1

Monroe Community College FIPSE Comprehensive Grant Competition – Strengthening the K-20 Pipeline Project Narrative

College Readiness and the Challenges of a Global Century: The Need for the Project

Monroe Community College’s (MCC) proposed Community Center for Teaching

Excellence (CCTE) seeks to address three broad and pressing needs: the inadequate academic

preparation of our area high school students; the need to promote on-campus pedagogies that

prepare twenty-first century learners; and the successful transition of graduates into careers or transfer institutions.

Many of the nation’s incoming postsecondary students are simply not college ready. At

MCC, 31% of all students are enrolled in at least one developmental course; 5% of these students

are in a full developmental program. Of this number, an average of only 40% of students

successfully transfer out of the developmental program and into an academic degree program

each year. As many educational theorists, critics, and advocates have noted, students in this

seemingly ever-increasing cohort demonstrate a limited range of academic and intellectual

abilities. In short, they cannot synthesize materials from multiple disciplines; they struggle to

express themselves in either writing or speech; they do not practice critical thinking; they do not

incorporate a global perspective in their problem-solving activities; they exhibit limited

numeracy; and they struggle to incorporate ethical principles into their decision-making

processes.

A 2008 joint report by the Massachusetts Department of Education and the Board of

Higher Education, noted that a troubling 37% of public high school graduates may not be ready

for college-level study. And although 80% of Massachusetts high school graduates go to 2

college, about 65% of those who enrolled in a community college took at least one remedial

course. For African American students, Hispanic students, low-income students, and those with limited English proficiency the numbers were even more alarming (Massachusetts Department of

Education, 2008). In the final week of July, 2010, a joint report by the Board of Regents and the

New York State Education Department, noted that when third through eighth-graders were given

new proficiency exams in English Language Arts and mathematics, scores plummeted. State-

wide only 53% of this school population met or exceeded the new proficiency standard in

English Language Arts; for mathematics, only 61% met or exceeded the new standard. Within

the Rochester City School District, the results were even more troubling: a mere25.3% of third

through eighth-graders met or exceeded the standard in English Language Arts; 28% met or

exceeded the mathematics standard.

Of course, these numbers are not unique – they reflect the beginnings of a national crisis.

While the college enrollment rates of high school graduates have soared, from 49% in 1972 to

69% in 2005, the need for college remediation has climbed just as dramatically. Robin Chai and

Andrea Venezia found that while 25% to 39% of all college freshmen enrolled in a remedial

course, that figure reached as high as 60% for students enrolled at a two-year institution (Chai

and Venezia, 2008). In their report, “Improving Academic Preparation for College: What We

Know and How State and Federal Policy Can Help,” these writers also reveal the stagnant rates

of college completion and the increasing time needed to complete a college degree. At MCC,

these two additional concerns are directly related to the question of college readiness. As

Michael W. Kirst and Andrea Venezia conclude in their “Improving College Readiness and

Success for All Students: A Joint Responsibility Between K-12 and Postsecondary Education,” a

publication for the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 3

“approximately one-half of the nation’s entering postsecondary students do not meet placement

standards and are not ready for college-level work” (Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education, 2006).

The problem, then, is most evident at the community college. As Stephen J. Handel asserts, these institutions are the least well-supported yet have the broadest mission: simply put, community colleges educate students with the widest variations in academic preparation and educational goals (Handel, 2008). While complex, college readiness is perhaps best understood as a rich and dynamic blend of rigorous academic coursework (English, mathematics, natural science, social science, foreign language), of opportunities to apply knowledge to real audiences, and of exposure to learning communities that support collaboration, critical thinking, and creative expression. Community colleges are poised to offer authentic transformative change.

Our project intends to address this problem by focusing on and testing innovative teaching practices. There is a rich and long tradition of inventing curricula materials and of constructing comprehensive course outcomes; we propose that a more dynamic review of teaching strategies will offer exciting and effective solutions. If we are to address the challenges of college readiness and if we are to position our students to compete in the new, global century, then all students need to be exposed to a range of pedagogical practices that will allow them the opportunity to develop these essential habits and skills.

Writing in the Community College Journal, Stephen J. Handel and James Montoya persuasively argue that the interconnectedness of these issues “requires an unprecedented partnership among K-12 schools and postsecondary institutions – especially community colleges” (Handel and Montoya, 2009). Luckily, MCC has a strong and long-standing association with its high school partners. Over 28% of all graduating students in Monroe 4

County’s high schools attend MCC. We propose to start our project with two diverse area school

districts. Last year, 35% of the Rush-Henrietta School District (RHSD) graduates and 30% of

the Rochester City School District (RCSD) graduates attended MCC. We have a particular interest in the graduation rates at the regional high schools as these are our future students. In

2009, the graduation rates for RCSD and Rush-Henrietta were 46% and 85% respectively.

Monroe Community College’s central position along the educational continuum positions the institution to function as an integrator, reaching both K-12 and four-year partners. As such, the college is committed to closing the gap from secondary education to undergraduate and graduate completion.

MCC’s mission is to provide access and academic excellence. In providing affordable postsecondary education, the college has attracted a diverse student population, with at least 28% of that population composed of underrepresented students. It is also important to note that the

City of Rochester has the highest poverty rate in the state: 30% in 2006. There is a significant disparity in poverty rates among racial groups with approximately 7% of white residents at the poverty level, compared to 30% of black and 33% of Hispanic residents. Also, according to this

2006 survey, about 17% of children in the three-county region were living in poverty (2006

American Community, Census Bureau). Child poverty is concentrated in the City of Rochester, where 41% of children were living in poverty in 2006.

By focusing on the teacher, we hope to better serve the needs of the twenty-first century citizen and close the gap between K-12 readiness and postsecondary expectations. MCC believes that all students should have broad exposure to the full range of academic disciplines, that all students should engage in classroom activities that encourage creativity and inquiry- based learning, that all students should be empowered to develop critical thinking skills and 5

problem-solving skills and not simply the mastery of facts and ideas. And high quality instruction is the most important ingredient for student academic success.

Our faculty serve students with a wide range of academic preparation; they share in the national dilemma of how best to serve students at risk while maintaining an engaging and challenging learning environment for others. Acknowledging this national dilemma, the State

University of New York (SUNY) recently outlined a strategic plan that specifically seeks to

“improve coordination and collaboration among the state's K-20 institutions so that students can travel seamlessly along the pipeline” (SUNY website, 2010). SUNY is the only higher education system to include community colleges, technology colleges, university colleges and doctoral degree granting institutions in the same state-wide system, and this relationship promises to add even more capacity and resource to this project. This strategic plan specifically asks New York’s colleges “to ensure that our teachers gain the proficiencies our students need them to possess.”

MCC is positioned as a critical link in strengthening the academic pipeline of New York.

We believe our project will help to address a growing national problem and

 benefit both our county-wide K-12 partner schools and our transfer institutions;

 improve postsecondary completion rates, especially those among underserved

populations;

 shorten the time needed for program completion;

 provide a model to replicate at other two-year institutions;

 align high school curricula and pedagogies with postsecondary expectations; and

 establish data collection and research protocols to better position SUNY to apply for

state and federal funding initiatives.

Improving Teaching and Learning: The Significance of the Project 6

This proposal addresses Invitational Priority 1. Under this priority, we propose to create

a center of excellence for teacher preparation as described in section 242 of the Higher Education

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). This proposal also addresses Invitational Priority 7. Under this

priority, we will target and test, through participatory research, innovative postsecondary

strategies to facilitate transfer of credits between institutions of higher education (IHEs), align

curricula on a state or multi-state level between high schools and postsecondary institutions,

enhance the successful transition between two-year and four-year postsecondary programs,

expand articulation agreements, promote rich alliances between all educational partners, and

champion access and academic rigor.

Common to most post-secondary institutions, MCC’s faculty is comprised of discipline

specific experts. MCC has a large and diverse teaching faculty: 340 full-time faculty and 630

part-time or adjunct faculty serve an equally diverse student population. While the College has

adopted rigorous hiring standards and protocols, many of our faculty have little classroom

experience. At the beginning of this new century, Paul Maguire, the Director of the Center for

Teaching Excellence at County College of Morris, posed an urgent and provocative question:

“Will the next generation of faculty be significantly different from their predecessors?”

(Maguire, 2001). In large part, his question frames much of the narrative of this grant

application. According to the American Association of Community Colleges, we are in a period

of significant transition, and large-scale faculty and administrative retirements now characterize

the community college landscape. In a private report prepared for the American Indian Fund,

Richard A. Voorhees calculated that 40% of first-year faculty at all two-year public colleges had

no prior teaching experience. At the tribal college, 55% of first-year faculty were beginning teachers (“Characteristics of Tribal College and University Faculty,” 2003). 7

David Mulry gives both emotion and urgency to these statistics. In his recent first-person narrative in the Chronicle of Higher Education, he lists the causes of his defection from the community college teaching ranks: underprepared students; oppressive teaching schedules; suspicious administrators; and required committee service. But despite this seemingly negative view, Mulry also recalls the “innovative, personal, and vivid teaching that takes place at the community colleges” (Mulry, 2010). Maguire, Voorhees, and Mulry describe events of national significance. Although we continue to direct additional resources to faculty recruitment, and while we can continue to hire part-time or adjunct faculty to cover the gaps, we are replacing a veteran and innovative faculty with a new generation of teachers who know little about the historical reality and empowerment of the community college mission or about the needs of our diverse student population.

They may be experts in their respective disciplines, but they are new to the nuance of effective classroom strategies and the need for critical and reflective assessment of pedagogies.

In addition, they are often significantly unprepared for the variety of learning styles they will encounter in their classrooms or the fundamental gaps in college readiness. They increasingly report that teaching strategies of yesteryear are no longer effective. A majority of these new teachers also maintain unrealistic expectations about first-year students. They believe that all students are motivated and mature enough to navigate the intricacies of the college environment, that all students can access a reservoir of personal and academic resources.

In order to address some of these needs, MCC has responded in a variety of ways. First,

MCC has developed a robust faculty development program. Currently, MCC’s program consists of a mandatory two-year professional development opportunity to introduce all incoming faculty to the comprehensive professional culture of MCC and to enhance their teaching strategies. In 8

the first year, ten monthly sessions focus on teaching issues and campus resources. During the

second year, a one-semester internal course, EDU 500: Teaching at the Community College, introduces employees to the depth and breadth of the community college enterprise. The goal is to prepare faculty to meet the demands of their first year of teaching and then to connect their service to our overall college mission.

Second, the College has created and supports a Teaching and Creativity Center (TCC).

The TCC is an organization of faculty “experts” available to all MCC faculty. The TCC has never had dedicated professional staff. Instead, faculty coordinators receive release time to

design and host seminars of interest to teaching faculty. For instance, each year the coordinators

host a seminar called “GIFTS: Great Ideas For Teaching Students.” In this seminar, faculty

share practical teaching strategies and ideas that promise to enhance student learning. While

adjuncts are welcome to attend any session, the Center also hosts two workshops each year

designed specifically for adjunct faculty. The question of student learning is central to the

TCC’s endeavors. The Center shares strategies across disciplines and cultivates in our faculty a

collegial fabric centered on student learning.

At present, we have only anecdotal evidence and an optimistic sense that the Center helps

our faculty. While wonderful ideas come from people who love what they do, many educational

projects lack a strong research foundation. These ideas and projects should be grounded in

research within the regional context. We believe that we can build on the initial successes of the

TCC, and that we can replicate this expanded model in a variety of settings, both at our K-12

partner sites and at sites – both educational and career-oriented – within the community we serve. 9

We propose the creation of a Community Center for Teaching Excellence (CCTE) to help us move purposefully toward a collection of proven teaching methodologies to be shared with our colleagues. In short, we see this Center as the central hub in an enhanced relationship between our K-12 partners, our transfer institutions, and our regional employers. We believe that the Center will build on our long practice of faculty development and of encouraging innovative teaching. More importantly, we believe that our solution is innovative: it establishes dynamic partnerships with both K-12 stakeholders and our transfer institutions, addressing issues of both college preparedness and program completion; it recognizes the urgent need to offer support for both engaged pedagogical practices and for course redesign principles; it promises to better infuse and assess the use of technology; and it demands that rigorous evaluation and

scholarship document and assess outcomes.

MCC is certainly aware of the existing efforts to address these problems, especially those

national conversations about curricula alignment and common core standards. However, we

believe that too little attention has been placed on the teacher in the classroom. We believe we

can affect such issues as readiness, program completion, and transfer and career success by

exploiting intentional pedagogies, teaching strategies that will, in practice, close those gaps.

Effective Teaching and Empowered Learning: The Quality of the Project Design

Central to the project design is the creation of an inclusive facilitation committee. This committee will include all stakeholders: K-12 teachers and administrators; community college

teaching faculty; four-year college and university faculty. The initial work of this committee

would focus on three central tasks.

First, the project committee will analyze MCC’s existing data about those students from

the two school districts who enrolled as first-year students at MCC. The committee will sponsor 10

additional surveys or data collection activities to better understand the “readiness” of these

students. Second, in concert with the community college and university faculties, the committee

might establish an initial menu of postsecondary expectations of first-year students. The

committee would then incorporate the perceived gaps in “readiness” outlined in the initial data

sets within this paradigm of expectations. Additionally, the committee will also create a set of

common definitions, including, most importantly, “student success.”

Next, the committee will canvas the professional community for current innovative

pedagogical practices. The committee, after an exhaustive review, would determine which

practices to select for implementation and assessment. During this period of implementation and

evaluation, the committee will act both as liaison between all participants and as agent of data

collection. Because of the scope of our educational landscape, the academic disciplines will

need to be narrowed for this project. At first, the committee will investigate basic disciplines

such as reading, writing and math. The goal will be to generate objective data that documents improvements in student learning. In short, a large part of the work during this three-year project is the creation of research instruments along with a sophisticated database that teachers and community members will be able to access.

We will also appoint a broader advisory board comprised of representative from our educational partners, representatives of local and regional employers, as well as community stakeholders. The widespread interest in the success of students along our regional educational

pipeline is clear. This advisory board will serve to keep the activities of the Center grounded in

the community perspective. MCC’s current participation in the Global Skills for College

Completion, funded by the Gates Foundation, will also inform the quality of the project design. 11

The Global Skills project requires significant data collection and expertise in developmental education, themes central to this proposal.

Our hope is that we will not only create information to be shared within the immediate region, within the state, and nationally, but that we will also have a positive impact on student success in our community: that we will impact the number of high school students enrolling in postsecondary institutions; that we reduce the number of students needing remediation at the postsecondary level; that we will facilitate smooth transfer to four-year colleges and universities; that we will create a larger and more highly capable regional workforce; and that we will reform, in some measure, how we prepare students as teachers for the new century.

A review of the relevant literature yields a variety of approaches to the central problems that this project seeks to address. Indeed, many of the essential themes have been under investigation since the early 1980s. The National Commission on Excellence in Education’s now iconic report A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Education Reform identified many of the common themes and recommendations of the era. For example, published in 1984, William

Bennett’s To Reclaim a Legacy: A Report on the Humanities in Higher Education was one of the first in a series of reports to highlight the significant failures of undergraduate education in

America’s colleges and universities. For Bennett and for many of his select committee, part of this decline could be attributed to poor teaching. As a result of this and other critical studies

(Newman, 1985; Boyer, 1987), Arthur Chickering and Zelda Gamson, board members of the

American Association for Higher Education (AAHE), chaired a two-day meeting at Wingspread in July 1986. Their purpose was to identify the key principles that shaped the practices at successful undergraduate institutions. They published the results of their discussion in an article 12

titled “Seven Principles for Good Practices in Undergraduate Education” in the March 1987

edition of the AAHE Bulletin.

They imagined their report being read by multiple audiences and as a result their article is

accessible, refreshingly free of jargon, resolutely practical, and widely applicable. It enjoyed

immediate success and quickly shaped much of the discussion around pedagogy and the

undergraduate experience in American higher education. Not surprisingly Chickering’s and

Gamson’s article has been rediscovered in recent years as both faculty and administrators have

embraced the new ethos of course redesign. In short, their 1987 manifesto identifies seven

effective teaching practices. Addressing pedagogy and not content, Chickering and Gamson

celebrate those principles that promote active and engaged teaching and learning. Those

practices

 encourage contact between students and faculty

 develop reciprocity and cooperation among students

 exploit active learning techniques

 encourage prompt feedback

 emphasize time on task

 communicate high expectations

 respect diverse talents and ways of learning.

Today, much of the educational landscape remains unchanged and a number of education

scholars have focused on the “readiness gap,” the tangible gap between being credentialed (a high school diploma) and being prepared for the rigor of postsecondary study and engaged citizenship in the twenty-first century. Although the majority of our students are recent high

school graduates, many of those students test at a pre-college level on the Accuplacer exam. For 13

example, in 2007, 81.6% of our new students from the RSCD tested at the pre-college or

developmental level on the math portion of Accuplacer and 52.4% on the English portion of the

exam. Of our county students outside of the city, 56.9% tested at the pre-college or

developmental level on the math portion and 27.8% on the English portion.

Karen Pittman provides a useful summary of this debate, noting, for example, that the

publication of the College Board standards has begun to establish a dominant definition of

college readiness. Within these standards, a student must meet a series of core content areas –

infused with twenty-first century items – and demonstrate critical thinking, collaborative learning, problem-solving skills, and technological literacy. Pittman also documents, however, that readiness may also reveal the presence of a powerful set of “habits of the mind”: a commitment to learning (motivation, engagement); a core of positive values (responsibility, integrity, honesty); a positive identity; and a set of social competencies (decision-making). As

Pittman asserts, “only 3 in 10 seniors, at best, are college ready…and only 1 in 4 high school graduates, at best, are work-ready” (Pittman, 2010). In concluding her article, Pittman quotes

Dan Domen, AASA president, who, at the 2010 National Conference on Education, argued that we must “look for solutions outside the school walls…build broader partnerships to support bigger goals that require better data and planning.” Chai and Venezia echo many of these same themes, adding that any proposed solutions must improve data collection and analysis (Chai and

Venezia, 2009). Other reports by the Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of

Higher Education, by the Massachusetts Department of Education and Board of Higher

Education, and by the National Assessment Governing Board all confirm the need to address this issue of readiness, suggesting, in part, that much of the focus should center on the community college because of the access mission of those institutions. 14

Other writers and groups are quick to adopt this last tone of advocacy. Writing in the

School Administrator, Kathleen C. Cohn provides compelling evidence that engaged partnerships

between K-12 and community colleges provokes significant benefits. As Cohn documents,

thirty-eight states have now established P-16 or P-20 councils. These councils seek to align K-

12 and postsecondary curricula, to reduce the level of remediation needed for first-year students, and to increase the number of high school seniors attending postsecondary institutions. As Cohn illustrates, some of the results are promising. The Long Beach Seamless Education Partnership, formed in 1996, has improved math proficiency scores from 45% in 1976 to 65% in 2006; scores for English have improved from 40% in 1997 to 50% in 2006 (Cohn, 2010). In addition, although housed in a highly diverse community with significant levels of poverty, the partnership

has seen students enrolling in college improve by 37% from 2003 to 2006. The benefits for the

K-12 stakeholders are many more college-ready students; improved math and English

proficiency; curriculum and assessment aligned to college and career expectations; targeted

program development; improved pipeline of well-prepared educators; and increased access to

scholarships. For the postsecondary institutions the benefits are equally immediate: better

prepared entering students; reduced costs for remediation; improved rates in progress to

graduation; higher quality placements for student teachers; improved access for underrepresented

students; and significant opportunities for faculty research on teaching and learning.

The remaining literature provides overwhelming evidence that one potential solution is to

reexamine, in broad terms, how we teach faculty to teach. This area of scholarship – the

scholarship of faculty development and professional development – highlights the potential

benefits of the proposed project. Walter J. Harris and others are confident about the results of

such a dynamic partnership: improved pedagogical conversations across all general education 15

disciplines; targeted K-12 professional development workshops; enhanced curricula and

assessment protocols; and developed longitudinal data for the research on teaching and learning

(Harris, 2008). Indeed, this model is being explored in as diverse teaching communities as

Ireland, Holland, and Portugal (Hunt, 2009; Donnelly, 2008; Stes, 2010). Other scholars

document specific elements of successful developmental programs (Fink, 1984; Boyce, 1991;

Caldwell, 1997; Salmon, 2004; Kane, 2004; Duffy, 2006; Persellin, 2010; MacKenzie, 2010).

Finally, a number of recent studies highlight the gap between these programs and the research

that shows the impact on teaching practices (Sperling, 2003: Stes, 2010).

Quality of the Project Evaluation: Building Assessment and Capacity

Because our goal is to create a Community Center for Teaching Excellence to help K-20

educators move purposely toward a collective knowledge of pedagogical gaps, our evaluative

methodology will address three themes: readiness, innovative teaching strategies, and

improvements in teaching and learning outcomes (successful transfer or career readiness). The

primary aim during this first three-year phase is to collect and disseminate data, a goal that will

be shaped by the expertise of the independent evaluator. Because of this focus and because of the

evaluator’s oversight, the Center will function as a true hub, linking the K-12 population

struggling with readiness, the community college striving to maintain access and moving

students through the pipeline, and the transfer institutions demanding more rigorous academic

and intellectual benchmarks.

First, the project members will establish a detailed portrait of the readiness of MCC’s

new first-year students from the two partner school districts. This profile will include

Accuplacer scores, a thorough analysis of transcripts, and a writing exam administered on

campus and scored holistically. In addition, the team will direct other data gathering activities: 16

% of graduating class attending MCC, program enrollment data (transfer, career, and other), % needing remediation (subject and level), % of underrepresented and disadvantaged students, % receiving scholarships, and an analysis of course loads.

The next part of the evaluation plan for readiness is to begin to chart, using objective data, the actual gaps in student preparation. In other words, the team will document those barriers to the successful transition to postsecondary study. The team will start where, in either developmental, gateway, or general education classes, these students “fail.” As the project enters its second and third years, the team members will accumulate data regarding progress toward completion, GPA, success rates for underrepresented and disadvantaged students, % of students

taking 200-level courses, STEM enrollments, transfer rates, and other appropriate categories. Of

course, the team will also begin to compare the second entering cohort with the first: did any of

the teaching interventions, especially those initiated in the K-12 institutions, yield an

improvement in readiness? This essential question frames much of the long-term vision of the

project and recognizes that these improvements will occur over time.

The team will also have to evaluate the potential menu of effective teaching strategies.

This step will require two distinct phases: identifying many potential classroom strategies and

then implementing and evaluating those techniques selected for adoption. During this phase, the

team members will pay particular attention to those pedagogical practices that promise to infuse

technology, to those practices that promote a global perspective, and to those practices that

demand active engagement. The team will also select some practices that have adopted the

successful strategies of large-scale course redesign, those practices that lead themselves to large-

scale replication, and those practices that exploit the flexibility of modularization. This second

step allows the team to engage in significant evaluation. In order to assess the effectiveness of 17

these pedagogies, the team will turn to a variety of assessment tools: pre- and post-testing of learners; student surveys; teacher logs that offer reflections on changes in daily practice; and first, second, and third year cohort comparisons across a wide range of metrics. In addition, the project members will review enrollments in developmental courses, compare cohort GPAs, analyze time to completion, examine completion rates (certificate and two-year degree), and chart transfer rates and scholarships awarded. As the project matures, the team will invite regional employers the opportunity to establish an initial definition of “career readiness.” Once adopted, the project will begin to develop an evaluative plan that seeks to capture the experience of the career-oriented students. Furthermore, once the first cohort has made the transition to a four-year institution, the team will begin to review the “readiness” of these students, the first step in closing all the gaps in the educational pipeline. The team believes that this “layering” of data collection will provide a template of practices and outcomes that can be used by other K-12 and postsecondary institutions. The model, with this data and with this level of practical field assessment, should be easily replicated across a variety of educational settings and with a rich mix of students and institutional populations.

The proposed work is in some ways a logical extension of our efforts with the MCC

Teaching Creativity Center and the very large concurrent enrollment program with local high schools. This work also builds on our experience with pre-collegiate programs and articulation agreements with four-year colleges and universities. Our plan is to involve the MCC employees from these programs as this effort progresses so that they are part of the team that takes over the work after external funding ends. MCC will be assessing staffing models that would leverage these positions and add a portion of an FTE to assure full time commitment to continuing professional development in aligning classroom pedagogy across the K-20 continuum. 18

Adequacy of Resources: MCC as Community Resource

Established in 1961, Monroe Community College, located in Rochester, New York, is an associate-degree granting public institution. With more than 35,000 students registering for credit and non-credit courses each year, MCC is western New York's largest college. The mission of Monroe Community College is to provide a high-quality learning environment to a diverse community. In offering these varied educational and training opportunities, student success is the College’s highest priority. To promote this core value, the College is committed to access, teaching excellence, comprehensiveness, life-long learning, partnership building, and economic development.

Monroe Community College has eighty-three degree and certificate programs. It grants associate degrees in arts, science, and applied science. It has cooperative degree programs with many four-year colleges. In addition, the College has brought over $ 5.1 million in grants to the community. MCC is represented on the board of directors of the League for Innovation in the

Community College.

It is no surprise, then, that MCC plays a dynamic and vibrant role in the community. In

2008, 662 different employers hired our graduates and 130 four-year colleges accepted MCC students for transfer. Approximately70% of our students are enrolled in transfer programs, 21% are in career programs, and 9% are not matriculated into a program. In addition to our traditional college-age students, a total of 468 underrepresented and at-risk middle and high school students enrolled in academic enrichment programs last year.

The College has two campuses and two extension centers. MCC’s Brighton Campus, home to most of the college’s degree programs, is located just outside the city limits. The

Damon City Campus, where our Human Services, Law and Criminal Justice and Education 19

programs are offered, is located in the heart of downtown Rochester. The Applied Technologies

Center is a state-of-the-art facility for automotive technologies, HVAC, and precision tooling and machining located within minutes of the Brighton campus, and the Public Safety Training

Facility, located in the nearby suburb of Gates, offers EMS, fire, and law enforcement credit and

non-credit certifications. These environments pose exciting challenges and opportunities for our

faculty.

Our project depends upon successful relationships with community and educational

institutions. MCC has established many such partnerships. MCC’s pre-collegiate initiatives are

both varied and mature: the East High Partnership, a project focused on aligning targeted

curricula; the Rochester Early College International High School, a SUNY Smart Scholar

partnership; Gateway to College, designed to serve “at-risk” students; the Liberty partnership, a

comprehensive support project for “at-risk” youth in grades 7-12; and Upward Bound, a federal

program to provide academic counseling. The College is also an active partner in three programs

designed to increase the number of underrepresented and disadvantaged students in mathematics,

science, technology, health-related fields, and licensed professions: the Science and Technology

Entry Program (STEP), the Collegiate Science and Technology Entry Program (CSTEP), and the

NSF Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation (LSAMP). These extensive alliances and

partnerships have allowed MCC to develop a sound understanding of the cognitive and affective

issues our students struggle with as they prepare to enter college, and have facilitated the

successful transition of many individuals.