A Proven Solution:
Washington State Community and Technical College System
For Douglas Gould and Company
By Meg Bostrom, Public Knowledge
October 2012
Executive Summary
The central objective for this research is to develop a message strategy that will build
public will among Washington residents for greater support of the Community and
Technical College system.
The Washington Community and Technical College System (CTCs) is well positioned to
improve public understanding of, and support for its role in the state. Residents hold
positive impressions of CTCs and place high priority on most functions. There are few
negative impressions to overcome.
At the same time, there is certainly room to build real knowledge of the system’s
important work. Many readily admit they are not very familiar with the system. While
more than two-thirds initially oppose budget cuts, opinion is fluid with more than onethird shifting response over the course of the survey.
The research strongly suggests that a well orchestrated communications campaign will
make a difference. In fact, over the course of the survey, people’s views of CTCs
improve substantially. Job ratings improve by 11 percentage points, and every image
trait improves by 3-8 percentage points.
2
Communicators should keep three dynamics in mind when developing the message
strategy.
1. Individual Perspective vs. Collective Perspective
A central challenge for communicators is to reinforce the importance of CTCs to
everyone in the state, rather than limit the value to students alone.
The Virtual Community Forum (VCF) identified a central dynamic that influences
people’s views of CTCs and public support for state financing – the Individual
Perspective vs. Collective Perspective.
Initially, most research participants can only think of the value of CTCs from the
perspective of an individual student, or parent of a student. In this perspective, the
main value of CTCs is affordable, convenient education.
This perspective is so strong, that when asked to imagine a conversation with a neighbor
who has never attended a CTC and has no children who might attend, many
participants were unable to make a case for why that neighbor has a stake in the
success of CTCs without viewing the situation through a student perspective: “Adults
can take classes too,” or “you might have a child or grandchild who wants to go
someday,” etc.
The Individual Perspective limits the benefits (and therefore the responsibility) to
students. Over time, if this perspective is allowed to deepen, it could lead to a mindset
in which citizens come to believe that state funding for CTCs is less appropriate or
necessary compared with other priorities.
3
In contrast, a Collective Perspective allows people to see why all Washingtonians have
a stake in, and benefit from the success of CTCs. This point of view is essential for
building a broader base of public support for protecting CTCs from state budget cuts.
There are two powerful, related ideas that reinforce a Collective Perspective – the
Stakes for the State’s Economy and the Stakes for Society.
Stakes for the State’s Economy – CTCs fill a proven need in today’s economy/job
market.
Stakes for Society – CTCs benefit society as a whole by expanding access to
education and the opportunity for a better life for all.
Importantly, these ideas will be most effective if they are communicated in a way that
capitalizes on CTCs’ important niche in higher education. Research identifies several
approaches that represent a unique proposition for CTCs. While there are numerous
effective ways to express it, the Core Idea we want Washingtonians to understand
about CTCs is that they are:
a proven solution, a path to prosperity; they make education and good jobs more
accessible, leading to a stronger, more prosperous Washington.
This is a big idea that goes beyond any particular function (job training, ABE, etc.), and
that speaks to a deeper value.
4
2. Short-term and Long-term Strategy
In the current economic climate, people are excited about the idea that CTCs have
“proven” their worth in rebounding from a recession, and this element of Collective
Stakes can take prominence for the short term.
However, the strategy should ensure the message is not so narrowly defined that once
the recession abates, CTCs become irrelevant. Providing examples of the rewarding
and emerging professions that require a two year degree should continue to be
effective even after the recession, and certainly messages about societal benefit will
continue to be relevant for the long term.
This Core Idea inoculates against efforts to cut state funding for CTCs. Once the
collective stakes are firmly established in people’s minds, the case for funding becomes
straightforward. It is short-sighted to undermine a proven path to prosperity.
3. New vs. Old Understanding
Washington residents are very clear about their priorities for CTCs: 1) provide an
affordable and convenient start toward a college education, and 2) provide workforce
training (and retraining) for professions that do not require a four-year degree. Fewer
prioritize activities such as enrichment courses, ESL, or remedial courses.
5
However, is it wise to emphasize “affordable and convenient start”?
“Cost” certainly dominates people’s associations with CTCs. On one hand, people are
very concerned about the rising cost of higher education, and they include CTCs in that
critique. At the same time, they readily recognize that CTCs are far more affordable
than four-year institutions.
Importantly, focusing on affordability and convenience does little to improve people’s
image of CTCs. First, this isn’t new information for people, so a campaign centered on
this insight would be unlikely to have much of an impact. More important, the
“affordable, convenient start” on college does little to promote CTCs’ unique value.
With this approach, people learn little about the rewarding professions a two-year
degree can lead to, or the important skills they can build or enhance.
CTCs certainly shouldn’t avoid “affordable, convenient start”. General economic
pressures and rising tuition costs cause people to worry about the cost of higher
education, including CTCs. However, as the leading idea, it is unlikely to change minds
or lead to the Collective Stakes mindset we want to encourage.
In comparison, just as many people want CTCs to prioritize training, retraining, etc., but it
is pretty clear from the VCF that they don't know much about what this means.
Washington has a great story to tell in this regard, and people clearly get excited when
they learn more.
6
Finally, in reviewing the report, please keep two cautions in mind:
Most compelling ideas: The Virtual Community Forum allowed us to narrow the inquiry and
take just the most promising ideas into the survey. That means most of the frames and
support points will be rated highly by survey respondents; we eliminated bad ideas prior to
the survey.
Communications, not policy: The objective is to develop communications directions, not
policy decisions. We are trying to understand how to communicate ideas effectively, not
dictate education policy.
7
Methodology
Phase 1: Qualitative


A Virtual Community Forum conducted with 28 Washingtonians on
September 9-14, 2012.
A Virtual Community Forum takes place on a common, interactive site
where recruited respondents participate at their convenience. Over five
days, respondents checked into the discussion at least twice daily to
answer questions, review messages, and interact with other participants.
Interactions included both text and video.
Phase 2: Quantitative


562 surveys statewide, completed online October 9 – 18, 2012
To better reflect statewide demographics, results were weighted slightly
by gender, education, age and race. Online panel surveys are based on
non-probability sampling. Since the main purpose of this survey was to
test messages, this method is appropriate. Readers should be cautious
about generalizing these results to the broader population.
8
Census Survey (In Percent) (In Percent) Demographics
GENDER Male Female My child currently attends
No relationship
25 years+ 35 NA 25 9 20 11 18 years+ 27 6 30 9 17 11 AGE 18-­‐24 25-­‐34 35-­‐44 45-­‐54 55-­‐64 65+ 11 18 19 20 16 16 11 16 16 22 17 18 RACE Black Asian Hispanic 4 8 12 3 10 9 REGION King county Pierce/Snohomish Other Western CounOes Eastern & Central CounOes 29 23 26 22 29 25 28 18 5%
5%
40%
I attended in past
My child attended in past
49 51 EDUCATION HS grad or less Technical cerOficate Some college Associates degree Bachelors degree Grad/professional Connection to WA CTCs
I currently attend
50 50 20%
30%
Of those who have a\ended CTCs, 35% say they received a degree, 26% took classes toward a degree, 26% were not working toward a degree, and 13% didn’t know or said “something else”. 9
Detailed Findings
10
General Impressions
Education, Wrong Direction
Washingtonians have mixed views about the
direction of the state (51% say it is going in the
right direction, 49% wrong track). However,
they are more pessimistic about the status of
public higher education in the state (40% say it
is going in the right direction, 60% wrong track).
The public’s assessment of the direction of the
state and of higher education are both
influenced by partisan views. Democratic
respondents are positive about the direction of
the state (79% “right direction”) and higher
education (57% “right direction), while majorities
of Independents and Republicans say both the
state and higher education are on the wrong
track.
Other than partisanship, views on the direction
of higher education are fairly consistent across
demographic groups.
State Direction
Do you think things in the state are generally going in
the right direction or are they headed off on the
wrong track?
83%
79%
47%53%
51%49%
21%
Total
17%
Democrat
Independent
Right Direction
Republican
Wrong Track
Direction of Higher Education
Thinking about the public higher education system overall in
Washington today, do you think it is generally going in the
right direction or is it headed off on the wrong track?
60%
40%
Total
57%
43%
Democrat
75%
67%
33%
Independent
Right Direction
25%
Republican
Wrong Track
11
CTC Ratings
Positive views, but many
have little familiarity.
While few are very familiar with CTCs, general impressions
are favorable. This means CTCs do not have a lot of
negatives to overcome, yet there is still significant
opportunity to improve ratings of the system.
Familiarity is somewhat low – only 12% are “very familiar”
with CTCs, and 41% are “not very” or “not familiar at all”. In
addition, nearly 1 in 4 does not have enough information
at the beginning of the survey to even give a job rating for
CTCs (24% say “don’t know” in the first or “pre” message
test of CTCs’ job rating).
At the same time, very few hold negative impressions of
CTCs. Initially, 60% give CTCs a favorable “excellent” or
“good” rating, while only 16% give a negative, “not so
good” or “poor” rating.
With familiarity comes respect. Those who are familiar give
higher ratings of CTCs than those who are not familiar (78%
and 35% respectively).
I would like them to improve their image so they are seen
as a viable option for high achieving students. My children
snub their noses at the thought of community college
because they have been brain washed by their high
school teachers that only losers go to community college.
(51 year old woman)
Familiarity with CTCs
How familiar would you say you are with
community and technical colleges in the state?
12%
Very familiar
48%
Somewhat familiar
28%
Not very familiar
13%
Not familiar at all
Job Rating - Initial
In your view, overall, what kind of job is the
Washington Community and Technical College
system doing?
6%
Excellent
54%
Good
14%
Not so good
Poor
Don’t know
2%
24%
12
CTC Ratings
Advanced education and
job training are top
priorities.
CTCs fill a variety of needs, and majorities
believe a number of roles are important.
However, survey respondents clearly place
the greatest importance on transitioning
students to higher education and on job and
career training, rather than remedial
education or ESL. As the graph demonstrates,
the highest rated priority is providing an
affordable way for students to start college
(76% “priority”, 42% “very high priority”),
followed by retraining (77%, 38%) and training
for careers that don’t require a 4-year degree
(76%, 38%.
Far fewer place high priority on enrichment
(35%, 11%), ESL (35%, 13%), and remedial
education (53%, 18%).
The ordering of priorities is very consistent
across demographic groups. Engaged, news
attentive citizens rate most priorities higher
than respondents overall.
Preferred CTC Priorities
% "Very High" or "High Priority"
Very High Priority
High Priority
Cannot afford the cost of university
a way to start college
42
34
Retraining, for people who have lost
jobs or need a new career
38
39
Training for professions that do not
require a 4-year degree
38
38
Complete first 2 years of a 4-year
degree close to home
36
33
Providing local businesses with a
trained workforce.
35
37
Running start on college, free
classes during HS if qualified
32
29
eLearning opportunities, study
anytime, anywhere
25
38
Continuing ed for job skills
24
41
Reading for adults who never
learned
24
28
Recent HS grads math class to
prepare for college
22
32
Adults classes to refresh basic math
skills to prepare for college
18
35
New immigrants learn English and
other skills
13
22
A course to learn something new,
not seeking a degree
11
24
13
CTC Image Ratings
Convenient training, not necessarily affordable or innovative.
Solid majorities ascribe a number of positive traits to CTCs, though intensity of response is far lower. The
trait most Washingtonians associate with CTCs is “conveniently located” (80% describes “very” or
“somewhat well”) though only 32% say it describes CTCs “very well”. There is a similar pattern for other
positive traits such as “provide training for good jobs” (77%, 28%), “important to the state’s
economy” (73%, 32%), and “provide a high quality education” (73%, 21%). Far fewer say CTCs are
“affordable” (58%, 15%) or “innovative” (55%, 11%).
Describes CTCs
% "Very" or "Somewhat Well"
48
32
Conveniently
located
49
28
Provide
training for
good jobs
41
32
Important to
the state’s
economy
Very Well
52
21
Provide a high
quality
education
43
44
15
11
Affordable
Innovative
Somewhat Well
14
Low Cost, Practical Approach to
Higher Education
“Cost” dominates people’s associations
with CTCs. As noted earlier, “providing
people who cannot afford the cost of a
four-year university a way to start their
college education” is the top priority for
survey respondents. At the same time,
fewer respondents say “affordable”
describes CTCs compared with other
traits.
The Virtual Community Forum discussion is
illuminating on this measure. When asked
to use an object to illustrate their feelings
about CTCs, many described the relative
affordability of CTCs compared with fouryear colleges, while others pointed out
that the cost can still be out of reach for
many. (See video at right.)
While affordability is a credible contrast
with four-year colleges, communicators
should be cautious about making cost
THE central concern as it does not help
people understand a more unique and
valuable attribute - the rewarding
careers a two year degree can fulfill.
Community colleges are affordable, usually close to home and a great bridge between high school and a four year university...Money is usually the deciding factor...and that is a shame in our country. (61 year old woman) 15
Perceived "Truth" of Criticisms of CTCs
“Limited” Education
Few criticize the quality of education
provided by CTCs. Instead, people
are more likely to note that the CTC
education leads to limited career
options, unlike a four-year college.
Stressing “affordability” does nothing
to address this critique.
CTCs have a compelling and
distinguishing story to tell about the
rewarding careers a two year degree
can lead to, and the valuable job
training CTCs provide.
A person can only advance so far
with a degree from a community
college. Most well-paying jobs require
at least a bachelor’s degree from a
four-year college.
The college level courses at
community colleges are easier than
the same courses taught in four-year
colleges.
Community colleges offer so many
programs that their resources are
spread too thin to be very good.
45
39
23
19
35
44
16
12
True "all" or "much" of the time
True "some" of the time
Never true
Don’t Know
6 10
25
25
16
CTC Ratings
Over the course of the survey,
people’s views of CTCs improve.
Job Rating - Pre and Post
In your view, overall, what kind of job is the Washington
Community and Technical College system doing?
Excellent
6%
6%
Good
The survey findings demonstrate a strong
potential for an extensive communications
campaign to improve the public’s
assessment of CTCs (and thereby shoring up
support against budget cuts). The strongest
indication of this potential is the fact that
people’s views of CTCs improve significantly
over the course of the survey.
After hearing a series of messages, survey
respondents’ favorable ratings improve 11
percentage points from 60% to 71%. While
most(66%) stay constant in their ratings of
CTCs, 23% increase their ratings while less
than half as many (11%) shift their ratings
down.
Those most likely to improve their rating of
CTCs include women, especially: older
women (31% shift up), women without a
college education (30%), and working
women (28%).
54%
Post
10%
14%
Not so good
Poor
65%
Pre
1%
2%
18%
24%
Don’t know
Shift on Rating of CTCs
11%
23%
66%
Shift up
Stay same
Shift down
17
CTC Image Ratings
Over the course of the survey, people’s image of CTCs improves.
In addition to an improvement in overall ratings, every image trait also improves over the course
of the survey. Comparing the initial pre-message rating of image traits with ratings after the
messages shows 3-8 percentage point improvements for every trait.
Describes CTCs - Pre and Post
% "Very" or "Somewhat Well"
77%
84%
80% 83%
73%
81%
73%
79%
58%
66%
55%
62%
Pre
Post
Provide training
for good jobs
Conveniently
located
Important to
the state’s
economy
Provide a high
quality
education
Affordable
Innovative
18
Budget Cuts
Budget Cuts - Pre and Post
Respondents oppose budget cuts.
From the start, survey respondents are
inclined to oppose spending cuts (68%
oppose, 36% strongly oppose). By the end of
the survey, opposition continues to be just as
strong (71% oppose, 35% strongly oppose).
By the end of the survey, survey respondents
choose expanding CTCs over cutting back by
a 2 to 1 margin.
Though it is tempting to see the opposition to
budget cuts and support for expansion as a
response to recent austerity measures, the
national survey in 2004 showed similar levels of
response to these questions.
Making the case for community colleges is
likely to solidify opposition to budget cuts. For
example, those who are familiar with CTCs
more strongly oppose budget cuts than those
who are less familiar (45% and 23%
respectively).
Given the limited funding and the number of other demands on
tax dollars, would you favor or oppose cutting back spending on
community and technical colleges in the short-term in order to
balance the state budget?
Favor, strongly
Favor, somewhat
4%
4%
15%
14%
Oppose, somewhat
36%
32%
Oppose, strongly
35%
36%
Don't know
Post
Pre
10%
13%
Currently there are more people who would like to a\end community colleges than the colleges have space for. Here are two proposals to help solve this problem, please choose the one you support more. 34% Community colleges should raise tui?on and fees and become more selec?ve in whom they admit so fewer students can a@end. 66% Use tax dollars to expand the system of community colleges so more students can a@end, even if this means raising state taxes. 19
Budget Cuts
Reality Check
Recognized Sources of Funding
Multiple Responses Accepted
62%
State tax funds
Though survey respondents oppose cutting funding to
CTCs, we need to keep in mind that: 1) people’s
Tuition that students pay
understanding of funding is vague, at best and 2) there is
a lot of movement in views of funding cuts, indicating
perceptions could shift against us.
Federal funds
Majorities rightly guess that state taxes and tuition fund
CTCs, but 1 in 4 do not know. Further, discussions in the
VCF indicate how fuzzy people’s understanding is:
To be honest I'm not really sure. Obviously by tuition and
perhaps taxes as well... I really have no idea. (22 year old
woman)
Also, a 36% shift in views suggests an opening for the
opposition. In the VCF, opposition to cuts easily triggered
anti-Government feelings, causing people to conclude
the solution is cutting waste or creative accounting:
i think they should focus more on cutting the frivolous
spending and put more money back into education. The
politicians should also have their salaries cut to help fund
this. (50 year old woman)
Raising tuition rates only hurts the students. Of course the
state would say " We don't have anymore money to give
for funding" that is when the state needs to find new and
inventive ways to generate or find the money. (38 year
old man)
57%
31%
27%
Local taxes
24%
Don’t know
Shift on Funding Cuts
Movement Over Course of Survey
17%
19%
Toward support of
cuts
No change
65%
Toward opposition
of cuts
20
Message Strategy
The research uncovered a consistent, compelling framework that will advance this
conversation. The section that follows outlines a central dynamic that needs to be
addressed to make progress on this issue, and includes a number of examples of
successful messaging within the recommended framework.
21
Recommended Message Strategy
Overview
Respondents reviewed a series of overarching messages designed to shape the narrative. The findings
illustrate a clear and consistent framework for basing the collective value of CTCs on two ideas – the
stakes for Society and for the State’s Economy.
A central challenge for communicators is to reinforce the importance of CTCs to everyone in the state,
rather than limit the value to students alone.
The Virtual Community Forum (VCF) identified a central dynamic that influences people’s views of CTCs
and public support for state financing – the Individual Perspective vs. Collective Perspective. The
Individual Perspective limits people’s view to the benefits and consequences for students, while the
Collective Perspective allows people to see the effects for the state as a whole. A collective point of
view is essential for building a broader base of public support for protecting CTCs from state budget cuts.
There are two powerful, related ideas that reinforce a Collective Perspective – the Stakes for Society and
the Stakes for the State’s Economy.
Stakes for Society – CTCs benefit society as a whole by expanding access to education and the
opportunity for a better life for all.
Stakes for the State’s Economy -- CTCs fill a proven need in today’s economy/job market.
Importantly, these ideas will be most effective if they are communicated in a way that defines a unique
position for CTCs that distinguishes them from other forms of higher education.
The next few pages explore these elements in more detail.
22
Perspective
Individual vs. Collective
The Virtual Community Forum identified a central
dynamic that influences people’s views– the
Individual Perspective vs. Collective Perspective.
Initially, most research participants can only think of
the value of CTCs from the perspective of an
individual student, or parent of a student. In this
perspective, the main value of CTCs is affordable,
convenient education.
This perspective is so strong, that when asked to
imagine a conversation with a neighbor who has
never attended a CTC and has no children who
might attend, many participants were unable to
make a case for why that neighbor has a stake in the
success of CTCs without viewing the situation through
a student perspective: “Adults can take classes too,”
or “you might have a child or grandchild who wants
to go someday,” etc. (See video at right.)
The Individual Perspective is limiting. If students are
the only beneficiaries, then students should be
responsible for their own education (and its costs).
In contrast, a Collective Perspective allows people to
see why all Washingtonians have a stake in, and
benefit from the success of CTCs. This point of view is
essential for building a broader base of public
support for protecting CTCs from state budget cuts.
23
Message:
Societal Stakes
Mean
%9+
10
Though not the default point of
view for most, once research
respondents are exposed to the
role of CTCs in creating a
stronger society, it quickly
becomes a compelling rationale
for supporting CTCs.
Our society as a whole benefits when everyone has access to an
education and community and technical colleges give more
people that access.
7.8
46
Community and technical colleges offer people a chance to
improve their quality of life or even turn their life around –
anyone, at any point in life has the opportunity to get an
education, even while working a full time job.
7.7
39
All four messages that touch on
societal benefits are among the
most highly rated messages in
the survey.
Every person in America deserves an opportunity to get an
education and community and technical colleges are there to
provide people with that opportunity.
7.6
41
“Community” college means far more than being local and
convenient. It means serving the entire community in
everything it does. From high school students earning college
credits early, to workers building skills for a better life, nearly
half a million Washingtonians turn to community colleges each
year.
7.5
37
The ranking of these messages is
relatively consistent across
demographic groups, though
the economic message on the
next page is particularly
compelling among those whose
views of CTCs improve over the
course of the survey.
24
Mean
Message:
Economic Stakes
CTCs have a compelling story to tell
when it comes to building the state’s
prosperity.
The top-rated economic message,
though seemingly loaded with
numbers, is compelling in part
because the statistics bring credibility.
Otherwise, it is easy for people to
dismiss this idea as
“spin.” (Communicators do not
necessarily have to include all the
numbers here, but note that wellplaced statistics bring credibility.)
Similarly, responses from the VCF
indicate that the examples in the
second top-rated economic message
are highly influential because they
help people see what kind of “new
jobs” are being referenced.
The community and technical college system is a proven
solution for our economy. In 2010, 116,000 laid-off workers
turned to the community and technical colleges for retraining.
Within a few months of completing their programs, 77% had
jobs and nearly half were receiving higher wages than they had
in the jobs they lost. One year later, 94% were still employed.
7.8
%9+
10
38
By the end of this decade, two-thirds of all new jobs will
require at least one year of college – for instance, jobs in
healthcare, manufacturing, computer technology, criminal
justice and the skilled trades. Community and technical
colleges are positioned to fill this need.
7.6
38
Community and technical colleges offer education and training
for the real world.
We can turn our state economy around by training
Washingtonians for jobs that are available now in new and
growing industries. Community and technical colleges are
partnering with local businesses to ensure that training meets
local workforce needs.
7.5
35
7.5
34
Those who become more favorable
to CTCs over the course of the survey
are particularly influenced by the
“Proven solution” message.
25
Collective Stakes
While the collective benefits of education,
particularly CTCs, is not necessarily top-of-mind,
once people are exposed to the idea, it
becomes a powerful rationale for citizen action.
When people can see that CTCs are essential to
a stronger economy or a functioning society,
they are far more willing to take joint
responsibility for their success. This point of view is
essential for building a broader base of public
support for protecting CTCs from state budget
cuts.
The video at right demonstrates how participants
in the Virtual Community Forum express this new
perspective in their own words.
What is most sticking in my mind is realizing all of the
opportunities that community colleges provide that I
have never really explicitly thought about. I have never
thought about how much they contribute to our
communities…everything we have talked about has
solidified the importance of making higher education
available to as many people as we can, because that
is one way to help out our entire community. (34 year
old woman)
26
Less Effective
Economic Points
Some of the economic messages test
less well. These messages do not
need to be avoided, but when used
they should be support points, not
lead ideas.
Reponses from the VCF explain why
the last message “increase 10% each
year” does poorly in comparison with
the other economic messages.
People endorse the idea, but find it
difficult to believe because they have
heard so many stories about college
graduates who cannot find jobs.
It may be that the other two
economic messages rate slightly
lower for a similar reason – people
have not really thought about CTCs in
relation to STEM or advanced
technical industries. Including
examples as support points will help to
build new understanding, but
communicators should avoid using
them as leading ideas that may
confuse.
Mean
%9+
10
Community and technical colleges are working closely with
businesses in high demand industries in our state like aerospace
and advanced manufacturing, alternative energy, and
sustainable agriculture, to design training that prepares students
for employment in industries that will lead the economic
recovery of our state.
7.3
30
In the near future, most good paying jobs will be in the science,
technology, engineering and math field. Community and
technical colleges specifically focus on education and training
for jobs in these fields.
7.2
32
There are jobs for people with the right education and training.
In fact, our state colleges and universities have to increase their
graduation rates by 10 percent each year to meet business and
industry demand for qualified workers.
6.9
24
27
Less Effective Points –
Educational Approach
Finally, the innovative approaches
that CTCs are developing in
Washington State are less compelling
as a central rationale for public
support for higher education.
Again, these messages do not need
to be avoided, but they are not the
strongest ideas to lead with. For
example, we know from the VCF that
innovative approaches to learning,
including “hybrid” courses and
applied bachelor’s degrees are wellliked (particularly by those who are
interested in taking classes).
However, it seems they are not as
powerful as messages that reinforce
collective stakes.
Mean
%9+
10
7.2
27
Washington State community and technical colleges are at the
7.0
cutting edge of developing education solutions for those already
in the workforce, solutions like applied bachelor’s degrees.
Applied bachelor’s degrees are four-year degrees that build on
two-year degrees in professional fields like health care and
information technology.
25
Washington State’s community and technical colleges are
innovative leaders in approaches to efficient and effective
learning, including ‘hybrid’ courses that combine on-line and
in-class learning, and accelerated programs that allow students
to learn at their own pace and advance as soon as they can
demonstrate their knowledge.
28
Less Convincing Messages for the System
Results from the Virtual Community Forum (VCF) and the survey found that the
following message directions were less convincing for the system as a whole.




The idea that adult basic education matters because the economy needs
all people to contribute was less effective as a system-wide message.
Again, this is not meant to suggest that CTCs should not provide ABE, nor
does it mean that this isn’t a valuable message for promoting ABE in
particular. It simply means it is less effective as a system-wide message.
Similarly, ESL is a less effective message. Even when ESL is associated with
workforce needs, it brings to mind undocumented immigrants and foreign
students getting benefits at taxpayer expense.
That people must be more flexible, innovative, and willing to learn new skills
is seen as true, but it doesn’t distinguish CTCs from other forms of higher
education generally, and doesn’t make a case for collective concern or
action.
Highlighting a segment of society, by income or class, is off-putting for
respondents. One of the main appeals of CTCs is universality – so
segmenting the audience works against a key benefit.
I wish our public educa?onal (elementary and secondary) could do a be@er job so that high school graduates did not need remedial help going straight into college. (51 year old woman) I have to ques?on why this statement is in here because it was my impression that anyone regardless of color or economic background can a@end community or technical college, they just have to be able to pay for it. (50 year old woman) it really seems to only go to single moms, foreign students and people who have dropped out of high school. I don't think that a lot of people who actually deserve it and really need it even qualify. (22 year old woman) 29
The Case for Funding
Budget Cuts
Net Agree minus Disagree
Once the value is understood, the
funding case is clear.
Boost by investing in training
in growth industries. Don't
starve the solution.
As noted earlier, Washingtonians
oppose cutting education budgets and
opposition stays constant throughout
the survey.
Survey respondents agree with every
case against budget cuts and oppose
every rationale for them. By far, the
strongest message reminds people that
“we can boost employment and
wages by investing in community and
technical colleges so people have the
knowledge and training they need to
get good jobs in key, growth industries
in our state. It makes no sense to starve
the solution by cutting funding.” (77%
agree, 14% disagree)
Note that the collective stakes
messages people heard prior to these
questions undoubtedly contributed to
the strong response in our direction,
and perhaps even helped with the
focus on “low income” that did not
perform as well earlier in the survey.
60
46
44
43
41
31
-34
-36
-49
State contributions keep
getting cut. How can we
attract global corporations?
Budget cuts are shortsighted; starves the solution
our economy needs.
Pennywise and pound-foolish
by cutting higher education
funding.
Shortage of skilled workers is
holding economy back.
Provide financial aid.
Too many can’t afford
education for available jobs.
Boost financial aid.
We can’t afford funding right
now. Everyone has to
sacrifice.
Low-income students should
pay for education like
everyone else.
State shouldn't subsidize;
Students should invest in their
education.
30
The Case for Funding
Once the Collective stakes are firmly
established, the case for funding
becomes relatively straightforward
and obvious.
As the video shows, people
passionately argue against budget
cuts by relying on “collective stakes”.
Instead of seeing spending revenue on
higher education as "spending", taxpayers
should see it as investment -- a solution to
begin a turnaround of our economy. If we
don't have skilled workers here, companies
will go elsewhere. For that, we lose income
from both the employee and the
company. The next complaint many have
is public assistance programs and how
much the state spends on those. How will
those recipients make more income, to
remove themselves from state assistance?
With education and job training. (38 year
old woman)
31
Taglines
VCF - Most and Least Compelling
Focus on Washington
Finally, the VCF included a handful of
taglines to get a general sense of the
kinds of phrases that would accurately
“sum up” what matters most to
respondents after investing so much
time in thinking about this subject.
They chose 2-3 they found most
compelling (“pro”) and 2-3 they felt
were “not right” (“con”). The line about
“Better jobs, brighter futures, and a
stronger Washington/Economy”
seemed to sum up both the societal
and economic stakes they care about.
“Securing Our Future” was popular in
part due to the power of the word
“our”. “Transforming” was strongly
preferred by some, but disliked by
several who thought “transforming”
was an overreach.
The “work” statements were off-putting
and suggested public sector jobs to
some. “Go Anywhere” was rejected by
many who thought it implied moving
out of state.
Start Here Go Anywhere
Securing Our Future
Creating Opportunity
Working for Washington
Washington Works
CON
Building a Work-Ready
Washington
PRO
Education that works for
Washington
For Better Jobs, Brighter Futures,
and a Stronger Washington
For Better Jobs, Brighter Futures,
and a Stronger Economy
Transforming Lives - Transforming
Washington
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
32
Conclusion: Core Concept
CTCs are a proven solution/path
to prosperity; they make
education and good jobs more
accessible, leading to a
stronger, more prosperous
Washington.
This is not intended to be ad language. It is the
core idea that should support all our
communications efforts.
33
Conclusion:
Ideas to Avoid and Advance
Avoid
Advance

CTCs are struggling

Value of CTCs

Focus on student benefits

Focus on collective benefits





“Us vs. them” language that
unintentionally suggests “their”
education isn’t “my” concern
Highlighting education for
segments – low income, race
and ethnicity, remedial, etc.
General importance, e.g.,
education leads to progress
Abstract
General education or higher
education focus





“All of us” language that
reminds people of shared
stakes, e.g., “we all win”
Reminding CTCs serve all
Washingtonians, for every
community
“Proven” solution, e.g., CTCs
turn the economy around by…
Tangible
CTC’s important niche in higher
education
34
Megbostrom@public-knowledge.us
© Public Knowledge
35