The Completion Agenda: More Questions than Answers

On July 14, 2009, President Obama announced the American Graduation Initiative (AGI), which called for 5 million additional community college degrees and certificates by 2020. The Initiative was designed to develop a highly skilled workforce to meet the challenges of the 21st century economy and close the skills gap in the United States. As the American Graduate Initiative has gained national recognition, it has morphed into what many are now calling the “Completion Agenda.”

The “Completion Agenda” is a not a federal mandate with defined implementation parameters, but rather a call for post-secondary educators to focus on college completion as a way to begin to close the skills gap and positively impact the United States’ economy. As a former community college administrator and faculty member, I am in full support of college completion. However, as I research the “Completion Agenda,” I seem to have more questions than answers:

1) If community college educators have not been focused on helping students complete courses, programs, and degrees, exactly what have we been doing?

2) Will policymakers/educators establish a universal definition of completers/completion?

3) How will completion be measured for the “Completion Agenda?”

4) Will a common data system be developed for reporting and data mining?

5) Will funding be available for all states to develop statewide data systems?

6) By 2020, President Obama wants the U.S. to become the nation with the highest number of college graduates. Will getting a “degree” or “credential” prepare students for the jobs that will be in demand?

7) Is it realistic to think that we can achieve a 50 percent increase in completion which equates to 5 million additional community college graduates by 2020?

8) Should graduating with a degree or credential be the gold standard for completion? Many times, students accomplish their goals, but they do not receive a degree or credential.

9) Students must be advised in such a way that enables them to meet their individual goals while also supporting institutional completion goals. Do community colleges need to develop new, different, or more comprehensive advising services?

10) What additional strategies should community colleges implement that will result in higher completion rates?

11) Will community colleges be rewarded financially for completion? Many current funding models reward enrollment, but there are only a few states currently working on performance/outcome-based funding models.

12) What types of financial and human resources will colleges need to manage this “Completion Agenda?” Is this an unfunded mandate?

13) When can community colleges expect national policy that focuses specifically on completion?

14) Who will be accountable for tracking national “Completion Agenda” progress?

15) Who will be accountable if the “Completion Agenda” fails?

16) When the Presidential Administration changes, what will happen to this initiative?

Almost two years into the completion agenda conversation, I remain cautiously optimistic. Student success is my top priority, and I am guessing that holds true for most community college educators. It will take open communication, patience, strong partnerships, and a great deal of collaboration to make a positive difference for our students. I am up for the challenge. Are you?

Sheila Mauipin

CCLP Block #66

Completion Agenda: Is Your College Committed?

I often say that community colleges will be the unsung heroes of tomorrow’s workforce and economic development in the United States. In the past, community colleges have served as the gateway to higher education for individuals who otherwise would not have enrolled in college. Open admissions and smaller class sizes make community colleges particularly appealing to students who harbor fear about the “college experience."

With the recent national attention that community colleges have received from the Obama Administration, it is no surprise that the expectations for increasing student persistence and graduation rates have become the primary focus for many colleges and national organizations. I can very vividly recall early in my career, when colleges were focused primarily on recruitment and retention; in fact, in the state of Texas, most public colleges and universities were required to submit a report detailing the results of “recruitment and retention-based” activities annually to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. While the report may have been useful in identifying best practices in college recruitment and retention efforts state-wide, it did not include details related to graduation rates of the students enrolled.

President Obama’s American Graduation Initiative was the impetus behind a “Call to Action” for community colleges nationwide. The Completion Agenda serves as the springboard for community colleges to begin focusing [more heavily] on student graduation rates. National organizations such as the National Institute for Staff & Organizational Development, American Association of Community Colleges, League for Innovation in the Community College, Association of Community College Trustees, the Center for Community College Student Engagement, and Phi Theta Kappa, have all pledged their support for increasing student graduation and completion rates by 50% within community colleges. Approximately 60 community colleges throughout the nation have pledged their support of the completion agenda by signing the “Call to Action” pledge with AACC, and many of them are working diligently to develop programs, policies, and procedures that support students from the point of entry through graduation.

There are over 1,100 community colleges in the United States, and it is very disconcerting to learn that only 60 have actually signed the pledge. Where are the other 1,000 or so colleges? Are they not just as committed to seeing their students persist through graduation? Many colleges have expressed grave concern about the implications of increasing student graduation rates nationwide. Of the most noted, is the issue of student underpreparedness. What is the expectation of faculty and what is their role in ensuring students are successful in completing their coursework? Solution: water-down the curriculum, implement higher admissions standards, limit student enrollment—all recommendations as potential strategies for increasing completion rates among community college students; but are these really viable solutions for meeting the goal? I would think not!

Gone are the days of focusing solely on student “access." If community colleges are truly committed to the goal of college completion, they will need to reinvent themselves and start thinking of more creative solutions for addressing the college completion challenge. What better reward is there in the educational profession than seeing students successfully achieve their academic and career goals!

Shantay Grays

CCLP Block #66

Student Success Courses: First Impressions

Freshman Experience, The First-Year Experience, Student Orientation…all of these titles are associated with courses aimed at transitioning and acclimating new students to college life. The course descriptions are different, but the general concept is the same. “Student success” is the term most often associated with these types of courses and is probably one of the better suited titles. I can vividly recall my first year as a college student at a rural four-year institution in Louisiana. The college was located in my hometown, and I had visited the campus on several occasions for social events and summer camps; however, I saw college from a completely different perspective once I was officially enrolled as a student. I was required to enroll in a Freshman Orientation class and much to my dismay, it lived up to my horrifying expectations. The class was held in a theater-style classroom that held approximately 75-80 students. The professor was stern and un-engaging, which occasionally caused the class to be disruptive. There was very little opportunity for me to interact on a personal level with the professor, and at times I felt intimidated and overwhelmed by the class. At the end of the semester, I knew little more about the university or what it took to be successful in college than when I first started.

Now, as a community college administrator, I often wonder about the impressions that students have about the student success course at my institution. Is the course intimidating? Is the instructor engaging or motivational? Are the learning objectives for the course clear to the students? I am a firm believer that a student success course should be both informative and engaging. It’s more than showing students where the library is or how to manage their time. I think the course is much more robust if it incorporates non-traditional components such as student life, athletics and recreational sports, student government, childcare, and job placement assistance. The “freshman student” at a community college is not the typical high school graduate; many of these students are between the ages of 26-35; some have families with small children, and many of them have full-time jobs. Therefore, it is imperative that student success courses incorporate elements that are most relevant to the students enrolled in the class. There is no (and should not be) a universal model for student success course delivery. In a recent visit to the Community College Leadership Program Block, Dr. Terry O’Banion challenged the group to be innovative by developing a “new educational architecture” for course delivery in community colleges. The basis of his recommendation is rooted in the ideology that traditional course delivery is the most accepted, yet inefficient way to teach students. Community college administrators and faculty must seek ways to ensure that students are successful, even if it means offering the course in a non-traditional format. Hybrid courses and learning communities are just a couple of innovative delivery methods that have been proven successful. If institutions are really committed to the concept of student success, it will be imperative that they be able to adapt to the needs of the students they are serving.

Shantay Grays

CCLP Block #66

Student Success Pathways: Smart Practices

The Center for Community College Student Engagement (CCCSE) in a recently issued report focused on teaching and learning as the heart of student success. The Center’s report says, “we must use data as an effective practice to improve the educational experience for community college students and thus strengthen student learning, persistence, and completion.”

Most students cannot achieve success on their own; they need the institutional support necessary to thrive academically. Terry O’Banion in a presentation to the Community College Leadership Program outlined what institutional conditions must exist to create student success pathways that work. A core of key leaders is his first requirement on the list: trustees, presidents, top administrators, senate/union leadership, and top faculty leaders.

Even though funding for community colleges in Texas was cut by 20% this year, trustees must be able to keep funding focused where it is most critical—student success. Learning to do more with less is part of our future, but by focusing on institutional effectiveness, we can gather evidence needed to make more efficient choices. We do not have to sacrifice the integrity of our college communities and by extension the pathways open to student success.

Going back to Terry O’Banion’s ideas on creating student success pathways that work, I think there are several steps that we can take to achieve this goal of more with less. We can concentrate on where students are failing or dropping out and create systems of intervention to address those situations early and often. Isn’t this the most important area of focus?

We can also examine what programs and practices are evidentially proving to be powerful and integrate them more fully into the entire system. Do you have any ideas about smart practices at other community colleges?

At Austin Community College (ACC) (TX), one of our challenges for keeping these pathways open for every student is our ability to pull together data from our multiple campuses to inform our planning and budget committees for the Austin district as a whole. We need to realign current resources and identify new resources in terms of funds, people, facilities, and community support to achieve the overall goal of doubling the number of students who successfully complete a credential with market place value.

We are doing a lot of things right at ACC in the area of student success and one particular area of achievement has been our Faculty Coaching program. Dr. Steve Kinslow, President of ACC, was asked to report on this program at the recent meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is releasing a report this month on best practices in improving student success entitled, Institutional Strategies for Increasing Postsecondary Student Success. It identifies the core components of programmatic policies and practices that promote student success. It also includes specific examples in Texas and other states’ programs that are replicable. Austin Community College is included in this report as a successful model!

Nan McCraven

CCLP Block #66

We Want to Hear from You!: What Are Your Beliefs Regarding Developmental Education

I hope no one denies the need for adult developmental education in the United States. I do not have statistics in my back pocket, but because of my experience as a community college English instructor and my connections to peers across the country, I am aware that the need is undeniably present in every community in the U.S. To what extent? I’ll leave that detail to the institutional researchers. My purpose here is not to discuss the numbers, only the need. And I want to tackle the need from a philosophical point of view. I want to talk about beliefs—mostly by asking a number of questions.

Whose responsibility is it to teach adults who are placed in developmental education? Since these students did not get what they needed from elementary, middle, and high schools, should school districts be responsible for re-teaching them reading, writing, and math?

Since school districts are in the business of teaching children and not adults, does the responsibility fall to colleges and universities?

Because universities have their entrance requirements, should they offer pre-collegiate courses?

As institutions of higher education, should community colleges be offering pre-collegiate courses? Really?

Who should pay? Does the state “owe” this basic education to adults so that they can better navigate their communities or this brave new world? Or perhaps because students should take responsibility for their own achievements (or failures) - they should also be the sole bearers of the costs, right?

I have heard a colleague or two say, “Some people just aren’t college material.” Is this statement true? Do you believe it? Should colleges not give hope to students who have not mastered basic skills? Should colleges instead send them away and work only with those students who truly are “college ready?”

When you work with basic skills students or remedial students or developmental education students—whatever you want to call them—what is your attitude? Do they know that you believe they don’t belong? Or do you truly believe that they can succeed and earn a college degree? Can the students infer what your attitude is?

The purpose of this post is not to share what I think are the answers to these questions. I am just stirring the pot (or kicking a hornet's nest), pointing out some of the views on this topic. Rather than express my opinions, I am more interested in hearing what you think. I’ll repeat what I have heard: “Some people just aren’t college material.” Do you subscribe to this belief? Please post your comments.

Steven Reynolds

CCLP Block 66

The Placement Test: The End All to be All?

I often wonder in spite of all of our efforts as community college educators, do we have the correct structures in place for today’s students to succeed in higher education? This leading question has me examining other community college issues that focus on the need to remain accessible, affordable, and relevant for students.

As students arrive on our campuses, we herd them through our processes to get them admitted and inputted into our systems in preparation for assessment and class registration. But how many of our colleges provide a pre-assessment or at best a “mini orientation” to the college placement test? Would a pre-assessment or a mini orientation help improve students’ test scores, thus resulting in fewer developmental courses to take? I don’t know, but maybe there is an “app” for that!

After our students are advised into which English and Math courses to take, do our colleges mandate a college success course in addition to developmental courses? If yes, is the college success course offered in multiple formats to address the learning styles of today’s students? Placement tests evaluate the college readiness skills of our students for English, reading, and math proficiencies, however the placement test is not the only element that should be considered when assessing students. Is the student motivated for college success, do they have test anxiety, are they confident, and how well do they manage their time? What other factors should educators consider about potential success? Should the course be offered as traditional terms in 16- or 18-week blocks. Should we offer the course in modules? Should we have a lab? Should we have it structured so that a student can move as fast or slow as they need, to develop proficiency in pre-college skills?

As educators I wonder if we are doing all we can to retain students in the course, helping students persist, pulling students forward using peer support, and helping students map out a plan for their college completion. Some of our college peers are doing things such as:

El Paso Community College has strong partnerships with independent school districts to move students through early college programs;

Mira Costa College has a long history of serving the needs of developmental students in Reading Writing and Special Education courses;

Amarillo College received the Texas Education coveted Star Award for its efforts in developmental math and transfer level math; and

Dr. Rebecca Goosen from San Jacinto College is serving as the President-elect for the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE).

There are countless other examples. The next step for us as community college educators is to identify how we capitalize on the local efforts and bring our successes to scale for the benefit of students.

Jeffrey Holmes

CCLP Block 66

Assessment Here, Assessment There, Assessment Everywhere!!!

Last week, I spoke with a student in regards to one of his instructors. The student informed me that he was having a hard time learning from this particular instructor because of his unusual manner of teaching. I was curious as to what was so unusual about this instructor’s method of instruction, so I asked the student. He told me that, to him, it appeared that the instructor was trying too hard to make the students laugh during his lectures. Then he went on to inform me that he would rather have an instructor who concentrated more on passing on useful knowledge instead of trying to make his students laugh.

After the student left, I couldn’t help but wonder what was wrong with using humor as a tool of instruction. More often I get the complaint from students that they have professors whose lectures are dry and boring. To me, trying to get a laugh or two from your students shows that at the very least the instructor is willing to have some sort of friendly interaction with his class which could lead to more meaningful discussions. However, one cannot live on “laughter alone!” There needs to be a well-balanced combination of creating a welcoming atmosphere within a class and knowledge that is clear and beneficial to the students.

When assessing students in regards to college level readiness, as an advisor, I look at assessment scores and transcripts a lot to see if the student needs to take remediation and/or developmental courses prior to taking college-level courses. But what tools can a student use when assessing professors? I am well aware that many students rely heavily on sites such as “Pick a Prof” or “Rate your Professor” when selecting classes for the upcoming semesters. However, how reliable are these ratings? Particularly if these ratings give high marks to instructors who are quick to give an “A” without much effort put forth by students, and low marks to those instructors whose course load is heavy and more challenging than most.

I know that there is not an assessment device that is completely perfect. Whether it is assessing the college readiness of students or the methods of instruction by professors, it is best to use a variety of sources when making a well-rounded assessment. I am confident however that in the realm of community colleges, at least, we are beginning to use communication avenues such as Blackboard to better assist in the evaluation of both faculty and students. It’s a step in the right direction, and I look forward to what is still to come!

Ray P. Sandoval

CCLP Block #66