Democracy’s Colleges: The Evolution of the
Community College in America
George R. Boggs
American Association of Community Colleges
August 19, 2010
American community colleges are much like the
nation that invented them. They offer an open
door to opportunity to all who would come, are
innovative and agile in meeting economic and
workplace needs, and provide value and service
to individuals and communities. Little wonder
that they are increasingly emulated around the
world and have become the largest and fastestgrowing segment of U.S. higher education.
United States are regionally accredited,
nonprofit higher education institutions and
include public, independent, and tribal colleges.
While most community colleges restrict their
programs to two years or less and confer
associate degrees and certificates in a wide
variety of subject areas, a growing number of
them now offer baccalaureates in applied fields,
teacher education, and nursing.
A Century of Growth
Although the roots of this uniquely American
contribution to higher education extend to
several specialized two-year institutions that
began in the late 19th century, most community
college historians point to the founding of Joliet
Junior College, near Chicago, Illinois, in 1901 as
the true beginning of the American community
college movement, a social movement that has
widely broadened access to higher education
and training opportunities to students who would
not otherwise have had the opportunity to attend
college due to economic, mobility, and social
barriers. William Rainey Harper, the president of
the University of Chicago, and J. Stanley Brown,
the principal of Joliet High School, collaborated
to found Joliet Junior College in order to expand
educational opportunity and to prepare the very
best students for the senior college at the
University. Joliet is the oldest community college
that is still in operation.
From relatively modest beginnings at the turn of
the 20th century, community colleges now enroll
close to half of all U.S. undergraduates (43%;
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2007a). Especially in times of economic
uncertainty, the colleges provide an affordable
option to both recent high school graduates and
returning adult learners, with an average cost of
just $2,544 per year (College Board, 2009).
Reflecting the current economic downturn, credit
student enrollment in community colleges
increased 16.9% to 8 million per term over the
past two years (Mullin & Phillippe, 2009), with
noncredit enrollment in basic skills, short-term
workforce, or avocational courses conservatively
estimated at an additional 5 million students
(AACC, 2010a).
Originally developed as open-admissions junior
colleges, offering the first two years of a
baccalaureate education, community colleges
have evolved into comprehensive institutions.
They serve the postsecondary educational
needs of communities in many ways, in
particular preparing students to transfer to
upper-division universities or to enter the
workforce directly. The close to 1,200
community, junior and technical colleges in the
The Democratization of Higher Education
The Truman Commission report, issued in 1947,
changed the course of higher education in the
United States from “merely being an instrument
for producing an intellectual elite” to becoming
“the means by which every citizen, youth, and
adult, is enabled and encouraged” to pursue
higher learning (President’s Commission, 1947).
1
The Commission’s report marked the first
general use of the term community college and
recommended that they expand nationally to
provide universal access to postsecondary
education. Expanding to every state and shaped
by such forces as the educational and training
needs of returning veterans, the baby boom
generation and the growing need for skilled
workers in a shifting economy, community
colleges have changed the paradigm for higher
education in the United States from one where
students had to “go away” to college to one that
provides access to high-quality and affordable
higher education and training in local
communities. Underscoring their accessibility,
there is a community college within a short
commute of 90% of the U.S. population, and
they provide a learning lifeline in hundreds of
small, rural communities (National Commission
on Community Colleges, 2008).
technology and energy efficiency. The colleges
also respond quickly to meet community needs.
During the current economic downturn, stories of
community colleges sending staff into factories
to counsel displaced workers and guide them on
a path to retraining made national news.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has
identified public community colleges as the main
source of postsecondary education for
technicians. NSF’s Advanced Technological
Education (ATE) program utilizes community
college educators to lead programs that involve
universities, secondary schools, and business to
prepare and strengthen the skills of the nation’s
technological workforce. ATE programs prepare
technicians in strategic areas including
agriculture, environmental technology,
biotechnology, engineering technology,
manufacturing, information technology,
telecommunications, cybersecurity, and process
technology (NSF, 2008).
Economic Engines for the Nation
Community colleges play an essential role in
preparing the nation’s workforce. They prepare
over half of the nation’s registered nurses and
the majority of other health-care workers, over
80% of first responders with postsecondary
credentials (paramedics, EMTs, firefighters, and
police officers), and a growing percentage of the
nation’s technological workforce (National
Commission on Community Colleges, 2008).
Community colleges have also become the
institutions of choice for workers upgrading their
skills and for displaced workers preparing to
reenter the workforce.
Community colleges also develop curricula to
respond to the needs of local economies,
working closely with industry, government, and
other education sectors. For example, Alabama
Southern Community College has a paper
technology program because of the importance
of the pulp industry in that part of the country;
Napa Valley College has a viticulture program;
and colleges along the Gulf Coast have
petrochemical technician programs. As the
importance of green technologies has become
more evident, the colleges have geared up
programs in fields such as wind and solar
Diverse and Inclusive
Community colleges provide access to higher
education to the most diverse student body in
history. It is diversity in every respect: age,
ethnicity, nationality, socioeconomic status, and
degree of disability. Forty-seven percent of firstgeneration college students, 53% of Hispanic
students, 45% of Black students, 52% of Native
American students, and 45% of Asian/Pacific
Islander students attend community colleges.
Although the average age of community college
students is 28, 46% of them are age 21 or
younger (NCES, 2007c).
Meeting the Challenge of Completion
Last July, President Obama called on
community colleges to increase the number of
graduates and program completers by 5 million
students over a 10-year period, a 50% increase
over current numbers (Obama, 2009). Although
Congress was not able to deliver federal funding
support to the colleges through the American
Graduation Initiative as proposed, the
administration has stated its continued
commitment to increasing the educational
attainment levels of Americans, challenging
community colleges to bear a significant part of
2
the burden. On March 30, 2010, at a ceremony
at Northern Virginia Community College,
President Obama signed H.R. 4872, the Health
Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation
Act, into law. The Act provides $2 billion for the
Community College and Career Training Grant
Program, a new Trade Adjustment Assistance
program focused on workforce preparation.
In an earlier address to a joint session of
Congress, President Obama asked every
American to commit to at least one year of
higher education or career training so that the
United States would once again have the
highest proportion of college graduates in the
world. The president made the point that, in an
increasingly competitive world economy,
America’s economic strength depends on the
education and skills of its workers. The Obama
administration has pointed out that, in the
coming years, jobs requiring at least an
associate degree are projected to grow twice as
fast as those requiring no college experience. In
its report of the Springboard Project, the
Business Roundtable (2009) echoed President
Obama’s challenge to increase education
attainment levels to build a competitive
workforce. The report recommends unlocking
the value of community colleges, stating that
these institutions have the potential to play a
dominant role in strengthening local economies.
In order to accomplish these goals, community
college student completion and transfer rates
must improve. Too many students do not make
it successfully through remedial programs into
college-level courses, and too many do not
complete their programs because of insufficient
financial support or poor institutional or state
policies and practices. The first significant effort
to improve student completion in community
colleges was set in motion by Lumina
Foundation for Education in 2004, with the
launch of the national Achieving the Dream:
Community Colleges Count initiative (ATD). The
goal of the initiative is to help more community
college students succeed, especially students of
color, working adults, and students from lowincome families. The ATD initiative emphasizes
the use of data and the creation of a “culture of
evidence” at the colleges to inform decisionmaking and to measure progress against a
specific set of student success metrics.
Ultimately, Lumina’s “Big Goal” is to increase the
proportion of Americans with high-quality
degrees and credentials to 60% by the year
2025 (Lumina Foundation, 2010). The
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development (OECD) rates the current
educational attainment level for the Unites
States at 40% (OECD, 2009).
Begun with a cohort of 26 colleges, ATD has
now expanded to128 colleges in 24 states,
including the District of Columbia. ATD efforts
have focused on improving or expanding
developmental education, gatekeeper courses,
first-year experience, learning communities,
academic and personal advising, student
support services, and tutoring. A recent report
indicated that the initiative is effectively
increasing student persistence rates by as much
as 13% (Jaschik, 2010). ATD colleges are also
working to strengthen linkages to K–12 and to
engage the community. The initiative also is
focused on changing state and federal policies
that create barriers for students (ATD, 2010).
In 2009, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
announced a major postsecondary success
initiative. The foundation is focused on ensuring
that postsecondary education results in a degree
or a certificate with genuine economic value.
The foundation has set an ambitious goal to
double the number of young people who earn a
postsecondary degree or certificate with value in
the marketplace by the time they reach age 26.
The foundation notes that the types of jobs
fueling our economy continue to change rapidly.
Success in the workplace demands advanced
skills in critical thinking and problem-solving, as
well as the ability to shift readily from one task or
project to another. Workers with strong language
and math skills, technological capabilities, and a
capacity to work well in teams are most likely to
succeed. Carnevale, Smith, and Strohl (2010)
project that, through 2018, nearly two thirds
(63%) of all new jobs will require more than a
high school diploma; nearly half of those will
require some college but less than a bachelor’s
3
degree. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects
that, 21 of the 30 fastest-growing occupations
require postsecondary education (Lacey &
Wright, 2009, Table 4).
In April 2010, six national community college
organizations—representing trustees,
administrators, faculty, and students—signed a
call to action to commit member institutions to
match President Obama’s 2020 goal (AACC,
2010b). The organizations are currently seeking
funding to develop cohesive and integrated
strategies to move ahead, although challenges
presented by the current economic climate could
very well inhibit early progress. In the face of a
surge of enrollment pressure, states have cut
funding to public higher education, including
community colleges. Hundreds of thousands of
students were turned away from classes last fall,
roughly 140,000 students in California alone
(California Community Colleges, 2010), and the
situation in fall 2011 may be even worse due to
continuing economic challenges in the states. If
the United States is to meet the challenges of
the future, policymakers must provide needed
support to colleges and universities and their
students. Education, at all levels, must be seen
as an important state and federal investment in
our future, and policies must be put in place to
ensure maximum return on that investment.
A Shared Investment in Student Success
Support from policymakers and a foundation is
important, but goals of improving educational
attainment in the United States can best be met
if educators take the lead in improving student
success. College and university faculty and
administrators need to work together to improve
completion rates and to facilitate the transfer of
students from community colleges into upperdivision course work through better course
articulation and improved student advising. In
their book, Crossing the Finish Line, Bowen,
Chingos, and McPherson (2009) said that many
four-year institutions could increase their own
overall graduation rates, while enrolling and
graduating more students of low socioeconomic
status, by increasing their numbers of
community college transfers. They said that
transfer students do better in four-year
universities than if they had come directly from
high school with the same credentials. While
community college transfer students generally
do at least as well as native university students
after transferring, both in terms of both grade
point average and degree attainment, not
enough community college students transfer. It
is important for both policymakers and educators
to address the barriers to student success and
transfer. Higher education in the United States is
exemplary in many ways, but it can be much
stronger if the contributions of community
colleges are appropriately recognized and if
educators work together to break down barriers
to student success.
The Globalization of the Community
College Model
In an increasingly global society and economy,
education and training beyond customary
compulsory primary and secondary education is
seen as essential to a nation’s competitiveness
and the standard of living of its people. The
need to open the doors of higher or further
education beyond the relatively limited
enrollments in selective universities has
spawned an international movement to develop
or expand institutions that are generally less
expensive, more accessible, more flexible, and
tied more closely to business and industry.
Recently, there has been an increasing
international interest in the American community
college model. In July 2009, Jill Biden, wife of
the U.S. vice president and a community college
faculty member, presented a keynote address at
the UNESCO World Conference on Higher
Education in Paris, encouraging the leaders of
developing countries to consider the community
college model. Community colleges based on
the American model have now been established
in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Vietnam, Thailand, and
the Republic of Georgia. Representatives from
the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand,
and China have sent delegations to the United
States to study community colleges.
Representatives from U.S. community colleges
have been invited to Jordan, the United Arab
4
Emirates, India, South Africa, and Ukraine to
explain our American model and how it might be
adapted to fit the cultures of other countries. The
American Association of Community Colleges
has signed cooperative agreements with
postsecondary education systems in Canada,
the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany,
Denmark, and the Netherlands, and it is a
member of the World Federation of Colleges
and Polytechnics, an organization dedicated to
the improvement of workforce education and
lifelong learning.
Although they have been a part of U.S. higher
education since 1901, community colleges have
traditionally had a low profile and have received
little attention in national media. Today, they are
receiving significant attention, not only in the
United States but also internationally. In other
countries, they are seen as vehicles to improve
skills and to expand educational opportunity. In
the United States, they are seen as important to
economic strength and recovery and are being
challenged to increase student success and
completion significantly while increasing both
access and quality. If we are to meet the 10-year
challenge issued by President Obama and make
good on the commitment to increase the
numbers of student completers, educators must
build on and expand programs and practices
that reduce student barriers.
George R. Boggs is the President and CEO of
the American Association of Community
Colleges, Superintendent/President Emeritus of
Palomar College in California, and a former
community college faculty member.
References
Achieving the Dream. (2010). Strategies at
Achieving the Dream colleges. Available
from
http://www.achievingthedream.org/CAMP
USSTRATEGIES/STRATEGIESATACHI
EVINGTHEDREAMCOLLEGES/default.t
p
American Association of Community Colleges.
(2010a). 2010 fact sheet. Available from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pag
es/fastfacts.aspx
American Association of Community Colleges.
(2010b, April 20). National organizations
sign student completion call to action.
Available from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/newsevents/N
ews/articles/Pages/042020101.aspx
Biden, J. (2009, July). Keynote address at the
UNESCO World Conference on Higher
Education, Paris, France. Transcript
available from
http://www.unesco.org/education/wche/s
peeches/jill-biden-speech2009WCHE.pdf
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation . (2009).
Postsecondary success. Redmond, WA:
Author. Available from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/postseco
ndaryeducation
Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M.
(2009). Crossing the finish line:
Completing college at America’s public
universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Business Roundtable. (2009). Getting ahead—
Staying ahead. Helping America’s
workforce succeed in the 21st century.
Washington, DC: Author. Available from
http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/
default/files/BRT_Getting_Ahead_online
_version.pdf
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office. (2010, June 3). California
community colleges make concerted
effort to meet demand [Press release].
Available from the California Community
College Chancellor’s Office Web site:
http://www.cccco.edu
Carnevale, A. P., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010,
June). Help wanted: Projections of jobs
and education requirements through
2018. Washington, DC: Georgetown
University, Center on Education and the
Workforce.
College Board. (2009). Trends in college
pricing: 2009. Washington, DC: Author.
Available from http://www.trendscollegeboard.com/college_pricing/pdf/20
09_Trends_College_Pricing.pdf
5
Jaschik, S. (2010, June 1). Moving the needle.
Inside Higher Ed. Available from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/201
0/06/01/nisod
Lacey, T. A., & Wright, B. (2009, November).
Occupational employment projections to
2018. Monthly Labor Review, 132(11),
82–123.
Lumina Foundation for Education. (2010). Goal
2025. Available from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/goal_20
25/
Mullin, C. M., & Phillippe, K. (2009, November).
Community college enrollment surge: An
analysis of estimated fall 2009
headcount enrollments at community
colleges (Policy Brief 2009-01PBL).
Washington, DC: American Association
of Community Colleges.
National Center for Education Statistics.
(2007a). Integrated postsecondary
education data system (IPEDS)
completion survey [Data file].
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics.
(2007b). Integrated postsecondary
education data system (IPEDS) fall
enrollment survey [Data file].
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics.
(2007c). National postsecondary student
aid study: 200X–Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Commission on Community Colleges.
(2008, January). Winning the skills race
and strengthening America’s middle
class: An action agenda for community
colleges. New York, NY: The College
Board. Available from
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/pro
fdownload/winning_the_skills_race.pdf
National Science Foundation. (2008). ATE
Centers impact 2008–2010. Arlington,
VA: Author. Available from
http://www.atecenters.org/
Obama, B. (2009, July 14). Remarks by the
president on the American Graduation
Initiative. Washington, DC: The White
House, Office of the Press Secretary.
Available from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off
ice/Remarks-by-the-President-on-theAmerican-Graduation-Initiative-inWarren-MI/
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and
Development. (2009). Education at a
glance 2009: OECD indicators. Available
from www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009
President’s Commission on Higher Education.
(1947). Higher education for democracy:
A report of the President's Commission
on Higher Education (vols. 1–2). New
York, NY: Harper.
6
White House Community College Summit:
Issue Brief on Community College and Industry
Partnerships
Louis Soares
Center for American Progress
October 2010
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In recent decades, in response to rapid
technological change and increasing global
competition, business and postsecondary
education have been finding common cause in
the preparation of the highly skilled workforce
necessary to preserve the nation’s
competitiveness and economic opportunity.
The Obama Administration, recognizing this
economic imperative, has set aggressive goals
for postsecondary attainment in the United
States and emphasized the unique role
community colleges can play achieving them.
The scale and adaptability of community
colleges make them a strong choice as a driver.
Among higher education institutions, community
colleges stand closest to the crossroads of
higher education and the real world, where
Americans need to apply a mix of technical
knowledge, business acumen and creativity to
add value in firms whose imperative is to
compete on innovation i. This complex talent
mix requires knowledge and skills gleaned
from both academic education and vocational
training.
The only way to develop curriculum and
instruction models that deliver this skill set to
large numbers of Americans is for business and
education leaders to build collaborations that
leverage their combined knowledge of labor
markets, skills, pedagogy and students. This
integration of vocation and employment-oriented
goals in academic educational programs has
been termed The New Vocationalism
movement. ii The movement seeks to create a
more well-rounded education that satisfies both
the demand for skilled employees as well as the
need for a knowledgeable and engaged
citizentry by integrating the three historic
missions of community colleges: university
transfer education, vocational education and,
more recently, developmental education.
A central tenet of New Vocationalism is the need
for institutional innovations to identify new
models of community college education as a
way to better prepare individuals for high wage,
high skill jobs. Community college-industry
partnerships (CCIPs) are one such institutional
innovation. The purpose of these partnerships
is most often to enhance the community
colleges’ historic mission of university transfer
education with alternate pathways to
postsecondary credentials with labor market
value for individuals who are not on a traditional
college track iii. This may include youth and
adults with low-literacy, dislocated workers and
English as a Second Language learners.
Strong Partnerships tend to develop around
local and regional economic and workforce
development needs and can take many different
forms from joint-investment in facilities to
industry sector partnerships. iv
1
CCIPs include many promising “good practices”
for helping the populations they target obtain a
postsecondary credential including: Systemic
Institutional Alignment/Improvement; Curriculum
and Instructional Transformation; Academic and
Social Support; Professional Development and
Shared Resources/Sustainability. v Yet, there is
still research and analysis work needed to
establish best practices that can be fully
scaled. vi
This issue brief provides a broad overview of
CCIPs from the viewpoint of their role in
changing community college missions and
practices. We first situate the CCIP within the
New Vocationalism movement and the
community colleges’ multiple missions. Second,
we provide a definition for CCIPs along with key
success factors and activities. Third, we provide
three case studies that utilize these activities.
Fourth, we have a brief discussion of outcomes
and finally have some general recommendations
and concluding thoughts.
II. NEW VOCATIONALISM, MUTIPLE
MISSIONS AND CCIPs
Community colleges certainly make sense as a
driver of postsecondary attainment goals. They
serve an estimated 12 million for-credit and
non-credit students vii,, which means they dwarf
other postsecondary education providers,
including 4-year schools and workforce training
programs in terms of access to and cost of their
services. Further, the education, work and life
challenges of average community college
students make them the least likely to complete
a postsecondary education. Community
college completion rates are low with an
average degree completion rate of about 22
percent for full-time students viii and 15 percent
for part time students. ix
The challenge is designing education
experiences that make sense given the
students’ life realities and what they want out of
a community college education. Community
college students often pursue work and learning
simultaneously, and most seek to build skills
with labor market value. Many need some
remedial education to participate in college-level
work. x
Current community college instructional models
and curricula are not designed to facilitate
integrated vocational and academic skill
development or support the complex
life-work-education balance, but rather to deliver
instruction in narrow silos. Community colleges
offer academic, occupational and developmental
education xi programs. Each of these silos
supports one of the often cited multiple missions
of community colleges: university transfer,
vocational and developmental education.
These missions have historically been operated
as separate entities within community college
governance and business models with separate
operations, staff and funding mechanisms. This
siloed structure is reinforced by federal and state
level funding and regulation that makes
innovation across mission difficult. xii
New Vocationalism, with its focus on the
integrated skills sets and innovative instructional
models, provides a framework to address these
needs of the community college student by
challenging the existing silos of community
college instruction. It envisions the possibility of
classroom learning with real world content;
values applied and work-based learning
experiences; and is focused on generating
benefits to students, community colleges and
businesses. This is an outward looking focus
with an eye toward value creation for the
economy and society.
2
Community colleges have the scale,
pedagogical diversity and access to the student
body to improve the postsecondary attainment
of many Americans, but they must find ways to
integrate their three missions to do so. CCIPs,
as a new vocationalism innovation, hold forth the
promise of leveraging these assets with those of
partners to promote institutional innovations the
yield better results in terms of relevant
knowledge and skills and degree attainment.
III. CCIP DEFINITION, SUCCESS FACTORS
AND KEY ACTIVITIES
Interestingly enough it is difficult to find a
definition of what a community college and
business partnership is exactly. For the
purposes of this brief we have developed a
definition from two core bodies of literature.
The first body of literature is the emergent
literature on Labor Market Responsive
Community Colleges. xiii The second is the
evolving, but established, literature on career
pathways as alternatives to traditional
postsecondary education. xiv Each body of
literature is an offshoot of the New
Vocationalism movement and as such
understands the complexity of the community
college education yet seeks to challenge the
status quo with institutional innovations. From
these two strands of literature we developed the
following definition.
A Community College and
Industry Partnership is a
collaboration between a
community college and an
individual business, group of
firms, chamber of commerce,
industry association or sector
partnership with the purpose of
using the resources of all
partners to create alternative
college education programs for
non-traditional students (both
younger workforce entrants and
older ones in need of skills and
education upgrades) that are
tightly linked to regional economic
development and labor force
needs.
Partners can contribute human
resources, finances, facilities and
equipment and leadership to
accomplishing the partnerships
agreed upon goals and
outcomes.
The expectation is that students who complete
these programs and obtain postsecondary
credentials will have the skills that meet the
needs of area business, improve
regional/national competitiveness and earn a
family-sustaining wage as well as be prepared
for further learning. Postsecondary credentials
can include occupational licenses, technical
certification, associate and bachelor degrees.
Success Factors
CCIPs that have the potential to truly transform
community college missions and instructional
practices can run up against the opposition that
arises when multiple partners engage in
something as complex as postsecondary
education. Business partners often do not
understand the governing models of community
colleges and get frustrated with the slowness of
change while community college faculty and
administrators can resist change to institutional
practice influenced by outside actors. CCIPs
must thus lay a solid foundation of mutual
understanding. Carrie B. Kisker and Rozanna
Carducci enumerate five success factors for
partnership success in the UCLA Community
College Review. These success factors are:
3
1. Recognize a local/regional economic
development challenge that calls for
collaborative attention.
2. Establish a shared mission and goals.
3. Ensure that value is achieved for all partners
(including students).
4. Have strong executive leadership from both
the college and industry participants
5. Develop a governance and accountability
mechanisms xv
While these are simple enough, often agreement
on these fundamental issues can either make or
break a potential partnership. It is also in the
discussions that culminate in these success
factors that community college and industry
leaders come to understand the “what’s in it for
me” in partnership implementation. Getting key
success factors right is so critical that it has
caused the creation of a new organizational
type, the “intermediary” exemplified by the
sector partnership noted in the CCIP definition.
An intermediary provides a neutral platform from
which community college and industry leaders
can discuss their mutual interest as well as
engage other regional partners with whom they
have common cause. These can include:
community-based organizations; labor unions
and apprenticeship committees; other colleges;
workforce development agencies; human
service agencies; and economic development
agencies.
Key Activities
While CCIPs are diverse and address concerns
unique to different regions with the assets
available to different stakeholders, there is an
emerging concensus that a set of “good
practices: is taking hold in developing alternative
education programs for non-traditional students
within the community college context. These
practices use partnership resources,
relationships, and activities to build alternatives
to the semester-based, full-time attendance
model associated with traditional college
students. Developed by the League of
Innovation in Community Colleges from field
research in CCIPs xvi, these key activities
include:
Curriculum and Instructional Transformation –
partnerships cause meaningful changes to
traditional curriculum and instructional practices
at participating community colleges. New
models include: contextualized, modularized
and competency based curriculum and
accelerated degree completion,
workplace-based learning, and learn and earn
models. Employers play a key role in
curriculum development and credential
validation.
Academic and Social Support – partnerships
create sustained academic and career
navigation supports for students. Examples:
Form small learning communities; fund a career
center that provides financial aid, academic and
career advising. .
Professional Development – partnerships
provide resources for community college faculty
and staff to develop skills needed to design new
curricula, teach integrated developmental,
occupational and academic course work and
better track student progress and employer
needs.
Shared Resources for Sustainability –
partnerships contribute to sustaining newly
developed educational programs over time as
well as create a foundation for new partnerships.
Examples include: Cultivate board level
leadership for partnerships and co-invest in
facilities and equipment.
Systemic Institutional Alignment/Improvement
– partnerships generate institution-wide changes
in community college mission, strategic planning
and resource allocation. Examples: simplify
4
enrollment for non-traditional students; Integrate
funding across missions and use data-driven
program accountability and articulation of credit
for learning.
provides part-time employment for students in
the program; it also pays half the cost of tuition
and reimbursement for textbooks. The state and
local governments pay the other half of tuition
and provide the students with access to JCTC
and University of Louisville.
IV. CASE STUDIES
Students who participate in Metropolitan College
work part-time on the Next Day Air night shift
with full-time benefits while attending college
during the day. These student-employees
receive deferred tuition for any major, as well as
bonuses and reimbursements for textbooks. The
students are responsible to pay fees including
parking and student activity fees. Students must
participate in workforce preparation activities,
including financial literacy, career exploration,
resume preparation, and a mock interview.
The following narrative case studies highlight
active CCIPs that have created alternative
education models for non-traditional students
and exemplify the key activities above.
Metropolitan College: UPS Collaboration
As discussed in this brief, one hallmark of
community college-industry partnerships is the
recognition of an economic challenge that
demands attention. The Metropolitan College
program in Louisville, Kentucky is a particularly
good example of what can result from an
individual employer’s need that has broad
economic implications.
UPS is the largest employer in the state of
Kentucky. As such, the State has an interest in
keeping UPS from moving its headquarters out
of state. It also has an interest in educating a
larger portion of its population. In 1996, UPS
identified workforce development needs that
gave Kentucky an opportunity to meet both of
these interests. UPS was having trouble staffing
its part-time Next Day Air night shift, and without
a drastic change in its approach to recruitment,
the company would have to move its hub from
Louisville.
Faced with the prospect of losing UPS to
another state, Kentucky stepped in to help craft
a plan to alleviate UPS’ concerns. The state’s
innovative solution was to provide educational
benefits to workers in the Next Day Air
operation. The result of this collaboration is
Metropolitan College, a partnership among UPS,
Jefferson Community and Technical College
(JCTC), and University of Louisville. UPS
The Metropolitan College Program has been
extremely successful. At the start, only eight
percent of UPS workers had a postsecondary
degree; by the spring of 2009, 2372 Metropolitan
College students had earned some kind of
postsecondary credential. The retention rate of
Metropolitan College participants at Jefferson
Community and Technical College was more
than 50% in 2007. UPS enjoyed an increase in
job retention as the annual turnover rate for new
hires went from 100% in 1998 to 20%, and a
600% return on investment in its students. The
program serves students from all over Kentucky,
and it has helped to support the local labor
market. Two additional Kentucky companies
have joined the Metropolitan College Program
(Humana and Community Alternatives
Kentucky), and Chicago adopted its own version
of the Metropolitan College model.
Why It Works?
There are several reasons why the Metropolitan
College program has been successful, including
the strong, sustained financial commitment from
both UPS and from the State of Kentucky.
Funding sources include $2 million from the
5
state government, $625,000 from the city of
Louisville, $100,000 from Greater Louisville,
Inc., and about $6.5 million from UPS. In
2007-2008, the per-student cost for Metropolitan
College was $2853 from UPS and $1991 from
all other sources. Another key to success is the
academic and social support components built
into its model. Metropolitan College ensures that
students receive guidance and career building
skills in addition to academic preparation.
The financial support for students is also a
significant component of the Metropolitan
College model. UPS provides part-time
employment with full-time benefits; the
learn-and-earn nature gives both a financial
incentive to continue and the financial support
that students need.
As Metropolitan College grows to include more
employer partners like Humana and Community
Alternatives Kentucky, the program becomes
more than simply an add-on to the existing
educational services provided at JCTC and
University of Louisville. Metropolitan College
may be part of a systemic change in the way
Kentucky looks at allocating resources toward
higher education.
Northrop Grumman’s Apprentice and Coop
Programs
Northrop Grumman Corporation’s Newport
News (NGNN) facilities design, build, overhaul
and repair cutting-edge naval ships, including
Nuclear Aircraft Carriers and Submarines. This
work requires a highly-skilled workforce with low
turnover. NGNN has developed two innovative
workplace based postsecondary education
programs, in partnership with community
colleges, apprenticeships and co-operative
education or co-ops.
Though NGNN has been training workers in its
Apprentice School of Shipbuilding since 1919,
its partnerships with community colleges give
NGNN the flexibility to provide promising
apprentices with a path to an associate degree
and career advancement. Community colleges
like Thomas Nelson Community College and
Tidewater Community College in the Hampton
Roads area of Virginia benefit from NGNN’s
expertise in curriculum development and the job
placement opportunities that NGNN provides.
The Apprentice School of Shipbuilding at NGNN
is often praised for its approach to supporting
apprentices with classroom learning, mentoring,
and student services. Apprentices receive paid,
on-the-job training in one of 19 registered
apprenticeship programs with full benefits for
four to five years. During this time, they also
take a fundamental World Class Shipbuilder
Curriculum and classes related to their trades.
The Apprentice School maintains articulation
agreements with area 2- and 4-year colleges to
ensure that credits earned in the apprentice
programs are transferable.
Students who show particular aptitude and
academic achievement during the first years of
the apprenticeship program may be chosen to
pursue further education at Thomas Nelson and
Tidewater Community Colleges. These students
may pursue an associate degree in business
administration, engineering, marine engineering,
or electrical engineering technology, paid for by
NGNN.
In addition to partnering with NGNN to provide
advanced training for apprentices, Tidewater
and Thomas Nelson Community Colleges also
partner with Northrop Grumman to provide co-op
experiences for community college students
interested in computer-assisted design.
Qualified students at these community colleges
receive full tuition for an associate degree in
computer-aided drafting and design technology
or mechanical engineering technology from
NGNN and a paid co-op experience. After
graduating, students are employed at NGNN
6
with an average starting salary of $31,200.
NGNN also provides tuition reimbursement to
those students who continue toward a
bachelor’s degree.
NGNN’s education-conscious apprenticeships
and partnerships with community colleges have
been very successful. More than 2500
graduates of the Apprentice School still work at
Northrop Grumman, and more than 32 percent
of a recent graduating class of apprentices had
earned an associate degree as part of their
training. The program serves the colleges’ and
company’s shared goals of filling a void in the
workforce and ensuring that students have
employment opportunities after graduation.
Why It Works?
The Northrop Grumman partnerships work
because they integrate the needs of students
with the needs of the employer. Rather than
simply training frontline employees and hiring
mid-level workers who earned credentials
elsewhere, NGNN makes investments in its
apprentice and co-op students that go beyond
what is necessary for an entry level position.
These investments include mentoring,
counseling, opportunities for further academic
engagement, and career advancement
pathways. The resources necessary to achieve
such a program are no small matter; NGNN
estimates that it spends about $100,000 per
student in the Apprenticeship School. This kind
of sustained support has paid off for the
company in the long term.
Another possible reason for the success of the
NGNN partnerships is that Northrop Grumman
takes on the responsibility for providing the
developmental and remedial education that
many students need to be successful in
educational programs. NGNN estimates that 40
percent of its new apprentices receive remedial
training, ranging from a one week to an 11 week
course. By providing these educational services
in the apprentice program, it alleviates the
burden on the community college system and
sets its students up for success in pursuing
further education.
Sector-Based Partnership: Columbia Gorge
Community College
Many community college-industry partnerships
begin with a workforce need expressed by an
individual employer; this is certainly the case in
the UPS and Northrop Grumman examples
described above. Other partnerships begin with
a community college that recognizes a regional
economic sector challenge and calls upon
businesses to help it meet the challenge. These
sector initiatives can be hugely beneficial to both
the college and the industry, but it takes initiative
on the part of the community college to
recognize a change in the workforce and act
upon it.
In 2006, the chief academic officer at Columbia
Gorge Community College (CGCC) in The
Dalles, Oregon took such initiative, noting the
emergence of a wind energy industry around the
college. As windmills went up, turbine
companies needed a local workforce to service
them. CGCC saw an opportunity to fulfill a
workforce need while also working with existing
resources at the college to create a
postsecondary credential in the wind energy
field.
With help from workforce development
representatives, CGCC identified a need for
more than 300 wind turbine technicians in the
area (the estimate increased to 700 by 2010).
The community college partnered with industry
and workforce development representatives,
including Acciona Energy North America, Black
and Veatch, Intel, and the Army Corps of
Engineers, to develop a pilot curriculum for a
renewable energy technology program. These
7
partnerships included both input from industry
representatives as well as professional
development opportunities. CGCC faculty spent
time visiting wind turbine sites and learning
firsthand the skills that they would need to
impart in students.
Though CGCC relied upon donations from
industry, it also drew upon the college’s existing
resources to shape its new Renewable Energy
Technology Program (RET). Rather than starting
anew, the college built on existing courses in
hydropower and the expertise of its faculty. The
college now offers one- and two-year programs
that prepare students to work in
wind-generation, hydro-generation, automated
manufacturing, and engineering technician work.
Employers in the area provide support for the
programs, and the program has grown
significantly since its inception in 2007.
Although it is still young, the RET program at
CGCC has been a success. The program is
filled to capacity, with approximately 106
students enrolled each year. It has produced 66
one-year certificates and 23 Associate of
Applied Science degrees since 2007. The
college reports that 80% of completers who want
to work in a wind plant are hired.
Why It Works?
The CGCC has been successful in part because
community college officials recognized the
growth in the wind turbine sector earlier than
other colleges; many other community colleges
caught on to the trend much later. Also, the
program benefited from significant investment
on the part of industry and workforce
development representatives. The wind turbine
industry donated expertise in curriculum
development, an opportunity for professors to
observe the wind turbine industry firsthand,
equipment, and $4.9 million in cash grants. The
Department of Labor also provides grant funding
for the program that enabled its expansion. The
cost per student for the RET program is not
known, and unlike the UPS and Northrop
Grumman examples, tuition costs are borne by
individual students.
Another element to the program’s success is the
fact that it built upon existing resources. CGCC
drew upon courses that prepare students for
hydropower jobs as well as a defunct program
aimed to train for the computer chip
manufacturing field to create the RET program.
Perhaps because of this interdisciplinary
beginning, RET prepares students for a number
of energy generation fields, which makes its
graduates more employable.
V. PROGRAM OUTCOMES
The preceding case studies demonstrate that
there is great deal of experimentation going on
as community colleges and their industry
partners grapple with the challenges of aligning
learning, work and life responsibilities
non-traditional students. One thing we notice is
that many of these partnerships are still small,
working with students in the hundreds or low
thousands. The reality is that there is still much
to learn about the prevalence, common
structures and outcomes of these partnerships.
There is still relatively little known about the
effectiveness of most of these innovations and
rigorous evaluation evidence remains scarce. xvii
As a result it is difficult to create and exact
typology of CCIPs.
So much so that in May 2009, the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a keen
interest alternative postsecondary education
programs, announced a 3-year, $5,000,000
multi-study research project to build a research
to build a rigorous base of research knowledge
on strategies for accelerating progression and
increasing success among low-income young
adults attending community colleges. The
8
foundation funded this work because it found
that such a research based was inadequate.
Accepting the scarcity of data, we can still look
to related programs and initiatives that engage
in some of the key activities of CCIPs to gain
some sense of the impact. Evidence of
success can be gleaned from the literature on
Sector Initiatives that work closely with
community colleges. An April 2007 report by
the Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies
Initiative, conducted field research of sector
initiatives around the country in which
community colleges participated and found that
these programs increased average monthly
income of program completers by an estimated
$1,500. xviii Another Aspen Institute survey of
graduates of six sector initiative programs found
that working participants’ earnings rose an
average of $8,580 before the program to
$14,040 the year following, and $17,752 in the
2nd year after completion. xix
An MDRC Opening Doors demonstration
project xx also shows some promising results of
participating in CCIP key activities. The project,
which works with community colleges in five
states, emphasizes the importance of learning
communities to promote student success.
Results show modestly improved retention and
credit completion for learning community
students who receive academic/career
supports xxi
Finally, with data gleaned from field research on
CCIP, sector initiative and career pathway
literature we can provide a broad range for the
costs of such programs. Programs that
incorporate many CCIP activities can cost
between $5,000 to $100,000 per student. xxii
As noted above, these are inferential outcomes
and data at best and much research and
analysis needs to be done to really get at the
effectiveness of CCIPs.
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS
The purpose of this brief has been to provide an
overview of community college and industry
partnerships as institutional innovations for
delivering postsecondary education to
non-traditional students. It is clear from the case
studies and lack of a strong outcomes data set
for analysis that much work needs to be done by
practitioners and policymakers to understand the
how these partnerships actually help students
and change community colleges at the
institutional level.
Yet, the key success factors and activities do
provide a foundation for both systematic
innovation around “good practice” and continued
research to identify “best practice”. Business,
institution and public policy leaders can use this
foundation to bring more rigor to partnership
development and analysis as well as an early
warning system to identify potential challenges.
To promote systematic innovation, policymakers
should review federal, state and local finance
and regulation to ensure the “good practice”
innovations are facilitated. Federal and state
policy makers can:
•
•
•
Ensure that formula funding streams and
regulation do not stifle good practice
when partners are building an alternative
education program.
Use competitive grant funds to promote
partnerships that emphasize sustainable,
systemic change
Continue to emphasize desired student
outcomes to keep community colleges
and partners focused on innovation.
To promote systematic research, policymakers
should be look at what tools and information we
lack to really measure the value of good practice
9
and gather the data that makes it and evidence
based best practice. Initial research questions
should include:
•
•
•
•
How can we develop a typology of
CCIPs that fosters systematic research
and innovation?
Do community colleges have the
requisite data systems to track CCIP
participant outcomes?
What are the demographics of students
who participate in CCIPs?
How can we calculate the return on
investment to CCIPs?
VII. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
We close with an observation that for CCIPs to
become an institution transforming catalyst in
the community college system, they cannot be
viewed primarily as an outgrowth of the
vocational training function of the community
college. This would plant these innovations
firmly as a servant of one of the historical
missions of the institution rather than a piece of
a larger of the “New Vocationalism” puzzle to
help transform higher education by integrating
the three missions of academic transfer,
occupational and developmental education.
i
U.S. Council of Competitiveness, “Measuring Regional
Innovation”, (Council on Competitiveness, 2006)
Soares, Louis & Chris Mazzeo, College Ready Students,
Student Ready Colleges: A Federal Agenda for Improving
Degree Completion in Postsecondary Education, Center for
American Progress, 2008
Osterman, Paul, College For All?: The Labor Market for
College Educated Workers, Center for American Progress,
2008
ii
New Directions for Community Colleges, Special Issue:
The New Vocationalism in Community CollegeVolume
2001, Issue 115, pages 73–80, Autumn (Fall) 2001.
iii
A traditional track being a student who attends college
immediately following high school , attends full-time and is
financially dependent on his/her parents.
iv
MacAllum, K., & Yoder, K. (2004). The 21st-century
community college: A strategic guide to maximizing labor
market responsiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education..
v
Jenkins, D., & Spence, C. (2006). The career pathways
how-to guide. New York, NY: Workforce Strategy Center.
Soares, Louis, Working Learners: Educating Our Entire
st
Workfroce for the 21 Century, Center For American
Progress, 2009.; Harry Holzer and Demetra Nightingale,
Strong Students, Strong Workers: Models for Student
Success through Workforce Development and Community
College Partnerships, Center for American Progress,
December 2009.,
vi
DeCastro, Belkis S. and Karp, Melinda M., A Typology of
Community College Based Partnership Activities,
Community College Research Center for Office of
Vocational and Adult Education, January 2009.
vii
6.6 million in credit bearing courses and an
estimated 6 million in non-credit bearing courses with
a small percentage of students pursue recreations
and personal enrichment courses.
viii
NCES, Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions,
2007: First Look NCES, 2009-155, table 5, p.11
ix
U.S. Department of Eudcation, NCES, 2003-04
Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal
Study, First follow-up.
x
Soares, Louis, Working Learners: Educating Our Entire
st
Workfroce for the 21 Century, Center For American
Progress, 2009
xi
developmental or remedial education includes: adult
basic education and English as a Second Language
instruction.
xii
Harris, Linda & Ganzglass, Evelyn, Creating
Postsecondary Pathways to Good Jobs for Disconnected
Youth, Center for American Progress, 2008.
xiii
MacAllum, K., & Yoder, K. (2004). The 21st-century
community college: A strategic guide to maximizing labor
market responsiveness. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
xiv
Jim Jacobs and others, “Career Pathways as A
Systemic Framework: Rethinking Education for Student
Success in College and Careers”, (Phoenix: League of
Innovation in Community Colleges, 2007)
Career Pathways refers to a series of educational
programs and services designed to prepare high school
students and adults for employment and advancement in
targeted jobs of importance in local communities
xv
Carrie B. Kisker and Rozana Carducci, Commmunity
College Partnerships with the private sector –
Organizational contexts and Models for Successful
Collaboration, UCLA Community College review, Volume
31, #3, Winter 2003,
xvi
Jim Jacobs and others, “Career Pathways as A
Systemic Framework: Rethinking Education for Student
Success in College and Careers”, (Phoenix: League of
Innovation in Community Colleges, 2007)
xvii
Harry Holzer and Demetra Nightingale, Strong Students,
Strong Workers: Models for Student Success through
Workforce Development and Community College
Partnerships, December 2009.
xviii
See Capital IDEA, Austin, Texas, in Sector Initiatives
and Community Colleges: Working Together to Provide
10
Education for Low-Wage Working Adults. Workforce
Strategy Initiative, Aspen Institute, 2007.
xix
Zandnipour, Lily and Conway, Maureen, “Closing the
Gap: how sectoral workforce development programs
benefit the working poor”, Aspen Institute 2001.
xx
xxi
http://www.mdrc.org/project_31_2.html
Susan Scrivener and Michael J. Weiss, “More Guidance,
Better Results? Three Year Effects of an Enhanced
Student Services Program at Two Community Colleges,”
(New York, MDRC, 2009).
xxii
For example: Metropolitan College cost $5,000 per
student in program year 2007-08 and Project Quest a
long-standing sector initiative in the Southwest United
states costs $10,000 per student and YearUp a highly
intensive classroom and workplace based learning program
costs $24,000 per student.
11
Student Support Services at Community Colleges:
A Strategy for Increasing Student Persistence and
Attainment
Michelle Cooper
Institute for Higher Education Policy
Community colleges are a significant part of our
country’s educational landscape. Even though
these institutions have been in existence since
1901, the 1947 Truman Commission Report gave
rise to the community colleges of today. The report
called for the widespread establishment of
affordable public colleges that would serve
community needs and offer comprehensive
educational programs.1 Since then, community
colleges have grown exponentially and now serve
as a gateway to opportunity for millions of
students.
Because of their open‐admissions policies,
convenient locations and course schedules, close
relationships with local business and industry, and
lower cost relative to other institutions, community
colleges are accessible to millions of students.
According to the U.S. Department of Education,
nearly 43 percent of all undergraduates are enrolled
in a community college.2 Given their distinct and
sometimes contradictory missions and vast array of
constituencies served, it is difficult to categorize
community colleges and the approaches used to
improve students’ educational outcomes under the
one‐size‐fit‐all designation.
Increased attention is being paid to the services,
functions, and outcomes of community colleges,
particularly as they affect student persistence and
completion. A study conducted by the U.S.
Department of Education found that among
students who enroll in community colleges with the
intent to earn a credential/degree or to transfer to a
four‐year institution, almost one‐half do not reach
this goal within six years.3 Low‐income and
minority students are particularly vulnerable to
dropping out.4 And, while enrolled, many students
require
two or more remedial classes (primarily in English
or math), experience difficulty covering college
costs, and struggle to balance competing priorities
(school, family, work).5 All of these factors
increase the likelihood of dropping out and
reinforce the perception of community colleges as
revolving doors.6
Yet despite this perception — legitimate or not —
community colleges remain central to
conversations swirling within the higher education
and policy communities around “student success.”
In order for such conversations to be productive
and fruitful, they must begin and end with the
student as the focus. Placing students at the center
of institutional policy and practice can lead the way
to improved student outcomes and a more equitable
distribution of opportunity.
One strategy for increasing student persistence and
achievement outcomes lies in the area of student
support services. These types of services are a
standard feature at most higher education
institutions. A modest body of research suggests
that student support services play a role in
promoting successful outcomes for
community college students. This paper examines
the current research on student services in
community college settings, model programs, and
suggested approaches for improving these services.
While many promising practices are offered, it is
important to note, that this paper does not address
the type of resources
needed for effective implementation.
Current Research & Models of Promising
Practices at Community Colleges
For years, researchers and practitioners have
demonstrated that student support services are
1
critical to students’ academic success in college;
however, the vast majority of this work focuses on
four‐year institutions. The community college
sector has been largely overlooked in this area of
research. More recently, several well‐designed
research projects – which will be discussed in this
paper – have provided insight on the benefit of
student support services and the key elements of a
system aimed at success for all students. Effective
support services have an integrated network of
academic, social, and financial supports.7
When implemented in a coordinated, targeted, and
comprehensive structure, these initiatives have
been shown to improve student achievement.8
Academic Guidance and Advising
Academic guidance and advising – arguably the
most important student services – are areas where
students need tremendous help.9 Improving
academic services at community colleges is crucial
because most entering students arrive with
academic deficiencies that limit their ability to
engage effectively in college‐level courses.10 Early
research on the collegiate experience by Pascarella
and Terenzini suggests that institutions can
enhance the academic experience of
under‐prepared students by providing extensive
instruction in academic skills and advising.11
Although this research focuses primarily on
four‐year colleges, later research confirms that the
findings are also applicable to community college
students.12
Student success courses, learning communities, and
other efforts that seek to integrate students into
college life can help students who are struggling
academically. Student success courses prepare
students for the rigors of college life, teaching time
management skills, basic skills, study skills, and
critical thinking strategies. The Community
College Research Center (CCRC) at Teacher’s
College, Columbia University examined student
success courses in Florida community colleges and
found them to be effective in promoting academic
achievement.13 Similarly, research on learning
communities show positive effects on student
retention.14
Learning communities have different formats, but a
typical model enrolls a student cohort in bundled
courses, with the same instructors. A study at
Kingsborough Community College found that
instruction through learning communities increased
students’ likelihood of passing required courses.15
Structuring effective developmental courses is
perhaps the most important academic issue
confronting community colleges today. Because
extensive remediation can delay completion,
institutions must offer quality programs, tailored to
students’ needs. Bunker Hill Community College
offers developmental courses in different formats
and on different schedules to accommodate
students. These courses are offered directly through
the relevant academic department, rather than
through a central developmental education
department. Additionally, academic advisors work
closely with students to identify courses that are
appropriate for their learning needs. While there
are a variety of strategies for structuring
developmental
education programs, the methods used at Bunker
Hill Community College have produced results,
showing increased persistence and grade point
averages.16
Students must also be encouraged to create an
educational plan geared toward degree/credential
completion, transfer, and/or career preparation. A
tailored educational plan can put students on the
path to success. For students interested in transfer,
such a plan can ensure that course selections
improve chances for acceptance and the pursuit of
a particular major. The Illinois Board of Higher
Education provides funding to twenty‐five
community colleges to operate transfer centers that
are designed to help facilitate transfer. It is
estimated that over 25,000 students are served by
these centers annually, and the transfer rates for
African American and Latino students increased as
a result of participation.17 Research suggests that
requiring students to begin planning in these key
areas – degree/credential completion, transfer,
and/or career preparation – as early as the first
semester, can improve chances of persistence and
completion.18
Counseling and Social Networks
Regardless of how academically prepared students
are for college, even well‐constructed educational
plans can be significantly altered by both
2
unexpected life events and ongoing personal
problems. Through the Opening Doors project,
researchers from MDRC conducted focus groups
of community college students who confirmed that
personal problems were a major impediment to
their academic pursuits.19 Given that much of the
attendance and academic patterns of community
college students is “more dependent on their
personal lives, their jobs, [and] the outside
world,”20 campus leaders committed to helping
these students succeed must ensure that supports,
such as counseling, mentoring, and peer networks,
are available to help them cope and manage
everyday pressures of work, family, and school.
Personal guidance and counseling can help
community college students confront academic as
well as nonacademic challenges. Although most
institutions offer these services, students may be
reluctant or unable –due to time constraints – to
take the initiative and seek out assistance on their
own. In a review of the literature on the impact of
counseling on student retention, it was found that
counseling increases the retention of students with
high risk factors for dropping out.21 The structure
and offerings of personal guidance and counseling
services vary from campus to campus. In some
cases, students are offered individual or group
sessions with licensed, professional counselors. In
other cases, faculty members may serve as
counselors or mentors to help students address
personal concerns. The faculty‐student interactions
are often more informal than the professional
counseling services.22
Because nearly 30 percent of community college
students are parents,23 some institutions have begun
to involve the family network in counseling and
other support programs. The Family Education
Model (FEM) – commonly used at Tribal Colleges
and Universities – addresses the need for
family‐based interventions. Although these
institutions all use different family support
strategies, they each ensure that student‐service
practitioners work with families to mobilize formal
and informal resources to support family
development and institute retention programs that
are flexible and responsive to emerging family and
community issues.24 Additionally, some
community colleges offer child care services as a
means of addressing familial needs. Participants in
the Opening Doors focus group discussions noted
that child care was one of the “primary factors that
influenced their decisions to attend or complete
college;” however funding for child care centers
is limited and insufficient to meet demand.25
Students also connect and develop strong social
networks with other students. Just as peer tutors are
used to provide academic guidance and support,
they can also advise their peers on some personal
problems.Students who are counseled by fellow
students find that the camaraderie and friendship
established through the peer relationship can often
provide the level of encouragement and support
needed to help cope with challenging situations.
For example, Houston Community College’s
Minority Male Initiative has helped young Black
and Latino men develop stronger peer networks
that strengthen their academic and social
development.26
Technology has introduced new forms of
connecting and networking through emails, text
messages, and social networking sites like
Facebook and Twitter. While few studies have
investigated the linkage between social media and
college students’ success, preliminary findings
speculate that these sites allow students to access
and share information easily, and it allows them to
maintain and develop networks with relative ease.
Several institutions are experimenting with the use
of texting and social media to keep students
informed about institutional news, deadlines,
services, and other resources.27
Financial Aid Advising and Funding
Financial aid advising and funding are central to
student support. After all, many students cannot
enroll – let alone remain enrolled – without ample
financial assistance. In a study conducted by the
Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE), 45 percent of the
respondents indicated that finances were critical to
continuous enrollment in college. Additionally,
over three‐quarters of survey participants said that
financial aid advising was one of the most
important support services, but at the same time,
expressed frustration with their experiences with
the financial aid services offered on their
campuses.28
3
To improve student persistence and accelerate
completion of community college degrees and
certificates, the literature offers four financial‐aid
strategies to consider include: (1) providing more
intensive financial aid counseling to ensure that
students apply for and receive all the aid to which
they are entitled; (2) offering financial literacy
programs to help students better understand the
role of finances in life’s decisions; (3) offering
financial incentives to students to complete key
academic milestones or earn good grades; (4) and
offering emergency aid or vouchers. Recognizing
that many students were leaving
“money‐on‐the‐table”29 and making unwise
financial decisions, many community colleges have
increased efforts around financial advising and
financial literacy. Valencia Community College
has introduced the Life Maps course that provides
instruction on various aspects of financial
planning.30 In addition, the philanthropic arm of
USA Funds has helped leaders at minority‐serving
institutions improve financial literacy services and
understand its connection to improved retention.31
Also, research conducted by MDRC shows that
low‐income single mothers are more likely to
complete college courses if they receive
performance‐based scholarships that
require them to maintain a specific grade point
average and hold regular meetings with an
advisor.32 Emergency grants and vouchers have
helped many community college students with
small emergencies and lower‐cost expenses, such
as books and transportation. Fort Peck Community
Colleges’ gas voucher program provides this type
of aid to needy students.33
Final Thoughts
Because so many community college students
spend limited time on campus, they have fewer
opportunities to make use of all of these services.
Colleges can address this challenge by taking steps
to integrate support services, using technology
where appropriate, into other activities and
experiences that students have on campus.
Additionally, attempts are being made to offer
support services through a more centralized
approach, rather than in the decentralized fashion
that is customary at many institutions. In a study of
effective strategies for student service programs at
community colleges, it was recommended that
institutions offer more “enhanced student
services.”34 Such programs would then be linked to
other services, but also integrated into existing
campus‐wide reform strategies, thereby allowing
student services to be offered, in a coordinated
fashion and over an extended period of time. Since
many students encounter ongoing challenges
throughout their academic career – related to
academic, social, and financial needs – it is
imperative to offer students linked and sustained
services in all areas of the college.
One of the most widespread integrated student
service programs is Student Support Services
(SSS), funded under the federal TRIO programs.
SSS is an educational program that provides
first‐generation students with opportunities that
help them successfully complete their
degrees/credentials, offering academic
development, counseling, financial guidance, and
career development opportunities. In an evaluation
of SSS programs, one of the five colleges
examined was a community college, and it was
found that these programs played a positive role on
students’ overall academic and social integration.35
Community colleges have also experimented with
the one‐stop approach to student services. Research
conducted by the CCRC has found this to be an
effective strategy for delivering student services, as
it helps students better understand and navigate the
programs and services of the institution.36 At
Lorain County Community College, a one‐stop
approach to academic guidance and counseling has
been implemented. The center, managed by staff
from the student services department, assists new
and returning students with a variety of services,
ranging from admissions and financial aid to
advising and registration to academic enrichment
courses and personal counseling. The center also
provides specialized services to veterans and
military personnel, international students, and
English as Second Language (ESL) learners.37
In closing, community colleges are a key entry
point to higher education for millions of
Americans. Many of these students come from
varied walks of life and arrive at the doors of these
institutions with differing
4
learning styles and degree aspirations. In spite of
the differences, these students share a unifying
desire to make sufficient academic progress
towards an educational goal. Very often, these
students also encounter barriers in pursuit of these
educational goals. While many community
colleges have been responsive to these concerns,
much more focused attention and effort is needed.
This paper has highlighted some efforts and
strategies related to student success, particularly in
the area of student support services. Due to space
limitations, the paper does not provide an
exhaustive list of examples, but highlights
promising practices that support key areas of
research. However, the examples highlighted here
– as well as those not included – confirm that what
we think should help community college students –
in fact, “does.” However, these institutions are
resource constrained and often have to make tough
decisions and trade‐offs simply to stay afloat.38 For
additional information or resources, please feel free
to contact the staff at the Institute for Higher
Education Policy.
Endnotes
1
President’s Commission on Higher Education.
(1947). Higher Education for American
Democracy, a report.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
2
American Association of Community Colleges.
(n.d.) Fast Facts.
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfact
s.aspx (Accessed on August 22, 2010).
3
US Department of Education, National Center on
Education Statistics. (2002). Descriptive Summary
of 1995‐96
Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six‐Years
Later. Washington, DC: Author.
4
MDRC. (2005b). Promoting Student Success in
Community College and Beyond. New York, NY:
Author.
5
See US Department of Education. (2002).
6
Although the majority of community college
students enroll with the desire to attain some type
of credential/degree or
to meet transfer requirements, it is important to
note that not all enrolled students have these
educational goals in mind.
7
Pathways to College Network. (2009). Removing
Roadblocks to Rigor: Linking Academic and Social
Supports to Ensure
College Readiness and Success. Washington, DC:
Institute for Higher Education Policy; Advisory
Committee on Student
Financial Assistance. (2006). Mortgaging our
Future: How Financial Barriers to College
Undercut America’s Global
Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Author.
8
See Pathways to College Network. (2009);
MDRC. (2009a). More Guidance, Better Results?
Three Year Effects of an
Enhanced Student Services Program at Two
Community Colleges. New York, NY: Author.
9
Community College Research Center (2006).
What Community College Management Practices
Are Effective in Promoting
Student Success? A Study of High‐ and Low‐Impact
Institutions. New York, NY: Author.; MDRC.
(2004). Support Success:
Services That May Help Low‐Income Students
Succeed in Community College. New York, NY:
Author.
10
Lumina Foundation for Education. (2005). Paths
to Persistence: An Analysis of Research on
Program Effectiveness at
Community Colleges. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
11
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How
College Affects Students. Findings and Insights
from Twenty Years of
Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
12
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How
College Affects Students. Findings and Insights
from Twenty Years of
Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
13
Community College Research Center. (2007). Do
Student Success Courses Actually Help Community
College Students
Succeed? New York, NY: Author.
14
MDRC. (2005a). Building Learning
Communities: Early Results of the Opening Doors
Demonstration at Kingsborough
Community College. New York, NY: Author.;
Tinto, V. (1998). Learning Communities and the
Reconstruction of Remedial
Education in Higher Education. A paper presented
at the Conference on Replacing Remediation in
Higher Education,
5
sponsored by the National Center for
Postsecondary Improvement and the Ford
Foundation.
http://faculty.soe.syr.edu/vtinto/Files/Development
al%20Education%20Learning%20Communities.pd
f (Accessed on
August 22, 2010).; Tinto, V. and Love, A.G.
(1995). A Longitudinal Study of Learning
Communities at LaGuardia
Community College. University Park, PA: National
Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
15
See MDRC. (2005).
16
Choitz, V. (2006). Strategies for Success:
Promising Practices for the 2004 Winners of the
MetLife Foundation
Community College Excellence Award. Jobs for the
Future: Boston, MA.
17
Zamani, E.M. (2001). Institutional Responses to
Barriers to the Transfer Process. New Directions
for Community
Colleges 114, p. 15‐24.
18
See Lumina Foundation for Education. (2005).
19
See MDRC. (2004).
20
Griffith, M., and Connor, A. (1994).
Democracy’s Open Door: The Community College
in America’s Future. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc., p. 20.
21
Summers, M.D. (2003). Attrition Research at
Community Colleges. Community College Review,
30(4), 64‐84.
22
See MDRC. (2004).
23
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2010).
Child Care Support for Student Parents in
Community College is Crucial
for Success, but Supply and Funding are
Inadequate. Washington, DC: Author.
24
HeavyRunner, I. and DeCelles, R. (2002). Family
Education Model: Meeting the Student Retention
Challenge. Journal of the American Indian, 41(2).
25
See Institute for Women’s Policy Research.
(2010); MDRC (2004).
26
Houston Community College. (n.d). Minority
Male Initiative.
http://www.hccs.edu/portal/site/hccs (Accessed on
August 22, 2010).
27
Chen, B. (2010, August 18). Active Facebook
Users Most Likely To Stick with College: Study.
Wired.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/active‐fa
cebook‐users‐more‐likely‐to‐stick‐it‐through‐colleg
e‐study/
(Accessed on August 22, 2010).
Marklein, M.B. (2009, Nov. 16). Social Networks
Could Help Community College Students, USA
Today.
28
Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (2008). High Expectations and High
Support. Austin, TX: The
University of Texas at Austin, Community College
Leadership Program.
29
American Council on Education. (2004). Missed
Opportunities: Students Who Do Not Apply for
Financial Aid.
Washington, DC: Author.
30
Valencia Community College. (n.d.). What is
Life Map? http://valenciacc.edu/lifemap/ (Accessed
on August 22, 2010.
31
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2009,
2008). Synopsis of the Symposium on Financial
Literacy and College
Success at Minority‐Serving Institutions.
Washington, DC: Author.
32
MDRC. (2009b). Paying for Success: An
Introduction to the Performance‐Based
Scholarship Demonstration. New York,
NY: Author.
33
Torres, V. and Viterito, A. (2008). Keeping
Opportunities in Place: The Influence of the Rural
Community College
Initiative. Washington, DC: American Association
of Community Colleges.
34
See MDRC. (2009a).
35
Muraskin, L. (1997). “Best Practices” in Student
Support Services: A Study of Five Exemplary Sites.
Washington, DC: US
Department of Education.
36
See Community College Research Center.
(2006).
37
See MDRC. (2004).
Works Cited
Advisory Committee on Student Financial
Assistance. (2006). Mortgaging our Future: How
Financial Barriers
to College Undercut America’s Global
Competitiveness. Washington, DC: Author.
6
American Association of Community Colleges
(n.d.). Fast Facts.
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfact
s.aspx (Accessed on August 22, 2010).
American Council on Education. (2004). Missed
Opportunities: Students Who Do Not Apply for
Financial Aid.
Washington, DC: Author.
Chen, B. (2010, August 18). Active Facebook
Users Most Likely To Stick with College: Study.
Wired.
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/active‐fa
cebook‐users‐more‐likely‐to‐stick‐it‐through‐colleg
estudy/(Accessed on August 22, 2010).
Choitz, V. (2006). Strategies for Success:
Promising Practices for the 2004 Winners of the
MetLife Foundation Community College
Excellence Award. Jobs for the Future: Boston,
MA.
Community College Research Center. (2007). Do
Student Success Courses Actually Help Community
College Students Succeed? New York, NY:
Author.
Community College Research Center. (2006).
What Community College Management Practices
Are Effective in Promoting Student Success? A
Study of High‐ and Low‐Impact Institutions. New
York, NY: Author.
Community College Survey of Student
Engagement. (2008). High Expectations and High
Support. Austin, TX:
The University of Texas at Austin, Community
College Leadership Program.
Griffith, M., and Connor, A. (1994). Democracy’s
Open Door: The Community College in America’s
Future.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc., p.
20.
HeavyRunner, I. and DeCelles, R. (2002). Family
Education Model: Meeting the Student Retention
Challenge.
Journal of the American Indian, 41(2).
Houston Community College. (n.d). Minority Male
Initiative. http://www.hccs.edu/portal/site/hccs
(Accessed on August 22, 2010).
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2009,
2008). Synopsis of the Symposium on Financial
Literacy and College Success at Minority‐Serving
Institutions. Washington, DC: Author.
Institute for Women’s Policy Research. (2010).
Child Care Support for Student Parents in
Community College is
Crucial for Success, but Supply and Funding are
Inadequate. Washington, DC: Author.
Lumina Foundation for Education. (2005). Paths to
Persistence: An Analysis of Research on Program
Effectiveness at Community Colleges. Indianapolis,
IN: Author.
Marklein, M.B. (2009, Nov. 16). Social Networks
Could Help Community College Students, USA
Today.
MDRC. (2009a). More Guidance, Better Results?
Three Year Effects of an Enhanced Student
Services Program at
Two Community Colleges. New York, NY: Author.
MDRC. (2009b). Paying for Success: An
Introduction to the Performance‐Based
Scholarship Demonstration. New York, NY:
Author.
MDRC. (2005a). Building Learning Communities:
Early Results of the Opening Doors Demonstration
at Kingsborough Community College. New York,
NY: Author.
MDRC. (2005b). Promoting Student Success in
Community College and Beyond. New York, NY:
Author.
MDRC. (2004). Support Success: Services That
May Help Low‐Income Students Succeed in
Community College.
New York, NY: Author.
Muraskin, L. (1997). “Best Practices” in Student
Support Services: A Study of Five Exemplary Sites.
Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
7
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How
College Affects Students. Findings and Insights
from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How
College Affects Students. Findings and Insights
from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey Bass.
Pathways to College Network. (2009). Removing
Roadblocks to Rigor: Linking Academic and Social
Supports
to Ensure College Readiness and Success.
Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
US Department of Education, National Center on
Education Statistics. (2002). Descriptive Summary
of 1995‐96
Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six‐Years
Later. Washington, DC: Author.
Valencia Community College. (n.d.). What is Life
Map? http://valenciacc.edu/lifemap/. (Accessed on
August
22, 2010.
Zamani, E.M. (2001). Institutional Responses to
Barriers to the Transfer Process. New Directions
for
Community Colleges 114, p. 15‐24.
President’s Commission on Higher Education.
(1947). Higher Education for American
Democracy, a report.
Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Summers, M.D. (2003). Attrition Research at
Community Colleges. Community College Review,
30(4), 64‐84.
Tinto, V. (1998). Learning Communities and the
Reconstruction of Remedial Education in Higher
Education. A paper presented at the Conference on
Replacing Remediation in Higher Education,
sponsored by the National
Center for Postsecondary Improvement and the
Ford Foundation.
http://faculty.soe.syr.edu/vtinto/Files/Development
al%20Education%20Learning%20Communities.pd
f
(Accessed on August 22, 2010).
Tinto, V. and Love, A.G. (1995). A Longitudinal
Study of Learning Communities at LaGuardia
Community
College. University Park, PA: National Center on
Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment.
Torres, V. and Viterito, A. (2008). Keeping
Opportunities in Place: The Influence of the Rural
Community
College Initiative. Washington, DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
8
Issue Brief: Developmental Education in
Community Colleges
Thomas Bailey and Sung-Woo Cho
Community College Research Center
September 2010
When students arrive to enroll in community
college, almost all are asked to take a skills
assessment in math, reading, and writing.
Based on these assessments, students are either
categorized as “college-ready” and can enroll
in college-level classes in the relevant
subjects, or they are considered
“developmental” or “remedial” students and
are referred to academic services designed to
raise their skills up to college standards. Many
students are referred to multiple levels of
remediation—up to five levels in some cases.
This means that such students would have to
successfully navigate five semesters of precollege instruction before being prepared for
their first college-level course.
While a variety of other remedial services are
offered, the large majority consists of these
semester-long developmental classes in the
subjects to which students have been referred.
About 60 percent of incoming students are
referred to at least one developmental course.1
This is often surprising to them since the large
majority of community college entrants are
high school graduates. And for many,
remediation is not just a course, but rather, for
those referred to multiple levels, a whole
curriculum.
Addressing the needs of developmental
students is perhaps the most difficult and most
important problem facing community colleges.
Developmental students face tremendous
barriers. Less than one quarter of community
college students who enroll in developmental
education complete a degree or certificate
within eight years of enrollment in college. In
comparison, almost 40 percent of community
college students who do not enroll in any
developmental education course complete a
degree or certificate in the same time period.2
It will be very difficult to meet the Obama
administration’s goal of increasing the number
of community college graduates by 5 million
by 2020 without making significant progress
on improving outcomes for students who
arrive at community colleges with weak
academic skills.
In this Brief we first report on evidence about
the effectiveness (or, unfortunately, in too
many cases, the ineffectiveness) of
remediation and then provide information
about the progression of students through the
developmental sequence. We discuss problems
associated with the crucial assessments and
make a brief statement about costs. We then
describe three initiatives designed to improve
the performance of remedial services.
Effectiveness
Do the services provided to students through
developmental education programs work to
improve student outcomes? Given the size and
importance of the developmental function,
there are surprisingly few rigorous
evaluations, and outcomes from those are not
encouraging. Two rigorous studies, one in
Florida and one in Texas, found that students
who participated in remediation did no better
on several outcome measures than similar
students who enrolled directly in college-level
courses. 3 On the other hand, a study in Ohio,
1
using a more restricted sample, found positive
effects for math remediation but none for
reading. 4 But the results of these studies are
most reliable for referred students whose
assessment scores put them close to the
remediation cutoff points—that is, these were
among the stronger of the students who were
referred to developmental education. We know
very little about the effectiveness of
developmental education for students who
score well below the cutoff score, although a
study of a program for students in adult basic
skills classes in Washington State—the IBEST program—does show promising early
outcomes. This will be discussed in more
detail below.
Progression
Analysis of the progression of students
through developmental education provides
some insight into why these students are
unlikely to go on to complete a degree or other
credential. Using student data from colleges
participating in the nationwide Achieving the
Dream initiative
(http://www.achievingthedream.org/), we
found that many students do not complete their
sequences of developmental courses, and a
sizeable proportion of those referred never
even enroll. 5 To take math developmental
education as an example, 28 percent of those
referred did not enroll. Another 30 percent
failed or withdrew from one of the
developmental courses in which they enrolled.
Ten percent dropped out of their
developmental sequences without ever failing
a course. Thus, only 31 percent successfully
completed their sequences of math
remediation. Of those completers, about half
(16 percent of all of those referred) actually
completed a college-level course in math
within three years. (Outcomes for reading
were somewhat better: about one quarter
completed the first relevant college-level
course within three years.)
The data on progression provide several
insights into directions for reform. First, the
sequence of course is often too complicated
and takes too long. This suggests a
comprehensive strategy that effectively
recruits students to enroll in the first place, that
improves the teaching that takes place in the
remedial classroom in order to retain students
in the courses, and that helps students bridge
the gap between courses.
Of course the best developmental education
program is the one that avoids the need for
remediation in the first place. Certainly K12
reform will help, but students will continue to
arrive needing help (many community college
students have been out of school for several
years or were schooled in their home
countries). Intensive bridge programs that take
place in the summer before college starts have
the potential to make up for weaknesses and
allow students to start college at the college
level.
Assessments
Problems with the assessments (often called
placement tests) used to refer students
represent another barrier to improved
outcomes for students with weak academic
skills. Overall, there is no consensus about
what constitutes preparation for college. States
and institutions use many different
assessments, and even when they use the same
assessments, they often set different cutoff
scores. Moreover, there is no obvious point of
discontinuity in the distribution of cutoff
scores that might provide a meaningful point
to distinguish between “remedial” and
”college-ready” students. Thus, there is little
to differentiate students within the wide range
of students above and below the cutoff scores.
Moreover, students who are referred to
developmental courses through the
assessments face many different problems.
Again taking math as an example, some
students may have had difficulty learning math
in high school, some may have taken very
little math, some older students may have done
well in math but have forgotten much of what
they learned, and others may have language
problems and experience trouble
understanding the placement tests. These
2
different groups of students need different
types of services, but the assessments do not
differentiate among them, and the colleges do
not provide different classes or other
interventions to address the varied reasons for
the skills deficiencies. Assessments that do a
better job of identifying particular weaknesses
could lead to more customized developmental
programs that have the potential to reduce the
time that students must spend in remediation.
Some developments over the past two years
suggest that we may be moving toward a
better system of assessments. The Common
Core State Standards that have been adopted
by 34 states have advanced the national
discussion of what constitutes being ready for
college, and assessment companies are
developing more diagnostic assessments, but
these improvements are still at an early stage.
In the meantime, states such as Florida and
California are already implementing early
college readiness testing along with
opportunities for remediation for students
while they are still in high school. These are
examples of state-level efforts that aim to
engage high schools around the need to reduce
remediation of their graduates.
Costs
Developmental education is certainly costly.
States spend tens of millions of dollars on
remediation, and very rough national estimates
suggest that well over $1 billion a year are
spent on these services. But it is students who
probably have to bear the most significant
costs. They must not only pay for the classes
but also must delay their progress through
college. Many students are discouraged when
they find out that they are not eligible for
college-level courses. This may explain the
high “no-show” rates among those referred to
remediation.
Reform Initiatives and Exemplars
Thus, developmental education is costly and
not very effective. But there is some reason for
optimism. It is only recently that
improvements in the availability and quality of
data have revealed the extent and nature of the
problems that we have described. This better
understanding of the problems is informing the
many potential solutions that are currently
being tested.
For example, Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and Lumina Foundation for
Education have funded the Developmental
Education Initiative (DEI) as an outgrowth of
Achieving the Dream
(http://www.deionline.org/). Sixteen colleges
are participating in the DEI, the purpose of
which is to help the colleges expand small or
pilot programs that have been shown to be
effective. Lumina Foundation has also funded
an initiative titled Getting Past Go
(http://www.gettingpastgo.org), which is
focused on improving developmental
education through enhanced state policy. The
National Center for Postsecondary Research,
funded by the Institute for Education Sciences
in the U.S. Department of Education, is
conducting rigorous evaluations of
developmental education models and
interventions, including studies of six learning
communities (discussed below) and a study of
intensive summer bridge programs designed to
help students become college-ready in a
compressed time period the summer after high
school graduation. These programs appear to
have potential, but most of them are at early
stages.
Below we outline three promising programs
for which we do have some evaluation
evidence.
Accelerated Learning Program (ALP)
Description: In Accelerated Learning
Programs, or ALPs, students placed into
upper-level developmental courses are
“mainstreamed” into college-level courses in
that subject, and are simultaneously enrolled in
a companion ALP course (taught by the same
instructor) that meets in the class period
immediately following the college-level class.
The aim of the ALP course, which has a small
3
number of students, is to help students
maximize the likelihood of success in their
first college-level course and to speed up their
progress through the developmental sequence.
Value-added: ALP accelerates those students
who are most ready to take their first collegelevel course by allowing them to bypass the
highest level of developmental education.
Students needing remediation are thus
“mainstreamed” directly into college-level
coursework that incorporates supplemental
instruction, tutoring, or other supports. In
some other acceleration models, colleges
combine developmental courses at different
levels, thus reducing the total number of such
courses students must take. ALP is more of a
structural innovation than an instructional one,
save for the additional instruction that the
college-level instructors provide for these
developmental students.
Population targeted/served: ALP serves
students at the upper end of the developmental
range, that is, those students who are assigned
to remediation but score near the
developmental cut-off point on assessments.
Evidence of effectiveness: The Community
College of Baltimore County (CCBC) has had
the ALP since the 2007-08 academic year.
Using a multivariate analysis, one study found
that among CCBC students who were referred
to the highest level of developmental English,
those who enrolled directly into the collegelevel course and the concurrent ALP
companion course were significantly more
likely to take and pass that college-level
course and the course immediately after it
(English 101 and 102) than those who enrolled
in the highest level of developmental
education. 6 ALP was also found to be a
significantly more cost-effective pathway
through the required college-level English
courses than the traditional developmental
sequence, as measured by cost per successful
student. Because of the promising preliminary
findings on the program, CCBC is in the
process of scaling up ALP such that by next
year, the majority of students who are referred
to the highest level developmental English
course will be enrolled in English 101 with the
concurrent ALP support course.
Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training
(I-BEST)
Description: In the I-BEST model, basic skills
instructors and professional-technical faculty
jointly teach college-level occupational classes
that admit basic skills students. The objective
is to accelerate the rate at which adult basic
skills students advance to college-level
programs that lead to career-path employment.
The Washington State Board for Community
and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) has
implemented I-BEST since the 2005-06
academic year, when 10 colleges piloted the
program. In 2007-08, I-BEST was expanded to
all 34 colleges in the system.
Value-added: By integrating instruction in
basic skills with instruction in college-level
professional-technical skills, I-BEST seeks to
increase the rate at which adult basic education
students advance to college-level programs
and complete postsecondary credentials in
fields offering good wages and opportunities
for career advancement. In the state of
Washington, I-BEST is funded at 1.75 times
the normal rate per full-time equivalent
student to compensate for the cost of using
two faculty members as well as other planning
and coordinating costs.
Population targeted/served: I-BEST serves
basic skills students with an interest in
enrolling in occupational classes that lead to
jobs with higher wages. The program is
targeted to students who have specific
occupations in mind and who cannot afford to
wait to finish basic skills before enrolling
postsecondary education and training.
Evidence of effectiveness: Using propensity
score matching, one study found that students
who enrolled in I-BEST were more likely to
progress into credit-bearing courses, persist in
college, accumulate credits that count toward a
credential, and make learning gains on basic
skills tests. 7 A forthcoming paper that
employed difference-in-differences analysis,
4
found that students who were exposed to IBEST were 10 percentage points more likely
to earn college-level credits and more than
seven percentage points more likely to earn a
certificate. 8 Due to the positive preliminary
findings, I-BEST has generated much
excitement within Washington’s community
college system and elsewhere. Other states
look at it as a model for constructing similar
programs, and major foundations such as the
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have
expressed interest in replicating it.
Learning Communities
Description: Many community colleges
operate learning communities to improve low
rates of student success. Basic learning
communities co-enroll a cohort of students
into several classes together. More
comprehensive versions include integrated
curricula, collaboration among instructors, and
student services such as enhanced advising
and tutoring which are embedded into the
course.
Value-Added: Learning communities provide
academically low-performing students with
the opportunity to enroll and complete courses
together at the developmental level. Students
are grouped in small cohorts (a program in
Kingsborough Community College places 25
first-year students in each cohort) and enroll in
a developmental course, a course on another
academic subject, and a one-credit college
orientation course. This is designed to help
students advance through developmental
education and into college-level courses within
a structure of cohort accountability.
Population targeted/served: Learning
communities are designed to serve
academically low-performing students who
have been referred to developmental courses
upon arriving at an institution as first-time
students. Many of the students in these
programs are also from low-income
backgrounds.
Evidence of effectiveness: Researchers have
shown that more comprehensive programs led
to positive impacts on student engagement,
college persistence, credits earned, and
developmental course sequence completion in
English. 9 However, the evidence was mixed as
to whether the programs increased persistence,
measured within two years. Less
comprehensive learning community programs
had no substantive effects.
Summary and Conclusion
By stepping back and taking in the broad
picture of developmental education, one sees
an extensive system that involves thousands of
dedicated counselors and professors carrying
out a crucial function. But at the same time,
that system is characterized by uncertainty,
lack of consensus on the definition of being
college-ready or of the best strategies to
pursue, high costs, and varied and often
unknown benefits. Many students who are
referred to developmental education never
enroll in it. Many who complete one remedial
course fail to show up for the next course in
the sequence. Overall, fewer than one half of
students who are referred to developmental
education complete the recommended
sequence. What is more, many students who
do complete their developmental courses do
not go on to enroll in the associated collegelevel courses. The evaluation data concerning
developmental education are equally
discouraging. Much of the research on
developmental education is suggestive but
cannot reliably measure the effect of
remediation or differentiate among different
approaches. The handful of more definitive
studies shows mixed results at best.
This picture is further complicated by the lack
of consensus about what constitutes being
college-ready and by assessments that have
only a weak relationship with subsequent
educational performance. This uncertainty is
reflected in the bewildering plethora of
assessments and cutoff points used around the
country. And perhaps even more importantly,
there is no break or discontinuity in
assessment test scores that clearly
differentiates developmental from college-
5
level students. Many students who test out of
remediation nonetheless struggle in their
college courses, and educational outcomes for
such students are too low. Thus, a sharp
distinction in the services received by these
two types of students is not justified.
The picture of past and current developmental
education appears bleak. If students cannot get
established in college with college-level
courses, then they will certainly not be able to
graduate. But the initiatives that we have
described and many others currently on the
drawing board and in the field have the
potential to significantly improve the
effectiveness of these services. Finding better
ways to address the needs of underprepared
students is a necessity for meeting the Obama
administration’s goal of increasing the number
of community college graduates by 5 million
by 2020.
Endnotes
developmental education sequences in community
colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2),
255–270.
6
Jenkins, D., Speroni C., Belfield, C., Jaggars, S.
S., & Edgecombe, N. (2010). A model for
accelerating academic success of community
college remedial English students: Is it effective
and affordable? (CCRC Working Paper,
forthcoming). New York: Columbia University,
Community College Research Center.
7
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009).
Building bridges to postsecondary training for lowskill adults: Outcomes of Washington State’s IBEST program (CCRC Brief No. 42). New York:
Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
8
Zeidenberg, M., Cho, S-.W., & Jenkins, D.
(2010). Washington State’s Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training program (I-BEST):
New evidence of effectiveness (CCRC Working
Paper No. 20). New York: Columbia University,
Teachers College, Community College Research
Center.
9
Weiss, M., Visher, M., & Wathington, H. (2010).
Learning communities for students in
developmental reading: An impact study at
Hillsborough Community College. New York:
National Center for Postsecondary Research.
1
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity:
Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 145, 11–30.
2
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T.
(2006). New evidence on college remediation.
Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924.
3
Calcagno, J. C., & Long, B. T. (2008). The impact
of postsecondary remediation using a regression
discontinuity approach: Addressing endogenous
sorting and noncompliance (NBER Working Paper
14194). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research. Martorell, P., & McFarlin, I.
J. (2009). Help or hindrance? The effects of college
remediation on academic and labor market
outcomes. Unpublished manuscript, RAND and
University of Michigan.
4
Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2009).
Addressing the needs of underprepared students in
higher education: Does college remediation work?
Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736–771.
5
Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W., & Cho, S-.W. (2010).
Referral, enrollment, and completion in
6
Issue Brief: Community College and High
School Partnerships
Elisabeth Barnett and Katherine Hughes
Community College Research Center
September 2010
Community colleges and high schools are
historically very closely linked; in fact, the
original community colleges were formed as
extensions of secondary schools in the early
decades of the 20th century. 1 Over time, the
two have evolved into wholly separate
educational systems with distinct missions,
funding streams, and curricula. However, there
are numerous arenas in which they currently
work together that contribute to the national
effort to increase college completion rates—an
emerging priority given President Obama’s
goal of returning the United States to its
position of having the highest proportion of
college graduates in the world by 2020.
In this Brief, we focus on partnerships
between community colleges and high schools
that may make it more likely for students to
complete three important milestones on the
road to college completion:
1. Enrollment in college – In order for
students to complete college, they must
first enroll. Colleges work with high
schools to increase the likelihood that
students will view college matriculation
as an option.
2. College readiness at enrollment – Many
students enter college in need of
remediation; participation in remedial
(also called developmental) education is
associated with lower rates of degree
completion. 2 Colleges and high schools
can work together to increase the number
of students who are college-ready upon
entry.
3. Persistence in college – Students often
enter college only to leave before
completing a degree, frequently during
the first year. Their success can depend
on the extent to which they make a
smooth transition from high school to
college.
There is a broad range of goals and activities
among community college-high school
partnerships; we have organized the most
prominent programs and initiatives into two
categories as follows:
• Initiatives designed to provide high
school students with access to existing
and regular college resources and
offerings, such as assessments or
college courses.
• Programs or activities that partnerships
develop together specifically for high
school students and their needs.
The Brief concludes with a short discussion of
policy and funding considerations.
Access to Regular College Resources and
Offerings
Outreach and Recruitment (addresses
Milestone 1)
Description: Community colleges are
frequently involved in active outreach and
recruitment efforts in and with local high
schools; the main purpose is to foster ties and
broaden community awareness of a college’s
programs and services. Many colleges even
help high school students consider a full range
of postsecondary options in light of their
individual educational and career goals.
1
Value-added: Students are given help in
navigating the often complex process of
matriculating into college. This is likely to be
especially important for students who have not
viewed college as a practical, affordable
option, including those who do not have
parents who can effectively guide them
through the matriculation process.
Population targeted/served: These services are
typically offered to any interested high school
student. However, they are likely to be most
beneficial to students who are less often
helped by regular school counselors, i.e., those
who have not been on the college track
throughout their high school careers.
Evidence of effectiveness: We are not aware of
studies measuring the effectiveness of these
activities.
Exemplar: The College Connections program
run by Houston’s Lone Star College System is
an example of a multi-faceted outreach
program in which students are provided help
with researching college and career options, as
well as assistance with college applications (to
any college), placement testing, and acquiring
financial aid.
Dual Enrollment (addresses Milestones 1, 2,
and 3)
Description: In dual enrollment, high school
students are permitted to take college courses
and, if they pass them, earn college credit.
Sometimes, as in the case of dual credit,
students earn both college and high school
credit for the same course. Dual enrollment is
quite widespread; the most recent national data
available show that over 800,000 high school
students took a college course in the 20022003 school year, and almost all two-year
public colleges enrolled high school students.
Quite a few states have policies that encourage
student participation. While most students
participate in regular, stand-alone courses,
there are increasingly structured programs
available that provide support services in
addition to a recommended sequence of
courses.
Value-added: Dual enrollment is seen as a
means of strengthening preparation for
college, encouraging college enrollment, and
increasing college persistence. Dual
enrollment programs foster collaboration
among college faculty and high school
teachers that may lead to better alignment of
curricula, which should result in betterprepared students. Also, it is hypothesized that
early exposure to the college environment and
college courses assists students in their
acclimating to college, academically and
socially.
Population targeted/served: Dual enrollment
has typically been targeted to more advanced
students; indeed, several states have policies
that limit student participation based on grade
point average (typically, students must have a
3.0). However, the national and state focus
seems to be shifting away from serving those
who are already college-bound and moving,
instead, toward the recruitment of
disadvantaged, first-generation, middleachieving, and other students for whom
participation could be life-changing. Many
states now mandate that all qualifying students
have access to dual enrollment, and many also
stipulate that college tuition and fees be
waived for high school students.
Evidence of effectiveness: There has been little
rigorous evidence of effectiveness until
recently, and no randomized controlled trials
of dual enrollment have been undertaken.
Studies conducted by the Community College
Research Center (CCRC) 3 of students in
Florida and in New York City have found
participation in dual enrollment to be
positively related to students’ likelihood of
earning a high school diploma, to college
enrollment, to persistence in college, and to
higher postsecondary grade point averages.
Dual enrollment participants were also more
likely to go on to enroll in a four-year
institution rather than a community college,
perhaps indicating that their early taste of
college gave them the skills and confidence to
raise their educational aspirations.
Importantly, the benefits to dual enrollment
2
were stronger for male and low-income
students. Additional research on the City
University of New York (CUNY) College
Now program, the same program studied by
CCRC, also found positive results. 4 In general,
studies have found that earning college credits
prior to high school graduation reduces timeto-degree and increases the likelihood of
graduation. 5
Exemplar: The City University of New York’s
College Now program is widely viewed as a
leader in dual enrollment, due to its
commitment to providing New York City high
school students with engaging and supported
college experiences. College Now offers a full
range of remedial, college preparatory, college
credit, and enrichment activities.
Early Assessment (addresses Milestone 2)
Description: Early assessment is the
increasingly popular practice of offering
college placement tests to students while they
are still in high school. Many incoming
community college students are unclear about
testing and placement policies and practices,
are not well prepared to take the placement
tests, and are surprised afterward to find that
they are not deemed “college-ready.” 6 Early
assessment aims to provide information on
skills deficiencies well before students begin
college. Presumably, high school students who
do not do well on the tests can then take steps
to improve their preparedness, ultimately pass
the tests, and avoid placement into
developmental education.
Value-Added: Early assessment may have a
positive influence on college-readiness as well
as persistence in college. In implementing
such programs in partnership with community
colleges, high school staff may understand
better the importance of aligning their
curricula with the academic standards of the
colleges and/or help students to better prepare
for college. It is a national shame that more
than half of community college students enroll
in at least one remedial course, and many
additional students are assigned to remediation
but simply never enroll. 7 Remediation has
enormous costs to society as well as to
individual students who must pay for courses
that do not yield college credit. In addition,
beginning one’s college career in
developmental education is associated with a
reduced chance of persisting and earning a
college credential. Thus, entering college
without need for remediation is one of the
most important factors contributing to eventual
college completion.
Population targeted/served: Community
colleges and high schools may work to target
early assessment to particular groups of
students, such as those likely to need focused
support to become college-ready.
Alternatively, they may implement it
universally in a college’s feeder high schools.
Evidence of effectiveness: The California State
University system’s Early Assessment
Program 8 is just beginning to yield data
showing that participation does reduce
students’ probability of needing remediation
by four and six percentage points in math and
reading, respectively. 9 Some suggestive
evidence comes from El Paso Community
College in Texas, which has implemented
early assessment as part of a “comprehensive
college readiness protocol” for all El Paso area
high school students. El Paso’s data show that
the proportion of incoming students who are
college-ready has increased with early
assessment, and students placed in
developmental education are placing into
higher levels. 10
Exemplar: El Paso Community College, in
collaboration with the University of Texas at
El Paso and 12 El Paso school districts, has
implemented the “college readiness protocol”
to improve college readiness. Before
graduating from high school, virtually all El
Paso area students complete a joint admissions
application to both colleges; learn about,
prepare for, and take the college placement
test; review scores with counselors; and
improve their skills and re-test, if necessary.
Some students also enroll in a summer bridge
program to strengthen their basic skills.
3
Programs Developed Specifically for High
School Students (or Recent Graduates)
CTE pathways (addresses Milestones 1 and 3)
Description: Partnerships between community
colleges and high schools have been
encouraged through federal and state-funded
career-technical education (CTE) programs.
Since 1990, federal funds have been set aside
for Tech Prep programs as part of the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology
Education Act and its re-authorizations. Tech
Prep aims to improve student transition from
secondary to postsecondary institutions by
linking the last two years of high school with
the first two years of college through technical
programs that include rigorous academic
content. Articulation agreements permit some
high school students to take courses that allow
them to earn college credit. Over 900 Tech
Prep partnerships, or consortia, have been
created, along with thousands of articulation
agreements. 11 Tech Prep has been evolving,
with stakeholders now promoting the term
“career pathway” to refer to an updated ideal
type of Tech Prep, and with the latest Perkins
re-authorization defining Tech Prep as a
“program of study.”
Value-Added: Tech Prep and other career
pathways programs are designed to create
clear, career-oriented programs of study that
link high school with college. Their intent is to
provide a rigorous academic experience
leading to a degree in a career area with strong
employment opportunities. Further, they are
expected to provide students with a planned
sequence of courses that can take the
guesswork out of educational planning and
lead to higher rates of completion.
Population Targeted/Served:
Tech Prep was originally proposed in a 1984
book titled The Neglected Majority 12 in which
it was described as a college transition strategy
for middle-achieving students. These days, the
population targeted varies considerably,
depending on geography, local economic
conditions, and the specific career area.
Evidence of Effectiveness:
Tech Prep has had a mixed record of
effectiveness. An evaluation of eight Tech
Prep consortia found that students tended not
to benefit from the articulated credits,
sometimes because they were unaware that
they could earn college credits from their high
school Tech Prep coursework. 13 Moreover, an
analysis of the 1997 National Longitudinal
Survey of Youth (NLSY) showed that
participation in Tech Prep programs had a
negative effect on college attendance.14
Another analysis of the NLSY looked
separately at Tech Prep students’ matriculation
to two- and four-year colleges, and found that
Tech Prep encourages enrollment in the former
but reduces enrollment in the latter.15 Some
research has shown that when high school
Tech Prep students do transition to college,
they graduate more quickly than their nonTech Prep peers. 16 Rigorous evaluations of
state-supported programs are not available.
Exemplar: Sinclair Community College and
the Miami Valley Tech Prep Consortium are
leaders in Ohio’s nationally-known College
Tech Prep program. Their career pathway in
Engineering Technology is especially notable.
The pathway enrolls students who begin
taking courses in grade eleven and culminates
in either an A.S. degree in Engineering
Science or an A.A.S. degree, with a major in
one of 16 Engineering and Industrial
Technologies Division programs at Sinclair
Community College. All degree programs
have either dual enrollment or articulation
agreements through the baccalaureate degree
at a four-year institution.
Summer Bridge Programs (addressing
Milestones 1, 2, and 3)
Description: Bridge programs, generally
offered in the summer, are intensive
experiences that help students, usually recent
high school graduates, master the knowledge
and skills needed for college success. Some
focus on college readiness in reading, writing,
or math, while others are designed to provide
students with exposure to sciences, sociology,
4
or other areas of study. Most are also intended
to introduce students to college norms and
expectations. In some cases, opportunities are
offered for students to earn college credit.
These programs exist nationally and are
typically funded by the state or federal
government, grant funds, or local colleges.
Value-added: Summer bridge programs have
the potential to help students enter college
without the need for remediation, especially
when they are already close to being collegeready. The programs offer accelerated, focused
learning opportunities that can allow students
to place directly into college-level courses.
Further, they can smooth the transition into
college by helping students learn how to
navigate college systems and become
comfortable with college faculty, staff, and
other students.
Population targeted/served: Summer bridge
programs are generally targeted to students
interested in attending college, but who face
barriers to success. Many programs explicitly
recruit students whose parents have not
attended college (first-generation students),
while others are designed for groups
traditionally underrepresented in college.
Others are designed for students who are
underprepared in math, reading, and/or
writing, and are thus likely to place into
developmental education.
Evidence of effectiveness: The limited research
that has followed students as they enter college
after participating in a summer bridge program
has found positive student outcomes. Students
attending summer bridge programs have been
found to have higher retention rates than
comparison students. 17 In addition, research
suggests that underprepared students who
participate show improvement in their
academic performance. An evaluation of four
summer bridge programs in New York City
colleges found that program participation was
positively related to academic performance. 18
In another study, the lowest performing cohort
of students in a bridge program were 10%
more likely that their non-participating peers
to successfully pass their courses. 19
Exemplar: St. Philips College, one of the
Alamo Colleges in San Antonio, has offered
the Fresh X program since 2003. This
Hispanic-serving institution targets firstgeneration Latino students and provides them
with opportunities to improve their skills in
math and/or English. They also participate in a
short “student success” course for which they
receive college credit.
Early and Middle College High Schools
(addressing Milestones 1, 2, and 3)
Description: Early and middle college high
schools are small high schools created by a
partnering school district and a postsecondary
institution, most often a community college.
They target students traditionally underserved
in college and encourage them to take college
courses while still enrolled in high school.
Early college high schools are explicitly
designed to offer students the opportunity to
graduate high school with one to two years of
college credit earned, or even an associate
degree. Middle college high schools have a
similar design, but place less emphasis on
college-course taking. About 200 early college
high schools have been created through
funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation, while numerous other middle and
early college high schools have emerged with
other sources of support. In all cases, these
schools are expected to become financially
self-sufficient over the long term.
Value-added: Both early and middle college
high schools are committed to assisting groups
traditionally underserved in college. By
providing a set of activities that explicitly
prepares students for college and offering
support during their participation in initial
college courses, students are expected to learn
how to be successful college students.
Population targeted/served: Students in early
college high schools initially funded by the
Gates Foundation serve large numbers of
students of color. In addition, many are firstgeneration students, speakers of English as a
second language, and low-income students.
5
About 42,000 students were enrolled in these
schools in 2008-09. 20
when intentional or unintentional barriers to
student participation are created.
Evidence of effectiveness: Experimental
research by the SERVE Center found that
early college students in North Carolina are
more likely to be making progress toward
college readiness than other similar students.21
The study also found little or no achievement
gap between minority and non-minority
students in early colleges. Data from the early
college students in schools funded by the
Gates Foundation also show that traditionally
underserved males of color do as well as their
female and white male peers, thus reversing a
national trend. Early college students
associated with the Middle College National
Consortium finish 12th grade with an average
of 27 college credits earned. 22
Tech Prep is an example of a federally-created
initiative which has been carried out, in varied
forms, throughout the U.S. The original
legislation provided guidelines for its
development, as well as a multi-year funding
stream. In addition, states developed their own
rules governing these programs, and in some
cases created complementary initiatives. Other
programs, such as dual enrollment, are mainly
influenced by state policies, which determine
funding streams, student eligibility
requirements, and sometimes quality
standards. In states with strong dual
enrollment programs, both high schools and
colleges typically receive public funds when
high school students enroll in college. In other
cases, such as bridge programs and early
assessment options, local policies are the most
influential.
Exemplar: The Middle College High School at
Contra Costa College is a highly acclaimed
middle-early college high school. In 2008,
48% of graduating students had earned both a
high school diploma and an associate degree.
The average number of college credits earned
by their graduates was 50. One reason for their
success is the development of supports to
assist students in the transition from high
school to college. With assistance from the
Middle College National Consortium,
structures have been created that reach down
to ninth grade to prepare students for, and then
support them as they undertake, challenging
college courses.
Policy and Funding Considerations
Federal and state policies have a major
influence on the development of the programs
and practices discussed here. There are three
key ways in which the policy environment is
influential, separately or in combination: 1)
program or strategy creation, 2) provision of
funding, and 3) regulations which facilitate or
hinder these kinds of initiatives. In general,
these initiatives grow when institutions are
provided with access to funds or other
incentives to create them; they are hindered
Policymakers often grapple with questions on
whether to invest scarce resources into the
kinds of initiatives discussed here. While it is
hard to state conclusively that any of these are
cost-effective, some may be more so than
others. The first set of initiatives—those that
offer students access to regular college
resources and offerings—are likely to be low
in cost because they involve expanding access
to existing resources. The second set of
initiatives—those developed specifically for
high school students—may be more costly as
they require dedicated funds for their
development and implementation. To the
extent that they reduce the time to a college
degree, however, their benefits may outweigh
their costs.
Endnotes
1
Cohen, A. M. & Brawer, F.B. (1996). The
American community college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc.
2
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T.
(2006). New evidence on college remediation.
Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886-924.
6
3
Karp, M. M., Calcagno, J. C., Hughes, K. L.,
Jeong, D. W., & Bailey, T. R. (2007). The
postsecondary achievement of participants in dual
enrollment: An analysis of student outcomes in two
states. St. Paul, MN: National Research Center for
Career and Technical Education (NRCCTE),
University of Minnesota.
4
Michalowski, S. (2007). Positive effects
associated with College Now participation for
students from New
York City high schools: Fall 2003 first-time
freshman cohort. New York: CUNY Collaborative
Programs, Office of Academic Affairs.
5
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths
to degree completion from high school through
college.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved from:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxre
visit/toolbox.pdf
Swanson, J. (2008). An analysis of the impact of
high school dual enrollment course participation
on post-secondary academic success, persistence
and degree completion. Iowa City, IA: Institute for
Research and Policy Acceleration at the BelinBlank Center for Gifted Education, University of
Iowa. Retrieved from:
http://www.nacep.org/confdownloads/swanson_exe
cutive_summary.pdf
6
Nodine, T., Bracco, K. R., & Venezia, A.
(forthcoming). One shot deal: Students’
perceptions of assessment and course placement at
the California community colleges. San Francisco,
CA: WestEd.
Behringer, L.B. (2009). Remedial education at the
community college: A study of student sensemaking
(Doctoral dissertation). New York University,
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and
Human Development.
Safran, S., & Visher, M. G. (forthcoming). Case
studies of three community colleges: The policy
and practice of assessing and placing students in
developmental education courses (Working Paper).
New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary
Research and MDRC.
7
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity:
Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 145, 11–30.
Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S.-W. (2010).
Referral, enrollment, and completion in
developmental education sequences in community
colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2),
255–270.
8
The California State University’s (CSU) Early
Assessment Program (EAP) is an example of a
statewide effort; while student participation is
optional, the program is available to all since the
assessment component consists of additional
questions added to the mandatory California
Standards Tests in eleventh grade English and
math. Students who satisfactorily complete the
additional test items are exempted from the CSU
placement exam and remedial coursework; those
who do not are directed to courses and other
resources to improve their college readiness, and
are required to take the college placement exam. As
of 2010, students can also release their scores to the
California Community Colleges; these colleges are
in the process of reviewing whether the EAP is a
valid predictor of success for their campuses.
9
Howell, J.S., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E.
(2010). Postsecondary preparation and remediation:
Examining the effect of the early assessment
program at California State University. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. Advanced online
publication. doi: 10.1002/pam.20526
10
Kerrigan, M.R. & Slater, D. (2010).
Collaborating to create change: How El Paso
Community College improved the readiness of its
incoming students through Achieving the Dream.
New York: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University, and
MDRC.
11
Hull, D. (2005). Career pathways: Education
with a purpose. In D. Hull (Ed.), Career pathways:
Education with a purpose (pp. 1-22). Waco, TX:
CORD.
12
Parnell, D. (1986). The neglected majority.
Washington, DC: Community College Press.
13
Bragg, D. D. (2001). Promising outcomes for
tech-prep participants in eight local consortia: A
summary of initial results. St. Paul, MN: National
Research Center for Career and Technical
Education (NRCCTE), University of Minnesota.
14
Neumark, D., & Rothstein, D. (2003). School-tocareer programs and transitions to employment
and higher education. San Francisco: The Public
Policy Institute of California.
15
Cellini, S.R. (2006). Smoothing the transition to
college? The effect of Tech-Prep programs on
educational attainment. Economics of Education
Review 25(4), 394-411.
16
Sweat, I. J., & Fenster, M. J. 2005. The effect of
tech prep on student progress toward graduation.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association,
Montreal, Quebec.
7
17
Ackermann, S. P. (1990). The benefits of summer
bridge programs for underrepresented and lowincome students. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Education Research
Association, Boston, MA.
- Garcia, P. (1991). Summer bridge: Improving
retention rates for underprepared students. Journal
of Freshman Year Experience, 3(2), 91-105.
- Myers, C., & Drevlow, S. (1982). Summer bridge
program: A dropout intervention program for
minority and low-income students at the University
of California, San Diego. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Education
Research Association.
- Santa Rita, E., & Bacote, J. B. (1997). The
benefits of college discovery prefreshman summer
program for minority and low-income students.
College Student Journal, 31, 161-173.
18
Bengis, L. et al. (1991). SEEK and college
discovery summer programs: Prefreshman,
English-as-a-second language, postfreshman, and
science mathematics & technology institutes, 1990
evaluation report. New York: City University of
New York, Project SEEK.
19
Navarro, J. D. (2007). Digital bridge academy:
Program overview. Watsonville, CA: Cabrillo
College.
20
Hoffman N. & Webb, M. (2009, June 11). Earlycollege high school: Modest experiment or national
movement? Education Week.
21
Edmunds, J., Bernstein, L., et al. (2009). IES
Poster presentation: The Study of the Efficacy of
North Carolina’s Learn and Earn Early College
High School Model—Summary of Early Results.
Durham, NC: University of North Carolina.
22
Kim, J., & Barnett, E. (2009). 2007-08 MCNC
early college high school students: College
coursework participation and performance
(NCREST Brief). New York: National Center for
Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching
(NCREST), Teachers College, Columbia
University.
8
Issue Brief: Transfer Policy
Pat Callan
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
August 31, 2010
Contents
I. Reliance on Community Colleges......................................................................................................... 2
II.
States with Burgeoning Young Populations ......................................................................................... 3
III. States with Large Minority Populations................................................................................................ 4
IV. Statewide Policies ................................................................................................................................. 5
V.
State Policy Framework ........................................................................................................................ 5
Appendix I: Transfer and Graduation Rate Data on Community College Students ..................................... 8
Endnotes and Sources ................................................................................................................................... 9
1
I. Reliance on Community Colleges
The nation and the states are increasingly dependent upon lower division education offered in
community colleges and effective transfer to improve baccalaureate completion rates and raise higher
education attainment. 1
Table 1
Undergraduate Enrollment in States with
High Community College Participation (2008)
State
Wyoming
California
Arizona*
New Mexico
Mississippi
Illinois
Washington
Texas
Oregon
New Jersey
Kansas
Maryland
Nebraska
North Carolina
South Carolina
Michigan
Minnesota
Kentucky
Arkansas
Virginia
Nation (50
States + DC)
*See endnotes.
4-year
institutions
9,616
772,629
136,298
50,800
71,791
363,131
173,074
533,910
98,131
171,821
95,681
143,246
72,394
250,551
117,293
315,775
185,122
130,986
84,874
248,154
2-year
Total FTE
institutions enrollment
22,006
31,622
1,298,067
2,070,696
204,731
341,029
61,400
112,200
81,417
153,208
409,491
772,622
176,080
349,154
540,497
1,074,407
97,978
196,109
157,129
328,950
78,954
174,635
105,324
248,570
52,600
124,993
172,662
423,213
78,658
195,951
208,767
524,542
115,668
300,790
81,119
212,105
50,855
135,729
147,687
395,841
% enrolled
at 2-year
institutions
70%
63%
60%
55%
53%
53%
50%
50%
50%
48%
45%
42%
42%
41%
40%
40%
38%
38%
37%
37%
9,612,034
6,288,866 15,900,900
40%
2
II. States with Burgeoning Young Populations
Most states that project rapidly growing numbers of high school graduates are heavily dependent upon
community colleges as the entry point for students seeking the bachelor’s degree.2
Table 2
The 10 States with the Highest Projected Number of High School Graduates:
Dependence on Community Colleges
Annual Undergraduate FTE
Projected
Percent of
Enrollment For All
Number of
Students
Races/Ethnicity (2008)
High School
Enrolled at 2Graduates in
year
2-year
4-year or more
2022
Institutions
Institutions
Institutions
Arizona*
California
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
United States
*See endnotes.
110,650
362,658
191,608
101,108
118,463
135,742
107,628
106,672
123,462
338,181
204,731
1,298,067
230,768
145,253
409,491
325,272
172,662
204,649
172,417
540,497
136,298
772,629
589,330
266,297
363,131
689,702
250,551
358,557
453,884
533,910
60%
63%
28%
35%
53%
32%
41%
36%
28%
50%
3,041,417
6,288,866
9,612,034
40%
3
III. States with Large Minority Populations
Students from racial and ethnic groups with low college completion rates are concentrated in
community colleges and dependent upon effective transfer to achieve baccalaureate degrees. 3
Table 3
Percent of Undergraduate Enrollment in States with Large Minority Populations
Percent of Students Enrolled at 2-year
Percent of Students Enrolled at 4-year
Institutions
Institutions
American
American
Asian or
Asian or
Black nonBlack nonIndian or
Indian or
Hispanic
Hispanic
Pacific
Pacific
Hispanic
Hispanic
Alaska
Alaska
Islander
Islander
State
Native
Native
Alabama
32%
28%
41%
26%
68%
72%
59%
74%
Arizona*
61%
69%
74%
55%
39%
31%
26%
45%
California
71%
70%
67%
55%
29%
30%
33%
45%
Colorado
24%
47%
24%
25%
76%
53%
76%
75%
Delaware
34%
35%
32%
28%
66%
65%
68%
72%
Florida
29%
24%
30%
27%
71%
76%
70%
73%
Georgia
45%
35%
34%
27%
55%
65%
66%
73%
Hawaii
23%
26%
27%
47%
77%
74%
73%
53%
Illinois
54%
65%
46%
45%
46%
35%
54%
55%
Louisiana
40%
29%
33%
24%
60%
71%
67%
76%
Maryland
46%
46%
43%
38%
54%
54%
57%
62%
Mississippi
55%
47%
61%
42%
45%
53%
39%
58%
Nevada
15%
14%
21%
10%
85%
86%
79%
90%
New Jersey
53%
53%
55%
38%
47%
47%
45%
62%
New Mexico
50%
53%
75%
45%
50%
47%
25%
55%
New York
38%
38%
44%
26%
62%
62%
56%
74%
North Carolina
41%
44%
52%
29%
59%
56%
48%
71%
South Carolina
46%
44%
49%
37%
54%
56%
51%
63%
Texas
55%
52%
43%
46%
45%
48%
57%
54%
Virginia
39%
45%
45%
38%
61%
55%
55%
62%
Nation (50
43%
52%
46%
41%
57%
48%
54%
59%
States + DC)
*See endnotes.
4
IV. Statewide Policies
Statewide policies must assure that students can transfer from community colleges to baccalaureategranting institutions and earn bachelor’s degrees with the same number of credit hours and in the same
amount of time as “native” students who receive their lower division instruction from the four-year
college or university.
• Articulation agreements between individual two- and four-year institutions or groups of
institutions can be helpful, but they should be developed in the context of statewide transfer
policy.
• In the absence of a comprehensive, integrated statewide transfer policy framework:
o the scale of improvement needed to significantly raise baccalaureate completion rates and
levels of educational attainment cannot be achieved nationally and in many states;
o the burden of negotiating variations among large, complex institutions falls primarily on
students seeking to transfer;
o the costs of inefficiencies in the transfer process (e.g., credits not transferrable; excessive
credits taken after transfer because community college credits are not applied to degree
requirements) are borne by states and students.
Examples:
o Community college students who transfer to public universities in Florida accumulate the
same number of credits as native students.
o Transfer students to Tennessee public colleges and universities graduate within six years
at a higher rate than native students. 4
V. State Policy Framework
A state policy framework for transfer should include:
• Standardized core lower division transfer curriculum and Transfer Associates Degrees with
courses accepted by all public two- and four-year institutions (and private institutions that choose
or can be induced to participate) for general education and prerequisites for majors.
Examples:
o States with Transfer Associates Degrees include: Florida, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
New York, Ohio, and Washington State.
o Washington State has created an Associate of Science-Transfer Degree (AS-T) pathway
for students majoring in sciences and engineering. Students completing the AS-T
complete fewer credits toward a degree and are more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree.
o In Arizona, two institutions have created an associate’s degree to bachelor’s degree transfer
program that outlines a prescribed sequence of classes for students to take at the
community college to prepare them for a degree at the four-year university.
o Ohio and Texas have standard general education curriculum for transfer.
o Oregon has created general education learning outcomes for the first two years of college
and based its Associate of Arts Transfer Degree on these outcomes. 5
•
Common course numbering system across two- and four-year institutions for the designated
transfer curriculum.
5
Examples:
o Florida and Texas use common course numbering of lower-division courses for the
entire public higher education system. 6
•
Guaranteed admission with junior status for students who have met the designated lower division
transfer requirements at community colleges.
Examples:
o Recent legislation passed in California (currently waiting for the Governor’s signature)
will create a transfer degree and guarantee junior status to those transferring between the
community college system and the state college system. 7
•
Guarantees that the credits for the designated lower division courses will transfer and be accepted
as fulfilling lower division requirements and that students who complete the lower division
sequence will be admitted as juniors.
Examples:
o Nevada mandates that each major program be articulated with every other similar program
in the state.
o Colorado has program major to program major articulation agreements in which students
complete 60 credits at the community college and 60 credits at the four-year institution. 8
•
States should require the components of this framework be put in place through statewide
agreements. Faculty from four-year institutions and community colleges should develop the
transfer curriculum collaboratively to assure that the transfer courses are equivalent across all
institutions.
Example:
o In Arizona, there are discipline specific articulation task forces to confirm common core
courses and discuss curricular changes. 9
6
•
Financial incentives for community colleges for transfer and incentives for timely baccalaureate
completion by transfer students could be designed to be shared by institutions that send and those
that receive transfers, perhaps weighted towards rewarding success of low income students (Pell
recipients).
Example
o Oklahoma’s performance funding model rewards institutions for retaining and graduating
students and making transitions, like transfer, as smooth as possible. 10
•
Financial aid is critical for low-income transfer students, particularly since most are transferring to
higher cost institutions.
Examples:
o Kentucky has a Workforce Development Transfer Scholarship for students in high
demand career fields.
o Maryland also has scholarships for students in community colleges who are majoring in
high demand fields.
o Virginia awards $1,000 grants to students who complete a transfer associate degree and
meet academic and financial criteria.11
7
Appendix I: Transfer and Graduation Rate Data on Community College Students 12
Table 4
Transfer and Completion Rates at 2-Year Colleges
Students Starting at 2-Year Colleges
State
Graduated from a
2-Year Institution
Enrolled in a 4Year Institution
in Year 3
Enrolled in a 4Year Institution
in Year 4
Alabama
19%
18%
19%
Arizona
22%
11%
14%
Arkansas
24%
12%
14%
California
14%
8%
13%
Colorado
28%
17%
18%
Connecticut
21%
8%
10%
Florida
32%
11%
14%
Georgia
24%
20%
25%
Hawaii
22%
13%
13%
Idaho
16%
14%
16%
Illinois
26%
13%
15%
Indiana
8%
5%
5%
Iowa
29%
19%
19%
Kansas
25%
28%
28%
Kentucky
29%
11%
12%
Louisiana
16%
10%
11%
Maine
36%
9%
10%
Maryland
21%
14%
17%
Massachusetts
21%
10%
14%
Michigan
20%
10%
14%
Minnesota
39%
15%
17%
Mississippi
32%
17%
18%
Missouri
21%
15%
18%
Montana
24%
18%
19%
Nebraska
34%
14%
15%
Nevada
13%
8%
10%
New Jersey
22%
10%
15%
New Mexico
18%
8%
9%
New York
27%
16%
20%
North Carolina
27%
11%
12%
North Dakota
55%
24%
22%
Ohio
15%
11%
12%
Oklahoma
19%
10%
12%
Oregon
19%
10%
13%
Pennsylvania
26%
12%
15%
Rhode Island
18%
12%
14%
South Carolina
27%
10%
11%
South Dakota
56%
10%
9%
Tennessee
14%
14%
17%
Texas
12%
12%
15%
Utah
25%
15%
18%
Vermont
45%
21%
30%
Virginia
21%
15%
17%
Washington
32%
14%
17%
West Virginia
14%
14%
14%
Wisconsin
29%
16%
18%
Wyoming
20%
17%
19%
United States
21%
12%
15%
*Students with both 2-year and 4-year degrees are double counted.
Graduated
from a 4year
Institution
Graduated from a 2Year or 4-Year
Institution*
14%
11%
10%
11%
10%
7%
13%
22%
11%
15%
15%
5%
17%
21%
9%
7%
5%
15%
8%
12%
12%
15%
15%
12%
12%
7%
13%
5%
16%
9%
19%
9%
9%
10%
13%
8%
9%
3%
14%
12%
13%
20%
15%
15%
9%
12%
15%
12%
33%
33%
33%
25%
38%
28%
45%
46%
33%
31%
41%
13%
46%
46%
38%
23%
41%
35%
29%
32%
51%
46%
35%
36%
46%
20%
34%
24%
43%
36%
74%
25%
27%
30%
38%
26%
36%
59%
28%
23%
38%
65%
36%
47%
23%
41%
36%
33%
8
Endnotes and Sources
1
Notes for tables 1, 2 and 3: University of Phoenix Online and Western International University are excluded
from Arizona's results, but included in the National total. Their undergraduate enrollments and completions are
not representative of Arizona's performance as most first-time undergraduates are out-of-state residents
(University of Phoenix Online = 97.4% out-of-state, Western International = 87.1% out-of-state - IPEDS fall
2008 Residence & Migration File). Full-time and part-time enrollments by race are only available for the fall
reporting period. Annual full-time and part-time enrollments by race are estimated by applying the fall fulltime/part-time ratio to the annual unduplicated headcount for each respective race. Annual FTE enrollment is
calculated as estimated annual full-time enrollment + 1/3 of estimated annual part-time enrollment for each
race. Awards by race may not add to total due to changes in race/ethnic reporting. Sources for tables 1, 2 and
3: NCES, IPEDS, 2007-08 Enrollment File, all public, private non-profit, and private for-profit 2-year and 4year institutions.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
4
Increasing College Completion: State and System Policy Recommendations (unpublished), presented at the
Southern Regional Education Board annual board meeting June 27-29, 2010, p. 4.
5
Breneman, Meghan W., Callan, Patrick M., Ewell, Peter T., Finney, Joni E., Jones, Dennis P., Zis, Stacey,
Good Policy, Good Practice II (forthcoming). Institute for Higher Educational Leadership and Policy, Crafting
a Student-Centered Transfer Process in California: Lessons From Other States, Colleen Moore, Nancy
Shulock and Cristy Jensen, August 2009, http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Transfer_Report_08-09.pdf.
Hezel Associates, Lumina Foundation for Education, WICHE, Promising Practices in Statewide Articulation
and Transfer Systems, June 2010.
6
Hezel Associates, Lumina Foundation for Education, WICHE, op.cit.
7
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1401-1450/sb_1440_cfa_20100420_111951_sen_comm.html
8
Hezel Associates, Lumina Foundation for Education, WICHE, op.cit
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid.
12
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems analysis of National Student Clearinghouse
data, September 2009.
9
Education Technology as a Transformational
Innovation
Candace Thille
Carnegie Mellon University
Educational Technology as a
Transformational Innovation
President Obama’s goal to raise the nation's
college graduation rate to 60% by 2020
demands that we address the seemingly
impossible challenge of making higher
education less expensive and more
accessible while also increasing its
effectiveness. The difficulty is heightened
by the fact that faculty and institutions must
support not only an increase in the number
of students but also greater variability in the
student population's background knowledge,
relevant skills and future goals. Educational
technology can be a key component of
success, but only if it leverages the results
and methodologies of learning science to
create transformational innovations that
fundamentally change the way higher
education is developed, delivered and
improved year-after-year.
Addressing the cost of higher education will
clearly be an important factor in increasing
graduation rates. From 1982 to 2006, the
cost of higher education in the U.S.
increased 439%, far outstripping the
consumer price index, which increased
106% over the same period. i Explanations of
the high cost of higher education abound,
and include: efforts to improve service to
students and the professional lives of
facultyii; poor management practices; new
requirements for complying with
government regulations iii; and increased
capital equipment costs associated with
teaching increasingly complex topics
requiring more expensive technology. iv
Of particular interest is the analysis of cost
pressures in most service industries, first
described by William Baumol and William
Bowen in 1965 v, and again by Baumol in
1967 when he explicitly identified education
as one service industry subject to seemingly
uncontrollable upward price increases. vi. In
many industries, employees are continually
more productive thanks to technological
innovation in tools and equipment. In
contrast, in traditionally labor-intensive
sectors, such as higher education, there is
little or no growth in productivity over time.
Meanwhile, wages in those very service
sectors without productivity gains naturally
rise because those industries must compete
for labor with production sectors that have
achieved productivity gains through
technology and hence can pay higher
salaries. This explanation of rising costs has
come to be known as Baumol and Bowen’s
“cost disease.”
In his 1967 article, Baumol seemed
pessimistic about technology making a
significant difference in education.
Unfortunately, the history of the use of
information technology in higher education
over the last three decades has justified
much of his pessimism. The advent of the
personal computer, the Internet, and the
World Wide Web has led to a focus on
delivery of traditional materials through
these new channels as a way to address the
problem of access and cost. Many colleges,
universities and Open Educational Resource
1
providers have rushed to provide an online
presence with little consideration of how
online materials would be used to create an
effective learning experience, or how they
would actually meet the skyrocketing
demand for quality education. vii Even
today, we see policies advocating “online
courses” or “open educational resources” as
though the medium alone were the solution.
But simply putting materials online is not
enough. The important question is not “Is
online education as good as (or better than)
traditional education?” but, “How can the
online technology be used to transform
education?”
One current strategy for using information
technology to create more access and lower
cost is to record lectures and make those
recordings available as an educational
resource to both matriculated students and
the world at large. Providing 7x24 Web
access to lectures is viewed as a possible
path for lowering the cost per student
because more students can be provided the
same service of listening to a lecture at only
the incremental cost of recording and
webcasting the lecture. The problem with
this solution is that technology is being used
to provide lower-cost access to the service
of lecturing but that is not, ultimately, the
most important service provided by higher
education. The service that needs to be
made available at lower cost is the collection
of learning activities that improve learning
outcomes. Our understanding of human
learning from the last 20 years of research
tells us that learning is an active, not a
passive process and simply providing
lectures is not sufficient.
Advances in learning science, combined
with advances in information technology,
can create just the transformative force
needed to make higher education more
affordable and help it to better serve a larger
number of students.
is driven by a set of learning mechanisms.
The goal of learning science is to articulate
these mechanisms and thereby describe,
explain, and predict human learning. While
many practitioners say they “know what
works,” based on apparently successful
efforts in particular classes or at particular
institutions, the descriptions of “what
works” are often complex exemplars that are
challenging to replicate and scale and, even
when replicated and scaled, often do not
“work” in the new context or for the new
population.
When the precise underlying mechanisms of
learning are not known, instruction must be
provided through “intuitive instruction” in
which quality instruction is provided only by
talented or highly-trained professionals “great teachers”. However, as patterns in
student learning are studied by scientists and
the underlying mechanisms of learning are
articulated and tested, instruction can evolve
into the realm of “evidence-based
instruction” – where data are gathered to
show that certain approaches are better than
others and to stipulate the contexts in which
they are likely to work. To replicate and
scale effective instructional practice, we
need to be able to describe what works as a
set of underlying mechanisms that are
influenced by a set of student and contextual
variables. In other words, we need to create
better theories of learning, which inform
both teaching practice and the design of
educational technology. To develop better
theories, we need more data from more
students in more contexts.
One unique power of educational
technology is its ability to embed assessment
into virtually every instructional activity and
use the data gathered to create a virtuous
cycle for continuous improvement:
The premise of learning science, still a
young field, is that much of student learning
2
new academic discipline that is
emerging from a combination of
disciplines, including cognitive
psychology, computer science,
human-computer interaction, and
machine learning.
Educational technology becomes a
transformative innovation when it
instantiates learning science into reusable
and easily accessible technology-enabled
courses, which simultaneously collect the
data that learning scientists need in order to
better understand and articulate the
underlying mechanisms of human learning.
Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning
Initiative (OLI): One Example of Such a
Transformational Innovation
OLI learning environments use intelligent
tutoring systems, virtual labs, simulations,
and frequent opportunities for assessment
and feedback to produce the kind of
dynamic, flexible, and responsive instruction
that fosters robust learning. The OLI
approach is not to be confused with most
models of online learning or open
courseware repositories. The OLI model is
different in three ways:
•
OLI courses are developed by teams
composed of learning scientists,
faculty content experts, humancomputer interaction experts, and
software engineers in order to make
best use of multidisciplinary
knowledge for designing effective
learning environments.
•
The OLI system collects real-time,
interaction-level data on how and
what students are learning and uses
this data to drive positive feedback
loops to students, instructors, course
design teams, institutions, and
learning science researchers.
•
The OLI approach contributes new
knowledge to learning science—a
The OLI evaluation teams (internal and
external to the project) have conducted a
number of learning and effectiveness studies
that have shown that in measuring learning
outcomes, OLI courses used with minimal
instructor support are just as effective as
traditional instruction. OLI evaluators have
also conducted accelerated learning studies
*
that have shown how the combination of
scientific design of instruction and robust,
continuous feedback improves instruction
along an important dimension – time to
completion – with no diminution of quality.
Evaluation studies have been conducted at
institutions spanning a range of Carnegie
classifications, including community
colleges and have shown accelerated
learning, reduced attrition and significant
correlations between OLI learning activities
and learning gain. Results include:
•
Students using the OLI course in
hybrid mode successfully learned as
much material in less than half the
time (completed the course in 7.5
weeks with 2 class meeting per week
while traditional students completed
the course in 15 weeks with 4 class
meetings per week) and the OLI
students demonstrated learning
outcomes that were as good as or
better than traditional students.
Further, there was no significant
difference in retention between OLI
students and traditional students in
tests given 1+ semesters later viii.
*
In the accelerated learning studies students
use OLI courses in hybrid mode which is a
combination of classroom instruction and
online material but with significantly less
classroom time than a regular course.
3
•
Students using OLI in the fully
online mode at a large state
university achieved the same
learning outcomes as students in
traditional instruction and many
more successfully completed the
course. In this study of nearly 300
students, students only 41% of the
students in the traditional instruction
completed the course while 99% of
the students in the OLI condition
successfully completed the course ix.
•
Community College accelerated
learning study in Logic: An
instructor with minimal experience
in logic. Students obtained high
levels of performance on more
advanced content (~33%) not
covered in traditional instructionx.
•
Studies of the data logs for students
from multiple institutions in the OLI
Statistics, Biology and Engineering
Courses show a positive and
significant correlation between
student use of OLI learning activities
and their quiz scores on the
corresponding target topics with no
such no correlation with unrelated
topics -“a dose response effect”. The
findings in some of these studies also
indicate that self-regulation of
learning was more correlated with
performance than sheer quantity of
usage xi.
•
A study conducted on the OLI
Chemistry course revealed that the
number of engaged actions with the
virtual lab explained about 48% of
the variation observed in the posttest scores. The number of
interactions with the virtual lab
outweighed ALL other factors,
including gender and SAT score as
the predictor of positive learning
outcomexii.
Supporting students with learning
environments that more effectively teach the
course content can only be part of the
solution. We know that a student’s
motivation, goals, implicit theory of
intelligence, and meta-cognitive and selfregulated learning competencies all play
interrelated and significant roles in learning
success. Supported by research colleagues at
the Pittsburgh Science of Learning Center (a
National Science Foundation-funded
project), the OLI project is also exploring
the impact of these other factors that
contribute to high dropout or failure rates,
and refining our approaches to mitigating
those factors. Each use of an OLI course is
an opportunity to disentangle these factors
and refine methods for better supporting
student learning.
A New Model of Course Development
Together with community colleges, OLI is
experimenting with new collaborative
models of evidence-based course
development and adaptation. The CC-OLI
(Community College Open Learning
Initiative) statistics course development
team was launched in January 2010. The
team finished its initial target goal, releasing
two new versions of the OLI statistics
course in August 2010, modified to fit
community college needs. Faculty from
multiple community colleges across the
country joined the CC-OLI development
team to adapt and improve the course. The
team used the data collected over multiple
semesters of student use to drive the
redesign.
The team increased the number of
interactive activities by more than 30% and
moved many of the activities that were
previously located behind links into the
main content flow, as the student-log data
gave compelling evidence that students are
more likely to complete the activities if they
are placed in the flow of the page rather than
behind a link. The course was also
restructured to reduce barriers to adoption
4
by making it easier for instructors to choose
topics to include/exclude from their courses
while still maintaining the overall coherence
of the course. The revised course is being
used and evaluated in more than 25
institutions in the fall of 2010. The data
collected from this next round of use and
evaluation will be used again to focus the
efforts for further refinement.
The new course also includes a refined
“Learning Dashboard” for instructors. The
“Learning Dashboard” is a tool that provides
instructors detailed reports about what their
class has mastered by working in the OLI
environment and which concepts and skills
will need more attention in class. Based on
feedback and user testing with instructors,
the new version features a streamlined user
interface designed to allow instructors to
reach the information they need more
quickly and to focus the instructors’
attention on learning outcomes. Unlike
reports from traditional course management
systems, the Learning Dashboard presents
instructors with a measure of predicted
student mastery displayed by learning
objective. The dashboard also provides more
detailed information, such as the class’s
predicted mastery of sub-objectives,
predicted mastery for individual students,
and the types of tasks with which the
students are struggling the most.
Challenges to Bringing this Model to
Scale
Colleges are conservative institutions, and a
general aversion to change poses a risk to
institutional and faculty acceptance of these
new approaches. The OLI technology is
surely a disruptive one, requiring a switch
from an intuitive approach to an evidencebased approach for course development,
delivery, and assessment. Tight funding
environments may heighten this inherent
resistance to innovation, as instructors and
staff fear for their jobs and academic
freedom. Even when colleges recognize the
power of educational technology to improve
instruction, a “not invented here” mentality
may exacerbate reluctance to adopt the
concepts central to OLI’s effectiveness.
Understanding the faculty and institutional
issues in adoption and use is clearly critical
to supporting innovation at scale. Therefore,
in addition to conducting new large-scale
studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of
the OLI learning environments in increasing
completion rates, OLI researchers are also
studying the conditions and impact of OLI
use on faculty and institutions.
Recommendations for Policy:
Policy recommendations for “expanding the
use of technology in teaching and learning”
or “developing/utilizing open source
learning materials” should be refined to
clarify that the technology must demonstrate
effectiveness in supporting students to
achieve learning outcomes. Ideally, the
technology should build the mechanisms for
assessing both student achievement and the
effectiveness of the instructional
intervention directly into the teaching and
learning process. Without continuous, robust
assessment of all instructional strategies
aimed at articulating the underlying
mechanisms, we will continue to see “one
off” successes with little understanding of
what works, what doesn’t work, and how to
bring effective strategies to scale.
We need further integrated research to
determine which interactive teaching
strategies yield the biggest gains in student
learning in various contexts. Technology can
offer ways of creating, over time, a complex
stream of data about how students think and
reason while engaged in important learning
activities. Additional research on the data
representations and analysis methods best
suited for different audiences and objectives
are clearly needed.
5
i
Measuring Up, The National Report Card
on Higher Education, 2008, p. 8.
http://measuringup2008.highereducation.org
/
CMU Open Learning Initiative course
‘Logic & Proofs,’” Technical Report by
Learning Research and Development
Center, University of Pittsburgh, (2009)
ii
See the discussion on the “administrative
lattice” and “academic ratchet” in, Robert
Zemsky, Gregory R. Wenger, and William
F. Massy, Remaking the American
University: Market-Smart and MissionCentered (Rutgers University Press, 2006)
x
iii
xi
Malcolm Getz and John J. Siegfried, “Cost
and Productivity in American Colleges and
Universities,” in Charles Clotfelter, Ronald
Ehrenberg, Malcolm Getz, and John J.
Siegfried (eds.), Economic Challenges in
Higher Education (University of Chicago
Press, 1991), pp. 261-392.
iv
Robert Archibald and David Feldman,
“What Do Higher Education Costs Rise
More Rapidly than Prices in General?,”
Change Magazine, May/June 2008, pp. 2531.
C. D. Schunn and M. Patchan, “An
evaluation of accelerated learning in the
CMU Open Learning Initiative course
‘Logic & Proofs,’” Technical Report by
Learning Research and Development
Center, University of Pittsburgh, (2009)
P. S. Steif and A. Dollár, “Study of Usage
Patterns and Learning Gains in a Web-based
Interactive Static Course”, Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 98, No. 4, pp.
321-333, (2009)
xii
K. Evans, D. Yaron, G. Leinhardt,
“Learning stoichiometry: a comparison of
text and multimedia formats.” Chemistry
Education Research and Practice (2008)
pp. 208 – 218.
v
William J. Baumol and William G. Bowen,
“On the Performing Arts: The Anatomy of
their Economic Problems.” The American
Economic Review, (1965), pp. 495-502.
vi
, William Baumol ,“Macroeconomics of
Unbalanced Growth: The Anatomy of Urban
Crisis,” The American Economic Review,
(1967), pp. 415-426.
vii
Zemsky, Robert and Massy, William.
Thwarted Innovation, What Happened to eLearning and Why, The Learning Alliance,
2004.
viii
M. Lovett, O. Meyer, & C. Thille, C.,
“The Open Learning Initiative: Measuring
the effectiveness of the OLI statistics course
in accelerating student learning,” Journal of
Interactive Media in Education (2008),
http:// jime.open.ac.uk/2008/14/
ix
C. D. Schunn and M. Patchan, “An
evaluation of accelerated learning in the
6
Community College Support and Engagement of
Servicemembers, Veterans, and Military Families
Kathy McMurtry Snead, Ed.D., and Andrea Baridon
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges
When asked why they joined the military,
enlisted personnel consistently answer that the
opportunity to get a college education along
with the funds to pay for it is one of their top
three reasons for entering military service. This
generalization is borne out by Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense voluntary education
statistics which document that 376,759
servicemembers enrolled in more than 736,000
undergraduate courses funded by federal Tuition
Assistance in FY 2009 (OSD, 2010). For the
majority of servicemembers, the associate
degree diploma is the most frequently earned
educational credential using DoD Voluntary
Education funding. In FY 09, over 63% of the
active-duty graduates who earned a credential
(GED/high school through doctoral-level
education), earned an associate degree (OSD,
2010).
Other servicemembers elect not to use DoD
Tuition Assistance while on active duty to fund
their voluntary education, but rely instead on
Veterans Affairs educational benefits or federal
financial aid. It has been reported that 43% of
all military undergraduates and 39% of those
receiving veterans’ education benefits have
selected public, two-year institutions as the
place to achieve their academic and career goals
(Alvarez, 2008; U.S. Dept. of Education, 2009).
Dr. Stacie Hitt, Operation Diploma Director for
the Military Family Research Institute at Purdue
University, postulates that “the nation’s
community colleges have traditionally provided
leadership in addressing the postsecondary
needs of non-traditional students.” Looking at
the statistics above, it is evident that community
colleges are a key resource and access point for
servicemembers, veterans, and their families
pursuing postsecondary education.
Community colleges are an attractive
educational option for military families because
of affordability, program choice (certificate,
career-entry diploma, vocational, and academic
transfer programs), and convenience and
flexibility of class offerings (evenings,
weekends, and off-campus locations). For adult
learners who have no experience in a
postsecondary educational setting or have been
out of school for several years, community
colleges also provide a variety of support
services, refresher courses, and readiness
programs to prepare them for the academic
rigors of college-level education. For those
servicemembers who confide that they were not
academically focused during high school,
community colleges’ open access policies afford
them a chance to improve their skills and
establish a proven postsecondary educational
track record before transferring into a four-year
university.
Special campus programming for
Servicemembers and Veterans
Because of their adult learner and communitybased focus, many community colleges have
been among the first institutions to welcome
Post-9/11 veterans and servicemembers to their
campuses. From Soldier to Student: Easing the
Transition of Service Members on Campus, a
first-of-its-kind survey summary on how
colleges and universities are facilitating the
transition of veterans returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq into the college
environment, found that public two-year (66
percent) and four-year (74 percent) responding
institutions were more likely to have programs
specifically designed for military veterans than
private not-for-profit colleges and universities
(36 percent) (Cook & Kim, 2009). According to
more than three-fourths of colleges and
universities, financial aid and student
retention/persistence toward degree completion
are the two most pressing issues facing
military/veteran students (Cook & Kim, 2009).
Institutions with a longstanding history of
serving military students that award two-year
degrees include: Central Texas College,
Coastline Community College (CA), Excelsior
College (NY), Pierce College (WA), Thomas
Edison State College (NJ), University of
Maryland University College, and Vincennes
University (IN). Due to limited state funding
and low profit margins of community colleges,
some institutions report that creation and
expansion of additional veteran services and
programs are dependent upon external funding.
Nearly 42% of the two-year public institutions
responding to the national campus survey
identified locating funding sources for added
campus programs/services as one of their top
three institutional issues related to serving
veterans.
To encourage institutions to establish model
programs and services for veterans enrolling in
postsecondary education, philanthropic
organizations have established institutional
grants. One such organization is the Wal-Mart
Foundation which donated $3.6 million to
support successful veteran assistance programs
on college and university campuses during 2008
and 2009. In 2008, ten academic institutions
that provided successful services and programs
to their enrolled veterans received $100,000
each from the Wal-Mart Foundation to develop
new programs and enhance existing ones to help
veterans access and transition into institutions of
higher learning. Four of the recipients were
community colleges: Montgomery College
(MD), Citrus College (CA), Florida Community
College, and San Diego Community College
(CA).
Montgomery College (MD). The
Combat2College program “pairs a Department
of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and a
community college to enhance and adapt
existing campus resources to help OEF/OIF
veterans through college. The program focuses
on viewing military training and experience as
positive assets that can help students develop
behaviors and attitudes necessary for academic
success” (McBain, 2008, p. 10).
Citrus College (CA). The Boots to Books
program combines a credit-bearing course for
the veteran student and a non-credit course for
their family, friends and other supporters.
Course content includes interpersonal
communication, coping skills, managing the
transition from military to civilian life, and
other areas affecting returning veterans.
Florida Community College at Jacksonville
partners with the Wounded Warrior Project to
provide courses for wounded warriors through
TRACK, a residential college preparatory and
vocational skills program.
San Diego Community College (CA). The
grants will support the development of new and
existing programs and provide resources to
assist veterans with access to education,
adjustment to civilian life, and success in
completing their degrees. SDCC’s military
education program currently provides
instruction to more than 50,000 at 30 military
installations throughout the United States.
Wal-Mart Foundation awarded the American
Council on Education a $2.5 million grant to
support successful veterans education programs
across the country in 2009. Through a
competitive grant program using the Wal-Mart
Foundation funds, ACE identified and
recognized 20 institutions that operated model
programs advancing access and success in
higher education for veterans and their families.
The aim of program was to provide needed
resources to expand and enhance existing
veteran services provided on these 20 campuses,
and to support the dissemination of lessons
learned to other institutions.
Twenty institutions were awarded $100,000
2
grants in the spring of 2009 to document their
methodologies, measure success outcomes, and
quantify features of each program so that other
institutions could replicate their efforts with
positive results. Nine community colleges
received $100,000 each from ACE and the WalMart Foundation through its Success for
Veterans Award Grants program (See Appendix
A for descriptive program information). While
military and veteran family services were not
specifically included in the grants, all programs
have encouraged spouse and family
participation.
•
•
ACE has yet to publish a summary report of the
outcome measures and programmatic success
factors that resulted from the Veteran Success
Grants but those data should be forthcoming.
Data-driven outcomes demonstrating program
success and replicability to other campuses were
requirements for program selection.
The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education recently released the application
package for institutional grants for Centers of
Excellence for Veteran Students. Open to all
institutions of higher education, this funding
source should increase campus programming
and specialized services for the broad spectrum
of military students enrolled in postsecondary
education.
The following initiatives have been proposed by
experts in the field of student success as
strategies to ease the transition of veterans and
their families to campus and have been
incorporated into existing veteran programs:
•
•
Promote reintegration programs for
families, and act as a conduit to family
assistance centers and on-campus
veterans’ centers as a joint initiative of
community colleges and the military
(Brown, 2008);
Create offices that provide a single
point-of-contact or “one-stop shop” for
information about campus resources
(Ackerman, DiRamio, & Mitchell,
•
•
•
2009; Cook & Kim, 2009; Persky,
2010);
Provide on-campus housing for families
of veterans experiencing TBI, PTSD,
mild to moderate burn injury,
amputations, and other disabilities that
may place a student veteran at risk.
Students in healthcare professions
provide services, creating a secondary
gain by increasing the pool of providers
with knowledge of combat-related
injury and disability (McBain, 2008;
Redden, 2008);
Raise awareness and knowledge among
faculty and staff of issues facing student
service members and veterans and their
families (Cook & Kim, 2009; Ford,
Northrup & Wiley, 2009; Persky, 2010;
Rumann & Hamrick, 2009);
Develop collaborations to enhance
campus engagement between academia
and student veterans’ organizations and
other military family supports (Mangan,
2009; Ruman & Hamrick, 2009);
Institute flexible academic
programming, scheduling, and
availability of student services (Cook &
Kim, 2009; Ford, Northrup, & Wiley,
2009);
Identify and track student service
members and veterans and their families
to monitor progress and facilitate
targeted communication (Lokken,
Pheffer, McAuley, & Strong, 2009).
DoD and Community College Programs for
Military Families
In this decade characterized by military
deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, the
Department of Defense has made military
family support a top priority (Baker, 2010).
DoD has implemented numerous Military
Community and Family Programs and has
improved national efforts to enhance the quality
of life for military families.
The implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill in
August 2009 significantly reduced a major
financial barrier to veteran and servicemember
3
enrollment and college retention. Current
funding levels of military Tuition Assistance
and/or veterans education benefits make college
enrollment affordable for the overwhelming
majority of military students. The DoD
Transfer of Educational Benefits (TEB) option
for select servicemembers also allows
individuals to transfer unused educational
benefits to spouses or children. Despite this
monumental change in educational benefit
policy development for the Department of
Defense, financing postsecondary educational
goals remains the chief enrollment obstacle for
military spouses. With more than 55% of the
armed forces married, the mobile lifestyle and
high operations tempo of military families
frequently affects educational paths and
completion patterns for family members. “For
military spouses, who are frequently re-located
as the result of their family’s service, the ability
to transfer skills to new employment
opportunities or to earn credentialing or
certification in a career that is portable and in
demand nationally is an important factor in the
overall well-being of the military family,” says
Dr. Hitt of MFRI (Hitt, MFRI, 2010).
One DoD initiative that focuses specifically on
the educational challenges of military spouses is
the Military Spouse Career Advancement
Account (MyCAA). The initiative initially was
established in 2008 as a shared demonstration
project of the Departments of Labor and
Defense. In 2009, the initiative transitioned
completely to the Defense Department and
provided eligible military spouses of active-duty
servicemembers worldwide up to $6,000 in
financial assistance to help pay for licenses,
certifications, training programs, and education
in high-demand portable career fields.
Naturally, community colleges have served as
the dominant education provider for many of
these programs, both because of their
longstanding adult learner orientation, and the
diversity of their vocational, technical training,
and educational offerings.
The goals of the MyCAA program are to:
•
•
•
•
Provide targeted military spouses with
financial assistance to pursue education,
training, and credentials/licenses
required for obtaining/retaining
employment and advancing in their
careers;
Provide highly-skilled, well-trained
workers to employers in high-growth,
high-demand industries and sectors;
Increase the financial stability of
military families; and
Support the retention and readiness of
the U.S. Armed Forces.
An indicator of the program’s success was that
within its first six-month phase, 136,853
spouses enrolled in courses. With an external
funding source to augment the military family
budget, spouses demonstrated their desire and
drive to pursue educational goals. Due to
current and future fiscal realities the Department
of Defense has made programmatic
modifications to the eligibility requirements,
effective October 25, 2010, as follows:
•
•
•
•
Available only to spouses of active-duty
servicemembers in pay grades E1-E5,
W1-W2, and O1-O2;
Offer a maximum financial benefit of
$4,000 with a fiscal year cap of $2,000.
Waivers will be available for spouses
pursuing licensure or certification up to
the total maximum assistance of $4,000;
Require military spouses to finish their
program of study within three years
from the start date of the first course;
and
Limited to associate degrees,
certification, and licensures.
For more information on the program, see:
<https://www.militaryonesource.com/MOS/Fin
dInformation/Category/MilitarySpouseCareerA
dvancementAccounts.aspx>
Further evidence of the positive impact that
educational funding initiatives have on military
spouse enrollment is Coastline Community
College’s (CA) Military Spouse Program. In
4
late Fall 2007, Coastline committed funding to
provide a worldwide tuition rate of $59 per unit
and free textbooks for military spouses. In that
first year, military spouse enrollments grew by
600%. After that, program enrollment doubled
each session and has grown to a point that the
college can no longer afford to continue the free
books promotion. Beginning this fall, Coastline
Community College’s spouses program will
offer a $79 per unit enrollment fee and $50
maximum for all textbooks required for a course
(See Appendix B: Military Spouse Enrollment
Growth at Coastline Community College).
Providing educational funding for military
spouses, even at modest levels, helps overcome
the key obstacle to educational goal attainment
that military families face.
Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC)
is another DoD program that was created to
provide access to educational opportunities for
servicemembers and their families who, because
they frequently move from place to place, had
trouble completing college degrees. SOC,
established in 1972, helps coordinate voluntary
postsecondary educational opportunities for
servicemembers by helping the higher education
community understand and respond to special
needs of servicemembers; advocating for the
flexibility needed to improve access to and
availability of educational programs for
servicemembers; and strengthening liaison and
working relationships among military and
higher education representatives. Within the
SOC Consortium there are approximately 900
community colleges that pledge to:
•
•
Be reasonable in the acceptance of
transfer credit. Since mobility makes
it unlikely that servicemembers can
complete all degree program
requirements at one institution, a SOC
Consortium institution designs its
transfer practices for servicemembers to
minimize loss of credit and avoid
duplication of coursework, while
simultaneously maintaining the integrity
of its programs.
Limit academic residency
•
•
requirements for active-duty
servicemembers to no more than 25
percent of the undergraduate degree
program; allows servicemembers to
satisfy academic residency requirements
with courses taken from the institution
at any time during their program of
study, specifically avoiding any “final
year” or “final semester” residency
requirement.
Credit Learning from Military
Training and Experience. A SOC
Consortium institution provides
processes to determine credit awards
and learning acquired for specialized
military training and occupational
experience where applicable to a
servicemember’s degree program.
Credit Extra-Institutional Learning.
Recognizing that learning occurs in
extra-institutional and non-instructional
settings, a SOC Consortium institution
provides processes to evaluate and
award appropriate undergraduate-level
credit where applicable to a
servicemember’s degree program.
For the complete list of SOC Consortium
member institutions, go to SOC’s Web site at
<www.soc.aascu.org>.
A subset of the SOC Consortium, the SOC
Degree Network System (SOCAD, SOCNAV,
SOCMAR, and SOCCOAST) consists of
degree-granting colleges and universities that
have pledged to help servicemembers and their
adult family members complete college degrees
by adopting military-friendly policies that in
some aspects exceed those of the larger SOC
Consortium. Many courses offered by Degree
Network System (DNS) Core member
institutions have two-way guaranteed
transferability, making it easier for
servicemembers to complete associate and
bachelor’s degrees no matter where they move
during their military careers. These military
students do not have to be re-evaluated each
time they go to another military installation or if
they take courses from a college other than their
5
home college. As long as servicemembers
complete the academic residency requirements
of the home college, they can take approved
courses from other colleges to complete the
degree plan as they relocate during their military
careers. The Student Agreement issued by
participating DNS colleges provides a complete
evaluation of the servicemember’s prior
learning, including courses from other colleges
and universities, military training courses,
military occupational experience, and
nationally-recognized tests, as well as clearly
identifying requirements for completing the
degree. Spouses and adult children of
servicemembers are also eligible to participate
in the SOC Degree Network System and receive
Student Agreements.
In FY 2009, over 45,800 military students
received SOC DNS Student Agreements that
provided them with a degree plan and helped
them chart their academic progress toward
degree completion. Their degree-granting
institutions cumulatively recognized and
awarded more than 619,450 college credits from
non-traditional credit sources (military training,
military occupational specialty, nationallyrecognized testing programs, certification
examinations, etc.) toward graduation
requirements for enrolled military students. For
the Armed Services, these credit awards
translate to a cost avoidance of $154,863,500 in
Department of Defense tuition funds that can be
diverted to other efforts because colleges and
universities have applied non-traditional credits
from other instructional sources. For
servicemembers or their family members, credit
for their prior learning jumpstarts their
academic progress and reduces the amount of
coursework required—and, therefore, the total
time required for them to complete their
degrees—which motivates them to strive
seriously toward degree completion. Impressive
though those cost-avoidance figures are, the
numbers SOC captures for the SOC DNS are
just the tip of the iceberg—those credit awards
are from 160 institutions, fewer than 10% of the
total SOC Consortium membership. Granted,
they are the institutions with the largest number
of undergraduate military Tuition Assistance
enrollments and thus have well-established
procedures and award policies for serving
military students. While it is difficult to
extrapolate just what the cost avoidance
numbers might be for all SOC Consortium
institutions, those numbers are potentially
enormous. And regrettably, they are not
officially captured by any organization or
government agency.
Central Texas College in Killeen, Texas, serves
as a exemplary model of how a community
college within the SOC DNS specifically
addresses the retention and degree completion
issues of the military student population.
Recognizing the importance of highengagement strategies outside the classroom,
CTC has developed a student communication
system that provides early warnings, classroom
feedback, and education/career counseling to its
students. One of the initial efforts using student
communication system that integrates e-mail,
telephone, and instant messaging
communication with a student adviser/mentor
was an outreach to soldiers enrolled in online
classes who were issued an incomplete or failed
a class (See Appendix C).
A wealth of anecdotal information and
descriptive documents about institutional
programs and services surfaced in conducting
research for this issue brief. The amount of
data-driven evidence providing outcome
measures of program success, however, was
limited. We attempted to collect demonstrable
data that could document the impact and
outcomes of specialized programs and services
developed to meet the educational needs of
military students from subject matter experts.
Dr. Hitt from the Military Family Research
Institute at Purdue University summarized our
data search aptly, “The limited amount of datadriven evidence of supporting student
servicemembers and veterans and their families
at both two- and four-year institutions is
alarming in light of the large numbers currently
enrolled, as well as those expected to take
advantage of educational benefits. Due to their
6
historical leadership in serving the educational
needs of non-traditional students and the large
proportion of military students enrolled on their
campuses, the nation’s community colleges are
in a unique position to initiate steps
immediately to document and assess the
progress being made in this area.” We concur
that greater institutional efforts need to be
expended in quantifying the positive results
these initiatives have on military student lives
and to identify replicable programs that can
further advance educational attainment among
this adult learner subpopulation.
•
•
As summit participants further explore the
issues surrounding veteran, servicemember, and
military family enrollments at community
colleges, we pose the following questions to
help shape the discussion:
•
•
•
Greater retention and degree completion
metrics and outcome measures need to
be collected for military students
(servicemembers, veterans, and their
families), as well as all adult learners.
Who (what associations, agencies)
should engage colleges to collect
“success” data on who enrolls, what
academic programs are selected, and
quantitative measures of academic
progression and success? What
retention and degree completion
benchmarks can be identified to
measure successful pathways and
programming toward graduation
attainment?
What articulation models or
partnerships could further assist and
accelerate military students in their
transfer from two-year to four-year
degree programs?
Servicemembers and veterans, as well
as other adult learners, come to
institutions of higher learning with prior
learning experiences (transfer credit,
non-traditional learning, and
documented college-level military
training). Optimizing college-level
credit awards for prior learning that
•
apply toward graduation requirements
will accelerate servicemembers paths to
graduation. How might the acceptance
of non-traditional credit for prior
learning become a national standard of
good practice for community colleges?
For all of higher education in the United
States?
What funding sources might be
identified to help diminish the financial
barriers for military spouses, and the
broader population of adult learners?
Community colleges provide
educational programs in portable and
transferable career fields as well as
career guidance and counseling
services. What more can be done to
attract, communicate, and motivate
military spouses to pursue these
educational opportunities? Are there
other adult learner populations who
might also benefit from knowing about
access into portable career fields?
How can we build greater capacity at
community colleges so that more adult
learners can benefit from quality
educational experiences at an affordable
price?
7
REFERENCES
Ackerman, R., DiRamio, D., & Mitchell, R.L.G.
(2009). Transitions: Combat veterans as college
students. In R. Ackerman & B. DiRamio (Eds.),
New Directions for Student Services: Creating a
Veteran-Friendly Campus: Strategies for
Transition and Success (pp. 5-14).
Alvarez, L. (2008, November 2). Continuing an
education: Combat to college. The New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/02/education/
edlife/vets.html?_r=1.
Baker, C. (2010) Developing a 21st Century
Total Force: A Matter of Honor.
Department of Defense brief presented as
CCME Keynote Address, Nashville, TN, Feb.
2010. Retreived from
http://www.ccmeonline.org/nashville10.aspx.
Brown, S. (2008, November 13). Illinois
National Guard, community colleges launch
statewide programs for deployed military and
families. ICCTA News. Report retrieved from
[email protected].
Cook, B. and Kim,Y. (2009) From Soldier to
Student: Easing the Transition of
Servicemembers on Campus. American Council
on Education: Washington, DC.
Ford, D., Northrup, P., & Wiley, L. (2009).
Connections, partnerships, opportunities, and
program to enhance success for military
students. In Ackerman, R. & DiRamio, D.
(Eds.), Creating a veteran-friendly campus:
Strategies for transition and success. New
Directions in Student Services, 126, pp. 61-69.
Hitt, S. (August 23, 2010) RE: Community
College Summit: Military Families and
Veterans [Electronic mail message].
Ackerman & B. DiRamio (Eds.), New
Directions for Student Services: Creating a
Veteran-Friendly Campus: Strategies for
Transition and Success, pp. 45-54. doi:
10.1002/ss.
Mangan, K. (2009). Colleges help veterans
advance from combat to classroom. Chronicle
of Higher Education (October), pp. A1-A28.
McBain, L. (2008, Summer). When Johnny or
Janelle comes marching home: National, state
and institutional efforts in support of veterans’
education. AASCU Perspectives.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense
(Personnel and Readiness). (2010) DoD
Voluntary Education Fact Sheet-FY 2009.
Retrieved from
http://www.dantes.doded.mil/Dantes_web/DAN
TESHOME.asp.
Persky, K.R. (2010). Veterans’ education:
Coming home to the community college
classroom. Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved
from http://digitalcommons.nl.edu/diss/31.
Redden, E. (2008). ‘Symbiotic’ approach to
veterans’ needs. Inside Higher Education,
retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/10/1
0/veterans.
Ruman, C.B. & Hamrick, F.A. (2009).
Supporting student veterans in transition. In
Ackerman, R. & DiRamio, D. (Eds.), Creating a
veteran-friendly campus: Strategies for
transition and success. New Directions in
Student Services, 126, 25-34. doi:
10.1002/ss.313.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center
for Education Statistics (2009). Issue tables: A
profile of military service members and veterans
enrolled in post-secondary education in 20072008. NCES 2009-182.
Lokken, J.M., Pfeffer, D.S., McAuley, J., &
Strong, C. (2009). A statewide approach to
creating veteran-friendly campuses. In R.
8
APPENDIX A: Community Colleges with
American Council Education/Wal-Mart
Foundation Grants for Programs Recognized for
Serving Veterans and Military Families
Fresno City College (CA) built on a
partnership with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. to
train veterans for employment, including
preparation for pre-employment testing and
access to counseling.
Los Angeles City College (CA) created a
formal mentoring program, publish a veterans’
handbook, and train faculty and staff to increase
awareness of the challenges confronting student
veterans.
Southwestern College (CA) established a
veterans’ welcome center to provide more
comprehensive counseling, support services, job
placement and faculty development.
SUNY Empire State College (NY) expanded
and enhanced educational support services and
improve training of faculty, mentors, and staff
to create awareness of challenges faced by
student veterans.
Onondaga Community College (NY)
established a visible presence to welcome
veterans, increase awareness/knowledge of
unique veterans’ issues, and expand and
enhance services to current and prospective
veteran students.
Clackamas Community College (OR)
expanded outreach to veterans and develop
standards for awarding credit for military
training and experience.
Lane Community College (OR) expanded its
Lane Integration of Vets in Education (LIVE)
program to deliver first-year experience,
including learning communities, advising,
supplemental instruction, and early intervention
systems.
Trident Technical College (SC) created Project
VETS (Veterans’ Educational Transition
Services) to provide a continuum of services
from pre-college through graduation, including
a veterans-specific orientation program, faculty
and staff development, veterans’ task force, and
veterans’ student club.
Madison Area Technical College (WI)
provided streamlined veterans services, veteran
student orientation, and expansion of programs
and services to veteran families through its
Success and Access for Veterans Education
(SAVE) project.
APPENDIX B: Military Spouse Enrollment
Growth at Coastline Community College
Term
Fall 07 session 1
Fall 07 Session 2
Spring 08 Session 1
Spring 08 Session 2
Summer 09
Fall 08 Session 1
Fall 08 Session 2
Spring 09 Session 1
Spring 09 Session 2
Summer 09
Fall 09 Session 1
Fall 09 Session 2
Spring 10 Session 1
Spring 10 Session
2*
Summer 10
Fall 10 Session 1
Spouse Enrollments
123
261
387
661
599
860
930
1138
1187
884
1266
1292
1552
1156
1083
1248
Note: The suspension of MyCAA funding had
an impact on enrollment.
APPENDIX C. Central Texas College – HighEngagement Strategies
With over 40 years of experience working with
military students, spouses, and family members,
Central Texas College (CTC) works to
understand and meet the unique needs of
military families through education programs,
9
services, and initiatives. Approximately 75% of
all CTC students worldwide are military
affiliated.
The results of SSI were overwhelmingly
positive and indicated that over twice as many
students receiving the outreach were retained.
CTC recognized that military affiliated students
needed the ability to complete their education
regardless of their physical location. CTC’s
leadership in distance education, as evidenced
by the repeated recognition by U.S. News and
World Report as a top online degree-granting
institution and G.I. Jobs as a Military-Friendly
School, substantiates our commitment to our
students. Also, in order to support our large
mobile population, CTC has established
articulation agreements with over 25 institutions
that also serve large military populations.
This summer, the student communication
system was expanded through the purchase of
retention software. A new initiative was
implemented to serve those students enrolled in
face-to-face classes. Resulting data reflects an
opportunity to increase student retention and
successful completion through a system that
tracks instructor communication with students,
early warnings, and guidance for resolving key
educational issues such as incomplete grades,
scheduling, and student success.
Recognizing the importance of highengagement strategies outside the classroom,
CTC has developed a student communication
system that provides early warnings, classroom
feedback, and education/career counseling to
our students. Initial efforts with the student
communication system that integrates e-mail,
telephone, and instant messaging
communication with a student adviser/mentor
was an outreach to soldiers enrolled in online
classes who were issued an incomplete or failed
a class. Through the GoArmyEd program,
trends indicated that many students did not
know how to resolve an incomplete or the
process for appealing grades even though the
information is posted in classes, on the CTC
web site, and in the CTC catalog. This outreach
was later expanded to all distant learners to
include other branches of the military, military
spouses, and family members.
Our next effort was our Student Success
Initiative (SSI), which was the result of
students’ concerns about class overloads and
retention concerns addressed by the
administration, faculty, and staff. First-time
freshman and students with cumulative GPA’s
of less than 2.0 were identified and monitored
for participation and demonstration of
continuous progress. Those students who were
not meeting expectations were contacted by the
student mentor to provide guidance and support.
CTC’s first system-wide focus on classroom
high-engagement strategies began with the
design and implementation of PSYC1300
Learning Framework that is intended to serve as
a freshman orientation. This course is designed
to help students identify their temperament,
learning style, level of motivation, decisionmaking style, personal values, and principles.
Student progress has been validated by retention
rates and grade point averages of those students
who participated in PSYC1300.
CTC is currently involved in a Texas pilot of
Postsecondary AVID (Advancement Via
Individual Determination). Several of the local
independent school districts within the CTC
service are all Department of Defense schools
utilizing the AVID program. AVID is one of
the most successful college readiness programs
serving approximately 400,000 students, nearly
4,500 schools, 45 states, and 16 other
countries/territories. AVID Postsecondary is a
system initiative to support students who are
under-prepared for college by providing a yearlong academic training program to develop
college success skills needed for academic
success, persistence and graduation, reducing
barriers that traditionally limit levels of
academic achievement, and facilitating
professional development using student success
pedagogies applicable across academic
disciplines and student services. In addition,
one of the AVID Postsecondary essentials
10
includes implementation of a freshman year
experience course that includes all of the
elements currently utilized in PSYC1300.
11
Data Collection and Use at Community Colleges:
An Issue Paper
Peter T. Ewell
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS)
Longitudinal Data Systems
Background
Community colleges are crucial to attaining President
Obama’s goal of placing the United States once again
at the forefront of the world with respect to collegiate
attainment. They enroll more than half the
undergraduate students in the country. And not only
do they produce workforce-related credentials and
degrees in their own right but, by preparing hundreds
of thousands of students to transfer, they play an
important role in baccalaureate degree production as
well.
But community colleges are also extraordinarily
complicated environments with respect to the way
students move into and through them. Students
frequently interrupt their enrollment by stopping in
and stopping out. They change programs a lot, and
make use of myriad support services such as tutoring
and supplemental instruction. More than half of them
begin with developmental studies in reading, writing,
or mathematics, because they are assessed below the
college level in these skills. Large numbers also
delay taking important “gatekeeper” courses or take
courses out of sequence. Community college
academic leaders and faculty need to deeply
understand these factors in order to design and
improve curricula and academic interventions, and
they need appropriate and timely early warning
systems to detect students in trouble. These kinds of
enrollment “swirls” are equally prominent among
community colleges and four-year institutions.
According to federal studies, more than two-thirds of
students who ultimately earn a baccalaureate degree
attended two or more institutions to do so and one in
five attended three or more (Adelman 2006). So a
parallel understanding of student flow is mandatory
for policymakers at the state or system level in order
to improve attainment.
At both the institutional and state/system levels, the
data needed to answer these kinds of questions can
only be produced by longitudinal databases
constructed on a cohort basis. These databases are
built up from established student registration records
to track groups of students who enter the institution
(or state, or system) at the same time over multiple
years of enrollment to determine their educational
experiences and ultimate degree attainment. To be
effective as information resources, moreover,
longitudinal databases need to be extremely
flexible—able to break down student attainment or
performance measures by many combinations of
student characteristics—male Hispanic students on
Pell assistance seeking an automotive technology
certificate or female students aged 25-34 entering
with below-college mathematics skills seeing an
associate degree in Nursing, for example. They also
must contain a significant amount of “treatment” data
that encompasses various aspects of the student
experience that are presumed to be related to
academic success—performance in “gate-keeper”
courses like English Composition or a first collegelevel mathematics course, developmental placement
and academic “catch-up” experiences, participation in
tutoring and academic support, receipt of financial
assistance in various packages, etc. Crossing these
two kinds of data, academic administrators can begin
to understand what works for whom, a fundamental
condition for systematic improvement. For example,
this kind of fine-grained tracking at Valencia
Community College helped the college design
improvements in the developmental mathematics
sequence that increased success rates for African
American and Hispanic students by between eight
and ten percent in just a few years (Finney and Stoel,
2010).
Frequently overlooked by institutional actors in this
array of resources are multi-institutional databases
capable of tracking students after they leave a given
1
community college. According to the latest
inventory, “student unit record” (SUR) databases of
this kind now exist in 45 states (Garcia and
L’Orange, 2010). These can document successful
transfer, and some can further examine student
performance at transfer institutions. To supplement
state SUR databases, the National Student
Clearinghouse (NSC) maintains enrollment and
completion data on well over 90% of students
enrolled in postsecondary education in the country.
Finally, some 23 states have linked their SUR data to
employment databases held by their workforce
agencies to determine job placement and earnings.
These external data resources are generally beyond
the reach of individual institutions, but the fact that
most community colleges are part of a system means
that the data are accessible through system offices.
Performance and Outcome Measures
While completing a credential or transferring
successfully to a college or university at a higher
level are the ultimate success measures for
community colleges, there is growing consensus that
intermediate outcome measures are important in
marking the progress of different kinds of students.
For example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
is currently developing a list of such measures that
includes successful completion of developmental
study for students assessed as not college ready,
passage of gatekeeper courses in English and
Mathematics, persistence to the next year, the
attainment of several college-credit accumulation
milestones (12, 24, and 42 credits), and the ratio of
courses enrolled for that are completed with a grade
of “C” or better—in addition to earning a college
credential, transferring to a four year institution,
earning a degree from the transfer institution, and
employment in field. Similar measures are already in
use by a consortium of states and are the basis of the
exemplary “Momentum Points” performance funding
scheme now operated by the State Board of
Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) in
Washington. Such intermediate measures enable the
progress of an entering student cohort to be tracked
much more finely—a substantial virtue for
community college populations that frequently get
into academic trouble early in their college careers.
Non-Credit Programs and Populations
While most longitudinal database development has
taken place within the relatively traditional universe
of academic degree credits (including
developmental), both policymakers and college
leaders are recognizing the growing importance of
bringing the large non-credit student populations—
ABE, GED, and occupational/vocational certificate
enrollments—into the tracking universe. They
realize that in order to attain the nation’s ambitious
attainment goals, success rates will need to improve
for all students who are seeking to advance,
regardless of their current level. For example, the
common Gates Foundation measures define entering
cohorts to include such students and propose as an
additional performance measure the proportion of
noncredit students who end up entering regular credit
programs at community colleges. But data on noncredit students are not easy to aggregate at most
community colleges because they are not usually
included in regular student registration records but
are, instead, kept in specially-constructed databases.
Similarly, important academic experiences such as
non-course-based academic skills-building
interventions delivered through individualized
tutorials or dedicated skills centers are not captured
in regular student records systems because they are
not “courses.” Community colleges need to make it a
priority to integrate these data systems so that
students beginning in non-credit environments are
included in tracking and fairly counted as potential
contributors to key outcomes.
Remaining Challenges
While the last ten years has seen substantial progress
in developing new data resources and measures for
community colleges, there are a number of
challenges that remain to be met. Among the most
prominent are:
•
Integration of data about credit and noncredit students and course-based versus noncourse-based experiences, as above.
•
Creation of state-level SUR databases in the
states and systems that currently lack such
capacity, as well as inclusion of non-public
institutions (private and proprietary) to
increase the number of potential transfer
2
destinations (SURs in 19 states now include
at least some of these institutions).
•
Development of standard (and widely
accepted) definitions for performance
measures and descriptive variables about
students and academic experiences that are
outside the scope of current federal reporting.
•
Re-regulation or revision of the Family
Education Right to Privacy Act (FERPA) to
clarify the original purposes of the Act to
enable research to improve postsecondary
education to be undertaken more effectively,
while preserving individual rights to privacy
with appropriate safeguards. Many potential
users of state SURs and registration records
are deterred from tapping them for research
purposes because of false but persistent
perceptions of what FERPA does and does
not allow.
•
Development of standard calculation
algorithms for these measures that can be
made widely available to community
colleges pre-programmed in off-the-shelf
software environments like Microsoft Excel,
Microsoft Access, SPSS, or SAS.
By far the most important challenge for community
colleges in the data and information arena, though, is
the fact that so much available data is not used.
There are many reasons for this including lack of
knowledge and awareness about how to link data to
presenting problems, shortfalls in campus analytical
and institutional research capacity, and lack of
knowledge about how to present data to faculty, staff,
and stakeholders in a manner that tells an actionrelated “story” about what is happening and what
needs to be fixed. A concerted multi-year national
effort on how to remedy these conditions, as is
currently undertaken by such national initiatives as
Achieving the Dream and Complete College
America, would likely pay major dividends with
respect to using data for improvement. The
necessary tools have already been developed (see
next section). But it will take sustained effort,
perhaps kicked off by another White House
Community College Summit focused explicitly on
using data for improvement, to move the needle on
this issue.
Resources
Fortunately, the last decade has seen considerable
progress in developing appropriate resources to
support community colleges and states in developing
more powerful student databases and putting them to
use. Among these are both publications and
organizations that can provide technical assistance.
Important publication resources include:
•
The Community College Data and
Information Toolkit
(www.communitycollegecentral.org/.../Data
_Performance_TOOLKIT.pdf). This
publication by the Community College
Bridges to Opportunity program at the
University of Texas Austin contains all the
basics needed to understand and use data in a
community college setting.
•
Strong Foundations
(http://www.sheeo.org/sspds/default.htm).
This is an up-to-date inventory of the
contents, capacity, and applications of state
Student Unit Record databases.
•
Using Longitudinal Data to Increase
Community College Student Success
(http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?
UID=570). Prepared by researchers at the
Community College Research Center at
Teachers College, Columbia University, this
is an accessible guide to creating longitudinal
databases at individual colleges and using
them to create a variety of performance and
outcomes measures.
Important organizations that can provide assistance
include:
•
The Community College Research Center at
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Faculty and staff at this center have
conducted innumerable studies and
demonstration projects with foundation
support and under contract
(http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/). A similar
resource is the Community College
Leadership Program at the University of
3
Texas Austin
(http://edadmin.edb.utexas.edu/cclp/).
•
The National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems
(http://www.nchems.org/), the State Higher
Education Executive Officers
(http://www.sheeo.org/), and the Western
Interstate Commission for Higher Education
(http://www.wiche.edu/). These
organizations specialize in providing
guidance about how to best harness student
records data to construct institutional
research and policy studies to improve
student success.
•
Jobs for the Future (http://www.jff.org/).
This multi-purpose applied research center
provides assistance in designing and
implementing data-driven student success
programs directed primarily at underserved
students.
•
The National Community College
Benchmark Project (http://www.nccbp.org/).
Located at Johnson County Community
College, this is a national membership
consortium of community colleges that share
commonly-defined data about institutional
characteristics and effectiveness.
•
Summary and Conclusion
Converting data into information and using this
information to diagnose what impedes and
accelerates student progression in community
colleges is critical to achieving the national
attainment goals set at 60% of young adults in the
U.S. by President Obama. Good data systems, well
utilized, enable college leaders, faculty, and staff to
determine what works specifically for which kinds of
students in the complex, diverse, and challenging
environments provided by today’s community
colleges. Sound and well-utilized data systems are as
important to student success as dedicated and wellprepared faculty, caring and knowledgeable student
support staff, and up-to-date and appropriate
educational facilities and technologies. We cannot
succeed without them.
References
The Diversity Scorecard Project
(http://cue.usc.edu/equity_model/). Located
at the University of Southern California, this
initiative has developed innovative and
effective approaches to packaging
disaggregated community college
performance data to induce action by faculty
and staff.
Adelman, C. (2006). The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to
Degree Completion from High School Through
College. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational
and Adult Education, U.S. Department of
Education.
Finney, J. E and Stoel, C. F. (2010). Fostering
Student Success: An Interview with Julie Phelps.
Change, 42(4) July/August 2010, 38-43.
Garcia, T. I. and L’Orange, H. P. (2010). Strong
Foundations: The State of State Postsecondary
Data Systems. Boulder, CO: State Higher
Education Executive Officers (SHEEO).
4
Expanding Apprenticeship—A Way to Enhance
Skills and Careers
Robert Lerman
Urban Institute
An Overview of U.S. Apprenticeship
Apprenticeship is a time-honored method
for preparing workers to master
occupational skills and achieve career
success. Under apprenticeship programs,
individuals earn a salary while receiving
training primarily through supervised, workbased learning but also with related
academic instruction. Employers, joint,
union-employer agreements, government
agencies, and the military all sponsor
apprenticeship programs. Apprentices are
employees at the firms and organizations
where they are training, and combine
productive work along with learning
experiences that lead to demonstrated
proficiency in a significant array of tasks.
The programs usually last three to four years
and require students to complete course
work that includes math, verbal, and
occupation-specific content. Apprenticeship
helps workers to master not only relevant
occupational skills but also other workrelated skills, including communication,
problem-solving, allocating resources, and
dealing with supervisors and a diverse set of
co-workers. The course work is generally
equivalent of at least one year of community
college. In completing apprenticeship
training, workers earn a recognized and
valued credential attesting to their mastery
of skill required in the relevant occupation.
Young people reap many developmental
benefits from engaging in apprenticeships.
They work with natural adult mentors who
can guide them but allow them to make their
own mistakes. youth see themselves judged
by the established standards of a discipline,
including deadlines and the genuine
constraints and unexpected difficulties that
arise in the profession. To quote Robert
Halpern, “Young people learn through
observation, imitation, trial and error, and
reiteration; in other words through force of
experience. Though professionalism and
care are expected, perfection is not. Adult
mentors hold the discipline for the
apprentice, sequencing and controlling task
demands to keep them on the constructive
side of difficulty. They direct apprentices’
attention, demonstrate and sometimes
collaborate.” i Supervisors provide the close
monitoring and frequent feedback that helps
apprentices keep their focus on performing
well at the work site and in the classroom.
Apprenticeship in the United States focuses
primarily on construction and manufacturing
occupations, with large scale programs in
electrical, pipe-fitting, carpentry,
shipbuilding, maintenance, machining, and
welding. This type of training is particularly
relevant today as a way of dealing with the
current mismatch between available workers
and openings for skilled occupations in
manufacturing and other industries. Tens of
thousands of apprenticeships are learning
occupations in other fields as well, including
utilities, auto and truck repair, police and
fire, trucking, child care and long-term care.
The range of occupations relying on
apprenticeship training is far more extensive
in several Western European countries,
where apprenticeship is a mainstream route
to career success, than in the United States.
Apprenticeships provide training for 50 to70
percent of young people in Switzerland,
Austria, and Germany. The strength of
Germany’s apprenticeship system
contributes a great deal to their ability to
maintain a vibrant, high quality
manufacturing sector. Apprenticeships are
also expanding rapidly in other advanced
economies, including Ireland, Australia, and
the United Kingdom. Apprenticeships have
been extended to many occupations,
including nursing, information technology,
finance, and advanced manufacturing.
Since apprenticeship is driven by employer
demand, mismatches between skills taught
and supplied and skills demanded in the
work place are less likely to occur than
when training is provided in school-based or
community-based courses.
The U.S. apprenticeship system is highly
decentralized, although most programs are
governed by the “Registered
Apprenticeship” system. These registered
programs operate under the supervision of
the U.S. Labor Department’s Office of
Apprenticeship (OA) and State
Apprenticeship Agencies. The
responsibilities of the OA include issuing
certificates of completion to apprentices,
protecting the safety and welfare of
apprentices, providing guidance and
technical assistance to program sponsors,
monitoring program equal opportunity plans
to prevent discrimination against women
and minorities, and expanding the use of
apprenticeship by employers.
As of 2008, about 27,000 registered
apprenticeship sponsors were training about
480,000 apprentices. Apprentices make up
only about 0.3 percent of total work force
and nearly 4 percent of a cohort’s entrants to
the work force. ii Though only a fraction of
the students in colleges and universities, the
number of registered apprentices is
comparable to the combined number of
individuals receiving training through three
federally sponsored Labor Department
programs: the Workforce Investment Act’s
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs, a
formula-funded federal program that
provides local workforce boards with funds
for training and other services; the Job
Corps, and the Trade Adjustment Act. iii The
Department of Labor spent almost $3.9
billion dollars on these programs in 2007, or
more than 190 times more funds that was
spent on the Office of Apprenticeship to
promote and monitor registered
apprenticeship in the U.S.
Who Can Benefit From Apprenticeship?
Apprenticeship is particularly appealing as a
way of integrating minorities, especially
minority young men, into rewarding careers.
Having learning take place mostly on the
job, making the tasks and classroom work
highly relevant to their careers, and
providing participants wages while they
learn can give minorities increased
confidence that their personal efforts and
investment in skill development will pay. In
addition, mastering a skill by completing an
apprenticeship gives graduates a genuine
sense of occupational identity and
occupational pride.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument for
making apprenticeship more central to U.S.
skill development is that the evidence that
the rates of return to apprenticeships far
exceed alternative training methods for
2
middle-skill jobs. Kevin Hollenbeck studied
the earnings gains of individuals who exited
various education and training programs,
including community colleges, Workforce
Investment Act, or WIA, training, and
apprenticeship. Hollenbeck examined
earnings gains relative to program costs to
calculate social benefits using a matching
strategy that allowed for comparisons of
workers with similar characteristics. iv
Looking at earnings impacts during the first
2.5 years after exiting the program, he
estimated that the net social benefits to
apprenticeship were about $50,000 per
apprentice, far more than minimal gains
accruing to community college students and
WIA trainees. In other words, it takes little
time for a significant payoff to
apprenticeship training to accrue to the
worker and society at large. On a lifetime
basis, Hollenbeck projects the present value
of earnings gains less costs at $269,000 per
apprentice, compared to $96,000-$123,000
per community college attendee, and about
$40,000 per WIA trainee.
Nearly all the countries that use
apprenticeship extensively have relatively
low youth unemployment rates because
apprenticeships result in much smoother
transitions from school to careers than does
most school-based preparation. Moreover,
because apprenticeship provides workers
with a full salary and wage progression so
that participants can support their living
standards without a government stipend.
These features are especially important for
low-income workers.
Despite these substantial benefits, federal
support for apprenticeship training is
meager. Although the Obama
administration recently awarded grants of
$6.5 million to assist national industry and
employer associations and labormanagement organizations in advancing
Registered Apprenticeship, the ongoing
budget for the main agency helping to
expand and monitor the apprenticeship
system is only about $28 million of the
nation as a whole. Apprenticeship sponsors
generally receive no direct support, though
some of their apprentices obtain subsidies
through community colleges.
Generally, policymakers view community
colleges and apprenticeships as two
approaches that substitute for one another.
But, the two systems can complement each
other as well. Community colleges
frequently provide academic instruction
required for apprenticeable occupations. In
some cases, apprenticeship programs build
in sufficient courses for the apprentice to
earn an associate’s degree. Having
apprentices attend community colleges
provides a signal that higher education and
continuous learning are useful for the
employer and the apprentice.
For community colleges, apprenticeships
open interactions with businesses and insure
that the occupational training provided by
community colleges is up-to-date.
Community college instruction provides the
assurance that students have jobs linked to
their education and training, thereby
lessening the concern of a mismatch
between skills taught and skills demanded.
Unlike many community college students,
who work part-time in jobs unrelated to their
degrees, apprentices will see a close
connection between their course work and
their careers. The apprenticeship connection
can improve student performance in the
classroom and increase program completion
because employer (or union-employer)
sponsors mentor and monitor the
apprentice/student on a frequent, at least
monthly basis. Currently, community
colleges lack the resources for effective
counseling of students on an individual
3
basis. v Apprentices will be motivated to do
well in order to keep their jobs and move up
in the organization sponsoring them. The
added motivation and improved
performance of apprentice students will
raise retention and completion rates at
community colleges and possibly positively
enhance the learning atmosphere in
classrooms.
Apprenticeship can serve as a foundation for
completing further education. The
completion of an apprenticeship involves
great dedication, attention to detail, nearperfect attendance, an ability to listen and
learn from peers and more knowledgeable
colleagues, and demonstrating a mastery of
complex material. By the time apprentices
graduate and become certified, their
confidence in their ability to learn and their
awareness of what learning requires has
increased substantially. At some later point,
many will attend courses that update their
skills. If entering and completing college
degrees became more of a seamless process,
the number of apprentices with college
degrees would probably increase
significantly. At the same time, the high
return to apprenticeship training is likely to
cause many skilled workers to become
satisfied with their existing careers.
How Can We Expand Apprenticeship
Training in the U.S.
It is important to expand the scale of
apprenticeship training to increase skills and
help more workers enter rewarding careers.
One recent example from South Carolina
shows the potential for expansion at modest
cost. Since the state government funded a
$1 million a year expansion initiative housed
at the state’s technical college system and
annual employer tax credits of $1,000 per
apprentice per year, Apprenticeship
Carolina™ has stimulated the registration of
an average one new emplo7yer-sponsored
apprenticeship program per week and more
than doubled the number of apprentices in
the state. Program staff have and continue
to work closely with a representative from
OA in the Labor Department’s Employment
and Training Administration. The
expansion has created opportunities across
broad industry sectors including advanced
manufacturing, health care, and information
technology. Moreover, the effort is adding
to the linkages between the technical
colleges and the business community.
Although the technical college system’s
career programs generally have business
groups that offer advice on curriculum and
program development, the direct linkage
between the technical college and the
apprenticeship system raises collaboration to
an unusually high level.
Federal subsidies to employers adopting or
expanding apprenticeship are likely to help
but effective marketing of the apprenticeship
concept will remain a critical ingredient.
According to staff in South Carolina, the
availability of the modest $1,000 per year
tax credit for each apprentice for each year
opens the door to conversations about
establishing an apprenticeship program.
One way to target such subsidies in ways
that do not pay for all the existing
apprenticeships is to use a marginal credit,
whereby employers would receive tax
credits of perhaps $4,000 for each new
apprenticeship position beyond 80 percent
of last year’s level. vi
A federal subsidy for expanding
apprenticeship makes sense on several
grounds. First, while apprenticeships
significantly increase human capital at least
as much as community colleges, they
receive no governmental support, except for
some indirect subsidies based on low
community college tuition. Subsidies to the
4
general educational component of
apprenticeships are as justified as subsidies
to college and university education. Second,
the expected benefits from subsidies to
stimulate added apprenticeships are likely to
far exceed the costs.
Apprenticeship can and sometimes does
serve as a foundation for completing further
education. The completion of an
apprenticeship involves great dedication,
attention to detail, near-perfect attendance,
an ability to listen and learn from peers and
more knowledgeable colleagues, and
demonstrating a mastery of complex
material. By the time apprentices graduate
and become certified, their confidence in
their ability to learn and their awareness of
what learning requires has increased
substantially. At some later point, many
will attend courses that update their skills.
If entering and completing college degrees
became more of a seamless process, the
number of apprentices with college degrees
would probably increase significantly. At
the same time, the high return to
apprenticeship training is likely to cause
many skilled workers to become satisfied
with their existing careers.
The Role of States
States influence the skill development
process not only through the K-12 school
system, but also by providing about $60
billion to fund higher education and serving
as the largest funder of community colleges.
In addition, governors often lead job service
and training programs sponsored by the
Workforce Investment Act, or WIA. About
half of all state governments operate State
Apprenticeship Agencies that approve
programs as registered in the federal
system. vii Other states can promote
apprenticeship by sponsoring staff in
government or in other organizations work
closely with federal apprenticeship
representatives in the area.
States can in principle coordinate joint
initiatives involving not only community
colleges and apprenticeships, but also WIA
and high school programs given their deep
involvement in this mix of education and
training for careers. States also can use their
funding of construction projects and other
activities to promote apprenticeship or other
types of career-based training. Under WIA,
governors have discretionary funding that
could be used to stimulate apprenticeship
and improve linkages with community
colleges. Other approaches to expand
apprenticeship programs at the state level
might involve focusing on target groups,
such as ex-offenders and dislocated workers.
Many groups place a high premium on
earning money while undergoing training.
Funds designated for these groups could be
used to develop new apprenticeships and
link individuals to existing apprenticeships.
States that take the initiative to expand
apprenticeship and offer links to
community/technical colleges are likely to
find a receptive audience politically. The
public realizes the importance of insuring
that training programs are well-matched to
the job market and to actual careers for
graduates. Also, most people recognize that
college should not be the only pathway to a
rewarding career. Businesses and other
employers continue to emphasize the
importance of skills that can be best learned
at the workplace. Current sponsors of
apprenticeship programs highly recommend
the strategy to other employers and certainly
would support the initiative. These are
among the reasons that apprenticeship has
long attracted bipartisan support.
5
Conclusions
Sound strategies to educate and train
individuals for rewarding careers are critical
for achieving high productivity but also for
raising the earnings of workers at the middle
and lower middle of the educational
distribution. Today, the country offers
several strategies that often operate
independently of each other, including
formal apprenticeships, community colleges,
for-profit career colleges, and purely
employer-sponsored training.
Unfortunately, the systems are often opaque
and hard to navigate for individuals. Firms
can often locate local training providers to
satisfy their demand for skilled workers, but
sometimes find the system quite difficult to
penetrate. Gaps between skills learned and
skills needed are common, whether they
involve machinists in Texas or long-term
care workers in the western parts of the
country.
Over the next decades, jobs will be
emerging in fields amenable to collaborative
apprenticeship-community college training.
Other countries with advanced economies
are demonstrating that the apprenticeship
model can lower youth unemployment and
help young people master critical
occupational skills that lead to rewarding
careers. Currently, apprenticeship yields
high social returns in the U.S. as well, but
the system lacks the necessary public
support to expand. It is time for political
leaders, policymakers and the public to
recognize and embrace the potential of
apprenticeship to generate a high skilled
workforce, one well matched to current and
future jobs and one that encourages
employers to create more highly productive,
well-paid jobs. Promoting more
apprenticeship training and apprenticeshipcommunity college collaboration will not
only expand the effectiveness of education
and training and enhance productivity, but it
will also integrate many workers who prefer
learning-by-doing and the earning-whenlearning aspects of apprenticeship training.
i
As Robert Halpern points out, youth see themselves
judged by the established standards of a discipline,
including deadlines and the genuine constraints and
unexpected difficulties that arise in the profession.
To quote Halpern, “Young people learn through
observation, imitation, trial and error, and reiteration;
in other words through force of experience. Though
professionalism and care are expected, perfection is
not. Adult mentors hold the discipline for the
apprentice, sequencing and controlling task demands
to keep them on the constructive side of difficulty.
They direct apprentices’ attention, demonstrate and
sometimes collaborate.” See Robert Halpern, 2009.
The Means to Grow Up. Reinventing Apprenticeship
As A Developmental Support in Adolescence. New
York: Routledge.
ii
According to the website of the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, the U.S. labor force stood at 153.6
million at the end of 2007. Dividing the 468,000
apprentices by the 153.6 million in the labor force
equals 0.3 percent. A cohort of 22 year-olds entering
the labor force is about 3.4 million. Since
apprenticeships usually last about 3.5 years, the
number of apprentices per single year of age is
134,000. Dividing 134,000 by 3.4 million equals 3.9
percent.
iii
Kelly Mikelson and Demetra Nightingale. 2004.
“Estimating Public and Private Expenditures on
Occupational Training in the United States. Report
to the US Department of Labor. Employment and
Training Administration. www.urban.org
iv
Kevin Hollenbeck. 2008. “State Use of Workforce
System Net Impact Estimates and Rates of Return.”
Presented at the Association for Public Policy and
Management Meetings. Los Angeles, California.
November.
v
James Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen and Ann
Person. 2006. After Admission: From College
Access to College Success. New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
vi
The marginal nature of the subsidy was less
important in South Carolina because of the very
small number of apprenticeships at the base period.
vii
Under regulations issued in 2008, the SAAs, which
are state government entities, have the registration
responsibility. Previously, State Apprenticeship
Councils (SACs), which included labor and business
members, carried out the registrations.
6
Financial Aid: A Key To Community College
Student Success
Bridget Terry Long
Harvard Graduate School of Education
September 2010
The Connection between Financial Aid and
Persistence
Although there are many barriers to
college success, a major impediment is cost. As
the federal Commission on the Future of Higher
Education concluded, “There is no issue that
worries the American public more about higher
education than the soaring cost of attending
college” (2006,
p. 19). According to the College Board, during the
2009-10 school year, the average full-time tuition
at community colleges was $2,544, which is
significant relative to the resources of a
low-income family. In addition, there are many
other costs associated with higher education,
including foregone earnings. In the case of
California, Zumeta and Frankle (2007) calculate
that community college fees represent only five
percent of the total cost of attendance.
Researchers have long thought that
financial aid is important to supporting college
success, and there have been a number of studies
that have analyzed the relationship between
financial aid and persistence. However, a core
problem in this work is that the characteristics that
are positively related to receiving aid (i.e., being
from a low-income family or having high test
scores) are also likely to be related to educational
1
outcomes. Therefore, a simple comparison of the
outcomes of aid recipients to non-recipients is not
a satisfactory research strategy. A few studies have
utilized more rigorous methods to provide a casual
estimate of the impact of aid on college
persistence. For example, Dynarski (2008) finds
that the state merit-based aid programs of
Arkansas and Georgia reduced the college dropout
rate. Moreover, Scott-Clayton (forthcoming)
examined the West Virginia PROMISE
Scholarship and found that it had positive effects
on a range of outcomes, including credit
accumulation.
One study that focuses on
community colleges examined the effects of a
scholarship that was provided to low-income
students in reward for reaching minimal
course-related benchmarks. The researchers found
that this had positive and significant effects on
credit accumulation and full-time enrollment
(Richburg-Hayes, et al., 2009). There are a
number of additional studies that demonstrate a
positive correlation between financial aid and
persistence and college graduation (St. John, 1989;
Cabrera, Stampen, and Hansen, 1990; Singell,
2004). While much more research is needed in this
area to better understand how and what types of
financial aid are most effective in supporting the
persistence of community college students, the
potential benefits of providing financial aid seem
positive.
1
For example, students with large merit-based
awards are more likely to persist in college, but it
is unclear whether that is due to the fact that they
received financial aid or that the traits that
garnered them the award also helped them to do
well in college irrespective of the aid.
1
The Financial Aid Process and Needs of
Community College Students
The financial aid process begins with the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid
(FAFSA). Applying for federal financial aid, and
often for state and institutional aid, requires a
student to complete the FAFSA. The FAFSA
collects information on family income and assets
to determine the Expected Family Contribution
(EFC), the amount that a family is estimated to be
able to give towards higher education expenses.
Other information that affects this calculation is
the size of the family, the number of family
members in college, and the age of the oldest
parent, as well as information on the student's
earnings and assets. The EFC formula differs if the
student is independent, meaning that they are age
24 or older, married, have legal dependents, are
orphans, or have served in the Armed Forces.
Because independent students may have their own
dependents and are not expected to rely on
parental contributions, the federal system does not
expect independent students contribute as much as
the families of dependent students. To calculate
need, the government subtracts the EFC from the
2
total cost of attendance. A student's financial
need, in combination with his or her EFC,
determines whether the student is eligible for
certain grants and loans.
While the financial aid system was created
with the idea of determining the need of recent
high school graduates who are dependent on their
parents and attend college full-time, community
college students are a much more diverse group.
Most would be considered “nontraditional” (or
“neotraditional”) meaning someone who fits at
least one of the following criteria:
•
Delays enrollment after high school •
Does not have a regular high school
•
Attends part-time diploma (i.e., a GED or
other certificate)
•
Works full-time while enrolled • Is a
displaced workers or unemployed
•
Considered financially independent • Is a
welfare recipient
immigrant According to Choy (2002), nearly
three-fourths of all undergraduates are
nontraditional, and at most community colleges,
this proportion is even higher. The nontraditional
group includes working adults, parents, welfare
recipients, immigrants, displaced workers and the
unemployed, and single, financially-independent
students.
Given the disconnect between how the
financial aid system was designed and the profile
of many community college students, many
suggest that the current financial aid system does
not adequately meet the needs of community
college students. In the next section, I discuss
some of the main barriers that currently exist and
hinder financial aid from helping community
college students to the fullest. By understanding
the problems, the implications for how to improve
things are clear. The last section highlights several
efforts to address these barriers.
Current Financial Aid Barriers
(1) Lack of Awareness about Financial Aid
In order to have an impact on behavior,
students and their families must be aware of the
policies designed to help them. Unfortunately,
awareness appears to be low as many students lack
accurate information about higher education costs
and financial aid. Researchers have continually
2
Total cost of attendance, which is pro-rated based
on the student's enrollment intensity (whether they
attend full- or part-time), includes tuition, fees,
room and board, and other costs at the institution
the student attends.
• Has dependents other than a spouse • Is an
2
found a significant lack of information among
prospective college students (e.g., U.S. General
Accounting Office, 1990; Ikenberry & Hartle,
1998). Most studies find that students and their
parents greatly overestimate the costs of college
(Horn, Chen, & Chapman, 2003; ACSFA, 2005).
There is also a lot of misinformation about
financial aid among parents and students. A Harris
Poll commissioned by the Sallie Mae Fund found
that two-thirds of all parents and young adults
planning to go to college did not name grants as a
possible source of funds when asked about types
of financial aid (Sallie Mae Fund, 2003).
Awareness about aid and college costs appears to
be especially limited among low-income students
(Sallie Mae Fund, 2003; Kane and Avery, 2004).
The low levels of awareness and misinformation
about aid have serious implications for student
success and completion.
(2) The Complexity of the Financial Aid
Application (FAFSA)
As described above, the FAFSA collects a
wealth of information about a family’s situation in
the hope of equitably treating families with similar
situations. However, a major critique is that the
FAFSA is long and cumbersome. Until recently, to
determine eligibility, students and their families
had to fill out an eight-page, detailed form that
contains over 100 questions. To answer three of
these, students had to complete three additional
worksheets with nearly 40 additional questions.
Even the lowest income students, who had already
established their eligibility for other federal
means-tested programs and were known to be
eligible for federal student aid, had to go through
this arduous process. Not surprisingly, research
suggests that students and their families are often
confused and even deterred by the form (ACSFA
2005). King (2004) found that half of the 8 million
undergraduates enrolled in 1999-2000 at
institutions that participate in the federal student
aid program did not complete the FAFSA. Yet
850,000 of them—more than 20 percent—would
have been eligible for a Pell Grant. In fact, at
two-year colleges, about 50 percent of students
with family incomes less than $20,000 did not file
a FAFSA. Furthermore, of those who did file,
st
more than half missed the April 1 deadline to be
eligible for additional state and institutional aid
programs.
(3) The Need Analysis System: How it Treats
Many Community College Students
There are several major criticisms about
the way federal need analysis is applied to
community college students. As noted above, the
system was designed with a traditional, dependent
student in mind. Therefore, it is assumed that the
earnings of the potential student are relatively
minor (i.e., the result of a summer job) and should
be highly taxed to cover college expenses.
Moreover, the calculation assumes that the
parents’ income, the main source of support for the
child, will continue even while the student is in
college and should be used to help cover expenses.
In contrast, many community college students are
independent and do not have other major sources
of support on which to rely. Most are formally
engaged in the labor market when applying for
financial aid, and while the government assumes
this income level will remain the same even after
college enrollment, the student may actually
experience a reduction in earnings while pursuing
courses. Therefore, assumptions about the amount
of earnings available to them while in school are
incorrect. As an extension of this, the EFC for
many independent students may be too high as
they are penalized for their earnings the year
before starting school.
(4) Financial Aid Award Criteria
The criteria applied when awarding
financial aid can also penalize many community
college students. For example, some programs
require students to be enrolled at least part-time or
even fulltime. Due to the fact that community
college students often attend part-time or less than
half-time, this excludes them from qualifying for
some aid. Community college students are also
less likely to be enrolled in a degree program and
3
more likely to pursue a particular skill without the
goal of completing a particular certificate or other
credential. They are therefore excluded from
programs requiring students to be enrolled in a
degree program. Finally, some programs require a
regular high school diploma while many
nontraditional students at community colleges
instead have a GED or other certificate (Bosworth
and Choitz, 2002).
(5) Loans: Too Little and Too Much
Loans are a much more complicated form
of financial aid than grants. Because they must be
repaid, students have to consider their future
ability to pay, and research suggests that debt
burden can cause students to alter their decisions
regarding career choice and life events such as
buying a home. With respect to community college
students, loans are a double-edged sword. On the
one hand, many community colleges do not
participate in the federal student loan program, and
this limits the availability of this type of financial
aid to their students. By preventing students from
accessing this resource, we may be forcing them to
work more hours and/or attend at lower intensities,
thereby reducing their probability of college
completion. On the other hand, some community
college students seek out private student loans,
which tend to have higher interest rates and less
favorable terms. There are many concerns that
these loans have too steep costs for students, and
students can end up with too much debt. This is
especially a concern if they do not complete a
degree or reap significant returns to their
educations. Taken altogether, research suggests
that loans can have a negative impact on college
persistence (Dowd and Coury, 2006). There is no
question that grants are a more effective means of
supporting college access and success and so
caution should be used when considering loans as
a financial aid policy.
Financial Aid Strategies to Increase Retention
and Completion
While financial aid has the potential to
help community college students persist to their
goals, it is clear that much could be done to
improve student awareness and access to such
resources. Below I highlight several interventions
that have attempted to address this need.
(1) Improve Financial Aid Information and the
Application Process
Given the many critiques of the FAFSA,
there have been numerous calls to simplify the
financial aid process, and the Department of
Education has implemented procedures to do just
that, including using skip logic in the online
version of the FAFSA to eliminate questions that
do not apply to some students and piloting ways to
transfer information directly from the IRS to the
online FAFSA. While these changes will likely
help many students, these efforts still require
families to be aware of the FAFSA and able to
complete it online, preferably with high-speed
internet, a problem for many potential community
college students.
Although the financial aid application
process remains complicated for many students,
one intervention has been proven to increase
FAFSA submission rates and college outcomes.
Working with several co-authors, I developed a
project to help low-income families complete their
FAFSAs. Using a random assignment research
design, professionals helped a group of low- to
middle-income families complete the FAFSA. The
intervention streamlined both the aid application
process and students’ access to accurate and
personalized higher educational information, and
the whole process took on average only eight
minutes. Results from project confirm suspicions
that a lack of information and the complexity of
the aid process are hindering low- and
moderate-income students’ ability to enroll and
persist in college. We found that individuals who
received assistance with the FAFSA and
information about aid were substantially more
likely to enroll in college. Students also
experienced increased amounts in aid receipt
(Bettinger, Long, Oreopoulos, and Sanbonmatsu,
2009). Although it will take time to determine the
4
full benefits and costs of simplification, these
results suggest that streamlining the application
process and providing better information could be
effective ways to improve the resources available
to students, and thereby, rates of students success.
This study also has implications for
improving the effectiveness of the Pell Grant.
While it is the most visible grant program,
research on the effectiveness of the Pell Grant has
left more puzzles than answers. Its introduction
was expected to increase the relative enrollment of
low-income students, but researchers instead found
no overall effect and only a small effect on
community college enrollment (Manski and Wise,
1983; Hansen, 1983; Kane, 1995). One set of
explanations for the lack of a response relate to
low program visibility, the complexity of the
application process, and intimidating audit
procedures. It is important to note that the current
Pell Grant program is somewhat different than it
was in the early 1970s, but the concerns about low
levels of awareness of the Pell Grant and the
complex processes needed to access it are still
valid. By educating potential students about their
aid eligibility and streamlining the aid application
process, as shown with our intervention, the Pell
Grant could become a much more effective tool in
improving college success.
after being randomly offered a PBS, students were
30 percent more likely to register for classes. The
intervention also had positive effects on a range of
social
and
psychological
outcomes
(Richburg-Hayes, et al., 2009). Unfortunately, due
to Hurricane Katrina, the researchers were not able
to do longer term analyses, but there are a series of
current studies testing whether the same effects are
found in other contexts.
(2) Link Financial Aid to Benchmarks
As part of the Opening Doors
demonstration, MDRC conducted an intervention
in Louisiana that serves as a compelling example
of how to help students. In 2004, low-income
parents who were enrolled in or planning to enroll
in
community
college
were
offered
performance-based scholarships (PBS). The
students could get $1,000 for each of two
semesters if they met two conditions: (a) they had
to enroll at least part-time, and (b) they had to
maintain an average GPA of
2.0. The PBS money was in addition to the Pell
Grant and any other aid received.
MDRC
researchers found the program to have many
positive effects.
First, it encouraged more
students to enroll in college. Moreover, it
increased persistence. In the second semester
5
WORKS CITED
Bettinger, Eric, Bridget Terry Long, Philip
Oreopoulos, and Lisa Sanbonmatsu.
(2009) “The Role of Simplification and
Information in College Decisions: Results
from
the
H&R
Block
FAFSA
Experiment.”
National
Bureau
of
Economic Research (NBER) Working
Paper No. 15361.
Bosworth, Brian and Victoria Choitz. (2002) Held
Back: How Student Aid Programs fail
Working
Adults.
Belmont,
MA:
FutureWorks.
Cabrera, A. F., Jacob O. Stampen, and W. Lee
Hansen. (1990). Exploring the effects of
ability to pay on persistence in college.
The Review of Higher Education, 13(3),
303-36.
Dowd, Alicia and Tarek Coury (2006). The effect
of loans on the persistence and attainment
of community college students. Research
in Higher Education, 47(1), 33-62.
Dynarski, Susan. (2008). “Building the Stock of
College-Educated Labor.” Journal of
Human Resources 43(3): 676-610.
Hansen, W. Lee. (1983) “The Impact of Student
Financial Aid on Access.” In Joseph
Froomkin, ed., The Crisis in Higher
Education. New York: Academy of
Political Science.
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kane, Thomas. (1995) “Rising Public College
Tuition and College Entry: How Well Do
Public Subsidies Promote Access to
College?” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 5164.
Richburg-Hayes, Lashawn, Thomas Brock, Allen
LeBlanc, Christina Paxson, Cecilia Elena
Rouse, and Lisa Barrow. (2009)
Rewarding Persistence: Effects of a
Performance-Based Scholarship Program
for Low-Income Parents. New York:
MDRC.
St. John, Edward P. (1989). The Influence of
Student Aid on Persistence. Journal of
Student Financial Aid, 19(3): 52-68.
Scott-Clayton, Judith. (forthcoming) “On Money
and Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental
Analysis of Financial Incentives for
College Achievement.” Journal of Human
Resources.
Singell, L. (2004). “Come and Stay a While: Does
Financial Aid Effect Enrollment and
Retention at a Large Public University?”
Economics of Education Review 23:
459-472.
Zumeta, William and Deborah Frankle. (2007)
California Community Colleges: Making
Them Stronger and More Affordable. San
Jose, CA: The National Center for Public
Policy and Higher Education.
Manski, Charles F. and David A. Wise. (1983)
College Choice in America. Cambridge,
6
Boosting College Completion at Community
Colleges: Time, Choice, Structure and the
Significant Role of States
Tom Sugar
Complete College of America
August 31, 2010
•
To achieve the substantial gains in
college completion America must have
to compete, we must reinvent American
higher education. To do so, requires
significant shared responsibility by all
stakeholders, including government.
More of the same will not do.
•
States, as the leading investors in higher
education, have the power and authority
to demand more from higher education
– and they have a moral obligation to do
so.
•
Complete College America’s Essential
Steps for States make clear that states
can utilize powerful policy levers now
to remove unnecessary obstacles and
speed student success.
•
By utilizing the NGA/CCA Common
College Completion Metrics, yawning
gaps in current data collection will be
filled and states will be empowered with
new tools to hold higher education
accountable and inform reform design.
•
The Administration can seize key
opportunities to encourage states, incent
needed reforms, and signal its clear
interest in more college graduates, not
just enrollments.
Executive Summary
•
•
•
•
A new American majority of students is
emerging on campuses, especially at
community colleges. These students
must delicately balance long hours at
jobs they must have with the higher
education they desire.
Even though this emerging majority has
fundamentally different needs,
American higher education in general
has been slow to change, continuing to
deliver courses and programs designed
decades ago and best suited for fulltime, residential students.
Time, choice and structure are the
essential optics through which all higher
education reforms must be viewed in
order to maximize the likelihood of
graduating more of today’s students.
Successful, large-scale programs and
systems around the country have proven
that by utilizing informed choice and
structured delivery, students can
successfully balance jobs and school –
and are much more likely to graduate.
1
Introduction
easured on opening day, community colleges
Min America appear to be a roaring success.
Often bursting at the seams, they now educate
nearly half of all of our country’s college
students, a fivefold increase in the past 40 years.
More importantly, community colleges have
nearly erased racial gaps in enrollment:
According to a 2003 US Department of
Education report, 83% of whites pursue higher
education in the first eight years after high
school – and 80% of blacks and Hispanics do the
same.
We have clearly convinced almost all of our
young people that for good jobs and a brighter
future there is one irrefutable fact: high school
isn’t high enough. And it’s our community
colleges that provide most of the open doors and
essential ladders to the greater opportunities and
higher achievement they desire.
There’s no disputing that a generation or more
of sustained efforts – while unfinished – have
yielded impressive gains in access. But, access
without success is an empty promise – and a
missed opportunity with severe economic
consequences for students, states and our
country.
While barely more than half of full-time students
graduate with 4-year Bachelor’s degrees in six
years, fewer than three in ten pursuing 2-year
associate degrees at our community colleges
graduate in three years! Sadly, part-time
students graduate at even lower rates.
To make matters worse, a closer look on
graduation day reveals that those eventually
receiving degrees look very different than the
student body on the first day of class: the hopes
raised by nearly equitable enrollments are
crushed by long persistent gaps in achievement
and completion.
Given projections that two-thirds of all jobs in
2020 will require advanced training or
education, we simply have no choice: We must
get more of our students – from all walks of life
– to graduation day. And it is community
colleges that hold the greatest potential to do so.
A New Reality for an Emerging Majority on
Campus: Time is the Enemy
Why does America have such abysmal
completion rates? Of the many reasons offered,
one compelling fact stands above all others:
Today, most students balance the jobs they must
have with the higher education they desire.
Today’s college student is a far cry from the
American archetype of the 19 year-old college
kid who lives on campus, attends full-time,
doesn’t work, and gets most of his bills paid by
Mom and Dad. In fact, only 25% of college
students in our country today attend residential
schools.
What’s the new reality? According to a recent
study by Public Agenda, nearly half of students
at 4-year schools work more than 20 hours a
week. At community colleges, 60% are at jobs
more than 20 hours a week, and a quarter of
these stressed out students are working more
than 35 hours. Nearly 40% of all of our college
kids attend part-time. Roughly a quarter of them
have children of their own to support. And yet
they still find a way to come to college to pursue
better lives.
With so much at stake, today’s students need to
finish their studies as soon as possible to get on
with life. They need clear pathways to quality
degrees and career certificates in order to land
2
the good jobs they desperately want. And they
must have predictable schedules they can count
on in order to balance jobs and school. Why is
this so important? Because the more time
college takes, the more life intrudes. And when
more life intrudes, fewer students complete
college.
The Completion Cornerstones: Time, Choice
and Structure
For years, adding time and choices has been our
answer. Semester long, multiple-level
remediation courses, limitless periods of
exploration before declaring a major, and
midnight courses are all examples of wellintended efforts to try and meet student needs.
When coupled with other policies like additional
credit requirements or transfer rules that don’t
readily recognize credits earned at multiple
campuses, the result has been to lengthen the
time to degree for many students—or hinder
degree completion altogether.
The numbers make it clear: When it comes to
college graduation, time is the enemy.
According to federally collected data in 2008,
only 29% of full-time students at public 4-year
institutions graduated on time. After the fifth
year of pursuing a Bachelor’s degree, 19% more
graduated.
Now consider the sixth and eighth years after
enrollment: Only 6% then 3% more students
made it to graduation day, respectively. Giving
students more time to graduate does not yield
many more graduates. Why? Simply put, life
gets in the way.
Today’s students need less time on campus,
fewer confusing choices and more structured
schedules. Time, choice and structure are the
key issues to address the needs of today’s
students and the optics through which efforts to
boost completion must be viewed.
Directed Choice Yields More Graduates
More time and uninformed choice work against
college completion. To understand why, we
must again consider the nature of today’s college
students – and human nature, in general.
Respected researcher and educator, James
Rosenbaum, of Northwestern University, and his
colleagues have found that students at 2-year
colleges in America, which now make up nearly
half of all college kids today, often lack the
know-how to direct their own progress. Further,
their work revealed that although students “are
assumed to be capable of making informed
choices, of knowing their abilities and
preferences, of understanding the full range of
college and career alternatives, and of weighing
the costs and benefits associated with different
college programs, our analyses show that many
students have great difficulty with such
choices.” The fact that on average one college
guidance counselor is matched with 700 students
in this country doesn’t help the situation.
While public 2-year colleges design their
programs and procedures based on faulty
assumptions about the capability of their
students to make informed choices, Rosenbaum
found that their private counterparts often do
not. According to him and his fellow
researchers, many private 2-year colleges – with
identical student bodies containing large
numbers of low-income and minority students
who did poorly in high school– shift academic
planning responsibilities to themselves,
“devising procedures to help students succeed
even if they lack the traditional social
prerequisites of college.” And it works:
Rosenbaum found that the private 2-year schools
in his study graduate significantly more students
than their public peers.
3
How do they do it? The private 2-year colleges
in the study offered students “package deal”
plans for accomplishing their specific academic
and career goals in a clear length of time.
Instead of charting their own paths by navigating
daunting catalogs overflowing with choices,
students make the “big choice” of a desired
career or academic discipline and then the
colleges make all of the “little choices” for them
by utilizing structured programs that move
students to degrees in the shortest time possible.
(See Appendix A to review Rosenbaum’s
findings.)
Before assuming that only private colleges can
accomplish this, consider the tremendous
success of the past twenty years at the public
Tennessee Technology Centers. Part of the
Tennessee Board of Regents system, the
statewide Technology Centers have been
regularly accomplishing graduation rates of 75%
or higher and job placement rates above 85%.
Their approach shares many common elements
with private schools: Students sign up for whole
programs, not individual courses. They are
clearly told how long the program will take to
complete, the likelihood of success, and the total
“all in” costs. There are plenty of “big choices,”
but the “small choices” are directed, streamlined
and packaged to cut down on confusion and the
chance of mistake.
So, this isn’t about public versus private 2-year
schools. It’s about divining an uncharted course
through a catalog of undirected choices on one’s
own versus fully informed choices with clear
expectations and benefits.
Nor is it just about community college
students—it’s about what the abundance of
choice does to the human brain. In one famous
study, subjects became nearly paralyzed when
presented with 24 choices of fruit jams. While
60% helped themselves to samples, only 3%
could ever decide which jam to buy. By
reducing the choices to just 6, researchers
observed that nearly a third of the 40% who
sampled the jams made a purchase. Whether
choosing jams, bath soaps, investment plans, or
college courses, directed choice can be a great
benefit to consumers.
As important as direction, the best choices are
those most closely aligned with intentions:
Students come to college in pursuit of better
lives, higher-paying jobs and clearer paths to
accomplish their goals. They simply seek the
fastest, most affordable route to do so – and
most don’t enjoy the luxuries of endless time
and resources to get there.
Add Structure to Achieve the Full Potential of
Reforms
By choosing to think differently about choice,
colleges can meet the needs of more of today’s
students and share in the success that comes
with more graduates. But, combining directed
choice with new structures for academic
delivery unleashes the full potential of reforms
to boost college completions.
To understand why, return again to what it’s all
supposed to be about: students. It’s clear that
too many students work too many hours. That’s
unlikely to change unless college suddenly
becomes a lot more affordable. Without
significant improvements in productivity on
campuses, there seems little chance of that.
So, let’s consider again the lives of young adults
who try to keep it all going. At almost all
colleges, courses are scheduled all over the
weekly calendar. In a student-centered culture,
would programs be designed that required an
8:00 a.m. class on Monday, a 2:00 p.m. class on
4
Tuesday, 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, etc.? Of
course not.
Instead, what if programs were designed
utilizing more structured scheduling? Students
could attend classes every day, five days a week,
from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Full-time
attendance would now be possible for many
more, dramatically shortening the time it takes
to graduate. And finding time for jobs in such a
predictable daily routine is no longer a
challenge.
When presented with this concept, students are
incredulous. “That would be a dream come
true,” they have told us. Here again, the dream
is actually a tried-and-true reality.
Not only do the hugely successful Tennessee
Technology Centers help direct student choices,
they also structure academic delivery in just this
way. Three-quarters or more of their students
earn career certificates in twelve to eighteen
months going full-time, five days a week, from
8:00 until 2:00. Every year over 12,000 students
move through the multiple Technology Center
campuses and nearly all of them head straight
into jobs.
Structure also produces some added bonuses that
should not be overlooked. Compressed class
schedules create stronger linkages between
faculty members – and cohort-like connections
between students. Professors not only interact
more often, they also tend to create team
approaches to teaching the students they share.
And students often move through programs as a
group, strengthening their ties and support of
one another.
But, structured scheduling only works for
vocational education and career certificate
programs, right? Wrong. New York City’s
community college, known as CUNY, has a
program (ASAP) for accelerated completion of
associate degrees that is so successful the system
will soon open an entire campus designed to
utilize block scheduling, student cohorts,
directed choice, embedded remediation and
reinvented supports. Why make this kind of
significant investment in the midst of a budget
crisis? Because it works so well: ASAP students
graduate on-time at more than twice the rate of
their peers.
Time, choice and structure: to significantly boost
college completions, turn the broken dreams of
dropouts into the bright futures of graduates,
fully seize the opportunities for our country that
overflowing campuses provide, and make
America the world leader again in college
attainment, we must keep our collective focus on
these three touchstones. They are universal
truths arrived at in the best way: by seeing the
true nature of our college students today – and
opening our minds to accept that to help them
succeed – a success that America is counting on
– we must reinvent American higher education.
States Must Lead the Way
The stakes are high. That’s why we must
recognize that higher education institutions
themselves are not the only players. One key
participant that has too long been on the sideline
of higher education reform is state government.
Given that our country has suffered these low
graduation rates for a generation or more, it is
clear that – in spite of our best intentions – doing
more of the same will just get us more of the
same. Higher education now must have the
committed and shared partnership of all key
stakeholders. America – now 12th in the world
in college attainment and falling – does not have
the luxury of time to wait. States must step
forward and help lead the way.
5
States have leverage over both
governance and the funding mechanisms
needed to achieve higher levels of
completion.
There are many compelling reasons for
governors, state legislatures and higher
education system leaders to assume leadership
on this agenda:
•
•
•
•
State Authority
While state-appointed or elected citizen
boards directly govern public
institutions, ultimately states are
responsible for all public colleges and
universities. State goals and state
leadership created community college
systems and expanded open access fouryear institutions over the past 50 years;
state leadership and support will be
necessary to enhance and sustain their
effectiveness in improving college
completion in the 21st century.
Majority Investor
By a wide measure, state taxpayers
provide the greatest funding for
institutions, especially community
colleges and open access four-year
institutions. No other stakeholder is
better positioned than state governments
to ensure that public investments are
wisely utilized to maximize
opportunities for the future economic
success of their states.
Systemic, Scalable Change
States are the best positioned to ensure
reform across systems and campuses by
setting goals, establishing uniform
measures, and monitoring progress.
They can also serve as the most efficient
clearinghouses of best practices,
allowing for rapid scaling of successful
reforms.
Accountability
With so much at stake economically,
states must hold themselves, students,
and institutions accountable for success.
•
Transparency
Institutions have strong incentives to
shape reporting to mask failure and
avoid confronting problems. States are
much more likely than individual
institutions to share and publish data to
drive reform.
•
Economic Development
Higher education attainment is
inextricably linked to future economic
success. State leadership will ensure
stronger linkages between each state’s
economic needs and higher education
delivery.
•
Mobility of Students
Today’s students move across campuses
and systems to attain credentials.
Coherent state policy and integrated
state strategies are essential for assuring
ease of transfer and efficient completion
of academic programs.
States in Action: Complete College America’s
Alliance of States
When it comes to state leadership, there is great
reason for optimism. Today, nearly half of the
states have joined Complete College America’s
Alliance of States. To do so, Governors and
their higher education leadership had to make
four key commitments:
1) Establish statewide and campus-level
college completion goals,
2) Adopt the NGA/Complete College
America Common Completion Metrics
6
in order to measure progress and hold
institutions accountable for results (see
Appendix B),
3) Create comprehensive statewide and
campus-level college completion plans,
and
4) Move significant legislation and policies
to remove unnecessary obstacles and
speed student success.
As of this writing, 23 states have made these
commitments and are now working as members
of the Alliance of States to design and
implement strategies that will significantly boost
the number of their citizens with college degrees
or other credentials of value.
Essential Steps for States
Complete College America recommends several
significant policy levers that states can utilize to
enhance the likelihood of student success and
college completion, including shifting to
performance funding, reducing time-to-degree,
transforming remediation, restructuring
academic delivery, and making career
certificates count, among others. Please see
Complete College America’s Essential Steps for
States documents for more specifics on what
states can do today (Appendix C).
Leading States
In your request for information, you asked that
Complete College America identify those states
at the forefront of college completion reform.
While all 23 of our Alliance States have made
significant commitments and deserve
recognition for doing so, three stand out:
Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee.
Indiana established one of the country’s first
comprehensive college completion plans, setting
a course for significant reform that now includes
creation of a statewide community college
system and performance funding of institutions.
Currently, the state is in the process of
reinventing academic delivery at its community
college system by utilizing new scheduling and
support structures to accelerate degree
completion by helping students balance school
and jobs.
Ohio has taken significant steps since 2007 to
comprehensively address the college completion
challenge. Governor Strickland has called for a
20% increase in college graduates, established
the University System of Ohio, and created a 10year Strategic Plan for Higher Education. The
statewide strategy utilizes one of the nation’s
most comprehensive credit transfer policies and
sophisticated performance funding of
institutions to accelerate student success and
incent course and degree completion.
Tennessee became a national leader in the spring
of 2010 when Governor Bredesen successfully
steered the Complete College Tennessee Act to
passage during a special session of the
Tennessee legislature. With nearly unanimous
support, the new law is the most comprehensive
higher education reform in the country,
including performance funding, a statewide
community college system, common course
numbering combined with a comprehensive
credit transfer policy, restructured academic
delivery utilizing block scheduling and student
cohorts, among other measures. (See Appendix
D for a synopsis of the legislation.)
Actions the Administration Can Take Now
1) Leverage the $2 billion Community
College and Career Training Grants
program to incent states with unified
7
community college systems and/or
community college consortia to utilize
new academic delivery structures to
inform choice and shorten time-todegree. As shown above, proven
models exist that can be replicated and
scaled by states and consortia. (See
Appendix E: CCA Recommendations to
Department of Labor)
2) Encourage all states to adopt the
NGA/CCA Common College
Completion Metrics. These
comprehensive metrics will allow for
accurate state-by-state comparisons and
fill in yawning gaps in current data
collection, enhancing opportunities for
accountability and empowering all
stakeholders with new tools to inform
reform design.
3) Embed completion metrics in all federal
higher education policies and statutes.
It’s long past time that the federal
government clearly signals its interest in
college graduates, not just enrollments.
Conclusion
Commitments like those made by our Alliance
States give us great reason for optimism –and a
clear path forward. With a little more help – and
a lot of common sense – students, their families,
taxpayers, and all Americans will share in the
benefits of more individuals completing college.
Complete College America applauds the
President for his leadership and his historic
commitment to making America first in the
world again in college completion. And we
stand ready to assist Dr. Biden, Secretaries
Duncan and Solis and the entire Administration
in efforts to reinvent higher education to meet
the needs of the new emerging American
majority of college students. Thank you for this
opportunity to be of assistance in this vital
effort.
Contact Information
Stan Jones, President, Complete College
America
(202) 349-4148 [email protected]
For more information on Complete College
America: www.completecollege.org
Index of Appendices
Provided by hyperlink:
A
Community College: The Unfinished
Revolution by James Rosenbaum, et.al.
http://www.issues.org/23.4/rosenbaum
.html
B
NGA/CCA Common College
Completion Metrics
http://www.completecollege.org/path_
forward/common_metrics/
C
Complete College America’s Essential
Steps for States
http://www.completecollege.org/path_
forward/essential_steps_for_states/
Provided as an attachment:
D
Complete College Tennessee
A synopsis of the legislation prepared
by Complete College America
E
Community College and Career
Training Grants
Complete College America’s
Recommendations to the Administration
8
Appendix D
The Tennessee Higher Education Reform
Initiative
On January 26, 2010, the State of Tennessee
made an extraordinary commitment to its future:
with the nearly unanimous support of its
legislature, Governor Phil Bredesen signed into
law The Complete College Tennessee Act.
Troubled by abysmal graduation rates and
impatient for transformational change, the
governor boldly called for a special session of
the state’s General Assembly, demanding a laser
focus on a single goal: faster progress and
smoother pathways for more college degrees.
Comprehensive in its scope, the new law seeks
to improve all aspects of higher education in
Tennessee, from simplifying course selection, to
designing accelerated programs to graduate
students faster, to simplifying credit transfers, to
establishing a new statewide community college
system. More importantly, the law’s sweeping
breadth is matched by its brass tacks boldness.
Fully embracing Complete College America’s
demand for paying for completions, not
enrollments, Governor Bredesen declared from
the House rostrum, “The number of warm
bodies in a seat in the fall is what drives the
dollars. But that's not what we actually want:
We want students still there in the spring,
and especially, more than anything else, we
want students who leave the institution with
the degree that they came for in the first
place.”
The Governor and the Legislature backed up
their words and intentions with significant
actions, establishing a process to end state
support based on head counts within five years.
Instead, schools will be paid based on student
success and graduations, as they should be.
The Complete College Tennessee Act vaults the
state to the forefront of an essential paradigm
shift in our country where higher education
aligns to meet the needs of modern students and
the modern workplace, producing more student
success and graduations – and in the process,
ensuring higher incomes for our families, more
bang for the buck for taxpayers, and American
leadership in the world once again.
States would do well to closely study this
approach:
The Complete College Tennessee Act
Establishing a Statewide Master Plan
The new law requires the development of a
statewide master plan to increase educational
attainment, create improved linkages with K-12
to ensure student preparedness for college, and
improve teacher preparation to better prepare
students for the college classroom. The plan
must ensure increased degree production,
utilizing institutional mission differentiation to
accomplish more degrees, while holding
colleges and universities accountable for
progress.
Paying for Completions
The state funding model will be based on
outcomes, emphasizing those across a range of
variables that will be weighted to reinforce each
institution's mission and provide incentives for
productivity improvements consistent with the
state's higher education master plan. The
outcomes will include end of term enrollment
for each term, student retention, timely progress
toward degree completion and degree production
and may also include, among other things,
student transfer activity, research and student
success, as well as compliance with transfer and
articulation principles.
9
Associates Degrees Guarantee Junior Status
A common core Associates degree curriculum
will be established consisting of 41 hours of
general education courses and 19 hours of premajor courses instruction. An associate of
science or associate of arts degree graduate from
a Tennessee community college will be deemed
to have met all general education and university
parallel core requirements for transfer to any
Tennessee public university as a junior.
Common Course Numbering and Clear
Transfer Eligibility
A common course numbering system within the
community colleges will be established,
including clearly designating courses based on
their eligibility for transfer to 4-year institutions.
Dual Admission Across All Systems
Any person who satisfies the admissions
requirements of any two-year institution and any
four-year institution may be admitted
simultaneously to both institutions and take
advantage of campus resources of both
institutions.
Ending Remediation at 4-year Schools
To encourage students to better utilize
community colleges as higher education
gateways, remediation will no longer be
provided by 4-year schools; however, those
institutions may coordinate efforts with two-year
schools in order to address student needs.
Establishing a Statewide Community College
System
To increase their stature and to unlock their full,
untapped potential as affordable and effective
gateways to higher skills and further education,
the Tennessee Community College System will
be established, merging the thirteen
independently managed schools into a
comprehensive statewide system. Not only will
students enjoy the benefits of a seamless system,
taxpayers will realize savings and efficiencies
found through consolidation of services and
overhead.
New, Accelerated Paths to Associate Degrees
and Certificates
The new law commits Tennessee to design
streamlined approaches to move students more
quickly and efficiently through structured
programs that will produce faster, accelerated
technical certificates and associates degrees.
Utilizing block scheduling and cohort learning –
and modeled on a successful program that
produced on average 70% completion rates at
the state’s Technology Centers – this approach
promises to give students more of what they
want: clear, direct paths to graduation and to
good-paying jobs.
10
Appendix E
Community College and Career Training
Grants
Complete College America (CCA) offers the
following suggestions for the Department of
Labor to consider as you structure the
Community College and Career Training Grants
(CCCTG) to significantly advance the
President’s goal of increasing college
completion.
CCA is currently working with an alliance of 23
states that have committed to taking bold actions
to significantly increase the number of students
earning degrees and credentials with value in the
labor market and close attainment gaps for
traditionally underrepresented populations.
While the Department faces some statutory
restrictions, the opportunity still exists to
substantially leverage change through these
grants by setting a series of conditions or
assurances that all grant recipients must be
willing to meet in order to be eligible for
funding. Two billion dollars for CCCTG could
produce more than ten times the impact of the
Race to Top funds considering the funding set
aside for each program compared to national
expenditures for community colleges and K 12.
The overarching goal of the program should be
for individuals to achieve a degree or
credential of economic value consistent with
the President’s goal.
The Department could set the following
conditions for the CCCTG program:
1) A community college receiving this
funding must show how it will produce
much higher completion rates.
Current completion rates for full time
students average 25% at the end of three
years and part time graduation rates
rarely exceed 10%. More of the same
programs will yield more of the same
results.
2) A community college receiving this
funding must show how it will produce
degrees in much shorter time frames.
Several studies have indicated that it
often takes as long as 5 years to achieve
a 2 year associate degree and 4 years for
a one year certificate.
3) A community college receiving this
funding should offer an array of
technical certificate programs (one
year or more) in addition to 2 year
degrees. The certificates should be
articulated with 2 year degrees, embed
industry credentials of demonstrated
economic value, and utilize external
third party oversight and exit exams.
4) A community college receiving this
funding must demonstrate that
remediation will not be a major
hurdle to program completion. This is
typically achieved by embedding
remediation in technical programs,
offering accelerated module based
remediation, bridge programs, or extra
support offered to students taking
regular classes.
5) A community college receiving this
funding must demonstrate that its
proposals are based on evidence of
success. Programs that are highly
structured with block schedules (i.e. MF 8am to 2pm), cohort based, embed
remediation, require attendance, are
competency based, and build strong
relationships with faculty have
remarkable returns. Three examples are
the CUNY ASAP program (doubled
three year completion rates to 50%),
Tennessee Tech Centers (75%
completion rates for certificate
programs) and Indiana Wesleyan’s
evening and weekend program (65%
completion rates for part time students).
11
6) Community colleges receiving this
funding must provide transparency for
students by publishing graduation
rates, cost, time to degree, student
debt and placement information
(SRTK, Student Right to Know) in
printed materials and make readily
available to the public on their website.
of their programs. Sustainability could
be proven through the demonstrated
support of governors and legislatures
and higher education leadership, and
support from business, labor or
philanthropy organization.
7) Require applicants to submit baseline
data on common completion metrics
showing progression and outcomes
for students. There is growing
consensus about what these metrics
should be. Twenty three states in the
CCA Alliance have already agreed to
collect a common set of metrics. Last
month, the National Governors
Association adopted these same metrics
and recommended they be collected and
reported publicly by all fifty states. In
addition to requiring baseline data, the
Department can make funding for outyears dependent on making progress
on one or more of these metrics.
8) A community college receiving this
funding should demonstrate that
students would receive certificates or
degrees with value in the labor
market.
9) To the extent possible, the Department
should fund proposals that could be
implemented at scale or later
replicated at scale when proven
successful. As part of this scalability,
applicants should be able to demonstrate
state or system-level support and/or how
their efforts fit in broader (state or
system-wide efforts). This means that
strategies are supported by state and
system-level policies, and will
ultimately affect the majority of students
within existing structures or resources.
This could also include a consortium of
colleges.
10) Applicants should be able to
demonstrate long-term sustainability
12
Issue Brief for Community College Summit
Thomas Brock
MDRC
September 10, 2010
Community College as a Pathway to
Higher Education and Earnings
According to the most recent data from the
U.S. Department of Education, community
colleges enrolled 6.7 million students in 200708, or more than one-third of all students
enrolled in higher education institutions. 1 In
part because of their open admissions policies
and relative low cost, community colleges
enroll larger percentages of nontraditional,
low-income, and minority students than fouryear colleges and universities. 2 A primary
reason why people pursue a college
education is to boost future earnings. Over a
lifetime, a worker with an associate’s degree
will earn nearly $500,000 more than someone
with no education beyond a high school
diploma. Individuals who earn a bachelor’s
degree will do even better, earning roughly
$1.1 million more than someone with an
associate’s degree and $1.6 million more than
a high school graduate. 3
Anticipated future earnings are note enough
to hold students in school or ensure progress.
Longitudinal research by the U.S. Department
of Education indicates that six years after
entering community college, only 23 percent
of degree-seeking students had completed an
associate’s degree and 13 percent had
completed a bachelor’s degree. An additional
17 percent had not earned a degree but was
still enrolled at a college or university. Note
that these figures capture enrollment at any
institution, not just the community college
where students began their studies. 4
The low success rates among community
college students are due to many factors. A
major problem is that a majority of students
require developmental (or remedial)
coursework in English or math before they
can go onto college-level courses.
Unfortunately, pass rates in developmental
course rates are extremely low; for example,
two-thirds of students assigned to
developmental math never complete it. 5 A
second problem is that most community
college students have work or family
obligations that compete with school.
Research shows that part-time attendance in
college, 35 hours or more of work each week,
and responsibility for dependents are among
the major “risk factors” associated with low
persistence and completion. 6
Approaches to Evaluating Effectiveness
and Determining Standards of Evidence
Over the past decade, efforts by government,
regional accreditation agencies, and
foundation-led initiatives, such as Achieving
the Dream, have made community colleges
aware of the need to pay closer attention to
students’ academic performance and
progress toward degrees. Most community
colleges track basic measures like retention
and graduation, and some even gather
information on students who transfer to other
colleges or enter the labor market. Such
reporting is important for monitoring
institutional performance and setting goals for
improvement, but is not sufficient for
evaluating the effectiveness of any particular
policy or program. Community colleges are
complex organizations, and many factors may
affect how students perform. External
conditions also matter; the current economic
recession, for example, has led to a surge in
college enrollments, but probably has made it
harder for recent graduates to find jobs.
1
To evaluate the effectiveness of a community
college policy or program, it is essential to
introduce a counterfactual — i.e., some
means of determining what would have
happened if the policy or program did not
exist. To illustrate, suppose a community
college implements a new advising system in
order to improve student retention. For
evaluation purposes, it is not enough to know
that 70 percent of students who went through
the advising system were retained the
following year; quite possibly, students did just
as well without it. The evaluator’s job is to
find an appropriate comparison group to
estimate the “value added” of the new
advising system. If similar students who did
not get the advising were retained at a rate of
50 percent, then the value added or impact of
the program is the difference between the two
retention rates (70 percent – 50 percent = 20
percentage points, or a 40 percent increase in
retention).
In situations where a policy or program is
being introduced as a pilot — or when there is
insufficient capacity to serve everyone —
most evaluators agree that the best approach
to measuring effectiveness is the randomized
control trial. A group of individuals that is
targeted for an intervention (such as the new
advising system mentioned above) is sorted
into two groups: a program group that
receives the intervention, or a control group
that does not. The sorting is done using a
lottery-like process, so that every individual
has an equal chance of ending up in either the
program or the control group. The strength of
a randomized control trial is that it ensures
that the composition of the two groups is
virtually identical at the beginning of the study
— not only in observable characteristics like
age and gender, but also in unobservable
characteristics like motivation. By tracking
both groups over time and comparing their
outcomes, researchers can be confident that
any differences are due to the intervention,
and not to one group starting off more
advantaged than the other.
Randomized control trials require skill to
implement well and are still uncommon in
postsecondary education research. More
often, researchers will try to construct a
comparison group that resembles the program
group as much as possible on observable
characteristics like age and educational
history. For example, a group of freshmen
who participated in a new advising program
will be compared to a similar group of
freshmen who did not participate. The
weakness of such designs is that the two
groups may differ in ways that are not readily
observed. This is a particular concern if the
program was voluntary and served students
who were already motivated to succeed.
Because matched comparison group designs
can never completely remove the possibility of
underlying differences between the program
and comparison groups, the evidence that
comes out of such studies is not as reliable as
that from a randomized control trial.
Neither randomized control trials nor matched
comparison designs are well-suited to policies
or programs that affect an entire college or
population: for example, a new requirement
that all entering students attend an orientation
to inform them about college procedures and
resources. In these situations, evaluators
may try to compare outcomes before and after
the policy or program was introduced. The
best designs to evaluate such policies, known
as interrupted time-series, will collect
observations on an outcome of interest at
many points before and after the policy went
into effect to determine whether a significant
change occurs after the point of policy
implementation. Unfortunately, such designs
can never eliminate the possibility that
undetected changes in student composition or
the environment may also affect the trends. 7
In sum, randomized control trials produce the
best evidence that an intervention caused a
change in outcomes. They are not, however,
the only approach to evaluation, nor are they
feasible in all situations.
2
Examples of Promising Programs that
Have Been Carefully Studied
In the mid-2000s, MDRC conducted
randomized control trials of several programs
designed to improve student outcomes at
community colleges. The studies — which fell
under the umbrella of the Opening Doors
Demonstration — were supported by a
consortium of foundations, the U.S.
Department of Labor, and the U.S.
Department of Education.
One of the Opening Doors programs
consisted of a Learning Communities
intervention at Kingsborough Community
College in Brooklyn, New York. The Learning
Communities targeted incoming freshmen, the
great majority of whom required
developmental English. Students in Learning
Communities were placed into groups of 1525 that took three courses together: an
English course geared toward their level of
proficiency; a regular college course like
introductory psychology or sociology; and a
student success course, taught by a college
counselor, that covered effective study habits
and other skills necessary to succeed in
college. Faculty who taught in the Learning
Communities were expected to coordinate
assignments and meet periodically to review
student progress. The idea was to build
social cohesion among students and faculty,
and help students apply the concepts and
lessons across the courses.
More than 1,500 students participated in the
Learning Communities evaluation and were,
as noted, randomly assigned to either a
program group that participated in Learning
Communities or a control group that took
regular, unlinked courses. The students were
young (mostly 17 to 20 years old), lowincome, and highly diverse in terms of race
and ethnicity. The research team tracked
program and control group members for two
years and found that students in the Learning
Communities were more likely to feel
integrated at school and be engaged in their
courses. They also passed more courses and
earned more credits during their first
semester, moved more quickly through
developmental English courses, and were
more likely to take and pass an English skills
assessment test that was required for
graduation. It is important to note that these
effects, while statistically significant, were
generally modest. For example, after four
semesters, students in the program group
earned an average of 33.2 college credits,
compared with an average of 30.8 credits for
the control group (a difference of less than
one course). Moreover, contrary to
expectations, the Learning Communities did
not have an immediate effect on persistence. 8
Kingsborough is only one test, however, and a
new set of randomized control trials is
underway in five states to build more evidence
on this type of program.
Another Opening Doors study in Louisiana
tested the effectiveness of a performancebased scholarship targeted to low-income
parents who attended two community colleges
in the New Orleans area: Delgado Community
College and the Louisiana Technical CollegeWest Jefferson. The scholarships offered
$1,000 for each of two semesters ($2,000
total) if students stayed in college at least halftime and maintained a “C” or better average.
The scholarships were paid in increments at
the beginning, middle, and end of the
semester, and program counselors monitored
students’ academic performance. Eligibility
was limited to students who were parents and
whose household income was below 200
percent of the federal poverty level.
A little more than 1,000 students enrolled in
the Louisiana study, mostly mothers in their
20s with one or two children. Half were
randomly assigned to a program group that
was eligible for the scholarship, while the
other half were placed in a control group that
was not eligible. Both the program and the
control groups continued to receive federal
Pell grants and other aid for which they
qualified. The evaluation found that
performance-based scholarships gave
students a substantial boost. For example,
students in the program group were more
likely to register for college and attend full-
3
time, even though only half-time enrollment
was required to receive a scholarship. They
were also more likely to stay in college. In the
second semester of the program, 65 percent
of the program group registered for courses,
compared with 50 percent of the control
group. And, finally, students in the program
group completed more course credits than
those in the control group, earning on average
3.5 more credits (a little more than one
college course) over four semesters. 9 Similar
to Learning Communities, a new set of
randomized control trials is taking place in six
states to build more evidence on
performance-based scholarships in other
settings and with other types of students.
A good example of a matched comparison
design is provided by an evaluation of
Washington State’s Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training (I-BEST)
program, conducted by the Community
College Research Center (CCRC). I-BEST
aspires to help community college students
gain proficiency in English and math and also
prepare them for specific occupational fields
such as nursing, early childhood education,
and automotive repair. What is unusual about
I-BEST is that the English and math
instruction is integrated into the occupational
curriculum, rather than the more conventional
approach of teaching them separately. For
example, students in nursing programs attend
English classes that emphasize medical
terminology and writing used in health care
settings; students in automotive repair learn
how to read manuals and use instruments
needed to diagnose and correct engine
trouble.
Researchers compared the academic
outcomes for 900 I-BEST participants with
those of more than 31,000 students in regular
developmental education courses who were
matched on the basis of demographic
characteristics, educational background, and
enrollment patterns. The study found that IBEST students had higher persistence rates,
earned more credits toward a college
credential, earned more occupational
certificates, and showed greater
improvements on tests. Because it was not a
randomized control trial, the study could not
eliminate the possibility that students who
enrolled in I-BEST were more motivated or
had other characteristics that may have
distinguished them from students in other
developmental courses. 10 For this reason, a
randomized control trial of I-BEST is now in
the planning stages by Abt Associates, with
funding from the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.
Bringing Effective Program Strategies to
Scale
Though rigorous research on community
college interventions is a relatively recent
phenomenon, there are examples of
institutions that are taking proven practices to
scale. Kingsborough Community College
offers a prime case: over several years, it has
expanded its Learning Communities to serve
two-thirds of entering freshmen, and plans to
grow the program further. Kingsborough’s
progress has been made possible by several
factors, including strong commitment by its
president; ongoing training and support for
faculty who teach in learning communities;
and a key funder, the Robin Hood Foundation,
that has provided support over a sufficiently
long period to help the college institutionalize
the program using regular college revenues.
Kingsborough recently won a grant from the
U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for
Improvement of Postsecondary Education to
help other community colleges adapt its
approach.
The performance-based scholarship program
in Louisiana did not continue beyond the
demonstration, in part because the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina shifted the state’s
attention to more pressing needs.
Nonetheless, the positive findings prompted
other states and institutions to develop
versions of performance-based scholarships
— some of which, as noted above, are
undergoing further rigorous evaluation. If the
findings are positive, the prospects for
expansion are good. A considerable amount
of public and private money already goes to
4
financial aid programs, and some of these
dollars may be designated for performancebased scholarships. Government or private
sources may also create an incentive for
institutions to implement the approach by
offering start-up grants and matching funds.
Finally, “how-to” guides and training for
scholarship providers and financial aid
administrators may encourage further take-up.
The examples above underscore how credible
evidence on programs can focus attention on
an idea and create the will to bring effective
programs to scale. At the same time, they
show that running and testing a pilot project is
only the beginning. States and colleges
require strong leaders who can articulate a
vision, set goals, and mobilize resources to
continue building on the reforms. States and
colleges must also pay attention to the faculty
and staff responsible for policy and program
implementation. Training and professional
development are key; ultimately, many
individuals — and not just a few champions —
need to “own” the ideas and apply the
research lessons to their own context. Finally,
dependable funding is essential.
States and colleges may benefit from two
types of funding from government and private
sources. One is for program innovation and
testing, to continue the search for policies and
programs that will lead to greater student
success. A second is for adopting or
expanding practices already proven to be
effective. Of course, grant funding cannot be
expected to last indefinitely, and ought to
include incentives or requirements for states
and institutions to designate matching funds
and develop long-term plans for sustainability.
Evaluators can help by providing
policymakers and program administrators with
information on costs, and by analyzing the
cost-effectiveness of strategies. For example,
it may be possible to justify increased funding
for interventions that accelerate time-todegree or lead to other improved outcomes
based on cost savings.
Endnotes
1
Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2010). Digest of
Education Statistics 2009 (NCES 2010-013).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC. Table 187.
2
Provasnik, S. and Planty, M. (2008). Community
Colleges: Special Supplement to The Condition of
Education 2008 (NCES 2008-033). National
Center for Education Statistics, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education. Washington, DC.
3
Carnavale, A.; Smith, N.; and Strohl, J. (2010).
Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018. Georgetown
University Center on Workforce and Education,
Washington, D.C.
4
Berkner, L., He, S., and Cataldi, E.F. (2002).
Descriptive Summary of 1995–96Beginning
Postsecondary Students: Six Years Later (NCES
2003–151). U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington, DC.
5
Bailey, T.; Jeong, D.W.; Cho, S. (2010).
“Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in
Developmental Education Sequences in
Community College.” Economics of Education
Review vol. 29, no. 2 (pages 255-270).
6
Choy, S. Findings from the Condition of
Education 2002: Nontraditional Undergraduates
(NCES 2001-012). National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, D.C.
7
Shadish, W., Cook, T., and Campbell, D. (2002).
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for
General Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, New
York.
8
Scrivener, S. et al. (2008). A Good Start: TwoYear Effects of a Freshmen Learning Community
Program at Kingsborough Community College.
MDRC, New York.
9
Richburg-Hayes, L. et al. (2009). Rewarding
Persistence: Effects of a Performance-Based
Scholarship Program for Low-Income Parents.
MDRC, New York.
5