Policy, Pedagogy, and Social Inequality: Community College Student Realities in Post-Industrial America.

Policy, Pedagogy, and Social Inequality: Community College Student Realities in Post-Industrial America by Penelope E. Herideen. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, Connecticut. 1998, 160 pages. ISBN 0-89789-593-2, $49.95.

I have frequently pointed out with pride of discipline that sociologists from Burton Clark, to Steven Brint and Jerome Karabel, to Kevin Dougherty have written a number of the most influential, sophisticated, and controversial critiques of community colleges (see Eaton, 1994, pp. 54-72). A few years ago in a paper addressed to sociologists, I suggested that community colleges provide "Quite an opportunity and challenge for the sociologist who views himself/herself as a teacher, a scholar, a researcher, an activist, or a much needed public/community intellectual (a new C. Wright Mills?)" (Oromaner, 1995, p. 56).

Herideen has a Ph.D. in sociology, teaches and conducts educational research at Holyoke Community College in Massachusetts, is an activist, and argues that "Mainstream educational planners need to understand and to utilize what Mills.... called the sociological imagination, which directs attention to the dynamic interaction between the individual and social forces" (p. 23).

In addition to her educational and intellectual experiences in the United States, Herideen worked for nine years with poor urban women in Brazil. Her book is written in the memory of Paulo Freire and is a contribution to the Critical Studies in Education and Culture Series originally edited by Henry A. Giroux and Paulo Freire. This series publishes works that challenge the current primacy of market values and the retreat from politics evident in recent works of educational theorists, legislators, and policy analysts; they demonstrate how pedagogy is "connected to a wider project designed to further racial, economic, and political democracy" (p.ix). Given the mission and characteristics of its students, the community college is a strategic theoretical and research site for critical theorists. Herideen, of course, acknowledges that critics have long pointed to the contradictions or tensions (for example, cooling out versus open access) in the community college philosophy. These critics have been described in various ways: official critics, left-official critics, anti-university group, radicals (Zwerling); mainstream, structural, elite (Pincus); pluralist functionalists, instrumental Marxists, institutional theorists, state-relative autonomy theorists (Dougherty); insiders, outsiders (Oromaner).

Herideen's approach for this volume was to employ an insider's perspective to develop a critical analysis of the role played by the community college. Her self-defined label is "a critical lover's perspective" (p. 4). Her specific goal "was to understand community college culture and to document community college students' life circumstances so that educational reforms, both structural and instructional changes, can be crafted to better serve their needs" (p. 5).

Herideen's work in a literacy group with impoverished women in Sao Paulo influenced her work with students at Wade Community College (a pseudonym). For instance, she learned the importance of being both an educator and a participant and of sharing experiences as a stage in conceptualizing possibilities for change. From Herideen's perspective, the educational mission of both the community college in the United States and the grassroots literacy movement in Brazil is "to provide educational opportunity to those who have been historically denied schooling, thereby creating the conditions for citizens to secure a better quality of life for themselves and their families" (p. 35).

The participant-observation project at the college lasted three years and involved using observation, notes from a field journal, and tapes of recorded classes. In addition, Herideen examined approximately 200 student journals, which were required of all students in her classes. These journals contained students' insights about their everyday lives and community college experiences. One strength of this project is that throughout her work, Herideen compared her data with those of national organizations and those collected by program coordinators of re-entry programs at other community colleges. She found common themes between her work and work at other sites. These themes--recognition of second chance opportunities; excitement of learning; economic needs; low self-esteem and expectations; lack of time to juggle work, school, and home; and fear of failure--led Herideen to conclude that "The mood of the college campus was one that I call hesitated hope" (p. 48). This description will ring true to anyone who has spent time on a community college campus.

To begin to combat the hidden injuries of class, race, gender, and age that these students carry with them, Herideen's classroom became a microcosm of the kind of society in which she and her students hope to live. The development of critical consciousness soon led to greater self-confidence and political actions, such as letter writing to administrators and newspapers and organizational participation. Students, however, realized that they must prepare for participation in the larger society and that critical consciousness alone will not resolve all of their problems.

Concurrently with her larger research project, Herideen undertook a social experiment in a women's-only class outside the classroom. This experiment permitted the participants to explore feminist theory-related concepts such as consciousness-raising, story-sharing, and empowerment. The group met at one of the participants' homes twice a month for an average of three hours, on either a Saturday or Sunday, for 10 months. The group members also met informally. As was true for students in the sociology class, these women began to take steps that reinforced one another's self-confidence. And this supportive environment enabled the women to move beyond confidence to social action (for example, participation in local social movements, involvement in public school affairs, and participation in student government). Finally, at a retreat, the women decided to form Women Empowering Women (WEW) and subsequently organized a conference. Once again, Herideen recognizes the limitations of critical pedagogy within the college: "Women's educational groups must prepare their members to negotiate, cooperate, and compete in a male-dominated society" (p. 108).

Throughout her work, Herideen points to the importance of viewing the community college setting (micro-level) within the context of a broader social, political, economic, and cultural environment (macro-level). Her work with her students at WCC demonstrates the possibilities of and limitations on bringing about change at the micro-level. She also addresses the impact of a number of current macro-level educational programs and proposals. A prime example is President Clinton's discovery of the community college as a key institution in strengthening the U.S. economy through expanded career training. To finance this, the administration has proposed greater reliance on scholarships and tax credits and a reduction in student grants. Through a reliance on grades and ability to benefit, such proposals could have a negative impact on the educational and employment careers of nontraditional students. For instance, such students may not be able to meet new admissions criteria and may be tracked into low earning, dead-end jobs. Macro-level policies concerning federal financial aid, grants, and scholarships certainly have an impact on the everyday realities at the institutional level.

For Herideen, most mainstream analysts fail to develop a sociopolitical understanding of the role played by community college education in an unequal society. Reform policies and programs should enable us to remedy rather than to reproduce existing inequalities. They should be oriented to the needs of the large nontraditional student populations served. In terms of numbers alone, older women, re-entry women, and returning women form a particularly important segment of those populations.

Herideen argues that "Policymakers have failed to draw on the educational research produced by community college insiders and critical educational theorists" (p. 23). I continue to suggest that in terms of insiders, we often fail to address influentials and policymakers outside of the community college community (Oromaner, 1984). How many insiders have published in journals addressed to the broader higher education or policy communities? How many insiders possess the theoretical and methodological sophistication to have their works taken seriously by the larger communities? As to the lack of influence of critical educational theorists, this has always been the fate of :social theories that challenge the dominant social interpretations. Contrary to popular beliefs, the "left" or "postmodernists" have not carried the day on American campuses and certainly not among influentials and policymakers.

Herideen concludes with the observation that educating for critical consciousness and upward mobility are not mutually exclusive. The insights of critical pedagogy and the everyday realities of community college students can be bridged through the theoretical perspective labeled by Herideen as critical mainstreaming. Nevertheless, most of her particular proposals are quite familiar, such as integrated instruction, learning communities, flexible class schedules and attendance policies, increased access to support services, and placement and transfer counseling. The greatest resistance to these proposals is likely to come from faculty, staff, and administrators within each college and not from the outside community.

In a well-written, insightful, and provocative text of 130 pages, Penelope Herideen has touched on many of the social and educational issues that we as community college faculty, administrators, researchers, and policymakers must confront. I am not convinced by her integration of critical pedagogy and Mills's sociological imagination, or critical-consciousness and social change; however, I admire her for her attempt.

References

Eaton, J. S. (1994). Strengthening collegiate education in community colleges. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Oromaner, M. (1984). Insiders, outsiders, and the community college: A sociolgy of knowledge perspective. Research in Higher Education, 21(2), 226-235.

Oromaner, M. (1995). A sociologist at a comprehensive urban community college. In M. I. Bryant-Serrano (Ed.), Teaching sociology in the community college (pp. 52-56). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

Mark Oromaner serves as dean for planning and institutional research at Hudson County Community College, Jersey City, New Jersey. ([e-mail])