Urban community colleges--those located in or close to major cities--play a key role in higher education by serving economically, educationally, and ethnically disadvantaged, and nationally diverse student populations. These urban institutions face numerous challenges, the most notable of which is a student population largely comprised of individuals with one or more of the following characteristics: income below the poverty line, immigrant status, first-generation college student, a member of an ethnic minority group, in need of remediation, or whose first language is not English. By providing knowledge, skills, and support for upward mobility in society, these institutions are truly "gateways to democracy" for those who might otherwise be denied access to higher education. This digest presents an overview of six urban community colleges and the steps they have taken to serve their communities.
Miami-Dade Community
College
Padron and Levitt (1999) discuss Miami-Dade Community College's (M-DCC) internal
reforms and community collaborations structured to meet its local challenges.
M-DCC continues to provide liberal studies for students wishing to obtain an
associate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate institution. However, in addition,
M-DCC has developed cutting edge occupational programs geared at training students
and stimulating the region's economic growth. These occupational programs are
the result of workforce partnerships throughout the community. The "One Community
One Goal" regional development plan has identified seven industries crucial
to the area’s economic growth--biomedicine, film and entertainment, international
commerce, education, finance, tourism, and telecommunications and information
technology--around which M-DCC has restructured its occupational programs. M-DCC
has also recognized the importance of keeping up-to-date with technology in
order to remain competitive with private and proprietary institutions, and to
keep its students competitive in today's workforce. Due to its demographic environment,
the technological revolution, and economic influences, the future will present
M-DCC with many unexpected challenges. Keeping true to its mission to serve
the local community while attempting to meet these future challenges will be
key in the continuing success of M-DCC students.
CUNY's Community Colleges
Like M-DCC, the City University of New York's (CUNY) six community colleges
also face the challenge of serving a diverse student population. By offering
open access for remedial, career, liberal, transfer, and community outreach
education, these six campuses serve as gateways for individuals who would otherwise
not have the opportunity to participate in higher education. The biggest challenge
for CUNY is the recent threat to its central mission of providing higher education
to this population. CUNY has been the target of recent attacks and challenges
on its open enrollment policy and remedial function. Critics contend that remediation
should not be a college responsibility, while its supporters assert that function
as one that maintains standards and provides the critical opportunity for those
who have weakness in certain academic areas, are underprepared because of their
previous academic experiences, or may be returning to school after taking several
years off. As Reitano (1999) succinctly states, "The question is whether access
precludes excellence" (p.32). Despite struggles with new policies that separate
remediation from the curriculum and support traditional methods of instruction,
CUNY will continue to make efforts to educate "the whole people," including
those with limited higher education choices.
Seattle Community Colleges
The three campuses that make up the Seattle Community Colleges--Seattle Central,
South, and North--are also committed to serving urban students. Providing students
with what they need to succeed— filling in educational gaps, building self esteem,
and breaking down barriers to learning—are the keys to student success, according
to Central's president, Charles Mitchell (Hungar, 1999). These factors are of
the utmost importance when dealing with a student population that varies greatly
in skills, goals, and cultural background. Infused in Central Community College's
leadership is the principle to base every decision on what is good for the student.
For Central's faculty and administration, providing a comprehensive, academically
sound curriculum is the essence of a student-centered educational program. This
includes a large transfer program, adult basic education and ESL courses, services
for students with disabilities, risk taking and innovation (e.g. an interdisciplinary
program adapted from The Evergreen State College’s learning communities model),
keeping up-to-date with technological advances, and providing quality physical
surroundings. Also, through additional funding sources, Central has allocated
more for student services than what the state formula budgets. As the demographics
of Seattle Community Colleges continue to show an increase in students of color
and other underserved students, the efforts to meet student needs will not only
be maintained, but increased in order to continue to provide a pathway to equity.
The Los Angeles Community
College District
With the constantly changing demographics of a city that is the destination
for many newly arrived immigrants, the Los Angeles Community College District
(LACCD) faces a tremendous challenge in serving the largest limited English
population (LEP) in the nation. LACCD takes seriously its role of being a political
change agent for its urban community while concurrently serving as an educational
change agent for those who are interested in transfer, occupational, personal,
and English language education (Fujimoto, 1999). Beyond the responsibility of
having to educate its large immigrant and LEP population, LACCD is expected
to accommodate a two-fold increase in student population by the year 2005. Adjusting
to this influx of students in such a short period of time will be challenging,
if not impossible.
A strategy for the future
success of LACCD should include:
Maricopa Community Colleges
Maricopa Community College District (MCCD) serves more than 240,000 students
per year. Of the ten colleges that comprise MCCD, four are located in the urban
center of Phoenix, with three of them in Phoenix's inner city. MCCD has found
alternative sources of funding (e.g. grants, and government and corporate contracts)
to address its community's social issues and provide services for its disadvantaged
students. In addition, MCCD, through collaborations with community agencies
and other funding agencies, has shaped its mission and purpose to adapt to the
demographic realities of its community (Elsner, 1999). One of the most successful
collaborations that provides programs for its disadvantaged urban population
is the Maricopa/Phoenix Think Tank, which is comprised of partnerships between
elementary schools, high schools, corporations, community based organizations,
and MCCD. Think Tank programs have strengthened technology transfer and training
of school personnel, encouraged concurrent high school and comunity college
enrollment, and provided family resource centers for students who suffer from
family poverty, separation and loss, dislocation, and violence.
Community College of
Baltimore County
The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) was formed in 1998 as a result
of a merger of three colleges in Baltimore County. The challenge that CCBC faces
is that it is an emerging college that serves a community in transition from
suburban to urban, and from serving a privileged population to one that will
require greater support. This is a prime moment for CCBC to shape its own future,
its students' futures, and the future of Baltimore County (McPhail & Heacock,
1999). In an effort to deal with the transition, the chancellor adopted a plan
to promote the development of CCBC into a learning college. Learning First,
the college’s strategic plan, is comprised of seven strategic directions. At
its core is the direction of student learning. The other six supporting directions
include Learning Support, Learning College, Infusing Technology, Management
Excellence, Embracing Diversity, and Building Community. This learning plan
serves to address the internal restructuring of CCBC, the external transition
of the urban population, and accountability to its public by asserting that:
(1) all learners deserve a quality education that is matched to their experiences
and backgrounds, (2) learning needs to be made easily accessible to the urban
learner (e.g. distance learning, on-line learning), (3) students need to be
put at the center and be involved in their learning process, and (4) students
should be exposed to technology to prepare them to enter the information technology
workforce.
Conclusion
The urban community colleges discussed above all face similar challenges in
terms of population demographics and how to best serve their diverse communities.
These urban institutions all grapple with the issues of providing a liberal
arts education, meeting the special demands of their service population (for
remedial, ESL, and community education), providing occupational/vocational programs,
and serving as agents of social change in their communities. Along with these
functions, each college faces unique obstacles that challenge its efforts to
provide services to the local community. In order to remain "gateways to democracy,"
community colleges must continue to find creative ways to provide these services.
Community colleges are truly the “democracy college” (Pierce, 1999). Without
community colleges, access to higher education and social mobility for the disadvantaged
is seriously at risk.
References
This digest is drawn from "Gateways to Democracy: Six Urban Community College
Systems." New Directions for Community Colleges, Number 107, Raymond C. Bowen
& Gilbert H. Muller, Eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc. Fall
1999.
Elsner, P. Profiles in Urban Challenges: Confronting Maricopa's Social and Economic
Agenda. (pp. 67-74).
Fujimoto, J. The Los Angeles Community Colleges: Pathways to Urban Change. (pp.
55-66).
Hungar, J. Seattle Community Colleges: Centered on the Urban Student. (pp. 41-54).
McPhail, I., & Heacock, R. Baltimore County: A College and Community in Transition.
(pp. 75-84).
Padron, E., & Levitt, T. Miami-Dade Community College: Forging New Urban Partnerships.
(pp. 15-22)
Pierce, D. "The Urban Community College: A Vision for the New Century." Speech
delivered at LaGuardia Community College, March 24, 1999.
Reitano, J. CUNY's Community Colleges: Democratic Education on Trial. (pp. 23-40).
The ERIC Clearinghouse operates under OERI Contract No. ED-99-CO-0010. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of OERI and no official endorsement by OERI should be inferred.
Citations preceded by an asterisk (*) refer to journal articles or other material unavailable from EDRS. Journal articles may be acquired through regular library channels, or purchased from article clearinghouses such as CARL Uncover at (800) 787-7979. Other material may be available either directly through the publishing agency, or from out-of-print vendors. ERIC documents (references with "ED" numbers) may be read on microfiche at approximately 900 libraries worldwide. To identify your local ERIC Resource Collection, connect to: http://www.ed.gov/BASISDB/EROD/eric/SF. Most documents may be ordered on microfiche or in paper copy from the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) at (800) 443-ERIC. For more information about our products and services, please contact the ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges by telephone at (800) 832-8256, or via the Internet at ericcc@ucla.edu.
Please help us keep the ERIC database current and comprehensive by submitting your written works to the Clearinghouse for review for inclusion in the ERIC system. Send two copies of each manuscript to the attention of our Acquisitions Coordinator.
ERIC Clearinghouse
for Community Colleges
University of California, Los Angeles
3051 Moore Hall
P.O. Box 951521
Los Angeles, CA 90095
Updated 10/10/01
Maintained by ericccus@gseis.ucla.edu