**Linking Measures of Quality and Success at Community\
Colleges to Individual Goals and Customer Needs**

**Stuart A. Rosenfeld**

**Regional Technology Strategies, Inc.**

**May 6--7, 1999**

**Independent Advisory Panel Meeting**

**National Assessment of Vocational Education**

I. Introduction

Three major trends have contributed to the heightened prominence and
expanded missions of two-year colleges within the nation's educational
enterprise. The first is the increasing technical nature of work and,
therefore, the growing number of jobs requiring more than twelve years
of education. The second is the increasing demands and appetite of
small- and mid-sized enterprises for more technology and information.
The third is the increasing expectations and demands among parents and
youth for postsecondary education---apparently either regardless or
unaware of the income and employment potential of many mid-skilled jobs
and regardless of college readiness.

This paper contends that there are specific and relatively new
characteristics of community colleges and that they have implications
for federal vocational education policy. One is that postsecondary
vocational education in community colleges is a highly diverse
enterprise and substantially different from the secondary vocational
system with respect to the range and mix of customers and institutional
settings and services. This difference affects the structure and timing
of the learning process, measures of performance, and uses of federal
funds, and raises the question of whether it is time for postsecondary
vocational education to be treated under separate legislation to avoid
both the recurrent competition for funds at the federal and state
levels, as well as the need for a single state agency responsible for
both levels of education. The other distinction is the implicit and
explicit focus of community colleges on their regional economies. This
influences the range of and priorities among services, programs, and
missions and the associated student and economic outcomes and impacts.

These two premises suggest different forms of information and different
studies than past national assessments. To fully understand the current
nature of the community college enterprise and to assess its performance
and needs, the Congress would benefit from knowledge about: (1)
individuals' goals and expectations for postsecondary vocational
education and the ways they choose to use the system; (2) colleges'
decisions concerning missions, alliances, and investments and,
correspondingly, businesses' use of and linkages to colleges; (3) the
impacts of colleges on regional labor markets and economies and the
effects of labor markets and economies on students' choices and chances;
and (4) the innovators and catalysts for innovation. Very little of this
information can be found in existing databases, thus requiring new data
collection and analysis.

II\. The Case for Vocational Education in Postsecondary Institutions

Two-year institutions of higher education, in many ways, have been
anomalies within America's educational enterprise. Lacking the guidance
and support from the federal government that has been given to four-year
institutions in federal legislation since the Morrill Act in 1862, and
to secondary vocational education since the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917,
community colleges have been left to their own devices and/or home
state's interests to carve out their particular niches. Without
clear-cut missions, they often developed in the image of and as
appendages of either the four-year college or high school; i.e., their
academic missions were associated with higher education legislation and
their vocational missions with secondary vocational education. In many
respects two-year colleges for many years were really nonessential
institutions because their vocational education and adult training were
available in---and until the 1980s remarkably similar to---programs in
the secondary schools, and transfer programs were similar to the first
two years of four-year programs in four-year colleges and universities.
This is not to underestimate their considerable democratizing value,
which provided access to educational opportunities for many segments of
the population unable to qualify (or pay) for the more prestigious
schools or acquire the skills they needed in high school. As demand for
postsecondary education has grown, community colleges have become even
more recognized for their open enrollment policies and gateways to
higher education.

In the 1960s the vocational programs of community colleges expanded in
response to the growing demands of industry for workers and the threat
of automation. Yet, as recently as the 1981 Vocational Education Study,
postsecondary vocational programs at community colleges were often found
to be near-duplicates of those offered in secondary schools. Programs
such as secretarial, welding, and auto mechanics consistently had the
highest enrollments. Adult postsecondary vocational education, which
accounted for the vast majority of the full-time equivalent enrollments
(FTE), and customized training for industry occurred mainly in the area
vocational centers of secondary systems.

This emphasis on vocational education during the years of compulsory
schooling happened despite the recommendations of many national
commissions. The nation's first full-scale national assessment of
vocational education (1936--39) stated that "The needs of the economic
order clearly point to the junior college period as the time when a
relatively large amount of vocational education should be given."[^1]
Although the federal legislation limited funding for college programs,
vocational education, the Commission said, was a more important role for
junior colleges than simply replicating the first two years of four-year
schools. The Panel of Consultants that was appointed by President
Kennedy in 1961 to study vocational education agreed, but took a dimmer
view of college-level work, despite its attention to rising levels of
automation and skill requirements. The Panel stated that the term in the
federal legislation "less than college grade" meant not just below
college level but courses that do not require college entrance
requirements. While opening access it lowered standards and may have led
to duplication of effort between secondary and postsecondary programs.

The 1963 Vocational Education Act was the first to target "persons who
have completed or left high school and who are available for full-time
study in preparation for entering the labor market," although the
funding set aside was combined with construction of area vocational
education school facilities and could be used for either. But the Act's
declaration of purpose was to assist students in high school---those
"who have completed or discontinued their formal education and are
preparing to enter the labor market\..." and those needing skill
upgrading. This, of course, was largely because prior to the mid-sixties
most two-year colleges were in fact junior colleges whose aim was to
transfer students to four-year colleges. Vocational programs were of
lesser importance and received fewer resources.

In 1968, a report of the Advisory Council on Vocational Education found
that postsecondary schools took an early stand on linking academic and
vocational programs, stating "There is no longer any room for any
dichotomy between intellectual competence and manipulative skills and,
therefore, between academic and vocational education."[^2] The report
also recommended moving towards a "unified system of vocational
education" where occupational preparation begins in elementary schools,
continues through economic orientation and occupational preparation in
junior high school, to more specific occupational preparation in the
high school (but not limited to a specific occupation), and eventually
to universal formal postsecondary occupational preparation. Further,
preparation should not be limited to the classroom, students with
special needs should get special help, students at rural schools with
inadequate programs should be able to use residential facilities, and
data should be available "to eliminate undesirable duplication."[^3]

The vocational education studies and assessments completed in 1981,
1989, and 1994 all treated postsecondary vocational education primarily
as more advanced versions of secondary programs and minimized the
differences. None of the planning papers in the 1981 study or design
papers for the 1989 assessment specifically addressed postsecondary
issues and secondary issues have appeared to drive the data collection.
The one study that did focus on postsecondary in 1989 was a survey of
employers to compare factors that influenced quality of manufacturing
and accounting programs in both public and proprietary postsecondary
institutions.[^4]

III\. Distinguishing Marks

The term "postsecondary schools" appeared in federal vocational
education legislation for the first time in the 1968 Amendments, which
set aside 25 percent of the total basic grants to states for
postsecondary institutions. This was the first vocational education
funding specifically earmarked for two-year colleges. Despite the
set-aside, federal vocational education legislation, even after decades
of adjustments to markets, populations, and technologies, has never
systematically taken into account the fundamental differences between
secondary and postsecondary vocational education (PSVE). Even the
judgment of whether PSVE should be considered an extension of K--12 or a
track towards higher education is still an open question. When community
colleges were still primarily junior colleges oriented towards transfer
programs, area vocational centers assumed much of the responsibility for
postsecondary adult education and for contract and customized training,
and were the "institutions of choice" among most employers.

Current arguments for a universal K--14 education imply that that the
associate's degree is merely an extension rather than entrance into a
new type of education. I would argue that today the occupational
programs offered by community colleges, and the environments in which
they are offered, are not extensions of high schools but are more akin
to universities, and today the differences between the compulsory and
post-compulsory vocational and technical education are much greater than
their similarities. Therefore, policies established for high schools are
not automatically transferable to community colleges. The vocational and
technical education at community colleges (i.e., associate's degree,
certificate, credit and noncredit courses and training) differ from
those in secondary vocational education in the following ways.

Community colleges serve a much broader range of student populations

Students enrolled in community college vocational programs range from
youth just out of high school to senior citizens, from women with no
work experience to laid-off machinists or engineers with decades of
experience, from high school dropouts to adults holding Ph.D.s. Some
vocationally oriented registrants are pursuing degrees, others want
shorter term certificates, some are enrolled to acquire very specific
skills or to explore occupations through selected courses, and others
are not yet sure of their intentions. Adelman's analysis of *High School
and Beyond* data highlights the problem of trying to measure retention
among community college students because of the frequency of
interruptions, changes in plans, and transfers among institutions
between the time of initial enrollment and completion or final leaving.
Almost three in eight students are over 30 years of age and one in eight
is over 40 years[^5] (though 70 percent of federal funds are distributed
according to populations of age 24 or less), about 63 percent attend
part time, about half of all students work full time (including 30
percent of all full-time students), and many have family
responsibilities. Dropping out of a community college temporarily may be
a necessity, and dropping out early to take a better job may be a very
rational economic decision, particularly in tight labor markets and for
employment in a company with strong internal education programs. One of
the recent high-growth student populations is the "reverse
transfer"---people who already have completed a four-year college
program but who may want to acquire particular skills or change careers.
Estimated to be 7 percent of total enrollments, some programs report
much higher rates. A water-testing program at St. Cloud Technical
College in Minnesota, and advanced manufacturing technology programs at
De Anza Community College in California, and a law enforcement program
at Palm Beach Community College in Florida all report that more than one
in four students pursuing an associate's degree already have a
bachelor's degree.

**Community colleges have a different relationship to their local
economies and thus different customers and missions**

The high school is a creation of the state operated *en loco parentis*
and remains part and parcel of the state's educational system. Public
educational institutions have always been locally governed but, since
the days of Horace Mann and the first state aid, they have been
legitimated, measured, regulated, and given standards to meet by the
state. Despite efforts of schools, particularly in rural areas, to make
the curriculum locally relevant, the primary responsibility of secondary
education is to the student, not the community. Community colleges,
however, have much stronger regional ties and are more able to
specialize to target local needs---hence the title "community" college.
High schools are part of the economic *infrastructure,* while community
colleges are themselves an economic *resource* and embedded within
regional economic systems. Therefore, community colleges have been able
to expand their functions and services in ways which complement,
supplement, and enhance their core education and training mission.
Multiple "customers" suggest different measures of success for various
goals, as shown in Table 1.

**Table 1**

**Responsibilities and Goals of Community Colleges**

+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| **     | **     | **Economic**   | *              | **Equity**     |
| Unit** | Form** |                | *Educational** |                |
|        |        | **Goals**      |                | **Goals**      |
|        |        |                | **Goals**      |                |
+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| S      | indi   | Increased      | Acquired       | Access to jobs |
| tudent | vidual | personal       | skills,        | and career     |
|        |        | income,        | competencies,  | paths          |
|        |        | improved       | and            |                |
|        |        | career         | credentials    |                |
|        |        | opportunities  |                |                |
+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Em     | cor    | Increased      | Learning       | Fairer hiring  |
| ployer | porate | productivity   | enterprise,    | and            |
|        |        | and profits    | more skilled   | advancement    |
|        |        |                | work force     | policies       |
+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Region | coll   | Increased per  | Tacit          | Distributed    |
|        | ective | capita income  | knowledge      | wealth and     |
|        |        | and more jobs  | transfer,      | reduced        |
|        |        |                | learning       | poverty        |
|        |        |                | society        |                |
+--------+--------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

Community colleges operate in a different competitive environment

Although there is some competition for public schools, very little of it
applies to vocational education. Most private schools, even where
vouchers are being used, concentrate on the basics and generally do not
offer any significant selection of---if any at all---vocational
programs. Community colleges, however, face a major challenge in rapidly
growing competition from proprietary schools, for-profit and corporate
universities, and distance-learning companies as well as from each
other. In California's Silicon Valley, for example, eleven different
institutions offer prebaccalaureate education in electronics, nine
different agencies or institutions offer programs in computer management
information systems, and five teach computer repair.[^6] Private
colleges, which do not have to worry about offering a broad range of
programs and can be selective, are capturing increasingly large niches
in work-related education. The University of Phoenix, De Vry Institute
of Technology, and corporate universities like ITT, Motorola, Disney,
Ford, and Saturn offer some of what community colleges offer, but more
efficiently because they are able to focus their resources more narrowly
and build expertise. The rapid growth of private companies is driving
more and more community colleges towards increasing their short-term and
certificate programs such as those offered by Microsoft and Cisco.[^7]
Some competition may prove valuable by spurring innovation and
improvement. The competitive position of technical colleges is a
function of government policy and regulation that determine scope of
authority and institutional culture; but ultimately it is a function of
entrepreneurial spirit, competency, and marketing.

Community college programs, curricula, and enrollments are driven by
different forces

High school vocational curricula, despite mandated industry advisory
councils, are primarily driven by state regulations and graduation
requirements, strategies to use vocational programs to teach academics,
national and state achievement tests, and college entrance requirements.
Community college vocational curricula can be shaped more directly by
employer needs, industry skill standards, and economic development plans
and strategies. In some more regulated industries, that means a degree
or certificate that signifies the successful completion of a structured
sequence of courses. In other industries it may mean completing a
certain number of courses to provide the grounding for subsequent
in-plant education and training. Therefore, whereas all high school
students aspire to a diploma, community college students, depending on
employment needs and their own interests, may enroll to work towards an
associate's degree, a certificate of completion, or merely to acquire
selected competencies. "Nearly one in six \[community college students\]
never even earns a semester's worth of credits," a number undoubtedly
far higher if limited to the vocational population. Academic credit may
not be an issue, if the set of courses taken meet industry and local
employers' standards and needs. For example, becoming a Microsoft
Certified Systems engineer may be more valuable to some employers than
an associate of science degree.

Community colleges serve different customers

High schools exist to serve individuals. Even though some offer industry
training, as public schools the customer is ultimately the individual.
Community colleges are able to assign businesses a higher priority and
reach individuals collectively through their employers as well as
directly. This affects the nature of relationships between businesses
and schools. While there may be good reason to keep business interests
at arm's length from core education in order to retain its primary civic
and open character, there is equally good reason for community colleges
to form strong partnerships with industry in vocationally oriented
education. The fact that community colleges have economic development
missions often results in partnerships that go beyond advisory
committees or equipment donations. This leads to an assortment of
services that, if used effectively, enhance education. For example, new
business incubators can provide internships for students and experience
for faculty, technical assistance programs can give faculty first-hand
knowledge of new technologies and changing skill requirements, and
technology demonstration sites can increase the demand for skills,
workers, and training among local employers and give students exposure
to advanced technologies.

Community colleges exhibit greater variations among states and within
states than do high schools

While secondary programs might be offered through comprehensive high
schools, area vocational centers, vocational high schools, or career
academies, they are all operated within school districts that comprise
state systems that are quite similar to one another. Community college
systems, however, vary significantly from state to state. They may: be
independent systems, e.g., Mississippi, North Carolina, and California;
be part of their State Departments of Education, e.g., Iowa and
Michigan; operate as part of a state university, e.g., New York,
Tennessee, and North Dakota; be under a state higher education system,
e.g., Florida, Utah, and West Virginia; be single state entities, some
with branch campuses, e.g., Indiana, Rhode Island, and Delaware; be a
mix of university-based branches and independent colleges, e.g.,
Oklahoma and Arkansas; be under a joint secondary/postsecondary board,
e.g., Wisconsin and Colorado; or, be split between two agencies, as in
Georgia. Colleges also vary within states, with some colleges
concentrating more on workforce development and others focusing on
transfer, some with large industry programs and others with virtually
none. And scale differs dramatically with states---even more
dramatically than high schools. Milwaukee, Dade County, and Phoenix have
multicampus institutions with larger enrollments than their state
universities while some of tribal colleges in Montana have only a small
number of students.

**Community colleges are freer to respond to changing economies and
labor markets**

Community colleges, being younger than other educational institutions,
have fewer traditions and a less rigid organizational structure. Faculty
are less regulated, freer to participate in commercial activities, and
more likely to have industrial experience and maintain industry contacts
or to be industrial employees who teach only part-time. New programs can
be introduced more easily and quickly and customized to local technical
skill needs. Community college programs, which are less regulated by
state regulations and influenced by national tests and graduation
requirements, are better able to work with industry in curriculum
development and design.

**Table 2**

**Comparisons between Secondary and Postsecondary Vocational Education**

+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| **Factor**     | **Secondary**           | **Postsecondary**        |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Population   | > youth                 | > adults                 |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Attendance   | > compulsory            | > voluntary              |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Status       | > full-time             | > mostly part-time       |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Individual   | > diploma               | > degree, certificate,   |
| > goal         |                         | > or competencies        |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| >              | > state (in *loco       | > region                 |
| Responsibility | > parentis*)            |                          |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Faculty      | > mostly certified      | > mainly part time       |
|                | > teachers              | > faculty                |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Primary      | > local, state taxes by | > tax base by FTE,       |
| > funding      | > ADA                   | > tuition, fees          |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Curricula    | > set by state          | > dictated by demand     |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Competitors  | > private schools       | > proprietary, corporate |
|                |                         | > schools                |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Customer     | > student               | > student, company,      |
|                |                         | > region                 |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| > Emerging     | > academic though       | > problem solving,       |
| > need         | > vocational            | > analytical skills      |
+----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+

**Figure 1**

**Range of Functions of Community Colleges**

![](media/image1.wmf)

IV\. From the Supply to Demand Side of the Picture

For many reasons---mostly driven by increasing skill requirements within
the economy---two-year colleges, over the past two decades, appear to
have become the institutions of choice among employers, many of whom
have expressed dissatisfaction with the nation's secondary schools.
These changes began amid some controversy since many still believed that
the trend toward vocational curriculum and greater involvement of
industry threatened the historical democratic purpose of the
institutions.[^8] But by the mid-1980s, the accelerated modernization of
industry, which required higher levels of technology and increased
responsibility from the work force, became the impetus for two-year
colleges to delve more deeply into economic development. The value of
vocational education to local economic development had been accepted for
some time among economists. By the 1960s colleges began adding technical
associate degree programs at a rapid pace.

By the 1980s, most states either had added or increased in priority
their economic development missions. Whereas employment had always been
a goal of vocational education, a new perception was emerging that
community colleges were not only suppliers of skilled labor, but also
could influence the actions on the demand side, or the employer and
workplace. This actually began at the federal level in the early 1960s
when the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 authorized \$10 million in
federal funds to train workers for the specific needs of an employer and
helped legitimate vocational education as an industrial recruitment
tool, at least for depressed regions. In 1965, the Appalachian Regional
Development Act and Public Works and Economic Development Act allocated
substantial funds to area vocational centers, technical institutes, and
work force development. Some states, like North and South Carolina, had
a system of postsecondary technical institutes to support the
recruitment of industry in the 1960s. By the 1970s, customized training
for new and expanding industries had become a common part of state
incentives for industrial recruitment. Nearly every state established
such a program under vocational education---mostly as part of secondary
vocational education and generally at area vocational centers (but
through community or technical colleges in a few states). In 1980, a
grant from the U.S. Department of Education to the American Vocational
Association of vocational education and economic development resulted in
17 case studies that described these linkages in some detail.[^9]

Yet despite the attention to customized training, it remained a
peripheral function of educational institutions, not part of their core
missions. Economic development was not allowed to be included among
possible goals at the time the 1981 *Vocational Education Study* was
released. Nevertheless, by the time the Carl Perkins Vocational
Education Act of 1984 was drafted, economic development gained the
legitimacy it sought and was mentioned in the legislation's "Purpose."
Administrators were encouraged to design programs to encourage new
business growth, prepare the work force for technological change, assist
the revitalization of existing industry, and facilitate the reemployment
of people displaced by technology.[^10] The impetus was the parallel
crises in American manufacturing brought about by global competition and
advancing technology and in American education, as described by *A
Nation at Risk* and a flurry of similar reports. The result was to place
more responsibility on high schools (and by inference, classroom time)
for basic skills and on postsecondary vocational education for the more
advanced technical skills. In a sense, technology had caused industry to
outgrow the area vocational centers and their needs to expand beyond
well beyond customized and contract training.

A 1986 survey of presidents of 103 community colleges in Appalachia
found that 84 percent already solved technical problems for local
businesses, 65 percent had partnerships to diffuse technology, 62
percent believed that a clearly defined role in technology diffusion is
essential, 55 percent believed that a dedicated office or center is
essential.[^11] In 1987, the American Association of Community Colleges
and Tennessee Valley Authority teamed up to hold a National Roundtable
on Economic Development to examine and recommend the colleges as "key
partners in economic development."[^12] Three nationwide surveys (1989,
1992, and 1994) found that 90 percent of community colleges offer
contract training.[^13]

An increasing number of regional, state, and local plans began to make
this goal explicit. A 1989 Report of the Commission on the Future of the
North Carolina Community College system identified as one of six
strategic challenges to "help business and industry adapt to
technological change and promote small business development throughout
the state."[^14] A 1992 report on Southern Workforce Development
recommended "that states place a high priority on their historically
underfunded and undervalued technical and community colleges and place
them at the center of the new workforce development system."[^15] A 1993
report of the Mississippi Community College Foundation called for
changing the statutory mission to strengthen work force development
"commensurate with economic development needs" and to establish
industrial extension at the colleges to promote technology
transfer.[^16] That same year a strategic plan developed by Oklahoma
State University's technical college at Okmulgee named as its number one
goal "to expand the institution's role in Oklahoma's economic
development." Objectives included fostering "program development on
advancing technologies in value-added industries that require and reward
technicians and professionals"; expanding "continuing and customized
education, contract training, technology
deployment-demonstration-assistance and utilization," such as "networks
of small- to medium-sized firms to facilitate technology modernization";
and establishing "on-going relationships with private and public
agencies engaged in economic development."[^17]

**Table 3**

Categories of Activities at Technical Colleges

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Education:**                | • Rigor, articulated with higher     |
|                               | education                            |
| **Gateway to the workplace**  |                                      |
|                               | • Comprehensive programs             |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Working with industry              |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Targeting Clusters                 |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Educating disadvantaged youth      |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Effective recruitment              |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Upgrading skills and        | • Customized and contract education  |
| retraining:**                 |                                      |
|                               | • Forming training networks          |
| **Adapting to technology**    |                                      |
|                               | • Using distance learning            |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Teaching soft technologies/skills  |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Educating managers                 |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Training displaced workers         |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Technology                  | • Technology centers / teaching      |
| Intermediaries:**             | factories                            |
|                               |                                      |
| **Accelerating deployment**   | • Technical assistance               |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Industry sector hubs               |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Host for technology services       |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • New business incubators            |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Fomenting strategic         | • Forming alliances with industry    |
| alliances:**                  |                                      |
|                               | • Consortia with other colleges      |
| > **Learning companies and    |                                      |
| > learning communities**      | • Cooperating with development       |
|                               | agencies                             |
|                               |                                      |
|                               | • Facilitating intra-firm learning   |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

As the nation's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) was built in
the early 1990s, community colleges became leading partners, and in some
places lead organizations---a pattern unanticipated when the policy was
first authorized in the Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act of 1988 and
suggested in a strategic plan for the southern states that year as a
recommendation to "expand missions of selected community and technical
colleges to deploy manufacturing technology to small enterprises."[^18]
As a result, the National Institute for Standards and Technology has
formalized relationships with community colleges and the community
colleges comprise one of the largest membership segments of the National
Coalition for Advanced Manufacturing (NACFAM). By 1995, 90 percent of
respondents to a survey of 100 community colleges referenced economic
development or modernization services in their mission statement.[^19]
Even colleges that have chosen to remain truer to a more narrowly
defined education and training mission are paying more attention to
skill upgrading and strengthening their connections to business and
industry and accelerating their responses to its technological and
workplace demands. A study for the Ford Foundation in 1995 identified
eight classes of functions at community colleges that directly supported
economic development, shown in Table 2.[^20]

What a specific college actually offers depends on the scope of its
mission, the range of its mandate and authority, access to resources,
and availability of alternative services. Colleges in areas rich in
technological resources are more likely to limit their services to
selected niches where they are most competitive. Conversely, colleges in
areas with few technological resources assume greater roles and offer
more services.

In the 1990s, based on expanding interest among states (and many
nations) in the work of Michael Porter[^21] and others arguing that
industry clusters[^22] are the most appropriate unit of economic
analysis and policy, colleges have begun to more formally relate their
programs and services to clusters. This new economic development
strategy is driving higher education policies in Alabama, New York, and
Minnesota, for example, even more towards more economic development in
the form of specialized, cluster-related programs and centers at
community colleges.[^23] Though a natural in regions where colleges are
already responsive to local industry demands, the concept of
economy-driven specialization appears to be contrary to the notion of
the comprehensive, student-centered community college.

Many educators and policymakers still contend that expanded missions
undermine the social goals of community colleges and that a clear focus
on education is essential to achieving excellence.[^24] But expansion
can be defined horizontally, increasing the scale of programs, or
vertically, expanding the scope of programs, a distinction rarely made.
Whether mission creep adds or subtracts value to the educational process
depends largely on how it is integrated. A clear institutional focus on
a set of industries or occupations, for example, may actually be
enhanced by actively using the expertise developed and experience gained
by faculty and students in the larger set of related functions and
industry connections to improve the education and expand learning
opportunities.

V. Research Questions for Community Colleges

There are a number of ways to organize a research strategy, including
around inputs, process, and outcomes, elements of federal legislation,
and levels of education. But because I believe that community colleges,
perhaps more than any other educational institution, are demand driven,
I have chosen as an organizing framework three different demand-based
loci of activity, interest, and responsibility:

1.  individuals (youth and adults),

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  organizations (institutions and enterprises), and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  systems (economic and educational).

These are addressed through various studies that will be outlined in
Section V.

1\. Individuals

Most of the conclusions drawn about vocational programs in community
colleges are based on incomplete information about the goals of those
enrolled, based largely on transcript data and number of credits earned
in total and/or in discipline. But the value of the program of study to
an individual in terms of employment and growth potential and to the
labor market is highly dependent on an individual's field of study,
previous experience, labor market conditions, and the employer's
internal training plans. A licensed profession such as nursing generally
requires graduation, but a technical occupation in information
technologies may require a set of specific competencies. A student
looking for employment with a large employer in a tight labor
market---especially if a head of household---may rationally choose to
complete his/her education and training within the company. In 1994, the
NAVE report termed this a "problem." But perhaps a short-term enrollment
is in the best interest of the individual. Given what is now known about
the value of informal learning, if the individual is employed in a
"learning company," under what conditions is more time in a public
institution the better choice? A complete assessment of program outcomes
should take into account the entry requirements of the industry, the
local economy, and the experience and status---and especially the
goals---of the individual.

Why do individuals enroll in the nontransfer programs of community
colleges and what are the appropriate outcome measures for various
goals?

This is a crucial consideration in the establishment of policies for
allocating resources based on outcomes. Surveys indicate that outside of
licensed occupations like nursing or electricians, few positions
recognize or require Associate's Degrees or Certificates.[^25] If labor
markets do not adequately reward completion of a one- or two-year
degree---and there is substantial evidence that they do not in all but
licensed occupations---then leaving for employment (and potentially
job-related education and training) may be the best economic decision
and "program" completion may be an inappropriate measure of success.
There should be a way to separate students who make rational decisions
to enroll to achieve some market-driven ends and those who enroll to
simply explore and test possibilities. For example, a student only
"milling around" who ultimately chooses and pursues a career path based
on the college experience, might be termed a success regardless of
whether it results to completion at that institution. Information that
relates student outcomes with labor market demands and requirements and
to personal goals and ambitions would provide a more accurate picture of
the success of the program.

Who enrolls in the nontransfer programs of community colleges and how do
individuals' traits affect outcome measures?

Understanding the needs of the students is essential to formulating
federal policies. Most evidence shows that community college vocational
students on average are older (late twenties), have much more
variability in previous educational attainment (from high school dropout
to Ph.D.), and more likely to be working (two thirds with half working
full time) than their counterparts in transfer programs or in
universities, most of whom enroll immediately after high school. Little
is known about the nature of new enrollment patterns, particularly those
resulting from economic changes that attract educated people back to
acquire technology-related competencies for career shifts, immigrants to
meet skill shortages, and the incumbent work force to upgrade their
skills.

Who chooses to continue with further formal education and under what
conditions?

One of the criticisms of much of associate of science vocational
education is that the courses are not transferable to four-year
institutions. Few colleges of engineering at state universities are
willing to accept for credit the technical courses in most Associate of
Science degree programs. Some blame the research universities for
refusing to accept applied sciences but the universities say that the
students lack the conceptual skills, particularly in math, to meet
graduation requirements. Many community college courses are accepted by
other less technical programs at universities or by more applied
engineering schools. For example, Mississippi State University School of
Education accepts the A.S. degree from Itawamba Community College
towards a B.S. but the School of Engineering does not. Are there ways to
keep the door open to further education, as Denmark does with its
three-year HTX and HHX programs at technical colleges (also common at
polytechnics in other European countries), and would that increase the
status and respectability of two-year degrees among students? How do
community colleges address transfer of credits for vocational programs?

How important is student aid and to whom?

Financial aid is a large part of federal support of higher education and
allows many people to attend who might not otherwise have the means.
Yet, a recent study at a large urban community college in Florida with a
large low-income student body revealed that only a small proportion (13
percent) were receiving Pell grants.[^26] Nationally, only 15 percent of
all students receive any federal grants and 6 percent get federal loans.
Who receives student grants or loans, which program enrollments, student
groups, and institutions are most influenced by it, and what barriers
exist to applying for it?

How do students connect to and learn about labor markets and job
opportunities?

Surveys of where employers find new employees indicate that the most new
hires are the result of advertisements or referrals. Few companies rate
community colleges or high schools very high as sources. In fact, most
regions still lack the type of coherent labor market system envisioned
in the Workforce Investment Act.[^27] This suggests weak formal labor
market connections at community colleges (and high schools). How, then,
do students find employment? Does the college have a formal placement
office and how does it operate? Are government supported employment
systems effective? Do students have access to informal labor market
networks, such as through faculty, friends, or family, and do the
colleges enhance those systems? Or, do they now simply rely on ads and
the Internet?

What support services are most likely to influence enrollment,
retention, and success?

Some local studies of college enrollment and retention suggests that
lack of support or infrastructure, such as day care and transportation,
prevents attendance and that certain services, including counseling,
work-study programs, and assistance with finding and applying for
various forms of aid. To what extent do students take advantage of
support services and which ones appear to be most effective? Where and
how are colleges assuming leadership in Workforce Investment Act
one-stop-career centers and how do they serve community college
students?

2\. Organizations

Since community colleges are part and parcel of their regional economic
systems, relationships to other organizations have a major effect on
their performance and impacts. Colleges must be responsible to their
state governing agencies and boards of trustees, and at the same time be
responsive to their customers (individuals and enterprises), labor
markets, competitors, and economic forces. Institutional leadership and
governance, partnerships, and innovation often determine the
effectiveness of community colleges in their regions. In particular, the
ways in which colleges relate to local employers can reveal a great deal
about the quality and impact of their programs. Better information about
these factors would help understand what can be done to strengthen them.

What are the most successful and cost- effective means for addressing
basic education and skill deficiencies?

Most students entering community colleges lack the basic skills to
perform at the college level and require some additional academic
preparation. The High School and Beyond data show that more than three
of four students who eventually earn an associate's degree took some
remedial courses, and one on four took at least three.[^28] Texas spends
more than \$170 million a year on courses for remediation. Since the
community colleges have provided open access without the entrance
requirements that four-year colleges and universities impose and high
schools fail to meet, much of the burden now falls on the community
colleges. How effective is remediation in improving both academic and
labor market outcomes?

What are the effects of "academic and mission drift?"

Just as the status and image of jobs is pushing student demand towards
white-collar careers, image and status is pulling colleges toward
baccalaureate level degrees---albeit more applied than those offered in
universities---and towards taking on more of the trappings of
universities, such as research and development centers. This "academic
drift" is evident in the recent plans of two-year colleges to become
four-year colleges, such as plans of the two-year colleges Briarcliff on
Long Island, New York, and Suomi in Michigan to become four-year
colleges. The same trend was the cause of Ireland's Regional Technical
Colleges becoming Institutes of Technology last year and some of New
Zealand's polytechnics becoming universities. This trend appears
somewhat illogical in light of business surveys that express demands for
more mid-skilled workers. At the same time, many vocational education
advocates, in efforts to attract more funding, are calling for a "K--14"
system" that assumes two additional years are required for good jobs.
This could have the opposite effect, reducing the status of
postsecondary vocational education by turning it into an extension of
high school. How widespread is mission drift, what motivates it and to
what extent is this trend changing the nature and needs of postsecondary
vocational education?

Who are the competitors, what are their niches, and how and when should
community colleges respond?

Community colleges, in part because they target the incumbent workforce
and businesses, find themselves in competition with a growing
private-sector educational establishment. Although the colleges often
have the advantage of lower costs, the private sector may be more
effective at marketing, more selective, and better able to target
high-demand occupations and employer key competencies. Who are the
competitors, what are their comparative advantages, and how do their
outcomes compare to public institutions? In what areas should community
colleges compete, where should they concede, and where should they
partner? Does competition serve to enhance or diminish the quality of
community college programs? The competition includes for profits like
the University of Phoenix, corporate colleges like Motorola and Ford,
and the fast-growing Internet-based programs, like England's University
for Industry. How does the competition affect the decisions of education
and training intermediaries like the U.S. Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, which now derives a large proportion of its revenue from
education and training, or the Workforce Development Boards?

How are federal funds used by community colleges?

This is a straightforward analysis of how the federal funds are used
with community colleges and the extent to which they can be traced to
meeting special needs, stimulating new investment, improvement, or
innovation, and leveraging other resources. Getting the information,
however, may not be straightforward. The federal vocational funds that
are distributed to community colleges are likely to be much smaller
portions of their respective budgets than in secondary school. They are
also likely to be used in a greater variety of ways and, therefore, more
difficult to isolate. Trying to detect the impact of those funds will be
even more difficult.

How do firms view, value, and use colleges?

The labor market outcomes of a vocational education program often depend
on its reputation in and perceived value to the business community. Some
studies and surveys have suggested that community colleges have not been
highly regarded by many employers as sources of training or entry level
employees. The added economic value of an associate's degree, according
to a recent government report, is far less than the added value of a
bachelor's degree and only marginally better than some time in college
without the bachelor's degree.[^29] What differentiates those programs
and colleges that are highly regarded from those that are not?

What are the most innovative and effective practices for preparing
students for employment in high-performance workplaces?

Some colleges have been particularly innovative in designing programs of
study to produce the analytical and interpersonal skills that employers
say they want. For example, some colleges effectively mix theory with
practice and academic with vocational education and others use systemic
approaches that introduce "all aspects of the industry." It would be
quite useful to learn how and why these programs came to be and how
factors such as institutional leadership, faculty interest, government
funding, employer demand, and imitation influenced implementation and
how innovation (technological, pedagogical) is supported and rewarded.

3\. Systems

Community colleges are not independent institutions or part of a state
educational enterprise. They are interdependent elements of a variety of
regional social and economic systems and their actions have
repercussions throughout the system. Yet they are rarely assessed with
respect to impacts on those systems, which would include not only the
collective competencies and credentials produced for the labor market,
but also the expertise, technology, and access to information they bring
to the system. As part of a system, community colleges are subject to
external forces and subject to external conditions, and the functions
they perform are shaped in part by those conditions. For example,
community colleges in rural areas may be expected to provide different
functions than colleges in urban areas with a variety of private
services and educational institutions. Examining colleges as part of
regional economic systems shifts the focus to collective impacts rather
than individual outcomes.

What can be learned from international experiences?

There is substantial evidence that a major source of innovation in
education comes from experiences in other industrialized nations, which
then are tailored to national conditions. Congressional discussions of
the Smith-Hughes Act cited the Prussian education as an exemplary model
and the early community colleges used the gymnasium as their model. More
recently, the United Kingdom's training and enterprise Councils were
modeled on U.S. Private Industry Councils and U.S. school-to work
programs and skill standards strategies relied heavily on experiences in
Denmark and Germany. Most other nations have a post-compulsory
vocational education system roughly comparable to that in the U.S.,
i.e., Further Education Colleges in the United Kingdom, Technical
Colleges in Denmark, and Regional Technical Colleges in Italy.[^30] Some
separate credit and noncredit programs between different institutions,
some take three years to produce a technically qualified technician or
engineer, and many have developed formal problem-solving mechanisms.
Therefore, it may prove useful to compare U.S. postsecondary policies to
other systems operating in similar economic, if not political,
environments.

How do partnerships affect colleges' quality, cost-effectiveness, and
impacts and, in particular, what are the effective and appropriate roles
for the private sector?

This is an important question because of the historical controversy
surrounding business relationships and concerns that they would
compromise academic freedom and shift resources away from liberal arts
toward occupational courses. Federal legislation values advice from
business and requires advisory boards. True partnerships, such as
Europe's Social Partnerships, are sporadic and generally the result of
local influences and leadership. Colleges that recognize their place
with regional economic systems also partner with agencies that have
related missions, such as the MEP, small business development centers,
and business incubators. Such partnerships and alliances with a variety
of organizations are now common among community colleges. Colleges have
formal alliances among themselves, such as the three-college alliance in
western North Carolina, in which programs are shared or the five-college
alliance that comprises the Southwestern Virginia Advanced Manufacturing
Technology Center. Many community colleges have established partnerships
with the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, including as Alabama's, California's, and
Wisconsin's community colleges. There is a new and very rapidly growing
set of partnerships to offer training and certification for information
technology companies such as Cisco and Microsoft. Other colleges have
formed linkages with state economic development or technology transfer
programs.

How do local circumstances, especially urban or rural locations and
economic conditions, and structure of economy, affect resources needs,
quality and mix of programs, and outcomes?

The programs, missions, and resource requirements of a particular
community college are influenced by local circumstances and needs that
include the structure of economy, scale (urban or rural), service area
constraints, and degree of independence. Publication No. 6 of the
Vocational Education Study analyzed rural conditions and argued that the
scale, population density, and structure of economy warrant special
consideration in policy.[^31] A college in a less populated region has
both more reason to specialize to take advantage of economies of scale
but also greater need to diversify since fewer alternatives for higher
education are available. Similarly---but in different ways---conditions
in inner cities suggest special considerations. Other than a few minimal
set-asides, funds are targeted to individuals', not regions', need.

Should community colleges simply react to labor market and student
demands or should they be proactive and try to influence firms'
behaviors and students' choices?

The "reactive" colleges survey labor market trends and employer needs
and then orient programs towards those trends and needs. The "proactive"
colleges anticipate demands and needs based on patterns of technological
changes and knowledge of current best practices and then acts as systems
integrator and modernizer by providing a work force prepared for the
future along with help in making improvements. Colleges historically
have been reactive, but the new economy is increasingly looking to
colleges to be catalysts for improvement within firms. The relationships
to enterprises, expertise, and information that are needed to fill this
role effectively, if exploited within the college, can also greatly
enhance the quality of education and employment opportunities for
students.

In what ways do and should colleges specialize?

Even as colleges are expanding their missions, some states are
considering various forms of specialization to achieve economies of
scale. Many community colleges have already concentrated resources to
establish a specialty, e.g., a chemical processing and pulp and paper
center at Alabama Southern Community College, a Hosiery Technology
Center at Catawba Valley Community College in North Carolina, a
telecommunications center at Springfield Technical Community College in
Massachusetts. Other groups of nearby colleges are forming consortia in
order to avoid costly duplication and share curricula. Whereas the more
conventional way of defining specialization is around occupational
clusters, the more useful for local economies and for implementing "all
aspects of the industry," may be around industry clusters. In successful
industry clusters, a labor force skilled in and familiar with the local
industry base and an educational system to sustain are viewed among the
most valuable attributes of a region by businesses.

VI\. Research Studies

The premises of institutions with distinctive customers and missions,
and relationships to local economies, and the questions they raise leads
to a series of studies, which are ordered by judgments of importance to
the federal legislation. The first priority is to provide a descriptive
picture of the enterprise that can serve as a common framework for
classifying colleges, students, and systems in the subsequent research
that will try to explain who receives what benefits from the system and
how federal policy affects outcomes and impacts. Therefore, step number
one is to classify and develop a taxonomy of community college students,
institutions, and systems that may compare, for example, organizational
and governance structures, missions, priorities, distribution and uses
of federal funds, sources of revenues, alliances, distribution of
enrollments by age, family status, race and ethnicity, program,
organization of noncredit and customized education, concentrations of
competitors, and ranges of business and industry services.

Next I will suggest, in line with the organizing theme of individuals,
organizations, and regions, a study that focuses on each level. The last
is particularly important for expanding the base of support and
alliances among other agencies that are affected by community colleges
and vocational education, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission,
Economic Development Administration, and National Institute for
Standards and Technology, and in the private sector.

1\. Student Analyses

Describe the populations of current students and recent leavers and
completers and analyze individual outcomes taking into account local
labor markets' and individuals' goals. This would allow the Congress to
appreciate the breadth of its investment and understand its real
outcomes.

> Survey a national sample of students, recent graduates, and recent
> school completers and leavers, stratified according to classifications
> devised earlier, which could be type of state system, college program,
> or location to record and analyze student characteristics, sources of
> financial support, number of remedial courses, basis for selecting
> their programs of study, goals and expectations, work experiences,
> special needs, and expected or (in the case of recent completers or
> leavers) attained outcomes. Most of this information will have to be
> obtained directly from individuals, and will not be available in
> school records. Thus, the study will require substantial assistance
> from the colleges to identify and locate individuals who have left
> programs. The study should help the Congress understand and appreciate
> the myriad paths students take and diversity of goals and ambitions.

2\. Institutional Surveys

This research would explain differences in performance, enrollments, and
missions among colleges in terms of goals, governance, external
conditions, competition, and leadership. Since student outcomes are
influenced by the quality and focus of a college's support services,
educational programs, and labor market systems, an institutional study
would help the Congress better understand how the federal funds
influence quality and focus and just what sorts of targeting or
direction would have the greatest impacts.

> Obtain information, through interviews and/or surveys, from college
> CEOs and selected trustees in a stratified sample of colleges (e.g.,
> structure of state system and size of institution) to identify and
> analyze the uses of federal funds, revenue streams and relative
> sources, missions and priorities, plans and goals, attitudes toward
> academic versus vocational programs and towards student work
> experience opportunities, alliances and relationships to other
> organizations and to industry, internal structure (i.e.,
> administrative framework for "shadow colleges"), and support and means
> for institutional and faculty learning and innovation.

3\. Regional Analysis

Analyze impacts of colleges within regional economic system by defining
the relationships of colleges to the rest of system and the ways
colleges affect the growth nomy of the economy and opportunities for
various populations. The benefits of this would be (a) to broaden the
connection of the legislation to national economic performance and
technology development and (build support in other committees concerned
with both) and (b) explain the collective and synergistic outcomes of
postsecondary vocational education.

> This research would be based on case studies that target economic
> regions as the units of analysis, stratified by type (industry
> profile), scale, and performance of economy, to describe how the
> community college fits into the overall regional economic system;
> identify areas of specialization and competition; assess ways in which
> the college responds to regional labor markets and employer demands
> and equalizes opportunities; examine special strengths; current
> problems; and estimate impacts on economy and community in terms of
> employment and business growth and retention and personal income.
> These studies should place the community college not just within the
> economic system but look at its programs, enrollments, strengths, and
> weaknesses in comparison to other public and private sector education
> and training companies. Part of the assessment process will require
> obtaining information other agencies and from employers, including
> small and mid-sized companies and noncustomers of colleges. These
> studies would be best conducted by regional economists or planners
> from outside of traditional education research fields, who view
> education and training as integral elements of economies and have
> experience in measuring economic impacts.

4\. Additional Studies

Two other studies would be very useful for both appreciating the value
and potential of community colleges and for identifying new and
innovative directions for policy.

> Conduct international comparative studies to learn how other
> industrialized nations address issues such as social exclusion,
> industry demands, skill shortages, and changing youth preferences;
> effectively use social partnerships, develop skill standards, and
> implement work experiences; mix theory and practice; and fit into the
> larger educational establishment. This research is important because
> the experiences and policies of other programs already shape the
> thinking of policymakers.[^32] For example, national skills standards,
> school-to-career programs, and notions about workplace based learning
> are heavily influenced by European practices. Other nations are also
> facing some of the same challenges as U.S. colleges, such as meeting
> the employment needs of a rapidly growing information technology
> fields, changing values of young people, increasing immigration, and
> academic creep within institutions. But policy transference is limited
> by the perfunctory examinations and often superficial knowledge gained
> from brief trips or conferences. Further, very little has focused on
> the postsecondary level. A more systematic and critical assessment
> would help policymakers better understand non-U.S. policies and
> determine which and how lessons from other places can be best used to
> improve practices and policies in the context of America's political,
> economic, and social environments. This research would analyze and
> compare the effectiveness of European systems, selected to represent a
> range of models, with respect to the various missions of U.S.
> community colleges to determine whether which impacts are the results
> of transferable innovations and which are a function of local culture
> and social structure. This research would require a broad
> understanding of non-U.S. systems and access to Ministries and
> selected colleges.
>
> Compile benchmark practices with respect to various congressional and
> national priorities, looking particularly for innovative practices
> that improve outcomes for students, local businesses, and local
> economies, such as innovative melding of academic and vocational
> courses, especially productive linkages with industry, or successful
> remediation programs. Most of the candidates can be found through
> literature searches. Although understanding catalysts and impacts will
> require further investigation.

VII\. Potential Research Difficulties

1\. The diversity among state community college systems, and within the
systems among institutions, missions, programs, students, and priorities
will make it difficult to generalize findings without first developing
various taxonomies. The ways that the research classifies and stratifies
among these variables will be crucial.

2\. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to use
"preferred" research designs, where experimental and control groups can
be randomly assigned and conditions controlled. Even if such a design
could be used, local economies and communities are not environmentally
controlled laboratories, and it such a study would very likely not be
worth the investment. Therefore, it may not be possible to actually
measure independent effects of policies.

3\. The low demand among employers for "associate's degrees" undermines
the value of program completion, the most common measure of success (and
funding) of programs. Therefore, a variety of additional and new outcome
measures will be needed, and thus it will be difficult to compare
outcomes of current policies to past policies.

4\. The low investment in education and training among most U.S.
companies may prove a barrier to collecting information from employers,
particularly the small- and mid-sized firms. Most employer surveys rely
on large companies and low response rates, which biases results towards
firms large enough to have human resource development departments.
Educational researchers may have to rely on regional agencies and
associations that have built relationships with employers, such as the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, National Association of
Manufacturers, and Small Business Development Centers.

5\. Since so many community college students are part time, adult, and
mobile, it will be difficult to locate recent completers or leavers. The
movement in and out and within the system makes tracking much more
difficult than in the secondary systems, where record transfer is a
requirement. The part-time nature of the student body and the mixing and
matching of courses to meet employment requirements will make it
difficult to identify consistent courses of study and to track students
following completion.

6\. The structure and performance of regional economies can have a
profound impact on enrollments, revenues, and outcomes. An economy
dominated by traditional industries will offer different economic
opportunities than one based on high-growth or high-tech industries. Any
measure of individual or institutional outcomes, particularly over time,
would have to reflect the condition of the local economy.

7\. Trying to isolate and measure the impacts of an individual
institution and/or college-based intervention on a regional economy,
given all of the other external factors that can affect economic
outcomes, will prove difficult. Most economic impact studies use fairly
gross estimates and try to capture indirect secondary and tertiary
effects.

[^1]: Edward Krug, *The Shaping of the American High School, Volume 2,
    1920--1941* (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972), 196.

[^2]: U.S. Congress, Subcommittee on Education of the Committee on Labor
    and Public Welfare, *Notes and Working Papers Concerning the
    Administration of Programs Authorized Under Vocational Education Act
    of 2963 Public Law 88-210, as Amended: The Bridge Between Man and
    His Work* (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, March 1968).

[^3]: Ibid., 173.

[^4]: Rocco Pietro et al., *Postsecondary Vocational Education in a
    Technological Economy: Defining the Quality of Programs.* (Ann
    Arbor: Industrial Technology Institute, January 1989).

[^5]: Thomas J. Kane and Cecelia Elena Rouse, "The Community College:
    Educating Students at the Margin Between College and Work," *Journal
    of Economic Perspectives* 13 (Winter 1999): 63--84.

[^6]: Stuart Rosenfeld*, Cluster/Community College Connections*, For the
    Community College Research Center, Teachers College, January 1999.

[^7]: Tony Zeis, "Will Our Students Become Theirs?" *Community College
    Journal* (June/July 1998): 8--13.

[^8]: Steven Brill and Jerome Karabel, *The Diverted Dream: Community
    Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America,
    1900--1985* (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).

[^9]: Krishan Paul, Ellen Carlos, and David Bushnell, *Vocational
    Education and Economic Development: Case Studies* (Washington, DC:
    American Vocational Association, January 1982).

[^10]: Patricia M. Flynn, "Vocational Education Policy and Economic
    Development: Balancing Short-term and Long-term Needs," National
    Assessment of Vocational Education, *Design Papers for the National
    Assessment of Vocational Education*. (Washington, DC: Government
    Printing Office, 1987).

[^11]: Louis Blair, *Strategies and Approaches for Appalachian Higher
    Education Institutions to Diffuse Technology for Regional Economic
    Development* (Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, 1986.

[^12]: Technical and Community Colleges: Catalysts for Technology
    Development, in The Role of Community, Technical, and Junior
    Colleges in Technical Education/Training and Economic Development
    (Washington DC: American Association of Community and Junior
    Colleges, 1987).

[^13]: Kevin J. Dougherty and Marianne F. Bakia, *Community Colleges and
    Contract Education: Content, Origins, and Impacts* (paper for the
    Community College Research Center, Teachers College, January 1999).

[^14]: Commission on the Future of the North Carolina Community College
    System, *Gaining the Competitive Edge: The Challenge to North
    Carolina's Community College System* (Raleigh, NC: MDC. Inc, 1989).

[^15]: Advisory Panel on Southern Workforce Development, *Greater
    Expectations: The South's Workforce is the South's Future*. (Chapel
    Hill: MDC, Inc., September 1992).

[^16]: The Millennium Group. *Building a New Workforce for a New
    Century* (Jackson: Mississippi Community College Foundation,
    November 1993).

[^17]: *Passage to the Emerging Frontier: A Strategic Plan* (Okmulgee:
    Oklahoma State University Technical Branch, 1993).

[^18]: Southern Technology Council, *Turning to Technology: A Strategic
    Plan for the Nineties*. (Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Growth
    Policies Board, 1989).

[^19]: Stuart Rosenfeld, *New Technologies and New Skills: Two-Year
    Colleges at the Vanguard of Modernization* (Washington, DC:
    Community College Press, 1995).

[^20]: Ibid.

[^21]: Michael Porter, *The Competitive Advantage of Nations* (New York:
    Free Press, 1990).

[^22]: Geographically bounded agglomerations of similar and/or
    complementary and interdependent businesses that operate as a system
    and produce synergy.

[^23]: As evidenced in the cluster-specific structure of the Alabama
    Technology Network at Alabama community colleges, the current RTS
    research in New York for Empire State Development Corporation on
    community colleges' support of regionally designated clusters, and
    Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, *The Education Industry Report*
    (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, September 1998).

[^24]: Thomas Bailey, "Expanding Roles in Economic Development" (paper
    prepared for Learning.Now symposium, Chapel Hill, NC, December
    13--14, 1998).

[^25]: Clifford Adelman, *The Way We Are: The Community College as
    Thermometer* (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education/OERI,
    1992) and W. Norton Grubb, *Working in the Middle* (San Francisco:
    Jossey-Bass, 1996).

[^26]: John Foster-Bey, Paul Pryde, and Stuart Rosenfeld, *Linking
    Low-Income People to Economic Opportunity in Palm Beach County*
    (report to the Community Foundation for Palm Beach and Martin
    Counties and the MacArthur Foundation, April 1999).

[^27]: Workforce Development Program, *Building a Highly Skilled
    Workforce: A Labor Market System for the 21st Century* (Washington,
    DC National Center on Education and the Economy, 1997).

[^28]: Cliff Adelman, from *High School and Beyond* transcripts, for
    American Association of Community Colleges, April 28, 1998.

[^29]: *21st Century Skills for 21st Century Jobs.* A Report of the U.S.
    Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S.
    Department of Labor, National Institute of Literacy, and the Small
    Business Administration, January 1999.

[^30]: See Stuart Rosenfeld*, Technical Colleges, Technology Deployment,
    and Regional Development* (paper presented at the International
    Conference on "Building Competitive Economies," Modena, Italy,
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, May 1998);
    and James R. Mahoney and Lynn Barnett, eds., *Developing
    Technicians: Successful International Systems* (Washington, DC:
    Community College Press, 1998).

[^31]: Stuart Rosenfeld, "A Portrait of Rural America: Conditions
    Affecting Vocational Education Policy," *Vocational Education Study
    Publication No. 6* (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office,
    April 1981).

[^32]: A very few examples are: Council of State Chief School Officers,
    *European Lessons from School and the Workplace* (Washington, DC:
    CCSO, 1991); David Stern, et al., *School-to-Work Policy Insights
    from Recent International Developments* (Berkeley: National Center
    for Research in Vocational Education, December 1996); Gene Bottoms,
    "Lessons from Europe for Improving School-to-Work Programs,"
    *International Forum on Learning and Competitiveness*, March 1996;
    Glenda Partee, *Youth Work,* *Youth Development and the Transition
    from Schooling to Employment in England*, (Washington, DC: American
    Youth Policy Forum, 1996); and James R. Mahoney and Lynn Barrett,
    *Developing Technicians: Successful International Programs*
    (Washington, DC Community College Press, 1998).