Search News


Browse Archives

News

Show Them the Money

January 28, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

WASHINGTON – Community college advocates want the Senate to quickly refine and pass the Obama administration’s American Graduation Initiative, which has been on the chamber’s back burner amid debate about health care reform.

The initiative – a piece of the larger Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 – would invest more than $12 billion in the nation’s community colleges during the next 10 years, and calls for 5 million more two-year graduates by 2020. Though the House of Representatives passed a version of the bill last September, the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions has done little but read it since.

These months of silence have made some community college scholars and leaders anxious. For them, the take-away message expressed at a colloquium Wednesday at Center for American Progress on the future of community colleges was loud and clear: hurry up and pass it.

“Everybody’s been talking about the American Graduation Initiative,” said Harry J. Holzer, professor at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. “Let’s move on. Let’s fund it.”

Holzer and Demetra S. Nightingale, principal research scientist at Johns Hopkins University’s Institute for Policy Studies, urged the Senate to fully fund the initiative. They argue, in a policy paper they presented at the gathering, that the initiative’s proposed Community College Challenge Fund would be best spent on “Career Pathway and sectoral training efforts that generate stackable credentials and that integrate remedial efforts and bridge programs into community college curricula.”

Robert I. Lerman, economics professor at American University, also had suggestions for how to spend the Challenge Fund. He argued that these federal dollars should be used to encourage community colleges to partner with professional apprenticeship programs – in which individuals learn a skill trade in a supervised, hands-on environment. Such partnerships, he said, would benefit workers, their employers and community colleges on the way to meeting President Obama’s goal of boosting the number of two-year graduates. Most apprenticeship programs do not have a connection to an institution of higher education and, thus, do not provide their students with the opportunity to use their training to earn a college degree.

“Community college instruction provides the assurance that students have jobs linked to their education and training, thereby lessening the concern of a mismatch between skills taught and skills demanded,” Lerman wrote in the policy paper he presented at the event. “Unlike many community college students who work part-time in jobs unrelated to their degrees, apprentices will see a close connection between their course work and their careers.”

Brian Pusser, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for the Study of Higher Education, offered more specific critiques of the community college initiative. In its current form, the bill requires states that seek eligibility for its funding to have “a statewide longitudinal data system that includes data with respect to community colleges.” This language, Pusser argued, is too vague.

“This section should be strengthened – and community college data collection significantly enhanced – by specifically calling for data on student enrollments in credit and noncredit courses as well as developmental education programs,” Pusser wrote in the policy paper he presented at the colloquium. “These data could be used to improve outcomes in community college developmental education programs and would have great utility for collaborative efforts with elementary-secondary systems designed to reduce the need for remediation at the postsecondary level.”

Some commenting on the policy suggestions presented at the event argued that passage of the American Graduation Initiative – and the introduction of some of the data collecting and sharing systems it proposes – would help streamline and replicate student success initiatives around the country.

“It’s far more complex because we don’t have a system of community colleges in this country,” said Keith Bird, chancellor emeritus of the Kentucky Community and Technical College System. "We have 1,200 institutions of the public variety … and we don’t act like a system. But we could act like a system.… What I suggest is that ultimately – and I think the American Graduation Initiative will allow us to – we create a national system, not in governance but really in practice and in programs and policy.”

On the current status of the bill, Department of Education officials at the event had little comment.

Brenda Dann-Messier, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education, would only say that the department was “eagerly awaiting action in the Senate.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Show Them the Money

  • Sounds great, but ...
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 28, 2010 at 8:30am EST
  • More money for community colleges always sounds great because everyone acts like getting a technical degree will ensure employment. However, it doesn't work that way. My cc is currently training people to be nurses, electricians, etc. Some will get jobs in some fields, but I doubt if the electricians, carpenters, etc. are going to have much luck. In fact, I have many older college transfer students who are looking to get out of a trade and into an office job. One of my best students last year was an electrician, and he left that field because the jobs dried up.

    If the jobs aren't there, then the degree won't help much. Also, at my cc, and many around the country, the college transfer programs are the largest program on campus and growing. The problem that my students are having now is getting into a four-year school after completing the two-year degree. The four-year schools, especially the public ones, are cutting sections, and a bottleneck is forming. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. It would be cruel to push more students into community colleges knowing that many of them will not be able to complete a four-year degree because the capacity at the four-year level is not there.

    Or, are we, as a society, just lowering our expectations? Is the two-year degree, whether technical or in college transfer, the new four-year degree? Is that what we want most of our young people to aspire to? Are we just doing this because it is cheaper?

  • CC Response to AGI - Sounds Great But . . . comment
  • Posted by Imelda V. Cuyugan , Asst. Vice Chancellor for Federal Initiatives at Pima Community College District on January 28, 2010 at 11:30am EST
  • Comment to "Sounds good but . . ." - A two-year education is a stepping stone to a four-year degree. Not all students jump from high school directly to a four-year institutions. In fact, CCs environment and experience for a student is not overwhelming and a great way to introduce and encourage students to pursue a 4-year degree. Your CC needs to form partnerships with 4-year degree so that there is a "joint admission" agreement. This agreement allows students that go through and are admitted at your CC to be also considered admitted with the 4-year institution that your CC has a an agreement with. Additionally, articulation/transfer agreements should be in place between your CC and 4-year institutions so that the credits for courses that students take at the CC are accepted and transferrable to the 4-year institution. This not only encourage students to complete their 4-year degree in the same time frame as when they would have directly enrolled at a 4-year instiution but it also does not put the student through an experience of re-taking courses that they have already taken at the CC, cuts down the cost of fees involved in retaking the course at the 4-year institution and most especially since 2-year institutions are more affordable, flexible in its course scheduling to accomodate working adults/parents and accessible in various modalities of instruction and student learning (online, hybrid, traditional, etc.) - again to accomodate the diverse backgrounds of students that traditionally seek education at CCs. Your CC can also get a partnership agreement wherein students may complete the first 2 years or more of their education at CC or fcomplete 60 to 90 credits towards a 4-year degree at the CC (for reasons just mentioned previously) and take the remaining credits/courses required to complete a bachelor degree at the 4-year institution. I am proud to say that my CC has been doing all of these for the past 3 years now and so we are on track with the President's AGI and is positioned to meet the challenge of CCs graduating 5million more students by 2020. Strengthening Adult Education at CC is going to be in this initiatives ability to meet this graduation goal.

  • And why are CC's more affordable?
  • Posted by Margaret Hanzimanolis , adjunct faculty at De Anza college and Canada college on January 28, 2010 at 12:30pm EST
  • And why are CC's more affordable? The twenty-year trend away from FT TT jobs in community colleges (seen in four-year colleges as well, but perhaps less dramatically) is the major reason.

    To revise or refine the role of community college education without taking into account, and applying an appropriate remedy, to the academic staffing patterns is a mistake. The ratio of FT to PT is now somewhere around 30/70. Vermont founded the only CC in the nation whose instructional staff is entirely Part time.

    Part time instructional staff typically have no health coverage, no retirement, no office space, no collective bargaining protection, and weak institutional connections: by design. This design must change if the federal government, CC institutional leaders, and students have in mind a vigorous reanimation of CC education.

  • Effect of Cutting Loan Subsidies
  • Posted by Roland C DuBay , President at Roland C DuBay & Co. on January 28, 2010 at 4:30pm EST
  • If President Obama's suggestion to cut loan subsidies to student lenders as the way to recoup the additional funds spent on shoring up community colleges is accepted, what happens to the student loan program rates? Increases to the Pell Grant program would benefit the lower income strata, but Student Loans are often the means by which students from middle income America fund their education. Legislation needs to carefully evaluate the impact on students ... all the students, not just a segment. Certainly the subsidies have a more far-reaching benefit than only helping the lending institution as cost savings are passed to the student consumer. This seems to be another example of bashing the private sector businesses to gain a popular approval for an education initiative (which everyone is for ... like mom and apple pie).

  • Response to Imelda
  • Posted by CC Prof on January 28, 2010 at 9:30pm EST
  • My CC both has a bilateral agreement with the local 4-year school and belongs to a statewide articulation agreement with all the public 4-year schools. But the local university has reduced the number of sections that it is offering. This means that they are raising admissions standards. Under the bilateral agreement, students are only guaranteed admission if they have both the two-year degree and a 3.0 GPA. A student with a 2.8 GPA can be denied admission. There are no other local 4-year schools. Many of our students do not have the money to move. This greatly limits their options.

    In California, there are many such articulation agreements, but this year some CC transfers who were admitted to the Cal State system over the summer were kicked out in the fall due to lack of capacity. The agreements aren't worth much if the capacity is not there at the 4-year level.

    Also, allowing a student to transfer in up to 90 units from a CC is definitely a way to deal with this capacity problem in the short-term. However, CC's generally cannot teach upper-division courses. This means that if a student transfers with 90 units, then the majority of that student,s units are in lower-division and survey courses. I teach such courses, of course, and they are very important. But they are meant, partly, as preparation for upper division courses. I would really hate for this country to move to a system where those who can't afford or those who don't have the opportunity have to complete 75% of their undergraduate education at a CC.

    I started college at a CC, and I received and excellent education there. But I was definitely ready to move on to a university after 2 years.

    Also, my college is seeing many junior and senior students from the local 4-year school who can't get enough units per semester at their home instituion. It looks to me like an unplanned shift if taking place where the CC's are starting to share a greater burden of the teaching for the 4-year degree.

    My CC just grew by about 16% this year in terms of enrollment, and other CC's in the state grew as well. We worked hard and managed to get courses open and staffed. But when some of those students attempt to transfer to the 4-year schools, they are going to encounter difficulties. The 4-years schools are cutting capacity. This is going to be a serious problem. I was just expressing these concerns in my first post.

  • Pres. DuBay
  • Posted by DFS on January 28, 2010 at 9:30pm EST
  • That's right. We must 'bash' the private sector, under the ObamaNation.

    That will carry a lot of weight here, among the 'journalists,' but not the commentors, at IHE.

  • Roland's comment...
  • Posted by Jane , Member of the Middle Class on January 28, 2010 at 10:45pm EST
  • To (re)phrase Roland's comment, "Student Loans are often the [ONLY] means by which students from middle income America fund their education. Legislation needs to carefully evaluate the impact on students ... all the students, not just a segment." Legislation, even the recent loan repayment legislation, tends to favor college students who fall into several "at-risk" categories that commonly overlap with socioeconomic status. In fact, during my entire college career (I am currently in the PhD - ABD phase and working on chapter four of my dissertation) I have been classified as middle class and a member of the "majority" (White). This classification was based on my marital status; if I had been single and merely living with my spouse and our child, I would have qualified for grants and subsidized federal loans. I would have, based on my personal income and demographic history, been classified as a "single parent" and "first-generation college student."

    Currently, these status designations would have allowed me to apply for scholarships devised to "raise the floor" for students deemed "at-risk." However, I am going to struggle through for another year, work to earn the shortfall in tuition (as I always have), and accept the FACT that because I did not (and do not) meet the criteria of "at risk" I am financially “at-risk.” I have never qualified for grants. Nor did I have many options concerning academic scholarships - the majority of these subsidies are need based and/or contingent upon classification into some other dubious "risk" category. Further, the interest rates on my unsubsidized loans are significantly greater than the interest rates on subsidized loans – I would have been qualified for the latter had I not been designated as “middle class.”

    In fact, I anticipate having to work two jobs for several years to repay said loans. Yet, I graduated with national and institutional honors from both my BA and MA programs, and currently have a solid 4.0 in my PhD program. Moreover, I have NEVER had to repeat a class due to my failure to attend or otherwise perform according to expectations, nor have I ever needed tuition for remedial education. Yet, the closest I ever came to a merit based scholarship was a graduate level teaching/research assistantship which was later withdrawn during my second year due to my “middle class status” and to meet the needs of incoming comparatively “at-risk” students.

    So, to sum, as far as I am concerned my husband and I have personally subsidized the education of a particular segment of the postsecondary population for years – directly and indirectly! Even more demoralizing is the fact that I will continue to subsidize the education of these populations as I pay down the debt I have accrued at a higher interest rate than I would have incurred had I simply divorced my husband and chose to cohabitate. I am not certain, but my experience probably illustrates the frustration many “middle class” “nontraditional” college students. All of the recent legislation concerning increases in educational financing and student loan reforms simply confound the existing status quo.