.g., programmed instruction, television), technology
has become an increasingly prominent part of the instructional portfolio of
community college faculty. Flynn (2000) concurred, arguing that “technol-
106
ogy allows the expansion of instructional design principles and practices,

which in turn allows faculty to employ a variety of presentational styles to
match multiple learning styles” (p. 6). Computer-based simulations and
more interactive computer applications are increasingly evident, including
assessments to meet individual student needs (Jarmon, 1999).
Distance learning supported by the Internet and telecommunications
may be expanding access to community colleges even further. Networks
connecting learners to virtual college campuses are emerging rapidly to fa-
cilitate access to higher education, especially for student populations that
have heretofore had limited opportunity to participate. For learners who
require any time–any place instruction, technology offers an attractive so-

lution, and community colleges appear to be poised to address the need.
Clearly, today’s emphasis on technological applications to learning dem-
onstrates how much community colleges have advanced from their origi-
nal goal of providing traditional liberal arts and transfer education to
citizens of their communities to a comprehensive array of foci designed to
meet a myriad of student needs. Without question, the case for access is
compelling, but what about outcomes?
Access and Outcomes—For All?
Open access has been advocated by numerous pivotal policy statements

regarding the role of the community college in higher education, including
the Truman Commission report and later the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education reports published in 1970 or the Carnegie Commission
on Higher Education (1974) reports on community colleges’ open-door
policies. These documents made bold statements about the necessity for
community colleges to provide open access, often referring to these insti-
tutions as serving a democratizing role in American higher education. The
Carnegie Commission distinguished between providing higher education
for everyone and ensuring access to higher education for everyone when it
advocated “universal access for those who want to enter institutions of
higher education, are able to make reasonable progress after enrollment,
and benefit from enrollment” (p. 17). The Carnegie Commission also paid
particular attention to access for minority and low-income groups, stating
that a state system should “provide universal access to its total system, but
not necessarily to each of its institutions, since they vary greatly in nature
and purpose” (p. 18).
For the Carnegie Commission, the community college was the institu-
tion of choice within a state’s overall higher education system for provid-
ing greatest access, creating a stratified approach with community colleges
107
D. D. Bragg
at the bottom rung of the hierarchical ladder. Accepting the charge but
viewing their role quite differently, the Commission on the Future of Com-
munity Colleges (1988) offered a more inclusive, holistic vision, stating
“The building of community, in its broadest and best sense, encompasses a
concern for the whole, for integration and collaboration, for openness and
integrity, for inclusiveness and self-renewal” (p. 7). Although coming from
distinctly different perspectives, consensus seems to have emerged
around the notion that community colleges are the primary vehicle for al-
lowing high school graduates to gain access to higher education, particu-
larly for students historically disenfranchised.
For minority and low-income students, community colleges are the pri-
mary gateway to 4-year colleges, either immediately after high school or
later in life. In large part this perspective has come about because
policymakers and policy influencers such as the Carnegie Commission on
Higher Education have advocated for the system to work exactly as it does.
Dougherty (1994) concurred, recognizing that enrollment at community
colleges occurs through the choices individuals make, but also because of
the political choices that are made for them by local, state, and federal lead-
ers. He pointed out the complex array of public officials and private-sector
leaders who influence local community college actions, both promoting
and constraining policy through market and ideological forces. As a result
of their collective perspectives, community colleges have been designated
and largely accepted as the starting point for higher education for minority
students.
Examining minority students’ goals, particularly persons of Hispanic
origin, Rendón and Hope (1996) contended that minority students seek
participation in community colleges to facilitate their eventual entree to a
bachelor’s degree. These students view community colleges as a ladder of
opportunity, and scholars argue that the community college transfer func-
tion must remain strong to support access to the baccalaureate degree, es-
pecially for these minority students (e.g., Laanan, 1996; Rendón, 2000).
Debate about how to appropriately portray the outcomes of a commu-
nity college education rage between local and state practitioners,
policymakers, and accreditation agencies. The diversity of foci and pro-
grams offered by community colleges is one reason it is so difficult to nar-
row to a specific set of outcomes, but recognition of the rich array of
student intent and expectations further complicates matters. Moreover,
changes in the goals and inner workings of curricula alluded to earlier, es-
pecially transfer and vocational, provide another layer of complexity. Un-
able to deal with such intricacy, the value of a community college
education is mostly judged on conventional terms, through the lenses of
elitist 4-year universities at the pinnacle of the stratified higher education
108
system (Berquist, 1995). From this perspective, specific outcomes such as

persistence, completion, and post-program employment rise to the level of
greatest importance. It is on these terms that a growing body of evidence
has accumulated, both lauding the openness and inclusivity of community
colleges but condemning them for inadequate results.
Examining the area of attrition and persistence, Dougherty (1994),
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991), Nora (2000), and others offered concerns
about student persistence in the community college, particularly for mi-
nority students. Results of a study conducted by Nora and Rendón (1998)
showed attrition rates for minority students ranging from about 60% to as
high as 80% in some settings. Poor academic preparation in high school,

lesser motivation to succeed, financial difficulties, and competing commit-
ments are factors that play a role in attrition of all groups of community
college students, including minorities (Tinto, 1996). Richardson and
Bender (1987) concurred with this perspective, but suggested attrition for
minority students stems from their concentration in a few urban commu-
nity colleges that offer diminished quality education. Richardson and
Bender argued that
This arrangement cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be de-

scribed as a strategy for promoting equal educational opportunity. The
problem has many roots, not the least of which was the policy decision to
address past discrimination in the distribution of educational opportu-
nities through the cheap and efficient strategy of the commuter-oriented
community college. (p. 4)
Richardson and Bender concluded that the unequal distribution of re-

sources between 2- and 4-year institutions has exacerbated inequities in
higher education.
Examining a related outcome, attainment of associate degrees and
transfer, we see further evidence of limited successes for minority stu-
dents, but so too for the general student population. As noted earlier, Co-
hen and Sanchez (1997) reported a national transfer rate between 22% and
26%, although the results may well be higher or lower within different
institutions. Nora (2000) pointed out the disproportionate enrollment of
minority students in transfer curricula rather than vocational where more
positive outcomes might be apparent in placement in employment and
subsequent economic benefits. He contended that in 2-year colleges,
where the majority of students are non-White, over one half of those re-
ceiving vocational degrees are White. Such results lead Nora (2000) to
question whether minority students gain equal access to high-tech pro-
grams that provide lucrative jobs after graduation. At the same time, he
109
D. D. Bragg
questioned if the presence of vocational–technical programs, along with

community services and remedial–developmental education, have diluted
the transfer focus so that minority students are less likely than White stu-
dents to persist, complete degrees, and make the transition to baccalaure-
ate institutions. On either score, any focus other than transfer seems to be
viewed as detrimental to the education of minority students, whether they
enroll in them or not.
Countering this conclusion, Grubb (1999b) found that, for minority
students who do persist, attending a community college confers greater
advantages in the labor market than for Whites, compared to high school
graduates. Looking at community college graduates overall, Grubb

(1999b) contended his results “clarify that completing Associate degrees
enhances wages, employment, and earnings by significant amounts, in
both conventional and statistical senses” (p. 10). Men with associate de-
grees earn 18% more, and women 23% more, than high school graduates.
These results suggest real economic benefits over a lifetime for commu-
nity college graduates compared to high school graduates and also to
students who fail to complete college. Boesel and Fredland (1999)
showed these benefits extend to students who drop out of 4-year colleges
too. In fact, these economic benefits appear to be distributed fairly
equally to all members of the student population or possibly even more
so to minority students, although more conclusive research is needed for
particular minority groups.
Beyond these results, limited evidence exists on outcome measures that
could provide deeper understanding of how students participate in and
benefit from a community college education, such as the benefits inherent
in learning in various contexts and with alternative delivery methods.
Berquist (1995) observed that higher education struggles with access and
quality, continually pulled between the two. Higher education institutions
with an elitist perspective favor quality over access and demonstrate their
superiority by focusing on a small set of highly prized student outcomes
linked to educational and economic attainment. Community colleges, sit-
ting on a much lower rung on the ladder of American higher education, are
thrust into an increasingly high-stakes accountability environment that
demands they address these elitist outcomes, knowing it is impossible (or
nearly so) to measure up while retaining their commitment to open access.
Community colleges, whose open access mission is deeply embedded in
their past and equally important to their future, require new thinking about
student outcomes. To continue to be measured by the same yardstick as elit-
ist institutions relegates them to a subordinate position, always struggling
to demonstrate that their students are successful. What is needed is a greater
acceptance of the importance of the comprehensive mission of community
110
colleges, the diversity of foci these schools deliver, and the growing diver-
sity of the students who engage in their programs and services. No doubt,
community colleges need to do a better job of telling their story, of explain-
ing how traditional foci are evolving and how different foci are becoming
more integrated. To explicitly communicate their position provides the op-
portunity to uncover the tensions and reveal the contradictions that exist in
the American higher education system. A richer and more appropriate set of
outcomes could be found that appropriately reflect the comprehensive mis-
sion of the institutions and the students they attempt to serve.
Addressing this challenge is a daunting task because the answers are not
obvious. As Phillippe and Patton (2000) pointed out, it is a most “compli-

cated balancing act” (p. 9). Still, for community colleges to continue to
evolve with a deep commitment to their comprehensive mission, it is essen-
tial that they focus on outcomes most closely aligned with their students’
needs, goals, and expectations. To do otherwise underestimates their contri-
butions and diminishes their value to America’s higher education system.
Conclusions
This article discussed key elements of a most important segment of

America’s higher education system—the community college. It has shown
how the community college mission has changed over the 20th century,
serving an ever-widening circle of students through a changing and in-
creasingly integrated curriculum. This discussion has provided a descrip-
tion of the current status of primary foci of community colleges in terms of
their enrollments, goals, and evolving curricula. Certainly, community
colleges are continually expected to prepare individuals for careers, but
vocational preparation need not be divorced from transfer. Indeed, en-
hancing transfer opportunities in all facets of the community college cur-
riculum, including programs once thought terminal, can enhance
opportunities for social mobility for all students. Through several emerg-
ing transition patterns, including reverse transfer, the vocational and
transfer foci have become increasingly integrated. The extent to which
these new forms of education facilitate conventional or newer outcomes
has not yet been determined. Higher education scholars debate the merits
of curriculum integration, especially blending transfer and vocational,
with some arguing that its impact will be detrimental, whereas others see a
multiplicity of options and proliferation of improved instructional prac-
tices that can be beneficial to all.
As community colleges evolve, questions about access, mission, and
outcomes are bound to continue, even heightening in importance. Given
111
D. D. Bragg
their preeminent role in policy and practice, there can be little doubt com-
munity colleges will continue to play an increasingly important place in
American higher education. Blending foci and linking across the educa-
tional system (both upward and downward) is needed to create a more
fluid system, one that increasingly seeks to meet the needs of diverse learn-
ers. No doubt the commitment to open access will continue to offer great
challenges. Financial difficulties for community colleges and the learners
who attend them must be addressed. Without adequate resources, ensur-
ing access without adequate resources to deliver on opportunities makes
for a shallow promise, particularly to those who rely most heavily on these
institutions as a stepping stone to further education and viable employ-

ment. No doubt, a much more concerted effort needs to be made to exam-
ine critical questions surrounding access, mission, and outcomes, not only
to understand community colleges themselves but to recognize their ex-
panding role in higher education in the United States.
References
Adelman, C. (1992). The way we are. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Im-
provement, U.S. Department of Education.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s
degree attainment. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S.
Department of Education.
Alexander, K. (1999). Assessing the relationship between direct student aid and college tuition. Un-
published manuscript, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
American Association of Community Colleges and Association of Community College
Trustees. (2000). The knowledge net: Connecting communities, learners and colleges. Washing-
ton, DC: Community College Press.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Badway, N., & Grubb, W. N. (1997). Curriculum integration and the multiple domains of career
preparation: A sourcebook for reshaping the community college. Berkeley: National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, University of California at Berkeley.
Bailey, T. (1995). The integration of work and school. In W. N. Grubb (Ed.), Education through
occupations in American high schools. (Vol. 1, pp. 26–38). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bailey, T. R., & Averianova, I. E. (1999). Multiple missions of community colleges: Conflicting or
complementary? (CCRC Brief No. 1, 1–6). New York: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1996). The 1994 national survey of freshman seminar programs: Con-
tinuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 20). Columbia: University of
South Carolina, National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience & Students in
Transition.
Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate stu-
dent attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485–540.
Berquist, W. H. (1995). Quality through access, access through quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boesel, D., & Fredland, E. (1999). College for all? Is there too much emphasis on getting a 4-year col-
lege degree? Washington, DC: National Library of Education.
112
Boettcher, J. V., & Conrad, R. (1999). Faculty guide for moving teaching and learning to the web.
Mission Viejo, CA: The League for Innovation in the Community College.
Bogue, J. (1956). American junior colleges. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Bragg, D. (1997). Grubb’s case for compromise: Can “education through occupations” be
more? Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22, 115–122.
Bragg, D. (2001). Promising outcomes for tech prep participants in eight local consortia: A summary of
initial results. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, National Research Center for Career and
Technical Education.
Bragg, D., & Hamm, R. E. (1996). Linking college and work: Factors influencing the success of
two-year college work-based learning programs. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley,
National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
Bragg, D., & Reger, W. (2000). Toward a more unified education: Academic and vocational inte-
gration in Illinois community colleges. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 25, 237–272.
Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational
opportunity in America, 1990–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. (1974). A digest of reports of the Carnegie Commis-
sion on Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carnevale, A. P. (2000). Community colleges and career qualifications (Issues Paper No. 11). Wash-
ington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (1998, August 28). 1998–99 Almanac issue, XLV(1), 6.
Clark, B. (1960). The “cooling out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology,
65, 569–576.
Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, A., & Sanchez, J. (1997). The transfer rate: A model of consistency. Community College
Journal, 67(2), 24–26.
Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. (1988). Building communities: A vision for a
new century. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges and Junior
Colleges.
Cross, K. P. (1985). Determining missions and priorities for the fifth generation. In W. Deegan,
D. Tillery, & Associates (Eds.), Renewing the American community college (pp. 34–50). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deegan, W. L., Tillery, D., & Associates. (Eds.). (1985). Renewing the American community col-
lege. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deiner, T. (1986). The growth of an American invention: A documentary history of the junior and com-
munity college movement. New York: Greenwood.
Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dougherty, K. J. (1998). Community college scenarios: Prospects and perils facing a mature and com-
plex institution. Unpublished manuscript, Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University, NY.
Dougherty, K. J., & Bakia, M. F. (1999). The new economic development role of the community col-
lege. Unpublished manuscript, Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University, NY.
Eaton, J. S. (1994). Strengthening collegiate education in community colleges. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Eells, W. C. (1931). The junior college. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Flynn, W. J. (2000). The search for the learning-centered college (Issues Paper No. 9). Washington,
DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Frye, J. H. (1992). The vision of the public junior college, 1900–1940: Professional goals and popular as-
pirations. New York: Greenwood.
113
D. D. Bragg
Gabelnick, F., MacGregor, J., Matthews, R., & Smith, B. (1990). Learning communities: Cre-
ating connections among students, faculty, and disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 41. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gleazer, E. (1980). The community college: Values, vision and vitality. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
Gose, B. (1997, July 11). A community college in Virginia attracts Ph.D.’s—As students. Chroni-
cle of Higher Education, pp. A33–A34.
Grubb, W. N. (1996). Working in the middle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grubb, W. N. (1997). Not there yet: Prospects and problems for “education through occupa-
tions.” Journal of Vocational Education Research, 22(2), 77–94.
Grubb, W. N. (1999a). Honored but invisible. New York: Routledge.
Grubb, W. N. (1999b). Learning and earning in the middle: The economic benefits of sub-baccalaureate
education. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, Community College Re-
search Center.
History of Joliet Junior College. (2000). Joliet, IL: Joliet Junior College. Retrieved September 10,
2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.jjc.cc.il.us/admin/history.html
Ignash, J., & Townsend, B. (2000). Transfer and articulation policy issues in the 21st century. In
B. Townsend & S. Twombly (Eds.), Community colleges: Policy into the future context (pp.
173–192). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Jacobs, J. (2000). What is the future of postsecondary vocational education? Update on Research
and Leadership, 12(1), 1–4.
Jarmon, C. (1999). Testing and assessment at a distance. In M. Boaz, B. Elliott, D. Foshee, D.
Hardy, C. Jarmon, & D. Olcott (Eds.), Teaching at a distance: A handbook for instructors (pp.
55–64). Mission Viejo, CA: The League for Innovation for the Community College.
Laanan, F. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of commu-
nity college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69–84.
Lever-Duffy, J., Lemke, R., & Johnson, L. (Eds.). (1996). Learning without limits: Model distance
education programs in community colleges. Mission Viejo, CA: The League for Innovation in
the Community College.
Lewis, L., Farris, E., & Greene, B. (1996). Remedial education at higher education institutions in Fall
1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Mansfield, W., & Farris, E. (1991). College-level remediation in the Fall of 1989, NCES 91–191.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of
Education.
Matthews, R. S., Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., & Gagelnick, F. (1997). Creating learning commu-
nities. In J. G. Gaff, J. L. Ratcliff, & Associates (Eds.), Handbook of the undergraduate curricu-
lum (pp. 457–475). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McCabe, R. H. (2001). Developmental education: A policy primer. Leadership Abstracts, 14(1),
1–4.
Medsker, L. L. (1960). The junior college: Progress and prospects. New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999a). Integrated postsecondary education data system
(IPEDS) fall enrollment survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999b). Integrated postsecondary education data system
(IPEDS) finance survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999c). Integrated postsecondary education data system
(IPEDS) institutional characteristics survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority students’ educational aspirations. In J. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 9, pp. 212–247). New York:
Agathon Press.
114
Nora, A. (2000). Reexamining the community college mission (Issues Paper No. 2). Washington,
DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Nora, A., & Rendón, L. (1998). Quantitative outcomes of student progress. New York: Ford Foun-
dation.
O’Banion, T. (1997a). Creating more learner-centered community colleges. Mission Viejo, CA: The
League for Innovation in the Community College.
O’Banion, T. (1997b). A learning college for the 21st century. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Perin, D. (1998). Curriculum and pedagogy to integrate occupational and academic instruction in the
community college: Implications for faculty development. New York: Community College Re-
search Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Phillippe, K. A., & Patton, M. (2000). National profile of community colleges: Trends & statistics
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Rendón, L. (1994a). Transforming at-risk students into powerful learners. Paper presented at the
National Conference of the American Association of Higher Education, Chicago.
Rendón, L. (1994b). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning
and student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
Rendón, L. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity: Collaborative community colleges
for the 21st century (Issues Paper No. 1). Washington, DC: American Association of Com-
munity Colleges.
Rendón, L., & Hope, R. (1996). Educating a new majority: Transforming America’s educational sys-
tem for diversity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richardson, R. C., & Bender, L. W. (1987). Fostering minority access and achievement in higher edu-
cation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rosenfeld, S. A. (1999, May). Linking measures of quality and success at community colleges to indi-
vidual goals and customer needs. Paper presented at the National Assessment of Vocational
Education (NAVE), Washington, DC. Retrieved August 25, 2000 from the World Wide
Web: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/NAVE/rosenPart1.html
Roueche, J. E., & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the
open-door college. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Schaad, D. D. (1997). The social and academic integration of community college students participating
in a freshman learning community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois
at Urbana–Champaign.
Shaw, K. M. (1997). Remedial education as ideological background: Emerging remedial edu-
cation policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19,
284–296.
Stovall, M. L. (1999). Relationships between participation in a community college student success
course and academic performance and persistence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.) Chi-
cago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1996). Persistence and the first year experience at the community college: Teaching
students to survive, stay and thrive. In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportu-
nity and access for America’s first-year students (pp. 97–104). Columbia: University of South
Carolina, The National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience and Students
in Transition.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously.
The Review of Higher Education, 21, 167–177.
115
D. D. Bragg
Townsend, B. K. (Ed.). (1999). Understanding the impact of reverse transfers upon the com-
munity college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 106. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Townsend, B. K., & Dever, B. (1999). What do we know about reverse transfer students? New
Directions for Community Colleges, 27(6), 5–14.
U.S. President’s Commission on Higher Education. (1948). Higher education for democracy. New
York: Harper & Brothers.
Walls, G. D. (1996). An evaluation of an orientation college course in a community college setting. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
Warford, L., & Flynn, W. J. (2000). New game, new rules: The workforce development chal-
lenge. Leadership Abstract, 13(2), 1–4.
116

Community College Access, Mission, and Outcomes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Community College Access, Mission, and Outcomes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Marshall University]

On: 03 August 2013, At: 22:33

Peabody Journal of Education

Community College Access,

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7601_06

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Community College Access, Mission,

Setting educational priorities, meeting students’ needs, and responding

Since their inception, community colleges have carried out a number of

Access and Growing Student Diversity

education, recently observed, “the community college today is the single

as California, Illinois, and Texas, community college students make up a

4-year colleges, accounting for only 8% there. Longitudinal analyses con-

than 4-year colleges, it is logical that more students of varying back-

Evolving Mission: Access to What?

If the ladder of educational opportunity rises high at the doors of some

and class distinctions, but of deepening and solidifying them. It is obvi-

Providing national leadership for community colleges after World War

Changes Within Foci

Recognizing that each particular focus makes a unique contribution to

crease in value. This is particularly evident in the new ways in which

offered vocational education as an alternative track to liberal arts, transfer

that deliberately link secondary schools, community colleges, and 4-year

The Integration of Foci

Stimulated by the Truman Commission Report, Bogue (1956) spoke

Those colleges which have been primarily interested in offering voca-

portunity to use (and reconfirm) in a new outside environment what

Indeed, many community colleges engage learners in work-based learn-

ation of curriculum as an identity crisis, arguing the quality of collegiate ed-

Changing Instructional Strategies

Research on student learning in higher education is extensive, but rela-

suggests caution in generalizing too liberally. Whereas numerous studies

Another intervention that has drawn increased attention is the notion of

Learning communities have two common features: a) they link classes

ogy allows the expansion of instructional design principles and practices,

require any time–any place instruction, technology offers an attractive so-

Access and Outcomes—For All?

Open access has been advocated by numerous pivotal policy statements

system (Berquist, 1995). From this perspective, specific outcomes such as

high as 80% in some settings. Poor academic preparation in high school,

This arrangement cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be de-

Richardson and Bender concluded that the unequal distribution of re-

questioned if the presence of vocational–technical programs, along with

graduates. Looking at community college graduates overall, Grubb

obvious. As Phillippe and Patton (2000) pointed out, it is a most “compli-

This article discussed key elements of a most important segment of

institutions as a stepping stone to further education and viable employ-

search Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

You might also like