The Development of American Community Colleges

Here is what I have so far on the development of community colleges in America. I will add to this research over the next three months, but I am posting what I have found so far.

The Development of American Community Colleges

The idea for two-year institutions of higher education in America was initially conceived by the presidents of some of the most prestigious universities such as Stanford, Michigan, Chicago, and Berkeley (Kantor and Lowe, 1992). The leaders of these institutions wanted to compete with Germany’s highly specialized universities that focused on research. Therefore, two-year colleges were developed to divert less academically capable students away from the larger institutions. By 1910, dozens of community colleges had been founded. From the early 1900s until the 1970s, the majority students who enrolled in community colleges did so out of the belief that these colleges served as a link to four-year programs and the professions associated with four-year institutions (Kantor & Lowe, 1992).

Though many students aspired toward the baccalaureate, administrators and leaders within community colleges had different aims. In the early 1900s, many community college leaders and developers doubted the intellect and academic ability of community college students. These leaders supposed that most community college students would not succeed at a four-year institution; thus, most community college leaders believed that vocational programs were better suited for their students (Brint & Karabel, 1989). These decision makers determined that two-year institutions could capitalize on a niche in the labor market through vocational programs. “Community-college leaders thus looked to vocational education as the next-best available alternative [to four-year institutions] and pursued that strategy aggressively over the next 50 years even though neither businessmen nor students exhibited much interest in vocational classes” (Kantor & Lowe, 1992, p. 260). By the 1970s, a shift in vocational enrollment had developed; at this time, approximately 50 percent of community college students were enrolled in vocational programs. By the 1990s, the number of community college students who enrolled in terminal vocational programs had increased to about 70 percent (Kantor & Lowe, 1992). Brint and Karabel (1989) argue that this shift was due to several factors.

One factor that led to a shift toward vocational training within community colleges was the media’s portrayal of the positive benefits of occupational training. The media’s portrayal of the success of these programs began to shift public perceptions. However, in reality, vocational training improved the economic success of a small group of individuals (Brint & Karabel, 1989). “Some community-college occupational training programs, especially those in certain high-tech and health-related fields, have positive economic outcomes for students. Others, like those in the skilled trades, historically have fewer positive effects on either earnings or employment” (Kantor & Lowe, 1992, p. 265). Yet, these negative results were not communicated to the general public.

Other factors that led to a shift toward vocational training within community colleges were the mechanisms that were developed within community colleges to direct students toward vocational training. Some of the most predominate mechanisms were placement testing and guidance counseling that encouraged students to choose “realistic” programs based on the perceptions of educators, administrators, and counselors. Colleges also set size quotas within liberal arts programs and prohibited transfer credit for occupational courses (Kantor & Lowe, 1992), thus leading students to choose vocational courses that would not transfer to four-year institutions.

References

Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kantor, H. & Lowe, R. (1992). Heating up or cooling out? American Journal of Education 100(2), 257-271.