Urban community colleges serve a crucial role in providing access to higher education for marginalized and underserved students. A recent study by Jagne-Shaw (2026) provides strategies to advance social equity gleaned from assessing the leadership practices of urban community college executives. Twelve senior level executives were interviewed who serve at varying levels from chancellor to dean in colleges across 11 states. Their insights pertaining to best practices in addressing social equity were inspiring.
Log in to view the full article
Urban community colleges serve a crucial role in providing access to higher education for marginalized and underserved students. A recent study by Jagne-Shaw (2026) provides strategies to advance social equity gleaned from assessing the leadership practices of urban community college executives. Twelve senior level executives were interviewed who serve at varying levels from chancellor to dean in colleges across 11 states. Their insights pertaining to best practices in addressing social equity were inspiring.
Defining Equity in the Urban Context
Participants overwhelmingly conceptualized equity as a metric of economic survival and social mobility. Each leader argued for the need to understand who is being served by their institution and what efforts are being made toward equity goals.
The Broader Societal Mission
Leaders universally saw their college as an active partner in the community and critical stakeholders in the reshaping of students’ realities. One stated, “The institution’s role is not just to train individuals, but to transform the local ecosystem, bridging gaps between neighborhood talent and corporate demands.”
Accountability and Modeling Behavior
Holding their teams accountable was mandatory. Leaders led by example and refused to blame students for systemic failures. They perceived students as outcomes of a broken system—not as broken minds. Each ensured that students were provided a positive experience and were committed to meeting students where they arrived academically.
Idealized Influence
Participants acknowledged equity gaps and were clear about their duty to close those gaps. One shared, “It is our role to make people aware of what is possible. Students can never have raised ambitions if they’re not aware of opportunity.”
Navigation of Systemic and Immediate Tensions
Leaders consistently described the tension between fighting for long-term systemic change and addressing the daily crises of their students. One shared, “Vulnerable students are often one flat tire away from dropping out. Knowing that we will have emergency needs, we set aside funds as a part of our budget planning, being thoughtful about the things that occur and require quick attention.”
Redefining Equity as Economic Emancipation
Another dominant theme was the rejection of traditional definitions for student success. Success tied purely to degree completion limited leaders’ ability to achieve social equity. Leaders saw a credential as valuable only if it afforded the recipient liberation from their socioeconomic status quo. One shared, “The degree itself is not the product; rather, the true metric of success is the person and their ability to ascend socially. It is not enough for students to graduate if they are not elevating from the places that sent them there. We must develop and cast a vision rooted in the dismantling of systems of poverty.”
The Strategic Nature of Transformational Leadership
We found that advancing equity required strategic and transformational leaders who are prepared to navigate and address systemic hostility. It was critical to pivot language from “race and gender” to terminology such as “first generation” and “low socioeconomic status” to protect from political attacks. Equity-minded leaders intentionally decentralized power, not to abdicate responsibility, but instead to strategically empower others to contribute meaningfully toward achieving social equity and student success.
Addressing equity gaps within the urban college requires transformation rather than perpetuating legacy systems within the college. Achieving social equity welcomes the marginalized in, meeting students where they are, and provides holistic support for their basic needs. Leaders need to challenge systems that allow for underrepresentation to exist and be strategic and nimble to reach equity goals. Students are able to achieve social mobility, in part, because of the intentional decisions made by leaders to develop a responsive ecosystem.
Operationalizing Equity Through Structural Disruption
Urban students often experience systemic neglect which, left unattended, will perpetuate. Leaders suggested that students who become accustomed to not being prioritized default to quitting because they do not believe that support is available. Marginalized students often experience low confidence which manifests as imposter syndrome. They simply quit when faced with too many barriers. Administrative delays are perceived as gatekeeping, or worse, students perceive barriers as confirmation that they are not worth the investment. Leaders must engage in critical analysis of institutional systems, moving toward solution-orientation. One leader employed “budgetary gatekeeping,” mandating that every resource and space-request be tied to access, completion, and goals to ensure that students do not face these barriers.
Curating Culture for Equity
Culture is not a manifestation of happenstance; it is the result of intentional effort. One leader told a story about a custodian, stating that retention accountability was a responsibility of all staff. The leader included historically-invisible frontliners, replacing traditional hierarchy with a culture of belonging, focused on equity. Leaders articulated a compelling vision that motivated campus community members to exceed traditional equity goals. One leader empowered team members to share the responsibility of ensuring campus beauty, stating “students from broken communities do not want to be associated with a broken campus.” Leaders must be intentional in communicating expectations to the campus and, while leaders are responsible for setting equity vision and strategies, it is members of the campus community who determine whether those initiatives are successful. Galvanizing support was essential to the success of leaders and equity goals.
Dr. Terry Calaway is President Emeritus, Johnson County Community College (KS) and serves as Chair, Kansas State University’s Community College Leadership Program National Advisory Board.
Dr. Marcel Jagne-Shaw is a recent graduate of the Community College Leadership Program (CCLP), Kansas State University. He serves as the inaugural University Bursar for Kean University, Union, NJ.
Dr. Margaretta Mathis serves as Senior Professor of Practice and Senior Director of the Roueche Center for Community College Leadership, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Kansas State University.
The Roueche Center Forum is co-edited by Drs. Margaretta B. Mathis and John E. Roueche of the John E. Roueche Center for Community College Leadership, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Kansas State University.
This story originally ran in The EDU Ledger's August 6th edition.
