America’s College Promise

Abstract

Purpose: America’s College Promise (ACP) is a legislative initiative introduced by President Obama to increase access to higher education, to build the economy, and to support his earlier American Graduation Initiative. This legislation has the potential to settle among the ranks of the most influential federal higher education aid and access legislation passed in the 20th century, and influence the next administration’s higher education agenda. The purpose of this article is to situate ACP in that historical hierarchy and position the initiative within the literature regarding federal policy directed toward student aid and access. Particular attention is given to federal policies relevant to community colleges and the dependence of this initiative on community colleges as this research may help multiple constituencies shape the direction of this policy as it unfolds, and offer a framework for implementation. Proposed model: Through historical analyses of federal policies, scholarly critiques, and public presidential speeches and the impact of these policies and documents on the community college specifically, scholars and practitioners are provided a work that places ACP in context and may offer a better understanding of how this policy may affect the institution, students, and business and industry partners. Conclusion: Considering these relationships and the potential impact of ACP, it is determined that this policy has the potential to have an equally profound impact on higher education to that of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 but warns of ideological influences on its execution.

Keywords

America’s College Promise American Graduation Initiative history policy

The American community college’s mission and purpose have evolved and responded to the needs of the nation and its citizens over the course of its now more than 100-year history. The community college has not only evolved and responded to changes in social and economic influences as an institution through a shifting mission and curricular adaptations, but it has been directed by federal policy to respond and make necessary, legislatively mandated changes to support the nation. Because the community college is often the only option for educational opportunities for many populations underserved by higher education more broadly, and it is a beacon of support for business and industry, many federal policies focus on two primary areas: access and economic development (e.g., Berube, 1991; Graham, 1984; Green, 2005; Levin, 2001; Posselt, 2009; St. John & Asker, 2003).

Federal policies focusing on access and economic development date to the late 19th century with the Morrill Acts but were not a focus of federal agendas or directed toward community colleges until the mid-20th century. Federal policies focused on community colleges as a means to grant access to more citizens and in return build the nation’s economy have had a profound impact on the function and purpose of the community college in the United States (Bragg & Durham, 2012; Palmadessa, 2014; Topper & Powers, 2013). This trend is only becoming more important to federal initiatives. In 2009, President Obama announced his intent to focus on higher education as a means to advance the nation’s economy through the American Graduation Initiative (AGI). Following this initiative is the more directly focused agenda item, America’s College Promise Act of 2015 (H.R. 2962, 2015), America’s College Promise (ACP), which not only supports access and economic development but calls on the community college most directly to help meet the goals of increasing the number of college graduates and educated workers—the combined intentions of AGI and ACP.

President Obama’s AGI and ACP are notable agenda items initiated by the administration with the potential to have a profound impact on the economy, institutions of higher education, and the public. The focus of this article is to place ACP in the context of the history of higher education policy specific to student access and economic development specific to community colleges. This focus aims to offer perspective as to where the legislative action fits into the current historical juncture in an age when higher education is called to support national success (Palmadessa, in press) and situate the initiative in the ranks of past, profound federal higher education policy initiatives that arguably had the same intent—provide access to higher education for more people in an attempt to support a growing and changing economy. Understanding how this legislative agenda fits into the historical context of federal policy may help multiple constituencies shape the direction of this policy as it unfolds, particularly given the current higher education agenda set forth by the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign (H. R. Clinton, 2016). Specifically, placing ACP in historical context offers policy makers a framework for implementation; provides scholars and practitioners reference points in history when federal policy has influenced the function, purpose, and goals of the institution; and offers guidance as to how policies such as ACP have the potential to affect not only the institutions but the students, business and industry partners, and the community college’s relationship within tertiary higher education and the communities they serve.

Setting the Precedent: Historical Overview of Federal Higher Education Policy

Higher education as a focus of federal legislation and attention was first noted with the Morrill Acts (1862, 1890) of the 19th century—acts that expanded the institution, and in doing so provided access to a greater proportion of the nation’s population. These acts built institutions and expanded programs that trained more citizens to contribute to the agricultural and technical needs of the nation (Sorber, 2013; Thelin, 2011). Shortly after, at the turn of the 20th century, higher education became a resource to support new demands for technology, particularly in the context of the World Wars. As a result of the abundance of technological advancement required over the course of both World Wars, higher education became a focus of the federal government as a means to advance the nation’s technology and weaponry. The servicemen and women who fought for their country, and the changing social and political climate that emerged during the Second World War, also influenced the government’s decision to turn to higher education in an effort to reward and reacclimate veterans of the war and shape a curriculum that would support the nation’s position as leader after the war (Gladieux, 1995; Palmadessa, in press; Thelin, 2011). The Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, known as the GI Bill of 1944, focused on giving servicemen and women assistance in reacclimating to civilian life including access to higher education, facilitated the use of higher education as this social and political tool, and initiated the greatest period of growth for higher education (Thelin, 2011).

This period of massive growth in higher education at the end of the Second World War caused President Truman to form a special commission on higher education. This commission was charged with determining how higher education needed to change, what it needed to succeed in meeting the needs of an increased and changing population of students, and the curricular demands of the new world order. The resulting report, Higher Education for American Democracy (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947), laid out a plan of curriculum, teaching, building, and facilities; focused on expanding community colleges specifically; and created financial plans for higher education in the United States. The Truman Commission Report specified that community colleges be expanded for two reasons: as a mechanism of equal opportunity and access and to diversify not just the options for students but the programs and content offerings available in higher education (President’s Commission on Higher Education, 1947). The GI Bill of 1944 and the resulting Truman Commission Report set the precedent for the federal government to have a role in assessing needs and contributing potential solutions to challenges facing one of the nation’s greatest social institutions, higher education (Hutcheson, 2007; Palmadessa, 2014; Reuben & Perkins, 2007; Schrum, 2007).

Supporting a population of citizens in attending higher education and providing a report to assess and offer solutions for challenges to higher education due to the massive influx of this specific population of war veteran students was met, overwhelmingly, without challenge or discontent from the academy (Hutcheson, 2007; Zook, 1947). Higher education expanded as a result of the GI Bill and as its importance as an institution in the United States shifted, a new relationship between the institution and the federal government was established (Palmadessa, 2014). In the late 1950s, however, this relationship was challenged as the federal government called upon higher education to save the nation’s position in an incredibly volatile period, the Cold War (Ayers & Palmadessa, 2015; Brint & Karabel, 1989; McCartan, 1983; Palmadessa, 2014). The successful launch of Sputnik in 1957 caused a period of unrest and uncertainty for the United States. It was uncertain whether or not the United States could contend with archrival the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR), and higher education was called to develop technology superior to that of the Russians. The resulting federal policy was the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) of 1958 that President Eisenhower, who preferred the federal government not intervene in issues related to education policy, supported in response to the national public outcry after Sputnik. As with the legislation in the 1940s, this act was not challenged; Congress supported NDEA of 1958 as it was viewed as a means to resolve a crisis and would ultimately benefit the nation as a whole (Berube, 1991).

Although higher education was part of federal agendas in the 1940s and 1950s as evidenced by the GI Bill of 1944 and the NDEA of 1958, it was not until the 1960 presidential campaign that education and higher education was debated in a presidential campaign (Graham, 1984). This focus on education in 1960 was bred out of the Civil Rights Movement, which called for equality and was reflected in education policy over the next two decades. Although President Kennedy was not very successful in attaining federal aid to education, his efforts laid the groundwork for President Johnson’s agenda for federal intervention and aid in education. President Johnson’s education agenda aspired to use education to build a better society, consistent with the overall aim of the Civil Rights Movement (Berube, 1991). This was further supported in the mid-1960s with President Johnson’s Great Society Program, which outlined a goal of ending poverty and culminated in the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (Berube, 1991; Graham, 1984).

Policies initiated in the 1940s and 1950s, such as the GI Bill and NDEA of 1958, were reactions to events: the Second World War in the 1940s and subsequent Cold War in the 1950s. In the 1960s, the domestic social and political context changed dramatically, with the focus moving from international to domestic issues and the invigoration of the Civil Rights Movement. These contextual shifts had a profound impact on the relationship between the federal government and higher education. As a result, the relationship between the government and institution changed, contributing to a shift in policy focus. What specifically drove these shifts over the next several decades is at the center of many scholarly works, and a debate has once again surfaced with the recent focus on higher education and federal policy during the Obama administration.

Historical Analyses of Federal Higher Education Policy

The federal policy context of the 1960s is a well-studied period of higher education history. During the 1960s, arguably the single greatest act of legislation in higher education history was passed, the HEA of 1965 (W. J. Clinton, 1998). Scholars from the fields of education policy and history have paid careful attention not only to the HEA (1965) but also to its implications and relationship to future legislation (see Brock, 2010; Edwards, 2010; Kerr, 1978; Romano, 2012; Rose, 2015). The HEA of 1965 was groundbreaking. It informed policy decisions throughout the 1970s and 1980s and continues to affect higher education to this day. However, critics suggest that legislation regarding student access and aid between the 1960s and 1980s was not always intended to simply equalize access; rather, the policies were driven by ideology and the socioeconomic status of individuals in regard to their potential as human capital (Posselt, 2009). Posselt (2009) finds that there are three dominant rationales for presidential attention to making an investment of federal funds in higher education. First, the sociopolitical ends to alleviate poverty and provide equal opportunity for the underserved populations (Berube, 1991; Hansen & Stampen, 1987); second, presidents are simply influenced by the dominant ideology of their given era, not the actual social needs (Giroux & Giroux, 2004; Lavin & Hyllegard, 1996); and third, the economic return on investment in human capital (Becker, 1964/1975; Fogel, 2000; Friedman, 2005; Slaughter, 1991; St. John, 1998) are key reasons presidents invest federal money in higher education (Posselt, 2009). Studying higher education policy from 1964 to 1984, Posselt (2009) finds that presidents were in fact influenced by human capital theory, as argued by other scholars, but they also “drew from rationales grounded in their political ideology and/or sociopolitical aims for education” (p. 195).

Arguing that political and social influences positively shaped federal legislation regarding higher education in the 1960s and 1970s, Gladieux and Wolanin (1976) argue that “[t]here was now a national commitment to higher education as an important and continuing dimension of federal policy” and furthermore, “. . . through 1965, and indeed through 1968, dominant pattern of policy making was executive branch initiative followed by Congressional response” (pp. 12-13). Due to social unrest, higher education policy plateaued in 1968 but would be revisited and reinvigorated in the early 1970s as policies were incomplete and needed to be revised. As Gladieux and Wolanin (1976) note,

In the 1960s, the concept and the ideal of equal educational opportunity took on new dimensions, a new urgency, and a central place in public policy making for higher education. At the opening of the 1970s it was perceived as a major part of the nation’s unfinished business. (p. 15)

This led to the 1972 Amendments, which were greatly influenced by changes in federal leadership and other legislation under consideration, as well as broader national trends and events which “conditioned the environment of federal action on higher education in the 1970s” (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976, pp. 13-15). Notably, campus unrest strained the relationship between higher education and the government, and caused the public to question whether or not higher education truly could support the nation in a time of distress. As a result, new proof of value was expected to encourage federal support of higher education (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976).

How federal policies regarding higher education funding were written in the early 1970s highlights the importance of community college education and the role community colleges could play in supporting the nation in challenging times, reflecting its position of importance for the nation. In the 1972 HEA reauthorization and additional legislation, Congress changed the wording relevant to the targeted institution from higher education to postsecondary education. This intentionally broadened the scope of educational opportunity by institution type for potential students receiving aid. Not only did it broaden the choice students had in what school they could attend, the 1972 HEA reauthorization purposefully highlighted the important role that community colleges, trade schools, and technical, career, and vocational training could fill in a time of social and political unrest (Gladieux, 1995). The potential value of the community college and its newly awarded recognition from the federal government is further supported by the enrollment trends of the 1970s; enrollment in 4-year institutions declined in the 1970s due to controversy and criticism whereas enrollment in 2-year colleges grew steadily. One explanation for this trend is the change in labor market demands. There was less demand for college graduates and more demand for trained workers; thus, vocational education received more attention from the federal government. The demand for educated workers and training to meet that demand for educated, skilled workers was further supported by local businesses and eventually, by the mid-1970s, major corporations as well (Brint & Karabel, 1989). Such market demands coupled with public criticism had a profound impact on the trajectory of federal policies in the 1970s, influencing the perception of the purpose of assistance and access legislation.

Not only would the public challenge the value of the federal government’s investment in higher education, but as St. John and Asker (2003) find in their study, market forces also challenged federal access and aid programs. The authors argue that federal aid programs in the 1960s expanded access to higher education and were adequately funded by the federal government, but in the 1970s, market forces negatively influenced the government’s attempts to use higher education as a mechanism of social justice. This was most evident in the 1972 HEA reauthorization when aid programs were restructured to provide aid directly to students (St. John & Asker, 2003). The intent of the restructure was to promote educational opportunity (Gladieux & Wolanin, 1976), but it did not have the impact on attendance that was expected. There was a lack in momentum in attendance that was heavily criticized by economists (St. John & Asker, 2003). In a study of federal assistance to higher education from 1976 to 2001, Rizzo (2006) finds that federal financial support of higher education declined steadily over this 30-year period and therefore did not follow the anticipated market growth pattern. Instead, legislation was introduced in the late 1970s that provided assistance to students in a middle-income bracket, most notable in the Middle Income Student Assistance Act of 1978 (MISAA; 1978; see Gladieux, 1995; Rizzo, 2006; St. John & Asker, 2003). As a result, assistance shifted from students most in need to middle class students who had a greater presence in the market. St. John and Asker (2003) argue, “The political ethos of valuing equal opportunity had a foundation in economic theory. But coupling the disadvantaged into a single set of aid programs did not work well” (p. 83).

Resulting from challenges presented by legislation of the late 1970s, “total federal grant dollars had already started to decline [by 1980], even though a larger percentage of students were eligible” (St. John & Asker, 2003, p. 83). Unfortunately, as St. John and Asker (2003) find, legislation between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s, including the HEA and MISAA (1978) changed government financial assistance from helping students pay for college to increasing their debt, making it more difficult for low-income students to attend. Essentially, these policies worked against the intention of expanding access for more students, “[t]hus, to expand access further, we need to reconsider how government funds education, whether funding is adequate, and how financing strategies should be changed to expand access and equalize opportunity” (St. John & Asker, 2003, p. 1).

St. John and Asker (2003) suggest that how government funds access, and how those policies and financial strategies actually address the barriers to opportunity, need to be addressed. Green (2005) expands their criticism by suggesting that student federal aid and access policies are a reflection of the social contract the nation has with higher education. In his analysis of aid policy from the 1950s to the early 2000s, Green finds that there is “evidence of a shift in America’s social contract for higher education” as “[g]reater use of merit aid . . . and the increasing proportion of aid available to middle and upper income groups at all levels has widened the original uses of financial aid for low-income and largely minority populations” (p. 13). This exclusion of underrepresented populations or deviation from the original intent to equalize opportunity is also noted by Harper, Patton, and Wooden (2009). Harper et al. argue that although there are crucial steps toward facilitating racial inequality in higher education through federal policy, the policies have not closed the economic or access gap between those with means and those who face barriers of income and social inequality.

The shift away from federal policy to equalize educational opportunity notably began during the Carter administration with MISAA (1978), by including aid to middle-income students, not the most marginalized. When President Reagan assumed office, MISAA was not fully funded, and this was not a priority for his administration. Instead, the Reagan administration changed the focus of student assistance from a grant-based system to a loan-based system. This caused a larger disparity in educational opportunity, reversing the efforts of the 1960s and 1970s (Berube, 1991; Gladieux, 1995; Posselt, 2009). By the 1990s, it was evident that the loan-based system’s tendency to create barriers needed to be addressed. Despite facing opposition in Congress, President Clinton attempted to combat the increasing debt due to loans, by focusing on tax relief credit for tuition payments, direct lending programs, service organizations such as AmeriCorps, program-based funding such as Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP), and the Hope Scholarship tax credit. Although President Clinton introduced new federal programs in the 1990s, these programs and policies did not alleviate issues of inequality and access that were increased during the Reagan administration. Rather, these problems were “accentuated . . . in the higher tuition, higher-loan environment” (St. John & Asker, 2003, p. 134). Thus, as St. John and Asker (2003) conclude, changes in federal aid correlate with access trends and equal opportunity, and scholars and policy makers should examine access based on academic merit and financial need to ascertain causes and resolutions to the educational opportunity gap.

Focusing specifically on legislation affecting community colleges in the 1990s, Levin (2001) finds that government policies pressured institutions to emphasize vocationalism and commercialism, which “endeavored to direct community colleges toward economic goals, emphasizing workforce training and state economic competitiveness as outcomes, compelling colleges to improve efficiencies, increase productivity, and to become accountable to government and responsive to business and industry” (p. 237). Thus, community college missions expanded to reflect the economic role of the institution. The altered policy agenda changed the focus of community college’s traditional efforts to increase accessibility, support social, and personal development of students, and had a significant impact on the curricular focus of the institution (Levin, 2001; Schugurensky & Higgins, 1996). The two federal acts Levin highlights are the Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990 (later amended in 1998) and the Workforce and Career Development Act of 1996. Each of these federal acts and their resulting impact on the function and purpose of the community college led Levin (2001) to conclude that the federal government

. . . used the community college as a vehicle of government economic policy and as a model of production, directing these institutions to greater efficiencies and less reliance upon the public purse. Furthermore, government policy fashioned the community college as an economically globalized institution, adhering to global competitiveness and its attendant behaviors. (p. 249)

Adhering to these policies forced the community college to adapt and, in doing so, supported the change in policy focus from access to economic development.

In the late 1990s, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA; 1998) continued the new policy agenda regarding higher education, and more specifically regarding community colleges as the institution most suited to meet federal demands. The WIA (1998) reinforces the federal government’s expectation that higher education should support market goals. The WIA (1998) focuses on education and training for those who need to improve or build upon skills to enter the workforce and measures success of the program through outcome measures specific to the needs of the consumer or customer, which can be defined as either students, businesses, or the government (Shaw & Rab, 2003). The rhetoric surrounding this act appeared to support accessibility for underserved populations, but as Shaw and Rab (2003) argue, this act actually created barriers for student access. The barriers were created by the expectation for colleges to meet the demands of competing customers (federal and state government, businesses, accrediting bodies, various boards, community members, individual students, etc.) and the lack of equal access to information for the potential students. If individuals were not given equal access to information, they could not make informed decisions regarding enrollment and training, creating a barrier to entry. Thus, the goal of the policy is to infuse the labor market, not to specifically increase accessibility (Shaw & Rab, 2003). Complementing this criticism, Lusby (2010) argues that the WIA (1998) not only created barriers but also made it inherently more difficult for disadvantaged populations, those in the most need of access to training and education, and ultimately failed as a legislative initiative. The additional criteria for accessing assistance through WIA (1998) furthered the barriers for students as they were expected to visit various levels of institutional offices designed to support the initiative, had their eligibility for services often challenged, found that the service-providers (schools) they wanted to attend were not on an approved list, or found their occupational goal was not considered relevant to local demand and they were not served (Lusby, 2010).

Policy Challenges in the 21st Century

Barriers to student access created by completion agendas and policies continued in the 21st century and are a direct challenge to the very plans and initiatives that proclaim to support access and equity in higher education (Bragg & Durham, 2012). In the first two decades of the 21st century, federal attention to higher education for student access and aid has been maintained through reauthorizations of the HEA in 2003, 2008, and 2015 as well as additional federal programs. Each program and policy is met with criticism from scholars and practitioners alike as they have not delivered on the goal of equalizing opportunity.

The disparity between those with access and the financial means to successfully complete college and those who do not have access continues. The impact of these policies and their unintended negative consequences in barriers to access and scarcity of resources are most apparent in the community college, the institution considered to have the greatest role in democratization (Romano, 2011). Considering policies supported the shift from focusing on access to equitable outcomes, the place and purpose of the community college in the greater context of higher education in the United States are changing (Topper & Powers, 2013). The question then becomes whether the community college can continue to offer access to underrepresented populations, or whether it is to bow to market pressures due to government-imposed assessment measures linked to funding (Romano, 2011; Topper & Powers, 2013). Community colleges are then in a precarious situation balancing two often competing missions—equal access and market demands. Federal policies enforcing policies linked to performance standards can impede the institution from meeting the demand of access, whether the attempts by the institution to meet needs is in the name of access or market demand. In light of this challenging position, researchers, educators, and policy makers need to work together to ensure that the community college can fulfill its ultimate goal of access for those who wish to earn a higher education (Topper & Powers, 2013). The need for actors from multiple institutions and constituencies to work together has become a focus of the Obama administration agenda through federal initiatives to address the challenges of access to higher education and aid for students who wish to pursue a higher education and, in turn, support the nation as a whole.

The AGI and ACP

Early in his first term, President Obama announced plans for his administration to focus on higher education. The guidelines for future policy were introduced as the AGI in 2009. The economic downturn of 2008 and the subsequent job losses was the perfect context for a president to focus on how education could support a nation’s struggling economy by giving workers new skills and educational opportunities while also facilitating technological advancement. The AGI policy aimed to support individual success and national success by increasing the total number of college graduates.

President Obama’s agenda set by AGI was strengthened in January of 2015 when Obama announced ACP. This promise became a bill sent to Congress for review in the summer of 2015—H.R. 2962. AGI was a vital step in raising the awareness of the importance of higher education in the United States, but it did not provide adequate support for action. The ACP provides an action plan that commits the nation to support free community college education to eligible students as a means to make economic mobility a potential reality. This is of utmost importance as the Clinton campaign has committed to a policy agenda that would increase access to higher education for families making less than US$125,000 per year (H. R. Clinton, 2016).

The Obama Administration’s Higher Education Agenda

On July 14, 2009, President Obama announced the AGI, with the goal to increase degree attainment rates for 25- to 34-year-olds at levels that would ultimately place the United States first among nations for degree-holding citizens. Specifically, President Obama called for an additional 5 million community college graduates by 2020. He announced this plan at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan, to symbolically reinforce the important role community colleges were to play in this initiative. With the focus on the community college, the AGI proposal included terms to increase funding to community colleges and individuals, increase funding for innovation and facilities on campuses, expand grants and tax credits, simplify and reform aid programs, and provide for workers in need of skills renewal (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009).

The President’s remarks at Macomb Community College situate his agenda among the historical ranks of Presidents Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Truman as an effort to support the nation as a whole by increasing access to higher education. President Obama (2009) states,

Time and again, when we’ve placed our bet for the future on education, we have prospered as a result, by tapping the incredible innovative and generative potential of a skilled American workforce.

That’s what happened when President Lincoln signed into law legislation creating the land grant colleges, which not only transformed higher education but also our entire economy.

That’s what took place when President Roosevelt signed the GI bill, which helped educate a generation and ushered in an era of unprecedented prosperity. That was the foundation for the American middle class . . .

Not since the passage of the original GI bill and the work of President Truman’s Commission on Higher Education, which helped to double the number of community colleges and increase by seven-fold enrollment in those colleges, have we taken such a historic step on behalf of community colleges in America. (paras. 19-22)

In this portion of the July address, President Obama outlines where he expects his initiative to be situated in the historical record and also alludes to the potential impact of AGI on higher education and the nation as a whole. He plainly states that more people attending and graduating from college will have a positive impact on the economy, and the community college is the institution most viable and amenable to facilitate the plans for increasing degree attainment rates through increased access, an idea that was first introduced by President Truman’s Commission as a key argument for increasing the number and utility of community colleges.

Notably important to the trajectory of this agenda, President Obama (2009) argues that this initiative, and its subsequent plans to revitalize funding and revise current financial aid and assistance programs, will grow the nation’s economy. The president also noted that higher education, and jobs requiring degrees, will be a requirement in the technologically advancing 21st-century economy. The importance of higher education for technological advancement and market involvement was discussed by previous administrations—Presidents Clinton and Bush noted that this would be a requirement but lacked the legislative initiative to federally support the need. President Obama, however, had the agenda in place in 2009 and would continue to bolster his support of technological and thus market advancement through higher education initiatives directed toward the community college (Palmadessa, in press). Furthermore, meeting the challenges set forth by the economy and the speed of advancement in technology will position the United States to “compete with China and India and everybody else in the world” (Obama, 2009, para. 20). Competing to meet the demands of the 21st-century economy and returning the United States to its position as the highest proportion of degree-holding citizen-workers will ultimately ensure American prosperity (White House, 2012).

In the AGI introductory speech, President Obama discusses not only what plans his administration sets forth to move the proposal to action and why this initiative is important, he also explains how and why AGI should focus on the community college as the institution that stands to have the greatest impact on meeting the 2020 goal. The most obvious point he addresses is affordability. Obama (2009) notes that “many young people are saving money by spending 2 years at community college before heading to a 4-year college” (para. 25). Community colleges are also the institution most likely to serve “workers who have lost their jobs, or fear losing a job, [or who] are seeking an edge” (Obama, 2009, para. 25). As such, “Community colleges are an essential part of our recovery in the present and our prosperity in the future. This place can make the future better, not just for these individuals but for America” (Obama, 2009, para. 8). Resulting from this focus on the community college as a means to meet his goal, President Obama also addressed the challenges facing the community college as an institution; challenges he argued were not created by the institution nor were they legitimate. The President pointedly stated,

All too often, community colleges are treated like the stepchild of the higher education system; they’re an afterthought, if they’re thought of at all. And that means schools are often years behind in the facilities they provide, which means, in a 21st century economy, they’re years behind in the education they can offer. That’s a mistake, and it’s one that we’ll help to correct . . . community colleges are an undervalued asset in our country. Not only is that not right, it’s not smart.

And that’s why I’ve asked Dr. Jill Biden . . . to promote community colleges and help us make community colleges stronger. And that’s why we’re putting in place this American Graduation Initiative. (Obama, 2009, paras. 32, 26)

Not only are these perceptions inaccurate, they contradict the potential that President Obama credits the community college with, the potential to not only support the American economy and encourage a stronger workforce but also to serve a greater number of students who were previously excluded from the benefits of higher education. As noted by multiple scholars, including Brint (2003), Deil-Amen and Rosenbaum (2001, 2002), Dougherty (1994), Grubb (1996), and Levin (2001), the community college is not a subunit of higher education; its mission has evolved over time, but in that evolution, it has remained a successful and substantial contributor to higher education in the United States since the middle of the 20th century. As Brint (2003) posits, the American community college remains “the great success story of American postsecondary education during the last century” (p. 29). President Obama (2009) summarized his perspective of the importance of community colleges in the national agenda when he stated,

When it comes to higher education, we’re making college and advanced training more affordable and strengthening community colleges that are the gateway to so many with an initiative that will prepare students not only to earn a degree but to find a job when they graduate, an initiative that will help us meet the goal I have set of leading the world in college degrees by 2020. We used to rank number one in college graduates. Now we are in the middle of the pack. And since we are seeing more and more African American and Latino youth in our population, if we are leaving them behind, we cannot achieve our goal, and America will fall further behind. And that is not a future that I accept. (para. 28)

The plans and goals set forth by the AGI were far reaching and noble. However, the practical implementation was a challenge in the early Obama administration given financial and political constraints created by the economic decline of 2008. Thus, the AGI as a whole influenced higher education policy such as the reauthorization of HEA (2008) and brought the need for more college graduates to the forefront of conversations regarding the role of higher education in supporting national goals, but its full implementation was not realized. Being a cornerstone of President Obama’s efforts to increase the number of educated citizens to support the nation’s economy (Palmadessa, 2014), AGI had to be further supported and readdressed in his second term. The resulting policy initiative that bears the potential for AGI to be realized is President Obama’s ACP.

ACP: A Promise to Whom for What?

In January of 2015, President Obama announced ACP as a means to continue the economic recovery and growth the United States had experienced in 2014. Growth that created new jobs, lowered the unemployment rate significantly (White House, 2015), and as the President noted, built a new foundation for the economy to prove that “America is coming back” (Obama, 2015, para. 7). President Obama (2015) then asked the question, “How do we build on the progress that we’ve made?” (para. 14). His answer, “helping every American afford a higher education” (Obama, 2015, para. 15). President Obama (2015) argues that higher education is the “ticket to the middle class” and that the “middle class is the engine that powers America’s prosperity” (para. 13) and the only way to make this a reality for a struggling lower class and other underrepresented populations is to make the first 2 years of community college education free. Although the President’s perspective that students who attain at least a 2-year degree will facilitate social mobility is understandable as a positive potential, it has not proven to be the case in previous periods. As Brint and Karabel (1989) and Levin (2001) have proven, this is hardly the case; rather, students who are likely to attend to community colleges are of lower socioeconomic status and, even with the associate’s degree, remain at a lower social hierarchy. The key difference in Obama’s agenda and the context in which previous studies were completed is that Obama is calling for free tuition. Students not being required to pay for their education has the potential to increase access to populations who would otherwise not attend and, assuming these students will come from the lowest socioeconomic bracket, could potentially elevate their status upon completion of a degree.

After announcing the intent to provide tuition waivers to qualifying students, President Obama quickly noted that this initiative was not a simple handout, as critics have suggested. Students have to prove their ability to earn this opportunity for free college education by maintaining a passing grade point average (GPA) and successfully persisting in their program of study. He also pointed out that attaining at least 2 years of collegiate education and training did not guarantee employment. President Obama (2015) states,

Here in America we don’t guarantee equal outcomes . . . But we do expect that everybody gets an equal shot. We do expect everybody can go as far as their dreams and hard work will take them . . .

And in exchange we do our fair share. That’s the basic bargain at the heart of this country: if you work hard, you can get ahead . . . What matters is effort and merit. That’s the promise of America. (paras. 17, 18)

Thus, President Obama’s promise to the college bound, or those who will take advantage of the opportunity, is that if people attend college, they will have new opportunities otherwise unavailable. This concept of education as opportunity is deeply embedded in the national narrative regarding the importance of education in American society and is a concept worthy of reinvigoration in a competitive economy and difficult job market (Palmadessa, in press). Obama also noted that this was not the first time higher education was called to support a growing, challenged nation. He stated,

And the way we deliver on that is making sure that our education system works on behalf of every person who lives here. America thrived in the 20th century in large part because we made high school the norm, and then we sent a generation to college on the GI Bill . . . Then we dedicated ourselves to cultivating the most educated workforce in the world and we invested in what’s one of the crown jewels of this country, and that’s our higher education system. And dating back to Abraham Lincoln, we invested in land-grant colleges. We understood that this was a hallmark of America, this investment in education. (Obama, 2015, para. 19)

President Obama recognizes that this initiative is congruent with past historical acts of legislation but notably focuses ACP’s agenda on the community college as the institution best suited to deliver results and support the goals of the legislative agenda.

In considering the community college as the focus of ACP, President Obama positions the community college as the institution to meet the demands of the competitive knowledge-based economy. He recognizes that the market is very competitive, the products are knowledge based, and the workers who will supply the market with knowledge products must be skilled. President Obama argued this point when he stated that

Education helps us be better people. It helps us be better citizens. You came to college to learn about the world and to engage with new ideas and to discover the things you’re passionate about . . . [and] to expand your horizons. (para. 23)

Further supporting the focus on the community college, Obama notes the colleges’ availability for students with families, adults who work, and veterans reentering civilian life as key indicators as to why this particular institution of higher education could best support this initiative. He supported this perspective when he stated,

And that’s what community colleges are all about—the idea that no one with drive and discipline should be denied a college education just because they don’t have the money. Every American, whether they’re young or just young at heart, should be able to learn the skills and education necessary to compete and win in the 21st century economy . . .

Colleges should be free to those willing to work for it—because in America, a quality education cannot be a privilege that is reserved for a few. I think it’s a right for everybody who’s willing to work for it. (Obama, 2015, paras. 32, 33)

Americans working hard and earning rewards for that work is a traditional, cultural, and social concept deeply embedded in American cultural identity (Palmadessa, 2014), and one that President Obama argues can be supported by the community college. The President made this point when he stated,

And, today, in a 21st century economy, where your most valuable asset is your knowledge, the single most important way to get ahead is not just to get a high school education, you’ve got to get some higher education . . . you’re also here, now more than ever, because a college degree is the surest ticket to the middle class. It is the key to getting a good job that pays a good income and to provide you the security where even if you don’t have the same job for 30 years, you’re so adaptable and you have a skill set and the capacity to learn new skills, it ensures you’re always employable.

And that is the key not just for individual Americans, that’s the key for the whole country’s ability to compete in the global economy. In the new economy, jobs and businesses will go wherever the most skilled, the best-educated workforce resides . . .

And I want them to look no further than the United States of America. (Obama, 2015, paras. 22, 24, 25)

After establishing the initiative’s focus on community colleges, arguably as a means to support the competitive global knowledge-based economy, President Obama’s speech turned to supporting the economy through an educated workforce when he stated,

Because in the end, nothing is more important to our country than you, our people. That’s our asset . . . our greatest resources are people . . . you’re making this investment in you, and by doing that, you’re making an investment in this country’s future. (Obama, 2015, paras. 42, 43)

ACP provides the government a means to invest in the people and that investment will support the national goal of maintaining economic growth.

President Obama’s promise to provide access to higher education for more people is a noble initiative. Having a more educated populace that can better support itself and contribute to the nation is a positive change. However, the question remains, what is the promise truly for and for whom? As noted by policy and education scholars, discussed earlier in this text, federal access and aid policies that are written and proposed for the benefit of the individual all too often become mechanisms to create human capital and benefit politically driven agendas. At this point in history, with a contentious presidential campaign in 2016 in which one candidate strongly supports providing greater access to higher education, how and why this type of legislation is written and passed is of utmost importance. It is important as it has the potential to set the standard for access policy by revising, correcting, and rectifying the mistakes of past legislation, or it can continue the status quo of posing as a means to provide equal opportunity while, even unintentionally, expanding the gap between those who do and do not have access, and ultimately increasing the disparity between social classes.

Conclusion

On July 8, 2015, the America’s College Promise Act of 2015 (H.R. 2962, 2015) was introduced in both Houses of Congress by Sen. Baldwin and Rep. Scott. The initiative’s move to legislative action positions this administration among the ranks of previous education presidents, presidents who drove higher education federal policy that had a profound impact on aid and access for students. That being said, given the initiative’s focus on building the national economy, elevating individual socioeconomic status, and the dependence upon the community college to facilitate this growth, the initiative and subsequent law stands to be criticized as earlier studies indicate that aid and access policies may be driven by ideological influences or human capital theory. Although these influences are prevalent in the promotion of the initiative, as evidenced by the speeches excerpted in this article, how they affect the funding and execution of the ACP legislation will be final determinant. Ideally, this legislation will mirror the influences of HEA (1965) and be canonized as one of the greatest acts of federal higher education policy as it will open the doors of opportunity through higher education to a larger, deserving population of students otherwise underrepresented.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Allison L. Palmadessa is an assistant professor of History and coordinator of Social Studies Teacher Licensure at Greensboro College, Greensboro, NC.

References

America’s College Promise Act, H.R. 2962, 114th Cong. (2015).

Ayers

D. F.

Palmadessa

A. L.

(2015). The community college and a rising global imaginary: An analysis of practical reasoning, 1950–2013. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 864-892. doi:10.1353/jhe.2015.0032

Becker

(1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education (2nd ed.). New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research. (Original work published 1964)

Berube

M. R.

(1991). American presidents and education. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bragg

D. D.

Durham

(2012). Perspectives on access and equity in the era of (community) college completion. Community College Review, 40, 106-125. doi:10.1177/0091552112444724

Brint

(2003). Few remaining dreams: Community colleges since 1985. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 16-37.

Brint

Karabel

(1989). The diverted dream: Community colleges and the promise of educational opportunity in America, 1900-1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Brock

(2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The Future of Children, 20(1), 109-122.

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Pub. L. 101-392, § 104 Stat. 753 (1990).

10.

Clinton

H. R.

(2016, July 29). Transcript: Hillary Clinton’s speech to the Democratic National Convention. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-dnc-transcript.html?_r=0

11.

Clinton

W. J.

(1998, September 29). Statement on Senate action on higher education legislation. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=54997

12.

Deil-Amen

Rosenbaum

J. E.

(2001, August). How can low-status colleges help young adults gain access to better jobs? Applications of human capital v. sociological models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Annaheim, CA.

13.

Deil-Amen

Rosenbaum

J. E.

(2002). The unintended consequences of stigma-free remediation. Sociology of Education, 75, 249-268.

14.

Dougherty

K. J.

(1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and futures of the community college. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

15.

Edwards

A. R.

(2010). Why sport? The development of sport as a policy issue in Title IX of the education amendments of 1972. Journal of Policy History, 22, 300-336. doi:10.1017/S0898030610000126

16.

Fogel

R. W.

(2000). The fourth great awakening and the future of egalitarianism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Friedman

B. M.

(2005). The moral consequences of economic growth. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

18.

Giroux

H. A.

Giroux

S. S.

(2004). Take back higher education: Race, youth, and the crisis of democracy in the post-Civil Rights Era. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Gladieux

L. E.

(1995, October). Federal student aid policy: A history and an assessment. Paper presented at Financing Postsecondary Education: The Federal Role, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/FinPostSecEd/gladieux.html

20.

Gladieux

L. E.

Wolanin

T. R.

(1976). Congress and the colleges: The national politics of higher education. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

21.

Graham

H. D.

(1984). The uncertain triumph: Federal education policy in the Kennedy and Johnson years. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

22.

Green

T. C.

(2005). Financial aid, access, and America’s social contract with higher education. College & University, 80(3), 9-13.

23.

Grubb

N. W.

(1996). Working in the middle. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

24.

Hansen

W. L.

Stampen

J. O.

(1987). Economics and financing of higher education: The tension between quality and equity. In Altbach

P. G.

Berdahl

R. O.

(Eds.), Higher education in American society (2nd ed., pp. 101-125). New York, NY: Prometheus Press.

25.

Harper

S. R.

Patton

L. D.

Wooden

O. S.

(2009). Access and equity for African American students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The Journal of Higher Education, 80, 389-414.10.1353/jhe.0.0052

26.

Higher Education Act of 1965. Pub. L. 89-329, § 79 Stat. 1219, § 20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.(1965).

27.

Hutcheson

P. A.

(2007, Fall). The Truman Commission’s vision of the future. Thought & Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 2007, 107-115.

28.

Kerr

(1978). Higher education: Paradise lost? Higher Education, 7, 261-278.

29.

Lavin

D. E.

Hyllegard

(1996). Changing the odds: Open admissions and the life chances of the disadvantaged. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

30.

Levin

J. S.

(2001). Public policy, community colleges, and the path to globalization. Higher Education, 42, 237-262. doi:10.1023/A:1017929400319

31.

Lusby

A. K.

(2010). The impact of the Workforce Investment Act on technical school and community college enrollment in Louisiana. The Journal of Regional Analysis & Policy, 40, 171-179.

32.

McCartan

A. M.

(1983). The community college mission: Present challenges and future visions. The Journal of Higher Education, 54, 676-692.

33.

Middle Income Student Assistance Act, Pub. L. 95-566, §1, 92 Stat. 2402 (1978).

34.

Morrill Act of 1862, §12 Stat. 503; 7 U.S.C. 301 et seq. (1862).

35.

Morrill Act of 1890, §7 U.S.C. 321 et seq. (1890).

36.

National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub. L. 85-864, § 72 Stat. 1580. 20 U.S.C. 401 et seq. (1958).

37.

Obama

(2009, May 14). Remarks at Macomb Community College in Warren, Michigan. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=

38.

Obama

(2015, January 9). Remarks at Pellissippi State Community College in Knoxville, Tennessee. The American Presidency Project. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=109217&;st=higher+education&st1=

39.

Office of the Press Secretary. (2009). Excerpts of the president’s remarks in Warren, Michigan and fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/excerpts-presidents-remarks-warren-michigan-and-fact-sheet-american-graduation-init

40.

Palmadessa

A. L.

(2014). Higher education and the discursive construction of American national identity, 1946-2013 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro.

41.

Palmadessa

A. L.

(in press). American national identity, policy paradigms and higher education: A history of the relationship between higher education and the United States, 1862–2015. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

42.

Posselt

J. R.

(2009). The rise and fall of need-based grants: A critical review of presidential discourses on higher education, 1964-1984. In The American Educational Research Association(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 24, pp. 183-226). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

43.

President’s Commission on Higher Education. (1947). Higher education for American democracy. New York, NY: Harper.

44.

Reuben

J. A.

Perkins

(2007). Introduction: Commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the President’s Commission Report, Higher Education for Democracy. History of Education Quarterly, 47, 265-276.

45.

Rizzo

(2006). A panel data analysis of state preferences for funding higher education: 1977-2001. In Ehrenberg

R. G.

(Ed.), What’s happening to public higher education? (pp. 3-35).Westport, CT: Praeger.

46.

Romano

R. M.

(2011). A brief look at what economists are saying about the community college. Community College Review, 39, 69-87. doi:10.1177/0091552110396209

47.

Romano

R. M.

(2012). Looking behind community college budgets for future policy considerations. Community College Review, 40, 165-189. doi:10.1177/0091552112441824

48.

Rose

(2015). Regulating opportunity: Title IX and the birth of gender-conscious higher education policy. Journal of Policy History, 27, 157-183. doi:10.1017/S0898030614000396

49.

Schrum

(2007). Establishing a democratic religion: Metaphysics and democracy in the debates over the President’s Commission on Higher Education. History of Education Quarterly, 47, 277-301.

50.

Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944, Pub. L. 78-346; §58 Stat. 284m (1944).

51.

Shaw

K. M.

Rab

(2003). Market rhetoric versus reality in policy and practice: The Workforce Investment Act and access to community college education and training. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 172-193.

52.

Slaughter

(1991). The official ideology of higher education: Ironies and inconsistencies. In Tierney

W. G.

(Ed.), Culture and ideology in higher education (pp. 59-86). New York, NY: Praeger Press.

53.

Sorber

N. M.

(2013). Introduction. In Geiger

R. L.

Sorber

N. M.

(Eds.), The land-grant colleges and the reshaping of American higher education (pp. 3-12). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

54.

St. John

E. P

. (1998). Higher education desegregation in the post-Fordice legal environment: An historical perspective. In Fossey

(Ed.), Readings on Equal Education: Vol. 15. Race, the courts, and equal education: The limits of the law (pp. 101-122). New York, NY: AMS Press.

55.

St. John

E. P.

Asker

E. H

. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for taxpayers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

56.

Thelin

J. R.

(2011). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

57.

Topper

A. M.

Powers

J. M.

(2013). Democracy’s college: The American community college in the 21st century: Framing the issue. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(14), 1-11. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1319

58.

White House. (2012). The economics of higher education: A report prepared by the Department of the Treasury with the Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury.

59.

White House. (2015). FACT SHEET—White House unveils America’s College Promise proposal: Tuition-free community college for responsible students. Washington, DC: Office of the Press Secretary.

60.

Workforce and Career Development Act of 1996, H.R. 1617. 104th Cong. (1996).

61.

Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220. § 29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq. (1998).

62.

Zook

G. F.

(1947). The President’s commission on higher education. Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors, 33, 10-28.