AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 1 of 392
Charting Pathways to Completion for
Low-Income Community College Students
Davis Jenkins and Madeline Joy Weiss
September 2011
CCRC Working Paper No. 34
Address correspondence to:
Madeline Joy Weiss
Senior Research Assistant, Community College Research Center
Teachers College, Columbia University
525 West 120th Street, Box 174
New York, NY 10027
212-678-3091
Email: weiss@tc.columbia.edu
The authors contributed equally to this work. Funding for this study was provided by the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation. We thank the staff of the Washington State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges for sharing the data used in this study and for helping to interpret the findings. We also thank
Sung-Woo Cho, Judith Scott-Clayton, Colleen Moore, Nancy Shulock, Michelle Van Noy, and Matthew
Zeidenberg for their comments on earlier drafts.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 2 of 392
Abstract
This study uses administrative data from Washington State to chart the
educational pathways of first-time community college students over seven years, with a
focus on young, socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Of particular interest are the
rates at which students enter a course of study (by passing multiple college-level courses
within a focused field of study), the amount of remediation taken by students in each
concentration, and the rates at which students in different concentrations earn certificates,
earn associate degrees, or transfer to four-year institutions.
We found that students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds were
less likely than higher SES students to enter a concentration, which we define as taking
and passing at least three courses in a single field of study. Among those who did enter a
concentration, low-SES students were less likely to concentrate in liberal arts and
sciences and more likely to enter a concentration in career-technical education (CTE),
where completion rates are lower. Low-SES students were overrepresented in fields such
as education and childcare that have low completion rates, although they were well
represented compared with high-SES students in nursing and allied health, which tend to
have higher labor market returns for graduates. Overall, however, the majority of young
students in our sample who entered a program of study—even low-SES young students—
were more likely to do so in liberal arts and sciences than in career-technical programs.
Some researchers and policy analysts have suggested that it would be beneficial to
encourage more students into pathways that involve multiple, ―stackable‖ credentials in
CTE fields with relatively high labor market returns. Given that liberal arts and sciences
is the default pathway for the majority of younger students, convincing recent high school
graduates to choose a CTE path would likely require a fundamental shift in the way high
schools and community colleges guide and prepare young, first-time college students.
Regardless of whether they concentrated in a CTE field or in liberal arts and sciences,
however, low-SES students were less likely to earn a credential or transfer to a four-year
institution.
The majority of students in our sample of first-time students did not get far
enough to enter a concentration. Despite the evidence of a systemic problem in low
overall rates of credential completion, especially among low-income students, there are
no easy solutions. However, a key intermediate step would be to increase the rate at
which students enter coherent programs of study. The ―low-hanging fruit‖ may be the
students who attempt but do not enter a concentration and the many who do not even get
that far but who signal an intent to pursue a credential, whether they signal this through
self-reporting, attempting developmental coursework, or attempting multiple collegelevel courses. In our sample of first-time college students, this represented more than half
of the younger students who did not succeed in entering a concentration.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 3 of 392
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Data ................................................................................................................................ 5
3. The Sample: First-Time Colleges Students in WA CTCs ......................................... 7
3.1 Demographics .......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 Educational Outcomes ........................................................................................... 11
4. Research Questions and Findings ............................................................................. 16
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 32
References ........................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix A: Detailed Tables ......................................................................................... 37
Appendix B: Classification of Instructional Programs ............................................... 43
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 4 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 5 of 392
1. Introduction
As open-admission institutions, community colleges have played a critical role in
expanding access to postsecondary education for disadvantaged students. According to a
nationally representative survey of first-time college students in 2003–04, among firsttime college students with family incomes of $32,000 or lower, 57% started at a two-year
or less-than-two-year college rather than at a four-year institution (Berkner, Choy, &
Hunt-White, 2008). However, students who enter higher education through community
colleges face long odds of actually earning a college credential. Of first-time college
students who enrolled in a community college in 2003–04, fewer than 36% earned a
postsecondary credential within six years (Radford, Berkner, Wheeless, & Shepherd,
2010).
A combination of factors, including increased educational attainment in countries
perceived to be U.S. competitors, higher labor market returns to more education (Rouse,
2007), and financial pressures on governments and families, have converged to shift the
focus of higher education policy beyond expanding college access to increasing college
completion. Policymakers and funders are especially concerned with closing the gap in
completion rates between educationally and economically disadvantaged students and
their more advantaged peers. Lumina Foundation for Education has set a ―big goal‖ of
increasing the percentage of college graduates from 39% to 60% by 2025, a goal that
would require increasing rates of credential attainment among groups of students who
have traditionally faced barriers to success in college.1 The Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation has launched a postsecondary success initiative aimed at doubling the number
of low-income young adults who earn a postsecondary degree or credential with value in
the marketplace by age 26.2
Both Gates and Lumina see community colleges as key to achieving these goals
precisely because they provide access to higher education for disadvantaged students.
There is a plethora of research that has shown that the more disadvantaged students at
community colleges complete and transfer at lower rates than do the more advantaged
students (see, for example, Bailey, Jenkins, & Leinbach, 2005; Goldrick-Rab, 2010).
1
2
See http://www.luminafoundation.org/our_work/our_goal.html
See http://www.gatesfoundation.org/postsecondaryeducation/Pages/postsecondary-success-plan.aspx
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 6 of 392
However, despite the interest in increasing college attainment among disadvantaged
students at community colleges, there has been little research on the pathways such
students take through community colleges en route to completing a program.
Deil-Amen and DeLuca (2010) describe an underserved third of students in the
United States, which refers to a population of students that is prepared neither for college
nor for success in the labor market at the time of high school graduation. This
underserved third is comprised of people who are likely to be of lower socioeconomic
status (SES), part of an underrepresented minority, immigrant English language learners,
or first-generation college students. Deil-Amen and DeLuca maintain that of such
students, those who do go to college are likely to go to community colleges and other
non-selective institutions, where they typically become mired in remedial coursework. To
the extent that these students do get into college-level programs of study, they are often
tracked into vocational programs that are less selective and lead to ―direct employment in
lower-end service and blue-collar jobs‖ (p. 35) rather than to programs such as nursing or
engineering technology, which have entry standards but which also lead to higher paying
employment.
There is evidence that the labor market returns to schooling and credentials differ
across programs of study in community colleges. For example, Jacobson, LaLonde, and
Sullivan (2005) found that returns to a year of schooling for displaced workers were
higher if their credits were completed in more technically-oriented fields. Jepsen, Troske,
and Coomes (2009) found that returns to credentials from community colleges varied by
field, with health-related credentials showing the largest returns for both associate
degrees and long-term certificates (known as diplomas in Kentucky). Another recent
study focused on a young cohort of students (Jacobson & Mokher, 2009), tracking the
1996 cohort of ninth graders in Florida through 2007. That study found that among
students who earned credentials from community colleges, students who concentrated in
career-technical fields, particularly health care and other high-return fields, earned
substantially more by their mid-twenties than did students who earned two-year
credentials in arts and humanities, even after taking high school performance into
account. The authors of that study argue that for disadvantaged students who did not do
2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 7 of 392
well in high school, community college career technical programs can provide a more
viable pathway to a good job than can the academic transfer route.
These studies of the labor market returns to different community college
credentials largely focused on students with successful academic outcomes—that is,
those who earned a certificate or degree. But to earn a credential, students first need to
enter a coherent program of study (which may first require remedial coursework, and
possibly a lot of it) and then complete the required coursework within that program. If
community colleges wish to increase the rate at which students complete programs and
earn college-level credentials, they first need to look at the rate at which students enter
into college-level programs (Jenkins, 2011). Understanding the academic behavior of
community college students and pinpointing where along the pathway to college
completion students are most likely to founder or drop out can help colleges design
strategies for accelerating progression and completion rates.
Studies of community college student enrollment patterns indicate that most do
not get to the point of entering a program of study. Using cluster analysis to group
students by their course-taking patterns, Bahr (2010) found that only 16% of a cohort of
first-time California community college students attempted a reasonably large number of
for-credit, college-level credits and passed more than three quarters of their courses. In
contrast, 32% of students were labeled drop-in students because they attempted few
credits (four on average) but had high pass rates in those few classes they did attempt,
and 31% were labeled experimental students who attempted few credits (13 on average)
and failed most of them. In a separate study, Adelman (2005) called these students
―visitors‖ to the ―town‖ of the community colleges, finding that 45% of traditional-age
community college students earned at least one but fewer than 30 credits.
Other studies indicate that the rates at which community college students earn
credentials vary by field of study once students enter a program. Alfonso, Bailey, and
Scott (2005) looked at broad program categories and found that, at the subbaccalaureate
level, students in occupational fields were somewhat less likely than students in academic
fields to complete their educational goals, even after controlling for student
characteristics and expectations. However, they did not examine outcomes for students in
specific fields and programs, and they only considered students who officially declared a
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 8 of 392
major. Stuart (2009) examined academic pathways across certain fields of study at a
particular community college and found that the likelihood of dropping out varied by
field and was based on the labor market returns of having a credential within that field.
Therefore, some fields (such as health services) had particularly low dropout rates while
others (such as automotive services) had particularly high ones (Stuart, 2009). Neither
study focused on patterns of entry into programs of study by disadvantaged students.
This study charts the pathways of community college students into and through
programs of study and examines the characteristics of students who do and do not
achieve key milestones associated with program entry and completion. Specifically, we
address the following research questions:

What distinguishes students who successfully enter a
concentration in a field of study from those who do not? Do
non-concentrators intend to complete a college credential but
fail to progress in their college studies, or do they have other
goals entirely?

Do the characteristics of students who successfully enter
concentrations vary by the field of study?

Are there differences among students by field of concentration
in the extent and type of remediation they receive?

What types of credentials do students earn in different fields,
and how do rates of completion and transfer vary across them?
A key focus of this analysis is on patterns of progression and completion among
younger, economically disadvantaged community college students—the target population
for the Gates Foundation’s Postsecondary Success initiative. The study assesses how their
educational pathways differed from those of higher income younger students and students
who begin college when they are older and whether there is evidence to support DeilAmen and Deluca’s (2010) theory that educationally and economically disadvantaged
community college students are steered into low-prestige, low-return fields of study. To
address these research questions, we used a dataset that allows us to chart the progress
over seven years of a cohort of first-time college students in Washington State’s public
two-year college system, which includes proxy measures of students’ socioeconomic
status that are created by tying their address records to Census block data.
4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 9 of 392
2. Data
In this study, we examined patterns of program entry and completion over seven
years among students with no prior postsecondary education who first enrolled in one of
Washington State’s two-year community and technical colleges in the 2001–02 academic
year. Since our aim is to inform efforts to increase the postsecondary attainment of
community college students who lack postsecondary credentials, especially younger
students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, we included in our analysis all
first-time college students, regardless of what their objectives were upon entry and the
program level at which they first enrolled.
In Washington, as in 13 other states, the two-year public colleges are primarily
responsible for providing instruction for adults with low levels of literacy through
programs that include adult basic education (ABE), GED preparation, and English-as-asecond-language (ESL) courses. Offering adult basic skills instruction is one of the three
key mission areas of Washington’s community and technical college system. Even
though such courses are offered by colleges in Washington, students who take them many
not have aspirations to advance to college or even think that that is possible. Indeed, rates
of transition from basic skills to college have generally been low (Prince & Jenkins,
2005). However, over the past several years, Washington State has received national
attention for its efforts to increase the number of basic skills students who go on to earn
postsecondary credentials, specifically through the widely touted I-BEST model
(Wachen, Jenkins, & Van Noy, 2010; Zeidenberg, Cho, & Jenkins, 2010). We therefore
also include in our sample basic skills students as well as students who start in precollege remedial or ―developmental‖ coursework and those who enter directly into
college-level courses.
The data used in the study were drawn from student unit records reported to the
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) by all 34
colleges in the system. The data include information on student characteristics and
course-taking patterns collected by the state’s community and technical colleges (CTCs)
upon students’ enrollment in a CTC and throughout their attendance there. They also
include complete records of students’ transcripts and credentials earned while the
students were enrolled at a Washington CTC. These data were matched by the SBCTC to
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 10 of 392
student unit record information from the National Student Clearinghouse on transfers to
other institutions outside the Washington public two-year college system.
For this analysis, we first limited our sample to the 77,818 students who attended
college for the first time in the 2001–2002 academic year and were ―state-funded‖—that
is, colleges could count them for reimbursement under the state’s funding formula.3 We
then further limited our sample by dropping students who never attempted any credits
that appeared on a transcript, leaving us with a sample of 62,235 first-time students in the
2001–2002 academic year. This sample of 62,235 first-time students is used throughout
this paper. These students were tracked for 29 quarters, or a little more than seven years
after their first quarter of enrollment. This long follow-up time period is an important
strength of this dataset, providing ample time to follow the pathways of community
college students, many of whom attend part time or stop out of college temporarily on the
way to college completion.
We sorted students into socioeconomic status (SES) quintiles based on the
average SES of the Census block of their home address.4 Since the community college
student population is so varied by age, this method may be preferable to employing data
on a student’s household income because it returns a measure of SES that does not
fluctuate significantly depending on whether the student is a dependent or not. Of our
sample, about 25% were missing SES information and 6% were missing age information,
which is derived from a student’s date of birth as declared in the first quarter a student is
enrolled at a Washington CTC. Students with missing SES or age data were not dropped
from the sample but were excluded from any of the analyses that take advantage of age
and SES categories (such as ―young‖ or ―low-SES‖ students).
Throughout this paper, we define entering a concentration as successfully
completing at least 12 quarter credits5 or three courses within a single field of study as
categorized by the taxonomy in Appendix B. We use this definition based on students’
3
Foreign students and students funded through certain special programs were excluded.
The SES measure used here was developed by CCRC researchers in collaboration with the research staff
of the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (Crosta, Leinbach, & Jenkins,
2006). It is based on the average SES characteristics in each Census block, including household income,
education, and occupation.
5
This measure is explored in more depth by Jenkins (2011). Note that the Washington State community
and technical colleges operate on a quarter system. Twelve quarter credits are equivalent to eight credits in
a semester system. A typical class, however, might be five credits.
4
6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 11 of 392
course-taking patterns rather than measures of students’ educational objective or intent
upon entry or declared major, because such measures are often unreliable indicators of
students’ actual behavior. We also use the terms short-term certificate and long-term
certificate, defining a short-term certificate to be a certificate of less than one full-time
year of study (45 credits) and a long-term certificate to be a certificate of one year or
more of full-time study.
The next section provides descriptive information about the sample we examine
in this paper and students’ overall trajectory through community college. The sections
after that address each of our research questions in turn, examining each step along the
pathway through college in more detail.
3. The Sample: First-Time Colleges Students in WA CTCs
3.1 Demographics
A significant portion of students attending Washington CTCs are young students
who enter college very soon after graduating high school. Although the mean age of
students in our sample of first-time students in Washington CTCs was 27 at time of entry,
the distribution of ages is skewed, with 42% of first-time students age 19 or younger and
64% of students age 26 or younger. However, the age distribution of older adults
returning to school is more varied: the median age of older students (those students over
the age of 26) was 38. Overall, the cohort is slightly skewed toward low-SES students,
with 45% of students falling in the bottom two SES quintiles and only 34% in the top two
SES quintiles.
For this report, we are most interested in the pathways of young, low-SES
students compared with higher SES and older students. We define young as age 26 or
under at time of entry (following the definition used in the Gates Foundation’s
Postsecondary Success initiative), low-SES as falling within the bottom two SES
quintiles, and high-SES as falling within the top two SES quintiles. In making these
comparisons based on SES, we exclude the middle quintile and focus on the lowest and
highest SES students to better distinguish between the most and least disadvantaged
students. Of those who have age and SES information available, 28% fell into this young,
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 12 of 392
low-SES category; 24% were young, high-SES students who fell into the top two SES
quintiles; 16% were older and low-SES; and 10% were older and high-SES. Figure 1
shows the breakdown of students in our sample by age and SES.
Figure 1
Breakdown of First-Time College Entrants by Age and SES
10%
Young, low-SES
7%
28%
Young, mid-SES
Young, high-SES
16%
Older, low-SES
14%
24%
Older, mid-SES
Older, high-SES
About two thirds of first-time CTC students in 2001–02 were White (nonHispanic), with 6% African American, 15% Hispanic, and 9% Asian or Pacific Islander.
The overall gender split was relatively even: 51% of students were female. Table A.1 in
Appendix A6 summarizes demographic information about our four key demographic
categories (distinguished by age and SES). A couple of differences across age and SES
categories are evident from Table A.1: high-SES students were somewhat more likely to
be White or Asian and less likely to be African American or Hispanic. Older students
were less likely to be White and slightly more likely to be female.
Most students started their community college experience in some form of
remedial education (see Figure 2 below).7 However, lower-SES students were more
6
All tables prefaced with A are found in Appendix A.
Students were associated with a starting level based on their course-taking behavior, primarily in their
first quarter. The starting program is marked college level—vocational if a student took at least one course
designated as vocational by the SBCTC in that first quarter and did not take any remedial courses. A
student is considered developmental if he attempted a developmental course at any point and did not
attempt any basic skills courses in his first quarter. A student is considered ABE/GED if a student took a
basic skills course in his first quarter (which encompasses both ABE/GED and ESL) and never took an
ESL course; otherwise, the student is designated as starting in ESL. It is important to point out that the
policies and practices by which students are placed into developmental and adult basic education vary
7
8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 13 of 392
likely to take remedial coursework. In particular, students in the lowest quintile were
three times as likely to be studying adult basic skills or English as a Second Language
(ESL) as were students in the highest SES quintile, while students in the highest quintile
were more than three times as likely to start in college-level academic classes. Figure 3
shows the program level at which young students (i.e., age 26 or younger at entry), the
focus of this paper, began their studies by SES quintile. Table A.2 provides more detail
for that figure.
Figure 2
Starting Program Level for First-Time College Entrants
College
level academic
10%
ESL
13%
ABE/GED
14%
College
level vocational
28%
Developmental
education
35%
across the 34 colleges in the Washington two-year college system. Students who end up in adult basic skills
courses in one college might be placed in developmental in another.
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 14 of 392
Figure 3
Starting Program Level by SES Quintile for Young Students (26 and Under)
100%
90%
80%
College level - academic
70%
College level - vocational
60%
Developmental education
50%
ABE/GED
40%
ESL
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 (highest)
2
3
4
5 (lowest)
The SES and age characteristics of students who began their studies at each
program level are detailed in Table 1. ESL and vocational college-level students were the
most likely to be older; 60% of students who started out taking vocational college-level
courses were over the age of 26, as were 62% of those who started out taking ESL.
Students starting in developmental education courses (which are remedial in nature but
required in order to complete a degree in most fields) were actually slightly more
advantaged in terms of SES than students starting in vocational college-level coursework.
However, students starting in academic college-level coursework were by far the most
advantaged in terms of SES and students starting in adult basic education and ESL the
least advantaged.
10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 15 of 392
Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Students at Each Start Level
Top 2 SES
quintiles
Bottom 2 SES
quintiles
Young (age 26
or younger)
n
ESL
25%
57%
42%
8,235
ABE/GED
24%
56%
70%
8,971
38%
41%
83%
21,227
35%
43%
40%
17,420
50%
29%
74%
6,365
34%
45%
64%
62,218
Developmental
education
College level –
vocational
College level –
academic
Total
Overall, first-time students in Washington State’s community and technical
colleges have a wide range of demographic characteristics, although the majority of
students are White and the student population skews young. Most students start by taking
some form of remedial education. For example, only 21% of young, low-SES students in
our sample began in college-level work. However, compared with older students, young,
low-SES students were also more likely to start off in tracks that lead to an academic
degree (developmental and college-level academic) or in ABE/GED classes and less
likely to start off in college-level career-technical courses or in ESL.
3.2 Educational Outcomes
The overall completion rate for our sample of first-time community college
students in the Washington State CTCs was quite low but was comparable to other
estimates of completion rates among students who start in public two-year colleges (see,
e.g., Radford et al., 2010). Even after tracking students for seven years of follow-up,
fewer than 25% of first-time students in our sample were still enrolled in the seventh year
with at least 45 college-level quarter credits (equivalent to one year of full-time study) or
had what we consider to be a ―successful‖ outcome—that is, they either earned a
certificate or associate degree or transferred to a four-year institution. Figure 4 shows the
seven-year educational outcomes for the cohort by demographic group. Young students
were more likely to achieve successful outcomes than older students and in particular
were far more likely to transfer to a four-year institution. However, older students were
11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 16 of 392
more likely to earn both short-term and long-term certificates. Additionally, low-SES
students were more likely to earn certificates, while high-SES students were more likely
to earn an associate degree or transfer to a four-year institution. Even for young, highSES students, the ―most successful‖ group, fewer than 40% of first-time students
achieved a successful academic outcome within seven years of beginning college.
Figure 4
Academic Outcomes by Age and SES After Seven Years
There was significant variation in the overall success rates by the level at which
students began their education. Students who began in developmental education or
college-level coursework were much more likely to eventually earn a college-level
credential or transfer to a four-year institution than were those who started in adult basic
skills programs. The relatively high success rates for students who started in
developmental education are likely due to the fact that taking developmental education
signals an intent to earn a college-level credential, since only students who want to earn a
college-level credential or transfer to a baccalaureate institution need to take such
courses. In contrast to those starting in college-level or developmental programs, only 5%
of ESL students and 10% of ABE/GED students had earned a college-level credential or
12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 17 of 392
transferred, or were still enrolled with at least 45 credits after seven years.8 Figure 5
displays these overall outcomes by starting program level.
Figure 5
Highest Educational Outcome by Starting Program Level, All Students
As we will explore further in later sections, these low overall success rates are
largely due to the fact that the majority of students in the cohort never really got started
on a path to a credential—that is, these students never entered a coherent program of
college-level study. Of students who did stick around college and enter a concentration at
each starting level, outcomes are much more positive, as shown in Figure 6.
8
Since the Washington State community and technical colleges serve large numbers of adult basic skills
students, the low success rates among such students brings down the system’s overall success rate. This
should be noted when comparing these figures to those from states where the community colleges do not
serve adult basic skills students.
13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 18 of 392
Figure 6
Highest Educational Outcome by Starting Program Level, Concentrators Only
Not surprisingly, outcomes appear better across all subgroups when the sample is
limited to concentrators only, since with very few exceptions students must enter a
concentration before they can complete a program. Figure 7 shows the outcomes for
students who successfully entered a concentration compared with those who did not. The
difference in success rates between concentrators and non-concentrators is more dramatic
for some groups than for others. Especially striking is that, once the sample is limited to
students who have entered a concentration, outcomes for students who started in basic
skills (ESL or ABE/GED) were roughly comparable with those for students who started
at higher levels. A larger proportion of students who started in basic skills were still
enrolled after seven years (after all, working through varying levels of remedial
coursework and then into college-level work can take time), but among those who did
make it into a college-level program of study, a relatively high proportion earned
certificates and even associate degrees (41% of ESL students and 29% of ABE/GED
students).
14
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 19 of 392
Figure 7
Highest Academic Outcome by Concentration Status
Some argue that the ability to stack credentials—that is, for students to earn
credentials of value that do not close off opportunities for further study—is possible and
desirable. Indeed, we found that some career education concentrators (15%, not shown)
still went on to transfer to a four-year institution (see, e.g., Deil-Amen & DeLuca, 2010).
Thus CTE educational pathways do not have to mean the end of all further college
opportunities. As shown in Table 2, more than one third (35%) of young concentrators in
our sample who earned a short-term or long-term occupational certificate went on to earn
an associate degree as well (28% of older concentrators over the age of 26 who earned
either type of certificate also earned an associate degree).
Table 2
Overall Rates of Credential Stacking, Young Concentrators Only
Credential earned
Percentage of students who also earned
Short-term certificate
Short-term
certificate
N/A
Long-term
certificate
11%
Long-term certificate
34%
Transfer to 4year institution
12%
Associate degree
10%
N/A
38%
12%
Associate degree
5%
6%
N/A
59%
Transfer to 4-year institution
2%
2%
64%
N/A
15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 20 of 392
4. Research Questions and Findings
In this section, we present our findings on the research questions posed in the
introduction. As stated earlier, these findings are based on an analysis of the educational
pathways of our sample of first-time students in the Washington State community and
technical colleges.
1. What distinguishes students who do not concentrate in a field of study from those who
do? Do non-concentrators intend to complete a college credential but fail to progress
in their college studies, or do they have other goals entirely?
Most first-time college students who enroll in a Washington State community or
technical college do not take a coherent set of college-level courses in a program area.
Some students never intend to pursue a program of study. They may only want to take a
limited number of classes related to their work or personal interests, or they may take
certain courses simply because they want to improve their basic skills. Others may want
to earn a college credential but either never make it out of remedial education and into
college-level coursework or drop out for other academic or personal reasons.
Under the definitions described earlier, fewer than half (41%) of students in our
cohort entered a concentration.9 As is clear from Figure 8, younger students were more
likely to enter a concentration than older students, and high-SES students were more
likely to enter a concentration than low-SES students. Figure 9 shows that only 7% of
students who started in ESL entered a concentration, as did only a 21% of ABE/GED
students. However, students who took developmental coursework were the most likely to
enter a concentration, even compared with students who started directly in college-level
coursework. In general, students who take developmental coursework are likely to do so
because developmental courses are prerequisites to the college-level math and English
courses that are usually required for associate and bachelor’s degrees as well as for some
long-term certificates. Students who are not pursuing one of these credentials are
generally not required to take developmental courses. So some portion of students in our
sample who enrolled directly into college courses were likely not pursuing degrees or
were seeking to earn shorter term occupational certificates, which often do not require
9
These rates are similar to those found in studies of community college student enrollment patterns (Bahr,
2010; Adelman, 2005).
16
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 21 of 392
students to take college math, English, or other ―general education‖ courses. In this sense,
taking developmental coursework signals an intent to earn a degree or a long-term
occupational certificate. An alternative way to think about signaling intent through
course-taking patterns is to look at students who attempted at least 12 college-level
credits in any subject and see whether they took developmental courses or not; of these
students, 87% entered a concentration.
Figure 8
Percent Entering a Concentration Within Seven Years by Age and SES
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Young, lowSES
Young, high- Older, low-SES Older, highSES
SES
Everyone
Figure 9
Percent Entering a Concentration Within Seven Years by Starting Program Level
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ESL
ED
E/G
AB
ve
De
nta
me
lop
C
l
l
ge olle
l
eve
,
o
at i
voc
17
na l
eve
e -l
lleg
Co
c ad
l, a
ic
em
n
ryo
Eve
e
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 22 of 392
Table A.3 summarizes the demographic characteristics of students who entered a
concentration compared with those who did not. Figure 10 illustrates how, even within
each start level, younger, low-SES students were somewhat less likely to enter a
concentration than were their high-SES counterparts. The overall difference in
concentration rates by SES was driven in part by the lower program levels at which lowSES students were more likely to begin. Among young students, low-SES students
started at lower levels but were less likely to enter a concentration even within each of
those levels.
Figure 10
Percent Entering Concentration by Start Level and SES, Young Students Only
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Young, low-SES
students only
50%
40%
Young, high-SES
students only
30%
20%
10%
0%
ESL
E
E/G
AB
D
l
al
mic
ent
ona
ade
at i
pm
c
c
o
a
o
l
v
ve
e l,
e l,
De
lev
lev
ge ge e
l
l
e
l
l
Co
Co
n
ryo
Eve
e
It is difficult to figure out why so many students did not enter a concentration. If
students never intended to complete a college-level credential, should they be regarded as
failures when they do not? Or, given the value of postsecondary credentials in the labor
market, should colleges strive to encourage all of their first-time college students to earn
college-level credentials, even those who come into the college without having such
credentials as a clear goal?
Student intent is one way to think about this issue. Table 3 examines the objective
or intent for enrolling at the college that students indicated when they first registered for
18
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 23 of 392
classes at the college. It compares the educational objectives or intents of students who
entered a concentration with those who did not.
The intent variable is coded locally by colleges and therefore has some serious
limitations. Some categories (such as the academic categories, as well as career and
technical education) are coded consistently across institutions, while other categories,
such as general studies and adult basic skills may be less so. In our sample, students who
indicated a goal of ―academic transfer,‖ ―academic non-transfer degree,‖ or ―career and
technical education‖ were more likely than not to enter a concentration. Students with
―upgrading job skills,‖ ―general studies,‖ and ―adult basic skills‖ intents were less likely
to enter a concentration, which is not surprising, given that these intent categories are not
associated with earning a college-level credential.
Table 3
Percentage of Students in Each Intent Category, by Concentration Status
Non-concentrators
Concentrators
Intent
Academic
N
6,856
Percentage
19%
n
11,543
Percentage
46%
Career and technical education
3,838
10%
6,549
26%
Apprenticeship
950
3%
467
2%
Upgrading job skills
6,994
19%
1,975
8%
Vocational home and family life
1,238
3%
1,016
4%
General studies
2,196
6%
731
3%
Adult basic skills
13,591
37%
2,380
9%
Undecided or other
Total
1,207
3%
704
3%
36,870
100%
25,365
100%
While students who indicated at registration a desire to earn a postsecondary
credential were more likely to enter a concentration, a substantial proportion of such
students did not enter a concentration. Nearly two thirds (63%) of students who indicated
an intent to earn an academic degree or career-technical credential entered a
concentration. This is significantly higher than the overall rate of entering a
concentration, but it still means that more than a third of students who indicated an
interest in earning a credential did not enter a program of study. Some non-concentrators
did earn awards other than college-level credentials, which suggests that they may have
fulfilled their goals for attending college. About 5% of non-concentrators earned a GED
19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 24 of 392
or high school completion certificate (although this is fewer than the 11% who indicated
intent to receive one) and about 1% completed a job training program. But
overwhelmingly, most non-concentrators did not earn any recognized awards at all.
Bahr’s (2010) cluster analysis of students in California community colleges
provides a useful perspective here. Bahr found two clusters with very low numbers of
credits attempted: drop-in students who passed their classes and who may have fulfilled
their more limited goals at the community college and experimental students who failed
most of their classes. Table 4 below compares the academic performance of students in
our sample who did and did not enter a concentration. Students who did not enter a
concentration attempted 17 credits on average and earned only eight (compared with 93
and 81 credits, respectively, for students who did enter a concentration). Of these, a very
low proportion of credits attempted were college-level credits; the average nonconcentrator attempted only six college-level credits, compared with 80 for students who
did enter a concentration. In our sample of first-time college students, the average overall
course pass rate among students who did not enter a concentration was 49%. This
compares with a course pass rate of 87% among concentrators. However, this rate masks
the large variation in pass rates for these students: 34% had a pass rate higher than 90%,
but 36% of non-concentrators had a pass rate lower than 10%. This mirrors Bahr’s
finding that there are both drop-in and experimental students, and suggests that some
students may have wanted to earn a credential but faced academic or personal obstacles
that prevented them from doing so.
Table 4
Academic Characteristics of Students Who Did and Did Not Enter a Concentration
Nonconcentrator
Concentrator
Total
credits
attempted
Total
credits
earned
Total
collegelevel
credits
attempted
17.4
8.3
6.4
93.6
81.2
80.2
Total
collegelevel
credits
earned
Start
level:
ESL
Start
level:
ABE/
GED
Start
level:
Developmental
Education
Start level:
college
level,
vocational
Start
level:
college
level,
academic
n
3.3
21%
19%
19%
31%
10%
36,870
70.7
2%
7%
56%
24%
10%
25,365
20
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 25 of 392
To better understand what these non-concentrators were doing, we looked at raw
course enrollments for these students. What type of classes were they taking? Since we
can categorize the field of each course attempted based on its CIP10 code, we were able
to examine this. Table A.4 details the percentage of course attempts by non-concentrators
who fall into each of our fields of study. A large portion (43%) of course enrollments for
non-concentrators were basic skills courses, which breaks down into 5% GED or high
school completion courses, 10% ABE courses, 25% ESL courses, and 3% other basic
skills and training courses to prepare students to enter the labor market or further
education.
What about the non-basic-skills courses? Of these, 22% were developmental
courses and an additional 28% were in liberal arts subjects (arts, humanities, English,
social and behavioral sciences, mathematics, or academic sciences). Most of these liberal
arts course enrollments probably represent students attempting and failing to meet
college-level goals. However, a minority of the courses that fall into the liberal arts
category—such as pottery or chorus—may indeed not be academic in nature or intention,
but fall into this category anyway on the basis of the CIP code assigned to them.
An additional 13% of non-basic skills course enrollments were in CIP categories
that are very likely to be personal or continuing education, even though they are generally
for-credit courses. These courses may include subjects such as fitness courses, courses on
personal health, courses on decision-making skills, and other self-improvement courses.
Many of the other course enrollments were in fields that may emphasize continuing
education for adult workers, such as business and marketing (7%) and computer and
information sciences (7%). These business courses include classes in subjects such as
keyboarding, violence in the workplace, interpersonal communication, and leadership
skills. And some categories may include a substantial number of students taking courses
related to their personal rather than academic goals, such as education and child care
(6%) students who are really parents in pre-school co-ops or allied health (3%) students
who are really taking CPR, first aid, or EMT classes. About 36% of allied health course
enrollments of non-concentrators fell into one of those three categories.
10
Classification of Instructional Programs. See http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/cip2000/ and Appendix B.
21
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 26 of 392
Examining the breakdown of course enrollments for students who did not wind up
entering a concentration is certainly fuzzy science, and it is impossible to fully ascertain
student intentions just from course titles and CIP codes. Nevertheless, it is clear that there
were a significant number of students who wanted to earn a college-level credential based
on intent but dropped out before making significant headway in their college-level
coursework. Additionally, there are plenty of students who may not have clearly
indicated an intention to earn a college-level credential but could be encouraged to do so:
56% of non-concentrators in this sample of students without prior postsecondary
education were under the age of 26 when they first enrolled in college and therefore
could benefit greatly over the course of their lifetimes from earning a college-level
credential (Belfield & Bailey, 2011).
Table 5 shows students who, among those who did not succeed in entering a
concentration, signaled a desire to earn a credential. This includes students who indicated
such an intent when they first registered at the college, those who attempted to enter a
concentration (by attempting three college-level courses in a field) but did not enter one,
and those who took at least one developmental course (which again are not required of
those not seeking to earn a degree). Such students represented more than half of the
younger students in the cohort who did not succeed in entering a concentration.
Table 5
Non-Concentrators Indicating Intent to Earn a Credential, by Age Group
Young students
Older students
Everyone
Listed intent
associated with
credential
37%
14%
25%
Took at least one
developmental class
36%
12%
24%
Attempted but did
not enter a
concentration
14%
11%
12%
At least
one of
these
52%
26%
38%
Among younger students who did not enter a concentration, 42% began in ESL or
ABE/GED courses. The Washington State community and technical colleges are national
leaders in their efforts to help students transition from basic skills courses into collegelevel programs through the I-BEST program and other polices (Wachen et al., 2010;
Zeidenberg et al., 2010). The I-BEST program was implemented after our 2001–2002
cohort had already entered college but could be a promising model to increase overall
22
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 27 of 392
completion rates, given the large number of low-SES students who need significant
remediation and also are likely to need a college-level credential to achieve successful
career outcomes.
2. Do the characteristics of students who enter a concentration vary by field of study?
We created a postsecondary field taxonomy, adapted from an unpublished
taxonomy of postsecondary fields developed by NCES, to group similar Classification of
Instructional Programs (CIP) codes into academic fields. This taxonomy is detailed in
Appendix B. We sorted students into concentrations based on the field in which they
earned the greatest number of credits (or, if they are tied between two fields based on
credits, the greatest number of classes). Concentrations are organized into two broad
types: liberal arts and sciences and career technical.
More than socioeconomic status, student age is more strongly associated with
student choice of a field of concentration. Younger students coming to college soon after
high school were far more likely than older students to enter a liberal arts and sciences
concentration rather than a career education concentration, as is shown in Figure 11 on
the next page. High-SES students were somewhat more likely to enter a liberal arts
concentration than low-SES students, especially among younger students, but age was the
characteristic more strongly correlated with field choice by a considerable amount. Table
A.5 shows the detailed breakdown of concentrators by program type, age, and SES.
This large average age difference between students entering liberal arts and career
education concentrations suggests that these two types of programs may be educating
very different populations of students. As suggested above, the difference is stark: 74%
of students who entered a liberal arts concentration were 19 or younger when they
entered college, but only 36% of career education concentrators were. This potentially
has very important implications for thinking about how to motivate younger students to
enter programs that are likely to lead to long-term career success. Some researchers and
policy analysts suggest that it would be beneficial increase the number of students in
high-return career-technical education (CTE) programs (see, e.g., Jacobson & Mokher,
2009; Bosworth, 2010). Yet, high school counseling emphasizes preparation for college
rather than for careers, and without the encouragement and support to do career
23
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 28 of 392
exploration and planning, many young people arrive at community colleges unsure of
their career goals. College counselors tend to encourage students without clear goals to
start accumulating ―general education‖ credits (Grubb, 2006). Therefore, it could require
a fundamental shift in the way high schools and community colleges guide and prepare
young, first-time college students to encourage them toward high-return career fields.
Figure 11
Type of Concentration Entered by Age and SES
100%
90%
80%
70%
Career
Education
60%
50%
Liberal Arts
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Young, low-SES
Young, highSES
Older, low-SES Older, high-SES
Some of these fields are much more popular than others. Table 6 shows the
breakdown of how many students in our first-time student cohort entered each field of
concentration. Table A.6 describes the demographic characteristics of concentrators by
field in more detail. Two fields from our initial taxonomy—automotive and aeronautical
technology and engineering and architecture—had so few students that we omitted them
from future analyses by concentration.
Despite a fairly even overall gender split (with 51% of the student body being
female), the gender split varied enormously by concentration. Outside of liberal arts and
sciences, very few individual concentrations had even roughly balanced gender splits.
This is shown in Figure 12. More than 80% of students who entered concentrations in
fields such as secretarial and administrative studies, cosmetology, education and child
24
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 29 of 392
care, allied health, or nursing were female. However, fewer than 15% were female in
fields like engineering, construction, manufacturing, mechanics and repair, and
transportation. This shows that student characteristics can vary drastically across fields of
concentration and puts the more modest differences in SES across fields of concentration
in context.
Table 6
Number of Concentrators by Field of Concentration
Liberal arts
n
11,718
% of concentrators who
concentrate in this field
Young
Older
students
students
57%
19%
Arts, humanities, and English
7,162
35%
11%
Mathematics and science (STEM)
2,310
11%
5%
Social and behavioral sciences
2,246
11%
3%
Career and technical education
Agriculture and natural
resources
Automotive and aeronautical
tech
Business and marketing
Secretarial and administrative
studies
Communications and design
Computer and information
science
Cosmetology
13,647
38%
79%
296
1%
2%
19
0%
0%
1,733
5%
11%
366
1%
3%
264
1%
1%
1,448
4%
10%
290
1%
1%
323
1%
1%
26
0%
0%
Culinary services
Engineering and architecture
Engineering/science
technologies
Education and child care
583
2%
4%
1,731
4%
15%
Allied health
1,467
5%
9%
Nursing
651
2%
4%
Construction
808
2%
6%
Manufacturing
613
2%
4%
Mechanics and repair
922
3%
5%
Transportation
212
0%
2%
Protective services
568
2%
2%
Other career-technical
Not assigned
Total
202
1%
1%
1,125
5%
2%
25,365
100%
100%
25
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 30 of 392
Figure 12
Gender Distribution by Concentration
As Figure 13 shows, there is variation across program areas in the socioeconomic
status of students who entered a concentration. Low-SES students were overrepresented
in fields like education and childcare, agriculture and natural resources, and secretarial
and administrative studies, while high-SES students were overrepresented in liberal arts,
communications and design, and culinary services. A higher proportion of secretarial and
administrative studies students were low-SES than were students in other business and
marketing courses. However, low-SES students were also well represented in some highreturn fields such as nursing and allied health.
26
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 31 of 392
Figure 13
Distribution of Concentrators by Socioeconomic Status (SES)
Taken together, these results suggest that students’ demographic characteristics
may play a large role in their choice of concentration. Younger students in our sample—
even those who are from low-SES backgrounds—were more likely than not to enter
liberal arts and sciences programs than career-technical programs. Liberal arts and
sciences may offer students more academic flexibility (and less structure) to students who
are undecided about their career direction than would career-technical programs at the
same institutions and would also promote transfer to four-year colleges. Among CTE
programs, low-SES students were more likely to enter fields that are sometimes
associated with lower prestige and earnings, although nursing and allied health are
exceptions.
3. Are there differences among students by field of concentration in the extent and type
of remediation they received?
Most Washington community college students took some form of remedial
coursework. For students pursuing college-level credentials or academic transfer based
on intent at registration, developmental education was the most common type of
remediation, though some students take adult basic education (ABE), general educational
27
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 32 of 392
development (GED), or English as a second language (ESL) coursework in addition to or
instead of developmental classes.
Students in liberal arts concentrations were more likely to take some form of
remedial coursework (77%) than students in career education concentrations (52%).
However, there were differences by type of remediation: students in career education
concentrations were more likely to take ABE/GED coursework (13% versus 6% for
liberal arts and sciences concentrators) and ESL coursework (4% versus 1%) but much
less likely to take developmental coursework (44% versus 76%). Given that there are
almost always math, reading, and writing general education requirements for associate
degrees in liberal arts fields and that students usually must score high enough on a
placement test or pass out of developmental education in order to take those general
education classes, this is not surprising. Among developmental subjects, concentrators
were most likely to take developmental math: more than half of concentrators (54%) took
developmental math, while only a quarter of concentrators (25%) took developmental
writing and an eighth (12%) took developmental reading. Table A.7 breaks down the type
of remedial courses taken by concentrators by their field of concentration.
As is evident from Figure 14, there was great variation among concentrators in
different fields in the program level at which students started. Even among careertechnical education program areas, there was wide variation. For example, construction
concentrators were very likely to have started directly in college-level vocational courses
without remediation, while nursing students were more likely than not to have started in
developmental education. This probably reflects the fact that some career education fields
(such as nursing) have stricter entry requirements and more stringent academic
prerequisites than others. In another case, students in secretarial and administrative
services were the most likely to have taken ABE/GED courses compared with students in
other concentrations, while transportation students were the most likely to have taken
ESL courses.
28
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 33 of 392
Figure 14
Starting Program Level Among Concentrators by Field of Concentration
Young concentrators were more likely to take some kind of remedial coursework
(72%) than older students (51%). Focusing on the young students only, low-SES students
were somewhat more likely to take remedial coursework (77%) than high-SES students
(70%), but this difference is small. The difference between low-SES and high-SES
students was slightly larger among liberal arts concentrators, where 83% of low-SES
students took some form of remedial coursework compared with 72% of high-SES
students. However, regardless of SES or concentration, a large majority of young
students took at least one remedial class. Table A.8 breaks down the type of remediation
received in detail by SES and field of concentration for young students.
4. What types of credentials do students earn in different fields, and how do rates of
completion and transfer vary across them?
Different program areas within community colleges emphasize different types of
credentials and outcomes as measures of success. Certificates may be acceptable in some
fields, while others require an associate degree or bachelor’s degree (see Stuart, 2009).
29
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 34 of 392
At the same time, some programs may just do a better job at getting students
through whichever course sequence is ideal to earn credentials with value. This may be
because these fields have more academically advantaged students to begin with, but it
may be due to the structure and quality of instruction in the program itself. Therefore, it is
worthwhile to examine students’ academic outcomes by field of study. What are the
academic outcomes achieved by students after tracking them for seven years after their
first quarter of enrollment and how do these academic outcomes vary across key student
characteristics and fields of study?
Figure 15 shows that, on average, low- and high-SES young students have more
similar overall completion rates in career-technical programs than they do in liberal arts
programs. There is a difference of 7 percentage points in the rate of credential
completion, transfer, or continued enrollment among liberal arts concentrators (65% for
high-SES students, 58% for low-SES students); however, the difference is only 1
percentage point among career education concentrators (51% for high-SES, 50% for lowSES). In the liberal arts, a much greater percentage of high-SES students transferred to a
four-year institution. In career-technical fields, it’s also true that more high-SES students
transferred to a four-year institution, but this is compensated for by increased certificate
completion rates among low-SES students.
Figure 15
Highest Academic Outcome by SES and Liberal Arts Versus
Career Education Concentrators, Young Students Only
30
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 35 of 392
Figure 16 shows that indeed both the rates of success and the types of credentials
awarded vary by field. Construction students were very unlikely to earn a credential or
transfer over the seven years tracked here, while nursing students were very likely to do
so. Some fields, such as transportation, seem to emphasize short-term certificates, while
others, such as allied health, seem to emphasize long-term certificates. Students who
concentrated in communications and design achieved successful outcomes at a lower rate
overall than did secretarial and administrative services concentrators, but were much
more likely to earn an associate degree and much less likely to earn a certificate. As
might be expected, liberal arts students had extremely low rates of certificate completion
but relatively high rates of transfer to four-year institutions.
Figure 16
Highest Academic Outcome by Field of Concentration, Young Students Only
31
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 36 of 392
5. Conclusion
Charting the pathways of a cohort of first-time students through Washington
State’s community and technical colleges, we find that students from low SES
backgrounds were more likely to start at a lower level than were high-SES students and
were less likely to make progress toward a postsecondary credential. Specifically:

Low-SES students were much more likely to start in adult basic
skills courses.

Low-SES students were less likely to enter a concentration in a
field of study.

Of students who entered a concentration, low-SES students
were less likely to concentrate in liberal arts and sciences and
more likely to enter a concentration in career technical
education, where completion rates are lower.
Even within a concentration type (that is, CTE versus liberal arts and sciences), low-SES
students were less likely to earn a credential or transfer.
Taken together, this evidence suggests that there is no one point at which lowSES students struggle and where colleges could focus their resources. Low-SES students
are less likely than high-SES students to progress from one milestone to the next on the
way to a credential. There are some cases in which low-SES students do not do as poorly
in comparison to higher SES students. For example, the overall attainment gap seems to
be lower in career education areas of study compared with liberal arts areas. This
suggests that career education pathways could be a promising route to help reduce the
attainment gap; however, career education pathways have lower rates of credential
attainment and transfer overall, so it’s unclear how much benefit (if any) low-SES
students would receive by transitioning into career education fields. Moreover, some of
the education pathways that low-SES students are most disproportionately likely to enter
are fields that have low rates of completion and are associated with lower labor market
returns. In particular, the fields in which low-SES students make up the highest
proportion of concentrators are education and childcare, secretarial and administrative
services, and agriculture and natural resources. At the same time, we do find that
younger, low-SES students were well represented compared with high-SES students
32
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 37 of 392
among concentrators in nursing and allied health, which are associated with higher labor
market returns for graduates.
Overall, though, the majority of young students in our sample who did enter a
program of study—even low-SES young students—were more likely to do so in liberal
arts and sciences than in career-technical programs. However, other research has shown
that longer term occupational certificates provide better labor market opportunities than
associate degrees in liberal arts and sciences (Jacobson & Mokher, 2009; Jepsen, Troske,
& Coomes, 2009; Bosworth, 2010); certificates are specific to career education fields,
and are usually faster to complete and may provide the opportunity to earn certificates en
route to an associate degree within the same field. In contrast, students in liberal arts
fields who make substantial progress in their postsecondary education but drop out before
earning an associate degree or transferring to a four-year institution are unlikely to have a
lower level credential to fall back on. If a central policy goal is to encourage many
younger students to enter into high-return career pathways that offer ―stackable
credentials‖ along the way, this will require a fundamental shift in the way high schools
and community colleges guide and prepare young, first-time college students. Right now,
the majority of younger students who do enter a college-level program of study do so in
liberal arts and sciences rather than in career technical fields.
Despite the evidence of a systemic problem in low overall attainment, especially
among low-income students, there are no easy solutions. As Deil-Amen and DeLuca
(2010, p. 43) admit, ―the exact support mechanisms that would best serve various
subpopulations of low-income youth are relatively unknown.‖ However, a key
intermediate step would be to increase the rate at which students enter coherent programs
of study. The ―low-hanging fruit‖ may be the students who attempt but do not enter a
concentration and the many who do not even get that far but who signal an intent to
pursue a credential, whether they signal this through self-reporting, attempting
developmental coursework, or attempting several college-level courses. In our sample of
first-time college students, this represented more than half of the younger students who
did not succeed in entering a concentration. Such students are probably a good target for
efforts by colleges to increase college completion rates for young students.
33
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 38 of 392
There is still a gap in the literature in terms of looking at programmatic pathways
through college. As Bahr (2010) found in California and as we found in this study using
data from Washington State, a substantial portion of entering community college students
attempt very few credits and never enter a college-level concentration. The literature
lacks research about why so many students never enter into any pathways at all and why
students who do enter a program choose to enter the particular field of study that they do.
Since students must first enter a course of study in order to earn a credential, and many
students who lack a postsecondary credential fail to enter a program, these questions are
essential to consider if there is to be a serious effort to improve college completion rates,
especially for low-income and other disadvantaged students.
34
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 39 of 392
References
Adelman, C. (2005). Moving into town—and moving on: The community college in the
lives of traditional-age students. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Alfonso, M., Bailey, T., & Scott, M. (2005). The educational outcomes of occupational
sub-baccalaureate students: Evidence from the 1990s. Economics of Education
Review, 24(2), 197–212.
Bahr, P. R. (2010). The bird’s eye view of community colleges: A behavioral typology of
first-time students based on cluster analytic classification. Research in Higher
Education, 51(8), 724–749.
Bailey, T., Jenkins, D., & Leinbach, D. T. (2005). What we know about community
college low-income and minority student outcomes: Descriptive statistics from
national surveys. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2011). The benefits of attending community college: A
review of the evidence. Community College Review, 39(1), 46–68.
Berkner, L., Choy, S., & Hunt-White, T. (2008). Descriptive summary of 2003–04
beginning postsecondary students: Three years later (NCES 2008-174).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
Bosworth, B. (2010). Certificates count: An analysis of sub-baccalaureate certificates.
Washington, DC: Complete College America and Future Works.
Crosta, P., Leinbach, T., & Jenkins, D. (2006). Using Census data to classify community
college students by socioeconomic status and community characteristics (CCRC
Research Tools No. 1). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.
Deil-Amen, R., & DeLuca, S. (2010). The underserved third: How our educational
structures populate an educational underclass. Journal of Education for Students
Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 15(1), 27–50.
Goldrick-Rab, S. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for improving community college
student success. Review of Educational Research, 80(3), 437–469.
Grubb. W. N. (2006). ―Like, what do I do now?‖ The dilemmas of guidance counseling.
In T. Bailey & V. S. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college equity
agenda (pp. 195–222). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
35
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 40 of 392
Jacobson, L., LaLonde, R., & Sullivan, D. G. (2005). Estimating the returns to
community college schooling for displaced workers. Journal of Econometrics,
125(1–2), 271–304.
Jacobson, L., & Mokher, C. (2009). Pathways to boosting the earnings of low-income
students by increasing their educational attainment. Washington, DC: Hudson
Institute Center for Employment Policy.
Jenkins, D. (2011). Get with the program: Accelerating community college students’
entry into and completion of programs of study (CCRC Working Paper No. 32).
New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College
Research Center.
Jepsen, C., Troske, K., & Coomes, P. (2009). The labor-market returns for community
college degrees, diplomas, and certificates (Discussion Paper Series No. DP
2009-08). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Center for Poverty Research.
Retrieved from http://www.ukcpr.org/Publications/DP2009-08.pdf
Prince, D., & Jenkins, D. (2005). Building pathways to success for low-skill adult
students: Lessons for community college policy and practice from a statewide
longitudinal tracking study. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Community College Research Center.
Radford, A. W., Berkner, L., Wheeless, S. C., & Shepherd, B. (2010). Persistence and
attainment of 2003–04 beginning postsecondary students: After 6 years (NCES
2011-151). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Rouse, C. E. (2007). Consequences for the labor market. In C. R. Belfield & H. M. Levin
(Eds.), The price we pay: Economic and social consequences of inadequate
education (pp. 99–124). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Stuart, G. R. (2009). A benefit/cost analysis of three student enrollment behaviors at a
community college: Dropout, transfer and completion of an associate’s
degree/certificate (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu
Wachen, J., Jenkins, D., & Van Noy, M. (2010). How I-BEST works: Findings from a
field study of Washington State’s Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training
program. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community
College Research Center.
Zeidenberg, M., Cho, S.-W., & Jenkins, D. (2010). Washington State’s Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training program (I-BEST): New evidence of effectiveness
(CCRC Working Paper No. 20). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Community College Research Center.
36
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 41 of 392
Appendix A: Detailed Tables
Table A.1
Demographic Characteristics of Key Demographic Subgroups
Mean
age
Median
age
Female
Top 2
SES
quintiles
Young, lowSES students
20.2
19.4
51%
0%
Young, highSES students
19.6
18.9
46%
Older, lowSES students
40.7
37.8
Older, highSES students
42.0
All students
27.7
Bottom
2 SES
quintiles
White
African
American
Latino
Asian
n
100%
62%
7%
19%
8%
12,907
100%
0%
74%
4%
8%
11%
10,990
52%
0%
100%
56%
8%
23%
9%
7,405
39.6
52%
100%
0%
64%
5%
13%
15%
4,642
21.6
51%
34%
45%
66%
6%
15%
9%
62,235
Table A.2
College Start Level by SES Quintile (Young Students Only)
SES Quintile
Start level
ESL
ABE/GED
Developmental education
College level - vocational
College level - academic
1 (highest)
4%
9%
52%
14%
22%
2
7%
13%
51%
13%
16%
3
8%
17%
49%
15%
12%
4
10%
19%
47%
14%
10%
5 (lowest)
17%
24%
40%
12%
6%
Total
10%
17%
47%
14%
13%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
n
4,653
6,337
6,352
6,260
6,647
30,249
Table A.3
Demographic Characteristics of Students Who Do and Do Not Enter a Concentration
Female
Top 2 SES
quintiles
Bottom 2
SES
quintiles
White
African
American
Latino
Asian
n
24.8
50%
30%
49%
58%
6%
22%
10%
32,424
19.6
52%
38%
40%
74%
5%
8%
9%
29,811
Mean
age
Median
age
Did not
attempt
concentration
30.0
Did attempt
concentration
25.4
37
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 42 of 392
Table A.4
Courses Attempted by Both Concentrators and Non-Concentrators
Percentage of
course attempts by
non-concentrators
Subject
Percentage of
course attempts
by concentrators
Arts, humanities, and English
8.1%
18.9%
Mathematics and science (STEM)
2.7%
12.4%
Social and behavioral sciences
4.8%
10.9%
Agriculture and natural resources
0.7%
1.1%
Business and marketing
4.2%
5.6%
Secretarial and administrative services
0.8%
1.5%
Communications and design
0.4%
1.3%
Computer and information sciences
3.8%
6.0%
Cosmetology
0.1%
0.7%
Culinary services
0.2%
1.2%
Engineering/science technologies
0.5%
2.0%
Education and child care
3.2%
3.6%
Allied health
2.0%
5.8%
Nursing
0.3%
2.4%
Construction
2.1%
1.5%
Manufacturing
1.0%
1.4%
Mechanics and repair
1.0%
2.7%
Transportation
0.2%
0.4%
Protective services
0.6%
1.4%
Other career-technical
3.2%
4.6%
12.2%
9.0%
Personal and continuing education
4.3%
2.7%
GED or HS completion
5.0%
0.5%
ABE
10.3%
0.9%
ESL
24.7%
0.8%
3.3%
0.2%
Developmental
Workforce/educational prep
38
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 43 of 392
Table A.5
Concentrators by Age and SES
Young,
low-SES
Young,
high-SES
Older,
low-SES
Older,
high-SES
Everyone
53%
64%
18%
24%
46%
Arts, humanities, and English
33%
40%
11%
14%
28%
Mathematics and science
(STEM)
10%
12%
4%
7%
9%
Social and behavioral sciences
10%
12%
4%
4%
9%
42%
31%
79%
73%
49%
1%
1%
2%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Business and marketing
5%
5%
9%
10%
7%
Secretarial and administrative
studies
1%
1%
4%
3%
1%
Communications and design
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Computer and information
science
5%
4%
10%
12%
6%
Cosmetology
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Culinary services
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
Engineering and architecture
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Engineering/science
technologies
2%
2%
4%
4%
2%
Education and child care
4%
1%
6%
5%
7%
Allied health
6%
3%
11%
9%
6%
Nursing
3%
2%
5%
4%
3%
Construction
2%
1%
6%
7%
3%
Manufacturing
2%
2%
5%
3%
2%
Mechanics and repair
4%
2%
7%
6%
4%
Transportation
0%
0%
3%
2%
1%
Protective services
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Other career-technical
1%
0%
1%
2%
1%
5%
5%
2%
2%
4%
5,744
6,212
2,108
1,452
25,365
Liberal Arts
Career education
Agriculture and natural
resources
Automotive and aeronautical
tech
Not assigned
n
39
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 44 of 392
Table A.6
Demographic Characteristics by Concentration
Bottom
2 SES
quintiles
White
African
American
Latino
Asian
Mean age
Median age
Female
Top 2 SES
quintiles
22.2
19.0
55%
43%
36%
75%
5%
7%
9%
11,718
21.1
18.9
56%
44%
35%
75%
4%
8%
9%
7,162
21.7
19.0
54%
43%
35%
70%
4%
6%
16%
2,310
20.9
18.9
54%
44%
34%
77%
5%
7%
8%
2,246
30.1
25.2
51%
33%
46%
75%
6%
8%
7%
12,477
Agriculture and
natural resources
Business and
marketing
Secretarial and
administrative
studies
Communications
and design
Computer and
information
science
28.5
20.9
32%
30%
52%
80%
4%
8%
3%
296
29.4
23.4
65%
36%
42%
73%
4%
7%
11%
1,733
32.0
28.7
83%
25%
52%
62%
11%
10%
12%
366
24.9
19.6
57%
44%
34%
83%
4%
6%
5%
264
29.4
24.3
32%
39%
42%
76%
4%
5%
10%
1,448
Cosmetology
22.4
19.1
95%
38%
40%
75%
9%
4%
6%
290
Culinary services
25.3
19.9
51%
48%
32%
77%
5%
5%
10%
323
Engineering/science technologies
Education and
child care
27.9
22.8
13%
32%
44%
81%
3%
4%
8%
583
30.4
29.6
90%
25%
55%
72%
5%
14%
6%
1,731
Allied health
28.2
22.8
81%
27%
50%
74%
8%
8%
9%
1,467
Nursing
26.7
22.8
84%
32%
48%
73%
9%
6%
9%
651
Construction
29.8
26.2
9%
32%
43%
74%
9%
8%
5%
808
Manufacturing
28.8
23.9
9%
29%
49%
84%
3%
7%
4%
613
Mechanics and
repair
27.8
21.7
6%
30%
47%
73%
4%
10%
10%
922
Transportation
32.6
31.6
5%
28%
55%
72%
9%
7%
5%
212
24.3
19.7
27%
38%
42%
77%
8%
8%
4%
568
31.9
21.7
41%
34%
39%
75%
9%
6%
4%
202
Not assigned
21.5
19.0
51%
40%
38%
76%
5%
6%
9%
1,125
Total
24.8
19.4
53%
39%
40%
75%
5%
8%
9%
25,365
Liberal arts
Arts, humanities,
and English
Mathematics and
science (STEM)
Social and
behavioral
sciences
Career education
Protective
services
Other careertechnical
40
n
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 45 of 392
Table A.7
Remediation by Field of Concentration
Any
remedial
class
ABE
ESL
Any dev.
ed. class
Dev.
math
Dev.
writing
Dev.
reading
n
77%
6%
1%
76%
71%
30%
12%
11,718
Arts, humanities, and English
79%
6%
1%
78%
73%
28%
12%
7,162
Mathematics and science
(STEM)
72%
6%
3%
71%
63%
30%
14%
2,310
Social and behavioral sciences
78%
5%
0%
77%
71%
33%
12%
2,246
52%
13%
4%
44%
37%
21%
11%
12,477
Agriculture and natural
resources
47%
6%
1%
44%
37%
16%
7%
296
Business and marketing
56%
12%
4%
51%
41%
26%
14%
1,733
Secretarial and administrative
studies
68%
30%
6%
45%
35%
24%
15%
366
Communications and design
51%
8%
4%
47%
34%
20%
9%
264
Computer and information
science
63%
13%
2%
58%
50%
26%
12%
1,448
Cosmetology
49%
14%
3%
42%
27%
21%
10%
290
Culinary services
40%
11%
2%
34%
27%
17%
7%
323
Engineering/science
technologies
68%
9%
2%
64%
59%
23%
15%
583
Education and child care
32%
14%
6%
20%
16%
10%
7%
1,731
Allied health
69%
17%
4%
61%
52%
33%
16%
1,467
Nursing
76%
16%
7%
70%
64%
21%
11%
651
Construction
24%
11%
3%
15%
13%
6%
3%
808
Manufacturing
38%
12%
3%
29%
22%
14%
6%
613
Mechanics and repair
44%
13%
3%
35%
29%
15%
8%
922
Transportation
37%
10%
10%
25%
22%
11%
4%
212
Protective services
60%
9%
1%
56%
45%
32%
13%
568
Other career-technical
57%
14%
3%
50%
41%
32%
18%
202
Not assigned
79%
7%
1%
78%
71%
35%
13%
1,125
Total
65%
10%
3%
61%
54%
25%
12%
25,365
Liberal arts
Career education
41
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 46 of 392
Table A.8
Remediation by SES and Field of Concentration, Young Students Only
Young, low-SES students
Any
remedial
class
83%
ABE
8%
Arts, humanities, and English
Mathematics and science
(STEM)
Social and behavioral sciences
85%
Career education
Agriculture and natural
resources
Business and marketing
Secretarial and administrative
studies
Communications and design
Computer and information
science
Cosmetology
Young, high-SES students
n
3,033
Any
remedial
class
72%
ABE
4%
ESL
1%
Any dev.
ed. class
72%
n
3,975
84%
1,889
75%
4%
1%
75%
2,491
3%
76%
598
65%
4%
2%
63%
738
6%
1%
84%
546
70%
4%
0%
70%
746
68%
18%
4%
59%
2,405
63%
12%
2%
57%
1,893
57%
5%
1%
54%
74
66%
7%
0%
66%
41
79%
16%
5%
72%
293
68%
12%
3%
64%
282
75%
32%
7%
55%
69
83%
29%
3%
66%
35
65%
8%
2%
65%
51
47%
10%
4%
41%
83
76%
16%
3%
70%
266
67%
12%
2%
64%
270
64%
14%
3%
59%
81
40%
12%
1%
36%
75
Culinary services
Engineering/science
technologies
Education and child care
45%
10%
2%
40%
60
47%
14%
2%
40%
100
71%
12%
0%
66%
120
68%
12%
3%
63%
94
81%
45%
9%
53%
206
68%
16%
2%
59%
82
Allied health
77%
20%
3%
68%
348
81%
14%
4%
76%
183
Nursing
80%
18%
7%
74%
163
77%
15%
5%
75%
108
Construction
35%
14%
3%
24%
125
35%
10%
1%
28%
91
Manufacturing
45%
17%
2%
33%
130
44%
8%
0%
41%
103
Mechanics and repair
43%
11%
1%
37%
219
54%
16%
2%
44%
153
Transportation
48%
8%
4%
40%
25
64%
4%
4%
60%
25
Protective services
74%
11%
0%
70%
136
66%
4%
1%
63%
139
Other career-technical
87%
10%
0%
85%
39
86%
24%
3%
72%
29
Not assigned
83%
8%
1%
82%
297
76%
5%
1%
76%
335
Total
77%
12%
2%
72%
5,744
70%
7%
1%
68%
6,212
Liberal arts
ESL
1%
Any dev.
ed. class
82%
9%
1%
76%
8%
86%
42
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 47 of 392
Appendix B: Classification of Instructional Programs
Amended Program of Study and Credentials Classification Taxonomy
Using the 2000 Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP)
Field
Associated 2000 CIP code series
Academic (Transfer) education
Arts, humanities, and English
9 - Communication, journalism, and related programs [non-technical]
16 – Foreign languages, literatures, and linguistics
23 – English language and literature/letters
24 – Liberal arts and sciences; General studies and humanities
30.1301 – Medieval and renaissance studies
30.2101 – Holocaust and related studies
30.2201 – Ancient studies/civilizations
30.2202 – Classical, Mediterranean, Near Eastern studies
30.2301 – Intercultural and diversity studies
30.9999 – Multi/interdisciplinary studies, unspecified
38 – Philosophy and religious studies
50 except 50.04 – Visual and performing arts
Mathematics and science (STEM)
26 – Biological and biomedical sciences
27 – Mathematics and statistics
40 – Physical sciences
30.0101 – Biological and physical sciences
30.0601 – Systems science and theory
30.1001 – Biopsychology
30.1801 – Natural sciences
30.1901 – Nutrition sciences
30.2401 – Neuroscience
30.2501 – Cognitive science
Social and behavioral sciences
5 – Area, ethnic, cultural, and gender studies
22 except 22.03 and 22.0103 – Legal studies
30.0501 – Peace studies/conflict resolution
30.1101 – Gerontology
30.1501 – Science, technology, and society
30.1701 – Behavioral sciences
30.2001 – International and global studies
30.12 – Historic preservation and conservation
30.1401 – Museology/museum studies
42 – Psychology
45 – Social sciences
54 – History
Career-technical education
Agriculture and natural resources
1 – Agriculture
2 – Agricultural sciences (1990 classification)
3 – Natural resources and conservation
Automotive and aeronautical technology
15.08 – Automotive and Aeronautical Technology
43
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Business and marketing
Page Page 48 of 392
52 series other than 52.04, 52.14, 52.15, 52.18, 52.19 – Business
19.0505 – Foodservice Systems Administration/Management
19.0604 – Facilities Planning and Management
52.14 – Marketing
52.15 – Real Estate
52.18 – General Sales, Merchandising, and Related Marketing Operations
52.19 – Specialized Sales, Merchandising, and Marketing Operations
8 – Marketing and Distribution (1990 classification)
Secretarial and administrative services
22.0103 – Paralegal/legal assistant (1990 classification)
22.0301 – Legal administrative assistant/secretary
22.0302 – Legal assistant/Paralegal
22.0303 – Court reporting
52.04 – Business Operations Support and Assistant Services
Communications and design
10 – Communications technologies
19.0202 – Human sciences communication
19.0906 – Fashion and fabric consultant
50.04 – Design and applied arts
Computer and Information Sciences
11 – Computer and information sciences and support services
25 – Library sciences
30.0801 – Mathematics and computer science
30.1601 – Accounting and computer science
Cosmetology
12.04 – Cosmetology
Culinary services
12.05 – Culinary studies
Engineering and architecture
4 – Architecture and related services
14 – Engineering
19.06 except 19.0604 – Housing and human environments
Engineering/science technologies
15 except 15.08 – Engineering technologies
41 – Science technologies/technicians
Education and child care
13 – Education
19.0706 – Child development
19.0709 – Child Care Provider/Assistant
20.0102 – Child Development, Care & Guidance (1990 classification)
20.0107 – Family Living & Parenthood (1990 classification)
20.02 – Child Care & Guidance Workers & Managers (1990 classification)
Allied health
51 except 51.16 – Health professions and related clinical sciences
19.05 except 19.0505– Dietetics / Human Nutritional Services (1990
classification)
Nursing
51.16 – Nursing
Construction
46 – Construction trades
Manufacturing
19.09 except 19.0906 – Apparel and textiles
48 – Precision production
44
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 49 of 392
Mechanics and repair
47 – Mechanics and repair technologies/technicians
Transportation
49 – Transportation and materials moving
Protective services
29 – Military technologies
43 – Security and protective services
Other career-technical
12 series other than 12.04 or 12.05 series
19 series other than 19.0706, 19.0709, 19.05, 19.09, 19.06 – Family and
consumer sciences
20 series other than 20.0102, 20.0107, 20.02 – Family and consumer sciences
(1990 classification)
31 – Parks, recreation, leisure, and fitness studies
44 – Public administration and social services professions
Not for college credit
Basic skills
32 – Basic skills
Personal and continuing education
34 – Personal health improvement and maintenance
35 – Interpersonal and social skills
36 – Leisure and recreational activities
37 – Personal awareness and self-improvement
45
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 50 of 392
Completion & Pathways:
Moving from Buzz-Words to a
Student-Centered Approach
Dr. Rob Johnstone
The Research and Planning (RP) Group
ACCCA 2013 Annual Conference
Monterey, CA
February 20. 2013
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 51 of 392
Acknowledgements
•
Much of the content in this presentation was developed
under the umbrella of Completion by Design by a host
of national partners in addition to RP, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community College Research Center (CCRC)
Completion by Design Assistance Team (CDAT)
JBL Associates
Public Agenda
WestEd
The work is also informed by other RP national projects
such as the Aspen Prize for CC Excellence and
Bridging Research, Information & Cultures (BRIC)
RP-specific infographics were primarily designed by
Greg Stoup, Vice President, The RP Group
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 52 of 392
Agenda
•
Discuss the context of completion
•
•
•
•
•
Outline the Completion by Design (CbD)
initiative
Visualize the Student Experience
Explore the Loss-Momentum Framework
Analyze relevant completion data
Engage with the principles for redesign
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
The Completion Agenda
and the Completion by
Design Initiative
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
Page Page 53 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 54 of 392
A Brief Discussion on the
Completion Agenda
•
•
•
•
National movement – White House, Aspen
Prize, Complete College America, Dept. of
Ed, IPEDS, Access to Success,
Foundations (Gates, Lumina)
California angle: Student Success Task
Force, ARCC
Often takes a less “complete” view of
completion
Need for nuanced view
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 55 of 392
The Challenge of
Completion
For Colleges:
Financial
Incentives aligned with
access, not completion
Under-resourced
Innovations tend to be
isolated
Change is hard, even
when the will is there
For Students:
Easy to enroll, easy to
drop out
Many enter without a
clear plan, and need
developmental education
Lack of confidence,
financial resources and
family support
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 56 of 392
Completion By Design
Signature initiative of the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation’s Postsecondary Success Strategy
Goal: Significantly raise community college completion
rates for most students (focus on low-income students
under age 26)
Three cadres selected to lead CBD implementation in
Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio
9 colleges/campuses: 5 in NC, 3 in OH, 1 in FL
3 phases
•
•
•
Planning (12 months)
Implementation (24 – 30 months)
Scaling and Adoption (24 months)
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 57 of 392
Redesign Systems & Practices
for Student Success
Analyze and understand the common barriers and
momentum points that students experience
Implement and integrate proven and promising
practices to provide students with the quickest,
straightest path to completion
Create the conditions for change by empowering
interdisciplinary, cross-campus delegations of faculty,
staff and administrators
Build infrastructure for continuous improvement
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 58 of 392
Intermediate Objectives
Raise the number and percentage of students who enter
a program of study, and shorten the period between
when students first enroll and when they enter a program
Increase completion rates for students who have entered
a program of study, and shorten the period in which they
achieve completion
Ensure that academic programs prepare students for a 4year college or university, and that career-technical
programs help prepare students for entrance into and/or
advancement in the labor market
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 59 of 392
The Planning Year (7 months)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
•
•
Reviewed analyses around completion data and
request additional ad hoc studies
Built current pathways for student populations
Built optimized pathways for student populations
Identified the gaps between the two pathways
Prioritized based on areas of highest leverage
and impact as well as integration with existing
efforts
Received ample time, space, and support
Engaged stakeholders through focus groups as
well as numerous planning efforts
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
The Student Experience
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
Page Page 60 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 61 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Exploring the Preventing
Loss, Creating Momentum
Framework
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
Page Page 62 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 63 of 392
Loss & Momentum
Framework
CONNECTION
ENTRY
PROGRESS
Interest to
Application
Enrollment to
Completion of
Gatekeeper
Courses
Entry into Course
of Study to 75%
Requirements
Completed
POLICIES
PRACTICES
PROGRAMS
PROCESSES
COMPLETION
Complete Course
of Study to
Credential with
Labor Market
Value
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 64 of 392
Completion by Design Framing Model
Some Known Loss Points
CONNECTION
Students never
apply to college
Students delay
entry into
college
College counseling
patterns that lead
to:
- under enrollment
- little programspecific guidance
- missed financial
aid opportunities
ENTRY
PROGRESS
COMPLETION
Unstructured
programs / too
many choices
Poor workschool balance
Transfer without
credential
Extended onramps
delay entry to
programs of study
Part-time
enrollment
forcing long
completion times
Students
accumulate
credits (& debt)
not aligned with
completion
Students fail to
enroll/pass
Gatekeeper
courses
Poor academic
preparation
Progress not
monitored /
feedback given
Life events /
“Stop out or
drop out”
Never complete
college level math
Credential
doesn’t support
needed wage &
aren’t stackable
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 65 of 392
Completion by Design Framing Model
Momentum Strategies
CONNECTION
Firstfoster
Timecollegegoing norms in
Student
High School
expand awareness
of college programs
and requirements
dual enrollment
& AP credit
ENTRY
PROGRESS
mandatory intrusive
advising focused on
programs of study
programs to
incentivize optimal
attendance
accelerate entry
to POS
student progress
to completion
monitored &
feedback provided
effective academic
catch-up programs
take placement test
in high school
aggressive
financial aid
support
educational
planning in high
school
shorter, faster,
cheaper course
design
accelerated
competencybased programs
emergency aid
for students
COMPLETION
mandatory
Successful
intrusive
advising
Completion
toward certificates
degrees & transfer
incentives to
transfer with
credentials
remove
barriers to
graduation
Learn & Earn and
Career Pathway
programs
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 66 of 392
Discussion
• What are some of the key points of
interaction, either loss or
momentum points?
• Which pathways would you like to
strengthen for your students?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Exploring Completion Data
Based on the work of Community College
Research Center (CCRC) and Davis Jenkins
Irvine Valley Completion & Pathways Presentation
Page Page 67 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 68 of 392
The Cohort
• First-time-in-college (FTIC) cohort
• FTIC Broken Down By Starting Program Level:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Non Credit Vocational
ESL
ABE
ASE / GED
Dual Enrollment
Developmental
College-Ready
No Placement Info
Other
• Example: FTIC for 2005-06: 3,094 students
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
2005-06 FTIC Cohort by
Starting Program Level
Page Page 69 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 70 of 392
CBD Performance Measures
• 5-year highest educational outcomes:
– Certificate < 1 yr.
– Certificate ≥ 1 yr.
– Associate degree or bachelor’s degree at the
starting institution
– Transferred to 4-year institution with award
– Certificate, associate, or bachelor's (from
another inst.)
– Transferred to 4-year institution with no award
– Still enrolled at college in Year 5 with 30+ college
credits
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 71 of 392
Cohort Outcomes by Starting
Program Level
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Cohort Outcomes by
Developmental Ed Status
Page Page 72 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 73 of 392
Students Need to “Get with
the Program”
• To earn a credential, students must first enter a
coherent college-level program of study
• Many community college students enroll without
clear goals for college and careers
• CCs offer lots of programs, but most offer little
guidance to help students choose and enter a
program
• Often not clear whether students are actually in
a program
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 74 of 392
Key Intermediate Milestone:
Entering a Program of Study
• Concentrator – completes at least 9 semester
college credits (~3 courses) in a single CIP
program area
• Non-concentrator – attempts but does not pass
at least 9 college credits in a single program area
• Non-attempter – does not attempt at least 9
college credits in a single field
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Outcomes by Concentrator
Status
Page Page 75 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 76 of 392
Outcomes for LAS Concentrators
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 77 of 392
Outcomes by CTE Concentrators
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 78 of 392
Discussion
• What do these graphs tell you about
completion in the community colleges?
What surprised you?
• Have you collected similar data at your
college? If so, what have you found?
• Has the concept of programs of study
been discussed at your college? If so,
in what context?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 79 of 392
The Case for Collecting
Intermediate Milestones
• While ultimately completion rates are of
critical importance, the long delay time to
measure them (5 years) suggests a need for
intermediate milestones to measure progress
• CBD uses a set of 9 cadre-wide KPIs to
measure intermediate milestones
• KPIs are broken out by stage of the LossMomentum Framework
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 80 of 392
KPIs at the Entry Stage
• Percentage of students coming directly from
high school that place below college level
• Percentage of students who start below
college level and complete recommended
remediation within 1 year
• Percentage of students who pass required
entry-level math and English within 1 year
and 2 years on first attempt
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 81 of 392
KPIs at the Progress Stage
• Percentage of students persisting fall term
to fall term
• Percentage of students earning 12 college
credits in 1 year, or 24 in 2 years
• Percentage of students who enter a
program of study (concentrate) within 1
year and 2 years
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 82 of 392
KPIs at the Completion Stage
• Percentage of students who receive a
positive outcome within 5 years
• Percentage of students earning excess
college credits beyond 2-year degree
requirements
• Average number of excess credits
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 83 of 392
Discussion
• Do you measure similar pathway-type
intermediate milestones or KPIs at your
college? If so, which ones and what
have you found?
• What other pathway milestones / KPIs
can you consider measuring?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
CbD Design Principles
Extracted from presentations by
Johnstone and Davis Jenkins (CCRC) and
WestEd’s Changing Course
Page Page 84 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 85 of 392
Program Pathway
CONNECTION
ENTRY
PROGRESS
COMPLETION
From interest to
enrollment
From enrollment to entry
into program of study
From program entry to
completion of program
requirements
Completion of credential of
value for further education
and (for CTE) labor market
advancement
Consider
College
Education
Enter
Program
of Study
Complete
Program
of Study
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 86 of 392
Pathway Redesign Process
STEP 4
STEP 3
STEP 2
START HERE
CONNECTION
ENTRY
PROGRESS
COMPLETION
From interest to
enrollment
From enrollment to entry
into program of study
From program entry to
completion of program
requirements
Completion of credential of
value for further education
and (for CTE) labor market
advancement
• Market program
paths
• Build bridges from
high school and
adult ed. into
program streams
(e.g., strategic
dual enrollment, IBEST)
• Help students
choose program
pathway and
track entry
• Build prescribed
“on-ramps”
customized to
largest program
streams
• Clearly define
and prescribe
program paths
• Monitor students’
progress and
provide feedback
and supports JIT
• Incentivize
progress
• Align academic
program outcomes
with requirements
for success in
further education
and (for CTE
programs) in the
labor market
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 87 of 392
Status Quo Pathway Design
(example AA in LAS or Gen Studies)
• AA requirements not aligned with requirements for
junior standing in a major at transfer institutions
• Lack of clear pathways to transfer in a major for cc
students; many choices
• Students progress toward AA and transfer not
tracked; little on-going guidance, support
• No mechanism to inform choice of major pathway
• Dev ed narrowly focused on math and English, not
customized to particular paths
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 88 of 392
CBD Pathway Principles
1. Accelerate Entry into Coherent Programs of Study
Provide a structured, efficient, and prescriptive student
progression experience
Clear sequence of courses that lead to completion
2. Ensure Students Know Requirements to Succeed
Ensure students understand assessment & placement
process and importance of preparation
Clearly communicate requirements for degrees &
certificates and the path to achieving them
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 89 of 392
CBD Pathway Principles
3. Minimize Time Required to Get College
Ready
Clearly map out program requirements and sequence
Prescribe course of study for students based on goals
and level of readiness
4. Customize and Contextualize Instruction
Use program-specific content to make developmental
education relevant and engaging
Use of experiential learning
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 90 of 392
CBD Pathway Principles
5. Integrate Student Support with Instruction
Embed student support within instruction where
appropriate
Ensure student support serves students who most
need it
6. Continually Monitor Student Progress and
Proactively Provide Feedback
Monitor and celebrate student progress toward goals
and provide prompt and tailored feedback
Use data on student progress to inform planning and
creation of safety nets
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 91 of 392
CBD Pathway Principles
7. Reward Behaviors that Contribute to
Completion
Potential for monetary incentives to encourage
progress / completion
Also consider non-monetary incentives such as
recognition of progress
8. Leverage Technology to Improve Learning
and Service Delivery
Use technology to monitor and celebrate progress
Use of technology within curriculum
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 92 of 392
Ideal Pathway Design
• Program learning goals clearly defined and aligned
with the requirements transfer with junior standing in
major and (for CTE programs) career advancement
• Program pathway well structured and prescribed,
with electives only as needed to achieve learning
goals
• Students’ progress toward meeting requirements is
monitored and feedback/support provided “just-intime”
• “On-ramps” to help students choose a program of
study and customized to accelerate entry into specific
program streams
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 93 of 392
Discussion
• What are some of the key features of
an coherent pathway for your students?
• As you think about the design
principles, where might you start with
action steps that lead you to a more
coherent pathway for your students?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Find Out More
Completion by Design
www.completionbydesign.org
CONTACTS:
Rob Johnstone, Senior Research Fellow
rjohnstone@rpgroup.org
Priyadarshini Chaplot, Director of Professional
Development and Senior Researcher
pchaplot@rpgroup.org
Page Page 94 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 95 of 392
Pathways in Oregon:
A Descriptive Study of the Statewide Initiative &
Initial Cohort of Completers
March 2013
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 96 of 392
Career Pathways in Oregon
Launched in 2004 through the National Governors Association’s Pathways to Advancement Initiative,
Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative began with five colleges. In 2006, the Initiative expanded to 11
colleges and scaled to all 17 community colleges in spring 2007. Today, Career Pathways is recognized
as a best practice in Oregon’s Student Success Plan. Together, the community colleges through the
Oregon Pathways Alliance, leaders from the 17 colleges and the Department of Community Colleges and
Workforce Development (CCWD) guided the statewide initiative and built the foundation for the initial
study of completers. The Alliance has met quarterly since 2004 with staff assistance by CCWD’s
Pathways Initiative Director to ensure alignment and availability of career pathways across the state.
The State Board of Education approved a new short-term credit certificate, the Career Pathway
Certificates of Completion (CPCC), in July 2007. These certificates, combined with existing Less Than
One Year (LTOY) certificates, ensure flexible educational and skill building options for unemployed and
underemployed workers, career changers, part-time students who need to work, and students wanting a
short-term credential to jump-start their careers in an entry-level occupation. More than 240 Career
Pathway Certificates have been approved and are currently offered across a wide variety of Career &
Technical Education (CTE) program areas, and more than 5,000 short-term certificates have been
awarded since 2008.
CCWD and college leaders are committed to Career Pathways for the long haul. Collectively, the colleges
and CCWD have spent the last six years laying the groundwork for this report, which serves as an initial
study of the first cohort of short-term certificate completers (2008-10). In it, data about this cohort one
year prior to completion is outlined, as well as employment impacts one year post-completion. Future
reports, planned annually, will provide assessments of the impact of short-term certificates over time and
return on student investment, compare results with Workforce Investment Act programs, as well as gather
additional insights for continuous improvement of career pathways in Oregon. In addition, Oregon is
working with nine other states and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) in an effort to develop a
national framework for Career Pathways benchmarks and metrics, which will further inform future
research and analysis.
CCWD and the colleges will continue to measure impacts and improve career pathways based on
evidence. This report is the critical first step. The next report will be released in late 2013.
Camille Preus
Dawn DeWolf
Jane Hodgkins
Commissioner
Dean, Adult Basic Skills and Workforce
Lane Community College
Director, Career & Technical Education
Community Colleges and
Workforce Development
Pathways in Oregon
Oregon Coast Community College
Page 2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 97 of 392
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................... 4
Career Pathways Initiative ........................................................... 6
Initial Cohort Analysis ................................................................... 9
Descriptive Analysis ............................................................. 12
Employment Analysis.............................................................16
Appendices:
Oregon Community College Map ............................................21
Presidents’ Resolution.............................................................22
Oregon Pathways Alliance Members .....................................24
Descriptive Analysis ...............................................................25
Employment Analysis ............................................................. 30
Acknowledgements .....................................................................34
Pathways in Oregon
Page 3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 98 of 392
Executive Summary
Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative is a statewide strategy focused on increasing the number of
Oregonians with certificates and degrees and contributing to achieving the “middle 40” result of Oregon’s
40-40-20 goal: By 2025, 40 percent of Oregonians will have a postsecondary certificate or associate’s
degree.
Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative is focused on ensuring that Oregonians are able to easily prepare
for, access, and complete short-term certificate programs of less than one year that lead to either
immediate employment in occupations in demand by employers, or provide a seamless “pathway” to the
next highest level of a degree or certificate related to the occupation. Employment and continued
education are the dual objectives of Career Pathways.
Short-term certificates in Oregon’s community colleges are Career & Technical Education (CTE)
programs that prepare students for middle-skill occupations: jobs that require more than a high school
diploma but less than a bachelor’s degree. In Oregon there are two types of short-term certificates:
Career Pathway Certificates of Completion (CPCC) and Less Than One Year (LTOY) certificates. Both
are 12-44 credits and serve as intermediate steps toward an associate’s degree. Short-term certificates
are designed to provide completers with competencies to qualify for an entry-level job in the labor market
and to accommodate the life situations of many students.
The State Board of Education approved Career Pathway Certificates in July 2007. Since that time, more
than 240 CPCCs have been developed and are currently offered at all of Oregon’s 17 community
colleges. In addition, the colleges offer more than 100 LTOY programs. Short-term certificate programs
average 22 credits. Between 2008 and 2012, 5,020 certificates were awarded statewide.
This initial report describes the progress and accomplishments of the Career Pathways Initiative to date
and tells the story of the first certificate completer cohort. This includes their employment and continued
education path within a year after completion as a demographic analysis. It also provides baseline data
for future annual reports. The first cohort completed certificates in 2008-09 and 2009-10, which coincided
with the state’s worst recession in 25 years.
Employment key findings about earnings for the completer cohort include:

Despite high unemployment, 44.5 percent of certificate completers entered employment at $12/hr
or more within four quarters of completing their certificate, with many completers earning more
than $15/hr.

Of those that entered employment, 48.1 percent were continuously employed for four quarters at
$12/hr. or more. Their average wage was $17.68/hr.

During the time that the completer cohort was seeking employment, from 2008 to 2010, Oregon’s
statewide unemployment rate reached a high of 11.5 percent with more than 229,000 Oregonians
unemployed.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review

Page Page 99 of 392
Findings vary by geographic region. Key regional findings include:
o
Metro Region: Of the 640 completers in the metro region who were not employed prior to
completion, 50.3 percent entered employment within four quarters with an average wage
of $19.40/hr., above the $11.43/hr. regional average entry-level wage, as well as the
$18.77/hr. regional median wage for the region.
o
Southern Region: Certificate completers in the southern region earned an average wage
of $17.08/hr., an increase of $6.87/hr. above the regional average entry-level wage, and
above the regional median wage of $15.09/hr.

For students who earned at least one credit within four quarters after certificate completion:
o
18 percent of certificate completers who were employed within four quarters after
completion for at least 30 hour week at $12/hr. or more continued their education by
taking at least one credit course in the same program of study in the four quarters after
completing the certificate program.
o
Nearly half (47.7 percent) of the completer cohort continued their education within four
quarters after completion, earning at least one credit.

For students who continued in the same program of study within four quarters after certificate
completion:
o
14 percent of completers who were employed at $12/hr. or more also completed a course
o
21 percent of completers took a course in the same program of study at an Oregon
in the same program of study within four quarters after certificate completion.
community college within four quarters after certificate completion.
Demographic key findings include:

Most short-term certificate completers were more than 25 years of age and many were older than
45, with approximately one-third of the cohort between 45 and 64 years of age. Only 17.9 percent
of completers were under 25 years of age.

Short-term certificate completers (CPCC and LTOY) were fairly evenly divided between males

Less than 5 percent of completers took an Adult Basic Education (ABE) or English as a Second
and females.
Language (ESL) course one or two years prior to completion. Approximately one-third of the
completer cohort took a Developmental Education course during the one or two years prior to
completion
Pathways in Oregon
Page 5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 100 of 392
Career Pathways Initiative
Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative is focused on
ensuring that Oregonians are able to easily prepare for,
access and complete short-term certificate programs of
less than one year that lead to either immediate
employment in occupations in demand by employers, or
provide a seamless “pathway” to the next highest level of
a degree or certificate related to the occupation.
Employment and continued education are the dual
objectives of Career Pathways.
The Career Pathways Initiative is a critical statewide
strategy to achieving the “middle 40” results for Oregon’s
40-40-20 Goal, which states: By 2025, 40 percent of
Oregonians will earn a four-year degree, 40 percent will
achieve a postsecondary certificate or associate’s
degree, and the remaining 20 percent will earn a high
school diploma or equivalent and be ready to enter the
workforce. The US Department of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported in 2011 that 226,000 Oregonians 25
and older had less than a high school diploma, and
718,000 had a high school diploma but no college.
Short-term certificates (12-44 credits) provide educational
options and opportunities for unemployed and
underemployed Oregonians to increase their skills to
meet Oregon employers' demand for trained workers in
middle-skill occupations. These are jobs that require more
than a high school diploma but less than a four-year
degree. Career Pathway and Less Than One Year
certificate programs are “stackable credentials”
specifically designed to acknowledge these realities.
These stackable credentials are recognized as
“milestones” or “momentum points” to an associate’s
degree and accommodate the life situations of many
Definitions
Career Pathway: Career Pathways
are linked education and training
services that enable students, often
while they are working, to advance
over time to successfully higher
education and employment in a
given industry or occupational sector.
Each step on a career pathway is
designed explicitly to prepare
students to progress to the next level
of employment and education.
Career Pathways focus on easing
and facilitating student transitions
from high school to community
college, from pre-college courses to
credit postsecondary programs, and
from community college to university
or employment.
Career Pathway Certificate of
Completion (CPCC): 12-44 whollycontained and “stackable” credits
within an Associate of Applied
Science (AAS) degree. Courses are
tied to competencies identified by
employers for jobs in the local labor
market.
Less Than One Year Certificate
(LTOY): 12-44 credits tied to
competencies identified by
employers for jobs in the local labor
market. Includes coursework
contained in more than one
associate’s degree program.
students. The certificates are recognized as “milestones”
and “momentum points” in Oregon’s Student Success
Plan. Short-term certificates provide individuals a
“stepping stone” for additional education and further career advancement, without starting over on their
educational paths.
Scaling the Statewide Initiative
Launched in 2004 through the National Governors Association’s Pathways to Advancement Initiative,
Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative began with five colleges. Three colleges, Mt. Hood, Portland, and
Pathways in Oregon
Page 6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 101 of 392
Southwestern Oregon had implemented career pathways programs which were meeting with early
success. Worksystems, Inc., the Portland Metro Workforce Investment Board provided the funding to
launch career pathways at PCC and MHCC.
The initiative expanded to 11 colleges in 2006 and scaled to all 17 in 2007. The statewide implementation
and scaling of this effort was supported by braiding diverse funding streams, the leadership of Governor
Ted Kulongoski, and the community colleges in partnership with the state’s Career & Technical Education
Network, Oregon University System, Oregon Employment Department, and Local Workforce Investment
Boards.
The Oregon Presidents Council signed a Career Pathways Resolution affirming the colleges’ commitment
in 2006 which was renewed in 2008, 2010, and 2012 (see Appendix). Since 2004, the Oregon Pathways
Alliance, a statewide peer learning collaborative of college leaders, has been meeting quarterly to share
promising practices and lessons learned, and to collaborate with the Department of Community Colleges
and Workforce Development (CCWD) on strategy, professional development, and implementation
processes and procedures (see Appendix). Community college leadership has been instrumental to
implementing the Career Pathways systemic framework across the 17 colleges. In 2006, CCWD funded a
statewide coordinator position for the Career Pathways Initiative.
To build capacity and gain statewide buy-in, three Pathway Academies were held which included teams
from each community college and the state agencies. The first was in 2005, followed by a second in
2007. The third academy focused on healthcare career pathways and included employers on each team.
These events were designed to build awareness, collaboration and facilitate learning. As a result, there
was an increased level of buy-in and understanding statewide with each college developing a Pathways
Action Plan.
Funding for the Career Pathways Initiative has been provided through the Employer Workforce Training
Fund, Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Incentive Grants, WIA Title I-B, Perkins Postsecondary
Leadership, and Community College Strategic Funds. For the past three biennia, the Department of
Community Colleges and Workforce Development has “incented” capacity building and increased
completer outcomes at the local level through Career Pathways grants to the 17 colleges (2007-09, 200911, 2011-13). From 2005-2007, Career Pathways grants were competitively awarded.
Evolution of Career Pathways
In July 2007, the Oregon State Board of Education approved new, additional short-term certificates, the
Career Pathway Certificates of Completion (CPCC). These certificates contain courses tied to
competencies that qualify completers for an entry-level job or job advancement in the local labor market.
Since 2007, colleges, in collaboration with employers, have developed and implemented more than 240
CPCCs in a wide variety of Career & Technical Education (CTE) occupations. The community colleges
also offer over 100 Less Than One Year (LTOY) certificate programs. CPCC and LTOY certificates
ensure flexible educational and skill building options for unemployed and underemployed workers, career
changers, part-time students who need to work, and students wanting a short-term credential to jumpstart their careers in an entry level occupation. Over 5,000 short-term certificates have been awarded
since 2008.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 102 of 392
Also in 2007, the Oregon Pathways Alliance, with assistance from Davis Jenkins of the Community
College Research Center, developed the Career Pathways Accountability and Improvement Framework
that guided the development of the initial cohort study.
Between 2004 and 2012, with input from employers, an extensive infrastructure of more than 350 webbased Career Pathway “roadmaps” and high school to community college plans of study has been built
for Career & Technical Education (CTE) programs to show students and job seekers how to attain longterm career and educational goals. Accessible online through community college and Oregon career and
labor market websites, Career Pathway Roadmaps across the state average 45,000 page visits annually
(www.MyPathCareers.org/cp).
In partnership with the Oregon Employment Department and with funding from the Department of Labor,
the Career Pathways Initiative developed the Green Statewide Career Pathways Roadmap website in
2009 (www.oregongreenpathways.org).The website includes seven statewide Career Pathways
roadmaps for green occupations. These roadmaps include all courses, certificates and associate’s
degrees offered at Oregon’s community colleges as well as all of the pre-apprenticeship and
apprenticeship programs statewide in the seven green occupations and industry-related resources.
In 2009, in partnership with the Oregon Association of Broadcasters, a 30-second video was produced
which aired on Oregon radio and TV stations over a six month period. Lane Community College has also
produced a 90-second video which is featured on their website (http://www2.lanecc.edu/pathways).
The Oregon Pathways Alliance led the “Credentials, Acceleration, Support for Employment” (CASE)
proposal development for the first round of Department of Labor TAACCCT grant funding. The proposal
was awarded an $18.6 million dollar, three year grant in fall 2011. Clackamas Community College is the
lead for the 17 college consortium which includes Career Pathways, Career Coaches, and Credit for Prior
Learning.
Career Pathways are also a part of the statewide Industry Sector Strategy adopted by the Oregon
Workforce Investment Board and the Local Workforce Investment Boards in their 2012 strategic plans.
These plans include information on the Career Pathways available in each workforce region, with a focus
on those paths that lead to self-sufficient wages. The plans also include availability of or plans for specific
sector-based training through local training providers.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 103 of 392
Initial Cohort Analysis
The initial cohort descriptive and employment analysis findings directly address three Career Pathways
Initiative primary goals:

Increase the number of Oregonians who attain degrees, certificates and other credentials;

Increase entry into employment and further education in fields of economic importance locally,
regionally and statewide; and

Increase wage gains for completers over time.
The initial cohort analysis is reported in two parts, each utilizing different approaches outlined in the
methodology section below. Objectives of each section are:
Descriptive Analysis - What is known about completers and their education at the time of their certificate
completion?

Characterize students who have completed short-term (CPCC & LTOY) certificates to learn more
about certificate completers in the first cohort.

Specific data collected provides insight into demographics (sex, age) and educational attainment
prior to program entry.
Employment Analysis - What is known about completers in the period following their certificate
completion?

Track students into employment after they complete short-term certificates.

Identify the impact of short-term certificates on educational attainment and employment
outcomes.
Methodology
To conduct this analysis, two distinct approaches were taken requiring different data sources and
timeframes. The descriptive analysis, designed to identify demographics of students successfully
completing a certificate along with their academic backgrounds, utilized completion data from a three year
period, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. The employment analysis, designed to identify educational and
employment outcomes following certificate completion, utilized completion data from a two year period:
2008-09 and 2009-10. This shorter timeframe was necessary to provide a full four quarters following
completion for students to enter employment. The methodology outlined below will be applied to future
cohorts to provide additional data for ongoing analysis.
Descriptive Analysis: The data source for the descriptive analysis was the Oregon Community College
Unified Reporting System (OCCURS), a consortium-based comprehensive data system for Oregon’s 17
community colleges and CCWD. The student completion data were combined with student demographic
data to thoroughly characterize students who had successfully completed short-term certificates. The
number of certificates awarded is higher than the number of certificate completers because many
students received multiple awards during the study period.
Employment Analysis: The employment analysis was based on Career Pathway and Less Than One
Year certificate completions for 2008-09 and 2009-10 reported to OCCURS. The need for an adequate
follow-up period after certificate completion precluded use of the 2010-11 data for this part of the project.
Assessment of employment performance of pathways completers was based on wage records supplied
Pathways in Oregon
Page 9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 104 of 392
by the Oregon Employment Department (OED). This data source consists of quarterly records of total
wages for all workers working in Oregon. As such, it allowed tracking completers’ entry and exit from the
workforce as well as wages earned. Ninety-six percent of all certificate completers had social security
numbers available, which are necessary to match OED wage records. As a result, 4 percent of all
certificate completers in the cohort were not included in the prospective portion of the study. OED wage
data was available for 92 percent of completers.
In addition, employment status and, thereby wage data, may be underreported since completers who are
self-employed, working in a different state or in the military are not available through Oregon Employment
Department (OED) wage records.
Eastern Region: Blue Mountain Community College (BMCC), Central Oregon
Community College (COCC), Columbia Gorge Community College (CGCC), Treasure
Valley Community College (TVCC)
Metro Region: Clackamas Community College, Mt. Hood Community College (MHCC),
Portland Community College (PCC)
Southern Region: Klamath Community College (KCC), Rogue Community College
(RCC), Southwestern Oregon Community College (SOCC), Umpqua Community
College (UCC)
Valley/Coast Region: Chemeketa Community College, Clatsop Community College,
Lane Community College (LCC), Linn-Benton Community College (LBCC), Oregon
Coast Community College (OCCC), Tillamook Bay Community College (TBCC)
The employment portion of the study analyzed both statewide and regional data, grouping community
colleges into one of four regions. The regional analysis recognizes the diversity and heterogeneity of
Oregon’s economy and labor markets, which are particularly important factors for the study’s outcome
measures.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 105 of 392
Conventions Used in the Report
Definitions: Definitions used in this study to identify those workers who are either not employed or are
underemployed, as well as employment measures for certificate completers, differs significantly from
definitions used for federally funded programs such as Unemployment Insurance (UI) and the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA). As such, “not-employed” is used throughout the study to discuss employment
outcomes for completers. The term “unemployed/unemployment” is used when the standard federal
definition applies. Additionally, the study uses a higher threshold for wage and number of hours for
Entered Employment and Employment Retention measures than those used in other education or
workforce-related studies. Definitions are included in the Employment Analysis section of the report.
Graphics: All graphics in the text are referenced as “figures”. Data sets presented in the Appendix are
referenced throughout as “tables”. Data sources for each figure and table are referenced throughout.
Note: Throughout this study, some data has been suppressed to comply with the Family Educational
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), OED, and CCWD privacy policy. Where applicable, these data points
are referenced with a “DS” code in figures and tables.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 106 of 392
Descriptive Analysis
The Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development (CCWD) and the Oregon Pathways
Alliance launched an initial study in 2011 to identify and describe certificate completers, as well as the
level of their subsequent employment and continued education. The initial study examined the
employment and continuing education outcomes for individuals completing short-term certificates (12-44
credits), including Career Pathway Certificates of Completion (CPCC) and Less Than One Year (LTOY)
certificates. The initial study consisted of demographic descriptions of the completers during the first three
years (2008-2011) following approval of the Career Pathway Certificate by the State Board of Education
in July 2008. It also examined employment outcomes for the first two years following certificate
completion. While these timeframes imposed limitations on the depth of analysis that could be performed,
the study provided a baseline for subsequent annual updates and impacts over time.
Highlights

Short-term certificate completers were nearly evenly divided between males and females

Most certificate completers were over 25 years of age and many were older than 45 (28 percent
of the cohort was 45-64 years old)

30 percent of the completers had previously earned a post-secondary credential prior to enrolling
in a Career Pathways program
Analysis Overview
A total of 2,848 students received 3,437 Career Pathway Certificates of Completion (CPCC) and Less
Than One Year (LTOY) certificates during the years included in the analysis (2008-09, 2009-10, and
2010-11). There were 589 more certificates awarded than the total number of completers as some
students in the cohort received more than one certificate. About as many women as men completed
certificates.
As of August 2012, 242 Career Pathway Certificates and 104 Less Than One Year Certificates were
available statewide in six career areas (Appendix, Table 1). The average number of credits for these
short-term certificates is 22. During the time period of this initial study (2008-2010), the number of
certificates available to students was 138 (84 CPCCs and 54 LTOYs) (Figures 1 & 2).
Pathways in Oregon
Page 12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 107 of 392
Figure 1
1200
Career Pathway and Less Than One Year Certificate Completions
1,078
963
1000
735
729
800
600
478
400
468
282
250
200
0
2008-09 (532 total)
2009-10 (1,207 total)
Career Pathway Certificates
2010-11 (1,698 total)
2011-12 (1,546 total)
Less Than One Year Certificates
Source: Oregon Community College Unified Reporting System: ; Appendix Table 3
Figure 2
Number of Career Pathway and Less Than One Year Certificate
Programs by College as of August 2012
11
5
7
17
13
11
12
3
38
28
21
2
7
24
5
6
Career Pathway Certificates
14
5
3
10
2
2
8
16
11
8
17
17
1
4
10
8
Less Than One Year Certificates
Source: Community College Program Submission System; Appendix Table 2
Age of Completers
Over 84 percent of pathways completers were 25-64 years old and 76 percent of LTOY completers were
25-64 years old (Figures 3a and 3b). In fact, a third of pathways completers and well over a quarter of
LTOY completers were over 45 years of age. Certificate completers were generally not young people who
recently completed high school. Instead, many had already been engaged in the workforce, with those
over 45 years of age close to mid-career.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 108 of 392
Certificate Completers by Age
Figure 3a
Career Pathway Certificates of
Completion
ages
45-64
590
34%
ages
25-44
865
50%
65+
12
1%
20-24
219
13%
Unknown
11
1%
16-19
26
1%
Source: OCCURS; Appendix Table 4
Educational Background
For numerous completers, this was not their first post-secondary credential (See Figures 4a and 4b). As a
group, 1,176 previous credentials were earned by 861 students. This means that roughly 30 percent of the
entire completer cohort had previous credentials – none of which were CPCC or LTOY certificates. Taken
together with the age data, this shows that much of the cohort was middle aged, and had previous
credentials, but had returned to college to enroll in a CTE program which resulted in a short term certificate.
Further study of completers’ reasons for returning to school is to be considered for future studies.
Certificate Completers Who Earned Previous Credentials
Figure 4a
Career Pathway Certificates of Completion
AAOT
(LDC)
39
5%
Assoc.
Gen.
Studies
(LDC)
52
7%
CTE cert
1+ yr
285
37%
Figure 4b
Less Than One Year Certificates
Assoc.
Science
(LDC)
21 Assoc.
3% Science
(CTE)
1
0%
Assoc.
App.
Science
(CTE)
363
48%
Source: OCCURS; Appendix Table 4
Pathways in Oregon
Page 14
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 109 of 392
Adult Basic Education (ABE) & Developmental Education: As outlined in Figure 5, relatively few
short-term certificate completers took ABE courses one or two years prior to completion, and
approximately one-third of completers took a developmental education course. Results from this initial
study show that less than five percent of students defined as ABE make a transition to CTE programs and
complete a certificate within four or eight quarters. Note: As a single student could take any combination
of Adult Basic Education or Developmental Education courses, numbers may be duplicated.
Figure 5
Participation in Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language and Developmental Education
courses prior to completion
Type of course
1 year prior to completion
2 years prior to completion
CPCC
LTOY
CPCC
LTOY
Adult Basic Education (ABE)
3.2%
3.6%
4.9%
4.5%
English as a Second Language
4.8%
.1%
5.9%
1.2%
Developmental Education
31.3%
28.2%
37.8%
34.3%
Source: OCCURS; Appendix Table 4
Career Focus Areas: Over 80 percent of completers received short-term certificate in the following three
career focus areas: Business & Management, Human Resources, and Industrial & Engineering Systems
(Appendix Table 5). Refer to Appendix Table 10 to view cohort completers who entered employment by
career focus area and region. Refer to Table 11 in the Appendices for a summary of certificates awarded
by Career Focus Area statewide, by college, from 2008-2012.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 110 of 392
Employment Analysis
Highlights

More than 40 percent of completers entered employment within a year of completion and earned
at least $12/hr.

Of those, nearly half retained continuous employment for a year.

Wages compared favorably to both statewide entry-level wages and statewide median wages.

More than 20 percent of completers continued their post-secondary education in the same
program area.
Analysis Overview
The employment analysis reflects a cohort of 1,461
completers who received a total of 1,776 certificates
during the two-year period 2008-09 and 2009-10.
Ninety-six percent of this initial cohort was either not
employed or underemployed a year prior to completing
their certificates. This portion of the study was
designed to examine employment gains and continued
education of the initial cohort.
The time period when these students completed their
certificates (2008-10) coincided with a deep recession
throughout the United States. Unemployment
throughout the nation rose to over 9 percent.
Statewide, unemployment ranged from a low of 5.2
percent in the first quarter of 2008, the beginning of the
recession, to a high of 11.5 percent in the second
quarter of 2009 (seasonally adjusted), Oregon’s
highest unemployment rate in 25 years. The southern
region of the state was particularly hard-hit during the
Employment Data Definitions
Not employed: earning no wages
during the fourth quarter prior to
certificate completion
Underemployed: earning less than
$10/hr or working less than 20 hours
/week for the fourth quarter prior to
certificate completion
Entered Employment: obtaining
employment of at least 30 hours
/week and earning at least $12/hr
within four quarters of completion
Employment Retention: those who
entered employment of at least 30
hours /week and at least $12/hr and
remained employed at that level for
four consecutive quarters
recession, with unemployment rates rising from 7.4
percent to 14.8 percent (Appendix Table 7). When the
first cohort in this study completed their certificates in
the second quarter of 2009, the number of unemployed Oregonians reached a peak of 229,061 – an
incredibly difficult time to be a job seeker (Appendix Table 8).
Despite these daunting statistics, 44.4 percent of completers found employment within a year of
certificate completion in “middle skill” jobs, those earning at least $12/hr. Of that group, 81 percent
entered employment at a wage of at least $15.00/hr.
Of the group that secured employment after completing their certificates, 48.1 percent retained
continuous employment during the year examined in the study with an average wage of $17.68/hr. This is
significant as for the comparable time period, the statewide median wage was $17.28/hr and the
statewide entry-level wage was $10.75/hr. (Source: Oregon Employment Department, Appendix Table 9).
Pathways in Oregon
Page 16
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 111 of 392
Thus, Career Pathways completers were beating the odds by not only finding jobs, but finding jobs that
paid well.
Continuing Education
One of the goals of the initiative is that students can continue their educational journey and accumulate
“stackable” credentials over time that can lead to an associate’s degree. Nearly half, 47.7 percent, of the
certificate completers finished at least one post-secondary credit within a year of receiving their certificate.
Twenty-one percent of the certificate completers continued their education by earning at least three
credits in the same program of study. This indicates that many students were interested in going beyond
their certificate and planned to continue moving along their career pathway. Some completers, 18 percent
completing at least one credit and 14 percent completing at least three credits in the same program of
study, fulfilled both goals of Career Pathways as they continued their post-secondary education and
found jobs paying at least $12/hr.
Regional Findings
The study conducted an initial analysis of the diverse regional nature of Oregon’s labor market by
considering the number of certificate completions, areas of career focus, entered employment/retention
rates and wages across Oregon’s geographic regions. Data on certificate completers in the four regions
studied is outlined below and in greater detail in Appendix Table 10. Additional regional data analysis will
be conducted in a future study.
Figure 6 offers a snapshot of the study’s labor market outcome measures regionally and statewide. In all
regions, average wages for short-term certificate completers who entered and remained in the workforce
were considerably higher than regional entry-level wages. CCWD and the Oregon Pathways Alliance
defined $12/hr as a benchmark statewide wage outcome for certificate completers who entered the labor
market with competencies to qualify for entry-level jobs, or higher, in middle skill occupations. The
regional entry wage statewide varies from $10.11/hr to $11.43/hr with a statewide average regional entrylevel wage of $10.75/hr.
Figure 6
Regional Employment and Wage Outcome Measures
Entered
Employment*
Retained
Employment
Regional
Median Wage**
Regional Entry
Wage***
30.0%
Average
Hourly
Wage
$14.16
Eastern Region
32.5%
$15.09
$10.19
Metro Region
50.3%
54.7%
$19.40
$18.77
$11.43
Southern Region
32.4%
44.7%
$17.08
$15.09
$10.11
Valley/Coast
Region
43.2%
42.3%
$14.96
$16.44
$10.29
Statewide
44.4%
48.1%
$17.68
$17.28
$10.75
*Entered and retained employment of at least 30 hour week and $12/hr
**Regional median wages provided by OED
***Entry wage is the 20th percentile wage for the region as provided by OED
Source: Oregon Employment Department, Appendix Table 9
Pathways in Oregon
Page 17
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 112 of 392
Additionally, entered employment wages for those completers who were not employed four quarters prior
to completion is provided for the Metro and Southern regions below. This analysis, which does not include
those completers who were underemployed and, thereby is a subset of retention data, provides insight
about career pathways’ success at moving completers into high wage jobs. Note: Data suppressed (DS)
to comply with FERPA/CCWD privacy policy are not included in the regional charts provided below.
Metro Region (Clackamas, Mt. Hood, Portland)
Of the 640 completers in the Metro region who were either not employed or underemployed prior to
completion, 50.3 percent entered employment within four quarters at $12/hr or more. Those that retained
employment for four quarters earned an average wage of $19.40/hr, which is $0.63 above the $18.77/hr
average entry level wage for the region. Certificate completers primarily entered Industrial and
Engineering Systems (48.8 percent), Business and Management (27 percent), and 15.1 percent entered
Health Services (Figure 7).
Figure 7
Entered and Retained Employment by Career Focus Area
METRO REGION
entered employment
retained employment
168
80
93
(43.3%
retained)
63
(67.7%
retained)
52
31
(59.6%
retained)
Business and Management
(27.0% of completers)
Health Services
(15.1% of completers)
Industrial and Engineering
Systems
(48.8% of completers)
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Southern Region (Klamath, Rogue, Southwestern Oregon, Umpqua)
Of the 145 completers in the Southern region who were either not employed or underemployed prior to
completion, 32.4 percent entered employment at $12/hr or more. Those that retained employment for four
quarters earned an average hourly wage of $17.08/hr. Employment was primarily in Health Services (41.4
percent) and Human Resources (32.8 percent) (Figure 8). Retention rates were similar across both career
focus areas.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 18
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 113 of 392
Figure 8
Entered and Retained Employment by Career Focus Area
SOUTHERN REGION
Entered Employment
Retained Employment
24
19
11
9
(45.3%
retained)
(47.4%
retained)
Health Services
(41.4% of completers)
Human Resources
(32.8% of completers)
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Valley/Coast Region (Chemeketa, Clatsop, LCC, LBCC, OCCC, TBCC)
Of the 498 completers in the Valley/Coast region who were either not employed or underemployed prior
to completion, 43.2% entered employment within four quarters at $12/hr. or more. Those that retained
employment for four quarters earned an average hourly wage of $14.96, $4.67above the average entrylevel wage of $10.29. Almost half of certificate completers received a Health Services certificate (46.3%),
with another 21.3% receiving a certificate in Business and Management, and 17.6% in Industrial and
Engineering Systems. Retention was highest in Industrial and Engineering Systems, though it had the
lowest entered employment rate of the three reported (Figure 20).
Figure 9
Entered and Retained Employment by Career Focus Area
VALLEY/COAST REGION
Entered Employment
113
Retained Employment
41
52
(36.3%
retained)
22
(42.3%
retained)
Business and Management
(23.3% of completers)
Health Services
(46.3% of completers)
43
26
(60.5%
retained)
Industrial and Engineering
Systems
(17.6% of completers)
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Within the smaller cohort of 328 students who were not employed (underemployed not included) for four
quarters prior to completing their certificate, 208 worked for 30 hours a week or more in the four quarters
following employment. Of those, 106 received $15/hr. or more (Figure 21).
Pathways in Oregon
Page 19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 114 of 392
Eastern Region (BMCC, COCC, CGCC, TVCC)
Of 123 completers in the Eastern region who were either not employed or underemployed prior to
completion, 40 entered employment within four quarters at $12 or more. Those that retained employment
for four quarters earned an average hourly wage of $14.16, $3.97 above the region’s average entry level
wage of $10.19. Employment was primarily in Industrial and Engineering Systems (77.5%), followed by
Health Services (14.6%) and Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at 7.9% (Figure 14). Retention
was highest in Health Services, though fewer completers chose this career focus area.
Figure 10
Entered and Retained Employment by Career Focus Area
EASTERN REGION
Entered Employment
Retained Employment
69
16
0
7
(0.0%
retained)
Agriculture, Food & Natural
Resources
(7.9% of completers)
6
13
(46.2%
retained)
Health Services
(14.6% of completers)
(23.2%
retained)
Industrial and Engineering
Systems
(77.5% of completers)
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Within the smaller cohort of 84 students who were not employed (underemployed not included) for a full
four quarters prior to completing their certificate, 36 were working more than 30 hours a week in the four
quarters following employment, with 22 receiving $15/hr. or more (Figure 15).
Future Direction
Future reports, planned annually, will provide assessments of the impact of short-term certificates over
time, return on student investment, compare Career Pathways completion results with Workforce
Investment Act programs, conduct a more in-depth regional analysis, as well as gather additional insights
for continuous improvement of Career Pathways in Oregon.
Oregon is currently working with nine other states and the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) in
an effort to develop a national framework for Career Pathways benchmarks and metrics, which will further
inform future research and analysis.
Pathways in Oregon
Page 20
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 115 of 392
Oregon Community Colleges
Areas in white are not represented by community college districts. These counties and municipalities do not
pay taxes into the state’s Community College Support Fund.
Eastern Region: Blue Mountain Community College (BMCC), Central Oregon Community College
(COCC), Columbia Gorge Community College (CGCC), and Treasure Valley Community College (TVCC)
Counties included in this region: Baker, Crook, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Malheur, Morrow,
Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wasco, and Wheeler
Metro Region: Clackamas Community College, Mt. Hood Community College (MHCC), Portland
Community College (PCC) Counties included in this region: Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington
Southern Region: Klamath Community College (KCC), Rogue Community College (RCC), Southwestern
Oregon Community College (SOCC), Umpqua Community College (UCC)
Counties included in this region: Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake
Valley/Coast Region: Chemeketa Community College, Clatsop Community College, Lane Community
College (LCC), Linn-Benton Community College (LBCC), Oregon Coast Community College (OCCC),
Tillamook Bay Community College (TBCC) Counties included in this region: Clatsop, Columbia, Lane,
Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Tillamook, and Yamhill
Pathways in Oregon
Page 21
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 116 of 392
Presidents’ Resolution
Pathways in Oregon
Page 22
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Pathways in Oregon
Page Page 117 of 392
Page 23
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 118 of 392
Oregon Pathways Alliance Members
Blue Mountain Community College
Katrina Bretsch
Virginia Justice
Dan Koopman
Central Oregon Community College
Debbie Hagan
Jenni Newby
Chemeketa Community College
Johnny Mack
Glen Miller
Clackamas Community College
Peg Caliendo
Steffen Moller
Clatsop Community College
Lisa Nyberg
Debby L. Robertson
Kristen Wilkin
Columbia Gorge Community College
Brian Greene
Abrahan Martinez
Dave Mason
Klamath Community College
Terri Armstrong
Paula Pence
Oregon Coast Community College
Pam Carpenter
Jane Hodgkins
Portland Community College
Pamela Murray
Sara Nelson Treadway
Rogue Community College
Debbie McLennan
Serena St. Clair
Southwestern Oregon Community College
Pat Parker
Diana Schab
Tillamook Bay Community College
Lori Gates
Carla Madison
Treasure Valley Community College
Terry Basford
Merie Linegar
Umpqua Community College
Lisa Davis
April Hamlin
Ali Mageehon
Lane Community College
Dawn DeWolf
Rosa Lopez
Linn-Benton Community College
Karin Magnuson
Ann M. Malosh
Mt. Hood Community College
Marc E. Goldberg
Kay Lopez
Steven R. Storla
Pathways in Oregon
Page 24
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 119 of 392
Descriptive Analysis
TABLE 1
Career Pathway Certificates by Career Focus Area
As of August 2012
Career Pathway Certificates
Less Than One Year Certificates
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources
Arts, Information and
Communications
21
8
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources
3
Arts, Information and
Communications
2
Business and Management
65
Business and Management
16
Health Services
17
Health Services
11
Human Resources
45
Human Resources
16
Industrial and Engineering Systems
86
Industrial and Engineering Systems
56
Total
242
Total
104
Source: Oregon Community College Program Submission System
TABLE 2
Number of Career Pathway and Less Than One Year Certificates by
College
As of August 2012
Career Pathway Certificates
Less Than One Year Certificates
Blue Mountain
17
Blue Mountain
7
Central Oregon
11
Central Oregon
13
Chemeketa
28
Chemeketa
5
Clackamas
21
Clackamas
12
Clatsop
7
Clatsop
2
Columbia Gorge
5
Columbia Gorge
0
Klamath
6
Klamath
0
Lane
3
Lane
Linn-Benton
Mt. Hood
Oregon Coast
24
5
10
2
Linn-Benton
14
Mt. Hood
3
Oregon Coast
4
Portland
38
Portland
Rogue
16
Rogue
Southwestern Oregon
17
Southwestern Oregon
Tillamook Bay
17
Tillamook Bay
8
Treasure Valley
10
Treasure Valley
1
Umpqua
4
Umpqua
Total
8
242
10
8
11
104
Source: Oregon Community College Program Submission System
Pathways in Oregon
Page 25
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 120 of 392
Descriptive Analysis
TABLE 3
Career Pathway & Less Than One Year Certificate Awards
2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-2012
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011 - 2012
Career
Pathway
Certificate
of
Completion
Less Than
One Year
Certificate
Career
Pathway
Certificate
of
Completion
Less Than
One Year
Certificate
Career
Pathway
Certificate
of
Completion
Less Than
One Year
Certificate
Career
Pathway
Certificate
of
Completion
Less Than
One Year
Certificate
Blue Mountain
Central
Chemeketa
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia Gorge
Klamath
Lane
Linn-Benton
Mt. Hood
Oregon Coast*
Portland
Rogue
Southwestern OR
Tillamook Bay
Treasure Valley
Umpqua
0
0
22
22
1
0
0
64
0
24
0
94
8
14
0
1
0
0
71
0
44
0
0
0
1
74
3
0
40
4
15
0
0
30
0
19
113
74
10
0
8
162
0
44
0
226
18
27
1
17
10
0
169
0
34
0
0
0
0
121
3
0
105
10
0
0
0
36
20
8
168
138
5
0
16
191
7
31
0
257
33
22
8
43
16
8
176
0
124
0
15
0
0
143
1
0
198
26
4
0
0
40
37
12
133
132
17
8
28
189
8
32
0
282
97
13
2
80
8
13
0
0
72
0
14
2
2
114
3
8
230
9
0
0
0
1
Total
250
282
729
478
963
735
1,078
468
College
Combined Total
532
1,207
1,698
1,546
Note: This is duplicated count and includes more than one certificate for some completers
Source: Oregon Community College Unified Reporting System (OCCURS) (reported to OCCURS as of January 30, 2013)
Pathways in Oregon
Page 26
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 121 of 392
TABLE 4
Demographics of recipients of Career Pathway certificates
and certificates of less than one year
2008-09 / 2009-10 /2010-11
Career Pathway Certificates
Less Than One Year Certificates
Sex
Completers were evenly divided between men and women.
Students Percentage
790
45.9%
879
51.0%
54
3.1%
1,723
Female
Male
Unknown
Total
Female
Male
Unknown
Total
Students Percentage
545
48.4%
540
48.0%
40
3.6%
1,125
Age
Most completers were older than 25. Many completers are older than 45.
Very few completers were under 25.
Students Percentage
26
1.5%
219
12.7%
865
50.2%
590
34.2%
12
0.7%
11
0.6%
16-19
20-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Invalid
Total
1,723
16-19
20-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Invalid
Total
Students Percentage
31
2.8%
233
20.7%
539
47.9%
316
28.1%
DS*
DS*
DS*
DS*
1,125
Few completers came directly from high school and few had earned dual credit.
Directly from high school
Students
54
Percentage
3.1%
Average dual credit
Directly from high school
Students Percentage
90
8.0%
Average dual credit
Students
20
Credits
11.2
Students Credits
22
5.7
Source: OCCURS
Pathways in Oregon
Page 27
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 122 of 392
TABLE 4 continued
High School Completion
Most completers had high school diplomas or GEDs, but completion is unknown for many others.
Career Pathway Certificates
Less than One Year Certificates
Adult HS diploma
GED
HS grad
Did not complete
Proficiency exam
Still in HS
Attendance completion
Unknown
Total
8
146
962
36
DS*
14
DS*
553
0.5%
8.5%
55.8%
2.1%
DS*
0.8%
DS*
32.1%
1,723
Adult HS diploma
GED
HS grad
Did not complete
DS*
118
687
21
DS*
10.5%
61.1%
1.9%
Still in HS
DS*
DS*
285
25.3%
Unknown
Total
1,125
Adult Basic Education and Developmental Education course participation four quarters prior to completing certificate
More than a third of completers participated in Developmental Education in the previous year.
Adult Basic Education course
ESL course
GED course
Developmental Education course
Total completers
55
82
35
540
3.2%
4.8%
2.0%
31.3%
1,723
Adult Basic Education course
ESL course
GED course
Developmental Education course
Total completers
40
9
10
317
3.6%
0.1%
0.9%
28.2%
1,125
Note: As students may have taken more than one of these courses, these numbers are not unduplicated
Adult Basic Education and Developmental Education participation eight quarters prior to completing certificate
More than a third of completers participated in Developmental Education in the previous two years.
Adult Basic Ed course
ESL course
GED course
Developmental Ed course
Total completers
84
101
46
652
1,723
4.9%
5.9%
2.7%
37.8%
Adult Basic Ed course
ESL course
GED course
Developmental Ed course
Total completers
51
13
17
386
1,125
4.5%
1.2%
1.5%
34.3%
Earlier awards NOT
pathways/LTOY
AAOT (LDC)
Assoc. Gen. Studies (LDC)
Assoc. Science (LDC)
Assoc. Science (CTE)
Assoc. Applied Science (CTE)
CTE cert 1+ yr
CTE cert 2+ yr
14
50
DS*
0
166
171
DS*
3.4%
12.0%
DS*
0%
40.0%
41.2%
DS*
Total
415
Earlier short-term awards
Pathways
LTOY
10
101
Total
111
Note: As students may have taken more than one of these courses, these numbers are not unduplicated
Completers had earned numerous previous credentials
Earlier awards NOT
pathways/LTOY
AAOT (LDC)
Assoc. Gen. Studies (LDC)
Assoc. Science (LDC)
Assoc. Science (CTE)
Assoc. Applied Science (CTE)
CTE cert 1+ yr
CTE cert 2+ yr
39
52
DS*
DS*
363
285
0
Total
761
5.1%
6.8%
DS*
DS*
47.7%
37.5%
0%
*DS: Data suppressed to comply with FERPA/CCWD privacy policy
Note: A total of 861 completers had earned previous credentials
Some completers had earned earlier CPCC and LTOY awards
Earlier short-term certificate
awards
Pathways
LTOY
Total
Source: OCCURS
Pathways in Oregon
51
4
55
97.2%
7.3%
9.0%
91.0%
Page 28
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 123 of 392
Career Focus Areas
TABLE 5
Career focus areas for Career Pathway and Less Than One Year Certificates
2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11
Career Pathway Certificates
Less than One Year Certificates
Three career focus areas account for 80% of all completions
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources
72
4%
Resources
18
Arts, Communication and
Information
7 0.l%
Arts, Communication and Information
27
Business and Management
494 25%
Business and Management
316
Health Services
320 16%
Health Services
350
Human Resources
347 18%
Human Resources
116
Industrial and Engineering Systems
701 36%
Industrial and Engineering Systems
665
Total
1,942
Total
1,495
Note: This is duplicated count and includes more than one certificate for some completers
Source: OCCURS
1%
2%
21%
23%
8%
44%
TABLE 6
Career focus areas Career Pathway and Less Than One Year Certificates by Sex
2008-09 / 2009-10 / 2010-11
Career Pathway Certificates
Female
Male
Men and women tend to choose different career focus areas.
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources
Arts, Communication and
Information
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
*DS
Agriculture, Food and Natural
Resources
DS*
DS*
DS*
*DS
Arts, Communication and
Information
DS*
DS*
285
256
238
32%
29%
27%
202
61
77
20%
6%
8%
604
990
61%
DS*
Industrial and Engineering Systems
80
9%
Total
893
*DS: Data Suppressed to comply with FERPA/CCWD privacy policy
Source: OCCURS
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
Industrial and Engineering
Systems
Total
Less Than One Year Certificates
Female
Male
Agriculture, Food and Nat. Resources
Arts, Communication and Information
DS*
DS*
DS*
DS*
Agriculture, Food and Nat. Resources
Arts, Communication and Information
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
96
298
105
17%
52%
18%
48
8%
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Total
572
*DS: Data Suppressed to comply with FERPA/CCWD privacy policy
Source: OCCURS
Pathways in Oregon
13
9
2%
1%
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
115
51
9
14%
6%
1%
Industrial and Engineering Systems
606
75%
Total
804
Page 29
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 124 of 392
Employment Analysis
Unemployment
TABLE 7
Statewide and Regional Seasonally Adjusted Quarterly Unemployment Rates
Q1
2008
Q2
2008
Q3
2008
Q4
2008
Q1
2009
Q2
2009
Q3
2009
Q4
2009
Q1
2010
Q2
2010
Q3
2010
Q4
2010
Oregon
5.2
5.7
6.7
8.4
10.5
11.5
11.3
10.9
11.0
10.8
10.5
10.3
United States
5.0
5.3
6.0
6.9
8.3
9.3
9.6
9.9
9.8
9.6
9.5
9.6
Eastern Region
6.2
6.7
7.9
9.7
11.7
12.6
12.4
12.1
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.8
Southern Region
7.2
7.7
8.9
10.9
13.0
13.9
13.7
13.3
13.2
13.2
13.3
13.0
Valley/Coast Region
5.2
5.6
6.7
8.5
10.7
11.6
11.4
11.0
10.9
10.8
10.6
10.4
Metro Region
4.6
4.9
5.9
7.3
9.1
10.3
10.4
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.4
9.1
Area
Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Oregon Employment Department
TABLE 8
Number of Unemployed Oregonians 2008-10 by Quarter
Seasonally Adjusted
Q1
2008
Q2
2008
Q3
2008
Q4
2008
Q1
2009
Q2
2009
Q3
2009
Q4
2009
Q1
2010
Q2
2010
Q3
2010
Q4
2010
101,893
111,087
132,124
166,248
209,477
229,061
222,013
214,555
216,392
213,344
208,839
204,372
Source: U.S. DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics
Pathways in Oregon
Page 30
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 125 of 392
Entered and Retained Employment
TABLE 9
Oregon Community Colleges
Career Pathways completers who entered and retained employment*
2008-09 and 2009-10 completers
Entered and retained at $12/hr or more
Entered
Employment
Retained
Employment
%
Average
Hourly
Wage of
Completers
Eastern
40
12
30.0%
$14.16
$15.09
$10.19
Metro
322
176
54.7%
$19.40
$18.77
$11.43
Southern
47
21
44.7%
$17.08
$15.09
$10.11
Valley/Coast
215
91
42.3%
$14.96
$16.44
$10.29
Statewide
624
300
48.1%
$17.68
$17.28
$10.75
Regional
Median
Wage**
Regional
Entry
Wage***
*Retained employment of at least 30 hour week and at least $12/hr
**Regional median wages provided by OED
***Regional entry wage is the 20th percentile wage of the entire region as provided by OED
Source: Oregon Employment Department
Pathways in Oregon
Page 31
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 126 of 392
Regional Career Focus Area
TABLE 10
Oregon Community Colleges
Certificates awarded to completers who
entered employment within four quarters of completing
and retained employment for four quarters
2008-09 and 2009-10 completers
Entered and retained employment at $12/hr or more and 30+ hours per week
Eastern
Metro
Southern
Valley/Coast
Statewide
Career Area
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
Health Services
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Other
Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources
Business and Management
Health Services
Human Resources
Industrial and Engineering Systems
Other
Total
Entered
7
13
69
DS*
93
52
DS*
168
DS*
DS*
24
19
11
52
113
DS*
43
DS*
DS*
148
202
84
291
DS*
735
Retained
0
6
16
DS*
63
31
DS*
80
DS*
DS*
11
9
6*
22
41
DS*
26
DS*
DS*
85
89
33
128
DS*
337
%
0.0%
46.2%
23.2%
DS*
67.7%
59.6%
DS*
47.6%
DS*
DS*
45.8%
47.4%
54.5*%
42.3%
36.3%
DS*
60.5%
DS*
DS*
57.4%
44.1%
39.3%
44.0%
DS*
45.9%
Retained employment of at least 30 hours per week and $12/hr.
*DS: Data Suppressed to comply with FERPA/OED/CCWD privacy policy
Five career areas were represented.
Note: This is duplicated count and includes more than one certificate for some completers
Source: OCCURS
Pathways in Oregon
Page 32
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 127 of 392
TABLE 11
Oregon Community Colleges
Career Pathway Less Than One Year Certificates
Awarded by Career Focus Area 2008-2012
Blue
Mountain
Central
Oregon
Chemeketa
Clackamas
Clatsop
Columbia
Gorge
Klamath
Lane
Linn
Benton
Mt. Hood
Oregon
Coast
Portland
Rogue
Southwest
ern
Tillamook
Bay
Treasure
Valley
Umpqua
Total
Agriculture
,Food and
Natural
Resources
Pathways in Oregon
Arts,
Communication,
and
Informat
ion
4
Business and
Management
Health
Services
29
38
145
401
4
49
126
Human
Resources
Industrial
and
Engineering
Systems
9
36
78
2
34
231
366
146
127
4
455
451
763
33
28
5
1
9
12
73
1
56
10
140
14
87
Other
1
Total
10
17
231
25
26
140
2
11
108
82
9
230
6
87
64
126
403
8
236
26
113
78
598
88
8
1432
204
11
17
44
24
97
9
2
5
11
1363
20
7
748
58
975
37
54
609
125
3
467
141
11
60
41
1805
4
Page 33
141
141
5122
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 128 of 392
Acknowledgements
The Oregon Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development (CCWD) would like to
acknowledge the many individuals who helped make this report possible:
CCWD Pathways Research Study Team: Elizabeth Cox Brand, Krissa Caldwell, Shalee Hodgson, Mimi
Maduro, David Moore, Paul Schroeder
Oregon Employment Department: John Glen, Graham Slater, Brenda Turner, Katharine Williams
CCWD Internal Reviewers: Theresa Fitzgerald, Kurt Tackman
Many thanks to the Oregon Pathways Alliance leaders at Oregon’s 17 community colleges for their
assistance in preparing this report (see page 24).
Pathways in Oregon
Page 34
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 129 of 392
______________________________________________
Pathways through College: Strategies for Improving
Community College Student Success
April 2013
______________________________________________
Bob Rath
Kathryn Rock
Ashley Laferriere
Our Piece of the Pie®, Inc.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 130 of 392
This report was published in April 2013 by Our Piece of the Pie®, Inc. (OPP®).
Our Piece of the Pie®, Inc.
20-28 Sargeant Street
Hartford, CT 06105
www.opp.org
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 131 of 392
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 3
The Issue ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
Building the Workforce of the Future ................................................................................................... 6
The Community College Dropout Crisis ................................................................................................. 6
The Economic Benefits of College Graduation ...................................................................................... 8
Why Do Students Leave Community College? ........................................................................................ 10
Inadequate Academic Preparation ..................................................................................................... 10
Remedial Education ............................................................................................................................ 11
Student Financial Aid .......................................................................................................................... 11
Lack of Non-Academic Skills ................................................................................................................ 12
Competing Obligations ....................................................................................................................... 13
The Solution................................................................................................................................................ 15
Strategies to Improve Community College Retention and Completion Rates........................................ 15
Secondary and Postsecondary Curriculum Alignment ........................................................................ 15
Remedial Education Reform................................................................................................................ 16
Early College Experiences .................................................................................................................... 17
Student Supports ................................................................................................................................. 19
Financial Aid and Funding Incentives .................................................................................................. 20
Supportive Transfer Policies ................................................................................................................ 22
Program and Labor Market Outcome Alignment ............................................................................... 22
Case Study: The Postsecondary Success Initiative .................................................................................. 24
The Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 28
2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 132 of 392
Executive Summary
By 2018, 63% of all occupations will require a postsecondary credential. While job growth for all
workers is expected to average 10%, job growth for those specifically armed with an associate’s degree
is expected to peak at nearly 19%. This paints a positive picture of opportunity for community college
students in the U.S., tainted only be the fact that less than 30% of students who enroll full-time in
community college complete an associate’s degree in three years. For minority, low-income, older, and
part-time students, graduation rates are even lower. At Connecticut’s community colleges, between just
7% and 24% of students graduate within 3 years of entering school. This means that between 76% and
93% of students are paying 3 years of community college tuition without receiving a diploma as a result
of their investment. This brief highlights the issues preventing students from succeeding in college and
offers solutions to improve outcomes for the community college student population.
The Issue
Exploring the reasons why community college students leave school is essential to understanding how
we can reengage and retain them in community college.
•
•
•
•
•
Inadequate Academic Preparation – Many students arrive at college without the academic
foundation necessary to excel. This sets students up for failure and often causes them to waste
time and money on remedial education.
Remedial Education – Almost 50% of 2-year community college students are required to take
expensive and time consuming remedial courses that do not provide college credit, but increase
a student’s chances of dropping out. Approximately $3 billion is spent each year on remedial
education.
Student Financial Aid – Attending community college is expensive. It is estimated that an
average annual budget of $15,000 is required for students to cover tuition, books, food,
housing, and transportation costs. To reduce dropout rates, it is essential that students are
adequately funded, and supported.
Lack of Non-Academic Skills – Many students lack the non-academic abilities, such as social
skills, study habits, and time management strategies, necessary to succeed in college.
Expectations of these skills are often left unspoken, leaving students confused or discouraged
when they receive negative feedback or poor grades.
Competing Obligations – Community college students disproportionately face work, family, and
other competing duties outside of the classroom that make it difficult to complete their degree.
For example, 60% of community college students work 20 hours a week, and 25% work 35 hours
a week.
The Solution
States and community colleges must implement and support promising practices and strategies to
improve community college retention and graduation rates.
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Page Page 133 of 392
Curriculum Alignment – High school and college curriculums should be aligned so students enter
college prepared and ready to learn. This will not only help students get in to college, but will
also help them stay enrolled. The Common Core State Standards are designed to provide
students with the academic foundation required to succeed in college.
Remedial Education Reform – Improving remedial education is necessary to increase graduation
rates. States and college systems are implementing new reforms such as: fast-track courses,
learning communities, and embedded supports in entry-level courses to reform remediation.
Early College Experiences – Exposing students to college early increases college-readiness. Dual
enrollment and summer bridge programs prepare students for college by exposing them early to
college culture and coursework. Students that take college level courses while still enrolled in
high school increase their chances of graduating.
Student Supports – To succeed in college, students need more than strong academics, they need
supports that foster a smooth transition from high school to college. When students receive the
academic, social, and career supports they need, they remain in school and achieve success.
Financial Aid and Funding Incentives – Financial aid and performance-based scholarships can be
used as incentives to keep students on track. Postsecondary institutions should also receive
funding based on student success factors, not enrollment counts.
Supportive Transfer Policies – 28% of bachelor degree earners began their studies at community
college, and 47% took at least one community college course. To continue and strengthen this
trend, transfer policies should support students so community colleges can serve as a pipeline to
a 4-year college degree.
Program and Labor Market Outcome Alignment – To ensure that community college graduates
find jobs after graduation, more information should be made available on how career or major
choices match employer needs. Students should receive career counseling to take advantage of
labor market indicators, and community colleges and states should implement the latest
technologies to provide accurate, up-to-date, labor market information.
Case Study: The Postsecondary Success Initiative
In August 2011, Our Piece of the Pie®, Inc. (OPP®) implemented The Postsecondary Success Initiative
(PSI) at Capital Community College in Hartford, Connecticut. The PSI utilizes OPP’s Pathways to Success
program model to provide community college students with the supports they need to succeed. OPP
staff works with youth to develop realistic plans that map out a pathway from where they are to where
they want to be. They also provide supports such as, employment assistance, job shadowing, resume
help, and academic assistance. The PSI has shown impressive results in its first year, with 86% of
students returning to their second year of college, a rate 35-38% better than Capital’s overall first to
second year retention rate.
The Conclusion
The economic and social benefits of a college degree are enormous, yet students enrolled in community
college continue to drop out at tremendously high rates. Whether due to inadequate academic
preparation, financial aid issues, or competing work and family obligations, community college students
4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 134 of 392
need help to stay on track. Better academic preparation and student supports such as dual enrollment,
financial aid, and improved transfer policies to 4-year institutions, can all make a difference in student
success. Programs that embed supports into the community college setting, such as the PSI, can also
improve student perseverance and graduation rates. When community college students receive the
support they need, they can succeed, and experience the economic and social benefits that come with
college graduation.
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 135 of 392
The Issue
Building the Workforce of the Future
"In the coming years, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow twice as
fast as jobs requiring no college experience. We will not fill those jobs – or keep those jobs on
our shores – without the training offered by community colleges.” – President Barack Obama1
The United States economy is expected to grow by 14.4 million jobs between 2008 and 2018, with 97%
of these new positions, and 63% of all occupations, requiring a postsecondary credential of some type.2
With these demands in mind, the US is currently on track to face a shortage of nearly 5 million workers
to fill positions that require postsecondary credentials by 2018.3 Policymakers, educators, nonprofit
organizations, and postsecondary institutions, must rise to meet President Obama’s challenge of
graduating an additional 8.2 million postsecondary students by 2020.4 We must come together to
ensure that college students receive the support and guidance they need so they can succeed in
obtaining a postsecondary credential. These graduates will fill tomorrow’s high-demand positions and
thrive as the workforce of the future.
While job growth for all workers is expected to average 10%, job growth for those with an associate’s
degree is expected to grow at nearly double that rate, at almost 19%. Job growth for associate’s degree
holders is expected to even surpass new job growth for bachelor’s degrees.5 Not only will associate’s
degrees be in high demand, but jobs requiring associate’s degrees will offer competitive wages. As
recently as 2006, nearly 1 in 6 jobs paying above average wages, and experiencing above average
growth, required an associate’s degree. In fact, the average expected lifetime earnings for an individual
with an associate’s degree is approximately $1.6 million, nearly $400,000 more than the expected
earnings of a high school graduate.6
The workforce demands of the future cannot be met by our current postsecondary education system. To
produce the number of graduates necessary to meet the rising demand, community colleges must play a
central role and graduate a greater number of students. Because community colleges typically cost less
to attend than 4-year institutions, have open enrollment policies, and offer more flexibility than 4-year
programs, they offer a feasible path to graduation for many students who may not otherwise pursue a
degree.
The Community College Dropout Crisis
Reducing the high school dropout rate is a national priority. Youth development organizations, states,
and school districts are working tirelessly to develop strategies to help struggling students succeed.
Unfortunately, the same emphasis, support, and assistance are not offered to another group of
struggling young people: community college students. Too often, student supports stop at high school
graduation and community college students are overlooked, despite the fact that dropout rates among
this population are extremely high and the economic and social benefits of completion are extensive.
6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 136 of 392
According to Complete College America, less than 30% of students who enroll full-time in community
college complete an associate’s degree in three years. Completion rates are especially low for minority,
low-income, and older students. Just 7.5% of African American students, 11.1% of Hispanic students,
11.8% of low-income students, and 14.4% of students over the age of 25, enrolled full-time, complete a
2-year associate’s degree in 3 years. Part-time students complete at even lower rates, with just over 2%
of African American students, 2.6% of Hispanic students, and 4.3% of low-income students completing
an associate’s degree in 3 years.7
In Connecticut, the situation is equally dire. According to a 2009 report by the P-20 Council, just 7% to
24% of community college students (depending on the institution) graduate within 3 years of entering
school. This means that between 76% and 93% of students are paying 3 years of community college
tuition without receiving a diploma as a result of their investment.8 This wasted tuition money not only
affects personal finances, but state and federal funds as well, since many community college students
receive student loans to cover tuition costs. In fact, between 2003 and 2008, states across the country
gave over $1.4 billion, and the Federal government gave over $1.5 billion, to college students who
ultimately left school after just 1 year. Total state expenditures for first year college dropouts in
Connecticut topped $62 million between 2003 and 2008. The graphic below depicts spending on a
Connecticut community college education over a 3-year period, and the economic impact of dropouts.
Funds expended can include a combination of personal, state, and federal dollars.
Connecticut Community College Non-Completers
Connecticut
community
college
students: 33,298
Tuition per
student/year:
$3,490
3 years:
$348 million
76% of students
expected to drop
out
The cost of
noncompleters:
$264 million*
* These calculations are conservative as they do not include annual tuition increases and additional expenses incurred by students, such as
books, lab fees, and student activity fees. The opportunity cost of the time these students spend in school, rather than working and earning a
salary outside the classroom, is also not included in these numbers. Expenses are incurred by a combination of individuals, state, and federal
government.
This is not to say that community colleges do not serve an essential purpose, or that investing state and
federal funds in these programs is a waste. Graduates of community college produce significant social
benefits over non-graduates including, lower unemployment rates, increased tax revenue, and reduced
crime rates.9 In addition, community college provides an affordable, accessible postsecondary option,
where young people can acquire the credentials they need to meet labor market demands. As it is
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 137 of 392
estimated that by 2018, jobs requiring an associate’s degree will grow at a rate faster than those
requiring any other academic credential10, improving community college student success rates will not
only increase the likelihood of individual student achievement, but save students and taxpayers a
significant amount of money in the process.
The Economic Benefits of College Graduation
Obtaining a college degree results in many economic benefits. The graphic below compares income11
and tax contribution outcomes12 for Connecticut residents who earn a high school diploma with those
who have completed 1 to 3 years of college.
Annual Economic Impact of College
High School
Diploma
1 - 3 Years
of College
Economic
Impact
Average Annual
Income: $36,100
Average Annual
Income: $45,400
+ $9,300
67% Pay Federal
Taxes
73% Pay Federal
Taxes
+ 6%
69% Pay Sate
Income Tax
76% Pay State
Income
+ 7%
Mean Annual
Taxes Paid:
$4,408
Mean Annual
Taxes Paid:
$6,512
+ $2,104
In addition to earning higher incomes and contributing additional tax revenue, individuals with more
education require less cash and in-kind government support benefits such as, Medicare/Medicaid, food
stamps, and rental subsidies, and they are institutionalized at a far lower rate. The graphic below
compares cash and in-kind government supports utilized by high school and college graduates.13
8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 138 of 392
Impact of College on Annual Government Support
High School
Diploma
1-3 Years of
College
Economic
Impact
Mean Annual Cash
and In-kind
Transfers: $4,083
Mean Annual Cash
and In-kind
Transfers: $2,709
- $1,374
Institutionalization
rate: 1.7%
Institutionalization
rate: 0.7%
- 1%
Using the data depicted above, the Center for Labor Market studies at Northeastern University
calculated the mean net annual fiscal contributions of Connecticut adults by educational attainment.
This number includes cost savings due to decreased cash and in-kind government support benefits. The
graphic below compares the mean net annual and mean net lifetime fiscal contributions for Connecticut
residents who earn a high school diploma with those who have completed 1 to 3 years of college.14
Impact of College on Mean Net Fiscal Contributions
High School
Diploma
1-3 Years of
College
Economic
Impact
Mean Net Annual
Fiscal Contribution:
$8,810
Mean Net Annual
Fiscal Contribution:
$14,943
$6,133
Mean Lifetime Net
Fiscal Contribution:
$414,070
Mean Lifetime Net
Fiscal Contribution:
$672,435
$258,365
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 139 of 392
Judging by the above data, it is clear that community college serves as an important gateway to greater
economic security and increased state benefit. In fact, after completing an associate’s degree, many
community college students continue their education by transferring to a 4-year institution, to produce
even greater economic benefits. Between 25% and 39% of students who enroll in community colleges
with the intention of transferring to a 4-year institution ultimately transfer.15 To achieve the economic
returns that come with higher education, we must increase these numbers, and improve outcomes for
community college students. To do so, it is important to address both why students are dropping out of
community college at such high rates, and what we can do to improve the rates of retention and
completion at these vital institutions.
Why do Students Leave Community College?
Graduating from college is difficult; careful study, concentration, and long-term commitment are
required to obtain a degree. Because of this, many students struggle to complete their credential. For
community college students, the road is often more difficult. Many enter college unprepared or underprepared for the academic rigor of college level work. Others are shuttled into remedial courses, which
often serve as a roadblock to credit-bearing classes and college completion. Still others become lost in
the maze of majors, lectures, and high cost. Whether students experience all or just some of these
problems, the reasons that many community college students fail to complete their degree must be
carefully examined so high-quality solutions can be found to help students succeed.
Inadequate Academic Preparation
While more students are attending college than ever before (attendance rates have increased from 49%
in 1972 to 69% in 2005) many students are arriving at college without the academic foundation
necessary to excel. 16 Weak curricula, unclear standards, and a lack of alignment between high school
and college coursework leaves students stranded in college without the academic foundation they
need.17 This is particularly the case under the new Common Core State Standards for English Language
Arts and math. These new standards are more rigorous, intended to better prepare students to succeed
in postsecondary education. However, schools are struggling to ensure that all students are truly
mastering these skills before graduating.
This sets students up for failure, with time and money wasted taking remedial courses to fill gaps in the
knowledge they should have acquired while still enrolled in high school. In fact, inadequate academic
preparation is a cost that must be paid twice, with taxpayers paying first for students to learn academic
material while in high school and again once students are enrolled in college. Student’s lack of academic
preparation and the need for remediation comes at an estimated national cost of $3.6 billion.18 Avoiding
this path, and improving a student’s chances of college success, should start long before students begin
college level work. Acquiring a strong academic foundation prior to college is central to a student’s
successful admission to college and to the likelihood that they will not require remediation once they
are enrolled.19
Inadequate academic preparation also contributes to one of the most prohibitive factors in a student’s
ability to complete an associate’s degree - the amount of time that they must remain enrolled in college.
10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 140 of 392
According to Complete College America, the longer a student is enrolled in school, the less likely they
are to finish their degree. Many students cannot afford to attend school full-time, because 75% are
working, raising children, commuting to school, or juggling some combination of these three obligations.
In addition to personal obligations lengthening their enrollment, students find themselves inadequately
prepared for college and, as a result, are forced to take non-credit bearing remedial courses.20 The
combination of outside obligations and inadequate academic preparation is often too much, causing
students to drop out.
Remedial Education
Increased time in school is prohibitive – so much so that it has been shown that the longer it takes a
student to complete developmental or remedial education requirements, the less likely they are to
remain in school.21 This is extremely alarming when considered in light of the large number of students
required to take remedial courses each year. Complete College America reports that almost 50% of
students entering 2-year colleges are required to take remedial classes. This number is even higher for
minority and low-income students. In fact, over 67% of African American students, 58% of Hispanic
students, and 64% of low-income students pursuing a 2-year degree require remediation.22
Despite being noncredit-bearing, remedial courses cost students the same amount as credit bearing
classes. Nationally, approximately $3 billion is spent annually on remedial courses, and the cost is
constantly growing.23 According to The College Board, the average tuition at public, two-year colleges
increased by just 5% from 1992 - 2002. Yet, in the following decade (2002 – 2012), the average tuition at
public, two-year colleges increased by 45%.24 These rising costs are especially disconcerting for remedial
students who do not receive credit for their coursework. Students placed in remedial classes can spend
thousands of dollars on their education and have no credits to show for their time, money, and hard
work.
Remedial education is detrimental not only to students who are required to take these courses, but to
state and national economies. Because students who take remedial courses are less likely to complete
school the added economic contributions of these potential college graduates are lost. When students
enter, but do not complete college, they lose future earning potential, and governments lose future tax
revenue.25
Student Financial Aid
While academic preparation for college is essential, adequate preparation does not always translate into
successful enrollment and completion of school. In fact, after accounting for differences in academic
achievement, a significant gap persists between the percentage of low-income students and highincome students that attend college. Research indicates that low-income high school graduates in the
top academic quartile attend college at the same rate as high-income graduates in the bottom
achievement quartile. A key factor in this difference is the cost of a college degree and the financial aid
available to make college affordable. The bottom line is that college is expensive, prohibitively so for
many community college students, especially for students that are low-income.26
11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 141 of 392
According to The College Board, the average annual tuition at a public, two-year college, in the 2010 to
2011 school year, was $2,713. This does not include other costs incurred by students such as food,
housing, books, and transportation. When these expenses are considered, it is estimated that the
average budget required by a community college student is $15,000 per year.27 This amounts to a
significant expense, especially for the many low-income students who often depend on community
college to access higher education, and in light of recent changes to Pell Grant funding.
In 2011, the number of semesters in which student could receive a Pell Grant award was shortened from
18 semesters to 12 semesters. This change was implemented in 2012 and, according to the Association
of Community College Trustees, is expected to impact 63,000 Pell Grant recipients.28 This modification is
especially detrimental for the community college student population, since Pell Grants typically cover a
higher proportion of a community college students’ tuition than other college students.29 In addition,
many community college students take longer to complete their degrees than students at 4-year
colleges. In fact, 40% of students are only able to attend school part time.30 This extends the amount of
time it takes for students to achieve their degree and the amount of time they require the assistance of
a Pell Grant. Now, with fewer semesters of Pell eligibility, these students must receive better supports
to ensure that they can get through a degree program.
While this is an issue facing students who apply for Pell grants, many students and families are not even
aware of the financial aid that is available. They often overestimate the cost of college and do not know
about financial aid options. This problem is particularly prevalent among low-income students and
families who are also often deterred by the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). As a result,
many students fail to complete the FAFSA, miss important filing deadlines, and lose out on aid that could
help them afford college.31 This forces them to take on work obligations, oftentimes lengthening their
time in school, or deterring them from enrolling entirely. Whether due to inadequate financial aid
information, rapidly rising costs, or a financial aid system that is complex and confusing, student
financial aid plays a key factor in why students leave, or fail to enter, college.
Lack of Non-Academic Skills
To achieve success in college, students need more than just academic skills. They must adapt to new
expectations, learning styles, professors, and surroundings. They must learn to collaborate with new
students, and satisfy college course and graduation requirements.32 For many community college
students, these new responsibilities can be overwhelming. This is because many students lack the
essential non-academic skills necessary to tackle college challenges. In fact, even students that are
deemed academically college-ready, through test scores or the completion of developmental
coursework, often fail to complete their degree. Clearly, academic preparation influences college
success, but it is certainly not the only success factor.33
Professors and peers expect community college students to meet certain non-academic behavioral
standards, such as navigating complex bureaucratic requirements, utilizing good study habits and time
management strategies, and engaging in new kinds of social relationships. These standards are often left
unspoken and unwritten, leaving students that lack these non-academic skills, unsure or unaware of
12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 142 of 392
expectations. The lack of clarity regarding non-academic skills is particularly detrimental to firstgeneration and older college students, who make up a large portion of the community college student
population.34 Because non-academic preparation and support for college often depends on parents,
teachers, guidance counselors, and other supportive adults with college knowledge and insight on how
to succeed, students without access to these adult guides are often left behind. For many firstgeneration and low-income community college students, support for non-academic skills is simply not
available.35
A lack of non-academic preparation and support can undermine college student success at any point.
Many students are impacted at the very start of the college process, even before they enroll, when they
must take concrete steps to explore college and financial aid options.36 Other students make it to
college, but receive negative feedback, poor grades, and experience discomfort on campus, causing
them to ultimately drop out.37 While many community colleges have some type of orientation program
in place to combat potential confusion, explain college policies, and highlight support resources, just
38% of colleges report instituting mandatory orientation programs. In fact, after three weeks of college,
approximately 19% of entering students are still unaware of their school’s orientation program.38
Skipping orientation can be especially detrimental to students lacking non-academic skills, as orientation
provides a valuable opportunity for them to understand how their school works and begin forming new
relationships.
Competing Obligations
Many community college students face significant obligations outside of the classroom that make it
difficult to persist in school and concentrate on completing their degree. Work and family life demands
are perhaps the most influential among the challenges that community college students face. Because
many students have jobs, children, and a commute to school, they are more likely than their 4-year
college peers to have poor academic outcomes and, ultimately, drop out. It is critical that students feel
connected to their school, and supported by their environment in order to combat these competing
obligations and persist in the face of obstacles that threaten to derail their success.39
Community college students work a substantial number of hours to support themselves, their
education, and their family. According to a study conducted for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
working and going to school simultaneously is the number one reason students provided when asked
why they left school. In fact, 60% of community college students work 20 hours a week, and 25% work
35 hours a week. The stress of going to college while working is often too much, causing students to
drop out before completing their degree.40
Many students work while enrolled in school because of the high cost of postsecondary education.
While college costs have risen over 400% in the past 25 years, median family income has only increased
150% - not enough to keep pace. This leaves many families unable to contribute to their children’s
education, forcing students to work while enrolled in school and resulting in poor outcomes. In fact,
research has found that 6 out of 10 students who leave school had to pay for college themselves, and
could not rely on support from their families.41
13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 143 of 392
Students leave school for a variety of reasons. Whether due to inadequate academic preparation,
insufficient financial aid, underdeveloped non-academic skills, or competing life obligations, young
people need help to reach their postsecondary goals. With the problems identified, we can begin to
develop sound strategies and supportive solutions to improve student success.
14
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 144 of 392
The Solution
.
Strategies to Improve Community College Retention and Completion Rates
High schools are falling short by sending ill-prepared students to college, and colleges are falling short by
lacking critical supports and steering too many students toward the dead-end of remediation. To
improve student retention and graduation rates, states and community colleges must implement and
support aggressive and promising strategies.
Secondary and Postsecondary Curriculum Alignment
A strong academic foundation is necessary to diminish the need for wasteful and discouraging remedial
courses, and to promote student success. High school and college curricula should be aligned so
students can enter college prepared, and continue to build new knowledge on a strong academic
foundation. Not only will this help students get in to college, but it will also help them persist in their
studies and graduate. In fact, when traditionally underperforming students, like minority and lowincome students, enter college with a solid academic foundation, achievement gaps narrow
significantly.42 For those students who still require help once they begin school, academic supports
should be embedded into first year courses and programs. By making academic help a co-requisite
rather than a pre-requisite, students can receive the support they need while still building credits
towards graduation.43
To promote college readiness and academic alignment, many states have adopted the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) that are designed to provide students, teachers, and families with the
information and skills required to succeed in college and a career. As of December 2012, 45 states and
three territories have adopted the standards that were developed collaboratively with teachers, school
administrators, and educational experts.44 The states that have adopted the Standards broadly agree
that they are more rigorous than previous standards, and that students will benefit from their
implementation.45 The continued adoption and implementation of high education standards will raise
the academic bar, ensuring that more students will have the opportunity to attend college, and will
excel once they are enrolled.
Another promising method being used to ensure secondary and postsecondary curriculum alignment is
early assessment. Using this method, students are tested in high school to gauge their college readiness
and given the opportunity to improve their skills before they enroll in a postsecondary program. Instead
of students being surprised by their lack of preparedness once they enter college, they are able to
address the problem before they enroll.46
15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 145 of 392
State Strategies to Watch: Howard Community College
At Howard Community College in Maryland, early assessment is being utilized to improve student
success rates. In 2008, Howard Community College began a partnership with the Howard County Public
School System to assess 11th grade college readiness. In addition to taking an assessment test, students
meet with their guidance counselors and community college English faculty to discuss their
preparedness for college level work. Students who find that they are not prepared are provided with
additional supports during their senior year of high school, aimed at increasing their preparedness. This
approach appears effective, as two years after the program started students who transition from
Howard public schools show an 80% fall-to-spring retention rate. This is especially impressive when
compared with the 56% retention rate for all first-time college students. In addition, 73% of students
improved their test scores as compared with their test results while still enrolled in high school.47
Remedial Education Reform
Improving remedial education is essential for increasing community college completion and retention
rates. The current remedial system fails to provide an effective means for students to overcome their
academic weaknesses and excel in school. Community colleges and states have begun to recognize this
and are now taking steps, and experimenting with new programs, to improve their remedial education
systems. Remedial education reform aims to revise the system, in order to provide students with the
academic foundation they need without diminishing their overall chances of success.48
There are several different approaches to remedial education reform. Some community colleges have
instituted “fast-track” courses that allow students to focus on specific, targeted issues, progress at their
own pace, and complete remedial work more quickly.49 Other programs have developed learning
communities, where students take several remedial classes with the same group of peers. This provides
the opportunity for students to develop extra academic and social supports, as they form friendships
and help one another in their studies. Other innovative programs have combined remedial education
with college-credit career training programs. This helps keep students motivated. Early results show
that students enrolled in this type of program are more likely to earn a job-related credential than their
non-enrolled peers.50
Whatever the chosen method of reform, it is important that states and colleges continue to modify
remedial education and move toward a system that works. With continued experimentation and
research, remedial education will transform into a useful system to help students develop a solid
academic foundation while moving them closer to graduation and successfully entry into the workforce.
16
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 146 of 392
State Strategies to Watch: Connecticut – Public Act No. 12-40
Connecticut recently took an important step toward reforming remedial education. Public Act 12-40,
signed in May 2012, requires colleges to embed remedial supports into entry-level courses for which
students receive credits, instead of forcing students into remedial classes where no credit is available.
Under this bill, colleges must do away with remedial courses entirely by 2014. By 2016, colleges and high
schools will partner to align curricula and ensure that students are prepared for the academic rigors of
college, with the goal of making remediation unnecessary. 51
This legislation is especially important in light of a recent reduction in the amount of time a student can
use federal Pell Grants. P.A. 12-40 ensures that Connecticut students will not waste additional time and
money on non-credit bearing remedial classes, while jeopardizing the long-term funding of their
education. Without Connecticut’s changes to the remedial system, students who take longer to
complete their degree may be trapped in remediation, ultimately using up to 12 months of Pell eligibility
and losing out on a way to finance their education.
In addition to encouraging the use of Pell grants for credit bearing courses, Public Act 12-40 also has the
potential to save the state a significant amount of money. According to the New England Board of
Higher Education, providing remediation to students entering Connecticut colleges costs $84 million
every year.1 In addition to these savings, reducing the need for remediation is estimated to generate an
additional $19 million2 in Connecticut annual earnings, due to increased educational attainment, for a
total state benefit of $103 million each year.52 Of course, embedding remedial supports into entry-level
courses will have a price. According to the Connecticut Office of Fiscal Analysis, this bill will cost higher
education institutions $750,000 in Fiscal Year 2014, with $500,000 spent to develop and embed
remedial supports in college level courses, and $250,000 spent by Regional Community-Technical
Colleges to develop an intensive college readiness program. Additional costs would be dependent on the
types of programs developed. Despite the cost of these programs, the potential for long-term savings is
high. By aligning high school and college curriculum, remediation will ultimately become rare, if not
obsolete. Not only will this save millions in remediation costs, but it will increase the likelihood that
students will graduate, vastly increasing their earning potential.53
Early College Experiences
Exposing students to college early helps them increase their college-readiness and develop both the
academic and non-academic skills necessary for postsecondary success. Whether through dual
enrollment, summer bridge or other early college programs, exposing students to college while they are
still enrolled in high school is an effective practice that increases their chances of attending college,
persisting in their studies, and ultimately obtaining a degree.54
1
This number was calculated by the Alliance for Excellent Education by multiplying the cost of a course by the number of
students who took at least one remedial course.
2
This number was calculated by the Alliance for Excellent Education by multiplying the salary difference between students who
earn a 2-year degree by the number of students who are expected to graduate if they do not need remedial reading.
17
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 147 of 392
One of the most popular early college program models is dual enrollment. These programs prepare
students by exposing them early to college culture and rigorous college coursework, as well as providing
them with the opportunity to accumulate early college credits. Jobs for the Future analyzed longitudinal
data that followed Texas high school students for six years after graduating, ascertaining not only if
students attended college, but if they also completed their degree. They found that students that
participated in dual enrollment programs, by taking at least one college course prior to high school
graduation, were nearly 50% more likely than their peers to graduate college within 6 years. The study
also found that within 6 years, dual enrollment participants were significantly more likely to persist in
college and earn an associate’s degree or higher. In fact, the more dual enrollment courses a student
took, the more likely they were to enroll in and complete college, with the greatest benefit stemming
from the early completion of a math or English course. These results were found to be consistent across
economic and racial groups. Low income students were especially likely to benefit from dual enrollment
and attend a 4-year college after high school.55
Building on evidence of dual enrollment’s success, states should invest in dual enrollment programs to
grant more students access to college courses while still in high school.56 Lawmakers should craft
policies that reduce barriers to dual enrollment for low-income or underrepresented populations, such
as tuition waivers. Support is needed at the state level for dual enrollment partnerships to ensure that
these beneficial programs can continue.57 By bolstering efforts to expose students to college early,
states will ultimately increase the college graduation rates and benefit from the resulting positive
economic and social returns.
Other promising early college experiences for community college students are summer bridge programs.
These programs typically take place for 4 to 6 weeks during the summer and provide recent high school
graduates with intensive instruction in essential college subjects such as math and writing. They also
provide students with an introduction to college campuses, expectations, and other college students.
Summer bridge programs are often aimed at helping students avoid placement in remedial courses by
moving them through remedial requirements during the summer, so they can begin the fall semester
enrolled in college-level work.58
The non-academic skills that are so essential to college success can also be cultivated in summer bridge
programs. Building relationships with other classmates, learning to navigate the college system, and
adjusting to college workloads are all key skills that summer bridge programs can foster. These programs
also introduce students to the supports available on campus so they know where to go if they
experience difficulty at any point during their enrollment.59
The National Center for Postsecondary Research evaluated the impact of 8 summer bridge programs in
Texas in 2009. The evaluation found evidence that students who completed summer bridge programs
were more likely than non-summer bridge students to pass college-level courses in reading and math in
the fall semester. Summer bridge students were also more likely to take courses at higher levels in
reading, writing, and math.60
18
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 148 of 392
State Strategies to Watch: California’s Concurrent Course Initiative
A recent study by the National Center on Postsecondary Research reveals the promise of dual
enrollment. The study focused on the Concurrent Course Initiative (CCI), a 2008 – 2011 California-based
dual enrollment program, aimed at supporting low-income, academically struggling youth who are part
of a historically underrepresented college population. CCI provided support to eight partnerships
between secondary and postsecondary institutions with the goal of developing, enhancing, and
expanding dual enrollment. The programs offered career-focused dual enrollment with the goal of
improving high school and college outcomes for the students enrolled.
CCI’s results are promising. When student outcomes from the first two years of the CCI were evaluated,
and compared to the outcomes of students from the same district who did not participate, the CCI was
found to have a significant impact on the college success of participants. CCI students demonstrated
higher credit accumulation, persistence, and graduation rates than their nonparticipating peers. In fact,
after two years in college, CCI participants had 20% more credits than their peers, placing them squarely
on the path toward college graduation.61
Student Supports
At the heart of the community college student success issue is the need for additional student supports.
Student supports provide a way for students to smoothly transition from high school to community
college life. Many students arrive at community college without knowing where to go, what to do, and
how to take advantage of the supports that are available. In fact, 30% of first year community college
students do not attend orientation. About 90% of students indicate an interest in academic advising,
but less than 33% of students report actually meeting with an academic advisor or creating a plan for
achieving academic and career goals. In addition, while a large number of students struggle with collegelevel work, 76% do not take advantage of tutoring services.62
Student supports can cover a range of areas, both academic and non-academic, that are critical to
student success. Non-academic supports can include encouraging social interactions, defining student
goals, enhancing workforce readiness, developing college knowledge, and assisting with unanticipated
challenges and conflicts. They can also include enhancing students’ academic skills such as note taking,
college-level writing, and time management. These supports all help community college students to
persist and stay committed to their postsecondary education.63
Social supports can also help community college students form meaningful connections with their
classmates. Community college students often have greater difficulty than traditional college students in
forming social relationships due to outside obligations, such as family and work, and limiting time
constraints. Meaningful social relationships are important to student success because they help
students feel comfortable and engaged on campus and give them access to pertinent information.
Interpersonal connections can help students obtain advice, information, and motivation.64
19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 149 of 392
Finally, support services that help students see the value of their education are also critical to student
success. Defining student goals and helping students understand how a college degree will help them
reach those goals is essential. Supports that help students understand that a college degree is integral to
gainful employment, along with workforce development programs, can help students stay on track. In
addition, students require assistance navigating the unfamiliar community college landscape. Supports
in this area should assist students in knowing how to ask for help, participate in class, and navigate the
various resources available to them, such as financial aid.65
Financial Aid and Funding Incentives
Financial emergencies have been cited as a top reason for community college dropout. To avoid this,
emergency aid should be made available for students who encounter financial roadblocks and changes
to their economic circumstances.66 Even beyond this safety net, however, states are beginning to use
finances as a student motivator. Keeping students engaged in school is critical to their success and
overall chances of graduation. Financial aid and performance-based scholarships can be used as
incentives to keep students on track and reward their success as they progress through school.
Financial aid incentives have many benefits. They simultaneously reduce the cost of attending college
while rewarding positive academic performance. Reducing the cost of college can decrease the number
of hours students spend working, an important factor in college success. It can also influence another
success factor, the amount of time students spend in school, allowing some part-time students to switch
to full-time. These programs
are increasing in popularity.
Connecticut - H.B. 5500
Since 1991, at least 14
states have introduced
The Connecticut General Assembly recently proposed an
merit-based scholarship
important bill to help students navigate the complex world of
programs that require
financial aid. H.B. 5500 requires Connecticut institutions of higher
students to meet academic
education to adopt the U.S. Department of Education and
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Financial Aid Shopping
criteria for entry, as well as
67
Sheet. The Shopping Sheet is a personalized document designed
for annual renewal.
to help students understand their financial aid options and
compare aid packages between institutions. The Sheet helps
A good example of financial
students understand the amount of grant and scholarship aid they
aid used to incentivize
will receive, as well as the amount of loans they will require. This
performance can be found
bill is important in helping students understand their financial aid
in Colorado. In January
options prior to enrolling in school, as well as the loan debt they
2013, The Colorado
will owe once they complete college.
Department of Higher
Education approved a new
financial aid policy that uses incentives to encourage college completion. The new performance-based
model is aimed at motivating low-income students through the use of financial aid incentives as they
advance through school. Under this new system, need-based financial aid funding is distributed based
on credit hours completed, instead of based on the cost of the institution, as in previous years. The new
system provides a base of $610 for freshmen and an additional $200 for every 30 hours of credit
20
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 150 of 392
completed, for a total of up to $1,210 by a student’s senior year. Under consideration for the future are
policies that would decrease funding if students take too long to graduate, to encourage timely
completion.68
Financial aid at the institutional level can also impact student success. Currently, most states fund
postsecondary institutions based on student enrollment. This creates an incentive for colleges to enroll
as many students as possible, with no connection to the rate of success students experience at a
particular postsecondary institution. To align incentives with student success, states should provide
funding to colleges based on student performance. Instead of being motivated by head count, colleges
will be financially invested in each individual student’s success.69
In Ohio, the General Assembly recently approved a new community college funding formula that works
on this system. The Ohio Student Success Initiative awards student “success points” that determine up
to 20% of their public community college funding. By 2015, it is expected that the initiative will be fully
implemented. 70 Similarly, in Indiana, postsecondary funding is aligned with state goals for course and
degree completion. Funding is tied to the state’s goals of graduating more students on time, graduating
more low-income students, and transferring students from two-to four-year institutions. When budget
cuts became necessary in the state, student performance data from each institution was consulted to
inform funding decisions.71 72
State Strategies to Watch: Washington State
State policy reforms in Washington State are designed to provide financial incentives to award
community colleges for student success, rather than student enrollment.73
In Washington State, the Student Achievement Initiative was adopted in 2006, as a performance funding
system for community and technical colleges. The Initiative identified key academic benchmarks that
students must achieve to complete a degree or certificate. Through a partnership with the Community
College Research Center at Columbia University, achievement measures that are meaningful for all
students, regardless of background, enrollment status, academic program, or type of institution were
identified. These measures focus students on short-term outcomes that serve to build momentum
towards the completion of their degree. They can be grouped into four basic categories: building toward
college-level skills (passing developmental courses, and making basic skill gains); first year retention
(earning 15 and then 30 credits); completing college-level math (passing required math courses); and
completions (degrees, certificates, and job training). The Initiative rewards two-year colleges that assist
students in meeting key outcome goals and increases their level of achievement. 74
Washington State has seen student performance gains, as a result of the Initiative, beginning in the
Initiative’s first year. After implementation, student achievement increased by 19% over the previous
year. These gains occurred in all categories. During the second year, achievement gains continued, with
total achievement increasing by 12%. While results from the third, and most recent, year of
implementation do not show improvements in all areas, officials believe that this can be attributed to
budget cuts and fewer students enrolled.75
21
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 151 of 392
Supportive Transfer Policies
Community colleges play an important role in preparing students to transfer to 4-year colleges and
complete a Bachelor’s degree. In fact, 28% of Bachelor degree earners began their studies as community
college students, and 47% took at least one community college course.76 While community colleges
already serve as steppingstones to bachelor degree programs, more supportive transfer policies would
allow community colleges to play an even greater role in the acquisition of a bachelor’s degree.
To encourage this, students who complete an associate’s degree should be provided with accessible
transfer options, and community college programs should be aligned and structured so they coincide
with Bachelor degree program transfer requirements. This way, when students complete the general
education requirements they need while enrolled in community college, they can transfer directly into
4-year programs, with junior standing (many can transfer all credits, but they do not necessarily align
with Bachelor degree programs, and so set students back), and begin taking classes concentrated in
their particular field of study. Students who get these core requirements out of the way early are more
apt to follow through with their education in the long term.77 In addition, research indicates that when
4-year colleges have community college friendly transfer policies, students succeed. For instance, when
a 4-year college accepted all of a community college student’s credits, 82% of students earned a
Bachelor’s degree, as compared to 42% of students when only some community college credits were
accepted.78
Students should also be encouraged and incentivized to earn an associate’s degree prior to transferring.
Research shows that students who complete an associate’s degree have better outcomes when they
transfer to a 4-year college. In fact, the National Student Clearinghouse found that just 54% of students
who transferred prior to earning an associate’s degree earned a bachelor degree, while approximately
71% of students who completed an associate’s degree earned a bachelor degree within four years.79
Program and Labor Market Outcome Alignment
The ultimate goal of a college degree lies beyond graduation, in the attainment of gainful, fulfilling
employment. But there is growing concern that postsecondary institutions are not providing students
with the skills they need to fill available jobs. Too often, students find themselves unemployed after
graduation, because their career choice or job skills do not match employer needs.80 To ensure that
graduates can find jobs, more information should be provided to students on how their chosen major,
and subsequent career path, align with the demands of the labor market. Students should receive
counseling on how they can best position themselves to take advantage of labor market indicators and
land a good job after graduation.81
To support this idea, current labor market trends and information should be tracked and made available
to colleges and college students. This can be achieved by integrating data systems across sectors, so
states can collect workforce and unemployment data and make this information accessible to college
advisors and counselors.82 While some states already track this type of information, data is typically
collected too infrequently, and reports are published too slowly, making information outdated and less
useful when it finally arrives. Internet job postings offer an excellent opportunity to provide up-to-date
22
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 152 of 392
labor market information. These postings, combined with recent technology that can aggregate and
analyze information, can provide highly accurate labor market and hiring information. States should
embrace this technology to increase analytical capabilities and provide colleges and students with more
accurate and detailed data.83
In 2008, the Maine Department of Labor partnered with three career advertisement companies to
improve their labor market analysis. They can now compare the number of employed workers in the
state to changes in online job posts. They can also analyze the postings to understand preferred job
qualifications, required experience, and high-demand skills. Through this new analytical capability,
Maine discovered worker shortages in the health care sector.84 This allows them to direct students
toward high needs fields such as the health care industry, benefitting both the students and the state’s
economy as a whole.
While access to this information is critical, community college students need help understanding what it
means. Community college advisors and counselors should receive training and professional
development to ensure they can navigate state labor market data systems and successfully convey this
information to students. Training on how to use this information effectively with students will go a long
way in improving student labor market outcomes after graduation.85
State Strategies to Watch: Florida
Florida has one of the nation’s oldest longitudinal student data systems. It tracks each student, from
school entry, to exit, and beyond. In 2004, Florida determined through its data system that a large
percentage of students who passed its Comprehensive Assessment Test in high school were unable to
pass college placement exams. In fact, just 41% of Florida’s full-time community college students were
completing an associate’s degree or certificate within 3 years of entering school for the first time. In
addition, 65% of students were requiring college remediation. Florida understood that action was
necessary to reverse these unsettling trends. 86
Seven years after Florida’s initial data discovery, a number of major reform measures were adopted to
improve K-12 education and college innovation. K-12 changes included raising standards for curriculum
and content in all subject areas; adding a college-preparation student indicator to the state data system;
and implementing senior review courses to avoid college remediation. At the college level, several
changes were made including the development of new Postsecondary Readiness Competencies aligned
with Common Core Standards; the development of a new Postsecondary Education Readiness Test; the
restructuring of remedial courses to include a standardized two-course sequence of math, reading and
writing; the creation of modular courses where students complete only the areas where they struggled
on the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test; and the development of a diagnostic test to provide
detail on student remedial needs.87 In addition, Florida students who earn an associate’s degree are
guaranteed admission, with junior standing, to a state 4-year college.88 While it is too early to truly
determine the effectiveness of these changes, other states, such as Virginia, Texas, and California, have
begun to adopt Florida’s reform strategies. Many hopeful eyes will be on Florida to see if student
outcomes improve at the level expected by state officials.89
23
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 153 of 392
Case Study: The Postsecondary Success Initiative
The Postsecondary Success Initiative (PSI) being implemented at Capital Community College by Our
Piece of the Pie®, Inc. (OPP®) - a youth development agency based in Hartford, Connecticut - exemplifies
what students need to succeed in community college. OPP has a long history of successfully engaging
youth and understands the importance of supporting young people at each stage on their path to
success. The agency works with over-age, under-credited (OU) youth, and other at-risk urban youth, to
address the challenges they face through its signature Pathways to Success program, which integrates
the best of the youth development, academic support, and workforce development fields. OPP does
this in three ways – in high schools, in the community, and most recently, at community colleges. The
Pathways to Success program is the model on which services in all three areas are based.
The Postsecondary Success Initiative was launched
in August 2011, as part of a program with the
Who’s enrolled in the PSI?
National Youth Employment Coalition with support
In total, 87 Capital Community College
from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the
students became part of the PSI. These
Nellie Mae Education Foundation and the Open
students ranged from ages 18-23 (average
Society Foundation. A small Pathways program was
age was 21) and 69% of them were female.
placed directly inside of Capital Community College
The majority of students were African(Hartford, CT) with the goal of helping students
American (61%) and Hispanic (37%).
navigate the community college landscape by
offering student supports to help them succeed.
OPP’s partnership with Capital Community College
has allowed two vital staff members - a Youth Development Specialist (YDS) and Workforce
Development Specialist (WDS) - to be stationed on campus. These individuals build trust with young
people and encourage them to stay focused and achieve their goals. In particular, the YDS works with
youth to create a plan that maps out a pathway from where they are, to where they want to be, and
helps them overcome barriers. The WDS is tasked with helping students reach their employment goals
by preparing them for the workforce, through the delivery of a Career Competency Development
Training course, as well as providing job shadowing, internship, and resume, and employment
assistance. OPP staff advocates for students, keeps them engaged, and helps them with any problems
that may arise as obstacles on their path to success. For many OPP youth, the YDS and WDS are the only
adults in their lives who are consistently present and supportive.
OPP recently conducted a study - focusing on data collected from January through June of 2012 - to
preliminarily assess the effectiveness of the PSI. While upon entering college, the majority of PSI
students (78%) did not test out of developmental courses, over half of all the students that took a
developmental course passed at least one of them. Students that tested out of developmental courses,
however, faired even better, with 65% of these students passing their courses. Impressively, the
supplemental support and guidance students received led to 87% of students returning to their second
year of college. This rate is 35%-38% better than Capital Community College’s overall first-to-second
year retention rate (52% for full-time students and 49% for part-time students for the same time
period).
24
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 154 of 392
OPP also investigated to see if any of the supports provided by the YDS helped contribute to students
passing courses during their first academic year. While all 85 youth met with the YDS, 55% of them spent
between 1-5 hours a month utilizing that meeting time for academic advising. Academic advising, in
particular, seemed to have a greater influence in helping students along the path to achieving their
credential. To test this, OPP compared students who used YDS meeting time for academic advising with
those who did not. All of the students in these groups had approximately the same number of credits
needed to graduate (credit difference at the start of semester was insignificant (t (56) = 0.73, p = 0.47).
A t-test revealed a significant mean difference between those who utilized academic advising vs. those
who did not. Students who utilized academic advising services from the YDS had statistically significantly
(t(82) = -2.731, p < 0.01) fewer credits needed to graduate than those who did not utilize academic
advising services (approximately 3 credits less). This means that on average, students entered the
semester needing the same amount of credits to graduate but at the end of the semester, students
utilizing academic advising needed significantly fewer credits to graduate. Though the evidence is
preliminary, the results of OPP’s study highlight the importance of having supplemental support and
guidance services to help students through their college career.
In addition to achieving these positive results, the Postsecondary Success Initiative is cost effective.
Using the year-to-year retention rates discussed above, the graphics below depict student success in
community college alone, as compared with community college enrollment paired with PSI supports.
Dropout Spending: Community College vs. PSI
Cost Per
Student
End of
Year 1
End of
Year 2
Total
Community
College (CC)
$3,490
$125,640
$69,800
$195,440
Community
College + PSI
$5,990
$71,880
$59,990
$131,780
Number of
Dropouts
0
CC: 36
CC: 20
CC: 56
PSI: 12
PSI: 10
PSI: 22
*These calculations utilize Capital Community Colleges’ most recently available fall-to-fall retention rate of 55% and the PSI’s current retention
rate of 85%.
25
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 155 of 392
As the graphic demonstrates, the will not only PSI more than double the number of community college
graduates, the initiative spends over $60,000 less on students that do not complete their degree than
community college alone. This means that more money is being used to help students succeed, rather
than being funneled into a broken system that does not yield the expected economic returns.
The 34 additional graduates of the PSI initiative will not only improve their own lives, but impact the
economic well-being of the state as a whole. According to data from the U.S. Census, Connecticut
residents who are high school graduates, or who have their GED, earn an average of $36,100 annually.
Residents with an associate’s degree earn an average of $45,400 annually - $9,300 more than those with
just a high school diploma or GED. When these numbers are considered in light of the Postsecondary
Success Initiative, the positive economic impact of the program becomes apparent. In fact, the
anticipated return is over 6 times the total initial investment. It is important to remember that these
economic results are from a single cohort of students. As the PSI continues, each cohort can be expected
to generate similar economic returns.
Economic Impact of the Postsecondary Success Initiative’s First Cohort:
Increased Earnings
$316,200
$9,300
additional
annual earnings
per student
total additional
annual
earnings
$7,905,000
total
additional
earnings
over a 25
year period
34 additional
associate
degrees
issued
As mentioned previously, the economic benefits of obtaining an associate’s degree go far beyond annual
salary. According to research by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University, the
proportion of adults who pay all types of taxes increases relative to educational attainment. Individuals
with more education also require less cash and in-kind government support benefits such as,
Medicare/Medicaid, food stamps, and rental subsidies. They are also institutionalized in jails, prisons,
and mental health facilities, at far lower rates. These differences amount to huge cost savings, and
greater tax benefits, for state and federal government, significantly increasing the value of the PSI.
26
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 156 of 392
Economic Impact of the Postsecondary Success Initiative’s First Cohort:
State Cash and In-Kind Transfer Savings
34 additional
associates
degrees
issued
$1,374: Difference
between mean
annual state cash
and in-kind
transfers for
resident with a
high school
diploma and
resident with 1 to
3 years of college
$46,716 in
annual state
cash and in-kind
transfer savings
for additional 34
graduates
$1,167,900:
Total state
cash and inkind transfer
savings over a
25 year period
Thanks to the Postsecondary Success Initiative, more community college students will have the
opportunity to realize their goals. Bills addressing remediation, like Connecticut’s P.A. 12-40, and
Washington State’s Student Achievement Initiative, can bring states closer to the possibility of
community college success, but pairing such reforms with embedded programs like PSI can make
success a true reality. Additional funding and policy support must be provided to keep programs like PSI
in colleges and encourage new initiatives to develop. Community college support programs are worth
the initial investment and have the potential to improve students’ lives while producing significant
economic returns.
27
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 157 of 392
The Conclusion
Increasing the rate of community college graduation is essential for the economic success of our
students, state, and nation. High rates of remediation, paired with low graduation rates, paints a gloomy
picture of poor academic preparation, faulty remediation policies, and inadequate student supports. The
current system does not work. It is time to provide the in-school supports, early college experiences, and
financial aid incentives that students need to stay engaged and enrolled. By aligning community college
programs with labor market outcomes, reforming remedial education, and providing supportive
bachelor degree transfer options for associate degree earners, more students can access the significant
economic benefits that come with a college diploma.
State policies must endorse the strategies that work and remove barriers that cause students to fail. We
should look to successes in Florida, Washington, Ohio, and other states, to inform policy and improve
student success. We should also support embedded programs like The Postsecondary Success Initiative,
which proves that community college students can achieve success, when given the proper tools.
28
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 158 of 392
Endnotes
1
The White House. Building American Skills through Community Colleges. Retrieved on January 31, 2013 from:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/building-american-skills-through-communitycolleges
2
Georgetown University: Center on Education and the Workforce. 2010. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and
Education Requirements through 2018. Retrieved on January 31, 2013 from:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/HelpWanted.ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
3
Center for American Progress. 2012. Building a Technically Skilled Workforce: Partnerships are Key. Retrieved on
January 31, 2013 from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/report/2012/01/19/10986/buildinga-technically-skilled-workforce/
4
Georgetown University: Center on Education and the Workforce. 2010. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and
Education Requirements through 2018. Retrieved on January 31, 2013 from:
http://www9.georgetown.edu/grad/gppi/hpi/cew/pdfs/HelpWanted.ExecutiveSummary.pdf.
5
Milano, J. Reed, B., and Weinstein P. The New Democratic Leadership Council. 2009. A Matter of Degree:
Tomorrow’s Fastest Growing Jobs and Why Community College Graduates Will Get Them. Retrieved on February 4,
2013 from: http://www.dlc.org/documents/DLC_HotJobs.pdf.
6
Milano, J. Reed, B., and Weinstein P. The New Democratic Leadership Council. 2009. A Matter of Degree:
Tomorrow’s Fastest Growing Jobs and Why Community College Graduates Will Get Them. Retrieved on February 4,
2013 from: http://www.dlc.org/documents/DLC_HotJobs.pdf.
7
Complete College America. 2012. Time is the Enemy. Retrieved on May 10, 2012 from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.
8
st
P-20 Commission. 2009. Commission for the Advancement of 21 Century Skills and Careers: Briefing Document.
9
Sum, A. 2009. The Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of High School and Failing to Complete Additional Years
of Postsecondary Schooling in Connecticut. Center for Labor Market Studies Northeastern University.
10
Altstadt, D. 2011. Aligning Community Colleges to their Local Labor Market. Jobs for the Future.
11
Lanza, S. 2011. Community Colleges: Can An Old Elixir Help Health Today’s Economic Ills? The Connecticut
Economy.
12
Sum, A. 2009. The Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of High School and Failing to Complete Additional Years
of Postsecondary Schooling in Connecticut. Center for Labor Market Studies Northeastern University.
13
Ibid.
14
Sum, A. 2009. The Fiscal Consequences of Dropping Out of High School and Failing to Complete Additional Years
of Postsecondary Schooling in Connecticut. Center for Labor Market Studies Northeastern University.
15
American Association of Community Colleges. 2012. Reclaiming the American Dream: Community Colleges and
the Nation’s Future.
16
Complete College America. 2012. Time is the Enemy. Retrieved on May 10, 2012 from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.
17
Alliance for Excellent Education. 2006. Paying Double: Inadequate High Schools and Community College
Remediation.
18
Alliance for Excellent Education. 2011. Saving Now and Saving Later: High School Reform Can Reduce the
Nation’s Wasted Remediation Dollars.
19
Chait, R. and Venezia, A. 2009. Improving Academic Preparation for College: What we Know and How State and
Federal Policy Can Help. Center for American Progress. Retrieved on December 3, 2012 from:
http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/01/pdf/academic_prep_exec_summary.pdf
20
Complete College America. 2012. Time is the Enemy. Retrieved on May 10, 2012 from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf.
21
Center for Community College Student Engagement. 2012. A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for
Community College Student Success.
22
Complete College America. 2012. Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere.
23
Ibid.
29
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 159 of 392
24
The College Board. 2011. Trends in College Pricing. Retrieved on June 12, 2012 from:
http://trends.collegeboard.org/college_pricing.
25
Alliance for Excellent Education. 2006. Paying Double: Inadequate High Schools and Community College
Remediation.
26
Long, B. 2008. What Is Known About the Impact of Financial Aid? Implications for Policy. National Center for
Postsecondary Research.
27
The College Board. 2011. Trends in Community College Education: Enrollment, Prices, Student Aid, and Debt
Levels.
28
Association of Community College Trustees. 2012. Pell Grant Eligibility Changes. Retrieved on May 23, 2012
from: www.acct.org/advocacy/pell/.
29
Ibid.
30
College Board. 2011. Trends in Higher Education. Trends in Community College Education: Enrollment, Prices,
Student Aid, and Debt Levels.
31
Long, B. 2008. Financial Aid: A Key to Community College Student Success. Harvard Graduate School of
Education. Retrieved on February 13, 2013 from: http://www2.ed.gov/PDFDocs/college-completion/08-financialaid.pdf.
32
Karp, M. 2011. CCRC Brief: How Non-Academic Supports Work: Four Mechanisms for Improving Student
Outcomes. Community College Research Center.
33
Karp, M. and Bork, H. 2012. They Never Told Me What to Expect, so I Didn’t Know What to Do: Defining and
Clarifying the Role of a Community College Student. Community College Research Center.
34
Ibid.
35
Nagaoka, J., Roderick, M. and Coca, V., 2009. Barriers to College Attainment: Lessons from Chicago. Center for
American Progress.
36
Ibid.
37
Karp, M. and Bork, H. 2012. They Never Told Me What to Expect, so I Didn’t Know What to Do: Defining and
Clarifying the Role of a Community College Student. Community College Research Center.
38
Center for Community College Student Engagement. 2012. A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for
Community College Student Success.
39
Karp, M. 2011. CCRC Brief: How Non-Academic Supports Work: Four Mechanisms for Improving Student
Outcomes. Community College Research Center.
40
Johnson, J. and Rochkind, J. 2009. With Their Whole Lives Ahead of Them. Retrieved on December 4, 2012 from:
http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/theirwholelivesaheadofthem.pdf
41
Ibid.
42
ACT. 2010. Mind The Gaps: How College Readiness Narrows Achievement Gaps in College Success. Retrieved on
December 3, 2012 from: http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/MindTheGaps.pdf.
43
Complete College America. 2012. Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere.
44
Common Core State Standards. 2012. http://www.corestandards.org/
45
Center on Education Policy. 2012. Year Two of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: States’ Progress
and Challenges. Retrieved on December 3, 2012 from: http://www.cepdc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=391.
46
Center for Community College Student Engagement. 2012. A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for
Community College Student Success.
47
Ibid.
48
Bailey, T. 2008. Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental Education in
Community College. Community College Research Center.
49
Center for Community College Student Engagement. 2012. A Matter of Degrees: Promising Practices for
Community College Student Success.
50
Improving College Completion: Reforming Remedial Education. 2011. National Council of State Legislators.
51
Associated Press. 2012. Conn. Bill Eliminate Remedial College Courses. Education Week.
52
New England Board of Higher Education. Connecticut: Remediation Fact Sheet.
53
Connecticut Office of Fiscal Analysis. 2012. An Act Concerning College Readiness and Completion.
30
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 160 of 392
54
Rosembaum, J. and Becker, K. 2011. The Early College Challenge: Navigating Disadvantaged Students Transition
to College. Retrieved on February 14 2013 from: http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/TheECchallenge.pdf.
55
Struhl, B. and Vargas, J. 2012. Taking College Courses in High School: A Strategy for College Readiness. Jobs for
the Future. Retrieved on December 3, 2012 from:
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/TakingCollegeCourses_101712.pdf
56
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
57
Rodriguez, O., Hughes, K. and Belfield, C. 2012. Bridging College and Careers: Using Dual Enrollment to Enhance
Career and Technical Education Pathways. Retrieved on December 4, 2012 from:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=1139.
58
Wathington, H., Barnett, E., Weissman, E., Teres, J., Pretlow, J., Nakanishi, A. 2011. Getting Ready for College:
An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs. National
Center for Postsecondary Research.
59
Ibid.
60
Wathington, H., Barnett, E., Weissman, E., Teres, J., Pretlow, J., Nakanishi, A. 2011. Getting Ready for College:
An Implementation and Early Impacts Study of Eight Texas Developmental Summer Bridge Programs. National
Center for Postsecondary Research.
61
Rodriguez, O., Hughes, K. and Belfield, C. 2012. Bridging College and Careers: Using Dual Enrollment to Enhance
Career and Technical Education Pathways. Retrieved on December 4, 2012 from:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=1139.
62
American Association of Community Colleges. (2012, April). Reclaiming the American Dream: A report from the
21st- Century Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. Washington, DC. Retried on May 23, 2012 from:
http://www.aacc.nche.
63
Karp, M. 2011. CCRC Brief: How Non-Academic Supports Work: Four Mechanisms for Improving Student
Outcomes. Community College Research Center.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
67
Scott-Clayton, J. 2009. On Money and Motivation: A Quasi-Experimental Analysis of Financial Incentives for
College Achievement. Community College Research Center.
68
Adams, C. 2013. Colorado Mulls Tying College Progress to Financial Aid. Education Week. Retrieved on February
14, 2013 from:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2013/01/colorado_mulls_tying_college_progress_to_financial_ai
d.html.
69
Complete College America. 2011. Essential Steps for States: Shift to Performance Funding. Retrieved on
December 4, 2012 from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA%20Essential%20Steps%20Shift%20to%20Performance%20Funding.pdf
70
Jobs for the Future. 2010. Good Data. Strong Commitment. Better Policy. Improved Outcomes. Retrieved on
June 12, 2012 from: http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/ATD_outcomes.pdf.
71
Complete College America. 2011. Essential Steps for States: Shift to Performance Funding. Retrieved on
December 4, 2012 from:
http://www.completecollege.org/docs/CCA%20Essential%20Steps%20Shift%20to%20Performance%20Funding.pdf
72
U.S. Department of Education. 2012. Obama Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Partner to Promote Transparency in College Costs. Retrieved on February 27, 2013 from:
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-and-consumer-financial-protection-bureaupartner-promote-tr.
73
Jobs for the Future. 2010. Good Data. Strong Commitment. Better Policy. Improved Outcomes. Retrieved on
June 12, 2012 from: http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/ATD_outcomes.pdf.
74
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. Student Achievement Initiative. Retrieved on
June 13, 2012 from: http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/e_studentachievement.aspx.
31
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 161 of 392
75
Ibid.
Mullin, C. M. (2012, October). Transfer: An indispensable part of the community college mission (Policy Brief
2012-03PBL).
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
77
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
78
Mullin, C. M. (2012, October). Transfer: An indispensable part of the community college mission (Policy Brief
2012-03PBL).
79
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
80
Altstadt, D. 2011. Aligning Community Colleges to their Local Labor Markets. Jobs for the Future. Retrieved on
December 14, 2012 from:
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/AligningCommunityColleges_LaborMarkets_111711.pdf.
81
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
82
Ibid.
83
Altstadt, D. 2011. Aligning Community Colleges to their Local Labor Markets. Jobs for the Future. Retrieved on
December 14, 2012 from:
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/AligningCommunityColleges_LaborMarkets_111711.pdf.
84
Altstadt, D. 2011. Aligning Community Colleges to their Local Labor Markets. Jobs for the Future. Retrieved on
December 14, 2012 from:
http://www.jff.org/sites/default/files/AligningCommunityColleges_LaborMarkets_111711.pdf.
85
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
86
Burdman, P. 2011. Testing Ground: How Florida Schools and Colleges are using a New Assessment to Increase
College Readiness. Jobs for the Future.
87
Ibid.
88
Couturier, L. K. 2012. Cornerstones of Completion: State Policy Support for Accelerated, Structures Pathways to
College Credentials and Transfer. Jobs for the Future.
89
Burdman, P. 2011. Testing Ground: How Florida Schools and Colleges are using a New Assessment to Increase
College Readiness. Jobs for the Future.
76
32
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 162 of 392
PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS
INTEGRATING LEARNING WITH LIFE AND WORK
TO INCREASE NATIONAL COLLEGE COMPLETION
A REPORT TO THE U.S. CONGRESS
AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
WASHINGTON DC
FEBRUARY 2012
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 163 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 164 of 392
PATHWAYS TO SUCCESS
INTEGRATING LEARNING WITH LIFE AND WORK
TO INCREASE NATIONAL COLLEGE COMPLETION
A REPORT TO THE U.S. CONGRESS
AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON
STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
WASHINGTON DC
FEBRUARY 2012
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 165 of 392
ADVISING CONGRESS AND THE
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
—Since 1988—
Advisory Committee on
Student Financial Assistance
80 F Street NW, Suite 413
Washington DC 20202-7582
Tel: 202/219-2099
Fax: 202/219-3032
ACSFA@ed.gov
www.ed.gov/acsfa
The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance
(Advisory Committee) is a Federal advisory committee chartered
by Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA); 5 U.S.C., App.2). The Advisory Committee provides
advice to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education on
student financial aid policy. The findings and recommendations of
the Advisory Committee do not represent the views of the Agency,
and this document does not represent information approved or
disseminated by the Department of Education.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 166 of 392
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
College completion rates are stagnant or falling today, particularly among young Americans, a trend that
threatens to undermine the nation’s global competitiveness and further exacerbate inequality in the
nation’s income distribution. In the past, efforts to ensure academic quality, access, and student success in
higher education have produced among the highest college completion rates in the world. Thus, reversing
the current trend and increasing college completion has become an imperative at all levels of American
government. At the federal level, the goal to have the world’s highest rate of college completion is now
front and center. Achieving this important goal by 2020 will require a formidable effort to increase the
nation’s college degrees and certificates.
Previous Advisory Committee reports have shown how challenging achievement of the 2020 goal will be
among the nation’s recent high school graduates. Complementing those reports, this effort focuses on
students referred to in the past as the nontraditional population, the largest subset of students in the nation.
Defining or labeling this population concisely is virtually impossible, given the considerable diversity of
its demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Categorized across the dimensions of age, marital
status, family size and composition, level and type of employment, and educational preparation and goals,
this population – often referred to as 21st century or contemporary students – consists of many subgroups,
each with unique circumstances, educational needs, and goals.
Achieving the 2020 goal among these students is an undertaking as daunting as the population is large
and diverse. The task is made more difficult by two considerations. First, higher education is not
structured to serve this population adequately nor are most financial aid programs. Second, unlike that for
recent high school graduates, nationally representative data that tracks nontraditional college enrollment
and persistence do not exist. Increasing college completion among nontraditional students must begin
with careful consideration of the invaluable experience of those in higher education who have dedicated
their professional lives to better integrate higher learning with the life and work of these students.
To bring these professionals together, the Advisory Committee held a hearing in Washington DC on
September 30, 2011, and asked two panels of experts – state and institutional – to address three key
questions of policy and practice related to adequately serving nontraditional students:
•
Barriers: What are the primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional students?
•
Best Practices: What are the most promising state and institutional strategies and policies for
overcoming those barriers?
•
Federal Role: What role should the federal government play in encouraging states and
institutions to implement best practices?
Highlights of the panelists’ responses at the hearing are shown in Exhibit One. The full transcript reveals
a wealth of imperatives for policymakers to consider in developing a federal strategy (pages 7-65). The
overriding consensus among the panelists was that increasing degree and certificate completion among
nontraditional students will require modifications in the structure and delivery of higher education, as
well as changes to federal student aid programs. Innovative proposals for policy and practice are
highlighted throughout the transcript and summarized in Conclusions & Implications (pages 67-79).
The ultimate challenge for the federal government is to find ways to encourage implementation of the best
of these innovative state and institutional ideas, while simultaneously increasing degree and certificate
completion among recent high school graduates who have prepared for and aspire to college.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 167 of 392
EXHIBIT ONE: HIGHLIGHTS OF PANEL DISCUSSIONS
“Overall … we have to reengage the question of whether or not our financial aid systems—as they relate
to students—are fundamentally built for students who no longer exist.”
Travis Reindl, National Governors Association (NGA)
“Our fundamental problem is that we don’t have very good ways of measuring our fundamental product
… I think the key is getting some agreement about learning outcomes and … generating more of them.”
Paul Lingenfelter, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)
“I think the federal government can do a lot more to support the creation and maintenance of open
educational resources and open courseware … And we have to focus on smart regulations.”
Peter Stokes, Eduventures, Inc.
“A career pathway is a series of connected educational programs and student supports that enable the
nontraditional student to get the training he or she needs to secure or advance in a demand industry.”
Camille Preus, Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development (CCWD)
“[In our program] … we’re matching a basic skill instructor along with their regular professional staff …
a very, very unique program.”
Scott Copeland, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
“Encourage greater consistency and articulation to serve students … improve access to PLA through
online marketing, and educating admissions, advising personnel, and faculty about the practice.”
Amy Sherman, Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)
“Let’s financially support the time faculty members spend assessing student learning apart from course
delivery … [that is,] how much the participants already know about what the course is intended to teach.”
Thomas Flint, Kaplan University (KU)
“It would be helpful to colleges and universities if the IPEDS database provided institutions with more
accurate systems to report and track the enrollment patterns of nontraditional learners.”
Chris Bustamante, Rio Salado College
“Look at a new demonstration project that focuses on innovative models like competency-based
education … Support acceleration, remove the notion of seat time, and redefine the concept of faculty.”
Scott Jenkins, Western Governors University (WGU)
“There may be a need for a new grant program for middle-income working students … Another idea may
be to have incentives for employers to provide tuition assistance to their employees.”
Javier Miyares, University of Maryland University College (UMUC)
“Spotlight best practices at all levels of higher education, not just community colleges … Promote more
collaboration among all types of higher education institutions.”
Thomas Dalton, Excelsior College
“Improve the general rigor of our secondary education curricula and assure much improved high school
completion rates … support a federal initiative … to educate older adults in [STEM fields].”
Robert Lapiner, New York University (NYU)
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 168 of 392
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Advisory Committee thanks representatives from the higher education community for their
invaluable contributions to this report on increasing degree completion among nontraditional students. In
addition to the 12 panelists (Appendix D) whose testimony at the Advisory Committee’s September 30,
2011, hearing is provided in the transcript for this report, those who assisted our efforts include:
•
Ten individuals who provided valuable testimony at the March 17, 2011, hearing:
Thomas Babel
Bryan Cook
Vickie Choitz
Barbara Duffield
John Emerson
•
Melissa Gregory
Anne Hedgepeth
Carol Kasworm
Demarée Michelau
Laura Perna
Ten individuals who submitted written testimony for the September 30, 2011, hearing (available
at the following link: http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/ntswrittentestimony.pdf):
Vickie Choitz
John Ebersole
Tom Flint
Natala Hart
Reshma Patel
Lashawn Richburg-Hayes
Matthew Smith
Julie Strawn
Bruce Vandal
David Warren
We would also like to thank Laura Brown for her assistance in writing this report. In addition, we thank
Erin Walsh and Beth Kenefick for providing valuable resources on nontraditional students. Lastly, we
thank our former designated federal official (DFO), Dan Madzelan, for his assistance and expertise
throughout the course of the study.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 169 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 170 of 392
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary …………………………………….…..…….………..……………… iii
Acknowledgements …………………………………………….….…………………….....
v
Understanding the Challenge
Understanding Nontraditional Students……..…………..…....………......……………
1
Meeting the Challenge………..………………...….………....…………..….…………...
6
Meeting the Challenge: A Discussion with Experts
State Panel ………………….……………………..…..…………..……..………………
7
Institutional Panel …...…………………………………..…….….…..…….…………..
32
Conclusions & Implications
The Need for a National Partnership ………………………..………..…..…………..
67
Role of the Federal Government…………………………………......…..…………….
67
Role of the States…………………………………………………......…...…………….
71
Role of the Institutions…………………………………………….........……………….
74
Role of the Private Sector……………………………..………….....….……………….
78
Conclusion……………………………………………………………....…..……………
79
Resources …………………………………….….………………….......…....……………
81
Appendix A: Examples of Nontraditional Student Subgroups .…….…..….…………
89
Appendix B: Examples of Barriers by Subgroup….………………….……...…………
91
Appendix C: March 17 Hearing Panelists…………………………..….……..…………
97
Appendix D: September 30 Hearing Panelists ………………….…….….….………… 101
Appendix E: ACSFA Members….…………………………………………....………… 107
Appendix F: ACSFA Staff…………………………………………..………...…………
109
Appendix G: ACSFA Authorizing Legislation ………………….…….….….………… 111
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 171 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 172 of 392
UNDERSTANDING THE CHALLENGE
In February 2009, President Obama announced his commitment to ensure that, by 2020, the United States
will once again lead the world with the highest proportion of college graduates. In the past, the U.S. has
had among the highest college completion rates of all countries. However, based on the 2011 Education
at a Glance report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), college
attainment rates for young adults in the U.S. have remained relatively stagnant at around 40 percent in the
recent past, while college completion among its greatest competitors has been rapidly increasing (de Vise
2011). As a result, the U.S. has been falling in rank among the share of degreed adults age 25 to 34
among developed nations (OECD 2011). In addition, a 2010 Brookings Institution report, State of
Metropolitan America, notes that the bachelor’s degree attainment rate of American 24- to 34-year-olds is
now lower than that of 35- to 44-year-olds, as opposed to past trends (Berube et al 2010). Stagnant or
falling degree attainment rates, particularly among young Americans, threaten the nation’s overall global
competitiveness and further exacerbate inequality in income distribution.
In the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (P.L.110-315), Congress reauthorized the Advisory
Committee and charged it to provide annual reports on the condition of postsecondary access and
persistence through 2014. Specifically, each annual report must contain analyses and policy
recommendations regarding the adequacy of grant aid from all sources and the postsecondary enrollment
and graduation rates of low- and moderate-income students. This report on nontraditional students
constitutes the third annual report to Congress and the Secretary of Education. (To view the statutory
language authorizing the Advisory Committee and the annual reports, see Appendix G.)
Understanding Nontraditional Students
In order to better understand the challenges inherent in meeting the President’s goal, the Advisory
Committee endeavored to complete a set of reports to address the access and persistence needs of students
today. To accomplish this, the Committee addressed both traditional and nontraditional students,
recognizing that each respective group has their own unique challenges and needs.
•
Traditional Students. Using the ample data available for traditional students, the Advisory
Committee’s 2010 report, The Rising Price of Inequality (RPI), makes clear that substantial
enrollment shifts triggered by family financial concerns are moving initial enrollment of qualified
high school graduates away from four-year colleges. These shifts are significant because data
have shown where students begin college largely determines their likelihood of persistence and
degree completion. The findings from RPI project the loss of more than 3 million bachelor’s
degrees from 2000 to 2009 due to financial barriers.
•
Nontraditional Students. RPI’s findings have implications for the nontraditional student
population as well. For example, financial barriers to higher education are a primary cause of
part-time and delayed enrollment. Therefore, in terms of the access and persistence pipeline,
traditional high school graduates who face the effects of financial barriers actually give rise to the
nontraditional student population in the first place. Recognizing that nontraditional students are a
growing portion of college students and are less likely to persist and complete degree programs
than full-time traditional students is critical. According to a 1996 analysis from the National
Center for Education Statistics (NCES), only 31 percent of nontraditional undergraduates with a
bachelor’s degree objective attained a degree within five years as opposed to 54 percent of
traditional undergraduates (Horn & Carroll 1996). In addition, 38 percent of nontraditional
undergraduates left school in their first year as opposed to 16 percent of traditional
undergraduates (Horn & Carroll 1996). Given the alarming degree attainment trends and
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 173 of 392
projections among traditional high school graduates based on analyses from RPI, the Advisory
Committee has dedicated this third annual report to addressing the challenge of degree
completion for nontraditional students.
In order to understand the challenge of degree attainment for nontraditional students, the Advisory
Committee conducted a literature review, convened two hearings, and used numerous meetings,
presentations, and conversations with experts to gain feedback on the study. On March 17, 2011, the
Advisory Committee convened its first hearing panel, which consisted of highly regarded researchers,
policymakers, and practitioners. (See Appendix C for a list of the March 17 hearing panelists, including
biographical information.) The discussion at the hearing addressed two main issues:
•
•
Defining nontraditional students
Barriers to access and persistence that nontraditional students face today
The following provides a summary of the ideas and background research for that hearing discussion in
these two areas.
Defining Nontraditional Students. The historical definition of a “nontraditional” student no longer
references a minority among college students today. The term was originally used to describe students
who tended to delay entry to college from high school, were not from typical socially dominant groups, or
were often not full-time students learning in the classroom (Schuetze & Slowey 2002). However, the
change from an elite to a mass higher education system in the late twentieth century resulted in a
significant increase in the number of students historically considered nontraditional, making them a
majority in higher education today (Schuetze & Slowey 2002).
Despite their prominence in the student population, nontraditional students are still not adequately served
in the higher education community. For example, too often institutions offer classes at times that are
inconvenient for the nontraditional student, or do not make available adequate financial aid for these
students, or the students themselves do not find campuses easy to navigate. In addition, nontraditional
students are typically left out of national longitudinal data sets, preventing researchers from conducting
useful analyses on this large and diverse student population. The lack of recognition and data on the
nontraditional student population presents a serious obstacle to understanding this group in the present
day.
Compounding this diminished understanding of nontraditional students is the lack of a precise or
consistent definition. At least three definitions have been proposed in the literature (Kim 2002):
•
Age. Often used as a criterion for nontraditional students is age, typically 25 and older (Kim
2002). However, age fails to acknowledge that adult students lack homogeneity regarding
patterns of attendance, reasons for pursuing college, challenges, resources, etc., and that adult
students are defined in varying ways by researchers, educators, and other service providers
(Hughes 1983). In addition, it does not recognize that differences between nontraditional and
traditional students may be attributed to factors other than age (Kim, Sax, Lee & Hagedorn 2010).
Consequently, this leaves out traditional-age students who may exhibit nontraditional
characteristics (Kim, Sax, Lee & Hagedorn 2010).
•
Background characteristics. Those used to define nontraditional students can include
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and first-generation and employment status (Rendón 1994). A
more inclusive definition than age, background characteristics are meant to account for the
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 174 of 392
competing demands on nontraditional students from factors such as work, family, school, and
culture (Rendón 1994).
•
At-risk characteristics. Nontraditional students have also been characterized using factors that
may increase their risk of attrition (Kim 2002). In a frequently cited definition used by the
National Center for Education Statistics, a student is considered nontraditional if he or she
exhibits any of the following characteristics:
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
delays enrollment into postsecondary education
attends part-time
is financially independent of parents
works full-time while enrolled
has dependents other than a spouse
is a single parent
lacks a standard high school diploma (Horn & Carroll 1996).
Students are considered to be “minimally nontraditional” if they have one of these characteristics,
“moderately nontraditional” if they have two or three, and “highly nontraditional” if they have more than
four (Horn & Carroll 1996). In 1999-2000, 73 percent of all undergraduates had one or more of these
characteristics (Horn & Carroll 1996). The nontraditional population is also expected to increase in the
coming years. Between 2009 and 2020, NCES projects there will be a 21 percent increase in students
aged 25 to 34 and a 16 percent increase in students aged 35 and above (Hussar & Bailey 2011).
Nontraditional students may also be described by a variety of labels and consist of many subgroups, each
with unique circumstances, goals, and needs. (Please see Appendix A for examples of subgroups that
comprise the nontraditional student population.) To better understand the prevalence of nontraditional
undergraduates today, please view the following nationally representative data compiled by the Center for
Law and Social Policy (2011): http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/NontraditionalStudents-Facts-2011.pdf.
Given the lack of clarity and precision, the terms “nontraditional” and “nontraditional student” are
considered problematic by both scholars and practitioners (Levin 2007). Appreciative of the various
issues associated with defining a nontraditional student, the Advisory Committee will use the broadest
definition available for this report to uncover all possible barriers to access and persistence that the
nontraditional student population faces today. The Committee defines a nontraditional student as any
student who fails to fit the traditional student template, which generally refers to an 18- to 24-year-old
full-time college student. Among the students included in the nontraditional definition are not only older
students, but students who may face additional challenges or barriers, e.g., foster youth, veterans, men and
women on active duty, and first-generation college students.
Taxonomy of Barriers to Access. Cross’s (1981) classification of barriers to participation in learning
activities is often cited in the literature for nontraditional students and provides a strong framework for
categorizing barriers. In addition, factors that fall into these three categories may also affect barriers to
persistence. Cross’s three categories of barriers are:
•
•
•
Situational
Institutional
Dispositional
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 175 of 392
Situational barriers refer to conditions at a given time that limit the student’s ability to access and
pursue higher education (Cross 1981). Cost and lack of time are the most commonly cited (Cross 1981).
For example, adult learners may be deterred from pursuing higher education because they lack time due
to family and job commitments. Alternately, low-income and younger students may not be able to afford
postsecondary education. Other conditions, such as lack of child care for single parents and transportation
issues for students with disabilities, also limit the ability of students to engage in postsecondary activities.
Institutional barriers consist of practices and procedures which may discourage or exclude students
from pursuing postsecondary education (Cross 1981). Barriers that fall under this category include, but
are not limited to, problems with scheduling or transportation, the provision of courses that lack relevance
or practicality, bureaucratic issues, the number of course requirements, and lack of adequate information
about postsecondary opportunities (Cross 1981).
Dispositional barriers refer to student perceptions of their ability to access and complete learning
activities (Cross 1981). For example, due to their age, older adults may have negative perceptions of their
ability to learn. Students with poor educational experiences may lack interest in learning activities. Adult
students, especially low-income adults, may experience low self-esteem and become concerned about
how younger students will perceive them. In addition, many adults returning to complete college
experience anxiety and fear because they have not engaged in postsecondary study for a period of time.
MacKeracher, Suart, and Potter (2006) also note that certain factors may fall under more than one
category of barrier, depending on origin. For example, financial support can be considered a situational
barrier if the student lacks access to sufficient funds to pay for their education (MacKeracher, Suart &
Potter 2006). On the other hand, finances can be considered an institutional barrier when fees for
admission and registration are high, institutions require students to purchase computers or other additional
resources, and governments lack flexible means to provide financial support to students (MacKeracher,
Suart & Potter 2006). Alternately, finances can be considered a dispositional barrier if a student believes
that the cost of pursuing higher education outweighs the benefits (MacKeracher, Suart & Potter 2006).
Taxonomy of Barriers to Persistence. Bean and Metzner’s (1985) model for the barriers to persistence
is well established in the literature and emphasizes factors perceived to influence persistence for
nontraditional students. For example, social integration, which includes factors such as extracurricular
participation, school friends, and faculty contact, has not been shown through research to have as
significant an impact on persistence for nontraditional students, while influences in the external
environment are typically more important (Metzner & Bean 1987). Notably, the Bean and Metzner model
emphasizes the external forces on a nontraditional student and deemphasizes the importance of social
integration.
Bean and Metzner indicated four sets of variables as the bases of the withdrawal decision for
nontraditional students. The four sets are:
•
•
•
•
Academic Performance
Intent to Leave
Background and Defining Variables
Environmental Variables
Academic performance. Students with poor academic performance, measured by a student’s grade point
average, are more likely to drop out.
Intent to leave. Intent to leave is affected by academic variables and psychological factors.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 176 of 392
•
Academic variables. Academic advising, study habits, absenteeism, major certainty, and course
availability indirectly affect persistence through GPA, psychological outcomes, and intent to
leave. For example, at the institutional level, high-quality academic advising may decrease the
likelihood of attrition, while the lack of course availability may result in dropout or transfer,
particularly for part-time students. Negative effects on persistence may also be based on study
habits, with older students reporting longer study times than traditional-age students, or it may be
based on absenteeism, which is more likely to be related to dropping out. Lastly, major certainty
has a significant positive effect on persistence regardless of age or residence.
•
Psychological factors. Both academic and environmental variables directly affect psychological
factors, such as utility, satisfaction, goal commitment, and stress, which consequently affect
intent to leave. For example, some students may be more likely to persist if they perceive a
practical utility to their education, experience satisfaction in the student role, and demonstrate a
high level of goal commitment. Stress from college requirements or the external environment, on
the other hand, may negatively affect persistence.
Background and defining variables. These include age, enrollment status, residence, educational goals,
high school performance, ethnicity, and gender, which often have an effect on future performance.
Nontraditional students, especially those who are older, have been known to drop out at higher rates, have
a part-time enrollment status, and live in a residence off campus due to family and work commitments.
High school performance (as measured by factors such as high school GPA and rank) and educational
goals (which can influence certainty of major, intent to transfer, goal commitment, and intent to leave) are
both considered to have very strong effects on persistence.
Environmental variables. Finances, hours of employment, family responsibilities, and transfer
opportunities are factors that the institution cannot control, but that have potential to pull a student away
from study. On the one hand, lack of finances, having more than 20 hours of employment per week,
greater family responsibilities, and more transfer opportunities have been positively associated with
attrition. On the other hand, encouragement from individuals outside the institution, such as family
members and an off-campus employer, has been positively associated with persistence.
In addition to the four sets of variables listed above, there are two notable compensatory effects in the
Bean and Metzner model. The first suggests that environmental factors can compensate for the negative
effects of academic variables. For example, students with enough family and employer support may
persist despite uncertainty of major or poor advisement. Conversely, though, positive academic variables
do not compensate for the negative effects of environmental factors, as family responsibilities and jobs
usually come first for this population.
The second compensatory effect suggests that if a student perceives a high level of utility, satisfaction, or
goal commitment, then positive psychological outcomes may compensate for the negative effects of a
lower academic outcome (GPA). However, the positive effect of a high GPA does not compensate for
high levels of stress or low levels of utility, satisfaction, or goal commitment.
While Cross and Bean & Metzner provide well-regarded models for barriers to access and barriers to
persistence, respectively, the Advisory Committee understands that neither methodology is flawless. For
example, Cross’s typology focuses on the barriers associated with the nontraditional student’s personal
world. However, a conceptual frame for barriers broader than an individual’s circumstances may be more
appropriate in today’s context, which could include barriers associated with governmental policy as well
as community and private sector supports. Furthermore, Bean and Metzner’s model focuses on older,
part-time, and commuter students, which limits its applicability to a broader understanding of a
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 177 of 392
nontraditional student. Further research and analysis may be necessary to discover comprehensive models
that are relevant to the present day. (Please see Appendix B for examples of barriers by subgroup in a
sample of publications.)
Meeting the Challenge
Based on the literature review, conversations with experts, and findings of the March 17 discussion, the
focus of the nontraditional students study shifted toward an examination of the best practices of states and
institutions to improve degree and certificate completion among this population. The Advisory
Committee concluded that a second hearing comprised primarily of higher education practitioners at the
state and institutional levels would be the ideal approach to understanding these best practices.
Building upon the results of its first hearing on this topic, the Advisory Committee held this second
hearing on September 30, 2011. Two panels of experts – six state and six institutional – addressed three
questions related to the barriers, best practices, and the federal role in increasing degree completion
among nontraditional students. The panelists represented a wide variety of perspectives. State panelists
included seasoned practitioners as well as distinguished representatives from higher education
associations and organizations with extensive knowledge on nontraditional students. The institutional
panelists, comprised solely of practitioners, included the perspectives of community colleges, proprietary,
public, and private universities, with both online and traditional institutions represented. (See Appendix D
for a list of the September 30 hearing panelists, including biographical information.)
To supplement the September 30 hearing proceedings, the Advisory Committee issued a press release on
August 29, 2011, calling for written testimony on the three questions that hearing panelists were asked to
address. The Advisory Committee received submissions from ten individuals representing seven
institutions or organizations. To view the press release and the submissions, please see:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/ntswrittentestimony.pdf.
The September 30 hearing elicited a thoughtful and productive discussion. A modified transcript of the
discussion comprises the second chapter of this report. For the navigational convenience of the transcript,
callouts with imperatives for policy and practice are provided throughout and serve as an index to topics
discussed at the hearing. As previously noted, discussion was guided by three main ideas, which are
essential to understanding how to improve degree completion among nontraditional students:
•
•
•
primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional students
most promising state and institutional strategies and policies for overcoming these barriers
federal role in encouraging states and institutions to implement best practices.
The consensus among panelists was that improving degree and certificate completion among
nontraditional students will require changes not only in the structure and delivery of higher education, but
also to federal student aid programs.
The final chapter of this report summarizes the results of the September 30 hearing discussion and its
implications for federal policy. The United States currently lacks a comprehensive federal strategy for
increasing college completion among nontraditional students. The following transcript provides insight
into meeting the needs of these students through the knowledge and expertise of distinguished higher
education representatives.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 178 of 392
MEETING THE CHALLENGE:
A DISCUSSION WITH EXPERTS
Allison Jones (ACSFA Chair): In the past, the Advisory Committee’s reports on college access and
persistence have focused almost exclusively on 18- and 19-year-old high school graduates – often referred
to as the traditional student population. The main reason for this focus has been the large body of
nationally representative data that exist for those students. However, it is equally important for our
Committee to focus on the access and persistence issues facing the rest of the student population – often
referred to as the nontraditional student population. As you know, this is the larger population of students
and the fastest growing. As you also know, nontraditional students face barriers to access and persistence
that include the competing priorities of life and work. We will focus on those challenges today.
This fall, the Advisory Committee will deliver a report to Congress and the Secretary of Education on
nontraditional students. A transcript of the afternoon session today will be used as the core of that report.
The written testimony provided both by our panelists here today and colleagues in the field will also
inform that report.
The afternoon session will be divided into two panels – state and institutional. We will begin with the
state panel. Both panels have been asked to address the following three questions on policy and practice:
•
What are the primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional students?
•
What are the most promising state and institutional strategies and policies for overcoming those
barriers?
•
What role should the federal government play in encouraging states and institutions to implement
best practices?
After the state panelists present their testimony, Advisory Committee members will have the opportunity
to ask questions.
Before we begin, I would like to extend a warm welcome to our very distinguished guest, Under
Secretary Martha Kanter. Under Secretary Kanter, we appreciate your taking the time to join us today,
and we want you to participate fully as you see fit. Please feel free to ask questions of the panelists and
provide comments as the hearing progresses.
I will now turn the floor over to our new Committee Vice Chair-Elect and moderator for both the state
and institutional panels, Dr. Helen Benjamin.
Helen Benjamin (ACSFA Vice Chair-Elect): Thank you very much, Allison. Good afternoon and
welcome. I am very pleased to introduce our first six distinguished panelists for this very, very important
topic. And, of course, as Allison has indicated, this is the state panel. Let me introduce:
•
Mr. Travis Reindl, Program Director at the National Governors Association (NGA). Mr. Reindl
oversees the postsecondary work area in the Center for Best Practices
•
Dr. Paul Lingenfelter, President of the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)
•
Dr. Peter Stokes, Executive Vice President and Chief Research Officer at Eduventures, Inc.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 179 of 392
•
Dr. Camille Preus, Commissioner for the Oregon Department of Community Colleges and
Workforce Development (CCWD)
•
Mr. Scott Copeland, Policy Associate for Student Services at the Washington State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
•
Ms. Amy Sherman, Associate Vice President for Policy and Strategic Alliances at the Council
for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL)
(State panelist bios begin on page 101)
Welcome again to all of you. We are looking forward to hearing the exciting ideas you are going to share
with us this afternoon about nontraditional students.
We will begin with Mr. Reindl.
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Increase
Educational Attainment
among Adult Learners
Identify Best
Practices in Serving
the Adult Learner
Travis Reindl: Thank you very much for having me this afternoon. I
want to start by placing a couple of big issues on the table that governors
are concerned about, which really leads us into a discussion of why it’s
so important to focus on what used to be called the nontraditional
student, what I think the Lumina Foundation is now calling, rightly, the
21st century student because it is the norm and not the exception.
First and foremost, I think it’s pretty apparent that one of the paramount
concerns for governors right now is jobs. And not only job creation,
which is a lot of the buzz, but job preservation. A lot of the high-paying,
high-skill jobs in our economy are at risk, to be perfectly frank. To
enable us to keep those jobs here in the United States, we have to have a
talent pool that is equipped to take those jobs, especially in light of the
impending exodus of the baby boomers. Maybe slightly delayed because
of the economy, but, still, inevitable. We are all mortal, after all.
Really understanding the nature of that talent pool leads to the second big
observation, which is that in more than half of our states, the 18-to-24year-old population is not where the action is, moving forward. We are
looking at a situation where there is either slow or no growth projected in
that age category. So we have to reach into that 25-plus age group for not
only retraining and retooling, but initial education in many cases. I’ll talk
in a moment about some of those strategies that we see unfolding in
states. That combination of reality, the absolute need to have a strong
talent pool and the absolute need to reach into that pool in an area that
has not always been particularly well-served—when you look at
participation and success rates among older adults in postsecondary
education, it is not a pretty picture in a lot of states. You can see why
governors would be so clearly interested in a policy agenda and, in some
senses, best practice, around serving the adult learner. And it’s
particularly the working adult learner.
So there are three critical areas where governors have asked us to focus
our attention and where we, in turn, engage with states and recommend
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
practices and gather practices. And also, in our federal relations
portfolio, [we] look at ways to interact with the Department of Education
(ED), the Administration, and the Congress around priorities, places
where states and [the] federal [government] can reach some common
cause. The first is in goal setting. Along with the President’s 2020 degree
attainment goal—we have goals in a number of our states regarding
education attainment and boosting it between now and 2020, 2025, take
your pick. The important facet that we need to keep front and center is to
make explicit the role that adult learners will play in those goals because
if we make it about an average and do not speak specifically to those
populations that will grow in many of our states, it is very easy to
continue to leave that group as an afterthought. Making very clear what
our objectives are for increasing participation and success rates at all
levels, from certificates to postdoctorals, is absolutely essential. We do
continue to advocate for that kind of a disaggregation and focus within
our states as they move to and through the goal setting process.
The second relates to how we measure progress toward and achievement
of those goals. There is the old saying that if you don’t know where
you’re going, any road will get you there. As a result, the governors have
asked us to invest a good deal of time and energy in the development and
application of metrics that will really help us to gauge progress toward
those ends. Working with Complete College America (CCA), we did
develop a series of completion metrics, which were comprised both of
progress and outcome measures. But the critical portion of that
development, to me, was the fact that we were very cognizant of
disaggregating, again, the student who is over the age of 25 and looking
at, within institutions, systems of higher education, and state-wide
systems, the progress, or lack thereof, that adult students are making.
Where are they reaching those barriers in our higher education system?
How long is it taking them to complete certificates and degrees? And to
be able to tease that out because, if they are such a growth population—
and we do not know where they are hitting those spots in the road that
lead to attrition—we will not be able to develop the sorts of policy
interventions that we need to fix the problem. Or where we see particular
pockets of promise, to scale those and to support those in state policy,
whether it’s through regulation, or finance, or through some other means.
We have been very focused, again, working in partnership with CCA. As
you probably saw earlier this week, there is a group of more than half the
states that are making significant progress in using those metrics. I think
it’s the beginning of a long process—we will learn as we go. But the
point is to be much clearer and much more explicit about this particular
subgroup of the overall college-going population.
The third area is policy. We can debate some particulars from state to
state and area to area, but as a general observation, the way that we’ve
wired our systems, particularly in state policy, is not necessarily
completely consistent with the needs and objectives of the adult learner.
There are some tweaks that have to be made. We made an effort as an
organization to address this in a report that we issued in February about
Page Page 180 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Understand the Role
of Adult Learners in 2020
Degree Attainment Goals
Disaggregate, Measure,
and Track Progress Made
among Adult Learners
Reexamine State
Policies in Light of the
Needs of Adult Learners
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Create More
Flexible and Integrated
Learning Environments
Develop and
Deliver Comprehensive
Support Services
Integrate State
Education and Workforce
Data Systems
Page Page 181 of 392
increasing postsecondary attainment rates among adult students. [We]
offered a policy framework that has four parts, that really tries to address
those needs and highlights some examples, some of which are
represented in this room.
The first part we have to focus on is more flexible and integrated
learning environments. I think we all know that the adult learner has
“life”—they have children, they have jobs, they have lots of obligations,
and increasingly, parental obligations. We have to be able to design our
learning environments so they have a time and place solution that allows
them to make forward progress in an efficient fashion. A couple of
examples that we have used consistently, and I think states are looking to
consistently: in Washington State, the Integrated Basic Education and
Skills Training (I-BEST) Program [which] integrat[es] basic skill
acquisition with training for particular skills. It brings those pieces
together so that you’re not sending students sequentially through adult
basic or remedial education and then on to skill training. That’s a path on
which a lot of students often wash out. Instead [it] integrates those in a
way that keeps students on track. The results really speak for themselves,
at least in the initial research. Western Governors University: a growing
number of states are forming partnerships with an online, competencybased, nonprofit provider. The fact that we are looking at a competencybased provider (you move at the rate at which you can command the
subject matter) is a development that will have profound implications for
higher education over the long term. We’re just starting to see the
beginning of what that will mean. It is a format that is tailored in large
measure for the place-bound working adult, who is a huge part of this
talent pool that we’re talking about.
The second part is a bundling effect, what we called “developing
comprehensive support services.” Again, the adult learner has many
things going on in terms of their life, particularly low-income working
adults. They’re often interacting with the [traditional] social services
system in ways that complicate “life.” You have to stop here, there, and
then there, and by the time you get through it all, you’ve forgotten which
paper goes to whom. That leads to a frustration and attrition effect for
adult learners. So states like Kentucky have designed programs like
Ready-to-Work where they integrate some Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) services provisions with community and
technical colleges so that the student can bring all of their needs together
in one place. There is interaction among those providers so that the
student is front and center, not the process. The community and technical
college system in Kentucky has graduated more than a thousand students
already through this model, and I think there is further promise.
The third part, as I mentioned in the discussion of metrics, is to track
performance. Specifically, we need to better integrate our education and
workforce data systems within states. With funding and leadership from
the federal government on this, a number of states are taking very
promising and strong steps. Paul’s organization—the State Higher
Education Executive Officers—has done an excellent job tracking
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
progress within states on that integration. But I think we could all agree
that there’s much more work to be done there to understand the
placement rates of recent graduates, the amount of time they spend in the
state, employed, after they graduate, what sorts of jobs they are taking, so
that we know more about the throughput of our postsecondary and
training sector.
The fourth part is finance. We can break this further into a number of
subparts. I think there is an institutional part as well as a student part and
a government part. When it comes to students, we need to look again at
the holistic part of this. States like Wisconsin that have grants that allow
for expenditure not only on the academic side of things, but on the “life”
part of things—on the transportation, on the childcare, the things that
will either enable or inhibit progress toward a credential. On the
institutional side, we’re seeing a number of states express increasing
interest in linking some portion of their allocation to higher education on
some measure of performance. I think that we, again, have to be explicit
that performance includes the success of adult students. If we don’t, we
will not be signaling a value that’s very critical to these states. When we
look at some of our other funding opportunities in the interaction
between state and federal governments, Dr. Preus, I’m sure, will describe
in a second what Oregon has done to weave together various federal
grant programs, all to the benefit of a cohesive career pathways approach
that helps to see them through from beginning to end and get from
beginning to end in particular occupational fields, harnessing those
resources that you couldn’t otherwise if you just kept them in segregated
pools of funds.
As we look across all of this, I know the main question that you all are
wrestling with is the measure of the federal role in this. I’ll leave a lot of
that to our lobbying department because they hate it when I start to do
their job. But, overall, whether it’s in the state government or the federal
government, we have to reengage the question of whether or not our
financial aid systems—as they relate to students—are fundamentally
built for students who no longer exist. I think that is a difficult question,
but I think if we’re being honest with ourselves, in some respects, the
answer is yes. We are missing a student who is here and basing our
assumptions on a student who is not. As we [move] toward the
reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and other key pieces of
legislation, we have to put those questions on the table and use the
available evidence to guide our decisions and our discussions going
forward. Thank you.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Reindl. And we move now to Dr.
Lingenfelter.
Paul Lingenfelter: Thank you so much. Before I turn to barriers, I’d like
to say just a few things about need. In 2008, our association wrote an
open letter to both presidential candidates, urging them to make higher
education a national priority, urging them to focus on the need for higher
levels of degree attainment. Some of my members said, “OK, Paul, so we
Page Page 182 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Integrate Federal,
State, and Institutional
Grant Programs
Reassess the
Structure of Financial Aid
Systems and Programs
Make Higher Levels
of Degree Attainment
a National Priority
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Assess What It
Will Take to Meet the 2020
Degree Attainment Goal
Understand the
Importance of the 2020
Degree Attainment Goal
Stress that Educational
Attainment is Vitally
Important to Our Future
Page Page 183 of 392
need 16 million more degrees by 2025, and we will get only 1 million
from normal population growth. What makes you think that’s possible?”
We did a little back of the envelope analysis, which went like this: “If we
increase the high school graduation rate by 10 percentage points
gradually over 16 years from 68 to 78 percent, if we increase the college
participation gradually over 16 years from 55 to 65 percent, and we
increase the college graduation rate gradually over 16 years from 30 to
40 percent in two-year institutions and from 60 to 70 percent in four-year
institutions, how many degrees will that give us?” That would give 4.3
million more degrees. That’s 4.3 million out of a total of the 15 million
we need. So the obvious point was to look at the adult learner. We have
8.4 million adults between the ages of 25 and 34 with some college and
no degree. Those are young adults, and if half of those working adults
achieved a credential, that would give us an additional 4.2 million
degrees. We have another 8.8 million adults, slightly older, from 35 to 44
with some college and no degree. If we help just a third of that group
complete a credential, we’d get another 2.6 million degrees. And then we
have 22.7 million adults in the workforce with a high school diploma and
no college. If we got just 15 percent of those to enroll and graduate, we’d
have 3.4 million more degrees. So to reach the national goal for
educational attainment, 30 percent of the incremental degrees can
reasonably come from the traditional college age group and 70 percent
must come through better education of adult students.
Occasionally, there are people who question whether we need all of this
college attainment. I’ve found some numbers pulled together by Tony
Carnevale that address this issue in a compelling way. In 1973, about the
time I started my career, we had 66.4 million jobs in the United States
held by people with a high school diploma or who had actually dropped
out of high school. That was 66.4 million out of 91 million, 72 percent of
the workforce. In 2009, we had 64 million jobs held by people with a
high school diploma or less than a high school diploma, fewer than in
1973, and those people now account for 41 percent of the workforce. So
in the past 35 or so years, all the job growth in this country has been for
people who have some college or postsecondary associate, bachelor’s or
higher degree. Both the proportion of the workforce with higher levels of
degree attainment and the economic rewards for having more education
have expanded dramatically. The premium for having a bachelor’s
degree over a high school diploma now is 85 percent in lifetime earnings.
So it’s very clear that we have a need, and that the nontraditional student
is very much a part of it.
Rather than talking about barriers, I think I’d like to say a few words
about solutions that will help us get the achievement we need. The
barriers will become obvious in these comments. The first solution is to
end denial and accept the fact that more educational attainment is vitally
important to the future of every American and to our collective future as
a country.
Second, I think we need to be serious about authenticity. The tradition in
higher education and in elementary and secondary education has been to
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
be fairly fuzzy about defining learning objectives, knowledge, and skills.
We have taught students in whatever way fit local norms and the ideas of
individual teachers and schools, we identified the students who were
most successful, we got the percentage we thought we needed into
college, and life was good. To get educational attainment at scale, we’re
going to have to be much more explicit and intentional about our
learning objectives. To be strategic and more successful as educators, we
must know what we want, we must be able to measure progress along the
way, and we must learn ways of getting more of the educational
attainment we seek. From this perspective, the advent of college corebased standards for college readiness, degree qualifications frameworks
for postsecondary education, and much more intentional assessment of
student learning and improvement of instruction are absolutely essential.
The third solution is to use limited resources more productively. One
thing we have to do is assess and give credit for prior learning. And we
shouldn’t charge the student or the government a premium price for
assessing learning that somebody else generated. Second, we need to
provide efficient, convenient, coherent, well-structured learning
programs for students. Such programs will require focused student effort,
and will make focused student effort rewarding, not onerous and not
inconvenient. We also need to end excessive time and credit for degrees.
We have students who are enrolling in and achieving far many more
credit hours than are required to get a degree, and students who are
taking far longer than necessary. We need to focus student aid on
financially needy and academically engaged students. We need to reduce
expenditures where either financial need or student engagement is
marginal. We need to focus student aid on institutions which serve
students well, that have respectable attainment rates and legitimate,
verifiable learning outcomes.
Page Page 184 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Articulate More
Explicit and Intentional
Learning Objectives
Focus Student
Aid on Needy Students
Who Are Engaged
At this time in our history, the most valuable institutions will be those
that generate real learning from average or disadvantaged students, not
those that generate learning from those students for whom learning is,
frankly, easy. The least valuable institutions are those that take the
money and the time of average and disadvantaged students without
yielding any real success. And that’s an issue we have to confront.
Finally, what can the federal government do? At this interesting time in
our history at least some of us are becoming quite critical of
governmental solutions to problems. I think part of the key for both
federal and state governments is to focus on what each of them can
achieve effectively and well, and to divide labor among different levels
of government and among institutions in a way that works together to get
us toward our goals.
At the federal government level, it’s highly critical that we maintain the
Pell maximum award at its current level. It is the foundation for lowincome students. I’ve always thought of Pell as the program that enables
a low-income student, with part-time work, to pay the cost of living
while getting a higher education. States and institutions are then
Distinguish
Between Most and Least
Valuable Institutions
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Encourage
Academic Preparation
and Focused Study
Page Page 185 of 392
responsible to supplement Pell for such students to enable them to pay
the cost of tuition. In too many places, Pell is being used for tuition costs,
and students are not completing degrees because they are enrolling in too
few courses and working too many hours.
The highest predictor I’ve seen for failure in nontraditional students is
the inability to focus on a program of study that is close to full-time or
reasonably full-time. If you take one or two courses at a time, the odds of
getting anywhere fast are zero and the odds of getting anywhere at all are
not much greater than zero. I think we need to define full-time study as
full-time study.
The federal government can provide incentives and supports for state aid
programs that encourage academic preparation and focused study. The
Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG) program was a wellintentioned idea that addressed an important need, but was infeasible to
operate effectively at the federal level. States can do that work; some of
them are doing it quite well. A federal program that encouraged states to
blend financial need and incentives for academic preparation in
providing student aid would be very helpful.
Adopt Common Education
Data Standards and a
Shared National Agenda
Finally, the federal government has a critical role to play in developing
the information resources and messages that help the nation understand
and focus on the need to expand educational opportunity and attainment.
For almost 10 years, I’ve been quoting a bit of analysis produced by this
Advisory Committee on the college participation rate of students who are
in the bottom quartile of socioeconomic status and the top quartile of
academic achievement. That kind of data needs to be available at a
granular level in every state in the country. The Common Education
Data Standards now under development are critically important to meet
this need. Some important things don’t require a federally managed
program, but they do require federal leadership to inspire a national
movement. We need a shared national agenda in order to work together
in a coherent fashion on the elements essential for the educational
attainment needed by traditional students and nontraditional students
alike. Thank you.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Dr. Lingenfelter. Dr. Stokes?
Understand Nontraditional
Students As Well As the
Institutions Serving Them
Peter Stokes: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for having me
here today. I’ve said before in similar sorts of settings that nontraditional
students are hidden in plain sight. And they are, literally, everywhere. By
some definitions, they make up 75 percent of all of our enrollees in
higher education. In many respects, the norm, as Travis mentioned
earlier, really is the so-called nontraditional student. But very few
institutions, or at least very few institutions that we know well, define
themselves by their ability to serve nontraditional students. One other
key point here at the outset is that there are, of course, a great number of
diverse types of nontraditional students. There is no nontraditional
student profile; there are many, many diverse types.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
I want to say just a few words about the barriers [and] about some
promising developments and maybe some opportunities for the federal
government to have an impact, and then I’ll wait for conversation to
develop after that. But with respect to barriers, first and foremost, there’s
a poor understanding of the scope of so-called nontraditional student
participation. As a consequence, we have rather weak support for these
students. We also have poor recognition of the institutions that actually
do serve these students. The panel that’s going to come next is populated
with great institutions that to one degree or another devote themselves to
this, but they are too infrequently highlighted in conversations like these.
So, in part, what we need is a culture change within higher education that
values and validates the nontraditional student. In the absence of that
culture change, one of the key barriers is the institutions themselves. We
have an institution-friendly approach to education, rather than a studentfriendly approach. And that’s true with respect to how we deliver
programs, how we handle credit transfer, how we model our tuition
pricing, and many, many other issues as well. There may, in fact, be too
much emphasis on degrees as the unit of learning, and, perhaps, in
particular, the bachelor’s degree. There may be other credentials that are
more relevant to workforce needs. There’s also a significant issue around
cost, and not only the cost of attending college or university, but also the
opportunity cost of attending and being out of the workforce, if, in fact,
that’s necessary.
With respect to strategies for overcoming these barriers, more often than
not, innovation tends to happen at the margins and very gradually moves
toward the center of the system. I do think that the 33 states participating
in the Complete College America study, which Travis referenced, “Time
is the Enemy,” certainly deserve some applause for their efforts, and
there are a number of interesting case studies summarized in that report.
But I also think that a good deal of the innovation is really happening
elsewhere. Some of it, of course, is happening within institutions. And,
again, I would cite the example of the institutions that are speaking later:
NYU School of Continuing and Professional Studies, UMUC, Kaplan,
Excelsior, Rio Salado. And, of course, Western Governors, which I’m
sure you’ve all been hearing a great deal about over the last two years.
Also private institutions, like Liberty University, which have tens of
thousands of students online, or UMassOnline, which also has tens of
thousands of students online. These schools are really changing the way
many institutions think about serving adult students.
And, in the work that I do, working with hundreds of institutions across
the country, I’ve certainly seen a growing interest among institutions that
previously hadn’t served nontraditional students to do so. Of course,
that’s often driven largely by a desire to increase tuition revenue. So
they’re trying to figure out how to do it. I think that there is also a great
deal of evidence that the private sector is beginning to address problems
that traditional institutions are not themselves prepared to address
because of some of these cultural barriers that I mentioned. And
Page Page 186 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Create a More
Student-Friendly Approach
to Higher Education
Recognize and
Reward Innovation
at Many Institutions
Transcend Cultural
Barriers to Better Serve
Nontraditional Students
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Support Creation and
Maintenance of Open
Educational Resources
Focus on Smart
Regulations for
Today’s Institutions
Experiment Outside
the Credentialing Authority
Bestowed by Accreditation
Page Page 187 of 392
that would include companies like StraighterLine or University of the
People or KNEXT and AcademyOne. These are either organizations that
provide education for free, that provide education at very low cost, or
that help students that want to do it themselves navigate the complex and
challenging process of pulling together their prior learning assessments,
pulling together their prior credits, and figuring out how they can amass
their next set of credits to earn them a credential. And, again, echoing
something that Travis said earlier, I think that we need to support
competency-based credentialing far more than we do today. If we look at
the case of Western Governors University in Indiana, we see a pretty
strong case for doing that. Of course, Western Governors is now moving
into Texas and Washington and presumably elsewhere in the near future.
With respect to the role that government, and federal government in
particular, can play here: certainly we need more flexible financial aid
for students who are studying at less than half time. We also need to do a
great deal more to address transfer of credit issues. Again, if you look at
the “Time is the Enemy” study, you’ll see the remarkable surplus in
credit earning that the average student engages in. By credential level,
there’s a great deal of waste there. I think the federal government can do
a lot more to support the creation and maintenance of open educational
resources and open courseware. Certainly, we have to do a much better
job of tracking the nontraditional student, both with respect to
participation and performance.
And we have to focus on smart regulations. Gainful employment is a
painful concept in many respects, but it could turn out to be a tremendous
competitive advantage for those institutions that are able to demonstrate
it. The regulation could certainly be applied across the board to all
institutions; I’m not quite sure why any institution would be exempt.
State authorization is making online delivery of programs more
complicated. We are working with a great many institutions who are
trying to figure out how to comply. We’re supporting them in their
efforts to figure out their national strategies as a consequence and
helping them do the paperwork. It is becoming a barrier. I also think the
focus on the credit hour, at least as it is currently being defined, is a step
backwards, especially as we look toward the divergent trend toward
competency-based credentialing.
And I would finally add that I think we need to look for opportunities to
innovate outside of the credentialing authority that’s bestowed as a
consequence of accreditation. Certainly, if we look at what happened in
online learning over the past twenty years, where in the early ‘90s we
might have had a few thousand students who were studying fully online,
today more than ten percent of all college students are enrolled in fully
online degree programs. Also, more than one in four students has taken
an online course during their program of study. A big change has
happened, and part of that had to do with the federal program to allow a
select number of institutions to enroll more than 50 percent of their
students online. It would be interesting to have an experimental program
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
that would allow some organizations to award degrees even without
accreditation.
Page Page 188 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
I’ll stop there, and let’s see if there are any questions later. Thank you.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Dr. Stokes. Dr. Preus?
Camille Preus: Good afternoon. I would like to start by thanking the
Advisory Committee for having this hearing today. It’s an important
conversation, and I thank you for your leadership in convening these
panels to bring attention to the issues of nontraditional students. Perhaps
by the time we’re finished today, we’ll find another word to describe
them. As Travis said, they’re more the 21st century student than
nontraditional.
Understand How
Life Experience Affects
Success in College
Previous panelists have done a nice job of describing the context within
which we find ourselves with a number of adults over the age of 25 who
have some college, but no degree. At community colleges across the
country, 40 percent of students in credit-bearing courses are over the age
of 24, and nearly three-quarters of them are involved part-time. The parttime nature of nontraditional students is partially a function, which has
already been said, of them having a unique life experience. And that
experience sometimes stands in the way of their being successful in
college. Nontraditional students tend to have less flexible scheduling,
given their life or their work, or other obligations, and they are very
sensitive to cost and the complexity of postsecondary education.
My comments will fall into three general categories around finance,
institutional complexity, and, finally, preparation. Finance is the first
barrier. It’s just expensive to go to college, no matter the type of college,
public or private. Having enough to start is one hurdle. Having enough to
keep going and to maintain academic success is a heavy burden for
students who are oftentimes not simply supporting their education, but
their family. Younger students don’t tend to work as much as
nontraditional students—by one estimate, 13 percent of younger students
versus 60 percent of nontraditional students. The work penalty that is
part of the Pell Grant remains a very real problem for working students—
the fact that a relatively small amount of extra earnings knocks students
out of their student aid eligibility. Just as a sideline, of course, the
systems expect that students are able to figure out how to fill out that
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to begin with.
Institutional complexity is the second barrier. We almost unknowingly
put up barriers, or we create pitfalls, for the nontraditional student.
Community colleges, nationally, spend more on instruction than other
sectors of higher education. As a result, we tend to have fewer dollars for
support services. Across the nation and in Oregon, we are at full
capacity. Oregon community colleges grew 30 percent in the last two
years, and our funding from the state has dropped an equal amount. This
translates, in Oregon, to fewer counseling and advising staff, who are
critical to provide the student the skills and services that they need to
Recognize the Role
of Financial Barriers to
Access and Persistence
Eliminate Institutional
Complexity As a Barrier to
Access for Adult Learners
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Understand the Role
of Academic Preparation
for Older Students
Provide a Needs-Based
State Financial Aid Program
for Part-Time Students
Page Page 189 of 392
navigate our admissions, scheduling, and finance systems, let alone be
successful at their studies. Oftentimes, our programs of study or majors
in our catalogues are written as though in Latin, where an archaic
meaning can only be revealed by a few. It’s our job to translate that into
useful information so students have a clearer path about what to take
[and] when in order to be successful.
Preparation is the third barrier for the nontraditional student in
community colleges. In Oregon, more than 20 percent of our overall fulltime equivalents, which were 121,000 last year, represent students who
are unprepared for collegiate-level work. Even though there’s an
astounding percent of unprepared recent high school graduates, they
seem to have a leg up because they understand collegiate work, while the
older student cannot transition as rapidly. In Oregon and across the
nation, community colleges are transforming and redesigning our
remedial and developmental programs because research, in our own
experience, tells us far too many students start, but don’t finish and
transition out. Depending on the level of preparation, or lack thereof,
nontraditional students may be using their scarce financial aid to support
gaining pre-collegiate-level skills, which means they have less for their
real college studies.
To the question of promising practices at the state and institutional level:
in Oregon on the cost side, we do have a needs-based, state-supported
financial aid program that provides aid for very part-time students. This
is an important financial support for nontraditional students, but it’s not
enough. Programs like the one my colleague Scott will speak of in
Washington called the Opportunity Grant prioritize financial supports for
low-income students who are enrolled in occupational programs with
high demand or high wage potential. Very promising.
Strategies for overcoming the complexity of accessing and persisting to
completion [are] something that Oregon has been involved in in the last
six years through our Career Pathways Initiative. At its heart, Career
Pathways is about simplifying the path to a certificate or a degree. A
career pathway is a series of connected educational programs and student
supports that enable the nontraditional student to get the training he or
she needs to secure or advance in a demand industry. Our goal is to
increase the number of Oregonians with credentials, certificates, and
degrees in those demand occupations, and to ease their transition from
pre-college to credit-bearing courses.
Create and
Support Multiple
Career Pathways
We started with only a handful of colleges and road maps for students,
but now we have it statewide and offer more than 180 career pathways.
Our program completion has increased 400 percent in the last two
years—as Travis said earlier, we have braided together Department of
Labor and TANF dollars to ensure that students who are prepared for
Career Pathways are transitioning into those programs and are successful
and advancing in career pathways. And to increase nontraditional
students, we have connected, by design, our career pathways to bridge
courses that are designed to help those students, both traditional-age and
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
nontraditional, or underprepared for college level work, to bridge into
collegiate-level courses. It’s very important for their student success
because when you braid those courses together by targeting basic skills
and English language learning, that helps to enhance student success.
What role can the federal government play in these strategies? Continue
to work to simplify financial aid processes and continue to maintain the
Pell funding maximum. Look for ways to find financial aid for career
pathways and other less-than-one-year certificates that are connected to
programs of study and degrees. Use existing resources to target
nontraditional, low-income, low-skill students from the Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), where they could
support practiced research, and provide technical assistance and
incentive grants that build programs linking academic and applied
learning. The Department of Labor’s Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) and the Department of Education’s Office of
Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) have partnered together in the
past in advancing career pathways. It’s an excellent example of how
leveraging funds that already exist will benefit nontraditional students.
More efforts like these will help make the point about how important
educational attainment is. As has been said earlier, we will not
accomplish the President’s call to increase degrees and certificates by
five million, nor will we have the thriving economy that we need and
want, if we don’t come together to support the success of what I’d rather
call the contemporary student.
Page Page 190 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Support Career
Pathways and Certificates with
Adequate Financial Aid
Leverage Funds to
Support the Success of
Contemporary Students
Thank you.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Dr. Preus. Mr. Copeland?
Scott Copeland: I feel I should start off with my normal Senate and
House testimony: for the record, my name is Scott Copeland. I won’t go
that route. But I do want to thank you all for inviting me here today to
speak about what we’re doing in the State of Washington. I also want to
thank my colleagues, who have, it looks like, set me up for some good
information to give you about some innovative things we’re doing in the
State of Washington.
Let me first explain what our system is, and we are a system. We’re 34
colleges: 29 are traditional colleges and 5 are technical colleges. Our
total enrollment is about 470,000 students, and, as you’ve heard, a lot of
community college students are part-time and that yields about 200,000
full-time equivalents (FTEs) a year within our system. We’re
nontraditional—that’s just the name of the community colleges. Our
average age, I should say the median age, is 26 and, due to the economy,
less than half of our students work either full-time or part-time. We’re 36
percent students of color, which is actually 12 percent higher than the
State of Washington average, so we’re really serving a big group there.
More than half attend part-time.
Gather Ideas for Innovation
from Those Serving
Nontraditional Students
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Adapt the Role of
Community and Technical
Colleges for Future Learners
Confront the
Barriers of Time, Distance,
Language, and Finances
Page Page 191 of 392
We saw some trends happening about a decade ago where we were
realizing our demographics were shifting dramatically. If we wanted to
maintain the same enrollments, we needed to look at a different direction
and that is toward the nontraditional student. That was coupled with our
goals as a state to increase postsecondary education and training for
students who have at least a one-year certificate credential or above. This
dovetails and fits nicely with what then became our initial study. Our
initial study was designed to find more and better ways to reduce barriers
and expand opportunities so more Washingtonians could reach higher
levels of education. What the study did was provide a long-term outlook
on how community and technical college education would need to
change and grow to meet the needs and expectations of future learners.
We really wanted to educate more people to higher levels of skill and
knowledge. We also discovered, even though we have a lot of students in
the community colleges, that unemployment for our state was a little
over nine percent—the last report I saw from our Employment Security
Department showed that we have over 60,000 jobs in the State of
Washington available today, but we do not have any trained workers for
those. So we’re looking at some ways to try to shorten that gap.
We did find a number of barriers in this initial study: things you would
guess and have probably heard numerous times about time, distance, and
language. As a coastal state, we do have a lot of immigrants to the state
who are struggling with the language barriers. English is not the first
language, especially if they’re immigrants from Asian countries. We also
have students whose courses compete with their work and family
obligations. And the biggest one, of course, is student finances.
We needed to find more ways to dismantle these barriers and make more
of our programs accessible anytime and anywhere for our students. We
wanted to make sure that our students really could enroll to meet their
goal, whatever that goal was—could be high school completion, could be
a certificate, could be an associate degree—and, with seven of our
colleges now, could be a baccalaureate degree. We do offer applied
baccalaureate programs in seven of our community colleges. We wanted
to make sure they did have the skills necessary to take a lot of these
unoccupied and open jobs right now and transition eventually toward
baccalaureate attainment.
Meet the Educational
Goals of Students – Whatever
Those Goals Might Be
So what we wanted to do, and we have been fairly successful in a
number of areas, we wanted to accelerate the work we were doing to
make our system more user-friendly. Enrolling in college is a daunting
and sometimes intimidating experience. Students need to be encouraged
and supported, rather than stymied by a lack of financial aid, childcare,
or transportation—we have some very rural and remote communities—or
lack of access to computer technology. We wanted to make sure that the
barriers of time and distance were taken care of.
We expect a lot of our students to know what financial aid means. I
always tell students I’ve worked with that financial aid is a language that
you need to be fluent in before you even begin the college process. That
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
kind of takes them aback a little bit, but that’s something we work with
our students on to make sure they have that process and understanding
necessary to move on.
Once a student is enrolled, we want to make sure that they are prepared
for success at the next level, whatever that next level would be, so that
they didn’t have to backtrack or repeat courses. We wanted to make sure
that they had the personalized guidance and academic support they
needed to achieve their goals. And, as you’ve heard already today,
student services is really the piece that just gets hammered with a budget
cut at either the federal or state level. That’s what we try to pick up and
add to in our offerings in the State of Washington.
Page Page 192 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Provide the Necessary
Personalized Guidance
and Academic Support
I’m going to focus on two fairly unique programs that are going to work
with our unemployed or underemployed, or, also our uneducated or
undereducated, low-income students. We’ve been very aggressive,
however, in our prior learning components with those initiatives, and I’ll
defer to Amy for a lot of those things happening in the prior learning
areas. We’ve done a lot of work with our transfer students, and I’ll leave
that to Scott of Western Governors University in the next session. So
we’re always seeking other ways to move students along the pathway, to
get their credential quicker and with less expensive, or, in some cases, at
minimal cost.
But there are areas we’ve found that are successful in getting those lowincome students to that first credential. One of my researchers, David
Prince, worked on a “Tipping Point” study. We found that once you get
that student 45 quarter credits or at the certificate level, a lot of times it
provided the motivation needed to continue on, or, it also gave them
enough credentialing and education to seek that employment
opportunity. That was our student achievement initiative work that he
did, and I’ll get back to that in a minute.
I’m not sure if this was the cart before the horse, which way this went,
because it almost happened simultaneously—we had tremendous support
from our state legislature, specifically Representative Phyllis Gutierrez
Kenney, who worked with us to put together a program called the
Opportunity Grant Program. This is a fully funded program [in which]
we could get students up to that 45 credit tipping point or credential that
not only paid for their tuition and all mandatory fees that the college
might have—or a program might have in addition to tuition—but also
covered up to a thousand dollars a year for books, supplies, tools, as
appropriate, and also provided $1,500 per FTE in wraparound services
for those support pieces that we found to be very necessary for our
students.
I’ll get to outcomes soon, but so far, it has worked very, very well. The
goal of the program is specifically putting our low-income students into
high-wage, high-demand workforce programs. So somebody wants to do
allied health programs, they want to be a welder, they want to go into the
IT areas—that’s the direction—each program at each college had to go
Take Advantage
of Tipping Points to
Spur Persistence
Understand the
Critical Importance of
State Grant Programs
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Provide a Single
Point of Contact and
Student Advocate
Integrate Adult
Basic Education with
Skills Training
Include Adult Learners
Both With and Without a
High School Diploma
Page Page 193 of 392
through an approval process to make sure it met the high-wage, highdemand for that particular community that they serve at the time. Highwage, high-demand, these things have changed a little bit, some of those
fields have either evaporated or shrunk—but the high-wage piece, at
least in our state, was defined as $13 per hour, with the exception of
King County, which uses a $15 per hour wage rate.
The part that I like the most is that this provided a single point of contact;
you have an advocate working with you. We were getting referrals from
all of our work source offices, all over the place. In the community, word
of mouth spread—we did not have to advertise this program; we have a
waiting list of thousands of students who would like to enter. Single
point of contact has been very, very helpful because that’s to negotiate
all the interesting steps and ladders students have to go through to
progress. Advising is available—actually mandatory—and success
classes, if the student needs it. And those other things that fall into place
such as emergency childcare and emergency transportation. Legislation
does allow that. The student doesn’t have the $38 to apply for their
certified nursing assistant exam—we can pay it for them. Somebody has
a flat tire—we can pay for that to be fixed. The gas vouchers, whatever
may be necessary. It’s worked very, very well.
Tied into this one is our Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training
Program, or our I-BEST Program. This works with students at the
upper ends of adult basic education programs that our colleges
administer. It also works with our English as second language (ESL)
programs, where a student is simultaneously in the math and English that
they need, while enrolled in a college/workforce program. Unfortunately,
it’s a very expensive program to do because we’re matching a basic skill
instructor along with their regular professional staff, be it a welding
instructor or diesel technology, information technology (IT), whatever it
may be. And they go together, they teach together, they’re co-taught, and
they break out if they need additional tutoring sessions and everything
else. A very, very unique program that has been growing a little bit. We
actually have a pilot now for academic I-BEST, so we’re going to work
with the academic side, not just the workforce side.
What we have discovered: there are about 400,000 working adults who
do not have a high school diploma in Washington alone. So this is one
way to move in that direction. There’s an additional one million adults
who do not have education beyond a high school diploma, so these two
programs work very, very nicely.
Tied into this is the Student Achievement Initiative. We have become a
very data-driven outcome-based system, which I’m very, very proud of.
The Student Achievement Initiative became then, not only identifying 45
credits as that great mark to hit for progress—we went to a rewarding
system where we took a baseline several years ago and if students are
moving in a couple of different areas—if they’re moving through the
basic skills programs, passing pre-college writing or math courses,
they’ve moved up to 15 credits and 30 credits of college-level
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
curriculum, when they complete a math course or writing course at the
college level and that any completions along the way—apprenticeships,
certificates, whatever—they are awarded points based on that. The
colleges then are reimbursed per point, so the more you can achieve, the
more you can move your students through those processes and programs,
the more money your college attracts. It becomes an allocation directly
from the State Board, through a general fund state process. Students are
moving, colleges seem to be happy because there are dollars tied to this
for their outcomes, and the Opportunity Grant Program and the I-BEST
Program seem to be, right now, the biggest funders of those point totals.
Page Page 194 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Employ DataDriven and OutcomesBased Systems
What have we learned? With a little hand-holding, if you will, students
can go a long way. A little bit of dollars, especially with those
emergency things that come up, just life in general, can move a student a
long way. We set as a target a 70 percent retention figure that we wanted
schools to hit or they would lose some funding for these programs. Over
81 percent have a system for retention that’s measurable by completions,
through completing a certificate that’s funded by the Opportunity Grant
or the I-BEST Program, as well as continuing. That’s about 15
percentage points higher than a similar student in a similar program
who’s not receiving these services. So for us, that’s a significant and
successful program.
The second piece we began: we do a match every year for the security
office with the unemployment insurance matches to determine job
placements. The first year that we had that data available was last fall for
our Opportunity Grant students. And, at first, we were a little
disappointed: only 25 percent received employment, almost all of it in
healthcare. What we discovered: 65 percent remained in school, leaving
the certificate program and going on to an associate’s degree. Even
though they’re not in the workforce yet, they will be soon. Of that 81
percent, on average, 90 percent are either employed or continuing their
education—which we find very exciting. We’ll replicate that this
October and look at the graduates from a year ago.
What can you do for me? I’ve been fighting and fighting—I had five
trips to our Hill last year for our less-than-part-time state need grant
program. We have it going for another year to fund these students.
Because these students do not have a high school diploma (or rarely do)
or a General Educational Development (GED) credential, they have
probably been out of the math curriculum for 10 to 20 years in some
cases. They will not pass the Ability-to-Benefit (ATB) tests that are
available. What I ask you is to consider one additional Ability-to-Benefit
piece: concurrent enrollment in an integrated adult basic education and
college level program.
Thank you.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Mr. Copeland. Ms. Sherman?
Build in
Employment and Job
Placement Data
Broaden the
Concept of
Ability-to-Benefit
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Deal with
Dispositional Barriers
Such As Fear of Failure
Page Page 195 of 392
Amy Sherman: First, I want to thank the Advisory Committee for this
opportunity to participate on behalf of the Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning (CAEL). It’s always hard when you’re the last
person on the panel; you want to say some things that are new and fresh.
I just wanted to add to the barriers without repeating the ones you’ve
heard: dispositional barriers. Often we forget that people who’ve been
out of school for 10, 15, 20, 30 years have an issue with fear of failure,
something new, or change. I think this really speaks to the need for those
wraparound services and support systems to really guarantee the student
will stick it out long enough to succeed.
In my brief time, I’d like to address the needs nontraditional students
have as they respond to the new realities of the early 21st century. First,
technology has really transformed work and learning, and the speedy
advancement of new technologies has helped, as we all know, to create
brand new occupational categories while making certain jobs obsolete.
And this has had real implications for workers who may not have the
skills or the access to learning to then readjust to that new reality. The
pace of change is dizzying. Most of the new job categories require midand higher levels of education, and this translates into the need for
individual career mobility and continual learning.
Confront the
Transformation in Work,
Media, and Entertainment
Another factor is mobility itself: sometimes moving place to place,
sometimes learning through various learning institutions. We are really a
very mobile society. Finally, there’s a staggering amount of real time
information as well as academic content accessible through new
technologies. For example, I can learn all I need to know about the Civil
War through downloading the lectures of Yale professor David Blight on
iTunes University (iTunes U) for free. This was unheard of 10, 15, 20
years ago. Search engines can deliver information on virtually any topic.
What does this mean for higher education? Our students are living in a
world of rapid change that has transformed the structure of work, media,
and entertainment in profound ways, and, yet, our higher education
structures have seen little in the way of transformation in response to
these new realities beyond adding online learning.
Address Mobile Students
Through Better Articulation
and Transfer Policies
In my testimony, I’d like to propose three areas in which the present
structure needs rethinking. First, the higher education system must
address the needs of mobile students through improved articulation and
transfer policies and practices. Clifford Adelman noted in the 2006
report, “The Toolbox Revisited,” that even traditional-aged students in
the 1990s were on the move and attending multiple institutions. At that
time, almost 65 percent attended more than one institution and 26 percent
attended more than two. Incentives, through programs such as the now
unfunded comprehensive program at FIPSE, should encourage greater
consistency and articulation to serve students within and across state
borders, including in-state and multi-state agreements. Innovative
practices include common course number systems, common core
curriculum, program major articulations, block credit transfers, and
associate degree transfers. The practices are out there, the innovations are
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
out there. A good example of a state that’s using most of these practices
is Florida. So it can be done.
Page Page 196 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Another example is collaborations between two- and four-year
institutions to credential 60 hours when students stop-out halfway
through a four-year program. Texas is calling this a retroactive degree,
and many states are very interested in this. We need to encourage this
practice. Many states are, in fact, working on these initiatives, but we
know that there are individual institutions that are very resistant to this
kind of change. For example, in the 2010 report by the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) and Hezel Associates, they
found that only seven states report using a common course number
system. Think about it from the student perspective when you’re trying
to move between institutions and you have different numbers and
descriptions—how much easier would it be for those students? Part of
the challenge is due to the fact that the system is based on the credit
hour: a subjectively-defined measure of learning based primarily on
input, time spent with faculty, rather than on measurable outcomes.
Imagine how much easier it would be for students to demonstrate their
learning progress if the system-wide documentation was actually on
learning outcomes.
Employ a Common
Course Number System Across
States and Institutions
Next, I think we need to rethink how our financial aid programs are
structured. Currently financial aid supports traditional time-based, seatsin-seats learning, whether it’s in the classroom or online. However, many
people come to higher education with learning that has taken place—and
this is college-level learning—outside of the traditional higher education
structure. Think of all the learning that takes place at employer training
facilities, in jobs, in the military, through a lifetime of self-study or
volunteer work. Some of that experiential learning is equivalent to what
takes place in the classroom, and the learning outcomes are measurable.
That’s important to remember: this is not giving credit for experience,
but for the learning outcome.
Recognize Learning That
Has Taken Place Outside
Traditional Higher Education
Many colleges and universities recognize this learning and award college
credit for it. This process is often called prior learning assessment or
PLA. These adult learning-friendly colleges are concentrating on
learning outcomes, which is what we should measure with college credit.
PLA saves time and keeps the student from having to sit through classes
in subjects they have already mastered. We’ve already heard that time
and money are key barriers—why make someone take a class in a subject
that they already mastered?
Yet, none of our major financial aid programs explicitly cover the costs
associated with the assessment part of PLA. Currently, Pell Grants,
Section 127 employer-provided educational assistance programs, veteran
education benefits, and Individual Training Accounts through the
Workforce Investment Act either do not allow or are unclear about
whether the assessment under PLA is an allowable expense. The
financial aid system and other programs are simply not structured for a
Cover the
Costs of Prior Learning
Assessment (PLA)
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Understand the
Relationship Between PLA
and Degree Completion
Provide Adult Learners
with More Robust Systems of
Information and Guidance
Create State and
Regional School Consortia to
Provide Advising Services
Page Page 197 of 392
learning outcomes-, assessment-based approach to postsecondary
completion.
This has implications for our nation’s college completion goal: to
achieve a 60 percent graduation rate by 2020. And here’s why: CAEL
did some research last year involving analysis of 48 institutions and over
60,000 student records. We found that adult students 25 and older with
PLA credit were two and a half times more likely to persist to graduation
than students without PLA credit. For example, students with PLA
credits had a graduation rate for bachelor’s degrees of 43 percent versus
15 percent for non-PLA students. PLA assessment generally costs less
than taking courses, which translates into real savings, both for the
students and for the financial aid system. Finally, our study showed that
PLA students earned their degrees approximately six months faster than
students without PLA credit.
Currently, PLA is generally offered on an institution-by-institution basis.
There are some exceptions: Vermont and Minnesota are leaders, and
there are innovations happening in states like Washington. But we found
that, often, at schools that say they offer PLA, students have no way of
knowing that. PLA is not marketed, and the process to access PLA is
often challenging. So we need to improve access to PLA through online
marketing, and by educating admissions, advising personnel, and faculty
about the practice. To expand access to PLA, CAEL has launched
LearningCounts.org, a national online PLA portal, so both schools and
students can access PLA services at a low cost. CAEL is collaborating
with the American Council on Education (ACE), the College Board, and
many others on LearningCounts.org.
Finally, we must put ourselves in the shoes of today’s nontraditional, or,
as you said, contemporary learners, and ask ourselves how we can expect
learners to navigate the new economy without more information and
guidance. This job is mainly left up to individual institutions with some
help from the workforce system. Even though we are a mobile society,
there’s no robust system for providing learners with this kind of
information and guidance.
We’re asked, what can you do? We need to support innovation in this
area on a larger scale and really start thinking about it in a larger
framework than an individual institution. For example, the Department
of Education could establish an interactive online service based on a
course database that would assist students in identifying the options to
maximize transferability of their credits and the assessment of prior
learning to promote degree completion. We know there are many
examples out there of others who are working in this area. Perhaps the
federal government could help to move that agenda.
Federal policy could also support the formation of state and regional
school consortia to provide advising services, like the Southwestern
Ohio Council for Higher Education, which offers a joint advising
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
office on an Air Force base. Advisors in the education and workforce
systems could be encouraged to receive training in certificate programs
on how to advise adults and other nontraditional learners. Our federal
policy leaders need not view this navigational function as an add-on
luxury item, but instead treat it as important as the learning itself.
Without it, we’re going to continue to see students waste time and money
making poorly informed decisions about education through no fault of
their own. As a country, we really can’t afford that.
I want to thank you again for this opportunity.
Page Page 198 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Precipitate Change
at Traditional Higher
Education Institutions
Page Page 199 of 392
Q&A: State Panel
Helen Benjamin: I want to thank all of you. You have really done
excellent presentations and given us much to consider. Our discussion
period, however, is limited now to about 15 minutes, which is quite
unfortunate.
When my congressman stops in my district to talk to educators, he will
often say that we use analog methods in this digital age. That just always
burns me a little bit because, I think, in some ways, it’s true. You have
certainly proven that we are, in many ways, at the digital age in terms of
what we’re doing for our students to generate real learning. And all of
what you’ve said is quite challenging, some of it provocative. But all of
it, in terms of the things we need to do, requires change. You’ve made
the changes, you’ve given us great examples.
We have only a short period and maybe only one or two of you can
address this: I would like you to share how you’ve made these changes in
your areas. How do you move an institution? Because we can be so stuck
in our ways of doing things. This is what Ms. Sherman is addressing: the
pace of change is dizzying, and we’re making ourselves dizzy trying to
keep up with it. But what do we do with our people within our
organizations to get where we need to get so that we can generate real
learning in more of the students who come to us?
Provide Institutional Incentives
to Follow Through with
Innovative Programs
That’s my only question, and then I’ll yield to others on this Committee.
Scott Copeland: I’ll go back to money.
Helen Benjamin: And I wanted to say, without money.
Scott Copeland: What I mean by that is to incentivize a college to
actually follow through with a program. When you see the outcomes,
you will see the reward to assist you—that is working well for our
system. Using the Student Achievement Initiative as an example, it’s
very much outcome-based, but if you keep progressing, you will get
more money for your budget. That’s what I mean about the money part.
Revamp State Funding
to Include OutcomesBased Measures
Amy Sherman: Just to follow on to that, I didn’t mention this, but I
think there’s an interesting model in Tennessee. They had legislation last
year, the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010, and they’ve really
revamped their funding on an outcomes-based measure, looking at
completion of degrees, certificates, dual enrollment, progress with
workforce training. It’s fairly broad, and it’s too early now to say what
that’s going to mean, but we need to have flexibility to encourage that
kind of innovation at the state level.
Travis Reindl: The other piece of this is the involvement of individuals
and constituencies outside of the political and educational realms. I’m
going to make a broad generalization, so bear with me, but, as someone
who’s been in higher education for over 20 years, I believe that we’ve
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
had an abusive relationship with the business community. We often ask
the business community to show up and endorse our proposals at the
eleventh hour with no input—to come and be our stage props. Those
days have got to stop because they’re the consumer.
We all benefit in terms of vibrant communities and functioning societies
and democracies if we have people that have J-O-B-S. But to have that
we have to have the producers of those, and not just the largest
employers in a community, but the mid- and small companies where a lot
of the job creation in this economy is occurring. [We need] to bring those
people in at the ground level, not at the eleventh hour, and truly involve
[them]. In the cases that we see in places like Oregon and Washington,
the common denominator in a lot of those stories is that business is at the
table early on and throughout. In conversations that we often have, the
business community gets so cynical because we don’t make a lot of
progress very quickly, and we tend to show up at the most inopportune
times. It’s partly culture and habits of behavior that have got to change.
Paul Lingenfelter: Our fundamental problem is that we don’t have very
good ways of measuring our fundamental product. Student learning is the
product, and we use credit hours as both the means of financing
institutions as well as measuring what students have achieved. We don’t
have very good ways of knowing what it costs to generate learning. It
clearly costs a different number for different students. The way we’ve
designed our system, it’s just exactly backwards: we spend the most
money on the most talented students and the least money on the students
who need the most help. We’re not going to get everybody to the same
place—we don’t need everybody to be at the same place; difference is
okay. But we need more student learning out of our entire population.
We’ve got to find ways of delivering that at the institutional level, and
we’ve also got to find public policies that support that. I’m a big fan of
prior learning assessment, I’m a big fan of competency-based
credentials, but we don’t have common agreement on the assessments
and on many things that are quite important. We do for some fields—we
do a pretty good job with nurses and engineers—but not for some other
things. There’s just a whole range of issues that are interrelated. I think
the key is getting some agreement about learning outcomes and finding a
way of generating more of them.
Sharon Wurm (ACSFA Member): This question is for Mr. Reindl.
You talk about the NGA and CCA completion metrics, and I think it’s
very important to break out the nontraditional students, the part-time
students, and the older students; however, that’s voluntary. There are 33
states that have volunteered to do that, but the requirement to measure
completion is quite different—first-time, full-time freshmen. How would
you propose to blend those so we can start considering all students?
Travis Reindl: You’re absolutely right, it is voluntary. We’ve had a
number of conversations around this town and elsewhere about what we
do and the systems that the Department of Education administers,
notably the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
Page Page 200 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Bring Business in at
the Ground Level and
throughout the Process
Measure Higher
Education’s Fundamental
Product: Student Learning
Come to Agreement
on Completion Metrics
for All Students
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Emphasize Achievement
of Credentials
Relative to Enrollment
Develop Common
Standards for Defining Key
Data Elements and Systems
Page Page 201 of 392
and changes that would be made moving forward. I don’t have a
perspective one way or the other as to whether or not we should make
this sort of disaggregation part of IPEDS as opposed to pushing for 50
states to do it themselves. Our desire as an organization is to see 50 states
come to a voluntary consensus and [have] this become the standard of
behavior long-term because, as a general rule, ownership and compliance
often yield different results with respect to sustainability, long-term, if
you do it because you’ve decided to do it.
But it could be the streams converge, and it becomes the standard for the
federal and state governments. Both the federal and state governments
need to continue, one, to emphasize the ultimate achievement of
credentials relative to enrollment, which is a bit of a shift from where
we’ve been, and, two, to get better at defining who our students are,
which is teasing out the adult student and looking at the performance of
Pell-eligible and Pell-recipient relative to the rest of the student
population. In whatever the venue, whether IPEDS or state
accountability reports, emphasizing those objectives is paramount, and
we can each work in our respective realms and meet when and where it
makes sense.
Paul Lingenfelter: I’d like to add to that. I realized, after I finished
talking when I was going through my notes, that I said “Common Core
State Standards” once when I wanted to say something quite different,
which is “Common Education Data Standards.” There’s a cooperative
effort with the Department of Education, the Council of Chief State
School Officers, SHEEO, and some other data-related groups to come to
agreement on common standards for defining key education data
elements and to develop systems at the state and school levels that would
enable us to know more and sort through some of these complex issues.
This is a voluntary program, but I think it’s quite promising to help us
have better information about education in the country.
William Luckey (ACSFA Member): Helen and I were talking about
today’s Inside Higher Ed article that reported the House has
recommended eliminating Pell Grants for students who are enrolled less
than half-time and limiting Pell availability to only 12 semesters. What
impact, if any, do you envision this will have on the success of our
nontraditional, or contemporary, students?
Factor in Possible
Changes to Student Aid
Programs and Eligibility
Camille Preus: Not to overstate, but I think it would be devastating.
Using Washington and Oregon as examples, I think that eligibility needs
to be broadened and not tightened in order for the contemporary student
to progress to completion.
John McNamara (ACSFA Member): Even at Rockford College, a
good deal of our full-time undergraduate students work so much that it
takes five years almost automatically—they’re working 25 to 30 hours
per week while they’re going to college full-time. My wife’s College of
New Rochelle in New York; they’ve had a School of New Resources for,
I’d guess, about 25 years. I agree with all of you that PLA is really vital;
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
we all have gifts, and we have to take advantage of and get credit for
those gifts honed over years of life experience. How do the accreditation
agencies fit in with that? Is there any unanimity about this?
Amy Sherman: I would say, no. But, actually, the accreditation agencies
often recognize PLA with different restrictions, and I think most of them
recognize CAEL’s quality standards on prior learning assessment. Very
early on, CAEL issued standards for quality for PLA and those are
incorporated and referenced by the accreditation bodies. There are just
other issues that play into things like transfer and articulation, and some
of the other pieces that obviously impact PLA. It’s not a national or
consistent standard or framework in which the schools are operating.
Scott Copeland: We have a prior learning initiative, and Amy’s been at
a couple of our meetings. The Northwest Commission on Colleges and
Universities has a 25 percent cap on credit for prior learning. Some of us
who are former registrars and directors of enrollment services have
narrowed our definition of prior learning and only count the portfolio
part, so we’ve been hamstrung with that. The other piece that Amy
mentioned is transfer agreements. This is our 40th year with our direct
transfer agreements between the two- and four-year institutions, both
public and private, in the State of Washington. There is a 15 credit
restriction, that’s quarter credits on a 90 credit degree, on what would be
the portfolio piece. We’re not talking transferring credit or military
credit, strictly the portfolio piece for transfer from a two-year to a fouryear college.
John McNamara (ACSFA Member): What does “portfolio piece”
mean?
Amy Sherman: “Portfolio” is when there’s no standardized test
available. For example, the American Council on Education will evaluate
particular corporate and military training and give credit
recommendations. “Portfolio” is when the student him or herself
develops the documentation of their learning. Often they engage in a
portfolio class, and it’s a learning experience. That is the issue, and the
concern in Washington State is how do we make sure that that kind of
learning gets counted?
Helen Benjamin: With that closing comment, I will bring the state panel
to a close. Thank you, again, so much for sharing your expertise with us
and your experience.
Page Page 202 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Recognize the Lack of
a Consistent PLA Standard
in Accreditation Policies
Ensure That Prior
Learning As Evidenced by
Portfolio Is Properly Counted
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 203 of 392
Allison Jones (ACSFA Chair): The hearing will come to order for the institutional panel. Helen?
Helen Benjamin (ACSFA Vice Chair-Elect): Good afternoon, everybody, and welcome back to our
session on nontraditional students. Before the break, we heard the perspectives of six distinguished state
experts on the barriers, best practices, and federal role in increasing degree and certificate completion
among nontraditional students.
We’ll now continue our discussion by hearing from six knowledgeable institutional panelists. I will
introduce them now:
•
Dr. Thomas Flint, Vice President for Regional Accreditation at Kaplan University, a for-profit,
predominantly distance learning institution serving more than 70,000 online and on-campus
students and dedicated to providing innovative undergraduate, graduate, and continuing
professional education.
•
Dr. Cristobal (Chris) Bustamante, President of Rio Salado College, an online community
college established in 1978. It is the largest of the ten community colleges in the Maricopa
County Community College District in Arizona, serving approximately 70,000 students annually.
•
Mr. Scott Jenkins, Director of External Relations at Western Governors University. Established
in 1997, it is a private, nonprofit, online university serving 26,000 students across all 50 states.
•
Mr. Javier Miyares, Senior Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness at the University of
Maryland University College, which was founded in 1947. It is the largest four-year public
university in Maryland and one of the largest distance learning universities, serving over 90,000
students worldwide.
•
Mr. Thomas Dalton, Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management at Excelsior College.
Established in 1971, Excelsior is a private, nonprofit, regionally accredited distance learning
institution, serving more than 30,000 students.
•
Dr. Robert Lapiner, currently Associate Vice Chancellor for Global Continuing Education at
New York University, has previously served as the Dean of the School of Continuing and
Professional Studies, a unit of New York University aimed at working professionals, serving
more than 55,000 students annually.
(Institutional panelist bios begin on page 103)
So you can see from those very brief introductions that we have an incredible group of experts here, and
we are looking forward to hearing what you have to say. So, welcome, and we really appreciate you
taking the time to be with us this afternoon Once again, these experts have been asked to provide
testimony on three questions, which I will read to you now:
•
What are the primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional students?
•
What are the most promising state and institutional strategies and policies for overcoming those
barriers?
•
What role should the federal government play in encouraging states and institutions to implement
best practices?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Dr. Flint?
Page Page 204 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Thomas Flint: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, and thank you
for inviting me to share some ideas with the Committee.
I’m going to jump right at that very first question that was outlined: what
are the primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional
students? About 30 years ago, Professor Pat Cross characterized barriers
for adults in three primary categories, and it’s still a very useful typology
today: dispositions, situations, and institutions. In other words, the
barriers can be thought of as being psychological, pragmatic, or
bureaucratic. Now the psychological barriers won’t take much of our
time today because the role of policymaking should not be to tell
students what they think about themselves.
The pragmatic barriers for adult learners have long been understood to
show up in two primary arenas: in time and money. Time is a barrier, of
course, because nontraditional students have so much less of it compared
to the traditional 18-to-21-year-old student going to college. Most of the
identified risk factors of nontraditional students perfectly fit the
description of an adult learner today; that is, they’re working full-time,
they’re attending school part-time, they have dependents or they’re
single parents, and they may have delayed college attendance and
enrollment. In short, adult learners have real world commitments that
they simply cannot avoid. Now colleges and universities can’t create
more hours in the day for the adult learner, but they can find ways to
avoid wasting their time by being less bureaucratic. I want to share a
couple of ideas related to that.
Understand Barriers
As Psychological, Pragmatic,
and Bureaucratic
Account for the Real
World Commitments That
Adult Learners Cannot Avoid
I wanted to also mention that the lack of money, of course, is a very
pragmatic barrier that faces all kinds of students and that includes adult
learners—it’s taken some time and attention of this Committee, in fact,
over the years. The Committee’s June 2010 report concluded that “grant
aid from all sources is not adequate to ensure the enrollment and
persistence of qualified low- and moderate-income high school
graduates.” So the shortages of time and money intersect, actually, with
the question of the institutional or the bureaucratic barriers that may face
adult students. And, in fact, that’s the second question for today: what
are the most promising institutional strategies and policies for
overcoming the barriers of access and persistence by adults?
So the good news is, there often are underutilized strategies and policies
at institutions that, in fact, can create access and promote persistence
because they save adults time and money. Foremost among them is a
topic we’ve heard a little bit about from the last session, the assessment
of prior learning. Prior learning assessment or PLA, is vital to adult
learners returning to college. Broadly, it covers not only the experiencebased learning that adults obtain from a life of work, but also transfer
credits from courses taken elsewhere that adults wish to apply toward
degrees.
Employ Underutilized
Strategies and Policies That
Promote Access and Persistence
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Account for the
Impact on Savings and
Completion of PLA
Meet the Pent-Up
Demand for Convenient,
Accredited Degree Programs
Modify Hours, Seasons,
and Entry and Exit Points to
Better Serve Adult Learners
Page Page 205 of 392
The fundamental principle behind prior learning assessment is that what
you know is more important than where or how you learned it. CAEL, as
you heard in the last session, is an international clearinghouse of
sponsored research on PLA, so I want to add a little bit of additional
comment to my former CAEL colleague, Amy Sherman, who shared
with you a little bit of that detail. Students who earn bachelor’s degrees
with PLA credits save an average of between two and a half to ten
months of study, compared to non-PLA students. I believe Amy quoted
the average as six months of study.
PLA students are much more likely than non-PLA students to earn a
degree both at the bachelor’s and at the associate’s degree levels. And
that is regardless of the type of institution, the student’s academic ability,
the student’s background characteristics, or whether or not they received
Title IV funds. Even in the case of the students who are not earning
degrees, the PLA students were more persistent in terms of credit hour
accumulation than non-PLA students, and they had higher reenrollment
for multiple years of study. They kept coming back, whereas the nonPLA students tended to drop out in the first year of study. Finally, and a
significant fact, is that the PLA students that were in this institutional
study that Amy mentioned had higher grade point averages (GPAs) than
the general college student populations.
CAEL itself has actually advocated for more than just prior learning
assessment as an activity at colleges. In my prior work as CAEL’s Vice
President for Lifelong Learning, Policy and Research, I was the principal
investigator for a study that looked at the policies and practices of highperforming, adult-serving colleges and universities. This work was called
the Adult Learning Focused Institution, or ALFI, project. They identified
many additional practices that address the pragmatic barrier of time, as
well as in some cases, money, as it affects adult learners. And among
those practices are: online learning, which we’ve heard a little bit about
earlier today. My own institution, Kaplan University, has grown from an
initial class of 34 students in three online programs back in 2001 to
70,000 students ten years later. So this growth is just one example of the
pent-up demand for convenient, accredited degree programs, and we
heard some other statistics earlier about nationwide, how many more
students in higher education are studying online.
Another approach adopted by institutions is to have nontraditional
operating hours and seasons. This helps adults because so many of them
simply cannot attend daytime classes at a campus using the traditional
fall and spring schedule. Many flexible colleges offer classes year-round
and even on the third shift. Some have gone so far as to modify their
class schedules in the middle of the term if they’re serving a cohort of
students whose work schedules have shifted.
Another feature is having multiple entry and exit points for the adult
learners because that puts the control of their time more directly in their
own hands. For example, Kellogg Community College in Michigan
successfully implemented this kind of approach in certain technology
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
fields. They created very easy entry and exit from learning modules in
which students were mastering tasks using a competency-based
framework. Those students were able to earn fractional credit hours that
were, nonetheless, applicable to credential programs there at the college.
Modularized curriculum is another approach. This is sometimes referred
to as the block scheduling of courses on a compressed or an accelerated
schedule, with more frequent turn-around times in effect between terms.
There’s been research that’s been done at the Center for the Study of
Accelerated Learning at Regis University, which has demonstrated the
effectiveness of the accelerated learning format.
Page Page 206 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Take Fuller Advantage of
Accelerated Learning Formats
and Student Cohorts
Finally, I also want to mention having cohort-based student tracking
groups. In other words, permitting groups of students to go through a
program together, not just for one course but, essentially, for all of their
courses. In effect, this creates a little community and social network that
not only supports learning, but also provides some on-going motivation.
So when these things are bundled together in an integrated fashion by
colleges, these institutional practices can help overcome barriers of time
and place and tradition that, too often, stand in the way of adult learners
looking to complete programs.
From the perspective of an adult learner, not only time and money, but
very often, frankly, one’s ego can be put at some risk in enrolling in
college because there’s always the risk of failure. A key strategy now at
Kaplan University to lower those risks is a new program begun this year
called the Kaplan Commitment. The Kaplan Commitment offers
students the opportunity to do five weeks of their regular academic work
in their initial term of study to find out if they are practically and
academically ready to undertake what they’re doing. If they’re not, they
can exit Kaplan without any financial obligation other than their initial
enrollment fee.
The initiative is designed to make sure that our students are comfortable
with their chosen course of study, that they’re able to adapt to the
routines, that they’re mindful and understand the obligations that they’re
undertaking, and to show us that they can handle the college-level work.
We believe the program’s going to boost student retention, persistence,
and completion because both Kaplan and the student have to agree that,
after five weeks of experience with each other, we’re a good fit. As you
know, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is no fan of for-profit higher education,
but at a recent Senate hearing, he praised Kaplan University for taking
this unique and significant step in implementing the Kaplan
Commitment.
I think this brings us to our third question of the day, and that is, what
role should the federal government play in encouraging states and
institutions to implement best practices? It should be apparent neither the
federal nor the state governments can effectively compel institutions to
adopt approaches that I’ve mentioned so far. I think they require genuine
Provide Cost-Free
Mechanisms to Minimize
the Risk of Failure
Commit Fully to
Student Success: Persistence
and Completion
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Identify Ways to
Encourage Institutions to
Implement Effective Practices
Stress What One Knows Is
More Important Than Where
or How One Learned It
Cover the Cost of
Assessing Students’ Knowledge,
Skills, and Abilities
Page Page 207 of 392
commitment on the part of colleges to find and remove every obstacle
that’s irrelevant, that would otherwise be a barrier to their students trying
to complete programs.
In terms of actual policy leverage, federal funding through Title IV and
federal regulation clearly exert enormous influence on institutions. And I
think there’s some room here for the federal government to help
encourage institutions to implement effective practices. One positive
example is the June 7, 2011, Dear Colleague Letter issued by the
Department of Education providing guidance to institutions for trial or
conditional enrollment periods similar to the Kaplan Commitment. This
makes a positive roadmap for regulatory effectiveness and regulatory
clarity that helps actually facilitate these practices at an institution.
Similarly, more can be done by federal regulations to reinforce the
principle, which was mentioned earlier, that what you know ought to be
more important than where or how you learned it. One case in point is
the credit hour regulation, the new one that became effective July 1,
2011, and was part of the program integrity regulation package. As many
of you know, that regulation starts with these 20 words: “A credit hour is
an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and
verified by evidence of student achievement.” So, in short, thinking
about those words, the credit hour is a proxy for student learning. It
refers to work leading to student learning outcomes. However, rather
than focusing next on what methods can be used to certify that the
student learning has actually been achieved, the regulation instead
proceeds at length to describe the recognized means of acquiring learning
at the institution.
In other words, the attention here, then, is heaped upon instructional
delivery, instead of the ways of assessing and recognizing learning that’s
been achieved. As a result, I think, for example, prior learning
assessment is being diminished. Institutions are funded, via the credit
hour, for delivering courses. And course credits are the driver of tuition
and fee pricing. So, the pre-college, experience-based learning of adults
is not sponsored by the institution, so PLA credits are not funded under
Title IV. Students who, for example, put portfolios of their learning
together, that documentary evidence referred to in the last session, they
have to pay out-of-pocket fees to have the colleges use their faculty to
assess and value that learning as being at the college level. Those fees,
by the way, might run from several hundred to thousands of dollars.
Our institutions are not paid to accept courses transferred from other
institutions. Institutions are not paid under Title IV to assess entering
students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities, nor are they actually paid to
assess those traits of their current students, except where the faculty has
delivered a course of instruction to that student. Then they will assess
that ability.
So, looking at the situation, part of what is paid for by Title IV funds via
the credit hour in traditional course delivery would be that part of time
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
faculty members spend looking at the learning outcomes and looking at
tests, papers, and projects in the courses they delivered and making a
judgment that student work has been performed and is verified by
evidence. Although the regulation only implicitly provides for it, I think
the precedent in Title IV is established that college faculty should be paid
for the time they spend assessing student learning, as surely as they are
paid for their time spent instructing students.
To me, this represents an underappreciated opportunity. Let’s financially
support the time faculty members spend assessing student learning apart
from course delivery. After all, instructional designers will tell us that the
only proper way to design a learning experience or a course is to begin
with a needs assessment. Such an initial assessment ought to measure
how much the participants already know about what the course is
intended to teach.
My view of why so many practices like PLA are often found at the
margin within higher education is because the government, through its
policy, lacks provisions to fund or incentivize those practices. Then there
comes a hidden message about the lack of support; namely, those
practices are not valued. And because they’re not valued, they’re often
viewed as lacking legitimacy, which, in fact, the research would
otherwise show they’re entitled to have. If we can find ways to fund
practices such as the assessment of prior learning, I would predict that
colleges would find ways to get over internal or bureaucratic barriers to
adopt better credit-recognition practices like PLA, or, even for that
matter, transfer credit, that are shown to be beneficial for student
persistence. If we can fund better credit recognition practices, we can
quit wasting time and money in the delivery of course content and
learning that students have already acquired. If we do that, we’ll be
promoting access and student retention and success.
Page Page 208 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Pay College Faculty
for Time Spent on Assessing
Student Learning
Find Ways to Fund
Practices That Are Beneficial
to Student Persistence
Thank you for this opportunity to share those ideas.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you, Dr. Flint. Dr. Bustamante?
Chris Bustamante: Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you as
well this afternoon.
As was stated, Rio Salado College is the largest college in the ten-college
system of the Maricopa Community College District. We have 42,000
online learners that we educate as part of 70,000 students total. We’ve
really worked hard to change the paradigms of scale and delivery of
higher education by offering lots of multiple starts—we’ve got 48 start
dates a year—and we’ve got guarantees, such as never canceling an
online course, so that nontraditional students really have some
exceptional options to pursue their higher education. One of the other
things I want to open by saying, too, is that our institutions really need to
continue to increase our efforts to focus on the student’s needs, rather
than the institution’s needs, through these implementation strategies that
work for nontraditional students.
Change Paradigms
of Scale and Delivery in
Higher Education
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Serve Adult
Learners Who Are
Juggling Multiple Roles
Keep College
Costs Affordable in
Multiple Innovative Ways
Address the Time- and
Place-Bound Barriers That
Nontraditional Students Face
Page Page 209 of 392
We’re all aware of the many barriers that have been stated. You’ve
probably been listening to many of those barriers all day in terms of what
those are. But in terms of my college specifically, 60 percent of our
students are women who are juggling multiple roles as mothers, workers,
and students. They tell us at graduation that, without us, without those
flexible schedules, flexible starts, accessible pathways, accelerated
course formats, they couldn’t have pursued higher education and been
successful.
Nontraditional learners need affordable and convenient access to courses
and programs and support services, such as in-person and hybrid
programs offered at locations throughout their communities, entirely
online programs with 24/7 academic services such as tutoring and library
services, and convenient online easy-to-access services as well. It’s not
enough to put a course up online without supporting it with robust
student services—students won’t be as successful.
Keeping tuition, fees, and textbook costs affordable are very important to
reduce barriers to nontraditional students, such as: locking in tuition rates
for the duration of a degree or certificate program; customizing
textbooks, e-books, or utilizing course-embedded materials; offering
incentive-based scholarships for successful progression through a degree
or certificate program; flexible, quality, easy-to-access general course
offerings that are transferrable to private and public colleges and
universities, especially for those community college transfer students;
and, of course, those accelerated course formats I talked about before.
But also the personalized services needed for retention and intervention
purposes, such as flexible online time-to-completion planning tools;
orientations that are tailored to the learner and their needs; and
engagement opportunities between faculty and students all help to
eliminate many barriers that students face. Interventions, such as
coaching and advisement, prompted by predictive modeling, and
opportunities for prior learning assessment and portfolio evaluation are
also important.
Some of the promising institutional strategies that we’ve begun
employing are the 48 start dates I told you about before. Never canceling
an online class, that helps students tremendously. Accelerating our 14
course-week to 8 course-week formats by a click of a button, which
repopulates assignments and exams, is a result of having our own
learning management system (LMS) that we’ve customized, in-house.
The vast majority of Rio’s programs are delivered entirely online in an
asynchronous format in order to address the time- and place-bound
barriers that nontraditional students face. And the support services are
offered in a flexible and convenient manner, and in a number of delivery
modes, such as email, chat, phone, and in-person. The library, tutoring,
technology, and support and instructional support services provide
learners with 24/7 access.
In order to personalize engagement and retention interventions, the
college has developed a predictive analytic model for many of its online
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
courses. This model predicts, by the eighth day of class, with 70 percent
accuracy, the student’s likelihood of successfully completing an online
course with a C or better. This allows faculty to intervene appropriately
to increase student success. And the college’s leverage of CRM or
customer relationship management solution technology provides mass
personalized student communication, to engage learners, and prompt
them to persistence. Rio is also in the process of establishing a number of
in-person bridge programs at locations throughout our community
targeting underserved student populations. In this model, the college is
providing adult learners with adult basic education and GED
programming, developmental education courses, and short-term training
opportunities to provide pathways into a higher wage job or into
certificate or degree programs.
What we’ve learned from all of this is that these nontraditional students
require high-touch services, especially in the early stages of their higher
education pursuits. What we’re looking at in the future is to be able to
predict, in an orientation format with students, before they get started
with our programs, pre-enrollment characteristics in a predictive
model—for example, looking at their chances of succeeding in our
college generally, rather than just in a course. We’d look at academic
history, enrollment behavior, and pre-enrollment characteristics. The
results would assist the college in predicting the likelihood of completion
and developing and launching intervention strategies for at-risk students
similar to what we’ve done in our course model.
Many nontraditional students come to the college with a much greater
knowledge base than traditional-age learners. You’ve heard about the
awarding of prior learning credit, as well as the portfolios for prior
learning. In terms of accepting those, we endorse that as well. Although
we don’t do that very expansively, we would like to do more of that in
the future. We would like to establish a course delivery model that
assesses a student’s knowledge and develops an individualized plan to
assess their learning gaps. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation talks a
lot about this, especially related to developmental education students.
This eliminates the need for students to spend time and resources
covering topics that they’ve already mastered.
Additionally, the college is working to support student success by
providing a modularized and personalized orientation for students.
Student success coaches and mentors are really important to engage
nontraditional students, to help them succeed and access a degree
completion planning tool created by the college. So we’re leveraging
technology and social media to build a virtual community that facilitates
engagement opportunities between learners, instructors, and staff in an
online environment that benefits them.
Some of the state strategies include adopting performance-based funding
plans for higher education institutions, which many of the states are
doing. We think it’s important that these plans take into consideration the
nontraditional student enrollment and completion patterns, which tend to
Page Page 210 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Establish In-Person
Bridge Programs That Target
Underserved Populations
Predict the Student’s
Likelihood of
College Completion
Leverage Technology and
Social Media to Build a Virtual
Community of Engagement
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Adopt Data Systems to
Track Students through Their
Paths at Multiple Institutions
Increase Knowledge about
How Nontraditional Students
Are Completing Their Goals
Develop a More
Comprehensive Federal
Strategy to Meet 2020 Goals
Page Page 211 of 392
be longer because of the enrollment status and stop-outs for these
students attending school part-time. We wouldn’t want institutions to be
penalized for those factors in their funding process. More states should
also adopt data systems to track students through their postsecondary
paths at multiple institutions. This would enable us to learn more about
student time-to-completion, enrollment patterns. And it would also give
institutions credit for their role in a student’s completion. One of the
things students do with us is to bank credit up to 12 or 15 hours—that’s
because we have such strong transfer and articulation agreements with
our public and private universities, and they can get the accessibility and
flexibility they need from us by banking and transferring those credits.
So we think we deserve credit for student completions in those situations.
In terms of the role the federal government could play in encouraging
states and institutions to implement best practices: colleges serving
nontraditional student populations struggle with how to best capture and
understand their seemingly erratic enrollment behavior. And this relates
to the tracking of students: It would be helpful to colleges and
universities if the IPEDS database provided institutions with more
accurate systems to report and track the enrollment patterns of
nontraditional learners. For example, the inclusion of a category for
institutions serving nontraditional students, which would consider data
points such as part-time enrollment status, stop-out behavior, and
enrollment patterns that would contribute to increasing knowledge about
how nontraditional students are completing their educational goals.
Many of the regulations governing Title IV student aid programs are
based upon more traditional delivery models and students. While the
policy has been improved upon in recent years, it is still a challenge for
many colleges and universities to meet the demand for flexibility
presented by nontraditional learners.
The Obama Administration has set an ambitious goal to increase the
number of college graduates in the U.S. by 2020, and we are very
supportive of that. But it would be helpful if the federal government
would develop a more comprehensive federal strategy to achieve this
important goal without creating additional burdens on higher education
institutions. This could include a grant program to encourage best
practices or dissemination of best practices on how to address barriers to
completion that, especially, nontraditional students face.
In closing, the educational opportunities provided to nontraditional
students must be re-engineered to address the multiple obstacles that they
encounter. We must design or redesign educational programs and
services around the needs of nontraditional students, which have become
the majority served by most higher education institutions in this country.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be able to contribute to this
important national dialogue.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Dr. Bustamante. Mr. Jenkins?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Scott Jenkins: Thank you very much. I’m going to take the admonition
from staff not to slow down the discussion. So I’m going to try and stick
to seven to ten minutes, so we can have a conversation with you all.
I’m Scott Jenkins, and I’m with Western Governors University. I’m five
months outside a governor’s office, so I will come at this from both a
state perspective and then from a promising practices at the institutional
level perspective.
We’ve gone extensively through the process of the barriers to access and
persistence, so I want to break into the institutional and state processes
that show promise. To start with, I want to describe Western Governors
University and why we’re a bit different than a lot of postsecondary
institutions. We were formed in 1997 by 19 governors who tend not to be
very patient people. They were worried about the increasing cost of
postsecondary education and the fact that postsecondary education was
not really serving adult nontraditional learners very well. Ten to fifteen
years later, it’s about the same thing. The focus was to create an
institution that would use technology to deliver instruction and, because
of that, it was created to make it affordable, accessible, and scalable
across the country. So we are nationally and regionally accredited.
We have, as was indicated, 26,000 students, and we’ve had 11,000
graduates to date. Of those, 4,000 graduated this year alone, so that
shows you our growth, and the inflection point that this institution
creates, and the needs that it is serving at this point. We have students in
all states. The average student in our university is 36 years old, 70
percent are working full-time, 70 percent come from what would
typically be described as an underserved student population. We award
master’s and bachelor’s degrees only; we do not focus on associate
degrees or certificates. We only award degrees in four areas of high
workforce demand: information technology; healthcare, including
nursing; teacher preparation, which is our largest college; and business.
The teachers college at our institution has over 10,000 students and is the
largest single producer of science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM) discipline teachers in the country.
What we’ve learned about adult learners, which has been said earlier
today and on this panel, is they come to postsecondary education
knowing different things and learning at different rates. In fact, what we
know is that they actually learn different subjects at different rates. We
built a higher education system in this country that ignores that, one that
says you have to start in September, and you have to take 14 weeks of
classes in order to get credit for that degree. At a lot of the institutions
before you and Western Governors University, we take that into account.
We only require students to take and pass those courses in which they
don’t show competency.
A lot has been said about prior learning assessment and competencybased education. Here’s the way that I finally wrapped my head around
Page Page 212 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Use Technology to Deliver
Instruction That Is Affordable,
Accessible, and Scalable
Award Adult Learners
Degrees in Areas of High
Workforce Demand
Accommodate
Different Rates of Learning
by Student and Subject
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Establish Academic
Competencies and Find the
Best Learning Resources
Use Student Mentors to
Ensure That Learners Are on a
Trajectory toward Graduation
Use Course Mentors
in Assessing Competencies
of Adult Learners
Page Page 213 of 392
competency-based education, especially at Western Governors: the way
we build degree programs is totally different than the way a four-year
institution does it. Our courses of study are compiled by talking to
business, industry, and academic leaders and asking what does a
successful baccalaureate degreed graduate need to know and be able to
do? Then we walk that backwards through a course of study based on
competencies. So students take and pass those competencies in a selfdirected way. We don’t actually build any of our own content; we
establish the academic competencies and then faculty go out and find the
best learning resources that teach that particular competency.
Now I’ll spend a little bit of time on our faculty, because we do faculty
differently at WGU also. Every single student who enrolls at WGU
receives what’s known as a student mentor, someone who, every single
week, has contact with that student and works out their course of study,
the competencies they already have, where they are in their trajectory
toward graduation, and then serves as everything from a guidance
counselor to a learning facilitator to a nag throughout their degree
program. If you come to a WGU graduation, you’ll see this relationship
that forms on an individual, one-to-one basis that, in a traditional
university, would be hard to achieve with an individual faculty member.
Our student mentors are all full-time faculty and all have at least a
master’s degree in the discipline in which they’re teaching.
The second group of faculty at our institution are called course mentors.
Course mentors are those folks who build the courses, work with our
advisory councils, and find the learning resources. They also determine
what the assessment will look like in which the student has to prove their
knowledge—and that can be a performance, objective, portfolio, or some
sort of demonstration assessment. They work with the students as they
are triaged into them. Say you’re an MBA student and you’re having
trouble with accounting. You might work with an individual course
mentor to work through that particular issue. We triage the learning
needs of our students to that level. Course mentor faculty are all fulltime, holding at least a PhD in their discipline.
The only adjunct faculty, the third group of faculty, are those who
actually assess the students. These faculty members grade the assessment
the student takes and make sure that it passes at a B level or higher. So
with that assessment, we don’t use grades: you either pass the
competency, or you go back through. Say a competency has four or five
different outcomes that a student must prove. If a student passes three of
those, we direct them to the resources they need, and they retake the
assessment.
Because of how we’ve structured the course of study, students accelerate
at their own pace. They can move as quickly as possible. Because of that,
our students tend to graduate in 30 months, on average, as opposed to 60
months at a traditional institution.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
We were formed by governors, and the idea was to create an affordable
institution, so we are self-sustaining on tuition alone. We operate six
month terms, students attend year-round and full-time. Every student is
full-time; we do not have part-time students. At the beginning of every
single month, six month terms start, so if you signed up today, you’d
start at the beginning of October. It is $3,000 each term, so it’s an allyou-can-learn buffet, and you move through it as rapidly as you can be
assessed.
Finally, WGU students are eligible for Title IV aid, VA benefits, and
Department of Defense tuition benefits and assistance. Among our
students, ten percent are veterans, active duty military, or spouses of
military.
Because we have that student mentor and that one-to-one relationship, on
the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), our students do
very well. They do as well or better as students at an independent fouryear institution, which we typically compare to. We also do life
counseling for our students through our WGU WellConnect Student
Services, and we made a substantial investment in e-textbooks this year,
so our students wouldn’t bear that higher cost. Finally, we have
articulation agreements with community colleges because we believe the
associate degree is a competency-based degree. If you earn that
credential, we will accept it and move you into the upper division. We
have over 200 articulation agreements with community colleges, and we
have statewide agreements in Florida, Indiana, Washington State, and
we’re signing one in Texas.
Page Page 214 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Allow Adult
Learners to Progress
at Their Own Pace
Use Articulation Agreements
with Community Colleges and
Accept Associate’s Degrees
What can the federal government do to help an institution like WGU?
One thing I would suggest is to find a way to reward institutions or
identify institutions that maintain low tuition. My first job out of college
was with the Florida Student Association, and we used to say, low tuition
is the best financial aid. Look at institutions that keep their costs down—
that will help students in the long run.
On new regulations and new policy, pay attention to how that will roll
out. On the state authorization regulation that recently rolled forth, that
regulation will probably cost our institution $750,000 this year alone. In
subsequent years, it will probably cost us $400,000 to make those
checks. Even though that regulation may back off or stop, states have
already caught wind of that and see it as a way to support a state agency.
Among other things I would suggest is to look at a new demonstration
project that focuses on innovative models like competency-based
education. Look at ways to support institutions, such as the one before
you, that identify students using a retrieval strategy, in which you find
students with partial degrees, identify, market to them, and bring them
back to the institution. Competency-based and similar programs work
better for that in some cases than traditional four-year institutions
because in a traditional institution, courses that a student generates have
expiration dates. Support acceleration, remove the notion of seat time,
Design and Implement
Demonstration Projects for
Innovative Models of Delivery
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Determine the Right
Ratio of Tuition Charges to
Total Cost of Attendance
Page Page 215 of 392
and redefine the concept of faculty. Issues related to IPEDS and data
collection have already been discussed.
The final advice I would give is to look at decentralizing aid programs.
Look at how some states have spread need-based aid dollars to
institutions based on the percentage of students who need aid. They then
allow those institutions to make some professional judgment decisions
about how to blend and match Pell and or state need-based aid with loan
aid, and with a particular student population. So provide that flexibility
to institutions. And look to the ratio of tuition to the total cost of
education for the student, and determine the right ratio.
And with that, I’ll pass it on to my next colleague.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Miyares?
Javier Miyares: Thank you for the opportunity to address you, but, most
importantly, thank you for putting the spotlight on the needs of working
adults.
Just a word about UMUC: we were founded in 1947. Ever since, our sole
mission has been to educate working adults. We have never enrolled
traditional-age students; that has never been our market. As you may
know, we have been serving the military since 1947 as well, and in 1994
we began online education. Today, we are primarily an online institution.
Serve Adult Learners
Who Have Already Attended
One or More Colleges
Take into Account
the Different Types of
Nontraditional Students
As was said before, one of the disadvantages of being at the tail end of
the presentations is that there will be some repetition, but I think it is
important for you to see the common threads among us all. It will be
very important, too, to get an actual picture of who our students are: 53
percent of our students are minority, 55 percent are women, 85 percent
are enrolled part-time. The median age is 32, 71 percent are working fulltime, 67 percent are married, 63 percent have children, 12 percent are
working single parents, 40 percent are first-generation college, 16
percent are foreign-born, 11 percent are not native English speakers. The
median salary is $52,000; remember, we are located in the Washington
area, which is where we have most of our enrollments. The median
household income is $67,000. The average load is a little more than two
courses, or 6.8 grade hours. Among our undergraduates, 92 percent are
enrolled in at least one online course, and 60 percent have transferred
more than 45 credit hours. And 24 percent have attended three or more
institutions prior to coming to us. So we take students who have been
either floating around; students who haven’t been served adequately by
other institutions; or, what I will mention at the end under best practices,
students that come from community colleges with which we have a
strong partnership, Rio Salado being one of those.
Various strategies for student success and access and persistence—these
are related to who they are. I will group them into three buckets: they
have busy lives, they need to get from A to B as soon as possible, and
life happens to them. The first bucket refers to their busy lives. We need
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
to be ready when they are. Dr. Bustamante mentioned the multiple
starts—that’s critical. The traditional mindset has been, if on October 1,
you decide you can now go to college, too bad, you have to wait until
mid-January. We need to be ready when they are. So multiple starts are
critical. Obviously, online education provides the flexibility for their
busy lives. As has been mentioned before, services have to be 24/7,
online, and over the telephone. These are also very smart consumers.
They are used to being treated like customers, and they expect to be
treated like customers by us.
The second bucket is getting from point A to B as soon as possible to get
the degree. That means accepting all their transfer credits, evaluating
promptly those credits they are transferring, and mapping the shortest
road from where they are to a degree. We must also provide credit for
prior learning, experiential learning, and other tests.
The third bucket: life happens. Life happens to everybody, but to
working adults, life happens more often. We have found that shorter
class lengths actually lead to better success. I know it sounds silly, but
shorter terms mean that there is, first, less time for life to happen, and,
second, if life happens, you know you only have two weeks until you
finish. We find that it’s important for working adults to keep
momentum—we focus on re-enrollment. Graduation will come
eventually, but we have found that stopping out decreases the likelihood
of eventual graduation. So, yes, they do stop-out and they come back, but
we try to keep their momentum going so that they come back for the next
term.
Page Page 216 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Provide Flexibility
to Address the Busy Lives
of Working Adults
Use Shorter Class
Terms to Maintain
Student Momentum
When life happens, the least we can do is not add to their problems. I
remember when we had focus groups about five years ago, one student
said it best, “you know, I have enough troubles in my life—when I come
to school, I don’t need more troubles.” I think that’s what they are
expecting: give me an education and don’t make me call three different
offices and be referred to four other offices to solve the problems I have.
Barriers that could be addressed: if we are to offer multiple starts, your
standard term regulations surely reduce that flexibility. In our case, we
need to stop offering starts at the end of October because there is a hard
stop for the term in late December. We also have now the Return of Title
IV (R2T4) regulations, which penalize working students. Under that
regulation, institutions need to calculate how much aid must be returned
to the Department of Education if a student changes his/her
enrollment. However, for institutions that have modules with multiple
starts throughout the semester, at the time a student withdraws from a
course, he/she must inform an institution in writing of whether or not
they intend to reenroll that semester. This can be challenging for the
student to determine at the exact time of withdrawal if this is due to a
“life issue.”
There are also new regulations on Satisfactory Academic Progress
(SAP), which remove the flexibility an institution has in determining
Address the Barriers
From Regulations That
Affect Adult Students
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Create a New Grant
Program for Middle-Income
Working Students
Page Page 217 of 392
whether or not students will still be eligible for federal financial aid
while they are working to improve their grades. Before, an institution
could put a student on probation for up to a year. Now, institutions must
determine if a student can regain SAP in one semester based upon a
calculation of the student's potential grade point average. If the answer is
no, then the student will not be eligible for aid that next semester or
longer, depending upon when he/she meets SAP. That adds a barrier to
our students.
Suggestions for further initiatives: first and foremost is a recognition that
the national goal for degree completion cannot be achieved if we don’t
address the problems of working adults who want to finish a degree.
There may be a need for a new grant program for middle-income
working students. There are grants that have historically been effective at
serving low-income students. But by and large, our students do not
qualify for those grants because their income is higher—they work. That
means that, to go to school, they need to load up on loans.
Another idea may be to have incentives for employers to provide tuition
assistance to their employees. Many of our students, particularly at the
graduate level, receive tuition assistance from their employers. That has
declined because of the recession. And at the undergraduate level, tuition
assistance from employers is much less likely to be the case.
Provide Incentives for
Employers to Provide Tuition
Assistance to Employees
As has been mentioned before, the federal data collection systems are
geared to traditional students, and they provide a false picture of
nontraditional institutions such as UMUC.
Best practices—I’m just reflecting from our experience. We just
completed a restructuring and redesigning of our undergraduate
curriculum. As has been mentioned before, we started with, what will be
expected of a graduate of this program in the workplace? From there, we
went to each course in that program. We also made the courses shorter in
length.
Use Analytics to
Identify Patterns that
Lead to Student Success
We believe that analytics will become even more important; Dr.
Bustamante referred to other uses of predictive models. One of the great
benefits of online education is that all interactions are recorded, so all
interactions can be mined. We have received a grant from the Kresge
Foundation, and we are working with our two largest community
colleges—Prince George’s Community College (PGCC) and
Montgomery College (MC)—to find the patterns that lead to success
among students in community college before they come to us.
Finally, we believe that close partnerships with community colleges are
critical. We believe that an institution like ours may not necessarily be
the best choice for serving students who have just started higher
education. They are better served at the beginning by a community
college and then transferring to us. We also find that our best students,
actually, are the students who come to us after they have completed 45 to
60 credit hours in a community college.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
I tried to be fast. Thank you so much for the opportunity.
Helen Benjamin: You were fast. Thank you very much. Mr. Dalton?
Page Page 218 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Thomas Dalton: Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to
be here today.
My institution’s current enrollment is about 31,000 nontraditional, posttraditional students, with an average age of 39 years old. Excelsior was
established by the New York State Board of Regents. It was originally
known as Regents College in 1971. We privatized in 1998, and it became
Excelsior College. The college’s mission is to assist those not wellserved by traditional higher education. It is a leader in prior learning
assessment and degree completion. I guess you’ve heard a lot about that
this afternoon. But it is the focus of my comments this afternoon, as well
as my President’s (John Ebersole) written testimony.
Align the College’s
Mission to Serving
Nontraditional Students
What are the primary barriers to access and persistence? When posttraditional students are surveyed as to the factors that prevent their
enrollment in graduate or undergraduate degree completion programs,
the consistent response is lack of time, followed by a lack of awareness
of suitable options and costs. Usually, they’re in that order.
Despite the good intentions of many traditional institutions, one of the
biggest barriers is a lack of alternatives to the time- and place-specific
formats of those offerings aimed at post-traditional students. Evening and
weekend models have been advanced over the weekday format, but are
not possible for many busy working students, especially those who are in
emergency care and shift workers. Their preferred method of delivery is
online education.
I want to discuss cost a little bit and how it relates to Title IV aid. Cost is
a major concern for many returning students, particularly those who have
lost a job or have a family member who is unemployed. My background
is student financial aid, and I can tell you right now, my institution has
done more professional judgment this past year than I had in the 30 years
combined before that, just because of economic times. Additionally,
Excelsior has two large student groups: active duty military and licensed
practical nurses or LPNs, with unique challenges regarding costs.
Military tuition assistance has been capped at $250 per credit for several
years and is now being reduced by the Navy to $200. Tuition above these
levels, fees, and books are the responsibility of the student. This presents
a potential hardship for both those in the lower military pay grade, and,
also the LPNs that we serve.
Excelsior’s associate degree in nursing is the college’s largest program
with approximately 14,000 students. Yet, these students cannot qualify
for Title IV aid because the Department of Education’s ruling is that its
independent study format does not meet the criteria for the entitlement,
despite its 35-year history and 40,000 graduates, as well as multiple
designations as Center of Excellence in Nursing from the National
Deliver Online Education
as a Viable Alternative to
Traditional Institutions
Identify the
Limitations of Title IV Aid
for Unique Student Groups
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Understand the
Negative Impact of Refusing
Credit for Prior Learning
Create Institutions
Specifically Geared toward
Post-Traditional Learners
Learn From Successful
Examples of Prior
Learning Assessment
Page Page 219 of 392
League for Nursing and a top school for men in nursing. Given the
students’ average income of less than $35,000, this is a particularly
needy group and one with withdrawals at the highest rate. So you can see
why putting Title IV resources into this type of learning would be a very
positive thing. Most of these students are already LPNs who are trying to
earn the registered nurse (RN) credential.
The unwillingness of traditional institutions to accept previously
completed academic work or American Council on Education
recommended credit is frequently a source of frustration and barriers to
both entry and completion. CAEL has conducted research showing that
those given credit for prior learning are significantly more likely to
persist and graduate than those who do not receive such credit—a point
that was made earlier today. This is particularly problematic with
military members and their families, who move around and earn
substantial credits from a multitude of institutions. They are often asked
to start over or repeat previously earned credits because of institutional
residency requirements.
Question two: what is the most promising state and institutional strategy
for overcoming some barriers? The oldest and most proven state
strategies are those of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. These
three states have created institutions specifically to assist post-traditional
learners to complete an undergraduate degree, regardless of state
residency. The institutions Excelsior and Empire State in New York,
Charter Oak in Connecticut, and Thomas Edison State in New Jersey
assess prior learning, accept American Council on Education credit
recommendations for military and corporate training, offer online
instruction, and have minimal, if any, residency requirements. They also
have sophisticated credit transfer policies that maximize the acceptance
of prior coursework within approved degree frameworks. I can tell you
that, in 2010, Excelsior accepted credit and transfer that would have cost
students and/or taxpayers $190,000,000 if students had been required to
retake those courses at our rate of $350 per unit credit.
I like to use my nephew as an example. My nephew went to college at a
very traditional age and, for whatever reason, stopped out. Over time, he
earned 160 credit hours with no degree to show for it. At age 28, he
looked to finish his degree and when he went to traditional education, he
was told that they would accept 60 of his credit hours and he’d have to
take 60 more. He was able to enter Excelsior College. His credits were
assessed, and he was able to take one course with Excelsior and graduate
within an eight week timeframe because that course involved an eight
week format. I use this as a personal experience of someone who was
able to be successful earning a credential with the majority of his
previous credits.
Those students thought to be most at risk with low prior GPAs, multiple
transcripts, or who are lacking focus or motivation as seen in their
statement of purpose are flagged for special attention by academic
advisers at Excelsior, and for external coaching. Excelsior works with a
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
private contractor to provide life coaching to at-risk students, which
includes help, time, and money management support systems with
family, employers, and fellow students. It also provides study skill tips.
Students are contacted by phone on a weekly basis.
Student surveys continue to find that the single greatest contributor to
student success at the course level is a caring instructor. Instructors’
responsiveness and comprehensive feedback are highly valued by
students, regardless of the form of instruction—online or classroom. In
the online environment, this includes requirements at Excelsior where
weekly participation involves meaningful posting in class discussions,
offering an assessment, question, or problem-solving, and condition of
assignment. Research by CAEL has found that those students receiving
credit for prior learning tend to complete their degrees at higher rates
than those who do not. Conversely, it also found that institutions
unwilling to accept prior coursework and credit or to allow for credit-byexamination are frequently a source of student frustration and loss of
motivation.
Question three: what role should the federal government play in
encouraging institutions to implement these practices? We should fund
demonstration projects that are equivalent on the basis of both learning
outcomes and graduation rates, which is a common theme heard this
afternoon. Spotlight best practices at all levels of higher education, not
just community colleges. Increase awareness of existing programs and
practices, such as credit-by-examination, that can help post-traditional
students complete an affordable degree. Encourage states to remove
requirements that impede access to regionally accredited online
institutions. Promote more collaboration among all types of higher
education institutions to allow flexibility and allow adult students to
complete degrees sooner. Extend Title IV entitlements to independent
study, credit-by-examination, and prior learning assessment methods that
reduce the overall cost of degree attainment to both taxpayers and the
student financial aid services.
Page Page 220 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Provide Life Coaching
and Caring Instructors To
Facilitate Student Success
Promote Collaboration
among All Types of Higher
Education Institutions
Thank you for this opportunity.
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much, Mr. Dalton. Dr. Lapiner?
Robert Lapiner: Good afternoon—and thank you for staying put for the
last speaker of the day! I’m greatly honored to have been invited to
participate on today’s panel. Because my prepared remarks anticipated
many of the perspectives expressed so admirably by other panelists with
noteworthy expertise, I’m going to take the liberty of being last by
changing the prescribed direction of my presentation; doing so is made
easier by being able to cite and endorse the persuasive insights and
comments made by others.
First, let me add my affirmation about the seminal importance of the
topics that have been considered this afternoon. The preoccupation with
meeting the needs of adult learners is of incalculable importance, not just
Affirm the Insights
and Comments of
Today’s Discussion
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Align Workplace Needs
With Learning Objectives and
Academic Programs
Page Page 221 of 392
to the individuals themselves, to their families, to the businesses and
organizations and communities where they work and reside, but also to
the vitality of our regional and national economies—and, not the least, to
our national competitiveness.
We are living in a period in our country’s history where we have to
assume that there will be no increase in funding from government
sources for the near term. That stark probability makes it all the more
important that the needs of the workplace in the knowledge economy—
which drives our globally interconnected world—are aligned with the
learning objectives and the character and demonstrable quality of the
academic programs that our tax dollars support—directly or indirectly—
and enable our students to be successful.
I’d also like to point out a larger contextual issue and alternative
perspective that I don’t recall hearing today. It has become too easy a
societal commonplace to push college education as an economic capacity
for material well-being without acknowledging how much salaries have
declined for skilled workers. One cannot responsibly talk about the
“economic value” of the earning power in having a degree without
considering the erosion of compensation (and opportunities) for activities
that should not inherently require degree study. Yes, we all note the
widening gap over the last 20-30 years between the incomes of collegeeducated adults and those with no higher education experience. It’s not
so much that the majority of college-educated adults are earning so much
more; it’s that the others are earning so much less.
Acknowledge the
Decline in Salaries for
Skilled Workers
Recognize the
Widening Gaps in Societal
Income Distributions
This week the media reported what appeared to be good news. GM and
Ford are now hiring again. They are doing so having negotiated with the
UAW the right to engage new workers at the rate of $12 to $15 per hour,
even though senior union members who had not lost their jobs and will
be doing the same work as the new hires will be protected to continue to
earn about $25 per hour. This news item provides vivid evidence of the
declining compensation opportunities in our economy. It reminded me
that when I started my life as an academic in the late 1970s, my starting
salary as an assistant professor of the humanities was a respectable
$13,500 per year. Yet earlier that decade, the United Steelworkers had
negotiated $12 an hour for their members who worked in what was then
a flourishing American industry. In other words, skilled steelworkers
were able to earn more than a young Ivy League-educated PhD. That
very important fact constituted uplifting evidence of how broad our
notion of being a member of the middle class used to be.
Thus, when we talk about the potentially greater earnings of degree
holders—and one of our panelists referenced proof of a program concept
by seeing new graduates take “well-paying” jobs of $12 hour—are we
looking adequately at the totality of our educational system as it relates
to the evolution of our economy, and the skills and habits of mind
required for the 21st century knowledge worker (to use Peter Drucker’s
tested phrase)? Is the educational establishment acquiescing or striving to
lessen the widening gaps in the distribution of income?
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Before I attempt to relate these questions to the adult learner and federal
policy, let me introduce the university that I represent—New York
University (NYU)—and those aspects of my direct experience that bear
on these questions.
NYU is an internationally esteemed research institution, and the largest
nonprofit university in the United States. It addition to its notable
international ranking in a variety of fields, from mathematics,
philosophy, economics and the social sciences, to the humanities, the
law, finance, business, and the performing arts, in recent years NYU has
become arguably the leader in reconceptualizing itself as a global
network university, structured to advance and engage the globalization of
knowledge and talent flows in teaching, learning, and research. Today,
NYU enrolls about 45,000 degree-seeking students in its 18 constituent
schools and colleges in New York and at NYU Abu Dhabi. Those
numbers will expand dramatically in the future, when NYU Shanghai
opens its doors next year as another complete iteration of a fully
integrated global network research university.
While a very great number of NYU’s graduate students are working
adults, the school that has primarily served the adult learner historically
is the School of Continuing and Professional Studies (or SCPS), which I
had the honor to lead as dean from 2006, until I became Associate Vice
Chancellor for Global Continuing Education earlier this month.
Established originally in 1934 as a public service outreach arm of the
University, directed primarily to non-matriculated students, NYU-SCPS
has evolved considerably over its history. Most notably, the school has
developed a unique capacity to capture the expertise and reflective
knowledge arising within specialized industries and professional sectors
where New York enjoys an exceptional concentration of national and
international thought leadership. As a result, SCPS today is the principal
academic home at NYU for fields of practice such as publishing in
digital and print media, global real estate development and capital
finance, public relations and corporate communications, graphic
communications management and technology, hospitality, tourism, and
sports management, credit analysis, professionally-oriented translation,
and interpreting studies, philanthropy and fundraising, and the role of the
private sector in global affairs. NYU-SCPS is also unique within
American research universities in having its own faculty, full-time and
adjunct, to teach curricula that are reserved to its departments. As a result
of active advisory boards of leaders from various industries and the
participation of distinguished practitioner faculty, the School’s programs
organically align with the knowledge and skill sets companies and
organizations expect for the professionals they recruit—and hire. SCPS
is presently home to 3,100 graduate students and about 1,400
undergraduates. Though a handful of programs are taken primarily by
full-time traditional cohorts, overall three-quarters of SCPS’s students
are part-time and, with the exception of international students, about 95
percent are working, most being fully employed.
Page Page 222 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Seek Knowledge
and Insight From
Institutional Leaders
Capitalize and
Build on an
Institution’s Strengths
Harness the
Unique Capacities of Higher
Education Institutions
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Concede the Irrelevance
of Current Nontraditional
Student Definitions
Page Page 223 of 392
(A pertinent digression: we’ve all agreed that the definitions we’ve used
to describe traditional and nontraditional students do not adequately
differentiate the populations who make up the 21st century student body.
Even the term “working student” is misleading. At NYU, the figure for
the traditional full-time population of 18-22 year old students is that 90
percent of all undergraduates work. Half hold two jobs, working more
than 25 hours per week. A significant minority hold three jobs. While
these numbers may be a factor of financial exigencies, they are also a
result of the importance of paid and unpaid internships imbedded within
the student learning experience. Students successful at getting
professionally oriented jobs upon graduation often get them because of
their performance as undergraduate interns.)
At NYU-SCPS, the largest single degree-seeking community is found in
the Paul McGhee Division, which is the university home to
undergraduate studies for adults. At McGhee, students can earn
associate’s and bachelor’s degrees, and a growing number benefit from
articulations within the school for accelerated pathways to master’s
degrees. Besides its 4,600 or so degree-seeking students, SCPS enrolls
about 35,000 individuals (headcount) annually in rigorous non-credit
professional certificates, individual courses, seminars, workshops, and
conferences.
Learn From the
Experience of Experts on
Nontraditional Students
Rethink the Value
of Non-Degree Course
Credits Across States
Before I came to NYU, I served another population of working adults as
the dean of Continuing Education and UCLA Extension at the University
of California, Los Angeles. At the time, UCLA Extension was the largest
single campus, continuing education program in California, generating
about 90,000 annual enrollments among 55,000 individuals. During my
tenure, I also served for a while as state-wide chair of all of the nine UC
Extension programs. All of the sister campuses generated approximately
450,000 enrollments each year. Though not vectors for degree
completion, the UC Extension programs carry University of California
credit, and enjoy deserved respect as self-standing credentials in many
sectors.
The difference between California and other states on matters of creditworthiness is worth mentioning because of its relevance to the place of
adults in our institutions of higher learning. The term “non-credit” is
particularly unfortunate—and misleading. Consider that within the
University of California (UC) system, the majority of extension courses
carry forms of academic credit, even if they are not articulated within a
UC degree as such. Rather, the Academic Senate has historically
accorded credit based on evidence of standards—learning goals and
outcomes expressed in the curriculum, qualifications of the instructors,
expectations and demonstrations for successful student performance,
processes for ongoing evaluation. For most other students and certainly
throughout the East, if a program isn’t embedded in a degree, even if it
has an evaluation assessment and correlates with professional standards,
and even if students must maintain degree-equivalent grade point
averages to earn a credential, the program remains “non-credit” primarily
based on a narrow criterion—whether or not it fits within the host
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
school’s degree curricula. Particularly as the badge of “non-credit” may
demean the inherent rigor of the program and undervalue student
learning and achievement, it contributes to the view that only degree
study is self-evidently worthy of indirect support from the federal
government, even when an empirical examination of curricula and
expected learning outcomes may demonstrate equivalency—or even
superiority—among some “non-credit” programs from institution X to
“degree programs” from institution Y.
This seeming digression is germane because there is a vast population of
adults in higher education who are being well-served academically by
established university and college credit and non-credit continuing
education programs—but who for the most part, are not recipients of any
kind of federal financial aid (because non-degree students are generally
ineligible). Yet the education they are receiving is keeping them
informed and marketable and equipping them to advance—and advance
in—the organizations where they work. Consequently, it is a
fundamental oversight to address the question of the adequacy of federal
support for adults in higher education by looking only at the population
earning their first degrees. As a nation, it is vital that we expand access to
learning opportunities appropriate to individual needs and societal
imperatives throughout the lifespan. Earning a degree is celebrated as a
“commencement” after all. And learning in a formal context as well as in
self-directed ways is vital for the individual and for the productivity of
the organizations where she or he applies his skills.
Similarly, worrying about national competitiveness based on how well
the U.S. ranks among the proportion of our adults who have completed
postsecondary degrees is a very important but also a highly reductive
way of looking at the challenge. Yes, we should worry and must invest to
retake our leadership. But keep in mind that most of the countries who
now surpass us in the rate of postsecondary degree completion, in the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
study, are not our chief competitors on the global stage; indeed, it might
be comforting to point out that most are much smaller, much more
culturally homogenous countries. We are not losing well-paid American
jobs in large numbers because Finland, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand,
and Denmark are doing better than we are in educating their citizens. The
real dilemma is how much Russia, India, and China—and countries like
Singapore, Malaysia, and South Korea are increasing the numbers of
those attending higher education institutions, most especially in the
crucial STEM fields. These nations have increased the numbers and the
proportion of their large populations of secondary school graduates, and
thus those eligible for college and university study. Those countries’
rates of economic growth and ascension in research and technology
innovation in the knowledge economy are closely mirrored in the
investments they are making in educating their citizens, through
comprehensive national strategies that treat investment in K-12,
undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate study as an organic, carefully
articulated eco-system.
Page Page 224 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Reevaluate the View that Only
Degree Study is Worthy of
Federal Support
Expand Access to
Learning Opportunities
throughout the Lifespan
Address the Increase
in STEM Degree
Attainment Abroad
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Clarify Critical Societal
Needs to Inform
Our Education Systems
Remedy the Decline in
U.S. Students among the
World’s Educated Classes
Establish the Desired
Outcomes from the
Degree Completion Goal
Page Page 225 of 392
That is why the U.S. must not address our challenges piecemeal, and
neglect the totality of our human capital as we have done. We have to
look at the complete ecology of our diverse and multi-polar education
systems and better interdigitate them around critical societal needs.
Regrettably, it is not clear that we have consensus about what these latter
might be.
Fifteen years of my career were spent in both government service and the
private sector as an intermediary between the U.S. and other national
educational systems, working with governments and institutions to create
opportunities for the increased movement of students, faculty and
administrators, to foster educational understanding and mutual respect,
and to promote collaboration and research and the emulation of best
practices. It was an uplifting period of my life: The U.S. was the model
for the world in the quality of our institutions and the breadth of access
that our diverse systems of higher education made possible.
Fast forward two decades later, and it has become a worrisome irony that
in 2011, U.S. institutions are eagerly seeking to expand their market
share of highly qualified students from abroad, not just because of their
academic prowess and the rich, cross-cultural perspectives they will
bring, but disproportionally because of the infusion of revenue they
represent: they’re self-funding. And, how are we remedying that our
native population represents a rapidly declining percentage of the
world’s educated classes, as the OECD’s “Education at a Glance 2011”
report vividly documents? (In 2009, among baby boomers aged 55-64,
U.S. degree holders represented nearly 36% of the global population for
that age cohort, but for the population of 25-34, that proportion shrank to
20.5%. Our standing is certain to slip further, just compared to China
alone: nearly 37% of its high school graduates entered college, nearly
three times the rate of the U.S. And because of its vast population, that
means that China now has four times the numbers of students graduating
from high school as the U.S.)
Consequently, when we talk about our concern for a class of students—
adults in higher education—we must think about what they represent
about our place in the world and our future. The goal of increasing the
numbers of adults with postsecondary education credentials, degrees,
and/or certificate studies, as everyone has said, is absolutely an
economic, political, social, and moral imperative. But what are the
outcomes for them that we have in mind? What is the relative value of an
associate’s or a bachelor’s degree from institution to institution? What
are the equivalencies among programs? Do we know how professionally
oriented, practice-focused credentials are valued by the fields and
industries that seek knowledge workers? We’ve heard many wonderful
examples of the practices of institutions that are represented in this panel.
Earlier this afternoon we heard about programs in Oregon and
Washington and their state-based industries; but do their credentials have
credibility for employers in California or Michigan? Will an adultoriented credential earned in Eugene or Tacoma count for a job in San
Jose or Grand Rapids? Given the place science and technology
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
innovation hold as the engines of our economy, there’s also the large
question of—and this is a preoccupation that we have at NYU for our
undergraduate degree completion program—the place of scientific and
mathematical literacy and independent critical thinking and analytical
skills in all of our curricula, including professionally-focused degrees for
adults. In light of the rapid pace of change in technology, regulatory
frameworks, and social and digital media and their creative and
disruptive impacts on all fields of activity, is it prudent public policy to
treat all degree programs as inherently equally worthy of indirect
support? Are we advocating narrowly preparing students for the first
credential only? Or to equip them with the skills to be lifelong learners
and to continue to know how to evolve after the completion of their
undergraduate credentials, as hard-won as these latter might be?
These last questions are particularly salient to my institution and to the
field of university continuing education as a whole. And they are
important to our students. What I have observed among our most
successful adult learners, those returning to or beginning undergraduate
study between the ages of 25 and 40, is that they are not just in a hurry to
catch up and earn a credential—they want to get ahead through further
study. They are eager to make up for lost time, and get on track for
further graduate or professional studies. At NYU-SCPS, the McGhee
program statistics are remarkable in some ways. Although we are proud
that our degree completion rates appear to be about two and a half times
better than the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reported
national institutional average, they are not up to the degree completion
rates of traditional cohorts in our university—though we are making
progress every year. Where McGhee compares favorably is among those
who do cross the finish line: about 25 percent of our students upon
graduation go on for further professional and graduate study, including
those who are over 50. And nearly all return for some form of “noncredit” continuing education, if not with us, with other institutions. Our
faculty takes pride in the evidence that our students learn that completing
their degrees is not the end point, but properly understood as a
commencement.
Knowledge isn’t static. Students internalize that being educated—
whether in professional fields or the liberal arts—is more than acquiring
marketable skills. It produces habits of mind that require a willingness to
continue and enable forms of higher learning throughout life. Yet, while
we may be preparing our students to become continuing learners—a
commitment to remain educated across new career paths and
transformations in the world of work—they are likely to have to face that
future without expectations of any kind of future federal or state support.
It’s a safe bet that we’re not going to see an increase in tax revenuegenerated funding adequate to the need of educating our population as
broadly and deeply as we should expect. There’s going to be a
predictable contraction of support and competition for resources, at least
in the near term.
Page Page 226 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Equip Students
to Become
Lifelong Learners
Prepare Adult
Learners to Pursue
Advanced Degrees
Confront the
Contraction of Funding
for Higher Education
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Invest in Education
for All Citizens
Regardless of Age
Mandate a College
Preparatory Curriculum
in High School
Empower Community
Colleges to Be the Engine
of Degree Completion
Page Page 227 of 392
And yet as so many other panelists have documented, in the present
structure of support for adult students, it is a matter of fact that there is
inequitable treatment: Even if the individual adult students have never
received government assistance as young women or men, just being over
25 or not being able to sustain a certain course load during a given
semester disqualifies them for grants or loans, no matter how otherwise
worthy they may be—or important their field of study. Because of the
scarcity of and competition for resources, even as palliative
recommendations are certain to be adopted, it seems naïve to hope for
significant amelioration in the near future. That is why educators and
legislators have to go back to consider the total U.S. educational
ecology—and where to invest in our citizens in their educational
trajectory without prejudice to their age.
The corollary point is to reiterate that it is dangerous to dissociate the
discussion of adults facing difficulties earning college degrees from both
our declining high school completion rates and our low rankings in
global measures of elementary and secondary school standards in
mathematical and scientific literacy and reasoning. In my preparation to
speak today, I came across research documenting Indiana’s admirable
success in improving the proportion of its population going on to higher
education. There seems to be a compelling link between that welcome
outcome and the fact that the state mandated that the college preparatory
curriculum at the high school become the default curriculum for all
students. If that is an accurate finding, Indiana’s approach must have
significant and salutary policy implications nationwide: I would
encourage further analysis in that regard.
This is highly relevant to the discussion about empowering community
colleges to be the engine of raising our undergraduate degree completion
rates. It is accurately understood that our community colleagues are
remarkable, responsible and caring institutions, staffed by many heroic
and devoted—and accountable—faculty, staff, and administrators. Yet
most report disappointing degree completion rates, and protracted “time
to completion” performance among the many who do earn their degrees.
And the usual explanation is the need for remediation on the part of
students. How can these institutions or our state colleges be criticized—
or given more responsibilities to assume—when they are expected to
welcome all students, regardless of their preparedness or capacity to
achieve? We distort the purposes of higher education when “college”
becomes the primary venue for remedial education. But if it turns out to
be the only place where such remediation can be effectively delivered, let
us not draw equivalencies between “readiness” programs and degree
programs, and further confuse our understanding of the effectiveness of
one or the other by failing to disaggregate data relevant to assessing their
very different measures of effectiveness. We must as a nation assure
opportunities for both, but not pretend that they are the same academic
construct.
This strikes me as being especially important if we assume that because
of the financial pressures facing “traditional” students and their families,
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
many will have to delay their pursuit of a degree. Outside of the Indiana
experience, do we have corroborating data that demonstrate that those
who have had the benefit of a college preparatory program at the high
school level—even if they didn’t go on to university or college
immediately after earning their diplomas—are more likely to be
successful when they return to commence or complete a degree (and not
require subsequent remediation per se)? At NYU, whatever the evidence
of our adult students’ intellectual capacity and personal motivation, those
who’ve had some formal preparatory experience before they come to us
tend to be more consistently successful. Even if the answer to this
question is self-evident, we cannot dissociate ways to increase the
numbers of adult Americans with undergraduate degrees unless we
improve the general rigor of our secondary education curricula and
assure much improved high school completion rates earlier in the
individual’s learning career. Whatever goes on in our high schools
affects for the decades that follow the capacity of the adults we serve to
achieve their fullest potential. The sooner the learning—and the
interventions—take place, the more lasting the benefits.
Page Page 228 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Improve the General
Rigor of Secondary
Education Curricula
As panelists, we were all asked to address a series of questions. So with
these broad conceptual preoccupations aside, the observations deriving
from the experience of the university divisions I’ve led echo many that
were affirmed earlier today:
The primary barriers to access and persistence for nontraditional students
are:
•
•
•
•
•
the inadequacy of financial resources available to them
their reliance on debt financing, including expensive private loans
declining tuition support from employers (a point to which I will
return briefly)
the very real psychological pressures they experience related to the
uncertainty about the “payback” for their investment of dollars,
sweat, and time, and frequent lack of confidence arising from the
variety of challenges and responsibilities they have to manage
support services that may not be tailored to the specific needs of the
adult learner.
With regard to this latter issue—which is in our collective capacity to
remedy—it is widely observed that the older you are, the more
discouraged you feel when you discover what and how much you don’t
know. I’m not speaking simply about limited areas where remediation is
justified, but having to confront the reality that the “A” you may have
earned ten years before is not a substitute for remembering the
prerequisite subject matter adequately. In institutions and programs
where younger and older populations are mixed—while
intergenerational chemistry can bring enormous reciprocal benefit—
unless there is a highly functioning student services infrastructure geared
to the older, returning adult student and able to mediate actively between
the age cohorts, more often than not the older students become
Address the Primary Barriers
to Access and Persistence for
Nontraditional Students
Remedy Risk Factors with
Student Support Services
Geared Toward Adult Learner
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Page Page 229 of 392
disproportionately disaffected. Specialized—and deeply committed—
support personnel working lockstep with students, administrators, and
faculty are essential to mitigate this very real risk factor.
But there is also, in my view, an overarching academic challenge:
•
Address the Unevenness
Of Previous Educational
Experiences Among Students
Uneven if not inadequate capacities among students in mathematical
reasoning, independent and critical thinking, and written
communication skills. These impediments to success reach back to
the unevenness among earlier and formative educational experiences
the students have had.
As to promising examples of state and institutional strategies:
•
First and foremost, state funding for our public systems of higher
education remains the most important investment that we must
preserve as a society, along with continuing federal funding for
students. It may not be in our hands to augment these resources at
present, but further reduction would be fatal for our capacity to
compete with other nations, and will violate our fundamental societal
obligation to future generations.
•
At the institutional level, also important (and a leitmotif of the
conversation today) is the importance of faculty and advisory teams
working with students in a holistic manner, providing specialized
academic and career services for the adult learner. If the majority of
our students are older, working, and part-time, the academic and
support infrastructure they rely upon must be designed around
them—not conceived as a mere extension of the services for 18-22
year olds.
•
Among noteworthy local initiatives known to me, I commend to you
the efforts of the Graduate! Philadelphia organization, which
appears to be doing some very interesting things in workforce
development, and in fruitful collaboration among higher education
institutions, government, and businesses in Philadelphia.
Maintain Funding, Effective
Support Structures, and
Strategic Partnerships
Develop Different and
Better Data and Definitions
for Nontraditional Students
With regard to other relevant policy recommendations that will enable us
both to better understand the condition of adult students in our
institutions, and to generate a sustained private/public sector for adults
throughout their active lives:
•
The recommendations made by the National Governors Association
to the Department of Education, to develop different and better data
and definitions must be embraced. The NCES’s current categories
are far too broad for us to understand the dynamic within the highly
divergent different populations that make up the exceptionally broad
community of the nontraditional adult learner.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
•
We need to recognize the place of tuition reimbursement as a
public—not just private—benefit. Our federal, state, and local
governments must encourage the private sector to maintain its
historic role in supporting the ongoing educational development of
its workforce at all ranks. From the perspective of our international
competitiveness, we need to explore tax methodologies that will
encourage greater employer investment in employees.
Working students at institutions across the country have suffered
significantly over the past few years in the sudden disappearance of
tuition support from their employers. Indeed, within the New York
regional economy, “tuition reimbursement” has been such a fundamental
characteristic of employment benefit structures, that until its sudden near
demise in response to the Great Recession and our very slow recovery,
my institution, for example, had not considered in our strategic planning
the impact of the disappearance of this lynchpin factor of support for the
adult learner. From St. Louis to Baltimore, Washington to Boston, and
points west, many of the leading public and private institutions reported
massive numbers of students stopping out of degree programs because of
the ending or greatly reduced levels of employer assistance.
As a matter of federal and state policy and comparative benchmarking, it
is worthwhile to consider the examples of countries like France and
Germany, which have indirect tax incentives/penalties for employers to
underwrite continuing education of their employees—which they can
prioritize around company needs. (In France, companies have to
demonstrate they have “spent” a small percentage of their payroll
expenditures on employee continuing education, on a pooled but not a
per capita basis; if they fail to do so, they are fined up to the defined
percentage.)
And then, finally, building on my preoccupation with the importance of
the STEM fields, I would support a federal initiative to spur the design
and support of pilot projects that look at how to educate older adults in
the sciences, engineering, technology innovation, and applied
mathematics. At many institutions across the country, the degree
curricula in programs that focus on adults may include aspects of
healthcare, environmental planning, and information technologies, but
primarily from a management, administrative, or application perspective.
Since we know that engineering and the sciences are generating the
research and the big new ideas that will invariably produce the
transformative industries of our economic future, can we afford to
exclude large cohorts of our college-going population from acquiring the
means to participate in research-oriented education—just because of their
age? Do we not want those among them who are capable to contribute to
the growth and creation of those industries? While scholars know that the
adult brain does perform differently as it matures and that the ability to
perform higher cognitive skills in the sciences may be dependent upon
formative, cumulative learning at earlier periods in individual intellectual
(and neurological) development, surely it would be worthwhile to find
Page Page 230 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Encourage Greater
Employer Investment
in Employees
Consider Effective
Policies and Practices
From Abroad
Support a Federal
Initiative to Educate
Adults in STEM Fields
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 231 of 392
ways to unlock the untapped capacity of a large proportion of our
citizenry and in the process demonstrate another aspect of the potentiality
of the adult learner.
With this closing exhortation, I thank you for the honor to have been able
to share my preoccupations and sense of urgent priorities about how we
can best serve the ever-growing numbers of adult learners in our
institutions of higher education.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Q&A: Institutional Panel
Helen Benjamin: Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you so much
for sharing the nontraditional approaches used by your institutions in
helping to meet the student that we’re faced with today. Now, we have
an opportunity, about 20 minutes, to engage with you in a bit of a
discussion in the form of responsive comments or questions from our
panel, or from Under Secretary Kanter, who’s here with us today. So I
turn it over to the Committee. Questions?
Anthony Guida (ACSFA Member): Dr. Lingenfelter had a great line
earlier, that we spend the most money on those students who need it the
least and vice versa. But, as Dr. Flint mentioned, there are risk factors
that even the Department of Education has recognized. The more risk
factors a student has, the less likely he is to graduate. For the riskier
nontraditional students, the return on investment or the ability to succeed
goes down just by virtue of the fact of who the students are. From an
institutional perspective, it’s a riskier proposition to enroll a riskier
student because your graduation rates are lower, your default rates are
higher, and so on. What policy recommendations can you think of that
would encourage institutions, or would make it more desirable for
institutions to take on a riskier nontraditional student? Right now, the
way the system is set up, institutions are actually rewarded by not
enrolling the riskier at-risk students. That, I believe, needs to change.
Chris Bustamante: Let me state that, as a community college, we don’t
have the luxury to not choose them because community colleges have
open access admissions policies. That’s why some have been critical
recently of our, at times, lower graduation rates because we do the very
difficult work with students who are at-risk. We have to keep the
access—around the country, even community colleges are starting to talk
about moving developmental education courses off the main campus. I
know these discussions are beginning to take place.
But I think that’s a very dangerous policy to allow. We need to continue
to allow people to live that American dream. At institutions like ours,
even though they’re risky students, we need to give them that
opportunity to make something of themselves. So access continues to be
important, and, in spite of all these nontraditional student factors, there
are people who are still going to get through. As we get better at
institutionalizing strategies that work best for students, we’re going to be
more successful at getting them through. So I think a policy
recommendation would be an incentive-based policy on best practices.
We must also talk about these best practices so that we can get more
institutions to see that predictive analytics and other tools may allow
greater success that may reduce risks for institutions.
Javier Miyares: If I understood you correctly, you’re talking about
incentives for traditional institutions. I worked, like many of us, in a
traditional research institution before my current position. My fear is that
we can waste a lot of energy when, perhaps, traditional institutions have
Page Page 232 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Encourage Institutions
to Invest in the Riskier
Nontraditional Student
Maintain an
Open Access
Admissions Policy
Recommend an
Incentive-Based Policy
on Best Practices
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Determine the Best
Institution to Serve the
Student’s Needs
Capitalize on the
Focus and Motivation
of Adult Learners
Celebrate the Small
Victories for Students
en Route to a Degree
Page Page 233 of 392
a culture of professional incentives, not just monetary, for the faculty and
their prestige that is rather difficult to change. So I’m warning you that
perhaps we should be careful how much energy we spend on that when
we are in an environment of fairly limited resources. Perhaps incentives
are better tailored to the at-risk and nontraditional students who then can
choose among those institutions that are willing and able to serve them.
Scott Jenkins: But I think institutions also have to be willing to have
hard conversations with all students when they walk in the door, be it an
open access institution, or an institution like WGU. We accept about 88
percent of all students who seek admission. But there are a lot of cases
where the institution’s default curriculum is that students go through the
associate’s degree program and do a two-plus-two transition. In some
cases, especially with institutions unconnected to a career tech center or
something similar, that’s where a student ends up when they might have
been better served in a different place—and they have to have that
conversation. So counseling a student on what their skills are when they
walk in the door and where they can go and where the institution can get
them is a conversation that needs to occur at the institutional level.
Thomas Flint: In certain respects, adult learners are less risky, insofar as
the common theme around them is that they’re often highly motivated.
Adults who’ve made a decision to go back to college are going to spend
the time and money—they’re on a mission. A lot of faculty and staff
have commented on how refreshing it is to see people who are so
focused. I mentioned earlier, not just PLA students, but adult students
generally tend to have higher GPAs.
I think part of the answer to your question is, yes, they are at risk for not
completing the degree as rapidly as we might wish them to, but part of
the reality we need to face is that, perhaps, we should celebrate the
smaller successes on the way to earning that degree. Some of that could
be done structurally through certificates, but some of it is our figuring
out a way to recognize how the learning that’s taking place is fueling
benefits.
Anecdotally, a lot of adult educators will tell you that what most gratifies
them is when a student tells them he’s able to use and apply something
he learned a few nights ago or last week. That’s a small victory, but a
real and significant one. We don’t have to wait for college-level learning
to be applied at some number of years in the future; we want it to make a
difference in people’s lives starting right away.
John McNamara (ACSFA Member): Without knowing any of your
curricula, I certainly don’t mean to disparage online learning—we’re
trying to move that as rapidly as we can at Rockford College—but one of
the things that concerns me is the last point Dr. Lapiner made asking
what is the place of science, math, and critical thinking in the fields
we’re advocating? One of my concerns, as a Great Books major in
college, is that, with the rush to degrees, we’re focusing more on training
than education. Job-specific degrees may seem needed today, but may
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
seem obsolete tomorrow or in five or ten years. I’m all for adult learning,
but I’m concerned about critical thinking skills.
Scott Jenkins: I’ll give you my perspective, but I’m sure others will
want to say something. At a traditional institution, the leadership of the
institution—the president, the provost, and the academic team—are
responsible for maintaining the brand of the institution, but the degree is
owned by faculty, program, and department. What you find is huge
variability in what that course entails—think back to your
macroeconomic course as an undergraduate if you’d had professor A
versus professor B.
Page Page 234 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Determine the
Ownership of Degrees
at an Institution
At an institution like WGU, the institution owns the degree. We say what
the student has to know and be able to do. The faculty serve a role to
support and facilitate that learning. The illustration of that learning is no
different, except there’s no variability to it. We have a third party—a
faculty member who has no vested interest in whether or not that student
makes it past that competency—who evaluates the student’s coursework
and determines whether that student passes.
At a traditional institution, a faculty member sets the competencies that
the student will learn, selects the textbooks and other resources, sets the
assessments and grading standards, and that student can ultimately pass
that class with a C-minus or a D. What does that mean in terms of
whether or not they make it through the curriculum? At WGU, we
separate all of that into separate individuals who are responsible for
content, curriculum, assessment, and learning measurement. It doesn’t
change the nature of the actual learning, but it confirms the value when a
third party makes the assessment.
Use a Third
Party to Assess a
Student’s Learning
Helen Benjamin: Other comments or questions? I do have one—Scott,
in particular, I was thinking about your comment about student
portfolios—I’ve forgotten your term for them—but the student completes
three of the five successfully, but two remain and the student starts over.
Is that close to what you said? My question is about that.
Scott Jenkins: Yes, if a particular competency requires passing five
different sub-competencies, the student may take a pre-assessment, and if
they pass three of the five, the student is directed to learning resources
that will teach them the two sub-competencies that they need to know.
Once they do that, they may retake the assessment to show that they’ve
learned all the competencies. So we do a lot of pretesting and final
testing.
Helen Benjamin: So in the case of online learning as a mode, a student
independently can decide to choose online learning. But we know that
every single student is not suited for that. Students may make that choice,
but it may not be the right choice for their skills and learning abilities.
How do you deal with those kinds of students—those who enroll, but for
whom the instructor (or the student themselves) discovers that the
learning mode is not appropriate? How do you handle that?
Use Testing As a
Tool for CompetencyBased Education
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Determine Whether
Online Learning is
Right for the Student
Page Page 235 of 392
Scott Jenkins: It’s a great question. A lot of institutions that provide
online instruction have to deal with this. When a student enrolls, we run
them through a battery of tests, but we also require them to take an
Education Without Boundaries course that explains to them how this
system works. Like I said, somewhere between 10 and 12 percent of
students who apply don’t make it past that. We also ask them, as part of
that assessment, to consider whether they have a support network at
home, adequate childcare, 12 to 20 hours to spend during the week, and
so on. We ask a lot of those hard questions up front to get at that. But
we’re not perfect. We do some modeling of students to find out how well
they’re doing. That filters out about 90 percent of those students, but that
one-to-one relationship with a mentor helps get the rest of the students
through. But, like every institution, we’re not all things to all people.
Helen Benjamin: And so they’re counseled and they are aware, in
advance of actually enrolling, as to whether that’s a good fit?
Scott Jenkins: Right. And we will counsel students to go to a traditional
institution, if that would better serve them, especially to a community
college or other type of institution.
Counsel Students
to First Attend a
Traditional Institution
Javier Miyares: I think we all wrestle with that. In the case of UMUC,
we have tried a free, one-week online course so students can test drive it
and see if it is for them. Many who do the test drive, do not enroll. And
that’s okay because, clearly, it was not for them. But I don’t think you
are ever done. You’re always trying to make sure the student makes the
right decision.
Robert Lapiner: Certainly most institutions against which I would
benchmark for best practices do something like that—provide an
orientation for new students in the experience and expectations of their
online teaching and learning program. If students discover early into the
process that online study is not right for them, there’s often a no-fault
withdrawal and refund process.
Provide a Mix of
Learning Opportunities
for Student Success
But I’d like to comment on the question that was asked before: the risks
students face who study at a slow pace relative to those who assume the
burden of a higher course load while working. At NYU-SCPS, we have
found that providing a mixture of paths for course completion maps
against our students’ drive for success. During a given semester, they can
take a class face-to-face to sustain their need for a feeling of community,
they can take one or more courses online (with students who are already
part of their community), and they have access to other courses that are
offered in intensive formats that meet only a few weeks or periodic
weekends during the academic year. Students find the flexibility in such
combinations best enable them to progress more rapidly and still balance
their other responsibilities and the competition for time.
Without such options, there is no doubt that many adult learners, because
of family or work responsibilities or cost, feel they can only manage one
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
class in a given semester, and the goal of degree achievement always
seems far away. Yet they encounter the burdens of debt and scheduling
hassles in real time—now. Separate from questions of academic
performance per se, this mixture breeds the greatest danger of students’
stopping out. That is why best practice models increasingly show that
enabling the adult learner to take a larger course load over a finite period
of time is more predictive of retention and, above all, students’ academic
success. Moreover, as students do become more marketable upon
completion of their degrees, they find themselves sooner able to recover
the investment they made (and debt they incurred) for their education.
Page Page 236 of 392
IMPERATIVES FOR
POLICY & PRACTICE
Contribute to Student
Success Through
Best Practice Models
Thomas Dalton: At Excelsior, we also have an online virtual
orientation. Excelsior was founded in 1971 as an aggregator of credit. If,
as Scott suggests, online learning isn’t for everybody, and we do
encourage some students to go to a traditional classroom, Excelsior still
aggregates the credit for them.
Helen Benjamin: Gentlemen, thank you very much. That concludes the institutional panel for our session
on nontraditional students. I will now turn it over to our Vice Chair and Chair-Elect, Norm Bedford, for
final remarks.
Norm Bedford (ACSFA Vice Chair and Chair-Elect): Thanks, Helen. Our Chair, Allison Jones, had to
depart early for a previous engagement. He does send his regrets.
All I can say, is, wow, what a great hearing we’ve had today. This is what the sharing of knowledge is, in
my opinion, all about. So, to the panelists in front of us, thank you all again. I know it sounds a bit ad
nauseum to repeat thank you several times, but, truly, thank you for your time and commitment.
Your testimony regarding the barriers, best practices, and federal role in improving degree and certificate
completion for nontraditional students was extremely informative. To all of our panelists, we may seek
your help again in the future. It would be wonderful to see you all again.
To the Advisory Committee, thank you all for your hard work, your dedication, and your commitment. I
know a lot of people put a significant amount of time into this to make it what it is today. Again, thank
you.
On behalf of this Committee, we are adjourned.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 237 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 238 of 392
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
The Advisory Committee’s September 30, 2011, hearing, held in Washington DC, garnered a wealth of
responses from twelve state and institutional experts regarding policy and practice surrounding the
growing population of nontraditional students in the United States. Panelists addressed barriers to access
and persistence, best practices for overcoming these barriers, and what role the federal government should
play to encourage implementation of these strategies. The insights contributed and the recommendations
made demonstrate an overriding consensus among panelists that increasing degree and certificate
completion among nontraditional students will require modifications in the structure and delivery of
higher education, as well as changes to federal student aid programs.
The September 30 hearing discussion largely affirmed the background research and ideas from the March
17 hearing. In particular, the September panel agreed that current definitions for the nontraditional student
fail to capture the complexity and diversity of this demographic (pages 2-3). They also generally agreed
with the March panel on the examples and types of barriers to access and persistence that nontraditional
students face today (pages 3-6). The September panelists enlarged upon the March discussion by further
identifying best practices in serving the nontraditional student and actions the federal government might
take to increase degree completion among this population. This chapter seeks to summarize the main
thoughts and ideas from the September discussion and the implications for federal policy.
The Need for a National Partnership
A federal-state-institutional-private-sector partnership is key to increasing degree completion among
nontraditional students. Each entity has an important role to play in the partnership based on respective
areas of authority and expertise. In addition, each may be in a position to encourage and support best
practices among the other entities. The predominant goal of such a partnership is to increase national
educational attainment among nontraditional students. A dedicated commitment to their success involves
not only providing them with easier access to educational institutions, but with pathways and supports
conducive to persistence and degree completion. From this partnership, a compilation of best practices
may emerge that serve the adult learner and expand learning opportunities for students of all ages.
The September 30, 2011, hearing sought knowledge and insight from state and institutional leaders. By
building upon this knowledge domestically and considering effective policies and practices from abroad,
the United States may recover and expand upon its leadership role in postsecondary educational
attainment for all students. The experiences of experts working with nontraditional students may help the
nation enhance its existing educational structures, unleash the ambitions of a significant population of
students with great potential for achievement, and provide avenues for upward mobility that for many are
a hallmark of the American dream.
Each member of the partnership has an important role to play in identifying best practices and
implementing programs based on them. The following section describes some of our panelists’ ideas for
identifying best practices and creating programs that embody best practices.
Role of the Federal Government
Higher levels of degree attainment must become a national priority. By establishing which outcomes are
desired from the 2020 degree completion goal, whether a need for innovation, increased economic
productivity, equipping students to become lifelong learners, or other significant outcomes, the federal
government may more effectively design its education systems to reflect critical societal needs. The
federal government’s role is to lead the partnership by changing its own systems in ways that would
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 239 of 392
improve degree completion rates among nontraditional students while supporting the best practices of
states, institutions, and the private sector.
Improving data collection methods is an important way that the federal government can lead the
partnership among states, institutions, and the private sector to better serve nontraditional students:
•
A new Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) category for institutions
serving nontraditional students could provide valuable information on how nontraditional
students are completing their educational goals, including their enrollment and completion
patterns.
•
It is also important to continue collaborations between the Department of Education, the Council
of Chief State School Officers, State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), and other
data-related organizations on common standards for defining key data elements and creating
state and school systems for measuring the progress made by nontraditional students, such as the
Common Education Data Standards.
•
The federal government, along with state governments, should also emphasize achievement of
credentials relative to enrollment and improve definitions of nontraditional students in order to
accurately distinguish them in data analysis.
Developing better data collection methods and definitions for nontraditional students will aid a
collaborative understanding of this diverse and evolving population, which would assist other members of
the partnership to better define strategies for improving degree completion rates.
Reassessing the structure of financial aid systems and programs for the nontraditional student is
another significant way that the federal government can demonstrate its leadership:
•
Financial aid should be focused on needy students who wish to obtain their degree and on
institutions that serve nontraditional students well. Institutions should be included that have
made changes to their systems to accommodate the requirements of adult learners and those that
ensure that their curriculum quality for nontraditional students, while it may be different in
format, does not lag behind that offered to traditional students.
•
Creating a new grant program for middle-income working students would ease the burden of
debt for many nontraditional students who are debating whether to enroll and complete their
degree.
•
Maintaining the Pell maximum would help ensure student success, along with making Pell
Grants an option for nontraditional students who are enrolled less than half-time if they are
simultaneously employed.
•
Decentralizing aid programs may prove to be beneficial. For example, states may provide needbased aid to institutions based on the percentage of needy students they enroll and allow
institutions the flexibility to use professional judgment in awarding aid.
•
Having a better sense of tuition charged relative to the total cost to the institution of educating
the student would allow for a more efficient distribution of funding.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
•
Page Page 240 of 392
For students who do not have a high school credential and have been out of school for many
years, the federal government should consider broadening the concept of Ability-to-Benefit
(ATB), which refers to a required test for those students to gain federal financial aid eligibility. In
addition to the test, ATB could include enrollment in an integrated adult basic education or
General Educational Development (GED) program and college level programs.
Integrating federal, state, and institutional grant programs would combine key resources that would
otherwise remain separated in order to support policies and programs for nontraditional students.
The federal government can also support and expand upon other existing programs or practices that
serve nontraditional students, if these have been proven in current practice:
•
The federal government might assist institutions with prior learning assessment (PLA) by
making clear that all costs associated with assessing students’ “college level” knowledge, skills,
and abilities will be covered through Title IV, including faculty time.
•
The federal government could leverage funds to support the success of nontraditional students.
For example, the use of existing Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE)
funds could be targeted toward supporting research and programs for nontraditional students.
•
Partnerships among existing federal departments could support programs that have already
been proven effective, such as the partnership between the Department of Labor’s Employment
Training Administration (ETA) and the Department of Education’s Office of Vocational and
Adult Education (OVAE) for career pathways.
By including these ideas in future reform efforts, the federal government may effectively lead a
partnership with states, institutions, and the private sector, thereby ensuring that the necessary resources
are available for students to succeed in their academic programs.
The federal government should reevaluate the position that only degree study is worthy of federal support.
The demands of ever-changing opportunities and the current economic climate have created new needs
for credentials. Many non-degree programs and courses meet professional and academic standards.
Indeed, supporting non-degree programs that meet such standards would be an excellent way for the
federal government to reinvigorate the public-private partnerships that allow working students to enhance
skill levels on a periodic basis, and, therefore, become more productive to industry.
The federal government should also focus on appropriate and well-executed regulations for today’s
educational institutions:
•
The federal government should design policies that emphasize that what one knows is more
important than where or how one learned it. Creating regulations that focus on credit hours as
a benchmark for student achievement rather than evaluating students on learning outcomes
through practices such as PLA conflicts with that view.
•
Stricter guidelines under program integrity regulations such as Return to Title IV (R2T4) and
Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) could remove financial aid from students who otherwise
would have been eligible.
•
State authorization regulations have the potential to be costly and complicated, particularly for
online institutions.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 241 of 392
The federal government should take full consideration of the potential effects on both nontraditional
students and the institutions serving them when designing regulations.
The federal government can play a key role in spotlighting and encouraging the implementation of best
practices while at the same time guaranteeing program integrity and student success. The federal
government may support the implementation of best practices at individual institutions through
various methods:
•
The Department of Education might be encouraged to issue Dear Colleague Letters. For
example, a June 7, 2011, Dear Colleague Letter provided institutional guidance on trial periods of
enrollment, an effective practice already implemented at Kaplan University called the Kaplan
Commitment.
•
The federal government can encourage institutions to invest in what many institutions see as the
“riskier” nontraditional students (e.g. those thought to be less likely to graduate) by instituting
incentive-based policies.
•
Recognizing and rewarding implementation of best practices, such as keeping tuition low or
instituting cohort-based programs that allow groups of nontraditional students to move forward
together, would encourage institutions to better serve riskier nontraditional students.
Identifying, disseminating, and encouraging best practices among institutions will be crucial to the
enrollment and graduation of the nontraditional population.
In addition, the federal government should encourage innovation in serving nontraditional students:
•
The federal government could support the design and implementation of demonstration
projects for innovative models of delivery, such as competency-based education or experiential
learning.
•
Innovation may be spurred through a federal program allowing certain organizations the ability to
experiment outside the credentialing authority bestowed by accreditation.
•
To increase degree completion in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
fields, a federal initiative to encourage pilot projects on educating adults in these fields could be
instituted.
These efforts provide important incentives to aid in the discovery of efficient and effective systems that
cater specifically to the nontraditional student.
There are a variety of other ways that the federal government could work to improve degree completion
rates among the nontraditional population.
•
Supporting creation and maintenance of open educational resources would increase access to
learning resources.
•
The federal government could provide more robust systems of information and guidance.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 242 of 392
•
The Department of Education could create or support an interactive, online service that
provides information on PLA for degree completion, such as the Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning’s LearningCounts.org.
•
The federal government could support state aid programs that encourage academic preparation
and focused study, similar to the federally administered Academic Competitiveness Grant (ACG)
program.
All of these efforts capitalize on the unique role that the federal government might play to spur creativity
within the states, institutions, and the private sector to implement programs that result in better academic
outcomes for the nation’s nontraditional students.
Role of the States
The state role in the national partnership involves explicitly setting their own degree completion goals and
reexamining policies in light of the needs of nontraditional students. For example, through the articulation
of more explicit and intentional learning objectives, states may be able to achieve more of the
education attainment they seek:
•
One way to accomplish this is by adopting the Common Education Data Standards currently
under development, common standards for defining key data elements and systems used to
measure student progress and success.
•
Because many nontraditional students are mobile over the course of their postsecondary
education, data systems must be adopted that can track students through their paths at
multiple institutions within and across states. This will require a close partnership of data
collection and sharing among institutions and states.
•
States can also better integrate state education and workforce data systems. With support from
the federal government, states and organizations, such as the State Higher Education Executive
Officers, have been working toward a better understanding of the student trajectory after
graduation.
•
A partnership between the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and Complete College
America (CCA) has not only developed completion metrics (key for measuring progress toward
state degree completion goals), but has also disaggregated nontraditional students in order to
measure and track their progress.
Collecting these data at the state level is critical to better understand the needs of this population.
Maintaining state funding for public colleges and universities and implementing innovations in state
funding for institutions and students are also critical to the improvement of degree completion rates
among nontraditional students:
•
Wisconsin provides grants to students for both academic as well as life expenses.
•
States are beginning to use performance-based funding with their allocations for higher
education, which can be very effective when linked with the success of adult students.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 243 of 392
•
For college success, states should consider implementing aid programs that encourage academic
preparation and focused study.
•
Attending a degree program part-time should not financially penalize the working adult learner.
Providing a needs-based state financial aid program for part-time students is one step toward
financially supporting the working student.
•
It is critical for low-income students that states supplement Pell to help them with tuition costs.
To ensure that their aid programs remain effective, states should stay abreast of possible changes to
existing student aid programs and eligibility, such as stricter eligibility terms for Pell Grants.
States may also benefit from combining key programs and services to meet the needs and objectives of
nontraditional students:
•
States can create more flexible and integrated learning environments by combining adult basic
education and skills training into a single program, such as the State of Washington’s Integrated
Basic Education and Skills Training (I-BEST) program.
•
States can create and support multiple career pathways through educational programs and
student supports that provide students with the necessary credentials to secure or advance in their
field, such as Oregon’s Career Pathways Initiative.
•
States may consider partnering with online, competency-based, nonprofit providers, such as
Western Governors University (WGU), to address the time- and place-bound barriers of
nontraditional students.
Integrating programs or services such as these allows states to more effectively serve nontraditional
students.
Although often targeted under budget cuts, student support services provide the personalized guidance
and academic support necessary for student success:
•
The State of Washington’s Opportunity Grant Program, the goal of which is to put low-income
students into high-demand and high-wage workforce programs, provides students with a single
point of contact and advocates to help students progress along their degree path. This fully
funded program also provides advising services, success classes, and funds for emergency
services.
•
Another program that delivers comprehensive support services is Kentucky’s Ready-To-Work
program. This integrates certain Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) services with
community and technical colleges, so that students can have their social service and educational
needs met in one place.
•
State and regional consortia can provide advising services for adult learners. The joint Air
Force base advising office created by the Southwestern Council for Higher Education benefits
both nontraditional students and the institutions they attend by better communicating the
opportunities available to them and preventing uninformed decisions by students.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 244 of 392
Comprehensive student services provide the guidance, direction, and support to ensure that students begin
and follow through on their academic goals.
One of the best state strategies for improving degree completion among nontraditional students is
creating institutions specifically geared towards their needs and objectives. States that have done so
include:
•
•
•
New York (Excelsior College and Empire State College)
New Jersey (Thomas Edison State College)
Connecticut (Charter Oak State College).
Practices these institutions have employed include PLA, online learning, strong credit transfer policies,
and minimal- to no-residency requirements.
For the nontraditional student to succeed, states must precipitate change at traditional higher
education institutions. States may accomplish this by encouraging institutions to follow through with
programming aimed at student success through monetary incentives:
•
The State of Washington’s Student Achievement Initiative is an outcome-based system, which
provides monetary rewards to institutions for student achievement. The greater the progress, the
greater the reward.
•
Tennessee revamped its funding to include outcomes-based measures of student success, such
as degree and certificate completion, dual enrollment, and workforce training progress through
the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010.
These types of state action signify a clear commitment to student success.
Better articulation and transfer policies will also support the mobile lifestyle of nontraditional students
who attend multiple institutions:
•
Florida has implemented a variety of innovative practices including a common course number
system. Focused on learning outcomes rather than credit hours, a common course number system
standardizes course designations across institutions making transfer easier for students.
•
Texas has strong articulation and transfer policies. Their retroactive degree brings two- and
four-year institutions together, providing students with a credential at 60 hours when students
only complete half of a four-year program. This reduces the number of students who have
accumulated many credits without a credential.
Other innovative practices include program major articulations, a common core curriculum, and block
credit or associate degree transfers.
In order to prepare residents for postsecondary education, states should consider mandating a college
preparatory curriculum in high school and improving the overall rigor of secondary education
curricula:
•
Indiana has successfully increased the number of students pursuing higher education after
mandating a college preparatory curriculum in high school.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
•
Page Page 245 of 392
The Common Core State Standards Initiative led by the National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers provides consistent
learning standards for K-12 students in preparation for postsecondary education and the
workforce.
Successful high school preparation for the nation’s students is key to the discussion of improving degree
completion rates because lack of adequate preparation often requires remediation upon entering college or
may be the cause of students leaving college without achieving their degree. States should empower open
access institutions, especially community colleges, to be the engine of degree completion with the
understanding that achieving results initially may be difficult because of the dual responsibility of
providing remediation or “readiness” programs in addition to degree programs.
Role of the Institutions
To transcend cultural barriers to better serve nontraditional students, institutions must create a more
student-friendly approach to higher education that values and caters to them. Celebrating the small
victories for students en route to a degree is one way to achieve this objective. A number of institutions
have worked on other innovative ways to serve nontraditional students:
•
Private institutions, such as Liberty University and UMassOnline, as well as private sector
companies, such as StraighterLine or University of the People, provide students with a variety
of options including online learning, low- or no-cost education, and assistance with prior learning
assessment to complete their credentials.
•
Institutions may benefit from aligning their mission to serving nontraditional students.
Excelsior College’s mission, for example, is to help students who are not served well by
traditional higher education, and it has become a leader in PLA and degree completion for
nontraditional students.
•
Institutions may provide multiple entry and exit points so that nontraditional learners have
more control over their time. Kellogg Community College in Michigan instituted this practice for
certain technology learning modules, allowing students to earn fractional credit hours for
mastering competencies which could be applied to credentialed programs at the institution.
Institutional practices, such as modifying hours and seasons of operation to offer more flexibility,
providing courses year-round or changing class schedules based on student availability, help to align a
student’s learning with their life and work. It is important to recognize and reward this kind of
institutional innovation in order to help support and encourage success.
Changing the paradigms of scale and delivery relative to traditional colleges would meet the pent-up
demand for convenient, accredited degree programs, such as online programs:
•
Institutions should consider providing online programs as well as in-person and hybrid
programs in multiple locations.
•
At the same time, educational institutions and governments must work together to ensure that
online offerings, which may be more open to abuse by unscrupulous parties, remain true to their
enormous potential for offering new educational courses and materials with the flexibility of
time and space.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 246 of 392
•
It must be determined whether online learning is appropriate for individual students. Online
institutions should counsel students to first attend a traditional institution if that is the best
route for them to complete a degree.
•
Institutions may use courses, tests, and trial periods to help students determine the best
institution to serve their needs. WGU’s Education Without Boundaries course, which explains the
WGU learning system to students upon enrollment, is one example of this type of practice.
Online education is important as a viable alternative to traditional institutions for the busy lives of
nontraditional students.
Innovative uses of data and research may also support the postsecondary success of nontraditional
students:
•
Prior to or shortly after enrollment, institutions could use predictive models to help determine a
student’s likelihood of successfully completing college or an online course. This would allow
institutions to identify at-risk students and begin intervention strategies to ensure success.
•
Since all interactions in online learning are recorded, institutions could employ analytics to
identify patterns leading to student success. For example, the Kresge Foundation provided the
University of Maryland University College (UMUC) with a grant to conduct research on
identifying patterns that produce student success at community colleges before entering an
institution like UMUC.
Collecting and analyzing such data would provide institutions with the knowledge to further inform best
practices for serving this population.
Student support services should be comprehensive, affordable, flexible, convenient, accessible, and
geared towards the nontraditional student:
•
Institutions should recognize the impact of consistent life coaching for at-risk students, which
could address issues such as time and money management as well as study skills. For example,
Excelsior College has a private contractor that provides life coaching services for at-risk students,
and WGU’s WellConnect Student Services provides life counseling to its students.
•
WGU’s use of faculty as student mentors, course mentors, and in student assessment has also
proven effective. Mentors can ensure that adult learners are on a trajectory toward graduation
through a one-to-one relationship and weekly contact. Course mentors design courses and
determine the type of assessment used for each course, and adjunct faculty actually assesses the
adult learners on course competencies.
•
Rio Salado College’s establishment of in-person bridge programs that target underserved
populations provides students with the GED programs, adult basic education, developmental
education, and short-term training necessary for them to progress in their job or academic
program.
•
Student services, such as the library, tutoring, and instructional support, should be available 24/7
in a variety of formats, including in-person, online, by phone, email, or chat.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 247 of 392
•
Rio Salado College provides online degree completion planning tools, orientations tailored to the
needs of adult learners, and a virtual community of engagement between students, instructors,
and staff.
•
Rio Salado uses customer relationship management solution technology (CRM) to send mass
personalized communications to students in order to facilitate student engagement and success.
Leveraging technology in multiple ways helps to ensure that student support services meet the needs of
today’s students.
To increase degree attainment nationally, institutions must assess previous credits to maximize
credentials:
•
Employing underutilized strategies and policies that promote access and persistence, such as
PLA, may assist nontraditional students not only in enrolling, but also in reducing time to degree.
These reforms would allow graduation in a reasonable time frame.
•
The American Council on Education credit recommendations on corporate and military
training allow institutions to recognize learning that has taken place outside traditional higher
education.
•
Portfolios, which are a collection of a student’s work assessed for the achievement of college
learning rather than a formal standardized test, should also be counted as a prior learning option.
•
To support assessment of prior learning, four-year institutions may consider articulation
agreements with community colleges and accepting associate’s degrees as a valid credential for
four-year transfer.
•
Employing a common course number system, along with state efforts, would also assist
students who are more broadly mobile.
•
Whenever possible, adult learners’ credits should be put into a credential, such as an associate
degree at the halfway mark on the way to a baccalaureate, as credits locked into a credential do
not expire. Four-year institutions should be encouraged to partner with a community college, or
award associate degrees, if chartered to do so.
Colleges must understand the negative impact of refusing to award credit for prior learning, especially for
adult learners who have already attended one or more previous colleges.
Nontraditional students, who may be balancing a family and employment with their postsecondary
education, face many risks for early attrition. Institutions should endeavor to prevent attrition in a
variety of ways:
•
Providing a mix of learning opportunities, such as online or face-to-face programs as well as
intensive evening or weekend courses, will grant adult learners the flexibility to continue their
education.
•
Shorter class terms would allow these students to maintain momentum, and caring instructors
would facilitate student success.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
•
Page Page 248 of 392
Institutions may consider utilizing student cohorts, which allow students to progress together
through an entire program and provide the motivation and support for successful degree
completion.
Institutions should also provide cost-free mechanisms to minimize the risk of failure among students. The
ability to test an academic program before financial commitment is one example. In particular, Kaplan
University’s Kaplan Commitment program allows students to take five weeks of regular course work in
their initial term of study to determine if Kaplan is the right fit. If they withdraw, the student is only
obligated to pay the initial enrollment fee as opposed to a full program.
With financial barriers providing considerable influence on the enrollment of nontraditional students,
institutions must focus on keeping college costs affordable using multiple innovative methods. For
example, institutions could:
•
•
•
•
•
•
lock in tuition rates through an entire academic program
use course-embedded materials
customize books and e-books
provide scholarships for successful academic progress
offer general courses that are flexible, accessible, and transferrable to colleges and universities
provide accelerated learning formats, such as a modularized curriculum.
To facilitate the use of accelerated learning, Rio Salado College customized its own learning management
system (LMS), which allows students to compress a 14-week online course to an 8-week online course
with one click. Given the time- and place-bound barriers that students face, it helps when institutions
never cancel an online course.
Many nontraditional students work to support themselves and their families, and return to school to gain
skills required for advancing or changing their career:
•
To increase degree attainment among nontraditional students, institutions may focus on awarding
adult learners with degrees in areas of high workforce demand such as STEM fields,
healthcare, and business.
•
Given that government funding for higher education will not likely increase in the near future,
aligning workplace needs with learning objectives and academic programs will be even more
important to ensure the nation’s national competitiveness and enable student success.
Given the evolving demographics of adult learners, the role of community and technical colleges must
continue to adapt.
Institutions should accommodate the different rates of learning by student and subject through practices
such as competency-based education:
•
Competency-based education, at institutions such as WGU, establishes academic competencies
for various courses of study, which are informed by discussions with business, industry, and
academic leaders.
•
Faculty members find the best learning resources to teach competencies, and students then take
and pass those competencies on their own. This allows students to progress through an academic
program at their own pace.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 249 of 392
•
Because the institution owns the degree and determines the learning requirements, there is a
greater degree of uniformity in course content.
•
Rather than a single faculty member creating, teaching, and assessing courses, competency-based
providers can split such tasks among different individuals, allowing the institution to objectively
confirm a student’s learning by using a third party for assessment.
•
Pre- and final testing can be an effective tool to determine if there are sub-competencies within
a competency a student has yet to master. For instance, students may pretest out of three
subcompetencies, but must take and pass two additional subcompetencies in order to pass.
These types of practices put the learning in the hands of the student.
By evolving traditional methods of delivery, institutions may effectively impact traditional levels of
degree completion. For the nontraditional or 21st century student, innovation will be key to academic
success.
Role of the Private Sector
While traditional college students pursue higher education to gain entry into the private sector, many
nontraditional students already operate within it. Working full- or part-time, nontraditional students often
have more clearly defined career goals and pursue programs that fulfill both academic and professional
needs. The private sector plays an important role in the funding and development of academic programs
specifically tailored to their needs.
With nontraditional students dedicating many of their academic pursuits to career advancement, the
private sector must guide academic programs along with other higher education entities. Employers
should be financially engaged in the professional development of employees, and federal and state
policies should encourage that investment. Indeed, action by private sector institutions may evolve some
of the more creative solutions to helping nontraditional students move forward, as well as identify less
workable practices faster than institutions might. If institutions fail in their mission, nontraditional
students may take their hard-earned funds and enroll elsewhere. Such competition will put pressure on
higher education administrators to connect with industry leaders and discuss what works and what does
not in terms of best serving nontraditional students.
Institutions should integrate the expertise and knowledge of the private sector in its academic
programs:
•
New York University’s School of Continuing and Professional Studies advisory board includes
distinguished industry leaders and practitioner faculty, resulting in academic programs that
align with the expectations of recruiters from a variety of specialized industries and sectors,
benefitting students in the job search process.
•
As previously discussed, WGU’s competencies are informed by input from business, industry,
and academic leaders.
•
UMUC has recently restructured its curriculum, paying special attention to the expectations of
graduates in the workplace.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 250 of 392
These considerations are important in terms of addressing the needs of students and industry as well as
incentivizing employee assistance programs for businesses.
Another example of successful integration between the private sector and higher education is Graduate!
Philadelphia. This program, focused on the Greater Philadelphia region, is a collaborative effort among
government, institutions, and businesses that is working to increase degree attainment among adult
learners. Initiatives such as these would also help promote adult degree attainment.
The role of the private sector is considerable in the success of the nontraditional student. Employers from
both large and burgeoning small and mid-size businesses should be brought in to higher education
discussions at the ground level and throughout the process in order for the nation to receive the benefits of
graduates who can contribute diverse skills to complement societal and business needs.
Conclusion
Better serving the large population of nontraditional students will require governments at all levels to
reconsider a number of longstanding policies and practices. Postsecondary institutions will also need to
grow and change in significant ways. Many offices and institutions are already doing so, as the wealth of
programs described in the Advisory Committee’s September 30, 2011, hearing attests.
One of the United States’ fundamental tenets is that the individual should have the opportunity to aspire
to a better life. While it is true that a great deal of change needs to occur to break down barriers that
hinder degree attainment among nontraditional students, doing so represents not a burden but a vast
opportunity. For many states, it is also a necessity, as more than half of states will see no or slow growth
in their 18- to 24-year old population in the next few years.
Our governmental and educational institutions have the opportunity to embrace front and center a number
of valuable goals along the way to greater degree attainment. Some of these goals include creating better
structures for lifelong learning among our general population, initiating more effective workforce
credentialing, testing new technologies and methods for use in our education system, promoting
educational opportunities across the country, and bringing people with new perspectives and diverse skills
into the academy as both learners and institutional partners.
If care and attention are used to expand quality educational opportunities for nontraditional students,
greater degree attainment can be achieved. Developing appropriate and well-executed higher education
structures and partnerships will breathe new life into an educational tradition of the United States—
allowing citizens to achieve their full potential and use their talents for the greater good.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 251 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 252 of 392
RESOURCES
Adelman, C. 2006. The Toolbox Revisited: Paths to Degree Completion From High School Through
College. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2001. Accessed Denied: Restoring the Nation’s
Commitment to Equal Educational Opportunity. Washington DC.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2002. Empty Promises: The Myth of College
Access in America. Washington DC.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2006. Mortgaging Our Future: How Financial
Barriers to College Undercut America’s Global Competitiveness. Washington DC.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2008. Shifts in enrollment likely to increase
bachelor’s degree losses. Policy Bulletin. Washington DC.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/mofpolicybulletin.pdf (accessed December 6,
2011).
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2010. The Rising Price of Inequality: How
Inadequate Grant Aid Limits College Access and Persistence. Washington DC.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2010. Access and Persistence (Fall).
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2011. Access and Persistence (Spring).
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2011. Access and Persistence (Fall).
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2011. Session II: Nontraditional students – barriers
to access and persistence. ACSFA Spring 2011 Hearing. Public Hearing (March 17). Washington
DC.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. 2011. Afternoon session: Nontraditional students.
ACSFA Fall 2011 Hearing. Public Hearing (September 30). Washington DC.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 2006. Addressing the needs of adult learners.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities 3(2).
Aslanian, C. B. 2001. Adult Students Today. New York: The College Board.
Bash, L. 2003. Adult Learners in the Academy. Bolton MA: Anker Publishing.
Bean, J., and B. Metzner. 1985. A conceptual model of nontraditional student attrition. Review of
Educational Research 55: 485-540.
Berube, A., W. H. Frey, A. Friedhoff, E. Garr, E. Istrate, E. Kneebone, R. Puentes, A. Singer, A. Tomer,
H. Wial, and J. H. Wilson. 2010. State of Metropolitan America. Washington DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Bosworth, B. 2007. Lifelong Learning: New Strategies for the Education of Working Adults. Washington
DC: Center for American Progress.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 253 of 392
Bosworth, B., and V. Choitz. 2002. Held Back: How Student Aid Programs Fail Working Adults.
Belmont MA: FutureWorks.
Bowl, M. 2003. Non-Traditional Entrants to Higher Education. Stoke on Trent, UK and Sterling, VA:
Trentham Books.
Calcagno, J. C., P. Crosta, T. Bailey, and D. Jenkins. 2006. Stepping Stones to a Degree: The Impact of
Enrollment Pathways and Milestones on Community College Student Outcomes. (CCRC Working
Paper No. 4, Assessment of Evidence Series). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Community College Research Center.
Carnevale, A. P., N. Smith, and J. Strohl. 2010. Help Wanted: Projections of Jobs and Education
Requirements through 2018. Washington DC: Georgetown University Center on Education and
the Workforce.
Center for Law and Social Policy. 2010. Funding Career Pathways and Career Pathway Bridges: A
Federal Policy Toolkit for States. Washington DC.
Center for Law and Social Policy. 2011. Yesterday’s Nontraditional Student is Today’s Traditional
Student. Washington DC. http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/NontraditionalStudents-Facts-2011.pdf (accessed September 20, 2011).
Choitz, V., and R. Widom. 2003. Money Matters – How Financial Aid Affects Nontraditional Students in
Community Colleges. Arlington MA: MDRC.
Choy, S. 2002. Nontraditional Undergraduates. Washington DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Complete College America. 2011. Time is the Enemy: The Surprising Truth About Why Today’s College
Students Aren’t Graduating…And What Needs to Change. Washington DC.
Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010. SB 7006. 1st session. Public Chapter no. 3. (January 26, 2010):
1-9. http://completecollegetn.com/assets/docs/THEC-CCTA2010%20%20Senate%20Bill%20No%207006.pdf (accessed October 14, 2011).
Conger, S. B., C. D. Blanco, E. Crowe, G. Kuh, P. E. Lingenfelter, D. A. Longanecker, H. P. L’Orange,
T. Rainwater, C. Tell, and A. Venezia. 2007. More Student Success: A Systemic Solution. Boulder
CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers.
Cook, B., and J. E. King. 2004. Low-Income Adults in Profile: Improving Lives Through Higher
Education. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Cook, B., and J. E. King. 2005. Improving Lives through Higher Education: Campus Programs and
Policies for Low-Income Adults. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Crandall-Hollick, M. L., and M. P. Keightley. 2011. Higher Education Tax Benefits: Brief Overview and
Budgetary Effects. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.
Cross, K. P. 1981. Adults as Learners: Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 254 of 392
Darkenwald, G. G., and S. B. Merriam. (1982). Adult Education: Foundations of Practice. New York:
Harper and Row.
de Vise, Daniel. 2011. US falls in global rankings of young adults who finish college. The Washington
Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-falls-in-global-ranking-of-youngadults-who-finish-college/2011/08/22/gIQAAsU3OK_story.html (accessed September 13, 2011).
De Vito, K. M. 2009. Implementing adult learning principles to overcome barriers of learning in
continuing higher education programs. Online Journal of Workforce Education and Development
3(4): 1-10.
Donaldson, J. F., and S. Graham. 1999. A model of college outcomes for adults. Adult Education
Quarterly 50(1): 24-40.
Dougherty, B. C., and R. Woodland. 2009. Understanding sources of financial support for adult learners.
The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 57: 181-186.
Dworsky, A., and A. Pérez. 2009. Helping former foster youth graduate from college: Campus support
programs in California and Washington State. Chicago IL: Chapin Hall at the University of
Chicago.
Engle, J. 2004. Postsecondary access and success for first-generation college students. American
Academic 3: 25-48.
Erisman, W., and S. Looney. 2007. Opening the Door to the American Dream: Increasing Higher
Education Access and Success for Immigrants. Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
Federal Student Aid. 2009. Academic Competitiveness Grant. U.S. Department of Education, Federal
Student Aid. http://studentaid.ed.gov/PORTALSWebApp/students/english/AcademicGrants.jsp
(accessed October 17, 2011).
Flint, T. A. 1999. Best Practices in Adult Learning: A CAEL/APQC Benchmarking Study. Chicago IL:
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Flint, T. A. 2005. How Well Are We Serving Our Adult Learners? Investigating the Impact of Institutions
on Success and Retention. Chicago IL: The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Flint, T., P. Zakos, and R. Frey. 2002. Best Practices in Adult Learning: A Self-Evaluation Workbook for
Colleges and Universities. Chicago IL: The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning.
Giancola, J. K., D. C. Munz, and S. Trares. 2008. First- versus continuing-generation adult students on
college perceptions: Are differences actually because of demographic variance? Adult Education
Quarterly 58(3): 214-228.
Gorard, S., E. Smith, H. May, L. Thomas, N. Adnett, and K. Slack. 2006. Review of Widening
Participation Research: Addressing the Barriers to Participation in Higher Education. A report
to the Higher Education Funding Council for England by the University of York, Higher
Education Academy and Institute for Access Studies.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 255 of 392
Hart, N. K. 2003. Best practices in providing nontraditional students with both academic and financial
support. New Directions for Higher Education no. 121: 99-106.
Headden, S. M. 2009. No more kid stuff: Colleges and universities take a mature approach to serving
adult students. Lumina Foundation Focus.
Hezel Associates and Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 2010. Promising Practices in
Statewide Articulation and Transfer Systems. Boulder CO.
Hoffman, L., and T. Reindl. 2011. Complete to Compete: Improving Postsecondary Attainment Among
Adults. Washington DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.
Horn, L. J., and C. D. Carroll. 1996. Nontraditional Undergraduates: Trends in Enrollment from 1986 to
1992 and Persistence and Attainment Among 1989-90 Beginning Postsecondary Students.
Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hughes, R. 1983. The non-traditional student in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. NASPA
Journal 20(3): 51-64.
Hussar, W. J., and T. M. Bailey. 2011. Projections of Education Statistics to 2020 (NCES 2011-026).
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. 2011. Crossing the Finish Line: A National Effort to Address Near
Completion. Washington DC. http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/publications/af/(Brief)_Crossing_the_Line-Near_Completion.pdf (accessed December 6, 2011).
Jung, J., and R. M. Cervero. 2002. The social, economic and political contexts of adults’ participation in
undergraduate programmes: A state-level analysis. International Journal of Lifelong Education
21 (4): 305-320.
Kanter, M. J. 2011. American higher education: “First in the world.” Change Magazine May/June 2011:
9.
Kasworm, C. 2003. What is collegiate involvement for adult students? Paper presented as part of a
Symposium by Kasworm, C., Donaldson, J. & Ross-Gordon, J. What does research suggestion
about effective college involvement of adult undergraduate students? Paper presented at the
conference of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago IL. (ERIC Reproduction
Document No. ED481228).
Kasworm, C., and S. Blowers. 1994. Adult Undergraduate Students: Patterns of Learning Involvement.
Report to OERI, Department of Education, Washington DC. Knoxville TN: College of Education,
University of Tennessee.
Kasworm, C., C. Polson, and S. Fishback. 2002. Responding to Adult Learners in Higher Education.
Malabar FL: Krieger Publishing.
Kasworm, C., J. Ross-Gordon, and A. Rose (Eds.) 2010. Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education:
2010 Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 256 of 392
Kazis, R., A. Callahan, C. Davidson, A. McLeod, B. Bosworth, V. Choitz, and J. Hoops. 2007. Adult
Learners in Higher Education: Barriers to Success and Strategies to Improve Results. Boston
MA: Jobs for the Future.
Kelly, P., and J. Strawn. 2011. Not Just Kid Stuff Anymore: The Economic Imperative for More Adults to
Complete College. Washington DC.
Kim, K. A. 2002. ERIC review: Exploring the meaning of “nontraditional” at the community college.
Community College Review 30: 74-89.
Kim, K.A., L. J. Sax, J. J. Lee, and L. S. Hagedorn. 2010. Redefining nontraditional students: Exploring
the self-perceptions of community college students. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice 34: 402-422.
Kisker, C. B., R. L. Wagoner, and A. M. Cohen. 2011. Implementing Statewide Transfer and Articulation
Reform: An Analysis of Transfer Associate Degrees in Four States. Oak Park CA: Center for the
Study of Community Colleges.
Levin, J. S. 2007. Nontraditional Students and Community Colleges: The Conflict of Justice and
Neoliberalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lumina Foundation for Education. 2005. What We Know About Access, Persistence, and Success for
Adult Learners in Postsecondary Education: A Review of Contemporary Literature. Web
publication of the Lumina Foundation for Education.
http://www.luminafoundation.org/research/what_we_know_about_adult_learners.html (accessed
December 20, 2010).
MacKeracher, D., T. Suart, and J. Potter. 2006. State of the Field Report: Barriers to Participation in
Adult Learning. University of New Brunswick: Canadian Council of Learning.
McSwain, C., and R. Davis. 2007. College Access for the Working Poor: Overcoming Burdens to Succeed
in Higher Education. Washington DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Metzner, B., and J. Bean. 1987. The estimation of a conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate
student attrition. Research in Higher Education 27(1), 15-38.
Michelau, D. K., and P. Lane. 2010. Bringing Adults Back to College: Designing and Implementing a
Statewide Concierge Model. Boulder CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.
Mullin, C. M., and K. Phillippe. 2009. Community College Enrollment Surge: An Analysis of Estimated
Fall 2009 Headcount Enrollments at Community Colleges. Washington DC: American
Association of Community Colleges.
National Center for Homeless Education. 2010. Increasing access to higher education for unaccompanied
youth: Information for colleges and universities. Greensboro NC.
http://center.serve.org/nche/downloads/briefs/higher_ed.pdf (accessed January 7, 2011).
Nelson, L. A. 2011. Republicans push Pell changes. Inside Higher Ed (September 30).
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/09/30/house_republicans_propose_budget_keeping_
maximum_pell_grant (accessed September 30, 2011).
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 257 of 392
Nichols, A. H. 2011. Developing 20/20 Vision on the 2020 Degree Attainment Goal: The Threat of
Income-Based Inequality in Education. Washington DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of
Higher Education.
Ochoa, E. M. 2011. Dear Colleague Letter: GEN-11-12. U.S. Department of Education.
http://www.ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN1112.html (accessed October 14, 2011).
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 2011. Education at a Glance 2011 – OECD
Indicators. Paris France. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/61/2/48631582.pdf (accessed September
26, 2011).
Patterson, M. B. 2010. GED Tests Passers in Postsecondary Institutions of up to Two Years: Following
up on Enrollment and Graduation. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Patterson, M. B., J. Zhang, W. Song, and A. Guison-Dowdy. 2010. Crossing the Bridge: GED
Credentials and Postsecondary Educational Outcomes. Washington DC: American Council on
Education.
Paulson, K., and M. Boeke. 2006. Adult Learners in the United States: A National Profile. Washington
DC: American Council on Education.
Pelletier, S. G. 2010. Success for adult students. Public Purpose: 2-6.
Perna, L. W., Ed. 2010. Understanding the Working College Student: New Research and its Implications
for Policy and Practice. Sterling VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Price, C., T. Steffy, and T. McFarlane. 2003. Continuing a commitment to the higher education option:
Model state legislation, college programs, and advocacy organizations that support access to
postsecondary education for public assistance recipients. New York NY: Howard Samuel State
Management & Policy Center.
Prince, D., and D. Jenkins. 2005. Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students: Lessons for
Community College Policy and Practice from a Statewide Longitudinal Tracking Study. New
York NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?uid=288 (accessed October 10, 2011).
Pusser, B., D. W. Breneman, B. M. Gansneder, K. J. Kohl, J. S. Levin, J. H. Milam, and S. E. Turner.
2007. Returning to Learning: Adults’ Success in College is Key to America’s Future. Indianapolis
IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
Radford, A.W. 2009. Military Service Members and Veterans in Higher Education: What the New GI Bill
May Mean for Postsecondary Institutions. Washington DC: American Council on Education.
Rendón, L. 1994. Beyond involvement: Creating validating academic and social communities in the
community college. University Park PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,
and Assessment. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. ED374728).
Schuetze, H. G., and M. Slowey. 2002. Participation and exclusion: A comparative analysis of nontraditional students and lifelong learners in higher education. Higher Education 44: 309-327.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 258 of 392
Spanard, J. 1990. Beyond intent: Reentering college to complete the degree. Review of Educational
Research 60(3): 309-344.
Spence, D., C. D. Blanco, and M. Root. 2010. No Time to Waste: Policy Recommendations for Increasing
College Completion. Atlanta GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. 2008. Second to none in attainment, discovery, and
innovation: The national agenda for higher education. Change Magazine September/October
2008: 42-49.
St. John, E. P., G. D. Musoba, and C. Chung. 2004. Academic Preparation and College Success: Analyses
of Indiana’s 2000 High School Class. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.
Stodden, R. A., and T. Whelley. 2004. Postsecondary education and persons with intellectual disabilities:
An introduction. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 39 (1): 6-15.
Stokes, P. J. 2006. Hidden in plain sight: Adult learners forge a new tradition in higher education. Issue
paper released for The Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education,
Washington DC.
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. 2000. Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education:
Principles of Effectiveness. Chicago IL.
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. 2008. Adult Learning in Focus: National and State-byState Data. Chicago IL.
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. 2010. Fueling the Race to Postsecondary Success: A
48-Institution Study of Prior Learning Assessment and Adult Student Outcomes. Chicago IL.
The Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. 2011. LearningCounts.org website.
http://www.learningcounts.org/Pages/Default.aspx (accessed October 14, 2011).
Stahl, V. V., and M. Pavel. 1992. Assessing the Bean & Metzner model with community college student
data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
San Francisco CA. (ERIC Reproduction Document No. ED344639).
The College Board. 2010. The Educational Crisis Facing Young Men of Color. New York NY.
Tinto, V. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago
IL: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Adult Education Participation
Decisions and Barriers: Review of Conceptual Frameworks and Empirical Studies. Working
Paper No. 98-10, by Tim Silva, Margaret Cahalan, and Natalie Lacierno-Paquet. Peter Stowe,
Project Officer. Washington DC: 1998.
U.S. Department of Education. 2010. Profile of Undergraduate Students: 2007—08. National Center for
Education Statistics: 2010-205. Washington DC.
U.S. Department of Education. 2011. College Completion Tool Kit. Washington DC.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 259 of 392
Walsh, E. J. 2011. The role of social capital in adult college reentry: A case study of Graduate!
Philadelphia. Publicly accessible Penn dissertations. Paper 335.
http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/335 (accessed August 26, 2011).
Wei, C. C., S. Nevill, and L. Berkner. 2005. Independent Undergraduates: 1999-2000 (NCES 2005-151).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Wolanin, T. R., and P. E. Steele. 2004. Higher Education Opportunities for Students with Disabilities: A
Primer for Policymakers. Washington DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Wolf, M. A. 2009. Older adult women learners in transition. New Directions for Adult and Continuing
Education no. 122: 53-62.
Women Employed. 2011. Single Mothers and College Success: Creating Paths Out of Poverty. Chicago
IL.
Zirkle, C. 2004. Access barriers experienced by adults in distance education courses and programs: A
review of the research literature. In: Proceedings of the Midwest Research-To-Practice
Conference, Indianapolis IN.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 260 of 392
APPENDIX A: Examples of Subgroups That Comprise the Nontraditional Student Population
Nontraditional students can include, but are not limited to, the following broad, overlapping subgroups:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Single parents (adult single parents, teen single parents, and children living in single parent
households)
Married students (divorced, widowed)
Students with dependent children
Students working full-time
Part-time students
Financially independent students
Military personnel (active duty, reservist, and veteran)
Adult learners (ready adult)
Dislocated workers
Low-income students (low-income adults)
Working poor
Unemployed poor
Public assistance recipients
Homeless students (accompanied homeless youth)
High school non-completers (GED students)
Historically underrepresented minorities (e.g. African American and Hispanic males)
Distance learners (online learners)
English as a Second Language (ESL) students
First-generation students
Undocumented students
Students with disabilities (physical, mental, and learning disabilities)
Older adults (senior citizens, retirees)
Under-prepared students
Students from foster care
Orphans
Wards of the court
Minors
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 261 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 262 of 392
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO HIGHER EDUCATION FOR
NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS BY SUBGROUP IN A SAMPLE OF PUBLICATIONS
Lack of time
Accessibility
De Vito
(2009)
Working
Adults
Lack of flexibility
Lack of appropriate instructional methods
Financial aid designed for full-time students
Affordability
Pell Grant restrictions
State student aid follows federal eligibility rules
Accountability
Consumer information on higher education focuses on traditional students
Inflexible schedules and difficult to access locations
Program Structure
and Duration
Adult
Learners
Long course and program duration
Inflexible entry, exit and re-entry
Losing motivation to continue during pre-collegiate education
Kazis et al.
(2007)
Pedagogy and
Supports
Poor Alignment of
Learning
Institutions and
Systems
Lack of appropriate teaching methods
Lack of adult-focused academic and social supports
Little cross-institutional collaboration or sharing of resources
Disconnect between non-credit and credit programs
Inability to transfer credits or lack of recognition of learning in different contexts
Financial aid concerns
Complexity of re-enrollment process
Michelau & Lane (2010)
"Ready Adult"
Class scheduling and alternative delivery modes
Transcript issues
Anxiety and fear
Prior learning assessment issues
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 263 of 392
APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Program Costs
Resource Availability
Institutional
Barriers
Lack of equipment and infrastructure
Scheduling
Instructional Concerns
Distance
Learners
Zirkle
(2004)
Technical Assistance
Costs and motivators
Feedback and teacher contact
Student
Barriers
Alienation and isolation
Student support and services
Lack of experience/training
Lower levels of academic preparation
Factors
Affecting
Access
FirstGeneration
Students
Lower educational aspirations
Less encouragement and support to attend college, particularly from parents
Less knowledge about the college application process
Fewer resources to pay for college
Engle
(2004)
Lower levels of academic preparation and performance
Less study and time management skills
Factors
Affecting
Success
More difficulty navigating bureaucracy of academic life
Less confidence in ability to succeed
Less likely to engage in academic and social experiences associated with success in college
Cultural adaptation
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 264 of 392
APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Perception that college is too difficult or not for everyone
Lack of skills to succeed in college
High school
noncompleters
(GED students)
Patterson,
Zhang, Song,
and Guison-Dowdy
(2010)
First-generation college student status
Strong negative life experiences that interfere with persistence or completion
Costs of postsecondary education
Competing time demands
Discouragement from remedial courses and lack of perceived educational progress
Lack of role models
Historically
underrepresented
minorities
(e.g., African
American
and
Hispanic males)
Search for respect outside of education world
Loss of cultural memory in shaping minority male identity and pride
The College
Board (2010)
Barriers of language
Challenges of poverty
Extraordinary community pressures
Sense that education system is failing young men
Imprisonment and/or recidivism
Lack of financial means to live independently and safely
Limited housing options, especially in small towns or rural areas
Homeless
Students
National Center for
Homeless Education
(2010)
Unaccompanied
Homeless Youth
Lack of connection with adults or agencies that could help
Struggling to balance school with other responsibilities
Lack of adult guidance and support
Lack of access to parental financial information and support
Inability to be financially self-sufficient once enrolled in college
Failure to access available support systems
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 265 of 392
APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Adult obligations/social distractions
Low-Income
Students
College financing
Cook & King (2004)
Low-Income Adults
Course choice
Self-esteem
Counseling and advising
Financing their postsecondary education
Balancing family responsibilities with school
Transition to civilian and college life after military service
Military
Radford (2009)
Difficulty relating to other students and faculty
Difficulty with timely reimbursement of education expenses
Lack of clear information regarding veterans' education benefits
Difficulty transferring credits between institutions and receiving credits for military experience
Often come from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds
Are often first-generation college students
Public
Assistance
Recipients and
Low-Income
Single Parents
Often have learning disabilities
Price, Steffy, and
McFarlane (2003)
Often have children and/or family members with special needs
Often face recurrent family and/or health issues
Often face difficulties getting reliable child care and transportation
Often face recurrent financial crises
Failure of child welfare system to promote postsecondary education
Students may be unprepared for college-level work
Students from
Foster Care
Dworsky &
Pérez (2009)
Most foster youth cannot depend on parents and family members for financial or emotional support
Considered "financially independent" but often unaware of financial aid for which they are eligible
More likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems persisting into early adulthood
Student services are not familiar with or prepared to address unique needs of this population
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 266 of 392
APPENDIX B (CONT.)
Physical barriers of campus facilities
Students with
Disabilities
Wolanin &
Steele (2004)
Lower income than peers
Faculty attitudes and academic culture towards students with disabilities
Heavy work and family responsibilities prevent full-time enrollment
Working Poor
Adults
Working
Poor
McSwain &
Davis (2007)
Enrollment patterns may impact ability to receive federal need-based grants
Inability to cover out-of-pocket cost of postsecondary attendance and financial aid fails to meet need
Part-time enrollment poses risk to student persistence and degree attainment
Working poor college students contend with barriers associated with first-generation
Working Poor
Youth
They have limited resources to pay for college and few can rely on parents for financial support
Financial constraints and obstacles associated with being a first-generation college student
Stresses of immigration
Lack of information about postsecondary education
Undocumented
Students
Erisman &
Looney (2007)
Work and family responsibilities
Financial need
Inadequate academic preparation and achievement
Limited English proficiency
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 267 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 268 of 392
APPENDIX C: NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS STUDY PANELISTS
AT THE MARCH 17, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARING
Mr. Thomas Babel
Vice President, Regulatory Affairs
DeVry Inc.
As Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for DeVry, Mr. Babel is responsible for assuring that DeVry’s
institutions operate in compliance with all federal, state, and provincial regulations affecting school
operations and student financial assistance programs. His responsibilities include interacting with federal
and state lawmakers as well as the agencies that regulate school operations. Prior to his appointment as
Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, Tom was Vice President of Student Finance for DeVry University,
and was responsible for compliance with U.S. and Canadian federal, state, and provincial financial
assistance regulations, delivery of federal and state financial aid, policy development, student finance
systems development and maintenance and staff training and quality assurance for DeVry University.
Mr. Babel has worked extensively with the U.S. Department of Education on a number of program and
modernization initiatives, including chairing Project EASI - a national program to reengineer the student
aid delivery process. He was a nonfederal negotiator in the 2007 and 2009 negotiated rulemaking
sessions. Mr. Babel has served as a presenter at numerous financial aid and higher education conferences.
He has held several elected and appointed positions with state, regional, and national associations. Mr.
Babel received a master of business administration from Keller Graduate School of Management of
DeVry University and a bachelor of arts in mathematics from Wabash College.
Dr. Bryan Cook
Director of the Center for Policy Analysis
American Council on Education
Dr. Cook is the Director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education (ACE).
He designs and conducts in-depth analyses on current higher education topics and emerging federal policy
issues in support of ACE’s legislative agenda. Most recently, Dr. Cook has done extensive work on the
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Dr. Cook has managed several ACE initiatives, including a three year project that looked at ways of
ensuring academic success for low-income adults and a two year project focused on programs and
services for military service members and veterans in higher education. Dr. Cook has authored
publications and/or presented on a wide array of higher education topics, including higher education
diversity, student enrollment and persistence trends, educational attainment, financial aid, college finance,
and federal reporting requirements.
Dr. Cook received his PhD and MA from the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary
Education at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. He received his BA in urban planning from Miami
University in Oxford, Ohio.
Ms. Melissa F. Gregory
College Director of Student Financial Aid
Montgomery College
Ms. Gregory is the College Director of Student Financial Aid for Montgomery College, a multi-campus
community college in Maryland enrolling approximately 37,000 credit students. Ms. Gregory has worked
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 269 of 392
as a financial aid administrator in the Washington D.C. metropolitan region for 31 years at schools
including the George Washington University, the University of Maryland College Park, Frederick
Community College, and Montgomery College. She is active in financial aid legislative issues and
testified on both the federal and state levels supporting financial aid application simplification and
increased access to college for all students. She conducts financial aid training with local, state, and
national associations and speaks frequently to community groups, high schools, and middle schools
concerning the financial aid application process and aid programs.
Ms. Gregory is a graduate of Montgomery College, with bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the George
Washington University. She is currently pursuing a doctorate in education with a concentration in
community college leadership at Morgan State University.
Dr. Carol Kasworm
W. Dallas Herring Professor
North Carolina State University
Dr. Kasworm is the W. Dallas Herring Professor of Adult and Community College Education in the
Department of Leadership, Policy, and Adult and Higher Education at North Carolina State University.
Dr. Kasworm’s career has included leadership, administration, instructional, and program development
efforts in faculty and academic administrative roles at several universities. Her main research and writing
interests have focused upon the adult undergraduate experience, including the nature of learning
engagement and participation patterns of adult students, the situated influences of varied higher education
contexts on adult learners, and of the role of adult higher education in a lifelong learning society. Her
scholarship includes her recent co-editorship of the Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education, as well
as numerous other publications.
Among Dr. Kasworm’s honors are induction into the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall
of Fame; American Association for Adult and Continuing Education; Outstanding Research Award,
Division of Research, National University Continuing Education Association; and Fellow of the
International Self-Directed Learning Society. She provides current leadership on the Executive Board of
the International Adult and Continuing Education Hall of Fame, the Board of North Carolina Adult
Education Association, and the Wake County Literacy Council. Among other professional contributions,
Dr. Kasworm has participated in varied leadership roles in the American Association of Adult and
Continuing Education, the Commission of the Professors of Adult Education, the Adult Education
Research Conference, and the American Educational Research Association.
Dr. Kasworm received a BA degree in psychology and sociology from Valparaiso University, an MA in
higher education from Michigan State University and an EdD in adult education from University of
Georgia.
Dr. Demarée Michelau
Director of Policy Analysis
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education
Dr. Michelau is the Director of Policy Analysis at the Western Interstate Commission for Higher
Education (WICHE). The author of numerous education reports, policy briefs, and magazine articles, she
has experience in higher education policy on issues such as accelerated learning options, adult learners,
college affordability and access, articulation and transfer, and K-16 reform. Previously, she worked for
the National Conference of State Legislatures as a policy specialist. Dr. Michelau received a bachelor's
degree in public law from Northern Illinois University and a master's degree and PhD in political science
from the University of Colorado at Boulder.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 270 of 392
Dr. Laura Perna
Professor
University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education
Dr. Perna is Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. Prior to
moving to Penn, she was a faculty member at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her current
scholarship draws on multiple theoretical perspectives and a variety of analytical techniques to understand
the ways that social structures, institutional practices, and public policies separately and together enable
and restrict the ability of women, racial/ethnic minorities, and individuals of lower socioeconomic status
to enroll and succeed in college. Her research has been supported by grants from many foundations and
agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute for Education Sciences and the Lumina
Foundation for Education and has been recognized by the Association for the Study of Higher Education's
2003 Promising Scholar/Early Career Achievement Award.
Dr. Perna serves or has served as a member of the technical review group for the GEAR UP Follow-up
evaluation, the technical work group of the Upward Bound and Student Support Services Innovative
Practices Study, the technical review panels for the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study, Beginning
Postsecondary Student Survey, and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Survey, the Institute for Higher
Education Policy’s Advisory Board, the American Council on Education’s Center for Policy Analysis
Advisory Board, the National College Access Network Research to Practice Advisory Committee, and the
Lumina Foundation for Education’s Research Advisory Committee. In addition, she serves or has served
on the editorial boards of many higher education journals.
Dr. Perna holds a BA in psychology and BS in economics from the University of Pennsylvania, and a
master’s of public policy and PhD in education from the University of Michigan.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 271 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 272 of 392
APPENDIX D: NONTRADITIONAL STUDENTS STUDY PANELISTS
AT THE SEPTEMBER 30, 2011 ADVISORY COMMITTEE HEARING
STATE PANEL
Mr. Scott A. Copeland
Policy Associate-Student Services
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
Scott Copeland serves as the liaison to student services organizations, including financial aid
administrators, and works with Board program staff to establish collaborative links with community and
technical colleges around financial aid issues and aid programs unique to Washington State. These efforts
include analyzing policy direction and legislation associated with financial aid, workforce education,
transfer, and basic skills education as they relate to student services objectives of student access,
retention, and progression. Mr. Copeland has 26 years of higher education student service experience
serving Western Washington University, Saint Martin’s University, the University of Puget Sound, and
Centralia College.
Mr. Copeland earned associate degrees from Highline Community College and Centralia College and a
bachelor of arts degree in business administration/marketing and economics from Western Washington
University. He is the 1999 and 2009 recipient of the Distinguished Service to Youth Award presented by
the Pacific Northwest Association for College Admission Counseling.
Dr. Paul E. Lingenfelter
President
State Higher Education Executive Officers
Paul Lingenfelter became CEO of SHEEO in 2000, where his work has focused on increasing successful
participation in higher education and the public policies required for educational excellence. Under his
leadership, the SHEEO staff organized the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education
in 2005, created the annual study State Higher Education Finance, and published More Student Success:
A Systemic Solution. He is the author of numerous studies and articles related to his work in higher
education and philanthropy, and he currently serves on the boards of the National Student Clearinghouse
and the New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability.
From 1985 to 2000, Dr. Lingenfelter served the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, where
in 1996 he was appointed Vice President to establish and lead the MacArthur Foundation Program on
Human and Community Development. He also served the Foundation as Associate Vice President for
Planning and Evaluation and Director of Program Related Investments. Dr. Lingenfelter was Deputy
Director for Fiscal Affairs for the Illinois Board of Higher Education from 1980 to 1985 and held other
administrative positions with the Illinois Board of Higher Education and the University of Michigan from
1968-80.
Dr. Lingenfelter holds an AB from Wheaton College in literature, an MA from Michigan State
University, and a PhD from the University of Michigan in higher education with an emphasis in public
policy.
Dr. Camille (Cam) Preus
Commissioner
Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development
Oregon State Board of Education
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 273 of 392
Camille Preus is the Commissioner of the Department of Community Colleges and Workforce
Development (CCWD). CCWD provides leadership and advocacy with the Governor, the legislature, and
other statewide stakeholders for Oregon’s 17 community colleges, seven workforce investment areas, and
many community-based organizations. Prior to her appointment as Commissioner, Dr. Preus held
leadership roles in workforce development at the local and state levels. She speaks frequently at national
forums about education and workforce development topics where she focuses on her philosophy of state
and local partnership for improved service delivery and results for people. Prior to her government
service, Dr. Preus held positions as a chemist and quality control manager with United States Steel.
Dr. Preus graduated from Cumberland Junior College, Middle Tennessee State University; she earned an
MSBA from Indiana University and received her doctorate in community college leadership from Oregon
State University.
Mr. Travis Reindl
Program Director, Education Division
Center for Best Practices
National Governors Association
Travis Reindl oversees the postsecondary education work area in the National Governors Association’s
Center for Best Practices. His concentration is on postsecondary access and completion. He is also the
lead on the 2010-2011 NGA Chair's Initiative, which focuses on increasing college completion and
productivity. Mr. Reindl most recently served as State Policy and Campaigns Director at
CommunicationWorks, L.L.C., a Washington DC-based public affairs firm. From 2006 to 2008, he
served as Program Director at the Boston-based Jobs for the Future, where he led Making Opportunity
Affordable. Previously, Mr. Reindl headed the state policy analysis unit at the American Association of
State Colleges and Universities and oversaw government relations and institutional research for the South
Dakota Board of Regents.
A native of South Dakota, Mr. Reindl holds a BA from the University of Notre Dame and an MPP from
the University of Maryland, College Park.
Ms. Amy Sherman
Associate Vice President for Policy and Strategic Alliances
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
Amy Sherman is Associate Vice President for Policy and Strategic Alliances at the Council for Adult and
Experiential Learning (CAEL). Her work focuses on increasing access to adult learning and improving its
quality. In this role, Ms. Sherman engages in policy research and analysis, coalition-building, advocacy,
and technical assistance to state and federal policy leaders. She works closely with federal and state
legislators to develop and advance legislation to strengthen America's workforce. Ms. Sherman also leads
CAEL's national initiative to advance Lifelong Learning Accounts (LiLAs), which are employer-matched
educational accounts to finance lifelong learning for working adults.
Prior to joining CAEL, Ms. Sherman was Executive Director of the Manufacturing Workforce
Development Project (MWDP), a project of the Chicago Federation of Labor funded by the U.S.
Department of Labor. She has also practiced employment law at major law firms such as Sonnenschein
Nath & Rosenthal.
Ms. Sherman earned her law degree with honors from Northwestern University School of Law, where she
later served as a dean of students.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 274 of 392
Dr. Peter J. Stokes
Executive Vice President & Chief Research Officer
Eduventures, Inc.
Dr. Stokes leads Eduventures' team of researchers and consultants, who work with hundreds of colleges
and universities across the country as they seek to recruit students, develop faculty, manage costs, and
produce high-quality graduates. In the 10 years that he has been with Eduventures, his work has focused
on helping colleges and universities serve adult learners, grow online enrollments, educate future
teachers, and demonstrate meaningful outcomes. Prior to joining Eduventures, Dr. Stokes was Manager of
the industry research group at Daratech, Inc., an information technology market research firm. He has
also held teaching positions at Tufts University and the Massachusetts College of Art.
In 2005, Dr. Stokes was recognized as one of "higher education's new generation of thinkers" by the
Chronicle of Higher Education. More recently, he provided testimony to U.S. Secretary of Education
Margaret Spellings' Commission on the Future of Higher Education, and later served as an advisor to the
commission in the development of its final report, A Test of Leadership. Dr. Stokes has been a member of
the CHEA Tenth Anniversary Commission, which sought to support the strengthening of higher
education accreditation. He worked on Governor Deval Patrick's Commonwealth Readiness Commission
to support the development of a ten-year strategy for education in Massachusetts. In 2011, his essay,
“What Online Learning Can Teach Us about Higher Education,” will be published by Harvard Education
Press in an American Enterprise Institute edited volume entitled Reinventing the American University.
Dr. Stokes has a graduate certificate in business administration from Cardean University, and a BA and a
PhD in literature from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
INSTITUTIONAL PANEL
Dr. Chris Bustamante
President
Rio Salado College
Chris Bustamante is President of Rio Salado College, one of the ten Maricopa Community Colleges, and
the largest online community college in the nation serving nearly 70,000 students annually, with over
41,000 students online. Previously, Dr. Bustamante served as Interim President, Vice President of
Community Development and Student Services, Dean of Academic Affairs, and in senior level
government affairs positions. He is well-known as an advocate for increasing access to higher education
and for forging transformational partnerships.
Dr. Bustamante earned an MEd and EdD in educational leadership from Northern Arizona University and
a BS in business administration from the University of Arizona.
Mr. Thomas J. Dalton
Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management
Excelsior College
Mr. Dalton has served as Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management at Excelsior College since
November 2006. He oversees all financial aid programs for Excelsior’s nontraditional student population,
including working adults, members of the military, and veterans. Excelsior College, a nonprofit,
regionally accredited distance learning institution, strives to remove obstacles to the educational goals of
adult learners, and to meet the needs of those traditionally underserved in higher education. The College
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 275 of 392
is a recognized leader in Prior Learning Assessment and degree completion for adult students, and is
accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education.
Prior to his work at Excelsior, Mr. Dalton served as Senior Vice President of Customer Relations for the
New York State Higher Education Services Corporation (HESC) and Assistant Vice-President of the
Loans Division of HESC. He is the former Director of Financial Aid at the Albany College of Pharmacy.
Earlier, he served as an Assistant Director of Financial Aid and as a Financial Aid Counselor at Siena
College in Loudonville, New York.
In addition, Mr. Dalton is a Past-President of the New York State Financial Aid Administrators
Association (NYSFAAA) and Eastern Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators Association
(EASFAA). He has over 30 years of administrative financial aid experience.
Dr. Thomas Flint
Vice President for Regional Accreditation
Kaplan University
Tom Flint is Kaplan University’s Vice President for Regional Accreditation, having previously served
Kaplan in other senior administrator roles involving accreditation and academic continuous quality
improvement. Before joining KU in July 2005, he served as Vice President for Lifelong Learning and
Research at the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, one of the world’s leading organizations
promoting the interests of the adult learner. He has also served in a variety of administrative roles with
career-focused institutions, including Robert Morris University (Illinois) and DeVry University. During
his career in higher education, Dr. Flint has consulted with dozens of institutions about best practices in
serving adult learners, co-authored two books on best practices, and authored more than two dozen
journal articles, including research studies for the Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher
Education, Journal of College Admission, Journal of Student Financial Aid, and Journal of Continuing
Higher Education.
A graduate of Northwestern University’s School of Speech, Dr. Flint holds a PhD in Curriculum and
Instruction from the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Mr. Scott Jenkins
Director of External Relations
Western Governors University
Scott Jenkins is currently the Director of External Relations for Western Governors University. Prior to
this role, Mr. Jenkins served as the Senior Education Policy Director for Governor Mitch Daniels of
Indiana. In this capacity, he directed the Governor’s education agenda with the Indiana Department of
Education, the Commission for Higher Education, the State Student Assistance Commission, and the
Department of Workforce Development. Additionally, he facilitated the Governor’s education legislative
priorities with the Indiana General Assembly. Mr. Jenkins was instrumental in creating WGU – Indiana
under the leadership of Governor Daniels.
Immediately prior to working for Governor Daniels, Mr. Jenkins served as a senior policy consultant with
Achieve, Inc., on the American Diploma Project; worked as the Indiana state policy advisor for the
Lumina-funded Making Opportunity Affordable project; and consulted with Jobs for the Future, Inc., on
the Achieving the Dream initiative.
Mr. Jenkins has worked for over 15 years for both the state and federal government, culminating his
public sector work as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at the United States Department of Education. In his
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 276 of 392
varied career in public service, he has worked for both the Florida and Michigan Departments of
Education and State Legislatures. He also served as former Michigan Governor John Engler’s Education
Policy Coordinator.
Dr. Robert S. Lapiner
Associate Vice Chancellor for Global Continuing Education
New York University
Robert S. Lapiner is recognized as one of the nation’s most successful leaders in university-based
continuing higher education. Beginning this fall, Dr. Lapiner has been asked to assume a new strategic
leadership and planning role for New York University, in the newly created position of Associate Vice
Chancellor for Global Continuing Education. From February 2006 through August 2011, he served as
Dean of the New York University School of Continuing and Professional Studies (NYU-SCPS). Before
coming to NYU, Dr. Lapiner was dean of Continuing Education and UCLA Extension at the University
of California, Los Angeles. Prior to joining UCLA, he was Deputy Executive Director and Director for
Europe for the Council on International Educational Exchange. From 1976-82, Dr. Lapiner was a career
diplomat in cultural and educational affairs with the U.S. Foreign Service. For his work in the Congo
(then Zaire), he received a Meritorious Honor Award from the U.S. government.
Dr. Lapiner has been a faculty member and guest lecturer on five continents. His recent research and
writing interests focus on the global demographic, socio-cultural, and technology-driven changes
transforming the mission and practice of higher education and its capacity to provide and shape
opportunities for continuing access to learning to meet the needs of students of all ages throughout their
active lives. A Woodrow Wilson Fellow and Harvard Graduate Prize Fellow, Dr. Lapiner earned his BA
from UCLA, and received an MA and PhD from Harvard University in British and American Languages
and Literature.
Mr. Javier Miyares
Senior Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness
University of Maryland University College
Javier Miyares serves as the Senior Vice President for Institutional Effectiveness at University of
Maryland University College. In this capacity, Mr. Miyares provides leadership to the assessment of
learning outcomes, research on teaching and learning in the online environment, the University’s
enterprise data warehouse, business intelligence and analytics, the development of learner metrics, and
institutional planning and research.
Prior to joining UMUC in 2001, Mr. Miyares was Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance and
Administration at the University System of Maryland, where he had also served as Assistant Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Mr. Miyares was the lead staff member for USM on issues related to
strategic planning, accountability, student learning assessment, and institutional research. Mr. Miyares’
more than 30 years of higher education experience includes employment with the Maryland Higher
Education Commission and the University of Maryland, College Park.
Mr. Miyares earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in sociology at the University of Maryland, College
Park, where he also completed all the requirements but the dissertation for a doctorate in educational
measurement and statistics.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 277 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 278 of 392
APPENDIX E: ACSFA MEMBERS
Norm Bedford, Chair
Director, Financial Aid and Scholarships
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Box 452016
4505 S. Maryland Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-2016
Appointed: 10/01/2008
U.S. Senate appointee
Kathleen Hoyer
Student Member
The University of Maryland--College Park
2110 Benjamin Building
College Park, Maryland 20742-1165
Appointed: 04/16/2010
U.S. Secretary of Education appointee
Helen Benjamin, Vice Chair
Chancellor
Contra Costa Community College District
500 Court Street
Martinez, California 94553
Appointed: 10/02/2008
U.S. House of Representatives appointee
William T. Luckey
President
Lindsey Wilson College
L.R. McDonald Administration Building,
President's Office
210 Lindsey Wilson Blvd.
Columbia, Kentucky 42728
Appointed: 10/02/2009
U.S. Senate appointee
David L. Gruen
Past National Chair
National Association of Student Financial Aid
Administrators
Retired
41519 N. Tangle Ridge Court
Phoenix, Arizona 85086
Appointed: 10/02/2009
U.S. Senate appointee
John F. McNamara
Vice President for College Development
Rockford College
5050 E. State Street
Rockford, Illinois 61108
Appointed: 08/07/2009
U.S. Secretary of Education appointee
Anthony J. Guida, Jr.
Senior Vice President of Strategic Development
and Regulatory Affairs
Education Management Corporation
210 Sixth Avenue, Suite 3300
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
Appointed: 10/02/2008
U.S. House of Representatives appointee
Deborah Stanley
Director of Financial Aid
Bowie State University
14000 Jericho Park Road
Bowie, Maryland 20715
Appointed: 12/22/2010
U.S. House of Representatives appointee
Sharon Wurm
Director of Financial Aid, Scholarships, Student
Employment and Veterans Services
Truckee Meadows Community College
7000 Dandini Blvd, RDMT 315C
Reno, Nevada 89512
Appointed: 10/05/2010
U.S. Senate appointee
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 279 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 280 of 392
APPENDIX F: ACSFA STAFF
William J. Goggin
Executive Director
Janet L. Chen
Director of Government Relations
Anthony P. Jones
Director of Policy Research
Tracy D. Jones
Senior Administrative Officer
Jennifer R. Nupp
Associate Director of Policy Research
Jeneva E. Stone
Senior Writer
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page Page 281 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 282 of 392
APPENDIX G: ACSFA AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION
The Advisory Committee was established by an act of Congress in 1986. Section 491 of the Higher
Education Act as amended contains the Committee's Congressional mandate. A copy of this section as it
appears in the law follows:
SEC. 491. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE.--(1) There is established in the Department an independent
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance (hereafter in this section referred to as the
"Advisory Committee") which shall provide advice and counsel to the authorizing committees and to the
Secretary on student financial aid matters. (2) The purpose of the Advisory Committee is-- (A) to provide
extensive knowledge and understanding of the Federal, State, and institutional programs of postsecondary
student assistance; (B) to provide technical expertise with regard to systems of needs analysis and
application forms; (C) to make recommendations that will result in the maintenance of access to postsecondary education for low- and middle-income students; (D) to provide knowledge and understanding
of early intervention programs and to make recommendations that will result in early awareness by lowand moderate-income students and families— (i) of their eligibility for assistance under this title (ii) to the
extent practicable, of their eligibility for other forms of State and institutional need-based student
assistance; (E) to make recommendations that will expand and improve partnerships among the Federal
Government, States, institutions of higher education, and private entities to increase the awareness and the
total amount of need-based student assistance available to low- and moderate-income students; and (F) to
collect information on Federal regulations, and on the impact of Federal regulations on student financial
assistance and on the cost of receiving a postsecondary education, and to make recommendations to help
streamline the regulations of higher education from all sectors.
(b) INDEPENDENCE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE.--In the exercise of its functions, powers, and
duties, the Advisory Committee shall be independent of the Secretary and the other offices and officers of
the Department. Notwithstanding Department of Education policies and regulations, the Advisory
Committee shall exert independent control of its budget allocations, expenditures and staffing levels,
personnel decisions and processes, procurements, and other administrative and management functions.
The Advisory Committee's administration and management shall be subject to the usual and customary
Federal audit procedures. Reports, publications, and other documents of the Advisory Committee,
including such reports, publications, and documents in electronic form, shall not be subject to review by
the Secretary. Notwithstanding Department of Education policies and regulations, the Advisory
Committee shall exert independent control of its budget allocations and expenditures, personnel decisions
and processes, procurements, and other administrative and management functions. The Advisory
Committee’s administration and management shall be subject to the usual and customary Federal audit
procedures. The recommendations of the Committee shall not be subject to review or approval by any
officer in the executive branch, but may be submitted to the Secretary for comment prior to submission to
the authorizing committees in accordance with subsection (f). The Secretary's authority to terminate
advisory committees of the Department pursuant to section 448(b) of the General Education Provisions
Act ceased to be effective on June 23, 1983.
(c) MEMBERSHIP.--(1) The Advisory Committee shall consist of 11 members appointed as follows:
(A) Four members shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate, of whom two members
shall be appointed from recommendations by the Majority Leader of the Senate, and two members shall
be appointed from recommendations by the Minority Leader of the Senate. (B) Four members shall be
appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of whom two members shall be appointed
from recommendations by the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, and two members shall
be appointed from recommendations by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives. (C) Three
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 283 of 392
members shall be appointed by the Secretary, of whom at least one member shall be a student. (2) Each
member of the Advisory Committee, with the exception of the student member, shall be appointed on the
basis of technical qualifications, professional experience, and demonstrated knowledge in the fields of
higher education, student financial aid, financing post-secondary education, and the operations and
financing of student loan guarantee agencies. (3) The appointment of a member under subparagraph (A)
or (B) of paragraph (1) shall be effective upon publication of such appointment in the Congressional
Record.
(d) FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.--The Advisory Committee shall--(1) develop, review, and
comment annually upon the system of needs analysis established under part F of this title; (2) monitor,
apprise, and evaluate the effectiveness of student aid delivery and recommend improvements; (3)
recommend data collection needs and student information requirements which would improve access and
choice for eligible students under this title and assist the Department of Education in improving the
delivery of student aid; (4) assess the impact of legislative and administrative policy proposals; (5) review
and comment upon, prior to promulgation, all regulations affecting programs under this title, including
proposed regulations; (6) recommend to the authorizing committees and to the Secretary such studies,
surveys, and analyses of student financial assistance programs, policies, and practices, including the
special needs of low-income, disadvantaged, and nontraditional students, and the means by which the
needs may be met; (7) review and comment upon standards by which financial need is measured in
determining eligibility for Federal student assistance programs; (8) appraise the adequacies and
deficiencies of current student financial aid information resources and services and evaluate the
effectiveness of current student aid information programs; (9) provide an annual report to the authorizing
committees that provides analyses and policy recommendations regarding— (A) the adequacy of needbased grant aid for low- and moderate-income students; and (B) the postsecondary enrollment and
graduation rates of low- and moderate-income students; (10) develop and maintain an information
clearinghouse to help students of higher education understand the regulatory impact of the Federal
Government on institutions of higher education from all sectors, in order to raise awareness of
institutional legal obligations and provide information to improve compliance with, and to reduce the
duplication and inefficiency of, Federal regulations; and (11) make special efforts to advise Members of
Congress and such Members' staff of the findings and recommendations made pursuant to this paragraph.
(e) OPERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE.--(1) Each member of the Advisory Committee shall be
appointed for a term of 4 years, except that, of the members first appointed-- (A) 4 shall be appointed for
a term of 1 year; (B) 4 shall be appointed for a term of 2 years; and (C) 3 shall be appointed for a term of
3 years, as designated at the time of appointment by the Secretary. (2) Any member appointed to fill a
vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term of a predecessor shall be appointed only for the
remainder of such term. A member of the Advisory Committee serving on the date of enactment of the
Higher Education Amendments and College Opportunity Act of 2008 shall be permitted to serve the
duration of the member’s term, regardless of whether that member was previously appointed to more than
one term. (3) No officers or full-time employees of the Federal Government shall serve as members of the
Advisory Committee. (4) The Advisory Committee shall elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman from
among its members. (5) Six members of the Advisory Committee shall constitute a quorum. (6) The
Advisory Committee shall meet at the call of the Chairman or a majority of its members.
(f) SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT FOR COMMENT.--The Advisory Committee may submit its
proposed recommendations to the Department of Education for comment for a period not to exceed 30
days in each instance.
(g) COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES.-- Members of the Advisory Committee may each receive
reimbursement for travel expenses incident to attending Advisory Committee meetings, including per
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 284 of 392
diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently.
(h) PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES.--(1) The Advisory Committee may appoint such personnel as
may be necessary by the Chairman without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code,
governing appointments in the competitive service, and may be paid without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and General Schedule
pay rates, but no individual so appointed shall be paid in excess of the rate authorized for GS-18 of the
General Schedule. The Advisory Committee may appoint not more than 1 full-time equivalent,
nonpermanent, consultant without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States Code. The Advisory
Committee shall not be required by the Secretary to reduce personnel to meet agency personnel reduction
goals. (2) In carrying out its duties under the Act, the Advisory Committee shall consult with other
Federal agencies, representatives of State and local governments, and private organizations to the extent
feasible. (3)(A) The Advisory Committee is authorized to secure directly from any executive department,
bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality information,
suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purpose of this section and each such department, bureau,
agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and
directed, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics
directly to the Advisory Committee, upon request made by the Chairman. (B) The Advisory Committee
may enter into contracts for the acquisition of information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the
purpose of this section. (4) The Advisory Committee is authorized to obtain the services of experts and
consultants without regard to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code and to set pay in accordance with
such section. (5) The head of each Federal agency shall, to the extent not prohibited by law, cooperate
with the Advisory Committee in carrying out this section. (6) The Advisory Committee is authorized to
utilize, with their consent, the services, personnel, information, and facilities of other Federal, State, local,
and private agencies with or without reimbursement.
(i) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS.--In each fiscal year not less than $800,000, shall be available from the
amount appropriated for each such fiscal year from salaries and expenses of the Department for the costs
of carrying out the provisions of this section.
(j) SPECIAL ANALYSES AND ACTIVITIES.--The Advisory Committee shall-- (1) monitor and
evaluate the modernization of student financial aid systems and delivery processes and simplifications,
including recommendations for improvement; (2) assess the adequacy of current methods for
disseminating information about programs under this title and recommend improvements, as appropriate,
regarding early needs assessment and information for first-year secondary school students; (3) assess and
make recommendations concerning the feasibility and degree of use of appropriate technology in the
application for, and delivery and management of, financial assistance under this title, as well as policies
that promote use of such technology to reduce cost and enhance service and program integrity, including
electronic application and reapplication, just-in-time delivery of funds, reporting of disbursements and
reconciliation; (4) conduct a review and analysis of regulations in accordance with subsection (l); and (5)
conduct a study in accordance with subsection (m).
(k) TERM OF THE COMMITTEE.--Notwithstanding the sunset and charter provisions of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. I) or any other statute or regulation, the Advisory Committee
shall be authorized until October 1, 2014.
(l) REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS. --(1) RECOMMENDATIONS.—The Advisory
Committee shall make recommendations to the Secretary and the authorizing committees for
consideration of future legislative action regarding redundant or outdated regulations consistent with the
Secretary’s requirements under section 498B. (2) REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF REGULATIONS.—
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 285 of 392
(A) REVIEW OF CURRENT REGULATIONS.—To meet the requirements of subsection (d)(10), the
Advisory Committee shall conduct a review and analysis of the regulations issued by Federal agencies
that are in effect at the time of the review and that apply to the operations or activities of institutions of
higher education from all sectors. The review and analysis may include a determination of whether the
regulation is duplicative, is no longer necessary, is inconsistent with other Federal requirements, or is
overly burdensome. In conducting the review, the Advisory Committee shall pay specific attention to
evaluating ways in which regulations under this title affecting institutions of higher education (other than
institutions described in section 102(a)(1)(C)), that have received in each of the two most recent award
years prior to the date of enactment of Higher Education Amendments and College Opportunity Act of
2008 less than $200,000 in funds through this title, may be improved, streamlined, or eliminated. (B)
REVIEW AND COLLECTION OF FUTURE REGULATIONS.—The Advisory Committee shall— (i)
monitor all Federal regulations, including notices of proposed rulemaking, for their impact or potential
impact on higher education; and (ii) provide a succinct description of each regulation or proposed
regulation that is generally relevant to institutions of higher education from all sectors. (C)
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC WEBSITE.—The Advisory Committee shall develop and maintain an
easy to use, searchable, and regularly updated website that—(i) provides information collected in
subparagraph (B); (ii) provides an area for the experts and members of the public to provide
recommendations for ways in which the regulations may be streamlined; and (iii) publishes the study
conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences under section 1106 of
the Higher Education Amendments and College Opportunity Act of 2008. (3) CONSULTATION.— (A)
IN GENERAL.—In carrying out the review, analysis, and development of the website required under
paragraph (2), the Advisory Committee shall consult with the Secretary, other Federal agencies, relevant
representatives of institutions of higher education, individuals who have expertise and experience with
Federal regulations, and the review panels described in subparagraph (B). (B) REVIEW PANELS.—The
Advisory Committee shall convene not less than two review panels of representatives of the groups
involved in higher education, including individuals involved in student financial assistance programs
under this title, who have experience and expertise in the regulations issued by the Federal Government
that affect all sectors of higher education, in order to review the regulations and to provide
recommendations to the Advisory Committee with respect to the review and analysis under paragraph (2).
The panels shall be made up of experts in areas such as the operations of the financial assistance
programs, the institutional eligibility requirements for the financial assistance programs, regulations not
directly related to the operations or the institutional eligibility requirements of the financial assistance
programs, and regulations for dissemination of information to students about the financial assistance
programs. (4) PERIODIC UPDATES TO THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEES.—The Advisory
Committee shall— (A) submit, not later than two years after the completion of the negotiated rulemaking
process required under section 492 resulting from the amendments to this Act made by the Higher
Education Amendments and College Opportunity Act of 2008, a report to the authorizing committees and
the Secretary detailing the review panels’ findings and recommendations with respect to the review of
regulations; and (B) provide periodic updates to the authorizing committees regarding— (i) the impact of
all Federal regulations on all sectors of higher education; and (ii) suggestions provided through the
website for streamlining or eliminating duplicative regulations. (5) ADDITIONAL SUPPORT.—The
Secretary and the Inspector General of the Department shall provide such assistance and resources to the
Advisory Committee as the Secretary and Inspector General determine are necessary to conduct the
review and analysis required by this subsection.
(m) STUDY OF INNOVATIVE PATHWAYS TO BACCALAUREATE DEGREE ATTAINMENT.
--(1) STUDY REQUIRED.—The Advisory Committee shall conduct a study of the feasibility of
increasing baccalaureate degree attainment rates by reducing the costs and financial barriers to attaining a
baccalaureate degree through innovative programs. (2) SCOPE OF STUDY.—The Advisory Committee
shall examine new and existing programs that promote baccalaureate degree attainment through
innovative ways, such as dual or concurrent enrollment programs, changes made to the Federal Pell Grant
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 286 of 392
program, simplification of the needs analysis process, compressed or modular scheduling, articulation
agreements, and programs that allow two-year institutions of higher education to offer baccalaureate
degrees. (3) REQUIRED ASPECTS OF THE STUDY.—In performing the study described in this
subsection, the Advisory Committee shall examine the following aspects of such innovative programs:
(A) The impact of such programs on baccalaureate attainment rates. (B) The degree to which a student’s
total cost of attaining a baccalaureate degree can be reduced by such programs. (C) The ways in which
low- and moderate-income students can be specifically targeted by such programs. (D) The ways in which
nontraditional students can be specifically targeted by such programs. (E) The cost-effectiveness for the
Federal Government, States, and institutions of higher education to implement such programs. (4)
CONSULTATION.— (A) IN GENERAL.—In performing the study described in this subsection, the
Advisory Committee shall consult with a broad range of interested parties in higher education, including
parents, students, appropriate representatives of secondary schools and institutions of higher education,
appropriate State administrators, administrators of dual or concurrent enrollment programs, and
appropriate Department officials. (B) CONSULTATION WITH THE AUTHORIZING
COMMITTEES.—The Advisory Committee shall consult on a regular basis with the authorizing
committees in carrying out the study required by this subsection. (5) REPORTS TO AUTHORIZING
COMMITTEES.— (A) INTERIM REPORT.—The Advisory Committee shall prepare and submit to the
authorizing committees and the Secretary an interim report, not later than one year after the date of
enactment of the Higher Education Amendments and College Opportunity Act of 2008, describing the
progress made in conducting the study required by this subsection and any preliminary findings on the
topics identified under paragraph (2). (B) FINAL REPORT.—The Advisory Committee shall, not later
than three years after the date of enactment of the Higher Education Amendments and College
Opportunity Act of2008, prepare and submit to the authorizing committees and the Secretary a final
report on the study, including recommendations for legislative, regulatory, and administrative changes
based on findings related to the topics identified under paragraph (2).
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 287 of 392
Success
Pathways
COLLEGE READINESS
SUMMER BRIDGE
PREP
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
DUAL CREDIT
EARLY COLLEGE HIGH SCHOOL
March 2010
Richard M. Rhodes, Ph.D.
The Best Place to Start
College President
www.epcc.edu
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 288 of 392
Introduction
In 2004, El Paso Community College (EPCC) was selected to participate in the first round
of the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream Initiative (AtD). The initiative charged the
selected colleges to increase the percentage of students who successfully complete the
courses they take; advance from remedial to credit-bearing courses; enroll in and
successfully complete gatekeeper courses; enroll from one semester to the next; and earn
degrees and/or certificates. In 2009, EPCC was one of 15 colleges given the opportunity to
build on the AtD successes through participation in the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation’s Developmental Education Initiative (DEI). This document is intended to tell
the story of what was achieved with AtD and what is ongoing with DEI.
AtD directed colleges to use data to develop strategies and to disaggregate data in order to
identify the needs of specific groups to be targeted. The typical suggestion to disaggregate
data by ethnicity was not considered useful at EPCC, since our student body is 85%
Hispanic. We tried other forms of disaggregation and EPCC president, Dr. Richard
Rhodes, suggested disaggregation by time out of high school for high school graduates,
GED, and neither high school graduation or GED. The following chart demonstrates the
breakdown of college-readiness (based on placement scores) for first-time students
% of Students College Ready Vs. Needing Remediation
Reading
Math
2
Writing
Academic background
before test
College
ready
Not
college
ready
College
ready
Not
college
ready
College
Ready
Not
college
ready
High school grad < 1 yr.
5%
95%
29%
71%
54%
46%
High school grad > 1 yr.
3%
97%
30%
70%
48%
52%
GED
1%
99%
33%
67%
31%
69%
No high school diploma
or GED
1%
99%
16%
84%
26%
74%
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 289 of 392
This data indicated that we needed an additional goal for AtD at EPCC...that of increasing
the number of students coming to EPCC college-ready and thereby decreasing the
number of students placing into Developmental Education (DE). It also indicated that the
greatest impact could be achieved by improving the college-readiness of recent high
school graduates.
This goal led us to the establishment of a partnership with the school districts in El Paso
and the University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) that is now the envy of communities
throughout the country. Through this partnership we improved the college-readiness of
high school graduates in the El Paso area by implementing the College Readiness
Initiative and by scaling-up the Dual Credit Program and Early College High Schools.
At EPCC we implemented a Summer Bridge Program and a PREP Program for entering
students who were not recent high school graduates and perhaps not graduates at all.
Further research of our data indicated opportunities for decreasing the amount of time
required for students to complete DE coursework if they could not avoid it. Therefore,
faculty, staff and student teams worked together to discover and eliminate overlapping
“Many of our kids will be the first in their family to
go to college, and when they get there, it is
absolutely critical that they are fully prepared. We
must strengthen the connection between K-12
schools, community colleges and universities if our
students are going to compete in the 21st century
global economy. El Paso Community College, in
conjunction with area school districts and the
University of Texas at El Paso, is leading the way
in preparing students for college and has the
results to show the partnership is working.”
Silvestre Reyes
United States Congressman
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 290 of 392
At the end of funding for the AtD Initiative, EPCC and our partners had achieved the
following results:
Through a combination of college-readiness initiatives, we increased the
percentage of recent high school graduates who placed college-ready.
Through interventions to elevate placement and realignment of DE
courses, we reduced the time required to complete DE course work. The
following charts show that over the five year period, enrollment in the
lower level DE courses decreased, while enrollment in the higher level
courses increased.
Math
Placement
Levels
Reading
Placement
Levels
Writing
Placement
Levels
4
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 291 of 392
Through the combined efforts in all the strategies described above we
significantly increased the number of students graduating from EPCC.
Increase in Graduates Exceeds
Increase in Enrollment
Graduates
69%
Fall Credit Enrollment
8.6%
The EPCC family is very proud of the progress made through the AtD Initiative and very
grateful to the Lumina Foundation for providing the funding and motivation to support that
work. As a result of being included in the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s DE
Initiative, we will be able to scale-up programs that will accelerate student progress
through DE coursework.
Reducing the number of students going into DE and reducing the time required for those
students needing DE will help reach the goal of doubling the number of low income
young people who earn a postsecondary degree or certificate with value in the
marketplace by age 26.
The balance of this document describes the Pathways to Success that these initiatives
have made possible for all first-time-in-college students in the El Paso area and
specifically to those enrolling at EPCC.
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 292 of 392
Pathways
The graphic above illustrates the different pathways available to students in the El Paso
area. An in-depth description of each segment of the pathway is described below.
The top line shows what might be called the
traditional path. The College Readiness
Initiative provides students the opportunity to take the college placement test during their
junior year in high school. Those whose scores indicate deficiencies in the areas tested
(reading, writing and math) are provided interventions to improve their skills and then
tested again. Those still showing deficiencies are offered the opportunity to attend a fiveweek Summer Bridge Program that provides workshops and computer-aided instruction
to improve skills before being tested again. Those still needing to improve their placement
scores after the Summer Bridge Program or those electing not to participate in the
Program are encouraged to participate in PREP (Pretesting Retesting Education
Program) after enrolling at EPCC. PREP is designed to significantly decrease the rate of
first-time-in-college students who must be diverted to DE courses and to accelerate the
pace at which enrolled DE students successfully complete these courses. The PREP
program is also available to students who are not recent high school graduates. If after
going through the college-readiness process, the Summer Bridge and/or the PREP
Programs, the placement scores still indicate deficiencies, the student is placed into DE
course(s). Deficiencies, especially in reading, may delay the student’s enrollment in
6
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 293 of 392
college level courses for several semesters.
The second path illustrates how high school
students can demonstrate evidence of college-readiness as early as their junior year by
taking the college placement test and scoring high enough to begin taking college
courses while still in high school.
The third path illustrates how students
enrolled in the four EPCC Early College High Schools can get a significant head start on
college coursework early in their high school experience. Students in these schools will
have earned an Associate’s Degree from EPCC by the time they receive their high
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 294 of 392
College Readiness
Traditional Path
The College Readiness Initiative was undertaken to address the need to increase the
number of high school graduates who meet the Texas Success Initiative standards upon
entry into college and who place into college level courses (avoiding the need for
remediation). The catalyst for this effort is the El Paso Area College Readiness
Consortium, which is comprised of EPCC, UTEP, the Collaborative for Academic
Excellence, the 12 area school districts and the Region XIX Education Service Center.
Representatives from the Consortium meet to set into motion activities that will help
achieve the stated goal of the Initiative. The Consortium is co-chaired by Dr. Dennis
Brown, Vice President of Instruction (EPCC) and Dr. Richard Jarvis, Provost (UTEP).
A second tier organization, the College Readiness Implementation Committee, co-chaired
by Ms. Joyce Ritchey, Dean (EPCC) and Dr. Donna Ekal, Associate Provost (UTEP), was
created to carry out the day to day activities. Research to-date has revealed that the
primary reason high school students do not place into college level courses upon entrance
into higher education has more to do with a lack of understanding of the importance of and
reason for the Accuplacer placement test (test used at EPCC and UTEP) and a lack of
preparation for the test, than it does a lack of preparation through the high school
curriculum. This is where the College Readiness Initiative steps in. The Initiative requires
that high school juniors and seniors follow the six step protocol below:
 Comprehensive orientation for student and parent
Why take a placement test?
 What do the scores mean?
 How will the scores be used?
 How can doing well save time and money?
 How can the student prepare to do well on the Accuplacer test?
Complete joint EPCC/UTEP admission application
Test
Interpretation of scores
Post-test interventions
Re-test






Results of these efforts have led to an increase in the number of students placing into
college level certificate and degree applicable courses. Consequently, EPCC has seen a
reduction in the number of students requiring DE coursework upon entering college.
8
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 295 of 392
One obvious benefit for students taking the placement test during their junior year in high
school is that identified deficiencies can be addressed before they graduate. An
unexpected outcome was that some students were able to see themselves as college
material for the first time. This is especially true for first-generation students who often
have no college-going influences around them. Seeing that their scores placed them into
college-level courses, hearing about the availability and affordability of dual credit
classes and actually taking the first step in the admissions process, provides a vision of
higher education possibilities that was not there before. Today, all of the high schools in
the El Paso area have been designated Accuplacer testing sites and, therefore, plan
testing based on their other scheduling requirements and pay for the student tests. The
Impact of College Readiness Initiative on College Placement
Discipline
2003
2008
Math
2.1%
7.5%
Reading
29.1%
37.5%
Writing
54.3%
65.8%
Impact of College Readiness Initiative on DE Enrollment
Spring 2006 to Spring 2008
Discipline
Amount of Change
Math
0%
Reading
-24%
Writing
-37%
The League for Innovation in the Community College recognized the College Readiness
Initiative with its Innovation of the Year Award in 2006-07.
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 296 of 392
Summer Bridge Program
Traditional Path
The EPCC Summer Bridge Program, also called Project Dream, provides an intensive
five week course of study for recent high school graduates who have developmental
course needs in at least one area. The objective of the Program is to increase college
readiness by:






Improving basic skills
Accessing college resources
Developing college-going attitude
Developing success strategies
Enrolling in college in the fall semester
Completing the fall semester in good standing
Students take a variety of diagnostic assessments to include a pre and post test of the
Accuplacer to compare skills development progress and a pre and post test of the
Learning and Study Skills Inventory (LASSI) to determine progress on college success
strategies. In addition to instructional activities to build basic skills, participants also learn
college success strategies through workshops given by counselors and staff from other
programs, such as Career Services and the PASS Program. A mentor is assigned to each
class to provide a strong positive role model and provide additional services such as inclass tutoring. Two instructors are assigned to each class; one for language arts and one
for math. The success of this program has led to many students progressing more quickly
and at a higher level of achievement.
After participating in the 2009 offering of the Summer Bridge Program, 69% of the
students enrolled at EPCC in the fall semester. The following chart shows the impact of
10
Math
Reading
Writing
Placed into college level
8%
32%
20%
Elevated placement at least 1 level
44%
5%
26%
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 297 of 392
“The EPCC Summer Bridge Program helped me place out of
Math 0300 through Math 0305. The Program has allowed me
to take less remedial courses and in the long run focus on not
dropping out of college.”
Griselda Espinoza
EPCC and UTEP Student
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 298 of 392
PREP Program
Traditional Path
The EPCC Pretesting, Retesting Educational Preparation (PREP) Program assists
entering students through a case management approach in understanding the
significance of the college placement test, developing an Individualized Preparation
Program and working on computer-assisted modules to refresh basic skills. PREP staff
also provide additional information and referrals to other College services, such as
financial aid, child care and counseling. Students who have never taken the placement
test attend a Pretest Overview session where they are provided tips on what to expect
when taking a computerized adaptive placement test and also receive information on the
developmental course sequence.
Students who have already taken the placement test may feel that their scores do not
accurately represent their true skill level. If so, these students are offered the opportunity
to refresh their skills and to retake the placement test.
A PREP Specialist works with the student to develop an Individualized Preparation Plan,
which takes into consideration factors such as the student’s prior education and grades,
the length of time since the student was last enrolled in an academic setting and the
choice of degree plan and career occupation. Students also take a diagnostic test that
pinpoints areas of academic strengths and weaknesses. Students use computer-based
modules to refresh basic skills and then take or retake the placement test. PREP staff
conduct follow-up contacts to assure that students are completing their intervention
program in a timely fashion and are preparing for enrollment in the subsequent
semester.
From the fall 2008 through summer 2009 semesters, 50% of the students participating in
the PREP Program improved their placement by at least one level. In 2007, EPCC’s
College Prep Program was presented the Star Award by the Texas Higher Education
12
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
El Paso Community College
Page Page 299 of 392
Pathways to Success
13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 300 of 392
Developmental Education
Traditional Path
Before we started with the AtD Initiative, the DE discipline was a separate entity from
the disciplines that taught college-level courses.
MATH
READING
WRITING
MATH 0300
READ 0307
ENG 0309
MATH 0301
READ 0308
ENG 0310
MATH 0303
READ 0309
MATH 0305
After a comprehensive study of the issues on all sides, EPCC faculty recommended
that the DE instruction be joined with the college-level instruction in the three areas.
EPCC hired a Director of Student Success to coordinate support services. To facilitate
interaction and collaboration we established standing committees with faculty and staff
from each area and a DE Council to coordinate activities between areas.
A major undertaking by the faculty in the math department consisted of reviewing each of
the developmental math courses, eliminating overlap between courses and ensuring that
the outcomes of each course matched the expectations of the following course. Their
effort resulted in reducing the math developmental course sequence from four courses to
three courses, saving at least one semester for the students who place into the lower
levels of the math sequence.
14
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 301 of 392
The math faculty also conducted several pilots of interventions designed to improve
student success in a discipline where students have the most difficulty. One particularly
successful pilot uses an “emporium” model that places the teacher and the student in a
lab environment with computers and computer-based instruction modules, and allows the
student to proceed through the course material at their own pace.
The following chart shows the results of interventions implemented by the math faculty:
Fall Enrollment
Completion Rates
With new funding and support provided by DEI, EPCC will scale-up the PREP Program
and the Math Emporium offerings in order to serve more students on each of the five
campuses. EPCC is also developing a comprehensive program to guide and support all
DE students through the attainment of their first 30 hours of college credit. National
research and our own data indicate that students who earn at least 30 credits are very
likely to continue and to complete their college experience. The EPCC program will be
called “Start Right” and will be accomplished by instituting some mandatory enrollment
requirements for DE students; by further aligning DE outcomes with college-level
expectations; and by enlisting faculty, staff and students to be advocates, mentors and first
-alert responders for at-risk students.
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 302 of 392
Dual Credit Program
Non-Traditional Path
EPCC’s Dual Credit Program has several goals:
Jump start high school students’ acquisition of certificate and degree
applicable college courses
 Serve as an incentive to high school students to pursue a higher education
degree
 Show high school students that higher education coursework is clearly within
their reach, both academically as well as financially
 Serve as a catalyst for the high school student to decide to continue their
education after graduating from high school

Currently more than 2,500 students in 30 plus high schools, both public and private,
enroll in dual credit college classes in the El Paso region. As one of the poorest
communities in the United States, the one single act that catapulted students into dual
credit classes in record numbers was the College President’s recommendation to the
EPCC Board of Trustees to waive tuition and fees for students. Complementing this was
the agreement from the school districts to purchase the textbooks for the students.
These two actions leveled the playing field for all students, allowing for participation on
the basis of interest and desire, and not finances.
16
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 303 of 392
Dual Credit Enrollment – Fall Semesters Unduplicated
Not including Early College High Schools
288%
133%
26%
22%
39%
5%
2%
21%
2392%
Further expansion of the Dual Credit Program
is only limited by the availability of college
credentialed faculty. UTEP, through its
Teachers for a New Era Program, is working
collaboratively with school districts to assist
teachers desiring to attend graduate school
and acquire degrees and coursework needed
to be fully college credentialed.
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
17
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 304 of 392
Early College High School
Non-Traditional Path
EPCC currently has four Early College High Schools in operation, one will open in the
fall and another on the drawing board. The premise is simple; believe that motivated
students with varying degrees of preparation (students represent a broad cross section
of experiences and abilities) can achieve beyond expectations. In four years, students
in these schools obtain a high school diploma and an Associate’s Degree (60 fully
transferable college credit hours in a variety of fields). College tuition is waived by
EPCC and textbooks are provided by the school districts. Students take college
courses both in their high school classroom taught by a college credentialed instructor
and in college classrooms on EPCC campuses taught by full-time or adjunct college
faculty. The four Early College High Schools currently in operation are:
Mission Early College High School (MECHS) – opened on EPCC’s Mission del Paso
Campus in partnership with Socorro ISD with start-up funding provided by the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation. The school is in its fourth year of operation and has
483 students (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). MECHS was designated
exemplary by the Texas Education Agency each of its first three years.
Valle Verde Early College High School (VVECHS) – opened on EPCC’s Valle Verde
Campus in partnership with Ysleta ISD with start-up funding provided by the Texas
Education Agency. The school is in its third year of operation and has 294 students
(freshman, sophomore, junior). VVECHS was designated exemplary by the Texas
Education Agency each of its first two years.
Transmountain Early College High School (TMECHS) - opened on EPCC’s
Transmountain Campus in partnership with El Paso ISD with start-up funding
provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The school is in its second year
of operation and has 223 students (freshman, sophomore). TMECHS is designated
a TSTEM (Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) school and was
designated exemplary by the Texas Education Agency in its first year.
Northwest Early College High School (NWECHS) – opened on EPCC’s Northwest
Campus in partnership with Canutillo ISD with start-up funding provided by the
Greater Texas Foundation. The school is in its second year of operation and has
193 students (freshman, sophomore). NWECHS is designated a TSTEM (Texas
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) school. In addition to start-up funds,
the Greater Texas Foundation has committed $800,000 to provide each
NWECHS student, in the first four graduating classes, a $2,000 scholarship to
begin their junior year at a university of their choice.
18
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 305 of 392
Early College High School
Fall Dual Credit
191%
82%
48%
688%
A fifth Early College High School, Cotton Valley, will open in August 2010 in collaboration
with three small rural school districts: Fabens ISD, Tornillo ISD and Fort Hancock ISD.
The collaborative received some funding through a planning grant from the Texas
Education Agency, with the possibility of an implementation grant. Discussions are also
underway for a sixth early college high school in partnership with the Clint ISD.
To date, all expectations for early college high school students have been exceeded.
After completing their junior year of high school, 23 students from the MECHS graduated
with Associate degrees from EPCC and entered UTEP as juniors (21 were the first in
their families to ever attend college). In their first semester at UTEP, their average GPA
was 3.4 and 9 students earned a perfect 4.0. They are currently in their second semester
at UTEP and will graduate from high school at the same time they complete their junior
year of college. An additional 42 MECHS students graduated from EPCC mid-way
through
their
El Paso Community College
Pathways to Success
19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 306 of 392
Contact Us
For questions about this document,
please contact any of the following EPCC representatives:
Dr. Richard M. Rhodes
President of the College
rrhodes@epcc.edu
Dr. Dennis E. Brown
Vice President of Instruction
dbrown49@epcc.edu
Mrs. Shirley M. Gilbert
Special Assistant to the President
sgilbert@epcc.edu
Additional information is available at www.epcc.edu.
www.epcc.edu.
El Paso Community College does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age or disability.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 307 of 392
Game Changers Series
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
I. Overview
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 308 of 392
by Mina Dadgar, Andrea Venezia, Thad Nodine, and Kathy Reeves Bracco
WestEd, a research, development, and service agency, works with education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and
improve learning for children, youth, and adults.
About the Cover: There are various pathways students can explore in community colleges while working
toward their credential, and this design reflects that idea. The overlapping of these steps signifies the fortification of the pathway through supports given to the students while completing the program and moving upward
to employment or transfer.
Completion by Design is an initiative of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Postsecondary
Success Strategy.
Suggested Citation: Dadgar, M., Venezia, A., Nodine, T., & Bracco, K. R. (2013). Providing structured
pathways to guide students toward completion. San Francisco: WestEd.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion by WestEd is
licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at WestEd.org/permissions.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 309 of 392
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.Overview
II.Strategies
III.Implementation
IV.Engagement
V.References
1
4
10
15
18
This is one of a series of “Game Changers” documents for use
by colleges to generate discussion about innovative models
for increasing completion rates substantially. Each topic
is addressed through five sections within each report—an
overview, examples in practice, implementation challenges,
sample engagement questions, and references. The sections
are intended to be used separately or as a whole, depending
on the audience and needs. Each report is available at
http://www.WestEd.org/bookstore.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 310 of 392
OVERVIEW
Many students arrive at community college without
clear goals for college and career. Once there, they
often receive little guidance prior to matriculation,
do not meet with an advisor at the college, and
accumulate many course credits that do not count
toward their eventual program of study—or they
drop out of college before selecting a program
(Rosenbaum, Schuetz, & Foran, 2010; Zeidenberg,
2012). To begin to address these kinds of issues and
to help students reach their completion goals, some
community colleges are creating structured pathways
that allow students to explore their educational and
career options while also making progress toward a
credential. The strategies being used vary by college,
but generally they aim to help students learn about
and commit to a program of study within a defined
time frame. Once students commit to an educational
program, additional supports are provided (and sometimes required) and course sequencing and degree
requirements are designed so that students can
complete the program as quickly as possible and be
prepared for transfer and/or employment.
This brief outlines some of the major issues that
colleges are discussing or experimenting with that
are related to the creation of more structured student
pathways, including:
◊ Mandating intake processes that provide educational and career counseling, inform students about
programs that are related to their interests, and help
students explore and develop educational goals,
career goals, and a degree plan.
◊ Balancing flexibility and prescription in student
selection of courses and majors.
◊ Defining clear instructional programs so that
students can complete a program as quickly as
possible.
INTERVIEWEES
The information used for this brief is drawn from research materials and from interviews with the following people:
◊ Stephanie Benjamin, New Community College, City University of New York (CUNY)
◊ Stuart Cochran, Head of Strategic Planning and Institutional Effectiveness, New Community College, CUNY
◊ Tristan Denley, Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs, Austin Peay University
◊ Kurt Ewen, Assistant Vice President for Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Valencia College
◊ Eric Hofmann, Director, Collaborative Programs, CUNY
◊ Davis Jenkins, Senior Research Associate, Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University
◊ Rob Johnstone, Senior Research Fellow, Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges
◊ Joyce Romano, Vice President of Student Affairs, Valencia College
◊ Isaac Rowlett, Senior Public Engagement Associate, Public Agenda
◊ Gretchen Schmidt, Program Director, Postsecondary State Policy, Jobs for the Future
◊ Timothy Stokes, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Tacoma Community College
◊ Julia Wrigley, Associate University Provost, CUNY
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
I. Overview
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 311 of 392
◊ Providing proactive (usually called “intrusive”) and
ongoing education and career advising, supports,
and planning across each stage of student progress
(e.g., creating interactive technology systems that
track students’ progress and direct them to supports
at key stages).
◊ Increasing program alignment with employment and
transfer opportunities.
Since these activities are not mutually exclusive,
some colleges are working on more than one of
these reforms. Providing more structured pathways
has the potential to affect all support services and
instructional programs by requiring better communication and integration of services. Shortening the
time it takes for incoming students to commit to an
instructional program also requires improvements in
developmental education (Nodine, Dadgar, Venezia, &
Bracco, 2012). Since college efforts of these sorts are
new, research is not yet available about their effectiveness. This brief seeks to help the Completion by
Design colleges and the field by explaining terms,
providing examples of current efforts, and offering
suggestions to help colleges with implementation.
Why are colleges working to provide
more structured options for students?
Experiments in behavioral economics and psychology
show that when individuals are not presented with
clear options, they are more likely to become confused
and not reach their goals (Scott-Clayton, 2012). In
many community colleges, students report that they
do not receive enough information about program
requirements and options (Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, &
Person, 2006, p. 104), and they “develop information
by taking courses almost at random” (Grubb, 2006, p.
197). Many students are surprised to find out that the
courses they completed when they were exploring
options do not count toward the major they eventually select (Nodine, Jaeger, Venezia, & Bracco, 2012).
In addition, many students accumulate substantially
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
“I think sometimes a lack of direction is a problem for a lot of people.… Someone just tells you
to take whatever you want, and you don’t really
have a goal in mind.… I think it’s really hard for
people when there’s no end in sight and there’s
no goal in mind to even continue to go, because
you’re just probably going to get really frustrated and want to drop out.”
—Community college student
(Public Agenda, 2012)
more college-level credits than are required for the
credential they eventually receive, and this adds
time and money to students’ educational trajectories
(Zeidenberg, 2012).
“There is a tension between the traditional wide
menu of liberal arts choices and more structure.
The fact is that most students in our urban college don’t get degrees, and we have been saying for a long time that degrees matter. We don’t
do service to students by offering a wide range
of choice combined with a lack of advising.”
—Stuart Cochran, New Community College, CUNY
“We have been influenced by literature on
choice architecture. We have learned that more
choice is not better but is debilitating because
you don’t know where to start.… There is a
difference between checking a box and making an informed decision. When you require
students to choose a major by a certain date,
all that you are doing is … mandating that they
check a box, and I don’t expect that to have any
specific benefits.”
—Tristan Denley, Austin Peay University
I. Overview
2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Students need assistance and support in selecting
their educational and career goals, deciding which
college programs are appropriate for reaching those
goals, and determining which courses to take each
semester to make steady progress in those programs.
The development of more structured pathways
involves finding an appropriate balance between
flexibility and prescription. The liberal arts tradition
offers flexibility for course exploration, but selecting
among the wide array of courses and programs can
be confusing for many students—particularly for
first-generation college-goers and students without
much exposure to college. At the same time, requiring
incoming students to choose a major quickly can be
counterproductive for those who are curious about a
broad range of career interests.
Equity as an impetus for structuring
student experiences toward completion
Providing options for more structured pathways to
degrees may particularly benefit first-generation
and low-income college students, as these students
typically face substantial challenges in developing
educational and career goals and in selecting appropriate classes and programs to make progress toward
those goals (Scott-Clayton, 2012). Without having
a structured opportunity to explore, low-socioeconomic-status students have traditionally pursued
shorter-term credentials that tend to have lower labormarket returns than those of their more advantaged
peers (Dadgar & Weiss, 2012). Most practitioners who
were interviewed for this brief highlighted equity as
a key reason for providing more structure and support
for student decision-making, particularly in helping
first-generation college students make more informed
early decisions about course-taking that can lead to a
degree. For example, interviewees said that providing
more structure can help to guide more students to
enroll in general education courses that count toward
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 312 of 392
“Forty percent of our students are nontraditional, and [many are] first-generation. We know
those students don’t have strong advice systems
about college, so they don’t have the know-how
to navigate the higher education maze. We have
been trying to find ways to make navigation
easier and the process more transparent. Our
philosophy is that getting a degree should be
about doing good work in the classroom and
not dependent on know-how and navigating
the college policy and procedures.”
—Tristan Denley, Austin Peay University
“Looking at the data, we realized our graduating cohort does not reflect the community
demographics: We were graduating high[socioeconomic status] students. But looking at
data every quarter, we saw that our retention
rates for black students did not look good at
all.… Colleges should look at data and ask themselves: ‘How do first-generation, low-income,
and minority students do two or three years
after enrollment? Does the graduating cohort
mirror the diversity in our community?’ Most
people in higher education care about equity,
and after we looked at the data, it became clear
to all of us there was a problem.”
—Timothy Stokes, Tacoma Community College
a wide range of associate degrees as well as transfer
requirements. In addition, the practitioners suggested
that most courses, including those in vocational
degree programs, should be aligned with transfer
requirements, so that more students would have the
option of pursuing a bachelor’s degree if they decide
to do so.
I. Overview
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 313 of 392
STRATEGIES
Providing community college students with structured pathways involves creating an integrated
network of supports and clearly defined instructional
programs that guide students—even as they explore
a range of educational and career options—toward
committing to a program and earning a credential.
All colleges offer support systems and programs
that lead to credentials, but in many cases existing
services or courses are experienced by students as
ad hoc events that are not connected or integrated
(Venezia, Bracco, & Nodine, 2010). The overall
purpose of creating more structured pathways is
to guide students, through integrated supports and
instructional programs, to progress more quickly
to completion.
None of the strategies described in this section will
necessarily provide more “structure” for students.
Rather, the strategies contribute to the development of structured pathways to the extent that
they provide students with a network of integrated
supports and instructional programs—connecting
them to faculty, staff, and peers—that lead students
to commit to an instructional program relatively
quickly and complete that program efficiently. For the
strategies to be effective, they likely need to involve
all faculty and staff in rethinking their own roles, and
the roles of their services or programs, in guiding
students toward completion. Many of the strategies
highlighted in this section are new and are yet to be
systematically evaluated.
1. Mandated or proactive intake processes
to guide student decision-making
To support students as they transition into college,
some community colleges are beginning to require
all students to participate in intake processes (such
as orientation, advising, student success courses, and
summer bridge programs) that inform them about
instructional programs and careers related to their
interests, introduce them to support systems at the
college, provide them with educational and career
counseling, and help them explore and develop
educational goals, career goals, and a degree plan.
Most community colleges already provide these
kinds of services as options for some students, but
the challenge that colleges now face is determining
how to reconfigure their support systems to become
A STRUCTURED APPROACH AT INTAKE:
NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE (NCC)
CUNY’s NCC has two information sessions that are required of all students prior to enrollment. The first is organized
as a group session that provides general information about the college, its programs, and its unique approaches and
requirements. After this session, students who are still interested in NCC attend a second information session, which
is a one-on-one session with an advisor to discuss expectations during the first year and to begin to develop an
educational plan.
After these information sessions, all incoming students are required to attend a mandatory 12-day summer bridge
program prior to fall classes. This non–credit-bearing course further introduces students to the college’s educational
model and support systems, engages them in team building with their peers, and teaches study habits and other skills
associated with success in college. During the bridge program, students are assigned to and meet with a “studentsuccess advocate.” They meet with their advocates throughout their first year (in seminars and one-on-one sessions)
to provide a central point of contact for consistent information and support in decision-making.
Source: http://www.ncc.cuny.edu/admissions.html
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
II. Strategies
4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
the default mode for all entering students, and how
to use these systems to encourage more students to
make better decisions about course-taking.
As colleges consider steps in this direction, it is important to consider that some students have expressed
concerns about more services becoming mandatory,
particularly orientation sessions and student success
courses. A recent study based on focus groups with
community college students suggests that “if a
service is mandatory, [students] want it to be of high
quality, engaging, and clearly connected to their
plans and goals” (Nodine, Jaeger, et al., 2012). In light
of this, colleges that shift toward mandatory orientations and student success courses will need to ensure
that their curricula are based on recent research on
student engagement/success and are relevant to
students (see, for example, McClenney, 2004). In
one example of making a student success course
relevant to participating students, New Community
College (NCC) of the City University of New York
(CUNY) has a mandatory summer bridge program in
which students are assigned to meet with a “studentsuccess advocate.”
2. Balance between flexibility and
prescription in student selection
of courses and majors
Each college will need to find its own balance
between offering students wide flexibility to explore
courses across multiple fields and guiding them to
select and make progress toward a specific major.
Some options currently being used by colleges across
the country include:
A. Encourage students to select a program of study
and provide them with clearly specified course
sequences with limited electives.
Research has suggested that students who select a
program of study early (that includes clear course
sequences) may be more likely to complete a
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 314 of 392
A STRUCTURED APPROACH AT INTAKE:
VALENCIA COLLEGE (FLORIDA)
Valencia College in Florida has a highly structured
intake process. All students attend a mandatory
student orientation. During the orientation, students
learn about LifeMap, the online system that links
them to various services at different stages of the
college process. To help students with the registration process, the advisors give students a list of
suggested courses; the advisors also bring laptops
to the orientation so that students can learn how
to use the online registration process and register
during the orientation. The advisors stay after the
orientation to answer any remaining questions that
students may have or to help with any outstanding
registration issues.
Sources: Interview with Joyce Romano, Valencia
College, and
http://valenciacollege.edu/futurestudents/admissions/
certificate or degree (Jenkins & Cho, 2012). Requiring
or encouraging students to select a program of
study by a specific deadline has several advantages.
It allows for developing an educational plan and
monitoring students’ course-taking against that plan.
Advisors can work with students and ensure that
students are taking the courses that count towards
their chosen credential. In addition, research from
behavioral economics suggests that individuals are
likely to postpone high-stakes decisions even when
procrastination has negative consequences (ScottClayton, 2012). This implies that encouraging or
even requiring students to declare a major may help
them overcome the tendency to procrastinate. At
Tacoma Community College, for example, students
are required to declare a major during the first year;
however, advisors may waive that requirement for
students whom they believe need another term to
make that choice.
II. Strategies
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 315 of 392
A FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE FOR ALL STUDENTS:
NEW COMMUNITY COLLEGE (NCC)
During their first year at NCC, all students participate in an experience that includes a core set of classes that are
connected to a range of services and supports structured to help students make progress toward a degree. The
courses, each of which counts toward any major at the college, include statistics, composition, a seminar focusing
on New York City, and “ethnographies of work.” In addition to providing academic content, each of the courses also
provides students with information and practical skills they need to succeed in college. For example, the course
on ethnographies of work helps students choose a major by allowing them to conduct in-depth investigations of
specific occupations and careers of interest to them. The class also includes a weekly 90-minute advisement seminar,
during which students practice professional skills to prepare for potential internships or other work opportunities
during their second year at NCC. Students must commit to attending college full-time during their first year.
“Transcript data pointed us to the problem that nearly 50 percent of the students were changing their
majors within the first three semesters and they were losing credits because there were different requirements for each major.… We wanted a model where, during the first year, students did not have to choose a
major and at the same time the credits that they earned could apply to any major and would transfer. That is
how we decided to develop the first-year foundation courses.”
—Eric Hofmann, New Community College
Source: http://www.ncc.cuny.edu/academics/firstyearoverview.html
B. Encourage students to select an overall field of
interest and provide them with a coordinated set of
course sequences, advisors, and student supports
that explore various options within that field.
Miami Dade College (MDC) is in the draft stages of
developing Communities of Interest (COIs). A COI
is a cluster of faculty, staff, and students who work
together to increase student involvement, engagement, and success so that students stay in college,
complete at higher rates, and achieve their goals. The
COI connects students with one another and with
the faculty, staff, and administrators who engender
and support student success within that community.
The curriculum within the COI consists of a cluster of
academic pathways that have related academic and/or
career goals. Structures, facilities, spaces, concepts,
branding, services, and initiatives collectively give a
community its identity, purpose, and mission. Unlike
a learning community, participation in a COI does not
require a cohort of students to take the same courses
together, but it provides opportunities for them to
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
study and engage with others who have similar career
interests and goals.
MDC’s initial plan is to encourage students to choose
a COI soon after enrollment, including those students
who test into developmental education or English as
a Second Language. As part of the intake process,
students would take assessments to gauge career
interests and determine readiness in academic and
nonacademic knowledge and skills (such as habits
of mind). Practitioners within each COI would help
students understand, from a practical perspective,
what it means to work in their chosen field. In the
first semester, most students would take a relatively
prescribed course of study that includes mathematics, English, and other general education courses.
As students’ career interests become clearer, they
would begin taking subject-matter courses in their
chosen program.1
1 Information about MDC’s plan comes from initial discussions and
draft documents from MDC’s Communities of Interest Design Team.
II. Strategies
6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
C. Allow students to experiment across fields
of study by selecting from a limited number of
courses, all of which count toward a variety of
majors across fields.
In supporting students’ exploration of various careers
and fields of study, some colleges are encouraging or
requiring incoming students to choose from a limited
number of general education courses that all count
toward any major. For example, some colleges are
developing first-year or first-semester experiences for
all students, in which students are required to enroll in
a set number of core courses. As well as encouraging
productive course-taking that leads toward a degree,
this practice also connects students with their peers.
3. Instructional programs that are
clearly defined
In many colleges, faculty can use program reviews
and other processes to take steps toward ensuring
that instructional programs are more clearly defined
and prescribed, in terms of having clear course and
program requirements, course sequences and availability, electives, and career or transfer opportunities.
This likely includes making information about the
programs clearer and easily accessible to students.
For example, colleges can use interactive websites to
make information about prerequisites, course requirements, and career options associated with each
instructional program more accessible, but this information is most helpful to students if the programs are
structured in ways that are clearly defined.
Faculty members who have been engaged in these
processes report that changes in programs have
had effects both across and within programs. At
Tacoma Community College, a multidisciplinary team
of 20 faculty members was charged with examining
program requirements and course offerings across
departments. By creating a multidisciplinary faculty
team to develop learning outcomes as part of the
accreditation process, the college was able to have
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 316 of 392
better curriculum alignment across departments. At
NCC, efforts to improve program definition through
the development of student pathways appear to
be spurring changes in curriculum within programs.
According to Julia Wrigley, “A large project like this
requires curricular creativity. Sometimes over time,
the curriculum is no longer fresh, but faculty working
together on learning outcomes and reviewing courses
[can make] the courses fresh and creative.”
4. Proactive and ongoing supports
at each stage of student progress
To provide students with more structured pathways
directed toward completion, some colleges are
offering proactive (usually called “intrusive”) and
ongoing education and career advising, supports,
and planning across each stage of students’ college
experiences (Karp, 2011). Doing so requires rethinking
existing support services so that they can be integrated
across students’ experiences. Examples of these supports
include requiring all students to update educational plans
periodically; identifying students who are not making
progress toward a degree and offering advisement and
other services to guide them in course-taking; identifying
students who are at risk of failure in a class and requiring
them to attend tutoring sessions; contacting students who
have left the college, inviting them to return, and showing
them how to do so; and offering internships and other
services to help students learn about careers and how
to connect with employers.
Technology can be particularly effective in this area
because it can help identify students in need (for
example, based on input from faculty and on students’
course-taking records and degree goals) and can
send messages to students concerning actions they
need to take to stay on track toward their educational
goals. In particular, colleges are using technology to
track students’ progress in their program of study,
and to automatically provide them with alerts if they
sign up for a course whose credits will not count
toward their selected degree. For example, Valencia
II. Strategies
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
College has developed a LifeMap system to organize
all support services into stages of student progress
and deliver them to students interactively.
5. Instructional programs that are
aligned with employment
and/or transfer requirements
As part of their program review processes, colleges
need to ensure that their programs are aligned with
labor-market and/or transfer requirements. In relation
to labor-market requirements, many colleges provide
information to students about occupations or jobs that
are associated with each instructional program and that
are generally available locally. Beyond this, faculty in
each program may need to compare the skills provided in
their program with the skills required by these jobs, and
make adjustments if needed. According to Stephanie
Benjamin at NCC, “For our transfer programs, we want
to make sure not only that students can go on and get a
BA in the field but that if they decide to work and study
for their BA part-time, they can get an entry-level job,
preferably in their field, with the AA degree.”
To a large extent, the transfer of credits from two-year
institutions to four-year institutions depends on state
and local policies, including articulation agreements.
In their efforts to develop local agreements with fouryear institutions, community colleges have focused on
ensuring not only that their courses can fulfill general
education requirements or electives, but also that appropriate courses within each program fulfill requirements
for the major at four-year institutions. For example, the
University System of Georgia developed a 42-credit
common-core curriculum for the university’s three dozen
colleges. The plan was implemented in January 2012 and
is one of the most comprehensive guaranteed transfer
agreements for transfer of general education courses
between institutions (Complete College Georgia,
2011). Although the plan has only recently been
implemented, anecdotal information on success with
seamless transfer of courses has led CUNY to develop
a similar initiative called CUNY Pathways to Completion.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 317 of 392
USING TECHNOLOGY TO STRUCTURE
COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL AND
CAREER PLANNING: VALENCIA COLLEGE
Valencia College supports student career and degree
exploration through an interactive technology called
LifeMap. LifeMap helps students find out about careers
and majors, and it can be used to allow advisors,
faculty, and librarians to assist students with career
and educational planning. LifeMap is a guide to help
students figure out “what to do when” in order to
complete their career and education goals. It links all of
the components of Valencia College (including faculty,
staff, courses, technology, programs, and services) to
a personal account so that students can access the
information in one place, tailored to their needs.
Source: http://valenciacollege.edu/lifemap/
USING TECHNOLOGY TO GUIDE
STUDENTS IN COURSE-TAKING:
AUSTIN PEAY UNIVERSITY
Austin Peay University has developed an online
system that suggests courses to the students for the
upcoming semester, based on the college’s prerequisites, each student’s program of study and degree
plan, and the student’s previous course history. Using
these data, the system’s strongest recommendations
are for those courses that are necessary for a student
to graduate (because they are either part of the
university’s core curriculum or part of the student’s
major) and courses in which the student is expected
to succeed academically. Students can choose
whether or not to register for the courses that the
system recommends. Student interview data suggest
that about two-thirds of the courses that students
enroll in are those that were suggested to them by
the system.
Source: http://www.apsu.edu/information-technology/
degree-compass-what
II. Strategies
8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 318 of 392
A LOCAL PARTNERSHIP FOR
TRANSFER: VALENCIA COLLEGE
DirectConnect is a partnership involving the University of Central Florida (UCF), Valencia College, and several other
local community colleges. DirectConnect guarantees admission to UCF for Valencia College students and offers preferential admission to some bachelor’s-degree programs. The community colleges and UCF have developed an exceptional
degree of collaboration, including alignment of curriculum and shared information about students’ transfer processes
and the choices students make about coursework after they transfer. Students can sign up for DirectConnect online.
There are also university advisors on the community college campuses to advise students about transferring to UCF.
Source: http://valenciacollege.edu/futureStudents/directConnect/
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
II. Strategies
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 319 of 392
IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides examples of initial challenges
and opportunities that some colleges are experiencing as they are beginning to develop more structured pathways to guide student progress toward
completion. Since college efforts in this area are new,
available information and research about implementation are not extensive. The information in this section
is based on interviews with practitioners and others
(see the “Interviewees” text box on page 1).
Getting started
“It was important to involve both faculty and
the students in the process.”
—Tristan Denley, Austin Peay University
“Collaboration has been one of the main ways
that we work together with faculty and staff,
and it is part of the culture. All of this has been
shared work… of breaking down the silos.”
—Joyce Romano, Valencia College
Bringing together faculty, staff, and administrators
to work collaboratively across departments is important for most large-scale change efforts in community colleges. According to several interviewees, the
process for creating strategies to structure students’
experiences and increase completion rates should
be inclusive, data driven, and based on clear and
shared objectives. Several of the interviewees also
mentioned that that both full-time and part-time
staff from the instructional and support services
sides, as well as institutional research staff, should
be involved. Including the institutional research
staff helps ensure that necessary data for making
the decisions are provided in a timely manner and
that decisions are evidence-based. Including student
voices can answer specific questions about students’
needs that transcript data do not necessarily capture.
At Valencia College, for example, these objectives
are developed by cross-functional groups that read
and discuss the most recent literature and come up
with design ideas. This section highlights specific
topics that cross-functional teams on campus should
discuss in order to develop a shared understanding
of how a college can structure students’ experiences
toward completion.
the other hand, allowing flexibility for exploration.
Currently, the status quo in most community colleges
allows for widespread flexibility in taking courses
without providing structured guidance to support
student decision-making in entering a program and
achieving a degree. According to Davis Jenkins of
Columbia University’s Community College Research
Center, community colleges currently offer widespread access to courses but not to instructional
programs. He suggests that transfer programs should
be designed to lead students “through a guided exploration toward choosing a major, and that all courses,
including both general education and specialized
courses, should enable students to enter bachelor’s[degree] programs with junior standing in their chosen
majors.” Unfortunately, many students drop out
before they establish a pattern of taking several
courses within an instructional program. It is access
to programs, Jenkins says, that provides students
with degrees. He also suggests that faculty engaged
in this process “need to take the lead in developing
curriculum maps for each program and [in] deciding
how [the courses required for] specific programs flow
from broad streams of core requirements.”
One of the central challenges in creating more
structured pathways for students involves, on one
hand, finding a balance between creating structure in course-taking and program selection, and on
Since this area is so new, it is difficult for college
faculty and staff to know what options are available for creating structured pathways that still allow
for flexibility. This brief is intended to provide some
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
III. Implementation
10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
information about these issues, but the pertinent
research remains limited. In particular, interviewees
suggested that as colleges take steps in these directions, they will need to discuss the following kinds
of issues:
◊ How much structure does the college want to
provide for student decision-making? Which
models—such as encouraging students to select a
program of study, versus encouraging students to
select an overall field of interest—would be most
appropriate for students? How can departments
work together to develop a model?
◊ What program review processes can college faculty
use to better define and prescribe their instructional
programs, so that program requirements are clear
and course sequences efficiently guide students to
a degree?
◊ What review processes can faculty and staff use to
improve program alignment with local labor-market
and transfer requirements?
◊ What are the implications of having more prescribed
course sequences toward degrees? Which courses
might need to expand enrollments, and which
Page Page 320 of 392
“The burden should not be on the students to
navigate what courses to take; that… is a hard
thing for the students to do. The institutions
have to help the students.”
—Julia Wrigley, CUNY
“The faculty task force recommended to reverse
the pattern where our least advantaged
students were being taught by adjunct faculty.…
We now have full-time faculty teach remedial
courses.”
—Timothy Stokes, Tacoma Community College
“Right now, developmental education is largely
disconnected from programs of study. It is
narrowly focused on two college-level courses—
Math and English 101. Most of the developmental
education reforms are also being done apart from
efforts to create programs of study. In my view,
this means that they are unlikely to move the
needle on student progression and completion.”
—Davis Jenkins, Community College
Research Center
courses might see fewer enrollments? What strategic planning processes can help college faculty
and staff address these shifts?
◊ What should be the role of advising, education and
career planning, tracking progress toward educational goals, and related technology use in assisting
student decision-making toward a degree? Which
services should be mandatory, and which should be
voluntary? What kinds of tools and services will be
provided to students at intake and throughout their
college experiences? What kinds of costs are associated with these supports?
◊ How can changes in developmental education
assist in helping get students into a program of
study more quickly? How can enrollment in general
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
education courses support a more structured model
of course-taking?
◊ What decisions concerning educational goals do
students need to make during each semester at
the college? How can those decisions be better
informed?
Data use and other
institutional incentives
Community college faculty with experience in
working to create more structured pathways for
students pointed to two overall areas that helped
move their colleges forward in this area: data use and
institutional incentives.
III. Implementation
11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Data use. Interviewees said that they have seen
college faculty, staff, and administrators become
more interested in developing structured pathways for students after they examined college data
related to course-taking, program entry, and degree
completion. For example, Timothy Stokes of Tacoma
Community College said that by looking at data about
graduating cohorts in comparison with the overall
student community, faculty and staff could clearly
see that the graduates tended to be from highsocioeconomic-status backgrounds. Faculty and staff
were very interested in seeing how first-generation,
low-income students fared two or three years after
entry, and this led the faculty to consider how structuring students’ experiences could improve completion.
Interviewees also suggested that examining college
data can help in deciding what kind of model to implement to create more structure for students. Examples
of data to examine include:
◊ Comparisons between student demographics
overall and the student groups that graduate.
Examining such comparisons spurred a systems
redesign at Tacoma Community College in order to
increase the completion rates of low-income and
minority students.
◊ Graduation rates by program or major.
◊ Transfer data. Examining such data can help identify
the characteristics of students that transfer and the
majors they are likely to pursue. Transfer data are
also important to examine in order to determine if
students are arriving at universities with the necessary prerequisites. For example, Valencia College
examined transfer data in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics and learned that
students were not completing the required prerequisites. Colleges are also focusing on which credits
transferred (e.g., electives, general education, and
credits in different majors).
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 321 of 392
◊ Data from student focus groups and interviews.
These data can help identify the specific challenges
students face in decision-making. These qualitative
data can be supported by quantitative data about
students’ progress or lack of progress toward their
education goals.
◊ The numbers of majors that are offered. CUNY
conducted analyses of these data, and officials
were surprised that some colleges had more than
80 different programs. After the analyses, a CUNY
representative said he “wondered how students
made choices” when faced with all of those options.
◊ Percentages of students who change majors in
their first and second terms, and completion rates
for students who change majors. CUNY found that
nearly 50 percent of students changed majors in
their first three semesters.
◊ Percentages of developmental education students
who pass the pertinent entry-level course in their
field after completing a developmental education
sequence.
◊ Current labor-market demands for each of the
educational programs offered.
Institutional incentives. Interviewees pointed to
the importance of providing incentives—both fiscal
and non-fiscal—for faculty and staff to collaborate
in examining data and developing more structured
pathways for students. In terms of non-fiscal incentives, some colleges have been able to use existing
program review processes as a way to better define
and prescribe their instructional programs. Others
have used feedback from accreditation agencies
about learning outcomes assessments to begin important conversations about program requirements and
course content. As noted earlier in this brief, Tacoma
Community College required learning outcomes to be
determined not by individual programs but by faculty
working together across broader fields, such as the
III. Implementation
12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
social sciences, sciences, and humanities. According
to Timothy Stokes, this process required faculty to
examine their own program within their overall field:
“We had an interdisciplinary group work on learning
outcomes in social sciences, and the group decided
we cannot offer students so many choices. And
faculty realized that they have to be very prescriptive.”
Currently, most fiscal incentives at community
colleges—such as enrollment-driven formulas—are
based on improving student access rather than
increasing student completion. To spur action toward
increasing completion rates, colleges can focus
institutional awards and other forms of recognition
toward efforts to develop more structured pathways.
According to Isaac Rowlett at Public Agenda, colleges
can use a wide range of incentives for faculty and
staff participation:
“Incentives can include money, but other
[incentives] are more important, such as
professional development and creation of
collaborative spaces (online and in person)
for cross-faculty engagement, particularly for
adjuncts. Recognition and awards are very
important to teaching faculty for expanding
their curriculum vitae. Anything that they can
use to advance their careers, anything that recognizes their expertise and honors their work—
those are very important to faculty members.”
Tacoma Community College has provided awards to
departments to examine data related to completion
and has funded departmental projects to improve
retention and completion rates. These incentives do
not provide monetary awards to individuals, but they
bring recognition to those involved by funding their
departmental plans.
Cost and policy implications
Creating more structured pathways for students has
important, and uncertain, implications for college
costs, based on a wide range of factors, including
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 322 of 392
“We started handing out internal awards to
departments and funded the initiatives that the
department teams came up with. That really
motivated people. For example, the executive
team would fund retreats for student support
staff and faculty and asked them to look at data
and suggest strategies for improving student
retention, and we made sure to fund many of
those ideas.… When we fund their plan, then
faculty or advisors are invested in those.… The
teams are overjoyed when they get to implement their ideas.”
—Timothy Stokes, Tacoma Community College
existing services and programs provided and the
models selected. Partly because support services
are directed at large numbers of students, costs per
student may increase as costs per completion—if
completion rates were to rise—remain steady or
decline. New costs may be incurred in several areas
and are certain to be incurred whenever colleges
provide new supports.
Structuring students’ experiences through more
extensive career and educational planning, mandatory orientation, or proactive advising may require
greater resources in terms of student services
staff time. However, using technology may help to
contain some of these costs. For example, Valencia
College’s LifeMap software has an interactive component that helps students choose careers but also
refers students to the career center. Similarly, Austin
Peay University’s Degree Compass is an automated
program that suggests courses to students each
semester. Likewise, student success courses that
offer career and educational planning to groups
of students are a relatively low-cost way to guide
student decision-making, at least in comparison to
III. Implementation
13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
one-on-one advising. Additionally, having programs
that are better prescribed and more tightly aligned
with transfer and work requirements may reduce the
burden on advisors—and students—to sort through
different electives and research the transferability of
each course, thereby freeing up their time.
By being more efficient in taking courses that count
for credit and count toward a degree, students are
likely to save money by reducing the time to achieve
a degree. From the college’s perspective, however,
costs per student may increase while costs per
degree may decline if more students complete their
degrees. This is because the cost per student for
offering developmental and lower-level courses
at most colleges tends to be much lower than that
for offering higher-level courses in the sequence.
Colleges’ efforts to retain students and move them
to second-year courses may be costly for colleges if
they are reimbursed only according to the number of
students who are enrolled (Belfield, 2012; Romano,
Losinger, & Millard, 2010). Therefore, it is important
for community colleges’ cost considerations to take
into account the state’s willingness to complement
enrollment-based funding formulas with funding
components that are linked with completion rates.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 323 of 392
In terms of policy issues, efforts to create more structured pathways that guide students toward completion will require supportive institutional, system, state,
and federal policies. Students often declare programs
of study so that they are eligible for federal financial
aid, and financial aid is critical for many students to be
able to move towards completion. Strategies being
considered by some colleges to address financial aid
issues include having students complete financial aid
forms early, as part of an intake process or as part
of collaborative efforts with local high schools, and
providing emergency financial aid and financial aid
incentives to encourage selecting a program of study
and completing a degree.
Interviewees also emphasized the importance of
system-level and state policies concerning articulation agreements, common course numbering systems,
and general education requirements. They indicated
that these policies are crucial in supporting the
development of clearly defined student pathways at
the campus level. For states that have more centralized
systems, for example, state officials can likely be more
effective than can their counterparts in less centralized systems in bringing together two- and four-year
institutions to make progress on cross-system issues.
III. Implementation
14
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 324 of 392
ENGAGEMENT
2
Creating more structured pathways for students is
challenging because it requires rethinking a college’s
instructional programs and its supports for students;
it is also likely to shift the roles and interactions
of faculty, staff, and administrators. This section
provides questions that faculty, staff, and administrators can use to foster engagement and inquiry in this
process. The questions can be adapted based on an
institution’s needs.
Imagine that you are a student entering our
college. What kind of information would you
want to know before you choose which classes
to take or which program to select?
Given how many students arrive at community
college without clear goals for college and career,
how does our college help students explore
various career options, including understanding
the day-to-day work and likely pay scales associated with various careers? What could we do to
better support the development of career goals
for students?
How does our college encourage students to
develop education plans in relation to their
career goals, including their goals for transfer?
What could we do to better support student
decision-making in this area, including making
the development and updating of educational
plans mandatory?
How does our college track progress toward
education goals? Can the tracking of goals be
mandatory and available online as well as through
in-person formats? How can tracking systems be
used to suggest courses for students and to alert
students when they are straying from their goals?
The questions in this section were reviewed and edited by Public
Agenda staff.
“If possible, everyone who is affected by a
change should be engaged in the process,
though not everyone needs the same role.
Some people can help plan the changes; others
just want to be informed at key times. Student
voices are crucial. Both full-time faculty and
part-time faculty are probably the most important stakeholders to engage deeply. Adjuncts
have a lot to bring to the table. Department
chairs are the linchpins in this process because
they have the formal power to serve as the
connective tissue between the administration
and other faculty members. Finally, the early
adopters—those who have participated in other
reforms and changes—are important.”
—Isaac Rowlett, Public Agenda
How does our college encourage students to
select a major and enter into a program of study?
More broadly, what is the right balance between
allowing for student exploration and encouraging and supporting student progress toward a
certificate or degree? For example, what are the
pros and cons of each of the following models at
our college?
»» Encourage incoming students to select an
instructional program, and provide them
with clearly specified course sequences with
limited electives.
»» Encourage incoming students to select an
overall field of interest, and provide them
with common course sequences and student
supports that explore various program options
within that field.
»» Encourage incoming students to experiment
across fields of study by selecting from a
limited number of courses, all of which count
toward a variety of majors across fields.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
IV. Engagement
15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
In considering these three models, what kinds of
student supports need to be in place to improve
student success? How do those differ from what
we have now? For example, what decisions do
students need to make concerning their educational goals during each semester at the college?
How can those decisions be better informed?
Who at our college needs to be involved in making
these decisions?
In considering these three models, what kinds of
student supports need to be in place to promote
Page Page 325 of 392
student success? How do those differ from what
we have now?
Are reviews of our academic and career/technical
programs needed to ensure that program requirements are clear and course sequences efficiently
guide students to a degree? Who should participate in such reviews? For example, should review
teams include developmental education instructors and advisors? Should the teams be crossdisciplinary, such as by field (for example, social
KEY DATA QUESTIONS FROM THE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE RESEARCH CENTER (CCRC)
CCRC suggests that colleges track cohorts of first-time-in-college students over at least five years to address the
following questions:
What is the distribution of students by intended major or program focus? (Most colleges do not track distribution
carefully, but may need to if they want to figure out whether or not students are progressing in a program of study.)
How many programs does the college offer? How many students are in each program? If there are programs in which
a small number of students are enrolled—or none at all—why is this the case?
How far along are students in a particular major or area toward meeting program requirements? (Most colleges
can’t answer this, particularly for liberal arts or business students, which constitute the majority of students in most
comprehensive colleges.) If the college has a general education core, how far along are liberal arts and sciences
students or associate-degree students in meeting the core requirements? What percentage of students has satisfied each distribution requirement after five years? What percentage has taken and passed more courses than are
required?
What percentage of students transfers to a four-year institution? What percentage of these students earns an associate degree before transferring?
Among students who transfer, what percentage earns a bachelor’s degree (five or six years after first entering higher
education), from which institutions, and in what subjects (all of which can be determined from National Student
Clearinghouse data)? The latter is especially important because students earn at least a plurality of degrees in a
relatively small number of majors. Are the college’s associate-degree requirements well aligned with those of the
institutions and programs within the institutions to which students are most likely to transfer?
How many students are still enrolled after five years and have earned at least 30 college credits (not counting remedial credits)? What are their majors and other characteristics?
CCRC also recommends examining the courses taken by students who complete each of an institution’s major
credentials within a given year. Are graduates of a particular program taking pretty much the same courses, or is there
wide variation in course-taking? What percentage of courses is in non-core areas?
Source: Email correspondence with Davis Jenkins, Senior Research Associate, CCRC, October 3, 2012.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
IV. Engagement
16
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
sciences, sciences, humanities)? What should be
the role of electives?
What processes can faculty and staff use to
improve program alignment with local labormarket and transfer requirements? What kinds of
spaces or supports are needed to allow them to
do this work? What system-level policies need to
be addressed for progress in these areas?
What are the key challenges to creating more
structured pathways for students? How can we
prepare for these challenges? For example, which
courses might need to expand enrollments, and
which courses might see fewer enrollments?
What types of strategic planning processes can
help college faculty and staff address these
shifts? What training and support are needed for
faculty? For counselors? For others?
Page Page 326 of 392
“Because student support services are an important part of structuring students’ experiences,
those staff, including advisors and financial aid
staff, should be brought to the table when discussing how to structure students’ experiences.”
—Gretchen Schmidt, Jobs for the Future
“We also had Institutional Research staff at
every meeting so they could pull up the data
that faculty requested.”
—Timothy Stokes, Tacoma Community College
What additional information do we need to create
more structured pathways for students?
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
IV. Engagement
17
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 327 of 392
REFERENCES
Belfield, C. (2012). Measuring efficiency in the community college sector (CCRC Working Paper No. 43).
New York, NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Nodine, T., Jaeger, L., Venezia, A., & Bracco, K. R. (2012).
Connection by design: Students’ perceptions of their
community college experiences. San Francisco, CA:
WestEd.
Complete College Georgia. (2011). Georgia’s higher
education completion plan. Retrieved from http://
www.usg.edu/educational_access/documents/
GaHigherEducationCompletionPlan2012.pdf
Public Agenda. (2012). Student voices on the higher
education pathway: Preliminary insights and stakeholder engagement considerations. New York, NY, and
San Francisco, CA: Public Agenda and WestEd.
Dadgar, M., & Weiss, M. J. (2012). Labor market returns
to sub-baccalaureate credentials: How much does a
community college degree or certificate pay? (CCRC
Working Paper No. 45). New York, NY: Community College
Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Romano, R. M., Losinger, R., & Millard, T. (2010).
Measuring the cost of a college degree: A case study
of a SUNY community college (CHERI Working Paper
No. 135). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Cornell Higher
Education Research Institute.
Grubb, W. N. (2006). Like, what do I do now? The
dilemmas of guidance counseling. In T. Bailey and
V. Morest (Eds.), Defending the community college
equity agenda (pp. 195–222). Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Rosenbaum, J. E., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. (2006).
After admission: From college access to college
success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press.
Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. (2012). Get with the program:
Accelerating community college students’ entry
into and completion of programs of study (CCRC
Working Paper No. 32). New York, NY: Community
College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/
Publication.asp?uid=885
Karp, M. M. (2011). Toward a new understanding of nonacademic student support: Four mechanisms encouraging positive student outcomes in the community
college (CCRC Brief No. 54). New York, NY: Community
College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/
Publication.asp?uid=886
McClenney, K. M. (2004). Redefining quality in community colleges: Focusing on good educational practice.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 36(6), 16–21.
Nodine, T., Dadgar, M., Venezia, A., & Bracco, K. R.
(2012). Acceleration in developmental education. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Rosenbaum, J. E., Schuetz, P., & Foran. A. (2010). How
students make college plans and ways schools and
colleges could help (working paper). Evanston, IL:
Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.
Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). The shapeless river: Does a
lack of structure inhibit students’ progress at community colleges? (CCRC Working Paper No. 25). New York,
NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://
ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Search.asp?keyword=shapeless+
river&s=search
Venezia, A., Bracco, K., & Nodine, T. (2010). One-shot
deal? Students’ perceptions of assessment and course
placement in California’s community colleges. San
Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Zeidenberg, M. (2012). Valuable learning or “spinning
their wheels”? Understanding excess credits earned by
community college associate degree completers (CCRC
Working Paper No. 44). New York, NY: Community
College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia
University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/
Publication.asp?uid=1072
V. References
18
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Providing Structured Pathways to Guide Students Toward Completion
Page Page 328 of 392
II. Strategies
19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 329 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Stepping It Up:
Building Pathways to College Success
In Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Findings from the
Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education
March 16-18, 2009
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 330 of 392
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Edward G. Rendell, Governor
Department of Education
Dr. Gerald L. Zahorchak, Secretary
Office of Postsecondary and Higher Education
Sandra Edmunds, Deputy Secretary
Written and Compiled by
M. Kate Callahan, Ph.D.,
Adjunct Professor of Education, Cabrini College
Pennsylvania Department of Education
333 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333
- 2009 -
For more information about the Governor’s Conference on Higher Education visit
www.pde.state.pa.us or call 717-783-9259.
The Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) does not discriminate in its educational programs,
activities or employment practices based on race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age,
religion, ancestry, union membership, or any other legally protected category. This policy is in accordance
with state law, including Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act, and with federal law, including Title IV and
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 331 of 392
Stepping ItStepping
Up: Building
College Success
in Success
Pennsylvania
and Nationwide
It Up:Pathways
Building to
Pathways
to College
in Pennsylvania
and Nationwide
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract
i
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................i
Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
STEP ONE: Identifying the Challenges to Increased College Success......... 4
Affordability.......................................................................................................................4
Student Debt......................................................................................................................5
Completions.......................................................................................................................6
Expanding Demographics: Non-traditional-aged Students............................................7
Problems with the Pipeline: High School Seniors Are Not College-Ready.....................8
The National Response....................................................................................................13
STEP TWO: Creating an Action Plan for College Success............................. 10
STEP THREE: Putting the Plan Into Action...................................................... 13
Federal Policies for College Success..........................................................................13
Other National Efforts................................................................................................14
A Focus on Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania...........................................14
Background on Higher Education in Pennsylvania..................................................14
Pennsylvania’s State-Level Success Policies.............................................................15
Success Policies in Action At the School-Level in Pennsylvania..................................18
Foundations for Institutional Success.......................................................................19
Preparing for Success in Higher Education..............................................................20
A Pathway to College that Begins in Kindergarten..............................................20
A Pathway to College Degrees in Engineering, Math and Science......................20
A Pathway to College Success for Hispanic Students...........................................21
A Pathway to College Success for High School Drop-outs....................................21
A Summer Pathway to College Success for Under-prepared Students...............21
Succeeding in Higher Education................................................................................22
Success for Students Needing Developmental Coursework in Community Colleges.................22
Success for Students Needing Developmental Coursework at the Four-Year University........22
Increasing College Success Through Meaningful Coursework............................23
Increasing College Success Through Supportive Relationships..........................23
College Success for Every Institution = A Focus on Effective Learning Strategies Rather than Best Practices......................................................................................................................24
Collaboration for Success in Pennsylvania: A Public and Private Matter...................25
More than Inter-Library Loan–The Need for New Collaborations in Higher Education........ 26
A Call to Action................................................................................................................27
STEP FOUR: Working Together to Increase College Success in Pennsylvania......25
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 332 of 392
Abstract
This paper addresses how higher education might assume responsibility for the uplift
of the many Americans whose futures are uncertain: the unemployed, returning veterans,
low-income populations, and current and future generations of college bound Americans.
Framed around policy recommendations and institutional practices that were presented by
national and state higher education leaders at the first Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference
on Higher Education: Pathways to College Success, held March 16-18, 2009, a four-step
agenda for increasing access to higher education and successful degree completion for all
college-goers is detailed: identifying the challenges to increased college success, creating an
action plan, putting the plan into action, and working together to increase colleges success in
Pennsylvania. The paper culminates in a call to action for steady and intentional progress at
the state level–both within and between institutions to increase student success and restore
the public’s faith in higher education.
Executive Summary
Higher education in the United States is facing multiple challenges. Rising costs
coupled with reduced financial resources threaten access to college at exactly the point at
which our country needs to expand access most. To continue expanding access and to increase
student success, states and institutions must actively reevaluate how they operate and how
they serve students. Moreover, higher education leaders, faculty, and policy makers must
work together in a creative, deliberate, and collaborative fashion to address affordability,
access, and success.
To stimulate this needed collaboration and open dialogue among national, state,
and institutional postsecondary leaders around the key issues of college access and success,
Governor Edward G. Rendell and the Pennsylvania Department of Education convened a
statewide higher education conference, Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher
Education: Pathways to College Success, held March 16-18, 2009. The conference was intended
to rouse state and institutional higher education leaders to confront and address current
economic and political challenges to ensure that a college education remains a realistic goal
for students across Pennsylvania.
Over 300 people representing various sectors of higher education participated in the
3-day conference. College and university presidents, faculty, and administrators from across
Pennsylvania were joined by invited guests:
•Robert Shireman, U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for Education
•Hilary Pennington, Director of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
•Molly Corbett Broad, President, American Council on Education
•Patrick Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
•Jamie Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation for Higher Education
•Patrick Terenzini, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior Scientist, Center
for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University
•Judith Eaton, President, Council on Higher Education Accreditation
In addition, major educational for-profit and non-profit companies that are interconnected
with postsecondary students achieving access and success (including ACT, Inc., Educational
i
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 333 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Testing Services, Pearson, and The College Board) sent representatives to attend the keynote
speeches and breakout sessions.
Further information on the first annual Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher
Education: Pathways to College Success, including the full conference program and copies of
many presentations, can be accessed at the conference website: http://www.outreach.psu.edu/
programs/governors/
This paper charts a four-step course to increasing degree success within institutions
and statewide. Four-steps are outlined, not to oversimplify what is clearly a complex agenda,
but to stimulate action. The four steps were derived from careful content analysis of the many
keynote speeches and presentations that were given at the 2009 conference.
The following are the four steps to increase college success:
•Step 1: Identifying the Challenges to Increased College Success,
•Step 2: Creating an Action Plan: Defining a Policy Agenda for College Success
•Step 3: Putting the Plan into Action–Enacting polices and creating programs for the
nation, for Pennsylvania, and within individual institutions;
•Step 4: Working Together to Increase Colleges Success in Pennsylvania–Inter-college
collaboration for a statewide solution.
Step 1 defines challenges faced by higher education systems and institutions across the nation.
The challenges discussed in this section are those identified by keynote speakers who represent
some of the most prominent figures in higher education today. Each challenge is introduced
with a quote or quotes drawn directly from the keynote speeches. The purpose of this section
is to identify some of the major obstacles that must be addressed at the national, state, and
institutional level to increase college success. In essence, the first step identifies the features of
the existing U.S. higher education system that impede postsecondary degree success, especially
for low-income, Black, Hispanic, and adult student populations.
Step 2 offers strategies for surmounting the challenges outlined in Step 1 by identifying specific
national, state, and institutional policies that promote increased pathways to the postsecondary
degree for all students, and especially for traditionally under-served populations. The purpose
of Step 2 is to move the conversation about increasing postsecondary success from issues to
actions–just as the conference included both presentations that highlighted higher education
issues and presentations that explained current higher education legislation. The policy
directives included in Step 2 represent a compilation of the many policy recommendations made
within keynote speeches and breakout presentations throughout the Pennsylvania Governor’s
Conference on Higher Education: Pathways to College Success.
Step 3 continues to advance the paper’s intended progress from information to action as it
catalogs the many exemplary college success policies and programs already at work at the
national level, in the Pennsylvania Department of Education, and in many Pennsylvania
colleges and universities. Beginning with a summary of current national efforts as defined by
Robert Shireman (U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for Education), Hilary Pennington (Director
of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), and Molly Corbett Broad
(President of the American Council on Education), the discussion focuses predominantly on
Pennsylvania’s progress toward implementing pathways to college success for low-income,
ii
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 334 of 392
Black, Hispanic, and adult student populations. This discussion highlights the various approaches
being implemented across Pennsylvania, at both state and institutional levels, with the shared
goal of increasing degree success.
The driving goal of the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education was
to facilitate collaboration for increasing degree success by gathering an informed cadre of
educational leaders across the nation and state. Likewise, Step 4 emphasizes the importance of
extensive collaboration for increasing college success. Isolated efforts within single institutions
will not be enough to close the gap in degree completions between the traditional college student
demographic and low income, Black, Hispanic, and adult students. As Patrick Callan noted at
the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education, “one of the challenges and great
strengths of U.S. higher education is its immense diversity, but if we don’t find a way to work
together, we won’t have a way to rise to those challenges.” Thus, the fourth step includes several
examples of collaborative efforts between Pennsylvania colleges and universities illustrating
how collaborations across diverse institutions increase students’ pathways to degree success.
The fourth step also defines a common ground from which future collaboration and statewide
higher education conferences might progress.
The need is urgent and the time is now for all of higher education to answer its call to
duty and come to the service of the nation by targeting college success, especially for historically
underserved populations of low-income, Black, Hispanic, and adult students. Although the
Governor’s Conference was convened in Pennsylvania, the presentations and dialogue made it
clear that Pennsylvania’s challenges regarding postsecondary access and success have nationwide
implications. Using inter-institutional diversity to develop a more responsive higher education
system focusing on the success of all students will increase the percentage of U.S. workers who
can participate in the new knowledge-based economy.
Summing up the rich content and conversations of a 3-day conference into four steps is
not meant to diminish the complexities and challenges that increasing degree success poses for
Pennsylvania’s colleges and universities but to emphasize that steps must be taken for progress
to be realized. There is no simple solution. Steady and intentional progress at the state level,
within institutions and between institutions, will increase student success and will restore the
public’s faith in higher education as the keystone to economic success in the Keystone state.
iii
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 335 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Introduction
The Obama Administration has called upon higher education to pull the U.S. out of its
worst economic crisis in over 70 years. In the current economic downturn, the college degree
has proven to be a keystone to solvency. National unemployment data reveal that a worker
whose highest credential is a high school diploma is twice as likely to be unemployed as a
worker with a college degree.1 Thus, our nation’s economic recovery depends on whether or not
current and future generations of college-goers and displaced workers successfully obtain the
college credentials required for participation in the post-recession workforce.
This paper addresses how higher education might assume responsibility for the uplift
of the many Americans whose futures are uncertain: the unemployed, returning veterans, lowincome populations, and current and future generations of college bound Americans. Using
the progressive policy recommendations and institutional practices that were presented by
national and state higher education leaders at the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on
Higher Education: Pathways to College Success, held March 16-18, 2009, this paper details a
four-step agenda for increasing access to higher education and successful degree completion
for all college-goers. The information and strategies described here have relevance for higher
education leaders, policy makers, researchers, and faculty who work at the national level, state
level, or in one of over 4,000 colleges and universities in the United States. Moreover, this paper
serves as a call for further collaboration among Pennsylvania colleges and universities to identify
strengths and pool resources so that all of Pennsylvania’s college and university students have
access to the support they need to attain their degree despite shrinking endowments and deep
budget cuts.
Clearly, U.S. colleges and universities are meant to play an integral role in the recovery
of our national economy. Yet in order to meet the nation’s call to educate more Americans,
especially those groups who have been traditionally under-served, U.S. colleges and universities
must address public concerns regarding affordability, accessibility, and performance. Our once
highly revered system of higher education is under great scrutiny for being unaffordable and
under-performing in degree completion. “Seven in 10 Americans believe that qualified motivated
students do not get to go to college because of affordability.”2 Moreover, despite significant
increases in college access rates in the last decades, degree completion rates across U.S. colleges
and universities have not kept pace; rather, the high proportion of college dropouts and college
non-attendees in the U.S. signify a system of higher education “hemorrhaging student talent.” 3
Addressing public demands for both affordability and success poses a weighty challenge
for U.S. colleges and universities that have not escaped the stranglehold of this severe recession
and are enduring tremendous budget shortfalls. Many states, challenged by multi-billion dollar
deficits, are making significant cuts in their support of colleges and universities. Institutional
endowments are shrinking–events which in turn precipitate sharp increases in tuition and
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, May, 2009.
Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
summarizing findings from the National Report Card during his keynote address at the Pennsylvania
Governor’s Conference on Higher Education.
3
Patrick Callan, Keynote Address, PA Governor’s Conference on Higher Education.
1
2
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 336 of 392
fees and a reduction in critical services such as academic support. Higher education in the U.S.
is facing a crisis of sorts: rising costs coupled with reduced financial resources threaten access
to college at exactly the point at which our country needs to expand access most.
To continue to expand access and increase student success, states and institutions must
actively reevaluate how they operate and serve students. Moreover, higher education leaders,
faculty, and policy makers must work together in a deliberate and collaborative fashion to
address affordability, access, and success.
The First Annual Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education:
Pathways to College Success
To stimulate this needed collaboration and open dialogue between national, state, and
institutional postsecondary leaders around the key issues of college access and success, Governor
Edward G. Rendell and the Pennsylvania Department of Education convened a statewide higher
education conference, Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education: Pathways to
College Success, held March 16-18, 2009. The conference was intended to provoke state and
institutional higher education leaders to confront and address current economic and political
challenges to ensure that a college education remains a realistic goal for students across
Pennsylvania.
Over 300 people representing various sectors of higher education participated in the
3-day conference. College and university presidents, faculty, and administrators from across
Pennsylvania were joined by invited guests including:
•Robert Shireman, U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for Education
•Hilary Pennington, Director of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
•Molly Corbett Broad, President, American Council on Education
•Patrick Callan, President, National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
•Jamie Merisotis, President, Lumina Foundation for Higher Education
•Patrick Terenzini, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior Scientist, Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University
•Judith Eaton, President, Council on Higher Education Accreditation
In addition, major educational for-profit and non-profit companies interconnected with
postsecondary students achieving access and success (including ACT, Inc., Educational Testing
Services, Pearson, and The College Board) sent representatives to attend the keynote speeches
and breakout sessions.
Further information on the first annual Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher
Education: Pathways to College Success, including the full conference program and copies of
many presentations, can be accessed at the conference website:
http://www.outreach.psu.edu/programs/governors/
2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 337 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
The first ever Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education created a great
deal of enthusiasm around issues of access and success among its attendees; its focus on policy
filled a critical gap left by other higher education conferences. Moreover, conference attendees
agreed that having policy-focused dialogue with national and state education leaders and
policymakers empowered them to take the next steps towards increasing access and success in
their own institutions. In sum, the conference generated momentum among higher education
leaders to increase access and success in the state and within institutions.
This paper is meant to further propel this momentum by detailing a four-step framework
to increasing degree success within institutions and across the state. Derived from careful
content analysis of the many keynote speeches and presentations that were given at the 2009
conference, four steps are outlined that address pathways to college success from multiple
perspectives.
The Four-Step Framework
Step 1: Identifying the Challenges to Increased College Success
Step 2: Creating an Action Plan for College Success–A policy agenda for success
Step 3: Putting the Plan into Action–Enacting polices and creating programs for
the nation, for Pennsylvania, and within individual institutions
Step 4: Working Together to Increase Colleges Success in Pennsylvania–
Inter-college collaboration for a statewide solution
Step 1 requires a definition of the challenges faced by higher education systems and institutions
across the nation. The challenges, identified by conference keynote speakers, reflect impediments
to post-secondary success in U.S. higher education systems – especially for low-income, Black,
Hispanic, and adult student populations. Each challenge is introduced with a quote or quotes
drawn directly from keynote speeches.
Step 2 offers strategies for surmounting the challenges outlined in Step 1 by identifying specific
national, state, and institutional policies that promote increased pathways to the postsecondary
degree for all students, especially the traditionally under-served populations. The purpose
of Step 2 is to move the conversation about increasing postsecondary success from issues to
actions. The policy directives represent a compilation of the many policy recommendations made
within keynote speeches and breakout presentations throughout the Pennsylvania Governor’s
Conference on Higher Education: Pathways to College Success.
Step 3 moves from information to action as it catalogs the many exemplary college success
policies and programs already at work at the national level, in the Pennsylvania Department
of Education, and in many Pennsylvania colleges and universities. Beginning with a summary
of current national efforts as defined by Robert Shireman (U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 338 of 392
Education), Hilary Pennington (Director of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation), and Molly Corbett Broad (President of the American Council on Education), the
discussion focuses predominantly on Pennsylvania’s progress toward implementing pathways to
college success for low-income, Black, Hispanic, and adult- student populations. This discussion
highlights the various approaches to increase degree success implemented across Pennsylvania,
at both state and institutional levels.
Step 4 emphasizes the importance of extensive collaboration for increasing college success.
Isolated efforts within single institutions are inadequate in closing the gap in degree completions
between the traditional college student and low income, Black, Hispanic, and adult students.
As Patrick Callan noted at the PA Governor’s Conference on Higher Education: “One of the
challenges and great strengths of U.S. higher education is its immense diversity, but if we
don’t find a way to work together, we won’t have a way to rise to those challenges.” Thus, the
fourth step includes several examples of collaborative efforts between Pennsylvania colleges
and universities that illustrate how collaborations across diverse institutions increase students’
pathways to degree success and define a common ground from which future collaboration and
statewide higher education conferences might progress.
STEP 1: Identifying the Challenges to Increased College Success
The federal government, the Pennsylvania state government, private businesses,
major philanthropic organizations, and the American people are calling upon higher education
institutions to deliver increased equality and success in degree attainment so that all citizens
will be able to realize their potential in the new knowledge-based economy. However, in the
context of a global economy, that requires a significant increase in college attainment; yet, our
capacity to achieve this goal is stymied by a severe economic downturn. Challenges to access
and success include the following: affordability, student debt, students who drop-out, a rising
adult student demographic, a K-12 pipeline that does not prepare students for college, and a
heightened need for quality control standards.
Affordability
“It is not about what college is worth;
it is whether the people in your state can afford it.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
College cost data support the public perception that college is becoming more expensive.
Tuition and fees at public four-year institutions have increased more than 4 % each year over
the last decade (Gates Foundation Website). In percentage terms, college costs have increased
at more than twice the rate of inflation since 1998. Making college affordable is a linchpin
for increasing college degree completions among low-income, African American, and Hispanic
students. Research has shown that cost weighs heavily on students’ decisions to pursue a college
degree.
4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 339 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Derek Price presented the results of a 2008 report prepared by the Institute for Higher
Education Policy, Promise Lost: College Students Who Don’t Enroll in College. According to
this report, 70% of high school counselors who were surveyed pointed to not having enough aid
and tuition being too expensive as “almost always” or “frequently” important in non-collegegoers’ decision making about whether or not to attend. Over 80 % of non-college-goers who were
surveyed said that the availability of grant aid was extremely or very important to their decision,
and 63% said the price of college was extremely or very important in their determination of
whether or not to enroll.
The rising cost of college is not a recent phenomenon; however, the current economic
crisis has complicated the challenge of affordability pushing the college degree even further
out of reach for many current and potential college-goers. Families who have been diligently
saving for their children’s college educations have seen their savings evaporate. In addition,
with greater oversight of U.S. banks, there is a tightening of student loan availability from
private lenders. Colleges themselves are faced with severe budget constraints, from diminished
endowments to halted building projects (Judith Eaton, President of the Council on Higher
Education Accreditation, Keynote Address at the PA Governor’s Conference on Higher
Education). Many states, challenged by shrinking endowments and multi-billion dollar deficits,
are making significant cuts in their support of colleges and universities. These events in turn
can result in even greater increases in tuition and fees and a reduction in critical services.
Affordable college is an investment in the labor force. “High college tuition sends the
signal to low-income students that they cannot afford the degree, especially for those who cannot
figure out the financial aid system. Tuition speaks volumes and keeps us from closing the diploma
gap between high-income and low-income students” (Patrick Callan, President of the National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, Keynote Address at the 2009 Pennsylvania
Governor’s Conference on Higher Education).
“Institutions need to stop throwing financial aid away on students who don’t
need it just to compete. It is ethically and morally disgraceful.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
The responsibility for increased affordability does not end at the state level. Postsecondary
institutions also need to get available financial aid out to students who need it most. The popular
college-rankings systems published in national magazines and inter-institutional competition
have focused many colleges’ admissions strategies on enrolling students who have scored the
highest on national college entrance exams. As competition for these top students increases,
many institutions have poured institutional aid into merit scholarships and grants to reward
top students for enrolling at their institutions, regardless of their financial need.
There is a need to re-evaluate our reward systems in higher education as far as it rewards
high performance with institutional financial aid. Colleges and universities should consider
enticing high performing students who can afford to attend college with promises to nurture
their special talents through privileged access to upper-level courses, undergraduate research
opportunities, and faculty mentorship–not with free tuition dollars. Highly motivated and high
achieving students will be better served and will likely find greater satisfaction with increased
postsecondary opportunities for further achievement than with tuition monies.
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 340 of 392
Student Debt
“Debt for diplomas is not good public policy.”
–Judith Eaton, President of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
“With nearly two out of every three college graduates having borrowed money to pay
for their higher education, the multi-billion dollar student-loan industry plays
a ubiquitous role in students’ college participation and success.”
–Nick Hillman, Research Associate for the American Association of State Colleges and Universities
While tuitions have increased, grant aid and scholarships have not kept pace; thus, more
college students are borrowing more money and accumulating unmanageable debt loads by
graduation. The veritable necessity of borrowing for college in the U.S. negatively affects college
enrollments, college completions, and post-college success. In addition, the greatest debt levels
are being accrued by the least affluent students who are forced to borrow outside of interestcontrolled federal loan programs, thus taking on loans with higher interest rates. Traditionally
underserved students (low income and minorities) graduating with heavy debt undermines
the promise of socioeconomic advancement via the college degree. Moreover, it reinforces the
socioeconomic gap between the one-third of college students who do not need to borrow for college
and their less affluent peers.
Education debt is of particular concern in Pennsylvania. The state is a major center for
higher education in the U.S., with one of the largest systems of higher education and the fourth
largest student enrollment in the nation. Despite its high student enrollments, Pennsylvania’s
public colleges and universities have struggled with affordability. In fact, it has the dubious
distinction of being the sixth most expensive state in the nation for higher education. Likewise,
Pennsylvania students graduate with the sixth highest debt load in the nation.
A recent PBS documentary, The Student Loan Sinkhole, reported that 70 million Americans
owe a collective $700 billion in student loan debt. The report suggests that the increasing reality
of Americans defaulting on education debt will further complicate U.S. economic recovery. At
the Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference, Robert Shireman, U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for
Education, described President Obama’s renewal and expansion of federal grants, loans, and
tax credit programs available to college students. In addition, the Obama Administration has
introduced legislation to provide more oversight to private student-loan lenders, as private student
loans are often subject to much higher variable interest rates compared to federal loans. Robert
Shireman encouraged states and institutional leaders attending the Governor’s Conference on
Higher Education to make similar commitments to reduce student debt by educating student
borrowers and their parents about the risks of over-borrowing, by offering private loan options
only after all federal loan options have been exhausted, and by closely monitoring the debt loads
of students who must take private loans.
6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 341 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Completions
“We have a college completion problem in this country. “
–Hilary Pennington, Director of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
“Completion rates are the Achilles heel of American higher education.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
“Internationally, the United States was once the leader in the production of
college graduates, but currently we rank at the bottom of the top ten.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education,
Approximately half of all freshman entering baccalaureate programs fail to complete an
undergraduate degree within six years.4 Moreover, the gaps that exist in college enrollment
between affluent and low-income students are mirrored in completion rates; once enrolled,
affluent students are more likely to graduate from college than low-income and minority students.
Ensuring that more students achieve the college degree is critical to future economic growth,
increased innovation, and the production of leaders. At the Governor’s Conference, Hilary
Pennington, Director of U.S. Operations, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, identified cost,
poor high school preparation, and time to degree as factors that negatively influence students’
persistence to graduation.
Recognizing the importance of having a college-educated population to our international
standing and competitiveness, President Obama issued a challenge earlier this year to colleges
and universities to improve their graduation rates and pledged to the nation “By 2020 America
will once again have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world.” In addition, major
philanthropic organizations have made commitments to increasing college success. In fact, the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has set a measurable goal to increase credential attainment
by 2025, and to double the number of low-income young adults who earn a postsecondary
credential by 26 years of age.5 The Gates Foundation has designated over $6.4 million in grants
to fund research and the development of policies and programs to increase degree completion
among low-income, African American, and Hispanic students.
With considerable policy and research attention, college access rates have increased
significantly in the last decades, but completion rates have not kept pace. Because true access to
college means access to the degree, success in college is necessary for the goal of equal access to
be realized. Access as a stand-alone goal needs to be re-envisioned as a component of a broader
policy of college success for all. Higher education admission can not be viewed as a gateway;
rather, the college degree is the gateway.
4
5
American Enterprise Institute, 2009.
Pennington, Keynote Address.
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 342 of 392
In addition, “[t]here are a lot of [degree] programs that work as weeding-out mechanisms
rather than bringing-in mechanisms. How do we transform them to be more inclusive about
attracting students to those degrees? We are not going to meet STEM workforce needs in the
future if our faculty see them as weeding-out programs.”6 To achieve a goal of success, colleges
need to begin concentrating on completions and identifying the ingredients to degree completion
for all potential college-goers.
Expanding Demographics in a System Designed for the Traditional-Aged Student
“The lens has been too narrow focusing on traditional aged students in all of our
plans for access and support. We have 40 million adult Americans without a
high school credential and that number is growing.”
–Molly Corbett Broad, President of the American Council on Education
Most of the focus in typical conversations about higher education is on the traditional
college-age student who enters college soon after high school; however, there has been a decline
in college graduation rates among traditional-age cohorts. During the Pennsylvania Governor’s
Conference on Higher Education, Molly Corbett Broad, President of the American Council on
Education (ACE), stated that to re-stabilize the economy “…we are going to have to depend
on existing workers, and for the many unemployed adult workers, if their jobs do not come
back, we have to provide opportunities for them to get jobs.” Higher education credentials
are instrumental for individuals to find jobs offering economic stability. In the U.S., our high
school drop out problem persists and it underscores why high school seniors are no longer the
only source of college undergraduates. In this economy especially, older adults will need to
access higher education for the retraining and additional credentials they need both to secure
their existing jobs–jobs that may have not required a college degree before–and to find new
jobs. Moreover, there are 23 million veterans across the nation, and the new GI Bill provides
funding to these veterans, their spouses, and their children for the pursuit of undergraduate and
graduate education.7
The influx of adult students stands as a challenge to many institutions because most
four-year colleges and universities are structured to meet the needs of a young adult student
demographic. From summer camp-like college orientation programs and residential programs to
course schedules dominated by day classes and campus-based services, traditionally colleges have
designed their academic programs and support structures with a younger and predominantly
residential cohort in mind.
Adult students have a unique set of needs and requirements that colleges need to engage.8
For example, adult students have requirements, ranging from child care and access to evening,
weekend, and online courses. Meeting the needs of adults may mean revamping the tuition-fee
schedule and financial aid availability so that full-time status is not based on a two-semester
schedule and students are able to take classes year-round. Recognizing that new demographics
of students are not being served by the “old best system” and creating new structures and
Pennington, speaking on what needs to be done to change the nature of higher education at the
conference.
7
Broad.
8
Broad.
6
8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 343 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
programming to support non-traditional students will be integral for institutions that are
interested in expanding college enrollments and increasing degree completions.9
Problems with the Pipeline: High School Seniors Are Not College-Ready
“The thing that determines economic strength and viability is access to knowledge
workers at every point on the economic spectrum. It is also the quality of the
completer, highly and well-trained degree holders, high schools, colleges, and
graduate schools must produce the most creative and best innovators.”
–Edward G. Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania
“One-third of students in our public colleges have to re-take
high school subject matter.”
–Gerald Zahorchak, Secretary of Education for Pennsylvania
“We need a fairly radical restructuring of the pipeline. We need to be more
inventive with how we think about time and progress to degree in order to
improve the performance of postsecondary institutions.”
–Hilary Pennington, Director of U.S. Special Initiatives, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Developing pathways to college and degree success for low-income Black, Hispanic, and
adult students should not include lower standards or lower quality in degree preparation. “Today,
only about 22% of low income African American and Hispanic students graduate from high school
ready to earn college credit in a community college or four year institution.”10 Moreover, a recent
report from Jobs for the Future found that nearly 60 % of students enrolling in the nation’s
community colleges must take remedial classes to build their basic academic skills. Students
who require developmental coursework after high school are less likely to persist to degree than
those who are college-ready. Thus, we need to address the under-preparation of our collegebound population.
The growing need for remediation at the college level has caused many to question the
quality of K-12 education. At The Governor’s Conference, Pennsylvania Secretary of Education,
Gerald Zahorchak identified issues in K-12 preparation that threaten college access and success
- including a lack of common college-ready standards and corresponding curriculum frameworks,
a need for better teacher preparation and professional development for in-service teachers, and
a need for longitudinal data collection so that K-12 schools become informed about how their
students perform in college.
In reviewing statewide remediation data and the school districts where developmental
students are coming from, the Pennsylvania Department of Education concluded that the vast
majority of school districts lack familiarity with the skill levels and content knowledge that
colleges and career-training programs expect from graduating high school seniors, especially in
regard to mathematics preparation.11 Aptitude tests like the SAT and the ACT have become the
Callan, Keynote Address.
Pennington, Keynote Address.
11
Zahorchak, comments at the Presidents’ Breakfast.
9
10
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 344 of 392
drivers of students’ college preparation, but postsecondary institutions use their own placement
tests to gauge college readiness. High school educators need to know the content and skills
inventoried on college placement exams and revise their curricula accordingly. While students will
pursue different pathways after high school, all students need to have received the same collegeready preparation for the 13th year so as not to limit their post-high school aspirations.12 College degree success cannot increase without the development of high quality high school
programs. However, until all students are graduating from high school with college ready skills,
the effectiveness of existing college remediation programs also need reexamination. “Despite an
increasing number of public and private providers entering the postsecondary education system,
there has been very little change in how these institutions design programs to meet the needs of
their students, many of whom enter college without the necessary skills to take college level
work.”13 Two-year and four-year colleges and universities have the ability to dramatically
increase completion rates by redesigning their academic programs to be more student-friendly
with regard to time and how remedial and developmental courses contribute towards positive
degree progress.14
Furthermore, Pennington identified early college intervention and data collection and
disbursement as two additional areas for postsecondary improvement regarding remedial
students. She also emphasized the need for more early college intervention programs to provide
the additional academic supports that under-prepared students need to succeed in their courses.
Higher education leaders were also encouraged to extend data collection systems through college
and make these data available to students to increase degree success: “Give students more access
to completion rates so students can make informed decisions and choose schools that do better
with students needing developmental and remedial coursework.”15
STEP 2: Creating an Action Plan for College Success
“If we use the relief we get from the federal stimulus just to get back and not towards
productivity and improvement, if we don’t think of ourselves as coming out stronger
and keep the conversation about improvement going, we will put the country in a deep
hole when we eventually come out of this. It is critical that every state has a plan that
is to protect the most vulnerable and the institutions that serve them.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
Identifying the challenges that must be overcome to accomplish success is only the first
step. To move forward and realize the national goal of increased college degree attainment,
specific policies are needed to ensure that all students, including low-income and historically
underserved students, have access to the postsecondary training to fully participate in the
changing global economy and are provided with the right supports to succeed once they begin that
training. Therefore, the second step involves the formation of national, state, and institutionlevel policies to address these challenges. All institutions must work together on these goals, but
also recognizing that they will be applied differently across diverse institutions.16
Zahorchak.
Pennington, Keynote Address.
14
Pennington, Keynote Address.
15
Pennington, Keynote Address.
16
Terenzini.
12
13
10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 345 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Step 2: Creating an Action Plan for College Success provides a compilation of forwardlooking policy directives proposed by both national and Pennsylvania higher education leaders
during the conference. These policies focus on creating pathways to success for non-attendees,
non-completers, and adult college-goers (including returned veterans) on national, state, and
institutional levels.
The many policy recommendations given throughout the conference are grouped under
four policy areas: increasing affordability, streamlining time to degree, easing transitions, and
rewarding effective college teaching. In addition, some brief examples of specific policies-inaction presented during the conference are provided in this step as context for clarifying each
policy area.
Increasing Affordability
 Increasing levels of grant aid and the reallocating of existing grant aid to those students who
need it to afford college.
 Lowering tuition
Lowering debt and decreasing amounts of private student loans
Increasing financial aid awareness and coaching
Policies that Streamline the Path from College Enrollment to Degree Completion
Award college credits for applicable work experience
Offering affordable accelerated degree programs
Implementing a 3-year baccalaureate degree option (already used in other countries)
Increasing mentoring and advising to help students graduate on time
Policies that Promote Successful Transitions from High School to College and
Transfers between Colleges






Better alignment of high school standards to college readiness via subject exit exams, etc.
Enhanced pre-service teacher preparation
Development of a GED with honors that signifies college readiness
Transfer and articulation agreements between two-year colleges and the four-year sector
Expanded in-college support networks including mentoring, summer bridge, and advisement
Better unit-record data collection and analysis
Policies that Support and Reward Effective College Teaching
Reducing class sizes
Revamping courses or re-ordering courses meant to attract and expose students (rather
than discourage) to the nature of the discipline especially in STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) fields
Increasing professional development programs and support for college teaching and course
development
11
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 346 of 392
STEP 3: Putting the Plan Into Action
The National Response
The federal government, philanthropic, and national higher education policy organizations
have already begun enacting policies for success:
Federal Policies for College Success
The Obama Administration’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes over
$30 billion to address college affordability and improve access to higher education. During the
conference, Robert Shireman, the U.S. Deputy Undersecretary for Education, detailed how the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act specifically targets affordability by expanding tax
credits for higher education, making them larger and available to more families, and allowing
them to cover more types of expenses. Also, the Act provides support to states to limit funding
cuts and tuition increases at public universities. Moreover, the Act provides funding to pay for
increasing Pell Grant costs and a $500 increase in the maximum grant for students from lowerincome families. Combined with regular appropriations, the maximum grant will increase from
$4,731 to $5,350 for the 2009-2010 award year.
President Obama has chosen to partner with states to sustain college access efforts and
to intensify the focus on college completion. Understanding that the productivity of the nation
is tied to improving college retention and completion–for both traditional-age students and
returning adults–the Obama administration has allocated $2.5 billion to be awarded to states
for programs aimed at college completion.
Most recently, the Obama Administration has announced plans to streamline the Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) by reducing the number of questions and by
allowing applicants to enter information from IRS forms rather than having to supply additional
documentation. The intent is to reduce debt loads by increasing the number of students who
apply for federal loans with lower interest rates and lessen students’ needs for private loans
with much higher interest rates.
Other National Efforts
In line with the Obama Administration, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is focused
on the economic and civic imperative to help historically underrepresented populations achieve
college degrees. The Gates Foundation has made increasing degree completions its primary goal
for postsecondary education, pledging to double the number of low-income students who earn
a postsecondary credential by the age of 26. The Foundation intends to accomplish this goal
through a tri-fold strategy: improving the performance of the postsecondary education system;
12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 347 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
supporting young adult success; and encouraging U.S. leaders, employers, and communities to
focus on degree success for under-served student populations.
In June 2008, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (in partnership with MDC, Inc.)
awarded $16.5 million in grants to 15 community colleges and five states to expand innovative
remedial education programs that have shown promise in increasing college success for lowincome students and students of color. These developmental programs have found that colleges
can make a difference in degree completion through programs tailored to students’ needs. The
path to college success for under-prepared students includes practices such as streamlining high
school and college standards, using technology to improve basic skills, and providing effective
mentoring.
Molly Corbett Broad, the President of the American Council on Education (ACE)
announced at the conference that ACE plans to increase college degree completion among lowincome students and adults with no degree by revamping the General Equivalency Diploma
(GED). According to Broad, there are 40 million adult Americans without a high school
credential. The GED is part of ACE, and the GED exam program will be revamped to increase
the likelihood that those who take it will pass.
Currently, 700,000 Americans take the GED each year, but the percentage going onto
postsecondary education after completing the GED is very modest; only a very small fraction of
those who earn the GED go on to college. ACE intends to create a GED with honors designation
to verify college-readiness. Broad also pointed out that effective counseling, once the GED has
been awarded, is essential to increase the numbers of GED recipients who enroll in college.
A Focus on Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania
Many of components of the college success policy agenda have already been put to
practice in Pennsylvania at the state level and by Pennsylvania colleges and universities.
Background on Higher Education in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania is a major center for higher education in the United States, with one of
the largest systems of higher education and the fourth largest student enrollment of all of the
states. Ironically, while Pennsylvania educates a large percent of the nation’s college students,
the “lost promise” of non-college-goers is a humbling reality. Pennsylvania ranks 46th out of 50
states in the percent of workers with more than a high school diploma. Thus, encouraging high
school seniors and GED recipients to pursue postsecondary degrees and providing pathways to
higher education success for the large numbers of non-degree holders already in its workforce
are policy imperatives for Pennsylvania.
13
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 348 of 392
Pennsylvania’s State-Level Success Policies
Under the leadership of Governor Rendell, Pennsylvania has advanced a number of
innovative policies that are designed to address issues of both access and success:
 Expansion of Pennsylvania’s longitudinal data system to include all public postsecondary
institutions (Pennsylvania Information Management Systems/ PIMS)
 Creation of a statewide transfer and articulation agreement and system (Pennsylvania
Transfer and Articulation Center/TRAC)
 Enhanced support and advocacy for adult students without postsecondary degrees (Prior
Learning Assessment Initiative and the Bureau of Adult Basic and Literacy Education)
 Development of quality school leadership and enhanced preparation and continuing
education for K-12 educators to increase the number of qualified college applicants (PA
Inspired Leadership Program & the Bureau of School Leadership and Teacher Quality)
 Increasing college affordability for working families by greatly reducing or eliminating
reliance on student loans for students attending state institutions (proposed Tuition
Relief Act)
These state initiated programs and projects were the topics of both roundtable discussions
and breakout presentations at the conference. The following brief descriptions of these programs
highlight how Pennsylvania’s existing higher education programming and policy goals dovetail
with the national agenda as detailed by national higher education leaders and the federal
government under President Obama.
Creation of a Statewide Transfer and Articulation Agreement and System
Pathways to success for non-completers and adult college-goers require policies that
streamline the path from college enrollment to degree completion. One method is to ensure
students that the path to the four-year sector is direct, unobstructed and cost effective. Through
PA TRAC, the new statewide transfer and articulation agreement and system instituted in May
2008, students can transfer at least 30 credits of foundation courses to any of the 19 participating
PA four-year institutions–including all 14 state universities, two state-related institutions, and
three private institutions. In addition, PA TRAC features an interactive online interface that
provides the information students and student advisors need to assist in course selection.
PA TRAC offers a multi-level approach to streamlining the path to degree completion
for PA college students. It simplifies the system of transfer and articulation on statewide and
institutional levels and provides information resources on a personal level to students and their
advisors. PA TRAC protects students from becoming derailed by hidden requirements and from
wasting time and money obtaining credits that are unnecessary or non-transferable. Moreover,
since the same student populations being targeted nationally for college success (specifically low
income and under-represented minority students), they are more likely to enroll in community
colleges. PA TRAC fulfills a need by clearing the pathways to the 4-year degree.
Enhanced Support and Advocacy for Adult Students Without Postsecondary Degrees
While PA TRAC supports pathways to success for students already enrolled in
postsecondary institutions, the Pennsylvania Department of Education is reaching out to adults
who have not applied to college and may not be prepared for college. In 2007, the department
14
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 349 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
formed the Pennsylvania Statewide Task Force on Prior Learning Assessment to address
access to postsecondary education for the large percentage of workers in the Commonwealth
without a postsecondary degree. The task force included more than 30 representatives from
public and private two-year and four-year colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, the PA
Workforce Investment Board, various school associations, the Department of Education and the
Department of Labor and Industry. In September 2008, the task force generated Prior Learning
Assessment policies and standards for Pennsylvania. These polices and standards to comply with
Middle States Association Commission on Credit (MSACHE) accrediting standards and follow
the “Joint Statement on the Transfer and Award of Credit” developed by the American Council
on Education (ACE), the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), and the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO). The standards and
polices were adopted and sent to all institutions in the Commonwealth with an invitation to
join the Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) Consortium. Having a well-integrated PLA system
will encourage workers without degrees to pursue postsecondary credentials at participating
institutions. Time to degree can be shortened by college credits received for the work experience
and acquired knowledge. Currently 54 institutions have joined the consortium; future plans
include the launching of the PLA website and operational webinars to teach PLA assessment
tools to institutions.
The Bureau of Adult Basic and Literacy Education (ABLE) is also working to transition
adult basic education students to postsecondary education. One ABLE-sponsored program is
the Career Gateway. The Career Gateway program aims to prepare adult students to test out
of developmental courses. Many Career Gateway students are older adults who are dislocated
workers and are seeking to enter a postsecondary program for the first time. To address a lack of
preparedness for introductory college courses, the Career Gateway program offers transitioning
classes conducted in a format modeling the postsecondary classroom: lecture, large group
discussion, assignments, and a final project. The transitioning topics are those pertinent to adult
students’ success: study skills, test taking strategies, stress management, time management,
organizational skills, and career exploration. In addition, guest speakers provide information on
high priority occupations, financial aid, and CareerLink services.17
Development of Quality School Leadership and Continuing Education for K-12 Educators
A major component of the national action plan for promoting postsecondary degree
attainment among non-attendees is addressing the disconnect between K-12 academic
preparation and college readiness. Policies are needed to enable successful transitions from high
school to college. Through the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership (PIL) Program and the Bureau
of School Leadership and Teacher Quality, Pennsylvania has focused specifically on producing
high-quality school administrators and teachers who are trained to cultivate and nurture college
readiness. The PIL Program is a statewide, standards-based, continuing professional education
program for school and system leaders. PIL seeks to develop the capacity of leaders to improve
student achievement and focuses on administration.
The Bureau of School Leadership and Teacher Quality has teacher quality initiatives
underway to ensure that teachers are prepared to meet the demands of today’s classrooms. In
fact, the state’s commitment to improving teacher quality is apparent in Pennsylvania’s new
17
Sue Conrady, et al. presentation entitled “Preparing ABLE Students for Post-Secondary Success.”
15
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 350 of 392
certification requirements (Chapter 49-2 of PA’s regulations for certification of professional
personnel) that demand strong content knowledge, developmentally appropriate instructional
strategies for diverse learners, and mastery of the use of data to inform practice. Moreover,
Pennsylvania’s initiatives to enhance the effectiveness of in-service teachers include a network
of Professional Development Schools, state-funded professional development (e.g. Governor’s
Institute on Data Driven Decision Making), and statewide resources for instructional coaching.
Increasing College Affordability
A central national policy goal for generating college success among low-income, Black,
and Latino students involves making college more affordable and reducing student debt. Despite
high student enrollments, Pennsylvania’s public colleges and universities have struggled with
affordability. Pennsylvania has the dubious distinction of being the sixth most expensive state
in the nation for higher education. Likewise, Commonwealth students graduate with the sixth
highest debt load in the nation. A recent study conducted by the PA Department of Education
revealed that the high costs of college tuition have created a formidable barrier to postsecondary
education. Despite the wide array of existing state programs to support student success and
degree attainment, the cost of a college degree in Pennsylvania impedes PA’s full realization of
access and success goals.
As a response to the looming barrier that high college tuitions pose to the realization
of PA’s success mission, Governor Rendell introduced the Pennsylvania Tuition Relief Act for
consideration by the legislature. The Tuition Relief Act is the proposed bill designed to make
college affordable for working families by greatly reducing or eliminating reliance on student
loans. Families that make $100,000 per year or less would be eligible to receive a grant to
attend a state system university or community college, paying as little as $1,000 annually.
If fully implemented, the plan will cover an estimated 170,000 + undergraduate students at
Pennsylvania’s 28 state universities and community colleges.
The Tuition Relief Act directly responds to the financial concerns of non-college-goers.
The “lost promise” of non-college-goers is a hard reality in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania ranks
46th out of 50 states in the percent of workers with more than a high school diploma. This is
particularly alarming considering that PA is the fourth largest provider of higher education in
the nation.
The Tuition Relief Act is one of the most ambitious and far-reaching expansions of
student grant aid in the country, undertaken at precisely the time when most other states
are cutting funding for higher education. During the conference, the Tuition Relief Act was
described in detail by Governor Rendell in his conference address and was a topic for roundtable
discussions so that conference participants could analyze and discuss the Tuition Relief Act and
its underlying principles.
Expansion of PA’s Longitudinal Data System to Include All Public Postsecondary Institutions
The Pennsylvania Department of Education is actively targeting many of the pathways
for college success that have been identified; however, there are many pathways yet to be
uncovered. Higher education researchers have emphasized the importance of continued
research into non-completers and non-attendees to expose additional factors hindering degree
attainment for these populations.18 Pennsylvania is well positioned to participate in research
18
Derek V. Price, et al. presentation entitled “Promise Lost–College-Qualified Students Who Don’t Enroll.”
16
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 351 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
to identify pathways to success through its award-winning unit-record data management
system, the Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS). To better understand
the transitions of both students who decide not to enroll in college and those who enroll but do
not successfully complete a postsecondary degree, Pennsylvania has expanded PIMS to track
its students from kindergarten through their enrollment in PA postsecondary institutions.
This data warehouse will allow for the longitudinal analysis of student populations and will
promote better research to pinpoint the factors and academic trajectories that deter students
from graduating from college.
Success Policies in Action At the School- Level in Pennsylvania:
“We need to align what we do with what we know.”
–Patrick Terenzini, Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior Scientist, the Center for the
Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University
While federal and state-level postsecondary policies and programs establish a
foundation for institutional changes in higher education, determining how to increase degree
success at the institutional and program levels is the key to increasing degree attainment for
the large proportion of Americans who do not attend college or fail to complete their degrees.
Institutional practices and success strategies were spotlighted throughout the conference.
Identifying institution-level success strategies were the focal point of Patrick Terenzini’s
keynote address and over 30 breakout presentations. Addressing all conference participants,
Terenzini shared the findings of decades of research on how students experience college. In
addition, in a complementary breakout session entitled “What Works”, researchers from the
Higher Education Program at the Pennsylvania State University, Robert Reason, Wil Del
Pilar, and Joan Pecht, defined the attributes of successful programs and interventions for the
college success of under-prepared and low-income students.
A synthesis of these presentations provides a toolkit of successful practices for
institutions aiming to increase pathways to postsecondary success for low-income and minority
students. The most effective programs or interventions for promoting degree success were
those that included one or more of the following:
 Good teaching–effective teaching practices and student-faculty interactions
 Responsive curricula–better alignment of K-12 curricula and developmental courses
with college-level curricula and college curricula with career readiness and success
 Academic support structures–supplemental instruction/ tutoring/ writing centers/
intensive monitoring of student performance/ participation
 Positive significant other influences19 –mentoring by peers & faculty/ advisement/
collaboration with peers and faculty
 Summer preparatory component–summer bridge/ college exposure program
 Financial assistance–both financial resources and education resources to advise
students how to afford college
 Going beyond academics–emphasis on real-world activities/ cultural activities/
career development/ community service
 Pre-college focus–pathways to college success begin before college
The concept of “significant other influences” was first suggested by Sewell, Haller, and Portes (1969)
who believed significant others influence a youth’s educational and occupation aspirations. Reason et al.
(2009) forward this theory in their research on effective practices for the college success of low-income
students.
19
17
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 352 of 392
Many Pennsylvania colleges and universities (both public and private) and higher
education non-profit organizations are already incorporating these success strategies in
programs targeted to postsecondary success and successful degree completion for low-income,
minority, and adult students. The Governor’s conference provided an opportunity for these
postsecondary institutions and non-profit organizations to share their proven practices for
student success.
Thirteen four-year institutions (9 private and 4 public) and five community colleges
delivered presentations. In addition, representatives from GRADUATE Philadelphia, Project
GRAD Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA), the Life
Science Career Alliance, the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, the School District of
Philadelphia, the Chambersburg Area School District, and local business partners shared their
research-based strategies for postsecondary success.
The conference divided the presentations by colleges and universities and educationbased organizations into three distinct tracks: Foundations for Institutional Success, Preparing
for Success in Higher Education, and Succeeding in Higher Education. Programs tracked under
Foundations for Institutional Success focus on administrative-level actions to support student
success. Presentations in the Preparing for Success in Higher Education and Succeeding in
Higher Education tracks both featured student-level interventions; the former track featured
programs targeting postsecondary success for pre-college students while the latter track
consisted of presentations on programs/ practices designed for students already enrolled in
college.
Foundations for Institutional Success
The administrative-level efforts across Pennsylvania are varied. One area where college
and school administrators are making a big impact on student success is in the development
of partnerships. Several presentations in this track described successful partnerships between
non-profit educational organizations (GRADUATE Philadelphia and PHEAA) and colleges,
school-business partnerships (the Chambersburg Area School District and Summit Health
Partnership), and a successful collaboration between a community college and representatives
from the biotechnical industry (the Burlington County College Partnership with the Life
Science Career Alliance and the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning). In each case,
educational institutions employ partnerships to accomplish different goals related to increasing
postsecondary success.
GRADUATE Philadelphia partners with colleges in the Philadelphia region to help adult
students who dropped out of college to re-enroll and complete their degrees. Partner colleges
commit to helping students identified by GRADUATE Philadelphia by waiving application fees
and making other efforts to reach out to this former student population. For example, Widener
University has created three-credit transitional education courses to help transition students
back into college coursework and degree tracks.
Another important administrative-level partnership discussed was the collaboration
between the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (PHEAA) and Pennsylvania
Colleges and Universities. Research has shown that financing college is a major factor for
18
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 353 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
students’ determination of whether or not to stay in college.20 The need for collaboration
to increase student financial aid literacy was emphasized in a joint presentation made by
representatives from PHEAA and the financial aid office from Millersville University. Partnering
with PHEAA to obtain resources for students and their families assists institutional financial
aid offices to help their students persist to degree without unmanageable debt.
Like GRADUATE Philadelphia and PHEAA’s partnerships with Pennsylvania colleges
and universities, the school-business and college-industry partnerships pool resources to benefit
students. Partnerships with business and industry, however, have focused more on the goals of
career exploration and preparation for high school and college students. The Chambersburg
Area School District’s partnership with Summit Health was developed to increase precollege students’ awareness of careers in the health care sector. The partnership provides the
opportunity for real-life career exploration and reaches out to high school students who are
college-bound as well as those who may have lost track of their educational and career goals.
Similarly, Burlington County College’s collaboration with the biotechnical industry
through the Life Science Career Alliance (LSCA) and the Council for Adult and Experiential
Learning aims to better prepare college students for the careers in the biotechnical field
through a certificate program jointly designed by industry-leaders and the college. Partnering
with industry has many mutual benefits for higher education and industry. Through this
partnership, Burlington County College received funds to develop a new cutting-edge program
and improve the academic preparedness and job readiness of its students pursuing biotechnical
certificates. Moreover, partnering with industry keeps the college informed of the current
workforce needs in the biotech sector while the partnership has empowered the LSCA to shape
and standardize the training of its incumbent workers
.
Preparing for Success in Higher Education
The range of programs in this track includes a comprehensive multi-year program
targeting low-income students, a recovery program for recent high school drop-outs, a math
and science summer enrichment and preparation program for high school students of color
interested in pursuing careers in engineering, a college mentoring program for Hispanic high
school students, and a summer bridge program for under-prepared freshman students. In his
conference presentation, Patrick Terenzini emphasized, “Pathways to success begin far earlier
than entering college.” While all of the programs/ interventions discussed in the preparing for
success in higher education track have unique features, they each ascribe to this early action
principle of college success.
A Pathway to College that Begins in Kindergarten
Project GRAD views forging pathways to college for low-income students as a 13+ year
process. It identifies cohorts of students in kindergarten and begins working with their teachers
and schools to foster a strong academic preparation with a focus on high expectations, not only
from their teachers but from their parents and communities as well. After students complete
seventh grade, Project GRAD begins working with their cohorts on college access using multiple
pathways such as college preparatory summer programs, forming relationships with colleges
20
Price.
19
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 354 of 392
and universities, support for transitioning to and through high school, and early exposure to
college-level coursework and expectations. Currently, the program serves over 133,000 students
in 213 schools across 12 cities and nine states, including students and schools in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
A Pathway to College Degrees in Engineering, Math and Science
Addressing the low percentages of Black and Latino students who pursue degrees in
engineering and sciences, Carnegie Mellon University (CMV) has instituted a summer program
for high school students. The Summer Academy for Minority Scholars (SAMS) is a six-week
intensive academic experience designed to strengthen students’ aptitude in math and science
thus tracking them towards college success and potentially careers in engineering. Through
the SAMS program, Carnegie Mellon is also aiming to increase the pool of talented African
American, Hispanic, and Native American students who attend highly selective universities.
CMV has closely monitored the 700-plus students who have enrolled in the SAMS program
and has tracked performance on SAT tests, performance in college, and the decision to major
in science or engineering. Data support that SAMS students tend to increase their SAT scores
and choose majors in engineering or sciences over 75% of the time. The engineering pipeline
problem is well documented, and Carnegie Mellon has addressed this problem by designing a
program that has strengthened the academic profile of many ethnic minority students.
A Pathway to College Success for Hispanic Students
Kings College started the McGowan Hispanic Outreach Program as a mentoring program
for Hispanic high school students. The Hispanic population is the fastest growing population
in Luzerne County and also the population with the highest dropout rates. The McGowan
Hispanic Outreach Program is an intervention program designed to ensure students graduate,
experience academic success in high school, and go on to get a college degree. Kings College
students partner with Hispanic high school students in the community. The partners have
weekly meetings with structured activities. In addition, family and community involvement
and a three-week summer program with academic coaching and college preparatory courses are
also built into the program.
A Pathway to College Success for High School Drop-outs
Gateway to College targets youth between the ages of 16 and 21 years old who are behind
in high school credits and who have been out of high school for at least six months. Students
take placement tests through the Community College of Philadelphia (CCP); once admitted,
courses through CCP can be used to replace remaining high school diploma requirements and to
apply towards college credits in some cases. A central component of the program is personalized
mentoring through the learning community. Students are admitted in cohorts of 20 and are
assigned an academic coordinator who serves as a mentor and advocate and stays with them
through their diploma completion.
A Summer Pathway to College Success for Under-prepared Students
Aiming to support a target group of incoming first-year students who were college
qualified but under-prepared and needed developmental coursework, Rosemont College initiated
20
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 355 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
a voluntary Bridge to Success Program in August 2008. The Bridge to Success program provides
under-prepared students with a week of intensive academic support in reading, writing, and
study skills, combined with an enriched orientation to college life that included student mentors.
Preliminary data suggest that students who opted to participate in the Bridge program earned
higher GPAs and were more likely to persist to the second semester than their peers who
qualified for the Bridge program but chose not to participate.
Succeeding in Higher Education
Success for Students Needing Developmental Coursework in Community Colleges
Pennsylvania’s community colleges are making great strides to restructure developmental
education through course structure, classroom practices, and individualized attention. Seven of
Pennsylvania’s community colleges (Allegheny, Beaver, Delaware, Montgomery, Northampton,
Philadelphia, and Westmoreland) are taking advantage of Achieving the Dream (AtD) funds to
increase college success. AtD’s national goals are to increase the numbers of community college
students who successfully complete the courses they take, advance students from remedial
to credit-bearing courses, have them successfully complete gatekeeper courses, enroll them
continuously from one semester to the next, and ultimately earn certificates or degrees. In
Pennsylvania, each participating community college has generated a unique plan to accomplish
these goals.
At the conference, five of the participating community colleges described the institutionlevel strategies implemented at their institutions. Delaware County Community College (DCCC)
has made the AtD goals central to their mission and has used institution-wide data analysis
to guide the creation of new support structures and the modification of existing structures. For
example, AtD at DCCC has resulted in the creation of a Director of First Year Experiences as
well as an expansion of its existing Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
The Community College of Philadelphia’s (CCP) approach to Achieving the Dream
focuses on keeping students informed and increasing the quality of classroom experiences.
In addition, CCP has adopted an elaborate early alert system to identify struggling students,
notify them as soon as they begin to slip academically, and link them with the academic support
they need to successfully complete their courses. Moreover, CCP has made an investment in
faculty professional development, making a college-wide commitment to the notion that effective
educational practices generate improved students outcomes.
Montgomery County, Northamptom, and Westmoreland community colleges have
addressed the AtD goals by revamping their developmental and gatekeeper courses to increase
student success and lessen the time it takes for students to complete developmental credits.
Specific strategies for Developmental Math success have included using a more accurate
placement test; lowering class size; offering supplemental instruction; instituting common
course syllabi, outcomes, and exams; and instituting intensive summer courses to help students
place out of at least one developmental course. Lastly, the creation of four-credit courses blends
review material with college-level content and awards college credit.
21
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 356 of 392
Success for Students Needing Developmental Coursework at the Four-Year University
Shippensburg University created an alternative admission program for students who
do not meet the minimum requirements for admission but who show promise for achieving
academic success and making a contribution to the Shippensburg community. To support these
provisionally admitted students and increase their retention and graduation rates, Shippensburg
has implemented a comprehensive academic year support program. Their support program model
“incorporates research-based best practices in developmental education and moves the university’s
conditional admission program from an admission tool to a retention strategy.”
Increasing College Success Through Meaningful Coursework
Researchers from the doctoral program in communications at the Indiana University of
Pennsylvania (IUP) have identified a deficit in critical thinking and research skills in many firstyear college students. The presenters from IUP reported that students often require remediation in
critical thinking and research skills just as they do in math and writing. IUP advocates intentional
development of the latent critical thinking skills at the college level to better ensure student success.
Incorporating a cross-curricular extended-writing exercise into first-year curricula or pre-first year
bridge programs leads to greater academic success and the acquisition of college-level analytical
and writing skills.
Cabrini College has made a campus wide effort to implement more service learning courses.
When students learn through service learning, they often return to the classroom setting and serve
as a teacher. Based on their experience implementing service learning into existing courses, Cabrini
College and Northampton Community College (NCC) identified two strategies for successful
implementation of service learning throughout a college/ university. The first recommendation
is to have upper-level administrative support; NCC has a full-time service-learning director who
coordinates service-learning courses and site placements. The second recommendation is to set
up key relationships between faculty and community individuals and draw connections between
community work and faculty work. This leads to faculty interest in service learning.
Washington and Jefferson College has made meaningful college experiences a central
component of their strategy for increasing student success. Recognizing that enriching learning
experiences often occur outside of the classroom, Washington and Jefferson encourages all students
to participate in internships and study abroad experiences. The Magellan Project, a donor funded
grant program, provides low-income and first-generation college students equal access to these
life-changing but cost prohibitive learning opportunities.
To receive a Magellan grant, students identify how they will put their education to work.
Students are encouraged to research and propose their travel experiences independently, but
are provided with needed support throughout the application process. As a result, students from
working class backgrounds are given an opportunity to “test their professional aspirations, gain
self confidence and lifelong learning skills, and create the kind of life that helps them stand out in
graduate and professional school applications and in employment situations.”21
21
Dr. Tori Haring-Smith, President of Washington and Jefferson College.
22
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 357 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Increasing College Success Through Supportive Relationships
Several programs utilize mentoring as a means for increased persistence and success
for divergent groups of college students. Both Neumann and Millersville Universities have
experienced the power of mentoring to small target audiences, at-risk athletes, and students of
color interested in pursuing teaching careers. Neumann University has helped at-risk student
athletes achieve success through the implementation of a peer-mentoring program. On a daily
basis mentors provided the academically struggling student athletes with essential questions
to guide their thinking and focus their studying; additionally, students met with a professor
every week. Data revealed that students who participated in the mentoring program achieved
higher GPAs and more completed credits when compared to at-risk students who did not
participate.
Millersville University’s The Color of Teaching program uses mentoring to attract
high school students of color to the field of education and ensure their academic success once
enrolled in college. With this program, Millersville is fostering the development of teachers.
Mentoring helps the students understand the field, the need for more teachers of color, and
career expectations. The program not only addresses degree success for college students
but also targets the retention of students of color in the K-16 pipeline by helping to produce
more teachers of color. Thus, this program shows the power of mentoring to smaller target
audiences.
Bloomsburg University (BU) has acknowledged the need for effective student-faculty
interactions and the positive gains students experience from meaningful interactions with
faculty and peers through the creation of living and learning communities. Each of BU’s
ten communities consists of a group of students who share common academic interests, live
together in a residence hall, participate in activities together, and enroll in a cluster of related
courses. According to BU faculty members, “The program has become a forum for the exchange
of ideas and information between students and faculty. The living and learning communities
foster a collaborative atmosphere for faculty and students.” They are an effective means for
increasing persistence to degree, as learning communities have a second year persistence rate
of 75.58% - 76.65%.
College Success for Every Institution = A Focus on Effective Learning
Strategies Rather than Best Practices
“What an institution does is less important to student learning and development
than that whatever it does has one or more of the characteristics of
effective learning experiences.”
–Patrick Terenzini, Distinguished Professor of Higher Education, the Pennsylvania State University
The search for best practices is difficult because institutions differ. A program
working one way in one place may work differently in another place, and there are different
institutional priorities across Pennsylvania’s varied colleges and universities. The menu of
programs and interventions at work in Pennsylvania shows that college success programs
23
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 358 of 392
can be incorporated in every institutional context. Each of the educational organizations that
shared their college success programs has a unique agenda for increasing student success among
traditionally under-served populations. Programs differ in regard to whom they target, what
supports they offer, when in the K-16 pipeline they are provided, and how they cultivate success.
However, despite obvious differences, every program described has implemented research-based
strategies described in the conference presentations by Patrick Terenzini and Reason et al. that
have been proven to have a positive impact on postsecondary success. Providing pathways to
college success is not about forcing best practices upon an existing institutional structure and
culture; rather, incorporating effective learning strategies into existing programs and into the
creation of new programs that meet a demonstrated need in the context of specific colleges and
universities creates post-secondary success.
STEP 4: Working Together to Increase College Success
in Pennsylvania
“We have tended to tilt toward a culture that is less respectful across institutions... We
need a sense of common purpose. How do you define the issues facing the state so that
they are everybody’s problems? We need to use every educational resource. It is not a
matter of governance type. Can you make this [inter-institutional] diversity work and
not let it become something that is destructive and undermining? We have gone so far
into this competitive model with the virtue of pursuing your own ranking. It helps
when leadership can come together and when faculty can get together
and define problems that are mutual.”
–Patrick Callan, President of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education
College success programs are varied and look differently at different types of institutions.
When fashioning institutional responses to college success it is important to appreciate and
accentuate the many different strengths across Pennsylvania’s colleges and universities.
However, increasing degree success in Pennsylvania will not be fully realized if individual
institutions are acting alone. The solution to increasing access and success lies in a statewide
effort to offer multiple pathways to success. Thus, the fourth step to college success is crossinstitutional collaboration and inter-institutional efforts to increase student success.
Collaboration for Success in Pennsylvania: A Public and Private Matter
Private colleges and universities are integral to any statewide solution to increase college
success. Pennsylvania has 94 private colleges and universities, the second largest number of
private colleges and private college students in the nation. In Pennsylvania, 41 % of college
students are enrolled in private colleges and universities; private colleges and universities award
50 % of all bachelor’s degrees and over 60 % of all graduate degrees. Thus, the percentages of
students served by private institutions in Pennsylvania are considerably larger than the national
percentages where private institutions account for 36 % of degrees and public institutions grant
64%.
24
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 359 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Preparing students for success in higher education are the shared goals of every
postsecondary institution in Pennsylvania. Traditionally there has been a divide between public
and private institutions, most likely because of funding and governance differences. However,
allowing sector designations to obscure the many similarities among our public and private
institutions will only derail efforts to achieve statewide goals of access and success.
Even the most highly selective private institutions in Pennsylvania are motivated to
increase low-income and minority enrollments among qualified students and need to have
effective structures in place to support these students to degree completion. Just as low income
and minority students are under-represented in colleges and universities as a whole, highly
talented low-income and minority students are under-represented in our most-selective private
institutions. Thus, the call for increased degree success for under-served student populations
applies to both public and private colleges and universities.
We have the potential to access a wealth of information and experience by tapping
into the operations of private colleges and universities in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has 25
institutions with 6-year graduation rates of 70 percent or higher, and all 25 of these institutions
are private colleges or universities. While some of these completion rates can be explained by
highly selective admissions policies, inputs are not the whole story. In fact, private colleges and
universities are known for having more elaborate programming and academic support systems
to scaffold their students’ pathways to college success.
Moreover, many private colleges and universities have long-standing institutional
missions to actively diversify their student populations. Successfully integrating minority
student populations including low-income students, students of color, or international students
- into predominantly wealthy and white campuses has required deliberate action by these
private institutions. Private institutions have a collection of support programs already in place
for promoting student success among diverse student populations that can serve as models for
similar programs now needed across all Pennsylvania postsecondary institutions.
Additional cross-sector collaboration to uncover the effective programming at high
performing private institutions is necessary to help less selective institutions increase degree
success. Some private institutions presented their innovative programs at the conference;22
even greater participation from private institutions in future can serve to break down existing
barriers between public and private higher education in Pennsylvania.
More than Inter-Library Loan–The Need for New Collaborations
Some mixed collaborations between Pennsylvania K-12 school districts and business,
community colleges and industry, four-year colleges and educational non-profit organizations
were described in Step Three. Just as these partnerships have enhanced and improved the
programs offered by K-12 schools, colleges, and universities, collaborations between colleges
For example, the Magellan Scholars program at Washington and Jefferson College; the Summer Academy
for Minority Student at Carnegie Mellon University; Bridge for Success at Rosemont College; and The
McGowan Hispanic Outreach Program at Kings College were highlighted as successful college success
programs at the Governor’s Conference.
22
25
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 360 of 392
and universities promise additional success through the pooling of resources and eliminating
any unnecessary replication of services across institutions. Traditionally, postsecondary
institutions have some experience with resource collaboration, but in the current economic
downturn we need to be more innovative.
Articulation agreements provide one example of how collaboration between community
colleges and four-year institutions can increase student success: streamlining time to degree,
lowering students’ overall tuition costs, and paving a more direct pathway to the four-year
degree. Pennsylvania recently mandated and improved transfer and articulation agreements
between community colleges and state universities. Encouraging the expansion of these types of
programs is critical as the absence of articulation agreements limits the postsecondary choices
and aspirations of students who begin in the two-year sector, who are disproportionately from
low-income backgrounds; and who are and of color.
Another mutually beneficial type of collaboration across institutions is a partnership for
curriculum enhancement and expansion. Several Pennsylvania postsecondary institutions are
already taking advantage of these types of partnerships. Millersville University and Franklin
and Marshall College have a partnership whereby Franklin and Marshall students are able to
pursue secondary teacher certification through Millersville University’s College of Education.
One of the most comprehensive inter-college collaborations is the tri-college consortium
jointly established by Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore Colleges. Through the tri-college
consortium Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore have capitalized on their geographical
proximity to expand the range of courses, resources, student services, and extra-curricular
activities they can offer to their students. This well developed and finely tuned consortium
creates a veritable postsecondary utopia, where resources among the three institutions can
satisfy every student need. Moreover, through the consortium these peer institutions have
prioritized the educational success of students above the pursuit of a higher ranking by US
News and World Report.
Increased collaboration among Pennsylvania colleges and universities must continue.
Pooling resources will help keep costs down amidst tightening budgets. There is no limit to the
ways that Pennsylvania’s 130 colleges and universities might collaborate for student success.
Collaborations to provide programs that low-income, Black, Hispanic, and adult populations
need (academic supports, financial counseling, mentoring, remediation, and childcare) will
lessen the expenditures of financial and personnel resources that an individual institution
would need to invest if working alone. Moreover, if the provision of these resources is a statewide
effort, we can build partnerships to ensure postsecondary degree success for students across
the state.
A Call to Action
The need is urgent and the time is now for all of higher education to answer its call to
duty and come to the service of the nation by targeting college success, especially for historically
underserved populations of low-income, Black, Hispanic, and adult students. Although the
26
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 361 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
Governor’s Conference was convened in Pennsylvania, the presentations and dialogue made
it clear that Pennsylvania’s challenges regarding postsecondary access and success have
nationwide implications. Using inter-institutional diversity to develop a more responsive
higher education system focusing on the success of all students will increase the percentage of
U.S. workers who can participate in the new knowledge-based economy. Summing up the rich
content and conversations of a three-day conference into four steps is not meant to diminish the
complexities and challenges that increasing degree success poses for Pennsylvania’s colleges
and universities but to emphasize that steps must be taken for progress to be realized. There is
no simple solution. Steady and intentional progress at the state level, within institutions and
between institutions, will increase student success and will restore the public’s faith in higher
education as the keystone to economic success in the Keystone state.
27
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 362 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 363 of 392
Stepping It Up: Building Pathways to College Success in Pennsylvania and Nationwide
The production of this white paper was made possible
by a generous grant from the
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
The Pennsylvania Governor’s Conference on Higher Education
was made possible by the generosity of the following organizations:
PACU
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 364 of 392
The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 365 of 392
The Future of College and
Career Pathways
A national survey of pathways practitioners
July 2013
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 366 of 392
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 367 of 392
The Future of College and
Career Pathways
A national survey of pathways practitioners
Career and Technical Education (CTE) has been a fixture in American education since the 1920s, and
today nearly one in four high school students enrolls in a concentration of CTE courses1, while the
career academy movement, now more than 30 years old, includes more than 7,000 career academies
nationwide2. Both of these complementary models center on the idea of providing pathways for
students, helping them explore their future options and make a clear connection to college and career
opportunities.
Given the positive impact that pathways initiatives like these can have in the lives of students, and
their importance for both education and workforce outcomes, the National Center for College and
Career Transitions (NC3T) surveyed educators and administrators in the field to learn about the current
state of pathways programs and get a sense of what the future holds. The results of this survey reflect
only the views of those who received the survey and chose to complete it, so the specific data may
not be nationally representative. Still, it provides a real-time look at the perceptions of state and local
practitioners who are doing the work of CTE and related academies and pathways.
A. Key Findings
◊ The percentage of students participating in pathways programs is growing: 37.4% said that
there are more students in CTE programs than three years ago, versus 18.3% saying there were
fewer, while 31.7% stated that there were more students in career academies, compared with
11.7% saying there were fewer. While the number of CTE programs appears static, 29.0% said
there were more academies than three years ago, compared with 14.0% saying there were fewer.
◊ While all areas of education are facing funding challenges, pathways programs have seen
smaller levels of cuts in the past three years, and expect static levels going forward. Those in the
Northeastern states saw the fewest reports of funding declines among their pathways initiatives.
◊ Pathways practitioners have active relationships with their communities: 71.0% of respondents
have advisory boards for each CTE program and career academy, with strong representation
from key stakeholder groups. There are opportunities for improvement in having board
members take leadership roles within their partner schools, and in tying programs to current
workforce needs.
◊ Employers are heavily engaged in areas such as advisory boards (89.7%), sharing expertise
with students (85.0%), and offering work-based learning opportunities (80.6%); however, there
remain significant opportunities for growth in areas such as offering opportunities to teachers
(35.5%), sharing expertise with the schools (26.9%), and serving as executive mentors (16.3%).
1http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=43
2http://casn.berkeley.edu/resources.php?r=158
The Future
|
of College and Career Pathways
1
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 368 of 392
◊ Respondents expect continued growth of both CTE programs and career academies over the
next 1-3 years, including a higher percentage of students, more programs, and higher levels of
business engagement. In spite of this growth, however, survey participants expect static levels of
staffing and a slight decline in funding.
◊ The best areas for pathways programs appears to be urban areas and Southeastern states: in
both cases, respondents reported higher-than-average participation rates, growth rates, activity
rates, and a more optimistic view of the future.
B. Implications
Federal policy for Perkins Career Technical Education funding has encouraged states and localities
to adopt “programs of study,” which are connected CTE programs that span between secondary and
postsecondary education. Federal policy relating to education more generally is essentially silent on
areas like career academy and pathways, instead focusing on accountability, and assessments. Race to
the Top funding, for example, has focused support more specifically on teacher effectiveness evaluation
and turning around struggling schools.
The growth of academies and pathway models, as indicated in this survey report, is occurring in
the absence of strong federal or state guidance and funding, which is somewhat surprising. It may
demonstrate that a movement toward pathway models is picking up grass-roots support; even modest
federal and/or state encouragement could lead to widespread adoption rather quickly.
I. Data Collection Process
The National Center for College and Career
Transitions conducted this survey between May
9th and June 1st. The survey was promoted
via email to a list of 5,000 educators and
administrators who work in pathways-related
fields such as CTE and career academies,
including the subscriber list of NC3T’s Engage.
Connect. newsletter and a compiled list of
district and state CTE leaders. Notices requesting
participation were sent on May 9th and May
22nd; two incentives were offered, including a
copy of the survey results and a chance to win
one of five copies of Building Advisory Boards
That Matter, a book written by Hans Meeder and
Brett Pawlowski of NC3T.
As a result of this outreach, 801 individuals
started the survey, with 540 completing the
entire online questionnaire. Readers should
remember that, as an opt-in survey, the results
may be biased in favor of those who are more
active in the field.
2| Table 1: Respondent Characteristics
Survey Item
%
In what part of the country are you located?
West
25.8%
Midwest
27.4%
Northeast
16.7%
Southeast
30.1%
If you work at the school or district level,
how would you describe your school
district’s location?
Urban
30.5%
Suburban
38.2%
Rural
31.3%
At what level of education do you work?
School
52.1%
District
30.1%
State
17.8%
The Future of College and Career Pathways
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 369 of 392
II. Respondents
This survey captured information from a diverse group of respondents, with solid representation
geographically and in terms of operating level (school, district, state). Table 1 displays a breakdown of
respondent characteristics; additional highlights are as follows:
◊ Of the school-based respondents, two-thirds (66%) were from administrators, including general
administrators, academy directors and CTE administrators, and one-third (34%) were from
classroom educators.
◊ Respondents from the Western part of the country were more likely to be school-based (67.4%
versus 52.1% average) and more likely to be from urban settings (40.6% versus 30.4% average).
Respondents from the Southeast were more likely to be working at the district level (40.9%
versus 30.1% average). Both Midwestern and Southeastern respondents were more likely than
average to represent rural locations (39.8% and 38.4% respectively, versus 31.4% average).
III. Current Work on Pathways
When asked about the current state of pathways initiatives within their schools, respondents clearly
indicated that programs were reaching a sizeable portion of the student body, and were generally either
stable or slightly growing. They also noted that pathways efforts were geared toward the entire student
body, and that pathways-related practices like
Table 2: Trends in CTE Programs
creating a personalized college and career plan
had firmly entered the mainstream. Finally, while
funding for schools is under pressure, pathwaysSurvey Item
%
related initiatives, while not seeing funding
What % of high school students
increases, were at least less susceptible to funding
participate in a CTE program?
declines.
10% or less
10.7%
11% to 25%
25.6%
26% to 50%
27.0%
51% to 75%
17.8%
76% or more
19.0%
Is this more or less than three years
ago?
A lot more
8.3%
A little more
29.1%
About the same
44.3%
A little less
13.7%
A lot less
4.6%
Do you have more or fewer CTE programs than three years ago?
More
35.8%
The same
35.4%
Fewer
28.8%
A. CTE Programs
As seen in Table 2, respondents reported having
varying numbers of students participating in CTE
programs, with the two largest groups reporting
between 11-25% of students in CTE programs or
26% to 50% students (indicated by a total of 52.6%
of respondents).(Note that, a “program” as locally
defined usually connotes participation in two or
three related CTE courses.) These numbers are
generally higher than the last estimate provided by
the US Department of Education, at 21% to 23%,
in 2005; it is unclear whether trends have changed,
if the Department of Education’s definition
was stricter (3 or more classes, versus NC3T’s “a
sequence of courses, not just a single elective”), or
if a respondent bias is evident here.
The Future
|
of College and Career Pathways
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 370 of 392
There are indications that the number of students in CTE programs is growing: 37.4% of respondents
said that there are more students in CTE programs than three years ago (including “a lot more” or “a little
more”), versus 18.3% saying there were fewer (“a lot less” or “a little less”). This is distinct from the change
in the number of programs, with comparable numbers saying there were more (35.8%) versus less
(28.8%).
◊ Respondents from the Southeast reported much higher rates of participation in CTE, with
52.1% indicating that more than half of students were involved in these programs. Those in the
Southeast also noted stronger growth in student participation, with 48.5% reporting “a little
more” or “a lot more” participation; this was followed by respondents from the Western region,
with 43.6% noting such growth.
◊ Rural sites noted somewhat higher rates of participation, with 54.2% reporting that between
26% and 75% were involved in CTE (versus the average of 43.4% for that group); interestingly,
however, it was the urban and suburban sites who recorded the greatest growth in the number
of programs, at 38.4% and 40.5% respectively, versus 30.0% for the rural sites.
◊ According to 70.0% of respondents at the state level, most schools are seeing CTE participation
rates between 11% and 50%; this view is in contrast to the average of 52.3% of overall survey
participants reporting participation in this range. State-level respondents were also more likely
to report that participation rates had declined within the past three years (33.3% saying “a little
less” or “a lot less,” compared to the average
18.3%), and that the number of programs
Table 3: Trends in Career Academies
had declined over that same period (42.3%
report fewer programs, compared to the
Survey Item
%
overall 28.2%). This may indicate that
What % of high school students
school-level respondents represent more
participate in career academies?
active sites than the average high school.
B. Career Academies
Survey participants were also asked about
participation rates in career academies, and the
growth or decline in student participation or
number of academies over the past three years
(see Table 3 for detailed breakouts). Respondents
saw low levels of student participation in career
academies, with 54.7% saying 10% or less of high
school students were in academies, and another
19.6% saying 11% to 25% of students were enrolled.
There was evidence of growth, however, with 31.7%
stating that there were more students in career
academies, compared with 11.7% saying there
were fewer; and with 29.0% saying there were more
academies than three years ago, compared with
14.0% saying there were fewer.
◊ Around the country, states in the
Midwest had the lowest rates of academy
4| 10% or less
54.7%
11% to 25%
19.8%
26% to 50%
10.1%
51% to 75%
5.9%
76% or more
9.7%
Is this more or less than three years
ago?
A lot more
10.3%
A little more
21.4%
About the same
56.4%
A little less
8.3%
A lot less
3.4%
Do you have more or fewer career
academies than three years ago?
More
29.0%
The same
57.0%
Fewer
14.0%
The Future of College and Career Pathways
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 371 of 392
participation, with most (70.9%) saying that 10% or fewer of their students were in career
academies; in contrast, those in the West and Southeast reported higher rates of participation,
with just 43.1% of those in the West and 51.2% of those in the Southeast saying they had 10% or
fewer of students in academies. Those in the West and Southeast reported the highest growth
rates as well: 43.2% of those in the West and 37.9% in the Southeast said they had “a little more”
or “a lot more” student participation over the past three years (versus 18.3% and 17.6% in the
Midwest and Northeast, respectively), and with 37.3% in the West and 34.1% in the Southeast
saying they had more academies than three years ago (versus 18.1% in the Midwest and 20.0%
in the Northeast).
◊ Rural sites were less likely to have students in career academies, and less likely to report growth
in academy participation or in the number of academies. Most (67.5%) rural respondents report
having 10% or fewer students in academies, in comparison to 37.7% of urban and 53.8% of
suburban respondents reporting similar levels; over the past three years, only 18.4% of rural
respondents report seeing “a little more” or “a lot more” participation, compared with 43.5% of
urban and 31.9% of suburban respondents seeing such growth. Rural respondents also recorded
the lowest rate of growth in the number of academies, with 15.9% noting more academies than
three years ago, compared with 31.5% of urban and 31.1% of suburban respondents.
◊ As with the questions on CTE, those at the school level see higher rates of participation in career
academies than do those at the state level, with 67.4% of state-level respondents reporting a
student participation rate in academies of 10% or less, compared with just 49.3% at the school
level reporting similar participation rates. This again points to the likelihood that a more active
group of school-level practitioners responded to this survey. Interestingly, those at the state
level were more likely to note growth in the number of academies than were those at the school
level (40.0% and 25.0% respectively), indicating
that the growth in career academy locations is
Table 4: Pathways Practices
more likely to be at schools without any academy
presence.
Survey Item
%
What % of your CTE programs are
embedded in an academy or Linked
Learning model?
All CTE programs
18.6%
Most CTE programs
23.5%
Some CTE programs
35.5%
No CTE programs
22.4%
What % of students are required to
create a personalized college and
career plan?
3
10% or less
20.4%
11% to 25%
8.8%
26% to 50%
8.0%
51% to 75%
7.1%
76% or more
55.8%
C. Pathways Practices
NC3T was interested in finding out about some
practical elements of pathways implementation,
such as what percentage of CTE programs were
embedded in an academy or Linked Learning3
model, and whether students were required to
create personalized career and college plans. As
to the first question, the majority of respondents
(59.0%) indicated that “some CTE programs” or
“most CTE programs” were embedded in career
academy models. When asked about personalized
plans for students, 55.8% said that the majority of
students (specifically, 75% or more) were required
to create personalized college and career plans,
with others, with the remaining respondents’
answers varying widely. Table 4 offers detailed
response rates; it should be noted that both of
For more about the Linked Learning model, see http://connectedcalifornia.org/
The Future
|
of College and Career Pathways
5
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 372 of 392
these questions warrant further research to explore how these practices are implemented and how
quality is ensured.
◊ There was a general consistency within the subgroups on these two questions, with just two
exceptions. Those in rural sites were far less likely to have CTE programs embedded in career
academies (42.3% of rural respondents reported “no CTE programs” were found within academy
models versus the average 22.4%), likely because they reported having far fewer students
participating in academies overall. Most state-level respondents (65.2%) reported only “some
CTE programs” being found within the academy structure, versus 35.5% of the entire respondent
group, again indicating that state-level respondents were accounting for sites with no academy
participation.
D. Funding
Funding plays an important role in the success of K-12 education; NC3T asked survey participants both
about general education funding and about funding targeted specifically for pathways initiatives. As
seen in Table 5, the majority of respondents indicate that education funding in general is down over
the last three years, with 26.1% stating that funding is down between 1% and 9%, and 52.4% saying
funding is down 10% or more. While funding targeted specifically for pathways also appears to be down,
respondents indicate a less severe decline, with 27.9% saying that pathways-specific funding is down
between 1% and 9%, and 36.1% saying it is down 10% or more.
◊ Among the regions of the country, respondents in the Western states report the greatest
funding challenges, with 86.9% noting declines in general education funding and 78.0% noting
pathways-specific funding reductions. Among the other regions, those in Northeast states share
a better-than-average funding scenario, with 71.1% noting a general education funding decline,
and just 47.5% reporting a decline in
pathways-specific spending over the past
Table 5: Trends in Funding
three years.
◊ One of the starkest differences is the
contrast between school- and state-level
respondents, with 84.2% of school-level
respondents suggesting some level of
education funding declines in general,
and 68.5% reporting declines specifically
in pathways funding, compared with
state-level responses at 60.5% and 44.6%,
respectively. The marked differences
between these two sets of responses
could be due to the fact that schoollevel respondents may be more aware of
spending levels of some things (salaries,
supplies) and less aware of spending on
administration, facilities, pensions and
benefits and the like.
6| Survey Item
%
Compared to three years ago, what
is the state of education funding in
general?
Down 10% or more
52.4%
Down between 1% and 9%
26.1%
Flat
13.7%
Up between 1% and 9%
6.1%
Up 10% or more
1.8%
Compared to three years ago, what is
the state of education funding specifically for pathways programs?
Down 10% or more
36.1%
Down between 1% and 9%
27.9%
Flat
25.6%
Up between 1% and 9%
8.0%
Up 10% or more
2.3%
The Future of College and Career Pathways
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 373 of 392
E. Barriers to Implementing Career Academies
For those sites that did not utilize a career academy or Linked Learning model, NC3T wanted to find out
why. Less than half (41.8%) of those who completed the survey responded to this question. Among the
top reasons were because “our school focuses on general college preparation for all students” (at 41.9%)
and “our administration does not understand the potential value of career academies” (40.3%); among
the least selected reasons were that “our CTE teachers are not interested in career academies” (6.8%) and
“our CTE teachers do not understand the potential value of career academies” (14.8%). Those who wish
to promote the academy or Linked Learning model may want to focus their efforts on highlighting the
benefits with administrators rather than with CTE educators, who appear to have already bought in to
the concept.
IV. Community Relationships
Community relationships, particularly with employers and postsecondary programs, are an essential
component of pathways systems. NC3T set out to see how practitioners were involved with their
communities, including how they engage partners in their work and how they design their programs
based on feedback from partners. According to respondents, community guidance and support are
fully ingrained into their work, with strong participation in advisory boards and other types of student
support, and with systems designed according to employer needs and postsecondary requirements.
A. Advisory Boards
Table 6: Advisory Boards
Survey Item
%
Do you have advisory boards?
Yes, we have boards for each CTE
program and career academy
71.0%
Yes, but only at the school level
11.2%
Yes, but only at the district level
9.7%
No
8.1%
How would you describe your
advisory boards? (Scale of 1-5; 1=”not
at all” and 5 being “absolutely”)
Rating
Small companies well-represented
3.77
Post-secondary well-represented
3.64
Board makeup consistent with
strongest local industries
3.46
Large employers well-represented
3.43
Board members provide students
with opportunities
3.35
Board members active at the school
3.08
Board members provide teachers
with opportunities
2.90
Board members take a leadership role
in the school
2.55
As seen in Table 6, most survey participants
(71.0%) report having advisory boards for each
CTE program and/or career academy; just 8.1%
note that they have no advisory board structure
in place. In terms of the makeup of these boards,
respondents are more likely to consider small
companies to be well-represented than large
employers (3.77 versus 3.43, respectively, on a fivepoint scale) and, while board members generally
do provide students with opportunities such as
mentoring and job shadowing, they are less likely
to take a leadership role at the school itself (3.35
versus 2.55 respectively).
◊ Respondents in the West and Midwest regions
of the country were more likely than others
to have advisory boards for each program
or academy (72.9% and 75.7%, respectively,
versus 71.0% average). In terms of the makeup
and activity of these boards, those in the
Southeast offered consistently higher ratings
for both the participation of each group (small
business, large employer, and postsecondary
partner) and for each type of activity studied.
The Future
|
of College and Career Pathways
7
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 374 of 392
◊ While urban, suburban, and rural sites all reported similar breakdowns in the existence of their
advisory boards, the makeup and activities of those boards did vary by location. Urban sites,
for example, where somewhat more likely to have large employers and postsecondary partners
well-represented, have board members active in the school, provide both students and teachers
with opportunities, and take a leadership role in the school. In contrast, rural sites were most
likely to see strong representation from small businesses, and feel that their board makeup was
consistent with the strongest local industries.
B. Community Connections
Effective pathways initiatives rely on guidance from community partners, including identifying the
community needs that a pathways program ties into as well as the entrance requirements for business
and postsecondary education that graduates will be expected to meet. As seen in Table 7, reports
are mixed on efforts to tie pathways work to local workforce needs: Just 32.3% of respondents have
done such work within the last two years, and 33.1% believe that it has never been done. Respondents
indicate more work being done to align programs to postsecondary and workforce entry requirements:
In both cases, two-thirds note that almost all programs are aligned, and another one-third notes that
some programs are aligned.
◊ Significant differences were found between the responses of school-level and state-level
practitioners. State-level respondents seemed to be much more active in aligning programs
to workforce needs, with 49.1% saying such work had taken place within the past two years,
which stood in contrast to school-level
Table 7: Community Connections
practitioners at 23.5%. In fact, nearly half 42.8% - of school-level respondents were
not aware of such work ever having been
Survey Item
%
done, compared with just 27.3% of stateIn designing your programs, have you
levels practitioners. Of course, state level
engaged in an economic/workforce
administrators are required to ensure that
needs planning process?
Perkins-funded programs are aligned with
Yes, within the last two years
32.3%
“high-wage, high-skill and high-demand”
Yes, within the last five years
24.8%
occupations, so they are likely more aware
Yes, more than five years ago
9.8%
of efforts to implement that policy. Local
Not that I am aware of
33.1%
level CTE administrators and especially
classroom teachers, would be less familiar
Are your pathways programs intenwith this requirement that may have been
tionally aligned with postsecondary
applied to local funding.
entry requirements?
◊ Similar discrepancies were seen
in questions about workforce and
postsecondary alignment, with school-level
respondents suggesting that almost all
programs were aligned to postsecondary
and workforce requirements (67.0% and
66.4% respectively), with fewer state-level
respondents saying the same (46.2% and
50.0%). This may be explained by the
larger range of programs that state-level
administrators oversee, so there is more
8| Yes, almost all programs
64.4%
Some do, some do not
31.6%
No
4.0%
Are your programs intentionally
designed to help students meet the
entry requirements for local jobs?
Yes, almost all programs
63.9%
Some do, some do not
33.0%
No
3.0%
The Future of College and Career Pathways
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 375 of 392
likelihood that many of the programs they oversee are not yet well aligned to postsecondary
and workforce requirements.
C. Working with Local Partners
Pathways programs require the active participation of local employers. According to survey respondents,
their business partners are highly engaged in some key ways, but not in others. As seen in Table 8,
employers uniformly serve on advisory boards, share their expertise with students, and offer workbased learning opportunities. The picture is mixed on other types of supports, with just 40-60% noting
partnerships in areas such as advocacy, providing resources, volunteering, and collaborating on program
design or curriculum development. Few respondents point to connections between employers and staff
and administration, with just 35.5% referencing teacher training, 26.9% noting that employers share
their expertise with the school, and just 16.3% pointing to employers serving as executive mentors to
administrators.
◊ Urban schools were more likely to note partnerships in several areas, including employers
serving as student mentors (67.4% versus the average 55.5%) or executive mentors (25.2%
versus average 16.3%), offering learning opportunities to teachers (48.1% versus 35.5%), or
participating in program design (47.4% versus 39.8%) or curriculum development (51.9% versus
39.8%).
V. The Future of Pathways
After sharing information on current practices and recent trends, participants were finally asked for
their predictions on the future of pathways programs. The first question was on the likely impact of
state and federal legislation: While participants were confident that legislation would affect them
(only 11.3% expect “no effect”), responses were
decidedly mixed as to whether legislative changes
Table 8: Partnership Models
would expand, maintain, or damage pathways
efforts. When asked for predictions in other areas
Survey Item
%
of their pathways work, respondents stated that
How are local employers consistently
they expect growth in areas such as the number
involved in your pathways programs?
of students, number of programs, and level of
Serve on an advisory board
89.7%
business engagement, but that they expect
Share their expertise with students
85.0%
staffing to remain static and funding to decline
Offer work-based learning opportunities 80.6%
slightly. As seen in Table 9, respondents saw little
Act as advocates for the programs and/
distinction between the future of CTE and the
or school
58.8%
future of career academies on any of these fronts.
Provide resources (money, facilities, etc.)
58.6%
Serve as student mentors
55.5%
Serve as volunteers
54.9%
Offer real-world challenges to students
46.8%
Participate in program design or retrofit
39.8%
Participate in curriculum development
39.8%
Offer learning opportunities to teachers
35.5%
Share their expertise with the school
26.9%
Serve as executive mentors
16.3%
◊ Respondents from urban sites were more
optimistic on every front, expecting growth in
student participation, number of programs/
academies, staffing, and business engagement,
though they expected funding challenges
like those in other areas. They were also more
likely (32.4%) to expect legislation to expand
pathways initiatives, compared with 23.0% of
suburban sites and just 19.7% of rural sites.
The Future
|
of College and Career Pathways
9
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 376 of 392
◊ Like the urban respondents, those from Southeastern states had the most optimistic view of
the future in every category; they were also more likely (30.1%) to expect that legislation would
support pathways efforts over the next few years.
◊ While those at the school level and state level saw the future in similar terms, state-level
respondents were somewhat more likely to expect growth in the number of career academies
and the level of academy staff than they were in CTE programs, and less likely to anticipate
funding declines in either. They were also less likely to see legislative efforts hurting pathways
work, with just 15.4% expecting such damage, versus 29.2% of school-level respondents.
VI. Summary
Pathways programs have been an integral part of K-12 education for decades and, as the responses to
this survey indicate, they serve a sizeable - and growing - portion of the student population with strong
links to, and participation from, the employer and postsecondary communities. While funding will be a
challenge going forward (as it is in every area of education), practitioners expect that this work will grow
and expand well into the future.
The degree to which academies and pathway
models are being adopted as a school improvement
strategy, in the absence of strong federal or state
guidance and funding, is somewhat surprising.
It may demonstrate that a movement toward
pathway models is picking up grass-roots support,
and even with modest federal and/or state support,
could move towards widespread adoption rather
quickly.
Table 9: The Future of Pathways
Survey Item
%
What effect will state and federal
legislation (including funding) have
on your pathways programs?
Significantly expand them
25.7%
Maintain them, but not expand
35.1%
No effect
11.3%
Will hurt pathways efforts
28.0%
How do you see the future (next 1-3
years) of your pathways programs?
(Scale of 1-5; 1=”will shrink/decline”,
3=”will stay the same”, and 5 being
“will grow/expand”)
10| Rating
% of students in CTE
3.66
% of students in career academies
3.49
Number of CTE programs
3.35
Number of career academies
3.25
Staffing for CTE
3.15
Staffing for career academies
3.08
Funding for CTE
2.75
Funding for career academies
2.74
Business engagement in CTE
3.66
Business engagement in career
academies
3.50
The Future of College and Career Pathways
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 377 of 392
About The National Center for College and Career Transitions
The National Center for College and Career Transitions (NC3T) is
a mission-driven organization created to foster community-wide
college-career pathway systems that are supported and led by
alliances of educators, employers, and civic organizations.
NC3T’s ultimate goal is to see “every teen with a dream and a plan,”
helping them to develop a vision of their future and a clear path for
reaching it. To that end, NC3T provides planning, coaching, technical
assistance and tools to help community-based leadership teams plan
and implement their college-career pathway systems.
All content ©2013, National Center for College and Career Transitions. All rights reserved.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 378 of 392
National Center for College and Career Transitions
6713 Groveleigh Drive
Columbia, MD 21046
410-740-2006
www.NC3T.com
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 379 of 392
Turning Dreams into Degrees
Past, Present, and Future of California College Pathways
O c t o b er 2012
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
There is a shocking disparity
between the number of foster youth who
aspire to a college-level education and
those who achieve this goal. In one survey
of California foster youth, 75 percent have a
goal of attending and graduating from college.1
However, nationwide statistics reveal that only an
estimated 3 –11 percent of foster youth actually
go on to receive a bachelor’s degree.2 Most
foster youth want a college education but need
support and services to get there and succeed.
Page Page 380 of 392
California College Pathways is important
because it is a way that students like me
can graduate and be positive members of
society. We do exist, we are here, and we
need that support.
Emerald, Foster Youth Scholar, Graduate of UCLA
The good news is that California is on the right path to helping foster youth turn their dreams into
degrees. Through support from California’s three public post-secondary education systems, private
sector leadership, and the determination and the perseverance of youth themselves, California College
Pathways has helped thousands of foster youth succeed in college and move on to careers.
Through the historic extension of foster care to age 21 combined with the passage of supporting
legislation in California, foster youth now have new incentives to attend college, including additional
support for housing and living expenses. The option of enrolling and paying for college, attaining a
vocational certificate, graduating with an associate’s or bachelor’s degree, and going on to graduate
school are within reach for many more current and former foster youth in California.
This report provides some of the highlights of how California has become the nation’s leader in higher
education support for foster youth. But more importantly, it is a call to action to the leadership of our
state to stay the course and continue to make the dream of college a reality for all foster youth.
1 First Look: Foster Youth Outcomes in Four California Counties, Stuart Foundation. November 2011. 2 Insights: Understanding Foster Youth Educational Outcomes, California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership. Fall 2011.
2
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
College Matters
Education is the key to economic well-being and personal
success for youth. Studies have repeatedly shown
that attaining a bachelor’s degree not only increases
employment opportunities for individuals, but can also
have a significant impact on lifetime earnings. By receiving
S om e t h i n g t h at st uck wi t h m e i s the
statistic that only three percent of
us actually gain a degree. That was a
motivating factor to keep me in school.
I knew I had to see this through and
just get this done.
Miranda, Foster Youth Scholar, CSU Los Angeles
Page Page 381 of 392
a bachelor’s degree, the average Californian will go on to
earn $2.2 million over his or her lifetime—$1.3 million more
than those with only a high school diploma. Californians
without a degree that have some college education can
still expect to earn nearly $340,000 more in their lifetime
than if they had not attended college at all. Graduating
from a four-year college or university reduces the time the
average Californian will spend in poverty by four years and
decreases the number of expected years that an individual
will receive cash aid by more than two years.3
College completion not only means better individual
economic outcomes, but also increases in state tax
revenues and decreases in costs spent on social welfare
programs and incarceration. A recent study found that a
$1 investment in California higher education yields a return
of $4.50.4 In short, higher education is an opportunity for
individuals to escape economic instability and poverty,
which benefits all Californians.
For California’s 56,000 foster youth, a pathway to higher
education is particularly important. Removed from their
homes due to abuse and neglect, foster youth are often
bounced around, moving from placement to placement
and changing schools constantly. Frequently disconnected
from their families, communities, and schools, foster youth
are much more likely than their peers to fall behind
academically. 5 Of California’s foster youth, 80 percent have
repeated a grade by the third grade and only one in twenty
is proficient in math by their junior year in high school.6 As
a result, foster youth are less likely to graduate from high
school, go on to college, and complete post-secondary
education than their peers. In turn, foster youth, particularly
those emancipating out of the system, are more likely to
experience poverty, suffer from mental health issues, become
homeless or incarcerated, and rely on public assistance.
Like all young people, foster youth deserve the opportunity
to pursue their dreams of attending college and have a
successful career. By increasing access to higher education
and supporting foster youth scholars, California College
Pathways offers an alternative to the negative outcomes
that far too many foster youth experience in life.
3 C
alifornia’s Economic Payoff: Investing in College Access and Completion, Institute for the Study of Societal Issues,
University of California, Berkeley for The Campaign for College Opportunity, April 2012.
4 Ibid.
5 First Look: Foster Youth Outcomes in Four California Counties, Stuart Foundation. November 2011.
6 Insights: Understanding Foster Youth Educational Outcomes, California Child Welfare Co-Investment Partnership.
Fall 2011.
3
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
The Story
It started in Orange County in 1998 with one young
woman’s dream of going to college. At 17, Erin was ready to
emancipate from foster care and was living in a group
home.7 Despite the challenges she had faced in life,
she was committed to her education. She had been
Page Page 382 of 392
Foundation, a local foster youth provider that ran a summer
camp that Erin had participated in. “She was struggling. She
had no support and no family, but we were following her.
She wasn’t going to make it, so we approached the school
and they provided support.”
Determined to help Erin stay on course, Orangewood
Children’s Foundation joined forces with Ron Davis, a
CSU Fullerton alumnus and donor, to create Guardian
Scholars, which became California’s first campus support
program for former foster youth. In the beginning, the
program focused on connecting foster youth on campus
with financial aid assistance. Soon after its launch, Stuart
Foundation and several private investors provided funding
for the program’s expansion. With support from the college
administration and CSU system, it quickly grew into a fullfledged, comprehensive program for former foster youth,
providing a variety of resources to support their academic
and personal success. Erin stayed in the program and went
on to graduate with a bachelor’s degree and receive a
master’s in social work.
The continual focus from California
College Pathways and different
organizations brought to light the
challenges that foster youth face.
Overall there has been a positive
impact and greater awareness.
accepted into California State University, Fuller ton (CSU
Fullerton) and was enrolled for the fall semester, ready
to pursue her higher education goals.
But when Erin turned 18 that summer, she emancipated
from foster care and became homeless. Without adequate
financial aid assistance and housing, her dream of going to
college was slipping away.
Colleges never used to think this was
a possible population to serve and
now they actually focus on it.
Jack Scott, Chancellor, California Community Colleges (retired)
“This young lady had the intellectual capacity to attend
college, but didn’t have the financial capacity,” recalled
Gene Howard, former director of Orangewood Children’s
7 This graduate’s name has been changed to protect her privacy.
4
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 383 of 392
A M ovemen t L aunche d
In the following years, Stuart Foundation funded numerous
campus support programs based on the Guardian Scholars
model. In 2004 the Walter S. Johnson Foundation joined
Stuart Foundation, and the two foundations partnered
with California Community Colleges and the CSU and UC
systems to create campus support programs for foster
youth across the state. With their combined investment
of more than $4.7 million, the two foundations provided
direct funding to 13 campuses, supported technical
assistance for both emerging and established programs, and
established a community of support to help the programs
grow and succeed.
In 2006, the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office launched the Foster Youth Success Initiative, which
established a “foster youth liaison” at each of California’s
community college campuses. With community college
as the main higher education entry point for foster youth,
it was important to designate an individual within each
campus to help foster youth scholars get information
and counseling.
By 2008, a decade after the first Guardian Scholars
program was launched, 30 more campus support programs
were established throughout California. Building upon
the growing interest from higher education, the Walter S.
Johnson and Stuart foundations then initiated a second
phase in their strategy. With the CSU Chancellor’s Office
leading the program management with support from John
Burton Foundation and Career Ladders Project, California
College Pathways offered technical assistance and trainings,
We can’t leave these students hanging.
We, the public, are these kids’ parents.
What parent walks away from their child
at 18? We need to continue to shore up
our support because it’s the right thing
to do. And the return on investment
is there.
5
Alex Smith, Quarterback, San Francisco 49ers & Founder, Alex Smith
Foundation to Forward Progress for Foster Teens in Transition
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
as well as a policy advocacy agenda to increase program
replication and public investment. They also began to collect
data to measure the effectiveness of the programs.
Landmark Legislation for Foster Youth
As the movement to improve education outcomes for
foster youth spread across California’s higher education
systems, policymakers were also taking steps to change the
trajectory for foster youth. Significantly, landmark federal
and state legislation was passed allowing transition-age
foster youth to receive additional support to pursue their
education and career goals.
In 2008, Congress enacted the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which permitted
states to extend support for education, housing, and living
expenses to eligible youth in the child welfare system up to
age 21, and continues to provide federal funding for those
services. To take advantage of the new federal support for
foster youth, the California legislature enacted the California
Fostering Connections to Success Act in 2010. Also
known as AB 12, the legislation extends state foster care
assistance up to the age of 21, and will be put into effect in
a sequenced manner between 2012 and 2014.
For the first time, California’s foster youth will have the
support and incentive to pursue their higher education
goals. Under the new law, college attendance is one of the
eligibility requirements to continue to receive support
after 18 and youth in extended foster care will receive
continued support and oversight to ensure that they meet
eligibility requirements.8
By choosing to stay in foster care, youth attending
college will have additional funding to cover housing
costs. Funding can be used for living in a college dorm or,
if appropriate, youth can receive the money themselves
and rent an apartment or room. Extended foster care
can potentially free up institutions and campus support
programs’ limited resources for foster youth, making it
easier to serve more youth more effectively.
In addition, many of the core principles of California
College Pathways have been codified into law. Legislation
allowing current and former foster youth to receive
8 California Fostering Connections to Success Act – Assembly 12 Primer, Alliance for Children’s Rights, John
Burton Foundation.
Page Page 384 of 392
priority access to year-round housing (AB 1393, Skinner)
at California State University and California Community
College campuses was enacted in 2009. In 2011, AB 194
(Beall) was passed, which gives current and former foster
youth priority community college and CSU registration.
California College
Pathways Today
The movement has grown to include 80 comprehensive
campus support programs for former foster youth statewide
and foster youth liaisons in financial aid departments at
every community college through the Foster Youth Services
Initiative (FYSI). These programs have connected thousands
of former foster youth to financial aid, housing, tutoring,
counseling, and other support services. Even in this time of
crippling budget cuts to California’s public higher education
institutions and higher tuition fees, California College
Pathways partners have remained focused. The strategy is to
continue to engage more institutions to work together, share
best practices, and advocate for policies so that more youth
from foster care can achieve their dreams.
B y t he N umbers
2 ,500 foster youth scholars have enrolled in
college and participated in a campus support
programs since 1998.
1 12 community college campuses have
foster youth liaisons in financial aid offices to
provide support and guidance.
8 0 comprehensive campus support
programs currently serve foster youth
scholars statewide.
F oster youth scholars in California campus
support programs are three times more
likely to persist in college than foster youth
nationwide.
6
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 385 of 392
Campus Support Programs Receiving Foundation Support
Profile of F oun d ation Supported CA Camp us Support Programs
Year Program Started
# of Students Served
Average Attrition
Rate
Average Completion
Rate
Average Retention
Rate
Average
Persistence Rate
Campus 1
1998
167
29%
44%
27%
71%
Campus 2
1999
111
20%
51%
29%
80%
Campus 3
2002
123
41%
26%
33%
59%
Campus 4
2002
83
58%
13%
29%
42%
Campus 5
2005
79
20%
35%
44%
80%
Campus 6
2005
110
25%
28%
46%
75%
Campus 7
2006
107
36%
17%
47%
64%
Campus 8
2006
115
17%
12%
71%
83%
Campus 9
2007
159
24%
23%
53%
76%
Campus 10
2007
23
22%
57%
22%
78%
Campus 11
2008
335
36%
10%
55%
64%
Campus 12
2008
56
13%
20%
68%
88%
Campus 13
2008
152
39%
9%
52%
61%
Campus 14
2009
Total
7
149
8%
6%
86%
92%
1769
28%
25%
47%
72%
Note on the Data in Charts: Data highlighted were collected from 14 California campuses receiving financial support from the Stuart and Walter S. Johnson foundations.
Data highlighted show results for cohorts of foster youth scholars by the year they entered college. A total of 1,769 youth were served from 1998–2012, representing 93
cohorts of foster youth scholars. Data for Campuses # 4, 10, and 11 are through spring 2010. National data highlighted are cited in the report Helping Former Foster
Youth Graduate from College: Campus Support Programs in California and Washington State, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2009.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 386 of 392
Average Persist ence Rates: Foster Yout h Scholars Served from 1998-2012
71%
Campus 1
Campus 2
Campus 3
42%
Campus 4
59%
Campus 5
Campus 6
64%
Campus 7
Campus 8
Campus 9
Campus 10
64%
Campus 11
80%
80%
75%
83%
76%
78%
Campus 12
61%
Campus 13
Campus 14
F o s t e r Y o u t h N at i o n W i d e
26%
S t u d e n t s N at i o n W i d e
88%
92%
56%
Nearly all of the comprehensive campus support programs funded by the Stuart and Walter S. Johnson foundations have persistence rates higher than the nation general
college population. Combined, the foster youth scholars served by these programs outperformed their foster youth peers nationwide. Persistence means that the students either
remained in school at the end of the school year (retention) or completed school by attaining a vocational certificate, associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree, or transferring to a
four-year college (completion).
Campus Support Programs
The majority of campus support programs offer three
core components—financial aid, housing, and academic
support—while also providing a broader array of support
services, including counseling, peer mentoring, and
engagement activities. Programs also offer individualized
attention based on students’ unique needs to help them
realize their academic, personal, and career goals.
Comprehensive campus support programs are generally
considered to be “high touch.” Program staff establish
a process to identify current and former foster youth
on campus, conduct outreach to engage students to
participate in the program, establish close relationships
with foster youth scholars, and provide intensive case
management and support services.
To engage students and meet them where they are,
programs have developed a number of successful strategies.
For example, the CSU Fresno Renaissance Scholars
Program requires incoming students to participate in a
We are their champions, mentors, and
safety net, a family on campus. Knowing
this helps them get through and persist
through graduation and beyond.
Joy Salvetti, Director, Sacramento State Guardian Scholars Program
summer residential orientation and freshman foster youth
scholars to live on campus. When the semester starts, two
full-time counselors work with 30 to 40 students at all
times. Accommodating students’ schedules is fundamental
to meeting their needs. Foster youth scholars can drop
in or make appointments at the program office, group
meetings are held once a week, and staff are available by
cell phone 24 hours a day.
“We work with really amazing students, who are very
talented in a variety of ways, especially when you consider
the obstacles they have overcome,” said Paolo Velasco,
8
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 387 of 392
“I am a former foster youth, and I remember how difficult
it was in college,” explained Dameion Renault, foster youth
specialist at Orange Coast Community College. “I know
how important it is to have a place students can go and ask
all the questions in the world.”
E mo t ional S u pp ort and Services
In addition to academic support, many comprehensive
campus programs focus on students’ emotional needs,
providing critical mental health services and counseling.
Foster youth often suffer from trauma due to the abuse
and neglect they experienced when they were younger.
Many have also had difficult and traumatic experiences
while in foster care. And while the challenges that foster
youth have overcome may make them more resilient,
simply having someone to talk to who understands where
they are coming from helps keep them anchored in their
personal lives and focused in school.
“These students need advice on helping family members in
crisis and processing the abuse they have experienced now
that they are finally out of the system,” explained Sonja
Lenz-Rashid, social work professor and program research
evaluator at San Francisco State University. “Our staff deals
with a lot of clinical issues, like anxiety and depression,
which would affect any person going to college. If you’re
not meeting those needs, they will drop out, won’t study,
or won’t pass exams. You can’t get that GPA if you don’t
address the mental health and family issues.”
Through continued investment, the
interim director of the Bruin Resource Center at University
of California, Los Angeles. “The need in our program is to
help students navigate through the system and create a
sense of belonging on campus.”
Pauline, a foster youth scholar and recent UCLA graduate,
explained that the experience of being in foster care leaves
many youth “feeling bad for taking things.” But foster youth
should take advantage of the monetary and emotional
support, she said. “We have to realize that this is for us.”
9
foundations validated the idea that it is
possible to unleash the latent potential
in these youth. They created a sea
change and now California is leading the
nation in post-secondary education for
foster youth.
Daniel Heimpel, Director, Fostering Media Connections
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 388 of 392
Partnerships and Community Outreach
Partnerships are an essential component of campus
support programs. The programs maintain relationships
with other departments and programs on campus to
ensure that students are able to access support in a timely
manner. Key partners on campus include, but are not
limited to, the registrar’s office, student affairs, financial aid,
housing, Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
(EOPS), and health services.
C al ifo r n i a C o l l e ge Pathway s gi v es
fos ter y o ut h a cha nce t o s hi ne whil e
t hey a r e i n c o lle ge . It gi v e s us an
o pp o rt u n i ty to ma k e s ome t hi ng o f
o u r se lv e s a nd be come s ucce s s fu l
m embe r s o f s o ci et y.
Marquis, Foster Youth Scholar, San Diego State University
A Family on Campus
Perhaps most importantly, campus support programs also
provide students with a circle of support that they can fall
back on when times are tough. While assistance with housing
and tuition is critical, the emotional support they receive
from program staff and their peers is equally indispensable.
Marcellia, a former foster youth and active California Youth
Connection member, described the Guardian Scholars
program at Los Angeles Community College as “something
bigger than me.”
“It is like a family, a group of people that knows your exact
situation,” Marcellia explained. “They don’t judge you and
they definitely accept you for who you are, no ifs, ands, or
buts. You are always welcomed with open arms and there is
nothing but love.”
Marquis, a foster youth scholar at San Diego State
University, agreed. “First and foremost, the program is a
family… regardless of the funds they provide,” he said. “It’s a
comfortable and safe environment.”
Kizzy Lopez, director of the CSU Fresno program,
explained why California College Pathways programs
differ from other campus supports available for
disadvantaged students.
“We provide enhanced services to meet the unique needs
of the foster youth we serve, youth without the support
of parents,” said Lopez. “Other programs don’t have
relationships with the county department of social services
and they don’t do advocacy work around the needs of
foster youth.”
Equally important, programs aim to reduce barriers to
higher education for high school students transitioning
out of foster care. Programs actively recruit foster youth
scholars through connections with local education agencies
and county child welfare stakeholders and providers,
working collaboratively to create a seamless education
pipeline for transition-age foster youth.
In addition, to maintain adequate resources and staffing, it
is critical that campus support programs secure financial
support from multiple sources. In order to ensure that
programs remain sustainable and continue to serve
foster youth scholars, staff will work closely with campus
development and communications departments, alumni,
and community organizations to share the success of their
students and promote their program in the community.
“Most institutions have to be entrepreneurial, to the extent
possible,” said Michael McPartlin, special services manager
at City College of San Francisco. “For this population, it is
truly above and beyond what institutions can provide.”
10
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
T he Future of California
College Pathways
Investing in California’s Foster Youth
Building on the momentum of this movement and
lessons learned, Stuart Foundation and Walter S. Johnson
Foundation are continuing their partnership and have
initiated an exciting new phase of investment in California
College Pathways that will continue through at least
2015. Their mission is to continue to support efforts to
provide foster youth with opportunities to achieve their
educational and career goals and help campus support
programs remain sustainable in the long-term.
Recognizing that California’s public campuses are struggling
in tough budget times, the foundations have developed
a multifaceted strategy to support all campus support
programs for foster youth throughout the state, encourage
collaboration between campuses, and lift up the creative
solutions that make a difference in the lives of foster youth.
11
Page Page 389 of 392
The foun d at ions’ resour ces and
ex pertise are committ ed to:
Campus Networks
Under the new funding strategy, grants will be provided to
multi-campus networks to create programs that support
current and former foster youth both within the individual
campuses and between campuses. These campus networks
will create a more seamless pipeline for foster youth from
community college to four-year colleges and universities.
They will also include supports, services, and practices
After being homeless, the Guardian
Scholars program took me in. They guided
me to the right resources and the right
people. I don’t think I would have been able
to make it on my own without their help.
Michael, Foster Youth Scholar and Peer Mentor, Los Angeles
Trade Tech
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
that have proven to be important to foster youth scholar
success, including year-round housing, priority registration,
counseling, support services, and data collection and
analysis. This strategy will encourage collaboration across
campuses, leverage the work campuses are already doing in
other departments that can help foster youth, and increase
partnerships with community agencies.
Training and Technical Assistance
In addition, the foundations will provide resources that all
campuses can draw upon, including support for convenings,
webinars on key topics, and technical assistance on
how to fundraise and maximize campus resources. Peer
coaching and individualized trainings will be available for
campus professionals. This support will help build a thriving
community that will encourage the development of new
campus support programs and provide professionals with
opportunities and venues to learn and share best practices.
Policy Advocacy
Page Page 390 of 392
A Call to Action
The stories and data collected by California College
Pathways demonstrate that campus support programs for
foster youth do make a difference. We urge policymakers,
funders, higher education stakeholders, and the child
welfare community to join this effort and help make a
lifelong impact for California’s foster youth. Visit www.
californiacollegepathways.org to learn how you can help
foster youth turn their dreams into degrees.
Despite the enormous odds foster youth
face, with relatively limited funding and
support, a tremendous difference can be
made. But it takes a village.
Michael McPartlin, Special Services Manager, City College of San Francisco
The foundations will continue to invest in policy advocacy
to educate the public and lift up lessons learned on the
ground to policymakers and regulators. This includes
a new California College Pathways website (www.
cacollegepathways.org) to provide assistance and resources
for foster youth, caring adults, and campus professionals, as
well as materials to support campus programs’ outreach
efforts. A key element in this strategy is youth engagement,
to ensure that new policies and regulations are informed by
the perspectives and experiences of foster youth scholars.
Pipeline to College
In order to strengthen the readiness of foster youth to
enter and succeed in college, the foundations are increasing
their investment in programs working with child welfare
agencies and the K-12 system. The goal is to build strong
alliances and support strategies that encourage academic
planning and preparation, and will include developing
partnerships with County Offices of Education as well as
Independent Living Skills programs.
12
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Acknowledgments
California College Pathways provides resources and leadership
to campuses and community organizations to help foster youth
succeed at community colleges, vocational schools, and public fouryear universities through a statewide partnership, which includes:
Current and former foster youth scholars
California Community Colleges
C am p us S u pp ort Program Directors
Sonja Lenz-Rashid, Professor and Guardian Scholars Program Research
Evaluator, San Francisco State University
Kizzy Lopez, Program Coordinator, Renaissance Scholars Program,
California State University, Fresno
Michael McPartlin, Special Services Manager, City College
of San Francisco
California State University system (CSU)
Dameion Renault, Foster Youth Specialist/Advocate, Orange Coast
Community College
University of California system (UC)
Joy Salvetti, Program Director, Guardian Scholars Program, California
CSU Chancellor’s Office
Campus foster youth support programs
Northern California Higher Education Foster Youth Consortium
Southern California Higher Education Foster Youth Consortium
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office- Foster
Youth Success Initiative
State University, Sacramento
Paolo Velasco, Interim Director, Bruin Resource Center, University of
California, Los Angeles
C alifornia C ommuni t y C olleges
Chancellor’s Office
Jack Scott, Chancellor, California Community Colleges (retired)
California Foster Youth Education Taskforce
Linda Michalowski, Vice Chancellor of Student Services
California Department of Social Services
Tim Bonnel, Coordinator, Student Financial Assistance Programs
California Department of Education
Ad vocates
Career Ladders Project
John Burton Foundation for Children Without Homes
Gene Howard, Chief Executive Officer, Orange County Court Appointed
Special Advocates (CASA)
Stuart Foundation
Daniel Heimpel, Director, Fostering Media Connections
Walter S. Johnson Foundation
Turning Dreams into Degrees: Past, Present, and Future of California
College Pathways was produced by i.e. communications, LLC for
Stuart Foundation and Walter S. Johnson Foundation based on
interviews conducted with foster youth scholars, campus support
program directors, and California College Pathways partners.
We gratefully acknowledge the following individuals and
organizations for their insights and contributions:
F os t er Y ou t h S cholars
Amber, Health Care Administration Major, Orange Coast
Community College
Marcellia, Psychology Major, Los Angeles Community College
Michael, Culinary Arts Major, Los Angeles Trade Technical College
Miranda, Sociology Major, California State University, Los Angeles
Marquis, Engineering Major, San Diego State University
Emerald, Bachelor of Arts in African American Studies, University of
California, Los Angeles
Pauline, Bachelor of Arts in International Development Studies,
University of California, Los Angeles
13
Page Page 391 of 392
Design by Natalie Kitamura Design. Photos by Ana Hommanay.
AQIP Student Pathways - Literature Review
Page Page 392 of 392