Advertisement

Community Colleges and Global Counterparts: Defining a Higher Educational Sector

Reference work entry
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

Within higher education exists a sector of institutions called Community Colleges and Global Counterparts. These institutions are Global Counterparts to one another because they share mission, structural, and philosophical characteristics as they “educate non-traditional post-secondary students and demonstrate in a practical way the means by which new generations can receive skills and training that will ensure employment, prosperity and facilitation of social mobility” (Raby and Valeau. Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009). Although researchers world-wide have examined this sector since 1971, it remains largely understudied and under-recognized by world educators and policy makers. This chapter examines how the mission of these institutions’ intends to provide an opportunity to build social mobility and yet simultaneously serves as a limitation that maintains societal inequalities. The chapter also applies the theory of educational borrowing to explore what institutional characteristics emerged as a result of internal institutional change and what characteristics emerged as a result of globalization patterns. In an era of expanded educational reform for higher education, the role of the Community College or Global Counterpart is pivotal for serving a varied workforce that is ever demanding and changing.

Keywords

Community Colleges and Global Counterparts sector Non-traditional post-secondary students Social mobility Societal inequalities Educational borrowing Globalization 

Introduction

Postsecondary education is linked to economic competitiveness and raised standards of living and is continually expanding as many nations are racing for the top. Yet, as students achieve secondary education in increasing numbers (UNESCO 2017; OECD 2015a), the pathways to the traditional university remain highly competitive. In 1993, Cerych (p. 5) noted that “the existence of a recognized alternative to traditional universities [is] indispensable.” Community Colleges and Global Counterparts (Raby and Valeau 2009) are a response to the need for these alternatives. Since 1971, over 1400 publications have been written about a sector of global institutions that share these specific characteristics and that we suggest allows them to be compared as a cohort. Within this sector are institutions that are known by several names including College of Further Education (Parry 2009), Community College (Levin et al. 2016), Polytechnic, Technical College/University, and TAFE (Technical and Further Education) (Adams and Gamage 2008). For purposes of this book, we call these institutions Community Colleges and Global Counterparts. This book is relevant because of the current and growing number of Community Colleges and Global Counterparts around the world and the consequence of high student enrollment patterns that are changing opportunity and access to higher education.

In the 1970s, the first publications on Community Colleges and Global Counterparts described institutional types and cross-national development projects. The first book included descriptive and theoretical analysis of educational borrowing from five countries (Raby and Tarrow 1996). Since then, multiple books have profiled structural design and characteristics, special journal issues have explored case studies, and peer-review journal articles have documented empirical research on this sector of higher education institutions. This book expands upon previous research by exploring the complexities found within and between these institutions by focusing on critical analysis of governance, leadership, and mission. These complexities represent emerging and evolving phenomena that impact the institutions ability to (a) serve students; (b) admit and retain students; (c) increase completion rates; (d) create viable and sustained partnerships locally and internationally; (e) use curriculum to address the needs of unique populations; (f) support sustained funding; and (g) support staff development to enhance faculty and staff excellence.

The two volumes of the International Handbook explore these topics to highlight not only the challenges of the field within a specific country, but to show how these topics build a comparative understanding of the sector at large. In that these institutions are now identified, it is time to academically address their role in higher education. This chapter provides (a) an overview of literature in the field; (b) an analysis of historical foundations; (c) a construct for defining a sector cohort; and (d) an introduction to theoretical discussions stemming from open access, building of human capital and educational borrowing flows.

Nomenclature Variations

There are many institutions that fit into the Community College and Global Counterpart cohort and yet there remains a lack of a common term by which they are defined globally. As an example, authors may use regional distinctions, such as American or European models (Skolnik 2016), labels, such as second-tier institutions (De Wit et al. 2015), and descriptors, such as Global Counterparts (Raby and Valeau 2009). The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 1997) placed these institutions in both Level 4: Post-Secondary Non-Tertiary Education and Level 5: First State of Tertiary Education. ISCED 2011 placed these institutions in both Level 5 as short-cycle tertiary (at least 2 years) (with practical emphasis) and in Level 6 as 3–4 year Bachelor’s or equivalent first degree programs (with theoretical emphasis). Other classifications, such as European Fields of Education and Australian Standard Classification of Education use ISCED terms and although they sort on skill level, they too fail to identify these institutions as a cohort. ISCED-F (2013) separates vocational education from general education but ignores those institutions that offer both concurrently, which is a commonality of most of the institutions in the Community College and Global Counterpart cohort. While ISCED and the other classification use the terms “short-cycle” and “tertiary” to define these institutions, these terms are rarely used to define this sector in academic or policy literature.

Table 1 identifies 71 names that a search of academic literature and policy studies found that identifies this educational sector. These terms are mostly divided according to institutional type (higher colleges of technology; Jr. college; university colleges; and applied sectors of higher education ), academic level (upper-secondary, postsecondary; prebaccalaureate); length of study (short-cycle; short-term; 2-year); type of study (postcompulsory; tertiary); curricular context (lifelong education, transfer education, and vocational education), and status (nonuniversity, second-tier). In part, changing terminology reflects how universities and colleges are not static organizations as they are constantly redefining themselves (Tierney 2012). Changing nomenclature also shows a complexity within these institutions as variations often exist within a specific institutional type, such as the range of Technical Vocational and Education Training (TVET) institutions (Anderson 2008) and the range of US Community Colleges (Dougherty and Townsend 2006).
Table 1

Seventy-nine keywords 1971–2017

Keyword

#

Keyword

#

Keyword

#

Community college

323

Nonuniversity

21

Technical education

8

TAFE

237

Postsecondary

22

Technical-vocational education (TVE)

7

Further education (FE)

218

Postcompulsory

15

Higher colleges of technology

7

Vocational education

181

Higher education

15

University colleges

7

Vocational education training (VET)

114

Technical university

11

Vocational training

6

Tertiary

55

Junior college

9

Post-16

6

TVET

22

Apprenticeship education

8

Vocational-technical education (VTE)

6

Polytechnic

22

Short-cycle

8

Universities of applied sciences

5

Terms with four mentions

14–19; Adult education; lifelong; occupational education

Terms with three mentions

Agricultural college; colleges; college university; entrepreneurial education; higher vocational education; labor education; secondary technical college; technical college; technical education training (TET); third-tier

Terms with two mentions

Colleges and institutes; college sectors; farmer field school; higher professional college; higher TVE; industrial college; postsecondary vocational education; professional college; technical-vocational colleges; tourism education; two-year college; university alternative; vocational higher education; vocational secondary; vocational school; work college

Terms with one mention

Agricultural technical; aquaculture; Ammattikorkeakoulu; associate colleges; continuing education; Fachhochschulen; folk high schools; Learning Village; lower secondary vocational track; low stratified higher education; maritime college; regional colleges; second tier higher education; short-term; stratification; technical institute; two-year technological college; two-year university; UTS; upper secondary college; vocational bachelor; vocational colleges; vocational further education; vocational and general; vocational and technical schools of higher education; work-based

Methodology

For this chapter, we updated the Raby and Valeau (2012) literature review of Community Colleges and Global Counterparts in print and online literature written in English, including peer review journal articles, chapters in books, dissertations, and ERIC documents. While any review that only focus on only English language sources ignores a wealth of publications (Raby 2010), English still remains the dominant language of international publication. For example, more than half of the authors in our review wrote about institutions in their home countries using the medium of English. Many chapters in this book will add non-English references that will enhance future longitudinal reviews. The longevity and depth of these publications has resulted in a de facto field of scholarship that resembles what Yamada (2015, p. 273–238) refers to as a process of institutional bases. In this process, the accumulation of knowledge production over time creates a recognized field of study that is supported by international conference presentations, focused in government policy documents, and reinforced by publications in peer-review journals. In turn, this scholarship builds a new generation of scholars who redefine this new field with thesis, dissertations, and empirical research. This process increases validity and credibility that this cohort exists and is viable for cross-cultural and comparative analysis.

Publications for the literature review were identified based on the process defined by the Comparative Education Review Bibliography (Raby 2010) in which a title had to reference (a) a country and/or region outside of the United States and (b) contain one of the identified keywords. Keywords were selected through a three-step process. First, a list of keywords used to describe Community Colleges and Global Counterparts were created from 1970 to 1980 publications. Secondly, as new sources were read, additional keywords were accumulated. Finally, all identified publications underwent a final keyword search to assure proper identification to define cross-checking results. Three search designs helped to locate diverse sources that could reflect different scholarly approaches: (1) peer-review articles listed in the Comparative Education Review Annual Bibliographies from 1971 to 2016; (2) peer-review articles and ERIC documents in ERIC, EBSCOhost Research Databases, PsycINFO, PROQUEST academic databases, IDP Database of Research on International Education, NORRAG database, and Australian Council for Educational Research databases from 1971 to 2017; (3) Google search for published books, chapters in books, dissertations, open-access journals, and institutional reports. The multipart data analysis included a quantitative charting of the type of publication and geographical focus followed by a qualitative content analysis of related themes and identification of common characteristics. Data was divided into segments, labeled and examined for overlap and redundancy, and then collapsed into layers of themes. The coding tool was refined through an iterative process and refinements were then examined using the same coding for multiple publications.

The review of literature includes 1473 publications from 1970 to 2017.The year 1970 is used as a start date because that is the date of the earliest publications that highlight Community Colleges and Global Counterparts in a comparative mode. Within the sample are 860 journal articles; 227 book chapters, dissertations, or thesis; 36 conference presentations; and 348 monographs, policy documents, or government reports. In order of occurrence, the most mentioned keywords were Community College (323), TAFE (237), Further Education (220), Vocational Education (181), Vocational Education and Technology (VET) (114), tertiary (55), polytechnic (22), postsecondary (22), Technical and Vocational Education and Training [TVET] (22), and nonuniversity (21). Table 2 compares the frequency of keywords from 1970 to 2017. The literature review confirms that many publications that focus on institutional names are linked to a specific geographic region. For example, publications on Technical and Further Education Colleges (TAFE) mostly focused on these institutions in Australia, Further Education Colleges (FE) in Great Britain, Polytechnics in New Zealand, Applied Sectors of Higher Education in Western Europe; and Regional Technical Institutes (Terciarios) in Latin America.
Table 2

Comparing frequency of the publication of keywords: 1970–2017

 

1970–1979

1980–1989

1990–1999

2000–2009

2010–2014

2015–2017

Community college

21

17

67

110

80

28

TAFE

17

79

73

54

12

2

Further education

2

1

9

124

63

20

Vocational education

0

0

11

94

64

11

Vocational education training (VET)

0

1

7

35

63

8

Tertiary

0

0

0

44

6

1

Polytechnic

0

0

0

15

7

0

Nonuniversity

0

0

12

9

0

0

Technical vocational education and training (TVET)

0

0

0

10

11

1

Postsecondary

1

0

0

16

2

3

Postcompulsory

0

0

3

11

1

0

Higher education

0

0

2

9

3

1

Technical university

0

0

2

7

2

0

Junior college

2

0

0

5

1

1

Apprenticeship education

0

0

0

0

8

0

Short-cycle

1

1

2

0

4

0

Technical education

0

0

1

3

3

1

Technical-vocational education (TVE)

0

0

0

4

3

0

Higher colleges of technology

0

0

0

4

0

3

University colleges

0

0

0

4

1

2

Sector Distinctions

Community Colleges and Global Counterparts share four specific characteristics (Raby and Valeau 2009). These institutions all have a mission in which professional and academic programs are responsive to the educational needs of local communities and industries and whose curricular programs are likewise defined by local needs. Because these institutions are purposefully located in communities where students live, there is an ease of access to get to the institution that, in turn, increases enrollment for nontraditional are oftentimes lower-income students (Dennison and Gallagher 1986; Wang and Seggie 2013). Secondly, this cohort of institutions offer options for university overflow and a “second chance” for nontraditional students who have long been excluded from higher education (Ayalon and Yogev 2006). Thirdly, this cohort offers short-term and sometimes longer multipurpose curricula to meet regional medium term labor requirements in high demand occupations in changing economies (Hui 2012; Shumaker 2013). Finally, these institutions support a mission that views educational access as necessary for providing economic and social capital that is needed to ensure social prosperity (Treat and Hagedorn 2013).

Within this higher education sector are institutions that have variations in organization, accreditation, and curricular emphasis. Some institutions are part of postcompulsory systems and most are postsecondary and part of a tertiary system. Few are an upward extension of secondary school, although in Quebec, students begin their education earlier because their secondary education is shorter (Bègin-Caouette 2013). Most are publicly funded, yet for some, “public” means “belongs to the public” and not funding from public sources (Epperson 2010, p. 115). Some are part of a binary system in which multiple missions lead to terminal certificate/degree and/or to transfer credit to 4-year university in which a student can then finish a baccalaureate degree, such as in Chile (Von Chrismar et al. 2015) and in Singapore Polytechnics (Wong 2015). Many institutions do not allow transfer as the intent is for direct entry into employment. No institution has the sole mission of transfer. Multiple accreditation agencies govern institutions in this cohort, including Governmental ministries, local industry, and local universities (Raby et al. 2016). In terms of curricula emphasis, some institutions offer shorter-term programs of a few weeks or months that specialize in apprentice training, paraprofessional, occupational, practical vocational, or technical training. While in the past many institutions offered only a singular vocational or technical curriculum, today, most offer a multifunctional, multipurpose mixture for youth and adult learners in vocational, occupational, technical, and academic studies of 2–3 years in duration (Wong 2015). Marginson (2016) notes that in Germany, Korea and Taiwan, institutions emphasize technical–vocational education while in the Netherlands they emphasize middle professions such as teaching and/or local employment. Throughout the world, an increasing number of institutions also offer practical baccalaureate degrees.

Despite differences that can complicate comparison (Skolnik 2016), it remains the similarities that permit academic comparison (Dennison and Levin 1989; Brawer 1996; Raby and Valeau 2009). Initial constructs for comparative research were identified by Raby and Tarrow (1996) and later refined by Wiseman et al. (2012) who suggested that this cohort of institutions are most successful in countries where (a) market forces create a need for postsecondary institutions whose skilled technicians are in demand to support technological, vocational, and industrial development; (b) adult and continuing education is legitimized as postsecondary education; and (c) postsecondary education is equated with social and economic mobility .

Historical Foundations of Scholarship

There are four generations of scholarship on Community Colleges and Global Counterparts in which both United States and non-United States scholars defined institutional developments within and between countries. A more detailed discussion of this history can be found in Raby and Valeau (2013).

Generation One: Discovery. The first generation of scholarship occurred in the 1970s with case studies of institutional structures. Many of these studies resulted from first-hand visits, international development projects, and educational borrowing projects that focus on stipulations of the viability of implanting the Canadian or US Community College model in other countries and the steps needed to make it happen.

Generation Two: Educational Borrowing and Collaboration. The second generation of literature detailed educational borrowing patterns that branded the US concept of the Community College as having “resources and expertise especially in applied technology, that could serve [others] well” (ACIIE/Stanley Foundation 1994, 1; World Bank 2003) and that documented resulting international development projects involving a US Community College working with an international like-institution. Comparative scholarship also emerged that examined institutional leadership practices (Burgos-Sasscer and Collins 1996) and that identified common characteristics between institutional types (Cohen 1995).

Generation Three: Theoretical Analysis. The third generation of scholarship applied theoretical models of globalization in terms of privatization policies aimed at making a profit (Schugurensky and Higgins 1996) and humanitarian policies aimed to provide socio-cultural aid (Carter et al. 2014) to explain why this cohort expanded globally. Studies showed how institutional mission and structure were adopted from one country to another, such as borrowing the French model in Senegal (Gueye and Sene 2009), how specific characteristics were modified, such as adoption of US-style ESL curriculum in Lebanon (Al-Kafaat 2012), and how purposeful rejection instituted new institutional forms (Wiseman et al. 2012).

Generation Four: Academic Studies. Since 2010, numerous empirical studies have been conducted. Some studies focused on student financial aid in China (Song and Postiglione 2011), governance in British Columbia and California Community Colleges (Levin 2001), financing of UK Further Education Colleges and California Community Colleges (Jephocte and Raby 2012), missions of Turkish and Taiwanese colleges (Wang and Seggie 2013), completion policies of 41 institutions globally (Raby et al. 2016), and international rankings for European model and American model institutions (Skolnik 2016). All studies begin with an acknowledgment that a sector of institutions exist and share enough similarities for comparison.

Theoretical Discussions

Two theories ground research on Community Colleges and Global Counterparts. The first theory identifies open access as either an opportunity to build social mobility or as a limitation that maintains societal inequalities. The second theory examines educational borrowing flows and their impact.

Open Access

Substantial literature exists on the importance of massification for higher education, which Trow (1973, 1–2) predicts and explains how university access would transition “from elite to mass higher education, and subsequently to universal access.” While massification was intended for universities, the similarities in Community College and Global Counterpart sector is striking. Literature shows that “non-universities have shift[ed] the centre-of-gravity of mass higher education systems towards greater instrumentality” (Teichler 2004, 3–16) and have changed a “scale of the social transformation in higher education” (Scott 2010, p. 2). Indeed, since 1991, there has been a global rise in higher education participation with rates rising 7% in upper middle income countries, 5% in lower middle income countries, and 4% in low income countries (UNESCO 2017). We suggest in this book that the introduction of Community Colleges and Global Counterpart institutions is a contributing factor to this change.

Two theoretical perspectives explain the extent to which open access is linked to socioeconomic mobility gains in Community Colleges and Global Counterparts (Raby 2000). Stratification perspectives claim that different institutional types other than universities perpetrate an already stratified system which mirrors existing social class inequities. Social mobility perspectives allege that access to higher education leads to enhanced social and occupational mobility and societal equity.

Open Access as Way to Maintain Inequities and Societal Stratification

Community Colleges and Global Counterparts are depicted as a sorting mechanism that directs nontraditional students to educational experiences that are not equal in prestige to those offered by universities (Marginson 2016), direct students into jobs that are of lower status (Shavit et al. 2007) and whose vocational mission channels students into – un- or underemployment (Brint and Karabel 1989) or “cooling out” which truncates graduation (Clark 1960). The stratification of institutions “disadvantage those whom the Community College model should serve” (Strydom and Lategan 1998, p. 98) and helps to maintain societal inequalities.

Limited Access. Open access is the grounding principle for admitting a large number of students without preselection. Yet, competition for limited spaces results in creating prerequisites that channel underprepared students into a spiral of remedial development courses, or in raising tuition costs, that while comparatively low, are still out of reach for the poorest students.

Lack of Completion. Open access allows entrance to students with a range of abilities. Some students lack the academic preparation to succeed, others lack the social capital to know how to achieve their goals, and still others are purposefully tracked into low level programs which have limited levels of progression. The low rates of completion are examined in the United Kingdom (Frumkin and Koutsoubou 2013) and in Hong Kong, where transfer rates are low (Postiglione and Kwok 2015).

Low Budget and Weak Infrastructure. Ishumi’s (1998) prediction that “wherever short-cycle colleges are found, financing is the primary dilemma” (p. 163) remains true today. Community Colleges and Global Counterparts receive a small share of national higher education funding (Jephocte 2011) and low budgets impact faculty salary, student-faculty ratio, student- support services, and facilities maintenance, which affect student achievement (Wang and Seggie 2013).

Low Status. Community Colleges and Global Counterparts are labeled by some governments, employers, and academics as “lesser-than” institutions. Even some literature labels them by what they are not, especially, in terms of not being a university (Kintzer 1998; Kyvik and Skodvin 2001; De Wit et al. 2015). Low status is compounded by location in rural or low-income areas (Aypay 2015). Graduates are perceived to be less competitive than those who attend 4-year universities which impacts job attainment and supports a hierarchy in which elite students choose universities while lower-ability and lower-economic students choose Community Colleges and Global Counterparts (Davidovitch and Iram 2009). In turn, these institutions are cast as a “second chance” (Cohen 1995) or labeled the “Cinderella sector” (Rushbrook 2010). The dichotomy is seen in North Cyprus where Turkish Cypriot students see these institutions as a “Cinderella sector” while Turkish mainlanders view the same institution as a choice of last resort (Kusch et al. 2009).

Un- and Underemployment. There is no guarantee that graduates of Community Colleges and Global Counterparts will be employed, that jobs will be commensurate with a level of study achieved, and that these jobs will result in social mobility. Studies link low status to un- and underemployment in Hong Kong (Postiglione and Kwok 2015) and in United Arab Emirates (Drummond and Hartley 2015).

Institutional Conversions. In response to low status, many Community Colleges and Global Counterparts have transformed into a variation of a University College. While this process is not new (Wilson 2009), the magnitude in which conversions are occurring is today noteworthy and is seen in Vietnam (Oliver and Engel 2015), in Finland (Skolnik 2016), and with the recent rebranding of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges as Colleges and Institutes Canada (Colleges and Institutes Canada 2015).

Open Access as a Link to Opportunity and Societal Mobility

Many publications maintain a philosophical belief that higher education results in better jobs, higher income, and social mobility (OECD 2015b). Research shows that this type of success does happen under certain circumstances and are related to (a) what type of education offered (technical or vocational, personal development, professional, or academic), (b) the kind of student targeted, (c) the relationship of the type of education to the college’s mission, and (d) what students actually do with this education (i.e., transfer to a university, work or drop out) (Raby and Valeau 2009).

Access. Open access does expand student diversity (Ayalon and Yogev 2006) into higher education as well as access for underprivileged students such as youth in Venezuela (Castro and Garcia 2003), nontraditional students in Poland and Canada (Butler et al. 2008) and is a reason for why students choose to attend Vietnam Community Colleges (Epperson 2010).

Local Geographic Locations. Location in remote, rural, or urban poor areas around the world increase accessibility. It is the physical placement close to home that is a noted element for students choosing to attend Canadian CÉGEPS (Bègin-Caouette 2013), and Japanese Jr. Colleges (Anazi and Paik 2012). Curricular development intersects with local need such as Taiwan grassroots social action curriculum (Chen and Wang 2009) and Nunavut Arctic Community College (Canada) workforce sustainability curriculum (Gaviria 2012).

Nontraditional students. Open access for nontraditional students has been demonstrated as a way in which “Community College can redress inequalities” (Ural 1998, p. 1999) by serving students who are older, have nontraditional entry qualifications, work full time, have family commitments, come from low income and minority populations and are often first-generation students. Open access has positive outcomes in Wales Further Education that attract lower-income women ages 24–40 who were initially disengaged from learning and then given an opportunity to reenter higher education (Jephocte 2011), in Brazil for lower-income students (Castro and Garcia 2003), and in Europe where there is a growth in participation by women, ethnic minorities and immigrants, and to some extent those in the working class. This, despite existing external and internal barriers, there is success of these groups towards completion (Schofield and Dismore 2010).

Jobs. Literature shows that for those who have taken some postsecondary courses but have not graduated can still gain individual benefits that include wage increases, improvement of job prospects, and improved physical and mental health (Chen 2009; Mullin 2012). Research documents a gain in jobs for women in Japan (Anazi and Paik 2012), and higher wage earnings in Australia (Herault et al. 2012). Studies show that graduates get jobs at a rate higher than nongraduates from Tunisia Higher Institutes of Technology Studies (Shumaker 2013), from Denmark Further Education Colleges (Shapiro 2015), from Haiti Bishop Tharp Business and Technical Institute (BTI) (Connell 2013), and from Malaysian Community Colleges (Sun Daily, August 31, 2016). Many authors writing from other countries acknowledge stratification as an inherent component of society which is being specifically addressed by the existence of reforms that promote access. In this context, any job is better than unemployment, any education allows an ability to translate into social mobility, no matter how small the impact. Concurrently, nonparticipation in higher education can lead to downward mobility (Panwar 2013; Marginson 2016).

Educational Borrowing

Through globalization, similar policies, ideals, and programs transverse from country to country aided by colonialization, transnational corporations, technological changes, nongovernmental organizations, and student and scholar mobility. Patterns show how sparks of interest contain appeal and applicability that transcend geographic space. Change readily occurs when new options become the easier alternative to reform. Educational borrowing is reshaping the landscape of higher education (Shahjahan and Kezar 2013, p. 20; Lee 2014). As such, Steiner-Khamsi and Quist (2000) suggest that the elements of discussion need not be on “what was borrowed” but rather on “why” the transnational borrowing occurred. Two patterns emerge when examining the “why” in educational borrowing. In the first, institutions seek out others through student and staff mobility and via collaborative projects. In the second, outreach from donors, often from the United States, Canada, and Australia to other countries for either neoliberalism or humanitarianism purposes, defines and facilitates collaborative projects. In both patterns, the “why” for Community Colleges and Global Counterparts remains the need to educate students postcompulsory schooling and to outreach those who are not served by traditional universities.

Many maintain that higher education flows are unidirectional in that “there is only one common academic model worldwide” (Altbach 2011, p. 16) and “with few exceptions, knowledge and institutional patterns are transferred from the major industrialized nations to the Third World – or even to more peripheral industrial countries – with very little traffic in the other direction” (Altbach 2011, p. 19). Similarly, the Community Colleges and Global Counterparts sector has roots that came from the nineteenth-century Scandinavian Folk High School that introduced localized nonformal adult education, the German Volkhochschulen and Fachhochschulen that formalized postsecondary, preuniversity institutions and pioneered open access policies for nontraditional students later and the European Polytechnic and Institutes of Technology which offered alternatives to university academic programs. Later, British and Australian Further Education added components of professional education, Canadian and US Junior/Community Colleges added multiple missions within the same institution along with open access supported by low tuition and European Applied Sectors of Higher Education emphasized job and career training for students with a wide variety of educational backgrounds (Raby and Valeau 2013). The unidirectional flows are evident in educational borrowing patterns.

Educational Borrowing Initiated by Local Institutions

Collaborative projects stemming from an initial site visit facilitate educational borrowing. In some contexts, it is the centralized government that develops policy to build a new higher education sector. In other contexts, local educators, ministry representatives, nonprofit organizations, Fulbright scholars, and local entrepreneurs are the impetus for establishing educational reform through collaborative programs (Raby and Valeau 2013). Recent examples include the Brazil Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES program (WFCP 2016) and a collaborative between Universidad Autonoma de Occidente, Cali, Colombia, and Arizona Community Colleges to build joint first nation projects (Elsner and Sanchez 2015). Often when the local reaches out externally, reform efforts are often based on the belief that adopting the Community College model will benefit the economy through a stronger and more diverse workforce (Kotamraju 2014; Hargreaves 2012).

Educational Borrowing Initiated by Donor Institutions

Educational borrowing emerges as a result of a planned transfer of policy and structure initiated by donor institutions and associations (Raby 2000). There are two, not necessarily contradictory rationales that govern this transference. For some, educational borrowing is a result of humanitarian aid to promote socioeconomic reform. For others, it is a direct result of revenue-generating policies aimed at making a profit. A common stereotype is that all educational borrowing originated with the United States. Yet, literature shows that purposeful transfer stems from many countries. The Canadian International Development Agency sponsored collaborations in over 60 countries (ACCC 2016). Flows are also seen from French technical institutes to institutions in Iran, Mexico, Senegal, and Venezuela, from German technical colleges to institutions in South Africa, India, and Thailand (Barabasch et al. 2009), from Netherlands Upper Secondary Vocational Education to institutions in East Asia and the Middle East, from Japanese International Cooperation Agency to South African colleges (WFCP 2008), from Australian TAFE colleges to institutions throughout Asia (Barnaart 2015), and through the Caribbean Community Regulations and the Caribbean CAPE Degree (Morris 2012). Wright (2000) concludes that Community College is not an American “thing” anymore.

Humanitarian Rationale. Much of donor directed educational borrowing uses a humanitarian focus which views aid as a means to create societal change to provide opportunities for the disenfranchised. Contextually, Community College international development aims to build human capacity through education which in turn strengthens democracy and the socioeconomic future of world citizens (Elsner et al. 2008). This thinking is in alignment with the World Bank (2009) report that neglecting tertiary education could seriously jeopardize longer-term socioeconomic growth and hinder progress of the Millennium Development Goals which require tertiary-level training to implement. Current examples include developing the “college of the people” in the Dominican Republic (Halder 2015), and adding programs that fashion a US model in Yemen (Alsohybe 2015) and in Tunisia (Hagedorn and Mezghani 2013).

Revenue-Generating Rationale. Many international development projects include market-oriented policies in which the donor institution receives payment for their expertise in training, curriculum delivery, and management style (Schugurensky and Higgins 1996; Quint-Rapoport 2006) as well as in projects funded for the specific creation of Community Colleges (World Bank 2016; Australian Agency for International Development 2016). In 2013, 10 of 54 US HED (Higher Education for Development) funded partnerships involved Community Colleges (Connell 2013). Revenue earning was a driving force behind the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAIT Polytechnic) revenue generating, energy training program (Nixon 2011), and a combination of profit generation and humanitarian aid continues to support a number of collaborations throughout the world (Whissemore 2013). The “branch campus” is another example of blended humanitarian and privatization from the first American College in Singapore (1988) and Los Angeles-Tokyo Community College (1996) (Yamano and Hawkins 1996) to current campuses that exist throughout the world and include curriculum sharing, faculty training, and infrastructure building (Li 2010; Hartenstine 2013).

Moving Forward

A literature review of the Community College and Global Counterpart sector shows that comparative study has been a focus of scholars and practitioners for a half-century and began before technology allowed for easy travel and access of communication. By 1996, with increased communication and mobility, a more defined field of academic study emerged guided by an increase in the number of publications that were written by scholars from other countries about their own institutional constructs. Contributions by non-US authors reinforce as well as challenge the branding of US Community Colleges as a point of emulation and in so doing helped to define a context for one example of the politics of educational borrowing. When examined as a composite, publications show how shared commonalties exist in diverse institutions.

The existence of Community Colleges and Global Counterparts continue to impact social change at global and local levels. Students, in large numbers, enroll because the opportunity exists and sometimes because it is the only opportunity that exists. The process of introducing a Community College or Global Counterpart into a society results in increased access for nontraditional students, and at some level, opportunities for jobs and career/personal advancement. This is illustrated in Target 4.3 of the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) that by “2030, countries should provide equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and higher education, including university” (UNESCO 2017). Global links are cultivated by global mobility, sharing of curriculum, and imitation of institutional forms. These relationships are dynamic and establish bonds between individuals on campus, the local neighborhood, and the global community.

Many of the theories that we introduced in our 2009 volume to explain the proliferation of institutions in this sector remain valid today in 2017. Also similar is the continued lack of budget, power, and prestige given to these institutions largely due to their physical location, their curriculum, and their open access for nontraditional students. Moreover, in a world obsessed with global rankings and world-class universities, Community Colleges and Global Counterparts are not only outside these connections but represent institutions that are not even acknowledged as possible players in the field. This includes the lack of support academically for research on these institutions effectiveness in meeting the needs of students. Even the names by which these institutions are referred lack continuity and validation.

Although numerous scholars from throughout the world contributed to the 2009 volume and to this Handbook, few international associations include these institutions in their focus. These institutions provide foundation for social equalization in contexts where none previously existed, even in the poorest nations, they provide new opportunities and at a great or even minimal level, represent the opportunity for change. We believe these are new and extended voices and through our effort to date assert a bold statement which declares that they need not only be heard but recognized as part of the higher educational landscape. In that context, more research by universities and associations is needed to discover new strategies for change and for addressing challenges that hampers these institutions from having a greater impact on the constituencies they serve.

The various chapters in this book illustrate the diversity of Community Colleges and Global Counterparts throughout the world and continues the dialogue related to research and change. Resulting changes to access, enrollment numbers, and facilitation of socioeconomic mobility sustains the image of these institutions as symbols of equity and opportunity. As such, in an era of expanded educational reform for higher education, the role of the Community College or Global Counterpart is pivotal for a society whose varied workforce is ever demanding and changing.

References

  1. ACIIE/Stanley Foundation. 1994. Airlie I retreat “building the global community”: The next step. Muscatine: Stanley Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, Don, and David T. Gamage. 2008. A study of leadership effectiveness in a large VET institution in Australia. International Journal of Educational Management 22(3): 214–228.Google Scholar
  3. Al-Kafaàt Foundation. 2012. English language program broadens education advancement opportunities. Report on Nassau Community College (NCC) in New York and Al-Kafaàt Foundation Vocational Technical School in Lebanon. http://www.hedprogram.org/impact/success/2012-SS-Nassau-AlKafaat.cfm
  4. Alsohybe, Nabeel. 2015. Yemen’s community college system. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 243–251. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  5. Altbach, Philip G. 2011. Patterns of higher education development. In American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political and economic challenges, ed. Philip G. Altbach, Patricia J. Gumport, and Robert O. Berdahl. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Anazi, Shinobu, and Chie Matsuzawa Paik. 2012. Factors influencing Japanese women to choose two-year colleges in Japan. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 36(8): 614–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, D. 2008. Productivism, vocational and professional education, and the ecological question. Vocations and Learning 1(1): 105–129. Dondrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Association of Canadian Community Colleges (ACCC). 2016. Canadian International development agency projects. www.accc.ca/english/about/strat_focus06-07.htm
  9. Australian Agency for International Development. 2016. AusAID’s aid program. http://dfat.gov.au/aid/pages/australias-aid-program.aspx
  10. Ayalon, Hanna, and Abraham Yogev. 2006. Stratification and diversity in the expanded system of higher education in Israel. Higher Education Policy. 19(2): 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Aypay, Ahmet. 2015. The vocational and technical schools of higher education in Turkey. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, Revised Edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 243–251. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Barabasch, Antje, Sui Huang, and Robert Lawson. 2009. Planned policy transfer: The impact of the German model on Chinese vocational education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 39(1): 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Barnaart, Antoine. 2015. Australia’s vocational education and training sector – an update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 330–333. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Bègin-Caouette, Olivier. 2013. Think locally, act globally: Comparing urban, suburban, and rural colleges’ internationalization: The case of the CÉGEPS. College Quarterly 16(4): 9–19.Google Scholar
  15. Brawer, Florence B. 1996. Community colleges international. ERIC Digest. L.A., CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, University of California, Los Angeles. ERIC document reproduction services no. #d 393–504.Google Scholar
  16. Brint, Steven, and Jerome Karabel. 1989. The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of opportunity in America, 1990–1985. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Burgos-Sasscer, Ruth and David Collins. 1996. Reform and quality assurance in British and American higher education. In Dimensions of the community college: International and inter/multicultural perspectives, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Norma Tarrow, 159–175. Garland Studies in Higher Education, Volume 6, Vol. 1075. New York: Garland Pub., Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Butler, Norman L., Catherine Smith, Barry Davidson, Tyrone Tanner, William Allan Kritsonis. 2008. Polish post-secondary vocational schools vs. Canadian community colleges: A comparison of information accessibility and accountability submission. Lamar University Electronic Journal of Student Research (ED502177). http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED502177.pdf
  19. Carter, Miriam J., DeRionne Pollard, and Sanjoy Rai. 2014. India and US community colleges. In Global opportunities and challenges for higher education leaders: Briefs on key theme, ed. Laura E. Rumbley, Robin Matross Helms, Patti McGill Peterson, and Philip G. Altbach, 169–172. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Castro, Claudiode Moura, and Norma M. Garcia, eds. 2003. Community colleges: A model for Latin America? Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank/Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Cerych, L. 1993. The return to Europe: Issues in post-community higher education. In Higher learning in America: 1980–2000, ed. A. Levine, 1–30. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chen, Dandan. 2009. Vocational schooling, labor market outcomes, and college entry. Policy research working paper. No. WPS 4814. Washington, DC: The World Bank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2009/01/10164014/vocational-schooling-labor-market-outcomes-college-entry
  23. Chen, Amy Shi-min, and Wei-ni Wang. 2009. From education to grassroots learning: Towards a civil society through community colleges in Taiwan. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Edward J. Valeau, 51–71. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clark, Burton R. 1960. The “cooling-out” function in higher education. American Journal of Sociology 65: 569–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen, Arthur. 1995. Accommodating post-compulsory education seekers around the world. Community College Review 21 (2): 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Connell, Christopher. 2013. Local goes global. International Educator (1059–4221), 22(2): 32–42, 11p A.Google Scholar
  27. Davidovitch, Nitza, and Yaacov Iram. 2009. College-University dialogue: From confrontation to cooperation. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Edward J. Valeau, 373–401. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. De Wit, Hans, Miri Yemini, and Randall Martin. 2015. Internationalization strategies and policies in second-tier higher education institutions. In The European higher education area, 127–143. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dennison, John D., and P. Gallagher. 1986. Canada’s community colleges: A critical analysis. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dennison, John D., and John S. Levin. 1989. Canada’s colleges in the 1980s: Responsiveness and renewal. Toronto: Association of Canadian Community Colleges.Google Scholar
  31. Dougherty, Kevin J., and Barbara K. Townsend. 2006. Community college missions: A theoretical and historical perspective. In New directions for community colleges, 5–13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Drummond, Mark, and Philip Hartley. 2015. Higher colleges of technology in the United Arab Emirates: An update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 213–217. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  33. Elsner, Paul, and Roberto Navarro Sanchez. 2015. Colombia’s CERES program. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 81–83. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Elsner, Paul A., George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, eds. 2008. Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs. Washington, DC: Community College Press/American Association of Community Colleges.Google Scholar
  35. Epperson, Cynthia K. 2010. An analysis of the community college concept in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Missouri, St. Louis.Google Scholar
  36. Frumkin, Lara A., and Maria Koutsoubou. 2013. Exploratory investigation of drivers of attainment in ethnic minority adult leaders. Journal of Further and Higher Education 37(2): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gaviria, Patriciia. 2012. Indigenous rights and advanced capitalism in community colleges: The case of Nunavut Arcitc College. In Community colleges worldwide: Investigating the global phenomenon, ed. Alexander W. Wiseman, Audree Chase-Mayoral, Thomas Janis, and Anuradha Sachdev, 99–129. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gueye, Barrel, and Ibra Sene. 2009. A critical approach of the community college model in the global order: The College Universitaire Régional of Bambey (Senegal) as a case study. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Edward J. Valeau, 235–253. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hagedorn, Linda Serra, and Wafa Thabet Mezghani. 2013. Bringing community colleges to Tunisia. In The community college in a global context. New directions for community colleges, ed. Tod Treat and Linda Serra Hagedorn, vol. 161, 100–113. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  40. Halder, John. 2015. Three styles of community college development: India, the Dominican Republic and Georgia – an update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 361–364. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  41. Hargreaves, David. 2012. A self-improving school system in international context. Nottingham: National College for Teaching and School Leadership. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-self-improving-school-system-in-international-context.Google Scholar
  42. Hartenstine, Mary Beth. 2013. The internationalized community college serves ‘global’ stakeholders. In Institute for International Education: The U.S. community college model: Potential for applications in India, 8–14. http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/US-Community-College-Model-Potential-For-Applications-In-India
  43. Herault, Nicolas, Rezida Zakirova, and Hielke Buddelmeyer. 2012. National centre for vocational education research (NCVER). Melbourne: Australian Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  44. Hui, Sammy King Fai. 2012. Cultural literacy: How hidden is it in the Hong Kong professional and vocational education (PVE) curriculum? Journal of Further and Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.706802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). 1997. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. http://www.unesco.org/education/information/nfsunesco/doc/isced_1997.htm
  46. International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). 2011. http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf
  47. Ishumi, Abel G.M. 1998. Vocational training as an educational and development strategy: Conceptual and practical issues. International Journal of Educational Development. 83: 163–174.Google Scholar
  48. Jephocte, Martin. 2011. The unintended consequences of funding policies on student achievement at colleges of further education in Wales and England. In Increasing effectiveness of the community college financial model: A global perspective for the global economy, ed. Stewart Sutin, Daniel Derrico, Edward Valeau, and Rosalind Latiner Raby. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Jephocte, Martin, and Rosalind Latiner Raby. 2012. A comparative view of colleges of further education (UK) and community colleges (US): Maintaining access in an era of financial constraint. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 17(3): 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kintzer, Federick. 1998. Community colleges go international: Short-cycle education around the world. Leadership Abstracts World Wide Web Edition 11(6): 1–4.Google Scholar
  51. Kotamraju, Pradeep. 2014. The Indian vocational education and training (VET) system: Status, challenges, and options. Community College Journal of Research and Practice: Special Issue: Community Colleges and Their Internationalization Efforts, ed Pamela Eddy, 38(8), 740–747.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.897085.
  52. Kusch, Jim, Eriola Pema, Gulen Onurkan, and Liliya Akhmadeeva. 2009. The community college at the crossroads. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Edward J. Valeau, 417–437. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kyvik, Svein and Skodvin, Ole-Jacob. 2001. Research in the non-university higher education sector – tensions and dilemmas (ERIC: ED456715).Google Scholar
  54. Lee, Jack T. 2014. Education hubs in the making: Policy rationales and international relations. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education. Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  55. Levin, John S. 2001. Globalizing the community college: Strategies for change in the twenty-first century. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levin, John S., Aida Aliyeva, and Laurencia Walker. 2016. From community college to university: Institutionalization and neoliberalism in British Columbia and Alberta. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 46(2): 165–180.Google Scholar
  57. Li, Sophia. 2010. Chiles-first community college. Chronicle of Higher Education, November 9. http://chronicle.com/article/Chiles-First-Community/125272/?sid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=en
  58. Marginson, Simon. 2016. The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education 71(6): 413–434.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0016-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Morris, Camille. 2012. Community college model in Anglophone Caribbean: Relevance and future. Paper presented at the Comparative and International Education Society (CIES) national conference, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Apr 22–27.Google Scholar
  60. Mullin, Christopher M. 2012. Why access matters: The community college student body (policy brief 2012-01PBL). Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.Google Scholar
  61. Nixon, Gordon. 2011. Revenue generation through training a global energy workforce. In Increasing effectiveness of the Community college financial model: A global perspective for the global economy, ed. Stewart Sutin, Daniel Derrico, Edward Valeau, and Rosalind Latiner Raby, 225–241. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oliver, Diane E., and Sandra Engel. 2015. Community college development in Vietnam: A global and local dialectic – an update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 239–243. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  63. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2015a. Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris. http://www.oced.org/document/52/0,3343,e_2649_39263238_45897844_1_1_1_1_1.00.html, http://download.ei-ie.org/Docs/WebDepot/EaG2015_EN.pdf
  64. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2015b. Skills beyond school synthesis report. http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/skills-beyond-schools-synthesis-report.htm
  65. Panwar, B.S. 2013. Applying the U.S. community college model to India: Indian perspectives on the Indian community college system: Developing vocational education in India. In Institute for International Education (IIE): The U.S. community college model: Potential for applications in India, 14–17. http://www.iie.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Publications-and-Reports/IIE-Bookstore/US-Community-College-Model-Potential-For-Applications-In-India
  66. Parry, Gareth. 2009. Higher education, further education and the English experiment. Higher Education Quarterly 63: 322–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Postiglione, Gerard A., and Steven Sai Kit Kwok. 2015. Recent developments of the associate degree/community college movement in Hong Kon – an update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 146–151. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  68. Quint-Rapoport, Mia. 2006. The NGO-ization of community colleges: One (more) manifestation of globalization. College Quarterly: 9(1): 1–12 (EJ835398).Google Scholar
  69. Raby, Rosalind Latiner. 2000. Globalization of the community college model: Paradox of the local and the global. In Globalization and education: Integration and contestation across cultures, ed. Nelly P. Stromquist and Karen Monkman. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  70. Raby, Rosalind Latiner. 2010. Patterns of internationalization in the field: A review of the 2009 CER bibliography. Comparative Education Review 53(3): 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raby, Rosalind Latiner and Norma Tarrow (eds). 1996. Dimensions of the community college: International and inter/multicultural perspectives. Garland Studies in Higher Education Volume 6, Vol. 1075. New York: Garland Pub., Inc.Google Scholar
  72. Raby, Rosalind Latiner, and Edward Valeau, eds. 2009. Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  73. Raby, Rosalind Latiner, and Edward Valeau. 2012. Educational borrowing and the emergence of community college global counterparts (Manuscript # M1701). In Community colleges worldwide: Investigating the global phenomenon, International perspectives on education and society series, ed. Alexander W. Wiseman, Audree Chase-Mayoral, Thomas Janis, and Anuradha Sachdev, vol. 17, 19–26. London: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raby, Rosalind Latiner, and Edward J. Valeau. 2013. Community college global counterparts: Historical contexts. Research in Comparative and International Education 8(2): 110–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Raby, Rosalind Latiner, Janice Nahra Friedel, and Edward Valeau. 2016. A discussion on community colleges and global counterparts completion policies. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 40(11): 961–964.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1108253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rushbrook, Peter. 2010. Bringing Cinderella to the ball: Constructing a federal system of technical and further education in Australia, 1971–1975. Journal of Educational Administration and History 42(1): 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schofield, C., and H. Dismore. 2010. Predictors of retention and achievement of higher education students within a further education context. Journal of Further and Higher Education 34(2): 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schugurensky, Daniel and Kathy Higgins. 1996. From aid to trade: New trends in international education in Canada. In Dimensions of the community college: International and inter/multicultural perspectives, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Norma Tarrow. Garland Studies in Higher Education Volume 6 Vol. 1075. New York: Garland Pub., Inc.Google Scholar
  79. Scott, Peter. 2010. International education: Alternatives to the market. International Higher Education 61(1): 1–2.Google Scholar
  80. Shahjahan, Riyad A. and Adrianna J. Kezar. 2013. Beyond the “National Container”: Addressing methodological nationalism in higher education research. Educational Reviewer. 42(20).  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shapiro, Hanne. 2015. Further education in Denmark – an update. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 251–263. Prescott, AZ: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  82. Shavit, Yossi, Richard Arum, and Adam Gamoran, eds. 2007. Stratification in higher education: A comparative study. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Shumaker, John W. 2013. U.S. community colleges and a response to the Arab Spring. In The community college in a global context. New directions for community colleges, ed. Tod Treat and Linda Serra Hagedorn, vol. 161. Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Google Scholar
  84. Skolnik, Michael. 2016. What does the decline in the international ranking of the United States in educational attainment mean for community colleges? Community College Journal of Research and Practice 40(4): 310–326.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1113148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Song, Yingquan, and Gerard Postilglione. 2011. The expensive dream: financing higher vocational colleges in China. In Increasing effectiveness of the community college financial model: A global perspective for the global economy, ed. Stewart Sutin, Dan Derrico, Rosalind Latiner Raby, and Edward J. Valeau. New York: Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  86. Steiner-Khamsi, Gita, and Hubert O. Quist. 2000. The politics of educational borrowing: Re-opening the case of Achimota of British Ghana. Comparative Education Review 44(3): 272–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Strydom, Ah. Kalie, and Laetus O.K. Lategan, eds. 1998. Introducing community colleges to South Africa. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State Publications.Google Scholar
  88. Sun Daily Staff, August 31, 2016. Malaysia higher education minister targets new community colleges. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/1926930
  89. Teichler, Ulrich. 2004. The changing debate on internationalisation of higher education. Higher Education. 48(1): 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tierney, William G. 2012. Creativity and organizational culture. In The organization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era, ed. M.N. Bastedo, 160–180. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Treat, Tod, and Linda Serra Hagedorn. 2013. The community college in a global context. New directions for community colleges. Vol. 161. Hoboken: Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Google Scholar
  92. Trow, Martin. 1973. Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Berkeley: McGraw-Hill. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED091983.pdf
  93. UNESCO. 2017. Policy paper 30: Six ways to ensure higher education leaves no one behind. Global education monitoring report. Paris: UNESCO. www.unesco.org/gemreport
  94. Ural, Ipek. 1998. International community college models: A South African perspective. In Introducing community colleges to South Africa, ed. A.H. Strydom and L.O.K. Lategan, 106–119. Bloemfontein: University of the Free State Publications.Google Scholar
  95. Von Chrismar, Marcelo, Cristobal Silva, Mary Crabbe Gershwin, Shelley L. Wood, and Philip Cary. 2015. The Chilean experience in technical and further education: Public policies and private providers. In Global development of community colleges, technical colleges, and further education programs, revised edition, ed. Paul A. Elsener, George R. Boggs, and Judith T. Irwin, 69–81. Prescott: Paul Elsner & Associates, Los Vientos, Inc.Google Scholar
  96. Wang, Wei-ni, and Fatma Nevra Seggie. 2013. Different missions of community college systems in two different countries: Community education in Taiwan versus vocational education in Turkey. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 37(1): 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Whissemore, Tabitha. 2013. Bringing the community college mission abroad. Community College Times, November 6. http://www.communitycollegetimes.com/Pages/Campus-Issues/Bringing-the-community-college-mission-abroad.aspx
  98. Wilson, David. 2009. Reverse transfer constraints upon planning post-secondary programmes in Ontario, Canada. In Community college models: Globalization and higher education reform, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Edward J. Valeau, 401–417. Dordrecth: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Wiseman, Alexander W., Audree Chase-Mayoral, Thomas Janis, and Anuradha Sachdev. 2012. Community colleges: Where are they (not?). In Community colleges worldwide: Investigating the global phenomenon, ed. Alexander W. Wiseman, Audree Chase-Mayoral, Thomas Janis, and Anuradha Sachdev, 3–19. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Wong, Yi-Lee. 2015. Community college policy in Hong Kong: Intention, practices, and consequence. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 39(8): 754–771.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.880164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. World Bank. 2003. Constructing knowledge economies: New challenges for tertiary education. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  102. World Bank. 2009. Accelerating catch-up: Tertiary education for growth in sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  103. World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics (WFCP). 2008. Japanese International Cooperation Agency to South African colleges. www.wfcp.org/worldcongress/2008
  104. World Federation of Colleges and Polytechnics (WFCP). 2016. Brazil Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES program. http://www.wfcp.org/about-us-biz-plan.pdf
  105. Wright, S.W. 2000. Community colleges: Not just an American thing anymore. Black Issues in Higher Education 17(13): 46–53.Google Scholar
  106. Yamada, Shoko. 2015. The constituent elements of comparative education in Japan: A comparison with North America. Comparative Education Review. 59(2): 234–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Yamano, Tina and John N. Hawkins. 1996. Assessing the relevance of American community college models in Japan. In Dimensions of the community college: International and inter/multicultural perspectives, ed. Rosalind Latiner Raby and Norma Tarrow, 259–273. Garland Studies in Higher Education Volume 6, Vol. 1075, New York: Garland Pub., Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Leadership and Policy Studies Department, Michael E. Eisner College of EducationCalifornia State UniversityNorthridgeUSA
  2. 2.California Colleges for International EducationChatsworthUSA
  3. 3.University of Phoenix, Southern California CampusCosta MesaUSA
  4. 4.Hartnell Community College DistrictSalinasUSA
  5. 5.The ELS GroupMontereyUSA

Personalised recommendations