Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Public-private Partnership: How and Why Six Community Colleges Loved and Left a For-profit Partner

Abstract

Colleges are increasingly open to partnering with private entities to implement new and innovative programs. Community colleges, in particular, may find such partnerships beneficial, given that these institutions often lack the necessary resources to invest up-front in programs that may yield strong long-term dividends. In this article we report on an examination of a partnership between a privately-held firm and six community colleges, which had established honors programs with the goal of facilitating students’ transfer to highly selective institutions. Our analysis traces the evolution of the partnership and the reasons for its eventual failure, and we offer insights for public institutions and privately-held companies wishing to establish similar partnerships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Amey, M. J. (2010). Leading partnerships: Competencies for collaboration. New Directions for Community Colleges, 149, 13–23.

  2. Amey, M. J., & Brown, D. F. (2004). Breaking out of the box: Interdisciplinary collaboration and faculty work. Boston, MA: Information Age.

  3. Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for partnership and collaboration in higher education: A model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.288

  4. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  5. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  6. Hunt, B. (2018). At University of Colorado Denver, a public-private partnership is all part of the plan. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 47, 1–7.

  7. Jaggars, S. S., Grant, M., Fay, M. P., & Farakish, N. (2017). Understanding American Honors: Student selection, key program components, and stakeholder impressions (Research Brief No. 67). New York, NY: Community College Research Center (CCRC). Retrieved from https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/understanding-american-honors.pdf

  8. Kim, J. (2018, July 11). 5 misconceptions about online program management providers. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/blogs/technology-and-learning/5-misconceptions-about-online-program-management

  9. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  10. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2001). Practical research: Planning and design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

  11. Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  12. Patrinos, H. A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guáqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public-private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications.

  13. Redden, E. (2018a, June 19). The lay of the land. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/19/overview-third-party-pathway-program-landscape

  14. Redden, E. (2018b, June 20). Parting ways. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/20/some-third-party-pathway-partnerships-have-ended

  15. Redden, E. (2018c, June 19). As pathway market expands, enrollment outcomes diverge. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/06/19/more-colleges-hire-corporate-partners-international-student-pathway-programs-mixed

  16. Robson, C. (2002). Real world research. Maiden, NC: Blackwell.

  17. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K. Denzil & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 259–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  18. Storms, K., Miller, S. E., & Hall, B. (2017). P4: The role of planning in successful public-private partnerships (P3s): Adding that critical P to your process. Planning for Higher Education Journal, 45(3), 48–59.

  19. Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, contexts, processes, and social order. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  20. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  21. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  22. Wan, T. (2018, November 14). Struggling college-pathway provider quad learning pivots and sells. EdSurge. Retrieved from https://www.edsurge.com/news/2018-11-14-struggling-college-pathway-provider-quad-learning-pivots-and-sells

  23. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The American Honors study was conducted through the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, and was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Author information

Correspondence to Negar Farakish.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farakish, N., Jaggars, S. & Fay, M. Public-private Partnership: How and Why Six Community Colleges Loved and Left a For-profit Partner. Innov High Educ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09500-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Public-private partnerships
  • Community colleges
  • Honors program