Mission of the Community Colleges

Practical_Leadership_in_Community_Colleges_Navigat..._----_Chapter_2_Mission.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Mission of the Community Colleges

MISSION

Questioning the Mission

The community college is an American innovation in higher education with origins dating to the late nineteenth century. Most historians point to the founding of Joliet Junior College in 1901 as the prototype of what would become the most democratic institution of higher education and postsecondary training in the world. Like Joliet, the early community col leges were extensions of high schools and were focused on preparing students to transfer to four‐year universities. However, the mission of the community college has evolved over the years, shaped by societal and political pressures, and it continues to change. Today’s community col leges are complex institutions with a broad range of educational, social, and economic functions. They have been frequently defined by their com mitment to open access, convenience, and affordability. But in today’s environment of declining resources and concern about student success, leaders are being forced to prioritize college offerings and functions.

Cohen and Brawer (2008) described community college missions by their functions of student services, career education, developmental edu cation, community education, and the collegiate curricula in transfer and liberal arts. The development and history of community colleges include a remarkable growth in enrollment and an equally remarkable expansion of mission from a transition to upper‐division college work that defined the earliest junior colleges to a comprehensive curriculum and the ser vices required to meet the needs of diverse student populations and the local communities they serve. The 1947 landmark Truman Commission Report led to a dramatic expansion of community colleges and the democratization of higher education in the United States.

Some of the most debated and far‐reaching issues in community col leges continue to be the compatibility and relative importance of their multiple missions (Ayers, 2005). Practitioners, researchers, and critics

Boggs, George R., and Christine J. McPhail. Practical Leadership in Community Colleges : Navigating Today's Challenges, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated, 2016. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4560554. Created from capella on 2020-07-15 10:32:49.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

16 practical leadership in community colleges

often have conflicting perspectives about the purpose and role of community colleges (Brint & Karabel, 1991; Dougherty, 1994; Jenkins & Cho, 2014; Pincus, 1980). Community college researchers categorize the colleges as nontraditional, nonspecialized by design, and mandated to provide a comprehensive curriculum to their communities (Ayers, 2005; Bailey & Morest, 2006; Beach, 2011; Vaughn, 2006). In contrast, practi tioners are likely to focus on the ideals of the “open door,” in particular, access to education and training programs, and responsiveness to community needs (Boggs, 1996, 2011, 2006; Shannon & Smith, 2006). Some researchers argue that the comprehensive mission of community colleges lacks sufficient focus, causing them to compete with numerous other organizations on multiple fronts (Alfred, 1998; Bailey, 2002; Quigley & Bailey, 2003). McPhail and McPhail (2006) argued that community college leaders must develop methods to prioritize their mul tiple missions in order to appropriately allocate fiscal resources and man age personnel. In fact, one outcome of the severe economic recession of 2008 in California was to give a higher priority to transfer, workforce, and basic skills education—and to direct funding away from avocational community service courses. Students were restricted in the number of times they could repeat courses, particularly in performing and visual arts and in physical education.

Aspects of the comprehensive mission have periodically come under criticism. In 1980, Fred L. Pincus wrote “The False Promise of Community Colleges: Class Conflict and Vocational Education,” in which he criti cized the increase in vocational offerings in community colleges. Pincus argued that the vocational programs were merely an educational tracking mechanism intended to maintain the economic class of their students. Similarly, Brint and Karabel (1991) claimed that the colleges were no longer primarily stepping stones to four‐year colleges and universities. Instead, the authors suggested that community colleges were “vocation alizing” curricula and focusing on preparing students for work, thus lim iting their opportunities for advancement in American society. Rhoades and Valdez (1996) contended that community colleges had too many missions and that maintaining all of them made it difficult to focus on emerging multicultural issues on campuses. They argued that community colleges had to find ways to integrate multicultural issues into their mis sions and in the way colleges conduct business.

John Levine (2000) conducted a qualitative, multiple‐case study to define changes in the colleges’ institutional missions during the 1990s. Though Levine’s research results reported little change in institutions’ missions during the 1990s, the data collected indicated alterations to

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 17

missions to account for global economic concerns. Levine suggested that a new globally oriented vocationalism dominated the community college mission at the end of the twentieth century.

The expansion of the community college mission has not been without controversy, and the debates continue even today. In order to provide a basis for understanding mission issues, we provide a model for viewing the development of the community college mission in terms of genera tions, in which each generation builds upon the past and yet provides a new way of thinking about community colleges and what they do. Knowledge of these generations of the changing mission can be a valuable resource for the contemporary community college leader to guide discus sions focused on setting priorities for college offerings and services.

Mission Generations

As the American community college sector evolved, the colleges modified or expanded their mission to meet the needs of a growing diverse student population and an increasingly complex society. This evolution, according to a study by Tillery and Deegan (1985), can be viewed in terms of the five generations of the American community college. The first generation, from 1900 to 1930, characterized community colleges as an “extension of secondary school.” The focus during this generation was on helping high school graduates transition to higher education at a four‐year college or university.

The second generation, from 1930 to 1950, is characterized as the “junior college generation.” The mission focus in this generation is char acterized by framing the identity of the community college as a higher education institution on its own by breaking away from the high school. There was also considerable attention paid to the development and role of local boards of trustees to define the community college’s teaching and administration functions and to oversee the institutions.

Tillery and Deegan placed the third generation of community colleges in the time period from 1950 to 1970 and referred to this generation as the “community college generation.” With impetus from the Truman Commission Report (1947), the term “community college” became pop ularized, and the growth of community colleges during this generation was dramatic. The mission of this generation of community colleges focused on expanding opportunity to higher education to people who would not have had a chance previously, including the large number of World War II veterans. Students were admitted to the community college with little or no attention to their level of academic preparation.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

18 practical leadership in community colleges

The fourth generation was referred to as the “comprehensive community college” and covered the period from 1970 to 1985. The major theme of the mission of the comprehensive community college was based on the needs of the community. In other words, the open‐door mission opened access to the community college to a wide variety of learners, and leaders of the comprehensive community colleges reached out to the community to welcome everybody. While striving to be “everything to everybody,” community colleges augmented their programs and services to create noncredit and community services classes. The comprehensive community college also began to experiment with nontraditional teaching practices and expanded occupational and technical programs to meet the needs of local employers. The taxpayer revolt that started in California with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 restricted public funding, shifted authority from local communities to the state level, and spread to other states. Limitations in funding support began to limit how comprehensive the community colleges could be.

Although Tillery and Deegan did not name the fifth generation, it is gen erally referred to as the “Contemporary Community College (mid‐1980s to 1990). During this period, the mission focus was on using resources to respond to the needs of an ever‐changing student population (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Dougherty & Townsend, 2006; Levinson, 2005). Community colleges faced several key challenges: maintaining commitment to open‐ door practices, responding to diverse populations, and changing to respond to community needs and legislative mandates. In 1988, the American Association of Community Colleges’ (AACC) Commission on the Future of Community Colleges had issued its report, Building Communities: A Vision for A New Century. Perhaps its most notable quote is, “We propose, therefore, that the theme ‘Building Communities’ become the new rallying point for the community college in America. We define the word ‘community’ not only as a region to be served, but also as a climate to be created.”

What then is the sixth generation of community colleges? It may best be defined by what started as an effort by a single community college to define its vision for the future, an effort that grew into a movement that would reshape all of American higher education and bring national attention to student learning outcomes. After eighteen months of study and debate, Palomar College in Southern California released the report of its Vision Task Force. In the introductory letter in the spring of 1991, President George Boggs wrote:

Readers of these statements will note that they reflect a subtle but nonetheless profound shift in how we think of the college and what

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 19

we do. We have shifted from an identification with process to an identification with results. We are no longer content with merely providing quality instruction. We will judge ourselves henceforth on the quality of student learning we produce. And further, we will judge ourselves by our ability to produce even greater and more sophisticated student learning and meaningful educational success with each passing year, each exiting student, and each graduating class. To do this, we must ourselves continually experiment, discover, grow, and learn. Consequently, we see ourselves as a learning institu tion in both our object and method. (Boggs, 1991)

Boggs wrote about the work of the Task Force in the AACC Chair’s column in the Community College Journal in 1993 and called for a rein vention of community colleges and a change in the paradigm of how we think of community colleges (Boggs, 1993). In 1995, two members of the Palomar Vision Task Force wrote an article that served as a catalyst for higher education leaders to rethink teaching and learning. Barr and Tagg (1995), in a seminal article in Change magazine entitled, “From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education,” noted that colleges must take responsibility for learning at two distinct levels: institutional outcomes and individual learner outcomes. Barr and Tagg argued that the college’s purpose is not to transfer knowledge but to create environments that bring students to discover and construct knowledge. A short time later, Boggs (1996) described the need to change the mission of community colleges in a mission‐defining article entitled, “The Learning Paradigm” in the Community College Journal, where he examined the educational needs of contemporary society, suggesting that existing institutions have failed to adapt to the changing landscape. Boggs argued that educators must shift to a “learning paradigm” that centers all services on the learning needs of students and evaluates pro grams and personnel based on their contributions to student learning. In 1997, Terry O’Banion continued the learning paradigm conversation in his award‐winning publication, A Learning College for the 21st Century, which defined a learning college as one that “places learning first and provides educational experiences for learners anyway, anyplace, any time.” Given the impact of the focus on learning outcomes instead of college processes, the sixth era of community colleges (1990–2000) can appropriately be called the “Learning College” generation. During this generation, the mission clearly emerged to focus on student learning and institutional outcomes.

In 2000, the American Association of Community Colleges, in partner ship with Association of Community College Trustees, issued the report

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

20 practical leadership in community colleges

of its New Expeditions Initiative, The Knowledge Net (AACC, 2000). The report differed from the 1998 Building Communities report in sev eral significant ways. In particular, community colleges were beginning to respond to the impact of three important societal forces: (1) the learning college movement, (2) the impact of globalization, and (3) the impact of the Internet.

Although attention to student learning outcomes continues through accreditation standards and association and college initiatives, the gener ation of community colleges that followed the learning college generation can perhaps best be called the “Entrepreneurial Community College.” As economic support to community colleges was restricted, college leaders began to embrace entrepreneurial thinking even in the educational pro grams that the colleges provided. Evidence of emergence of the entrepre neurial type mission is noted in the founding of the National Association for Community College Entrepreneurship (NACCE) in 2002. It was founded as a nonprofit organization to serve the mission of accelerating entrepreneurship at community and technical colleges in the United States. The organization was established to serve two basic audiences: (1) community college administrators who manage entrepreneurship education programs and entrepreneurship centers, and (2) faculty mem bers who teach entrepreneurship.

However, the college leaders were also encouraged to become more entrepreneurial themselves. Roueche and Jones (2006) showcased entre preneurial leadership in their book, The Entrepreneurial Community College, which highlighted best entrepreneurial practices and introduced effective strategies for increasing revenue and reducing costs. Roueche and Jones identified trends that suggested that community colleges had developed entrepreneurial cultures. They observed that declining public resources, coupled with the demand that colleges do more with less, made it more of an imperative that entrepreneurism, flexibility, and adapt ability thrive in the community college environment.

How has the community college mission changed since 2010? Although there have been changes, the shifts may not be as dramatic as one might think. The most apparent shift is the call for colleges to move beyond just providing access to accepting responsibility for the success of their stu dents (Phillippe & Sullivan, 2005; Watson, Williams, & Derby, 2005). Community college educators are now encouraged to pay more attention to programs and services that focus on student success outcomes. Data on achievement gaps have focused attention on equity and diversity in college policies and practices (AACC, 2012; Center for Community

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 21

College Student Engagement [CCSSE], 2012; Complete College America, 2012; College Rewired, 2012). Demands from legislators for colleges to be more accountable have become ever more common. This shift to a focus on student completion is well documented and is the focus of the major reform initiatives and debates about who should attend community colleges, the curriculum, policies, and practices, even the degrees awarded by the community college (AACC, 2014; Erpenbach & Forte, 2007; Floyd et al., 2009; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2004). All of these factors have created a complicated set of conditions that have coalesced around a single agenda: student completion of educational goals. The “Completion Agenda” refers to course, program, and degree completion and is driven by national, state, and local initiatives that are beginning to focus more on success of students than on access to educa tion and training. It is the defining mission of the generation of community colleges since 2010. Community college leaders in the eighth generation of community colleges have had to react to the challenges inherent in the Completion Agenda while also dealing with many other issues.

Although some aspects of previous mission generations continue and blend into the next generation, the mission of community colleges has changed over time due to a variety of internal and external pressures and innovations in thinking. The mission continues to evolve. The following section of this chapter highlights some of the key mission‐based pressures and challenges facing community colleges.

Given the economic and educational issues facing the United States, community colleges have never been more important (AACC, 2014; Floyd et al., 2009; Green, 2006). Community colleges face myriad economic, social, and political challenges, including declining state budgets, a greater emphasis on outcome‐based accountability, competition from for‐profit institutions, underprepared students, and a growing immigrant student population (AACC, 2012; Amey, Eddy, & Ozaki, 2007; Bailey, Badway, & Gumport, 2001; Jacobs & Dougherty, 2006; Levinson, 2005; Watson et al., 2005). Community college leaders must confront and overcome a host of challenges in the months and years ahead.

Completion Challenge

Not since the administration of President Harry S. Truman has the community college been the focus of such consistent attention from the president of the United States. On February 24, 2009, President Barack Obama challenged educators by declaring that “by 2020, America will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world”

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

22 practical leadership in community colleges

(The White House, 2009). This announcement, which fueled the Completion Agenda, was received with mixed emotions by various con stituencies in the community colleges. The Obama administration, recog nizing the economic imperative to educate and train our people, set aggressive goals for postsecondary attainment in the United States and emphasized the unique role that community colleges can play in achiev ing them (AACC, 2012; Gonzalez, 2010). Although some community college educators viewed a single‐minded focus on completion as a threat to the open door, national associations, led by the American Association of Community Colleges, seized the opportunity to launch a united national Completion Agenda for community colleges.

In April 2010, the American Association of Community Colleges and five other community college organizations responded to President Obama’s challenge, reaffirming their commitment to completion by issuing a joint statement, Democracy’s Colleges: Call to Action. The other associations participating in the partnership were the Association of Community College Trustees, the Center for Community College Student Engagement, the League for Innovation in the Community College, the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development, and Phi Theta Kappa. The associations also reaffirmed their commitment to increasing access and quality.

In the summer of 2011, AACC launched a new 21st‐Century Initiative that began with a nationwide listening tour with stops at selected community colleges. A report, Reclaiming the American Dream, based on broad consensus findings from the listening tour, was completed in early 2012. The report emphasized several issues facing community colleges, including the need to reexamine the role, scope, and mission of the community college; and the existence of an “achievement gap” and need for “scalable proven practices” to respond to the needs of students. The report also suggested that community college educators must “redesign their institutions, their mission, and their students’ educational experi ences” to ensure that they meet the needs of a changing society.

Balancing Access and Success

Community colleges have successfully provided opportunity and access to higher education and training for millions of American citizens (Cohen & Brawer, 2008; Dougherty & Townsend, 2006; Horn, Nevill, & Griffin, 2006). Support of the open‐access philosophy by policy makers has generally resulted in strong student demand at community colleges.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 23

Community colleges must be committed to improving completion rates while maintaining or even increasing their commitment to access and quality. Recent reform initiatives have placed considerable pressure on community colleges to maintain the open door while focusing more delib erately on improving completion rates and overall institutional effectiveness (Boylan, 1999; Completion by Design, 2014; CCSSE, 2012; Jenkins & Cho, 2014; Lanty et al., 2009; Linn, 2004). Although there is no one‐ size‐fits‐all formula for balancing access and success, the current emphasis on completion will undoubtedly continue to influence programs, services, and administrative decisions by community colleges leaders.

Transition, Progression, and Transfer

The pathway to the community college from local high schools must be strengthened (Complete College America, 2012; Completion by Design, 2014; Davies, 1999; Handel, 2009; Horn et al., 2006). Many states and local school districts are increasingly more proactive in raising K–12 standards and boosting high school rigor. Although much attention has been placed on college‐ready students, community colleges are now being challenged to examine their admissions and student support practices to be better prepared to support students transitioning from high school and those preparing to transition from community colleges to four‐year colleges and universities (Davies, 1999; Completion by Design, MDRC, 2013). But how can transitions from high school to community college be improved? State policy makers have sought to better integrate the community college with K–12 school systems and state four‐year col leges and universities.

Jenkins (2014) observed that deliberate pre‐collegiate programs and strong student engagement efforts positively affect graduation and transfer rates at the community colleges. For example, in 2010, Harper College in Illinois and its local high school districts partnered to launch the Northwest Educational Council for Student Success to align curric ulum and testing, expand dual‐credit opportunities, and create career and academic pathways. As a result, high school students have earned hun dreds of career certifications and completed several thousand dual‐credit courses. Other notable efforts of effective community college and K–12 collaboration to improve college success and completion rates include the partnership between the Montgomery campus of the Lone Star College System with three local school districts that allows high schools to bus seniors to Lone Star’s satellite center for training, leading to certificates in

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

24 practical leadership in community colleges

phlebotomy, advanced manufacturing, welding, and other areas while also earning high school credits. Folsom Lake College in California has a yearlong readiness program called College Connections that includes college preparation workshops for students on such topics as time management and career exploration, seminars for students and parents on financial aid, and a matriculation workshop to help students register for college.

Accreditation and Mission

The unique American system of institutional quality assurance is described in chapter 3. However, it is important to note here that all regional accreditation agencies require colleges to publish mission statements. The mission provides a framework for all institutional goals and activities. A college’s mission statement is critical to any discussion of the college’s regional accreditation reviews. Most important, the stated mission of the institution is the very first criterion or standard in each of the regional accrediting agencies. In some regions, accrediting commissions ask col leges to explain how the mission is used to guide the college’s programs and practices.

Push from the For‐Profit Sector

For‐profit postsecondary education providers encompass a wide range of institutions. They offer associate, baccalaureate, master’s, and sometimes doctoral education and training, in addition to certificates and diplomas. They are accredited by either national or regional accrediting agencies. The majority of them offer courses online as well as in person. Zinshteyn (2014), program manager for the Education Writers Association, reported that for‐profit colleges and universities have grown in presence in American higher education. According to Zinshteyn, the sector accounted for an estimated 13 percent of all US college students in 2009—up from 5 percent in 2001. The students who are attracted to the for‐profit sector are the same types of students who traditionally attend the community college. According to Bailey and colleagues (2010), African Americans accounted for 22 percent of the enrollment of for‐profit institutions, compared with 14 percent at two‐year public colleges and 11 percent at four‐year public colleges. Fifteen percent of students in for‐profits were Hispanic, compared with nearly 16 percent at two‐year and 10 percent at four‐year public colleges. About 65 percent of students in for‐profit insti tutions were twenty‐five years and older, compared with 31 percent at

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 25

four‐year public and 40 percent at two‐year public colleges. And about two‐thirds of students at for‐profits were female compared to 57 percent at public community colleges. Bailey and colleagues (2010) observed that community college leaders and staff do not perceive for‐profits as a competitive threat. The researchers also noted that community college leaders might learn from the for‐profits’ emphasis on customer service, employment placement support, and degree completion rates.

Technological Development

There is an increase in demand for higher education, and community colleges that are flexible enough to incorporate the latest hardware and software will be better equipped to increase educational access because technological developments are stimulating new ways of thinking about educational service delivery (Mars & Ginter, 2007). Although institu tions of all types and sizes can expect to experience change as environ mental factors intensify and technology advances accelerate, community colleges, perhaps more than any other sector of higher education, may be uniquely positioned to use technology as a management tool for the future (Stewart, 2008). Community colleges led the rest of higher education in finding ways to serve nontraditional students with indi vidual needs and in considering technological solutions for enhancing quality, expanding access, improving success rates, and containing cost through improved productivity. Community colleges must have a strong technology planning process that routinely and consistently engages all stakeholders (EDUCAUSE, 2015; Stewart, 2008). The president of the college and the entire leadership team must strive to keep the tech nology infrastructure aligned with the mission, vision, and goals of the college.

Legislative Mandates

Recently the nation’s community colleges have been bombarded with reform initiatives. Most of the legislated or regulatory reform is not voluntary but mandated at the state level. For example, several state governments have legislated the use of standardized tests to measure community college performance and to provide data for account ability (Bailey, 2009). Such legislation has enormous ramifications for institutional planning and resource allocation. States are debating additional educational reforms. Some are calling on high schools to make changes in graduation requirements. Recently, Indiana lawmakers

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

26 practical leadership in community colleges

approved a bill directing the K–12 sector to identify students who may need remedial classes in college and help them before they leave high school. Some states are requiring colleges to provide extra support to high school students who take college classes for credit. High school enrichment advocates claim that such an approach will help more stu dents finish college by shortening the path to graduation. Florida law makers approved legislation that allowed many students at the state’s public community colleges to skip developmental classes and imme diately enroll in college‐level courses even if they are not prepared for college‐level work. The lawmakers in Colorado passed legislation to allow public four‐year colleges to place borderline students into regular credit‐bearing classes while providing them with additional support. Previously, the four‐year colleges in Colorado were required to redirect underprepared students to community colleges for remedial classes.

In 2011, Texas lawmakers took bold steps to improve student success when they approved legislation that required colleges to base develop mental coursework on research‐based best practices. The law also allowed colleges to exempt students in developmental education courses from paying tuition and required them to develop a plan for developmental education. Connecticut’s law challenged public colleges to integrate developmental education into regular credit‐bearing courses. In addition, the Connecticut legislation placed limitations on how many remedial courses per semester a student can take and required the public colleges to use more than a single assessment measure, such as a placement test, to determine whether students needed extra support to be successful. Some community college educators and researchers question whether scaling back remedial education as is being done in Connecticut and Florida could leave some students unprepared and decrease their chances of success (Beach, 2011; Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, 2009; Linn, 2004; Szelenyi & Chang, 2002).

Funding the Mission

Issues of finance and the economy are covered in chapter 4. However, it would be a mistake to ignore the effect that funding issues have on the community college mission. State and federal legislation have a dramatic effect on mission. Examples include limitations on financial aid, elimina tion of funding for undocumented immigrant students and classes taught to the incarcerated, limitations on property taxes rates and tuition charges, and legislation on college enrollment priorities. During the economic

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 27

downturn of the late 2000s, California directed community colleges to give priority to funding academic, workforce, and developmental educa tion programs and to cut funding to community services courses.

Because of funding limitations, many community colleges struggle to maintain a balanced full‐time to part‐time faculty ratio. Declining public investment in community colleges at the state level stimulates college responses that may affect core programs and, therefore, the mission of community colleges. Further, especially since 2000, community college leaders have been encouraged to aggressively pursue external funding sources. Indeed, AACC (2014) has listed resource development as a key leadership competency for community college leaders. The present‐day community college leader is expected to engage in private development efforts, innovative financial aid solutions, and new student tuition struc tures to ensure quality public higher education (Heaton, 2015). The mission of the community college is necessarily altered by unfunded program development and declining general fund budgets.

Workforce Preparation Issues

Despite the current attention being paid to the Completion Agenda, many community colleges have not clearly identified the role that work force preparation plays in their completion efforts. Community college leaders face a dilemma when it comes to a choice of focusing either on (a) increasing completion rates using traditional measures (that is, attain ment of associate’s and bachelor’s degrees) or (b) getting people back to work with certificates and industry credentials that are not counted by the government as success measures. However, in spite of earlier concerns about tracking students, there exists a clear sense of urgency for community colleges to focus on workforce preparation along with the traditional academic programs at the college. Does emphasis on work force preparation threaten liberal arts? On the surface, it may appear to be the case because traditional community college instructional models and curricula are not designed to facilitate the integration of workforce preparation and academic programs. Jacobs (2000, 2006) suggested that it is time for community colleges to focus not only on traditional academic and workforce programs, but also on short‐term, work‐related certifi cates in specific programs. Focusing solely on the traditional programs narrowly defines student success while overlooking the needs and achieve ments of a significant number of people, disenfranchising large numbers of community college students.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

28 practical leadership in community colleges

Developing Partnerships

Partnerships with businesses have the potential to become an institution‐ transforming catalyst in community colleges. Business and postsecondary education have found common cause in recent decades in the preparation of a skilled workforce to preserve the nation’s competitiveness in response to rapid technological changes and increasing global competition. Community college leaders need to systematically partner with the pre‐K–16 systems so that federal, state, district, and postsecondary pro grams work together to support earning a degree or certificate. We need seamless articulation between high schools and community colleges— and between community colleges and universities. Further, community college–industry partnerships can provide impetus for transformation in higher education. Community colleges are well positioned to improve postsecondary attainment for many Americans. But they must find ways to integrate their three missions of academic transfer, occupational edu cation, and developmental education in order to improve student success and accomplish that goal.

Curricular Reform

In order to be competitive, community colleges will need to improve educational services by revising curricula and adopting new technologies (AACC, 2014). The values underlying teaching and learning need to be critically examined. New pedagogy is needed for teaching students how to successfully manage changing environments (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Gross, 1999; Lorenzo & LeCroy, 1994). This emphasis on “outcomes‐ based learning” shifts the learning paradigm from being behaviorally ori ented to being developmentally oriented (Shipley, 1995). The goal is to move students from just accomplishing discrete tasks to knowing how to accomplish those tasks.

Developmental education is increasingly the focus of reform efforts. Developmental education classes are those that are below college level. Students pay tuition and can use financial aid for remedial courses that prepare them for college‐level work, but they do not receive college credit. Most remediation occurs in reading, writing, and math (Bailey, 2009; Boyland, 1999). Within and among community colleges, remedial often is used interchangeably with the terms developmental and basic skills. We use the term developmental education for all community college classes below college‐level. Community colleges use a variety of methods to deter mine which students are placed in developmental education. Some use

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 29

national college admissions exams, such as the ACT or SAT, to determine whether students are eligible to enroll in college‐level courses. Other insti tutions require students to take a placement exam, such as Accuplacer or COMPASS, before they register for courses. Typically, students are given a list of the courses they should take based on their performance on the placement test. However, many students who are referred to develop mental 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 (Complete College America, 2012; College Rewired, 2012; MDRC, 2013). The evaluation data concerning developmental education are equally discouraging. Much of the research on developmental education is suggestive of success but cannot reliably measure the effect of remediation or differentiate among different approaches (Boylan, 1999). The handful of more definitive studies shows mixed results at best (MDRC, 2013). Community colleges throughout the nation are aggressively searching for better ways to address the needs of the underprepared. Some of those efforts are based on curriculum reform and course redesign.

The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching is spon soring one of the most promising reforms of developmental mathematics, devising two new pathways for developmental mathematics students: Statway and Quantway. Both pathways aim to accelerate students’ progress through their developmental mathematics sequence and through a college‐level course for credit. The two pathways also present engaging, relevant, and useful mathematics concepts that students can use in their daily lives. Statway and Quantway are taught using common curricula, assessments, online platform, and innovative instructional approaches.

A college’s curriculum conveys implicit values and institutional prior ities. Some community college practitioners have responded to changing student demographics by incorporating diverse values and literatures into their curricula and by acknowledging new research on students’ learning styles and needs for support services (Gross 1999; Harris & Kayes, 1995; Terryll‐Powell & Barnett, 2003). The community college curriculum may be permanently changed by today’s economy and political climate. Limited funding, the pressure for accountability, changing student demographics, and the public’s lack of trust in the higher education enterprise are affecting the operations, programs, and services of the contemporary community college (Levine, 2004; McPhail, 2004).

More and more community colleges are restructuring their curricula to more accurately meet the needs of the local economy. Community colleges

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

30 practical leadership in community colleges

are shifting their traditional curricula in order to address local job loss challenges. This shift is evident in community colleges such as Macomb Community College in Michigan, where former autoworkers seek pro grams to gain new job skills. In other locations, community colleges and state governments have collaborated to develop programs to retrain unemployed workers.

Metropolitan Community College (MCC), located in Omaha, Nebraska, established a new two‐year program for data center management. With this new forum, MCC will have a program based on real‐world working conditions in a modern data center that includes heterogeneous systems from numerous IT hardware and software vendors.

The shifts in curricula to meet workforce demands directly affect the mission of community colleges. Gone are the days when local community colleges could offer every possible program that faculty wanted to teach or students desired. Colleges are making choices and prioritizing the cur riculum offerings.

The 2014 passage of Proposition 30 in California provided nearly $200 million more to the state’s community colleges, according to a Los Angeles Times report. The additional money was much needed for a system that had been forced to cut class offerings significantly and even turn away students in an effort to balance dwindling budgets. The state’s plan for college reform accompanied the additional funding. The reforms were designed to improve completion rates and accessibility throughout the system. McPhail and McPhail (2006) suggested that by prioritizing programs and services, college leaders are better positioned to more effec tively serve their students and communities. Community colleges are transforming their curricula and services to meet today’s economic and societal demands.

Community College Baccalaureates

As jobs evolve to require more technical training, new pressures emerge to meet the need to improve educational attainment, and the costs of higher education continue to escalate, more states are expanding the mission of community colleges. With all of the reform and accountability issues affecting them, is the community college baccalaureate a logical evolution of the mission or a threat to it? Over the past two decades, the number of community colleges authorized to offer bachelor’s degree pro grams has steadily risen. Though still confined to a very small number of institutions and limited degree programs, this phenomenon continues to generate widespread attention and controversy (Floyd & Walker, 2008;

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 31

Levine, 2004). The trend toward the community college baccalaureate not only expands and potentially challenges the traditional mission of two‐year colleges; it also has the potential to threaten the relationships between the two‐ and four‐year sectors of higher education. Twenty‐two states have now authorized community colleges to offer baccalaureates, usually in applied programs not offered by the public university systems. In most cases, the colleges have maintained a primary focus on a tradi tional community college mission, even though the colleges have often changed their names, dropping the word community and sometimes add ing the word state in response to requirements from accreditors or incen tives from state government. In a few cases, community colleges have been completely transformed into four‐year institutions. Examples include the transformation of Westark Community College into the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith and Utah Valley Community College into Utah Valley University.

Organizations and Initiatives

Several organizations have developed initiatives, often with foundation funding, that are affecting practices that have the potential to affect mission. The most noteworthy are Complete College America, Achieving the Dream, Completion by Design, the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, and the Community College Completion Corps.

Complete College America was established in 2009. It is a national nonprofit with a single mission: to work with states to significantly increase the number of Americans with quality career certificates or college degrees and to close attainment gaps for traditionally underrepre sented populations. Complete College America believes there is great reason for optimism and a clear path forward if significant changes are made to higher education practices. The organization espouses five stu dent success drivers: strengthening developmental education, performance funding, co‐requisites, full‐time attendance, and structured scheduled guided pathways. Thirty‐three states and the District of Columbia have pledged to work with Complete College America to improve college com pletion rates.

The Achieving the Dream National Reform Network (ATD) is intended to help more community college students succeed. The Lumina Foundation and seven founding partner organizations launched the network in 2004. Achieving the Dream now leads the most comprehensive nongovern mental reform movement for student success in higher education history. ATD is guided by five principles: committed leadership, use of evidence

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

32 practical leadership in community colleges

to improve programs and services, broad engagement, systemic institu tional improvement, and accountability for equity. As of 2015, more than two hundred institutions of higher education, one hundred coaches and advisors, fifteen state policy teams, and numerous investors and partners working throughout thirty‐four states and the District of Columbia make up the ATD network.

Completion by Design is a Gates Foundation–funded initiative that involves cadres of community colleges within the states of Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio that are working to assist large groups of students to succeed by developing coherent pathways of study while containing college costs, maintaining open access, and ensuring the quality of college programs and credentials. Completion by Design has identified three key completion goals on which to focus: earning certificates and degrees, transferring to four‐year institutions, and raising the value of completers in the labor market.

The Community College Survey of Student Engagement, a product and service of the Center for Community College Student Engagement, is a well‐established enterprise that helps institutions to focus on good educational practice and to identify areas in which they can improve their programs and services for students. Administered during the spring mostly to returning students, CCSSE asks about institutional practices and student behaviors that are highly correlated with student learning and retention. The Survey of Entering Student Engagement (SENSE) helps colleges focus on students’ experiences in the critical first few weeks of college. Grounded in research about what works in retaining and sup porting entering students, SENSE collects and analyzes data about insti tutional practices and student behaviors. College leaders can use data from the surveys to launch college improvement initiatives.

Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society recognizes community college stu dents who have achieved academic excellence. Phi Theta Kappa was the only student organization invited to sign Democracy’s Colleges: Call to Action with the major community college associations in 2010. Phi Theta Kappa sponsors the Community College Completion Corps and has developed a comprehensive toolkit for its chapters to use in planning a “Signing Day for the Call to Action in Support of Students.” Through the Community College Completion Corps, students sign a commitment to complete their programs and to assist other students to complete. Further, Phi Theta Kappa has also developed a unique transfer tool, CollegeFish .org, available now to all members and in the early stage of being posi tioned as a resource for all community college students. CollegeFish.org matches students to the transfer institution that best meets their needs,

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://CollegeFish.org

mission 33

keeps them informed about upcoming deadlines, monitors transfer credits, and provides information about financial aid and scholarships. Research has shown that Phi Theta Kappa members are significantly more likely to complete a degree than other students with similar grade point averages (Fain, 2016).

In response to President Obama’s completion challenge for community colleges to educate an additional 5 million students to achieve degrees, certificates, or other credentials by 2020, the American Association of Community Colleges is leading the advancement of the next era of community college evolution through its three‐phase 21st‐Century Initiative. The 21st‐Century Commission report, Reclaiming the American Dream, Community Colleges and the Nation’s Future: A Report from the 21st‐Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges, and the 21st‐Century implementation report, Empowering Community Colleges to Build the Nation’s Future: An Implementation Guide, are available in the 21st Century Center (http://www.aacc.nche.edu).

AACC is also coordinating a national partnership to build capacity for community colleges to implement a pathways approach to student suc cess and college completion. Partners include Achieving the Dream, the Aspen Institute, the Center for Community College Student Engagement, the Community College Research Center, Jobs for the Future, the National Center for Inquiry and Improvement, and Public Agenda. The partners selected thirty community colleges to participate and also are substan tively involved in designing and delivering a model series of six two‐day pathways institutes, each focusing on key elements of a fully scaled pathway model for community colleges. The project is funded through a $5.2 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The attention to pathways for students was stimulated by the studies and publications done by the Community College Research Center at Teacher’s College, Columbia University. In particular, the publication Redesigning America’s Community Colleges, by Bailey, Jaggars, and Jenkins (2015), criticizes community colleges for insufficient student guidance through the maze of course offerings, referring to the colleges as “cafeteria colleges.” The authors call for more structured pathways that help students to succeed.

Middle College High Schools (MCHSs)/Early College High Schools are located on college campuses and aim to help students complete high school and encourage them to attend college. Although Middle College High Schools, such as the one at LaGuardia Community College in New York, have been in existence since the 1970s, there has been a recent resurgence in the growth of the programs. The programs offer a

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.aacc.nche.edu

34 practical leadership in community colleges

project‐centered, interdisciplinary curriculum with an emphasis on team teaching, individualized attention, and the development of critical thinking skills. Students are also offered support services, including spe cialized counseling, peer support, and career experience opportunities. The Middle College National Consortium is an organization represent ing more than fifty public schools on college campuses across the nation. It is composed of Middle and Early College high schools (which are high school–college partnerships) and school districts in sixteen states com mitted to preparing students from underserved communities for college by giving them rigorous coursework that will lead to college credits while these students are still enrolled in high school (Middle College National Consortium, n.d.).

In recent years, some Middle College High Schools have converted to the Early College High School model, which offers students a five‐year accelerated course of study during which they can earn an associate degree or two years of college credits in addition to a high school diploma. Students identified as at‐risk by their teachers and counselors attend MCHSs and are encouraged to succeed at high school and go on to higher education or advanced training through peer modeling (students enrolled at the college), small classes, and superior academic support services (Lieberman, 2004). The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, along with Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, started the Early College High School Initiative in 2002. The initiative was established to redesign 150 early college high schools for underserved and low‐income young people and neighbor hoods over five years. Jobs for the Future (JFF) coordinates the initiative.

Given today’s demands, the need for private support to augment the community colleges’ operating budgets in order to implement reform ini tiatives has never been greater. For the first time in the history of community colleges, major foundations have paid attention to the increasing challenges facing the sector. The fact that community colleges educate half of the undergraduate students in the nation served as a cat alyst for this newfound attention. Specifically, the Bill & Melinda Gates and the Lumina foundations have helped significantly to support community colleges in their efforts to respond to the Completion Agenda. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has done much to orchestrate that new era of relationships between foundations and community colleges. The Gates Foundation has funded programs designed to reform higher education such as Completion by Design. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, since 2006, Gates has spent $472 million to remake US higher education (Parry, Field, & Supiano (2014). The Chronicle

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 35

reported that $343 million of the Gates funds were spent since January 2008. Lumina Foundation, the other significant funder of community college reform efforts, espouses the value that education provides the basis for individual opportunity, economic vitality, and social stability. Lumina’s overarching goal is to increase the higher education attainment rate of the United States to 60 percent by 2025.

Reform Effectiveness

Evaluations of the effectiveness of developmental education reform efforts are not yet definitive enough to suggest that one intervention is more effective than another. However, research studies have identified some useful innovative methods that show promise of improving devel opmental education outcomes. These include accelerated courses, learning communities, enhanced student support, accelerated learning, and combined courses.

Students can complete their remedial courses at a faster pace by taking accelerated courses. At the Community College of Denver, for example, students in the FastStart program take two semesters of remediation in one semester. The program provides students with extra supports, such as a required weekly study group. Students in FastStart have greater academic success than remedial students who are not in the program.

Kingsborough Community College in New York has had success with a learning community program in which a group of freshmen take three classes together: remedial English, a college‐level course, and a student success course (an orientation‐type class that provides tips on time management, how to study, and how to use campus resources). By taking several classes with the same group, students have an opportunity to befriend and support one another. The extra academic and social sup ports that learning communities provide can have positive effects. Students who participated in the Kingsborough learning community were more likely than nonparticipants to take and pass the English skills assessment tests necessary to enroll in college‐level English. Long‐term studies at various community colleges, including Community College of Denver, North Seattle Community College, and the QUANTA program at Daytona Beach Community College in Florida, suggest that students in learning communities have significantly higher retention, persistence, and graduation rates than students in traditional courses.

Research (MDRC, 2013) suggests that students who test just below college‐ready can be successful in college‐level courses, especially if

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

36 practical leadership in community colleges

extra academic support—such as tutoring and group study time—is incorporated into the class. The Community College of Baltimore’s Accelerated Learning Project places borderline remedial English students into college‐level English. To provide extra support, the project requires students to take an additional course that serves as a study hour for the English class. The same professor teaches both courses. A study by the Community College Research Center found that students in the program were more likely to pass the first two college‐level English courses (English 101 and 102) than students not in the program.

Washington’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training (I‐BEST) program has become a national model for helping students who test into the lowest levels of remediation earn a job‐related credential. The program is particularly effective for adult basic education students and English language learners. I‐BEST students’ curriculum combines basic skills education with college credit, career‐training courses. Early data show that I‐BEST students are more likely to earn a job‐related credential than similar students not enrolled in the program.

A Framework for Mission Management

Mission management is a process that has concrete steps and requires college team members to analyze the internal and external factors that affect the institution. The team defines the procedures and steps the college will take to achieve the defined goals and objectives. Figure 2.1 highlights the seven components of our conception of a mission management framework.

1. Assess Community Needs. Assessing societal needs and expectations is the first step in undertaking mission management. Community colleges face increasing pressure to respond to shifting societal trends. A community needs assessment identifies the strengths and resources available in the community to meet the needs of the college’s constituencies (Coman & Ronen, 2009; University of Kansas Work Group for Community Health and Development, 2010). A community assessment may be limited to a compilation of demographic data from census records, results of surveys conducted by others, and informal feedback from community partners. Or assessments may be expanded to include focus group discussions, town meetings, interviews with stakeholders, and telephone or mailed surveys to partnership members and the community.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 37

2. Develop the Right Mission Statement. Leaders should emphasize the current mission statement to employees, which clarifies the purpose and primary, measurable objectives of the organization (Bryson, 2004; Bryson & Alston, 2005). A mission statement is meant to be used by leaders to guide the current and future direction of the college.

3. Align the Vision Statement with the Mission Statement. Although mission statements define an institution’s purpose, vision statements help to describe the organization’s direction. Vision statements also include the college’s values and goals. Vision statements give direction for employee behavior and help provide inspiration. The institution’s vision statement should also help inspire the external community to work with the college.

4. Develop a Mission‐Based Strategic Plan. Once the leader has collaborated with constituent groups to establish a clear mission and vision, a strategic plan can be developed. A good strategic plan

Mission Management

Conduct Community

Needs Assessment

Define Mission

Align Mission

and Vision

Collect Data Impact

Evaluation

Develop Management/

Execution Process

Develop Mission-Based Strategic Plan

Create Communication

Plan

Figure 2.1 Mission Management Process

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

38 practical leadership in community colleges

includes specific, short‐term goals covering all the areas that need improving in order for the leader to provide oversight to attain the vision. The organization’s mission and vision determine the success of the strategic plan. Without the mission and vision statements, the strategic plan has no ultimate goal to strive for and lacks measurability. Although an institution can have a strategic plan without a mission or vision statement, implementing such a plan is likely to be problematic because it will lack direction.

5. Develop a Strategic Management/Execution Process. The strategic management process involves defining and controlling the college’s future, as well as its current status (Rothaermel, 2012). The development of a shared vision statement, a mission statement, and a strategic plan are the foundation of the strategic management process. Having clearly defined the vision and mission of the organization, leaders can then set strategic operational objectives that are aligned with the institution’s long‐term goals. The leadership team, in collaboration with key stakeholders, has the responsibility to translate these strategic objectives into an operational or execution strategy that can be implemented, monitored, and evaluated. The strategic management process requires the leader to delegate responsibility for each goal to a specific individual at the college. This strategic management process also defines the number of employees, the budget, and other resources that must be used to complete the task.

6. Collect Data and Evaluate Impact. Collecting and interpreting useful data is an essential step community college leaders can take to implement effective leadership practices. Community colleges usually collect vast amounts of valuable data that can be used to track the progress and performance of their students. However, because institutional research is frequently underfunded and relatively undeveloped at many community colleges, data remains underutilized to inform decision‐making and practices (Calderon & Mathies, 2013). In today’s data‐informed environment, colleges need proof to show whether the institution and its practices are effective or not.

7. Develop a Strategic Communication Process. Strategic communication helps the leader share a clearly defined message with everyone involved with the institution—internally and externally (Keyton, 2011). The development of a strategic communication plan should be a top priority for the president and

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 39

the leadership team. The communication plan must outline an intentional process that defines what each constituent group within the institution needs to hear from the president and other leaders. A communication plan is a written document that describes the following: (1) what the leader wants to accomplish (objectives); (2) ways in which those objectives can be accomplished (goals or outcomes); (3) the audience that will address how objectives will be accomplished (the tools and timetable), and (4) how progress will be measured (evaluation). Although investing time and resources in strategic planning is critical to achieving the institution’s vision, mission, and goals, a communication plan drives the execution. The best time for an administrator to develop a communication plan is now. The communication plan is informed by the mission and vision, an inventory of existing communications, constituent groups, and subordinates. It helps to keep the administrators focused on the goals and objectives throughout the year (Moorcroft, 2003). Communication is not a one‐time event; it is ongoing all the time. It helps everyone at the institution remain aware of priorities and protects the administrators from last‐minute demands for information, and it reduces confusion and guessing about what is taking place at the institution.

Leaders need to establish measurable milestones along the path to the institutional vision. The mission management process involves defining and controlling the college’s future as well as its current status. Thus, community college leaders must constantly reinforce the mission and vision of the college instead of only once or twice a year when they are updating the strategic plan.

Issues to Consider

A. Was California correct in setting a higher priority on funding transfer education, vocational education, and developmental education while cutting support for community education? How does prioritization of functions affect the historical community college mission?

B. When funding is restored to a college after an economic recession, how should the college leadership decide where the restored funding should go? Should programs that were cut back or

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

40 practical leadership in community colleges

eliminated be restored, or should increased funding go to other programs or new initiatives?

C. The American Institutes for Research released a study of early college high schools in 2013 (DeSantis, 2013). The report demonstrated that students who attend early college high schools that are located on community college campuses and that offer students a chance to earn credit toward a college degree while they finish high school are more likely than are their peers to graduate, enroll in college, and earn an associate degree. However, Matt Reed issued a warning to his colleagues who might be considering the establishment of an early college high school (Reed, 2013), saying that some faculty will oppose it because they see it as a threat to the status of their professions, an encroachment by high schools onto college territory, and an implied insult. Do early college high schools belong on community college campuses? Should a leader get faculty buy‐in before implementing an early college high school? How would you deal with this issue?

D. Should more community colleges be authorized to offer baccalaureates? What issues are created regarding faculty credentials, accreditation, and relationships with other educational institutions? How does the mission of the community college change when it offers a baccalaureate? Are there safeguards that can be put in place to retain important components of the community college mission when it begins to offer a more advanced degree?

E. Will policies that limit the amount of development education that community colleges offer (as has happened in Connecticut) or giving students the option not to enroll in developmental education (as has happened in Florida) effectively increase student completion rates? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these policies?

F. How are the current community college reforms at the state and national levels impacting the mission at the community college? Is it likely that efforts to increase completion rates will affect the historical open‐access mission of the community college? What safeguards can community college leaders put in to place to ensure that community colleges remain accessible to all students in need of the opportunities available at public higher education institutions?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 41

REFERENCES

Alfred, R. (1998). From Closed Doors to Open Systems: New Designs for Effectiveness in Community Colleges. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 5(1), 9–19.

American Association of Community Colleges. (1988). Building Communities: A Vision for a New Century: A Report of the Commission on the Future

of Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Community Colleges. (2000). The Knowledge Net:

A Report of the New Expeditions Initiative. Washington, DC: Author. American Association of Community Colleges. (2012, April). Reclaiming the

American Dream: A Report from the 21st Century Commission on the

Future of Community Colleges. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.aacc.nche.edu/21stCenturyReport.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2014). Empowering Community Colleges to Build the Nation’s Future: An Implementation

Guide. Washington, DC: Author. Available at www.aacc21stcenturycenter. org.

Amey, M. J., Eddy, P. L., & Ozaki, C. C. (2007). Demands for Partnership and Collaboration in Higher Education: A Model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(139), 5–14. doi: 10.1002/cc.288.

Ayers, D. F. (2005). Neoliberal Ideology in Community College Mission Statements: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 527–549. doi:10.1353/rhe.2005.0033.

Case Scenario

You receive a letter from the president of the nearest state university, the major transfer institution for your students. The letter informs you that, because of state funding reductions, the university will be lim iting the number of transfer students it admits so that it can preserve seats for deserving freshmen. In addition, the grade point average for students transferring from community colleges will be increased from 2.75 to 3.25 beginning next fall semester. What issues does the scenario create? What leadership competencies are involved? Who should be involved in addressing the situation? What actions would you take? Are there lessons to be learned?

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.aacc.nche.edu/21stCenturyReport

http://www.aacc21stcenturycenter.org

42 practical leadership in community colleges

Bailey, T. R. (2002). Community Colleges in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities. In P. A. Graham & N. Stacey (Eds.), The knowledge Economy and Postsecondary Education (pp. 59–76). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in Community College. New Directions for Community Colleges (No. 145), 11–30. doi: 10.1002/cc.352.

Bailey, T., Badway, N., & Gumport, P. J. (2001). For‐Profit Higher Education and Community Colleges. Stanford, CA: National Center for Postsecondary Improvement.

Bailey, T. R., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bailey, T., & Morest, V. S. (Eds.). (2006). Defending the Community College Equity Agenda. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995, November/December) From Teaching to Learning: A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education. Change, 27(6), 13–25.

Beach, J. M. (2011). Gateway to Opportunity: A History of the Community College in the United States. Herndon, VA : Stylus.

Boggs, G. R. (1991). Palomar College 2005: A Shared Vision. Unpublished document.

Boggs, G. R. (1993). Reinventing Community Colleges. Community College Journal, 64(3), 4–5.

Boggs, G. R. (1996). The Learning Paradigm. Community College Journal, 66(3), 24–27.

Boggs, G. R. (2006). Handbook on Ceo–Board Relations and Responsibilities. Washington, DC: Rowan & Littlefield.

Boggs, G. R. (2011) Community Colleges in the Spotlight and Community Colleges in the Spotlight and Under the Microscope. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2011(156), 3–22.

Boylan, H. (1999). Harvard Symposium 2000: Developmental education demographics, outcomes. Journal of Developmental Education, 23(2), 2–4, 6, 8.

Boyland, H. R. (1999). Exploring Alternatives to Remediation. Journal of Developmental Education, 22(3), 2–8.

Brint, S., & Karabel, J. (1991). The Diverted Dream: Community Colleges and the Promise of Educational Opportunity in America, 1900–1985. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

mission 43

Bryson, J. M., & Alston, F. K. (2005). Creating and Implementing Your Strategic Plan (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Calderon, A., & Mathies, C. (2013). Institutional Research in the Future: Challenges within Higher Education and the Need for Excellence in Professional Practice. New Directions for Institutional Research (No. 157), 77–90.

Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2012). A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for Community College Student Success

(A First Look). Austin: University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program. Retrieved from: http://www.cccse.org.

Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. (2009). Multicultural Teaching: Information and Strategies. Retrieved from: http://www.crlt.umich.edu/ tstrategies/tsmdt.php.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American Community College (5th ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

College Rewired. (2012). Lumina Foundation Focus. Lumina Foundation (Summer 2012). Retrieved from: http://www.luminafoundation.org.

Coman, A., & Ronen, B. (2009). Focused SWOT: Diagnosing Critical Strengths and Weaknesses. International Journal of Production Research, 40(20), 5677–5689.

Complete College America. (2012). Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere 2012. Retrieved from: www.completecollege.org.

Davies, T. G. (1999). Transfer Student Experiences: Comparing Their Academic and Social Lives at the Community College and University. Retrieved from: http://www‐vis.lbl.gov/˜romano/Ed198‐SEM/TransferStudentExperiences.pdf.

DeSantis, N. (2013, June 26). Early‐College High Schools Benefit Students, Study Finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http:// chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/early‐college‐high‐schools‐benefit‐students‐ study‐finds/62289.

Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The Contradictory College: The Conflict Origins, Impacts, and Futures of the Community College. SUNY Series in Frontiers in Education. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Dougherty, K. J., & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community College Missions: A Theoretical and Historical Perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006, 5–13. doi: 10.1002/cc.254.

EDUCAUSE. EDUCAUSE Review 50, no. 1 (January/February 2015). Retrieved from http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/1/educause‐review‐print‐ edition‐volume‐50‐number‐1‐januaryfebruary‐2015.

Erpenbach, W. J., & Forte, E. (2007). Statewide Educational Accountability Systems Under the NCLB Act: A Report on 2007 Amendments to State

Plans. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.cccse.org

http://www.crlt.umich.edu/tstrategies/tsmdt.php

http://www.luminafoundation.org

http://www.completecollege.org

http://www-vis.lbl.gov/~romano/Ed198-SEM/TransferStudentExperiences.pdf

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/early-college-high-schools-benefit-students-study-finds/62289

http://er.educause.edu/articles/2015/1/educause-review-print-edition-volume-50-number-1-januaryfebruary-2015

44 practical leadership in community colleges

Fain, P. (2016, February 8). Low Income, High Graduation Rate. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/08/programs‐ have‐success‐helping‐low‐income‐students‐graduate.

Floyd, D. L., Haley, A., Eddy, P. L., & Antczak, L. (2009). Celebrating the Past, Creating the Future: 50 Years of Community College Research. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33, 216–237.

Floyd, D. L., & Walker, K.P. (2008) The Community College Baccalaureate: Putting the Pieces Together. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 33(20), 90–124.

Gonzalez, J. (2010, October 10). Obama Praises Community Colleges Amid Doubts About His Commitment. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Obama‐Praises‐Community/ 124869/.

Green. D. (2006). Historically Underserved Students: What We Know, What We Still Need to Know. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006(135), 21–28.

Gross, D. B. (1999). Diversity and Complexity in the Classroom: Considerations of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender. Tools for Teaching. Retrieved from: http:// honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/ diverse.htm.

Handel, S. J. (2009). Transfer and Part‐Time Student: The Gulf Separating Community Colleges and Selective Universities. Change, 41(4), 48–53.

Harris, Z. M., & Kayes, P. (April, 1995). Multicultural and International Challenges to the Community College: A Model for College‐Wide Proactive Response. Paper presented at Annual Convention of the American Association of Community Colleges, Minneapolis, MN. (ED 387 173).

Heaton, P. (2015). Opportunity Knocking: How Community College Presidents Can Lead a New Era of Advancement. Washington, DC: CASE.

Horn, L., Nevill, S., & Griffith, J. (2006). Profiles of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions, 2003–2004: With a Special Analysis

of Community College Students. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Jacobs, J. (2000). What Is the Future for Postsecondary Vocational Education? Update on research and leadership, 12(1), 1–4.

Jacobs, J., & Dougherty, K. J. (2006). The Uncertain Future of the Community College Workforce Development Mission. In B .K. Townsend & K. J. Dougherty (Eds.), Community College Missions in the 21st Century (pp. 53–62). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Jenkins, D. (2014). Overview of the Guided Pathways Approach. Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University. Unpublished paper.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/08/programs-have-success-helping-low-income-students-graduate

http://chronicle.com/article/Obama-Praises-Community/124869/

http://honolulu.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/teachtip/diverse.htm

mission 45

Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. W. (2014). Get With the Program . . . and Finish It: Building Guided Pathways to Accelerate Student Completion (CCRC Working Paper No. 66). Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/ k2/attachments/get‐with‐the‐program‐and‐finish‐it‐2.pdf.

Heaton, P. (2015). Opportunity Knocking: How Community College Presidents Can Lead a New Era of Advancement. Washington, DC: CASE.

Keyton, J. N. (2011). Communication and Organizational Culture: A Key to Understanding Work Experience. (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Lanty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., Kewal Ramani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., Dinkes, R. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009‐081). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Levine, J. (2000). The Revised Institution: The Community College Mission at the End of the Twentieth Century. Community College Review, 28(2), 1–24.

Levine, J. (2004). The Community College as a Baccalaureate‐Granting Institution. Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 1–22.

Levinson, D. L. (2005). The Growth of Community Colleges in the Twentieth Century. Community Colleges (pp. 43–73). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC‐CLIO.

Lieberman, J. E. (1985), Combining High School and College: LaGuardia’s Middle College High School. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (No. 24). 47–57. doi: 10.1002/tl.37219852407.

Linn, R. L. (2004). Accountability Models. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning Accountability Systems for Education (pp. 73–95). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lorenzo, A. L., & LeCroy, N. A. (1994). A Framework for Fundamental Change in the Community College: Creating a Culture of Responsiveness. Warren, MI: Macomb Community College Institute for Future Studies. (ED 369 432)

College Rewired. (2012). Lumina Foundation Focus. Lumina Foundation (Summer 2012). Retrieved from: http://www.luminafoundation.org.

Mars, M. M., & Ginter, M. (2007). Connecting Organizational Environments with the Instructional Technology Practices of Community College Faculty. Community College Review, 34(4), 324–343.

McPhail, C. J. (2004, October 29). Staying Focused on Suitable Missions. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.accbd.org/ articles/index.php/attachments/single/35.

McPhail, C. J., & McPhail, I. P. (2006). Prioritizing Community College Missions: A Directional Effort. New Directions for Community Colleges (No.136), 91–99. doi: 10.1002/cc.263

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.luminafoundation.org

http://www.accbd.org/articles/index.php/attachments/single/35

http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/get-with-the-program-and-finish-it-2.pdf

46 practical leadership in community colleges

MDRC. (2013). Developmental Education: A Barrier to a Postsecondary Credential for Millions of Americans. Retrieved from http://www. mdrc.org/publication/developmental‐education‐barrier‐postsecondary‐ credential‐millions‐americans.

Middle College National Consortium: Expanding College Access. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://mcnc.us.

Moorcroft, D. (2003). Linking communication strategy with organizational goals. Strategic Communication Management, 7, 6.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004‐077). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

O’Banion, T. (1997). A Learning College for the 21st Century. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.

Parry, M., Field, K., & Supiano, B. (2014, July 14). The Gates Effect. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/The‐ Gates‐Effect/140323/?cid=at.

Phillippe, K. A., & Sullivan, L. G. (2005). National Profile of Community Colleges: Trends and Statistics. Washington, DC: Community College Press.

Pincus, F. (1980). The False Promises of Community College: Class Conflict and Vocational Education. Harvard Educational Review, 50(30), 332–361.

Quigley, M., & Bailey, T. (2003). Community College Movement in Perspective: Teachers College Responds to the Truman Commission. Oxford, MA: Scarecrow Press.

Reed, M. (2013, June 26). A Warning to My Colleagues. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions‐ community‐college‐dean/warning‐my‐colleagues.

Rhoades, R. A. & Valadez, R. (1996). Democracy, Multiculturalism, and the Community College: A Critical Perspective. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Rothaermel, F. T. (2012). Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases. New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill/Irwin.

Roueche, J. E., & Jones, B. R. (2005). The Entrepreneurial Community College. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.

Shannon, H. D., & Smith, R. C. (2006). A Case for the Community College’s Open Access Mission. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2006, 15–21. doi: 10.1002/cc.255.

Shipley, D. (1995, October). Transforming Community Colleges Using a Learning Outcomes Approach. Paper presented at a workshop sponsored by the Advanced Education Council of British Columbia and the Centre for Curriculum and Professional Development, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada. (ED 388 346)

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/developmental-education-barrier-postsecondary-credential-millions-americans

http://mcnc.us

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Gates-Effect/140323/?cid=at

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/warning-my-colleagues

mission 47

Stewart, D. P. (2008). Technology as a Management Tool in the Community College Classroom: Challenges and Benefits. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4(4), 459–468.

Szelényi, K., & Chang, J. C. (2002). Educating Immigrants: A Community College Role. Community College Review, 32, 55–73.

Terryll‐Powell, Y & Barnett, B. (Eds.). (2003). Course 10: Integrating Cultural Diversity Into the Curriculum. Retrieved from: http://www.wa‐skills.com/ PDFs/10divtext.pdf.

Tillery, D., & Deegan, W. (1985). The evolution of two‐year colleges through four generations. In D. Tillery & W. Deegan (Eds.), Renewing the American Community College (pp. 3–33). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Truman Commission on Higher Education. (1947). Higher Education for Democracy: A Report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education,

Vol. 1, Establishing the Goals. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. University of Kansas Work Group for Community Health and Development.

(2010). Community Assessment, Agenda Setting, and Choice of Broad Strategies. Community Tool Box. Lawrence: Author. Retrieved from: http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/index.aspx.

Vaughan, G. B. (2006). Critics of the Community College: An Overview. New Directions for Community Colleges (No. 32), 1–14. doi: 10.1002/ cc.36819803203.

Watson, L. W., Williams, F. K., & Derby, D. C. (2005). Contemporary Multicultural Issues: Student, Faculty, and Administrator Perceptions. Community College Enterprise, 11(1), 79–92.

White House (2009, July 14). Excerpts of the President’s remarks in Warren, Michigan, and fact sheet on the American Graduation Initiative, Office of the Press Secretary. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/ the‐press‐office/excerpts‐presidents‐remarks‐warren‐michigan‐and‐ fact‐sheet‐american‐graduation‐init.

Zinshteyn, M. (2015, August 30). For‐Profit Universities. Education Writer’s Association. Retrieved from: http://www.ewa.org/profit‐universities.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed

http://www.wa-skills.com/PDFs/10divtext.pdf

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/index.aspx

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/excerpts-presidents-remarks-warren-michigan-and-fact-sheet-american-graduation-init

http://www.ewa.org/profit-universities

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

6. J

oh n

W ile

y &

S on

s, In

co rp

or at

ed . A

ll rig

ht s

re se

rv ed