In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Review of Higher Education 31.3 (2008) 374-375

Reviewed by
Michelle Van Noy
Doctoral Student, Sociology and Education, Teachers College, Columbia University
Duane E. Leigh and Andrew M. Gill (Eds.). Do Community Colleges Respond to Local Needs? Evidence from California. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2007. 219 pp. Paper: $18.00. ISBN: 978-0-88099-327-2.

Building on the U.S. Department of Education's recent Community College Labor Market Responsiveness Initiative study (MacAllum & Yoder, 2004), economists Leigh and Gill address the important issue of whether community colleges are responsive to local needs. To measure responsiveness, the authors address two key research questions: (a) Are community colleges meeting the education and training needs of current and recent generations of immigrants? (b) Do community colleges respond to changing demand conditions by providing occupational training programs that produce skills that are marketable in the local economy?

Their analysis examines the educational progress of immigrants through California's community colleges and the completion of vocational credits in relationship to projected local labor market needs. The authors had the unique opportunity to use state-wide administrative data from the California Community College System (CCCS) to conduct this large-scale analysis. The focus on California provides an interesting case study for several reasons, including the state's large number of immigrants and its large-scale economy.

Leigh and Gill begin with three chapters of contextual background. Chapter 2 discusses CCCS's history, structure, and funding mechanisms. In Chapter 3, they review literature on the effects of community colleges on educational attainment for Latinos and Asians. Reviewing studies using both national survey data and state administrative records, they conclude that differences in educational attainment explain earnings differential compared with Whites. Based on this literature, they identify key explanatory and outcomes variables for their analysis of immigrant students' outcomes. Finally, in Chapter 4, the authors discuss different ways to assess community college responsiveness to employer skill requirements: (a) studies that examine labor market returns by field, (b) case studies of community college "best practices" in labor market responsiveness, (c) studies of the incidence and quality of contract training, and (d) studies that match the skills provided by colleges with the skills needed by local employers.

In Chapters 5 and 6, Leigh and Gill report findings from their analysis of immigrants' educational completion, using both broad and specific ethnicity categories. At the broad level, they find that Latino students have lower educational attainment and Asian students have higher educational attainment compared with White students. Reasons for Latino attainment are lower rates of high school graduation, enrollment for fewer credits, less interest in transferring to a four-year college, and lower GPAs at community colleges.

Differences for Asian students are less easily explained, but further analysis by more ethnic categories yields a more nuanced understanding of educational attainment. Explanations for lower attainment by Cambodians and Laotians and for higher attainment by Filipinos and Japanese are satisfactory; but differences for Chinese, Indians, Koreans, and Vietnamese remain unexplained. Leigh and Gill suggest that students' clustering in particular colleges may be related to attainment, particularly for Vietnamese students. The authors also conducted sub-analyses on first-generation immigrants and high school dropouts.

In Chapter 7, Leigh and Gill discuss how CCCS meets employer needs. They examine the percent [End Page 374] age of credits completed in specific occupational areas compared with the projected number of new jobs in these occupational areas in the local labor market. They examine these matches at both college and district levels. Interestingly, they find evidence of coordination and specialization among colleges within districts; some colleges appear less responsive but are located in districts that, overall, are quite responsive.

These analyses are quite strong in their use of large-scale administrative records data, data which are increasingly vital resources to a clearer understanding of higher education issues. Unfortunately, limitations associated with the data impose several shortcomings on the analyses. First, the lack of information on students' socioeconomic background is a...

pdf

Share