Long road to internationalisation in community colleges

The internationalisation of United States community colleges, like the universities of applied sciences and polytechnics in Europe, started in the 1950s, but in the 1990s it was incorporated into a strategic agenda. This was later than in research universities and liberal arts colleges in the US.

If we compare US community college international education today to that 25 years ago, we can see that much has changed and much has stayed the same. Two specific changes are notable.

The first change was the creation, by three organisations, of an advocacy platform to design policies and best practice to guide the field. The American Council on International Intercultural Education (ACIIE) hosted a series of conferences with the Stanley Foundation to define community college internationalisation.

Two consortia, California Colleges for International Education (CCIE) and Community Colleges for International Development (CCID), used advocacy to support programme-sharing opportunities.

As a result, international students, education abroad opportunities, internationalising the curriculum initiatives and international development programmes expanded in community colleges across the country.

Enhanced communication

The second change was active efforts to enhance communication between those working in community college international education. In 1998, an advocacy group for community colleges was recognised at NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

In 2000, the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors report began highlighting community college data and in 2001, a branch of SECUSSA (NAFSA Section on US Students Abroad), called SECUSSA-CC, provided a place for dialogue with community colleges.

In 2004, NAFSA Education Abroad Knowledge Community created the Community College Sub-Committee to advocate for community college education abroad. Finally, in 2006, the NAFSA Community College Institutional Interest Group was created.

Despite these changes, much stayed the same over the next decades. Community colleges have historically adopted one international programme at a time and there is little communication between different international programmes on any particular campus.

Today, comprehensive internationalisation continues to be implemented rarely, largely due to these historical patterns. Just as happened 25 years ago, there is still a constant struggle to gain visibility and acceptance from senior administration who oversee budget and annual priorities. Finally, little has changed to make the field more sustainable and professional.

What went well over the past 25 years

There have been many successes in community college internationalisation. First, there are more documented community colleges offering international education than ever before, with about 420 community colleges, about 36% of all community colleges, having documented international programmes.

Second, there is increased access for students to participate in international programmes due to the different programmes offered by individual campuses or through consortia efforts that allow students from one college to enrol on programmes offered by another.

Third, internationalisation serves the multiple missions of the community college, facilitating participation for all students and not just those who are looking to transfer to universities.

Fourth, fewer community colleges are eliminating international programming despite severe state funding issues and high turnover of senior administrators.

Fifth, there is significant research about community college internationalisation, much generated by those training for community college leadership positions.

Sixth, there is greater acknowledgment of the role of international education in community colleges and their global counterparts around the world, resulting in a range of collaborative projects between them. Finally, there is an increase in full-time dedicated positions for those leading international education.

Areas for improvement

There are five areas where the field can improve. First, there remains considerable variation in how international education is applied between community colleges. This results in some students gaining access to knowledge that others do not.

Second, internationalisation is still sustained by individuals who have an interest in internationalisation. This prevents sustainable policies on internationalisation as ‘interest’ ends when that individual moves up the ranks or to another college.

Third, there is insufficient communication between campus programmes, resulting in silos that isolate activities. This is often related to profit margins.

Fourth, there is inconsistent benchmarking of internationalisation efforts.

Finally, community college internationalisation is frequently part of a deficit narrative that demeans student interest and ability despite research showing that community college students attend a community college to better themselves and make adult and sound decisions to engage in college programmes to expand their knowledge. This includes participation in international programmes.

Conclusion

Any discussion about US community college internationalisation needs to acknowledge the uniqueness of the community college. The open access mission is supported by extremely low to free tuition that enables access to large numbers of lower income, first-generation adults and students of colour.

Specific curricula span both academic and career development pathways and have the potential to bring internationalisation to new student populations. Finally, the choice to internationalise is not based on competitive global rankings but on serving the colleges’ local geographic community.

International education has been part of community colleges’ offering since the 1950s. Multiple generations of community college leaders have argued that internationalisation is an inherent component of community colleges that facilitates student success and serves the needs of local communities, but despite support, internationalisation is still rarely a comprehensive and strategic focus.

Today’s students understand internationalisation. Many have travelled abroad themselves or know people who have travelled abroad to visit relatives or for leisure, or have travelled as part of military service and they view internationalisation as an educational experience that they want to be part of. International students deliberately choose to attend community colleges to take advantage of small classes, transfer programmes and extremely low costs.

Future changes should include ensuring holistic integration of internationalisation, eliminating student stereotypes that feed into a negative narrative and using caution when designating students as a desirable source of revenue, which goes against the open access mission.

Most of all, the predominant issue preventing US community college students from gaining international literacy skills is not a lack of student interest but a lack of institutionalisation that truncates access to programmatic options.

Rosalind Latiner Raby is a senior lecturer in the educational leadership and policy studies department at California State University, Northridge, and is the director of California Colleges for International Education (CCIE). She edited with Edward James Valeau the Handbook of Comparative Studies on Community Colleges and Global Counterparts, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Springer Publishers (2018). Email: rabyrl@aol.com.

Hans de Wit has issued a call to readers and contributors to University World News to send him their essays of between 800 and 1,200 words on what went well and what went wrong in internationalisation of higher education over the past 25 years. This is one of the essays he has received. He will select one essay to be published by University World News and at the end of 2019, will bring all these essays together in a book.