Community colleges are open-door institutions serving many students with characteristics that can make college completion a challenge. Their graduation rates are often considered low, but their students do not always have earning a degree as a goal. While individuals may feel that their college experience was a success, standard graduation rate measures of performance count a student’s enrollment as a failure unless it culminates in a credential or transfer to a four-year institution. This paper explores the impact of students’ reasons for enrollment and educational expectations on their outcomes and, thus, on the performance of their college, showing that community college students with degree and transfer goals are more likely to graduate or transfer. Still, an analysis suggests that even among only students who state that their goal is a degree, certificate, or transfer, fewer than 50 percent achieve that goal within six years. Moreover, large gaps in success rates for Black and Hispanic students cannot be explained by differences in either their reason for enrolling or their educational expectations. We also show that students’ educational expectations should not be treated as fixed, and that, not surprisingly, the experience of college has a role in shaping their expectations. We conclude that educators and policy makers should be cautious in using student goals as benchmarks for success, and that assumptions about student goals should not be used to discourage efforts to improve overall performance and reduce disparities between groups. Colleges need to recognize the dynamic nature of student intentions and expectations, the factors that shape these goals before entering college, and the institutional role in shaping them while at college.
{"title":"Is Student Success Labeled Institutional Failure? Student Goals and Graduation Rates in the Accountability Debate at Community Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 1.","authors":"Thomas R. Bailey, Davis Jenkins, Timothy Leinbach","doi":"10.7916/D8R218HZ","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8R218HZ","url":null,"abstract":"Community colleges are open-door institutions serving many students with characteristics that can make college completion a challenge. Their graduation rates are often considered low, but their students do not always have earning a degree as a goal. While individuals may feel that their college experience was a success, standard graduation rate measures of performance count a student’s enrollment as a failure unless it culminates in a credential or transfer to a four-year institution. This paper explores the impact of students’ reasons for enrollment and educational expectations on their outcomes and, thus, on the performance of their college, showing that community college students with degree and transfer goals are more likely to graduate or transfer. Still, an analysis suggests that even among only students who state that their goal is a degree, certificate, or transfer, fewer than 50 percent achieve that goal within six years. Moreover, large gaps in success rates for Black and Hispanic students cannot be explained by differences in either their reason for enrolling or their educational expectations. We also show that students’ educational expectations should not be treated as fixed, and that, not surprisingly, the experience of college has a role in shaping their expectations. We conclude that educators and policy makers should be cautious in using student goals as benchmarks for success, and that assumptions about student goals should not be used to discourage efforts to improve overall performance and reduce disparities between groups. Colleges need to recognize the dynamic nature of student intentions and expectations, the factors that shape these goals before entering college, and the institutional role in shaping them while at college.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115007460","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}
According to the U.S. Census (2000), 42 percent of adults in the United States between the ages of 25 and 64 have no more than a high school education (authors’ calculations). Unfortunately, however, most new jobs and the vast majority of jobs that pay wages sufficient to support a family require at least some education beyond high school (Carnevale & Derochers, 2003), and low educational attainment is associated with high rates of unemployment and poverty. Community colleges are an important entry point to postsecondary education for adults with no previous college education or even a high school diploma. In Fall 2002, for example, adults between the ages of 25 and 64 represented 35 percent of fulltime equivalent (FTE) enrollments at two-year public colleges, compared with only 15 percent of FTE undergraduate enrollments at four-year public institutions (authors’ calculations, based on U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Moreover, more than two-thirds of the community college students who entered postsecondary education at age 25 or older were low income (authors’ calculations based on “Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study” [BPS:96/01], 2003) The potential of community colleges to serve as a “pathway” for lowskill adults to college and career-path employment, therefore, is evident. Across the nation, several major projects are underway whose goal is to develop policies and practices supportive of this role. Funded by national foundations, these initiatives include the Ford Foundation’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative and the National Governor’s Association’s Pathways to Advancement project, funded by Lumina Foundation for Education. Despite this interest, relatively little is known about the unique experiences and the educational and employment outcomes of adults who enter community college with limited education. We do know that their experiences and outcomes differ from those of traditional college-aged students. Compared with community college students who enrolled soon after high school (at ages 18-24), those who start later (at ages 25-64) are more likely to earn a certificate and less likely to earn an associate degree. The late starters are also far less likely to transfer to a four-year institution and earn a bachelor’s degree. Indeed, among students who entered a community college for the first time in 1995-96, 60% of older first-time students did not earn any credential or transfer to a baccalaureate program after six years, compared with 40 percent of younger, first-time students (authors’ calculations, based on BPS:96/01, 2003). This Brief summarizes findings from a new study that seeks to fill information gaps about older community college students. Researchers used student record information from the Washington State Community and Technical College System to examine the educational experience and attainment as well as the employment and earnings of a sample of adult students, five years after first enrolling. The
{"title":"Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for Community College Policy and Practice from a Longitudinal Student Tracking Study. CCRC Brief Number 25.","authors":"David Prince, Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8WD47XR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8WD47XR","url":null,"abstract":"According to the U.S. Census (2000), 42 percent of adults in the United States between the ages of 25 and 64 have no more than a high school education (authors’ calculations). Unfortunately, however, most new jobs and the vast majority of jobs that pay wages sufficient to support a family require at least some education beyond high school (Carnevale & Derochers, 2003), and low educational attainment is associated with high rates of unemployment and poverty. Community colleges are an important entry point to postsecondary education for adults with no previous college education or even a high school diploma. In Fall 2002, for example, adults between the ages of 25 and 64 represented 35 percent of fulltime equivalent (FTE) enrollments at two-year public colleges, compared with only 15 percent of FTE undergraduate enrollments at four-year public institutions (authors’ calculations, based on U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Moreover, more than two-thirds of the community college students who entered postsecondary education at age 25 or older were low income (authors’ calculations based on “Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study” [BPS:96/01], 2003) The potential of community colleges to serve as a “pathway” for lowskill adults to college and career-path employment, therefore, is evident. Across the nation, several major projects are underway whose goal is to develop policies and practices supportive of this role. Funded by national foundations, these initiatives include the Ford Foundation’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative and the National Governor’s Association’s Pathways to Advancement project, funded by Lumina Foundation for Education. Despite this interest, relatively little is known about the unique experiences and the educational and employment outcomes of adults who enter community college with limited education. We do know that their experiences and outcomes differ from those of traditional college-aged students. Compared with community college students who enrolled soon after high school (at ages 18-24), those who start later (at ages 25-64) are more likely to earn a certificate and less likely to earn an associate degree. The late starters are also far less likely to transfer to a four-year institution and earn a bachelor’s degree. Indeed, among students who entered a community college for the first time in 1995-96, 60% of older first-time students did not earn any credential or transfer to a baccalaureate program after six years, compared with 40 percent of younger, first-time students (authors’ calculations, based on BPS:96/01, 2003). This Brief summarizes findings from a new study that seeks to fill information gaps about older community college students. Researchers used student record information from the Washington State Community and Technical College System to examine the educational experience and attainment as well as the employment and earnings of a sample of adult students, five years after first enrolling. The ","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127738095","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, Timothy Leinbach, M. Scott, M. Alfonso, Gregory S. Kienzl, Benjamin C. Kennedy
This Brief presents a profile of the enrollment, demographic, and educational characteristics, and the educational goals, of community college students in occupational programs. It compares their features with those of community college students in academic programs and with baccalaureate students. This analysis further considers the distinct features of occupational students enrolled in certificate degree programs. The Brief stands alone as a comparative description of these students, but also provides important background material for CCRC’s companion Briefs on postsecondary occupational students, Educational Outcomes of Postsecondary Occupational Students and Who Benefits from Postsecondary Occupational Education? Findings from the 1980s and 1990s. Community college students, as defined here, are those taking for-credit courses at a two-year or less than two-year institution, or at a four-year institution; and are pursuing a certificate or associate degree, or seeking no degree. Thus, community college student is a descriptive term independent of the type of institution that the student is attending; rather, the designation is based on the student’s type of degree program. While we include some students at fouryear institutions because of their stated degree objective; nearly 90 percent of all community colleges students fitting this definition attend two-year or less than two-year institutions, with more than threequarters attending public two-year institutions. Occupational students constitute a group within the community college student population whose selfreported major is in one of the following vocational fields of study: agricultural business and production, agricultural sciences, business, communication technologies, computer and information science, construction, engineering, engineering technologies, health professions, home economics, mechanics and repair, personal services, precision production, protective services, science technologies, or transportation. Academic students also constitute a group of community colleges students; their selfreported major is in an academic field of study (humanities, mathematics, science, or social science). Baccalaureate students are those taking for-credit courses toward a bachelor’s degree at a four-year institution. The purpose of this profile of occupational students is to identify and highlight the distinctive enrollment and demographic characteristics of these students and to contrast them with other – and more widely studied – students in postsecondary education. We conclude the Brief with policy recommendations that could promote beneficial educational outcomes for postsecondary occupational students.
{"title":"The Characteristics of Occupational Students in Postsecondary Education. CCRC Brief Number 21.","authors":"Thomas R. Bailey, Timothy Leinbach, M. Scott, M. Alfonso, Gregory S. Kienzl, Benjamin C. Kennedy","doi":"10.7916/D8GF12V8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8GF12V8","url":null,"abstract":"This Brief presents a profile of the enrollment, demographic, and educational characteristics, and the educational goals, of community college students in occupational programs. It compares their features with those of community college students in academic programs and with baccalaureate students. This analysis further considers the distinct features of occupational students enrolled in certificate degree programs. The Brief stands alone as a comparative description of these students, but also provides important background material for CCRC’s companion Briefs on postsecondary occupational students, Educational Outcomes of Postsecondary Occupational Students and Who Benefits from Postsecondary Occupational Education? Findings from the 1980s and 1990s. Community college students, as defined here, are those taking for-credit courses at a two-year or less than two-year institution, or at a four-year institution; and are pursuing a certificate or associate degree, or seeking no degree. Thus, community college student is a descriptive term independent of the type of institution that the student is attending; rather, the designation is based on the student’s type of degree program. While we include some students at fouryear institutions because of their stated degree objective; nearly 90 percent of all community colleges students fitting this definition attend two-year or less than two-year institutions, with more than threequarters attending public two-year institutions. Occupational students constitute a group within the community college student population whose selfreported major is in one of the following vocational fields of study: agricultural business and production, agricultural sciences, business, communication technologies, computer and information science, construction, engineering, engineering technologies, health professions, home economics, mechanics and repair, personal services, precision production, protective services, science technologies, or transportation. Academic students also constitute a group of community colleges students; their selfreported major is in an academic field of study (humanities, mathematics, science, or social science). Baccalaureate students are those taking for-credit courses toward a bachelor’s degree at a four-year institution. The purpose of this profile of occupational students is to identify and highlight the distinctive enrollment and demographic characteristics of these students and to contrast them with other – and more widely studied – students in postsecondary education. We conclude the Brief with policy recommendations that could promote beneficial educational outcomes for postsecondary occupational students.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130403855","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}
For many students at community colleges, finding a path to degree completion is the equivalent of navigating a shapeless river on a dark night. While academic preparation and financial supports are critical components of student success, subtle institutional features may also play an important role. This paper thus reviews the evidence for what is called the structure hypothesis: that community college students will be more likely to persist and succeed in programs that are tightly and consciously structured, with relatively little room for individuals to unintentionally deviate from paths toward completion, and with limited bureaucratic obstacles for students to circumnavigate. This review of the literature inside and outside of higher education suggests that the lack of structure in many community colleges is likely to result in lessthan-optimal decisions by students about whether and how to persist toward a credential. Though there is no silver-bullet intervention to address this problem, this paper highlights several promising programs and suggests directions for future experimentation and research.
{"title":"The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students' Progress at Community Colleges? CCRC Working Paper No. 25. Assessment of Evidence Series.","authors":"Judith E. Scott-Clayton","doi":"10.7916/D8183FRG","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8183FRG","url":null,"abstract":"For many students at community colleges, finding a path to degree completion is the equivalent of navigating a shapeless river on a dark night. While academic preparation and financial supports are critical components of student success, subtle institutional features may also play an important role. This paper thus reviews the evidence for what is called the structure hypothesis: that community college students will be more likely to persist and succeed in programs that are tightly and consciously structured, with relatively little room for individuals to unintentionally deviate from paths toward completion, and with limited bureaucratic obstacles for students to circumnavigate. This review of the literature inside and outside of higher education suggests that the lack of structure in many community colleges is likely to result in lessthan-optimal decisions by students about whether and how to persist toward a credential. Though there is no silver-bullet intervention to address this problem, this paper highlights several promising programs and suggests directions for future experimentation and research.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122218339","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}
D. Perin, R. H. Bork, Stephen T. Peverly, L. Mason, Megan Vaselewski
Instructors in community college developmental education programs are constantly seeking new ways to improve outcomes for their students, but, to date, there has been a shortage of empirical studies on the effectiveness of such efforts. The current study provides evidence on the potential efficacy of an approach to helping students develop an important academic skill, written summarization. In two experiments, a contextualized intervention was administered to developmental reading and writing students in two community colleges. The intervention was a 10-week curricular supplement that emphasized written summarization, as well as vocabulary knowledge, question generation, reading comprehension, and persuasive writing. The intervention was based on reading passages from science textbooks, with generic text from developmental education textbooks added in the second experiment. In Experiment 1 (n = 322), greater gain was found for intervention than for comparison participants along three dimensions of written summarization: the proportion of main ideas from the source text included in the summary, accuracy, and word count (ES = 0.26–0.42). Experiment 2 (n = 246) set out to replicate and extend Experiment 1. Results were replicated for three of five summarization measures (ES = 0.36–0.70), but it was also found that intervention participants showed higher amounts of copying from the source text at posttest than the comparison group. In extending the intervention to a different text condition, it was found that students receiving science text outperformed students receiving generic text on the inclusion of main ideas, as well as on accuracy (ES = 0.32–0.33), providing moderate support for contextualization. Although summarization gains did not transfer to a standardized reading comprehension test in either experiment, the findings of this study suggest that the intervention had utility for academically underprepared postsecondary students.
{"title":"A Contextualized Intervention for Community College Developmental Reading and Writing Students. CCRC Working Paper No. 38.","authors":"D. Perin, R. H. Bork, Stephen T. Peverly, L. Mason, Megan Vaselewski","doi":"10.7916/D82N59D6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D82N59D6","url":null,"abstract":"Instructors in community college developmental education programs are constantly seeking new ways to improve outcomes for their students, but, to date, there has been a shortage of empirical studies on the effectiveness of such efforts. The current study provides evidence on the potential efficacy of an approach to helping students develop an important academic skill, written summarization. In two experiments, a contextualized intervention was administered to developmental reading and writing students in two community colleges. The intervention was a 10-week curricular supplement that emphasized written summarization, as well as vocabulary knowledge, question generation, reading comprehension, and persuasive writing. The intervention was based on reading passages from science textbooks, with generic text from developmental education textbooks added in the second experiment. In Experiment 1 (n = 322), greater gain was found for intervention than for comparison participants along three dimensions of written summarization: the proportion of main ideas from the source text included in the summary, accuracy, and word count (ES = 0.26–0.42). Experiment 2 (n = 246) set out to replicate and extend Experiment 1. Results were replicated for three of five summarization measures (ES = 0.36–0.70), but it was also found that intervention participants showed higher amounts of copying from the source text at posttest than the comparison group. In extending the intervention to a different text condition, it was found that students receiving science text outperformed students receiving generic text on the inclusion of main ideas, as well as on accuracy (ES = 0.32–0.33), providing moderate support for contextualization. Although summarization gains did not transfer to a standardized reading comprehension test in either experiment, the findings of this study suggest that the intervention had utility for academically underprepared postsecondary students.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130661115","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}
This paper examines the research from within and outside of higher education on the practices of high-performance organizations. It assesses the extent to which community colleges generally are following these practices and evaluates current reform efforts in light of models of organizational effectiveness that emerge from the research literature. It then reviews research on strategies for engaging faculty and staff in organizational innovation and describes particular challenges community colleges face on this front. The concluding section recommends concrete steps community college leaders can take to redesign how they manage programs and services to increase rates of student completion on a scale needed to help meet national goals for college attainment.
{"title":"Redesigning Community Colleges for Completion: Lessons from Research on High-Performance Organizations. CCRC Brief. Number 48.","authors":"Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8DZ0HJS","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8DZ0HJS","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the research from within and outside of higher education on the practices of high-performance organizations. It assesses the extent to which community colleges generally are following these practices and evaluates current reform efforts in light of models of organizational effectiveness that emerge from the research literature. It then reviews research on strategies for engaging faculty and staff in organizational innovation and describes particular challenges community colleges face on this front. The concluding section recommends concrete steps community college leaders can take to redesign how they manage programs and services to increase rates of student completion on a scale needed to help meet national goals for college attainment.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127749227","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}
{"title":"Formative Evaluation of the Student Achievement Initiative \"Learning Year\".","authors":"Davis Jenkins, T. Ellwein, Katherine T. Boswell","doi":"10.7916/D80G3H6W","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D80G3H6W","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121498788","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}
Most community colleges and many state community college systems collect extensive data on individual students. Unfortunately, these data are often underutilized in efforts to improve outcomes for individual students and colleges. Community college systems and their constituent colleges have only recently come to realize the potential for using student unit record (SUR) data for more than reporting student enrollments and program graduates. By organizing these data into termby-term student transcript records over several years and incorporating individual student demographic data, colleges and states can create a powerful resource for understanding patterns of student progression and achievement over time. Understanding how students actually progress through their college programs is essential in developing strategies and choosing appropriate interventions to improve student outcomes. The challenge is to build expertise and capacity in college and state agency research departments to transform raw SUR data into meaningful information of practical use for policymakers and practitioners.
{"title":"Using Longitudinal Data to Increase Community College Student Success: A Guide to Measuring Milestone and Momentum Point Attainment. CCRC Research Tools No. 2.","authors":"D. Leinbach, Davis Jenkins","doi":"10.7916/D8736NZX","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8736NZX","url":null,"abstract":"Most community colleges and many state community college systems collect extensive data on individual students. Unfortunately, these data are often underutilized in efforts to improve outcomes for individual students and colleges. Community college systems and their constituent colleges have only recently come to realize the potential for using student unit record (SUR) data for more than reporting student enrollments and program graduates. By organizing these data into termby-term student transcript records over several years and incorporating individual student demographic data, colleges and states can create a powerful resource for understanding patterns of student progression and achievement over time. Understanding how students actually progress through their college programs is essential in developing strategies and choosing appropriate interventions to improve student outcomes. The challenge is to build expertise and capacity in college and state agency research departments to transform raw SUR data into meaningful information of practical use for policymakers and practitioners.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134031383","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}
This study examines the ways that student support services in community colleges inadvertently perpetuate and legitimate disadvantage. Using interview data from students at two colleges in the northeast, we find that although support services are open to all students, only those who come to the college with pre-existing social and cultural resources can take advantage of them. However, because they are presented as open-access, students not able to make use of support services interpret their failure to progress toward a degree as personal, rather than structural.
{"title":"Do Support Services at Community Colleges Encourage Success or Reproduce Disadvantage? An Exploratory Study of Students in Two Community Colleges. CCRC Working Paper No. 10.","authors":"M. Karp, Lauren O'Gara, K. Hughes","doi":"10.7916/D8WQ0BXK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8WQ0BXK","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines the ways that student support services in community colleges inadvertently perpetuate and legitimate disadvantage. Using interview data from students at two colleges in the northeast, we find that although support services are open to all students, only those who come to the college with pre-existing social and cultural resources can take advantage of them. However, because they are presented as open-access, students not able to make use of support services interpret their failure to progress toward a degree as personal, rather than structural.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130098445","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}
Michelle Van Noy, J. Jacobs, Suzanne Korey, T. Bailey, K. Hughes
Postsecondary noncredit education has become increasingly common in recent years, and at many community colleges, noncredit programs enroll more students than do credit programs (Bailey et al., 2003). Courses connected with workforce instruction and contract training account for much of this growth (Dougherty & Bakia, 1999), and such courses are noted for their important role in responding flexibly to shifting workforce demands. Still, the growth in community college noncredit workforce education raises questions about whether the colleges are keeping pace with student and industry needs, using resources efficiently, and providing adequate access to all students. The answers to these questions may challenge current state policies and college practices. The leadership of two major community college organizations — the National Council for Workforce Education (NCWE) and the National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET) — sought to collaborate with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) to conduct a study that would illuminate the implications of recent changes in noncredit workforce education. These councils represent senior community college administrators nationwide who are responsible for workforce development and who have been grappling with their stances on noncredit workforce education when considering which policies to advocate. CCRC’s one-year study, summarized in this Brief, included the examination of state policies in all 50 states and case studies at 20 community colleges. Findings from the study document the empirical landscape of noncredit workforce education and identify issues that warrant attention from state policymakers, community college leaders, and policy advocates.
近年来，高等教育非学分教育变得越来越普遍，在许多社区大学，非学分课程比学分课程招收更多的学生(Bailey et al.， 2003)。与劳动力指导和合同培训相关的课程占了这一增长的大部分(Dougherty & Bakia, 1999)，这些课程因其在灵活应对不断变化的劳动力需求方面的重要作用而闻名。然而，社区大学非学分劳动力教育的增长引发了一些问题:这些大学是否跟上了学生和行业的需求，是否有效地利用了资源，是否为所有学生提供了充分的机会。这些问题的答案可能会挑战当前的国家政策和大学实践。两个主要的社区学院组织——全国劳动力教育委员会(NCWE)和全国继续教育和培训委员会(ncet)——的领导层寻求与社区学院研究中心(CCRC)合作，开展一项研究，以阐明最近非学分劳动力教育变化的影响。这些委员会代表了全国范围内负责劳动力发展的高级社区大学管理人员，他们在考虑提倡哪些政策时，一直在努力解决自己在非学分劳动力教育方面的立场。本摘要总结了CCRC为期一年的研究，包括对所有50个州的州政策进行审查，并对20所社区大学进行案例研究。研究结果记录了非学分劳动力教育的经验景观，并确定了值得国家决策者、社区大学领导者和政策倡导者关注的问题。
{"title":"The Landscape of Noncredit Workforce Education: State Policies and Community College Practices","authors":"Michelle Van Noy, J. Jacobs, Suzanne Korey, T. Bailey, K. Hughes","doi":"10.7916/D81Z4CSC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D81Z4CSC","url":null,"abstract":"Postsecondary noncredit education has become increasingly common in recent years, and at many community colleges, noncredit programs enroll more students than do credit programs (Bailey et al., 2003). Courses connected with workforce instruction and contract training account for much of this growth (Dougherty & Bakia, 1999), and such courses are noted for their important role in responding flexibly to shifting workforce demands. Still, the growth in community college noncredit workforce education raises questions about whether the colleges are keeping pace with student and industry needs, using resources efficiently, and providing adequate access to all students. The answers to these questions may challenge current state policies and college practices. The leadership of two major community college organizations — the National Council for Workforce Education (NCWE) and the National Council for Continuing Education and Training (NCCET) — sought to collaborate with the Community College Research Center (CCRC) to conduct a study that would illuminate the implications of recent changes in noncredit workforce education. These councils represent senior community college administrators nationwide who are responsible for workforce development and who have been grappling with their stances on noncredit workforce education when considering which policies to advocate. CCRC’s one-year study, summarized in this Brief, included the examination of state policies in all 50 states and case studies at 20 community colleges. Findings from the study document the empirical landscape of noncredit workforce education and identify issues that warrant attention from state policymakers, community college leaders, and policy advocates.","PeriodicalId":218750,"journal":{"name":"Community College Research Center, Columbia University","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117299173","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：