3.8 Article

Preservation of Community College Logic: Organizational Responses to State Policies and Funding Practices in Three States

期刊

COMMUNITY COLLEGE REVIEW
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 197-220

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0091552118758893

关键词

state policy; funding; institutional logic; community college values; neoliberalism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: With both policy pressures from state governments, including states' funding behaviors, and the logic of the institution deeply ingrained over decades, community colleges face considerable challenge in reconciling conflicting values and requirements. Yet, as organizations they adapt to survive, and outcomes of adaptation may lead to an alteration of mission and identity. The purpose of this field methods research investigation is to explore and explain three states' policies (California, Washington, and Hawai'i) and the variance in three community colleges' organizational responses to these policies in the period of 2000-2014. Method: Data include observations, policy documents, organizational documents, and interviews of administrators and faculty at three community colleges. Results: Findings indicate that the policies and practices of these three states pushed economic, political, and social agendas onto their respective community colleges and imposed liberal market ideals and businesslike behaviors on these institutions. Individual colleges responded to external pressures from the state both by compliance with state requirements and through actions to adjust to state funding reductions. However, in so doing, community colleges endeavored to adhere to the institutional logic of the community college, which in some cases resulted in a blending of logics, the logic of the community college and the logic of neoliberalism. Contributions: This investigation holds implications for community college scholarship and for policy makers: Individual state characteristics need to be taken into consideration in research on community colleges and for the design of education policies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据