TY - JOUR
T1 - Advancing an equity agenda at the community college in an age of privatization, performance accountability, and marketization
AU - Harbour, Clifford P.
AU - Jaquette, Ozan
N1 - Funding Information:
Before 1992, funding and policymaking for England’s further education colleges was similar to the funding system and policymaking processes used by California community colleges (Jaquette, 2005). English colleges were funded through a combination of local property taxes and block grants from the national government to local education districts. Districts were responsible for employing faculty and staff, curriculum design, financial administration, and allocation of funds to individual colleges (McLure, 2000).
Funding Information:
State funding is then allocated to local districts in block grants. Local governing boards are responsible for allocating state and local funding to district community colleges. These funds are used by district colleges to meet their responsibility for curriculum development, employment of full-time and part-time personnel, delivery of instructional programs, and implementation of state regulations. Funding systems like California’s do offer relative budget stability and institutional autonomy; however, the financial incentives offered through enrollment and block-grant funding undermine the equity agenda. Enrollment and block-grant funding are indiscriminate and provide equal funding for all students. They do not acknowledge that disadvantaged students generally require more support to become successful. Similarly, when programs are funded at the same rate, there is no state financial incentive to develop and maintain costly programs such as nursing (Murphy, 2004).
Funding Information:
We understand that our proposal for Comprehensive Purpose Funding represents a significant shift in contemporary thinking about how community colleges should be funded by the state. Such a funding system would probably make many community college practitioners uneasy. However, when equity funding is complemented by the budget stability provided by enrollment funding, we believe this targeted market incentive would be acceptable to many senior campus leaders. Our belief is supported by the widespread endorsement of Pell grants among community college practitioners in the United States. It is also supported by Jaquette’s (2006) finding of positive support among senior campus leaders for the per-pupil funding system used in England’s further education institutions. Indeed, when Jaquette inquired about the English voucher system, one further education college president stated, “What the government has been doing has been absolutely in line with what we as an institution believe should be happening to support the social inclusion and widening participation agendas’’ (2006, p. 14).
Copyright:
Copyright 2007 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - In this article we introduce and explain a funding framework for advancing an equity agenda at the community college. The need for the framework is premised on (a) Dowd's observation that the traditional community college commitment to student access no longer suffices as an adequate strategy to achieve greater equity in society and (b) the recognition that community colleges are becoming more entrepreneurial as a result of challenges posed by privatization, state performance accountability systems, and marketization. A new approach to advancing equity is needed in this environment. We propose a funding framework that reflects lessons learned from a review of funding systems used in English further education systems and community college systems in Colorado and California.
AB - In this article we introduce and explain a funding framework for advancing an equity agenda at the community college. The need for the framework is premised on (a) Dowd's observation that the traditional community college commitment to student access no longer suffices as an adequate strategy to achieve greater equity in society and (b) the recognition that community colleges are becoming more entrepreneurial as a result of challenges posed by privatization, state performance accountability systems, and marketization. A new approach to advancing equity is needed in this environment. We propose a funding framework that reflects lessons learned from a review of funding systems used in English further education systems and community college systems in Colorado and California.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34748852579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34748852579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/10665680701434650
DO - 10.1080/10665680701434650
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:34748852579
VL - 40
SP - 197
EP - 207
JO - Equity and Excellence in Education
JF - Equity and Excellence in Education
SN - 1066-5684
IS - 3
ER -