M. Zeidenberg, Davis Jenkins, Juan Carlos Calcagno
Many first-time college students arrive on campus unprepared to succeed in college. This is especially the case at community colleges, which pursue an “open door” mission of serving all students, regardless of prior educational background. According to a survey of degree-granting institutions by the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), 42 percent of entering first-time students at public two-year colleges in fall 2000 took at least one remedial course (or one “developmental” course; we use these terms interchangeably), compared to 20 percent of entering students at public four-year institutions. Among recent high school graduates who entered higher education through community colleges in the mid-1990s, over 60 percent took at least one remedial course (authors’ calculations based on the National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 [NELS: 88]). Underpreparation is typically viewed in terms of deficiencies in students’ basic academic skills, specifically in those skills integral to the reading, writing, and mathematics subject areas. Community college educators maintain, however, that many entering students are also unprepared in other important ways. It is widely believed that many students have poor study habits and lack clear goals for college and careers. Some experts contend that helping students address these non-academic deficiencies is just as important as helping them acquire basic academic skills through remedial classes, which typically do not address issues such as study skills, goal setting, and the like (Boylan, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In response to this increasingly acknowledged need, community colleges now offer “student success” courses that teach students how to write notes, take tests, and manage their time; that help students explore their learning styles; and that encourage students to develop plans for college and careers (Derby & Smith, 2004). A wide spectrum of students may find these courses useful. Although such courses are not themselves considered to be remedial, sometimes colleges require that they be taken by students who need academic remediation. Student success courses have certainly become wellestablished. Indeed, several publishers offer textbooks for these courses, in some cases allowing colleges to customize the course material with institution-specific information such as support services available on a given campus. Student success courses, and their effectiveness, are the focus of this Brief. Despite the prevalence of these courses at community colleges, little research has been conducted on their effectiveness. Recently a research team headed by Dr. Patricia Windham at the Florida Department of Education compared the outcomes of students who completed a student success course — which in Florida is known as a “student life skills,” or “SLS,” course — with those of students who did not take or complete such a course (Florida Department of Education, 2006). They found that SLS course
许多第一次上大学的学生没有准备好在大学里取得成功。社区大学尤其如此，因为社区大学奉行“门户开放”的使命，为所有学生提供服务，无论他们之前的教育背景如何。根据国家教育统计中心(2003)对学位授予机构的调查，2000年秋季，42%的公立两年制大学新生至少选修了一门补习课程(或一门“发展性”课程;我们交替使用这两个术语)，相比之下，公立四年制大学的新生中有20%是这样。在20世纪90年代中期通过社区大学进入高等教育的高中毕业生中，超过60%的人至少参加了一门补习课程(作者的计算基于1988年全国教育纵向调查[NELS: 88])。准备不足通常被认为是学生基本学术技能的不足，特别是在阅读、写作和数学学科领域不可或缺的技能方面。然而，社区大学的教育工作者坚持认为，许多入学的学生在其他重要方面也没有做好准备。人们普遍认为，许多学生有不良的学习习惯，对大学和职业缺乏明确的目标。一些专家认为，帮助学生解决这些非学术缺陷与通过辅导班帮助他们获得基本的学术技能同样重要，辅导班通常不解决学习技巧、目标设定等问题(Boylan, 2002;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991)。为了回应这种日益被承认的需求，社区大学现在开设了“学生成功”课程，教学生如何写笔记、参加考试和管理时间;帮助学生探索自己的学习方式;并鼓励学生制定大学和职业规划(Derby & Smith, 2004)。广泛的学生可能会发现这些课程很有用。虽然这些课程本身不被认为是补课，但有时大学会要求需要补课的学生选修这些课程。学生成功课程当然已经建立起来了。事实上，一些出版商为这些课程提供教科书，在某些情况下，允许大学根据特定机构的信息定制课程材料，例如特定校园的支持服务。学生成功课程及其有效性是本文的重点。尽管这些课程在社区大学很普遍，但对其有效性的研究却很少。最近，佛罗里达教育部帕特里夏·温德姆博士领导的一个研究小组比较了完成学生成功课程(在佛罗里达被称为“学生生活技能”或“SLS”课程)的学生与没有参加或完成这类课程的学生的结果(佛罗里达教育部，2006年)。他们发现，完成SLS课程的学生比未完成课程的学生更有可能达到以下三个成功指标之一:获得社区学院证书，转入州立大学系统，或在五年后继续在大学就读。本研究结果如图1所示。在需要至少一门补习课程的学生中，那些通过SLS课程的学生比那些没有参加或完成SLS课程的学生更有可能达到这些里程碑。同样的模式也适用于那些被要求参加所有三个学科领域的补习课程的学生——这些学生通常被高失败率所困扰。在佛罗里达州的28所社区学院中，SLS课程对所有学生开放，但有些学院要求某些学生选修这些课程。根据一项较早的研究(Florida Department of Education, 2005)， 13所大学没有要求任何特定的学生参加SLS课程;更确切地说，这是一门选修课。大多数其他学院都将参加SLS的要求与参加发展课程的要求联系在一起，尽管在要求学生参加SLS之前需要参加哪些和多少发展课程方面，规则有所不同。一个学院要求所有学生编号36 2007年6月ISSN 1526-2049
{"title":"Do Student Success Courses Actually Help Community College Students Succeed? CCRC Brief. Number 36.","authors":"M. Zeidenberg, Davis Jenkins, Juan Carlos Calcagno","doi":"10.7916/D80K26M6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D80K26M6","url":null,"abstract":"Many first-time college students arrive on campus unprepared to succeed in college. This is especially the case at community colleges, which pursue an “open door” mission of serving all students, regardless of prior educational background. According to a survey of degree-granting institutions by the National Center for Education Statistics (2003), 42 percent of entering first-time students at public two-year colleges in fall 2000 took at least one remedial course (or one “developmental” course; we use these terms interchangeably), compared to 20 percent of entering students at public four-year institutions. Among recent high school graduates who entered higher education through community colleges in the mid-1990s, over 60 percent took at least one remedial course (authors’ calculations based on the National Education Longitudinal Survey of 1988 [NELS: 88]). Underpreparation is typically viewed in terms of deficiencies in students’ basic academic skills, specifically in those skills integral to the reading, writing, and mathematics subject areas. Community college educators maintain, however, that many entering students are also unprepared in other important ways. It is widely believed that many students have poor study habits and lack clear goals for college and careers. Some experts contend that helping students address these non-academic deficiencies is just as important as helping them acquire basic academic skills through remedial classes, which typically do not address issues such as study skills, goal setting, and the like (Boylan, 2002; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In response to this increasingly acknowledged need, community colleges now offer “student success” courses that teach students how to write notes, take tests, and manage their time; that help students explore their learning styles; and that encourage students to develop plans for college and careers (Derby & Smith, 2004). A wide spectrum of students may find these courses useful. Although such courses are not themselves considered to be remedial, sometimes colleges require that they be taken by students who need academic remediation. Student success courses have certainly become wellestablished. Indeed, several publishers offer textbooks for these courses, in some cases allowing colleges to customize the course material with institution-specific information such as support services available on a given campus. Student success courses, and their effectiveness, are the focus of this Brief. Despite the prevalence of these courses at community colleges, little research has been conducted on their effectiveness. Recently a research team headed by Dr. Patricia Windham at the Florida Department of Education compared the outcomes of students who completed a student success course — which in Florida is known as a “student life skills,” or “SLS,” course — with those of students who did not take or complete such a course (Florida Department of Education, 2006). They found that SLS course","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"51 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122080909","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
who were instrumental in carrying out the data collection and analysis for the report. a multiyear national initiative to help more community college students succeed. The initiative is particularly concerned about student groups that traditionally have faced significant barriers to success, including students of color and low-income students. Achieving the Dream works on multiple fronts, including efforts at community colleges and in research, public engagement and public policy. It emphasizes the use of data to drive change. is the leading independent authority on the nation's more than 1,200 two-year colleges. CCRC's mission is to conduct research on the major issues affecting community colleges in the United States and to contribute to the development of practice and policy that expands access to higher education and promotes success for all students. interests include organizational change in community colleges and the evolving missions and roles of these institutions. Morest recently co-edited the volume, Defending the Community College Equity Agenda, published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. She holds a doctorate in sociology and education from Teachers College, Columbia University. Jenkins conducts research on how to increase access to economic opportunity for disadvantaged youths and adults. He is currently directing a series of CCRC studies that use longitudinal student unit record data collected by state agencies to chart the paths of students within and across educational systems to identify determinants of educational and labor market success. He holds a doctorate in public policy analysis from Carnegie Mellon University. Executive Summary In recent years, community college leaders have begun to consider expanding the traditional role of institutional research (IR) at their colleges. This is due in part to several outside influences. Federal and state governments are pressing colleges to provide more data demonstrating evidence of student outcomes and institutional performance. Accreditation agencies are also asking colleges to provide evidence of student learning and achievement, and they want colleges to establish systems of institutional self-assessment to produce such evidence. The desire for more data and better analysis is also influenced by a growing enthusiasm among educators and advocates to use data to guide decisions about college management and about the design of college programs and services. This notion holds that data should be used not only for the purpose of accountability, but also for the explicit purpose of improving student outcomes and institutional performance. The Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count initiative, now in its third …
{"title":"Institutional Research and the Culture of Evidence at Community Colleges. Report No. 1 in the Culture of Evidence Series.","authors":"V. S. Morest, Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8416V41","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8416V41","url":null,"abstract":"who were instrumental in carrying out the data collection and analysis for the report. a multiyear national initiative to help more community college students succeed. The initiative is particularly concerned about student groups that traditionally have faced significant barriers to success, including students of color and low-income students. Achieving the Dream works on multiple fronts, including efforts at community colleges and in research, public engagement and public policy. It emphasizes the use of data to drive change. is the leading independent authority on the nation's more than 1,200 two-year colleges. CCRC's mission is to conduct research on the major issues affecting community colleges in the United States and to contribute to the development of practice and policy that expands access to higher education and promotes success for all students. interests include organizational change in community colleges and the evolving missions and roles of these institutions. Morest recently co-edited the volume, Defending the Community College Equity Agenda, published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. She holds a doctorate in sociology and education from Teachers College, Columbia University. Jenkins conducts research on how to increase access to economic opportunity for disadvantaged youths and adults. He is currently directing a series of CCRC studies that use longitudinal student unit record data collected by state agencies to chart the paths of students within and across educational systems to identify determinants of educational and labor market success. He holds a doctorate in public policy analysis from Carnegie Mellon University. Executive Summary In recent years, community college leaders have begun to consider expanding the traditional role of institutional research (IR) at their colleges. This is due in part to several outside influences. Federal and state governments are pressing colleges to provide more data demonstrating evidence of student outcomes and institutional performance. Accreditation agencies are also asking colleges to provide evidence of student learning and achievement, and they want colleges to establish systems of institutional self-assessment to produce such evidence. The desire for more data and better analysis is also influenced by a growing enthusiasm among educators and advocates to use data to guide decisions about college management and about the design of college programs and services. This notion holds that data should be used not only for the purpose of accountability, but also for the explicit purpose of improving student outcomes and institutional performance. The Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count initiative, now in its third …","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131234130","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditionally, community colleges were judged on their number of enrollments and their ability to provide postsecondary education to a wide variety of students. Recently, however, state and federal policymakers have become increasingly concerned with student outcomes, and some states have even begun to consider linking the funding of community colleges to their performance on student outcome measures. In 1990, Congress passed the Student Right-toKnow (SRK) and Campus Security Act. It requires that all colleges report graduation rates to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in order for their students to receive federal financial aid. These Student Right-to-Know graduation rates are part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The SRK rates are the only performance measures available for virtually every undergraduate institution in the nation, including community colleges, but critics assert that the rates understate the success of community colleges in several important ways. This Brief summarizes a study by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) that investigated the nature and validity of the SRK rates for community colleges by analyzing data on students attending Florida’s 28 community colleges. It sought to determine whether the rates provide useful information that can guide educators and policymakers working to improve the performance of community colleges, or whether the rates contain biases serious enough to negate their usefulness. This Brief also suggests how the process of determining the rates might be improved.
{"title":"The Value of Student Right-to-Know Data in Assessing Community College Performance. CCRC Brief Number 34.","authors":"Thomas R. Bailey, P. Crosta, Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D80G3THN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D80G3THN","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, community colleges were judged on their number of enrollments and their ability to provide postsecondary education to a wide variety of students. Recently, however, state and federal policymakers have become increasingly concerned with student outcomes, and some states have even begun to consider linking the funding of community colleges to their performance on student outcome measures. In 1990, Congress passed the Student Right-toKnow (SRK) and Campus Security Act. It requires that all colleges report graduation rates to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in order for their students to receive federal financial aid. These Student Right-to-Know graduation rates are part of the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The SRK rates are the only performance measures available for virtually every undergraduate institution in the nation, including community colleges, but critics assert that the rates understate the success of community colleges in several important ways. This Brief summarizes a study by the Community College Research Center (CCRC) that investigated the nature and validity of the SRK rates for community colleges by analyzing data on students attending Florida’s 28 community colleges. It sought to determine whether the rates provide useful information that can guide educators and policymakers working to improve the performance of community colleges, or whether the rates contain biases serious enough to negate their usefulness. This Brief also suggests how the process of determining the rates might be improved.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114895760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The expansion of the American community college has not been matched by the rapid, or even consistent, progress of all entering students toward postsecondary credentials. Instead, a significant proportion of students enrolled in community colleges appear “stuck” on the road to completion. This lack of progress is due to the complex ways in which social and educational inequalities affect specific students and the institutions of higher education designated to serve them. As a result, policymakers and practitioners face significant challenges in their efforts to promote academic momentum. In the first part of this literature review, the sources of these challenges are located in student characteristics as well as in state and institutional practices and policies. It is argued that there exists an interaction of sorts between the actions of community colleges and the attributes of their students. Acknowledging the myriad complexities in efforts to improve the progress of all two-year students toward goal or degree completion, the second part of this paper examines empirical research to identify opportunities for improvement.
{"title":"Promoting Academic Momentum at Community Colleges: Challenges and Opportunities. CCRC Working Paper No. 5.","authors":"Sara Goldrick-Rab","doi":"10.7916/D8474K07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8474K07","url":null,"abstract":"The expansion of the American community college has not been matched by the rapid, or even consistent, progress of all entering students toward postsecondary credentials. Instead, a significant proportion of students enrolled in community colleges appear “stuck” on the road to completion. This lack of progress is due to the complex ways in which social and educational inequalities affect specific students and the institutions of higher education designated to serve them. As a result, policymakers and practitioners face significant challenges in their efforts to promote academic momentum. In the first part of this literature review, the sources of these challenges are located in student characteristics as well as in state and institutional practices and policies. It is argued that there exists an interaction of sorts between the actions of community colleges and the attributes of their students. Acknowledging the myriad complexities in efforts to improve the progress of all two-year students toward goal or degree completion, the second part of this paper examines empirical research to identify opportunities for improvement.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2007-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129075886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kevin J. Dougherty, James Marshall, Andrea Soonachan
This report provides an audit of state policies in Connecticut affecting access to, and success in, community colleges for students of color and low-income students. It was commissioned by Lumina Foundation for Education as part of a series of policy audits of the states involved in Achieving the Dream. Lumina Foundation is the primary funder of the initiative (Dougherty, Reid, & Nienhusser, 2006; Dougherty, Marshall, & Soonachan, 2006). Connecticut is one of two states in the second round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. In joining the initiative along with Ohio, it brings in a northern state that is quite different from the five southern and southwestern states that comprised the first round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. Connecticut has an economy that is historically centered in manufacturing, a diverse white ethnic community, and a political culture that in Elazar’s (1984) terms is individualistic rather than traditionalist. This report is the product of intensive interviews that we conducted in Connecticut and an analysis of documents produced both by state agencies and external organizations, such as the Education Commission of the States. We interviewed officials of the Connecticut Community Colleges system and the Department of Higher Education, state legislators and staff, local community college officials, and heads of organizations representing African Americans and Latinos. We first set the stage by explaining why we focused on certain policies and what methods we used to investigate them. We then move to analyzing the state context: the size and composition of the state’s population; the nature of its economy; and the structure, governance, and finance of the community college system. We then describe the state’s policies (whether legislative statutes or decisions by the Board of Governors for Higher Education or the Board of Trustees for Community Colleges) that affect access to and success in the community college for students of color and low-income students. The Achieving the Dream initiative is focused on student success, but access remains an issue in Connecticut and therefore it is covered as well. This report also addresses the state’s provisions for performance accountability. It has clear relevance to the aim of the Achieving the Dream initiative to use the analysis of data as the main lever to improve both community college efforts and state policies to improve student access and success. As we go along, we note any evaluations that our interviewees made of those state policies and any policy proposals they themselves offered. In the summary and conclusions, we describe policy directions the state may wish to consider in its quest for greater equality of access and success in community colleges.
{"title":"Achieving the Dream in Connecticut: State Policies Affecting Access to, and Success in, Community Colleges for Students of Color and Low-Income Students.","authors":"Kevin J. Dougherty, James Marshall, Andrea Soonachan","doi":"10.7916/D86W985T","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D86W985T","url":null,"abstract":"This report provides an audit of state policies in Connecticut affecting access to, and success in, community colleges for students of color and low-income students. It was commissioned by Lumina Foundation for Education as part of a series of policy audits of the states involved in Achieving the Dream. Lumina Foundation is the primary funder of the initiative (Dougherty, Reid, & Nienhusser, 2006; Dougherty, Marshall, & Soonachan, 2006). Connecticut is one of two states in the second round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. In joining the initiative along with Ohio, it brings in a northern state that is quite different from the five southern and southwestern states that comprised the first round of the Achieving the Dream initiative. Connecticut has an economy that is historically centered in manufacturing, a diverse white ethnic community, and a political culture that in Elazar’s (1984) terms is individualistic rather than traditionalist. This report is the product of intensive interviews that we conducted in Connecticut and an analysis of documents produced both by state agencies and external organizations, such as the Education Commission of the States. We interviewed officials of the Connecticut Community Colleges system and the Department of Higher Education, state legislators and staff, local community college officials, and heads of organizations representing African Americans and Latinos. We first set the stage by explaining why we focused on certain policies and what methods we used to investigate them. We then move to analyzing the state context: the size and composition of the state’s population; the nature of its economy; and the structure, governance, and finance of the community college system. We then describe the state’s policies (whether legislative statutes or decisions by the Board of Governors for Higher Education or the Board of Trustees for Community Colleges) that affect access to and success in the community college for students of color and low-income students. The Achieving the Dream initiative is focused on student success, but access remains an issue in Connecticut and therefore it is covered as well. This report also addresses the state’s provisions for performance accountability. It has clear relevance to the aim of the Achieving the Dream initiative to use the analysis of data as the main lever to improve both community college efforts and state policies to improve student access and success. As we go along, we note any evaluations that our interviewees made of those state policies and any policy proposals they themselves offered. In the summary and conclusions, we describe policy directions the state may wish to consider in its quest for greater equality of access and success in community colleges.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130640274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2003, the Lumina Foundation for Education launched a major initiative, “Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count,” to increase student success at community colleges. The initiative focuses on colleges with high enrollments of low-income students and students of color. In the first round, 27 colleges in five states were selected. The initiative aims to help more students succeed, while maintaining access to community college for groups that traditionally have faced barriers. A key means to improve the performance of colleges is through enhancement of their capacities to gather, analyze, and act on data on student outcomes, including data on students grouped by race, income, age, sex, and other characteristics. From the beginning, a central component of this effort has been state policy. In each of the states where Achieving the Dream colleges are located, the initiative is working with a lead organization (typically the state community college system office or state association of community colleges) to develop policies that will enhance student success. To help guide that policy effort, the Lumina Foundation commissioned an audit of state policy affecting access to, and success in, community colleges. An in-depth analysis was to be conducted of the initial five Achieving the Dream states (New Mexico, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia), to be supplemented later by a survey of all 50 states. This report summarizes that initial in-depth analysis of the first five Achieving the Dream states. The report analyzes state policies with regard to student access, student success, and performance accountability, with particular focus on minority and low-income students. In the case of access, the report examines what policies states have in place with regard to open door admissions, tuition, student aid, outreach to potential students, a comprehensive curriculum, and convenient access. The success policies the report analyzes pertain to remediation, academic counseling and guidance, non-academic guidance and support, transfer assistance, baccalaureate provision, noncredit to credit articulation, and workforce and economic development. Finally, with regard to performance accountability, the report examines the indicators used by the state, how data are collected by the state, and how the data are used by the state and the community colleges to determine funding and shape how colleges act. Besides describing the policies in place, the report also summarizes the reactions of those interviewed to those policies. Moreover, it details suggestions for future directions for state policy toward community college student access and success. To secure information on what policies the states have and how well they are working, we conducted many interviews and reviewed the written academic and non-academic literature on these subjects. We also attended the Policy Listening Tour meetings in each of the states, conducted by the Futures Project, in order
{"title":"State Policies to Achieve the Dream in Five States: An Audit of State Policies to Aid Student Access to and Success in Community Colleges in the First Five Achieving the Dream States","authors":"Kevin J. Dougherty, H. K. Nienhusser, M. Kerrigan","doi":"10.7916/D83776ST","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D83776ST","url":null,"abstract":"In 2003, the Lumina Foundation for Education launched a major initiative, “Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count,” to increase student success at community colleges. The initiative focuses on colleges with high enrollments of low-income students and students of color. In the first round, 27 colleges in five states were selected. The initiative aims to help more students succeed, while maintaining access to community college for groups that traditionally have faced barriers. A key means to improve the performance of colleges is through enhancement of their capacities to gather, analyze, and act on data on student outcomes, including data on students grouped by race, income, age, sex, and other characteristics. From the beginning, a central component of this effort has been state policy. In each of the states where Achieving the Dream colleges are located, the initiative is working with a lead organization (typically the state community college system office or state association of community colleges) to develop policies that will enhance student success. To help guide that policy effort, the Lumina Foundation commissioned an audit of state policy affecting access to, and success in, community colleges. An in-depth analysis was to be conducted of the initial five Achieving the Dream states (New Mexico, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia), to be supplemented later by a survey of all 50 states. This report summarizes that initial in-depth analysis of the first five Achieving the Dream states. The report analyzes state policies with regard to student access, student success, and performance accountability, with particular focus on minority and low-income students. In the case of access, the report examines what policies states have in place with regard to open door admissions, tuition, student aid, outreach to potential students, a comprehensive curriculum, and convenient access. The success policies the report analyzes pertain to remediation, academic counseling and guidance, non-academic guidance and support, transfer assistance, baccalaureate provision, noncredit to credit articulation, and workforce and economic development. Finally, with regard to performance accountability, the report examines the indicators used by the state, how data are collected by the state, and how the data are used by the state and the community colleges to determine funding and shape how colleges act. Besides describing the policies in place, the report also summarizes the reactions of those interviewed to those policies. Moreover, it details suggestions for future directions for state policy toward community college student access and success. To secure information on what policies the states have and how well they are working, we conducted many interviews and reviewed the written academic and non-academic literature on these subjects. We also attended the Policy Listening Tour meetings in each of the states, conducted by the Futures Project, in order ","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"116 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124719156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Funding for this study was generously provided by Lumina Foundation for Education as part of the Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count initiative. (For more information, see http://www.achievingthedream.org.) The study was conducted in partnership with the Florida Department of Education’s Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education. The author would like to thank David Armstrong and Pat Windham of the Florida Department of Education for sharing the data used to select colleges for field research and encouraging these colleges to take part. Thanks also to the administrators, faculty, staff, and students at the six anonymous Florida community colleges who participated in the field study for their hospitality and openness to discussing their policies and practices and the impact on student success. The other members of the CCRC research team were Thomas Bailey, Peter Crosta, Timothy Leinbach, James Marshall, Andrea Soonachan, and Michelle Van Noy.
{"title":"What Community College Management Practices Are Effective in Promoting Student Success? A Study of High- and Low-Impact Institutions.","authors":"Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8639MS3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8639MS3","url":null,"abstract":"Funding for this study was generously provided by Lumina Foundation for Education as part of the Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count initiative. (For more information, see http://www.achievingthedream.org.) The study was conducted in partnership with the Florida Department of Education’s Division of Community Colleges and Workforce Education. The author would like to thank David Armstrong and Pat Windham of the Florida Department of Education for sharing the data used to select colleges for field research and encouraging these colleges to take part. Thanks also to the administrators, faculty, staff, and students at the six anonymous Florida community colleges who participated in the field study for their hospitality and openness to discussing their policies and practices and the impact on student success. The other members of the CCRC research team were Thomas Bailey, Peter Crosta, Timothy Leinbach, James Marshall, Andrea Soonachan, and Michelle Van Noy.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"1142 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115265921","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There has been surprisingly little rigorous research on institutional effectiveness in community colleges. Even the much larger body of research on institutional effectiveness among baccalaureate-granting institutions in general tells us more about the student characteristics and institutional features (e.g., selectivity, size, resources) associated with positive student outcomes than about the policies and practices affecting student success that are under a college’s control. A key problem in this research is how to compare the performance of different institutions serving student bodies with different characteristics. Several recent studies have sought to examine the policies and practices of undergraduate institutions that perform better than would be expected given their students’ characteristics (Muraskin & Lee, 2004; Carey, 2005; Kuh et al., 2005). While these studies offer insight into institutional effectiveness in baccalaureate-granting institutions, the applicability of their findings to community colleges is questionable. They also suffer from a number of data and methodological limitations. This Brief summarizes a study by the Community College Research Center of community college management practices that promote student success. This study addresses the limitations of previous research on the effectiveness of undergraduate institutions in several ways. It takes advantage of a rich set of longitudinal student unit record data to control for the individual characteristics of the students that the colleges serve. Because the study is based on the outcomes of both full-time and part-time students, our measure of institutional effectiveness is better suited to community colleges and their students than is the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) “student-right-to-know” measure commonly used by other studies. We also measured student persistence in addition to completion and transfer, which is appropriate given that community college students often take a long time to complete their programs or to transfer. Our sample is confined to all community colleges in a single state, thus eliminating the effects on institutional performance of variations in public policy and institutional mission, practice, and resources across states. While some previous studies examined only institutions considered to be high performers, we directly compared colleges found to have a relatively high impact on the educational success of their students with colleges that have a low impact. Moreover, this study, unlike others, seeks to account for changes in colleges’ policies and practices over time.
令人惊讶的是，对社区大学制度有效性的严谨研究少之又少。即使是对颁发学士学位的院校的制度有效性进行的更大规模的研究，总的来说，也更多地告诉我们，与积极的学生成果相关的学生特征和机构特征(例如，选择性、规模、资源)，而不是在大学控制下影响学生成功的政策和实践。本研究的一个关键问题是如何比较不同院校为不同特点的学生群体提供服务的绩效。最近的几项研究试图检查本科院校的政策和实践，这些政策和实践的表现比考虑到学生的特点所期望的要好(Muraskin & Lee, 2004;凯里,2005;Kuh et al.， 2005)。虽然这些研究提供了对授予学士学位机构的制度有效性的见解，但他们的发现对社区大学的适用性是值得怀疑的。它们还受到一些数据和方法上的限制。本摘要总结了社区学院研究中心对促进学生成功的社区学院管理实践的研究。本研究从几个方面解决了以往关于本科院校有效性研究的局限性。它利用一组丰富的纵向学生单位记录数据来控制高校所服务学生的个性特征。因为这项研究是基于全日制和非全日制学生的结果，我们对制度有效性的衡量比其他研究常用的国家教育统计中心(NCES)的“学生知情权”衡量更适合社区大学及其学生。除了完成和转学之外，我们还测量了学生的坚持度，考虑到社区大学的学生通常需要很长时间才能完成他们的课程或转学，这是合适的。我们的样本仅限于一个州的所有社区学院，因此消除了公共政策、机构使命、实践和资源变化对机构绩效的影响。虽然之前的一些研究只调查了被认为是高绩效的机构，但我们直接比较了那些对学生的教育成功有相对高影响的大学和那些影响较低的大学。此外，与其他研究不同的是，这项研究试图解释大学政策和实践随时间的变化。
{"title":"Community College Management Practices that Promote Student Success. CCRC Brief. Number 31.","authors":"Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8VH5X6Q","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8VH5X6Q","url":null,"abstract":"There has been surprisingly little rigorous research on institutional effectiveness in community colleges. Even the much larger body of research on institutional effectiveness among baccalaureate-granting institutions in general tells us more about the student characteristics and institutional features (e.g., selectivity, size, resources) associated with positive student outcomes than about the policies and practices affecting student success that are under a college’s control. A key problem in this research is how to compare the performance of different institutions serving student bodies with different characteristics. Several recent studies have sought to examine the policies and practices of undergraduate institutions that perform better than would be expected given their students’ characteristics (Muraskin & Lee, 2004; Carey, 2005; Kuh et al., 2005). While these studies offer insight into institutional effectiveness in baccalaureate-granting institutions, the applicability of their findings to community colleges is questionable. They also suffer from a number of data and methodological limitations. This Brief summarizes a study by the Community College Research Center of community college management practices that promote student success. This study addresses the limitations of previous research on the effectiveness of undergraduate institutions in several ways. It takes advantage of a rich set of longitudinal student unit record data to control for the individual characteristics of the students that the colleges serve. Because the study is based on the outcomes of both full-time and part-time students, our measure of institutional effectiveness is better suited to community colleges and their students than is the National Center for Education Statistics’ (NCES) “student-right-to-know” measure commonly used by other studies. We also measured student persistence in addition to completion and transfer, which is appropriate given that community college students often take a long time to complete their programs or to transfer. Our sample is confined to all community colleges in a single state, thus eliminating the effects on institutional performance of variations in public policy and institutional mission, practice, and resources across states. While some previous studies examined only institutions considered to be high performers, we directly compared colleges found to have a relatively high impact on the educational success of their students with colleges that have a low impact. Moreover, this study, unlike others, seeks to account for changes in colleges’ policies and practices over time.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"109 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124934008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In order to be economically self-sufficient, youth need some education beyond high school. Nonetheless, persisting in college and earning a credential is difficult for many students. To facilitate students’ transitions into college and careers, policymakers and practitioners are attempting to find ways of connecting formerly separate facets of the education system. One such effort is the establishment of P-16 (preschool through postsecondary) commissions in 30 states (National Governors Association, n.d.), whose goal is to reconceptualize education as a pathway spanning high school, college, and the workplace. Attention is also being paid to the integration of academic and occupational preparation in order to increase the rigor of career and technical education (CTE) and to make stronger connections to high-wage, highgrowth occupations. At the federal level, these goals are encouraged by proposed changes to a key funding stream for career and technical education, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act. The federal government seeks vocational education reform in keeping with its emphasis on higher academic standards and accountability. These changes will encourage the refinement of CTE programs in occupations that require postsecondary credentials, to ensure both rigorous academics and a smooth secondary-to-postsecondary transition. Perkins funding may be an impetus for reform, but states must address the ways that their own systems of education support these goals. States need to rethink the structure and focus of the educational pipeline, including the relationships between high schools and colleges, academic and applied courses, and educational credentials and the labor market. This Brief summarizes a report prepared to assist the U.S. Department of Education’s College and Career Transitions Initiative (CCTI). The report presents a sample of state-level policies and legislation that support the implementation of career pathways and other strategies that facilitate educational and employment transitions. Data gathering for the investigation consisted of interviews with CCTI site contacts and other experts in education and workforce development, and web searches for information on legislation and regulation pertaining to career pathways.
为了在经济上自给自足，年轻人需要接受高中以上的教育。然而，对许多学生来说，坚持在大学学习并获得证书是很困难的。为了促进学生向大学和职业的过渡，政策制定者和实践者正试图找到方法，将以前教育系统中独立的方面联系起来。其中一项努力是在30个州(全国州长协会，n.d)建立P-16(从学前到高等教育)委员会，其目标是将教育重新定义为跨越高中、大学和工作场所的途径。还注意将学术和职业准备结合起来，以便提高职业和技术教育的严谨性，并加强与高工资、高增长职业的联系。在联邦层面，对职业和技术教育的关键资金来源——卡尔·d·珀金斯职业和应用技术法案(Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act)提出的改革建议，鼓励了这些目标的实现。联邦政府寻求职业教育改革，以保持其对更高学术标准和问责制的重视。这些变化将鼓励在需要高等教育证书的职业中改进CTE项目，以确保严谨的学术和顺利的中学到高等教育的过渡。珀金斯基金可能是改革的动力，但各州必须解决他们自己的教育系统支持这些目标的方式。各州需要重新思考教育渠道的结构和重点，包括高中和大学、学术和应用课程、教育证书和劳动力市场之间的关系。本简报总结了一份为协助美国教育部大学和职业转型倡议(CCTI)而准备的报告。该报告提供了支持实施职业路径和其他促进教育和就业转型战略的州级政策和立法样本。调查的数据收集包括与CCTI网站联系人和其他教育和劳动力发展方面的专家进行访谈，以及在网上搜索与职业道路有关的立法和法规信息。
{"title":"Strengthening Transitions by Encouraging Career Pathways: A Look at State Policies and Practices. CCRC Brief Number 30.","authors":"K. Hughes, M. Karp","doi":"10.7916/D84175F5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D84175F5","url":null,"abstract":"In order to be economically self-sufficient, youth need some education beyond high school. Nonetheless, persisting in college and earning a credential is difficult for many students. To facilitate students’ transitions into college and careers, policymakers and practitioners are attempting to find ways of connecting formerly separate facets of the education system. One such effort is the establishment of P-16 (preschool through postsecondary) commissions in 30 states (National Governors Association, n.d.), whose goal is to reconceptualize education as a pathway spanning high school, college, and the workplace. Attention is also being paid to the integration of academic and occupational preparation in order to increase the rigor of career and technical education (CTE) and to make stronger connections to high-wage, highgrowth occupations. At the federal level, these goals are encouraged by proposed changes to a key funding stream for career and technical education, the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act. The federal government seeks vocational education reform in keeping with its emphasis on higher academic standards and accountability. These changes will encourage the refinement of CTE programs in occupations that require postsecondary credentials, to ensure both rigorous academics and a smooth secondary-to-postsecondary transition. Perkins funding may be an impetus for reform, but states must address the ways that their own systems of education support these goals. States need to rethink the structure and focus of the educational pipeline, including the relationships between high schools and colleges, academic and applied courses, and educational credentials and the labor market. This Brief summarizes a report prepared to assist the U.S. Department of Education’s College and Career Transitions Initiative (CCTI). The report presents a sample of state-level policies and legislation that support the implementation of career pathways and other strategies that facilitate educational and employment transitions. Data gathering for the investigation consisted of interviews with CCTI site contacts and other experts in education and workforce development, and web searches for information on legislation and regulation pertaining to career pathways.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122734403","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Thomas R. Bailey, Juan Carlos Calcagno, Davis Jenkins, Timothy Leinbach, Gregory S. Kienzl
Policymakers, educators, and researchers recognize the importance of community colleges as open door institutions that provide a wide range of students with access to college. At the same time, competing demands for the state funds that would support community colleges have resulted in reduced public allocations and higher student tuition fees. Understandably, therefore, both state policymakers and parents are increasingly focused on the returns to their public or private investments in education, and the outcomes of community college attendance are now under greater scrutiny. To facilitate the evaluation of the colleges, there are now available data, through the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (1990), which amended the Higher Education Act, on every college’s graduation rate for fall semester cohorts of first-time, fulltime (FTFT) students in degree programs. This information is known as the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) data. A related public concern is how the outcomes of community college students can be improved. Therefore, attempts are now being made to clarify the way that specific students define success and to identify the college policies and practices that can promote success for all students. For some community college students, college completion, defined as earning a degree or certificate, is the appropriate measure of success. For other students, success is demonstrated by transferring to a baccalaureate institution. Still others are satisfied with completing courses that increase their knowledge or skill level in a particular area even though their educational experience is not considered successful as defined by traditional educational outcomes. Because of this range of outcomes for their students, some community colleges argue that focusing on the completion rate of a college is misleading, because many students do not have graduation as an objective. Further, many students face insurmountable barriers to success in college, such as family and work responsibilities and deficient academic preparation, which are beyond the control of the college. Nevertheless, data on goals and expectations do indicate that community college students are ambitious and that a majority of students who state that they want to complete a degree fail to do so (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). Moreover, high aspirations make economic sense since earning only a few credits without completing a certificate or degree has few income returns (Bailey, Kienzl, & Marcotte, 2004). Given the importance of completions, this Brief reports on research conducted by the Community College Research Center designed to strengthen the public’s ability to assess and compare community college performance by measuring the effect of certain institutional characteristics on graduation rates. The research consisted of the development of models, based on SRK graduation rate data, which can identify the institutional characteristics that might influence those rates
{"title":"Beyond Student Right-to-Know Data: Factors That Can Explain Community College Graduation Rates. CCRC Brief Number 29.","authors":"Thomas R. Bailey, Juan Carlos Calcagno, Davis Jenkins, Timothy Leinbach, Gregory S. Kienzl","doi":"10.7916/D8CN7C7B","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8CN7C7B","url":null,"abstract":"Policymakers, educators, and researchers recognize the importance of community colleges as open door institutions that provide a wide range of students with access to college. At the same time, competing demands for the state funds that would support community colleges have resulted in reduced public allocations and higher student tuition fees. Understandably, therefore, both state policymakers and parents are increasingly focused on the returns to their public or private investments in education, and the outcomes of community college attendance are now under greater scrutiny. To facilitate the evaluation of the colleges, there are now available data, through the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act (1990), which amended the Higher Education Act, on every college’s graduation rate for fall semester cohorts of first-time, fulltime (FTFT) students in degree programs. This information is known as the Student Right-to-Know (SRK) data. A related public concern is how the outcomes of community college students can be improved. Therefore, attempts are now being made to clarify the way that specific students define success and to identify the college policies and practices that can promote success for all students. For some community college students, college completion, defined as earning a degree or certificate, is the appropriate measure of success. For other students, success is demonstrated by transferring to a baccalaureate institution. Still others are satisfied with completing courses that increase their knowledge or skill level in a particular area even though their educational experience is not considered successful as defined by traditional educational outcomes. Because of this range of outcomes for their students, some community colleges argue that focusing on the completion rate of a college is misleading, because many students do not have graduation as an objective. Further, many students face insurmountable barriers to success in college, such as family and work responsibilities and deficient academic preparation, which are beyond the control of the college. Nevertheless, data on goals and expectations do indicate that community college students are ambitious and that a majority of students who state that they want to complete a degree fail to do so (Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005). Moreover, high aspirations make economic sense since earning only a few credits without completing a certificate or degree has few income returns (Bailey, Kienzl, & Marcotte, 2004). Given the importance of completions, this Brief reports on research conducted by the Community College Research Center designed to strengthen the public’s ability to assess and compare community college performance by measuring the effect of certain institutional characteristics on graduation rates. The research consisted of the development of models, based on SRK graduation rate data, which can identify the institutional characteristics that might influence those rates ","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127924406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：