Volume 38, Number 2	Patrick R. Lake
November 2003	Editor

PRESIDING
Dr. J. Terence Kelly
Chancellor, Alamo Community College District

WELCOME
Dr. J. Terence Kelly

INVOCATION
Dr. Charlie Roberts
President, Jackson State Community College

BUSINESS SESSION
Financial Report
Dr. Marshall W. Smith
President, John Tyler Community College

Election of Board Members and Officers
Dr. Stafford Thompson
Enterprise-Ozark Community College

INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKER
Dr. L. Steve Thornburg
President, Cleveland Community College

KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Dr. Kay McClenney
Director, Community College Survey of Student Engagement
The University of Texas at Austin

Maintaining the Open Door: 
Defining Quality in Difficult Times

DOOR PRIZES
Dr. Howell Garner
President, Copiah-Lincoln Community College

PRESIDENT
Dr. J. Terence Kelly
Chancellor, Alamo Community College District

VICE PRESIDENT
Dr. L. Steve Thornburg
President, Cleveland Community College

SECRETARY / TREASURER
Dr. Marshall W. Smith
President, John Tyler Community College

PAST PRESIDENT
Dr. Stafford Thompson
Enterprise-Ozark Community College

EDITOR
Dr. Patrick R. Lake
President, Henderson Community College

Dr. Howell Garner, President, Copiah-Lincoln Community College

Dr. Barbara P. Losty, President, Waycross College

Dr. Thomas E. Gamble, President, Brevard Community College

Dr. Millicent M. Valek, President, Brazosport College

Dr. Charlie Roberts, President, Jackson State Community College

Dr. Barry Russell, President, Midlands Technical College

ACCESS AND QUALITY IN DIFFICULT TIMES:
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CONUNDRUM

By

Kay M. McClenney
Director, Community College Survey of Student Engagement
The University of Texas at Austin

Across the South and across the nation, community, junior and technical colleges are facing some of the most difficult challenges in their history.  A convergence of forces is creating what AACC president George Boggs calls community colleges’ “perfect storm.” 

First, the demand for postsecondary education in this country is escalating dramatically for a number of reasons:  

• Access to higher education is increasingly critical to the economic wellbeing and quality of life of individual Americans.  One of the most fundamental shifts in American society over the past two decades is reflected in the fact that postsecondary education is now a nearly inescapable requirement for holding a job that supports at least a middle-class standard of living.

• Typically – but especially as a result of economic recession – employees who need to respond to changing demands of their jobs turn to community colleges for re-training and skill upgrading.

•  And large numbers of recent high school graduates – the leading edge of the so-called “baby boom echo” – are seeking out community colleges because they offer an accessible and lower-cost alternative to 4-year institutions at a time of skyrocketing tuition.

These factors have contributed to double-digit enrollment growth at numerous colleges.  At the same time, community colleges over the past three years have experienced a downturn in public financial support that in some quarters has been nothing short of draconian.  And so, in the paradox of difficult times that has become all too familiar to these institutions, the demand for services is most acute at the very time resources are tightest. 

One of the lamented effects of this “perfect storm” is the significant increase in tuition and fees that many colleges have felt compelled to implement.  Even worse, in Fall 2003 we began to see headlines about the large numbers of potential students who are being turned away because community colleges – the institutions most fundamentally committed to open access – cannot afford to serve them.  In Florida alone, according to newspaper reports, community colleges have turned away over 30,000 students this semester. 

It is not surprising, given these challenges, that educational leaders begin to worry aloud about the community college conundrum – how, indeed, can the institutions manage to meet increased demand for access, with reduced resources – without compromising on quality?

Without doubt, it is a tough question – and there are certainly no easy answers.  But if the American community college is going to flourish in the future ─ not just survive the current crisis but rise to the complex challenges ahead ─ there are some hard choices to be made and some transformational work to be done.

Returning to First Principles

One way to approach the challenge is for each college explicitly to recall why and for whom it is most fundamentally in business.  The answers to basic questions about mission and priorities may well vary from one community college to the next, because the institutions rightly are accountable to their local communities.  By and large, though, the heart of the community college mission is in a) providing access to students who might otherwise not be served and b) ensuring that access leads to success – as defined both by student learning and by student persistence to achievement of their academic goals.  What community colleges most importantly contribute is both broad access and a first-class educational experience. 

If there is a silver lining to the current conundrum, it may be in encouraging institutions to examine rigorously the way they are expending limited resources of all kinds – dollars, space, human effort – and to focus more acutely than ever on the areas that are supposed to be the core competencies of community colleges:  student learning and the educational practices that produce it.

The argument briefly outlined below is that in tough times, the best service that can be rendered to the students served by these institutions – whatever their number – is the work which ensures that access is real.  Not fleeting, as when the “open door” becomes the revolving door.  Not rhetorical, as when we espouse opportunity but fail to be concerned about our retention, graduation and transfer rates.  But real, in the sense that college decisions and resources are squarely focused on the kind of quality that matters most:  promoting student learning.

Redefining Quality in Undergraduate Education

Typically, Americans tend to define the quality of higher education in terms of resources ─ how wealthy the institution is, how talented its entering students are, how prestigious its faculty.  The higher education community itself invented these criteria for quality and overall has done little to counter them.  While recent and highly laudable moves by the regional accrediting associations are beginning to have an impact, it is difficult indeed to offset the influence of long-held traditions and the college rankings offered up annually by U.S. News & World Report.

Nonetheless, the needs of communities and the country suggest that now is the time for a significant effort to re-define what we mean by “quality” in undergraduate education – and how it is that we can be reasonably convinced that a particular college “has it.”   Thus, in the interest of promoting the needed dialogue and debate, I offer the following propositions about quality in the community college.

Proposition #1:  The primary standard for quality is student learning. 

The recurring “great debate” about quality versus access, retention and student success is a futile debate.  The only way out is to clearly define the learning that is required for students to earn a grade, a credential or a degree.  Only then can a college know – and the public be assured – that academic quality and student success at that institution are one and the same thing.

Proposition #2;  Thus, the most compelling evidence of quality is evidence of student learning.

Despite almost two decades of work on institutional effectiveness issues, many community colleges in the Southern region and beyond are still struggling with how to design and implement effective assessments of student learning.  Thus, despite the fact that the colleges take pride in their emphasis on teaching and learning, it is still not commonly the case that institutions can readily document what students know and are able to do as they complete programs and graduate.  This ability is an escapable requirement of a claim to quality.

Proposition #3:  Real quality always improves upon itself. 

No matter how good we are today, it is probably still not “good enough.”  And continuous improvement fundamentally requires that college leaders build a strong “culture of evidence” within their institutions.  The systematic use of credible data to document achievements and to target improvement strategies is a powerful tool for promoting transformational change.

Proposition #4:  Improvement of quality requires examination of the educational practices that lie behind the student outcomes.

The research on undergraduate learning is unequivocal on a key point:  student learning and student persistence depend on the degree to which students are engaged in the learning process – the extent to which they are connected to one another, to faculty, counselors and advisors, and to the subject matter for their learning.  There is a sizable and growing body of knowledge that has helped to define what constitutes good educational practices.  What excellent colleges do is implement what we know.

Proposition #5:  No college should be considered better than its lowest-attaining student group.

This last criterion for quality is tough – and it represents possibly the most important challenge on the road ahead for community colleges.  For the sake of the future, we cannot afford to sustain situations where the affluent and the white are far more likely to participate in college, to persist and to graduate than their peers who happen to be poor and/or people of color.  The college participation and attainment gaps are a danger to American communities and society; and the task of closing those gaps falls largely to community colleges.

Both data and anecdotal experience suggest that while it is not easy, it is possible to effectively address the community college conundrum.  While it is not easy, it is arguably just as much a question of institutional will and institutional focus as it is a matter of resources.  While it is not easy, it is imperative.