COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY COLLEGES 

Nilda Soto Ruiz, Chairperson & Trustee

Kenneth F. Cook, Vice Chairperson & Trustee

John Morning, Trustee

Kathleen M. Pesile, Trustee

Mizanoor Biswas, Former Trustee

Antonio Perez, President, Borough of Manhattan Community College

Eva Richter, Professor, Kingsborough Community College

Nahma Sandrow, Professor, Bronx Community College

Message from the Committee Chairperson

The committee collected hundreds of pages of testimony, its members pored through notebooks of data, and attended seven working sessions. This report reflects the breadth of our investigation as well as the high expectations the committee has for CUNY’s community colleges.

I applaud Board Chairman Herman Badillo for recognizing the need for this review, and I thank all of the committee members for their hard work and good cheer as we carried out our charge. The community college presidents also deserve thanks for helping us understand the special missions of their institutions.

The committee owes special thanks to Executive Vice Chancellor Louise Miner for guiding our inquiry and ensuring we received all the information we needed. I also would like to acknowledge Judith Watson, Special Assistant to the Chancellor, for assembling the committee’s report, and consultant Kay McClenney for providing an important national perspective.

It has been my personal pleasure to chair this committee, and I look forward to working with my fellow Trustees, the Chancellor and his administration in making all of our community colleges premier institutions.

NildaSotoRuiz,Ph.D.

 

3

Board Chairman’s Charge to the

Committee on Community Colleges

For various social, demographic and educational reasons there has been an increase in the population of students who wish to become credentialed in higher education. One reason, of course, is that the United States is becoming more and more a credential society, one in which brain power has replaced muscle power and a high school education can be a dead end. Where education was always a gateway to the middle and upper reaches of society, higher education has become increasingly important in enabling individuals, and even whole communities, to climb the ladder of success.

In this context the community colleges play an important role for several reasons. Not every student, for example, is prepared to enter college. The community colleges, often referred to as the people’s colleges, have long embraced, as part of their open door policy, the mission of developmental education. In addition, many students’ ambitions do not immediately extend to attaining a bachelor’s degree. Rather, their need, or preferences at a given point in time, is for the credential that will allow them to work in a particular job or move into a new position of responsibility. Community colleges enable these students to begin earning a living and make a decision later as to whether to pursue additional education. Other students enter community colleges to develop better study habits, sharpen basic skills, sometimes even just mature a little before transferring to four year colleges. Many of them do eventually go on to a senior college, and even to graduate school, and then to careers in areas related to their community college majors, such as teaching, nursing, engineering, business, etc.

It is clear that community colleges, with their commitment to teaching, and their strategic locations, play a pivotal role in the educational community and must be significant partners in our educational systems.

In this context the Committee on Community Colleges is charged as follows:

1. The Committee will review the missions of CUNY’s six community colleges.

2. The Committee will consider the roles the respective colleges might play in a fully integrated University system.

3. The Committee will make recommendations regarding a desirable balance between liberal arts, professional and vocational programs in the community colleges.

4. The Committee will consider the position of community colleges in the context of a flagship environment.

Herman Badillo, Chair, Board of Trustees

4

RISING TO THE CHALLENGE:

In a Revitalized City University of New York

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Across the nation, community colleges have taken on an increasingly significant role in addressing educational issues relevant to a rapidly changing society. In addition to providing academic and career instruction, they promote workforce and economic development, foster literacy and English language instruction, and facilitate the movement of thousands from welfare to work. They also provide cultural and intellectual opportunities that enhance the quality of life in their communities.

CUNY’s community colleges began as a handful of junior colleges offering two-year liberal arts programs. Over the past 50 years, they have developed into six comprehensive institutions providing a broad array of academic transfer programs, as well as technical and career education and a range of support services responsive to the needs of a diverse student population.

These community colleges — Borough of Manhattan, Bronx, Hostos, Kingsborough, LaGuardia and Queensborough — today serve more than 53,000 degree students and 10,000 non-degree students, one-third of the University’s enrollment. Another 88,000 students participate in continuing education programs at the community colleges.

The unfolding of a high-tech, world economy in the new century brings a new set of challenges and expectations for CUNY’s community colleges. They include:

1. Developing a range of traditional and non-traditional offerings to keep pace with rapidly developing technologies and demographic shifts;

2. Creating new support services, alternative learning options, and class schedules designed to accommodate increasing numbers of non-traditional students;

3. Revamping developmental education to accommodate a variety of learning styles and languages, and build skills quickly;

4. Creating targeted training that permits New York City employers and their workers to stay competitive and helps attract new business to the city;

5. Building a system of accountability focused on student outcomes that provides information and incentives for continuous self-improvement.

The City University’s current effort to redefine and raise its position in higher education in New York and the nation presents two additional challenges for the community colleges:

6. Establishing their place in the flagship environment/integrated university called for in the CUNY Master Plan.

7. Pursuing funding strategies that will support both access and high quality programs.

 

In February 2000, CUNY Board Chairman Herman Badillo appointed the Committee on Community Colleges to explore how CUNY’s community colleges might meet these challenges. The eight-member committee, chaired by Trustee Nilda Soto Ruiz, held seven working sessions, gathered program, budget and performance data, and heard presentations from all six community college presidents. National trends and data were considered in order to provide a broader context for the committee’s review and to suggest alternatives for consideration.

The committee, through this report, offers more than SO recommendations, some for consideration by the community colleges and others for consideration by the Chancellery and Board of Trustees.

Key recommendations for consideration by the Trustees and Chancellery include:

• Gather market and demographic data for all five boroughs to inform campus reviews of academic program and continuing education offerings.

• Deploy resources to encourage community colleges to develop new credit and non-credit certificate programs, as well as two-year technical programs, that articulate with baccalaureate programs.

• Establish a meaningful set of performance indicators focused on student outcomes in such areas as graduation, retention, and post-college employment; link performance to funding and other real consequences.

• Track data measuring success in skills courses, as well as retention and graduation rates, by race, gender, and English language proficiency. This will help ensure that no class of students is left behind in CUNY’s drive to improve performance at all levels.

• Identify and redirect resources toward "programs of excellence" in the community colleges similar to the "flagship programs" being developed at the baccalaureate and graduate levels.

• Ensure that the general education requirements at CUNY’s community colleges match those of the senior colleges. Special transfer curricula need to be created that will enable students to move into specialized degree or professional programs at the senior colleges.

• Highlight premier programs in developmental education, based on nationally recognized criteria for program recognition, including value added.

• Seek additional state and city funding to restore resources lost over the past decade and provide resources to support the recommendations in this report.

Key recommendations for CUNY’s community colleges include:

• Expand the array of credit and non-credit certificate programs that lead directly to employment, ensuring that they are seamlessly linked to associate degree programs to enable students to take the next step as they are ready.

• Conduct periodic business/industry needs assessments within college service areas — including through business advisory councils for career programs — and use the findings - in curriculum revision and development.

• Conduct campus-wide discussions examining how college policies, programs and practices contribute to student learning. Consider how to expand the array of learning options — including distance and collaborative learning, tutoring and mentoring programs, expanded scheduling, and learning communities.

• Strengthen ties to the New York City Public Schools, through such programs as College Now and Bridge programs, to ensure that students are prepared for college-level work when they arrive at CUNY.

• Regularly review the mix of credit and non-credit programs offered by the college, based on an assessment of community and prospective student needs. Programs that have little intellectual value or market demand should be phased out and resources redeployed.

• Collaborate with other CUNY campuses in planning degree offerings and facilitate cross- campus course taking to expand the range of choices open to students. Students must have access to the courses they need to graduate in a timely fashion.

• Articulate more closely with CUNY’s senior colleges on liberal arts and sciences curricula to ensure a seamless transition for students moving from lower to upper division work.

• Strengthen academic advising and early warning systems. Every student should participate in a carefully designed academic advising program and should have an academic plan that is updated regularly. Colleges can redeploy counselors to assist in providing coordinated and integrated advisement and counseling services.

• Develop a basic skills inventory and developmental instruction plan for every student who has not passed the ACT. These should be discussed and updated with students as they proceed through interventions.

• Develop performance data for developmental programs and review research-based best practices to develop alternatives for students least prepared to do college-level work. This might include partnering with other educational entities like Educational Opportunity Centers.

• Expand contract courses through which CUNY community colleges provide skills or academic training to employees of local businesses or institutions.

• Define explicit desired learning outcomes at the course, program, certificate and -degree levels and develop appropriate assessments of the extent to which those outcomes-~ -are achieved by students.

In moving to extend and strengthen their role in the system, CUNY’s community colleges have several built-in advantages, including geographic proximity, institutional integration with baccalaureate and graduate institutions, and strong ties to the New York City high schools.

If the community colleges build upon these strengths -- keeping quality, access and service as touchstones -- they ensure their recognition as full and equal partners in the work of the University. They will also be acknowledged as national leaders by all who are aware of the role of these unique institutions in a changing world.

INTRODUCTION

Across the nation, community colleges have taken on an increasingly significant role in addressing educational issues relevant to a rapidly changing society. In addition to providing academic and career instruction, they promote workforce and economic development, foster literacy and English language instruction, and facilitate the movement of thousands from welfare to work. They also provide cultural and intellectual opportunities that enhance the quality of life in their communities.

These multiple roles have attracted the attention not only of students, but also state and municipal leaders, as well as the business community. Community colleges increasingly are recognized for providing flexibility, affordability and responsiveness to community-and business needs. They also are known for their commitment to providing educational access and opportunity and for their emphasis on teaching and learning.

CUNY’s community colleges have been a part of this evolution. Starting as a handful of ‘junior colleges offering two-year liberal arts programs, they have developed into six comprehensive institutions providing a broad array of academic transfer programs, as well as technical and career education and an array of support services responsive to the needs of a diverse student population.

These community colleges — Borough of Manhattan, Bronx, Hostos, Kingsborough, LaGuardia and Queensborough — today serve more than 53,000 degree students and 10,000 non-degree students (Fall 2000, CUNY Office of Institutional Research) -- one-third of the University’s enrollment. Another 88,000 students participate in continuing education programs at the community colleges. Their graduates and transfers are the backbone of New York City’s ‘norkforce, and their alumni are leaders in every field of endeavor.

As the demographics and businesses of their neighborhoods have changed, CUNY’s community colleges have adapted and kept pace. Pathbreaking models have included the International and Middle College High Schools at LaGuardia, and College Now and Family College at Kingsborough. Recent innovations include a telecommunications technology program tailored by Queensborough for Verizon Corporation’s workforce, the Prelude to Success and Business Incubator initiatives at BMCC, and the joint programs in teacher education conducted by four community colleges in collaboration with senior colleges in their boroughs.

The unfolding of the new century brings a new set of challenges and expectations for CUNY’s community colleges that mirror those facing their counterparts nationwide. These include:

1. A changing economy, driven by rapidly developing technologies and population shifts, is expanding the need for a broad range of traditional and non-traditional higher education services, even while technological advances and new providers increase the competition for students.

9

2. Community colleges will be increasingly populated by older, part-time, working students who also are likely to have children and other family obligations. These students will require additional support services, alternative learning options, and more convenient class schedules.

3. Large numbers of community college students will continue to need developmental education that accommodates a variety of learning styles and builds skill levels quickly and effectively.

4. Constant changes in business and technology are fostering the need for tailored training that permits New York City employers and their workers to stay competitive and helps attract new business to the city.

5. Demands for performance and accountability linked to outcomes are increasing in all areas of public service, particularly education.

The University’s current effort to redefine and raise its position in higher education in New York and the nation presents two additional challenges for the community colleges:

6. The new CUNY Master Plan calls for establishing a flagship environment in which all colleges strive to better integrate their programs to ensure that all New Yorkers have access to high quality programs and that movement between community and senior colleges is seamless.

7. Funding for CUNY’s community colleges has not kept pace with inflation or enrollment increases over the past 10 years, hampering their ability to raise program quality.

In February 2000, CUNY Board Chairman Herman Badillo appointed the Committee on Community Colleges to explore how CUNY’s community colleges might meet these challenges. The committee, chaired by Trustee Nilda Soto Ruiz, was charged to review the colleges’ missions and the roles they could play in a fully integrated University system. The panel was asked to consider the optimum balance between liberal arts, professional and vocational programs, and the position of the community colleges in CUNY’s flagship environment.

The eight-member committee held seven working sessions, gathered program, budget and performance data, and heard presentations from all six community college presidents. National trends and data were considered, in order to provide a broader context for the committee’s review and to supply alternatives for consideration. In August 2000, Trustee Ruiz and Queensborough Community College President Eduardo Marti attended a meeting of the SUNY Committee on Community Colleges in Ithaca, N.Y., to discover areas of common concern and to stimulate greater communication and collaboration between the two community college systems.

With this report, the committee offers two sets of recommendations — one set aimed at the community colleges and a second set aimed at the Chancellery and Board of Trustees, to create the conditions that will empower and encourage the colleges to rise to the new challenges they face.

CHALLENGE #1: MEETING TILE MULTIPLE AND CHANGING NEEDS OF A GROWING NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENT POPULATION.

When Joliet Junior College in Illinois opened its doors in 1901, becoming the first continuously operating public community college in the United States, its mission was fairly simple — preparing students for transfer to a baccalaureate college. Over the past 100 years, the roles of community colleges have expanded dramatically as expectations and financial assistance for post-high school education have risen and non-traditional students have entered the higher education marketplace.

A number of missions have been added to the traditional function of transfer preparation. These include career and technical training, developmental education, continuing education that ranges from literacy training to licensing and certification training, workforce and contract training for local businesses. Community colleges also serve as cultural centers for their neighborhoods and as a bridge for some students to higher education.

Today, community colleges enroll 45 percent of all American undergraduates (American Association of Community Colleges, 2000), representing a 10 percent increase in just the last decade. This student body is far more racially and ethnically diverse than the "typical" college population, older, more likely to be single parents, more likely to be born abroad, more in need of support services, and increasingly seeking specialized training to get a good job or advance in their current positions.

CUNY’s community college population reflects the changes taking place across New York City. U.S. Census Bureau estimates indicate that within the past decade, immigrants have constituted almost the entire growth in New York City’s population. Data collected by the University’s Office of Institutional Research shows almost 80 percent of CUNY’s community college students represent minorities and 40 percent are older than 25. Half are foreign born and English is the native language for only 40 percent.

As the CUNY community colleges prepare to meet the higher education needs and aspirations of this changing population, it becomes increasingly difficult yet imperative to construct an optimal mix of credit and non-credit educational programs to serve the greatest number of students.

Liberal arts and science programs that prepare students for transfer into a baccalaureate program are an integral part of the community college mission. Many students prefer to start their studies at a community college because of lower cost, proximity, and the supportive environment. Others are drawn to community colleges to explore life options or polish basic skills. As CUNY’s senior colleges raise entry standards, and as employers demand greater Literacy and analytic skills, this open route up the educational ladder will become even more important.

Liberal arts and science programs constitute 50 percent of the combined enrollment at CUNY’s community colleges — at individual colleges, the mix ranges from 36 percent to 55 percent (Graduation and Enrollment Data for Registered Academic Programs, CUNY, 2000).

Well under 1 percent of students are enrolled in certificate programs (414 students in 15 programs), and the remainder are enrolled in AAS programs, which focus on career preparation.

The number of AAS programs offered on any one community college campus at CUNY ranges from 13 to 23. Between the six campuses, 55 different AAS degrees are offered (See Appendix I). Degrees with the most popular appeal, such as accounting, nursing and computer programming, are offered on multiple campuses, while more specialized degrees, such as in travel and tourism, commercial photography, respiratory therapy or veterinary technology, are offered only on one campus. The mix offered by any one school is determined by its administration and faculty, based on local need, program costs, faculty training and interests, and historical precedent.

In AAS (Associate in Applied Science) programs, students are required to take one-third of their courses in the liberal arts, or six to seven courses — often, the remainder of their courses are in career or technical areas and are determined by licensing or accreditation requirements in their field of study. In AS (Associate in Science) programs, which commonly are transfer preparation programs in fields such as business or some sciences, or studio or performance arts, the liberal arts ratio is 50 percent. In AA (Associate in Arts) programs, which involve the humanities, social sciences and the natural sciences, the required ratio is 75 percent.

The U.S. Department of Education does not collect national data on enrollments by program area, but it does collect data on the number of degrees granted by program area. An analysis of this IPEDS data for 1998-99 suggests that CUNY colleges are not outside the mainstream in their program mix, with the exception of certificate offerings. Nationally, 3.3 percent of degrees granted by associate institutions were certificates, compared to the trace percentage at CUNY.

These statistics, along with evident changes in the postsecondary education needs of students and communities, raise key questions: Should transfer-oriented programs predominate, and if so, how might graduation and transfer of students in those programs be better facilitated? What additional career programs or other learning options should be offered for those with other life agendas? Could some educational needs that exist for a college’s students and community be filled through new for-credit certificate programs — or non-credit programs offered through continuing education? These are questions the faculty and administration at every CUNY community college should ask on a regular basis.

Every institution must determine its own optimum program mix, based on careful and frequent studies of changing demographic and employment trends, discussions with the local business community, regional market surveys and student surveys. The temptation is strong to offer a little of everything, to serve the broadest population, but finite resources dictate that choices be made.

Whatever programs are initiated or retained should be at the highest level and should reflect customer demand and employment opportunities. Further, program planning should take into account the offerings at other nearby CUNY institutions and the college’s continuing education offerings and capabilities. Continuing education courses should be designed with faculty input to lead naturally into certificate and AAS degree offerings. Students in all credit programs should be expected to read, write, compute and think critically at the college level.

In making these difficult choices, CUNY’s community colleges should not fear "losing" students to shorter-term certificate or non-credit continuing education programs. If the colleges provide a quality product in those arenas, and if they respect the need of many students to acquire educational credentials incrementally, those students will be back to take the next step up the educational ladder, as their lives allow and their jobs require.

Interestingly, when Kentucky in 1997 combined its technical and community colleges, it designed a system of multiple exit points for students. The curriculum is structured so that students have the choice to leave sooner, with a certificate or diploma, or later, with an associate degree. Those who leave before receiving an ALAS can return within a reasonable time and resume their studies at the point of exit, building upon previously earned credits. This is a model that might be studied more thoroughly.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Provide a vehicle for gathering market and demographic data for all five boroughs to inform periodic reviews of academic program and continuing education offerings by CUNY’s community colleges. Reviews should be undertaken every two years.

• Speed the process campuses must follow to get approval for changes in program offerings.

• Ensure that campus administrators have the flexibility to make personnel adjustments deemed necessary to meet changing market demands.

• Based on strong community needs assessments and strategic planning at the college level, support development of neighborhood learning centers, extending the reach of the colleges into underserved communities.

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Regularly review the mix of credit and non-credit programs offered by the college, based on a systematic assessment of community and prospective student needs. Programs that do not address student needs or market demand should be phased out and resources redeployed.

• Identify and redirect resources towards "programs of excellence" in the community colleges, similar to the "flagship programs" being developed at the baccalaureate and graduate levels.

• Collaborate with other CUNY campuses in planning degree offerings and facilitating cross-campus course taking to expand the range of choices open to students. CUNY’s Chancellery could assist through the creation of a system-wide course schedule. Students must have access to the courses they need to graduate in a timely fashion.

• Expand the array of credit and non-credit certificate programs that lead directly to employment and ensure that they link seamlessly to associate degree programs (e.g., a personal computer technician certificate linked to a degree in computer technology).

• Encourage and facilitate communication between the academic departments and the continuing education faculty.

• Institutionalize recruitment activities on a yearly basis and expand outreach to high schools and community-based organizations.

• Collect data through student and alumni surveys about academic and career program preferences, deficiencies; break out graduation and retention data already available by program area. Begin to collect data on students who begin a course of study through a continuing education program and end up in an academic program.

CHALLENGE #2: STRENGTHEN CAMPUS CLIMATES TO SUPPORT LEARNING AND STUDENT SUCCESS

Students entering community colleges are three to four times more likely than their peers at baccalaureate institutions to reflect the factors that put students most at risk of not attaining a degree (Educational Testing Service, 2000). Those factors include delayed entry, part-time enrollment, full-time employment, financial independence, single parenthood, family dependents, and under-preparation for college.

To help these students be successful, CUNY’s community colleges offer a wide variety of academic and personal supports. These include academic tutoring, personal and psychological counseling, academic advising, child care services, special services to students with disabilities, financial aid counseling, job search assistance, and supplemental instruction. These programs are supported within CUNY’s budget and in its Master Plan.

The central goal is to ensure that ever greater numbers of students persist and succeed, either graduating with a certificate or associate degree or achieving other explicit educational goals. While those attending community colleges do so for a wide variety of reasons and, in fact, many never intend to earn a degree, it is nonetheless clear that much more can be done to produce better outcomes for students.

The average one-year retention rate for CUNY community college students is 60 percent, compared with 55% nationally. The average CUNY graduation rate after five years is 28 percent, counting those who graduate from a CUNY institution and those who transfer elsewhere and receive a degree. The comparable graduation rate for associate degree students nationally is 31.2 percent, according to the Department of Education’s 1990 Beginning Postsecondary Student study.

The graduation rates at CUNY’s community colleges must improve. CUNY has come under repeated attack from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Governor George Pataki for the relatively low percentage of students who complete their course of study. A 1996 State Education Department survey indicates that associate degree students at the State University of New York graduate after four years at a rate that exceeds the CUNY four year average by 90 percent. This disparity lessens over time. While SUNY community college students typically face fewer language, education and economic deficits than their counterparts at CUNY, more of them attend part-time.

For example, there is compelling evidence that community college students who do not complete their degrees are lost early in their college experience. This argues for a focus on, and investment in, "the front door," promoting emphasis on customer-friendly intake

procedures, comprehensive entry assessment and placement processes, "case managers" who take a sustained personal interest in facilitating student success, and academic "early alert" systems that bring attention to students who need it.

The College Discovery program at Hostos Community College has achieved strong student retention and graduation results through a case management approach aimed at ensuring that students get the academic and personal supports they need to keep moving forward. Similarly, the COPE programs at Bronx Community College and at Hostos have significantly boosted retention rates among students who are public assistance recipients by providing one-on-one help in a variety of academic and personal arenas.

As competition for students increases from on-line campuses and proprietary institutions, treating students as customers rather than as captive audiences will become ever more necessary. This will require other operational shifts aimed at consumer convenience, such as on-line registration processes and on-line financial aid application procedures.

Student demand should become a much more significant factor in scheduling courses at the community colleges. This might require that more courses be offered at night and-on the weekends. Some CUNY community colleges already are looking in this direction. Bronx Community College, BMCC and Queensborough Community College are close to offering one or two full degree programs on the weekends. A system-wide effort is underway to facilitate weekend degree programs by coordinating weekend course schedules among the community colleges.

Another step that some progressive community colleges are taking to boost student involves an attempt to genuinely and persistently focus on student learning. Faculty and administrators at these "learning colleges" are re-examining how all of their policies, programs and practices contribute to student learning. A sampling of the range of issues they consider:

• How to define learning outcomes for students.

• How to assess the extent to which those outcomes are actually achieved, and how to document that learning.

• How to expand the array of learning options for students - such as by offering learning communities, distance learning, collaborative learning, peer tutoring, service learning.

What is the appropriate balance between use of instructional technology and critical human interaction with students, and how can that be sustained.

• How to promote development of faculty and staff skills in facilitating learning. What modifications are warranted in selecting and orienting new faculty and staff.

• How to move from time-bound, place-bound, bureaucracy-bound, role-bound practices to anytime, anyplace, anyway learning opportunities.

• How to create a "culture of evidence" that uses data and experience about learning to improve curriculum, teaching strategies and support services for students.

Terry O’Banion, president emeritus of the League for Innovation in the Community College, has documented in Launching a Learning-Centered College and A Learning College for the 

16

21st century many of the performance gains that students in these "learning colleges" have achieved. For example, data he cites for the Community College of Denver from 1987 to 1997 include an 83 percent increase in number of graduates, a 100 percent increase in graduates who are people of color, 100 percent employer satisfaction with graduate skills and a 3.0 average GPA achieved by students following transfer to baccalaureate institutions.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Elicit research on best practices as a basis for policy discussions and decisions.

Recommendations: Community colleges

• Design and implement more efficient, student-friendly services, including registration and financial aid services. An example would be Queensborough’s move to web registration. Special attention also should be paid to addressing the needs of immigrant students.

• Strengthen academic advising and early-warning systems. Every student should participate in a carefully designed academic advising program and should have an academic plan that is updated regularly.

• Develop expanded learning options for students, including color technology-enriched instruction (on-campus or at a distance); access (electronically or through cross- registration) to an array of courses offered across CUNY community colleges; campus learning communities; cooperative education; service learning; tutoring and mentoring programs; and scheduling options (weekends, block scheduling, virtual/asynchronous, etc.).

• Conduct regular student surveys to ascertain degree of customer satisfaction with student support services. Conduct exit interviews of students who leave to determine the cause.

• Demonstrate commitment to increasing the proportion of credit courses taught by full-time faculty in the community colleges.

• Provide targeted professional development opportunities for faculty and staff.

 

CHALLENGE #3: EXCEL IN DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

In the future, there will continue to be an urgent need for community colleges to provide effective and efficient developmental education for students who are not prepared to succeed in college-level work. Despite aggressive efforts to promote high school reform, only 42% of U.S. young people graduate from high school with college entry-level skills, according to the National Study of Community College Remedial Education (conducted for the League for Innovation in the Community College, in conjunction with the American Association of Community Colleges). Experts believe that situation will improve, but only over an extended period of time.

In addition, older students who did not attend college immediately after high school often need opportunities to refresh their skills; recent immigrants whose first language is not English bring added complexity to the mix. These are the realities at a time when it is evident that the future of New York City and the nation depends on raising the educational attainment of our citizens.

The challenge, then, is not to escape developmental education, but rather, to acknowledge the continuing needs of a substantial group of New Yorkers and to meet those needs at a level of effectiveness unmatched in America.

Nationally, 41 percent of first-time, full-time freshmen entering community colleges require at least some remedial work (National Commission on Education Statistics, 1997). At CUNY, that proportion is 86 percent, as determined by performance on CUNY basic skills tests. (It should be noted that every higher education system sets its own definition of skill levels requiring remediation, making precise comparisons difficult). Twenty-one percent of CUNY community college freshmen also take English as a Second Language.

Within the past two years, CUNY’s College Now program has been extended to every CUNY community college. Working with faculty in the high schools, these programs aim to improve high school students’ ability to meet graduation and college preparation requirements and facilitate a seamless transition from high school to college. In Fall 2000, just under 8,000 high school students participated in enriched instruction through College Now programs at the community colleges. At two colleges, these programs reach down to the ninth grade level.

LaGuardia and Bronx Community Colleges also operate summer language immersion programs for entering ninth graders, and LaGuardia faculty are working with faculty at Forest Hills High School to provide enriched English language instruction linked to high school coursework. Faculty from the community colleges also have been actively involved in the Looking Both Ways project, which brings together teachers from both systems to

examine writing instruction and develop strategies for its improvement. When faculties at the two levels truly combine their talents and experience, the results can be impressive.

More than four out of ten CUNY freshmen, however, do not arrive straight from high school; many have been away from school for years, others arrive with a GED or a foreign diploma (CUNY Institutional Research, 1999). The challenge of raising skills and language proficiency for this group is a complex one. Colleges must deal with language diversity and address questions about how long the developmental course sequence should last and how to deal with students whose skills are seriously deficient. They must consider alternatives with regard to program structure, staffing patterns, and technology applications that best support student success, and must establish performance standards that hold colleges accountable for results.

Fortunately, there is a developing body of research that identifies best practices and exemplar programs in developmental education, and this information is readily available to CUNY colleges. For example, officials at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida, reported in 2000 that Valencia students graduate at a 90% rate when they: (a) complete the recommended developmental education sequence; (b) have defined a pathway to their goal (i.e. have a declared major and an academic plan); and (c) attempt the 15 credit hour. Recommendations on best practices (e.g., mandatory assessment and course placement, centralized and coordinated developmental instruction, comprehensive academic support services, etc.) are also forthcoming from the National Study of Community College Remedial Education.

Developmental education offered at CUNY’ s community colleges appears to be highly effective for those best prepared to benefit from it. Developmental students in associate programs who passed all the basic skills courses taken in their first term went on to graduate at a rate of 35 to 41 percent after eight years, depending on whether one, two, or three skills courses were taken. The eight-year graduation rate for students needing no developmental work was 34 percent. However, only 15 percent of students who failed at least one developmental course graduated.

A question that warrants discussion is whether there should be any time or credit hour limit to developmental course taking at the community colleges. The great majority - 70 percent - of CUNY community college students complete their basic skills instruction within the equivalent of two semesters, or 30 credit hours. However, an analysis of 1995 CUNY community college freshmen showed 16 percent stayed in remediation for at least four consecutive semesters.

These typically are students who score at the lowest levels of CUNY’s basic skills tests or who take several attempts at a developmental course before passing it. Those who score low on all three skills tests are at greatest risk for lingering in remediation and never graduating. Pertinent questions include: Are these students getting the help they need? Are they using up valuable tuition assistance so that when they are college-ready, they are financially unable to complete a degree?

Data and anecdotal evidence suggest that the current approaches for helping students who score at the lowest levels on CUNY’s basic skills tests are limited. Despite often herculean efforts by CUNY faculty members, these students do not catch up. Although the raising of high school graduation standards may eliminate some of this problem, the influx of students from abroad with widely varying levels of preparation is likely to continue or expand, as are the numbers of older adult students long out of school. This argues for a search for alternative, possibly more tailored, approaches.

Several of CUNY’s community colleges recently submitted proposals to establish a year- round skills immersion center on campus. These centers would be geared to assist students at the lowest skills levels in a manner that easily articulates with for-credit courses. An immersion setting would offer an alternative to students with serious skill deficiencies and might speed their entry into regular coursework. The outcomes from pilot operations such as these hopefully will also help inform skills instruction on all community college campuses.

Virtually all CUNY community colleges now direct students deemed incapable of completing a two-semester remedial sequence because of language difficulties to the CUNY Language Immersion Program. Similar alternatives need to be developed for English speaking students with the lowest skill levels - Educational Opportunity Centers might be enlisted for this purpose.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Highlight exemplary programs in developmental education within the CUNY colleges and encourage emulation of best practices from national models, based on nationally recognized criteria for success, including value added.

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Develop alternative formats for students least prepared to do college-level work. This could include forging relationships with other educational entities, ranging from Educational Opportunity Centers, to the public schools, to Continuing Education programs, to private providers, in order to deliver highly targeted instruction to these students.

• Develop a basic skills inventory and personal developmental instruction plan for every student who enrolls at a community college who has not passed the ACT. This information should be discussed with the student and updated as the student proceeds through interventions.

• Review available performance data, review research-based best practices, visit exemplary programs at other community colleges, seek external expert advice, and recommend changes in the college’s developmental education program structure, staffing pattern, curriculum, technology applications, student support, etc.

 

• Strengthen ties to the New York City Public Schools through expansions of the College Now, Bridge and other collaborative programs, to ensure students are prepared for college-level work when they arrive at CUNY.

CHALLENGE #4: ESTABLISH CUNY’S COMMUNITY COLLEGES AS THE LINCHPIN FOR WORKFORCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NEW YORK CITY

Over the past decade, city, state and federal leaders have taken a new interest in community colleges, seeing the institutions as a key public asset in addressing priorities from welfare reform to economic and workforce development. In fact, because these colleges are close to their communities, disposed to accommodate changing needs, and, ideally, capable of rapid and flexible response, they are clearly suited to those tasks.

Examples can be seen across the U.S. -- particularly in a handful of exemplar locations -- where a local community college or a statewide system of colleges has been tapped as the engine for economic development. In many of these places, the community college is the one-stop shop for the education and training needs of business and industry.

Community colleges that excel in this arena assess local needs and provide contract education and training based on those needs. They develop education and training programs for industry consortia (e.g., aerospace companies, the electronics industry, health care providers, etc.), and offer an array of certificate programs and career ladder opportunities extending from high school through baccalaureate degrees and even graduate school.

Community colleges focused on economic development have undertaken a wide range of initiatives. They have participated in joint ventures with businesses in building training facilities and acquiring state-of-the-art equipment; operated small business development centers and business incubator programs; hosted economic development conferences and national or international training sessions; provided competency assessment services; administered certification exams; and worked with business leaders and elected officials in recruiting new business and industry to the city and state.

Colleges that have won national attention for economic development programs range from Greenville Technical College in South Carolina, which has engaged in contract training with 1,200 companies, to Johnson County Community College in suburban Kansas City, which does all the corporate training for Burlington Northern Railroad and has a training facility on its campus built by Burlington Northern, to tiny Cowley County Community College in Arkansas City, Kansas, which provides all training for the Boeing installation in Wichita, with students benefiting from company-paid tuition and fees and a Boeing stock bonus upon completion of a degree.

The past five years have seen a proliferation of efforts by CUNY community colleges to serve their communities in similar ways -- usually through their Continuing Education programs, which have greater flexibility than degree programs to create and close programs as the need arises. Initiatives range from Queensborough Community College’s contract with U.S. Homecare Corp. to provide competency assessment and clinical training for home health aides, to Queensborough’s Autocad Release 14 training program with United Sheetmetal Corp., to Kingsborough’s contract with the U.S. Army to deliver business courses through interactive distance learning to civilian employees at Fort Totten.

BMCC has created several workforce training models worthy of replication within CUNY and elsewhere. These include: partnering with CISCO systems Inc. to train residents in the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone to become CISCO certified computer network associates; providing ESL classes to McDonald’s employees; tailoring a program to help a cohort of Salomon Smith Barney employees get associate degrees; and partnering with ACT Inc. to open the New York Regional ACT Center for delivery of workforce development training and assessment services.

The potential of CUNY community colleges to serve as stimulators of economic development for the city is demonstrated by two other BMCC efforts. Its Institute for Business Trends Analysis gathers workplace data and generates information useful to the business community of lower Manhattan. BMCC has also partnered with two investment firms and the New York City Investment Fund to establish a Telemedia Accelerator, designed to nurture the city’s fledgling digital media industry. In addition to incubating new businesses, the accelerator will generate internship and employment opportunities for BMCC students and become a laboratory for faculty research.

Currently, most of CUNY’s economic development and training programs remain concentrated in the continuing education divisions of the colleges. Increasingly, though, companies that contract for customized instruction beyond short-term training want their employees to receive academic credit. Experience has shown that artificial bafflers between the academic divisions and the continuing education division of a college can make this difficult, even where granting of credit is warranted by content and expectations for student performance. These barriers should be eliminated, with faculty in the pertinent academic departments working in partnership with continuing education staff to explore possibilities that better serve the community. As in all instances where credit is given, faculty should oversee development of course content.

As CUNY and its community colleges develop other programs to contribute to the city’s workforce and economic development, the importance of policy in that effort cannot be underestimated. Creating conditions that support necessary action and remove disincentives is a step that cannot be omitted if high performance is the goal. Among the policy considerations are these:

• Funding policy to support capital equipment expenditures and operating funds for program start-up;

• Strategies for supporting capacity development within colleges, particularly faculty and staff training, hiring of rapid-response curriculum development specialists, development of systems for assessment of student learning, and so on;

• Creation of strategic investment and/or incentive funds for technical certificate and AAS program development and for establishing training partnerships with business and industry;

• Direction to other public agencies and departments (labor, economic development, commerce, human resources, etc.) to work with and through community colleges on workforce training and development issues and initiatives.

Nineteen states provide support for workforce development in dedicated funds as part of the community colleges’ appropriation. California, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, and South Carolina, among others, have provisions for funding noncredit training and certificate programs. A number of states have established special funds to support customized training for business and industry. In FY2000, examples included New York ($2 million), North Carolina ($6.2 million), Ohio ($8.7 million), and Illinois, South Carolina, and Utah. In Ohio, the capital budget also provides $6.3 million, awarded on a competitive basis, to assist campuses to meet their capital needs for noncredit training services.

Meanwhile, it is critical that disincentives to workforce development activities be removed. New York City currently imposes a 17.5 percent surcharge on revenues collected by Adult and Continuing Education programs at CUNY’s community colleges. In 1999, these six institutions were assessed $1.5 million through this surcharge.

Ten percent of this amount is charged as general overhead for the use of City facilities. The remaining 7.5 percent is assessed to cover pension costs of Adult and Continuing Education instructors, who are city employees, even though well under 1 percent of these instructors participate in a University pension plan.

The Adult and Continuing Education programs on CUNY’s community college campuses serve individuals and businesses whose economic and educational success is critical to the financial health of New York City. Removal or reduction of the City surcharges would permit expansion of these programs’ offerings, would lower their cost to City residents and businesses, and it would increase their value as potent tools for workforce training and educational advancement for New York City and New York State.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Consider key policy issues that affect community college capacity to contribute vigorously to workforce and economic development. These would include: funding policy pertaining to non-credit workforce education and training; capital equipment purchase, upgrade, replacement and support; tuition waivers for students completing training for and placement in targeted high-demand occupations.

• Seek removal of the 17.5 percent New York City surcharge on all adult and continuing education programs at CUNY community colleges.

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Conduct business/industry needs assessments within college service areas every two years and use the findings in program and curriculum revision and development.

• Develop and implement new credit and non-credit certificate programs, as well as two-year technical programs that articulate into a baccalaureate program.

• Establish business/industry advisory councils related to each professional/technical instructional program or program cluster, asking these groups to advise faculty and administrators on knowledge/skill requirements of graduates, curriculum content, business/industry partnership opportunities, etc.

• Expand contract courses through which CUNY community colleges provide skills or academic training to employees of local businesses or institutions.

• Eliminate barriers to flexibility so that programs can be customized quickly for business or union clients. This might involve offering introductory courses directly in a workplace setting and arranging conveniently scheduled courses on campus.

• Conduct an annual survey of graduates and former continuing education participants to determine what kind of jobs they are getting and what kind of recommendations they would make for improving the preparation of others still in those programs.

• Enhance relationships with the business community in order to help place degree program and continuing education graduates in jobs related to their field of study, and provide aggressive job placement services for credit and non-credit students.

• Promote cooperation between continuing education instructors and college faculty to ensure the highest quality of non-credit courses and to facilitate greater opportunities for students to transition smoothly into degree programs, should they choose to do so.

• CUNY’s associate programs share $8.4 million in federal Perkins Ill funds to provide vocationally oriented coursework for their students. The community colleges should consider ways to use these funds to support the strategic priorities enumerated here.

 

Demands for higher performance and greater accountability for results are growing throughout the world of higher education. Some of this pressure stems from an increased national and state focus on education due to concern that performance standards have sagged. Some pressure also reflects effort throughout the business and governmental worlds to use outcome data to inform decision making and facilitate a process of continuous improvement.

The result is that legislators and the general public are increasingly insistent that educational institutions be willing and able to define desired outcomes, assess and document performance, and report results - particularly results that reflect student learning outcomes.

According to data reported by the Education Commission of the States in 2000, 27 states have established specific performance indicators for community colleges. In ten states (Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee), performance on these indicators is directly linked to budget allocations. Eleven states report that penalties and/or sanctions result from low performance on indicators. Penalties range from a 3-5% reduction in the institutional allocation to "increased legislative scrutiny."

Among the states that have established performance indicators for community colleges, the ECS study indicates that the 12 most common indicators are: job placement; transfer rates; graduation rates/degree production; retention; licensure exam pass rates; remediation effectiveness; satisfaction studies (usually students and employers); diversity/special populations; student success after transfer; workforce development activities; faculty productivity; and student learning outcomes.

The City University is moving aggressively to assess the performance of its campuses in key areas, and to establish real consequences for results. CUNY recently adopted an executive compensation plan that links pay raises for presidents, campus executives and members of the Chancellery to student outcomes. CUNY eventually intends to inject a performance element in the allocation of funds to the CUNY campuses.

With the stakes for strong performance rising, CUNY’ s community colleges need to ensure that the indicators for success are appropriate and rigorous - and that they reflect community college priorities and realities. For example, graduation rates should not be the sole measurement of the success of a community college because of students’ varied purposes in attending the institutions. CUNY’s Office of Institutional Research is working to break down graduation data according to students’ goals when they entered a community college. Institutional Research is also working to better track students who transfer outside of the system so that they do not continue to be counted as "failures" at the CUNY college they attended.

Data measuring success in skills courses, as well as retention and graduation rates, should be tracked by race, gender, and English language proficiency. This will help ensure that no class of students is left behind in CUNY’s drive to improve performance at all levels.

As a matter of fairness, and because of the significant differences among the community colleges, once baseline data is established for each college on appropriate performance indicators, accountability should be for value added - that is, continuous improvement over the baseline for that college. In that way, each college will compete against its own record. A common baseline may be appropriate in some instances, such as with a new initiative that involves all of the colleges.

The University is already collecting and collating college performance data on -objectives that align with the University’s Master Plan. However, each campus should also develop its own procedures for assessing learning outcomes, with faculty determining desired outcomes for each course and program. Faculty should use outcomes data as a tool for continuous self renewal -- to refine and improve course offerings and teaching practices, as required under the new Middle States Commission on Higher Education accreditation standard on assessment outcomes.

The introduction of two new assessment instruments will facilitate this process. Beginning in the Fall 2000 semester, students placed in developmental courses on the basis of a new CUNY ACT assessment are required to pass a similar exam to exit remediation. This will create reliable data on the "value added" by different interventions offered from one campus to the next. A new proficiency (rising junior) exam administered for the first time in Fall 2000 will provide broader feedback to campuses about instructional areas that need to be strengthened.

A public recognition that "open admissions" does not mean "low standards" is critical to enlisting even broader political and community support for CUNY’s community colleges. However, recognition of the community colleges’ strengths first requires reliable data.

CUNY has an excellent opportunity to lead the nation in this area - to the benefit of all of its students. A listing of possible performance indicators for each of the challenges discussed in this report is contained in Appendix II, but selected examples follow:

To better measure the effectiveness of developmental education on individual campuses, CUNY might begin to track student performance on the new common exit exam. Similarly, tracking student performance in subsequent college-level work would provide another measurement of the effectiveness of developmental courses.

To assess the effectiveness of workforce and economic development efforts, CUNY might measure job placement rates for students completing career-related certificate and AAS degrees, the increase in numbers of students enrolled in those programs, and employer satisfaction with the skills of program graduates.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Improve CUNY’ s data gathering and reporting to give an even more complete picture of graduation rates, transfer rates and certificate completion. Incorporate this information into the CUNY Master Plan and into the ECP performance indicators, and develop other indicators for the challenges set forth in this report. Establish baseline data for each college and judge subsequent performance in relation to the college baseline.

• Track data measuring success in skills courses, as well as retention and graduation rates, by race, gender, and English language proficiency. This will help ensure that no class of students is left behind in CUNY’s drive to improve performance at all levels.

Authorize and encourage each college to augment the core group of common community college performance indicators with up to five (5) performance indicators that are unique to its mission, circumstances or strategic priorities.

• Sponsor continuing discussion to design a coherent system of incentives and rewards for community college performance

• As the community college analogy to CUNY’s four-year college "flagship programs," launch an initiative to identify and reward "premier programs" or "programs of excellence" in the community colleges.

• Call for cross-system community college/baccalaureate college collaboration on the definition of student learning outcomes, beginning with the work on core curricula.

• Strongly encourage and support continuing, intensive development of college and system information systems. These should incorporate baseline data on performance indicators and be capable of tracking community college student performance after transfer, as well as reporting back to high schools on their graduates’ performance within CUNY. This will require further investment in the University’s Office of Institutional Research and in campus Institutional Research departments.

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Within each college, move thoughtfully but expeditiously to comply with the new Middle States requirement on outcomes assessment. Faculty should define explicit learning outcomes for students at the course, program, certificate and degree levels and agree on appropriate assessments of the extent to which those outcomes are achieved. The college administration should be charged with collecting and collating outcomes data.

 

• Ensure that faculty have access to outcomes information on a timely basis, to facilitate a continuous feedback cycle that drives program improvements.

29

Thus, a high school graduate may choose to attend a CUNY community college close to home to get more personalized attention, work on basic skills or to save on tuition, knowing that he/she can take a course from a community college in another borough, and can transfer with credits intact to one of CUNY’s 10 senior colleges to earn a baccalaureate and ultimately, a graduate degree.

This is the ideal to which most community colleges aspire, and many have worked hard to forge agreements with nearby baccalaureate institutions to ensure their students easy transfer. CUNY is distinguished, though, in encompassing all levels of higher education within one integrated system - a fact that should permit easy movement from one level to the next.

According to the best estimate by CUNY’ s Office of Institutional Research, though, approximately 35 percent of the freshmen who entered a CUNY community college in 1992 and subsequently transferred into a baccalaureate college transferred outside of the CUNY system. Indeed, CUNY community college graduates have long complained that it is easier for them to transfer to SUNY or private colleges in New York City than to one of their sister institutions within CUNY.

To reverse this phenomenon and enable CUNY students to benefit from our "integrated university" will require considerable effort on the part of the community colleges but also, and perhaps to an even greater extent, on the part of the CUNY baccalaureate colleges.

Where non-affiliated institutions have created a seamless transition, the steps they have taken include the following:

• Developed a core curriculum in general education/liberal arts, including defined student learning outcomes and methods for assessing their achievement;

• Established a common course numbering system for the core curriculum and other widely offered courses;

• Guaranteed full transfer of the A.A. and A.S. degrees and automatic junior standing for community college graduates holding those degrees;

• Established community college warranty of transfer credits (specified knowledge and skills achieved by students);

• Articulates AAS degree programs with corresponding majors in the 4-year institutions (2+2);

• Broadened opportunities for concurrent enrollment in community college and four- year college courses;

 

30

• Developed Web-based learning options that provide seamless access for students to courses at community colleges across the system (for example: the growing number of models nationally wherein students may take distance learning courses from any college in a state for credit at their "home" institution).

Faculty at CUNY’s baccalaureate institutions often voice concern that community college graduates arrive less prepared in core subjects, as well as areas of concentration, such as accounting. However, an analysis of Fall 1999 grade point averages of community college transfers attending CUNY baccalaureate colleges and students who started at a senior college and have junior class standing revealed only a modest difference in performance - less than one-quarter of a grade point. This analysis, performed by CUNY’s Office of Institutional Research, suggests differences in preparation levels might be less than perceived.

As faculty at the two levels work together to align course content and requirements - and particularly as the institutions produce explicit information about student achievement of defined learning outcomes - two things are likely to happen. First, some concerns of senior college faculty should subside. And second, there will be useful information available to both baccalaureate and community colleges in their efforts to highlight strengths and institute improvements where they are needed.

In 1999, the Board of Trustees mandated that the senior colleges grant full credit for courses taken to fulfill core liberal arts requirements at CUNY’ s community colleges. To facilitate this, the Office of Academic Affairs created the CUNY Transfer Information and Program Planning System (TIPPS) website to permit students to compare course equivalencies among campuses as they make course selections.

CUNY faculty at each college are now engaged in conversation about appropriate core curricula for their degree students. This is prompting discussion about common content and desired learning outcomes in core courses, and better cross-college articulation. At the State University of New York, where core curriculum requirements for all baccalaureate students took effect for Fall 2000 entering students, the community colleges voluntarily instituted core requirements for students planning to transfer, to boost their chances for full credit transfer within SUNY and without.

At CUNY, ongoing Writing Across the Curriculum efforts and the new Proficiency Exam required of students approaching 60 credits should further enhance acceptance of community college graduates among CUNY’s baccalaureate institutions.

A few CUNY campuses have ventured into designing joint degree programs, wherein a graduate of a participating community college program is automatically accepted with junior status at the participating senior college. An excellent example is the joint education program that Queensborough conducts in collaboration with Queens College. Pilot dual admissions programs are also in effect between a handful of CUNY community and senior campuses.

CUNY’ s education programs offer several opportunities for collaborative planning between the community college and baccalaureate levels. For example, new state requirements for

teachers include spending time as student observers in a classroom. Associate level students intent on pursuing a teaching career might be able to complete this requirement early and, in the process, examine their interest in education studies.

The Prelude to Success program is another example of a partnership between community and senior colleges that has proven very successful. Students who wish to enter senior colleges but fail the freshman skills tests may participate in a Prelude program if it is deemed likely they will be able to complete needed developmental work in just one semester. They register at the community college but take developmental courses from community college faculty on the campus of the senior college. They may also take selected credit bearing classes which will transfer automatically to the senior college if, at semester’s end, they have passed all skills tests. The student’s transfer to the senior college is automatic, as well.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Ensure that the general education requirements at CUNY’S community colleges converge with those of the senior colleges. Special transfer curricula need to be created that will enable students to move into specialized degree or professional programs at the senior colleges.

• Ensure full compliance with the Board of Trustees’ transfer and articulation regulations that guarantee full transfer of the A.A. and A.S. degrees, and automatic junior standing for community college graduates holding these degrees.

• Require that AAS degree programs articulate with corresponding majors in CUNY’s baccalaureate institutions, and that the senior colleges cooperate with this effort.

• Remove administrative impediments for students to concurrently enroll in community college and baccalaureate courses, and, if qualified, to enroll in web-based distance learning courses from any college in the CUNY system.

• Establish incentive funding for significant collaborative initiatives between community colleges and baccalaureate colleges within CUNY, with explicit expectations spelled out in advance; neither partner could collect its funding unless those expectations are met.

• The Board’s Committee on Academic Policy, Program and Research should recommend a rigorous timeline and "deliverables" to implement Board policy and intent regarding community/senior college collaboration on core curricula, articulation, and transfer issues. The committee should delineate expectations and parameters while clearly calling for work on the details to be accomplished through appropriate faculty and administrative processes.

 

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Establish and support cooperative initiatives among the CUNY community colleges to expand the range of courses easily available to students (e.g., through electronic delivery, cross-registration, etc.).

• Articulate more closely with CUNY’s senior colleges on liberal arts and sciences curricula to ensure a seamless transition for students moving from lower to upper division work.

• Ensure early guidance and advisement so that students will have taken all needed courses when they are ready to graduate and transfer.

 

Between Fiscal Year 1990 and Fiscal Year 2001, State support for CUNY’s community colleges declined by $9 million, or 6.4 percent, after inflation. This decline occurred despite the provision of funds for new facilities and incremental increases in State aid per FTE. City support declined even more dramatically during the period, by $78 million, or 45.9 percent after inflation. Tuition increased $55 million, or by 67 percent, to fill a portion of this budget gap.

Overall, total operating funds for the CUNY community colleges declined $31 million between FY 1990 and FY 2001, or 8.1 percent. An enrollment increase of 2.3 percent during this period placed further demands on these limited resources. On a per FTE basis, total operating funds declined 10.2 percent.

Community College Funding by Source (In $ millions - HEPI Inflation Adjusted):

[Table misssing on website]

Nationwide, funding for community colleges has eroded over the past 10 years, but considerably less than at CUNY. A separate analysis of Education and General expenditures at CUNY community colleges and peer institutions between FT 1990 and FY 1998 showed that, after inflation, total expenditures at CUNY’ s community colleges remained flat (0.2 percent increase) and were down $1,176 or 14 percent on an FI’E basis once enrollment growth was factored in.

In contrast, the select group of national peers (chosen by PricewaterhouseCoopers for the Mayor’s Task Force on CUNY) experienced a 6.8 parent increase in total expenditures and a loss of just $179 per FTE, or 2.6 percent, after accounting for enrollment growth.

At CUNY, these difficult reductions have been shared among the community colleges through a pooling system. The University combines all city, state and tuition dollars directed to its community colleges into a single pool of funds. Part of this pool ($98.5 million) is used to cover centralized expenditures, such as fringe benefits and energy. The lion’s share ($267.2 million) is distributed to the colleges according to a formula based largely on a per FTE basis but that is sensitive to basic core college needs, regardless of size. The balance ($46.7 million) is allocated in support of targeted programs that represent University-wide initiatives and priorities, such as College Discovery, Language Immersion programs, and Writing Across the Curriculum.

This pooled model is an efficient example of how an integrated university should operate - all colleges are provided resources in accordance with a common standard for determining need, with the remainder going to targeted strategic investments. The model forms the basis of the University’s budget request for the community colleges over the next three years.

As additional revenues are made available to the community colleges, this integrated funding model ensures that those funds can be targeted toward University-wide objectives and invested strategically to carry out the multiple functions outlined in this report. The emphasis on strategic investment and the attention to performance place CUNY’ s community colleges in the forefront of national movement in this direction. Currently, 10 states have a serious performance element in their funding formulas for community colleges.

Recommendations: Chancellery and Board of Trustees

• Seek additional state and city funding for the community colleges to restore resources lost over the past decade and provide enough new funding to effectively implement the recommendations contained in this report.

• Support development of a system that links new funding with student outcomes and campus performance.

• Continue the pooling of community college funds to realize the benefits of an integrated university, while permitting targeting of new funds toward strategic priorities.

 

Recommendations: Community Colleges

• Pursue strategic and aggressive fundraising and institutional advancement initiatives -

-joint ventures with business, alumni relations, acquisition of grants and contracts are but a few examples - to promote innovation and ensure the margin of excellence in community college work.

CONCLUSION

The City University’s six community colleges will play a critical role as CUNY reconfigures itself into a fully integrated system that expands access and student choice and maximizes resources while boosting quality at all levels.

Today, they are gateway institutions for thousands of traditional and non-traditional students seeking a cost-effective entrance into higher education, and serve a broad range of functions -  liberal arts and sciences preparation for transfer, career training and retraining, continuing and adult education, developmental education, and workforce training and economic development.

New challenges can create new opportunities for CUNY-- but meeting them will require flexibility and an openness to new approaches, and a willingness to redeploy resources as student and market demands change. The CUNY colleges now offer an array of excellent services to their student customers. Critical to future effectiveness, though, is-a major effort to bring greater coherence and continuity to students’ learning experiences.

Across the country, Americans increasingly are seeking postsecondary education and training from a variety of sources, in a variety of formats, across a lifetime - as their careers require, their needs dictate, and their pocketbooks allow. Accordingly, it becomes increasingly important for institutions of higher education not only to offer multiple learning options, but also to link and articulate those options in ways that provide students with clear and coherent pathways for academic and career advancement.

Within CUNY, linking credit and non-credit offerings, articulating associate and baccalaureate programs, and providing timely, effective advisement are key to creating the seamless educational continuum that will serve students well while reinforcing the role of The City University in the life of New York City.

If CUNY’s community colleges build upon these strengths, keeping quality, access, and service as touchstones, they will secure the recognition they deserve as full and equal partners in the work of the University, and as national and world leaders in community college education.

Appendix I

A.A.S. Degrees Offered by CUNY Community

[omitted on website]

38,39

Challenge #1

• Growth in participation (enrollment) rate in the college service area.

• Increase in enrollment rate of recent graduates of area high schools (or other group strategically targeted by a particular college).

• Improved retention rates: within enrollment period (semester or other); current-to- subsequent period; fall-to-fall.

Challenge #2

• Student satisfaction (assessed through systematic surveys conducted annually).

• Student evaluations of learning experiences.

• Increased percentage of credit course sections taught by full-time faculty.

• Percent of faculty and staff participating annually in targeted professional development experiences.

• Increased student success rates: i.e., percent of full-time students in an entering cohort who have completed a certificate, graduated with an associate degree, transferred, or are still enrolled. This could be measured at two, four, and six years from the entering date.

• Year-to-year improvement over the college’s baseline data on student performance on proficiency, exit, and licensure/certification exams. Targets for improvement in these areas should be set annually by each college in collaboration with the Chancellery, with results assessed accordingly.

Challenge #3

• Improvement in developmental student performance on exit assessments.

• Developmental student performance in subsequent college-level coursework (in absolute terms and in comparison to students not participating in developmental education).

• Continuously improving success rates (i.e., certificate/degree completion, "rising junior" assessment, transfer) of students who begin their studies in developmental education vs. those who don’t.

• Measuring return on investment by comparing outcomes for students who complete developmental instruction vs. those who do not complete, and/or measuring outcomes for completers vs. predicted outcomes for individuals from matched demographic circumstances. Possibilities: % on public assistance, % in criminal justice system, % employed, % completing college certificates and degrees, % contributing tax revenue.

 

 

 

 

40

Challenge #4

• Job placement rates for students completing career-related certificate and AAS degree programs.

• Increase in number of students completing career-related certificate and AAS degree programs.

• Employer satisfaction with supply and skills of graduates (assessed through systematic surveys).

• Community college economic impact analysis. The Association of Community College Trustees has developed - with significant investment and assistance from World Bank economic consultants - and is now piloting a computer model that local entities can use in estimating the economic impact of community colleges.

Challenge #5

• Evidence that individual colleges have defined desired student learning outcomes at the course, program, certificate and degree level, and that these expectations are clearly communicated to prospective and current students. This evidence could include outcome analyses as well as the catalogues, syllabi and web pages that communicate these expectations to students.

• Annual and intelligible public reporting on college and system performance.

Challenge #6

• Increasing percentage of CUNY community college students who transfer to CUNY baccalaureate institutions, retention rates of those students, and earned GPA of those students after one year in the baccalaureate institution.

• Increasing percentage of credits earned at CUNY community colleges that are accepted and fully transferred by CUNY senior colleges. This measurement appropriately attributes some responsibility for transfer issues to the baccalaureate institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

41