Workforce Pell for Community College Noncredit Education: How Well Positioned is the State Noncredit Data Infrastructure?

Using multi-year data captured by annual national surveys of state community college directors, the study examined relationships among factors related to workforce education in community colleges. Variables of interest were related to the following categories: state and federal funding for workforce development, workforce development delivery in terms of Industry Recognized Credentials and noncredit education, perceived business perspectives about community college workforce development, and the economic context for community colleges. Results showed that three primary themes emerged: (1) the need to expand high-cost programs in career-focused areas was nearly universal and was related to business relationships, program area enrollment, unemployment, and a focus on short-term noncredit programs; (2) the importance of businesses seeing community colleges as providers and the correlations with other variables; and (3) the relationships between being a Workforce Investment Act provider and the push for noncredit training and relationships with business.

Recently Published Dissertations on Community and Junior Colleges

PurposeOver the past 30 years, enrollment in entrepreneurship programming within community colleges has grown substantially. The two-year context poses unique challenges and opportunities for studying entrepreneurship, and the purpose of this paper is to use a narrative review approach to consider the vitality of entrepreneurship education in the community college system. This research captures and reflects key findings from the field and illuminates the current state of scholarship on entrepreneurship education in community colleges. Four key areas are highlighted that describe the primarily challenges and distinctiveness of entrepreneurship education in the community college setting: curricular effectiveness, emphasis, degree and non-degree programs. The general framework that emerges from this narrative review helps to identify gaps in the literature and provides a focal point for future studies.Design/methodology/approachA structured literature review methodology (Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008) was chosen for this study as the state of literature in the specific area of interest did not present general groupings of topics or activities. Given this lack of categorical clarity, the design was specifically focused on bringing together key groupings to provide a framework for further study. The specific methodology adopted standard SLR techniques in terms of article selection, choice and organization. No pre-conceived groupings were used as part of organization of information. The goal was to allow the disparate studies fall into natural categories as greater review and organization continued.FindingsDuring the authors’ review and analysis of the extant literature, four focal areas emerge that appear to create a general framework for explaining the important matters in community college entrepreneurial education. Those areas are: overall effectiveness, education emphasis, non-credit educational programs, and for-credit educational programs. The following discussion offers a starting point for future investigation. Figure 2 presents this paper’s advocacy arguments and a full literature review follows this initial framework.Originality/valueEntrepreneurship programs in universities have grown significantly over the last 30 years (Heriot and Simpson, 2007). In the early 1980s, approximately 300 schools had entrepreneurship and small business programs. By the 1990s, that number had increased to 1,050 schools and signaled the beginnings of rapid entrepreneurial education expansion (Solomon et al., 1994). By the early 2000s, entrepreneurship education had exploded to more than 1,600 schools offering over 2,200 courses including journals and mainstream trade publications as well as special issues devoted solely to entrepreneurship (Katz, 2003; in Kuratko, 2005). This growth trend has been mirrored in community colleges (DoBell and Ingle, 2009). Despite that growth, scholarship regarding entrepreneurship education in community colleges has been described as a “wild west” (Truit, 2017) highlighted by little communication or sharing of experiences or cooperative activities beyond limited partnerships both inside or outside of the community college. Existing studies tend to be scattered and practitioner-written while academic articles are often theoretical, focused more on entrepreneurial education in four-year universities and at times promote underspecified models of challenges community colleges face. Given the dearth of scholarly work in the domain, this review attempts to form a comprehensive classification of extant work in order to stimulate and direct future research in this domain. The goal is to provide a current “state of the literature” of entrepreneurial education in community colleges that shares findings, suggests potential areas of inquiry, and helps to structure research arguments. To accomplish this, in the spirit of Hammersley (2001) and Harvey and Moeller (2009), we present a descriptive, narrative review of entrepreneurship education in community colleges in order to gain a better understanding of its complexities.

This paper describes a summit on Community Colleges in the Evolving STEM Education Landscape organized by a committee of the National Research Council (NRC) and the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and held at the Carnegie Institution for Science on December 15, 2011. This summit followed a similar event organized by Dr. Jill Biden, spouse of the Vice President, and held at the White House in October 2010, which sought to bring national attention to the changing missions and purposes of community colleges in contemporary American society.1 The NRC/NAE event built on the White House summit, while focusing on the changing roles of community colleges in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. An in-depth summary of the summit was prepared by the NRC and NAE for publication in late Spring 2012 by the National Academies Press (NRC and National Academy of Engineering, 2012 ). This paper provides a synopsis of that report, which is available at www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13399, and emphasizes how we can use the report to improve STEM education for our students, but also how much progress still needs to be made to realize this ideal.

Bibliography

Grubb, W. N., & Gabriner, R. (2013). Basic Skills Education in Community Colleges: Inside and Outside of Classrooms. New York, NY: Routledge. 244 pp. $150.00 (hardback). ISBN 978-0-415-63474-8 $46.95 (paper). ISBN 978-0-415-63475-5 $46.95 (eBook). ISBN 978-0-203-09429-7.Basic Skills Education in Community Colleges: Inside and Outside of Classrooms by W. Norton Grubb with Robert Gabriner (2013) is a comprehensive, current, and creative examination of challenges students and educators face in bridging gap in skills common among entering college students. The authors' primary intent is to shed light on multitude of causes and effects of system most often referred to as developmental or remedial education in community colleges. While research reported in this book is specific to California system, both challenges and potential solutions can be generalized easily to community colleges in other parts of country.The authors are both education researchers from California universities. W. Norton Grubb is an Emeritus Professor and David Pierpont Gardner Chair in Higher Education at Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. He has researched and written extensively on schooling and economics, secondary and higher education systems, and movement between systems. Robert Gabriner is Professor of Educational Leadership and Director of Educational Leadership Doctoral Program for Schools and Community Colleges at San Francisco State University. He has researched and written on success and systems leadership in higher education.The authors present a straightforward interpretation of problem of basic skills education referencing what they call the triangle of instruction. In this model, content/curriculum, student, and instructor anchor comers of a triangle mediated along sides by instructors' knowledge of content, knowledge of student, and their context inside framework of institution. Validating this model in practice allows authors to draw a set of related conclusions and recommendations for improving future education experiences for students struggling with college readiness.Basic Skills Education in Community Colleges utilizes active research at 20 California colleges, including observations in 169 classes and interviews with 323 educators. This research explores variety of needs of developmental students, quality of instruction, availability and quality of services like tutoring and counseling, alignment of course sequence, and instructional characteristics of institutions. Throughout, the triangle of instruction is applied as a framework for organizing findings and exploring contexts.The initial portion of book describes problem of basic skills education as authors see it from a classroom perspective. These issues include dominance of remedial pedagogy, innovations in Basic Skills Instruction, possibilities and limits of services, and a case study exploring problem of basic skills education in practice. The case study describes efforts one California community college undertook to address needs for help with basic skills. The school chose to implement changes to services branch of system by creating student success on each of their three campuses. These centers became focal point for several services designed to address most common needs. Services included peer tutoring (drop in and scheduled), ongoing and frequent faculty-led skill building workshops, structured learning groups on specific skill development, and directed learning activities led by peer tutors, supervised by faculty, and customized to fill specific gaps in skills needed for course progression. …

Community colleges have become among the most popular public higher education institutions in the nation to provide transfer, technical, developmental, business and industry, and community service education. Once considered the junior partner in the higher education enterprise (and on average receiving less state aid per student than their four-year counterparts), public community colleges now provide education to more than one-half of all citizens enrolled in postsecondary education. In the last decade, they have also become the core workforce development institutions of our nation. In many ways, these institutions have seen their role and mission evolve to the point that they now have goals that in many respects resemble those defined for land grant universities, established by the Morrill Act during the nineteenth century (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). Public community college leaders often lament that their institutions are low on the food chain when it comes to their state's funding priorities. This may be due partially to the lack of attention paid to cost-and-benefit analyses in funding requests. Policymakers around the nation will likely find themselves spending increasing amounts of time validating fair and equitable funding allocation criteria (Burke & Serban, 1998). As the squeeze on available state aid becomes increasingly oppressive, comparing costs outlays to the investment returns gained by states were they to invest more in community college education will become a higher priority for community college leaders. Yet barriers exist to promoting this position (Goodchild, Lovell, Hines, & Gill, 1997), among which include the following: (a) a noticeable inability of college leaders to demonstrate that community colleges are underfunded, especially in the context of their sizable contributions to life in America, (b) the lack of consensus among policymakers regarding efficient and equitable policy options that a state's higher education systems might choose in making resource requests and allocation decisions, (c) a dearth of consistent and timely research that explores, tests, and develops functional theories of state funding, and (d) the absence of ongoing examinations of how existing funding model practices affect postsecondary education institutions and the broader society they seek to serve. Literature Review As the new millennium begins, a variety of methods exist for requesting and allocating state funds to support the operation of public community colleges (Breneman & Taylor, 1996). Practitioners and scholars with an understanding of the theories, practices, and nuances in the finance and funding strategies employed by community college systems recognize that one approach to state aid does not fit all. Indeed, a plethora of forces unique to each state environment shape how funding requests and distributions are made. The rationales and methods that state policymakers use to allocate financial support for higher education can be nearly as important as the amount of that support (Richardson, Bracco, Callan, & Finney, 1999). More pointedly, an acceptable sense of fair play must exist in any funding allocation model. Moreover, the methods selected for allocating state funds typically must be viewed as affordable as well as politically acceptable to those approving and those receiving state financial support. Funding can be complex, highly politicized, and not prone to easy solutions (Kane, 1999). Although seldom discussed in a scholarly framework, politicizing of funding practices can be potent: The history of political parties in power and the relative pecking order of the various sectors consuming public funds, including higher education, play a major role in funding allocation decisions (McKeown & Alexander, 1986). Currently, in many states, the responsibility for establishing state funding allocations to public institutions of postsecondary education lies directly with each state's legislative bodies. …

Background/Objectives: The objective of this study is to identify the recognition of male teachers and preliminary male teachers in the department of early childhood education in community college and those in 4-year University. Methods/ Statistical Analysis: For this, 4 students in the department of early childhood education in community college, 4 male teachers in community college, 4 students in the department of early childhood education in 4-year University, and 4 teachers in 4-year University have participated in the research. As for data collecting methods, in-depth interview, telephone interview, and email have been mostly utilized. Findings: As a result of research, there was no much difference in opinion from students and male teachers in the department of early childhood education in community college and those in 4-year University in terms of ‘motivation of entrance and college life,’ ‘teaching profession in kindergarten,’ and ‘expectation on the future’. However, the difference indicated that those from 4 year University had pride in their teaching positions. As for expectation in the future, all students and male teachers in the department of early childhood education in community college and 4-year University turned out to be under grave apprehensions about their future. Improvements/ Applications: This study is meaningful in that results of the research were reflected on the education for teachers through investigation of awareness of male students and teachers in academic fields.

Undergraduate education for public health has grown rapidly in the last decade since the Institute of Medicine recommended that “…all undergraduates should have access to education in public health.” Despite the growth of undergraduate education for public health in 4-year institutions, public health education in community colleges is at an early stage of development. In a comprehensive 2011–12 web-based catalog search of community colleges, only seven associate degree programs in public health or related fields could be identified (1, 2). Public health organizations are encouraging growth of education for public health in community colleges as well as 4-year colleges. The American Public Health Association has endorsed undergraduate public health education at both community colleges and 4-year colleges (3). Healthy People 2020 includes objectives to substantially increase the number of community colleges as well as 4-year institutions offering undergraduate public health education (4). As part of the Framing the Future Task Force, convened by the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, the Community Colleges and Public Health (CC&PH) project, has been developed and co-sponsored by the League for Innovation in the Community College (the League), which represents over 800 of the 1100 community colleges. The CC&PH is co-chaired by the two authors of this article. The mission of the CC&PH project is to fully include community colleges in the continuum of public health education. The Community Colleges and Public Health Report (5) is expected to be a component of the final report of the Framing the Future Task Force (6). The CC&PH project has included two phases, a first phase consisting of an Expert Panel, which developed a series of Foundation and Consensus Statements that reflected what public health and community college educational organizations could do together (5). The second phase, recommended by the Expert Panel, focused on development of “prototype curricular models” designed for associate degrees and academic certificate programs in community colleges. Two basic models, (1) Public Health: Generalist and Specialization and (2) Health Navigator,1 were chosen after consultations with community colleges, project and Task Force leadership, and public health practice organizations (ASTHO and NACCHO), as well as academic associations in disciplines, which offer related bachelor’s degree programs (SOPHE, AUPHA, and AEHAP2). The CC&PH report recommends that Public Health associate degrees should be built on fundamental skills including writing, oral communications, and quantitative skills consistent with the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) LEAP initiative (7) and VALUE Rubrics (8). Associate degrees and academic certificate programs are also encouraged to incorporate ASPPH Undergraduate Public Health Learning Outcomes. (9). The Community Colleges and Public Health Project report recommends academic programs in Public Health: Generalist and Specializations designed for transfer to bachelor’s degree programs in general public health, health education, health administration, or environmental health. It also recommends Health Navigator academic certificate and associate degree programs. The CC&PH report also recommends specific courses and provides recommended content outlines: http://www.league.org/league/projects/ccph/. The remainder of this article summarizes the two prototype curricular models and discusses next steps in implementation.

According to the U.S. Census (2000), 42 percent of adults in the United States between the ages of 25 and 64 have no more than a high school education (authors’ calculations). Unfortunately, however, most new jobs and the vast majority of jobs that pay wages sufficient to support a family require at least some education beyond high school (Carnevale & Derochers, 2003), and low educational attainment is associated with high rates of unemployment and poverty. Community colleges are an important entry point to postsecondary education for adults with no previous college education or even a high school diploma. In Fall 2002, for example, adults between the ages of 25 and 64 represented 35 percent of fulltime equivalent (FTE) enrollments at two-year public colleges, compared with only 15 percent of FTE undergraduate enrollments at four-year public institutions (authors’ calculations, based on U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Moreover, more than two-thirds of the community college students who entered postsecondary education at age 25 or older were low income (authors’ calculations based on “Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study” [BPS:96/01], 2003) The potential of community colleges to serve as a “pathway” for lowskill adults to college and career-path employment, therefore, is evident. Across the nation, several major projects are underway whose goal is to develop policies and practices supportive of this role. Funded by national foundations, these initiatives include the Ford Foundation’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative and the National Governor’s Association’s Pathways to Advancement project, funded by Lumina Foundation for Education. Despite this interest, relatively little is known about the unique experiences and the educational and employment outcomes of adults who enter community college with limited education. We do know that their experiences and outcomes differ from those of traditional college-aged students. Compared with community college students who enrolled soon after high school (at ages 18-24), those who start later (at ages 25-64) are more likely to earn a certificate and less likely to earn an associate degree. The late starters are also far less likely to transfer to a four-year institution and earn a bachelor’s degree. Indeed, among students who entered a community college for the first time in 1995-96, 60% of older first-time students did not earn any credential or transfer to a baccalaureate program after six years, compared with 40 percent of younger, first-time students (authors’ calculations, based on BPS:96/01, 2003). This Brief summarizes findings from a new study that seeks to fill information gaps about older community college students. Researchers used student record information from the Washington State Community and Technical College System to examine the educational experience and attainment as well as the employment and earnings of a sample of adult students, five years after first enrolling. The students in the sample were age 25 or older with, at most, a high school education. The study was conducted by staff at the Washington State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), with assistance from the Community College Research Center, as part of Ford’s Bridges to Opportunity initiative. Its goal was to provide educators throughout Washington’s community and technical college system with a detailed profile of their low-skill adult students, who make up about one-third of the approximately 300,000 students served by the system annually. The study also sought to identify the critical points where adult students drop out or fail to advance to the next level in order to help SBCTC staff stimulate thinking among educators throughout the system about how to bridge those gaps and thereby facilitate student advancement.

From the Archives ASSOCIATE DEGREE PROGRAMS IN NURSING became part of the American system of nursing education in 1952, the year the National League for Nursing was established. From its beginnings, the NLN became a potent force in supporting as well as promoting nursing education in community and junior colleges. As a result of NLN's leadership in this area, a new worker emerged in the nursing profession identified as the associate degree nurse. Early Steps Toward ADN Education Although the ADN program was not conceptualized prior the 1950s, about 80 arrangements had been reported between hospital schools of nursing and junior that provided general education courses. Also, three junior conducted diploma programs in nursing (1). Cognizant of the potential of community college education, the Board of Directors of the National League of Nursing Education (NLNE) held several discussions about the matter during the middle and late 1940s. When the members met in October 1945, Eugenia K. Spalding observed that for the previous two years, the American Association of Junior Colleges (AAJC) had shown an interest in nursing (2). She also noted that the Boards have been promoting preparation for nursing in junior but have not taken the League into their confidence (2, p. 19). Mrs. Spalding identified recruitment and curriculum as the two main problems for nursing in junior colleges. The NLNE Board urged that the presidents of state leagues of nursing education be encouraged work with the AAJC (2). The following January, it authorized the establishment of a committee with representation from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Nursing (ACSN) to consider nursing education in institutions of higher junior colleges (3, p. 19). When the Board met in Cleveland in April 1949, R. Louise McManus reported that Dr. Ralph Fields, chairman of the Committee on Curriculum of the AAJC, bad expressed an interest in studying the needs of nursing and forming a committee on the subject with nurse representation (4). Dr. Fields was former commissioner of technical programs in California and professor of higher education at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he was a colleague of Mrs. McManus. He had been active in efforts provide publicly financed twoyear post-high school courses. The decision was made write the AAJC suggesting a committee with joint participation by NLNE and ACSN discuss nursing education in community colleges. In May 1950, League representatives presented their report, which concluded that junior could set up two types of basic professional nursing programs: two-year programs that would be transfer-oriented a collegiate school of nursing offering a bachelor's degree in nursing, and three-year programs leading the degree of associate in arts or associate in science prepare the graduate for RN licensure (5). Acting on recommendations from the joint committee, the Board approved the formation of a national advisory committee on experimental programs in nursing in junior colleges. The NLNE, ACSN, and AAJC would be represented (5). This committee had a threefold purpose: prepare guidelines for developing nursing programs, obtain funding for a few pilot projects, and study the problems involved in transferring nursing students from junior four-year institutions (5). The committee developed a plan survey junior regarding interest in nursing education and select five junior for pilot programs that included counseling (6). In January 1951, a change occurred in the composition of the committee when Dr. Mildred L. Montag was appointed replace one of the members (7). Dr. Montag had recently authored an innovative study proposing a new type of technical nursing program. She intended that her proposed program be self-contained, but stressed that individuals should not be deterred from seeking further education. …

Community and technical colleges play a significant role in computing education by offering associate-degrees in a variety of ACM-recognized disciplines to a diverse student population. The ACM Committee for Computing Education in Community Colleges (CCECC), a standing committee of the ACM Education Board, serves and supports community and technical college educators in all aspects of computing education, including curriculum and assessment development, advising on public policy and advocating for community and technical colleges throughout the world.

Editors' Notes

Despite having been the largest source of financial aid to low-income college students in the United States, the traditional Pell Grant had one major limitation: If students enrolled in two semesters full-time, they would not have had any tuition support for the summer term of the same academic year. The year-round Pell (YRP) was implemented in the academic years 2009–10 and 2010–11 to provide a second Pell Grant to students who enrolled in more than twenty-four credits prior to the third semester and in at least six credits during the summer term. Using a state administrative dataset from a community college system, this paper uses a difference-in-differences approach to examine the credit, credential completion, and labor market outcomes resulting from the YRP. The study finds that for each $1,000 of additional YRP grant funding, summer enrollment increases by 28 percentage points, diploma completion rates increase by 1.6 percentage points, and third-year earnings from college entry increase by $200. For YRP-eligible students who started in a short-term program, the gains are a 2 percentage point higher certificate attainment rate, 3.6 percentage point increase in associate degree completion, and no effect on four-year transfer rates.

Economic returns to community and four-year college education