What should stay and what should go
Chicago’s community college system did not begin as a grand plan. It started as a practical fix. In 1911, Crane Junior College opened inside a high school, offering recent graduates a chance to continue their education without leaving the city. It was modest, improvised, and local. That framework still runs through the modern City Colleges of Chicago (CCC): Open access, neighborhood orientation, and a mission to serve students who might otherwise be shut out of higher education. Over a century later, that same openness raises a harder question. Has Chicago built a system that is too inclusive for its own good? The system admits broadly but struggles to move large numbers of students to completion, stable work, or a bachelor’s degree. Does the system need a few tweaks here and there, or is it in need of a major overhaul?
After Crane’s early experiment and its closure during the Depression, Chicago restarted the idea in 1934 with new junior colleges like Wright and Wilson. These institutions were designed to be accessible and inexpensive, serving working-class students on the North and South Sides.
The real expansion came in the 1960s and 1970s, when campuses such as Richard J. Daley College, Malcolm X College, and Olive-Harvey College were built as part of a broader urban push to democratize higher education. These were not finishing schools for elites; they were entry points for everyone else.
By the time Harold Washington College (formerly Loop College) opened downtown in 1962, CCC had become a full-fledged urban system with multiple campuses, each serving a distinct geographic and economic niche.
That mission depends heavily on the system upstream. Today, the largest feeder into CCC is Chicago Public Schools (CPS), one of the largest and most complex urban school districts in the country. This relationship is both CCC’s strength and its central challenge.
CPS has made real gains in graduation rates over the past decade. More students are finishing high school than in prior generations. Graduation, however, is not the same as readiness. CPS has been a monumental failure in terms of educating their students and preparing them for the world. A significant percentage of graduates arrive at CCC needing help in reading, writing, or math before they can succeed at college-level work.
This creates a structural tension. CCC is designed as an open-access institution. CPS is designed to move students through to graduation. The alignment between “graduate” and “college-ready” does not apply to CPS schools, unless they are magnet schools. Those students are ready for a four-year college or university. Graduates of the neighborhood schools receive a piece of paper that shows they finished their high school days while at the same time being woefully unprepared for any further academic pursuits.
For decades, the system’s answer to this gap was remediation, consisting of non-credit courses designed to bring students up to college level before they could begin earning credits. The theory made sense. The results did not. Students placed into long remedial sequences often stalled out before ever reaching college-level classes. Each additional semester added time, cost, and frustration. Many simply dropped out.
In response, CCC and systems across the country shifted course. Instead of requiring students to “prove readiness” before entering college-level work, they began placing more students directly into credit courses with additional support such as tutoring, labs, and corequisite instruction.
The goal was to reduce the number of students stuck in academic limbo. The result was an all too predictable flop. Capable students have been held back while those incapable students couldn’t keep pace. The consequences show up in dropout rates. Community colleges nationwide struggle with persistence, and CCC is no exception.
Students who are close to college-ready often benefit from the newer model. They pass gateway courses at higher rates and move more quickly toward credentials. Roughly 30 percent of incoming students enter with deeper skill gaps. For them, even supported college-level work can be overwhelming. If they are lucky, they may pass a course or two, but the underlying gaps remain. The burden of being under educated in the CPS system is not the only hurdle they have to clear. Finding the time, meeting the cost, as well as competing obligations all come into play as well. Many CCC students are older, working, or supporting families. The longer the path to a tangible payoff, the harder it is to stay enrolled. This is why remediation has such high attrition rates. Sadly, until Chicago and the State of Illinois embrace school choice that is not likely to change.
If the system struggles, it is not because it lacks programs. CCC offers everything from adult education to transfer pathways. The issue is what lies between them. For jobs that are at the bottom of the economic ladder, the private sector does an admirable job, especially the Christian Industrial League (CIL). There is a missing middle tier. Those are structured, skill-based programs that are neither purely remedial nor fully academic. That is where vocational training should be embraced. CCC has moved in this direction, especially under its “College to Careers” model, aligning campuses with specific industries. Richard J. Daley College focuses on manufacturing and the trades such as plumbing, electrical, maintenance and HVAC.
For those without union ties (which would include the overwhelming majority of students referenced here) HVAC would probably be the best bet. Malcolm X College specializes in healthcare. Olive-Harvey College emphasizes logistics and transportation. These programs are designed to connect directly to jobs, not just degrees. The CCC system still defaults heavily toward academic pathways, particularly transfer to four-year institutions, even for students who might be better served by shorter, job-linked training. Of those enrolling in CCC hoping to transfer to four-year universities, only 30 percent do.
We have a good idea as to the efficacy of the CCC system. Next, we need to look at the cost. Everything needs to be examined through a cost/benefit analysis. The annual operating budgets for the seven campuses as well as the central offices are $650 million. The central bureaucracy accounts for $70 million. Future pensions check in at a staggering $2-$3 billion. In today’s environment of wild government spending, that doesn’t seem like a lot. Hopefully people’s thought process will go back to thinking that it is a lot in the near-term future.
Regardless, that is only one half of the equation. The other side is to examine the benefits. Funneling marginal CPS students into the academic track results in an estimated 15-30 percent graduation rate. The nominal cost per student is $10,000. Rarely do any of these students pay the full sticker price. Various scholarships such as Pell Grants pick up the tab. Plenty in this group pay nothing. Time is money, so if students are unable to get anything out of their experience, then it is still costly.
There is only one Leo High School in Chicago. If there were 50 of them then there would be a legitimate funnel available. Remedial academic learning should be junked. We all love the culinary arts. Should an already financially strapped city be involved in it? The CCC needs more than some tweaking here and there. Combining half of the schools’ physical presence would help. Eliminating many of the programs would be another help. The CCC does some good so it should be allowed to go forward. Because it does “some good” does not entitle it to eternal life.
